Romy

I'm better than you because I have not.

I'm better than you for the exact same reason.

I'm sorry, but your posts belittle themselves. They are a sad combination of self-serving elitism ("We're Israel and our security is more important than anything else!") It isn't more important than anything else, but it is more important than international laws, with all due respect. That's where I'm coming from- I know Israel made a poor decision, I know it definitely shouldn't have done that on international waters, and I also believe the Israeli citiznes' securty is more important than political issues, or even the law. So, do you think Israel could let the ships arrive at Gaza without knowing what those are carrying? They posed threat to whoever boarded the ships. I again understand Israel's actions were illegal, and again repeat the same course of action would've taken place inside Israel's territorial waters aswell, and for that reason, other than breaking the law (not that it's a minor thing to do), nothing in reality would've changed.

Are you sure that's not because of the post removed a while ago? 4218.

I completely agree the illegal settlements are horrible, and condemn those myself. I hate that to it's very core, and am ashamed for those who take place. But killing is an inevitable part of war. Israel has lost it's fair share of lives, I can gurantee that. It isn't one sided, and that's what war brings, I'm afraid. Oversimplifying anything in the favor of one side is pointless, and grants nothing. It isn't a war it is a resistance. Israel has of course lost lives, but not even one tenth of the lives lost by the palestinians. Despite the complexities the Israeli's are the aggressors and like the UN said, their actions are akin to war crimes. You call rocket launches at a city of innocent Israeli citizens a resistance? Not war crimes, and terrorism? You call suicide bombers a resistance? Not idiocy and cruelty? Of course it is! What else would it be? If it is a resistance, it's a very illegitimate one that involes war crimes and terrorism. Because of the aim. The intention. The condition. From wikipedia: What about when Israel invaded Egypt during the Suez Crisis in 1956? Or South Lebanon in 1978? Or Lebanon in 1982? Or the other war with Egypt in 1967? Then the Six Day War. Or what is now called the War in Gaza only in 2008? What about the constant assassinations from Mossad. 67' was the Six Days war. 78' and 2008 were operations. 82' was also an opertaion at first, and a response: The Mossad is clearly not war. EDIT: @Qeltar, you and I both know your goal is now to belittle my posts, and not reason. Especially after you compared it to an inncoent doctor being shot while approaching my doorstep, and not a doctor that hit me with clubs and knives, and werestled out my own weapons.

Did you read the quote that I provided from Olmert's advisor from 2006? The goal is regime change, not to prevent weapons smuggling. To "put them on a diet" so that the Palestinians will elect someone else. Why haven't they had a blockade prior to Hamas' election? There was plenty of members in the organization threatening violence to Israeli civilians before. The answer is because it's not about weapons, but about Israel not liking the results of a democratic election. That's not to say I approve of Hamas' election, but as Greenwald pointed out, they are the elected government. The more you try to do this the more incidents like this will blow up in your face. The Arab world will simply not allow you to ignore Gaza or Hamas. And if you ultimately want peace you will have to face Hamas. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away. Great article in the NY Times today by an Israeli writer who supported the Israeli attacks on both Lebanon and Gaza (though he changed his mind about the former): http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/opinion/02oz.html?hp This means ending the blockade, my friend. With all due respect, the IDF has lost nearly all of its credibility long ago. Olmert is a corrupted, immoral and unreliable person that is currently going through investigations over the very long political career he's had. That person claiming the Hamas is not a terror organization should really take into account it's actions over the years, it's purpose, and it's ideology. Anyone has a right for opinion, the fact that one person has changed their mind for whatever reason doesn't make anything less of a truth, or more of a truth.

