magekillr

An American citizen is reportedly among the dead: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/03/american-reportedly-killed-gaza-flotilla-raid/ (the comments are most insightful, thanks, Fox Viewers!) And Joe Biden says, "What's the big deal here?" http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0610/Biden_solidifies_defense_of_Israel_Whats_the_big_deal_here.html edit: a bit of sensationalist headlining, but it's from Politico. That is to be expected, I suppose. Read the interview for more context.

See except most Arabs, believe it or not, are peaceful and decide to starve and die instead, or like my friends flee the country while the Isareli Military forcefully acquired their village. Don't forget that after acquiring the village, they bulldoze it, sometimes killing peaceful protesters in the process. I have a lot of catching up to do, both with the news and with this topic.

The point wasn't the way that particular Israeli felt, the point was that there were other ways to do this. I was answering the guy's question. I could have snipped everything else out and left his "this is how they could have handled it." It wasn't to show this man/woman's opinion, merely an alternative way of handling the situation. Sheesh. Chill out.

What are you talking about, Dusty? Are you inferring that I go read StormFront and Hamas' twitter feed for my regular sources? I post opinion pieces that resonate my opinions in articulate manners. I post news pages for actual news. Are you upset that I am well sourced? Are you saying that I'm spamming? Where else is this being done?

Not aimed at me, but from an Israeli citizen: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/badass-israel.html The real enemy, though, is the blockade itself: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-01/israel-flotilla-disaster-gaza-embargo-us-supporters-to-blame/?cid=hp:exc

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.

My point is that it's not about weapons smuggling. It is about influencing leadership in the territories, and is being done through inhumane means. Your sources claiming the opposite are IDF forces who called the people on the boats terrorists.

~Dov Weisglass http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/16/israel The results: *since the intensification of the siege in June 2007, "the formal economy in Gaza has collapsed *"61% of people in the Gaza Strip are … food insecure," of which "65% are children under 18 years" * since June 2007, "the number of Palestine refugees unable to access food and lacking the means to purchase even the most basic items, such as soap, school stationery and safe drinking water, has tripled" *"in February 2009, the level of anemia in babies (9-12 months) was as high as 65.5%" To say that this blockade is about weapons smuggling is absolute insanity and nonsense, as has been admitted by Israeli advisors themselves. (h/t the Economist) Cement! My porch is itself a Quran away from waging an insurgency on my pansies. Should I call homeland security? Anything that would allow them to make things, farm, or subsist on their own is banned. Anything that can be imported into Gaza for consumption only, leaving them wholly dependent is allowed. This isn’t about stopping weapons in the least.

Will respond to earlier conversations tomorrow, but I thought I'd post this before bed (I just got back from work): http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0531/raw-video-reporter-claims-israelis-fired-activists-boarding-ship/ http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/01/gaza.raid.resolution/index.html?npt=NP1 It's no wonder Israel held these people hostage for so long and took all of their belongings, including their clothes. Once again, an official story put out by the IDF, is nothing but false propaganda. Also see Glenn Greenwald today on MSNBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf_Qvl1un7M Glenn is Jewish. Another self-hating Jew going off the rails again, I guess.

Fair enough, qeltar. I don't see how this isn't an apartheid situation, and neither do activists who were involved in the South African movement, nor do many ex-Israeli officials including two old PMs. You see that as hyperbolic, they and I do not. I don't see how that makes one close-minded, but that's your judgment to make. Just like Chomsky, I feel like my advice for Israel is for its own self-preservation (although I will not support a "Jewish" state nor will I support a "Muslim" state). Take for example this that I read yesterday: http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/31/israels_increasingly_untenable_situation Daniel W. Drezner is hardly a harsh critic of Israel, yet he is seeing this how much of the world sees it. That's what Israel and America are currently blinded towards. Israel is not North Korea. There is nothing in North Korea worth preserving or fighting for; its regime and its ideology are irredeemable. However, as far as world opinion goes, Israel is not far removed from North Korea. Even Israel's refusal to sign the non-proliferation treaty puts them in a small club that includes North Korea. That's a dangerous position to be in. The danger here is not that Israel is North Korea, they most certainly are not. The danger is that they are perceived to be like North Korea. The US is in the same situation as China right now. Israel has a fundamental decision on its hands. Is it going to be a Jewish state and return to its pre-1967 borders (or negotiated borders)-- a two-state solution. Or is it going for a one-state solution and permit full citizenship and voting rights to all Palestinians within its borders -- a solution that would result in a Palestinian government. That's where the arguments of apartheid come from, and why Olmert and Barak made them.

