Al Jazeera Gaza: Your Views

group profile | members | imagewall | view on map

newer »

Have you witnessed the events making the news in Gaza, or captured an event on camera? Do you want to ask the follow-ups?

It is your turn to talk back to the news. Send in your footage, comments, or questions on the subject that is most important to you.

You can send us Text, Audio, Video or still images directly on this Moblog Group. Here's how:

Email you Video, Photos or Audio to

SMS your question and comments starting with AJGZ to +447786201241

MMS your Photos and Video to +447786201241 (starting with AJGZ) or to the email address

Upload your Photos, Videos and Audio at

You can also simply tag any of your content on Moblog with AJGaza

Help shape the news we cover and your content could make it on air.

Search this moblog

Recent visitors

Al Jazeera Gaza: Your Views

(viewed 1672 times)
Bookmark and Share
Show on map
We'd love to hear your views on the current conflict in Gaza. This group is here to give you a chance to talk back to the news.

Post you comments, questions or footage from related events and your content could make it on air.

We look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Posted by tarek

8th Jan 2009, 09:08   | tags:


nazma ismail(smartcarhire-at-gmail-dot-com) says:

as per the isrealies saying they have soficicated army weopons to fight with whats wrong to shoot rockets for self defence cant this war be between the army to army instead of killing innocent childrens are these children not as good as the little child that was kidnapped and million of pounds were donated to find her she was a child just like the ones being killed is this not just one of the dreams of bush before he lives his office to finish his mission of killing innocent people.

8th Jan 2009, 12:48

Anonymous says:

The origins of the conflict go back to the foundation of Israel in 1948. The state was built upon the dispossession of the Palestinians after a campaign of ethnic cleansing by Zionist gangs. It has been followed by 60 years of continual Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people.

Zionism – the demand for a Jewish “homeland” in Palestine – emerged as a movement in Europe in the late 19th century as a response to growing antisemitism there. At first only a small minority of Jews backed this movement.

The Zionists claimed that Palestine was “a land without a people for a people without land”. But that land did have a people. “The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man,” as two rabbis visiting Palestine in 1897 put it.

The Zionist movement was slow to start. At the end of the First World War there were only 56,000 Jewish settlers living in Palestine compared to around one million Arabs.

Zionist leaders looked to the major imperial powers to help them take over the land from the outset. At first that meant working with Britain, which ran Palestine as its colony after the First World War. After the Second World War, it meant a turn to the US.

In 1947 the United Nations (UN) drew up a partition plan for Palestine that gave Zionist settlers 55 percent of the country – even though they made up just a third of the population and owned only 6 percent of the land.

But even this was not enough. In March 1948 Zionist militias launched a campaign of terror to grab as much of the country as they could. They murdered hundreds of Arab villagers and ethnically cleansed 750,000 people.

The Palestinians fled to poverty and oppression in Gaza, the West Bank and other countries, while Israel claimed around 80 percent of historic Palestine.

Today Israel’s “law of return” allows anyone of Jewish descent to emigrate to Israel – but denies the Palestinians their right to go home.

Israel seized the rest of historic Palestine in 1967. It has since plundered Gaza and the West Bank, brutally cracking down on any form of Palestinian resistance or organisation.

Why is Israel involved in so many wars?

Israel has been constantly at war ever since its inception. It is a heavily militarised state, supplied with the most advanced weaponry by the West, including nuclear warheads. It has one of the most modern armies in the world, despite having a population of only 7.3 million.

The country has built up its military might for two reasons – to keep the Palestinian people down and to act as the “watchdog” for Western interests in the region. It has used its power to humble Arab movements that have threatened imperial dominance in the Middle East.

Israel teamed up with Britain and France to launch a war against Egypt in 1956. The country went to war with Egypt, Syria and Jordan in 1967.

It was involved in another war with Egypt and Syria in 1973. Israel has invaded Lebanon three times – in 1978, 1982 and 2006.

The country has also carried out numerous incursions into Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. It bombed Iraq’s nuclear power plant in 1981. Its army occupied parts of south Lebanon from 1978 to 2000, when resistance led by Hizbollah forced it to withdraw.

The current onslaught on Gaza will not be Israel’s last war. The state’s colonial and imperial nature will inevitably lead to more conflicts, more bombs and more deaths.