Really? Because rubber bullets and electric shocks are fairly standard crowd control techniques and I can see why they'd use them early on as a way to stem any resistance straight away. I'm not saying the Israeli's descended the ropes guns blazing Rambo-style shooting at children, I'm saying they boarded the ships in a hostile way used non-lethal but maiming weapons to control the activists without direct provocation and then treated the activists (who as you said, put up little resistance on the other ships) in such a way that violated their human rights. But anyway, your logic and my logic are both fairly irrelevant because we weren't on that ship and neither of us have a working knowledge of IDF naval boarding procedures. What might not seem logical to you (firing rubber bullets before being attacked) might be standard procedure to them, and I can see why it might be so. Of course there's an issue of source credibility, but are your sources IDF? And can you cite the sources? I'm interested in reading the wording from their end, they might well claim there was no resistance but that may have been because they brutally prevented it. Well, my sources were mostly news in Hebrew, but I'm sure you can find those in English if you genuinely want to find out. And no, I cannot know whether they did or didn't use these things, I'm not aware to the procedures, and I could be wrong. But in reality, I find it hard to believe they'd shoot anything without resistance. Yes, but you're wrong. Israel knew the ship's intentions, To reach Gaza, not knowing what cargo the ships were loaded with. To Gaza. They did not. If they knew for sure and beyond doubt what was on the ships, they wouldn't even want to search those. They again did not. Atleast not exactly who. Security is a delicate issue. Israel had to search the ships. I highly doubt Israel would've insisted so badly to search the ships if it didn't have a good reason to suspect. Israel never had any data or clear information on who or what was on the ships. The action itself, as in the search, was obligatory, or necessariy if you have a problem with that word. And I never suggested it should've waited till it ported, I suggested it should've waited till it reached Israel's territoriial waters.

I completely agree the illegal settlements are horrible, and condemn those myself. I hate that to it's very core, and am ashamed for those who take place. But killing is an inevitable part of war. Israel has lost it's fair share of lives, I can gurantee that. It isn't one sided, and that's what war brings, I'm afraid. Oversimplifying anything in the favor of one side is pointless, and grants nothing. It isn't a war it is a resistance. Israel has of course lost lives, but not even one tenth of the lives lost by the palestinians. Despite the complexities the Israeli's are the aggressors and like the UN said, their actions are akin to war crimes. You call rocket launches at a city of innocent Israeli citizens a resistance? Not war crimes, and terrorism? You call suicide bombers a resistance? Not idiocy and cruelty? You may want to know, incase you don't already. Each and every war but the Six Days War (which was a result of the Israeli intelligence finding out a war was to be initiated the very same day) wasn't initiated by Israel. You call that resistance?

Why would Israel even evacuate the Gaza strip, forcebly removing it's own citizens from their homes, if it's goal is leadership over the area? That makes absolutely no sense. Israel doesn't want to occupy Gaza, but has to enforce a blockade, otherwise.... history explains that better than I ever could. You're mixing certain people's opinions, and the IDF's actions. And these people aren't even the soldiers who took place in the operation. And ofcourse my sources are the IDF, there are two sides to this story- the passangers and the soldiers. Where else could I take my sources from? One side claims that, the other claims this. I repeat, my own logic says there's no reason for the soldiers, or any other person, to shoot the ships from afar, or hurt those who do not resist.

I completely agree the illegal settlements are horrible, and condemn those myself. I hate that to it's very core, and am ashamed for those who take place. But killing is an inevitable part of war. Israel has lost it's fair share of lives, I can gurantee that. It isn't one sided, and that's what war brings, I'm afraid. Oversimplifying anything in the favor of one side is pointless, and grants nothing.

And was and is widely questioned as for which unit should've been sent. But either way, the rest of the ships posed no resistance, and none were attacked. That's being disputed: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/gaza-flotilla-eyewitness-accounts-gunfire And poorly translated from a Spanish newspaper: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Israel/asalta/legalidad/internacional/elpepuopi/20100601elpepiint_1/Tes I can cite sources claiming the opposite. There's obviously a big problem of credibility here. My own logic says that the unit "Flottila 13", or really, any person in their right mind, wouldn't resort to these things without a good reason. And there cannot be a good reason to shoot before boarding the ships, and neither a good reason to harm those who do not resist. I feel like a broken record. Israell cannot afford security breaches. A search was obligatory, and inevitable. You're not the only one. I'm not denying their right to search the ship in port or their own territorial waters. But there's absolutely no reason from a security standpoint of stopping a ship well before a blockade unless the Israeli's had good evidence that the ship was going to try and run the blockade and detonate some kind of WMD in port. The fact that these were slow-moving ships from a known activist group carrying members of parliament, Nobel peace laureates, doctors etc. means that Israel can't justify it that way. Even if they strongly suspected the ships of carrying a weapons cache (which would be an astonishingly stupid idea for ships trying to raise awareness through a stunt like this) they could still only search the ship in their waters and then take the necessary action if the ships were smuggling arms (which they weren't). So bottom line is the search was not obligatory. A ship arriving in port with a load of weapons which are found and confiscated is not a breach, and would be much more useful from the Israeli's point of view than finding them in international waters (where they were found illegally). But again, the ships were unsupervised, clearly claimed they ignore Israel's requests not to enter territorial waters, and Israel had no idea what was going on on the ships. So again, a search was definitely obligatory. I agree it would've been a much better decision to wait until the ships reach Israel's territorial waters, but then I repeat, the same course of action would've taken place even if the IDF did wait. Israel had no right to do it, but the results would've been the same. @Magekillr, if you seriously think the blockade is a result of malice, I'm not even going to address your post.

