israeli soldiers kill 9 in international waters

[Satenza]

No, it isn't. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm. Next time please check your facts before posting. A trade agreement and certain military agreements does not mean two countries are allied.

 

Please tell me where I claimed Israel was a member of NATO before you post a list of all member states.

 

You're daft if you think NATO is going to attack Israel. First, NATO is a dog and it's teeth is the USA. For NATO to attack Israel it would force the US to pick one or the other, and NATO would not be stupid enough to risk losing the US from membership, or it would turn into the abject failure that the League of Nations was.

 

Exactly. Which is precisely why the ships were checked and went through customs and the passengers were screened using the highest technology available. Turkey is a member of NATO and would never allow weapons or armaments into the Gaza strip via a flotilla sailing under the turkish flag after having been through customs in Istanbul. To do so would be diplomatic suicide and the end of their NATO membership.

 

Your whole argument centring around NATO is irrelevant though, since Israel is not, and has never been, a member state of NATO.

 

Jesus. The very fact they are in partnership and what I have explained above shows the lack of justification for Israel to believe Turkey would allow armaments through.

 

Despite the Israeli bloackade which is illegal as declared by the UN, your justification for the attack on the flotillas was that they had reason to believe there were armaments and weapons on board. I have shown you - and pretty categorically - that there was no justification for them to think this.

 

Perhaps you should go back to the drawing board and think of another reason or justification as to why there are ten less palestinian activists alive.

[Nero]

Please tell me where I claimed Israel was a member of NATO before you post a list of all member states.

Lol. Yes it is.

 

Exactly. Which is precisely why the ships were checked and went through customs and the passengers were screened using the highest technology available. Turkey is a member of NATO and would never allow weapons or armaments into the Gaza strip via a flotilla sailing under the turkish flag after having been through customs in Istanbul. To do so would be diplomatic suicide and the end of their NATO membership.

Turkey is not Israel, and saying that because a ship was checked by another country before leaving port it removes any justification for a country to search a vessel that is heading to their waters, disobeying warnings/requests from military vessels, and trying to 'run a blockade' is stupid, at best.

 

Jesus. The very fact they are in partnership and what I have explained above shows the lack of justification for Israel to believe Turkey would allow armaments through.

That still doesn't make sense. Why would a country trust another for something as critical as national security? It's like claiming border guards on the US-Canada border have no justification to search vehicles entering the country because the two nations are allies (or because they trade together! :/ ).

 

Despite the Israeli bloackade which is illegal as declared by the UN, your justification for the attack on the flotillas was that they had reason to believe there were armaments and weapons on board. I have shown you - and pretty categorically - that there was no justification for them to think this.

Source? All I could find is a vague reference to it being 'criticized' by the UN secretary general.

 

And I have shown you, pretty categorically and simply laid out - that there was every justification for the boarding of the ship.

 

Perhaps you should go back to the drawing board and think of another reason or justification as to why there are ten less palestinian activists alive.

Man you sound like a broken record. 'They have no justification!' 'Yes they do, for this reason, this, and this.' 'They have no justification!' '...'.

 

There are ten less Palestinean activists because they thought it would be a good idea to try and mob special forces troops; there are ten less stupid people in the world.

[Satenza]

Please tell me where I claimed Israel was a member of NATO before you post a list of all member states.

Lol. Yes it is.

 

In response to the fact that they are allies. Not that Israel is a member of NATO.

 

Exactly. Which is precisely why the ships were checked and went through customs and the passengers were screened using the highest technology available. Turkey is a member of NATO and would never allow weapons or armaments into the Gaza strip via a flotilla sailing under the turkish flag after having been through customs in Istanbul. To do so would be diplomatic suicide and the end of their NATO membership.

Turkey is not Israel, and saying that because a ship was checked by another country before leaving port it removes any justification for a country to search a vessel that is heading to their waters, disobeying warnings/requests from military vessels, and trying to 'run a blockade' is stupid, at best.

 

A ship checked by an ally using the highest technologies after streaming it to the Israeli's means that an attack at 2AM in the middle of the night in International Waters is unjustified. Unless of course you think they have a magician on board that can conjure up guns and bombs?

 

Despite the Israeli bloackade which is illegal as declared by the UN, your justification for the attack on the flotillas was that they had reason to believe there were armaments and weapons on board. I have shown you - and pretty categorically - that there was no justification for them to think this.

Source? All I could find is a vague reference to it being 'criticized' by the UN secretary general.

