On June 04 2010 03:27 KillerPenguin wrote: Like hell you cannot be at war with terrorists which have control of a government. There is no doubt if Palestine had Israeli weapons it would be a massacre and we would be next.
You cannot be in a legal state of war with a terrorist organisation unless you recognise their standing as a legitimate government.
Neither Israel nor the US recognise Hamas, so that they can avoid the rules of the geneva convention when dealing with prisoners from hamas. Al Queda is another example of this.
Of course, as I said, President Obama has discarded the use of the term enemy combatant. Israel, have not, afaik.
On June 04 2010 03:32 EmeraldSparks wrote: Israel agreed to lift the blockade in the same resolution in which Hamas agreed to stop firing rockets..
Neither of these things happen.
The blockade punishes the civilian population of Gaza and this is illegal under the Geneva convention. Israel CANNOT punish Palestinian civilians for the actions of Hamas.
On June 04 2010 03:32 EmeraldSparks wrote: Israel agreed to lift the blockade in the same resolution in which Hamas agreed to stop firing rockets..
Neither of these things happen.
The blockade punishes the civilian population of Gaza and this is illegal under the Geneva convention. Israel CANNOT punish Palestinian civilians for the actions of Hamas.
So you're saying all forceful take overs aren't legit ways of government, must mean all hose dictatorships and military Coup d'état in history never happened.
Hamas controls the gaza strip either way.
Although they aren't considered legitimate government they are considered the controlling power in that area, the Israelis negotiate with hamas which in a way is recognizing them, even if officially they dismiss them.
On June 04 2010 02:50 Squeegy wrote: Double-standards, as Ghostcom mentioned. If memory serves, earlier on you said a few things about stuff Israel has banned, but when somebody mentioned these things in context helpful to him, you disregarded this completely because Israel hasn't indeed provided any list of the materials it has banned.
It wasn't in a context helpful to him. The fact is that UN resolution mandates the supply of unrestricted aid into gaza. So while I did not think this list was necessarily complete or accurate, it doesn't change my point that Israel have no right to stop aid from going into gaza, though I agree they have a right to stop weapons. But I don't consider newspaper to be weapons, though paper cuts can be sore sometimes.
Moreover, I didn't build a strawman. Feel free to bold the part that you think is a strawman. Also, what I am saying that I can't imagine a motive for Israel to do this. If you have a good motive in mind, then please feel free to share!
Well if you really want a motive here is a simple possible one: (not saying I think this is necessarily the case)
Israel wanted to scare any other aid workers from trying to deliver humanitarian aid to gaza. By assaulting the flotilla, beating people up and killing others, they sent the message that they can basically do whatever they want and get away with it and anyone who tries to challenge their illegal blockade in the future will meet with a similar level of brutality.
It's basically the same motive when they ran over an unarmed American Protester with a bulldozer a couple of years back, or "accidently" shot dead a cameraman.
Personally, I think the real motive is that they wanted to avoid the PR, launched a stupid gung-ho type assault that got badly fucked up.
The first motive: But why would they want to scare them like that when the risks are much higher than the rewards? The reward being that no further flotillas will be sent, and the risk being, for example, that EU will take a whole new stance against them.
The second one: They wanted to avoid PR? How where they planning to do that? The movement wasn't unknown. This is why they had three possible options: Kill everyone, which they clearly didn't want because not everybody is dead nor were the ships sunk. They could also detain everyone, but they clearly didn't want this either, as the people were let go. Also, either of these would provoke a strong response from many nations Israel is in good terms with (see above paragraph for risk-reward). And the final option is, that they could kill and rough some, hoping that they could scare the survivors to keep quiet once they would return. Why would they assume that these people would stay quiet? Moreover, how would they explain the people who went missing?
I don't see any possibility for them to avoid a PR battle, except to avoid a messy confrontation altogether.
On June 04 2010 03:47 semantics wrote: So you're saying all forceful take overs aren't legit ways of government, must mean all hose dictatorships never happened.
