Below, Camp Graffiti. From the leaflet 'Palestine Camp:' We want to ... cover every surface we can with chalk and banners'

On my second visit, on Monday 13 May, I stayed at the site for almost two hours. Most of the time was spent in scrutiny and observation. Changes had been made since my earlier visit. Very untidy areas had been tidied up and the difference was very noticeable. At the time of the earlier visit, there were just three participating students but on the second visit there were many more. I would think that a determined attempt had been made to show that this was a well-staffed operation. The lack of inquirers and visitors to the encampment was, though, very obvious.

I was given a double sided information sheet (or propaganda sheet), 'Palestine Camp,' Bulletin - Issue 1: 06/05/24. It may be that Issue 1 was the one and only issue. There's a prominent call which, gives later lack of obvious interest, reeks of desperation:

Students and staff: join the camp!

The propaganda sheet makes this claim:

'We are part of a national and international student movement, sweeping the country and the globe. Sixteen British universities are in revolt; by next week there will be twenty-five.'

'We want to be visible so more people can join us. We want to show the uni that from here we can only get stronger. We are guided by our compassion and love.'

One striking and significant fact.  In all the time I've spent at the camp so far, I've only seen one member of the public, or anyone else, such as staff or student, come up to one or more students and enquire. There are plenty of passers by but they don't appear to take any interest in the displays. If they do look, it's only momentarily. On the evidence I have, it seems clear that they're failing to have an impact. They have absolutely no chance of achieving the naive and ridiculous objectives mentioned in their leaflet, 'Palestine Camp.' There's not a trace of ever-increasing power and impact, of an unstoppable force. Claims to the contrary are just words, empty verbiage.

I asked students who belonged to the encampment for their views on the horrific events of October7, the Hamas attack on Israel, I asked for their views on the treatment of homosexuals in Gaza, where homosexuality is subject to punishment for up to ten years, I asked for their views on Iran, the supporter of Hamas. I mentioned sentences of stoning to death for adultery in Iran. I mentioned a wide range of abuses - and got nowhere. They were indifferent -  - 'Can't be bothered.'

The propaganda sheet also makes this claim:

'This university is covered in blood. It has received over £72 million from arms companies since 2012. Staff at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC) have won awards for their work developing the F-35 fighter jet, used by the Israeli army in their genocidal murder of tens of thousands of Palestinians. [I discuss the issue of genocide at length in my page on Israel and the issue of the killing of civilians in war is discussed in the short summary of issues below.] We are demanding the university cuts ties with arms companies, joins in with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) of Israel, and shows accountability by meeting staff and students at our camp.'

The 'demands' of SCCP include  this: 'We hold the University of Sheffield accountable for their complicity in the genocide of the Palestinian people.'

This is followed by this amazing (amazingly stupid) claim. It really does deserve some emphasis:

'We will remain camping indefinitely until our demands are met.'

Are they quite sure of that? This confident statement is doomed to disappointment.

'This university belongs to all of us, not our parasitic student management. If we come together in strength and solidarity there is no demand we cannot win.'

When complying with demands entails very severe consequences, when the demands are demands for impossible objectives, when the people who are making the demands have far less power, then it's the people making the demands who lose.

To issue the demand, 'Stop the assault on Gaza' will have no more effect on events in the real world than any other plea in time of war which is powerless to make the demand effective.

'We demand an immediate ceasefire ... ' What? An immediate ceasefire? NOW? This minute? Surely, out of the question. Or do these people regard themselves as miracle workers? 'NOW' is often used instead of 'now' because it's wrongly supposed that the use of capital letters gives even greater urgency and makes achievement more likely.

After my second visit to the encampment, I began to rethink a policy which I've made clear to students there on both my visits. I said that one of my reasons for visiting was to take photographs for documentary purposes. The law allows the taking of photographs in these circumstances. The law allows the taking of photographs of children, of police officers and of the faces of students but I have self-imposed limitations. I don't take photographs in any of those cases. I didn't take photographs of any of the students taking part.

