quote:

---

Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Screw Israel. I don't want to hear the excuses of their spokesmen so I just muted the TV sound.

---

After all, you wouldn't want to confuse your prejudices by facing some facts would you? It's not like the accused has a right to be heard? We always know when someone is guilty; let's save ourselves a lot of money and abolish the criminal courts... I look forward to your early arrest and expect you to make no attempt to defend yourself.

Please hosts, send this down to Hell so I can be appropriately unrestrained in the face of this
 

---

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
I've heard Israel's excuses many many times in the past and they are full of lies and full of shit.

The only reason they are able to susrive is because the US doesn't let anyone criticise them. On many occasions a UN knuckle-rapping has been vetoed by the US.

Screw Israel.
.
 

---

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Perhaps the answer is for a group to arrive in the USA and refuse to be boarded by customs and see what happens when the customs call in armed forces to attempt to stop them and those forces are resisted. Remember the Waco seige? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Perhaps the answer is for a group to arrive in the USA and refuse to be boarded by customs and see what happens when the customs call in armed forces to attempt to stop them and those forces are resisted. Remember the Waco seige? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

---

How would that be the answer to IDF forces boarding a ship in international waters? Can you provide evidence that the Israeli customs were involved in this?

---

quote:

---

Israel's deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said his country "regrets any loss of life and did everything to avoid this outcome".

He accused the convoy of a "premeditated and outrageous provocation", describing the flotilla as an "armada of hate" [sic!].

(From: BBC News)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
What if it is true that people on the ship in question were indeed armed? I distrust information from any side in this conflict, but what if the Israeli military are saying the truth?

It's a fallacy to always distrust them, in my view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wesley J:
I've always thought that Israel as a nation is still considerably more influential economically, culturally and as a military power than many of the Arab countries put together. It certainly is an example of an amazingly, even incredibly successful country, built perhaps on occupioed ground (as the Palestinians may say, here with regard to the founding of the state of Israel), but noneless rather democratic and I believe more enlightened than most of its neighbours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
And during all this time, Muslim extremists surrounding and penetrating Israel have vowed to exterminate Israel, period. That threat has never diminished. Rather, it lately has been on the increase. What would you have Israel do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
(Criticizing Israel for doing thing that would be criticized in any other country is NOT anti-Semitism, even though some claim any criticism of Israel is prejudice.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Now that the U.S. has given up on Israel's right to exist (and any legitimacy in the war on terror), what should happen to the Jewish people currently living in Israel?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Now that the U.S. has given up on Israel's right to exist

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Think, the "humanitarian" supplies on this ship were mostly concrete.

Now concrete can be used to build schools, but it can also be used to build hardened rocket launching bunkers.

In any case it's not food or medical supplies or any of the other things people really need to survive.

The Palestinians are smuggling war materials and lying about it. Not that I blame them, but I don't blame the Israelis for catching them either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
The UN state the amount of stuff allowed into Gaza at the moment by th Israeli government is considerably less than is actually needed. Hence people running the blockade.

I remember being told not to believe the number of dead / level of destruction we were told about suring the recent invasion of Gaza - cos everyone was biased against the Israelis and the figures coming from the UN. None of the people saying that, came back and acknowledged they were wrong when the figures were not substantially changed after the conflict and Israel's own soldiers admitted they had been committing war crimes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
(Criticizing Israel for doing thing that would be criticized in any other country is NOT anti-Semitism, even though some claim any criticism of Israel is prejudice.)

---

Who is actually claiming this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
So are the Israelis blockading Gaza, or are they happy to pass on any humanitarian aid anybody might care to donate? It can't be both. Why don't you Israel-ass-kissers get your story together and come back to us.

---

quote:

---

The Palestinians fight back against their tormentors with rockets because that's what they have. Israel has occupied their territories, without annexing them, since the 1967 war, a 43-year flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention. They bulldoze homes, punish whole groups of people for the actions of some, the list of their G.C. violations is longer than my arm. Every year they chomp off more of the territories for their so-called "settlements", concentrating the west-bank Palestinians on less and less land.

---

quote:

---

And you want me to automatically believe what this nation says?

---

quote:

---

They're practicing national terrorism.

Oh wait I can't say that, I'm an American. Sorry. Forgot your twisted logic for a moment there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, no, you didn't. Then again, there aren't enough Israelis in Gaza to both control the police force and have several paramilitary fraternities carry out acts of violence against Palestinians. If they did, the Israelis would probably handle the situation in Gaza much like the British handled Northern Ireland.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tessaB:
If they had been Somalis rather than Israelis wouldn't it have been called 'piracy'? After all it was in International waters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadowhund:
If the flotilla were a simply bunch of grandstanding activists, then the Israelis response probably was excessive. If they were arms smugglers into Gaza, then I have no problem with Israel intercepting them in international waters. Given the amount of bad faith argumentation and special pleading by both Israeli and Palestinian partisans, it is impossible for me to discern what the truth behind this nasty incident is.

It seems to me that Israel is trapped in a security dilemma of which there is almost no way out. In order to preserve its security for its citizens, Israel has to impose oppressive measures against the Palestinians. Israel would not exist if it did not oppress the Palestinians. Yet, the oppression itself increases the pressure on the state and contributes to a gradual degrading of the Israeli state's own security over time, perhaps sowing the seeds of Israel's eventual destruction. I do not see anyway out for Israel but for outsiders to impose a settlement, and for the Israeli and Palestinian power structure to be willing to live with the settlement. Unfortunately, the United States cannot do this because of the inordinate political influence of the Jewish lobby and the Christian religious right, and the United Nations cannot do it because of the inordinate influence of ideological anti-Semites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Think, the "humanitarian" supplies on this ship were mostly concrete.

Now concrete can be used to build schools, but it can also be used to build hardened rocket launching bunkers.

---

Come off it. I would think that building "hardened rocket launching bunkers" would be the last thing Hamas would want to do against an enemy that could drop a payload of bunker bombs on top of a penny.
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
The situation Israel is in has been going on from pretty much my whole life. Ongoing decades of exactly this sort of polarizing shit is starting to make me wonder if everybody in the situation isn't (perhaps unintentionally) doing their damnedest to keep things going the way they are. Israel has no long-term plans for resolving Palestine's plight, neither do any of the Arab nations who are outraged have any realistic plans for ridding the region of Israel.

The idiocy of it is almost circular enough to be an Andy Kaufman shtick. Israel gets billions in foreign aid to protect itself from those that would destroy it, and those that would destroy it get unknown (but probably lesser) billions in reciprocal support. They send some expendable fools to die to keep the act going, taking turns as necessary. They need their controversy-generating-machine to keep running to keep the attention of the world so that they maintain support and polarization.

If you subscribe to my cynical postulation, this event has been a PR win for both sides.
 

---

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
The IDF's action calls into question Israels sense of right & ewrong. If Hamas or anyone else attacks, even in print Israel they are evil bad or terroist. If IDF does what it did the other day they are doing good.
Funny they excede even what the RN did when the blocaked against Israel in 1946-7. And those sailors didn't open fire on civilians.
Now if they were attacked maybe a case canbe made for opening fire. Even so killing people because they are non co opeerative seems extreme .I would black list Israel until they start acting like a civilized nation.
 

