´óÏó´«Ã½

I am appalled at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Gaza non-action. It is a political decision (yours) and totally ignores the humanitarian need. I am grateful that I work for UNICEF, and that we are able to get aid in, but so much more is needed. Precious lives are at risk, and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ seems not to care. My life-long appreciation of you is over.

Are you sure it is wise to give through the DEC. I gave generously to the Tsunami appeal. There were awful reports of misuse, work never done etc etc. And worst of all there never seems to be any kind of accountability by these big charities. How do we know where the money goes to? It wouild be perfectly easy to produce accounts of each project, and a few photos on the Web to reassure us that the work has actually taken place. I prefer to give to smal charities where I KNOW the people who give the aid directly to a good cause. They do not have 4x4s, hotel expenses etc etc. ALL my money goes direct to the good cause. Sadly I am highly suspicious of the DEC. It all seems to be very political. I thought charities were supposed to keep out of politics. Well done the ´óÏó´«Ã½! For a change you have done the right thing!

This row is the best thing ever to happen to the GAZA APPEAL. I've already gone to their website and made my donation. I encourage everyone to do the same. This publicity can only help raise funds for a dreadful crisis over there. Let's all dig deep and send them a few pounds. Please help Gaza.

Gaza is paradise compared to Darfur. I've never heard such a fuss over that place where over 200,000 are dead and two million refugees live under plastic sheeting, victims of Arab genocide. Unlike the 1300 who died in Gaza, more than half of which were probably Hamas terrorists, the Sudanese government and the militias they support ARE targeting civilians. I'll bet there isn't a single refugee in Darfur who wouldn't trade places with someone in Gaza in a heartbeat.

This debate like so many others serves to reveal the true depth of anti-semitism in Europe. I don't find it at all surprising, I witnessed it first hand when I lived there. Europe remains a contemptable place and will eventually get exactly what it deserves. Time for America to cut its ties and look elsewhere for "friends." The Pacific rim is where the future lies, Europe is the past.

Well this seems to have ruffled a few feathers, doesn't it. Actually I see both sides on this one. I can understand the decision and I can understand the reaction to it. If you ask me, yet again the reason there is so much contention is that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is a public service broadcaster, charged with the insurmountable task of representing 'the people'. This sense of ownership people have over the ´óÏó´«Ã½ makes any decision it makes subject to the tide of public reaction, and it explains every heated debate over its output ever generated.

In short, the idea of collective ownership of a broadcaster is folly, and this debate would not be happening if the British public weren't being robbed of their own choice in the matter of which media they spend their money on.

M2

If you abandon Europe, how will you support Israel?

And is it anti-semitic to say that a nation may not use *any* means to defend itself?

Is it anti-semitic to believe in a two-state solution?

Morality aside - as a practical matter, how can a nation the size of Israel police the West Bank?
GV

Once again the style of argument is a little weird ...

Gaza is a paradise compared to Darfur...

And butchering one child is nice compared to the holocaust...

Class discipline is going to get a whole lot easier this term.

GV

gveale, it is not antisemtic to say a nation may not use any means to defend itself, it is suicide.

If America abandons Europe, how will it support Israel? America was the first to put men on the moon three times and bring them back safely, split the atom and harnass its energy, and completely decode human DNA. Take my word for it, it will find a way.

Is it antisemitic to believe in a two state solution?

If one of them is an Arab terrorst state supported by sponsors of state terrorism like Iran and Syria and dedicated to the destruction of Israel the way a Palestinian state would be it is.

Is it antisemitic for Europeans to support Islamic efforts to finish off what Hitler started as they stood by watching indifferently for the most part? Yes it is. Is it surprising? Not to me it isn't, I saw it first hand for myself when I lived in Europe. It's one reason I am convinced Europe is no good and will never change. If complicity in the holocaust didn't change it, nothing will.

gveale, the government of Israel hasn't butchered anyone. It is Hamas terrorists who shoot rockets at civilians and then when attacked, these cowards use their own people as human shields. But it was your friends in Pakistan who beheaded a Wall Street Journalist who wanted to tell their side of the story and displayed their contemptable savagery on the internet for all the world to see in utter disgust. Even as executioners, they could hardly get that right. Killing Islamic terrorists anywhere and in any way is not butchery, it is defending civilization. It is unfortunate that in executing this critical mission, innocents must die too but there is no alternative. You can defend them if you want to but you share company with the worst people on this earth. Having read many of your postings, that comes as no surprise to me either.

marcusaurelius is very quick to accuse people who are trying to support humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza.
Over 300 children were killed - you would have us believe that over half of them were terrorists. The fact that I want aid agencies to help the people of Gaza does not make me anti-semitic. Likewise you have no basis to accuse gveale is friends of the people who beheaded a journalist.