Hamas controls the gaza strip either way.
The rules on dictatorship are kind of funny, and is basically down to international consensus. For example, the US recognised Saddam, so he was "legit," and an ally, till they decided to stop recognising him, then apparently he was no longer legit and had to be ousted. They also recognised the dictatorship of Musharaf in Pakistan.
Plenty of other dictatorships aren't recognized as legit. Eg. Cuba and Zimbabwe.
While Hamas have defacto control of the Gaza strip what matters is that Israel don't recognise them as a legitimate form of government. Instead they consider them to be a terrorist organisation.
Now if Israel recognised Hamas as a legitimate government, then they could have a legal state of war with them, but then they would have to treat Hamas prisoners as Prisoners of War with full rights of the Geneva convention, which of course, they don't want to do.
On June 04 2010 03:32 EmeraldSparks wrote: Israel agreed to lift the blockade in the same resolution in which Hamas agreed to stop firing rockets..
Neither of these things happen.
The blockade punishes the civilian population of Gaza and this is illegal under the Geneva convention. Israel CANNOT punish Palestinian civilians for the actions of Hamas.
So you're saying all forceful take overs aren't legit ways of government, must mean all hose dictatorships and military Coup d'état in history never happened.
Hamas controls the gaza strip either way.
Although they aren't considered legitimate government they are considered the controlling power in that area, the Israelis negotiate with hamas which in a way is recognizing them, even if officially they dismiss them.
On June 04 2010 03:50 Squeegy wrote: The first motive: But why would they want to scare them like that when the risks are much higher than the rewards? The reward being that no further flotillas will be sent, and the risk being, for example, that EU will take a whole new stance against them.
Your talking in HINDSIGHT. Up till now, Israel have killed civilians, journalists and aid workers and always gotten away with it because the US vetos any real sanctions against them in the UN security council. And the truth is, I still don't think Israel will pay any real price for their actions, so really they will get away with it again, and everyone in the world will know that you don't fuck with Israel, peacefully or otherwise.
The second one: They wanted to avoid PR? How where they planning to do that? The movement wasn't unknown. This is why they had three possible options: Kill everyone, which they clearly didn't want because not everybody is dead nor were the ships sunk. They could also detain everyone, but they clearly didn't want this either, as the people were let go. Also, either of these would provoke a strong response from many nations Israel is in good terms with (see above paragraph for risk-reward). And the final option is, that they could kill and rough some, hoping that they could scare the survivors to keep quiet once they would return. Why would they assume that these people would stay quiet? Moreover, how would they explain the people who went missing?
I don't see any possibility for them to avoid a PR battle, except to avoid a messy confrontation altogether.
Not AVOID PR but MINIMISE PR. If the operation had gone of successfully, i.e. they had caught the people completely by surprise, and quelled the resistance without any serious damage/loss of life, then the publicity would undoubtdly be less than what it would be in broad day light with all the cameras running.
Look at it this way. They took the ships by surprise and the ONLY non-israeli footage that made it out was like 30 seconds long.
In the daytime, the tv crews on the ships would have been able to film the entire operation up to the point that the ships got taken over.
So in that sense, the mission succeeded. Of course they fucked up and killed 9 people and the world hates them for being a bunch of bullying bastards. Which they are
On June 04 2010 03:57 Biochemist wrote: Where does it end? Are the citizens of the Principality of Sealand protected under the Geneva Convention?
My OWN view is that EVERYONE should be protected under the Geneva convention. And under the universal declaration of Human rights.
Of course....
Powerful countries like the U.S., China, Israel, Russia etc tend to pick and chose as it suits them.
In this case, Israel's choice to treat Hamas as outside of the rules of war has backfired because now they can't claim the protection of war for their attack on the flotilla.
I respect your opinions, but I cannot agree that they are truly inclusive of the entire history of this conflict, which unfortunately has a great impact on what is happening today. I see that you have your opinions and I probably am not going to be the one to change them, but as your SC commentaries are the reason I'm on this board in the first place (started following pro-BW via them), I won't give up completely but rather elaborate on my opinions.
