Sharon visited the Temple Mount in 2000 - not in 2003.

The media's compliance with Hamas, however much it is done through self-preservation, is probably the main reason the BBC's Balen report continues to be kept away from the eyes of the public.

The year 2004 was a spike inte anti-semitic hate crimes. Enderlin should be charged with aggravated incitement to racial hatred.

Not only was Mohamed Al-Dura not killed, he got married in November 2007.

Another worthwhile article regarding Mohammed al-Dura http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/06/25/just-dont-touch-their-symbol-...

My favorite protest organization here in the states is "Gays for Palestine". The irony being what happens to gays in actual "Palestine".

There was a picture of a bullet ridden wall in Lebanon, which was called 'Evidence of Israel using cluster bombs'... To everyone who knows a rifle bullet from a cannon shell, it was obvious that the wall was sprayed with machine gun fire, but have anyone in the media investigated? Nope!

shame on the Israeli Government for not providing support for Karsenty. one wonders if Chirac had not left office that the verdict might not have been reversed. The evidence is very conclusive in that the Al durah incident was just one of many staged fake incidents carried out on that day for the benefit of the western press eager for plausible evidence of israeli attrocities. Shame on all those agencies.

Gideon Levy's article posted by Stefan Denis says it all. Thank you! Indeed! I highly recommend the Levy article to left-wing anti-semites who cannot accept that any one of there cherished beliefs might be defective. Maintain the purity of the discourse!!

Gideon Levi ,as usual, sidetracks the main issue: Palestinians deliberately target civilians . The Israeli Army may unintentionally kill the innocent, or intentionally kill the guilty, but it does not intentionally kill the innocent. This is well illustrated in Bret Stephans’s article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121003365007069313.html?mod=hpp_us_insid... … In May 2002, at the height of the so-called al-Aqsa Intifada, I reviewed Israeli and Palestinian casualty figures, sticking to Palestinian sources for Palestinian numbers and Israeli sources for Israeli ones. Much was then being made in the Western media of the fact that three times as many Palestinians as Israelis had been killed in the conflict – evidence, supposedly, that despite the suicide bombings, lynchings and roadside ambushes perpetrated daily against Israelis, Palestinians were the ones who really were getting it in the neck. But drilling down into the data, something interesting turned up. At the time, 1,296 Palestinians had been killed by Israelis – of whom a grand total of 37, or 2.8%, were female. By contrast, of the 496 Israelis killed by Palestinians (including 138 soldiers and policemen), there were 126 female fatalities, or 25%. To be female is a fairly reliable indicator of being a noncombatant. Females are also half the population. If Israel had been guilty of indiscriminate violence against Palestinians, the ratio of male-to-female fatalities would not have been 35-1.

The Gideon Levy point is that by focusing on a possible case of gross deception (I say possible because, as far as I can make out (and I am open to coorection) the judges ruled that there was room for doubt, not that the footage was fabricated) many other abuses are ignored (and killings via side-effects that pay little or no attention to proportionate overall benefits and burdens are little different, morally, from directly intended killings). Is the "room for doubt" suggestion the reason why there appears to be so little fuss about the story in Israel? As to targeting civilians versus non-targeting (Palestinians versus Israelis) see Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah (a very thorough analysis of Human Rights groups on the question). Before making ad hominem attacks on Finkelstein - find me a SINGLE error or misrepresentation by F. on this matter. As for the same question applied to the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon conflict check Jonathan Cook's Israel and the Clash of Civilisations. Again - read it - if there is an error point it out. If not amend your views!

Dear Ms Phillips - Sorry, I’m not getting your point. What were you aiming to achieve with this report? To enlighten us about reckless and ideologically-driven journalism? That’s no news. To muddy the water in an attempt to make us believe that all the victims are responsible for their own death? I got you wrong, I hope. Facts speak for themselves: http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Casualties.asp , 29.9.2000-31.5.2008, Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces: total 944! Israel claims being the only democracy in the Middle East with a commitment to human rights … so … is there any public outrage in Israel about the mass killings of Palestinian children? Strange, isn’t it? This reminds me very much of the Germans in 1945, when they all claimed being innocent and ignorant about the Holocaust. History does repeat itself. Both sides are trying hard to find apologies for their terror and YES, terror does exist on both sides, it is not exclusive to the Palestinians. A good writer, Ms Phillips, should have more than one dimension – otherwise, you’re running risk to become Pavlov’s dog.

