View Full Version : The Gaza Aid Ship Massacre
Not much is known about the killings at the time, other than that the people killed were civilian humanitarian workers on an aid ship headed towards Gaza. At least 10 people lay dead after a night time raid by Israeli commandos, with some saying the number killed is up to 19, and is expected to rise. Dozens more are critically wounded.
According to the aid workers surviving, IDF troops stormed the ship and immediately started opening fire. The Israelis say they started firing with paintball guns. Regardless, with armed forces opening fire on a crowd in a closed environment, what happens? The crowd mobs and defends itself. Four Israeli commandos are reported injured, after the crowds used metal pipes and slingshots to retaliate.
Many of those killed were Turkish citizens, with the Turk Government saying that any future aid ships to Gaza will have a military escort (http://news.antiwar.com/2010/05/31/turkey-future-gaza-aid-ships-will-have-military-escorts/), and is calling an emergency meeting for the UN security council.
Israel is facing a shitstorm of bad press, with media (and nations!) across the world condemning the attack, which took place in international waters. Up to 600 protesters rallied in Times Square, making their views against this attack heard.
President Obama expressed "regret" at the deaths, but will not comment further "until all the facts come out."
We wish the best to the civilians who are wounded, and hope that they survive and heal quickly.
EDIT: According to the Israeli military, the confirmed death toll of civilians is at 10, with 7 Israeli soldiers wounded (and last I heard, one critically). There are still dozens of civilians wounded, some critically.
Would you please link to where you got this information?
Taepodong-2
31-May-10, 16:33
How many times has Israel gotten away with shit like this before? It won't be any different. They'll just get a slap on the wrist and go back to bombing Gaza.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/05/31/gaza.protest/index.html?hpt=T2
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/05/31/israel-attacks-gaza-aid-ships-killing-at-least-19/
I read this last night. Israel says the people supposedly had weapons or tried to take the IDFs weapons away. Either way there is a shit ton of people outside the Israeli embassy in Turkey pretty much wanting to tear down the place because of this.
I also read that the blockade isn't doing shit at all and that Hamas is still going strong in attacking Israel.
Welcome to war.
Right, because Israel and Gaza are at open warfare.
They're just starving the populace out. It's disgusting.
Right, because Israel and Gaza are at open warfare.
They're just starving the populace out. It's disgusting.
And their only doing it because they trying to "stop Hamas" but the blockade hasn't done shit at all and Hamas still fires rockets at Israel.
I think Israel needs to stop being a bunch of douche bags.
And their only doing it because they trying to "stop Hamas" but the blockade hasn't done shit at all and Hamas still fires rockets at Israel.
I think Israel needs to stop being a bunch of douche bags.
Yeah really. The only thing they're doing is starving a bunch of innocent civilians. And when they don't starve to death, they die due to lack of medical supplies.
Disgusting.
Israel has had a blockade in place for quite some time. They're attempting to cut off supplies to those that bombard their civilians with rockets.
What Israel failed to realize was that the same tactic that was used against them in the past would be used against them again today.
Israel made it well known that they intended to halt any convoys that violated the blockade. Palestinian supporters knew this, and essentially laid a trap.
They announced a convoy that was intended to break the blockade. They filled it with harmless supplies. They made sure there were no weapons on board, and that the sailors were civilians. They then sent it into the blockade, forcing Israel to make good on their statements that they would halt any smugglers.
When the Israelis boarded the ship, the sailors had rudimentary weapons at best; poles, slingshots, sticks. They went after the Israeli military as soon as they got on board the ship, which they knew would happen.
Israel's military was then forced to respond by opening fire, killing "civilians."
This is the exact same tactic used in the actual Gaza Strip and Palestinian region decades ago.
The Palestinians would take small children and give them rocks. They would then send the children up to Israeli soldiers and have them throw rocks at the soldiers. Sometimes however, they weren't rocks. Once in a while it would be a grenade or a molotov cocktail.
The soldiers then had to treat all such circumstances as though it was a grenade or a molotov cockatail.
That meant they had to open fire on the children throwing rocks.
The Palestinians then sent in more children, with just rocks, and had them throw them at the Israeli soldiers. The soldiers opened fire on the children. The Palestinians made sure there were plenty of cameras around.
The devastation this caused in terms of world opinion was tremendous. It was also incredibly effective.
That's essentially what Hamas just did with this boat.
The Israeli's should have seen this one comin'.
I do think it's interesting that there are some in this thread lashing out at Israel for raiding a convoy they said they would raid however - because these convoys are supplying the people that bomb their civilians.
The Israelis made no secret that they intended to raid these convoys - and mentioned this one in particular. If it had turned back rather than trying to break through the blockade, Israel would not have boarded the ship in the first place.
If the rockets weren't falling in Israeli territory onto civilian targets, the blockade wouldn't be there to begin with either.
Of course if the Israeli's weren't on Palestinian land, the rockets may or may not be coming into Israeli territory.
On the other hand, Israel wouldn't be in Palestinian territory if they hadn't tried to kill all the Jews 6 times.
Where this mess started is a long story. I do think it's interesting to see some of the responses towards the Israelis for boarding a ship they said they would board though. I also think it's interesting that no one in this thread realized this was intentional on the part of the sailors and the Palestinians.
They wanted that boat to get raided.
They knew it would get raided.
They knew the Israeli military had to respond if the people on the ship attacked them at all.
They also knew how it would be portrayed around the world when highly trained Israeli military units opened fire on people with slingshots.
I think it's interesting that no one in this thread, amidst all the harsh words and passion, realizes this entire scenario was completely contrived.
They wanted that boat to get raided.
Well damn Alastor, there must be a lot of suicidal European MPs and humanitarian workers then. We should get them all checked out.
Well damn Alastor, there must be a lot of suicidal European MPs and humanitarian workers then. We should get them all checked out.
For starters, we're not privy to what kind of information the actual sailors had. For all we know they may have been tricked into it.
Contrarily, they may well have known the risks and done it anyway for what they feel is a greater cause.
I can think of several thousand different ways to explain why those sailors would be on that boat doing the things they did. Some are the result of good intent, some are of bad intent, but there are a plethora of possible explanations.
Look at it like this:
Scenario A) A group of people comes to you and asks you to help deliver a shipment of medical supplies to starving Haitian children in Cuba. You're of a different nationality (American) so you won't be scrutinized as closely. You're also likely to have the support of the US government, so the chances of your ship of medical and food supplies getting through is much better than if they use Haitians.
Don't take any firearms though, because then they'll be able to say they were justified in opening fire. Your best defense is to be completely harmless. That way, they won't have any reason to raid the ship and if they do, it'll make them look badly.
If the ship does get raided, they'll probably try to kill everyone to erase the evidence, and those children will starve. So if they come on board, do your best to defend the ship by whatever means you have.
Now all that has to happen is the Cubans need to make good on their promise that they'll raid the boat. If they do, we know what will happen. If they don't, then we get some food and medical supplies to some kids, we take pictures of it and leak it to the press to show what good people are doing for these poor children who starve at the hands of imperialistic oppression.
Scenario B) Great Britain, where many of us have ancestry, is under siege. We know what we're doing is dangerous, but that's our "mother country" and they're being victimized by a far superior military force. Their children are starving and need medical supplies. We can probably get through since we're Americans. Thus, we decide to try it.
We could have about 3,000 more scenarios here, some significantly different, others that were pretty similar but just had different pieces to it.
It's not hard at all in a world of over 6 Billion people to fathom a fairly small group getting together to engage in an activity such as this. This becomes especially true if they lack the information they need to make decisions or are otherwise already indoctrinated into a belief system that sways them towards certain actions.
