Shame on Israel!!!

[Looking4Fun2009]

What a barbarian state. Israel attacked peace flotillas and killed 10 and injured dozens. I am afraid there will be more casualties given that many are seriously injured.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...lestinian-aid-flotilla_n_595033.html#comments

How can you call innocent, impoverished Palestinians with massive economic blockades to affluent, powerful Israelis? Use a better analogy because this is a serious humanitarian issue. I don't understand this crap of punishing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians because of Hamas. This is just a lame excuse and now people with conscience have become aware of the double standards of Israel.

For a "barbarian" State, they sure are more accepting of LGBT people than even the U.S. or the UK (I was reading that the Israeli government flew in a gay porn star to entertain their gay troops, can you see the U.S. government doing that?).

As for "innocent, impoverished Palestinians", while I agree the Israeli government are oppressing them (and, there is a key difference between the government and the Israeli people), the Palestinians aren't all innocent, for one, certain sections do want to kill all Jews, not to mention, the brutal persecution of their fellow LGBT Palestinians (LGBT Palestinian teens are forced to flee their homes, and find a haven in Israel, but, 'cause they've left home, and have little or no money, they end up as rent boys, and sometimes hooked on drugs).

It's not as black and white as people like to make out, Israel aren't the "big bad" and the Palestinians aren't "the good guys" (and, vice versa).

I do find it ironic how many people criticise Israeli policies (rightfully, I should add), but, they seem to forget the history of their own governments policies, and treat Israel like they're the only ones who've committed crimes (the U.S. and the continued oppression of Native Americans, etc).

 

[bankside]

How is boarding ships that have already said they're going to break a blockade, and ships run by an organization affiliated with terrorists, considered an attack? In what world do you consider that an 'attack'?

Get real bankside.

Ahh, but what you and Kulindahr are doing is called Begging the Question.

You're saying Israel is right because Israel says it's legal to storm ships in circumstances like this, and therefor since Israel followed the law they made up then it must be okay. Israel says everything is okay because they say so.

The ships have said they're going to break a blockade. So? Why should any of us expect them to respect this blockade? The UN didn't vote for it. It isn't a NATO blockade or anything like that.

The fundamental questions here are the legality of the blockade itself, and the proportionality of the Israeli response in asserting that legality. Israel has evidently not made the case on either of those points to the satisfaction of great swaths of the observing international community. Maybe it can, maybe it can't, but frankly your threshold for being convinced seems a bit low.

 

[bankside]

They Palestinians would not need a right to return if the Arab league had accepted the UN partition plan back in 1947 in the first place, which led to Israel war of independence against the Arab league.
They can't start a war and then complain about the outcome.

Same thing with the flotila, they deliberately tried to break a military blockade and then they were suprised that they were stopped and boarded by soldiers.

Right, and the Arab League wouldn't have needed to accept a partition plan if the Ottoman empire had been more secular and inclusive of Jews, or if Chamberlain had been Churchill instead of Chamberlain, or if Hitler choked to death on his lamb chops one night at dinner in 1937 before the Final Solution, or if or if or if or if.

Attempts to identify "who is to blame for all of this" as a means of sorting it out are doomed to fail. It is a) impractical and b) a product of the political thinking in one particular part of the world that sees things as black and white, left and right, you're with us or your against us, up or down, yes or no, win or lose.

What needs to happen is accountability on all sides of the dispute for current behaviour. I have no problem with HAMAS being held to account for its lunacy, but I don't think Israel is the disinterested party to do that, particularly given its own gems like Netanyahu, and SHAS and so on.

 

[TX-Beau]

Imagine if nobody ever colonized North America...

Just for sake of argument, how many Native Americans do you think would give up their modern lives to return to scrapping a living off the land using Neolithic technology?

That being said, I'm still in favor of increased Native American land rights and autonomy.

This is kind of off topic, but I gotta comment on it.

Look, Native Americans colonized North America, We took it from them, we tried to kill them off, we won. The victor gets the spoils, but that doesn’t mean what we did was moral, or right. What we did, we did for greed. We wanted their land and their resources and so we pushed them off, and when that didn’t work, we killed them, when the survivors had no where else to go, we penned them up and forgot about them. That is the truth.

Don’t dismiss it. I doubt that any of them would thank you for your kindly sentiments about giving them more “autonomy,” tacked on to your characterization of them being Neolithic cavemen "scrapping off the land.” That’s really condescending, not to mention inaccurate and frankly bigoted. It implies that they were primitive savages who love our superior technology so much that they’d exchange freedom for it.

