Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

IrishTonyO

DELETED MESSAGE what I said had been dealt with

Mr.Micro

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

That's an interesting point. It should be known that many Jewish worldwide oppose this type of action as vehemently as anybody else, including from within Israel. It's an irony that those who accuse Israel's opponents of anti-Semitism assign a single opinion on all subjects to do with Israel to all Jews. Who is the anti-Semite, I ask.

Indeed, no matter what creed or religion one subscribes to, life is of no value if killing others is acceptable.

Byron85

paulaa wrote: »

Yes I agree. There's a whole new generation of people now who don't have the same guilt for the Holocaust as their parents and the anti-semitism accusation doesn't bother them.

I've just seen a RT TV interview on Facebook with Finklestein where he calls Israel a lunatic State

I saw that yesterday. To be fair, he's correct. I saw an interview from him a view months ago where he somewhat predicting such precarious events like the one that took place 2 days ago. He has been saying that Israel has been teetering on the edge for a while now. Turns out he's right, again.

del88

Scofflaw wrote: »

In another thread, I would think. Not in this one, because it's not relevant. I think you'll find that your point has been noted, but disregarded, because this thread about the actions of Israel is for people who consider the actions of Israel important.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Fair enough ...but i still think peoples anger and energy could be better served trying to help the not so glamorous oppressed regions of this world..

drakshug

I've been watching this unfold and knew two things wouldn't change.
On one side we'd have the increasingly incompetent Israelis trying to justify another cockup.
On the other hand we'd have the bleeding hearts shouting from the rooftops and staged demos throughout the arab world.
IMO. The IDA went in outside the blockade zone, totally unprepared and killed 9 people. They are on very dodgy legal grounds for boarding the ship where they did. They used the wrong tactics as far as hearts and minds is concerned and..they walked right into it.
The footage shown doesn't seem edited much and the IDA commandos were attacked. Were guns taken by those on board? I do not know but weapons were used. It wasn't passive resistance as has been claimed.
The Israelis blundered into a PR trap of monumental proportions. Basically such a flotillawas designed to create a confrontation and put Israel into a catch 22 situation and also put Egypt under pressure over it's blockade of Gaza.
I'm a bit older now so don't believe in causes that much. My cynicism makes me think that Hamas are using innocent activists and a bloodbath is what they wanted. Being older I've also seen the Israeli state being attacked from all sides and can understand their mindset. I also understand what it is to have your country ruled by an usurper so can understand the Palestinian mindset. When the Israelis treat the Palestinians as equals and the Palestinians stop treating the Israelis as targets, we might get away from these endless tit for tat debates by us do gooders in nice safe Ireland.

alastair

Sand wrote: »

You can breach the law, but you cant breach the Geneva Convention - its an legal framework covering the expected standards between participants (as in factions) in a conflict. Its meaningless outside of a conflict.

I dont expect you to agree, and I amnt to interested whether it gets the official "WAR" stamp of approval - its not a civil dispute either way - so no need to tie yourself up in knots arguing it. As I already said, the position over if its a war or "conflict" for want of better word alters as needed to best suit current needs.

There was a conflcit between the PA and Israel when the Conventions came into play in that context, and until a resolution is found to the issue of the occupied territories, then the terms of the Conventions relating to the 'occupying force' hold. There's no need to get tied up in knots - it's pretty straightforward - until the day that Israel comes to an agreed settlement over the 'disputed territories' it has the responsibilities of an occupying force.

Sand wrote: »

Well, theres never been too many successful lynchings of armed, trained soldiers. Unsuccessful ones, yes. Successful, no.

So we can agree that there was no lynching, and the term is off the mark.



Argue it with the dictionary I guess.

Sand wrote: »

"1. A large disorderly crowd or throng. "

By that definition our streets are filled with mobs on a daily basis. I think I can still get a good night's sleep.

Sand wrote: »

I understand the flotilla breached the blockade before.

They were allowed through. A decision that Israel made, not one they were forced into.

Sand wrote: »

It was hardly planned to kill anyone, its just an unfortunate and temporary consequence of a dreadful tragedy brought about by the mob attacking the Israelis.