Your defence of the killings in Gaza has a dangerous logic. By your argument, the fact that some murderers live in London (or any other city) would justify the bombing of that city.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

From Wikipedia;

"MOVE is an organization formed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1972 by John Africa and Donald Glassey. MOVE was described by CNN as "a loose-knit, mostly black group whose members all adopted the surname Africa, advocated a 'back-to-nature' lifestyle and preached against technology."[1] After a deadly standoff with police in 1978, nine MOVE members were sentenced to prison for third degree murder. The group came to international attention in 1985 after an attempt by the Philadelphia Police Department to enforce arrest warrants escalated dramatically. The police dropped a bomb from a helicopter onto the rooftop of the MOVE residence and the resulting fire was allowed to burn. This resulted in the deaths of seven adults and four children.[2]"



As I recall, the orders to drop the bomb were given jor at least approved by the black mayor of Philadelphia Wilson Goode himself. I also recall that the entire block of houses burned to the ground. Cartoons of him as the Angry Red Baron or Snoopy flying WWI bombers appeared all over the media and he was the object of considerable ridicule and jokes. I don't think that's in the Wikipedia article which seems to have been sanitized.

Someone didn't like my disparaging remarks about the poor quality Regal Sheffield Laser knives in #11 :-) I know business is tough these days but c'mon ´óÏó´«Ã½. No sense of humor at all.

I've listened to and understood most of the negative criticism of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for its refusal to broadcast the DEC appeal.
Throughout the debate, the motives of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ have been continuously questioned and answers have been given.
However, D.E.C. and its 13 members have not been subjected to similar scrutiny.
I would suggest that all the 13 charities involved should be subjected to a similar procedure (perhaps starting in reverse alphabetical order.) (see members on www.dec.org.uk)

This is the first time that I have felt really impassioned to write a blog on the subject of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s hypocritical decision in my view, to refuse to broadcast a charity appeal on the Gaza tragedy.
I firmly believe that this is fundamently wrong and smacks of the worst form of political correctness ever portrayed by the ´óÏó´«Ã½.
Why doesn't the ´óÏó´«Ã½ have the courage of its conviction and admit that it has made a grave mistake.
Surely the suffering endured by the people of Gaza and the deaths of many innocent children deserves our help, which matters more than any concern about political bias that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is bleating about.
This a humanitarian tragedy and the action of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in this matter reflects a cynical attitude that I cannot understand. They have for me lost any respect that I may have had for them and I feel ashamed that they are unwilling to change their decision.
One final point, is that had Israel suffered to the same degree surely the people of this country would have offered the same response by way of help that we are trying to offer to the inhabitants of Gaza.
The decision of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is in my opinion intolerable.

Actually, you don't even have to go to the DEC Website - the Charities I referred to in my previous comment(14)$ are listed alphabetically in the main article above (Para. 6, I think)

Actually, you don't even have to go to the DEC Website - the Charities I referred to in my previous comment(14) are listed alphabetically in the main article above (Para. 6, I think)

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has really taken a battering over this issue and, I rather think, unfairly.

Peter Beaumont's in yesterday's 'Observer' is instructive.

A few points from it:

Hamas is sitting on huge cash reserves amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars.

Hamas has seized aid from foreign and international donors.

Hamas is insisting on sole control of Gaza's rebuilding.

If what Beaumont says is true - then perhaps it is as much the DEC which should be questioned as the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

I think the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are well within their rights to refuse to display the DEC Gaza appeal. It was still mentioned on the news tonight which gives people a choice to make their own informed decision.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ have to try to remain as impartial as possible and kudos to them for not showing it in full. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ don't display adverts so why should they display the appeal which in many ways is an advertisment for the charity.