Now, I see the need to modify the rules I've set for myself. From now on, I'll take photographs of students taking part and I'll take film footage too. This applies to any future visits I make to the encampment and once the encampment is no more, as will probably happen fairly soon, I'll take photographs and take film footage of students taking part in any future pro-Palestinian events which may take place at the university, when I'm able to attend. If Dr Stampnitzky ever visits the encampment when I'm there, I'll waste no time at all in taking a photograph for use on this page.

I'll be sending an email to Dr Stampnitzky to draw her attention to this change of policy on my part. There's presumably a chain of command in their operation, some means of bringing information to the attention of the students and academic staff taking part. (But what academic staff? I know of only Dr Stampnitzky. If there are any other academics involved in helping out, inspiring the students, helping with the practical work, I'd be glad to have some names. I would hope that these academics would have the courage of their convictions and not need to keep their support secret - but I think a degree of secrecy is far more likely than a confident statement that they fully support the objectives and methods of the encampment.

Dr Stampnitzky, 'staff representative on SCCP and Politics Lecturer:'

'I am proud to see our students taking a stand and joining this worldwide movement against the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Our university needs to confirm its commitment to be an ethical institution and divest itself of ties to the development of weapons used to perpetrate atrocities.'

In fact, she has encouraged students to enter a complex and hazardous field, without, it seems, any awareness of the risks, which are potentially considerable. (There are other disadvantages, such as the simple wasting of time, expending time and effort on initiative which are surely doomed to failure.)

Universities have no statutory duty of care for their students. In recent years, the discussion has been centred on a very, very important aspect, the mental health of students, but there are obviously wider implications. Academics who provide care for their students which meets the basic legal requirements but no more should be ashamed, I believe.

In the case of the encampment, do the words and actions of Dr Stampnitzky satisfy basic levels of care? Do they fail other tests? My own view is that she has acted recklessly, with insufficient thought given to the consequences of her words and actions. This academic, and the students taking part in the encampment, should realize that there are possible consequences, including unintended consequences.

It's clear that Dr Stampnitzky, like the unknown author or authors of what I call 'the propaganda sheet,' have a view of armaments as evil, or harmful to an extreme degree - of course, they choose to neglect Palestinian and Iranian use of armaments, such as the rockets and drones which have rained down on Israel at intervals.

My extensive page Academics against Armaments  discusses the subject. Since the page was published, there have been developments which make clear what should have been completely clear before that: armaments are ambiguous, they can be used to destroy liberties and to restore liberties, for outright repression and for liberation from oppression. Examples include the aggressive use of armaments by the Nazis and the liberation of countries from Nazi rule, which would have been impossible without the use of armaments. And, also, of course, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and resistance to Russian invasion, again, impossible without the use of armaments.

The aircraft whose construction is furthered by the work of AMRC are for constructive ends. Without access to armaments, Israel obviously cannot defend itself and cannot defeat potential invaders of this whole area, including terrorist invaders.

Not only is Dr Stampnitzky unable to see the force of these arguments, the same applies to some other academics in the Department of Politics and International Relations. One example, Dr Joanna Tidy, who signed the grotesque document mentioned in my page 'Academics against Armaments.'

Sheffield University  Department of Politics and International Relations, including reasons to avoid

This is a very recent section. It will be revised and extended.

A selection of 'reasons to avoid' is given in the section above. This section will contain additional material, and there will need to be a great deal of material to do even partial justice to the competing claims of such a large number of people. I would risk this generalization. In the specific case of the encampment, deeply disturbing, as I see it, for a variety of reasons, the staff making up the department seem to have been unable or unwilling to offer any specific advice or  information on the matter. They seem to have been completely willing to take a laissez-fair attitude, amounting, to all intents and purposes, to indifference. If there has been active concern, it has been well concealed.