---

Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Squibs, here's a nasty little secret, bunker buster bombs don't work.

The U.S. has spent the last eight years trying to get a remote kill option against deep bunkers. We've spent billions on R&D. We still need to put men on the ground dodging booby traps (or not dodging them).

Hamas is motivated. They will use every trick I can think of to build death traps (and many I can't think of). They will kill hundreds or thousands of Israeli soldiers. They will kill more if they get the concrete.

Until you've had people dedicated to hunting your children and killing them, don't whine to me about the rights of intentional tourists in a war zone. IMO Israel has every right to sink those boats and the people on them. Hamas has the right to build deep bunkers to stage attacks on the IDF if they can smuggle enough concrete.

It's called war. It's a sick, bloody mess and should be avoided by sane people. But until one side wins it will continue. To win Hamas needs to kill the vast majority of Israelis (their stated goal being the elimination of Israel). Israel need to convince Hamas not to kill the Israelis.

Perhaps making a deal, land for peace, will win for the Israelis. It's shown no success in the last 40 years. Every time it's been tried Hamas has taken the loosening of marshal law to attack. But there are plenty of people willing to try again.

Instead Israel has chosen a hard line option. They have the weapons but no real legitimacy. They've chosen to follow their hard-liners and rely on force of arms. Yes, it's an insane decision. But is it less insane than giving people who hate you an opportunity to shoot you again?

I don't know.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Hamas hasn't been around for 40 years. Do you know anything about the history here, or are you just making this all up?
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
That anybody takes the UN seriously amazes me. It is a joke.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
As a pedant I wish people would stop referring to arabs and their sympathisers as "anti-semites". Arabs are semites!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tessaB:
If they had been Somalis rather than Isrealis wouldn't it have been called 'piracy'? After all it was in International waters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
Arabic, Syriac and Hebrew are Semitic languages. Whatever Marr may have meant by his word, it covers all semites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
I gather that they could have chosen to go legally through Egypt. That they didn't points indeed, possibly, to a publicity stunt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
Arabic, Syriac and Hebrew are Semitic languages. Whatever Marr may have meant by his word, it covers all semites.

---

According to who?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
That anybody takes the UN seriously amazes me. It is a joke.

---

I find it wryly amusing that from western media correspondents there has been much hair-tearing about China's apparent unwillingness to back a UN resolution condemning North Korea's recent military action against South Korea, but nothing in similar vein (that I've heard) about the US' unwillingness to condemn Israel here.

Israel has a right to defend itself but not by any means it chooses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Any one of five nations can block a resolution from the security council. Why France gets veto power I'll never know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Nor do I care if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. They'll never use it. Using it will get them blown back into the dark ages and they are smart enough to know that. Why expend so much energy keeping them from it?

---

/off topic

Duh. Because they'll accidentally 'lose one' for someone else to find. Proving for certain (for values of certain that involve reducing Tehran to ashes) it was an Iranian bomb that rips the guts out of a major city will be then next to impossible. That's why.
 

---

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :
 
ISTM that Israel is using appropriate measures to keep rockets and other arms being imported into Gaza. However, the tactics of an armed boarding the ships of the flotilla are an example of unecessary and provocative acts. Merely, stopping the flotilla and requesting permission to come aboard (without weapons) might have saved the lives expended.

In calling the blockade to the world's attention the effort has succeded. Now we should also include Israel's limitation of Gaza fishermen to the territorial boundries, thereby curtailing food to Gaza.
 

---

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
Simple solution to a bad problem: Israel should just announce that any further such ships attempting to run the blockade will be sunk without warning and any attempt to rescue the survivors will be prevented. Then proceed to do so.

Sink the damn boats.

[ 01. June 2010, 14:04: Message edited by: New Yorker ]
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Hamas is motivated. They will use every trick I can think of to build death traps (and many I can't think of). They will kill hundreds or thousands of Israeli soldiers. They will kill more if they get the concrete.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadowhund:
In order to preserve its security for its citizens, Israel has to impose oppressive measures against the Palestinians. Israel would not exist if it did not oppress the Palestinians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
I gather that they could have chosen to go legally through Egypt. That they didn't points indeed, possibly, to a publicity stunt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
It seems to me in this confused scenario, it was only one ship involved in the violence and a few on board clearly attacked the commando boarding party with stun grenades, revolvers, iron bars etc,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Yes there was a serious cock up on BOTH sides. The bulk of the occupants of the ship where the violence was were probably peaceful; but there were some on board (as witnessed by the video footage) who just wanted violence and bloody mayhem and sadly that is what they got

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
One of the things that's bothering me about this whole sorry mess is the presence of journalists on the convoy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
Sink the damn boats.

---

In international waters?
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Merely, stopping the flotilla and requesting permission to come aboard (without weapons) might have saved the lives expended.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
Sink the damn boats.

---

In international waters?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
It seems like Rosa said this 'aid' could have gone to Ashdod, been off loaded and taken by road to Gaza. The organisers didn't want that, they wanted to sail to a port in Gaza and break the blockade.

---

quote:

---

if they want true aid, just work with Israel and they will allow it to be delivered in an orderly way.

---

quote:

---

Stop the Israel/ Jew vilification; its just to sickening.

---

quote:

---

But spare me the sanctimonious bullshit about us in the UK and EU being whiter than white,.....cos we aint!

---

Nobody on this thread has suggested otherwise. Engage with what we're actually saying, not with what you think we're saying.
 

---

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
If this attack by the IDF happened in international waters then its an act of piracy.
Israel forgets that before it was a state there was several jewish freedom groups that did what the PLO, Hamas and others try to do for the arab .Get a state . The IDF personnel that carried out this operation are alike the RN sailors & RM's who manned the blockade of Palestine prior to Israeli statehood in May 1947 who aqrrested & detained refugees who had no where else to go.
Now these people were trying to get humanitarian supplies to people who are very cut off . I believe the UN should condem Israel . Maybe since the UN gave Israel statehood they can take it away.
There will be those who say that Israel has a God given right to exist . I am not one of them . Israel was born out of the ashes of the Holocaust the 6 million would be ashamed to see Jewish soldiers acting like the people who killed them.

[ 01. June 2010, 17:02: Message edited by: PaulBC ]
 

---

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Umm, ok.

So are there any circumstances in which you would be against the unilateral sinking of ships in international waters?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Umm, ok.

So are there any circumstances in which you would be against the unilateral sinking of ships in international waters?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Hamas hasn't been around for 40 years. Do you know anything about the history here, or are you just making this all up?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Umm, ok.

So are there any circumstances in which you would be against the unilateral sinking of ships in international waters?

---

How kind of you to ask. Generally speaking I oppose sinking ships in international or territorial waters. However, when a ship full of terrorists and terrorist supporters sails toward my nation intent on delivering material aid to known terrorists, I say sink it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Umm, ok.

