israeli soldiers kill 9 in international waters

[magekillr]

Tell that to Desmond Tutu

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.

[qeltar]

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!" 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.

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.

 

You also continue to use one-sided apologist phrases like "reacting with violence in some cases to Israeli aggression", as if that's all the Palestinians have done. It's flat-out false. The Palestinians have been responsible for an ENORMOUS amount of aggression and are AT LEAST as responsible for the current mess as the Israelis are.

 

Hamas's charter calls for the utter destruction of Israel. Do you really not know this?

 

Thinking that a side in a conflict is right because they are more poor is a fallacy. Based on that "logic", Al Qaeda is right and Western society should be destroyed.

 

And if you continue to use the term "apartheid", I'll be forced to accept that I've overestimated both your reasonableness and intelligence. (Thinking something is true because you found a famous person who thinks it is true is ALSO a fallacy. For example, I could quote de Klerk saying just the opposite -- then what?)

[Romy]

 

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.

 

 

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.

[magekillr]

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!" 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.

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.

 

The Palestinians have been responsible for an ENORMOUS amount of aggression and are AT LEAST as responsible for the current mess as the Israelis are.

 

No, they are not. Substantiate your claims, please.

 

Hamas's charter calls for the utter destruction of Israel. Do you really not know this?

 

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.

 

"The guideline of our policy has always been the idea that a permanent situation of no peace and a latent war is the best situation for us, and that it must be maintained at all costs. ... we are becoming stronger year by year in a situation of impending conflict where it is possible that actual fighting may break out from time to time. Such wars will usually be short and the results guaranteed in advance, since the gap between us and the Arabs is increasing. In this way we shall move on from occupation to further occupation. ... this criminally mischievous policy has led us into the crisis we are living through today"

~Yeshayahu Leibowitz, 30 November 1973

 

Thinking that a side in a conflict is right because they are more poor is a fallacy.

 

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?

 

And if you continue to use the term "apartheid", I'll be forced to accept that I've overestimated both your reasonableness and intelligence. (Thinking something is true because you found a famous person who thinks it is true is ALSO a fallacy. For example, I could quote de Klerk saying just the opposite -- then what?)

 

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

[tortilliachp]

the most interesting thing for the near future is what happens to the legitimate goods of non-violent nature, if they break the blockade or not. How will the international community react if the Israelis block concrete and food? what about the 5 other ships?

 

the violence is once thing, what about the peaceful demonstrators? I'm pretty sure high profile internationals would not partake in the transportation of materials, if they knew something was amiss.

[qeltar]

I don't care what Hamas' charter says.

Of course you don't. You only care about what reinforces your preconceived hatred of Israel.

 

According to the BBC, over 8,000 rocket attacks have been made against Israel by the Palestinians in just the last decade.¹ The Arabs have been trying to destroy Israel for far longer. That you can sit there with a straight face and actually claim that Palestinians only "react to Israeli aggression" shows that you are brainwashed beyond belief.

 

I do find it amusing that earlier you condemned those who compare Israel to the Nazis. Guess what? Hamas does that in the very charter you don't care about. LOL

 

I'm not wasting any more time on someone who is obviously not even interested in looking at both sides of a very complicated issue, and who engages in multiple logical fallacies in each post. As always, for some people, certainty is more important than accuracy or fairness.

 

¹http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7818022.stm

[qeltar]

"The guideline of our policy has always been the idea that a permanent situation of no peace and a latent war is the best situation for us, and that it must be maintained at all costs. ... we are becoming stronger year by year in a situation of impending conflict where it is possible that actual fighting may break out from time to time. Such wars will usually be short and the results guaranteed in advance, since the gap between us and the Arabs is increasing. In this way we shall move on from occupation to further occupation. ... this criminally mischievous policy has led us into the crisis we are living through today"

~Yeshayahu Leibowitz, 30 November 1973

Source for this quote?

[magekillr]

Of course you don't. You only care about anything but what reinforces your preconceived hatred of 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.

 

According to the BBC, over 8,000 rocket attacks have been made against Israel by the Palestinians in just the last decade.

 

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.

 

I do find it amusing that earlier you condemned those who compare Israel to the Nazis. Guess what? Hamas does that in the very charter you don't care about. LOL

 

Did I ever express support for Hamas? No. I did the opposite.