Ask yourself, do you believe in government by the consent of the governed? Do you actually think they consent, we were crying that slogan while we did what we did. The abuse of their populations did not stop a hundred years ago, it continues, though these days it’s mostly governmental abuse and popular neglect. Mistaken prejudices and condescension from people who know absolutely nothing about the history, both current and past, of the situation, thinking that they know what these people think, and what they remember.

We none of us can reverse history, but that’s no reason to alter it - even by perpetuation of stereotype, just to salve our collective conscience. The people who committed genocide against the Native Americans are long dead, but as a nation we should remember, that act spawned a sequence of events that’s still with us.

In the end we all have to ask, and this goes for Israel and Palestine as well – do you want a solution, or do you want to be right.

Americans who say that Native Americans were savage heathens who needed to be “civilized,” or any variation on that theme, want to be right, and will impede any effort to deal with current Native American problems. Because that would require that they actually listen to the other side for a change. Require that they admit there was a genocide, and that it was wrong.



The Israeli government and Hamas both want to be right; neither side wants a solution. So it will go on and on, both sides being bloody and violent, both sides claiming moral superiority – which no one has anymore, and in the end – since it’s obvious that current Israeli policy is pacifying no one, and terrorism isn’t removing the invaders – one side will kill the other. One way or another, that’s the road they’re on.

 

[JB3]

Ahh, but what you and Kulindahr are doing is called Begging the Question.

You're saying Israel is right because Israel says it's legal to storm ships in circumstances like this, and therefor since Israel followed the law they made up then it must be okay. Israel says everything is okay because they say so.

The ships have said they're going to break a blockade. So? Why should any of us expect them to respect this blockade? The UN didn't vote for it. It isn't a NATO blockade or anything like that.

The fundamental questions here are the legality of the blockade itself, and the proportionality of the Israeli response in asserting that legality. Israel has evidently not made the case on either of those points to the satisfaction of great swaths of the observing international community. Maybe it can, maybe it can't, but frankly your threshold for being convinced seems a bit low.

Up until recent events, the blockade was deemed to be perfectly legitimate. Israel and Egypt established the blockade to prevent Hamas' violence from spilling over to either country. The international community understood. Why can't you? Seems to me you have a distinct lack of understanding of the seriousness of this situation.

And your tone and posture tells me you're perfectly content to let anything and everything flow through to Hamas-controlled Gaza, even if it inflames tensions. And what you miss is that what Israel did WAS legal according to international law.

 

[MercuryJones]

Up until recent events, the blockade was deemed to be perfectly legitimate.

By whom?

The international community understood. Why can't you?

Was there a referendum or vote through some international body? This is a serious question.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ahh, but what you and Kulindahr are doing is called Begging the Question.

You're saying Israel is right because Israel says it's legal to storm ships in circumstances like this, and therefor since Israel followed the law they made up then it must be okay. Israel says everything is okay because they say so.

Israel made up international law? Really?

I'd say that what's going on is that when a country huge numbers of other countries hate for ethnic reasons and out of envy is acting in accordance with international law, all those other countries decide it doesn't apply in this case.

The ships have said they're going to break a blockade. So? Why should any of us expect them to respect this blockade? The UN didn't vote for it. It isn't a NATO blockade or anything like that.

The fundamental questions here are the legality of the blockade itself, and the proportionality of the Israeli response in asserting that legality. Israel has evidently not made the case on either of those points to the satisfaction of great swaths of the observing international community. Maybe it can, maybe it can't, but frankly your threshold for being convinced seems a bit low.

I'd expect them to respect the blockade on one level because if they use violence, they're going to get violence. One rather astute fellow once said that those who live by the sword shall die by the sword, which was a hint to put aside the sword; if they start with violence, they shouldn't expect anything but violence.

Now if the IDF had shown up and found a ship covered with a crowd of people aged 14 and up, all singing songs and offering bread when the soldiers landed, then linked arms around each soldier in concentric circles so that in order to move the IDF would have to get aggressive.... and announced that they'd allow the ship to be inspected but only by a team of celibate monks from three different religions....

That would be 'breaking' international law in the right way: by rising above it.


But of course in order to have done that, they'd have had to have left the terrorists at home.

