Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

weepee

Irlandese wrote: »

I said the "hard core" organisers, friend. I stand over the comment.
If you have been as involved as I and too many others were in too-pro as in too un-critical Pro-Palestinian politics over the past thirty odd years, you would have seen a lot of the "pretty disgusting " reality where the suffering palestinian cannon-fodder in the camps have always been used as PR material by the "hard-core" manipulators. They have clearly been deliberately kept in misery, as with the countless opportunities lost by Arafat and his cronies, while the Arafats and their families lived in obscene luxury.
Do not start me with that kant !

Maybe you could give us a brief insight, to your 30 years experience?

Irlandese

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, though, that defeats the purpose of the flotilla, which is to put moral pressure on Israel in the full light of world publicity - and to ensure that if anything bad does happen to the flotilla, everybody knows about it.

Both of those things are elementary tactics in a moral challenge. They don't make sense in a military situation, but this wasn't a military situation, because those were slow unarmed civilian ships with no armed personnel. They posed no military threat to Israel's naval, air, or ground forces, and the only "breaking" of blockades they could possibly do is by force of publicity and moral pressure.

Israel reacted with a commando raid - and when it went wrong and their commandos shot people, they began making claims about being attacked with makeshift weapons by the people they were illegally boarding, as if this were something that either justified their actions or was utterly beyond expectation. They've gone on to try to pretend that the fighting on board was the result of an organised and premeditated ambush, that the people involved were terrorists or had terrorist links - but it's all post hoc after a badly botched illegal assault.

People on board the flotilla may have had any motive for coming along, but that's irrelevant, because they all stuck to the rules of the flotilla, and they didn't direct the flotilla, or the actions of Israel.

By and large, though, I wouldn't expect Turkish men to react to any other way to aggression than with aggression, and I'm surprised the Israelis didn't factor that into their operation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Have a read of Larry derfner's couragous piece in today's Jerusalem Post, a bit of which I quote here. There is little doubt that this flotilla was a set-up, although it was very badly handled by the IDF and some Israeli politicians. It was also designed to break a blockade that must be broken, but only in a more general and comprehensive set of agreements that protect the legitimate interests of Israelis AND Palestinians:
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=177309
"WHICH BRINGS me to Monday morning’s raid on the Mavi Marmara. It was wrong. It was wrong because the Gazans, no less than Israelis, have the right to sovereignty within their legitimate borders, including their territorial waters and airspace. And nothing they’ve done, nothing they believe, no one they’ve elected gives Israel the right to control their country or take away the Gazans’ right to defend it with force.

The Palestinians are no more a nation than Israelis are, but they’re no less of one, either. Whoever’s guiltier in our 130-year conflict, there’s plenty of guilt on both sides, as there is on the side of every nation. But still, guilt doesn’t take away any nation’s right to be free.

I know what Hamas is. And I have no trouble believing the reports, Israeli and foreign, that this Turkish IHH organization behind theMavi Marmara is pro-Hamas, pro-jihad. These are not peace activists; these are not good people at all. These are loathsome people.

They’re no worse than Kachniks, but they’re no better, either.

But as evil as these jihadists are, they were acting in a cause the whole decent, democratic world knows is right: Freedom for Gaza. Freedom for the Palestinians. An end to the occupation. An end to the blockade."

This is more representative of Israeli opinion than those hard core elements I wrote about would like us to admit to.

Irlandese

bonkey wrote: »

I know that this (having been posted last night) is well out of date in turns of the running discussion, but....



Firing Range?

FIRING RANGE???

I assume you're suggesting that something might have been fired at them from within Gaza...not that the aid ships were going to fire on the strip.

International Waters extend 11 miles from the coast, which is well over the visible horizon.

You seem to be suggesting that there is a-greater-then-an-11-mile-zone, surrounding Gaza, into which the Israeli navy habitually do not go, for fear of attack from attack from some unspecified land-to-sea weaponry from Gaza.

Is that really the case?