Actual list of blockaded items: animals and fresh meat (just as any country limits their entry due to health concerns), canned goods (can and have been used in the past to smuggle explosives, and before I hear your rage, YES I KNOW SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY SAW THIS), spices which scents mask that of explosives to dogs. Fabric for clothing (but not clothing itself) is not allowed, wood for large scale construction, musical instruments and newspapers are not allowed and I personally disagree with those because while they can be used for weapon smuggling, the damage these do to Israel from a security standpoint is greater than the advantage of blockading them. If I'm correct, this is the entire up to date list of blockaded items.
Firstly, thank you for participating in a legitimate debate and for posting reasoned and rational responses. For this you deserve respect and I will attempt to reciprocate in kind.
The problem is that Israel does not publish an official list of items that are blockaded. As such I'm not sure as to the validity of the above list. I have searched and been unable to find an official list sanctioned by the Israeli government. Which leaves humanitarian agencies and NGOs guessing. The simple fact of the matter is that the blockade itself is illegal as UN resolutions clearly mandate the UNRESTRICTED flow of aid into Gaza. The fact that the Gazians are getting a fourth of what they need compounds this.
Israel want to stop weapons that's one thing. But to stop things like Newspapers and A4 notebooks and chocolates, under the guise of stopping weapons, that's just ridiculous.
Chocolate was done at the start for a short while and was discontinued, but generally, I disagree with the idea of not allowing newspapers, but the rationale behind the limitation is simple; it's quite impossible to search a container stacked with papers all the way through. I do believe that aid should be searched by Israelis for weapons, because unfortunately this has been abused to smuggle weapons. If there was a way to ensure that no explosives, missiles, or rifles would enter the hands of the Hamas, I would agree that all aid should be let in freely.
Unfortunately, I know too many people that died, and too many people that might just because they live in a place unlucky enough to be close to Gaza, to accept Hamas gaining free access to whatever supplies Iran would like to supply them with. How many missiles do Hamas need to fire before mandatory searching becomes legitimate? The number is already in the thousands. Hamas has got Gaza under their control - and with zero Israeli presence. They in turn increased the attacks on Israel. Israel has reacted in big military operations periodically (once every few years) in order to minimize the influence on day to day life in Gaza, but Hamas thrives on deaths and in using the fact that they hide in dense population centers to cement their grip to the point where no one dares speak against them openly. So, after giving them all territory back, trying to not influence day to day life in any way, and keeping a resolution of minimal Israeli presence there, do you think that the blockade is better than the other options, such as a full-scale entry for long term military rule of Gaza?
It's not. And as an ex-soldier I have caught weapons attempted to be smuggled into Gaza. It's not smoke and mirrors because I can personally attest that these things are happening.
Oh, I have no doubt that people DO attempt to smuggle in weapons. However, I equally have no doubt that the Israelis are exaggerating this and using this as an excuse to restrict aid in order to punish the civilian population of Gaza.
In the current example, the aid flotilla was checked by European governments as well as Cyprus and Turkey (a key Israeli ally). And Israel don't seem to have found any weapons attempted to being smuggled in. So you see, when Israel stop what is clearly a legitimate shipment of humanitarian aid, under the guise of searching for weapons, then people have a hard time believing that stopping weapons was their sole motivation.
The blockade is in place to stop weapon smuggling and hopefully weaken the Hamas. The floatilla was sent to break the blockade (I think we can at least agree on that point). So, either you accept the fact that Hamas as elected leaders are ruling a country, and as such, deserve to be dealt by Israel under those conditions, or you don't, therefor, people are trying to force supplies into Israeli territory unchecked by Israeli authorities. Just as you are saying Israel is trying to obfuscate the relationship with Hamas, so are you... or at least your sources of information (which I believe is more likely as you seem to be a rational person).
