182 replies »

  1. “…I have said I would, in the position of a Gazan citizen, feel like arming myself for my own self-defence…”

    No you didn’t say that. Permit me to remind you:

    “If I lived in Gaza I would be looking to arm myself with some Qassan (sic) rockets..”

    No “feel like” arming yourself, no mention of self-defence, no qualifiers .

    You said you would be looking to arm yourself with some Qassan (sic) rockets … which indicates actual intent rather than “feeling like”.

    Read yourself again if you don’t believe me.

    Since Hamas uses kassams to try to kill Israelis. are we really meant to believe that you were in Gaza and among Hamas, with the kassams, you would simply stack them in the basement of your building and forget about them?

    Or perhaps I really have misunderstood you. Perhaps you would lead by example and not use them ?

  2. StveHill

    “And if you want some gratuitous advice, ignore Tony Blair. He’s for sale to the highest bidder”.

    Err .. Libelous? Slanderous???

  3. One of the amusing aspects of the posts here by berchmans, Dotty, stevehill is that they cannot tear themselves away from this site, indeed, Dotty in particular almost never posts on CiF without a reference to this site, yet they are constantly pointing out what a silly site it is.

    Silly is as silly does, I suppose!!

    Stevehill – I left you my impression of what your comments on CiF actually mean, and a number of specific questions which you haven’t answered – you know:

    In this more recent statement, you claim that Hamas ARE terrorists.

    Which is, in fact, “your view”?

    Are Hamas terrorists , or aren’t they?

    Are their activities justified? Or are they not?

    If you lived in Gaza and could “get your hands on a Kassam” and could fire it into Sderot, would this be an act of terror, or a military response?

    Would you be a “terrorist” like a member of Hamas in that case, or a “legitimate” … whatever?

    How about some answers? As far as I can tell, the only one you have answered is that you do, in fact, agree that Hamas are terrorists.

    What about the other questions?

  4. Yohoho

    Is English your first language? I would say in the contexts I have used the terms that “I would be looking to” and “I would feel like” were practically exact synonyms.

    The rest of your post is an extrapolation of nothing into oblivion: utterly meaningless.

  5. SteveHill wants Qassams for self-defense!!! And then he mumbles something about us all “maturing” — really, you couldn’t make it up…
    SteveHill, have you consulted the wiki link I provided to finally figure out what the Qassams you want so much are? And could you find the maturity to explain how it is self-defense to rain thousands of rockets per year from the Gaza strip — where no settler lives, and even the dead Jews were dug up from their graves, where there isn’t a single Israeli soldier (except for Gilad Shalit) — on neighboring Israeli towns and villages?

  6. AKUS, I have never before commented on this site nor, until yesterday, looked at it or seen any need to do so.

    I am hear now for a specific purpose, which I have made abundantly clear, as regards this one page only. I shall be taking legal advice on that in London tomorrow morning. A brief review of the rest of this site simply confirms my prior suspicion that it is of no interest to me whatsoever.

    I have answered your questions already. I post only to refute an erroneous statement.

  7. Not in my lexicon and it looks as though I speak better English than you do. Do they speak a peculiar dialect where you come from?

    If you meant that you would “feel like” arming yourself with kassams and, being a lawyer you have a good command of the Queen’s English, why did you not say so?

    No, I think you are being a teensy weensy bit disingenuous here.

    And I think we can see right through you.

  8. What Yohoho said.

    It is humourous to watch Steve Hill denied the bleeding obvious.

    What else are Qassam rockets used for, other than to attack Israeli civilians?

    That’s the whole point, you might think that someone with a legal mind sharpened in the City might grasp that not too subtle point, but it alludes Mr. Hill all the same.

    Strangely enough, he already commented on it, indirectly when he mentioned the population of Sderot, still he won’t be capable of putting the two together and seeing that Qassam rockets are synonymous with attacks on Israeli civilians, a rather obvious point to anyone else.

  9. My friend, the judge (so he outranks you Steve Hill) says that you can be sued for libel even for implying that someone is on the take.

    And you have actually written it here about Tony Blair….

    Under your real name, too….

  10. If this Steve Hill is really a lawyer,then these people never say what they really mean,nor do they really mean what they say.They are contortionists.

