In response to the article by the Guardian I sent the following email to the author:

"Some fear that the risk would be too great, that there's no guarantee that even civilian protesters bursting through a military border would not end up facing gunfire."

Well, they would in any other country in the world. Only Israel is assumed maybe not to fire on people who invade. It is only Israel where using women and children as human shields might work. Hizbullah tried it, they succeeded to a large extent.

Most of the world do not have enemies like that. Israel cannot use its civilian population as shields; Israel's enemies target civilians.

The terrorists tried it with Egypt, of course. Women and children were used to open the borders and then the terrorists went in. And, unfortunately for Hamas, the Gazans demonstrated to Egypt that those "oppressed" by Israel had more money than those who were free of such oppression. That was very bad PR.

What about Arabs trying the non-violence thing you propose, not as a shield but a practice.

There could have been peace in 1948, if the Arabs had done the non-violence thing, and in 1967 when Israel offered land for peace (and was ignored), and in 1994 and 2000.

Non-violence would really be a new strategy for the Arabs; but how would it fly with the "destroy Israel" and "kill all the Jews" crowd? Would they support a strategy of non-violence?

The problem is that non-violence can only work for those who have a) a morally decent enemy and are only defending their rights and are not trying to impose their will on others. Perhaps the Arabs have the decent enemy, but are they defending their rights or are they trying to destroy Israel and "throw the Jews into the sea"?

Non-violence will work, I am sure, to free them from oppression. But it cannot destroy Israel, which is perhaps why it was never employed.

But a system of human shields is not non-violence. Gandhi did not try to destroy Britain when he used the strategy. Gandhi pointed out injustices. If the Arabs were to employ the same strategy, Israel could simply withdraw from the West-Bank and leave the Arabs alone. And then what? The Jews will have won. They will have their precious country and live without the fear of being destroyed. But what would the Arabs have reached other than what the Jews had offered them again and again from 1948 to 2000?

To use a strategy to gain what others were willing to give to you for free for decades seems a bit odd.

And invading Israel using human shields is not non-violence.

And if those who believe that Israel would mow down civilians when given a chance were actually to try their knowledge in the real world, they would be surprised. Or rather, they would not.

I have often offered this bet to those who "knew" that the Jews are violent and the Arabs are peace-loving:

I would dress up as an obvious Arab nationalist, with "Palestinian" flag and everything, and walk through Tel Aviv, wearing a t-shirt supporting "Palestinian" independence.

My opponent would dress up as an obvious Jew and possibly a Zionist, with an Israeli flag and everything, and walk through any Arab city, wearing a t-shirt supporting Israel.

He who survives wins.

I have never been taken up on the bet by those who "knew" that Jews are violent and Arabs are peace-loving. Why is that?

It is weird how many anti-Semites are commenting Guardian articles these days. They all "know" that Israel just loves shooting civilians, whereas those who live in Jew-free countries and plan to "kill all the Jews" (Arab radio 1967) are the victims.

Not even the fact that "Palestinian" leaders cooperated with the Nazis seems to change the obvious "fact" that the Jews are the aggressors and the Arabs are the victims.

In 1948 Israel offered citizenship to all people living in its borders and peace to all neighbours. But the Arabs left (despite Israeli newspapers begging them to stay and defend the new country) and the Arab countries attacked. And henceforth the leaving Arabs became a "refugee problem" caused by Israel and the attack became "resistance". Everybody "knows" that Israel begging the Arabs to stay was insincere, that the equality promised was a lie, and that attacking Israel is obviously resistance. Everybody knows this and it is not anti-Semitism to distrust Jews.

Good day,

Andrew.