Mel, I wasn't talking about anti-semitism, but yes, "anti-zionism" is one of most filthy hypocritic forms of anti-semitism. Your words about "mass killings of Palestinian children" is an ultimate proof for that. You don't know what is going on there, you take your opinions from the crooks like Gideon Levy. His is not a brave trooth speaker but a coward lier and conformist. I have facts. To understand that it takes more profound knowledge of the Israeli reality, then one might obtain by using sewage pits like 'haaretz' and 'guardian' as a sources of information. And more: the palestinian symbol Muhammad A-Dura wasn't killed, it was a staged event, like a common movie. It is prooved by scientific tools, as I already wrote, not by general words. There were more occurances of that kind. Some children were murdered in a clushes beteween Arab families, some died from deseases or accidents - PA registered them as "shahids" killed by IDF. Some were killed by IDF accidently when fighting terrorists, but none were murdered. Actually, there no true statistics. The number you gave (944) is hot air. And depicting the situation as "mass killing of Palestinian children" reminds of blood libel and Catholic inqusition.

Boaz, The "ultra" Orthodox Jews are anti-Zionists but hardly anti-Semites (they justify their position, after all, by reference to a commonsensical interporetation of some passages in the Talmud). Also, the vast majority of world Jewry was explicitly Anti-Zionist when Herzl was promoting the idea, and remained so for a long time. As to facts (which you don't cite) - you have yet to refute any of the human rights organisations findings, a survey of which I referred you to. Unless you believe that all (including Israeli ones) are involved in a vast anti-Israeli conspiracy, you have to accept that an awful lot of Palestinian children have been killed in reckless operations where their resultant deaths, if not deliberately intended, were the result of their lives being accorded such minimal value in the light of often ill-focused military operations (and often amounting to near indiscriminate killing) that we are dealing with acts morally simlar too deliberate killing (i.e. acts always morally wrong). Certain IDF chiefs and leading rabbis have been very open about the justice of collective punishment. Little surprise then that we get the figures we do. Levy is not the issue. If France 2 lied that is disgraceful. If you use that incident to imply that the IDF doesn't child kill - or goes to great lengths to avoid it - then you too are behaving disgracefully. Please refute the studies referred to in a previous email. Otherwise I suggest that you keep your peace.

Stefan Denis, Mel, Simon Evans et al, I think you should stick to the Guardian's CIF site. You'll get far less upset by what you read there as most of the comment is from Israel haters and demonisers. By reading that you can avoid the truth as it is presented here and continue with your own world views, happy and untroubled by facts !

Stefan Denis, you know perfectly well what kind of anti-zionism I meant, your referral to the ultra-ortodox Jews and the opponents of Hertzel is not intellectual. Israel is slandered constatntly by different organizations, some of them known as "israeli". But actually "Betselem" is well-monied from abroad anti-Israel group. Their reports are false, it was proved many times by Jonatan Dahuah-Halevy (and couple of times by me), whose name you propabaly never heard and whose works still known only to some Hebrew-readers. IDF is not a child-killer, period. What you say is Middle-age blood libel. Look, I cannot explain you all the facts in talkbacks. Lie is usually short, but it's debunk might be complicated. But the point is you don't have proofs for your accusations, only stories similar to Al-Durra so-called "death" case. I studied the matter and I have facts, so your words that I should "keep my peace" are real chutzpa. If your have someone to translate you, there are some materials on my site: www.boazmh.net. The rest will come.