[das]

I don't care what Hamas' charter says.

Of course you don't. You only care about what reinforces your preconceived hatred of Israel.

 

isn't that how most racism works? spread hate - deny everything else?

 

It's easy to deny the othersides beliefs when you dont share them, want to see them , or comprehend them.

[qeltar]

Right. The Palestinians are poor, helpless folks, and everything they do is only because of the apartheid-loving Jews who are oppressing them. :rolleyes:

 

This ignorant attitude allows Israel-haters like yourself to excuse anything the Palis do, while castigating anything Israel does, and then pretend the situation is one-sided. Never mind *how* Israel happened to come into control of Gaza, or other little inconvenient realities.

 

And yes, you *have* indirectly expressed support for Hamas, simply by virtue of attempting to portray this situation as only being Israel's fault, and ignoring everything Hamas has done to lead up to the current mess in Gaza.

 

My father's favorite sarcastic comment comes to mind: "Don't confuse me with facts -- I've made up my mind." The sad thing is that you're probably very young. But brainwashing can be broken in time -- I was once almost as much a mindless pro-Israel person as you are anti-Israel.

[magekillr]

This ignorant attitude allows Israel-haters like yourself to excuse anything the Palis do, while castigating anything Israel does, and then pretend the situation is one-sided. Never mind *how* Israel happened to come into control of Gaza, or other little inconvenient realities.

 

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).

 

And yes, you *have* indirectly expressed support for Hamas, simply by virtue of attempting to portray this situation as only being Israel's fault, and ignoring everything Hamas has done to lead up to the current mess in Gaza.

 

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."

[Saru Inc]

First off, I'm writing this on my phone, so if you see weird grammatical errors its this old phone fml.

 

 

Second off, I'll come out and admit I've been working on a lot lately so I might miss some of the dynamics.

 

 

Anyways, basically I side with Romy in that while the Israelis did break the law, it was for a good cause. Now I am aware that line has been so misconstrued and misued by tyrants, the ends justify the means etc. That's not what I am getting at. I know some Lebanese who. Lived in Israel, hanas came to their house and said get up, walk out of the countryy or you die, right here. Right now. Why? Because they owned a christian ministry for the homeless. When the mother tried to take a simply wedding picture or bag of bread they threatened to shoot her. I will display my uncondtional bias here, I will not support any kind of organization like that. I don't care if I its a christiann one forcing atheists out or vice versa, its simply wrong. And the thing is, whether or not this is acknowledge by the media, zionistic or anti semetic, even if Hamas directly isn't embraced by the majroty of palestinians, the SPIRIT of hamas is embraced by the majority of palestinians.

 

 

Anyways, technically, was Israel wrong and hypocritical? Yes. If this was any other country that had non religious ties to the state, would the whole world understand/sympathize/forget this ever happened? Israel cannot take any chances, hamas is noy ashamed to slip a nuke into a shipment of beanie babies, just like someone might put a gun in a birthday cake to a prisoner. Israel cannot take the chances, will they bruise a few toes? Perhaps. But at least it stops them from getting their feet blown off from landmines that hamas places all around. As my dad said "the world owes Israel for when they turned their backs on them during the holocaust. " note my dad is far from zionistic, he even says that many many times the jews have become pompous and arrogant, and they tend to think the rules don't apply, but still. Israel is essentially part of our penance for ignoring them during that horrific occurrence. Magekillr might think I am an idiot, and meh maybe I am, but I still agree.

 

Also, Das hit the nail on the head. Race relations, country relations, anything involving mass amounts of people is NEVER cut and dry. But. I will admit, I will almost never side with hamas or hezbollah. I say almost never because who knows what the future holds, L.

[Danqazmlp]

I think a lot of people are looking too much at the bigger picture and too little at the event itself.

