israeli soldiers kill 9 in international waters

[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.

 

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.

[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.

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.

 

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.

 

Same as above.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Do you not agree that a search was obligatory?

 

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.

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.

[assassin_696]

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.

 

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?

[magekillr]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

[Romy]

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.

 

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.

[qeltar]

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.

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 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.

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.

 

Same as above.

And my response is the same as well: you continue to defend criminal behavior using bogus justifications that any reasonable person knows to be false.

 

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.

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:

 

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.

And I'm well aware of that, being an Israeli citizen.

Then why do you keep defending it?

 

I probably understand what foreign assistance means to Israel better than anyone else here.

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.

 

But Israel cannot afford breaches in security, it's not an option, no matter what the cost is.

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.

 

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.

So now you're implying that the Six Day War was *also* Israel's fault?

 

Another attempt to rewrite history. Not that I'm surprised at this point, given your already demonstrated hatred of Israel and lack of understsanding of the issues.

 

Yes, it is.

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.

 

It is not fabricated.

Prove it.

 

Hate? Hatred of what?

Israel, and probably Jews in general.

[magekillr]

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.

 

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.

[assassin_696]

romy, you're essentially saying that Israel has a right to violate well established international laws because of a threat that you believe might have existed? And apparently now not committing acts of piracy is "petty". Your theory still makes no sense because one action is legal and other illegal, and hence one action may illicit different consequences (i.e. violence) in the circumstances than the other, legal, action. The ships had every right to ignore the messages because they were simply under no obligation in any circumstances to stop, be very clear about that. The fact that this happened in international waters makes all the difference and is not petty, because a ship can only be boarded by another vessel if they are flying the same flag in international waters. Ignoring warnings is irrelevant.

 

You keep saying the ships weren't supervised, what do you mean by that?

[qeltar]

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.

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.

[Romy]

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.

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 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.

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.

 

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.

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?

 

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.

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.

 

I probably understand what foreign assistance means to Israel better than anyone else here.

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.

 

But Israel cannot afford breaches in security, it's not an option, no matter what the cost is.

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.

[Romy]

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.

 

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.

 

and they know by now that the people on board the ships are unarmed and will not greet them with violence.

You and I both know they were definitely greeted with violence, I have no idea where that claim came from.

 

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?

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.

 

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.

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.

[assassin_696]

Security works both ways, maybe it's a shame none of the Palestinians can search the $2.16 billion dollars worth of military hardware shipped to Israel every year by the US. But regardless, these were known to be aid ships so an illegal search really wasn't "obligatory" and no matter how many times you say it was doesn't change that.

[obfuscator]

So if china puts a nuke on a ship to send to NK, but calls it an "aid ship" you'd condone doing nothing? I doubt it.

 

I also know that would never happen, it's just a hypothetical example.

[Romy]

romy, you're essentially saying that Israel has a right to violate well established international laws because of a threat that you believe might have existed?

 

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.

 

 

And apparently now not committing acts of piracy is "petty".

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.

 

Your theory still makes no sense because one action is legal and other illegal, and hence one action may illicit different consequences (i.e. violence) in the circumstances than the other, legal, action.

My theory says the IDF relied on a simple logic of safety, what in that makes no sense to you?

 

The ships had every right to ignore the messages because they were simply under no obligation in any circumstances to stop, be very clear about that.

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.

 

The fact that this happened in international waters makes all the difference and is not petty, because a ship can only be boarded by another vessel if they are flying the same flag in international waters.

 

And I think that\s petty.

 

You keep saying the ships weren't supervised, what do you mean by that?

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.

[qeltar]

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.

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).

 

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?

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.

 

 

Then why do you keep defending it?

 

Because security breaches are not an option.

This was not required for security reasons. There were other alternatives, and you know it.

 

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.

It's "petty" for people to insist that Israel act in an ethical and responsible manner? Amazing.

 

If you aren't better than the other guys, why the hell are we sending you billions of dollars every year?

 

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.

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?

 

I could have told them that. So could anyone with an IQ above double digits.

 

Gosh. I always thought the IDF leaders were pretty smart.

 

If Israel's military is run by utter and complete morons, then I guess it's time we stop funding them.

 

The ships had every right to ignore the messages because they were simply under no obligation in any circumstances to stop, be very clear about that.

It's not about their rights, it's about what their actions trigger.

 

So nobody has any rights except Israelis?

 

I have lost a *lot* of respect for you and your country over the last 24 hours.

[magekillr]

So now you're implying that the Six Day War was *also* Israel's fault?