As I mentioned in an earlier post, how would the UK feel if they were not allowed to search anything entering their country on the count that "it was checked elsewhere"? Israel enforced the blockade, because once exceptions are made the blockade is effectively over. This might seem fine to you, but it isn't for Israel.
Gaza is not part of Israel. In fact, Israel, I believe, has repeatedly stressed that it is NOT occupying Gaza. So the UK analogy is moot. The blockade, as I've pointed out is illegal and of course it should be broken. The UN mandates the flow of unrestricted aid to gaza.
OK, so Gaza is a country that is constantly giving Israel Casus Belli, and you are complaining that Israel aren't bombing the crap out of them but rather looking for more benign means to stop it?
You are also ignoring the fact that Israel wants to exert pressure on Hamas to stop firing missiles at the Israeli general populace, and the blockade is one of the only ways it can do so in Gaza.
Thank you for proving my point. Because when you talk about "pressuring hamas" the reality is that it is a punishment of the palestinian people.
I'm not ignoring it. This is the crux of the matter, and as far as I'm concerned, what the issue is really about. (with all that stuff about weapon searches being smoke and mirrors, as I pointed out).
Israel want's to "pressurise Hamas" by punishing the civilian population of Gaza. I don't really buy that their only motive is to stop rocket attacks, but even if that was the case, collective punishment on the civilian population of Gaza is in contravention to the fourth geneva convention on Human rights and a crime under international law. A blockade in support of this crime is also illegal.
So, when Israel was occupying Gaza it was in the moral right? You are saying de-facto Israel has no option but to take a beating and say "wow, thanks". Allow me to refresh your knowledge in the region: this was tried in the 90s, when Israel was going with a full-on peace process, and surprisingly, the international attitude towards it was not in any way better... actually, many countries refused to denounce suicide bombings while Israel was acting under those terms. So, excuse the lack of care about the international rules and regulations, but this is unfortunately a pragmatic solution that has kept casualty numbers lower for the Israeli public consider that international public opinion will not change one way or the other no matter what happens, and international involvement in trying to create a solution will remain zero unless the US get off their asses and put extreme pressure on both sides... something that failed in the past.
Where are Israel's inhumane, disdainful or brutal actions in the life of the average Palestinian + Show Spoiler +
(and before you answer that like you actually know something: I've been to over 30 different Palestinian villages in the past decade, probably closer to 50)
? The internet is full of pictures of the worst that happens, but it really doesn't show what the average Palestinian lives like.
You're right, I haven't been there, but here is what Amnesty International and the UN have to say on the issue.
Amnesty International has dubbed the blockade "collective punishment" resulting in a "humanitarian crisis"; UN officials have described the situation as "grim", "deteriorating" and a "medieval siege", but Israel says there are no shortages in Gaza, pointing to the aid it allows in. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7545636.stm#overview
I'm sorry if I take their word over yours or that of the Israeli government. The fact that you cannot even see the suffering that Israel is inflicting on the average people of palestine is deeply disheartening.
I have seen places where the poverty is extreme and life sucks. I'm not saying it's great to live there, but it's not great to live in Colombia either. I can honestly, after witnessing for myself, say that most people there are NOT in terrible conditions.
You are watching the news and inferring that it is an accurate representation of reality: I submit to you that looking at the worst alone is not a good practice in understanding reality, and this is what you are doing.
Perhaps if Israel did not put draconian restriction on journalistic coverage and did not attempt to censor and spin at every opportunity, there would be no need for this. Again the recent attack on the flotilla is a perfect example of this.
First, the confiscation of all video and photographic evidence. Second the information blackout via the illegal detention of over 600 aid workers for three days while the Israeli PR spun their stories without anyone to counter or refute them.
I mean, after kidnapping citizens of other countries in International waters, the IDF forced these people to sign papers saying they had entered Israel illegally. What a joke.
Those "draconian laws" are there for a simple reason: the news headline isn't "in this Palestinian village everything is fine" but rather "in this part of the city, people are starving" (which shouldn't be dramatic news either, as this is happening in India yet no one cares). Israel attempts to spin because unfortunately, only in the recent decade did they understand that Palestinian PR people have been kicking their ass at it.