So are there any circumstances in which you would be against the unilateral sinking of ships in international waters?

---

How kind of you to ask. Generally speaking I oppose sinking ships in international or territorial waters. However, when a ship full of terrorists and terrorist supporters sails toward my nation intent on delivering material aid to known terrorists, I say sink it.

---

What about a ship full of journalists, peace activists, humanitarian aid workers, filmakers and cameramen, women and babies: as well as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, a member of parliament for the Malaysian government, the ex humanitarian aid coordinator for the UN and Assistant Secretary-General and a barrister and author (source - Guardian and this list)? Sailing towards a completly seperate neighbouring nation trying to deliver desperately needed medical supplies, and food to their starving children? Still okay to sink it?

---

quote:

---

The embargo has been criticized for its effects on food, clean water,[27] medicine, and other economic needs of the Cuban population. The Cuban population is in dire need of most of these items. Some academic critics, outside Cuba, have also linked it to shortages of medical supplies and soap which have resulted in a series of medical crises and heightened levels of infectious diseases.[28][29] It has also been linked to epidemics of specific diseases, including neurological disorders caused by poor nutrition[30] and blindness.[28] Travel restrictions embedded in the embargo have also been shown to limit the amount of medical information that flows into Cuba from the United States.[27] Malnutrition and disease resulting from increased food and medicine prices have affected men and the elderly, in particular, due to Cuba's rationing system which gives preferential treatment to women and children.[29]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
This was a declared blockade. It is in keeping with international law.

Not only is it not piracy, the blockade runners are pirates unless the country that owns the ships supports them in which case that's a cause of war between that country and Israel.

In any case the ships themselves are war prizes. If the ship's officers fought, they are POWs. If they didn't, those fighting are non-uniformed combatants and subject to summary execution.

Israel is on the side of international law here. Largely that's because might makes right, but that's how international law works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Hamas hasn't been around for 40 years. Do you know anything about the history here, or are you just making this all up?

---

Seem pretty active to me Who are you asking this question of? What prompted this assertion of yours, mousethief?...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
With all those lefties loons on board I'd damn sure sink it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
If we want to stop supporting Israel, I'm all for that. But it seems were not just stopping aid for Israel, were supporting Palestine. That is wrong on so many levels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Let them fight their own war. We shouldn't be involved on either side. IMO, we should step back and let them fight as they please instead of trying to act as police. We are not morally superior and have no right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Nice, safe underground bunkers with hidden entrances allow for dozens of times as many rockets to be stockpiled and used as the situation on the ground changes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Your seeming belief that armed men who are attacked with deadly weapons, knocked unconscious, and robbed of their weapons should not fight back is amazingly ignorant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
For most of history, bars of metal were the preferred weapon in boarding actions. In close fighting they are every bit as effective as guns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Were the outnumbered Israeli marines supposed to let themselves be killed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Umm, ok.

So are there any circumstances in which you would be against the unilateral sinking of ships in international waters?

---

How kind of you to ask. Generally speaking I oppose sinking ships in international or territorial waters. However, when a ship full of terrorists and terrorist supporters sails toward my nation intent on delivering material aid to known terrorists, I say sink it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Umm, ok.

So are there any circumstances in which you would be against the unilateral sinking of ships in international waters?

---

How kind of you to ask. Generally speaking I oppose sinking ships in international or territorial waters. However, when a ship full of terrorists and terrorist supporters sails toward my nation intent on delivering material aid to known terrorists, I say sink it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
It seems like Rosa said this 'aid' could have gone to Ashdod, been off loaded and taken by road to Gaza. The organisers didn't want that, they wanted to sail to a port in Gaza and break the blockade.

---

Ah, so there is a blockade.

quote:

---

if they want true aid, just work with Israel and they will allow it to be delivered in an orderly way.

---

Wait. You just said there was a blockade, now you're saying the Israelis are passing stuff through unhindered. Which is it? International observers seem to think Israel is only letting a part of what is needed through. Why would this shipment be allowed through when the others have not? There is no reason to suppose so. None. Zip. This is just posturing.

quote:

---

Stop the Israel/ Jew vilification; its just to sickening.

---

Stop playing the Holocaust card. Nobody on this thread is vilifying Jews. We're criticizing the actions of the Israeli government, supposedly a democratic government (at least that's what its defenders in the West say), not a theocratic one. One can criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic. But even if it were a theocratic government, no government is beyond criticism. That's nuts. Human rights violations are human rights violations, even if done by the angelic hosts. And Israel is no angel.

quote:

---

But spare me the sanctimonious bullshit about us in the UK and EU being whiter than white,.....cos we aint!

---

Nobody on this thread has suggested otherwise. Engage with what we're actually saying, not with what you think we're saying.

---

quote:

---

Let's not forget who were the aggressors in this skirmish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:

quote:

---

Let's not forget who were the aggressors in this skirmish.

---

Oh please, Mousethief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
As far the Jew/Israel thing, it seems to me that people who live in fairly safe areas (like me in the UK) are happy to pontificate and bullshit whilst others live day in day out with terrorist threats and actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The current bollocks is a set up and Israel responded wrongly, but the facts are that they didn't want to use lethal force and the first commandos on the large Turkish ship (the only one where there was violence in fact ) had paint marking ''guns''which hurt but do not kill, they did not come to use lethal force but were set on by these so called ''humanitarians''.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
As I said, I don't care if you think running the blockade is justified or not. It's aggressive. Justified aggression or unjustified aggression is still aggression.

Therefore in this situation the aggression was started by the blockade runners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
I don't see anything there that would qualify establishing a blockade of a hostile entity as an aggressive act.

---

quote:

---

Yet the Turkish group that funded and ran the boat the Mavi Marmara, where the confrontation occurred is documented as having ties to terrorists, was named in federal court papers as playing a role in the failed millennium bomb plot and is named in a C.I.A. report in 1996 as having links to terrorist groups.

---

quote:

---

Does that make Gandhi's salt marches acts of aggression, or MLK's Selma marches acts of aggression?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Justified aggression, and non-violent, but still aggressive.

---

Non-violent aggression.

A little bit of me just died...
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Nor do I care if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. They'll never use it. Using it will get them blown back into the dark ages and they are smart enough to know that. Why expend so much energy keeping them from it?

---

/off topic

Duh. Because they'll accidentally 'lose one' for someone else to find. Proving for certain (for values of certain that involve reducing Tehran to ashes) it was an Iranian bomb that rips the guts out of a major city will be then next to impossible. That's why.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by PaulBC:
There will be those who say that Israel has a God given right to exist . I am not one of them . Israel was born out of the ashes of the Holocaust the 6 million would be ashamed to see Jewish soldiers acting like the people who killed them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Imposing a blockade is an act of aggression. Therefore the aggression was started by Israel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Equating Gaza with the holocaust is absurd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
And actually, thinking about it, no, I don't think you can claim maintaining a blockade or embargo is aggressive per se. Do you seriously maintain that we have been constantly maintaining an aggressive relationship towards Cuba, for instance? Unfriendly, unjustified, hostile, even, but not aggressive. Not by any normal meaning of the word aggressive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Your last sentence assumes there are no holocaust survivors left alive. There are. Oddly, most of them don't see the connection with how they were treated and how the Palestinians are treated...because there isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Imposing a blockade is an act of aggression. Therefore the aggression was started by Israel.