 

If you look at videos of what happened, you would see so called 'peaceful' protesters on the boats hitting the military that boarded the boat with metal bats, in one case it is clear to see a group of at least 4 of these 'peaceful' people hitting a downed member of the military that boarded the ships. You would also see them forcefully throwing these men overboard into the sea. I am sorry but if you expect to hit somebody who has a gun with a metal bat, do not expect them not to shoot you when in such a volatile part of the world. It was indeed not a smart move by the Israeli's to initiate the boarding, but the actions that happened once boarded were almost totally the fault of those already on-board. As i say, the Israeli's were in the wrong doing this in international waters, but apart from that one point, they were only reacting. They had warned the ships to stop which they did not. They warned them they would be boarded if they did not stop, they still did not stop. They then, as I have said, hit the soldiers with metal sticks. The soldiers had not boarded with the intention to shoot, they had to do it as a reaction to save their own lives. They are trained military personnel, trained to contain a threat. The people on board get no sympathy whatsoever from me as i see them as complete and utter idiots for trying to fight.

 

 

Now, for the bigger picture. My way of trying to explain the situation to other people (It only works for Brits) Is to imagine that Wales was the Gaza strip. It has its own government which resents the rest of Britain. Imagine that there had been numerous rocket attacks from Wales on mainland UK, and the Government of Wales had a very murky history of terrorism. Would you then be so opposed to a blockade?

[magekillr]

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.

 

Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons #Section III : Occupied territories

ARTICLE 59

If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal.

 

Such schemes, which may be undertaken either by States or by impartial humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, shall consist, in particular, of the provision of consignments of foodstuffs, medical supplies and clothing.

 

All Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of these consignments and shall guarantee their protection.

 

A Power granting free passage to consignments on their way to territory occupied by an adverse Party to the conflict shall, however, have the right to search the consignments, to regulate their passage according to prescribed times and routes, and to be reasonably satisfied through the Protecting Power that these consignments are to be used for the relief of the needy population and are not to be used for the benefit of the Occupying Power.

 

Section III : Occupied territories

ARTICLE 60

Relief consignments shall in no way relieve the Occupying Power of any of its responsibilities under Articles 55, 56 and 59. The Occupying Power shall in no way whatsoever divert relief consignments from the purpose for which they are intended, except in cases of urgent necessity, in the interests of the population of the occupied territory and with the consent of the Protecting Power.

 

Section III : Occupied territories ARTICLE 61

The distribution of the relief consignments referred to in the foregoing Articles shall be carried out with the cooperation and under the supervision of the Protecting Power. This duty may also be delegated, by agreement between the Occupying Power and the Protecting Power, to a neutral Power, to the International Committee of the Red Cross or to any other impartial humanitarian body.

 

Such consignments shall be exempt in occupied territory from all charges, taxes or customs duties unless these are necessary in the interests of the economy of the territory. The Occupying Power shall facilitate the rapid distribution of these consignments.

 

All Contracting Parties shall endeavour to permit the transit and transport, free of charge, of such relief consignments on their way to occupied territories.

 

Section III : Occupied territories

ARTICLE 62

Subject to imperative reasons of security, protected persons in occupied territories shall be permitted to receive the individual relief consignments sent to them.

 

Chapter VIII : Relations with the exterior

ARTICLE 108

Internees shall be allowed to receive, by post or by any other means, individual parcels or collective shipments containing in particular foodstuffs, clothing, medical supplies, as well as books and objects of a devotional, educational or recreational character which may meet their needs. Such shipments shall in no way free the Detaining Power from the obligations imposed upon it by virtue of the present Convention.

 

Should military necessity require the quantity of such shipments to be limited, due notice thereof shall be given to the Protecting Power and to the International Committee of the Red Cross, or to any other organization giving assistance to the internees and responsible for the forwarding of such shipments.

 

The conditions for the sending of individual parcels and collective shipments shall, if necessary, be the subject of special agreements between the Powers concerned, which may in no case delay the receipt by the internees of relief supplies. Parcels of clothing and foodstuffs may not include books. Medical relief supplies shall, as a rule, be sent in collective parcels.

 

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.

[Danqazmlp]

An act of war against who? Israel is at war with the Palestine's and Gaza if you boil it down to basics, and will do all within their power to enforce the blockade. They have not actually occupied Gaza so the above quotes mean nothing whatsoever. Israel is enforcing a blockade, not occupying the country. Instead of going in in a shock attack and creating mass criticism with military force they are stretching it out over a few years in an attempt to stretch out the criticism they receive.