I am clearly talking about being within range of the admittedly awfully aimed but quite long-reach rockets that Hamas have been firing from the Gaza Strip for quite some time.

I am also out of time sync with the rest as I have erratic access to internat out here at the moment. So apologies to all those possibly offended by our tardiness or my lack of replies to resposts !

WakeUp

IrishTonyO wrote: »

heard that the Rachel Corrie has turned about to be fitted with cameras and a satellite dish, before heading back to Gaza

Im just back from the protest in town, got down to the Israeli embassy about 8 pm and after a bit the Rachel Corrie was contacted on sat phone, Denis Halliday spoke to the crowd for about 2 mins, says they are 200 miles away and its full steam ahead. Dont think they are stopping or turning around for anything.

Irlandese

weepee wrote: »

Maybe you could give us a brief insight, to your 30 years experience?

Maybe I would prefer not to be identified?
I think the posts can stand for themselves as can the quoted pieces from people like Larry derfner.

P. Breathnach

Irlandese wrote: »

Maybe I would prefer not to be identified?

That is your right.

I think the posts can stand for themselves as can the quoted pieces from people like Larry derfner.

Not all your posts stand on their own merits, as you lay claim to a personal authority when you preface a point with "If you have been as involved as I ...". The price of maintaining privacy is that you back up your claims with something more than your own experience, because we cannot scrutinise that.

IrishTonyO

(Reuters) - Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has stated explicitly that the Palestinian Islamist group will end its armed struggle against Israel if the Jewish state withdraws from Palestinian land it occupied in the 1967 Middle East War.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKTRE64T2AI20100530

Irlandese

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That is your right.



Not all your posts stand on their own merits, as you lay claim to a personal authority when you preface a point with "If you have been as involved as I ...". The price of maintaining privacy is that you back up your claims with something more than your own experience, because we cannot scrutinise that.

Thats a good point, friend. I agree that I should not have said anything about times past etc. I will try to do better in the future.
Do read the full article in the JP though. People like him need our support.

Byron85

IrishTonyO wrote: »

(Reuters) - Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has stated explicitly that the Palestinian Islamist group will end its armed struggle against Israel if the Jewish state withdraws from Palestinian land it occupied in the 1967 Middle East War.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKTRE64T2AI20100530

The ball is now well and truly in Israel's court. Lets see them try to shoot this one down.

eoin5

weepee wrote: »

Jerusalem Post is stating that PM Netanyahu will 'loosen' blockade and allow ships in, after search by International inspectors.

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=177430

That in itself is progress. Will they have to hide the chocolate I wonder.

digme

Has this been said before though?

Foxtrol

alastair wrote: »

There's two issues here - the distinction between bias and misrepresentation, and whether those witnesses stand to gain financially for their (non-expert) statements or not. It's easy enough to establish the misrepresentations from Kemp, but we've no means of knowing if the likely anti-Israeli bias of the witnesses is going to present itself as misrepresentation (since the evidence is embargoed and it's down to 'he sez, she sez').

Well they took the time to travel on boats and were willing to be used as human shields in order to run a blockade so I'm pretty sure its fair to assume that they have some level of pro-Palestinian or Anti-Israel bias.

Deep Easterly

Aidric wrote: »

Debate currently on Vincent Browne on this issue for anyone interested.

Seen it. Isreali apologists shouting down and shouting over any alternative views. Now there's a first. :rolleyes:

alastair

Foxtrol wrote: »

Well they took the time to travel on boats and were willing to be used as human shields in order to run a blockade so I'm pretty sure its fair to assume that they have some level of pro-Palestinian or Anti-Israel bias.

I'm not saying otherwise - I'm saying you can't assume they would misrepresent what they saw on the back of that.

Foxtrol

gandalf wrote: »

I never said as such but if you post something here as proof (sorry opinion) and it turns out the person is doing the lecture circuit in front of Zionist organisations then it is fair to assume they are getting paid for same therefore it is fair to assume they aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them now isn't it?

So it is only correct to question their impartiality.