All sorts of reasons can be given for the importance of academic study in this field but if the study has seemingly no importance at the practical level, if no insights are offered, no helpful suggestions are made, let alone wide-ranging attempts to solve a problem, then outsiders are entitled to draw certain conclusions. In this case, the theories supported by empirical evidence (or unsupported by empirical evidence) have been lacking. This is a department which seems to have failed, and failed comprehensively. There are people in this department who fail to see the basics, who imagine that abolishing armaments is a feasible and realistic objective, who imagine that without armaments, Ukraine can maintain its freedom. This is a grotesque department - not wholly, but in part - a very worrying part. There are many, many ordinary Sheffield people, with no academic achievements, who can easily detect the stupidity of these views.

I'll need to spend much more time on an examination of individual academics in the department to find out more, to distinguish between people who are playing academic games - frivolous academic games - and people of substance. Provisionally, I maintain that it would be a mistake for intending undergraduate or postgraduate students to apply to join the department and that this department isn't one of the deserving recipients of grants. I don't give any further information about possible grants here

In the meantime, the department, and the university, will no doubt carry on making claims which may or may not be supported by the evidence. My provisional view is that much of the evidence is manufactured and isn't in the least compelling. My view is that it's easy to make grandiose claims and far harder to substantiate the claims. It's easy to make claims about 'world class' research but the actual achievement is a very different matter - this may well be parochial, minor or non-existent.

A massive disadvantage of academic specialization. Academics decide not to comment because the issue is outside their academic speciality. Or academics comment - and do much more than comment - on an issue outside their academic speciality without devoting nearly enough work on aspects which are relevant, important, vital. Experts, or supposed experts, in one restricted field who are content to be dilettantes in matters outside their field. An example, academics who comment on Israeli-Palestinian relations without serious study of military history, aspects which are of crucial importance: including the unavoidable killing of civilians. Academics who use the term 'genocide' in a completely unscrupulous way, without any regard to the complex history of the word and the complex uses of the word. Not all academics are complex, sensitive people (people who are sensitive to other people or people who are sensitive to language. Academics can be pathetic, very flawed individuals - despite the attempts of their departments and their universities to promote a distorted view.

So many claims made by departments and universities are fully justified, on the other hand. The achievements may well be exemplary - but it is rarely the case that massive achievements in some respects are unaccompanied by comparative failings and others. There's absolutely no reason why the outstanding achievement of a department of Chemistry should always be accompanied by serious failings in a department of, let's say, Politics or English Literature.

I take the view that already, even without further argument and evidence, there's a case to answer.

This is a list of current academics in the department: professors, lecturers and some others. My initial reaction is frankly this, I have to say. This seems to be a bloated department. The more staff, the greater the achievement, the more impressive the department? It's possible for big departments to be very restricted in actual achievement. I intend to publish profiles of a selection of the people listed here.

Some of the names in this list include this, in paretheses: [SIGNER]  This is a reference to the signing of a document discussed at length in my page Academics Against Armaments.  The individual concerned signed the document. This is an extract from the page:

Professor Charlotte Burns, Head of Department

Dr Sarah Ababneh
Dr Amya Agarwal
Dr George Asiamah
Professor Ian Bache
Professor Andrew Baker
Dr Ross Bellaby
Ms Jessica Benson-Egglenton
Dr Matthew L. Bishop
Professor Ruth Blakeley
Rt Hon. Professor the Lord Daid Blunkett
Dr Jayne Carrick
Dr Barish Celik
Professor Alasdair Cochrane
Dr Luis De La Calle
Dr Juan M. Diaz Arevalo
Professor Kate Dommett
Professor Rosaleen Duffy
Dr David Duriesmith
Dr Lewis Eves
Dr Joanna Flavell
Professor Matthew Flinders
Professor Andrew Gamble
Dr Jonthan K. Gamu
Mrs Katy Gordon
Dr Jennifer Greenburg
Dr Edward Hall
Professor Andrew Hindmoor
Professor John M. Hobson
Dr Amandine Hostein
Professor Michael Jacobs
Dr Thomas R. Johnson
Miss Lowenna Jones
Dr Amna Kaleem
Dr Zeynep Kaya
Ms Kelli Kennedy
Dr Hannah Lambie-Mumford
Dr Natalie Langford
Dr Malte Michael Laub
Dr Stephanie Luke
Dr Xavier Hathieu
Professor Felicity Matthews
Dr Annapurna Menon
Dr Patricia Nabuco Martuscelli
Dr Jonna Nyman  [SIGNER]
Dr Owen Parker
Professior Charles Pattie
Dr Daniel Pitt
Dr Megan Price
Dr Athanassios Roussias
Professor Simon Rushton
Dr Matt Sleat
Dr Lisa Stampnitzky
Dr Liam Stanley  [SIGNER]
Dr Gregory Stiles
Dr Nicky Stubbs
Dr Joanna Tidy [SIGNER]
Dr Patrick Tom
Dr Helen Louise Turton
Dr Luke Ulas
Dr Joseph Ward
Dr James Weinberg
Dr Richard Williams
Dr Matthew Wood
Dr Kieran Wright
Dr Erman OrsanYetis
Dr Junyan Zhu

The Concourse Camp: the case against, including fire danger

From the site of 'HLM Architects,' 'Case Study, the Concourse.'

The objectives set out in the brief have been addressed through the design development of the scheme:

• A design that is uncluttered and provides a flexible space, for a variety of users and functions that occur through the University’s academic year

• Create an important civic space within the campus where people want to stay and socialise, that will provide an animated space during the day and at night

• Create spaces that respond to user’s requirements – social, learning and quiet activities

• Compliant and have a relationship with the Masterplan public realm

• A design that respond [sic]  to the buildings and functions around the Concourse

• A lighting scheme that promotes use of the space, through the feeling of safety and security, whilst providing a dynamic night time streetscape

• A scheme that focused on sustainability of materials

The Concourse is uncluttered no longer. The degree of clutter varies. When left over food and many other things are left on tables, when objects are piled up on the floor, the clutter is very noticeable.

A large part of the area is now unavailable for social use - except for the socializing of the Campus campers and people who come to the site to see them - twice this week, I've seen in the area the member of Palestine Solidarity Campaign, certainly not a student, a person who took part in the chaotic attempt to take away my camera, someone who on three occasions has prevented me from walking freely. He prevented me from walking freely in the Concourse but of course, students, staff and members of the public like myself are prevented from making fuller use of the Concourse because the tents and the clutter make that impossible.

 The area is no longer an 'important civic space' for a wide range of activities. A large part of the area is now unavailable for other activities, such as quiet activities.

Security on the site is severely compromised. Instead of clear sight-lines, a space which can easily be viewed to prevent and detect security risks, we have a space which is  now obstructive in large part, making impossible the clear views which were once provided, providing now multiple opportunities for concealment, at night as well as in the day. Anyone who wants to occupy an empty tent at night would be able to do just that without any difficulty. People walking through the area at night are potentially at risk.

CCTV is essential to maximize the safety and security of users of the area but now, a large area can't be viewed adequately and a substantial area can't be viewed at all.

An additional hazard: there will be food waste in the area now. Not all of it will be cleared promptly. Some may be left for quite a time. This food waste may well attract urban rats.

Fire precautions in the camping area seem to be not so much inadequate as non-existent. Fire safety should be just as good as at a commercial camp site. An example of fire precautions at a commercial site:

' ... clear space between pitches [each tent is within a pitch] should be at least three metres and no pitch ... should be more than 90 metres from a fire point. At each fire point there should be two 10-litre water extinguishers (complying with British Standard 5423) and there should be a method of raising the alarm. There should also be a notice explaining the steps to take in the event of a fire: raise the alarm, evacuate the area, call the fire brigade, suppress the fire using the provided equipment.'