---

And, er, Egypt. As I understand it, they have blockaded the Egyptian-Gazan border.

I'm not an international lawyer (and anyone who claims that they are probably aren't, since there are so few of them) but the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea appears to be applicable here.

Article 67 states:

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:


(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;

(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;

(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;

(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or

(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

There are other applicable sections, but a reading of this suggests to me that the stopping and boarding of the ship was entirely justified under international law. There are wider questions, I suppose, of whether the blockade is legal (it's justifiable to some extent, in my view) and whether there is a state of war between Israel and the terrorist groups in the Gaza strip.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm not an international lawyer (and anyone who claims that they are probably aren't, since there are so few of them) but the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea appears to be applicable here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Before we in the West get all high and bloody might about Israel, lets remember the blood on our hands from Iraq and Afghanistan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
These humanitarians are not so nice after all.

quote:

---

Yet the Turkish group that funded and ran the boat the Mavi Marmara, where the confrontation occurred is documented as having ties to terrorists, was named in federal court papers as playing a role in the failed millennium bomb plot and is named in a C.I.A. report in 1996 as having links to terrorist groups.

---

See the story here.

---

quote:

---

We do not have updated information about current IHH links with global jihad elements, however, its activities in the past may indicate its nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And notice I said most not all...

---

quote:

---

This animal is very bad; when you attack it, it defends itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
If you're going to go on a demo, make sure you choose to do it somewhere nice, somewhere that doesn't regard itself as entitled to shoot you. I.e. don't demonstrate in Tiananmen Square. Don't demonstrate in Moscow. Don't demonstrate in Tehran. And don't demonstrate in Israel. You'll get hurt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
If you're going to go on a demo, make sure you choose to do it somewhere nice, somewhere that doesn't regard itself as entitled to shoot you. I.e. don't demonstrate in Tiananmen Square. Don't demonstrate in Moscow. Don't demonstrate in Tehran. And don't demonstrate in Israel. You'll get hurt.

---

If that were adopted as a universal M.O., India would still belong to Britain. Maybe you want that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Before we in the West get all high and bloody might about Israel, lets remember the blood on our hands from Iraq and Afghanistan.

---

Oh, can the irrelevant ad hominems.

---

I won't can them....the emotional utter cant spoken by the press and the ''humanitarians'' is utter drivel for the most part. Simply my argument is for us Brits that to take any 'moral high ground' with Israel is purile and utterly hypocritical.

Think about it logically if you can do so.

We bomb illiterate Afghan civilians to shit, and because they don't have access to the media and they are very poor and uninfluential, we just carry on doing it. Our own media don't report it and even though I admire the BBC, they won't or can't report what WE are really doing in Afghanistan.

If we saw the results of these all too regular drone missile cock ups it would make annoyed of tunbridge Wells really get uppity.

So when wee William Hague gets on his soapbox it strikes me as hypocritical...its a modern superior pseudo-colonialism IMO. The poor Afghans are worth nothing but shit; the media don't/can't/won't report what really is happening so lets sweep it under the carpet.

Inconvenient truth eh?

Saul
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Therefore Israel can do what it wants without international censure. It doesn't make sense. If the devil says it's raining that doesn't make the sun shine.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Does it make you feel better that most people in the United States supporting the war also support Israel? We are consistent.

I'm not. I supported the War in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. It is time bring the soldiers home from Afghanistan. On the other hand, I usually support Israel. In this case, they shouldn't have stopped them in international waters. They should have known violence was a possibility and prepared to respond to it with non-lethal means.
 

---

Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
Your trade embargo on Cuba cannot be compared to the blockade of Gaza. Palestinians are suffering severe hardships, Cuba is able to trade with the rest of the world except USA. And Americans who want Havana cigars just have to cross borders to north or south to buy them.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
If that were adopted as a universal M.O., India would still belong to Britain. Maybe you want that.

Mousethief, you're not quite getting my point. The salt protests did work for Gandhi because he was protesting against an empire which was squeamish about these things, and which had a culture that recognised demonstration as part of the language of political dialogue. It wouldn't have worked if India's political masters had been Imperial Japan, which would just have mown them down and thought no more about it.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Consistent in supporting attacks on innocents. I supported neither war and do not support Israel's right to treat the Palestinians the way they have for the last 62 years (well, before that they weren't Israel but it still wasn't pretty).

Say wasn't 1998 the 50th year of Israel? The year of jubilee when all lands return to their original owners?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Enoch, so basically you're saying Britain in the 1950s had a conscience, but Israel in the 2010s does not.
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Enoch, so basically you're saying Britain in the 1950s had a conscience, but Israel in the 2010s does not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Enoch, so basically you're saying Britain in the 1950s had a conscience, but Israel in the 2010s does not.

---

Must have had one, since India became independent in 1947.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
orfeo - are you equally suspicious of the presence of journalists on civil rights marches in the southern USA in the 1960s, in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, in the Eastern bloc in the 1980s or in China in the 1990s?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

Second, from the reporter, apparently this is the typical way that Israel stops boats of any sort. Not the usual US Coastguard pulling alongside that I (and I'm sure many others) would have expected.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
New Yorker, do you have a better source than Fox Noise?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
New Yorker, do you have a better source than Fox Noise?

---

Sorry, that's one of the few sources I trust. And you should trust Fox News, too. It's the best and least biased of all main stream media outlets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

Second, from the reporter, apparently this is the typical way that Israel stops boats of any sort. Not the usual US Coastguard pulling alongside that I (and I'm sure many others) would have expected.

---

Sadly, this would be in keeping with Israeli actions in general. They seem to be stuck in this cycle of over-the-top machismo. I suspect it plays very well to the folks back home, though.

---

From what I've heard, it plays very very well.

And New Yorker -
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
This explains so-o-o-o much.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Frankly, being on anything like the same side of a debate as someone who considers Fox News particularly trustworthy is making me very, very frightened.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
They must be reliable. They say everything that New Yorker agrees with.
 

---

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Sadly, this would be in keeping with Israeli actions in general. They seem to be stuck in this cycle of over-the-top machismo. I suspect it plays very well to the folks back home, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
There appear to be some Islamic extremists on board and the others are probably Useful Idiots.

The fact that this ship didn't stop (when the others did) suggests to me that some or all of the people on board were spoiling for a fight. They got one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wesley J:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Sadly, this would be in keeping with Israeli actions in general. They seem to be stuck in this cycle of over-the-top machismo. I suspect it plays very well to the folks back home, though.

---

Yes. What I find worrying regarding the marines' action is how, once again, an Israeli military intervention has gone horribly wrong, as consistent intelligence (in more than one way) was obviously missing.

