News: Israel Attacks Gazan Aid Flotilla - Page 64

On June 09 2010 13:26 WinHouse wrote:
It's pretty obvious what's up when a story about humanitarian civilians being killed becomes a 63 page thread.

On June 09 2010 18:52 Squeegy wrote:
Angelicfolly, it doesn't matter what you say or what you use as evidence. Any site they don't like is not good, but on the other hand any site they like is good. They aren't interested in considering our point-of-view. And to debunk us, they much prefer putting words in our mouths.

But hey, questioning your own beliefs is totally 90s.

Peace.

On June 09 2010 07:03 Kazius wrote:

Israel is not a constitutional democracy - we have no constitution but rather a set of Basic Laws, which may some day become a part of a constitution, but is a work in progress. In the declaration of independence, it is written that Israel is the Jewish state. It is also written that it is a democracy and that there will be no segregation. There have been attempts in the past to pass the Basic Law: Equality, but time and time again that law has fallen due to pressure from a bizarre alliance of religious Jews and Muslims which would just hate for women to have equality legally specified.
There is the exact same identity card if you are Arabic or Jewish in Israel, though in the nationality on your ID does specify religion. There is a different one that is issued by the Palestinian authority.

A) It's Kazius, drop the 'r'. I don't add an "ng" at the end of your nickname, so drop the childish insults.

B) I'm not an ivory-tower philosopher as I have already been involved in the conflict on a personal level by continually voting on it, demonstrations, political rallies and the such, but also by being a soldier.

D) I never said that the blockade was done in order to achieve peace, it was done in order to achieve security. These things should not be mutually exclusive. Allow me to remind you that Israel negotiated under Rabin, Peres, Barak and even Netanyahu in the 90s while being attacked continually. Any country's first priority should be protecting it's citizens from death - by proactive means if necessary. You might find that callous, but keep in mind that other alternatives have failed very badly in the past, so Israel's only choice is between looking good in the media and saving lives.

E) The IDF is not a stand-alone here, and I wish people would stop talking about it as anything but a normal military. It does what the government commands it to do. The soldiers don't want to be in these situations, and by your (and most people here's) method of parsing out blame, you are giving it to 18-21 year old kids who want nothing more than to get the mandatory service over with and go home. I'm sure it makes it easy for you thinking that the army has free reign and that Israel is some sort of military dictatorship and not a true democracy. That is what you're implying every time you say the IDF and not the government is responsible.

There is also a difference between "turn the other cheek" and "get fucked in the ass". Over the past 20 years various approaches failed, among them tolerating terrorist attacks and working towards peace while hoping someone will apply pressure to stop the terrorist attacks. The US was the only country to apply such pressure, and it's not exactly a neighbor. That is the main reason the negotiations up to 2000 failed.

If you want peace, it does not mean that you need to tolerate buses full of children exploding... in the same route your little brother takes to school. Israel is trying to minimize the active conflict inside Gaza and the West Bank, while still protecting it's people. That is a duty of a state.

On June 09 2010 19:08 Fenrax wrote:


Well, you obviously missed the point of the thread. In some peoples opinion (including me) the people on board were NOT humanitarian civilians. They were political activists provoking an escalation.

heres what we do know, with the amount of pictures and vids (regardless of what you want from them YOU CAN take them as evidence with a certain amount of credibility) compared to conflicting eye witness reports.

Israel is trying to minimize the active conflict inside Gaza and the West Bank, while still protecting it's people.

On June 09 2010 06:05 Squeegy wrote:


Or rather that sometimes violence is necessary. Or how do you think the Nazis were supposed to be stopped?

On June 09 2010 19:39 ArKaDo wrote:

So they deserved death... Lol and you think you are a democrate?

On June 09 2010 20:01 Romantic wrote:

There is justifiable violence but it is the exception. At least the US military of all things has finally realized this after 9 years of counter insurgency.

And yes, if you begin looking at history in 1939 or even 1933 it looks hard to stop Nazism without violence.

A) It shows the situation after the initial "attack" (which is basically the basis from where the activists were armed with grenades etc: which they simply threw back at the boats they were thrown from) and adds nothing to the context.

B) As has been pointed out: the audio ontop were simply forged, as far as I remember it wasn't even the conversation: simply selected sentences constructed / combined.

So what we are left with are statements from IDF/Israel and witness accounts, and why should we disregard witness statements from journalists etc? People which had no previous connection to the war? (i.e norwegian journalists who told his account when they returned).