That's extremely over-simplistic and unbased. I can now come up with a very long post, containing sources and explanations for Israel's doings over the years. I can also explain the obvious- that it isn't one sided, and nothing like you suggest. But that would be almost pointless, because you've already made up your mind. Israel is the only one at blame and it's enemies are just reacting. You justify rockets shot at Sderot because what you call illegal territory triggered that? Even if that was true, that doesn't justify anything like that. Anything even remotely close to that.

Actually, those were deterionated since Arduan... You know what? It doesn't matter. Bottom line is - Israel had no idea what was on the ships, and couldn't afford not to. A search was absolutely obligatory. Again, a search was obligatory. The mere fact you ask that question makes me severely doubt how much you know about the issue. For what it's worth, the blockade obviously isn't enforced out of malice. Weapons were sent to Gaza on a regular basis, through tunnels, ships, and even by land. Even Eygept realized that and helped Israel enforce the bloackde (yes, I'm aware to the fact that it no longer does). And these weapons' main target was pure harm, not war. They were and sometimes still are used against innocent Israeli citizens. History shows it because it's nothing new. Present shows it, because just yesterday Israel discharged rocket launchers, for example. And most importantly, logic shows it, because if Israel didn't stop it, weapons would be sent there on extremely large quantities. No country in it's right mind could allow anything like that.

You can't compare simple ships going by on international waters close to Israel, to ships that actually ignored Israel's requests NOT to enter Israel's territorial waters, and that were going straight to Gaza, no doubt. And was and is widely questioned as for which unit should've been sent. But either way, the rest of the ships posed no resistance, and none were attacked. I feel like a broken record. Israel cannot afford security breaches. A search was obligatory, and inevitable.

Israel had no information on what the flottila was carrying. At all. Again, Israel cannot afford security breaches. Unfounded and ridiculous? The ship officially ignored all of the IDF's requests not to enter Israeli territorial waters. The ships were NOT supervised. There's a very famous history of ships carrying weapons and ammo, with the intent ot smuggle it into the hands of the Hamas. That's enough reasons to justify a search. Just yesterday Israel discharged rocket launchers that were used to launch rockets at citizens.

Despite the fact that all ships had been through customs and checks in Turkey, which was prior to this event a close ally of Israel. I don't know if you're aware of this, but the relations between Israel and Turkey have been horrible at best, for quite a while. Drills were canceled, trades were canceled, even flights were canceled. Anyway, Israel didn't get any information on what's on the ships. Ever. It cannot just let it go by and ignore all possible security breaches. In the past, many ships were found to be carrying weapons and ammo on large amounts. It had already been searched. It was in international waters. The flotilla posed no threat in the slightest. As shown with the assortment of kitchen knives and wooden sticks found on board. Again, Israel had no information on what's was on the ships. Again, the ships were unsupervised. Again, there's a history of weapon smuggles, and Israel cannot afford security breaches. Lol - no it isn't "petty". What is petty is the fact that you're just another Israeli apologist who passes over the aim of the mission and ignores the facts. The people on the boat weren't terrorists they were activists and the only act of terror is the boarding of their ships in the dead of night and the killing of innocent people. You still claim like the rest of the Israeli apologists on this thread that the victims here weren't those shot dead in cold blood, but were the soldiers who illegally boarded a ship designed to provide aid to the very people the soldiers are starving to death. The same course of action would of taken place later inside Israel's territorial waters, which is why I said it's petty. And trust me, I know exactly what's going on in Gaza, I don't wish that to my worst enemies. But Israel cannot stop it's blockade on Gaza for reasons both history, present, and logic point at.