I didnt originally post the link but was commenting on the obvious blinkered view of many posters who claimed bias in that comment after only minutes earlier attacking other a poster for stating that eyewitnesses on the boats could have reasons to fabricate or amend their story to suit their aims.

P. Breathnach

Irlandese wrote: »

Thats a good point, friend. I agree that I should not have said anything about times past etc. I will try to do better in the future.
Do read the full article in the JP though. People like him need our support.

I have read it, and other writings that convey broadly the same message.

Bob Fisk set down the core rule for considering conflict in the Middle East when he said that the first thing one should understand is that there are no good guys.

Clawdeeus

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

The ball is now well and truly in Israel's court. Lets see them try to shoot this one down.

Although I am no fan of Hamas that was very impressive politically; they really dont lose which ever way Israel responds.

Foxtrol

alastair wrote: »

I'm not saying otherwise - I'm saying you can't assume they would misrepresent what they saw on the back of that.

You dont see it as being completely hypocritical to assume someone who is/has worked for the Israelis is biased in their view on the situation but you cant assume that people with long term affiliations with pro-Palestine/anti-Israeli groups who were willing to risk their lives for that cause are biased?

Foxtrol

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Although I am no fan of Hamas that was very impressive politically; they really dont lose which ever way Israel responds.

Just like the flotilla trip itself. Israel really needs to hire/kidnap whoever is doing the Palestinians PR.

gandalf

Foxtrol wrote: »

I didnt originally post the link but was commenting on the obvious blinkered view of many posters who claimed bias in that comment after only minutes earlier attacking other a poster for stating that eyewitnesses on the boats could have reasons to fabricate or amend their story to suit their aims.

And without a doubt some of the protesters will and some will outright lie about what happened. Because the way Israel assaulted the ships in International Waters Illegally they have given them the opportunity to do this. I am certainly not naive and do not accept anything as gospel that is quoted by others no matter what side they are on.

I was just irked that the person that posted that link only bothered to post a comment of "interesting" as their input on it.

I certainly do not believe that the people on that flotilla were all peace loving hippies wearing flowers, dressed in white and singing Kumbaya. There was quite a variety of characters most with noble aims but some with aims that were not in tune with the overall spirit of the convoy.

However I do not for one minute believed it justified a military assault on those ships in International Waters. Those that welcomed that course of action in my opinion are the real danger to Israeli peace, to Peace in the Middle East and ergo to World Peace.

Foxtrol

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Seen it. Isreali apologists shouting down and shouting over any alternative views a member of group affiliated with terrorists and a spokesperson for a group of terrorist apologists. Now there's a first. :rolleyes:

Fixed for you to equal out your venom.

alastair

Foxtrol wrote: »

You dont see it as being completely hypocritical to assume someone who is/has worked for the Israelis is biased in their view on the situation but you cant assume that people with long term affiliations with pro-Palestine/anti-Israeli groups who were willing to risk their lives for that cause are biased?

No hypocrisy at all.

I'm not pre-judging anyone based on their bias - whatever position they take. I'm quite happy to judge someone who misrepresents a situation. I'm not going to accuse anyone of misrepresenting a situation unless I have some evidence that they are doing so.

Foxtrol

gandalf wrote: »

And without a doubt some of the protesters will and some will outright lie about what happened. Because the way Israel assaulted the ships in International Waters Illegally they have given them the opportunity to do this. I am certainly not naive and do not accept anything as gospel that is quoted by others no matter what side they are on.

I was just irked that the person that posted that link only bothered to post a comment of "interesting" as their input on it.

I certainly do not believe that the people on that flotilla were all peace loving hippies wearing flowers, dressed in white and singing Kumbaya. There was quite a variety of characters most with noble aims but some with aims that were not in tune with the overall spirit of the convoy.

However I do not for one minute believed it justified a military assault on those ships in International Waters. Those that welcomed that course of action in my opinion are the real danger to Israeli peace, to Peace in the Middle East and ergo to World Peace.