The same happened when they tried to get rid of Hisbollah by invading Lebanon in 2006, 'pacify' Gaza in 2008-9, and now this. None worked out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wesley J:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Sadly, this would be in keeping with Israeli actions in general. They seem to be stuck in this cycle of over-the-top machismo. I suspect it plays very well to the folks back home, though.

---

Yes. What I find worrying regarding the marines' action is how, once again, an Israeli military intervention has gone horribly wrong, as consistent intelligence (in more than one way) was obviously missing.

The same happened when they tried to get rid of Hisbollah by invading Lebanon in 2006, 'pacify' Gaza in 2008-9, and now this. None worked out.

They seem to have one of the best armies in the world, well-trained and well-equipped - but have been unable to manage any significant intervention in the past few years without serious glitches. And I really wonder how they're supposed to counter any serious outside attack, which I imagine could well happen at some point, and in the current state of utter confusion of intelligence and leadership.

Are the Israeli defence forces in a state of dissolution - perhaps due to increasing disillusion amongst its members? Looks like it to me. And isn't looking good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Suicide By Cop.

---

quote:

---

pp14-15
Turkish authorities began their own domestic criminal investigation of IHH as early as December 1997, when sources revealed that leaders of IHH were purchasing automatic weapons fromother regional Islamic militant groups. IHH’s bureau in Istanbul was thoroughly searched, and its local officers were arrested. Security forces uncovered an array of disturbing items, including firearms, explosives, bomb-making instructions, and a “jihad flag.” After analyzing seized IHH documents, Turkish authorities concluded that “detained members of IHH were going to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya.”

According to a French intelligence report, the terrorist infiltration of IHH extended to its most senior ranks... "The IHH is an NGO, but it was kind of a type of cover-up… in order to obtain forged documents and also to obtain different forms of infiltration for Mujahideen in combat. And also to go and gather[recruit] these Mujahideens. And finally, one of the last responsibilities that they had was also to be implicated or involved in weapons trafficking."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If it had actually been presented as a protest against the blockade, my reaction to it might be completely different. But it wasn't. So I really wish you would stop bringing up analogies with protesters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wesley J:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Sadly, this would be in keeping with Israeli actions in general. They seem to be stuck in this cycle of over-the-top machismo. I suspect it plays very well to the folks back home, though.

---

Yes. What I find worrying regarding the marines' action is how, once again, an Israeli military intervention has gone horribly wrong, as consistent intelligence (in more than one way) was obviously missing.

The same happened when they tried to get rid of Hisbollah by invading Lebanon in 2006, 'pacify' Gaza in 2008-9, and now this. None worked out.

They seem to have one of the best armies in the world, well-trained and well-equipped - but have been unable to manage any significant intervention in the past few years without serious glitches. And I really wonder how they're supposed to counter any serious outside attack, which I imagine could well happen at some point, and in the current state of utter confusion of intelligence and leadership.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tessaB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wesley J:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Sadly, this would be in keeping with Israeli actions in general. They seem to be stuck in this cycle of over-the-top machismo. I suspect it plays very well to the folks back home, though.

---

Yes. What I find worrying regarding the marines' action is how, once again, an Israeli military intervention has gone horribly wrong, as consistent intelligence (in more than one way) was obviously missing.

The same happened when they tried to get rid of Hisbollah by invading Lebanon in 2006, 'pacify' Gaza in 2008-9, and now this. None worked out.

They seem to have one of the best armies in the world, well-trained and well-equipped - but have been unable to manage any significant intervention in the past few years without serious glitches. And I really wonder how they're supposed to counter any serious outside attack, which I imagine could well happen at some point, and in the current state of utter confusion of intelligence and leadership.

---

Could it be that raher than serious glitches or lack of (military) intelligence they simply don't care how they are viewed by the outside world? There seems to be an assumption that all the Arab countries will hate them, Britain is on rather dodgy ground morally due to complicity in creating the situation in the first place and the USA will support them whatever and noone else really matters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
[...] Sadly the consequences of this uneccesary resistance were deaths and more injuries.Israelis tend to be restrained but when they see force being used they then tend to respond with the same amount or more force. Once weapons with live ammo are used in a resticted space , the results will be carnage.

Saul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Israelis tend to be restrained

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I noticed Ambassador Edward Peck, the U.S. ambassador who supported the 9/11 bombings,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Hamas hasn't been around for 40 years. Do you know anything about the history here, or are you just making this all up?

---

Seem pretty active to me Who are you asking this question of? What prompted this assertion of yours, mousethief?...

---

Dude, did you read that link? It says quite clearly, "Hamas was created in 1987." That was 23 years ago, not 40. So I am correct when I say, "Hamas hasn't been around for 40 years." This isn't rocket surgery.

If you read the thread you will see who asserted that Hamas has been around for 40 years. It's always a good idea to read a thread before jumping in with a snippy comment.

---

Wasn't being snippy. I read your comment as "Hamas hasn't EXISTED in the last 40 years". I saw the "1987" creation date and wondered where you were coming up with what I thought you meant. So, silly me ....
 

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Israelis tend to be restrained

---

You cannot possibly be serious. Are you aware of the history of Israeli (and prior to that Zionist) action over the last, say, 100 years?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Has anyone else heard him claim the Israelis fired first?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
So basically the IDF fired tear gas on one boat, then when they went to board another the crew tried to kill the IDF with makeshift swords, claiming they were fired on first?

These don't sound like trained peace protesters, they sound like militants who were looking for a fight and got one.

Peck was the man Jeremiah Wright was quoting in his "Chickens coming home to roost" sermon. He blamed U.S. policy as a cause of 9/11. This shows he is clearly a Palestinian sympathizer and an activist.

Yet he's also a former ambassador. I'd like to think he wouldn't lie even though he clearly uses weasel words.

For example, while discussing accusations that his shipmates were agent provocateurs for the Palestinians he responded that most were only trying to bring aid to Palestine. Most is a weasel word. Does that mean 49% were itching for a fight? I never imagined more than a handful were trying to kill Israelis. I assumed the rest were window dressing.

"Most" makes his claim meaningless. While not a lie, the truth is far from this man.

But I suppose the truth is whatever the media is spinning today. It makes me feel old and sad.

---

 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
Dumpling, if your boat was boarded on the high seas by armed men - what do you consider to be a reasonable reaction ?
 

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Has anyone else heard him claim the Israelis fired first?

---

Yes. See my post above. Saul's assertion that there was violence on one boat only is wrong - the Israelis who boarded the former Ambassador's boat hospitalised several people, including a US citizen.

That the big ferry was (I think) the last to be seized becomes significant when stun and tear-gas grenades have already been used on the other boats, who were presumably in radio contact with each other. I'm uncertain as to whether live firing took place before the ferry was boarded, but that seems like weighing things to a nicety, given the circumstances.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
[...] Its clear Mousethief has her demonology and to be fair I have mine. [...]
Saul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
These don't sound like trained peace protesters, they sound like militants who were looking for a fight and got one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
We could bat back and forth who did this and who did that until kingdom come.