 

Another attempt to rewrite history. Not that I'm surprised at this point, given your already demonstrated hatred of Israel and lack of understsanding of the issues.

 

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.

 

Yes, it is.

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.

 

It is not fabricated.

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.

 

Hate? Hatred of what?

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.

[Romy]

Security works both ways, maybe it's a shame none of the Palestinians can search the $2.16 billion dollars worth of military hardware shipped to Israel every year by the US. But regardless, these were known to be aid ships so an illegal search really wasn't "obligatory" and no matter how many times you say it was doesn't change that.

 

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

[qeltar]

You keep saying these things, but you have YET to substantiate them, qeltar. I've asked you repeatedly, and you refuse to do so.

I'm already wasting far too much time on this discussion, and I'm not going to get drawn into some massive side-discussion that rehashes all of Middle Eastern history.

 

I've had such debates with people since probably before you were born, and I've learned that with some people, debating these issues is pointless. If you showed yourself to be in a rational, moderate position, then maybe it would be worthwhile. As soon as you started with the mindless Israel bashing, quoting Israel hatred websites and comparing the country to apartheid South Africa, you ceased being worth the time investment.

 

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.

Your "trusted source" being a Palestinian activist. LOL. Are you for real?

 

Judge for yourself

I have -- and you have been found wanting.

 

As anyone can see here, I am no Israeli apologist. But you are as messed up in the other direction as the Israeli yesmen are.

[magekillr]

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.

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.

[Romy]

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.

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.

 

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?

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?

 

 

Then why do you keep defending it?

 

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?

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

The ships had every right to ignore the messages because they were simply under no obligation in any circumstances to stop, be very clear about that.

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?

[magekillr]

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:

 

Indeed, the parallels between Israel and -- gulp -- North Korea are becoming pretty eerie. True, Israel's economy is thriving and North Korea's is not. That said, both countries are diplomatically isolated except for their ties to a great power benefactor. Both countries are pursuing autarkic policies that immiserate millions of people. The majority of the populaion in both countries seem blithely unaware of what the rest of the world thinks. Both countries face hostile regional environments. Both countries keep getting referred to the United Nations. And, in the past month, the great power benefactor is finding it more and more difficult to defend their behavior to the rest of the world.

 

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.

[tortilliachp]

So if china puts a nuke on a ship to send to NK, but calls it an "aid ship" you'd condone doing nothing? I doubt it.

 

I also know that would never happen, it's just a hypothetical example.

in this case, you follow international law. look at how serious a VERY similar example was, under the Cuban Missile Crisis. There are international regulations to avoid exactly that type of situation. if you have no legal jurisdiction to board a vessels, or search a person, you don't do it. another parallel example is that of apprehending a criminal in a different country, where you have no jurisdiction:

 

Mullah Krekar is wanted for terrorism in many countries around the world. He has asylum in norway. You can't have an israeli police officer apprehend him here in norway for crimes against humanity. you can't apprehend him if he's fishing 65 miles from the israeli mainland. you have to wait to see if he's an idiot and enters your sovereign waters. otherwise it's piracy, and kidnapping.

 

I don't object to the search, per say. I object to the illegal manner in which it was done. call it preventative, call it whatever you like, it's illegal, immoral and illogical.

 

 

Considering the hypotheticals further:

 

what if the ships intended on stopping on the international border, asking for permission to deliver aid, and be searched peacefully?

what if the Israelis followed their own protocol in boarding ships for customs inspections, rather than dropping down in military helicopters with special forces troops?

 

we'll never know. of course some of you will argue that the rhetoric of the demonstrators legitimized this kind of action. but it is just that: rhetoric, words; NOT actions.

 

If norway moves all its navy towards the russian border, through international borders, that doesn't give the russians reason to attack, to board, to do anything. sovereign ships under sovereign have basic rights: of free travel, of fair treatment, of the laws of the land being followed. you cannot deny people their basic human rights.

[obfuscator]

So if china puts a nuke on a ship to send to NK, but calls it an "aid ship" you'd condone doing nothing? I doubt it.

 

I also know that would never happen, it's just a hypothetical example.

in this case, you follow international law. look at how serious a VERY similar example was, under the Cuban Missile Crisis. There are international regulations to avoid exactly that type of situation. if you have no legal jurisdiction to board a vessels, or search a person, you don't do it. another parallel example is that of apprehending a criminal in a different country, where you have no jurisdiction:

 

Mullah Krekar is wanted for terrorism in many countries around the world. He has asylum in norway. You can't have an israeli police officer apprehend him here in norway for crimes against humanity. you can't apprehend him if he's fishing 65 miles from the israeli mainland. you have to wait to see if he's an idiot and enters your sovereign waters. otherwise it's piracy, and kidnapping.