The settlement issue is a problematic one, and I dislike those settlements (probably more so than you). But Israel have proven that they are willing to (if necessary, forcefully) remove settlements. The current Israeli government is interested first in the safety of Israeli citizens, and that is the platform on which they were elected. If the peace process would be shown to genuinely improve the security of the Israeli citizens, I believe that they would go ahead with it. But the last time there was a viable peace process then Israel was stuck handling the dissociation between the talks and the continuing increase of violent actions against Israel, until all trust in the peace process as happened in the 90s was destroyed. Israel left Gaza. All that was needed to keep the Israeli presence there at zero and have no interference in their way of life was that they do not fire missiles, but as a recurring theme to the peace process, once Israel ceded territory to the Palestinian people, rather than acting peacefully, the territory was used as a base for escalating attacks.
The average person wants peace, but the way it's looking, there is no partner for such a process in Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority and Israeli government have such a distrust between them at the moment that moving forward is only done an inch at a time. You may not see it, but both the Palestinian and Israeli people have become very bitter cynics when it comes to peace talks, yet as a people, both sides want peace to happen. You are looking at things without all the details, and quite frankly, I'm surprised I'm not numb to this type of rhetoric by now... like so many people are.
If Israel truly wants peace, which based on their actions I remain unconvinced that they do. Then the first step is to give back occupied land and to start treating the people of Palestine as human beings and not as caged animals confined to a giant ghetto. Israel are the ones with the power, and so it is they who must act.
Hamas are a terrorist group, so we cannot expect better from them. But Israel is supposed to be a civilised state. Or are you saying we should expect the same standard of behaviour from the government of Israel as we expect from a terrorist organisation? If that is the case, should we also regard them in the same light as we regard a terrorist organisation?
Israel has ignored every single UN resolution including the division of borders in the original agreement. For now, they continue to behave as the oppressor and so are regarded as one.[/QUOTE] Hamas are the elected leaders of the Palestinian people in Gaza. As their only representatives, is it not a right thing to expect better from them? From who is Israel supposed to expect anything there? Who has the ability to stop the violence on their side? It has been proven time and time again that it won't stop due to unilateral action, and Hamas is the only political entity in Gaza that is beyond a tiny terrorist group.
Every UN resolution was unenforceable and without a permanent peace it is too great a risk, and if you want to follow what happens when Israel does accept and act upon a UN resolution, just look at the situation Israel is in since leaving Lebanon. While the UN assured they would take and keep control of the military outposts on the border and not allow Hezbollah (a terrorist group) to take control but rather only cede it to the Lebanese military - in under 24 hours Hezbollah took control of all military outposts without a single shot fired, and later began to fire missiles. Few at first, but increasing in number until Israel finally decided to take military action. They are still re-arming with supplies, money and training (including training within military bases) coming from Syria and Iran. That is the most defensible border Israel has, furthest away from a big population center. A war with a hostile Palestinian country means that Jerusalem (a city of nearly one million people, the capital city of Israel) would be within not only missile and mortar range, but within sniper range.
The UN will take no action to protect Israel, ever, and if anything, the only country to ever offer Israel any backing in any situation has been the US... so the US is basically the only country that has opinions that carry any weight with Israel.
Israel has gone a long way on the road for peace, and if in the early 70s a politician replied to "how do you see the Palestinian problem?" with "through the scope of a rifle", through the 80s "we do not accept the political rights of the Palestinian people", to the early 90s (Rabin's clearly disgusted face in the first official hand-shake with Arafat in the signing of the first accords legitimizing the Palestinian autonomy), to the late 90s and early 2000s (instead of negotiating hardball, leaving Lebanon and Gaza), to now. The fact that even all but the extreme right wing are willing to accept peace talks and negotiations for returning over 90% of the West Bank is something that none but the most extreme pro-peace supporters would have accepted in the 80s. And this does not even represent the stance of the Israeli people, which is unfortunately pushed to vote for more defensive/militant politicians due to terrorist acts, despite wanting a permanent peaceful solution.