I totally agree with the comments of Roly-Poly-Bird. I'd like to add that we all have, at least some knowledge of how the ´óÏó´«Ã½ works. Do we have a similar understanding of how DEC and its 13 charities work?
To be honest, I was appalled at the Israeli war on Gaza and the horrible loss of lives. But Hamas, though I condemn their violence also, I do, at least understand, and the same applies to my views on Israeli violence .
But, in this debate over the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and its refusal to succumb to the pressures of DEC, I totally support the ´óÏó´«Ã½ - do you know who the Executive Directors of the 13 Charities under the umbrella of DEC are? Have you seen these organisations in action? Do you know,for example, what Director's salaries are? Can you find out? Apply the same questions in relation to the ´óÏó´«Ã½
Charities, like all businesses are having a rough time at present - dare I be cynical and suggest that maybe a disaster would ease their problems?

Please investigate the charities before you part with any money - don't be taken in by glossy websites, full of empty promises and spin! Start with "World Vision" and work alphabetically backwards from the list of Charities in the article above( Para 6)

M2

1) Okay, barring an army of robots, as a matter of logistics, how do you support Israel without European allies?
2) Hamas gains support by running a "welfare" system in the Gaza strip - if Hamas remains the only system of support for Palestinians, who will retain their alleigance?
3) You think a nation can use any means to defend itself? Can a nation use genocide to defend itself? What was your problem with Hitler and Satlin? That they weren't American? The funny moustaches? That they lost?
4) I don't know anyone in Pakistan. A Sri Lankan, a few Han Chinese, a Bangladeshi. Pakistanis - no. Haven't had the pleasure. But I'm sure you're correct; they're all Jew-killing terrorists. Best nuke 'em before it's too late. Get the kids too - I'm sure it's genetic.
5) Do you actually believe any of this crap? Or are you reading too many Tom Clancy novels?

GV

M2
For the record

A) Hamas are an intrinsically evil oragnisation with no redeeming features.
B) The Israeli State has a fundamental right to exist
C) The Palestinian people should be given a state of their own.
D) Because if they don't (i) hundreds of thousands of innocents will suffer (ii) Israel will collapse (iii) an unrefomed Iran will dominate the Middle East, and possibly Central Asia. If (i) doesn't worry you, (ii) and (iii) should.

Of course, the US could invent an army of robots with proton shields, quantum laser defence torpedos, fusion canons, and the ability to disguise themselves as automobiles. Or the US could deploy the Avengers and the Justice League.

Failing that, political solutions seem appealing.

GV

Portwyne

A good point, but the question is, what happens if Gaza believs that Hamas is their only source of aid?

GV

After the Second World War, the first major war in which civilians bore the brunt of the killing, international rules were introduced in order to prevent the deaths of innocents in future conflicts. The opposite has happened and in every major war since, they have been the main victims. Nothing is done about this because propaganda by governments succeeds in its specious argument that they are 'collateral damage'.

Even worse, it now seems that not only are innocent civilians deemed expendable in war because they 'get in the way', but they are also deemed to be expendable when the fighting stops because they 'belong' to one side rather than the other.

Even here, there is no consistency. The civilians in Congo, Burma, Sudan, Darfur, Niger, Kosovo, Chad, Bangladesh, etc are worthy of help, but not apparently Palestinians. Even that is inconsistent. In 1982 the ´óÏó´«Ã½ broadcast a DEC appeal for the victims of Israel's invasion of Lebanon. So what is going on here?

This is a gutless and shameful decision by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and Sky.

Brian

Haven't you been reading Marcus Aurelius 2nd? You are obviously a genocidal anti-semite. Own up. Your best friends all live in Lahore, and behead Jewish journalists for entertainment.

GV

You're funny gveale. If you'd read my postings on other ´óÏó´«Ã½ blog sites, you'd know I've suggested nuking the entire middle east from North Africa right up to Pakistan including Isreal, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, all of them. We'd be rid of them once and for all and we could just walk in and take all the oil we want an need. I have no more affection for any of these people than I have for Europeans.

So you'd kill them???!!!

You're a laugh a minute Marcus.

I know you don't care what people think of you, but someday you might

And by extension us???!!

And to be specific - me?

Wouldn't nuking the region make it difficult to extract the oil?

luckily, Marcus, your crazy rantings make it impossible for anyone to take you seriously in any way whatsoever...

as if that wasn't entirely obvious before now.

:)

Bernard

M2 is suggesting that we should defend Israel by nuking it. And everything else nearby.

I'll think you'll find that his plan is foolproof.

C'mon M2. This is like arguing that you can prove that God exists from the nature of the banana.
What's your real position?

GV

Graham:

I make a point of not reading Marcus's hateful warmongering nonsense or answering it. We are all doomed, apart from 'his' people.