 

I don't object to the search, per say. I object to the illegal manner in which it was done. call it preventative, call it whatever you like, it's illegal, immoral and illogical.

 

 

Considering the hypotheticals further:

 

what if the ships intended on stopping on the international border, asking for permission to deliver aid, and be searched peacefully?

what if the Israelis followed their own protocol in boarding ships for customs inspections, rather than dropping down in military helicopters with special forces troops?

 

we'll never know. of course some of you will argue that the rhetoric of the demonstrators legitimized this kind of action. but it is just that: rhetoric, words; NOT actions.

 

If norway moves all its navy towards the russian border, through international borders, that doesn't give the russians reason to attack, to board, to do anything. sovereign ships under sovereign have basic rights: of free travel, of fair treatment, of the laws of the land being followed. you cannot deny people their basic human rights.

 

 

I basically agree with this lol, my main objection to Israel's action is that the searching occurred in international water. He appeared to state that the search itself was not condone-able regardless of location.

[tortilliachp]

So if china puts a nuke on a ship to send to NK, but calls it an "aid ship" you'd condone doing nothing? I doubt it.

 

I also know that would never happen, it's just a hypothetical example.

in this case, you follow international law. look at how serious a VERY similar example was, under the Cuban Missile Crisis. There are international regulations to avoid exactly that type of situation. if you have no legal jurisdiction to board a vessels, or search a person, you don't do it. another parallel example is that of apprehending a criminal in a different country, where you have no jurisdiction:

 

Mullah Krekar is wanted for terrorism in many countries around the world. He has asylum in norway. You can't have an israeli police officer apprehend him here in norway for crimes against humanity. you can't apprehend him if he's fishing 65 miles from the israeli mainland. you have to wait to see if he's an idiot and enters your sovereign waters. otherwise it's piracy, and kidnapping.

 

I don't object to the search, per say. I object to the illegal manner in which it was done. call it preventative, call it whatever you like, it's illegal, immoral and illogical.

 

 

Considering the hypotheticals further:

 

what if the ships intended on stopping on the international border, asking for permission to deliver aid, and be searched peacefully?

what if the Israelis followed their own protocol in boarding ships for customs inspections, rather than dropping down in military helicopters with special forces troops?

 

we'll never know. of course some of you will argue that the rhetoric of the demonstrators legitimized this kind of action. but it is just that: rhetoric, words; NOT actions.

 

If norway moves all its navy towards the russian border, through international borders, that doesn't give the russians reason to attack, to board, to do anything. sovereign ships under sovereign have basic rights: of free travel, of fair treatment, of the laws of the land being followed. you cannot deny people their basic human rights.

 

 

I basically agree with this lol, my main objection to Israel's action is that the searching occurred in international water. He appeared to state that the search itself was not condone-able regardless of location.

I figured as much, so i took the liberty of quoting, and elaborating freely :P

[qeltar]

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.

Yes. So? How is this a counter-argument?

 

The point I made is that these flotillas had been stopped before, and the people on the ship had not reacted violently. I believe there were also other ships the Israelis boarded, again with no violence.

 

Now I've already said I don't think the Israelis had any right boarding any ships in international waters. But the "freedom flotilla" people *helped establish a pattern that led the Israelis to believe they could safely board the ship*. To do so and then attack them, even with improvised weapons, means they bear at least some of the responsibility for this mess.

 

 

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.

Irrelevant to the point here. It was the same government they let board ships before.

 

They usually always carry Nobel Prize Winners and previous officials of many world governments frequent the ships.

Then why did people on the ship risk the lives of these people by attacking armed soldiers? Maybe they are as idiotic as whoever is running the IDF?

 

They are non-violent activists.

Then why did they attack the Israeli soldiers?

 

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.

Boarding a ship is not "deadly violence".

 

Your arguments are just as ridiculous as Romy's, only from the other side. She thinks the mere presence of a ship that "might" have weapons on it is a deadly threat that justifies anything up to and including murder, and you seem to think Israeli soldiers landing on the deck of a ship are a deadly threat that justifies "non-violent activists" assaulting them with metal pipes.

 

You are both utterly blinded by bias.

 

I don't see how this isn't an apartheid situation

Then you haven't bothered to look.

 

There are numerous ways in which the situations are completely different. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself on this issue, I'm not wasting my time doing it.