Well, this IS a thread for advice... so you're much more likely to encounter bad news, and then some good news for those who use the advice.

Never tasted one. I'd have to go underwater for that. I'm better than you for falsely assuming.

Sowie guys and gals. I promise not to post again before you reach atleast 50 though. :P

You're forgetting you're saying that right now, when you know all that you do, what the ship contained, what it's specific intents were, etc. Wrong, sorry. What I said was based on both the law and on intelligent handling of these sorts of situations. Not on what the ship contained. I have said from the start that it didn't matter what the ship contained. *You* were trying to justify Israel's actions based on what you, or they, *thought* it contained. It was wrong for them to storm the ship, period. Whether or not it had any contraband on it. Newsflash. It's not the first time Israel had stopped ships in international waters. EACH time, except for this event, Israel had caught huge amounts of weapons and ammo. No one condemned what it did. You also still don't realize what the situation holds, not that I think you will. I can describe it again as a hopeless try, but I'm pretty sure you'll again throw a belittling comment and say they were wrong. They WERE wrong, but it WAS within reason. Here's my description, for what it's worth: You've noticed a flottila of ships approaching the Gaza strip. You've sent them messages and requests via radio communication, just to find out they ignore your requests and go on their way. It is definitely not the first time these occurences end up in finding large amounts of weapons, to be smuggled to the hands of the Hamas. The ships are unsupervised, and you have absolutely no idea what's inside. The ships are getting closer and closer, and you have to make a decision NOW. A reasonable person, faced with a situation with many unknowns, would use caution and wait until they knew more, only taking aggressive action as a last resort when it became absolutely necessary. You are standing here with a straight face instead arguing that since the IDF had a "lack of knowledge", they were justified in carrying out a military assault on a civilian ship? I do not justify the assault, I justify the reasoning. Stop spinning things around. If you think something else should have been done, saying you would have done the same thing means you knew it was a bad idea but would do it anyway? Or you think one of the most renowned military and intelligence organizations in the world couldn't figure out how to properly handle a protest ship? No, it means that today I know it wasn't a good decision, because I know the details, I am not under any pressure, and understand things better. Two days ago, the IDF didn't have all these privileges, and it had to act. The IDF made a bad decision. There's no question about it. But I can understand the reasoning behind it, and honestly think many others including myself would've taken the same decision. They should have never boarded the ship. It wasn't a tough decision at all. That's why everyone around the world is baffled at the sheer, utter stupidify of what Israel did. When I turn on talk radio and hear a guy like Michael Savage, who is a rabidly pro-Israel and anti-Muslim Jewish right-winger, and even *he* is flabbergasted at the sheer idiocy of what Israel did, that says something. (I was quite surprised.) "The IDF made a bad decision. There's no question about it. But I can understand the reasoning behind it, and honestly think many others including myself would've taken the same decision." Because you think Israel is above the law, and your security is more important than the security or even lives of anyone else. Gotcha. I just said they had no right to do it. Are you for real? I disagree with the decision taken, it was a bad decision. I can understand it, and the reasoning behind it though. Again, stop spinning things around. It isn't acceptable, it is understandable. And that "*suspicion*" turned out to be correct EVERY other time. I don't care if Moses himself is resurrected and put in charge. When there's an incident involving two parties, you do NOT put one of those parties in charge of the investigation. Hell, even my 9-year-old understand *that*. And every 9-year old would easily understand these commitees are unbiased. It doesn't take a genius to understand they'll harshly judge everything that's been done, history points at that clearly. Trust me, these commitees are the best judges you'll get, no other will do a finer job and criticizing the operation. Not only are they not biased, but they know exactly the mentality and history of things, and can thus base their investigations much better. I wouldn't have a problem with someone else running this, but trust me, you won't get a better judge anywhere else (perhaps except for Turkey and Iran, but that's another story...)

Sounds like a good idea. I support.

I'm better than you because you remind me of Spongebob.