---

quote:

---

Its clear Mousethief has her demonology and to be fair I have mine.

---

quote:

---

I don't want to emabrk on a ''they did that'', ''they did this'' saga

---

quote:

---

but believe me when I say that Hamas are ruthless and determined - they will kill whoever they deem to get in their way.

---

quote:

---

Its a complex violent ''neighbourhood'' and to demonise one group or race is a backward step.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Now, the question is, if this is true, why is Turkey still allowing this group to operate freely and even to purchase and run a ship under the Turkish flag? Things don't add up here and we know intelligence on terrorists is often fautly, especially when the evidence comes solely from one report and one man's accusations, we have to be suspicious. But the evidence is there. What do people think about it? Did a violent organisation infiltrate this aid flotilla in order to cause trouble. And if so, why on earth did the other peaceful organisations involved allow them to do so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Now, the question is, if this is true, why is Turkey still allowing this group to operate freely and even to purchase and run a ship under the Turkish flag? Things don't add up here and we know intelligence on terrorists is often fautly, especially when the evidence comes solely from one report and one man's accusations, we have to be suspicious. But the evidence is there. What do people think about it? Did a violent organisation infiltrate this aid flotilla in order to cause trouble. And if so, why on earth did the other peaceful organisations involved allow them to do so?

---

To add to what I said above, this does not look like a terrorist programme to me. It does appear that most of their work is done in Muslim countries but that does not necessarily make them bad. As to their ties with Hamas, it would be hard to relieve suffering in Gaza without talking to the people governing the place. Surely how to help people who have dubious governments is an ongoing problem for aid organisations?

In my understanding, global jihadists are more concerned with harming "infidels" than aiding their fellow-Muslims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
...the crew tried to kill the IDF with makeshift swords

---

So when did a club become a makeshift sword? And you complain about weasel words...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
These don't sound like trained peace protesters, they sound like militants who were looking for a fight and got one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Peck was the man Jeremiah Wright was quoting in his "Chickens coming home to roost" sermon. He blamed U.S. policy as a cause of 9/11. This shows he is clearly a Palestinian sympathizer and an activist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If it had actually been presented as a protest against the blockade, my reaction to it might be completely different. But it wasn't. So I really wish you would stop bringing up analogies with protesters.

---

Well, I have no idea where you're getting your news from, but in all the reports I've seen/read, it's been plain as a pikestaff that this had always been presented as a protest march, but with ships.

So the analogies stand. I appreciate that it fits in with your preconceived notions of good/bad to believe the worst of the blockade runners, but you're maintaining your views in contradiction of the facts. A bit like New Yorker and his Faux News sources.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
How odd you can only look at Australian-based news sites. I wonder why that should be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
How is that at all relevant to stories about Israel?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
By the way mousethief, given that the title of this thread refers to 'aiding', it seems INCREDIBLY odd that you've chosen to take issue with my comment that all the media stories I've read refer to aid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
By the way mousethief, given that the title of this thread refers to 'aiding', it seems INCREDIBLY odd that you've chosen to take issue with my comment that all the media stories I've read refer to aid.

---

I find it beyond odd, into irrational, that you think that's what I was taking issue with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Saul - I don't think any of us here are suggesting that Hamas aren't nuttier than a fruit and nut bar with the fruit and chocolate taken out and more nuts added. But they are the party elected by the majority of Gazans, and they're the ones charities and the UN have to work with in order to feed, house and clothe the residents.

Likewise, the Israeli government is democratically elected, and some of those in coalition with the majority party are pretty much just as nutty as Hamas. But they're the ones the international community have to work with to sort out one of the most intractable geopolitical problems on the planet.

And yes, the Arab Christians get it in the neck (sometimes literally) from both sides.

But my views took a complete 360 turn when my parents went on pilgrimage to 'The Holy Land' back in the early nineties. The Palestinians were, to a man, hospitable and generous - and yet the young IDF conscripts treated them (including my parents' party's drivers - Arab Christians) like shit. Literally, like something they trod in.

My dad (and he's Jewish by birth) couldn't believe it. He thought, as some here do, that the parallels with Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews were not only obvious but shameful.

So a lot of it comes down to this: given the history of the Jewish people in the 20th century and the massive amount of leeway the Israeli state is given within the global community, the treatment of the indiginous Arab peoples by the Jewish state is almost beyond parody.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Hawk, a sword is a metal club with a somewhat sharpened edge. Most historical swords were made of crappy iron that wouldn't hold an edge. We hear about the exceptional swords because they were exceptional.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Peck was on one of the ships.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Hawk, a sword is a metal club with a somewhat sharpened edge. Most historical swords were made of crappy iron that wouldn't hold an edge. We hear about the exceptional swords because they were exceptional.

---

Weasel words.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Peck was on one of the ships.

---

So that's why you've initiated a dirty smear campaign against him. Interesting.

On another note - it is becoming increasingly likely that there was some degree of attempted hijacking of this protest/aid mission by a small group of violent activists looking for a fight. This report by the Guardian today is not categoric proof but should certainly make us think. For one thing, the picture shows slingshots inscribed with the word 'Hizbullah'. This isn't a makeshift weopon pulled together in the heat of the moment, and neither is it something someone brings onto a ship if they are intending passive resistance.

Putting Israeli bungling and violence to one side, as I think most people can agree on that, we should also look at the mistakes of the activists. And if the leading organisations did fail to screen the passengers properly and allowed even a handful of violent activists on board with hidden weapons (not guns but definitely still weapons) then they should share some of the blame for the collapse of the situation into violence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue the way the Israelis responded to the violence was ham fisted. Equally if it wasn't for these hate filled ''martyrs'' who just wanted confrontation, the over-reaction wouldn't have occured.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
...
I guess I am sensitive to the squeeze on Arab Christians both in the West Bank and Gaza. They are in a 'no win' situation and get squeezed by both sides, but they have a long and honourable history in that part of the world. The extreme Islamicists can be brutal to them and Israel is not their friend either.
...

Saul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Could be. I think if I said I only read American news sources about Israel I'd be flayed alive. YMMV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
...
I guess I am sensitive to the squeeze on Arab Christians both in the West Bank and Gaza. They are in a 'no win' situation and get squeezed by both sides, but they have a long and honourable history in that part of the world. The extreme Islamicists can be brutal to them and Israel is not their friend either.
...

Saul

---

Palestinian Christians were the largest segment of the population until the 20th century. During the last c. fifty years they have been marginalized by "both sides" to the point that emigration has reduced Christians to a mere fraction of their former numbers. At the present rate of emigration it won't be long before there are effectively no Christian Palestinians/Arabs left.

Even in Lebanon, which has been a Maronite Christian enclave surrounded by Islam, the Maronite population has fallen below half for the first time....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Could be. I think if I said I only read American news sources about Israel I'd be flayed alive. YMMV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Possibly the problem is American news then.

---

I've found the International Herald Tribune one of the best sources of world news going. On the other hand Voice of America is not so much to my taste.