Blaming the victim looks better in this light than in, say, a rape case then?

paulaa

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

That's an interesting point. It should be known that many Jewish worldwide oppose this type of action as vehemently as anybody else, including from within Israel. It's an irony that those who accuse Israel's opponents of anti-Semitism assign a single opinion on all subjects to do with Israel to all Jews. Who is the anti-Semite, I ask.

NO criticism of Israel is accepted by those who blindly support whatever Israel does, however horrendous. The left in Israel is dead and moderates are silent.
What a sad state of affairs for a democracy.

Rev Hellfire

paulaa wrote: »

NO criticism of Israel is accepted by those who blindly support whatever Israel does, however horrendous. The left in Israel is dead and moderates are silent.
What a sad state of affairs for a democracy.

That's clearly not the case as recent protests in Israel have demonstrated.

Agent_99

Sand wrote: »

It was hardly planned to kill anyone, its just an unfortunate and temporary consequence of a dreadful tragedy brought about by the mob attacking the Israelis.

Sorry Sand, can you please advise that what point did this mob shimmy up the ropes onto Israeli helicopters to attack the commandos?

This was another blatant act of terrorism violating international law!

"Definitions of terrorism: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious"

Sand

@dlofnep

Let me ask you - You seem to have faith in Israel performing an impartial inquiry, because it's a liberal democracy. The fact that their political framework is democratic, does not mean that they cannot have terrible foreign policies. I mean, there are many democratic nations around the world that have less than desirable policies.

Did you see the last report on the Gazan bombing campaign by Israel, that they released? And if so - why do you still have faith in their ability to put forth an impartial inquiry.

Expect the following.

* Edited videos demonstrating attacks on soldiers.
* Heavy PR campaign, backed by Rupert Murdoch media - claiming that they were legally sound.
* Heavy PR campaign, attacking the character of those onboard.

I explained my reasoning in a post just previously - perhaps lost in the time differential. I dont say Israels inquiry will be impartial by default, but I wouldnt assume that it will be partial by default either. I dont think youll find the Israelis will query too strongly whether it was right or wrong to have a blockade, but they will look at how the raid was planned, carried out, why the commandos were dropped into what was a very hostile reception and so on and how events escalated into shootings - shootings which implied events diverted very heavily from what the Israelis planned for.

This might dissapoint some who are more interested in whether it is right or wrong to have a blockade in the first place and would want the inquiry to focus on that.

We are going to see a heavy PR battle being waged, but whats new? The Palestinians and their friends are probably vastly superiour to Israel in terms of PR savvy and media contacts, so I wouldnt fear for them in that regard.

You also have to ask yourself - Why did Israel block communication to the activists, giving Israel a few days to establish a media campaign - instead of allowing both sides of the story out?

Well, it didnt seem to slow anyone down in reaching conclusions - if anything, Al Jazeera and co got the activists side out long before the Israelis did.

Why did the US block a request for a UN-lead, impartial international inquiry

The US blocked it because its an ally of Israel, and the UN has issued more condemnations of Israel than it has the Khmer Rougue. The UN agenda regarding Israel is dominated by a very hostile faction, and no one could describe the UN as impartial when it comes to Israel.

paulaa

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

That's clearly not the case as recent protests in Israel have demonstrated.

Where and by whom ?

Byron85

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa has told reporters to expect a response to the incident from Arab foreign ministers tomorrow. He said that action will be taken against Israel on legal, political and economic levels.

Does anyone know how dependent Israel is on oil etc from outside its "borders"? I'm curious to find out what kind of sanctions the Arab countries could enact against Israel that would inflict much damage on it. Either way, if Israel wasn't on its own before, now it is.

alastair

Sand wrote: »

IThe US blocked it because its an ally of Israel, and the UN has issued more condemnations of Israel than it has the Khmer Rougue. The UN agenda regarding Israel is dominated by a very hostile faction, and no one could describe the UN as impartial when it comes to Israel.

The Khymer Rouge held power for four years, and directed most of it's human rights abuses internally - where the UN had no mandate. Israel has a long legacy of ongoing abuses on an international level. That might factor into the balance of condemnations, wouldn't you think?

paulaa

Sand wrote: »

@dlofnep


I explained my reasoning in a post just previously - perhaps lost in the time differential. I dont say Israels inquiry will be impartial by default, but I wouldnt assume that it will be partial by default either. I dont think youll find the Israelis will query too strongly whether it was right or wrong to have a blockade, but they will look at how the raid was planned, carried out, why the commandos were dropped into what was a very hostile reception and so on and how events escalated into shootings - shootings which implied events diverted very heavily from what the Israelis planned for.

