On June 02 2010 17:45 Ricjames wrote: I would say Israel is a fucking artificially made place in the area of Palestine and they even fucking claim any rights in there. That is fucked up and no wonder there are suicide bombers and stuff like that. When they steal your home and claim it theirs - i would suicide bomb them too if there was nothing left to live for.
All countries are artificially made, and rights only exist as far as they can be defended. It is the nature of conquest. The losing side hardly ever feels it has been dealt a fair hand, but it is all irrelevant.
erhm i would say the creation of israel was especially "artificial" to boot, in general the israelis i have encountered are a very unpleasant bunch
The israelis i met were nice guys who don't deserve this bullshit of government.
Attempting to generalize an entire country based on a small handful of individuals is beyond meaningless. Furthermore, what does it even mean to be a "nice guy"?
I don't know, maybe someone who doesn't justify the forceful conquest, occupation, and subjugation of people just because someone won a battle of violence.
i dunno though
I agree that israel was especially artificial in the beginning, they were then attacked (Yeah i know that egypt didnt attack first but then they shouldn't place 100.000 troops on israeli borders) by egypt, jordan and syria and expanded through war. Forceful conquest, occupation and subjugation is not pretty and it's not great - but it's the way all countries expanded their borders. People seem to have accepted the borders of most other countries even though they were all forged by war.
and yes i know that it might have been 100 or even 500 years ago, but when does a piece of land go from being "occupied enemy territory" to just being part of the country..?
Lastly i want to say that i dont think the state of israel should have been created at all, but it's too late for that now.
On June 02 2010 17:45 Ricjames wrote: I would say Israel is a fucking artificially made place in the area of Palestine and they even fucking claim any rights in there. That is fucked up and no wonder there are suicide bombers and stuff like that. When they steal your home and claim it theirs - i would suicide bomb them too if there was nothing left to live for.
All countries are artificially made, and rights only exist as far as they can be defended. It is the nature of conquest. The losing side hardly ever feels it has been dealt a fair hand, but it is all irrelevant.
erhm i would say the creation of israel was especially "artificial" to boot, in general the israelis i have encountered are a very unpleasant bunch
The israelis i met were nice guys who don't deserve this bullshit of government.
Attempting to generalize an entire country based on a small handful of individuals is beyond meaningless. Furthermore, what does it even mean to be a "nice guy"?
I don't know, maybe someone who doesn't justify the forceful conquest, occupation, and subjugation of people just because someone won a battle of violence.
i dunno though
I agree that israel was especially artificial in the beginning, they were then attacked (Yeah i know that egypt didnt attack first but then they shouldn't place 100.000 troops on israeli borders) by egypt, jordan and syria and expanded through war. Forceful conquest, occupation and subjugation is not pretty and it's not great - but it's the way all countries expanded their borders. People seem to have accepted the borders of most other countries even though they were all forged by war.
and yes i know that it might have been 100 or even 500 years ago, but when does a piece of land go from being "occupied enemy territory" to just being part of the country..?
Lastly i want to say that i dont think the state of israel should have been created at all, but it's too late for that now.
Well when it happened within living memory maybe compensation is in order. There are thousands of refugees all around the world from Palestine. And yet not only aren't they treated as victims of an illegal war more refugees continue to be created as Palestinian homes are demolished and Israeli settlers move into Palestinian areas.
So yes, it is more artificial than say, the conquest of Normandy or England almost 1000 years ago. This happened in our life-time. It is unacceptable.
Edit:
One more point concerning history. Most people today who live in the US, the UK, Australia or New Zealand would have no idea if they were descended from Saxon, Angle, Norman, Pict, Gaelic or any of half a dozen other peoples that are traditionally lumped together under the title Anglo-Saxon. On the other hand, if you were born to Palestinian parents who lost their home and livelihood when they were forcibly ejected from their town then it might be said to be different.
My point is, is compensation in order for the people of modern day northern France for what the Normans did 1000 years ago? Or for the inhabitants of England who are descended from the Saxons who were killed, dispossessed and raped by victorious Norman soldiers in 1066?
I think the answer clearly is yes in the first instance and no in the second.
On June 02 2010 17:45 Ricjames wrote: I would say Israel is a fucking artificially made place in the area of Palestine and they even fucking claim any rights in there. That is fucked up and no wonder there are suicide bombers and stuff like that. When they steal your home and claim it theirs - i would suicide bomb them too if there was nothing left to live for.
All countries are artificially made, and rights only exist as far as they can be defended. It is the nature of conquest. The losing side hardly ever feels it has been dealt a fair hand, but it is all irrelevant.
erhm i would say the creation of israel was especially "artificial" to boot, in general the israelis i have encountered are a very unpleasant bunch
The israelis i met were nice guys who don't deserve this bullshit of government.
Attempting to generalize an entire country based on a small handful of individuals is beyond meaningless. Furthermore, what does it even mean to be a "nice guy"?