 

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/sc9940.doc.htm

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7142055.ece

http://current.com/shows/current-tonight/90711595_report-u-n-human-rights-chief-israels-blockade-of-gaza-illegal.htm

 

And I have shown you, pretty categorically and simply laid out - that there was every justification for the boarding of the ship.

 

All you have said and continued to say over and over is that they were justified since they suspected armaments. I have shown that suspicion to be unfounded and ridiculous.

[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.

 

Despite the fact that all ships had been through customs and checks in Turkey, which was prior to this event a close ally of Israel.

 

I don't know if you're aware of this, but the relations between Israel and Turkey have been horrible at best, for quite a while. Drills were canceled, trades were canceled, even flights were canceled.

 

Anyway, Israel didn't get any information on what's on the ships. Ever. It cannot just let it go by and ignore all possible security breaches. In the past, many ships were found to be carrying weapons and ammo on large amounts.

 

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.

 

It had already been searched. It was in international waters. The flotilla posed no threat in the slightest. As shown with the assortment of kitchen knives and wooden sticks found on board.

 

Again, Israel had no information on what's was on the ships. Again, the ships were unsupervised. Again, there's a history of weapon smuggles, and Israel cannot afford security breaches.

 

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.

 

Lol - no it isn't "petty". What is petty is the fact that you're just another Israeli apologist who passes over the aim of the mission and ignores the facts. The people on the boat weren't terrorists they were activists and the only act of terror is the boarding of their ships in the dead of night and the killing of innocent people. You still claim like the rest of the Israeli apologists on this thread that the victims here weren't those shot dead in cold blood, but were the soldiers who illegally boarded a ship designed to provide aid to the very people the soldiers are starving to death.

 

The same course of action would of taken place later inside Israel's territorial waters, which is why I said it's petty.

 

And trust me, I know exactly what's going on in Gaza, I don't wish that to my worst enemies. But Israel cannot stop it's blockade on Gaza for reasons both history, present, and logic point at.

[assassin_696]

Yes, but whatever their own justifications were, legally they had no right to board the ships. Israel can act paranoid and board every ship in a 200 mile radius of Gaza if it chooses but that doesn't give it a legal authority to do so. There's also the fact that boarding a ship for the purpose of "searching it" in the middle of the night with armed special forces soldiers (when they expected no resistance?) could easily be construed as an act of war but hey.

 

They knew it wasn't a big floating nuclear bomb because they said they'd redirect it to a different port then pass on the humanitarian aid that they deemed "suitable", all of Israel's actions and knowledge up to that point indicated pretty clearly that this wasn't some sort of Trojan horse carrying hundreds of Hamas soldiers or something, so stop making out it was such a massive security risk.

[Nero]

A ship checked by an ally using the highest technologies after streaming it to the Israeli's means that an attack at 2AM in the middle of the night in International Waters is unjustified. Unless of course you think they have a magician on board that can conjure up guns and bombs?

Turkey. Is. Not. An. Ally. Of. Israel.

 

Furthermore, as I said above:

Why would a country trust another for something as critical as national security? It's like claiming border guards on the US-Canada border have no justification to search vehicles entering the country because the two nations are allies (or because they trade together! :/ ).

 

 

http://www.un.org/Ne.../sc9940.doc.htm

http://business.time...icle7142055.ece

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=7rnLDdYPMpc

Condemns Acts

Raises questions

Calls for end

 

Nowhere did I see that it was stated that the blockade was illegal.

 

 

All you have said and continued to say over and over is that they were justified since they suspected armaments. I have shown that suspicion to be unfounded and ridiculous.

You have shown that to be unfounded...because the ship was searched by a country that isn't even an ally to Israel. Okay...

 

--

 

And Assassin you would prefer them to have waited until daytime, when the ship would already be unloading its cargo in Gaza?

[Romy]

A ship checked by an ally using the highest technologies after streaming it to the Israeli's means that an attack at 2AM in the middle of the night in International Waters is unjustified. Unless of course you think they have a magician on board that can conjure up guns and bombs?

 

Israel had no information on what the flottila was carrying. At all. Again, Israel cannot afford security breaches.

 

All you have said and continued to say over and over is that they were justified since they suspected armaments. I have shown that suspicion to be unfounded and ridiculous.

Unfounded and ridiculous?

 

The ship officially ignored all of the IDF's requests not to enter Israeli territorial waters.

The ships were NOT supervised.