This might dissapoint some who are more interested in whether it is right or wrong to have a blockade in the first place and would want the inquiry to focus on that.

We are going to see a heavy PR battle being waged, but whats new? The Palestinians and their friends are probably vastly superiour to Israel in terms of PR savvy and media contacts, so I wouldnt fear for them in that regard.



Well, it didnt seem to slow anyone down in reaching conclusions - if anything, Al Jazeera and co got the activists side out long before the Israelis did.



The US blocked it because its an ally of Israel, and the UN has issued more condemnations of Israel than it has the Khmer Rougue. The UN agenda regarding Israel is dominated by a very hostile faction, and no one could describe the UN as impartial when it comes to Israel.

Israel is criticised more because they claim to be a democracy and seek special treatment from the western democracies. The Khmer Rouge does not

youcrazyjesus!

drakshug wrote: »

I've been watching this unfold and knew two things wouldn't change.
On one side we'd have the increasingly incompetent Israelis trying to justify another cockup.
On the other hand we'd have the bleeding hearts shouting from the rooftops and staged demos throughout the arab world.
IMO. The IDA went in outside the blockade zone, totally unprepared and killed 9 people. They are on very dodgy legal grounds for boarding the ship where they did. They used the wrong tactics as far as hearts and minds is concerned and..they walked right into it.
The footage shown doesn't seem edited much and the IDA commandos were attacked. Were guns taken by those on board? I do not know but weapons were used. It wasn't passive resistance as has been claimed.
The Israelis blundered into a PR trap of monumental proportions. Basically such a flotillawas designed to create a confrontation and put Israel into a catch 22 situation and also put Egypt under pressure over it's blockade of Gaza.
I'm a bit older now so don't believe in causes that much. My cynicism makes me think that Hamas are using innocent activists and a bloodbath is what they wanted. Being older I've also seen the Israeli state being attacked from all sides and can understand their mindset. I also understand what it is to have your country ruled by an usurper so can understand the Palestinian mindset. When the Israelis treat the Palestinians as equals and the Palestinians stop treating the Israelis as targets, we might get away from these endless tit for tat debates by us do gooders in nice safe Ireland.

I agree with the sentiment but to suggest the conflict is some intractable, timeless conflict that will only be solved as soon as each side takes some philosophical shift away from hate is wrong. There are very specific causes to look back on and some very specific solutions already out there.

Rev Hellfire

paulaa wrote: »

Where and by whom ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66183765&postcount=1578

paulaa

American Activist Loses Eye In Protest Over Israel Attack On Flotilla

Emily Henochowicz Hit In Face By Tear Gas

A 21-year-old American activist lost an eye when she was hit in the face by a tear gas cannister fired by Israel border guards in a demonstration on the West Bank against the attack on the Gaza flotilla.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5961955-american-activist-loses-eye-in-protest-over-israel-attack-on-flotilla

BlaasForRafa

del88 wrote: »

Fair enough ...but i still think peoples anger and energy could be better served trying to help the not so glamorous oppressed regions of this world..

Indeed and I wonder why Israel comes in for this amount of disproportionate hate. Sri Lanka killed an estimated 7000 civilians in its defeat of the Tamil Tigers yet it barely raised a ripple on this board and here we have a 112+ page thread on what in the greater scheme of things a relatively minor incident.

Where were the aid convoys to the tamils? Where were Richard Boyd Barrett and Aongus O'Snodaigh when Tamil civilians where being shelled. There is something deeply hypocritical and sinister about all the latent anti-Israeli sentiment thats going around.

Byron85

Balls of steel would be an understatement.

In reference to the killing of the Turkish citizens on the ship:

"So are you going to apologise to them?"

"For what?"

Unbelievable.

BlaasForRafa

paulaa wrote: »

American Activist Loses Eye In Protest Over Israel Attack On Flotilla

Emily Henochowicz Hit In Face By Tear Gas

A 21-year-old American activist lost an eye when she was hit in the face by a tear gas cannister fired by Israel border guards in a demonstration on the West Bank against the attack on the Gaza flotilla.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5961955-american-activist-loses-eye-in-protest-over-israel-attack-on-flotilla

Guess she should have ducked.