My view is that Sheffield Campus Coalition for Palestine,' and Sheffield University, have been risking disaster. A student trapped inside a tent inferno in the middle of the night, the flames spreading swiftly to neighbouring tents - which are spaced very, very closely in the concourse, in ignorance of the risks,  the whole campsite quickly burning - how would they recover from this catastrophe?

Aesthetically, the area has suffered. I've seen crude graffiti, not the work of vandals but of  believers in the cause. 'Palestine Camp,' Bulletin - Issue 1, published by the Campus Campers, includes this, 'We want to ... cover every surface we can with chalk and banners demanding liberation.' This objective is explicitly stated, forming a strategy 'for how to build power and target the university.'

Sheffield Palestine Solidarity Campaign and similar organizations take the view that when they protest, rights and freedoms guaranteed by law are no longer to be observed if they think they are in  conflict with their 'demands.' I have found this to be the case in various places, at various times. My freedom of action has been restricted. Campaigners have prevented me from walking in one direction or in any direction but the way back, in an attempt to prevent me from exercising  a similar freedom, the freedom to take photographs or film footage of protesters.

Until recently, the interference was only temporary. At the Sheffield encampment, the interference has been far more lasting. The encampment has lasted far longer than any of the previous protests. 

In the encampment site, the same tactics were used by two different people, one a student, the other not a student: standing very close to me, in my path, preventing me from walking forwards. If I've moved to the side, these people have moved to the side, so that I continued to be blocked. This area is a public highway and wilfully stopping free movement is, to me, a case of obstruction, which has legal penalties if the person is found guilty of the offence.

The Concourse is a public highway. In law, obstruction does not have to take the form of obstruction to the whole width of the highway. The wilful prevention of movement in one part of the highway constitutes obstruction as well.

There is absolutely no reason why Sheffield University should provide facilities for a very vocal, very demanding minority with an insatiable appetite for making demands, people who take one particular view of a single set of issues. The issues are very important ones but there are very different views of the issues - I think that these are far more likely to be accompanied by argument and evidence. There is surely no reason why Sheffield University should disadvantage other users of the Concourse.

The Campus Campers have many, many other ways of promoting their views and publicizing their views. Sheffield University is under no obligation whatsoever to give them these facilities for promoting their cause. To grant  these people these facilities and privileges is surely very misguided, in fact, deeply unfair.

My view is that the Camp has been damaging and the longer it continues, the more damage it will cause. The best outcome by far would be for the Sheffield Campus Coalition for Palestine to take the decision to close the camp and to dismantle it. If not, my view is that Sheffield University should take action to close the camp,  which would probably need preliminary legal action.

If both Sheffield Campus Coalition and Sheffield University decide not to take this step, my view is that circumstances and future developments will eventually lead to the closure of the camp for certain, in the longer term, but that Sheffield Campus Coalition and Sheffield University will be left with impaired reputations. My view is that Sheffield Campus Coalition has no reputation worthy of the name but that Sheffield University is in a very different category, flawed, deeply flawed in some respects, but with immense strengths which very much outweigh the weaknesses.

I offer in this page and in other places argument and evidence. Since universities are commonly supposed to be places where argument and evidence and reasoned debate flourish (a very mistaken view so often) then I think it wouldn't come amiss if the university could offer argument and evidence in these matters instead of remaining largely silent. The slogan shouters and intelligentsia who offer support to Gaza (largely uncritical support) could make the attempt to offer argument and evidence too. I'm a single individual and both the university and Sheffield Campus Coalition have strength of numbers as an advantage, but I think that strength of numbers can be accompanied by weakness in other respects.