This is not good enough Boaz. It's not just single Human Rights groups. It is a massive consensus - not just Betselem but across the board. There is no blood-libel. I am merely relying on these sources, and I don't think the entire consensus can be dismissed. Do they all hate Israel??? If you look at their records the vast majority don't even single Israel out. As to Anti-Zionism - don't use the term if it's not accurate. All I have asked is for a refutation of what I have read. Thus far I have had none. And of course the human rights groups across the board DO claim to have proofs (had you looked at what I referred you to you would have seen this). Of course I am prepared to look at the evidence and of course I don't want to engage in any blood libel. But calling something a blood libel does not make it so. As to child-killing - a lot of children were killed in the 2006 war in Lebanon and again human rights organisations found this was due to indiscriminate bombing (and what about all those cluster bombs I mentioned). Moreover Human Rights Watch certainly singled out the Hizbullah for more criticism than the IDF, unlike many "Israel-haters". And certainly statements by Defence minister Amir Peretz and (allegedly) by IDF Chief of Staff Halutz re. targeting neighborhoods and residential buildings don't inspire confidence. Regardless of these, the cluster bomblets alone are bad enough. Read through the reports, look at how they coincide etc. I'll try and look at your evidence and I thank you for pointing me to it. Let's not assume anyone hates any country merely for trying to find out what's going on. I'll stop for now.

I know for a fact that there are Anti-Zionists who are not Anti-Semitic. I met both of them in 1979.

So the blood libel has a high rating in the world. Congratulations! Most of the "war-crimes" that Israel was accused on in Lebanon were debunked – what planet you lived on when that information was published? Planet "Guardian"?.. The initial topic of this article and the discussion is the Muhammad Al-Durah case. It was staged for the camera, as were scores of events of that kind which were reported by "human-right" organizations as authentical. Yet, the real child-murderer Samir Kuntar is praised by Arab states, including Palestinian Authority officials, as a big hero. What your so-called "human-righters" have to say about that? One of our radical left writers Ronit Matalon saw herself Arab children in Gaza sent forward against the IDF by armed men. She told it to a friend from "Betselem" and he told her not to publish it because it "damages the goal". That was in an interview she herself gave to "Yedioth Ahronoth" newspaper. Nevertheless, she took part in a legal suite against Dan Halutz. Today there was another terrorist attack in Jerusalem. An Arab from East Jerusalem drove a bulldozer into a street traffic, killing three and injuring more than forty before he was killed by policemen. The initial headline in BBC was "Israel bulldozer driver shot dead". So give me a break… I'll stop for now too.

Dear Rodrigo, nope, it’s not a fake, Mel is short for my real name. How come you see a contradiction between names and views? I bet you didn’t score high in biology, otherwise you’d know that there is no coherence between population genetics and common sense. Unfortunately, we have way too many lemmings in our civilized and enlightened Western society, easy prey for the ‘good and evil’ propaganda, for colonialism and imperialism.

This is getting so silly I feel the need to intervene. Stefan Denis means Yakov Rabkin (not Yitzhak). Silverstein - what was Jacob Israel de Hahn? Self-described Anti-Zionist and spokesperson for Agudat Israel. Also opposed to those who would massacre Jews. So, err, an Anti-Zionist who surely was not an Anti-Semite (this innocent Jew was, however, murdered by Zionists (Jew killers?)). Case closed. As to groups that make accomadations with Zionism, it doesn't mean that they aren't anti-Zionist, anymore than a group living under a communist regime but fearing something worse might be grateful for the regime while deploring the political ideology. The point is not whether an Anti-Zionist is Jewish or not. It is whether an AZ must an AS. It simply does not follow that an AZ must be an AS - unless you empty both terms of content and use them for politically manipulative purposes. I would recommend against that lest such a ploy backfires. In sum, you haven't justified your position nor have you shown that ultra-Orthodox Jews like MK are necessarily anti-Semitic (do they advocate the massacre of Jews - don't think so - and nor do they support Arab terror groups that do). And even if you had, that would in no way help your major point that AZ=AS (or is a subset of the latter). One more thing - what about those people who advocate a peacefully achieved One State solution to the Israel/Palestine question. Are they necessarily anti-Semites? One can't retain the emotive power of the erm AS while watering it down to include anyone that happens to disagree with you about the question of Israel.