[magekillr]

An act of war against who? Israel is at war with the Palestine's and Gaza if you boil it down to basics, and will do all within their power to enforce the blockade. They have not actually occupied Gaza so the above quotes mean nothing whatsoever. Israel is enforcing a blockade, not occupying the country. Instead of going in in a shock attack and creating mass criticism with military force they are stretching it out over a few years in an attempt to stretch out the criticism they receive.

 

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:

 

Israeli soldiers invaded these ships in international waters, breaking international law, and, in killing civilians, committed a war crime.

 

...

 

Israel has no right to control Gaza’s sea as its own territorial waters and to stop aid convoys arriving that way. In doing so, it proves that it is still in belligerent occupation of the enclave and its 1.5 million inhabitants. And if it is occupying Gaza, then under international law Israel is responsible for the welfare of the Strip’s inhabitants. Given that the blockade has put Palestinians there on a starvation diet for the past four years, Israel should long ago have been in the dock for committing a crime against humanity.

 

http://www.alternet.org/story/147052/3_facts_you_need_to_know_about_the_israeli_attack_on_peace_activists_on_the_gaza_flotilla/

[michel555555]

An act of war against who? Israel is at war with the Palestine's and Gaza if you boil it down to basics, and will do all within their power to enforce the blockade. They have not actually occupied Gaza so the above quotes mean nothing whatsoever. Israel is enforcing a blockade, not occupying the country. Instead of going in in a shock attack and creating mass criticism with military force they are stretching it out over a few years in an attempt to stretch out the criticism they receive.

 

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:

 

Israeli soldiers invaded these ships in international waters, breaking international law, and, in killing civilians, committed a war crime.

 

...

 

Israel has no right to control Gazas sea as its own territorial waters and to stop aid convoys arriving that way. In doing so, it proves that it is still in belligerent occupation of the enclave and its 1.5 million inhabitants. And if it is occupying Gaza, then under international law Israel is responsible for the welfare of the Strips inhabitants. Given that the blockade has put Palestinians there on a starvation diet for the past four years, Israel should long ago have been in the dock for committing a crime against humanity.

 

http://www.alternet.org/story/147052/3_facts_you_need_to_know_about_the_israeli_attack_on_peace_activists_on_the_gaza_flotilla/

 

It would be interesting to see what happens if Turkey does invoke article 5. I can see 3 potential outcomes.

 

1) US sides with Israel and NATO eventually falls apart as member countries realise there really is no protection in the treaty as long as its in the united states's best interest to ignore it.

 

2) US sides with Turkey and forces Israel to publically admit it has nukes to get the female dogs to back off. Hopefully ends in israel signing the NPT and results in a halt to all aid from the US until they do in accordance with the simmington ammendment.

 

3) Or US remains neutral and israel is forced to officially admit it has nukes again and US is forced to side with Turkey or start another global arms race as people realise that the NPT has no teeth without the US's backing.

 

would be interesting times if turkey ever did. But very unlikly to happen.

 

Also waiting to see how Obama will deal with the 9 or so at last count american citizens who were detained with the rest of the activists.

[qeltar]

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).

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.

 

I haven't said this is only Israel's fault.

You've portrayed the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians as being entirely one-sided. Same thing.

 

If I were to go back far enough, I'd say this is entirely British colonization's fault.

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.

 

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).

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.

 

I'm not anti-Israel

You spout pure hate rhetoric unapologetically -- you're the most anti-Israel person I've come across on the net in years.

 

I am sorry but if you expect to hit somebody who has a gun with a metal bat, do not expect them not to shoot you when in such a volatile part of the world.

This is a red herring. You are conveniently ignoring who initiated hostilities and looking only at the response.

 

Israel had no business boarding those ships. Period. Full stop. It was illegal and unethical. The people who responded with baseball bats and so forth? Of course they shouldn't have done so in theory, but we don't know what exactly transpired before that point.

 

The "you should have known what would happen" argument applies to the *Israelis* here. Not the people on the ship. The protestors were attacked and had the right to defend themselves.

 

It was indeed not a smart move by the Israeli's to initiate the boarding, but the actions that happened once boarded were almost totally the fault of those already on-board.

It wasn't just "not smart", it was illegal. And the fault rests mainly on those who provoked the incident for NO VALID REASON. If they were really worried about guns being on the ship, they could have simply prevented the ship from unloading. That's not what this was about.

 

They had warned the ships to stop which they did not.