 

[Kulindahr]

Look, Native Americans colonized North America, We took it from them, we tried to kill them off, we won. The victor gets the spoils, but that doesn’t mean what we did was moral, or right. What we did, we did for greed. We wanted their land and their resources and so we pushed them off, and when that didn’t work, we killed them, when the survivors had no where else to go, we penned them up and forgot about them. That is the truth.

Revisionist history -- so far from being "the truth" on so many points it's painful.

I'll just hit this: to the farmer with wife and kids and mule hacking out a field in the wilderness so he can support his family, is that "greed"?

Ask yourself, do you believe in government by the consent of the governed? Do you actually think they consent, we were crying that slogan while we did what we did. The abuse of their populations did not stop a hundred years ago, it continues, though these days it’s mostly governmental abuse and popular neglect.

Keep that "we" for yourself -- my ancestors were on both sides of that line.

The people who committed genocide against the Native Americans are long dead, but as a nation we should remember, that act spawned a sequence of events that’s still with us.

.... Require that they admit there was a genocide, and that it was wrong.

If it's unintentional, is it genocide?

 

[TX-Beau]

The revisionism is yours Kuli, but I'm quite sure you'll never admit it, you're one of those who always wants to be right. about your God, about your hatred of Muslims, about your political cant.

There's no point in arguing it with you.

 

[JB3]

^That is awfully rich coming from the likes of you TX.

 

[MercuryJones]

Look, Native Americans colonized North America, We took it from them, we tried to kill them off, we won. The victor gets the spoils, but that doesn’t mean what we did was moral, or right. What we did, we did for greed. We wanted their land and their resources and so we pushed them off, and when that didn’t work, we killed them, when the survivors had no where else to go, we penned them up and forgot about them. That is the truth.

Well, almost the truth.

Some Europeans conquered the earlier colonists of the land. And certainly, it was done out of greed, as has every conquest in history - including those that happened between American Indian tribes, and between European nations.

The primary difference in US history is that the conquered and conquerors remained largely reproductively segregated. And of course it's more recent than the Roman conquests, for example, so it's fresher.

Your big problem is describing this as something "we" did. We didn't. Some of us have ancestors who participated, some don't, but we didn't do any of it.

I don't believe in Adam & Eve or inherited sin. I do believe there is a gross disparity in opportunity faced by descendants of some of those you mention, and those who aren't even descendant but look like them. And I believe it is just and smart to provide mechanisms to bridge that disparity.

But you're still just wrong in saying we did any of these things.

 

[Jack Springer]

Where was the world condemnation of North Korea when they destroyed the South Korean ship and murdered all the sailors?

 

[opinterph]

Where was the world condemnation of North Korea when they destroyed the South Korean ship and murdered all the sailors?

The findings from that incident were released only a couple weeks ago and a quite a few countries have condemned North Korea – even as the DPRK continues to claim no involvement. Stay tuned.

 

[JayHawk]

I'm going to have to push the "trite" button on this one I'm afraid -it sounds nice, but we can't all agree on it.

If the Israelis laid down their arms, on their own territory, Israel would be at risk. From Syria and/or Iran, probably.

If the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be a bunch of very happy millenarian crazy-town ultra-orthodox rabbis pushing to overrun a bunch of their neighbours in the name of some supposed divine promise they intend to redeem, and their would be no hope of a home for millions of displaced palestinian arabs.

The one truism we can all agree on is everybody should stick to the green line, where they should have all stuck to in the first place. People didn't stay in their corners. Bad bad bad. Now they should go back to their corners.

Hmmm... when is the last example we can look at... oh yeah 2005-2006... Israel..."here's your land back, as agreed. ".... Palestine " Alrighty, here are several missiles lobbed from our new patch of freedom"

History proves you wrong repeatedly. I realize there are travesties and lunatics on both sides but spend five seconds staring at a map. Israel has one millionth the land and is endlessly attacked. When was the last decree from Israel leadership stating they desire to eradicate those of muslim faith from the earth? It is simply self deception or bigotry that allows one to think Israel would continue to attack it's neighbors if not attacked.

As to the incident at sea, we conduct boardings in INTL waters ALL THE TIME to uphold Intl law. That blockade is internationally legal. Once aboard, after the VBSS team was attacked with pipes and one man throw to a lower deck sustaining brain damage, the use of force was needed to stop the violence against a lawfully conducted boarding.

Tell ya what. Next time your pulled over have everyone in your car jump out and attack the cop and see what happens.