But I will say that I went to the Model, where my best friend was Jewish and then went to Inst. where again I was close to him and other Jews. I have been friends with Jews all my life and one of my closest friends is an ex-Jew. That will not stop me condemning Israeli's policies towards Palestinians, which are a disgrace.

gvale, ya got me. My real position...nuke the UK including NI. AFAIAC, the American Revloutionary War is not over yet by a long shot.

brianmcclinton, I am not surprised at anti-semitic remarks coming from a communist. (some of my best friends are Jewish, Black, Arab, Klingon) sheesh. That one liner is so old in the US it's hardly worth commenting on. You're a poster child for why America should say good-bye to Europe!

Brian's right though.

You, sir, are a troll if ever I saw one.

Bernard:

You actually realise you are stating the obvious! Congratulations. Pots and the kettles, motes and the beams.

Actually, where Marcus is concerned, it's hard to avoid stating the obvious. I suggest I might be better to ignore him altogether.

Bernard:

Let's not get personal. Anyway, you are possibly being too generous.

My last sentence above should have read: "it might be better...".

Aha, touche Brian.

see now, we've more in common than you would have thought!

:)

I don't think I will ever understand why the IRA gave up when they were winning. Surrender never seemed to be in their character.

very insightful

The ´óÏó´«Ã½'s refusal to air the appeal is pathetic, heartless and self-defeating. To support children and non-combattants is not a 'political' position - it's a humanitarian concern. I frequently find myself defending the Beeb - arguing that we get good value for money from the licence fee, but this suggests that those in power at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are becoming too frightened to do their jobs honourably. Shame on you.

gvale, who's talking about defending Israel. That's their problem. I'm talking about making the entire Middle East problem go away for good and America getting all of the oil it wants and needs. It kills two birds with one stone. OK, maybe I'd let the Israelis live if you say so. They don't have much oil and they don't pose a threat to the US...most of the time...as long as we keep our spy ships a safe distance. Otherwise...nuke them too :-) Where's your problem?

BTW, when is England going to give NI back to its rightful owners, the people of Ireland?

Bernard:

Yes, I accept that we may have.
I want to return to this craven and callous capitulation to the Israeli government by the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

It implies that the public cannot distinguish between a charity appeal and a political message.
It is a humanitarian crisis: 1.4 million people desperately need help. Thousands have been injured, tens of thousands have been made homeless and hospitals and schools have been destroyed.

If the logic of the refusal is that it implies a political position in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians - that, in effect, collecting charity for Palestinians implies hostility to Israel - then there can never any more be victims in a war. For to call anyone a victim would be to offend one of the two sides.

By this logic, the 412 children killed are not innocent victims and neither are the 110 women killed.
None of the men killed is innocent and none of the 5,000 wounded is innocent. No one killed or wounded was innocent.

The ramifications of such an attitude extend far beyond this situation. People fighting wars can more confidently feel that they kill whoever they like.

'It' in line 1 para 3 refers to the appeal.

'Can' should be inserted before kill in the last line.

if the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is funded by tv licence fees , could licence payers not be polled to establish their wishes in the matter of the DEC Gaza Crisis Appeal?
Judging by the myopic reasoning put forward so far , it is time for a change in ´óÏó´«Ã½ management. The fact that something has not been done before is no criterion for refusing to do it now.
Suffering on the scale seen in Gaza , the result of wanton murder of innocent civilians requires action , help and all the aid we can give .Posturing by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in this way actually gives the impression that they and ,by association ,licencepayers support Israel and Israeli actions.


No one is asking why there are still
"refugee camps", or why Palestinians continue to be ill treated by their neighbours.
I was there 30 years ago , little has changed , oh ,apart from the destruction of homes, streets and lives by a nation protected by it s strategic value to the U S .
we should support broadcast of the DEC Gaza Crisis Appeal purely on ahumanitarian basis ,irrespective of the wanton cruelty exhibited by Israel
, they seem to know no better but we should.

flea1bag- I seem to have lost the return key on my keyboard, could you point me in the right direction?

SHAME ON YOU ´óÏó´«Ã½!

This is like saying that you wouldn't appeal to help a child that has been kidnapped, in case in offended the kidnapper.

Israel is blatantly wrong and abusing its power with

Over 1300 hundred have lost their lives, the majority of whom are children. Thousands have been wounded. Gaza lost nearly $2 billion in assets, including 4,100 homes, about 1,500 factories and workshops, 20 mosques, 31 security compounds and 10 water or sewage lines.

Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been left homeless and 400,000 people still have no running water.

It's a catastrophe.

I THINK THE ´óÏó´«Ã½ HAS BEEN BOUGHT!

After some research I have concluded that Marcus Aurelius 2nd is in fact a "troll".
How disappointing. I thought that I might be debating a National Review reader, and not a hairy sub-human creature that lives under a bridge. Or are they the same thing?

GV

I believe war is in itself a crime but, beyond that view, I consider that Israel has committed atrocities and what would generally be considered war-crimes in Gaza. I am not and could not in any sense be considered a supporter of Israel whose continued existence as a state indeed is a matter to which I am completely indifferent.

On this issue I am with the ´óÏó´«Ã½ one hundred per cent, however. Hamas is hugely cash-rich, entirely capable of funding by itself the alleviation of the suffering in Gaza. It has stated that it must supervise the reconstruction of the territory and has seized and distributed external aid in the past. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ would be remiss in its duties if it did not ensure that the charities in the DEC were not going to work to Hamas's agenda and on its terms - in the absence of that commitment it would be partisan to broadcast the appeal. I would contend that the charities are in no practical position to provide the necessary assurance.

There is another issue, however. It would be immoral for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to ask pensioners and other people of limited means in this country to pour money into an area already rich in cash. It is grossly immoral to do so when places like Darfur need it so much more.

Portwyne;

I'm not disputing you, as I have no idea, but from where have you learned that Hamas is sitting on "huge cash reserves"

And, if indeed they are, iws their ability to effectively spend that money not extremely hindered by the Israeli embargoe.

I have no idea, but it seems amazing, given the state of the place, that there is a load of cash sloshing about. I mean, you may well say that Hama members obviously don't distribute it fairly or whatever, but are there Hamas members living in luxury in Gaza?

Is anyone living in luxury in Gaza? I've never been, but come on....are senior hamas members really living in luxury while the population are living in hovels?

If so I fail to see how they could maintain any support whatsoever.

Bernard
I'm guessing, but I imagine Portwyne's reference is to Iranian support for Hamas. Hamas originally believed that Iran could make good the loss of European Aid for the Palestinian people. However, Iran may have the funds to support Hamas and Hezbollah but not three million Palestinians who are unable to trade with Israel. Or the million blockaded in Gaza.

It's very difficult to see a happy ending here. Even if Israel wanted to make a deal, who could they make a deal with? Fatah hasn't the support, Hamas hasn't the inclination.
Iran naturally wants to join the nuclear powers. From their point of view it's not an unreasonable proposition - why should India and Pakistan join the nuclear club, but not Persia?
Hamas keeps Israel and the West busy while Iran pursues this goal. Hamas needs Iran. Israel can't tolerate a hostile nuclear power in the region, as it hasn't the geography to survive a nuclear attack. The logic of Mutually Assured Destruction wouldn't prevent a nuclear exchange in the region.
So I imagine that we're headed towards a much larger conflagration. If anyones been reading anything that suggests a brighter outlook, I'd be very glad to hear it.

GV

gveale #49, you cross my bridge, you'd better be prepared to pay my toll or you just might wind up becoming my lunch. gveale chops.

I've waited for some time now to see if we can get back to the current issue,which, after all, is ´óÏó´«Ã½ versus DEC, but only a small minority have kept to the main theme of this debate - go back and read the introduction again. Vent your spleen and air your opinions on the Gaza conflict elsewhere, unless it's relevant to this debate.

Please investigate DEC and its 13 members (starting with World Vision) before you start to condemn the ´óÏó´«Ã½. I've got a feeling that other broadcasting companies may end up with egg on their faces! And well intentioned donors may well up very disappointed (mind you, they'll never really know where there money went)

Having had a fairly good education, I'm quite embarrassed at having used "there", instead of "their" - sorry, but I will continue to be pedantic and I will refer you back to the original theme of this debate.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

JW, fleabag passed out on his keyboard and hit his head on the spacebar for awhile before he hit the enter key. Too much Bushmill's will do that to you.

"I suspect, in fact, that the public controversy around Mark Thompson's decision has brought considerably more attention to the DEC appeal than it may otherwise have achieved".