I don't know, maybe someone who doesn't justify the forceful conquest, occupation, and subjugation of people just because someone won a battle of violence.
i dunno though
I agree that israel was especially artificial in the beginning, they were then attacked (Yeah i know that egypt didnt attack first but then they shouldn't place 100.000 troops on israeli borders) by egypt, jordan and syria and expanded through war. Forceful conquest, occupation and subjugation is not pretty and it's not great - but it's the way all countries expanded their borders. People seem to have accepted the borders of most other countries even though they were all forged by war.
and yes i know that it might have been 100 or even 500 years ago, but when does a piece of land go from being "occupied enemy territory" to just being part of the country..?
Lastly i want to say that i dont think the state of israel should have been created at all, but it's too late for that now.
Well when it happened within living memory maybe compensation is in order.
So yes, it is more artificial than say, the conquest of Normandy or England almost 1000 years ago. This happened in our life-time. It is unacceptable.
Tell that to the Al Qaeda types still pissed off at Al-Andalus being Spain now. There is a line where something goes from recent wrong that could be fixed to simply history that should be left as it is. For them, apparently that line lies somewhere between the muslim conquest of Spain and the reconquest by the Christians :p
I say that facetiously of course, since for Al-Qaeda the time is irrelevant, it is all about who is taking land from whom. Non-muslims taking land from muslims is going to be unacceptable no matter when it happened. What I freely don't know is the views of your average muslim about this.
Obviously there is a line somewhere. But this notion of giving back land that was taken and held by force of arms is fairly recent I think. This leaves only a few entities to which it could be applied without finding ones' self on the "too long ago" side of that line. Israel is one of them, so they get a lot of shit from people who would never think about giving anything back themselves, because the stuff they took happened too long ago, and before anyone ever considered giving things back just because.
On the other hand they have been continually attacked, by standing national armies and by individuals with crappy rockets (it's the thought that counts!). What a messed up situation.
Oh, and it would be nice to undo the Norman conquest. Then words like boor, churl and knave wouldn't have their current negative connotation, and would be more like Bauer, Kerl and Knabe still remain in German
On June 02 2010 17:45 Ricjames wrote: I would say Israel is a fucking artificially made place in the area of Palestine and they even fucking claim any rights in there. That is fucked up and no wonder there are suicide bombers and stuff like that. When they steal your home and claim it theirs - i would suicide bomb them too if there was nothing left to live for.
All countries are artificially made, and rights only exist as far as they can be defended. It is the nature of conquest. The losing side hardly ever feels it has been dealt a fair hand, but it is all irrelevant.
erhm i would say the creation of israel was especially "artificial" to boot, in general the israelis i have encountered are a very unpleasant bunch
The israelis i met were nice guys who don't deserve this bullshit of government.
Attempting to generalize an entire country based on a small handful of individuals is beyond meaningless. Furthermore, what does it even mean to be a "nice guy"?
I don't know, maybe someone who doesn't justify the forceful conquest, occupation, and subjugation of people just because someone won a battle of violence.
i dunno though
I agree that israel was especially artificial in the beginning, they were then attacked (Yeah i know that egypt didnt attack first but then they shouldn't place 100.000 troops on israeli borders) by egypt, jordan and syria and expanded through war. Forceful conquest, occupation and subjugation is not pretty and it's not great - but it's the way all countries expanded their borders. People seem to have accepted the borders of most other countries even though they were all forged by war.
and yes i know that it might have been 100 or even 500 years ago, but when does a piece of land go from being "occupied enemy territory" to just being part of the country..?
Lastly i want to say that i dont think the state of israel should have been created at all, but it's too late for that now.
Well when it happened within living memory maybe compensation is in order.
So yes, it is more artificial than say, the conquest of Normandy or England almost 1000 years ago. This happened in our life-time. It is unacceptable.
Tell that to the Al Qaeda types still pissed off at Al-Andalus being Spain now. There is a line where something goes from recent wrong that could be fixed to simply history that should be left as it is. For them, apparently that line lies somewhere between the muslim conquest of Spain and the reconquest by the Christians :p
I say that facetiously of course, since for Al-Qaeda the time is irrelevant, it is all about who is taking land from whom. Non-muslims taking land from muslims is going to be unacceptable no matter when it happened. What I freely don't know is the views of your average muslim about this.
Obviously there is a line somewhere. But this notion of giving back land that was taken and held by force of arms is fairly recent I think. This leaves only a few entities to which it could be applied without finding ones' self on the "too long ago" side of that line. Israel is one of them, so they get a lot of shit from people who would never think about giving anything back themselves, because the stuff they took happened too long ago, and before anyone ever considered giving things back just because.
On the other hand they have been continually attacked, by standing national armies and by individuals with crappy rockets (it's the thought that counts!). What a messed up situation.