Sorry, but this is actually an argument in the Israelis' favor. If they had done this before, and they had no reason to expect violence then that played in to the decision to board the ship. Any subsequent violent attack that was as you admit unprecedented could be used as justification for the military retaliation that followed. I don't see how this can be used as an argument in Israel's favor when they're claiming that they had weapons. It is known that this group seeks civil disobedience, nothing more, nothing less. Israel didn't stop all of their previous attempts, and in fact let many of them by. They only stopped their boats during the Gaza War, and the June after. It's only been the newest government in power that has stopped them, which isn't a surprise considering Netanyahu is very arrogant and hawkish.They usually always carry Nobel Prize Winners and previous officials of many world governments frequent the ships. They are non-violent activists. There is a difference between pacifism and a non-violent movement. Someone like Joan Baez would be a pacifist, whereas I am non-violent. Non-violent direct action does not mean eschewing self-defense in the case of deadly violence against, it means choosing civil disobedience over violent resistance. I know that you're not necessarily making these claims, but it's more of a response to "zomg look at them hitting the soldiers with bars!" The tactic of nonviolence depends on the shame of the oppressor. Nonviolence did not work in the US Civil Rights movement until the US could be shamed with its own toleration of racism, a charge it had rightly used in propaganda against Nazi Germany. Robert Kennedy had some degree of understanding shame as did LBJ. The Likud government has been shameless for 35 years.

You keep saying these things, but you have YET to substantiate them, qeltar. I've asked you repeatedly, and you refuse to do so. According to Israel, this was a desperate war of defense, which miraculously placed a lot of land in Israel’s hands. According to the Palestinian's, the leaders of Egypt, Syria and Jordan fell into a trap set by Israel in order to capture whatever was left of Palestine. Both are myths. No, it isn't -- learn some history. There is no single bogeyman that is to blame for the current mess, and the more you try to pin it on the Israelis or the British (conveniently enough, never the Palestinians), the more ridiculous you sound. Why would I blame it on the people who were ALREADY LIVING THERE only to have another people forced on them? I am going to the root of the conflict, and I'm still waiting for you to edumicate me. The more you try to never go over my claims and just claim that "you're wrong," the more ridiculous you sound. Prove it. I have no proof other than I trust my source, especially knowing that Yeshayahu Leibowitz was a fierce and outspoken critic of his country's policies. Israel, and probably Jews in general. I'm fairly certain that when I've been called an antisemite and a Zionist, which is what usually happens to me when Israel acts up, that I'm in a fairly comfortable place in terms of moral rectitude. Judge for yourself, that's your problem; I've judged others based on their language on here, and you can judge based on your convictions.

By now there is a history going back several years and five or six such relief flotillas, and they know by now that the people on board the ships are unarmed and will not greet them with violence. The Israelis know that the ships, cargo, and passengers also have to pass very strict inspections before they are allowed to leave the port of departure to ensure that there are no firearms or explosives on board. So, what are they afraid of? Boxes of macaroni? Antibiotics? Insulin? Bandages? Cement? For another thing, Israelis have a well-documented history of charging in with deadly force, killing a few people, and then claiming they were defending themselves when they killed the little old gramma, the old man in the wheel chair, and the five year old kid, so their self-defense story lost its credibility a very long time ago. You're basically arguing that we ignore international maritime law "just for Israel." Do you think preventive war is justified? That's like arguing we need to go to war with Iran because of something they MIGHT do 30 years from now, just on a different scale.