My involvement in fire safety work

Amongst the wide-ranging fields in which I work or to which I contribute is the field of fire safety. I'd claim that the reason why I detected fire risks at the student encampment site which had not been noticed by others is because of my involvement in fire safety. I have a patent pending in the United States which has wide-ranging environmental benefits but also very significant benefits in fire safety. This is a radically new system which amongst many other possibilities  allows window glazing to be moved away from the window area in a few seconds in the event of fire, giving a completely open window space. This will allow fire and rescue services to evacuate people inside the burning building far more easily. It will allow people inside the burning building to escape from the building far more easily. The page
www.linkagenet.com/phd/new-window-door-system.htm   gives further information about the invention.

Israeli-Palestinian relations: the case for Israel

For a fuller discussion of the issues, including the rules of war, treatment of non-combatants and genocide, please see my page on Israel.

Human values, humane values can sometimes only be safeguarded by harsh action, including harsh military action. This was the case during the Second World War, a conflict which was obviously more wide ranging by far. But the savagery displayed in the recent terrorist attack on Israel was as bad as any of the atrocities which took place during the Second World War. Allied forces defeated genocidal Nazi Germany not by displays of naive, utopian, superficial thinking but by tactical and strategic thinking which resulted in hard military action, including the use of bombardment.

 After D-day, villages, towns and cities in France, Belgium and the Netherlands were liberated by British and other allied forces. Very often, they were liberated by military action which included bombing and artillery fire and very often with civilian casualties. For example, Caen in Normandy was liberated only after being heavily bombed. About 80% of the town was devastated and 3000 civilians were killed.

Above, A Handley Page Halifax bomber  flying over Caen, one of 467 aircraft taking part in a  ddaylight raid to assist the Normandy land battle. The aircraft were originally intended to bomb German strongpoints north of Caen, but there were Allied troops near to the targets, so the bombing area was moved nearer to the city, causing massive damage to the northern suburbs.

Around 60,000 French civilians had been killed by allied bombing by the time France was liberated. To use only ground forces was out of the question. Nazi occupied Europe could never have been liberated in this way. Anyone who claims that allied forces were 'no better than Nazis' for frequent killing of civilians is failing to take into account Nazi killings of civilians, which belonged to a different order of reality - reprisal executions, the mass executions of the Einsatzgruppen and, of course, the Holocaust, the worst set of war crimes in human history.

In extreme circumstances, to overcome fanatical opposition, the armed forces of democratic states often have no alternative but to use extreme force – but not ‘extremist force,’ the methods used by fanatics. To use slight force would be to guarantee defeat. Although technological advances have vastly increased the precision of bombing, these cannot overcome all difficulties, for example those arising in very densely populated neighbourhoods such as Gaza.

A stark fact: the families of all the terrorists killed or injured in these horrific attacks in Israel will receive large cash payments from the Palestinian Authority, which calls them ‘Martyr payments.’ The families of Palestinian terrorists killed or injured whilst committing previous acts of terrorism already receive these payments, a reward for spreading death and destruction. ‘Martyr payments’ are also made to the families of terrorists imprisoned by Israel for politically motivated violence, often lethal violence.

Basem Naim, Head of Political and International Relations for Hamas, claimed in an interview not long after the attacks on Israeli civilians that none of the people taken hostage at the time by the terrorists (obviously, he never used the word ‘terrorists’) are civilians! According to this tainted source of information, the child hostages are not civilians and neither are the children killed! This is a claim that deserves to be treated with contempt and revulsion.

He also claimed that it was an absolute necessity to attack Israel. The alternative, he said, would be ‘to die silently by malnutrition.’ Later in the interview, he claimed a Palestinian malnutrition rate of 55% He intended to present a deeply distressing picture of starving Palestinians, deprived of food by the Israelis, but he surely knew that the Palestinian malnutrition problem is obesity, not starvation. There have been a number of studies. A study of 2019 found that among adults 18 years and older, 64% of males and 69.5% of females in the Palestinian territories were overweight. Hamas has a record of using distortion, exaggeration, selectivity, general falsification, often taking grotesque forms - tactics which appeal to credulous people.