Despite the demonization of Israel by certain groups (the Battle of Jenin as a prime example of when this was done, specifically by Al Jazeera reporting over 400 dead in the first day due to the IDF indiscriminately firing into civilians - which turned out to be a blatant lie), the reality of the situation is that Israel is not a militant country for the most part. The amount of change in the Israeli people and average political views is a massive, ongoing process; and despite the unfortunate history it has only somewhat stabilized in the last few years as wanting peace but being very cynical about the chances of such a process actually succeeding. Despite all the bloodshed, despite the numbness that it caused, every sane person on both sides wants the conflict to end, and to have a sense of normalcy to life.
If you mean the three quotes I posted a while ago, I thought they didn't matter.
I believe I said that the a "war" in the legal sense is not the same as a war in the rhethorical sense. A legal state of war can only be between two states. This is why the US for example brands, hamas, Al-queda etc as terrorist organisations, but not states, which means(according to them) that the normal rules of war don't apply. Israel also seems to hold this stance in it's treatment of Hamas prisoners. Though President Obama has recently reversed some of these positions in the U.S.
And considering the resistance of the activists, at certain point, this is a stance the soldiers could have very well adopted. Armed (even if it was a knife) resistance was to be put down.
Except in order to prove this you have to discount the eye-witness reports from the passengers of the ships that they acted in self-defence. And take the Israeli word at face value. So you are basing your conclusion of Israel's innocence on your assumption of their innocence.
However, that Israel would fake the videos. That's a pretty wild claim.
I don't think they needed to fake the videos, just edit them to suit themselves. Though I wouldn't put it past them. Either way, the fact that the footage is edited and that they've confiscated all the evidence destroys the credibility of any footage that they DO release.
Yes, I need a reason. A reason that would explain why a rational agent would do a certain kind of deed. Israel is evil does not satisfy this.
Actually, no. It is rational for these people to make Israel look as bad as they can. It furthers their cause. They also have their emotions at play. They are a side to this story. I am not expecting them to be objective. I'm also not saying that I completely disregard what they are saying, but rather that their side of the story is very much a point-of-view. I also have mentioned earlier on in this thread, that an objective person should see what both sides of the story say, and that I do not believe everything Israel is saying. In fact, I even said that they are obviously not showing parts that will make them look bad. But the videos I have seen, I do buy. Unless somebody can provide evidence that they are forgery, this will not change.
the UN is a posturing area, it's more or less powerless/incompetent, you forget how much the UN overlooks shit, esp in china. Also the Human Rights Council in it's own enforcement has faced it's own human rights violations. the UN get's nothing done.
Also you know more nations would vote with the US if they knew the US was going to change it's vote, the UN is used as a political poker, the only reason china votes yes is to gain trust in the middle east for oil, the UK and France always is absent or abstains in the vote knowing the US will vote one way.
Russia, china, middle eastern, cuba, and african counties protect each other from getting crap throw at them every year. Because let's face it isreal is hardly the worst country they can be spending all their time bitching about.
Which is what the human rights council mostly spends their time doing knocking on Israel.
On June 04 2010 04:00 blomsterjohn wrote: Klaz, have you irish heard anything about your citizen who was clubbed at the airport?
The Norwegians who had a press conference today said it basically looked like his head cracked open, and then they didn't see more of him.
I haven't caught up with the Irish News today yet, been too busy arguing on here. (will catch the 9pm main news).
I know one Irish citizen made it back. He said he was standing next to this Belgian girl on a ship and this Israeli soldier whacked her in the face and broke her nose. He also said they sleep deprived them. And that they told him to sign some piece of paper in Hewbrew. He said he didn't understand Hewbrew, so they gave him a paper saying that he agreed he had entered Israel illegally and he wasn't going to sue them or something and he first said that "he didn't understand them," in irish. but in the end I think he signed it "micky mouse."