Oh, and it would be nice to undo the Norman conquest. Then words like boor, churl and knave wouldn't have their current negative connotation, and would be more like Bauer, Kerl and Knabe still remain in German
I appreciate your post for it's mild tone and I even agree that many people would never give up their own home, say, in Australia to an Aboriginal family that was dispossessed a mere 200 years ago.
However, as it is impossible and impractical to redistribute land in say, the middle of Sydney or Melbourne (the two largest Australian cities) things that can be - and should be - done like attempting to combat the destitution that many native Aboriginal people of Australia find themselves living in today are both practical and supported by a significant portion of the population and political leaders.
Within Israel we have a situation where an atrocity is being committed today. This isn't history, this is the time we are living in right now. Saying, "they've been continually attacked" is true. I think the question that should be asked is why they were attacked, not some notion that they were victims of other countries.
And if we're going to undo the Norman conquest perhaps we should undo the Roman and Saxon conquest too while we're at it
On June 02 2010 17:45 Ricjames wrote: I would say Israel is a fucking artificially made place in the area of Palestine and they even fucking claim any rights in there. That is fucked up and no wonder there are suicide bombers and stuff like that. When they steal your home and claim it theirs - i would suicide bomb them too if there was nothing left to live for.
All countries are artificially made, and rights only exist as far as they can be defended. It is the nature of conquest. The losing side hardly ever feels it has been dealt a fair hand, but it is all irrelevant.
erhm i would say the creation of israel was especially "artificial" to boot, in general the israelis i have encountered are a very unpleasant bunch
The israelis i met were nice guys who don't deserve this bullshit of government.
Attempting to generalize an entire country based on a small handful of individuals is beyond meaningless. Furthermore, what does it even mean to be a "nice guy"?
I don't know, maybe someone who doesn't justify the forceful conquest, occupation, and subjugation of people just because someone won a battle of violence.
i dunno though
I agree that israel was especially artificial in the beginning, they were then attacked (Yeah i know that egypt didnt attack first but then they shouldn't place 100.000 troops on israeli borders) by egypt, jordan and syria and expanded through war. Forceful conquest, occupation and subjugation is not pretty and it's not great - but it's the way all countries expanded their borders. People seem to have accepted the borders of most other countries even though they were all forged by war.
and yes i know that it might have been 100 or even 500 years ago, but when does a piece of land go from being "occupied enemy territory" to just being part of the country..?
Lastly i want to say that i dont think the state of israel should have been created at all, but it's too late for that now.
There's no need to make such distinctions. A nation's claims to territory are valid only as long as they can enforce them. The moment it loses that ability either through external pressure or internal decay (or both) any such claims go out the window. All this talk of "right" and "ought" or what "should have been" is not helpful in the least. At least the defeated populace of modern times generally are not outright exterminated or enslaved as they would have been in times past.
On June 02 2010 17:45 Ricjames wrote: I would say Israel is a fucking artificially made place in the area of Palestine and they even fucking claim any rights in there. That is fucked up and no wonder there are suicide bombers and stuff like that. When they steal your home and claim it theirs - i would suicide bomb them too if there was nothing left to live for.
All countries are artificially made, and rights only exist as far as they can be defended. It is the nature of conquest. The losing side hardly ever feels it has been dealt a fair hand, but it is all irrelevant.
erhm i would say the creation of israel was especially "artificial" to boot, in general the israelis i have encountered are a very unpleasant bunch
The israelis i met were nice guys who don't deserve this bullshit of government.
Attempting to generalize an entire country based on a small handful of individuals is beyond meaningless. Furthermore, what does it even mean to be a "nice guy"?
I don't know, maybe someone who doesn't justify the forceful conquest, occupation, and subjugation of people just because someone won a battle of violence.
i dunno though
I agree that israel was especially artificial in the beginning, they were then attacked (Yeah i know that egypt didnt attack first but then they shouldn't place 100.000 troops on israeli borders) by egypt, jordan and syria and expanded through war. Forceful conquest, occupation and subjugation is not pretty and it's not great - but it's the way all countries expanded their borders. People seem to have accepted the borders of most other countries even though they were all forged by war.
and yes i know that it might have been 100 or even 500 years ago, but when does a piece of land go from being "occupied enemy territory" to just being part of the country..?
Lastly i want to say that i dont think the state of israel should have been created at all, but it's too late for that now.
There's no need to make such distinctions. A nation's claims to territory are valid only as long as they can enforce them. The moment it loses that ability either through external pressure or internal decay (or both) any such claims go out the window. All this talk of "right" and "ought" or what "should have been" is not helpful in the least. At least the defeated populace of modern times generally are not outright exterminated or enslaved as they would have been in times past.
So your argument is Might is Right? Fantastic. Get into politics. Screw the enlightenment we need you!
I would say rather that there is no such thing as "right", particularly in cases like this when there are so many parties involved whose interests all pull in different directions. There is no reason at all to invoke it.