There's a very famous history of ships carrying weapons and ammo, with the intent ot smuggle it into the hands of the Hamas.

That's enough reasons to justify a search.

 

Just yesterday Israel discharged rocket launchers that were used to launch rockets at citizens.

[Satenza]

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.

 

Despite the fact that all ships had been through customs and checks in Turkey, which was prior to this event a close ally of Israel.

 

I don't know if you're aware of this, but the relations between Israel and Turkey have been horrible at best, for quite a while. Drills were canceled, trades were canceled, even flights were canceled.

 

Anyway, Israel didn't get any information on what's on the ships. Ever. It cannot just let it go by and ignore all possible security breaches. In the past, many ships were found to be carrying weapons and ammo on large amounts.

 

Yes, relations deteriorated since the saturation bombing on Gaza however they still traded and Israel continued to sell weapons to Turkey.

 

Turkey examined all the ships, Turkey is a NATO member. Israel is partnered with NATO. There is no way a NATO member would allow weapons into Gaza.

 

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.

 

It had already been searched. It was in international waters. The flotilla posed no threat in the slightest. As shown with the assortment of kitchen knives and wooden sticks found on board.

 

Again, Israel had no information on what's was on the ships. Again, the ships were unsupervised. Again, there's a history of weapon smuggles, and Israel cannot afford security breaches.

 

The searches were even streamed out live to the Israelis.

 

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.

 

Lol - no it isn't "petty". What is petty is the fact that you're just another Israeli apologist who passes over the aim of the mission and ignores the facts. The people on the boat weren't terrorists they were activists and the only act of terror is the boarding of their ships in the dead of night and the killing of innocent people. You still claim like the rest of the Israeli apologists on this thread that the victims here weren't those shot dead in cold blood, but were the soldiers who illegally boarded a ship designed to provide aid to the very people the soldiers are starving to death.

 

The same course of action would of taken place later inside Israel's territorial waters, which is why I said it's petty.

 

And trust me, I know exactly what's going on in Gaza, I don't wish that to my worst enemies. But Israel cannot stop it's blockade on Gaza for reasons both history, present, and logic point at.

 

Yes - it can. Tell me why history, present and logic forbids them to end the blockade?

[Romy]

Yes, but whatever their own justifications were, legally they had no right to board the ships. Israel can act paranoid and board every ship in a 200 mile radius of Gaza if it chooses but that doesn't give it a legal authority to do so.

You can't compare simple ships going by on international waters close to Israel, to ships that actually ignored Israel's requests NOT to enter Israel's territorial waters, and that were going straight to Gaza, no doubt.

 

There's also the fact that boarding a ship for the purpose of "searching it" in the middle of the night with armed special forces soldiers (when they expected no resistance?) could easily be construed as an act of war but hey.

And was and is widely questioned as for which unit should've been sent. But either way, the rest of the ships posed no resistance, and none were attacked.

 

They knew it wasn't a big floating nuclear bomb because they said they'd redirect it to a different port then pass on the humanitarian aid that they deemed "suitable", all of Israel's actions and knowledge up to that point indicated pretty clearly that this wasn't some sort of Trojan horse carrying hundreds of Hamas soldiers or something, so stop making out it was such a massive security risk.

I feel like a broken record.

 

Israel cannot afford security breaches. A search was obligatory, and inevitable.

[Romy]

Yes, relations deteriorated since the saturation bombing on Gaza however they still traded and Israel continued to sell weapons to Turkey.

 

Actually, those were deterionated since Arduan...

 

 

You know what? It doesn't matter. Bottom line is - Israel had no idea what was on the ships, and couldn't afford not to. A search was absolutely obligatory.

 

The searches were even streamed out live to the Israelis.

 

Again, a search was obligatory.

 

Yes - it can. Tell me why history, present and logic forbids them to end the blockade?

The mere fact you ask that question makes me severely doubt how much you know about the issue.

 

For what it's worth, the blockade obviously isn't enforced out of malice. Weapons were sent to Gaza on a regular basis, through tunnels, ships, and even by land. Even Eygept realized that and helped Israel enforce the bloackde (yes, I'm aware to the fact that it no longer does). And these weapons' main target was pure harm, not war. They were and sometimes still are used against innocent Israeli citizens.

 

History shows it because it's nothing new.

 

Present shows it, because just yesterday Israel discharged rocket launchers, for example.

 

And most importantly, logic shows it, because if Israel didn't stop it, weapons would be sent there on extremely large quantities. No country in it's right mind could allow anything like that.