I'm not saying Israel is right. I'm not saying Israel is wrong either.
I'm saying the situation was contrived.
Nothing less, nothing more.
I disagree. The Israeli government released a statement a few days ago saying they would commandeer the ship and would not "let it reach its destination." Instead, they boarded the ship in international waters, shot up a bunch of aid workers, pissed off the Turkish government, and caused thousands of people to damn near riot outside the Israeli consulate in Ankara.
Not to mention destroy what is left of Israel's image outside America.
I disagree.
You disagree with what?
The Israeli government released a statement a few days ago saying they would commandeer the ship and would not "let it reach its destination."
I don't dispute this. This is what locked them into a course of action and allowed for the contrivance of the instance.
Once Israel made that statement, they had two choices:
1. Let the ship through, undermining their power and authority and encouraging additional challenges to their blockade, not to mention supplying people they don't want supplied.
2. Stop the ship.
Once Israel publicly announced that they intended to stop this convoy, they were locked into a course of action - they had to follow through.
This is the very trigger that allowed the situation to unfold.
Instead, they boarded the ship in international waters
True, and I'm not certain why they chose to do it in international waters. That said, there are still laws that govern international waters, especially in regards to contraband and military operations.
If I had to guess, I'd wager that they wanted to board the ship at night and that if they waited until the daylight, the ship might be in someone else's waters. They may not have had the luxury of waiting for the ship to enter Israeli waters, if the ship was even headed for Israeli waters.
shot up a bunch of aid workers
If you want to make an argument, the first rule is that it must be a fair argument.
By all evidence so far, the "aid workers" attacked the armed Israeli military.
Do you think that's a normal response? Why do you think they did that? At what stage did they decide that bum rushing the IDF and hitting them with poles, slingshots, and overpowering them and turning their weapons against them would end well?
Why did these aid workers, who presumably aren't traditionally ones to engage in violent conflict, opt for that outcome?
pissed off the Turkish government, and caused thousands of people to damn near riot outside the Israeli consulate in Ankara.
True. The incident did indeed cause a lot of heat and tension.
Not to mention destroy what is left of Israel's image outside America.
Also true, somewhat.
Despite popular myth, there's actually quite a bit of support for Israel outside of the US. Britain, France, Germany and others support Israel a lot. The reason it seems that this isn't the case is because of the realpolitik nature of the Middle East.
What we have in the Middle East is essentially two sides of an irrational conflict. One is Israel who has a democracy, strong ties to Europe and the West, a free press and freedom of travel as well as freedom of information. They are also part of the global community and as such, are part of the world economy.
The other side is largely fractured, with no clear leaders, with absolutely zero freedom of the press, has no reason what-so-ever to cooperate with the West, has no ties to Europe, is far from a democracy, does not have freedom of information, and is certainly not part of the global community or world economy.
Presuming all interested parties wish to avoid a military conflict in the Middle East, which of these two entities do you think it's easier to convince to do things like negotiate, back down, make deals, and so on?
The one with an established structure that has a lot to lose, or the entities where we're not even sure who's in charge every day?
It's much easier for the Western nations of the world to put pressure on Israel and get them to do what we want them to do than it is for the Western nations to put pressure on Palestine and get them to do what we want them to do.
Thus, we place our pressure where it can be best applied; on Israel. Part of that pressure is augmented by public opinion and how our government says it feels about Israel to the people and the press.
Those public statements apply pressure to the one entity in that entire region that we can at least to some extent, pressure to do things that are in our best interests (like not start a war).
Sentiment for Israel really isn't as negative as people make it out to be. Superficially? Sure. There's a lot said that's negative about Israel. But it's said probably more often than it should be because when we say bad things about Israel, they react to it in constructive and positive ways.
We can say all the bad things we want about Hamas, and the more bad stuff we say, the more powerful they become.
So we harp on Israel more, but I assure you they're far more widely supported at the end of the day than most people perceive.
If we had to pick one nation to survive in the Middle East today, it most certainly would not be Palestine.
True, and I'm not certain why they chose to do it in international waters. That said, there are still laws that govern international waters, especially in regards to contraband and military operations.
If I had to guess, I'd wager that they wanted to board the ship at night
Well yeah, I'm sure that's why they did it, but that's still breaking international law, and Israel should be reprimanded (at least) for doing so.
By all evidence so far, the "aid workers" attacked the armed Israeli military.
I almost stopped reading there and hit reply right away, but I waited. Anyway, here's the proof that Israel started the fight and reportedly fired before they were on the ship:
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0531/raw-video-reporter-claims-israelis-fired-activists-boarding-ship/
Do you think that's a normal response?
What would you do if you were with a crowd of people who had clubs and you were close to people who were shooting at you in a closed environment? There's nowhere to run when they're attacking from all sides.
So you fight. Damn right if I was forced into a fight and possibly die or stand and die like a dog, I would choose to fight.
Why did these aid workers, who presumably aren't traditionally ones to engage in violent conflict, opt for that outcome?
Well, like I said, if you were being attacked and the choice is fight or die, what do you do? Also, crowds have a mind of their own. Once a group within the crowd starts doing something, others follow suit, and so on until the whole crowd does it. That's how mobs are formed. And in this case, the whole crowd was picking up metal pipes while being shot at, to defend themselves.
If we had to pick one nation to survive in the Middle East today, it most certainly would not be Palestine.
Well, mine would certainly not be Israel. They're the most counter-productive state in the region, and possibly one of the worst countries on a human rights basis (look at the blockade of medical supplies to an entire populace!) in the world. Israel thinks they're "God's people", and as such, think they can act with impunity.
For a bad metaphor, they are the people of a god. A god of the international community, in the sense that it is a veto-holding member of the UN. And as such, the Israelis feel they can go about doing whatever the hell it is they feel like doing, all with impunity from international law. Oh, and it doesn't hurt that that "god" is the most powerful military force, in terms of destructive power, in the world. That "god?"
The United States of America.
...yes I know, Alastor...terrible metaphor, but it expresses a viewpoint.
Well yeah, I'm sure that's why they did it, but that's still breaking international law, and Israel should be reprimanded (at least) for doing so.
Is it really? I'm not an international maritime attorney. I'm not certain what the rules are, but I'm pretty sure that any nation has a right to board a peaceful vessel prior to it entering a combat zone if that area has been blockaded.
I almost stopped reading there and hit reply right away, but I waited. Anyway, here's the proof that Israel started the fight and reportedly fired before they were on the ship:
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0531/raw-video-reporter-claims-israelis-fired-activists-boarding-ship/
Here's what your own story says about the incident, Kevin:
However, in raw video captured by an Al Jazeera producer and published to YouTube late Monday, two journalists provide a play-by-play of the harrowing event as pops and cracks echo in the background. Even before the Israeli forces were aboard, one says, they were pelting the boat with tear gas and stun grenades, injuring numerous people.
Is it not standard procedure for a boarding party to use these types of devices? When police in the United States raid a house, don't they toss in stun grenades or tear gas depending on the circumstance?
You're very passionate, Kevin, but you also seem a bit hostile. I'm simply trying to guide you toward a less passionate and more analytical perspective on it.
The Israelis may well have used munitions as your article claims - but even your article doesn't say they did anything different than anyone else would do. In fact, the attempt to use less than lethal force probably cost the boarding party time and alerted even more of the ship's crew to their presence, endangering their own boarding party.
Yes, militaries - and even civilian police forces - use less than lethal pre-raid munitions. It happens all the time. It's done in an effort to minimize casualties.
What would you do if you were with a crowd of people who had clubs and you were close to people who were shooting at you in a closed environment? There's nowhere to run when they're attacking from all sides.
