Romy

I don't think that's a good idea. From her view point, it'd just be clingish, and I doubt Jaker would like her response. It will also slow down the process of "emotional detachment". He really shouldn't worry about that part, only go ahead and try to move on, which will again either strengthen their relations, or prove she's not the person he thinks she is.

Hi, welcome to the forums. ;) Introdcutions and farewells belong Here, so I'm locking the thread.

Find a hobby, or anything else that would stop you from calling her, talking to her, or meeting her. If she calls, act indifferent towards her and the coversation, and respond with short, "dumb" answers.

I realize this is hard, but the best you can do is ignore your feelings and let it go. If you're important to her - she'll chase your. If not, you're better off without her. Be prepared for intense emotional conditions, and force yourself to go against it.

Why would you not read their posts?

I just watched it on the news. Apparently, the IDF sent clear messages that it forbids any of the ships to enter Israeli territorial waters. In return, messages were sent that these warnings/requests are ignored. In addition, shooting from inside Marmara is now claimed as true. Lastly, large amounts of knives and clubs were found on the ship.

I never said it was their right, I said a search was obligatory, and who ever took the decision's judgement was not based on international laws, but on safety. You're talking in circles. By insisting that the Israelis' concerns for "safety" trump international law, you *are* saying they have the right to act like pirates and thugs (which is what they were yesterday). Bad wording on my part. What I meant was that at these times you can't pay too much attention to the law, when you genuinely think it could end up in something much worse than condemning Israel's actions, or breaking the law. How exactly, when the passangers start attacking :S? Do I really have to spell this out for you? They didn't have to board the ship. They could have simply prevented it from landing until they agreed to be searched. That's it. Problem solved. But they didn't really want a peaceful solution, did they? And you don't care, because in your mind all that matters is Israel doing what Israel wants. So you suggest Israel did that out of pure malice? Because security breaches are not an option. This was not required for security reasons. There were other alternatives, and you know it. Again, do you suggest Israel did that out of pure malice? I'm not going to argue who understands better what forign assistance means to Israel. Israel had violated international laws, and I don't say that in pride. But it really is petty that Israel is condemned for that on such a large scale. Not because these laws are worthless, but because breaking those, bottom line, changed nothing. It's "petty" for people to insist that Israel act in an ethical and responsible manner? Amazing. No, it's petty to condemn Israel on such a large scale for doing something at one time, and not at another, if the results would have been the same. The IDF couldn't have known or even guessed that, and security as a priority comes first. There isn't always time to think about the political side of things. The IDF couldn't have guessed that storming a Turkish ship full of civilians and killing a bunch of them wouldn't lead to a massive PR and diplomatic disaster? "at these times you can't pay too much attention to the law [or political issues], when you genuinely think it could end up in something much worse than condemning Israel's actions, or breaking the law. It's not about their rights, it's about what their actions trigger. So nobody has any rights except Israelis? But it isn't about their rights. You obviously have a right to ignore any messages or requests anyone directs at you. But why would you? Why not send a message to atleast notify the other side you got it's messages?

What I say doesn't chang that. What history points at - Does.

No, condemning the fact that Israel did what it did on international waters, on such a large scale, is petty. Again, not because these laws are worthless, but because the same thing would have happend a few hours later anyway. My theory says the IDF relied on a simple logic of safety, what in that makes no sense to you? It's not about their rights, it's about what their actions trigger. You have every right to ignore this message, or any other message, obviously, but the fact that they did alerted the IDF, and that's reasonable. And I think that\s petty. That Israel had no clear information about what was on the ships, when the ships were loaded, who was making sure it's all safe, etc. IE not supervised.

By now there is a history going back several years and five or six such relief flotillas, Ignoring the fact that weapons were being smuggled countlessly to the Gaza strip. You and I both know they were definitely greeted with violence, I have no idea where that claim came from. It appears you don't know much about security. At sea, catching these things is a million times easier, and at shore, it's a million times easier to to smuggle weapons. Do I think preventive war is justified? Depends on what it prevents. The Six Days war, for example, prevented the enemy attacking first. In here, it prevented possible weapon-smuggling. I can't stress this issue enough. Israel CANNOT let any weapons be smuggled to the Gaza strip. These weapons aren't even used at wars, 95% of the time they're used against, the word you like so much, innocent Israeli citizens.