Why does the West back Israel?

In the late 19th century Britain occupied Egypt and controlled the Suez Canal. This link between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean was a crucial artery for the military and economic power of the British Empire.

Britain feared that growing national resistance movements in the Arab world could threaten its control over the canal. But the First World War provided Britain with an opportunity to secure Egypt’s northern border and the Suez Canal.

As British troops marched in Jerusalem in 1917, foreign secretary Arthur Balfour made a deal with the Zionist movement to turn Palestine into a colonial outpost of the empire.

As the British governor of Jerusalem declared, the new Zionist state would serve as “a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism”.

This relationship between Israel and Western imperialism was summed up in a famous article published by Israel’s Haaretz newspaper in 1951. “Israel is to become the watchdog,” it declared.

“There is no fear that Israel will undertake any aggressive policy towards the Arab states when this would explicitly contradict the wishes of the US and Britain. But if for any reasons the Western powers should sometimes prefer to close their eyes, Israel could be relied upon to punish one or several neighbouring states whose discourtesy to the West went beyond the bounds of the permissible.”

When the US replaced Britain as the dominant power in the Middle East, Israel duly switched allegiance.

Israel proved itself again when it crushed the armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan in the Six-Day War. This victory convinced the US that Israel could solve its problems in the Middle East at a time when it was struggling to maintain control over Vietnam.

The interests of the US and Israel have remained interlocked ever since. Every Israeli action has had US interests in mind. And this relationship has become more important since the 1979 revolution in Iran and the current US disaster in Iraq.

As the anger wells up once again in the streets of Arab capitals, the US needs Israel more than ever to be its “watchdog” in the Middle East.

Isn’t there a history of hatred between Jews and Arabs?

Many people argue that Arabs and Jews can never live together, and claim there is a long tradition of enmity between the two people. But this is not borne out by history.

The roots of the current hostility are very modern, stemming from the Zionist colonial movement that seized Palestine. But prior to that every Arab capital had a community of Jews living alongside their Muslim and Christian neighbours.

Jews have been an important part of life in Jerusalem, Cairo, Damascus, Beirut, Rabat and Baghdad and other Arab cities since the beginning of recorded history.

There are hundreds of Jewish names on the memorial to Iraqis who died fighting British colonialism in the 1920s. They were an important part of the nationalist and left-wing Arab movements that grew in the 1920s and 1930s in the struggle against imperialism.

This all changed after the establishment of Israel. Arab Jews were forced out of their homes by the Arab dictators and kings put in place by the West. This process was encouraged by Israel.

These Arab Jews became second class citizens within Israel. They have never been welcome at the top of Israeli society. Many have clung to their Arab culture – and to the dream of returning home one day.

As in so many other regions of the world, the divisions, discord and hatred between people in the Middle East are a bitter legacy of Western imperialism.

Isn’t a “two state solution” the best we can hope for?

Many people advocate a “two state solution” to the conflict – partitioning historic Palestine into two states, one for the Israelis and another for the Palestinians.

And on the surface this may seem to be the most realistic solution. But what would these two states look like?

Most plans involve two small Palestinian mini-states in the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank separated from each other by Israel.

The Palestinians would be crammed into these tiny plots of land, while the lion’s share of historic Palestine would remain under Israeli control.

At no point would the millions of Palestinian refugees be able to return to their villages. But the question of the “right of return” is central to any just and lasting solution of the conflict.

Those who advocate a two state solution cannot square the circle of how to reconcile land and people. In contrast, the one state solution – a unified multi-ethnic state encompassing all of historic Palestine – can deal with these seemingly intractable problems.

The majority of Palestinian villages lie empty – many are simply piles of ruins. They could easily be rebuilt and handed back to their original inhabitants.

Those wishing to return to cities could easily be accommodated. Israel has opened its borders to millions of immigrants without any problems. Can the same not be done for Palestinians?

The main barrier to a one state solution is not practical considerations, but the nature of Zionism itself. This is a movement that seeks to create a Jewish-only state – and a one state solution is fundamentally incompatible with such a racist ideology.

Haven’t the Palestinians been offered their own state in the “peace process”?

Western politicians and the media like to claim that the US-backed peace process is the only way to bring about justice for the Palestinians and peace in the Middle East.