First, that's a rather large ship. I'm thinking that if someone wanted out of the confrontation, retreat was possible. Considering that there are nine dead, that might indicate that there were what... 15 or so ship crew? There were around 15 boarding party members?
Bear in mind there are six ships in this group called a flotilla.
We can't be certain there was a path out of the main fighting, but it's probable.
What I do know is that if I am scared of getting shot, I do not pick up a chair and charge an armed member of the invading force with it. That's not a survival instinct.
So you fight.
No. You run.
Angry people fight.
Frightened people run.
Damn right if I was forced into a fight and possibly die or stand and die like a dog, I would choose to fight.
Tone down the rhetoric please. This isn't a soap box and you're letting your emotions get the best of you here.
I'd still maintain that there was probably a path out of the main fighting area. Even so, if I'm trying to survive in a gun fight I really hope I don't pick up a chair and charge someone who is holding a machine gun. That just doesn't make sense, Kevin.
Something here doesn't jive.
Well, like I said, if you were being attacked and the choice is fight or die, what do you do?
I'd argue that that was not the choice they faced. Even so, most folks would attempt to go hide someplace if they were genuinely scared. If they had a reasonable chance of winning? Perhaps they'd fight. I don't think they planned to take out the IDF with a deck chair, however.
Also, crowds have a mind of their own. Once a group within the crowd starts doing something, others follow suit, and so on until the whole crowd does it. That's how mobs are formed. And in this case, the whole crowd was picking up metal pipes while being shot at, to defend themselves.
"Defend themselves" is a pretty generous term. Seriously. It is.
They were on a boat. They were unarmed. They knew the Israelis were coming. They knew the Israelis would be well-armed. They also know that if bad things happen to them, the entire world is going to find out about it. They have every reason to believe that if they simply sit still, the Israelis might hold them for a while, but they're not simply going to shoot them in the head on sight.
But what do they do instead of cooperate?
They attack the IDF as they attempt to clear the boat.
That's not "defending yourself."
People who don't want to get shot do not charge armed military squads that they know are coming, especially when they know the whole world is watching and there are plenty of cameras around - which would ensure that the Israeli military treated them appropriately.
Had they cooperated, they would have been in no substantial danger at all. They knew that.
They chose to instigate a confrontation anyway.
Why?
Kevin, I can tell you're passionate about this, but get past your emotions and look at this rationally.
A person who is trying to preserve their own life does not respond in this manner to a situation of this nature, especially if they know it's coming.
Well, mine would certainly not be Israel. They're the most counter-productive state in the region
Really?
Compared to say... Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia, and so on?
How do you justify this statement?
Kindly show me how any of these nations is more productive and positive than Israel. I'm directly challenging you to back up your claim here, because it's a disingenuous statement.
and possibly one of the worst countries on a human rights basis
Not remotely. You're either caught up in the emotion of the moment, or you're dangerously misinformed.
Bear in mind you're comparing Israel to nations where there are constant civil wars, where it's legal to rape women if they're walking alone at night, where people can be beheaded for being of a different faith, and much more. Israel is in fact a democracy and although they at times execute their plans poorly, they're nowhere near on par with their adversaries in terms of human rights violations.
That's simply not accurate. Not even close.
(look at the blockade of medical supplies to an entire populace!)
Why?
Why are they blocking those ships?
Do you know? If so, tell me why.
Israel thinks they're "God's people", and as such, think they can act with impunity.
You mean like Christians in the US do? And no, they really don't. That's not a good understanding of the Jewish faith. They most certainly do not believe they are above reproach or are enacting God's will. In fact the Jewish faith emphasizes that they're human, that God created all people, and that the issues they face in life are a test from God that they must pass based on their character, humanity and respect for others.
For a bad metaphor, they are the people of a god. A god of the international community, in the sense that it is a veto-holding member of the UN. And as such, the Israelis feel they can go about doing whatever the hell it is they feel like doing, all with impunity from international law. Oh, and it doesn't hurt that that "god" is the most powerful military force, in terms of destructive power, in the world. That "god?"
That's not remotely true, Kevin. I'm not sure if you're basing your statements off of your "gut feeling" or if someone's been telling you these things, but it's a dangerously inaccurate understanding of Israel.
What grade are you in, Kevin? I'm just curious so I can try to place the things you've studied and your curriculum into my mind.
The United States of America.
...yes I know, Alastor...terrible metaphor, but it expresses a viewpoint.
It is a bad metaphore, but not because of word choice. It has more to do with the fact that it's just not accurate.
The Israelis don't do what we tell them to do all the time. There's a reason we have to use public opinion and the international community to put pressure on them sometimes - and rightly so. Had the world had the means to do so with the United States when we were preparing to enter Iraq, they would have.
In fact, they did. They tried. We did it anyway.
Israel is not in the business of doing whatever the US says. We have to make agreements with them to get them to behave in ways that they don't want to behave in. We have to apply pressure to get them to restrain themselves from turning Palestine to glass.
They are a democracy, and their population is just as tired of being bombed as we would be - and I'd remind you of what our national response was to one incident. Imagine if that happened every day.
The fact that Israel has remained this cooperative for this long is probably something of a testament to good politics and negotiations by the west on behalf of preserving peace.
Hey, Kevin...
I'm wondering how in the process of reading your article, you didn't manage to see this part:
The IDF also alleged that weapons were found on board and that activists opened fire first, calling the the resulting violence a result of "provocation."
I think it's very interesting that in every instance of the circumstance, you seem to take the most anti-Israeli interpretation available and run with it, while discounting any statements that might be open to interpretation or that might substantiate that Israel acted out of need rather than intent to do harm.
Why is that, Kevin?
I genuinely want an answer to that.
After that, tell me if you're interested in truth, or in justifying your emotions.
I'd be interested to find out where those emotions come from, but that's another topic entirely, and I doubt I'd make much headway trying to probe into that.
Something tells me you weren't exactly coming into this with an open mind about Israel however.
Uh... Kevin...
You're aware that prior to this ship setting sail, Israel offered to have the UN and other parties take the relief goods from Turkey, through Israeli checkpoints, and deliver it to the people of Palestine, right?
In other words, before the ship even set sail there was an international presence willing and able to deliver the relief goods to Palestine.
Turkey refused to allow that international force to do so.
Point 1: Israel is not depriving the people of Palestine of medical goods or food. There's an international system set up where these things can get through. Every single week the Israelis approve over 15,000 tons of supplies to be allowed into Palestine. That's more than enough to sustain the area, especially if they are basic needs supplies (food, clothing, medicine).
I'd like to hear your response to that.
Point 2: Rather than use that international delivery mechanism, Turkey refused and insisted on sending the ship through.
Why would they do that?
Here's another tid-bit: The sailors on board the ships are members of a group called the IHH. This group has been linked to terrorist groups in the region, including Al-Qiada.
I wonder why you didn't know that. I also wonder what your response will be now that you do.
AiRsTrIkE
01-Jun-10, 10:53
Told.
I'm not Goro this time
01-Jun-10, 12:28
The Gaza Aid Ship Massacre
Sounds like the title of a B-series Bollywood horror movie.
Is it really? I'm not an international maritime attorney. I'm not certain what the rules are, but I'm pretty sure that any nation has a right to board a peaceful vessel prior to it entering a combat zone if that area has been blockaded.
Turkey took it to the UN and said it was breaking international Anti-Piracy laws. Most nations agreed, and they were about to pass legislation condemning the incident...until the US blocked it.
Is it not standard procedure for a boarding party to use these types of devices? When police in the United States raid a house, don't they toss in stun grenades or tear gas depending on the circumstance?