Sorry, but that is utter nonsense. They did not have any right to send any warnings, nor to board the ships. The IDF is "alerted" about everything. Doesn't give them the right to act like pirates and thugs. I never said it was their right, I said a search was obligatory, and who ever took the decision's judgement was not based on international laws, but on safety. I don't give a damn what the reason was. Whatever it was, it was done for their own aims, and that doesn't justify the decision. If you had any objectivity at all, you'd understand that. Call it as you wish, but I know damn well what security means here. And I also know security is always self-serving, that's inevitable. Do you not agree that a search was obligatory? Do you not agree that a search could have been conducted without storming a ship and killing people? For crying out loud. :rolleyes: How exactly, when the passangers start attacking :S? And I'm well aware of that, being an Israeli citizen. Then why do you keep defending it? Because security breaches are not an option. As someone who has been providing that assistance -- voluntarily and involuntarily -- for over 30 years, I'd dispute that claim. And as someone who has, I'm pissed off. And a lot of people like me are pissed off as well. We don't want our money to be used for criminal activities. And if we stop sending it, you're going to have MUCH bigger problems than some noisemakers on a ship. I'm not going to argue who understands better what forign assistance means to Israel. Israel had violated international laws, and I don't say that in pride. But it really is petty that Israel is condemned for that on such a large scale. Not because these laws are worthless, but because breaking those, bottom line, changed nothing. The action taken yesterday has hurt Israel's security FAR more than leaving the ships alone. I find it unfathomable that anyone can't see that. Among other things, Egypt has now lifted its part of the blockade. So, nice going there. The IDF couldn't have known or even guessed that, and security as a priority comes first. There isn't always time to think about the political side of things.

Why on Earth should the ships stop even if the Israeli's warned them, in international waters? Israel has no jurisdiction there and that's exactly what this boils down to. That's utterly stupid logic, boarding them in international waters is a crime, at a simplistic level it's like a burglar breaking into your house and then acting surprised when the home-owner gets defensive. Even if the ships were carrying arms (which as far as I'm aware there's no evidence for) they wouldn't become more dangerous when they entered Israeli controlled waters and tried to bypass (an illegal!) blockade. The Gaza Freedom flotilla was a publicity stunt to try and raise awareness of the blockade (ironically, they've succeeded), sending five slow moving ships laden with weapons probably wouldn't do their cause much good. It was naive of Israel to think these were ships carrying arms, and even if they did why does that contradict with the statements of the soldiers who said they didn't expect violence? The fact that ships are sailing towards a country, after ignorning every request or message sent to them, raises a red light. Then there's history of smuggling weapons to Gaza, that also raises a red light. Then there's the fact that the ships were not supervised, that also raises a red light. Then there's the fact that even after the IDF's helicopters went on their way, messages were sent again and again - and ignored. With all these red lights, the IDF had to react. It had no other choice. A search, for the millionth time, was obligatory. And when it comes to security, especially when it's Israel, no risks can be taken. None at all. If it boils down to the actions being taken in international waters, that's just petty IMO, because the same course of action would have taken place inside national waters, which is where my theory of "the faster the better & safer" makes more and more sense.

You're now justifying continuation of these relations you have with her, both to us and to yourself. I used to have a male best friend. We've been best friends since the beginning of our teenage lives. I clearly recall something I said when we talked once. I don't remember what the conversation was about, but I was crying my eyes out (it was very emotional), and said that I could never live if I didn't have him by my side. That was about 3 years ago, and today we barely talk, and haven't seen each other for atleast a year and a half. I know I don't have a problem with it, and I doubt he does. Moral of the story- It seems like you can't let go of it, like you could never live without her, etc, etc. That's wrong down to it's root. Trust me when I say this: It's extremely probable that she won't be your best friend for your entire life, or even for the next few years, and you'll be glad to know - you won't care.