    SH says that.
    “I shall take legal advice on that in London tomorrow morning”

    In one of his former posts Steve Hill writes.

    “I’m more than capable of bringing a legal action without having to pay any expansive lawyers to act on my behalf”.

    What will it be Steve Hill,take expansive advice,or just rely on your brilliant legal mind.

    BTW,Steve Hill try Daniel Machover he might do it for free,or at the very least ,give you a very big discount.

  11. There is a difference between taking advice and retaining lawyers to act in a legal action.

    And no advice will be cheaper than the advice I obtain from former colleagues in my own firm.

  12. SH – ‘There is a difference between taking (legal) advice and retaining lawyers to act in a legal action.

    Still Steve, Daniel Machover is just the person for you. He hates Israel even more than you do.

    I would like to see his presentation in court. Might be a real eyeopener as to his professional abilities versus his political abilities.

    Georgina and Berchmans might chip in with Dotty bringing up some form of help from his rear.

  13. “There is a difference between taking advice and retaining lawyers to act in a legal action…”

    There surely is, isn’t there and I am glad that you now realise this.

    You might have to retain them if Tony Blair sues you for libelling him here.

  14. As I thought, Hill has made no mention of Hairshirt’s link to WildOlive (above). His comment about being concerned for all victims of violence including those in Sderot, consequently seems less than convincing.

    It occurred to me this morning that many CiFWatch regulars have spent the past 24+ hours massaging the ego of Steve Hill by responding to his posts. He’s made threats of lawfare, implied that he’s, ‘tried to see it from our point of view’, and then made further threats of lawfare.

    Most of us have already formed our own opinions of what type of person he really is – people with this kind of prejudice and of his age rarely change their point of view – although it feels like a waste of time responding to his tortured logic, it’s good to have demonstrated the unanimity of diverse groups around the world who won’t be cowed by threats of legal action to close down their legitimate argument.

    Now if we could only persuade the Israeli government to follow the lead of their detractors in using lawfare to counter some of the more outrageous libels of organisations like the BBC and Guardian, then we might be getting somewhere.

  15. Mr. Hill in your post of January 3rd 2010 at 2.33 a.m. you wrote the following,
    “ANyway, why do you all debate at the level of 8 year olds in a school playground? Do you find no stimulation in discussing ideas as adults rather than simply hurling meaningless insults? I believe Britain has many faults (not least illegally invading Iraq at the behest of the idiot Bush).”
    In the category of meaningless insults would you not include the term ‘idiot Bush’?
    Or are you exposing your own glaring inconsistency to provide us all with some amusement?

  16. Steve Hill.

    After reading an assortment of the comments here on CIFWatch, I suggest that you go back into your shell and never ever come here again.

    ‘Your sort’ will be picked apart using your previous comments on CI(F).

    Except for DottyPotty, I don’t see any of the ‘Hate Israel’ crowd coming to assist you either. What’s called ‘fair weather’ friends.

    Go away.

    Back to your trough at CI(F).

  17. Steve Hill chides Jews for not making peace with their enemies. After all, if the Protestants and the Catholics could do it in Northern Ireland, why can’t the Jews and the Muslims in Palestine?

    Because this is a much deeper problem, old chap. You may be an expert on the Irish problem, but when it comes to the Arab-Israel conflict, you are a hopelessly naive. Israel has been willing to make peace all along, but the Arabs have not. As for the people of Gaza, they should ask the Egyptians or the Arab League for help. They already receive generous funds from UNRWA.

  18. cityca, yes you are right, but look at the numbers of hits which only add to the perceived popularity of CifWatch!

  19. Yohoho
    You are right of course – let’s hope CiFWatch becomes a real force to be reckoned with among the ranks of the antis.

  20. cityca, it is well on the way to becoming that, hence the “contributions” from the Guardianistas themselves.

    If CifWatch was of little or no account, then why would they bother?

  21. Yohoho

    cityca, it is well on the way to becoming that, hence the “contributions” from the Guardianistas themselves.

    If CifWatch was of little or no account, then why would they bother?