Indeed it is. However, I did read that they were firing live rounds from the boats at people who didn't have guns to shoot back with and that they were shooting before, and as soon as, they landed on the boat. If true, that's wrong, don't you think?
You're very passionate, Kevin, but you also seem a bit hostile. I'm simply trying to guide you toward a less passionate and more analytical perspective on it.
I appreciate that, and I'm sorry if I come off as hostile, but I stand with my beliefs that the incident could have taken place differently. If it were in Israeli waters I would understand this, but even then, they could've done it during the day for a less ominous approach.
The Israelis may well have used munitions as your article claims - but even your article doesn't say they did anything different than anyone else would do. In fact, the attempt to use less than lethal force probably cost the boarding party time and alerted even more of the ship's crew to their presence, endangering their own boarding party.
I don't dispute this, until they started engaging with lethal force before being attacked.
First, that's a rather large ship. I'm thinking that if someone wanted out of the confrontation, retreat was possible. Considering that there are nine dead, that might indicate that there were what... 15 or so ship crew? There were around 15 boarding party members?
Are you suggesting fifteen people armed with slingshots are capable of fighting off fifteen people with machine guns? I didn't understand that part.
We can't be certain there was a path out of the main fighting, but it's probable.
But the thing is, the Israelis didn't just drop in on one spot, they landed all over. Who's to say that if someone was running and it just so happened to be in the direction of an Israeli, that they wouldn't get mowed down?
What I do know is that if I am scared of getting shot, I do not pick up a chair and charge an armed member of the invading force with it. That's not a survival instinct.
Seriously depends on the situation. If there's a way out, you're right, but if not, you have to try to defend yourself.
Angry people fight.
Frightened people run.
A wounded animal is the most dangerous..
I'd argue that that was not the choice they faced. Even so, most folks would attempt to go hide someplace if they were genuinely scared. If they had a reasonable chance of winning? Perhaps they'd fight. I don't think they planned to take out the IDF with a deck chair, however.
Are you seriously saying they wanted to die?
People who don't want to get shot do not charge armed military squads that they know are coming, especially when they know the whole world is watching and there are plenty of cameras around - which would ensure that the Israeli military treated them appropriately.
People with cameras around didn't change the way that Israel treated the people of Gaza or Lebanon during those wars.
Had they cooperated, they would have been in no substantial danger at all. They knew that.
Do we really know that though? I mean seriously, Israel has a record of killing civilians (http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=13319) (warning: do not click that link if you aren't prepared to see extremely graphic images) after all.
Really?
Compared to say... Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia, and so on?
How do you justify this statement?
Kindly show me how any of these nations is more productive and positive than Israel. I'm directly challenging you to back up your claim here, because it's a disingenuous statement.
I can justify this simply by saying that Israel is the most provocative state in the region. Just recently they stationed three nuclear submarines off the coast of Iran. (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20100601.aspx) Yet the Iranians have never failed an IAEA test and are signatories of the NPT, even signing an agreement with Turkey (i think) and Brazil to have them turn their uranium into fuel rods. The US was pushing for this deal last year, but through, I believe it was, France. Now they're condemning the deal. Why? Well, that's another matter entirely. But why is Israel doing this? They feel threatened by the fact that Iran has the capability to be more powerful than them through peaceful means. Hence the sanctions.
Why?
Why are they blocking those ships?
Do you know? If so, tell me why.
because they voted in Hamas. That's why there's a blockade.
That's not remotely true, Kevin. I'm not sure if you're basing your statements off of your "gut feeling" or if someone's been telling you these things, but it's a dangerously inaccurate understanding of Israel.
I read anti-war websites, and maybe it's just a coincidence, but they're all negative on a lot of what Israel does.
What grade are you in, Kevin? I'm just curious so I can try to place the things you've studied and your curriculum into my mind.
I'm going into sophomore year of high school.
The Israelis don't do what we tell them to do all the time. There's a reason we have to use public opinion and the international community to put pressure on them sometimes - and rightly so.
True, however, Israel has said that if Iran "continues its nuclear weapons programme," they will destroy it. No matter what America or anyone else says. They recently claimed they could attack Iran and invade Syria at the same time. That's saber-rattling if I've ever heard it.
They are a democracy, a very limited one.
and their population is just as tired of being bombed as we would be
I'd remind you that these rockets hardly ever even injure someone, and as soon as someone gets a scrape, Israel's found a new excuse to go to war.
and I'd remind you of what our national response was to one incident.
I still maintain that that was the wrong response.
Imagine if that happened every day.
Not to be sound arrogant, but it's not like 3,000 Israelis are killed every day by Hamas. That's just nowhere near an appropriate argument.
I think it's very interesting that in every instance of the circumstance, you seem to take the most anti-Israeli interpretation available and run with it, while discounting any statements that might be open to interpretation or that might substantiate that Israel acted out of need rather than intent to do harm.
Why is that, Kevin?
I genuinely want an answer to that.
I admit, I skimmed that article. And I don't know, Alastor, I'm just fed up with how Israel treats Arabs in general and how the media ignores it. At least the media is somewhat following this story. Here's a headline rom an article in the Washington Post
Israel says Free Gaza Movement poses threat to Jewish state
Why is that? Because it has international support. Admittedly, the article says it's because Israel has said, like you have said, that that group has some Islamist members. However, the vast majority are bleeding-hearts who want to see a two-state solution.
After that, tell me if you're interested in truth, or in justifying your emotions.
Oh, I'm definitely interested in the truth, Alastor. But from what I'm reading I'd say it's open to interpretation, but because of what I've learned myself, my opinion is leaning towards the protester's side.
I'd be interested to find out where those emotions come from, but that's another topic entirely, and I doubt I'd make much headway trying to probe into that.
I don't really know, I mean, it's not like I'm racist or anything. Probably a third of my friends are Jews, some really religious and all in support of Israel. However, Israel censors its press, oppresses people, bulldozes homes in already-decided Muslim areas of Jerusalem, threatens its neighbors, and kills civilians.
Something tells me you weren't exactly coming into this with an open mind about Israel however.
And that's why.
But I'm willing to hear both sides. Maybe my bias will be broken down a little bit.
Okay, lots of writing here. Let's try to trim this down a bit.
I sincerely appreciate and am impressed that you bothered to answer most of the questions.
Turkey took it to the UN and said it was breaking international Anti-Piracy laws. Most nations agreed, and they were about to pass legislation condemning the incident...until the US blocked it.
Noted.
Just because the UN decides to condemn something doesn't make it illegal however.
Even if it's illegal, that doesn't make it unreasonable depending on the circumstances.
As stated, they may have wanted to make sure the raid took place at night. They might not have wanted the ships to get into another nation's waters where they couldn't touch it. It's hard to say why Israel chose to board the ship when they did.
I do acknowledge that the UN voted to condemn the action though. I also acknowledge that the US blocked it.
Why did the US block it?
In response to my argument that less than lethal munitions are standard use you wrote:
Indeed it is. However, I did read that they were firing live rounds from the boats at people who didn't have guns to shoot back with
I hadn't read that. Even the Al Jazeera reporter on seen said he couldn't verify that. In the tape produced, you can hear the Al Jazeera reporter saying that the Israelis were firing "tear gas and stun grenades. They're firing live munitions."
"Live munitions" doesn't mean bullets.
and that they were shooting before, and as soon as, they landed on the boat. If true, that's wrong, don't you think?
If true, and if done without provocation, then yes I would agree that it's wrong.
There's no evidence that suggests this happened so far however. Maybe some will come to light when the rest of the tapes are released, but as of right now, the notion that the Israelis fired lethal ammunition on the crew of the ship without first being attacked hasn't been substantiated in any way.