Contrast this to the fact that, so far, they're refusing an multinational investigation..

On June 09 2010 19:26 ArKaDo wrote:

I know that. When I say "constitution" i was referring to what people consider like consitution for Israel which is the basic laws. Read my other post I give you precisely some exemple on why Israel considers itself as a jewish state.
As for the ID card, well i also linked a thread about Israel ID color card system (and it's true there is no difference for israeli citizen except the religion, which is important).

All your saying is conservativ anyway: I can resume it that way israel = good guy in their right to kill 9 of them ; flotilla = morons. I think the basis of the discussion is to accept that the bad things are on both sides (well if you want the discussion to lead to something interesting that is). Justifying killing of 9 guys is a bit hard to understand; why not saying the army screwed up ? A good army would have stop the flotilla without even killing anyone.

And it's proven that the blockus failed on every side. Israel is loosing everything, condamned by almost everyone. And it's illegal.

Yeah, the IDF is a normal army who has a history of barbary, massacre and such. I prefer to say it's a mystake of the army than saying the government actually made sabra & shatila up, the UN facilities bombardment and the schools destructions.

Who is fucking who in the ass ? You are justifying inhuman acts for "self defense", and what about proportion ? How many Israeli died since 1948 ? How many palestinians ? Come on...

On June 09 2010 20:51 Kazius wrote:
The Israeli army adheres to the rules of engagement with a religious fervor, and anyone who doesn't follow them is thrown in jail, as he should be. The way it looks is horrible, but I truly believe that in the mess that occurred there was no other way. "A good army" like who? The US/UK ones? The ones that cause 3-4 times the amount of collateral damage in order to play it safe with their lives? Perhaps the French army? You were not there, and as I have been a soldier in the Israeli army, I can guarantee that Israeli soldiers know how to show restraint - I can personally attest that out of over 500 combat soldiers I have watched in action throughout the course of my military service, not ONE has fired a live round at someone who was not in the act of firing a missile or shooting at them, in any incident. Even sometimes despite the rules of engagement allowing them (when someone is throwing firebombs at the soldiers).

Water well human shielding efforts
According to a January 2003 article by Gordon Murray, in the last month of her life Rachel "spent a lot of time at the Canada Well helping protect Rafah municipal workers," who were trying to repair damages to the well incurred by Israeli bulldozers. Built in 1999 with CIDA funding, Canada Well, together with El Iskan Well, had supplied more than 50% of Rafah's water before being damaged, and the city had been under "strict rationing (only a few hours of running water on alternate days)" since. Murray writes that ISM activists were maintaining a presence there since "Israeli snipers and tanks routinely shot at civilian workers trying to repair the wells." In one of her reports, Corrie relates that despite having received permission from Israeli District Command Office, and carrying "banners and megaphones the activists and workers were fired upon several times over a period of about one hour. One of the bullets came within two metres of three internationals and a municipal water worker close enough to spray bits of debris in their faces as it landed at their feet."[8] According to Murray, the Canadian government refused to "officially protest or denounce the Israeli army actions", yet "quietly agreed to help fund the estimated $450,000 repair costs".[9]

On June 09 2010 21:08 tomatriedes wrote:


I'm sorry, but this sounds like complete self-serving garbage. There have been hundreds of reports from observers in the Palestinian territories of IDF shooting at civilians. The problem is you have such a bias that you choose not to believe that these things happen. Here is one instance of IDF 'restraint' American Rachel Corrie wrote about before she was run over by an Israeli bulldozer:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie

There is no basic law saying that anyone gets less rights, there is no law segregating the Arab population, the Muslim religion, and there is no basic law that does not limit the legal protection according to race, religion, or any other factor. Hence, your point is null and void, if you accept the distinction between a declaration and law.