[Satenza]

The very fact a blockade exists is to quash the resistance Israel has met from the Palestinians. I agree with you on that point, in fact I agree wholeheartedly.

 

The problem with this point is the fact that it neglects that the resistance they were met with from Gaza and from Lebanon was because they have illegally occupied their territory for 40 years.

 

So I agree that the end of the blockade is quite ridiculous, but only if it is predicated on the illegal occupation of territory and the constant settlement building.

 

If, for example, Israel was to withdraw from the land it occupies illegally and into what was agreed with by the UN then the blockade would be over since the resistance to an illegal occupier would disappear.

 

With every day and every life that is ended due to starvation or murder another resistance fighter is born, and a good job too.

[assassin_696]

Yes, but whatever their own justifications were, legally they had no right to board the ships. Israel can act paranoid and board every ship in a 200 mile radius of Gaza if it chooses but that doesn't give it a legal authority to do so.

You can't compare simple ships going by on international waters close to Israel, to ships that actually ignored Israel's requests NOT to enter Israel's territorial waters, and that were going straight to Gaza, no doubt.

 

I agree the ships' intentions were pretty clear from a layman's point of view but legally there isn't really a distinction between the two, the ships had freedom of navigation under the Law of the Seas so the most the Israeli's could do was wait until they entered sovereign waters. Anyway I'm not going to belabour the point, the law's pretty clear about this and I think you're acknowledging that so it's a difference of opinion elsewhere.

 

There's also the fact that boarding a ship for the purpose of "searching it" in the middle of the night with armed special forces soldiers (when they expected no resistance?) could easily be construed as an act of war but hey.

And was and is widely questioned as for which unit should've been sent. But either way, the rest of the ships posed no resistance, and none were attacked.

 

That's being disputed:

 

Dimitris Gielalis, who had been aboard the Sfendoni, told reporters: "Suddenly from everywhere we saw inflatables coming at us, and within seconds fully equipped commandos came up on the boat. They came up and used plastic bullets, we had beatings, we had electric shocks, any method we can think of, they used."

 

Michalis Grigoropoulos, who was at the wheel of the Free Mediterranean, said: "We were in international waters. The Israelis acted like pirates, completely out of the normal way that they conduct nautical exercises, and seized our ship. They took us hostage, pointing guns at our heads; they descended from helicopters and fired tear gas and bullets. There was absolutely nothing we could do … Those who tried to resist forming a human ring on the bridge were given electric shocks."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/gaza-flotilla-eyewitness-accounts-gunfire

 

And poorly translated from a Spanish newspaper:

 

At least one piece of the account from the Israeli Ministry of Defence is scarcely believable: in the other ships, where nobody apparently offer any resistance, there were also some wounded people, as this newspaper was able to verify by briefly talking to some of the passengers when they were being admitted on stretchers to a hospital in Ashkelon.

 

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Israel/asalta/legalidad/internacional/elpepuopi/20100601elpepiint_1/Tes

 

They knew it wasn't a big floating nuclear bomb because they said they'd redirect it to a different port then pass on the humanitarian aid that they deemed "suitable", all of Israel's actions and knowledge up to that point indicated pretty clearly that this wasn't some sort of Trojan horse carrying hundreds of Hamas soldiers or something, so stop making out it was such a massive security risk.

I feel like a broken record.

 

Israell cannot afford security breaches. A search was obligatory, and inevitable.

 

You're not the only one. I'm not denying their right to search the ship in port or their own territorial waters. But there's absolutely no reason from a security standpoint of stopping a ship well before a blockade unless the Israeli's had good evidence that the ship was going to try and run the blockade and detonate some kind of WMD in port. The fact that these were slow-moving ships from a known activist group carrying members of parliament, Nobel peace laureates, doctors etc. means that Israel can't justify it that way. Even if they strongly suspected the ships of carrying a weapons cache (which would be an astonishingly stupid idea for ships trying to raise awareness through a stunt like this) they could still only search the ship in their waters and then take the necessary action if the ships were smuggling arms (which they weren't). So bottom line is the search was not obligatory. A ship arriving in port with a load of weapons which are found and confiscated is not a breach, and would be much more useful from the Israeli's point of view than finding them in international waters (where they were found illegally).

[magekillr]

For what it's worth, the blockade obviously isn't enforced out of malice.