Yes, you have a steady supply of conveniently one-sided propagandistic "answers". That they are all either over-simplified or flat out lies doesn't seem to bother you in the slightest. :rolleyes: Free hint: Israel initially took over the Gaza strip in one of the many wars that the "innocent persecuted Arabs" were using to try to destroy it. No, Israel first took control of it following the 6-day war. The 6-day war was a preventive war, not to be mistaken for preemptive, by Israel. Obviously they gave control up later, but that's where their control was first "established," and where their occupation and settlements have continued to be a problem. You've portrayed the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians as being entirely one-sided. Same thing. No, I have not. I have said that when discussing this issue it is not fair whatsoever to compare the two as equals. It's like the rest of the world expecting the third-world to react to climate change in the same way: yes, the developing world should also take some steps, but it is entirely unreasonable to expect them to take the very same measures as the developed world and to treat them as equals in this when they have not been party to the same contributions. That's not true either. Maybe some day you'll learn that platitudes and pat answers don't cut it when dealing with complex conflict situations. Yes, it is. Had it not been for British control of the region due to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, they wouldn't have had any authority to establish Israel in the first place; not to mention the other keys for peace in the region, Kashmir/India/Pakistan, is also the fault of the British. Jews had been migrating to the region since the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. This is when the Zionist movement began to pick up speed due to heavy antisemitism in Europe. This is why Zionism was thought of in the first place, why it is a racist and nationalist policy, and why I am opposed to it; they wanted to follow the new European model, to set up a national State of their own, where they could be masters of their own fate. Where do you think their maxim "A land without a people for a people without a land" came from? Zionism is Ethnocentric nationalism by its design, its nature, and in its roots. So the Zionists decided to set up shop where half a million people were living, 90% of them being Arab. Ironically, the Arab National Movement also emerged at roughly the same time as the Zionist movement to establish a state of their own, free from the Ottoman Empire, and eventually from all of the colonial empires built AFTER World War I. There was also an Arab-Palestinian movement that was created after Britain had established the separate state called "Palestine." The struggle has commenced from there forward. So yes, I blame this on Britain for establishing Israel. The US had some bearing, but this was mostly Britain's push at the end of WWII. Not only was Israel established where people had already been living, the Zionists were given far more land in proportion with the amount of people there. This is why the 1948 war was started by the Palestinians. Over 50% of the land was given to the Zionists when they, at the time, comprised of only one third of the people. Not fair. Now, do tell your version of the events that occurred, my friend. You keep avoiding it, you never post evidence for your claims, never post links, etc. The reason I asked is that the quote doesn't appear to be sourced from anywhere reputable. It is just passed from one anti-Israel site to another, and spread around further on the Internet by ignoramuses who use the quote for their own agendas without realizing that there's a very good chance it is completely fabricated. It is not fabricated. However, I had been under the impression that a supporter of Israel had made it, when a critic had made it (he was an Israeli citizen, and Jewish). You spout pure hate rhetoric unapologetically -- you're the most anti-Israel person I've come across on the net in years. Hate? Hatred of what? War crimes? Unjust policy? If so, I welcome your claims for my hatred. I've been called a hater of America on these boards many times, too, and I will continue to unapologetically criticize governments who do unjust and oppressive things, including my own. And because I know that you'll say that I'm not condemning the war crimes of Hamas, I do. Look at the Goldstone Report, something that Israel has attempted to reject and deny in its claims; so much for being fair and balanced. When this conflict has balance, I will treat them as equals. When I see 3 Israeli civilians die versus almost 1,000 Palestinians die in a siege, 1/3 of which were children, when Israel broke the ceasefire (and imo it was all about Kadima's poll numbers, mixed with them seeing what Obama's reaction would be), you can't seriously ask me to view the two on equal footing. The occupying settlers would murder their own prime minister before they accept peace; oh, right, that's exactly what they did.

The one ship, MV Blue Mamara, was Turkish. NATO is meeting as we speak, or in the very near future, to discuss if Turkey will in fact invoke Article 5: an attack on one [in NATO] is an attack on all. I suspect not, though. Lemme quote a fellow Brit for you about this: http://www.alternet.org/story/147052/3_facts_you_need_to_know_about_the_israeli_attack_on_peace_activists_on_the_gaza_flotilla/

Under international law, Gaza is not a part of Israel but a part of the territories administered first by the Palestinian Authority and after an election now by Hamas. The relief flotillas take special care not to enter Israeli territorial waters proper. The incident happened in international waters north of where the flotilla would have made a turn toward the waters off Gaza. Israel is fairly clearly in violation of the Geneva Convention by its actions in this blockade. What Israel is doing is the equivalent of a medieval seige. I'm also still waiting for the evidence of gun-running. The ship was in international waters. The attack was therefore an act of war. The flotilla had every legal and moral justification to use the guns they were running, so why didn't they? The best Israel's propagandists could come up with were some switchblade knives, metal balls, and metal bats. If they were running guns, do you really believe Israel wouldn't have video of them all over the world by now? There were no guns. There was no justification for the attack. Israel committed an act of war that no decent person can excuse or mitigate.