I appreciate that, and I'm sorry if I come off as hostile, but I stand with my beliefs that the incident could have taken place differently.
I agree it could have been done differently. I would think that if Israel really wanted to avoid a mess, they'd ask an international force to intercept and search the ship.
It's also possible that they asked and the other nations said they weren't getting involved.
I'm not sure why they chose to do it this way. It's possible that better options existed, however.
If it were in Israeli waters I would understand this, but even then, they could've done it during the day for a less ominous approach.
Doing it during the day also allows for less surprise and less advantage for their raiding party. It could result in the people on board the ships having the time to "rally the troops" and put up more resistance, which would only lead to more injuries and deaths too.
I think doing it at night is wise. We do the same thing with police raids and military operations, and for good reason. It reduces casualties.
I'd really like to hear Israel's side of why they chose to do it in international waters and at night. I've looked into this a lot in the last day though, and I don't see an explanation anywhere. That's not to say one hasn't been given mind you, it just means none of the news outlets have cared to talk about it.
I don't dispute this, until they started engaging with lethal force before being attacked.
According to the video taken by Israel, as well as the video taken by Al Jazeera, the Israeli soldiers did not open fire with lethal weapons until after they had been confronted by the ship's crew.
If new video or information comes to light, it might show something different (not all of the tapes have been released yet), but as of right now, all evidence indicates that Israeli troops didn't open fire until one of them got thrown off the deck by the ship's crew.
I can't rule out that the Israelis opened fire first, but I don't see any substantiation of that claim either, and I think that would be very foolish of the Israeli military considering they knew there were news cameras all over the place.
"I'm skeptical."
Are you suggesting fifteen people armed with slingshots are capable of fighting off fifteen people with machine guns? I didn't understand that part.
No. I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm saying that the ship's crew used rudimentary weapons knowing that when hit with poles, being thrown off the ship's deck, and having their weapons wrestled away from them the Israelis would have to respond with force.
When the Israelis did so, the headlines would read, "Israeli troops kill ship's crew which was unarmed."
The idea for the ship's crew was not apparently to "win the battle" but rather to cause a significant amount of embarrassment and political problems for the Israelis, hoping this pressure caused them to halt the blockade.
Their goal was not "to win the battle on board the ship" but rather to cause other countries to get upset at Israel and force them to ease their control of Palestine.
They were rather successful I might add - from all appearances so far at least.
But the thing is, the Israelis didn't just drop in on one spot, they landed all over. Who's to say that if someone was running and it just so happened to be in the direction of an Israeli, that they wouldn't get mowed down?
Well, there's always the option to sit still.
Also bear in mind that the IDF was delivered via helicopter. There were three helicopters used in this raid. There were six ships. It'd be very difficult to put more than two helicopters over the deck of one ship anyway.
A total of 15 IDF members were put onto the deck of the ships - all of them combined. We're not talking about an armada of people here. We're probably talking about 5 IDF troops per boat - and that still leaves half the boats without any IDF troops on them at all.
And again, the supposition that Israel intended to "mow them down" is pretty far-fetched. The ship's crew knew they had Al Jazeera on board the ship, and that if Israel shot any of their crew without cause it would be recorded and shared with the world. There's really no reason to think that they'd be in danger if they simply stood there and didn't resist. I don't buy that they were scared of getting shot for no reason. They had ample insurance that Israel wouldn't do such a thing.
Even if they were afraid of that happening, then that would be all the more reason not to shoot slingshots and throw deck chairs at the Israelis, or throw one of their team members off the top deck of a four-story ship.
Seriously depends on the situation. If there's a way out, you're right, but if not, you have to try to defend yourself.
A wounded animal is the most dangerous..
And my argument is that there were plenty of ways out, and that their choices were to charge a well-armed and highly trained military, or to comply with the requests to surrender the ship for inspection. Fighting back actually increased the chances of them dying, and they probably knew that.
Thus, it's not rational to say that they fought back out of an instinct for self-preservation.
If we agree on that, then the next question is, "If they weren't doing it because they feared for their lives, then why did they do it?"
Are you seriously saying they wanted to die?
It's possible. Don't dimiss the notion of martyrdom in their culture.
They may also have thought the Israelis wouldn't be willing to open fire on them. Again, they had news cameras all around them and had obviously been told by the Turkish government that they would be supported. They may well have thought that Israel would not be willing to engage them and that they could force them back off the ship.
Beyond that, many times we do things in our lives thinking, "Well, it could be dangerous, but I'll be fine. I'm going to do this anyway."
I remember "car surfing" and "ghost riding" is popular now. We see people do this all the time on bicycles, or climbing buildings, or parachuting off of skyscrapers, or tying helium balloons to their lawn chairs to see how high they can get.
In hind-sight, we're morons. But most of us survive our stupidity none the less. We rationalize or dismiss the ideas of "this could end badly" and we often do dumb things anyway thinking we simply won't get hurt.
This feeling gets amplified if we believe we're "doing God's will" or if we genuinely believe we're fighting for a good cause.
People with cameras around didn't change the way that Israel treated the people of Gaza or Lebanon during those wars.
You're mistaken. It did indeed change the way they interacted during those conflicts, and it still has impact today.
The international pressure that it created not only forced the Israelis to spend a lot of resources on other methods (such as equipping each outpost with a firetruck so that they could spray people back before they got into grenade/rock/molotov cocktail range in the first place), but it also eventually forced Israel to remove its presence from Gaza. They didn't go back in until a while later after attacks in Israel were traced back to having been launched from Gaza.
So it works, and yeah, it does impact Israel a lot. Israel is very aware of the publicity warfare taking place. They have to acknowledge and minimize this, and it costs them time, energy and money to do so.
Yes, Israel cares. This cannot be said of groups like Hamas, who because of their structure and nature, don't really seem to be bothered by negative press. In fact, the more of it they get, the more powerful they become.
Do we really know that though? I mean seriously, Israel has a record of killing civilians (http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=13319) (warning: do not click that link if you aren't prepared to see extremely graphic images) after all.
Firsrt, your link, while compelling, is taken grossly out of context and has a significant bias to it.
Once again, even reading the link you provided points out that:
An Israeli army spokesman claimed [B]troops fired mortars at the premises after gunmen mortared their positions from inside Al Fakhora School in Jabaliya refugee camp. He gave no casualty figure.
You have again been very selective in your information and presentation, Kevin.
I'm wondering what your motive for that is.
They (the Israelis) were being shelled from inside that structure. They had to return fire.
The more significant question I would ask of this scenario is "Why are the fundamental Islamic groups that attack Israel doing it from inside a school they know is stuffed to the brim with innocent civilians and children?"
I can justify this simply by saying that Israel is the most provocative state in the region. Just recently they stationed three nuclear submarines off the coast of Iran. (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20100601.aspx)
Parking a nuclear submarine in international waters (bear in mind, one of your points above was that it was international waters), without actually harming anyone is somehow equivelant to shooting rockets into civlian housing projects, suicide bombers, IEDs, and firing RPGs at Israeli outposts?
You're reaching, Kevin. Badly.
Yet the Iranians have never failed an IAEA test
You're leaving this part out, Kevin:
Iran has never consented to an IAEA test.
There has never been a thorough and unfettered IAEA inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities. It's hard to fail a test when one refuses to take the test.
and are signatories of the NPT, even signing an agreement with Turkey (i think) and Brazil to have them turn their uranium into fuel rods.
Yes, they agreed to turn over half of their supply of uranium to Turkey. They intend to keep the other half however, continue making more, and won't tell anyone where they're putting it or what they're doing with it.