 

'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,' he said. The hunger pangs are supposed to encourage the Palestinians to force Hamas to change its attitude towards Israel or force Hamas out of government.

~Dov Weisglass

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/16/israel

 

The results:

 

*since the intensification of the siege in June 2007, "the formal economy in Gaza has collapsed

*"61% of people in the Gaza Strip are … food insecure," of which "65% are children under 18 years"

* since June 2007, "the number of Palestine refugees unable to access food and lacking the means to purchase even the most basic items, such as soap, school stationery and safe drinking water, has tripled"

*"in February 2009, the level of anemia in babies (9-12 months) was as high as 65.5%"

 

To say that this blockade is about weapons smuggling is absolute insanity and nonsense, as has been admitted by Israeli advisors themselves.

 

 

(h/t the Economist)

 

Cement! My porch is itself a Quran away from waging an insurgency on my pansies. Should I call homeland security?

 

Anything that would allow them to make things, farm, or subsist on their own is banned. Anything that can be imported into Gaza for consumption only, leaving them wholly dependent is allowed. This isn’t about stopping weapons in the least.

[Romy]

The very fact a blockade exists is to quash the resistance Israel has met from the Palestinians. I agree with you on that point, in fact I agree wholeheartedly.

 

The problem with this point is the fact that it neglects that the resistance they were met with from Gaza and from Lebanon was because they have illegally occupied their territory for 40 years.

 

So I agree that the end of the blockade is quite ridiculous, but only if it is predicated on the illegal occupation of territory and the constant settlement building.

 

If, for example, Israel was to withdraw from the land it occupies illegally and into what was agreed with by the UN then the blockade would be over since the resistance to an illegal occupier would disappear.

 

With every day and every life that is ended due to starvation or murder another resistance fighter is born, and a good job too.

 

That's extremely over-simplistic and unbased.

 

I can now come up with a very long post, containing sources and explanations for Israel's doings over the years. I can also explain the obvious- that it isn't one sided, and nothing like you suggest. But that would be almost pointless, because you've already made up your mind. Israel is the only one at blame and it's enemies are just reacting.

 

 

You justify rockets shot at Sderot because what you call illegal territory triggered that? Even if that was true, that doesn't justify anything like that. Anything even remotely close to that.

[Satenza]

Agreed, everything I will write will be over simplified because of the fact the issue is complex and I don't necessarily have the time to write long posts either.

 

To respond to your last comment - no. It isn't simply the occupation of illegal territory that justifies the rockets. It is the consequences of what occupation does. Hundreds of thousands of refugee's scattered across the neighbouring countries with deeds and titles in their hands to houses now occupied by Israeli's or else demolished and who now live in camps because the countries won't accept them properly. The thousands upon thousands killed by one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world, or the ones orphaned by similar disasters and the many more crippled. Maybe all the people in Gaza suffering a slow death by starvation have reason to attack. Any resistance encountered is understandable and the bombs that fall on Gaza and destroy its hospitals and civil buildings only make that resistance stronger.

[Romy]

There's also the fact that boarding a ship for the purpose of "searching it" in the middle of the night with armed special forces soldiers (when they expected no resistance?) could easily be construed as an act of war but hey.

And was and is widely questioned as for which unit should've been sent. But either way, the rest of the ships posed no resistance, and none were attacked.

 

That's being disputed:

 

Dimitris Gielalis, who had been aboard the Sfendoni, told reporters: "Suddenly from everywhere we saw inflatables coming at us, and within seconds fully equipped commandos came up on the boat. They came up and used plastic bullets, we had beatings, we had electric shocks, any method we can think of, they used."

 

Michalis Grigoropoulos, who was at the wheel of the Free Mediterranean, said: "We were in international waters. The Israelis acted like pirates, completely out of the normal way that they conduct nautical exercises, and seized our ship. They took us hostage, pointing guns at our heads; they descended from helicopters and fired tear gas and bullets. There was absolutely nothing we could do … Those who tried to resist forming a human ring on the bridge were given electric shocks."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/gaza-flotilla-eyewitness-accounts-gunfire

 

And poorly translated from a Spanish newspaper:

 

At least one piece of the account from the Israeli Ministry of Defence is scarcely believable: in the other ships, where nobody apparently offer any resistance, there were also some wounded people, as this newspaper was able to verify by briefly talking to some of the passengers when they were being admitted on stretchers to a hospital in Ashkelon.