I just thought it needed to be pointed out that some were very quick to point out his ties were/are not so quick to point out bias/ties when comments are made which are pro-flotilla/pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel. Im glad you believe that both sides have rationale for misrepresentation but from reading comments of other posters I sadly think some do not grasp this.

gandalf

Foxtrol wrote: »

I just thought it needed to be pointed out that some were very quick to point out his ties were/are not so quick to point out bias/ties when comments are made which are pro-flotilla/pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel. Im glad you believe that both sides have rationale for misrepresentation but from reading comments of other posters I sadly think some do not grasp this.

You see the problem is that when people have entrenched views or they are too close to the situation they are no longer thinking objectively about the situation.

What is key is that extremism is not allowed to triumph, extremism from both sides. Unfortunately there are extremists in charge in Gaza and their are extremists at Government level in the Knesset in Israel.

People seem to be under the impression that the current situation can be fixed with a grand slam military operation, that real life operates like a bad Steven Segal movie. The bad guys get blown up in a big explosion and everyone lives happily ever after. In actuality actions like this from both sides just perpetuate the tragedy and lead to escalation.

Foxtrol

alastair wrote: »

No hypocrisy at all.

I'm not pre-judging anyone based on their bias - whatever position they take. I'm quite happy to judge someone who misrepresents a situation. I'm not going to accuse anyone of misrepresenting a situation unless I have some evidence that they are doing so.

I'm probably more cynical than you as I'm taking everything that I'm hearing from both sides with a pinch of salt. My overall point was towards those posters who were hypocritically claiming that IDF/Israeli government/Israeli supporters were misrepresenting the situation while at the same time attacking posters who made the same claim about potential misrepresentations by eye-witnesses on the boats. I apologise if I mistakenly thought that you fell into that category.

Deep Easterly

Foxtrol wrote: »

Fixed for you to equal out your venom.

Not fixed though. Distorted and misguided, yes, but fixed? Nah.

Do impress me further with your egalitarian sense of venom.

Foxtrol

gandalf wrote: »

You see the problem is that when people have entrenched views or they are too close to the situation they are no longer thinking objectively about the situation.

What is key is that extremism is not allowed to triumph, extremism from both sides. Unfortunately there are extremists in charge in Gaza and their are extremists at Government level in the Knesset in Israel.

People seem to be under the impression that the current situation can be fixed with a grand slam military operation, that real life operates like a bad Steven Segal movie. The bad guys get blown up in a big explosion and everyone lives happily ever after. In actuality actions like this from both sides just perpetuate the tragedy and lead to escalation.

Agreed. At the same time however others believe that the situation can be fixed with a happy ever after ending and that real life operates like a bad children's movie. The good guys take a few boats together, filled with toys and flowers, to face down the mighty evil empires blockade. The monsters in the evil empire then see the error of their ways and everyone lives happily ever after. Trying to demonise one side or the other is also just going to perpetuate the tragedy and lead to escalation. As an earlier poster quoted "there are no good guys".

Scofflaw

Foxtrol wrote: »

Fixed for you to equal out your venom.

Do not ever do FYP (Fixed Your Post). It is exactly the equivalent of repeating someone's words back to them with a couple of changes, and just as in real life, people find it intensely annoying.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Foxtrol

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Not fixed though. Distorted and misguided, yes, but fixed? Nah.

Do impress me further with your egalitarian sense of venom.

You know full well that the phrase "Israeli Apologist" is a loaded phrase that distorts the views of those who were on the show.

I only thought it would be fair that the full panel were tarred with misleading terms that you had only chosen to use on those who you didn't agree with.

Foxtrol

Scofflaw wrote: »

Do not ever do FYP (Fixed Your Post). It is exactly the equivalent of repeating someone's words back to them with a couple of changes, and just as in real life, people find it intensely annoying.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Apologies I did not know that it wasn't allowed.

I however feel if you are going to distort the opinions of certain members of the panel with a loaded phrase it should be balanced out by tarring all others on the panel with similar loaded monikers.