Some in the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are hiding behind this idea! The reality: the limited broadcast led to a leap in donations. The ´óÏó´«Ã½'s decision obviously seriously reduced that leap. Worse than that, some people now think that if they donated money it wouldn't get there in time - the ´óÏó´«Ã½ said so. Some people now think that this is a political appeal - the ´óÏó´«Ã½ have implied this. Scepticism of the DEC (who most people have never heard of) is in danger of being increased.

M2

Nice to see you in better form. If you could stop trolling for a moment, do you have any thoughts on US foreign policy other than "nuke 'em".

I assume you really mean - "leave them to sort their own mess out and just cut a good deal on the oil prices." But is that really an option? Didn't Dubya try that, and end up at Annapolis?

GV

Portwyne:

Whether Hamas is rich or not or is as callous as the Israeli government is not the point. If they refuse to help their own people, then the international 'community' must step in on humanitarian grounds. Wounded, sick and starving children know nothing of the power politics which has created their tragedy.

That, of course, doesn't absolve either the Israeli government or Hamas from responsibility for the situation.

I just thought of giving peaceful vibrations to these people when I heard about GAZA. Let's not debate but spread peaceful vibrations. We can also share these thoughts through

Can we send solace a virus please? These ads are getting annoying.

Responding to Bernard # 51 and Brian # 60...

A source for the assertions I made about Hamas' wealth is Peter Beaumont's article in last Sunday's Observer.



Hamas is not 'sitting on' the wealth it is distributing it - something the ´óÏó´«Ã½ reported on its News bulletins.

My point on this issue is that aid is mired in the impasse which lies at the root of the whole situation. Will Israel let Hamas bring aid through the frontier? No! Will Hamas let foreign agencies distribute aid outside its control and administration? Apparently not!

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ in broadcasting this advertisement would effectively be asking for contributions to Hamas. That is something about which I would be most unhappy.

I think excellent questions about the charities have been asked and need to be answered. Can they get aid through Israel's blockade? Can they distribute it independently of Hamas? Do charities use disasters to augment their regular fund-raising activities? Is money so raised ring-fenced?

Hamas has access to all of the money it wants and needs...from Iran. It has started rebuilding already sorting its priorities. Of highest importance to it are rebuilding the tunnels and obtaining more rockets and other weapons. Israel will not agree to a permanent cease fire until it is satisfied that this will not happen. So far all promises made to it in the past have been broken such as Hezbollah not being armed when Israel pulled out of Lebanon. I really don't know who or what would convince Israel that relaxation of its quarantine would not pose further danger to its people. I think they have reached a point where each attack on them will receive a sharp counterattack and anything that looks like a return of the previous situation will result in a renewal of the sustained military campaign to destroy Hamas. I think they feel "enough is enough." They seem uncharacteristically united about this and the American people and the new President of the United States remain united with them.

Portwyne:
The DEC website states:

"The DEC members are committed to humanitarian principles including independence and have confirmed they are able to work without hindrance from the Hamas controlled authorities both to identify who are the most needy and to channel assistance to them directly, either through their own staff or well established local non governmental partners. The DEC members have submitted lists of partners and their banking arrangements, to insure proper systems are in place".

Perhaps you don't believe this. Fair enough, but what's the counter-evidence? The article from the Observer does not deal with this issue.

Let us be absolutely clear: providing humanitarian aid does not imply taking sides; it is to recognise the indisputable fact that Gazans desperately need help. It is not necessary to apportion blame in order to recognise suffering.

This suffering was indeed caused by the Israelis but, as the civilians who will receive the aid were supposedly not meant to be targets of Israeli aggression, it is frankly absurd to suggest that by providing aid to them you are supporting Hamas.

If the Israelis are declaring that civilians are not targets of their aggression, then providing aid to civilians cannot possibly be biased, can it?

Response to portwyne#63.

Thanks for helping to get this debate back to where it should be (´óÏó´«Ã½ v DEC). I'm getting interested again!

Re brianmcclinton's #65 quote from the DEC Website - so what, try to verify what they say.

I don't like to repeat myself (see my previous comments) and I also think that davidwilliamsthomas #2 in particular, makes very good sense.

brianmcclinton, as always, Communists obfuscate any issue they are losing badly on. Neither humanitarian aid nor DEC is the issue. ´óÏó´«Ã½'s policy of independence is. ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Editor in Chief explained clearly why on his blog site. Which part of it didn't you understand?

Anticed:

Three of the four panellists on the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Let's Talk tonight considered that the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s decision was definitely wrong. It was also pointed that their cowardly and immoral refusal to broadcast the appeal has been counterproductive because more people have contributed via the other TV channels than expected.
That, at least, is a hopeful development.