On June 02 2010 20:44 Draconizard wrote: I would say rather that there is no such thing as "right", particularly in cases like this when there are so many parties involved whose interests all pull in different directions. There is no reason at all to invoke it.
Please. Don't compare what the Romans or other ancient cultures did to their enemies to justify modern atrocity. And then back away from the comment in the next breath.
The moment it loses that ability either through external pressure or internal decay (or both) any such claims go out the window
So people don't have rights to their homes because they get conquered? Or is it because the ancients did it so much worse to say the people of Thebes or Corinth or Carthage or Armenia?
I don't deny that this is a hugely complex issue. But for you to use that as justification for the forceful expulsion of a people from their land is ludicrous.
Edit: However to stop this thread once more derailing into some debate over morality or history let's just agree to disagree. (I personally have made my views known in this thread so I'll leave you to have the last word here if you would like as that seems fair).
Just a side note. One of the returned passengers made a fair point about the presence of knives on board...they had a kitchen that had to cater to about 150 people, of course there were going to be steak knifes etc.on board Feel kind of silly I hadn't thought of that^^
I think you missed my meaning; perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly enough. My point is not that acts in the past somehow "justify" similar ones in the present, but rather that the entire concept of justification is unnecessary.
The moment it loses that ability either through external pressure or internal decay (or both) any such claims go out the window
So people don't have rights to their homes because they get conquered? Or is it because the ancients did it so much worse to say the people of Thebes or Corinth or Carthage or Armenia?
I don't deny that this is a hugely complex issue. But for you to use that as justification for the forceful expulsion of a people from their land is ludicrous.
Well, no, isn't that the entire point of conquest? As an individual, I cannot run about pillaging as I please, but only because there is (typically) a government above me which will meet out harsh consequences should I do so. As a nation, Israel is bound by the international community, so it too cannot do it pleases (much to its chagrin). However, those restraints are much, much weaker as well as more malleable and nebulous. The concept of "rights" only applies if all parties involved agree and more importantly, only if there is a strong enforcer present to ensure that they all stick to that agreement.
What about the first World War? That pretty much redrew the whole map of Europe with many new countries popping up and stuff. You don't see countries demanding the old pre-WW1 territories do you?
As far as I know, the UN decided that there would be two nations, Israel and Palestine. The neighboring Arab nations didn't agree to this (I think they refused to acknowledge them, might be wrong on this part). Israel declared independence. It was attacked by the surrounding nations. It "won" (as far as anyone can win in a war) with the battles ending in 1949. The Palestinians were pretty much rejected from the surrounding arab nations and no effort was made to create a Palestinian state. << I think this is the part which screwed pretty much everything up, after this point on the Palestinians refugees were screwed over constantly.
But really, if you look through the history of Israel, I don't get why people are so against what they are doing. They were pretty much forced down the path they are on right now. I guess since they managed to stop all the suicide bombings people stopped sympathizing with them as much.
They HAD to search that ship, there was no way around it. Lets imagine for a second that the "humanitarians" didn't go trying to attack the Israeli forces or agreed to port in Ashdod. They could of easily avoided those deaths, but they choose the part which would pretty much certainly result in casualties to get more PR. Israel on the other hand was pretty much forced to attack the moment the landed.
Analogy time :p : Lets say that a swat team surrounds your house and demands you get out, you demand to see a warrant. They don't have one(so it is illegal). They bust into your house. Would you seriously attack the SWAT team and then complain that you got shot? << pretty good analogy if you ask me :p.
I also think I should stop posting, this thread made me to much Pro-Israel and now my views are extremely biased .
On June 02 2010 17:45 Ricjames wrote: I would say Israel is a fucking artificially made place in the area of Palestine and they even fucking claim any rights in there. That is fucked up and no wonder there are suicide bombers and stuff like that. When they steal your home and claim it theirs - i would suicide bomb them too if there was nothing left to live for.
All countries are artificially made, and rights only exist as far as they can be defended. It is the nature of conquest. The losing side hardly ever feels it has been dealt a fair hand, but it is all irrelevant.
What the hell are you talking about?Maybe your country does that way, but no civilized country is doing what Israel is doing right now.
And no, just because you are stronger doesn't mean you are right.What pathetic way of thinking.
That is their country, and they took it away.No justification for that.
On June 02 2010 17:45 Ricjames wrote: I would say Israel is a fucking artificially made place in the area of Palestine and they even fucking claim any rights in there. That is fucked up and no wonder there are suicide bombers and stuff like that. When they steal your home and claim it theirs - i would suicide bomb them too if there was nothing left to live for.
All countries are artificially made, and rights only exist as far as they can be defended. It is the nature of conquest. The losing side hardly ever feels it has been dealt a fair hand, but it is all irrelevant.
What the hell are you talking about?Maybe your country does that way, but no civilized country is doing what Israel is doing right now.