 

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Israel/asalta/legalidad/internacional/elpepuopi/20100601elpepiint_1/Tes

 

I can cite sources claiming the opposite. There's obviously a big problem of credibility here.

 

My own logic says that the unit "Flottila 13", or really, any person in their right mind, wouldn't resort to these things without a good reason. And there cannot be a good reason to shoot before boarding the ships, and neither a good reason to harm those who do not resist.

 

They knew it wasn't a big floating nuclear bomb because they said they'd redirect it to a different port then pass on the humanitarian aid that they deemed "suitable", all of Israel's actions and knowledge up to that point indicated pretty clearly that this wasn't some sort of Trojan horse carrying hundreds of Hamas soldiers or something, so stop making out it was such a massive security risk.

I feel like a broken record.

 

Israell cannot afford security breaches. A search was obligatory, and inevitable.

 

You're not the only one. I'm not denying their right to search the ship in port or their own territorial waters. But there's absolutely no reason from a security standpoint of stopping a ship well before a blockade unless the Israeli's had good evidence that the ship was going to try and run the blockade and detonate some kind of WMD in port. The fact that these were slow-moving ships from a known activist group carrying members of parliament, Nobel peace laureates, doctors etc. means that Israel can't justify it that way. Even if they strongly suspected the ships of carrying a weapons cache (which would be an astonishingly stupid idea for ships trying to raise awareness through a stunt like this) they could still only search the ship in their waters and then take the necessary action if the ships were smuggling arms (which they weren't). So bottom line is the search was not obligatory. A ship arriving in port with a load of weapons which are found and confiscated is not a breach, and would be much more useful from the Israeli's point of view than finding them in international waters (where they were found illegally).

 

But again, the ships were unsupervised, clearly claimed they ignore Israel's requests not to enter territorial waters, and Israel had no idea what was going on on the ships. So again, a search was definitely obligatory.

 

I agree it would've been a much better decision to wait until the ships reach Israel's territorial waters, but then I repeat, the same course of action would've taken place even if the IDF did wait. Israel had no right to do it, but the results would've been the same.

 

 

 

 

@Magekillr, if you seriously think the blockade is a result of malice, I'm not even going to address your post.

[magekillr]

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

[Romy]

Agreed, everything I will write will be over simplified because of the fact the issue is complex and I don't necessarily have the time to write long posts either.

 

To respond to your last comment - no. It isn't simply the occupation of illegal territory that justifies the rockets. It is the consequences of what occupation does. Hundreds of thousands of refugee's scattered across the neighbouring countries with deeds and titles in their hands to houses now occupied by Israeli's or else demolished and who now live in camps because the countries won't accept them properly. The thousands upon thousands killed by one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world, or the ones orphaned by similar disasters and the many more crippled. Maybe all the people in Gaza suffering a slow death by starvation have reason to attack. Any resistance encountered is understandable and the bombs that fall on Gaza and destroy its hospitals and civil buildings only make that resistance stronger.

 

 

I completely agree the illegal settlements are horrible, and condemn those myself. I hate that to it's very core, and am ashamed for those who take place.

 

But killing is an inevitable part of war. Israel has lost it's fair share of lives, I can gurantee that. It isn't one sided, and that's what war brings, I'm afraid.

 

Oversimplifying anything in the favor of one side is pointless, and grants nothing.

[Romy]

My point is that it's not about weapons smuggling. It is about influencing leadership in the territories, and is being done through inhumane means.

 

Why would Israel even evacuate the Gaza strip, forcebly removing it's own citizens from their homes, if it's goal is leadership over the area? That makes absolutely no sense. Israel doesn't want to occupy Gaza, but has to enforce a blockade, otherwise.... history explains that better than I ever could.

 

Your sources claiming the opposite are IDF forces who called the people on the boats terrorists.

You're mixing certain people's opinions, and the IDF's actions. And these people aren't even the soldiers who took place in the operation.

 

And ofcourse my sources are the IDF, there are two sides to this story- the passangers and the soldiers. Where else could I take my sources from?

One side claims that, the other claims this.

 

I repeat, my own logic says there's no reason for the soldiers, or any other person, to shoot the ships from afar, or hurt those who do not resist.

[Satenza]

Agreed, everything I will write will be over simplified because of the fact the issue is complex and I don't necessarily have the time to write long posts either.