Sorry I shouldn't be facetious but meh, this bull**** thread is wearing away my compassion.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Indeed and I wonder why Israel comes in for this amount of disproportionate hate. Sri Lanka killed an estimated 7000 civilians in its defeat of the Tamil Tigers yet it barely raised a ripple on this board and here we have a 112+ page thread on what in the greater scheme of things a relatively minor incident.

Where were the aid convoys to the tamils? Where were Richard Boyd Barrett and Aongus O'Snodaigh when Tamil civilians where being shelled. There is something deeply hypocritical and sinister about all the latent anti-Israeli sentiment thats going around.

Your concern for the Tamils is clearly disingenuous, and another blatant attempt at predictable whataboutery, to try and deflect criticism from Israel.

Sand

@paulaa

Israel is criticised more because they claim to be a democracy and seek special treatment from the western democracies. The Khmer Rouge does not

@alastair

The Khymer Rouge held power for four years, and directed most of it's human rights abuses internally - where the UN had no mandate. Israel has a long legacy of ongoing abuses on an international level. That might factor into the balance of condemnations, wouldn't you think?

Guys - universal human rights is a principle. I stress universal. Its sad that you try to differentiate between human beings and what support they can and should expect from an idealogical humanitarian organisation like the UN based on their nationality.

If the UN is not for universal human rights, then it has no purpose.

The only thing you need to say to explain the reason why Israel gets vastly more criticism than actual dictorships is the obvious one - politics. Thats why Israel gets condemned so often, thats why the US expends its veto on Israeli condemnations so much. Politics.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Guess she should have ducked.

Sorry I shouldn't be facetious but meh, this bull**** thread is wearing away my compassion.

Oh for goodness sake. Making fun of someone who just lost there eye is just messed up. Honestly, you are not helping your cause with this kind of thing.

sceptre

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Indeed and I wonder why Israel comes in for this amount of disproportionate hate. Sri Lanka killed an estimated 7000 civilians in its defeat of the Tamil Tigers yet it barely raised a ripple on this board and here we have a 112+ page thread on what in the greater scheme of things a relatively minor incident.

Where were the aid convoys to the tamils? Where were Richard Boyd Barrett and Aongus O'Snodaigh when Tamil civilians where being shelled. There is something deeply hypocritical and sinister about all the latent anti-Israeli sentiment thats going around.

Multiple moderator instructions in this thread requesting people not to drag the thread off-topic. There shouldn't be any need for an on-thread reminder at all, yet you're ignoring multiple reminders. Please remember what on-topic is. It's not the same as David Copperfield's misdirection.

If you don't like this thread (as your last post seems to imply) feel free to refrain from posting in it.

/mod

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

Your concern for the Tamils is clearly disingenuous, and another blatant attempt at predictable whataboutery, to try and deflect criticism from Israel.

No its not disingenous, I take an interest in lots of ongoing situations as todays news is tomorrows history. What it is its pointing out the hypocrisy of the likes of you. 7000 dead yet not a murmur but your big on the hatred of Israel, how come?

karma_

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Guess she should have ducked.

Sorry I shouldn't be facetious but meh, this bull**** thread is wearing away my compassion.

you say that then claim your compassionate?

trapsagenius

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

No its not disingenous, I take an interest in lots of ongoing situations as todays news is tomorrows history. What it is its pointing out the hypocrisy of the likes of you. 7000 dead yet not a murmur but your big on the hatred of Israel, how come?

I echo wes-quit the whataboutery.This thread is on Israel's disgraceful actions.Stop trying to sidetrack it.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

Oh for goodness sake. Making fun of someone who just lost there eye is just messed up. Honestly, you are not helping your cause with this kind of thing.

she shouldn't have been there but she was and she got unlucky. Tear gas canisters are not aimed weapons.

bonkey

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Guess she should have ducked.

Sorry I shouldn't be facetious but meh, this bull**** thread is wearing away my compassion.

This is already a sufficiently emotive topic. We can do without this type of comment, thanks.

Infracted.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

she shouldn't have been there but she was and she got unlucky. Tear gas canisters are not aimed weapons.

No, sorry making fun of some who lost there eye is messed up, and does your cause no favours.