That's Draconizard's point. Every major country has a history of it, and unfortunately, the impact and awareness is only lessened because we're so far removed from when it happened.
On June 02 2010 17:45 Ricjames wrote: I would say Israel is a fucking artificially made place in the area of Palestine and they even fucking claim any rights in there. That is fucked up and no wonder there are suicide bombers and stuff like that. When they steal your home and claim it theirs - i would suicide bomb them too if there was nothing left to live for.
All countries are artificially made, and rights only exist as far as they can be defended. It is the nature of conquest. The losing side hardly ever feels it has been dealt a fair hand, but it is all irrelevant.
What the hell are you talking about?Maybe your country does that way, but no civilized country is doing what Israel is doing right now.
You're wrong, there is no "civilized" reaction to the kind of problem Israel has.
When we had problems with the IRA we sent many troops to Ireland. You only have to go back to 1972 and "bloody Sunday" where 14 unarmed protestors were shot by the British army. America gets hit by a small group of extremists and we all know what happened next. A massive amount of civilian casualties. Russia has a border dispute with Georgia and they just roll the tanks in and kill anything that resists.
This sort of problem doesn't have an easy answer. I don't consider what Israel is doing to be particularly outrageous. If they want to set up a blockade you don't mess with it.
You're only bringing up direct violence. None of the other territories had been choked the way Palestinian territories are. In terms of political autonomy, yes, but not at the basic level of human subsistence. The Palestinian response is completely rational. For those who say terrorism doesn't work, this entire situation is proof that that is not true.
This is going to be my last post on this topic. I will not quote and give answers to people who quoted me they can ask anything freely by PM since I dont see any use to share information for the blind people who are picking up words to argue or just pretending to be sceptical about obvious facts.
From Turkish point I gave the arguments in my first post at page 24 you can read it again here. My opinions only bounds me and no one else in the world so you can freely flame me for My opinons in my posts but the rest is based on facts and if you have doubts again feel free to PM me so I can send information when I have time.
Some people were asking the insight from Turkey. Here I go from the opinions that I read from the newspapers and from my university and the streets full of people. Notice that this movement even tough it was ofcourse supported by the goverment of Turkey it was not particularly a goverment project but the civilian organisation IHH's individual project for months they were collecting help and resources for the ships.
The post will be in the form of:
The Situation we had a)Israels demands and thesis' b)Turkish replies to those demands and thesis'
1)Israel demanded the aid to be delivered to them and then transported BY ISRAEL to Gazza.
a) Israeli diplomats on Turkish televisions told that Gazza doesnt need any kinda help from out side since Israel is givin 15k ton aid a week to Israel. b) Turkish side showed the reports from Amnesty International that 4/5 palestinians needs aid, water, medicine, food. The most important thing is why palestinians needs Israel to aid them on their OWN land. Turkish authorities and people on TV also just to give a simple example of the double standart and how wrong Israel is on the subject by showing UN's records on Water Usage of Israel and the lack of water in Palestine because the main water resources were taken control by Israel.
2)Israel's ambassador said on the tv that this kinda movement to bring aid to Gazza withouth Israeli authorization is against Israeli's sovereignty rights.
a)Israeli ambassador said that Gazza iz underblocade and thus any kind of action taken towards Gazza is related with Israel and any kinda movement in or out of Gazza must be authorized by Israel including any kind of food water medicine or other humaniterien aids.
b)Turkish Tv Reporter answered this with goverments thesis' and UN reports + Goldman repots and said the blocade it self is against humaneterian rights plus internatinal law. And as the prime minister Erdogan said Gazza is an "Open Prison" now. So any kind of "Sovereignty right" defence is not valid since Gazza is not Israel's land and the shores are not Israel's territorial waters.
3)Israel said the whole thing is a provocation and a conspirancy of the enemies of Israel.
a)The ambassador said the exact thing on the Tv that I wrote above. It does not need any explanation actually but he also said insisting on not giving the aid to Israel for them to deliver it is supporting his idea.
b)Tv reporter said why the Humanaterian organisations particularly have to TRUST Israel since UN has repots that some aids delivered to Israel were not given on time to the Palestinians. This part has no facts since Israel most likely think that everbody in the world is against them as long as they dont support what they are doing or they are not "Pro Israel"
4)Israel threatened the ships and said they wont let them come close to the shore.
a)This was obvious the ambassador said they will never in any situation let those ships to come close to the shore even if they need to take military measures on them.
b)The ships stopped until the morning in the international waters and waitied morning to go close to the shores since the situation with the military measures was risking the food,water, medicine etc on the ships and they wanted to be sure the support from international sources so that they would not be shot while coming close to the shore.