 

To respond to your last comment - no. It isn't simply the occupation of illegal territory that justifies the rockets. It is the consequences of what occupation does. Hundreds of thousands of refugee's scattered across the neighbouring countries with deeds and titles in their hands to houses now occupied by Israeli's or else demolished and who now live in camps because the countries won't accept them properly. The thousands upon thousands killed by one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world, or the ones orphaned by similar disasters and the many more crippled. Maybe all the people in Gaza suffering a slow death by starvation have reason to attack. Any resistance encountered is understandable and the bombs that fall on Gaza and destroy its hospitals and civil buildings only make that resistance stronger.

 

 

I completely agree the illegal settlements are horrible, and condemn those myself. I hate that to it's very core, and am ashamed for those who take place.

 

But killing is an inevitable part of war. Israel has lost it's fair share of lives, I can gurantee that. It isn't one sided, and that's what war brings, I'm afraid.

 

Oversimplifying anything in the favor of one side is pointless, and grants nothing.

 

It isn't a war it is a resistance. Israel has of course lost lives, but not even one tenth of the lives lost by the palestinians. Despite the complexities the Israeli's are the aggressors and like the UN said, their actions are akin to war crimes.

[tortilliachp]

you don't need a blockade to search all the goods to ensure that no weapons pass through. If you can make weapons out of concrete, coriander and wood to build houses: don't let those pass. But you obviously can't, so the blockade in itself is unnecessary. Searching for weapons is highly necessary, and should continue, also from the Egyptian border.

 

 

The issue is far from clear-cut in my opinion, but both of the parties involved (Hamas, not the demonstrators) are using methods i deem below humane standards.

 

The ships should be searched, within territorial waters. I can't see any reason for justifying searching them outside of territorial waters, and not waiting 2 hours to do it legally, correctly and on a moral high-ground.

 

Yes, Hamas is a terrorist organization and have to be dealt with accordingly, but the 1,5m civilians are not terrorists and deserve humane treatment, and the right to live lives outside of poverty (through aid passing through Israel, no blockade).

 

even though Israel is settling in areas where they should not, that is no reason for Palestinians to fire rockets into Israel.

 

who is the lesser of two evils? that's up to personal values i think, at least.

[assassin_696]

I can cite sources claiming the opposite. There's obviously a big problem of credibility here.

 

My own logic says that the unit "Flottila 13", or really, any person in their right mind, wouldn't resort to these things without a good reason. And there cannot be a good reason to shoot before boarding the ships, and neither a good reason to harm those who do not resist.

 

Really? Because rubber bullets and electric shocks are fairly standard crowd control techniques and I can see why they'd use them early on as a way to stem any resistance straight away. I'm not saying the Israeli's descended the ropes guns blazing Rambo-style shooting at children, I'm saying they boarded the ships in a hostile way used non-lethal but maiming weapons to control the activists without direct provocation and then treated the activists (who as you said, put up little resistance on the other ships) in such a way that violated their human rights.

 

But anyway, your logic and my logic are both fairly irrelevant because we weren't on that ship and neither of us have a working knowledge of IDF naval boarding procedures. What might not seem logical to you (firing rubber bullets before being attacked) might be standard procedure to them, and I can see why it might be so. Of course there's an issue of source credibility, but are your sources IDF? And can you cite the sources? I'm interested in reading the wording from their end, they might well claim there was no resistance but that may have been because they brutally prevented it.

 

But again, the ships were unsupervised, clearly claimed they ignore Israel's requests not to enter territorial waters, and Israel had no idea what was going on on the ships. So again, a search was definitely obligatory..

 

Yes, but you're wrong. Israel knew the ship's intentions, where they were heading, what they were carrying and who was on them. They didn't have an explicit ship's manifest but they were searched in port by a NATO member. This was a publicised event that's happened in the past (with no arms smuggling), Israel even let them through five times before the war last year but subsequently they've always been redirected to a different port. So actually Israel had a pretty good idea what was going on, this wasn't some big black box that was floating towards Gaza and no one had a clue what was on it. You need to stop using the word obligatory because it can mean binding in law or conscience, when this clearly wasn't the case. You've admitted yourself that it would have been better to search the ships in port, that means there was another course of action, hence the action was not obligatory.

[Romy]

Agreed, everything I will write will be over simplified because of the fact the issue is complex and I don't necessarily have the time to write long posts either.