You again have told only part of the story, Kevin. Are you doing that on purpose or because you're just unaware of the other part of the story?
If you're doing it on purpose, then we'd again be getting into a conversation I don't really want to have. I don't want to have it, but I feel we need to have it.
So, let's have it.
If you're doing it because you're unaware of the other parts of the story, I'd wonder why I know this information and you don't. I'd be curious to find out where you get your information. From which people and which news outlets.
You're missing information, Kevin. A lot of it. Many times in this discussion you've left things out, either intentionally or on accident. Whatever the cause, there is a significant portion of the information you seem to not have, and almost all of it seems to paint the worst possible picture of Israel, while it seems to paint the most positive possible picture of their adversaries.
I don't think this is coincidence.
Not once so far when you have left information out has it been information that painted Israel in a positive light. It has always been information that makes Israel look badly.
I don't believe for a moment that this is coincidence. I'm going to be blunt, and I don't mean to offend, but I feel it needs to be said.
I strongly suspect that you are either intentionally leaving out information and trying to manipulate the facts to make Israel look badly on purpose, or you are being spoon-fed information by people who want to manipulate others into siding against Israel.
Frankly, I suspect some anti-semetism. I don't know if you're doing it yourself or if someone else is doing it to you, but it's clear that you have a pattern of ignoring information that shows Israeli justifications, and you harp on information that paints Israel in a negative light.
I like you, Kevin. I always have. It has become clear in this conversation however, that you're either acting with an agenda against Jews, or you are being manipulated by someone with an agenda against Jews.
Many times so far you have not brought all the information to the table when you made a statement, despite that many times that information has been present in your own links.
It's clear that this is more than coincidence. What I'd like to hear is the motive behind it. Where does it come from, and how did this pattern come to be so present in your posts, thoughts, and statements?
Are you doing this on purpose, or are you being manipulated by others?
Why did the US block it?
Most likely because they didn't have all the facts.
I hadn't read that. Even the Al Jazeera reporter on seen said he couldn't verify that. In the tape produced, you can hear the Al Jazeera reporter saying that the Israeli's were firing "tear gas and stun grenades. They're firing live munitions."
"Live munitions" doesn't mean bullets.
Ohhh, I must have misunderstood. I was watching that really late at night last night and there was a lot of background noise, I thought they said live ammunition, meaning bullets, and not live munitions. I concede that point.
If true, and if done without provocation, then yes I would agree that it's wrong.
There's no evidence that suggests this happened so far however. Maybe some will come to light when the rest of the tapes are released, but as of right now, the notion that the Israeli's fired lethal ammunition on the crew of the ship without first being attacked hasn't been substantiated in any way.Again, this is probably because of my lack of full consciousness at the time, haha.
I agree it could have been done differently. I would think that if Israel really wanted to avoid a mess, they'd ask an international force to intercept and search the ship.
It's also possible that they asked and the other nations said they weren't getting involved.
I'm not sure why they chose to do it this way. It's possible that better options existed, however.
Agreed. I think they should have made public that this was asked, if it was, and if not, it should have been.
I'd really like to hear Israel's side of why they chose to do it in international waters and at night. I've looked into this a lot in the last day though, and I don't see an explanation anywhere. That's not to say one hasn't been given mind you, it just means none of the news outlets have cared to talk about it.
If new video or information comes to light, it might show something different (not all of the tapes have been released yet), but as of right now, all evidence indicates that Israeli troops didn't open fire until one of them got thrown off the deck by the ship's crew.
Yeah, I want to hear that too.
I can't rule out that the Israeli's opened fire first, but I don't see any substantiation of that claim either, and I think that would be very foolish of the Israeli military considering they knew there were news cameras all over the place.
"I'm skeptical."
Now that you put it that way, you're right.
It's possible. Don't dimiss the notion of martyrdom in their culture.
there's that.
You have again been very selective in your information and presentation, Kevin.
I'm wondering what your motive for that is.
You again have told only part of the story, Kevin. Are you doing that on purpose or because you're just unaware of the other part of the story?
If you're doing it on purpose, then we'd again be getting into a conversation I don't really want to have. I don't want to have it, but I feel we need to have it.
So, let's have it.
If you're doing it because you're unaware of the other parts of the story, I'd wonder why I know this information and you don't. I'd be curious to find out where you get your information. From which people and which news outlets.
You're missing information, Kevin. A lot of it. Many times in this discussion you've left things out, either intentionally or on accident. Whatever the cause, there is a significant portion of the information you seem to not have, and almost all of it seems to paint the worst possible picture of Israel, while it seems to paint the most positive possible picture of their adversaries.
I don't think this is coincidence.
Not once so far when you have left information out has it been information that painted Israel in a positive light. It has always been information that makes Israel look badly.
I don't believe for a moment that this is coincidence. I'm going to be blunt, and I don't mean to offend, but I feel it needs to be said.
I strongly suspect that you are either intentionally leaving out information and trying to manipulate the facts to make Israel look badly on purpose, or you are being spoon-fed information by people who want to manipulate others into siding against Israel.
Frankly, I suspect some anti-semetism. I don't know if you're doing it yourself or if someone else is doing it to you, but it's clear that you have a pattern of ignoring information that shows Israeli justifications, and you harp on information that paints Israel in a negative light.
I like you, Kevin. I always have. It has become clear in this conversation however, that you're either acting with an agenda against Jews, or you are being manipulated by someone with an agenda against Jews.
Many times so far you have not brought all the information to the table when you made a statement, despite that many times that information has been present in your own links.
It's clear that this is more than coincidence. What I'd like to hear is the motive behind it. Where does it come from, and how did this pattern come to be so present in your posts, thoughts, and statements?
Are you doing this on purpose, or are you being manipulated by others?
I understand why you might think I'm being an anti-semite, but fortunately, that's just not true. I am, however, in favor of a two-state solution and am against a lot of what Israel itself does. In defense of myself and my reputation, I am really, really good friends with the son of two rabbis, and am friends with several other Jews.*
*some people think the word "Jew" is derogatory somehow. And it can be in certain contexts, but was not in this instance, because that's what my Jewish friends call each other and tell me to call them rather than "Jewish person." Just clearing that up.
I get my news from Antiwar.com, the BBC, sometimes Al Jazeera English, the Washington Post, the Arizona Republic, the Huffington Post, lately Haaretz.com (the website of an Israeli newspaper, which some call the most influential paper in that country) and wherever else applies to the time.
I watch CNN sometimes and watch Fox News when they're talking about American military stuff because I like to look at the discrepancies between the international story and the US military talking points. Most of my news sources take the international viewpoint and the two others take the talking points. You have three guesses which two they are. haha.
Okay, Kevin, then I owe you an apology.
I do think it's interesting though that you omit details that point to Israel's defense.
I know for a fact CNN carried news articles on some of the points I raised, because I read them.
I apologize for jumping to the conclusion that there was some anti-semetic motive behind your posts, but I think we'd both agree that your omissions go beyond coincidence as well.
I agree that the word "Jew" is not derogatory. I know Jews as well and this is what they prefer to be called. I use the term openly myself, and it's never been an issue. I don't think your use of the term is indicative of anything. I think it's the preferred term of reference for... Well... Jews.
Let's go back to one thing really fast. I asked why the US blocked the UN condemnation of Israel's raid. You said that it was likely that the US didn't have all the facts.
I think however, that the US government probably has more facts than either you or I have at our disposal. I'd be curious to know what their official statement was on the matter.
Kudos on your responses and on taking ownership of some of the remarks made. Very cool.
Let's go back to one thing really fast. I asked why the US blocked the UN condemnation of Israel's raid. You said that it was likely that the US didn't have all the facts.