5)Israel said their troops were atacked first and thats the reason for casualities.
a)Israeli sources said the military measure was taken and while commandos are landing to the ship the people on the ship atacked them with sticks and try to prevent them from landing on the ship therefore the troops shot and 16 ppl were killed. So its self defence.
b)Turkish side says first of all the place this happened was international waters not even palestinien water territory (note that we dont accept Israel's thesis' on those waters are also Israeli's territory since its underblocade). Second of all the operation started at night because Israel tought they could handle it silently and force them to go back or take them to custody without any resistance which is actually very funny since you are landing on someone's ship from a helicopter with commandos and expecting a warm welcome. This didnt happen as they wanted since they were expecting the solve the issue at night before the cameras working in daylight and broadcasting the navy of Israel against the aid to whole world.
___________________
There are other points ofcourse but I am tired of writing. If you want to ask anything I can answer. About the war option and my opinions abou the subject :
* War is not an option about this incident said the Prime Minester's assignee while Erdogan was in south america. My opinion on this : Altough we arent even scared or hesitating a little to start a war with Israel, this is not what we want. If we wanted that Israel can be sure that we'd do that and they can freely dream about how they are beating us. But that is definetaly somethign we dont want because War it self is gonna make both jews and palestinians life there worse. No jews are atacked in Istanbul except the protest against the ambassador so you can be sure our reaction even tough you found it extreme is very low. If we are provoked enough to give an extreme reaction I think you would regret that you even dared to do soemthing like that.
* My opinion : Israel is slowly destroying itself. maybe they dont realize this but my country and my people has tousands of years experience about running a state and have a huge heritage of world empires behind them like Iran. Tough Israel is a teenage state compared to our heritage (ofcourse if you are blind enough to seperate our republic from the rest of our history this might seem wrong to you) So what I mean exactly is if Israel and Israelis thinking that they can handly with Turkey and Iran together they can try only to see themselves sinking deeper. You are against the 2 ancient nations with probably the most experience in the world with building and ruining states including their own ones
Second, We are against the Zionist facism not JEWS. There are jews we know are not supporting Israel and being a jew does not mean directly being a Zionist. We know that
Third, I feel sorry for the people thinking what ever Israel is doing is right, since it must be very bad to under a threat all the time but also muslims and especially Palestinians are not the oness to pay for the crimes comitted against jews in Europe. It is not our business if jew wants to live with us they are welcomed again and always. But if you dare to take the lands of the people and spit on them and turn and say " Hey we had a genocide in our history, sorry we do anything we want then" that means you have to be stopped and we shall do so.
After this point of events except the state actions which are going to take place on international areas, this whole situation ends up in the hearts of people. There's no more any need for a discussing in my heart since I see only the people who are completaly against Israel shouting and blaming all nation around the world or complete rightist Israelis or pro Israelists shouting "you deserved it" or "we dont think its illegal". Theres no facts no statements behind these both sides opinions so theres no place for discussion since from now on its only a matter of convincing people that you are the one who did the right thing.
Thanks for keeping this discussion so civil and nicely for this long I have learned alot. Until the next topic take care
I think most of the arguments in this thread (That i have read) boils down to whether or not the creation of israel was justified. And that really has nothing to do with anything as it was done and it cannot be undone.
Here's my train of thought:
Let's accept that israel was created for whatever reason.
This means we have a small country - this country is attacked and 'wins' the war. The borders of this country expands somewhat although it withdraws from much of the land it occupied.
Now this country is continuosly attacked by "terrorists / freedom fighters" there is no answer but to go on the offensive to protect the lives of civilians living in this country (By killing civilians of another country).
Then a neighboring country (jordan) starts building a dam that would effectively divert 10-15% of the fresh watersupply away from " the country " - This is bad when you live in the middle east, so the country attacks and destroys the construction of the dam.
Now this country does not want to remove forces from the dam building place because they are afraid that the dam will the be rebuilt.
Sure, they are probably bastards to their "enemy" but that is what a war will do to a people.
About the "But it's only a few rockets" argument, in WWII the british bombardment of dresden killed 25000 people in one night - compared to the highest deathtoll from german bombardments which was 568 in coventry.
The only reason israel is killing more civillians is that they have the weaponry.
Anyways - When a country is protecting it's citizens and blockading whatever harbor they want to - you should not try to assault the blockade.
This came out messy... i really wish there was a peaceful resolution to all of this but i doubt it. stalemate is probably as good as it gets.
I've read the entire thread, plus a ton of other material - I feel I have about the best handle I can get on the situation, with the information which is currently available.
To abstract the situation somewhat, I see the events as being "If the blockade is legal and if there was reasonable cause to think that the ships were not carrying humanitarian aid and if there was reasonable cause to think they were going to break the blockade then they can be intercepted in international waters and searched."
The blockade's legality is dubious at best. Israel is not currently at war with Gaza. This is a major point, as non-wartime blockades are in almost all circumstances illegal. I havn't seen any proof from Israel, showing that the blockade was legal.