On June 08 2010 23:00 ArKaDo wrote:

It is a complicated matter because there is no constitution in Israel like I said in another post (I was refering in fact to the equivalent of the constitution in this country), but in the declaration of establishment of the state of israel (see it here) it is said "the establishement of a jewish state in Eretz-Israel". You can also see here that in 2007, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert still wanted Palestinian authority to acknowledge Israel's existence as a "Jewish state".
As for the identity card, there are 3 variations considering that you are Hebrew, Arabic or palestinian (see it here)

That's not what I said. I didn't say Israel would be right to sanction going in guns blazing and mowing people down. Stop putting words into my mouth. I have (in many places in this thread) stated that Israel did not handle it right. But I believe soldiers do have a right, just as that of any man, to defend himself when his life is threatened. The Israeli army adheres to the rules of engagement with a religious fervor, and anyone who doesn't follow them is thrown in jail, as he should be. The way it looks is horrible, but I truly believe that in the mess that occurred there was no other way. "A good army" like who? The US/UK ones? The ones that cause 3-4 times the amount of collateral damage in order to play it safe with their lives? Perhaps the French army? You were not there, and as I have been a soldier in the Israeli army, I can guarantee that Israeli soldiers know how to show restraint - I can personally attest that out of over 500 combat soldiers I have watched in action throughout the course of my military service, not ONE has fired a live round at someone who was not in the act of firing a missile or shooting at them, in any incident. Even sometimes despite the rules of engagement allowing them (when someone is throwing firebombs at the soldiers).

But it hasn't failed. It has effectively lowered the amount of missiles fired at Israel. Would you prefer Israel to re-establish a permanent military presence in Gaza and that way dismantle the threats to the Israeli people? That is the other solution. We are talking about the lesser of two evils, and this way keeps casualties at a minimum for both sides. Or perhaps you have a better solution?

Sabra & Shatilla is a dark page in Israeli history, and after it, sweeping reforms into the military hierarchy have been enacted to make sure such atrocities do not happen again. I could bring up that far worse has been done in other places in the world by many other armies, but that does not excuse the sheer horror of that act. If you think the Israeli army is particularly barbaric, learn a bit about the history of the US, Soviet, German, French, and British armies. None of them has a clean record. That being said, it does not lessen the fact that Sabra and Shatilla is the darkest hour of the Israeli army.

+ Show Spoiler [inadvertent news report of missiles be…] +
+ Show Spoiler [the said UN school being used by hamas…] +
According to the Geneva convention, an army is always allowed to fire back to the source of fire against it. Hence, Hamas fire from densely populated areas, schools, and UN facilities. Israel cannot choose to ignore this, or they will just fire only from such locations. That, if anything, was a weak point considering what is actually happening in Gaza.

I'm saying that the role of any army is to defend the citizens of it's country, follow the orders of the government, and only then worry about anything else. You may think it callous, but you are not offering any better options. I've said, many things were tried, specifically in the past 20 years. As sad as it is, this is what works best. I am, personally, trying to help a permanent peaceful solution come to fruition, and am also supportive of humanitarian aid... but until such a long term solution is found and there is something to work forward to (and at the moment, it is not in sight), Israel cannot afford to back down or go soft on the Hamas with no promise of relief for it's citizens in neither the short nor long term.

If faced with such a situation, what would you offer to do that hasn't been tried here?
edit: + Show Spoiler [Hamas's explanation of civilian…] +

On June 09 2010 20:51 Kazius wrote:

That's not what I said. I didn't say Israel would be right to sanction going in guns blazing and mowing people down. Stop putting words into my mouth. I have (in many places in this thread) stated that Israel did not handle it right. But I believe soldiers do have a right, just as that of any man, to defend himself when his life is threatened. The Israeli army adheres to the rules of engagement with a religious fervor, and anyone who doesn't follow them is thrown in jail, as he should be. The way it looks is horrible, but I truly believe that in the mess that occurred there was no other way. "A good army" like who? The US/UK ones? The ones that cause 3-4 times the amount of collateral damage in order to play it safe with their lives? Perhaps the French army? You were not there, and as I have been a soldier in the Israeli army, I can guarantee that Israeli soldiers know how to show restraint - I can personally attest that out of over 500 combat soldiers I have watched in action throughout the course of my military service, not ONE has fired a live round at someone who was not in the act of firing a missile or shooting at them, in any incident. Even sometimes despite the rules of engagement allowing them (when someone is throwing firebombs at the soldiers).

On June 09 2010 19:08 Fenrax wrote:


Well, you obviously missed the point of the thread. In some peoples opinion (including me) the people on board were NOT humanitarian civilians. They were political activists provoking an escalation.

On June 10 2010 00:44 riptide wrote:
Just a warning to cool down and keep it on topic, guys. I see some bans coming here if the aggression continues to escalate. This is an important issue to discuss though, so the thread will remain open for now.

On June 09 2010 20:03 Squeegy wrote:


Yeah, because that's totally what he said...



So, you agree with me?

On June 10 2010 00:44 -Desu- wrote:


you know political activists are also civilians right?