The Oslo accords, signed in 1993, were supposed to give Palestinians autonomy in 17 percent of the West Bank and 60 percent of the Gaza Strip. Eventually this was meant to lead to the creation of a fullblown Palestinian state.

The 1987 Palestinian uprising known as the Intifada put great pressure on Israel to come to an agreement. But Israel still saw Palestine as belonging solely to it and wanted to retain control over as much as the country as possible.

Israel allowed Yasser Arafat, the head of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, to become the leader of the new Palestinian Authority. He made huge concessions to Israel, which then allowed him to police his own people on its behalf.

Israel remained in control of the roads, resources, and huge areas of land that it had seized in 1967. The number of Israeli settlers in the occupied territories doubled between the signing of the peace deal and 2000.

The Palestinian areas resemble “bantustans” – the supposedly ­autonomous black states within apartheid South Africa, which were in reality controlled by the racist regime.

The “peace process” did nothing to improve the lives of Palestinians. Anger at this led to the outbreak of the Second Intifada in September 2000.

Israel withdrew its settlements and soldiers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, but retained its dominance over its airspace, sea and borders. It has tried to destroy resistance by targeting the Hamas organisation, which won the Palestinian Authority elections in 2006.

What is the role of the Arab masses?

Every question on the Middle East has to return to that of imperialism. It is imperialism that created Israel and imperialism that sustains it today.

The priority of imperialism might have shifted from the Suez Canal to the oil fields, but the world’s major powers still consider the Middle East region the “greatest material prize in world history”, as the US state department declared in 1945.

Imperialism needs Israel as its “unsinkable aircraft carrier”, because the Arab regimes are in constant danger of being toppled by popular rebellions.

This anger among ordinary people in the Arab world is also about how oil revenues have been squandered by a tiny Western-backed elite. It is about land, jobs, poverty and hunger.

On recent demonstrations in Egypt protesters have chanted against both Israel and the Egyptian regime of Hosni Mubarak. Similar slogans can be heard in every Arab capital.

Most of the Arab regimes are also dependent on imperialism for survival. They fear that popular anger over the Palestinians could trigger a wave of rebellions like those that swept away many corrupt regimes in the 1950s and 1960s.

The mass protests in Egypt today are a result of anger against both imperialism and the Egyptian regime. The strikes against privatisation and for a minimum wage are feeding into the anger over Palestine. This anger is in turn raising the prospect of more strikes and demonstrations.

That is why they fear and loath resistance organisations such as Hamas in Palestine or Hizbollah in Lebanon. Any resistance is a challenge to Israel, the West – and to the Arab regimes.

8th Jan 2009, 18:21

Adam says:

As a coloured south african citizen that had experienced apartheid..It was the pressure and sanctions from the outside world that LIBERATED us...WHY IS THE SAME WORlD IGNORING GAZA?

10th Jan 2009, 10:25

ousama khalil(gillousama-at-ntlworld-dot-com) says:

I am Palestinian, Palestine is our land and we have the right to protect our land from the invaders, the cowards that are slaughtering our children with support from Arabic leaders. We will and God will sooner or later have our land back. All the Jewish people who talk on TV are liars and George Bush is the biggest liar of all. I am upset that the journalist that threw the shoes at Bush missed his face, who will pay the price for the children and poeple of Gaza. God is with Palestinian peace . "Isreal will never have peace" Thank you Ousama

11th Jan 2009, 19:11 says:

put major leibevich of the isreali murderers that call themselves an army into a room with all the mothers that have had their babies and families slaughtered by her while she sits smiling in the TV. does she sleep peacefully at night? probably she counts dead babies instead of sheep"God will always be with Palestine"

11th Jan 2009, 20:41

t.m.ncube(t-dot-m-dot-ncube189-at-hotmail-dot-co-dot-uk) says:

i am an african,i just want to say something about the war in gaza,yes every body is blaming Israel i understand what about hamas?if palestian leaders really cared about peace and their people and this so called arab leaders ,they should not have allowed hamas ,to use gaza as a terorist base and why their president Abbas did not travel like what he did or is doing now if he really wanted peace?why did they look for peace or do something than to solve this by war .Israel has the right to defend its people if their are in danger ,thats the use of soldiersand in war people die ,hamas should stop looking for a trouble that they can not stand in future because they endanger innocent people which is not good

12th Jan 2009, 14:19

Dayan Jayatilleka(dayanjayatilleka-at-yahoo-dot-com) says:

Given below is the full text of the statement made at the UN Human Rights Council Special Session on Gaza, by H.E. Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka, Ambassador/Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office in Geneva.