    Its clear that the quality and openness of the debate here is preferred by these refugees from CiF – not only the “banned”, but those who then flip back to grind their teeth on CiF and come up with alternative names for CiFWatch since the comments they make there that actually use the dreaded term “CiFWatch” are immediately deleted.

    The democratic Internet in action.

    We will, I am sure, one day have a comment or two from just about every Israel-basher on CiF (and maybe even some of the staff) who have watched a comment mildly critical of the GWV vanish into the ether.

    Frankly, Steve Hill should be grateful that he has the opportunity to express his views so openly here – he may not get the same chance of CiF.

  22. I agree with AKUS, but with one addition, I think a lot of people on CiF, and in other forums that discuss the Middle East, are not use to their views being challenged with facts, or reason.

    A lot of the arguments that you hear on the Middle East, and in particular related to Israel, are essentially the words of others, or half cribbed from Wiki (as with the Jerry Greenstock remark), which is why those people find it hard to defend their own arguments. Because they don’t know or understand the reasoning behind them.

    More often than not they can’t substantiate their arguments because they are mostly recycling the slogans and thoughts of others, and not thinking for themselves.

    Thus, when someone, like Mr. Hill, spouts that nonsense about Hamas on CiF he’s not going to be picked up on it too much, and if he were he might simply ignore any counter arguments.

    Such an approach is harder on CiF Watch, where there is an immediacy to debate here and he can’t easily duck the issues without looking shifty, insincere and not very well informed, as he has done here in these exchanges.

    The ill informed views of an Englishman spouting off about the Middle East in an authoritative tone might work on CiF, but it doesn’t work on CiF Watch where there is considerable expertise and sharper minds.

    That’s why I think CiF Watch is feared by bigots, biased moderators, sloppy journalists, lazy editors, complacent management and those who find it difficult to defend their own views with reason or evidence. That’s a lot of people 🙂

  23. modernityblog

    That’s why I think CiF Watch is feared by bigots, biased moderators, sloppy journalists, lazy editors, complacent management and those who find it difficult to defend their own views with reason or evidence. That’s a lot of people.

    Very true.

    And if Georgina and Matt and Brian and Alan and his sibling and Victoria thought that CIFWatch was a ‘temporary aberration’, they were strongly mistaken. I spend just as much time here as I do near the CI(F) cesspool.

  24. I tend to agree with you, modernityblog. The standard of debate here (except for the contributions from the trolls, which is how we recognise them) is certainly less personalised and focuses more on facts, and if people aren’t in full possession of the facts of what they are writing about it becomes glaringly obvious on closer examination.

    And, of course, Cifwatch isn’t the Grauniad’s totalitarian virtual state either.

  25. Now if we could only persuade the Israeli government to follow the lead of their detractors in using lawfare to counter some of the more outrageous libels of organisations like the BBC and Guardian

    Hear, hear!

  26. RepublicanStones is the infamous CountBernadotte who admitted to lying on CI(F) when caught out by jeremyHP.

    Really, I am? thats news to me.

    Any other porkies you want to tell?

  27. Im shocked Margie, I wouldn’t have tought you’d support people making erroneous allegations without having to qualify them,. Didn’t think you’d support lying, tut tut !

  28. Now if we could only persuade Tony Blair to sue Steve Hill.

    Steve Hill, it’s back to work for you if Tony Blair decides to sue you.

    Tony Blair is very high maintenance

  29. I just want to congratulate all the posters here who have taken Steve Hill to task so effectively. The quality of your arguments does you all proud.

    It seems Hill has, at least for now, retreated to lick his wounds. No doubt he’ll back for another round, before long, however, since his ego and prejudice seem to know no bounds.

    In my view, the guy is thoroughly mendacious. Like so many who pose as nothing but beacons of light in the struggle for universal human rights and the application of International Law, in actual fact he supports neither with regard to the Jews of Israel.

    I suggest he goes away to think hard about how to reconcile his notion of preserving Israel’s right to exist within secure boarders with the endemic Islamic fanaticism which informs the actions of Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran and even Fatah vis a vis Israel, and their coopting of what has for far too long been a general Arab mantle of pushing the Jews into the sea. If he can do that, he should come back for some honest discussion based on these ideas….If not, he should stay away and contemplate the nature of his bigotry and its implication for those in the Middle East he claims to support.