 

[NotThatCreative]

I realize there are travesties and lunatics on both sides but spend five seconds staring at a map. Israel has one millionth the land and is endlessly attacked.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Israel has 21,642 square km of land. The Gaza Strip has 360 square km of land. The West Bank has 5,640 square km of land. Lebanon has 10,230 square kilometers of land. So even if you combine all three of those together (as the only places with enemies they still fight. Keep in mind those three places have three different governments), Israel is still bigger. So how do you come to the conclusion "Israel has one millionth the land and is endlessly attacked"?

When was the last decree from Israel leadership stating they desire to eradicate those of muslim faith from the earth? It is simply self deception or bigotry that allows one to think Israel would continue to attack it's neighbors if not attacked.

I introduce you to the concept of Greater Israel. To think Israel would necessarily not take the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, or Sinai if it thought it could get away with it is to ignore history. It's not bigotry to say that there are people on both sides who simply want everyone under the rule of their one government (which government they advocate, of course, depends on what side they're on). It's a recognition of reality.

 

[NotThatCreative]

In every war in Israel's history the entire Arab world would join forces to fight Israel, Iraq (during Saddam Hussein's days) launched missiles from Iraq onto Israel And even today Syria, Libya and Iran never missed a chance to openly threat Israel and its existence.

So its not just the 16,230 square km that you say.

Libya and Iran make noise but never actually go to war with Israel. Iraq won't be warring with them anymore, not after we toppled Hussein. Syria has a good amount of land. But they haven't fought with Israel since '73.

Your claim that 'every war' Israel's fought has the entire teaming up on it would've been true if made in the mid-70s. In the year 2010 though, it's not. In just the last four years they fought one war with Hezbollah (in July 2006, the Second Lebanon War) and one war with Hamas (in Jan 2009, the Gaza War) that didn't get "the entire Arab world" involved. In fact, the blockade of Gaza Strip right now is supported by Egypt, who also has a blockade going against Hamas.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Iran's been engaged in a shadow war against Israel for decades.

it's pretty much common knowledge that it's Iran that's supplying Hamas with its weaponry (and ditto for insurgents fighting against US forces in Iraq).

Iran funds both Hamas and Hezbollah. Moreso the latter though. In fact, Hamas gets much more funding from Saudi Arabia than from Iran.

Not the same as actually being at war though. Iran makes noise about eliminating Israel, but it'll never actually taken action itself towards that end. Just pay and train others to do it for them. The day Iran takes action itself against Israel is the day they can be included here. If you want to count that kind of indirect action, then you have the US on Israel's side and there's no contest.

Technically, even if Iran did fight Israel directly, they'd still fall outside the parameters of the statement regarding the Arab world. Since they're Persian. And Egypt (the most populous country in the Arab League as well as its headquarters) is friendly with Israel, even joining with them in a blockade of Hamas.

Either way, the portrayal of Israel as the only victim here, or the innocent victim, is simply not accurate. And the statement "Israel has one millionth the land and is endlessly attacked." is clearly wrong. As is "In every war in Israel's history the entire Arab world would join forces to fight Israel".

 

[Kulindahr]

The revisionism is yours Kuli, but I'm quite sure you'll never admit it, you're one of those who always wants to be right. about your God, about your hatred of Muslims, about your political cant.

There's no point in arguing it with you.

You pin your fantasies on me instead of answering the question.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Providing trainings and weapons are the same as using them themselves.
Same as if you pay someone to do a crime, you are just as guilty as the criminal who actually commit it.

Then you include the US in this equation and you're still wrong to say, "Israel has one millionth the land and is endlessly attacked."

Which just proves how much this blockade is necessery if Egypt who always helps the Palestinian people decided to join the blockade from their side.

I never said the blockade wasn't necessary. In addition to Egypt joining with Israel in the blockade being evidence in favor of the blockade, it also shows that not all Arabs join in together to fight Israel. The most populous Arab nation is working with Israel. Both points, especially the second, should be painfully clear to any observer. And you are therefore wrong to say, "In every war in Israel's history the entire Arab world would join forces to fight Israel".

 

[Kulindahr]

I never said the blockade wasn't necessary. In addition to Egypt joining with Israel in the blockade being evidence in favor of the blockade, it also shows that not all Arabs join in together to fight Israel. The most populous Arab nation is working with Israel. Both points, especially the second, should be painfully clear to any observer. And you are therefore wrong to say, "In every war in Israel's history the entire Arab world would join forces to fight Israel".

Except that it wasn't until after the last actual war that Egypt made peace with Israel.