They had no legal justification to stop the ships.

 

Amazing how people who want to reflexively defend Israel can so conveniently skip the Israelis instigating the entire thing and only focus on what the "bad guys" did.

 

You can be damned sure that if the roles were reversed, and some Palestinians had illegally boarded an Israeli ship, the same people now complaining about baseball bats would be talking ONLY about the boarding being illegal, and praising the Israelis for their "heroic" behavior in the face of "piracy".

 

The bias is transparently obvious. Most Westerners like Jews more than Muslims, and that's all this comes down to.

 

It would be interesting to see what happens if Turkey does invoke article 5. I can see 3 potential outcomes.

 

1) US sides with Israel and NATO eventually falls apart as member countries realise there really is no protection in the treaty as long as its in the united states's best interest to ignore it.

 

2) US sides with Turkey and forces Israel to publically admit it has nukes to get the female dogs to back off. Hopefully ends in israel signing the NPT and results in a halt to all aid from the US until they do in accordance with the simmington ammendment.

 

3) Or US remains neutral and israel is forced to officially admit it has nukes again and US is forced to side with Turkey or start another global arms race as people realise that the NPT has no teeth without the US's backing.

And what will really happen:

 

4) The US will step in, and give away another boatload of taxpayer cash to Turkey to get them to drop this.

[The_Gabe]

Well, I'm heading off to Israel in 5 days. And I support Israel in 99% of acts they do. I don't care if it's right or wrong, but that's what I believe. Btw Rony, you've earned major respect from me. That's actually, very rare.

[sees_all1]

Read through all of this, seems mostly a flame about Israel.

 

Putting the incident in terms I can relate to -

If I'm in my house, and the FBI or police officers busted down my doors, I would not grab a metal pipe and start attacking them. I would probably put my hands up and slowly kneel on the ground, or I'd follow their directions. That seems like a very rational decision, especially since I'm not trying to get shot.

 

The people on that ship probably suffered from a mob mentality - There's only one soldier at a time, we can take care of them! At best, this was all a big misunderstanding or miscommunication; at worst there was ill intent.

Israel definitely should have waited until the ship was in their waters, but one thing I haven't heard is how far away the ship was from that. Any insight would be helpful. If the ship was a mile or two out, I'd put less fault on Israel for the incident.

The individuals on the ship should have known they would be boarded, it was irrational for them to fight the soldiers off. I put little blame on the soldiers: they did as they were told and they reacted to a bad situation.

 

As far as how the rest of the world will react to this, I think their positions are already well established. Most Arab nations hate Israel for being Israel, so there's no question where they'll put the fault. The only question that remains is how they'll react.

The US is in a sticky spot; Arab nations hate us for everything but our money. Israel is a lone ally to us, which makes me think we'll stand strong with them. I'll be interested in seeing how this turns out.

[Perakp]

Some questions

 

Is hamas binded by international law and if so, does it follow it?

The protesters didn't have a right to pass the blockade and were warned before the attack, right? Was their purpose to just get the help to gaza or to possibly somehow force an end to the blockade? Did Israel truely fear that the ship might have weapons on it or did they just want to keep the outsiders out for the sake of it?

[Saru Inc]

Hamas is a terrorist organization. They tend not to play by the rules.

[Romy]

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.

[tortilliachp]

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.

 

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?

[qeltar]

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.

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.

 

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 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.

 

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.

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.

 

Two groups using "end justifies the means" rationales means endless war until one or the other is wiped out. That's what you are, in effect, endorsing with such an attitude.

 

Second, you claim Israel cannot afford to limit its actions based on what is moral or legal, but it really cannot afford *not* to. For all of its bravado, Israel is not even remotely independent -- it is very highly dependent on foreign aid. It is also very dependent on foreign *good will* and a public sentiment that they are the "good guys" in the region. They are destroying this.

 

Never forget that Israel came into being largely as a result of sympathy (and guilt) after the Holocaust. That's many years gone by now, and the current actions of the Israelis are eroding much of the generally sympathetic views that many in the West had in the past towards the rights of Jews to have a soveriegn nation.

 

If Israel continues to try to "go it alone", if they defy the world and claim they have the right to do whatever they want and ignore international law, Israel will cease to exist, probably within our lifetimes.