Badly needed: a deeper and wider understanding of the Palestinian society which gives such widespread support to Hamas. A clear sighted, fair-minded and comprehensive view of Palestinian society should amongst other things take into account information such as  findings of the Pew Research Center. A few examples: stoning to death for adultery may not be practised in the Palestinian territories but 84% of Palestinians support the punishment. The conviction that a woman must always obey her husband is widely held, with 87% support in the Palestinian territories.

Homosexuality is illegal in Gaza, although not in the West Bank. Homosexuality isn’t illegal in Israel, of course. The Gay scene in Israel is a very flourishing one. The Tel Aviv Gay Pride event is one of the largest in the world. As for Iran, the supporter of Hamas, this is a country in the grip of a horrific regime. Homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery and political dissidence are amongst the many offences which can be punished with the death penalty.

A society which is liberal, tolerant and open has to have a whole range of other strengths. Essential: alertness to forces that can damage it very severely, perhaps irreparably. A society has to be willing and able to defend itself or risk being damaged or destroyed by ruthless outside forces - with the exception of states which rely upon other states for their defence, generally mistakenly, but not in the case of very small states such as San Marino.

If, hypothetically, Palestinians were granted a state, is it likely that their relations with their neighbour Israel would be harmonious? If, hypothetically, Israel were ever to be wiped out, the new state would be very vulnerable. Its survival could never be guaranteed. It could easily be invaded by a powerful and ruthless adversary that would like to take its territory. As it is, superior Israeli military power guarantees the security of the Palestinian territories, just as the neutral Republic of Ireland was protected against German invasion by the military power of Britain and its allies during the Second World War. The protection against potential aggressors provided by Israel's superior power is a massive advantage for the Palestinians.

The practical problems  confronting Hamas were avoidable but Hamas chose not to avoid them. In fact, the problems can only be solved if Hamas is eliminated. Democratic states and organizations should do nothing which helps to save Hamas, directly or indirectly. There are many, many countries in the world facing acute problems to do with basic needs. It’s impossible to give effective help to all of them. The basic economic problem is the problem of scarcity: unlimited wants and finite resources.

Why should Gaza be regarded as not just a deserving cause but a deserving cause which should have absolute priority? Israel and Ukraine deserve the support of the free world, not so Hamas-controlled Gaza. The international community's contribution to the reconstruction of Gaza should only be offered under the most stringent conditions..

Hamas is a basket case and has ruined Gaza, with the support of far too many Palestinians. But in general, they don't deserve a regime as bad as Hamas. The 'they' is a generalization, of course, There are deserving and undeserving Palestinians. 

If, with the aid of the horrific Iranian regime (which sentenced 51 people to be stoned to death for adultery in 2022), Palestinians in Gaza had been able to amass a formidable force of multirole combat aircraft, then there can't be the least doubt that they would have done everything in their power to use them for the destruction of Israeli hospitals, homes and schools, as well as Israeli Defence Force positions, without the least concern for 'International Law.'. They have been able, with the aid of the horrific Iranian regime, to equip themselves with rockets and they have used them to attack Israeli civilians on many occasions in previous years and now on a much bigger scale.

The damage from Israeli counter-attacks against Gaza after these previous rocket attacks should have taught Hamas this simple lesson. If you don't want war damage in Gaza and want to protect civilians in Gaza, stop firing rockets and stop breaking ceasefires. But Hamas are very slow learners.

If it wanted to, Iran, a big country, could aid the Palestinians not just by providing them with supplies but by offering them some Iranian territory for a new Palestinian homeland. Would the Palestinians be glad to go there, to live in a place free of Israeli influence? I doubt it. If the barbarity of Hamas (and the Iranian regime) is obvious to anyone with any sense, the stupidity of Hamas (and the Iranian regime) should be obvious to anyone with any sense too.