Yes, I need a reason. A reason that would explain why a rational agent would do a certain kind of deed. Israel is evil does not satisfy this.
I don't think Israel are evil. I just think the government is run by a bunch of power mad idiots who think they can get away with whatever they want because they've never been held to account for a single wrongful action against the people of Palestine.
I also have mentioned earlier on in this thread, that an objective person should see what both sides of the story say, and that I do not believe everything Israel is saying. In fact, I even said that they are obviously not showing parts that will make them look bad. But the videos I have seen, I do buy. Unless somebody can provide evidence that they are forgery, this will not change.
Now you're going in circles and contradicting yourself. I believe I've demonstrated why the IDF's videos have no credibility and I think a lot of people around the world see this (hence the universal condemnation).
You can chose to believe in Santa Clause if you want. That's your choice.
Exactly if the UN wants to come down on Israel, they better go trollish on a few nations that have blatant issues.
Klaz,
Unless that can be validated I wouldn't take a grain of salt to it. He said, she said, my uncle said etc.
Kaz apply that thought to Hamas and do the same.
They have killed civilians in cold blood and if you really want would put them in the same category as Israel to you. Which makes a moot point in defended one side.
You have not demonstrated nothing, as such all you have said is a opinion on a video. AS SUCH you really don't have a way to prove or provide substantial evidence to support the claim.
On June 04 2010 02:33 Ghostcom wrote: Is the link to the documentary regarding Denmark. The amount of factual errors and manipulations just within the first 10 minuts are incredible.
For example, the refugee camp he visits is actually a camp for people seeking asylum which they have been denied and now they refuse to leave the country again. Also he claims no mosqus exist in Denmark - there are 2 within 4 km from where I'm sitting right now. I could keep on hampering about almost every single statement made/picture used. Al Jazeera aired this documentary as proof of how Denmark is - and whilst I'm biased due to being a dane myself, at least I'm not lying...
All right, I just sat through 10 minutes of a documentary, over 90% of which was incomprehensible to me.
Arabic documentary with Danish subtitles, so I can't verify what you're saying.
It seems like a piece on problems faced by immigrants in Denmark, with reference to far right parties etc. I can understand how you might disagree with this reporters conclusions and interpretations but that can be as much down to your own bias as to his.
Moreover, unless you understand arabic, it could also be mistranslation. It's easy to misinterpret the context of something from one language to another and small errors can have a dramatic impact on the meaning of a statement. This is something I've witnessed first hand in a different language.
Funnily enough, I've also heard it said that in the Japense version of FF7 Cloud is supposed to be a little emo bitch, but the English translation is fucked up and makes him sound a lot more macho.
Of course that is just speculation and I'd need to understand both Arabic AND Danish to really be able to come to a fair judgement. (that's not to say that RTE, the Irish government channel doesn't fuck up a lot of facts in its documentaries, though I still trust em).
Regardless, I think there is enough corroboration from various other passengers on the ship to convince me of the veracity of what the reporters are saying.
Wheter or not I'm biased doesn't change all the factual errors and blatant lies in the documentary - again just to mention one thing - he claims no mosques exists in denmark when there are 2 within 4 km from my current location. This documentary is very much like if you produced one in germany centered around the small fraction neo-nazis living there and portrayed the country on that basis. Or if you made one where Ireland was represented by the nutcases you had running around in northern Ireland a couple of years back.
Regarding the translation: It is produced by a guy who is half danish - so that pretty much rules out your lost in translation theory, but nice try.
The activists could just as well as the IDF have coordinated their stories - again, double standard.
I'm not saying Israel didn't fuck up - they most certainly did, but I wouldn't trust the activists any more since they have a very clear political aganda and the humanitary side was miniscule at best.
Yes, I need a reason. A reason that would explain why a rational agent would do a certain kind of deed. Israel is evil does not satisfy this.