This is false as a matter of fact, regardless of whether or not one believes Israel has the right to impose a blockade on Gaza. They had other options. They chose a violent military confrontation. Check the post above for my response. The rational approach would have been to wait until they were out of international waters and then demand inspection of the goods as they were being offloaded. This assault was unjustified and *irrational*. So is claiming they "had no other choice" when you know full well that they did. Same as above. This is a really unfortunate position for an Israel supporter to hold, for at least two reasons. First, you are using *exactly* the same rationalizations that the enemies of Israel use. It's identical. They also claim that they are doing what they have to do, whether it's immoral/illegal or not, and they don't care what the world thinks. I don't claim Israel doesn't care what the world thinks, I claim Israel has no choice but to do what it did (even though it arguably should have waited), despite the world's reaction. Do you not agree that a search was obligatory? And I'm well aware of that, being an Israeli citizen. I probably understand what foreign assistance means to Israel better than anyone else here. But Israel cannot afford breaches in security, it's not an option, no matter what the cost is. It's fairly possible that Israel's actions on international waters was a mistake, I think it has it's reasons, but either way, I search was inevitable.

gaza is surrounded completely by isreali waters. there is no reason in the whole world why the Israelis couldn't wait untill they had legal jurisdiction to do exactly what they did. the isrealis were simply stupid in not waiting. this would all have been a non-issue if the event transpired closer to shore. If the protesters attacked in the same way as they arguably did, they'd be jailed for assaulting customs officers, like in any other country in the world. If they did not, and had not paid tax on the goods they brought into Israel en-route to Gaza, the goods could legally be siezed. The israelis acted unfathomably stupidly in my opinion. I don't know what to think on the issue itself: i'm too busy trying to understand the stupidity of the Israeli in command. what the hell was he/she thinking? Well, I do agree it would have been much better if done on national waters. But Israel had requested the ships to stop, sent messages and warning, and these were not stopped, and neither sent any messages back. That, combined with a known history of weapon-smuggling, should very well alert the IDF. I think the logic behind doing that in international waters (and not wait) relies on "The faster it's done, the better & safer". I don't have much to back that theory up other than my own logic though. I can't think of another reason for the IDF not to wait.

Israel had to do what it did, whether it's legal or not, moral or not, and any other negative definition you can throw at it. Israel had no other choice, it wouldn't be the first time ships contain weapons. So, let's say neither of the ships ever contained weapons - that does not make it irrational on Israel's part to make sure that's the case. The ships were unsupervised, and so Israel sent warnings to the ships so they could search them. None but the Marmara tried to stop the soldiers, and none but the Marmara were attacked/attacking. Israel cannot afford to let ships, possibly containing weapons, reach the hands of the Hamas. It just cannot, it can't, and it won't, even if that means half of the world condemns what it does. As far as I'm concerned, Israel did the right thing by insisting to search the ships, and whether it was immoral/illegal does not mean Israel can afford not to do it.

Uhh.... I messed up. :oops: Do you have a backup of picture A?

Given that there were 2 members of German parliament and a swedish MP on board, I'm going to assume that the boats were not in fact smuggling large amounts of weaponry into the region. Israel can't afford that risk.

1. I haven't seen any objective evidence that such was on the ship. With what did they attack the soldiers then? From what I can see, improvised weapons. A better question would be: if the place was a floating armory, why is it 10 of them got killed and no Israelis? It wasn't a "floating armory", but there were weapons there. Again, even if there weren't, Israel cannot afford not to check that. Past experiences are enough of a proof that these things aren't unlikely to carry weapons, sometimes in very large quantities. Then you might want to stop defending it. I don't defend the fact that Israel broke the international law. It cannot be defended, Israel was in the wrong here. I AM defending the rest of it though. It has nothing to do with what pisses off Turkey. It has everything to do with RESPECTING INTERNATIONAL LAW. Israel cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim to be the good guys, and then act like bad guys. It won't fly. EVERY country thinks it is justified in doing whatever it convinces itself has to be done. If they all do whatever they want, we end up with anarchy and world wars. And I again repeat, I think Israel was in the wrong for breaking international laws - but some action had to be taken, Israel can't afford not to search ships arriving Gaza.