 

To respond to your last comment - no. It isn't simply the occupation of illegal territory that justifies the rockets. It is the consequences of what occupation does. Hundreds of thousands of refugee's scattered across the neighbouring countries with deeds and titles in their hands to houses now occupied by Israeli's or else demolished and who now live in camps because the countries won't accept them properly. The thousands upon thousands killed by one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world, or the ones orphaned by similar disasters and the many more crippled. Maybe all the people in Gaza suffering a slow death by starvation have reason to attack. Any resistance encountered is understandable and the bombs that fall on Gaza and destroy its hospitals and civil buildings only make that resistance stronger.

 

 

I completely agree the illegal settlements are horrible, and condemn those myself. I hate that to it's very core, and am ashamed for those who take place.

 

But killing is an inevitable part of war. Israel has lost it's fair share of lives, I can gurantee that. It isn't one sided, and that's what war brings, I'm afraid.

 

Oversimplifying anything in the favor of one side is pointless, and grants nothing.

 

It isn't a war it is a resistance. Israel has of course lost lives, but not even one tenth of the lives lost by the palestinians. Despite the complexities the Israeli's are the aggressors and like the UN said, their actions are akin to war crimes.

 

You call rocket launches at a city of innocent Israeli citizens a resistance? Not war crimes, and terrorism? You call suicide bombers a resistance? Not idiocy and cruelty?

 

You may want to know, incase you don't already. Each and every war but the Six Days War (which was a result of the Israeli intelligence finding out a war was to be initiated the very same day) wasn't initiated by Israel. You call that resistance?

[assassin_696]

And Assassin you would prefer them to have waited until daytime, when the ship would already be unloading its cargo in Gaza?

 

Minor point, the ships were 40 miles out to sea, the sun's rising in that region at about 5-6am at the moment (I think), ships that size don't travel at 40 miles an hour, probably not even 20. They could have waited a couple of hours. Or even better, until they had the legal authority.

[magekillr]

Why would Israel even evacuate the Gaza strip, forcebly removing it's own citizens from their homes, if it's goal is leadership over the area? That makes absolutely no sense. Israel doesn't want to occupy Gaza, but has to enforce a blockade, otherwise.... history explains that better than I ever could.

 

Did you read the quote that I provided from Olmert's advisor from 2006? The goal is regime change, not to prevent weapons smuggling. To "put them on a diet" so that the Palestinians will elect someone else. Why haven't they had a blockade prior to Hamas' election? There was plenty of members in the organization threatening violence to Israeli civilians before. The answer is because it's not about weapons, but about Israel not liking the results of a democratic election. That's not to say I approve of Hamas' election, but as Greenwald pointed out, they are the elected government. The more you try to do this the more incidents like this will blow up in your face. The Arab world will simply not allow you to ignore Gaza or Hamas. And if you ultimately want peace you will have to face Hamas. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away.

 

Great article in the NY Times today by an Israeli writer who supported the Israeli attacks on both Lebanon and Gaza (though he changed his mind about the former):

 

But Hamas is not just a terrorist organization. Hamas is an idea, a desperate and fanatical idea that grew out of the desolation and frustration of many Palestinians. No idea has ever been defeated by force not by siege, not by bombardment, not by being flattened with tank treads and not by marine commandos. To defeat an idea, you have to offer a better idea, a more attractive and acceptable one.

 

Thus, the only way for Israel to edge out Hamas would be to quickly reach an agreement with the Palestinians on the establishment of an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as defined by the 1967 borders, with its capital in East Jerusalem. Israel has to sign a peace agreement with President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah government in the West Bank and by doing so, reduce the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip. That latter conflict, in turn, can be resolved only by negotiating with Hamas or, more reasonably, by the integration of Fatah with Hamas.

 

Even if Israel seizes 100 more ships on their way to Gaza, even if Israel sends in troops to occupy the Gaza Strip 100 more times, no matter how often Israel deploys its military, police and covert power, force cannot solve the problem that we are not alone in this land, and the Palestinians are not alone in this land. We are not alone in Jerusalem and the Palestinians are not alone in Jerusalem. Until Israelis and Palestinians recognize the logical consequences of this simple fact, we will all live in a permanent state of siege Gaza under an Israeli siege, Israel under an international and Arab siege.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/opinion/02oz.html?hp

 

This means ending the blockade, my friend.

 

 

And ofcourse my sources are the IDF, there are two sides to this story- the passangers and the soldiers. Where else could I take my sources from?

One side claims that, the other claims this.

 

I repeat, my own logic says there's no reason for the soldiers, or any other person, to shoot the ships from afar, or hurt those who do not resist.

 

With all due respect, the IDF has lost nearly all of its credibility long ago.