I don't think Israel are evil. I just think the government is run by a bunch of power mad idiots who think they can get away with whatever they want because they've never been held to account for a single wrongful action against the people of Palestine.
I also have mentioned earlier on in this thread, that an objective person should see what both sides of the story say, and that I do not believe everything Israel is saying. In fact, I even said that they are obviously not showing parts that will make them look bad. But the videos I have seen, I do buy. Unless somebody can provide evidence that they are forgery, this will not change.
Now you're going in circles and contradicting yourself. I believe I've demonstrated why the IDF's videos have no credibility and I think a lot of people around the world see this (hence the universal condemnation).
You can chose to believe in Santa Clause if you want. That's your choice.
How did I contradict myself? You also accused me of building a strawman, but you never bothered to show me where. You have pointed out that parts have been edited out and nobody is denying this. But you are also apparently rejecting their truth-value since you rejected the video showing the cutting of the metal pipes onboard. I agree that parts have been left out, but I do believe the video material is real. And the video material actually seems to directly conflict what some eyewitnesses have said.
By the way, Canada, for example, hasn't condemned Israel. They want to wait until more facts are known. Why is that?
On June 04 2010 04:01 Kazius wrote: I respect your opinions, but I cannot agree that they are truly inclusive of the entire history of this conflict, which unfortunately has a great impact on what is happening today. I see that you have your opinions and I probably am not going to be the one to change them, but as your SC commentaries are the reason I'm on this board in the first place (started following pro-BW via them), I won't give up completely but rather elaborate on my opinions.
Thanks for the benefit of doubt. This is gonna be my last post on this topic as my hands are killing me now from typing all day long and it will be brief, so sorry if I don't elaborate enough on my views. I don't really think I can make them much clearer.
Chocolate was done at the start for a short while and was discontinued, but generally, I disagree with the idea of not allowing newspapers, but the rationale behind the limitation is simple; it's quite impossible to search a container stacked with papers all the way through. I do believe that aid should be searched by Israelis for weapons, because unfortunately this has been abused to smuggle weapons. If there was a way to ensure that no explosives, missiles, or rifles would enter the hands of the Hamas, I would agree that all aid should be let in freely.
It's quite impossible to search a stack of anything all the way through. You cannot use that as an excuse to punish civilians. At some point, their right to live outweighs your right to be paranoid and check every last centimetre. By imposing them to such inhumanity your only adding to their motivation to smuggle weapons and attack you.
Okay, my hands are killing me now so I'm gonna make this brief...
I get the complexity of the issue. I get that there is paranoia and fear on both sides. Here is what I think what the solution is...
The solution is simple.
1) Israel accepts UN stewardship and withdraws to the agreed 1967 borders. Giving back illegally appropriated land.
2) UN troops take control of Palestine and disarm Hamas. They remain there to ensure peace until there is stability. Don't trust UN troops, use NATO, fuck use Israeli troops if you want, but overseen by international observers so that there is no more abuse.
3) They hold elections in Palestine and set up a legitimate government and police force.
I'm pretty confident that if Israel were to accept UN stewardship and lift it's blockades etc. Hamas would agree to be policed by the UN and give up violence.
The problem is... I don't believe that the Israeli Government WANT peace. I think they have gotten to used to being able to do whatever they want with impunity. Look at the maps of Israel and Palestine from 1967 to today. Palestine just keeps shrinking and shrinking and shrinking and its people more impoverished and more impoverished.
Israel has no need for compromise. They can have their cake (the land) and with the "threat of constant violence" keep taking more and pushing the palestinians out. I believe they intend to continue this until Palestine no longer exists.
As for Hamas being in power. I think the Palestinian people just got tired of being shat on for 50 years and Hamas promised to fight for them and protect them. It was a desperate choice of a desperate people.
I firmly believe that Israel have the power to fix this. I also believe that they do not have the will to face the necessary compromise, because nothing other than a withdrawl to 1967 borders will really satisfy the sense of injustice and outrage that palestinian's feel. And that's entirely understandable.
EPT