Oh do tell your side of the story of how they came into control of Gaza, my friend. (the answer is that legally, they haven't, and are illegally occupying the land). I haven't said this is only Israel's fault. If I were to go back far enough, I'd say this is entirely British colonization's fault. Nonetheless, in the present, Israel has refused to do anything with regard to peace, and has even went so far as to publicly embarrass the Vice President of the US in their arrogance: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE62908E.htm The source of the quote is here: http://qumsiyeh.org/liesandtruths/ However, upon further reading, it appears it was taken out of context. Apologies. Leibowitz was certainly a fierce critic of Israeli policies but that did not stop Israel from awarding him the Israel prize. (he didn't accept it). I'm not anti-Israel, but I am not pro-Zionist (the belief in a Jewish homeland), nor am I pro-Israel. Why would I say that I support an apartheid regime? I don't even support my own stupid government of America. You'd be hard pressed to find me supporting any government other than the Scandinavian ones, and maybe Canada. Nations will exist, and geopolitical interests will constantly overshadow human rights; this is why even though I don't express support for Israel (or America) that I do not regard myself as "anti-Israel."

My point wasn't that "I don't care what's in Hamas' charter," my point was that it's totally irrelevant because of the situation involved. We're approaching the point to where the settlements are so out of hand that the only choice IS a one-state solution. Which are sometimes justified because Israel is occupying their land. Should they fire them? As I stated above, NO! Sometimes innocent Israeli civilians are killed, not to mention the PR to treat the entire region as terrorists rises exponentially. Even when just, it does no service to their cause. Hamas only cares about power, which is why they usually launch those attacks in the first place, knowing full well what Israel's response will be (an all out disproportionate barrage whereby tens to almost one thousand die). The recent siege in Gaza back in 2008 and 2009 was Israel violating the ceasefire, though. I didn't say only, I said in far more cases than not. The fact that Israel is occupying their land is a violation of international law and is in fact, aggression. Did I ever express support for Hamas? No. I did the opposite.

You either do not understand or do not wish to acknowledge that there are many, MANY Palestinians who do *not* want peace and are *not* interested in negotiating peace with Israel, and that includes the current Gaza government. The Palestinian people want Palestine; rightfully so, it's theirs and was taken from them by the British occupying force. Ironically, before Israel was even instated, both Zionists and Arab Nationalists from the region worked together against Britain's occupation in the 1920's. No, they are not. Substantiate your claims, please. And most of Israel's parties refuse to recognize a Palestinian state, or a divided Jerusalem (something even the US does). I don't care what Hamas' charter says. What about when Fatah was in power? Israel is not interested in peace, and hasn't been for some time. In the 1940's and 1950's, I might be able to agree that they were in fact wanting peace. It hasn't been so for a long time. ~Yeshayahu Leibowitz, 30 November 1973 I didn't say that they were right, but I did say to have some empathy as to why Hamas got elected in the first place! Hamas shouldn't have been elected, it was wrong of the people to do so. However, is it THAT difficult to understand WHY they did? How about some ex-Israeli officials: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/30/israel http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/02/barak_peace_with_palestinians_or_apartheid.php Jimmy Carter? http://www.haaretz.com/news/jimmy-carter-israel-s-apartheid-policies-worse-than-south-africa-s-1.206865 Not to mention the recent news that Israel worked with the apartheid regime of South Africa regarding nuclear weapons: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/2010524162819275870.html

Gladly. But I doubt he'd take my call. There are also people who think the Israelis are the same as the Nazis. Doesn't make that right either. Arabs in Israel are able to vote in elections, and are integrated into society in pretty much every way. To even compare Israel to apartheid shows that the person saying it is either a moron or just a Jew-hater (in Tutu's case, probably a bit of both.) Those comparisons are simply atrocious and very hyperbolic. Israel, for all of its crimes, are not like the Nazis. They have been guilty of ethnic cleansing, and perhaps even cultural genocide. However, the genocide of a people, or even anything resembling it, isn't even in the cards. I'm sorry that you disagree with the person who brought South Africa's apartheid regime to the world's attention, but I disagree with you, vehemently. I don't know how it's not an apartheid regime. To the same degree? Arguable. However, to argue that it's not is not something I can even begin to wrap my mind around.