I think however, that the US government probably has more facts than either you or I have at our disposal. I'd be curious to know what their official statement was on the matter.
Well, this is from the state department, on the same day they blocked the UN's unilateral condemnation:
"The president expressed deep regret at the loss of life in today's incident, and concern for the wounded, many of whom are being treated in Israeli hospitals.
...
"The president also expressed the importance of learning all the facts and circumstances around this morning's tragic events as soon as possible"
source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100531/pl_afp/israelconflictgazausobama
Though I think that article did say he "understood" the Israeli decision.
Kudos on your responses and on taking ownership of some of the remarks made. Very cool.
And thanks for apologizing about the anti-semitism remark. My dad says that whenever I say something remotely negative about Israel, so I get flustered when people say that and don't really understand where I'm coming from. However, I do understand why it would seem that way, and here's why.
I am a person who initially reacts with his gut and his emotions. Now that I've settled down and more facts are coming out, I realize there are indeed two stories to be looked at. So, thanks for taking the time (and I'm sure it must have taken you some time, because it took me a long time to reply to these messages) to explain to me what you know, and for continuing with it until I calmed down. We'll see.
I do hope that this doesn't spark a war between Turkey and Israel. And if it did, Lebanon and Syria would join in (http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article442867.ece).
MerX Back 91
02-Jun-10, 11:57
WORLD WAR III!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The president expressed deep regret at the loss of life in today's incident, and concern for the wounded, many of whom are being treated in Israeli hospitals.
...
"The president also expressed the importance of learning all the facts and circumstances around this morning's tragic events as soon as possible"
Okay, that looks to me like he's aware that Turkey has recently elected a government that is not nearly as closely allied with Israel as past Turkish governments. He's also probably aware that Turkey endorsed the attempt to break through the blockade. He's also probably aware that the Turkish government didn't want to use the established means of delivering goods. He's also aware that Al Jazeera was on board the boat, which hints at it being a PR stunt. He's also probably aware that there was a confrontation on board the ships. He's also probably aware that it's kind of odd that a bunch of peace activists would charge armed soldiers and try to instigate a fight. He's also aware that not all of the video has been released of these incidents yet.
I think we're saying we smell a rat, and aren't about to jump to conclusions on this.
Personally, I think that's wise.
And thanks for apologizing about the anti-semitism remark. My dad says that whenever I say something remotely negative about Israel, so I get flustered when people say that and don't really understand where I'm coming from. However, I do understand why it would seem that way, and here's why.
I am a person who initially reacts with his gut and his emotions.
Understood. I am the same way. That's one of the reasons I've had to challenge myself to analyze circumstances prior to acting. Often, I find it pays off.
Now that I've settled down and more facts are coming out, I realize there are indeed two stories to be looked at. So, thanks for taking the time (and I'm sure it must have taken you some time, because it took me a long time to reply to these messages) to explain to me what you know, and for continuing with it until I calmed down. We'll see.
Thanks for the kind words. You're very welcome by the way; that's why I became a teacher.
You obviously wanted to know too, or else it wouldn't have led anywhere, and it took time and energy on your part as well.
That's truly admirable, Kevin.
I do hope that this doesn't spark a war between Turkey and Israel. And if it did, Lebanon and Syria would join in (http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article442867.ece).[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't sweat that too much. Turkey doesn't have the means or any genuine vested interest in fighting with Israel. It's rhetoric used to gain support in their government, but not a serious threat to regional stability. They pound their drums, use some harsh terms, and it garners support for their governments.
If it did erupt into some kind of open warfare (which seems incredibly far-fetched at this stage), it wouldn't last long. Turkey doesn't have the means to deal with Israel, and both Syria and their puppet government in Lebanon have done this five times, and gotten the shit kicked out of themselves five times. Once in under 6 days.
Israel would then relent and back off.
The only likely significance in terms of the regional situation would be if they actually managed to threaten Israel's survival, in which case Israel wouldn't hesitate to use every means at their disposal, which could get quite ugly quite quickly.
But really, they're just trying to stamp their feet. I don't think either Turkey, Syria, Lebanon or anyone else has any actual interest in going to war with Israel. They're just trying to look good to the people they rule.
I don't think either Turkey, Syria, Lebanon or anyone else has any actual interest in going to war with Israel. They're just trying to look good to the people they rule.
This is the most likely thing.
However, seeing as Turkey is a member of Nato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO), if Nato decided to come to their side (unlikely, but possible), it would be really really ugly.
Anyway, it's not gonna happen, but it's interesting to think about.
I just listened to and read an interesting article. It seems that the Turkish people onboard the ship killed two of the IDF commandoes, took their guns, and fired on the other commandoes before they'd even fired a shot, there's a radio report of the IDF guys yelling about somebody shooting at them.
I just listened to and read an interesting article. It seems that the Turkish people onboard the ship killed two of the IDF commandoes, took their guns, and fired on the other commandoes before they'd even fired a shot, there's a radio report of the IDF guys yelling about somebody shooting at them.
This is from an article on that topic:
Israeli military sources said that about 100 people were carrying about $10,000 (£7,000) each when arrested. Izzet Sahin, an IHH official, shrugged off the mercenary claims. “It’s something impossible, to put someone in the ship without checking them in through security. It could never happen, at least in Turkey.”
Right... Because Turkey can do what the US can't - make sure no one ever boards anything they're not supposed to.
And the 100 people carrying $10k each? That's a mere $1,000,000. That's standard travel money, right?
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE&feature=player_embedded)
Und das. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTy2faiAfg4&feature=player_embedded)
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE&feature=player_embedded)
Exactly, now as I see it, the Israelis were simply raiding the ship because they suspected it and wished to search it peacefully. It's hardly their fault that the Turkish people on board met them with much violence.
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE&feature=player_embedded)
Dis. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cQ69oKFtVg&feature=player_embedded)Und das. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTy2faiAfg4&feature=player_embedded)
Et cette
(http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-was-right-1.293886)Exactly, now as I see it, the Israelis were simply raiding the ship because they suspected it and wished to search it peacefully. It's hardly their fault that the Turkish people on board met them with much violence.
Oh really? Really? Because it's not like all of those highly-publicized ships were inspected? They were intentionally inspected so that when they were stopped they could go WTF ISRAEL.
Anyway, the US has no business in it, or Israel at all, which is why the US should cut off all funding to Israel. It can manage.
Anyway, the US has no business in it, or Israel at all, which is why the US should cut off all funding to Israel. It can manage.
If the US cut off support of Israel, Kevin, what would likely happen next?
If the US cut off support of Israel, Kevin, what would likely happen next?
I think Israel can handle itself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_day_war#Conclusion_of_conflict_and_post-war_situation)
They can still buy stuff from us, but we shouldn't almost completely fund their military. Because that's where our spending goes.
EDIT: For some context, I'm a non-interventionist. I think we should cut off aid to almost everyone, including Arab countries, too. We shouldn't be involved in that powderkeg waiting to blow and should stop encouraging everyone by playing both sides. It's wrong. It's not our job to go about handing people money. Let them buy whatever they want to buy themselves and not get involved when the shit hits the fan, which it eventually will.
And we should also lift sanctions, because those typically only hurt the people and empower those governments. They hardly ever, ever work.
I don't hate Israel. At all. I don't wish them harm, nor most people. I do however believe strongly in not an isolationist foreign policy, but a non-interventionist one.
I think Israel can handle itself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_day_war#Conclusion_of_conflict_and_post-war_situation)
That's not what I asked.
Be specific.
If the United States withdrew support for Israel, and basically said, "They're on their own now," what would be the result?