You question the DEC's assurances. Such rigour is admirable. Do you apply it equally to your own opinions?
The DEC includes Oxfam, Christian Aid and the Red Cross. These are fairly reputable organisations, are they not? What’s your point?

Anticed:

You have said above that you are appalled at the loss of life in Gaza. Surely, in an emergency, we cannot have proof of everything we need and it is better to err on the side of humanity. Both the DEC and the British government (which is also giving aid to Gaza) have said that they are confident the aid will not get into the hands of Hamas, and I think that we need to accept this assurance for the time being.

Some aid has already successfully got in. Let's hope that lots more will follow.

Let me say also that, frankly, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is being hypocritical about it all. It has highlighted the row over the appeal quite prominently in the news and in discussions and provided a link to its website. It has allowed Tony Benn to broadcast effectively part of the appeal and give the DEC address twice in one interview I saw on ´óÏó´«Ã½ news with Maxine Mawhinney and on the Today programme on the radio.

Most of its leading journalists (like the thousands of complaints it has received) are appalled by the decision and some, like John Humphrys, have gone public about it.

brianmcclinton:
I do agree with you that we should err on the side of humanity, but, (there's always a "but") I am really concerned that people make donations to Charities without knowing how their money is used. (By the way, I have always been an admirer of Tony Benn and have great respect for John Humphreys)
You referred to the "thousands of complaints" that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has received, but consider that a lot more than that read (and are maybe conditioned by) the tabloids).
I don't know whether you've ever worked for a National Charity - had you done so, you may have ended up as cynical as myself!
Please, look at, for example, the World Vision Website. The history on the site goes back 20 years, but in reality it extends back well before that. It was investigated by Granada TV in the early seventies and the Guardian, it then appeared to withdraw from public view for a while.
That's just an example and I can assure you, that I never have worked for them, nor would I now send one penny to that organisation or any umbrella organisation that included them. My childrens' school were initially involved in one of their fund-raising activities many years ago, but pulled out and sent letters disaccociating the school from all connections with the organisation.

I'm not saying that all the 13 members of DEC are corrupt, just be careful, as I think the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is - what would it look like if it tried now to investigate the DEC members?

William:
I am in complete support of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Decision about not showing the Gaza Appeal....

~Dennis Junior~

Anticed:

Fair enough, but you haven't given sufficient evidence for withholding money to DEC in the present circumstances.

If the broadcasting media were as rigorous as you about the actual 'news' they report, then we might be better informed.

Or sometimes worse informed. The Israelis did not allow the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and other news media into Gaza and by your logic they should therefore not have reported at all about what was going on there. We would have learned nothing at all about the suffering, unless we watched Arab TV stations.

To their credit, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ did fairly well without the pictures that could be seen on Aljazeera, (although the latter showed it as it really was). But that is to the credit of the journalists, not the management.

It is the management who have made this stupid decision and it is the journalists who are livid about it.

brianmcclinton
I am leaving you and others to do their own research into DEC and its members and come to your own conclusion before parting with money.
I have given some pointers to assist, but its up to you now. Short & "sweet" - that's the way to keep it!

dennisjunior1

Why?

And so am I in "complete support of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Decision".

I support the ´óÏó´«Ã½ 100% on this one. The decision had to be made on journalistic, not humanitarian, principles -- after all, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is a news organization. And from the journalistic point of view their decision was well grounded and correct.

Mirjami:

If the decision was made on journalistic principles, how come no ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalist can be found who agrees with it?

brianmcclinton:

I wouldn't know about ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists' opinions. Not that I wouldn't be interested in it, but my standpoint in here is based solely on what I have learned and experienced on the subject.

I understand that SOME ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists do agree with the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s decision. The concern is that the PERCEPTION of bias could lead to attacks on reporters in the region. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ doesn't want another Alan Johnston crisis.

Portwyne:

You mentioned Peter Beaumont's report in last week's Observer. Well, did you see this week's?
He says that Gaza's 1.5 million people are facing a food crisis as a result of the destruction of great areas of farmland during the Israeli invasion.

Between 35% and 60% of the agriculture industry has been wrecked by the three-week attack. The FAO estimates that 13,000 families who depend directly on herding, farming and fishing have suffered significant damage.