“Thank you Mr. President, Sri Lanka associates itself fully with the statement made by the Ambassador of Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Mr. President, one of the most poignant scenes that we have seen on our television sets is when the women and children of Gaza cry out to the rest of the world and ask whether nobody is watching or listening. We, the Human Rights Council here must show that we are watching, that we are listening and that we are responsive. If the Human Rights Council does not stand up for the human rights of the people of Gaza, the innocent people of Gaza, then what do we stand for, and why do we exist?

Mr. President, the atrocities committed on the innocent people of Gaza should not be permitted to be obscured, obfuscated by lies, deception, half-truths and selective reordering of facts and chronology.

We cannot accept, Mr. President, the argument that the ceasefire broke down because of sporadic rocket fire, reprehensible as that rocket fire was, directed on Christmas Eve, or on Christmas day, when we know that six Palestinians were killed on the 4th of November, the very day of the results of the US elections. That is when the ceasefire was most massively violated. That is a fact, and that fact must not be covered up.

We cannot accept the argument, Mr. President, that this is somehow a fight to defend the Palestinian moderates against the Palestinian extremists; democratically elected though those extremists may be. We cannot accept that fact, because we know what is happening in the West Bank, with the wall, and the barbed wire, and the 400 check-points, and the expansion of settlements. We cannot accept that specious argument of the defence of Palestinian moderation and the Palestinian authority against terrorism because we remember what happened to that most moderate of Palestinian leaders, President Yasar Arafat, who was virtually kept a prisoner, and his Headquarters turned systematically to rubble, by Israeli tanks in 2002; that we remember, Mr. President.

We cannot accept these arguments that the people of Gaza can be pummelled and 219 children killed because of the politics of Hamas and Hezbollah, because we recall the bombing of hospitals in Beirut in 1982 by Israeli jets when Hezbollah did not even exist, let alone the Hamas. We recognize the continuity of the aggressive policies that are being used, Mr. President.

We are totally opposed to terrorism which targets Israeli civilians. The fact of Occupation cannot justify the targeting of non combatant, Israeli civilians; on the other hand, the fact of sporadic terrorism cannot obscure the larger, longer, historical fact of Occupation. Let me conclude therefore, Mr. President, by reminding the Council that normalcy is not Occupation. Thank you”

13th Jan 2009, 23:50

CHRIS OFFOR (NIGERIA)(coffor-at-circumtechnologies-dot-com) says:

It is only a fool that starts a war when he knows fully well that he will loose, isreal has been like a sleeping Rhinosaurus for the past 12years or more, and now she will not stop until she steps on all on her way. it is rather unfortunate that the victims of this attacks are women and children. Hamas should stop baiting their future(children) to israel, they shouls fight like a man. without mask. and israel should stop the use of Phosphorus. Hamas should do the right thing for once and back out of this forseen anhialation.

14th Jan 2009, 12:49

g man says:

its easy for us tocondemn israel but where are the voices of anger when it comes to dafur where are the protests for somalia zimbabwe?we choose israel because of our antisemitic sentiment

15th Jan 2009, 15:21

shitake says:

I think that your opinion is unjust ..

15th Jan 2009, 20:11

mohamed abdirizak(m-468-at-hotmail-dot-com) says:

The main point that i would like to forward is. how comes the power of the uniteds lies under the feet of U.S.A?and the first week of the masscare in Gaza there some UN troops sent libanon whereby the right place was the boarder between Gaza and Israel and how comes the UN secretary general wants to have a meeting with the wrong person (abbas)where the War claimed is between Hamas and Israel.What makes the secretary to play on the opposite side of of the match and sending the UN troops to the wrong direction and,Is united nation work on the peace and reconcilliation of the netire world ot is it to recognize the interest and demand of one party?

16th Jan 2009, 19:46

Add a comment

(P) what's this?

Track updates to this post with rssthis rss feed