Let me ask additional questions to help clarify and speed this along.
The US is constantly engaging Israel and negotiating and working things out so that they continue to show restraint. If the US removed its support of Israel, what might be the result of that? Would Israel feel more restrained or less restrained?
The US is largely (as you point out) one of the few nations that openly support Israel. The UK and France being others. If the US withdrew support for Israel, would the UK and France continue to support Israel? Would it at the very least reduce their support for Israel?
If Israel was left to its own devices and world opinion had turned against it (which probably would be the case if the US, UK, and France stopped standing up for Israel), then would Israel really have anything left to lose in the world court of public opinion?
They're already painted in a very negative light by many other entities. The only people their actions really have any impact on are the US, UK and France. So if we withdrew support and stopped caring, pretty much no matter what they do they're going to be painted as the villain.
If they're going to be painted as the villain no matter what they do, do you think they'd continue to attempt to negotiate and call for cease fires, or do you think they would take their military, which by the was is one of the most advanced in the world, and simply roll over the people that shoot rockets at their civilians?
They can still buy stuff from us, but we shouldn't almost completely fund their military. Because that's where our spending goes.
First, we do not completely fund their military. Not even close. Again, Kevin, facts are your ally.
I'm giving you homework. Of course there's no consequence for not completing it, but you'll lack some pretty significant information if you choose not to do it.
1. What is Israel's annual defense budget?
2. How much money does the United States give to Israel each year?
3. Compare the amount of money from Israel's national defense budget to the amount of money we give them every year.
4. Does Israel give any money to the United States each year? If so, how much?
5. Do the math. Subtract the amount of money Israel gives to the US each year from the amount that we give Israel. What's the result?
6. What does an F-16 cost? Bear in mind I just want to know what the plane costs. Not training the pilot, fueling the aircraft, maintaining the aircraft, the weapons that go on the aircraft, the landing strip, or the approximately 2000 people it takes to keep that one airplane in the air every single day.
Just tell me what the aircraft itself costs.
7. This (http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/MEast-pol.gif) is a map of the Middle East.
Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine (including Gaza), Turkey recently, Egyp, Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have all at one time or another, attacked Israel in the past.
How much money does the US give to these countries each year?
8. Israel has one of the most advanced militaries in the world, including an unofficial but widely accepted cache of nuclear weapons. If Israel starts to get low on money, what is the likelyhood that they will begin selling that technology to other countries?
9. What countries might purchase it?
10. What might those countries do with that technology once they have it?
I do however believe strongly in not an isolationist foreign policy, but a non-interventionist one.
11. If we stop intervening in the Middle East, what is the likely outcome? What do you think those nations might do?
Be specific.
12. If the United States was not restraing all the parties involved, what would happen?
13. If the United States didn't step in, who might take our place? What goals would they have for doing so and how might that impact us down the road?
Here is a resource that you can use to help you find answers. It's a handy link that you should probably keep someplace just because it's that good of a source for many of these types of discussions:
The CIA World Fact Book (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html).
I have to say, if there was an entity out there that was hellbent on doing whatever they could to completely obliterate myself and my kin, I'd be a bit hostile.
Oh, and...
Collateral Damage: -$200,000
Well, Israel isn't exactly not being provocative...I mean, look at the settlements and the bulldozing of Arab homes in E. Jerusalem. One time there were going to be peace talks, so they announced settlement expansions so the PA pulled out of the talks. Another time they did the same thing, but announcing that they were bulldozing homes and building Israeli ones.
Seriously.
Well, Israel isn't exactly not being provocative...I mean, look at the settlements and the bulldozing of Arab homes in E. Jerusalem. One time there were going to be peace talks, so they announced settlement expansions so the PA pulled out of the talks. Another time they did the same thing, but announcing that they were bulldozing homes and building Israeli ones.
Seriously.
Why does Israel continue to allow those settlements to be built?
Why does Israel continue to allow those settlements to be built?
I don't know, but it sounds like you do. Do tell?
I don't know, but it sounds like you do. Do tell?
Nope. I actually don't know this one. I looked and can't find the answer.
Nope. I actually don't know this one. I looked and can't find the answer.
Hmm. Don't wanna sound all conspiracy-ish, but I do think there's a bit of a superiority complex there. I really do wish I knew the answer to that, though.
Anyway, this is....interesting (http://news.antiwar.com/2010/06/09/israel-threatens-war-if-turkish-pm-tries-to-deliver-gaza-aid/).
Anyway, this is....interesting (http://news.antiwar.com/2010/06/09/israel-threatens-war-if-turkish-pm-tries-to-deliver-gaza-aid/).
Sounds to me like Israel has essentially said, "We're sick of your shit. Let's rock."
Now the Turkey PM, in what was a propaganda coup for himself, is now faced with being forced to back down or escelating things considerably.
This is Israel's way of warning Turkey that although they have some room to play for political favor with their voters, they'd better back the fuck off. Quickly would probably be recommended.
How Turkey responds will be interesting.
Settlements:
I'm still looking for information, so let's hypothesize a bit. If I had to guess, I would offer a couple of ideas:
1. The settlements are usually built on places that Israel has confiscated in battle. These are battles that Israel did not initiate. They may feel they won these areas in a war and thus are entitled.
2. Even if not legitimately their land, they were attacked from these regions. By placing civilians there they get an automatic early-warning system and they also make certain that the area is populated with allies rather than those that would do them harm.
3. When and if a peace negotiation ever does get serious, Israel now has a legitimate gripe in that they have civlians that live there.
4. They may be attempting to pressure their Arab neighbors into coming to the peace table. The longer that land is occupied by Israeli civilians, the more that land can be said to belong to them. In other words, Israel may be saying, "Time is on our side. Keep fucking around. The longer this lasts, the less land you're getting back."
5. It may be to attempt to provoke an attack which would justify outright war, allowing Israel to end the threats to their nation for once and for all.
Just ideas mind you. There may be others or better explanations out there, but these are possibilities that spring to my mind.
Let's hear some of yours.
I just now realized that Uzi Dayan (the gent saying that Israel should consider it an act of war and sink the ship if the PM of Turkey tries to come over on it) is not an active leader in the government. He's retired.
It's just rhetoric.
Strong rhetoric, but just rhetoric. He has no official capacity in the government of Israel and does not set any policy.
This is Israel's way of telling Turkey to chill the fuck out.
Idk if this is true, but if it is, this (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/09/95621/israeli-document-gaza-blockade.html) is a blow to the whole "Israel needs the blockade for security" argument.
Idk if this is true...
That makes two of us. I can't seem to find it corroborated anywhere, and I certainly don't see the actual document any place. I've also never heard of this reporter before, but looking at other things he's written I don't believe objectivity is something he pretends to pride himself on.
What I was able to find, are several stories that point out that the information stored on the laptops from the flotilla "aid workers" shows that the PM of Turkey knew it was going to be a violent confrontation long before the ships were actually boarded.
Link (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/probe-erdogan-knew-gaza-flotilla-would-be-violent-1.295144).
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan knew in advance that activists aboard a Gaza-bound aid flotilla planned to attack Israeli troops, Israeli intelligence officials have said.
It goes on to say:
IHH activists also gathered all the knives from six cafeterias on the ship, as well as axes from fire extinguishers on the deck, all of which served as weapons against Israeli commandos .
Before the takeover, IHH ordered all other passengers into the hold of the ship and told them to remain there. Only journalists and security personnel were allowed access to the deck.
And finally:
An IHH journalist said during his investigation with Israeli security forces that "the Turks set a trap for you and you fell straight into it." He also said that the recent flotilla was the first in many.
"Called it."
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.