Yes, people like yourself always say this in general terms. But in practice, it's always about Israel. See my post below about why this is about Israel. I can do very little about Saudi Arabia until we get off of oil completely. I advocated for the Obama administration to condemn Turkey's Armenian Genocide when he met with them last year, but he stopped short. When he didn't, I was very disappointed, although I somewhat expected him not to do it. Why did he stop short? They're a NATO ally, and are very key to stability in the region. Now Israel may have gone and f'ed that up. For the third time, geopolitics are a [bleep]. Nicely oversimplified. Because again, you only look at one side of the issue, conveniently ignoring the reasons why this doesn't happen due to the Palestinians. I do think they've done a lot of damage to their own cause by reacting with violence in some cases to Israeli aggression; even in cases where violence is justified, should they have reacted in that way? I'd say no, as I am strictly non-violent in nature and think it only does harm to your cause. However, it is far from being "both are bad so let's be in the middle and condemn both as equals!" One side is rich, prosperous, has the richest most powerful nation on their side, is educated, has universal health care (when the US doesn't even have that); the other is being occupied, is subjected to apartheid in East Jerusalem, is largely uneducated, starving, poor, and mostly children.

Tell that to Desmond Tutu http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1957644.stm In case you're wondering who this is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu We don't even need to get into how Saudi Arabia treats its minorities. Just examine the way they treat their own citizens; Saudi Arabia is still stuck in the year 1100. I condemn them just the same as I condemn what's going on in Darfur. The difference is how we as citizens can affect policy. We can do very little to affect the US policy towards Saudi Arabia. However, we CAN remove this stigma in the US that we can NEVER condemn Israel no matter what they do. When does the US ever condemn the Saudis? Never. Why? Oil. Again, geopolitics are a [bleep].

I won't temper my viewpoints, I will condemn them all, including the Islamic Republic of Iran and any other country that defines itself based on one race or religion. Ironically, though, the people of Iran are probably the most pro-Western in the entire region. It's their corrupt and fanatical government that is the problem. I will also condemn the wretched Egyptian government, a government the US is glad to be pals with in exchange for their agreements to peace with Israel. In a just world, we would be criticizing them far more than we criticize, say, Venezuela. We don't. Geopolitics are a [bleep]. There is no two sides to this issue. I'm sorry if I treat the Israeli government with far more scorn than I do Hamas, an organization which I also condemn, but this is not two equal sides here. There is an oppressor, and an oppressed. Unlike Das' assertion, it is clear cut and dry, and has been since the 1970's. More often than not, especially since that period, they have been the aggressor, and have acted disproportionately. Israel shouldn't have been established in the first place, but now that it has, it's not going anywhere, nor should it. It should, however, not be defined as the Zionists want as a "homeland for Jews." Palestine and Israel need to be united under one flag, ruled by a secular democratic government. We can discuss two sides when the other "side" actually has a state-hood to be sided with. Hey, I agree, however, extend some empathy. Who has given them most of their schools, roads, hospitals and food? It certainly wasn't the corrupt Fatah government, who pocketed most of the money. It hasn't been the international community or Israel. It has been Hamas. And like most people's around the world, the Palestinians are the least concerned with their government's foreign policy, and most concerned with the domestic aspects. If they weren't put in a hopeless situation in the first place, groups like Hamas wouldn't rise to power. I could say the same with Israel, who has elected a far-right Hawkish government with people like Avigdor Lieberman in power.

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...? This organization, as I have stated, is pretty non-violent. They're not stupid. You're assuming that they are. 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). 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.

...it's pretty clear that something else has "reared its head" as well. And it's not pretty. Israel is over-zealous and reactionary, but the Palestinians are not the innocent victims being portrayed here. Well, most of the regular civilians are, but the government and the militants in Gaza bear responsibility for most of the woes that befall the people. You're making the mistake of conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Are the two sometimes overlapping? Most certainly; in fact I think a lot of antisemites use it as cover for their racism in the same way that homophobes use "teh marriage is sacred!" Ahmadinejad is most certainly both, as is Hamas and Hezbollah. However, just because I mentioned the word "Zionism" and used it in the pejorative gives no evidence that I am antisemitic. My views on this issue are those of Noam Chomsky: I oppose a Jewish state, just the same as I oppose a Muslim or a Christian state. Any country defining itself on grounds such as those is bound to mistreat any minority in the region, and that can not only be seen in philosophical theory, but in the harsh reality of the world. I suspect when the world becomes more secular that there's going to be the need to protect all of the religious, not just whatever religious minority is in a particular region.