[ 03. June 2010, 16:37: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 

---

Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Hawk, pointing out someone's historical bias isn't a smear campaign. Also, I didn't start it. It started long before I heard of the man. That would have been when I read his name as a former U.S. ambassador on this ship, BTW.

Why this should this man draw such ire? It must be a conspiracy to discredit him. I shouldn't have bought into it.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
orfeo, my point was that you were making a point about how long and hard you had searched the news, and it was only Australian news you searched. Not a terribly impressive search.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
My point was merely that Doc Tor's assertion - that it was obvious from all news reports that this was a 'protest' - was not in keeping with the news sources I had to hand, which all referred to 'aid'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm sorry, Saul, but people who are "spoiling for a fight" with the IDF don't do it with kitchen knives and pipe truncheons when they could be better armed, and it's clear they could have been better armed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
And on the other side, the IDF, must have expected less than lethal weapons to be encountered since they were also 'armed' with paint-ball rifles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Anarchists and hooligans do it all the time, engaging police (whether armed with tear gas, batons or guns) with bricks and bottles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by redderfreak:
I've read this thread with interest and I agree with Mousethief. Thanks for your posts.

I can't see Israel lifting the siege of Gaza except by force or until they withdraw from the West Bank and a Palestinian state is established. It's like the German occupation of France in World War 2. The occupied West Bank is similar to the Vichy puppet regime of Marshall Petain. The legitimate democratically elected Palestinian government (Hamas)is holed up in Gaza. The Germans regarded France as their rightful property. They regarded the French resistance as terrorism, the same as Israel regards any resistance by the Palestinians to occupation. I know it's not a perfect analogy but there are interesting parallels.

I think there will be no peace until Palestine has its own security to balance Israel's. At the moment they have none.

---

Its a completely barking analogy. Shows a complete detachment from the situation on the ground in my view.

Hamas are not the sugar coated candy sort of guys you'd want to sit down with to do any business with. They have repeatedly said they want to destroy Israel utterly. How can you dialogue with that perspective?

Why is Mahmoud Abbas and his government illegitimate?

Why is Hamas legitimate and the W.Bank government not?

How can any group like Hamas convince the Israelis they are serious about mutual agreements; living next door to each other? (eg. peace!)

Frankly from reading your post the analogy you use (Vichy France )is completely innapropriate and wide of the mark by a long shot. IMO.

As for Mousethief's posts, well, he has a legitimate point of view. He seems to demonise anything Israel seems to do (does he see any good in Israel at all?) and I am not sure how helpful that is - in the real world that sort of polarisation just does that it polarises and seperates.

Like I said I have visited the area several times, makes me no expert, but I have met both Arabs and Jews and this is for sure, jaw jaw is better than war war ................and the way Turkey is moving right now ought to set alarm bells ringing in the West, NATO and Israel.

We need positive dialogue....based on mutual respect and a degree of toleration for the others point of view in that part of the world.

Saul
 

---

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
We need positive dialogue....based on mutual respect and a degree of toleration for the others point of view in that part of the world.

---

quote:

---

originally postec by pjkirk:
They are acting in bad faith at least as much as Hamas is. At least the Gazans have an excuse for voting Hamas in - Israel rendered Fatah powerless to govern via many years of stonewalling on everything. If the "right way" hasn't worked, I don't blame them for voting in the "wrong way." Israel doesn't have that excuse. They have the upper hand, they control the situation. The onus is on them to not do evil, and they are clearly failing in that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
My point was merely that Doc Tor's assertion - that it was obvious from all news reports that this was a 'protest' - was not in keeping with the news sources I had to hand, which all referred to 'aid'.

---

I'm really not sure what to make of this. Are you saying you're incapable of looking at the news and seeing it for what it is, rather than whatever spin they happen to put on it?

Of course the protesters are going to use 'aid' all the time. It puts them in a better light, and the Israelis in a worse one (if that's at all possible now). I never bought into that for a moment, and if you're smart enough to use a computer, I'm surprised you did. As I said: it's a protest march, with ships. The ships might carry aid, but that's not the primary reason for the blockade running - which was breaking the blockade.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It's fundamentally dishonest to mount a protest, knowing full well it's likely to cause trouble, and dress it up as an aid mission in order to maximise the shock value when 'Israel attacks an aid ship'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It's fundamentally dishonest to mount a protest, knowing full well it's likely to cause trouble, and dress it up as an aid mission in order to maximise the shock value when 'Israel attacks an aid ship'.

---

Well, that is kind of the whole point of a protest. This was intended to show that even the most humanitarian aid missions are blocked from Gaza, not just the terrorist smugglers. If they'd just sailed up and down the Gaza coast with empty ships waving banners then it wouldn't have shown anything.

This is the same as other protests where someone does something provocative to show up those reacting to the provocation. Rosa Parks offended many when she sat at the back of the bus. Of course she knew it was going to cause trouble, but the point is that she felt she was in her rights to do so and the trouble was caused by those who reacted so strongly to her behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
EDIT: And I also said, this is precisely what I don't like about it. It's fundamentally dishonest to mount a protest, knowing full well it's likely to cause trouble, and dress it up as an aid mission in order to maximise the shock value when 'Israel attacks an aid ship'.

---

So the next time something gets your goat, you'll make sure your protest is designed to have absolutely zero impact and will inconvenience no one whatsoever to the point of being unnoticeable.

I know the meek will inherit the earth, but

Causing trouble, inconvenience, making a noise, getting heard, is entirely the point of a protest. Unless you think that those whose causes you disapprove of shouldn't have that right, of course, in which case that whirring sound you hear is Voltaire spinning in his grave.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Doc Tor, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't get a chance to read my post of 7 minutes earlier.

If Rosa Parks had got on the bus without a ticket, the bus conductor would be perfectly entitled to throw her off the bus. She could argue until she was blue in the face that she was thrown off 'because she was black', and it wouldn't be convincing because anyone who wanted to could have continued thinking she was thrown off for fare evasion.

Buying a ticket, sitting on the bus quietly and not causing a disturbance, and STILL being told to get out of her seat is precisely why her protest demonstrated the unfairness of the rule she was protesting.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Doc Tor, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't get a chance to read my post of 7 minutes earlier.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Despite your assertions, pretending to be an aid ship and being blockaded is not, in fact, very good proof that aid ships are being blockaded. It's only proof that protestors will be blockaded.

I'm not saying that aid isn't blocked, just that this demonstration failed to make the point. If you wanted to prove that aid wasn't getting through, you would attempt to coordinate aid with the UN and/or the Israeli authorities and then highlight the fact the aid had been denied passage.

---

They weren't pretending, they were aid ships. See all the aid on the ships? That's what makes them aid ships.

I think it made a very good point. It's no secret that aid is being denied passage, Israel admits it and says outright that certain types of aid is refused entry (such as concrete and coriander). This wasn't about proving that Gaza is being blockaded, its about highlighting Israel's heavy-handed enforcement of it.
 

---

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Despite your assertions, pretending to be an aid ship and being blockaded is not, in fact, very good proof that aid ships are being blockaded. It's only proof that protestors will be blockaded.