Dorota, indeed it's getting too silly. Today's Anti-Zionism means opposing the existence of Israel on the grounds of "foreign colonization of Palestine by so-called 'Jews' which have no rights there and perform atrocities against Palestinians". This is Anti-Semitism of same kind that was propagated by the Inquisition, Ohrana and Nazis. Your "One State solution to the Israel/Palestine question" unavoidably means killing each and every Jew in the region – read Hamas/PLO inner materials on that, keep away from dubious interpretations by crooked ultraleft columnists and ignorant political activists.

Assuming Melanie's professionalism trumps her partisanship and her intellect her emotions (just) her story is unsurprising. There is a war between those who understandably and with international backing want to maintain the integrity of Israel and those who can hardly be criticised for wanting to damage or even destroy Israel as it affects and has affected them however much we may deplore the unrealism of Arabs who have lived in refugee camps raising families of ten and more children. And in a war psy-ops and black propaganda is only to be expected. If Melanie puts the greatest blame on France 2 and its reporter she is right. It and he had no excuse for their major contribution to the slaughter which followed. The defenders of Israel, of which I am often one, who have written as such to contribute to this discussion, are, in too many cases, blind to the fact that Israel is not and is not likely to be seen 200 years from now as an exemplary state on any dimension, except courage and ingenuity, despite its achievements and those of so many of its citizens. Democratic government is always difficult to run efficiently and fairly and Israel's obstacles to a good, prosperous and peaceful life for all virtually its citizens are mind boggling, from the intra-Judaic religious differences, including formal and informal privileges, an emotional attachment to Jerusalem as Jewish which defies rationality and history and is derangingly powerful, understandable suspicion and wariness backing up the bad motives for encouraging settlers to destroy the viability of a future Palestinian state unless (miraculously) incorporated in it, and so on, and on and on. But what a disaster it was to settle the West Bank after the Six Day War. What a shame that risks, big risks, weren't taken. What a shame there isn't a Palestinian state with capital in East Jerusalem. Indeed what a shame Jerusalem isn't legally an international city in which two nations have their capitals. Just on one issue alone this could have been, and perhaps still could be, critical; because even the maddest of Ayatollahs in Iran are hardly likely to use nuclear weapons on a city which is a Muslim capital. It is true that nuclear strikes on Israel's coastal cities would be devastating, but the assured destruction of Iran in return would,almost certainly, be adequate deterrent. Of course it is unlikely that Iran, unless under a truly mad leader, would seek to annihilate Jerusalem under any circumstances, which leads to the question whether Iran's possible use of nuclear weapons is to be feared so much that direct action by Israel or the US could be justified on the ground that the benefit would outweigh the costs. That Iran might be able to supply terrorists with nuclear weapons is, perhaps, the worst case... but that again leads to the question of how much risk Israel is and should be prepared to run. 1 per cent chance of disaster, 5 per cent? And who is to make the fine judgments: even Israeli intelligence has made mamy big mistakes.

Rachael Corey didn't get up. http://www.rachelcorrie.org/ More and more folks in the U.S. are finding out the truth in spite of AIPAC spin doctors.

To Rachael Correy man. Have you seen the IDF released footage of her death? She and her little trotskyite pals in the ISM were trying to protect Hamas and Islamic Jihad smuggling tunnels in Gaza, not houses from demolition. Furthermore, defectors from the ISM have said that the Palestinian handlers for the activists were trying to get them killed so they could have "martyrs" for the cause. Go look at Lee Kaplan's blog or look for the video on Youtube. What "second class" citizens, Mr Denis? You mean the Israeli Arabs who can vote, have equal rights with other Israelis except that they are not called up for national service but can volunteer? If you are talking about the Palestinian Arabs then we are talking about something else. Go look at the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs and you might find that the West Bank and Gaza at NO time counted as "occupied" but instead come under "disputed territories". Try and wean yourself from the pro-palestinian myths and look at what they teach their kids and preach in the mosques. Palestinian Media Watch is a good source or try MEMRI.