Scores, perhaps hundreds, of wells and water sources have been damaged and several hundred greenhouses have been levelled.

in Jabal al-Rayas, once a thriving farming community, every building has been knocked down, and even the cattle killed and left to lie rotting in the fields.

Why did Israeli destroy so much production and sources of livelihood in Gaza?

brianmcclinton

You're wandering away from the theme of the debate again. Ah well!

I am sorry Brian - actually I did not read it. I have been feeling somewhat 'under the weather' and my concentration was too shot on Sunday to read anything (I couldn't even listen to William in the morning!).

It really does not alter my point in the slightest though. I have already indicated that I considered Israel to have committed war crimes and atrocities in Gaza - I would love to see high-ranking Israelis prosecuted at the ICC. Israel has used shamelessly the guilt of the western world at the holocaust to provide itself with cover for quite monstrous actions and it is long past time that that stopped.

My points were:

(1) Is it moral to ask British pensioners to give of the little they have when Hamas has reserves of hundreds of millions of dollars? I would answer 'No'.

(2) How independent can the charities be of Hamas in their distribution of resources and how ring-fenced are DEC contributions? I looked at their web site and note that their accountability framework is new, untested, and was deemed necessary because of concerns about previous funding.

Thank you, portwyne, for getting us back on track again!

Portwyne:

1. It is not immoral to ask anyone - young, old, rich, poor - to contribute to a good cause. The decision is theirs.

2. Whether Hamas has money or not is irrelevant. If there is a humanitarian crisis, then help is needed. It is not the fault of a child that it is wounded, hungry or has lost parents. Nor is it the child's fault that Hamas will or will not help it.

3. Whether you like it or not, Hamas was elected and its popularity seems to have grown since the invasion, which is hardly surprising given the extent of the carnage and destruction.

4. This appeal is by an organisation representing Britain's largest charities, some of them Christian. What on earth is the problem with it? None of you objectors has actually explained.
Give chapter and verse of causes where its money has been squandered, please!

brianmcclinton

Sorry, but it's up to you as to which organisation make a donation, whether it is portrayed as Christian or otherwise.

I would suggest that you take note of portwyne's comment(2) (No.81) and do a little bit of investigation yourself. Also refer to comment 2 in the early days from davidwilliamsthomas.

Maybe, we're not always right - speak words that are soft and sweet, because maybe later you may have to eat them.

Anticed:

You are talking in riddles. Just say what YOU think, never mind hiding behind Portwyne, David Williams and other contributors.

What is wrong with donations to the DEC for Gaza? Or for any humanitarian disaster? To whom should we donate money? How should we help the Gazans? Come on, positive alternatives, please!

brianmcclinton

I'll answer you questions and ignore your comments.
Q1. What is wrong with donations to the DEC for Gaza, or for any humanitarian disaster?
Answer: Nothing, as long as you're happy with making a donation.
Q.2 To whom should we donate money?
Answer: Anyone we want to.
Q.3 How should we help the Gazans?
Answer:In whichever way we feel appropriate.

So you have no argument with anything in relation to this then?

I'm confused, to say the least

So you have no argument with anything in relation to this then?

I'm confused, to say the least

Brian is right, what is wrong with giving money to the DEC.

You now say "nothing", but have been implying from the beginning of this thread that there is

Bernards_Insight

I replied to the questions asked.

Simply, it is up to each individual to donate to any organisation that he or she wants.

It is also up to the individual to ensure, as much as possible, that the donation made is used for the purposes for which it was given.

(You will notice that the word "nothing" in my response to brianmcclinton, was followed by the words "as long as you're happy with making a donation"). I'm sorry that I may have caused you some confusion, but I simply do not want to dictate to people.

Yes, but you're obsfucating here.

You're point, if i can make it out, is that the DEC MAY be corrupt.

That's fair enough, but I'd imagine all charities may be corrupt.

You are advising people to investigate any charities that they donate too.
That's all well and goo, and probably very wise, but why the DEC in particular, and why this Gaza appeal in particular.

Are you arguing that no charity should be able to make a television appeal, lest some people donate to it without investigating?

As I say, you're general point that people should investigate where their money is going is fair enough.

But why this particular appeal, and this group which seems to include many major charities, the appeals of which never seemed to cause any complaint before?

Bernards_Insight

To answer what I might think are your 2 main points:
I have no motive that is specific to DEC and its Gaza appeal.
I also believe that any Charity should be able to request the facility to broadcast an appeal from any television company.
My only motive was to encourage people to think.
On that note,'bye, 'bye.