I'm not saying that aid isn't blocked, just that this demonstration failed to make the point. If you wanted to prove that aid wasn't getting through, you would attempt to coordinate aid with the UN and/or the Israeli authorities and then highlight the fact the aid had been denied passage.

---

They weren't pretending, they were aid ships. See all the aid on the ships? That's what makes them aid ships.

I think it made a very good point. It's no secret that aid is being denied passage, Israel admits it and says outright that certain types of aid is refused entry (such as concrete and coriander). This wasn't about proving that Gaza is being blockaded, its about highlighting Israel's heavy-handed enforcement of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Despite your assertions, pretending to be an aid ship and being blockaded is not, in fact, very good proof that aid ships are being blockaded. It's only proof that protestors will be blockaded.

I'm not saying that aid isn't blocked, just that this demonstration failed to make the point. If you wanted to prove that aid wasn't getting through, you would attempt to coordinate aid with the UN and/or the Israeli authorities and then highlight the fact the aid had been denied passage.

---

They weren't pretending, they were aid ships. See all the aid on the ships? That's what makes them aid ships.

I think it made a very good point. It's no secret that aid is being denied passage, Israel admits it and says outright that certain types of aid is refused entry (such as concrete and coriander). This wasn't about proving that Gaza is being blockaded, its about highlighting Israel's heavy-handed enforcement of it.

---

AIUI they also wanted to increase international awareness of the blockade - and they have certainly achieved that.

Is there any word on whether the Israelis found any weapons in the cargo and/or how much of the aid has got to Gaza?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by redderfreak:
I've read this thread with interest and I agree with Mousethief. Thanks for your posts.

I can't see Israel lifting the siege of Gaza except by force or until they withdraw from the West Bank and a Palestinian state is established. It's like the German occupation of France in World War 2. The occupied West Bank is similar to the Vichy puppet regime of Marshall Petain. The legitimate democratically elected Palestinian government (Hamas)is holed up in Gaza. The Germans regarded France as their rightful property. They regarded the French resistance as terrorism, the same as Israel regards any resistance by the Palestinians to occupation. I know it's not a perfect analogy but there are interesting parallels.

I think there will be no peace until Palestine has its own security to balance Israel's. At the moment they have none.

---

Its a completely barking analogy. Shows a complete detachment from the situation on the ground in my view.

Hamas are not the sugar coated candy sort of guys you'd want to sit down with to do any business with. They have repeatedly said they want to destroy Israel utterly. How can you dialogue with that perspective?

Why is Mahmoud Abbas and his government illegitimate?

Why is Hamas legitimate and the W.Bank government not?

How can any group like Hamas convince the Israelis they are serious about mutual agreements; living next door to each other? (eg. peace!)

Frankly from reading your post the analogy you use (Vichy France )is completely innapropriate and wide of the mark by a long shot. IMO.

As for Mousethief's posts, well, he has a legitimate point of view. He seems to demonise anything Israel seems to do (does he see any good in Israel at all?) and I am not sure how helpful that is - in the real world that sort of polarisation just does that it polarises and seperates.

Like I said I have visited the area several times, makes me no expert, but I have met both Arabs and Jews and this is for sure, jaw jaw is better than war war ................and the way Turkey is moving right now ought to set alarm bells ringing in the West, NATO and Israel.

We need positive dialogue....based on mutual respect and a degree of toleration for the others point of view in that part of the world.

Saul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
They have repeatedly said they want to destroy Israel utterly. How can you dialogue with that perspective?

How can any group like Hamas convince the Israelis they are serious about mutual agreements; living next door to each other? (eg. peace!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Despite your assertions, pretending to be an aid ship and being blockaded is not, in fact, very good proof that aid ships are being blockaded. It's only proof that protestors will be blockaded.

I'm not saying that aid isn't blocked, just that this demonstration failed to make the point. If you wanted to prove that aid wasn't getting through, you would attempt to coordinate aid with the UN and/or the Israeli authorities and then highlight the fact the aid had been denied passage.

---

They weren't pretending, they were aid ships. See all the aid on the ships? That's what makes them aid ships.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I fail to see why that matters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
You can't tell other people that getting beaten up is good for them. Good God. Especially if it's your foot on their neck.

They were attempting to deliver aid to Gaza. They had a fairly good notion they were going to be diverted by the IDF. I don't see how those are incompatible, nor how it means they were lying. They wanted to deliver aid to Gaza. Barring that, drum up a lot of international attention for the blockade. Why can't they have both those goals?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If you'd been reading the thread, you would have seen that I (and others) queried whether the 'aid ships' actually had any genuine intention or expectation that the aid would ever reach Gaza.

Slapping a red cross on the side of your van doesn't make you an ambulance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
However, my view is that if they were attempting to deliver aid to Gaza, they should have maximised their chances of getting the aid through.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
That's what they did! Your blinkered belief in the UN and Israel ignores the fact that Israel DOES NOT ALLOW much of the aid the ships were carrying to get into Gaza. Whether it's coordinated with the UN or nicely driven into Israel with doffed cap and 'sir, yes, sir' or anything at all, Israel will not let it through. That's the point. This was the ONLY chance much of the aid had of getting into Gaza.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Why is aid to the Gaza Strip not just brought in through Egypt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm sure some of them are.

However, I think it would be very easy for the average Israeli on the street to go: blockade is justified - convoy tried to break blockade - action against convoy is justified, without being prompted to think further about WHAT kind of blockade is justified.

This story, in and of itself, doesn't automatically involve thinking about the nature of the blockade in any detail. The bare fact of a blockade is enough to understand the basics of the story. And I tend to think there wouldn't be much debate at all in Israel about the bare question of whether or not there should be a blockade.

[edit: cross-post, I was replying to mousethief]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What I am saying is that, in the long term, a 'doffing cap' approach is actually a lot more effective in getting the world to be outraged at what Israel is doing. If you do everything right and STILL can't get perfectly reasonable aid through, that communicates that Israel is behaving badly much more easily than if you do a whole bunch of wrong things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
The flotilla, either despite or because Israel booted it, has accomplished its objective in spades. It proves again what Ghandi and MLK advocated, non-violent resistance (allowing slippage by the flotilla activists) with moral authority behind it will overcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, really, because who really gives a fuck about the Palestinians? Let the Israelis do what they want to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, really, because who really gives a fuck about the Palestinians? Let the Israelis do what they want to them.

---

Far better to let the Israelis do what they want to the Palestinians rather than leaving those poor folk to the whims of their fellow Arabs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What happened to Yitzhak Rabin wouldn't exactly encourage the current crop of politicians to try anything particularly 'courageous'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What happened to Yitzhak Rabin wouldn't exactly encourage the current crop of politicians to try anything particularly 'courageous'.

---

I imagine most Israeli politicians have got used to the threat of assasination, whatever their ideology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, really, because who really gives a fuck about the Palestinians? Let the Israelis do what they want to them.

---

Far better to let the Israelis do what they want to the Palestinians rather than leaving those poor folk to the whims of their fellow Arabs.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0