There was no reasonable cause to think that the ships were not carrying humanitarian aid. Quote:
"Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister, says the flotilla was carefully inspected before departure:
'I want to say to the world, to the heads of state and the governments, that these boats that left from Turkey and other countries were checked in a strict way under the framework of the rules of international navigation and were only loaded with humanitarian aid.'"
The aid was searched before it departed Turkey. The people were searched before they were allowed to board - I got the feeling that it was 'airport level security'. I have no doubt that the flotilla was entirely humanitarian in terms of what was on board. One of the points which has been brought up was 'why didn't they just go through official [read: Israel's] avenues of aid logistics?', good question. Simply, they had building materials on board. Concrete, reinforcing rods and tiles are currently prohibited by Israel from entering Gaza. The infrastructure in Gaza, to the best of my knowledge, is extremely subpar. During the '08-'09 conflict between Israel and Gaza, their water treatment facility and flour factory were both targeted - these building materials would have done a lot to improve the quality of life for all people in Gaza. Yes, they did provoke a response. Other than letting the blockade be broken, I don't think there was a legal avenue for Israel to go.
There's little question as to if the flotilla was intending to break the blockade. They were.
So - the boarding was illegal. What about the use of force by those on board?
As far as I can tell, any illegal boarding action [which, if it carries the intent of a) committing a crime and b) using force, can be called piracy] is legally allowed to be met by force.
The details on the boarding are quite sketchy. It's not clear if live fire was used before the boarding action or after. It's reasonably clear that the Israeli 'commandos' were attacked while/after boarding. Using the circumstances I've painted - this was legal. However, I do think that the way the IDF tactical plan was executed with intent to provoke an attack. I -cannot- understand why they would do what they did otherwise. A good tactical commander would see the situation and adjust his plan on the fly. We do this in starcraft. I cant find the exact quote but apparently 30 commandos were held off by 30 civilians.
Reports indicate that the commandos were equipped with paintball guns, live fire sidearms and tazers.
Now to the aftermath, not all members of the flotilla have been released. Some of those released have not been released with their personal belongings. There are reports of extremely poor conditions - no food or water, extremely long interrogations [8hours], various people being beaten. There's also talk of a very dubious 'extradition contract' which people are being forced to sign before they leave - I don't have any specifics on what makes it dubious sadly, however it is stopping Israel from extraditing all the people - 2 of whom are injured.
Hopefully that's a reasonable handle on the situation, I've done my best to look at things as objectively as possible. It's very difficult though as none of the sources can be described as 'totally unbiased'. I do however think that it's reasonably clear that Israel is in the wrong, and I'm interested to see what actions are taken against Israel as a response.
On June 03 2010 01:02 Biochemist wrote: One of the comments on that page was pretty good. I haven't read every page of the other thread so maybe it has already been posted and discussed, but if not I was hoping to see what others thought of this:
Let's start with the basics. Since Hamas seized control in 2007, it has been the de facto sovereign power of Gaza. As sovereign, it has launched attacks against Israel. As such, Israel declared itself to be in a state of war against Hamas-run Gaza. Israel has frequently stated that when Hamas agrees to live in peace with Israel, peaceful relations will ensue.
Due to this state of war, Israel enforces a military and naval blockade. The blockade is not designed to starve Gaza into submission; it is designed to deny Hamas the ability to fight effectively. Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (which concerns the protection of civilians during warfare) makes clear that if goods entering enemy territory contribute to the enemy's war effort, they can be blocked.
Israel enforces a maritime blockade because Hamas has previously shipped in weapons. Israel wants all goods going into Gaza to cross Gaza-Israel land borders. That way, Israel can inspect the goods, ensure there are no weapons or war materiel in them, and send them through.
And a lot of goods go through. Last year, some 738,000 tonnes of goods went from Israel into Gaza. That's more than 2000 tonnes per day. By contrast, the seized flotilla carried 10,000 tonnes of aid, equivalent to only five days at the Gaza-Israel border. The flotilla was not about improving humanitarian conditions; it was about confronting Israel.
Israel told flotilla organisers the aid could be transferred across the Gaza-Israel land border. (It still will be.) The flotilla could also have co-operated with Egypt or the UN in order to help Palestinians, but refused to do so. Helping Palestinians wasn't its goal, confronting Israel was.
Israel's maritime blockade of Gaza is legal according to articles 93-104 of the 1994 San Remo treaty on maritime warfare. Israel told the flotilla it was about to enter conflict waters and was not permitted to do so. The ships informed Israel of their intent to enter these waters. Israel commandeered the ships, according to Article 98 of the above-mentioned treaty.
Five of the six ships were captured without violence. Israeli troops boarding the sixth ship were met with violence from the moment they landed. Footage released makes clear the activists used steel pipes, slingshots, knives and Molotov cocktails from the beginning. Activists attempted to wrest guns out of Israeli soldiers' hands. Israel responded with non-lethal force. Footage aired on Australian television on Monday shows an Israeli soldier attempting to only shove an activist off him, despite being repeatedly stabbed.