Because security comes first. A non-response. The alternative I suggested would not have been any more of a security risk than what they did. In fact, it would have been *less* of a security risk. This point has been made numerous times. You keep responding with "security comes first" when the actions taken have *reduced* Israel's security. By the way, if security trumps everything else, why not just bomb Gaza to smithereens? Oh sure, a million and a half people will die, but hey, security comes first, and Israel is more important than anyone else. Right? You're forgetting you're saying that right now, when you know all that you do, what the ship contained, what it's specific intents were, etc. The IDF did NOT know these things. The lack of knowledge demanded an action. I again agree that something else should've been done, and again repeat I would've done the same thing if I knew the ship is officially ignoring rquests not to enter international waters, knew it was unsupervised, knew I have no idea what's inside, and knew it's heading towards Gaza. Then they could have and should have acted when they did enter Israeli waters. What did you think was going to happen -- they would stand on the deck of the ship and toss AK-47s three miles onto shore? Actually, if anyone at the IDF had half a brain, they would have handled this in such a way that nobody here would even know about it. I can again point out what I pointed out up this post, and in the past, just so you could again say they had other choices. Technically speaking, they did. In reality, these things are just scary, as stupid as it sounds. An unsupervised ship is now heading towards a terror organization, ignoring all requests to stop, possibly containing weapons, and you have to stop it. It now boils down to whether or not you agree it's a tough decision, and that you have to consider your actions with no delayes. Knowing you a little, I doubt you do. And I bet you're going to give me an, oh so very sophisticated and belittling answer, for which I'll calmly respond, just to witness another reaction. That's false. Period. They had many choices. They could have just blocked the ship from landing. They could have disabled the ship and towed it to Ashdod. There were many other options, so saying they "didn't have a choice" is dishonest. Every time you say it, you reduce your credibility further. Same as above, pretty much. LOL. Are you kidding? Military people around the entire world, even ones that support Israel, are standing in slack-jawed amazement at how badly the IDF messed this up. The entire operation was a disaster from the word go. To claim that those who know about security would have done this shows that you don't know anything about security. Here's a guy who does: "Perfect example of how NOT to do a raid. ... It demonstrated--to Israel's surprise--a fairly high level of tactical incompetence. The IDF, somewhat like the French Army of 1940, has been living off of its past victories for too long. The IDF today isn't the Haganah of the 1930s, the Stern Gang of the 1940s or the IDF of 48, 56 or 67. ... What they could have done--let the ships in. Show the world how caring, etc. Israel is. Don't give the Free Gaza movement the PR victory; take it from them by escorting the ships in, providing Israeli "volunteers" to help unload. Have plenty of international media there for the show." I can again repeat Israel should've done something else, but it did not, for what I see as justified, and you do not. Now go ahead and explain how biased and unreasonable I am. You're still talking in circles.. it was illegal but they had the right to do it... they shouldn't have done it but you'd have done it anywyay. :rolleyes: No, it was illegal and they had no right to do it. However, I CAN understand the reasoning behind it. Yes, an investigative team filled with nice unbiased Israelis like yourself couldn't possibly be biased. LOL. Look up other commitees of inquiry in Israel. You'll notice a pattern of harsh judgement against Israel's actions. These commitees are known for their unbiased, cold judgements.

Jake, whatever you do, if you decide to give our advice a shot, DO NOT CAVE. It'll backfire. If you're going at it seriously (which you should), you can't change the course of action in the middle. It has to be done from beginning to end, to the fullest. Otherwise she'll just belittle your friendship quite a bit. Frankly, for a good reason too.

Because security comes first. The Marmara gave the IDF a clear message that it's going to ignore it's requests not to enter Israeli international waters. As the post Saru quoted says- Too many red lights were raised, that's where it didn't have a choice. Yes, looking back, Israel definitely should've waited, but back before it happend, I believe anyone who knows a little about security and knows about past attempts, would try to stop the ship ASAP, regardless of any rules that may be broken As I had stated before, I cannot defend the illegality of Israel's actions. It was illegal, I won't deny it, I don't want to deny it. But I think that as a decision maker, I would've done the same thing. Infact, I think many of us here would. Oh, you can bet it won't be biased. Past comitees of inquiry in Israel were judged many times for being too harsh, they don't usually try to cover things up.