The searches were almost obligatory. Israel cannot let weapons reach the Hamas, just so Israeli citizens could be shot with ease. Even if that makes Israel immoral from the viewpoint of whoever, the rest of the world as far as I'm concerned. Doesn't give them the right to do it in international waters though does it? Not at all, but the search should've been done either way, IMO.

You forgot weapons and ammo, sent with the intent to harm Israeli citizens. Israel supplys what it can to the Gaza strip, but it cannot let weapons reach the hands of the Hamas, that's just irrational. Your evidence that this kind of weaponry was on the ship is...? That statement was in regards to the blockade, not the ship. Also, they had to get their grenades from somewhere. Then why did the rest of the ships have no problem with being searched? They weren't aggressive, they let the soldiers do their thing and leave. I don't know. Why did the many other attempts by the same organization not result in this manner? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Gaza_Movement Perhaps it's because the IDF has continued to try and feed its lies, just like most other armies (especially the United States army). What's Israel's incentive then? Pure malice? It's very, very, very unlikely that any of these 3 countries would break the peace agreements. You'll live to see that statement has no valid basis. Really? The Arab League will meet tomorrow and put immense pressure on Egypt to lift their portion of the Gazan blockade. I can't imagine that Egypt will refuse. It will continue to deteriorate their peace deal made through Jimmy Carter so many years ago. It might not end the deals, but it will put serious strains on their peace fronts. Meanwhile, Turkey has taken away their Israeli ambassador, and has "threatened Israel with unprecedented action after Israeli forces attacked an aid vessel, killing 10 peace activists headed to Gaza.": http://ibnlive.in.com/news/turkey-threatens-action-israel-on-alert/116743-2.html This is serious, and you're making it seem like it's just another day in Israel's apartheid regime. Well, ironically, it is. This time, they may have overstepped their bounds, even with the United States. Yes, the relations aren't good at all. But neither Eygept, nor Jordan, nor Turkey, will break peace agreements, and you can take my word for it.

The searches were almost obligatory. Israel cannot let weapons reach the Hamas, just so Israeli citizens could be shot with ease. Even if that makes Israel immoral from the viewpoint of whoever, the rest of the world as far as I'm concerned.

1. I haven't seen any objective evidence that such was on the ship. With what did they attack the soldiers then? I completely agree, it definitely shouldn't have been done on international waters. But it should have been done, and even if it was done a few hours later on national water, I doubt the scenario was any different. And so Israel goes and gives them good reason to be biased against them? Brilliant tactical move, guys. Israel cannot value it's every action and consider whether or not it would piss off turkey. A biased country is likely to take something Israel does and spin it around anyway (and it has). Israel was wrong for doing that in international waters, but was not wrong for searching the ships.

Thats where things get a little hinky for me. "IF" the Marnara did have weapons and if israel really did alert the ships that they were being borded then wouldn't they have used them instead of sticks and stones? From what i can tell they only used sticks and stones and a few small arms which makes me feel like they were surprised and whatever arms they did have on board were only for self defense. If out of the blue an armed helicopter starts droping armed soldiers onto your boat with guns pointed at you what would you do? But they did use other weapons: Atleast according to the videos, and the soldiers.

I've seen the video. What's your point? I hardly think that being armed as well as the local 2nd grade class could constitute justifiable defense in the case of military soldiers illegally boarding an aid ship in international waters. What would you do if someone tried to illegally board your boat, knowing full well what would happen once the items I listed were found? Without those tunnels, the Palestinians might have already been successfully fully cleansed from the region. Those tunnels are their lifeblood. Through these tunnels, which Eygept agreed to block, weapons were smuggled on a regular basis. And that's also why Eygept agreed to block those tunnels. I know how much of a staunch supporter of Israel that you are, romy, but this is completely unsubstantiated. Define "attacking" for me. If you mean by attacking "thwacking and throwing IDF soldiers overboard once they illegally boarded their ship," I would agree, but I wouldn't call that attacking. Want me to define attacking? Hitting, shooting, throwing grenades, throwing soldiers. Yes, they did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGiSpXmnQ0 So where did the shooting and grenades come from? And even if there were no weapons, no weapons at all, Israel did it because of the experiences it had with these things. It wouldn't be the first time hidden weapons were being sent to the Gaza strip.