It was only after activists took guns from Israeli soldiers and used them against those soldiers that Israel opened fire. The Fourth Geneva Convention is clear about this. Article 5 states that if a civilian takes up arms against a soldier, the civilian becomes a combatant.
The situation on the boats is thus clear. The boats were attempting to break a military blockade. After issuing a warning, the soldiers attempted to commandeer the boats, and were set upon by the activists. At a certain point, which came after activists opened fire on Israeli troops, these troops felt their lives were in imminent danger. They thus fired in order to defend themselves.
There is much more to this story. The leading organisation behind the campaign, IHH, has had links to Hamas and other jihadi organisations since at least the 1990s; one of the organisers, Huwaida Arraf, has said she supports Palestinian violence against Israel - hardly a true peace activist.
But the essence of the story is simple: some very cynical people manipulated some very naive people into an armed attack against soldiers. The better trained and armed soldiers won the battle, but the cynical people won the PR war.
That is exactly my view on the subject. However, I wouldn't declare the action legal quite so fast.
On June 03 2010 01:00 Klimpen wrote: I've read the entire thread, plus a ton of other material - I feel I have about the best handle I can get on the situation, with the information which is currently available.
To abstract the situation somewhat, I see the events as being "If the blockade is legal and if there was reasonable cause to think that the ships were not carrying humanitarian aid and if there was reasonable cause to think they were going to break the blockade then they can be intercepted in international waters and searched."
The blockade's legality is dubious at best. Israel is not currently at war with Gaza. This is a major point, as non-wartime blockades are in almost all circumstances illegal. I havn't seen any proof from Israel, showing that the blockade was legal.
There was no reasonable cause to think that the ships were not carrying humanitarian aid. Quote:
"Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister, says the flotilla was carefully inspected before departure:
'I want to say to the world, to the heads of state and the governments, that these boats that left from Turkey and other countries were checked in a strict way under the framework of the rules of international navigation and were only loaded with humanitarian aid.'"
The aid was searched before it departed Turkey. The people were searched before they were allowed to board - I got the feeling that it was 'airport level security'. I have no doubt that the flotilla was entirely humanitarian in terms of what was on board. One of the points which has been brought up was 'why didn't they just go through official [read: Israel's] avenues of aid logistics?', good question. Simply, they had building materials on board. Concrete, reinforcing rods and tiles are currently prohibited by Israel from entering Gaza. The infrastructure in Gaza, to the best of my knowledge, is extremely subpar. During the '08-'09 conflict between Israel and Gaza, their water treatment facility and flour factory were both targeted - these building materials would have done a lot to improve the quality of life for all people in Gaza. Yes, they did provoke a response. Other than letting the blockade be broken, I don't think there was a legal avenue for Israel to go.
There's little question as to if the flotilla was intending to break the blockade. They were.
So - the boarding was illegal. What about the use of force by those on board?
As far as I can tell, any illegal boarding action [which, if it carries the intent of a) committing a crime and b) using force, can be called piracy] is legally allowed to be met by force.
The details on the boarding are quite sketchy. It's not clear if live fire was used before the boarding action or after. It's reasonably clear that the Israeli 'commandos' were attacked while/after boarding. Using the circumstances I've painted - this was legal. However, I do think that the way the IDF tactical plan was executed with intent to provoke an attack. I -cannot- understand why they would do what they did otherwise. A good tactical commander would see the situation and adjust his plan on the fly. We do this in starcraft. I cant find the exact quote but apparently 30 commandos were held off by 30 civilians.
Reports indicate that the commandos were equipped with paintball guns, live fire sidearms and tazers.
Now to the aftermath, not all members of the flotilla have been released. Some of those released have not been released with their personal belongings. There are reports of extremely poor conditions - no food or water, extremely long interrogations [8hours], various people being beaten. There's also talk of a very dubious 'extradition contract' which people are being forced to sign before they leave - I don't have any specifics on what makes it dubious sadly, however it is stopping Israel from extraditing all the people - 2 of whom are injured.
Hopefully that's a reasonable handle on the situation, I've done my best to look at things as objectively as possible. It's very difficult though as none of the sources can be described as 'totally unbiased'. I do however think that it's reasonably clear that Israel is in the wrong, and I'm interested to see what actions are taken against Israel as a response.
A) Israel is in war or in conflict with Hamas. But Hamas is not a state and that is what makes this a complex situation. This is indeed a keypoint.
B) Even if they didn't have weapons (although from what I understand, such aid ships have attempted to smuggle weapons in the past), you state soon after that they had banned materials. Therefore, an inspection was justified.
C) I don't really think you've taken a look at this objectively.
Notice the stun grenade. Or maybe you guys consider it normal equipment on a ship too?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.israel-stop.com/carte-israel-palestine.jpg)
.
