Jump to content

A New Middle Eastern Dynamic and the Coming of the Turks...., again


christo-f

Recommended Posts

This indicates the position of the faction in the US that is overtly and fundamentally pro-Israel, I am unaware whether his views represent that of the administration and congress. Him saying it does is not necessarily a true representation of reality. It might be, it may not be, I just don't know.

 

 

 

 

Top US lawmaker: Israel 'rightfully' raided flotilla

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hIixK4QST_qWn0gSwPzQuQlkjgAw

 

6.2.10

 

WASHINGTON — Israel has "rightfully" invoked its right to self-defense to justify a deadly raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla, and should not face UN condemnation, a top US lawmaker said Wednesday.

"The loss of life was tragic," but "the administration and Congress are determined to prevent condemnation of Israel at the UN Security Council," Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said in a statement.

Israel -- facing a global uproar over its pre-dawn raid which left nine pro-Palestinian activists dead -- has blamed those aboard the ships, including the main vessel, the Turkish-owned Mavi Marmara, for initiating the violence.

Hoyer, a staunch backer of Washington's main Middle East ally, said he was waiting for "all the facts to emerge" about the Monday raid, but seemed to side with Israel's account.

"Israel -- rightfully so -- invoked its right to self-defense on the Mavi Marmara. While the majority of ships in the flotilla -- five out of six -- reacted peacefully when approached by Israeli Defense Forces, activists on board the Mavi Marmara were clearly bent on a violent confrontation," he said.

Hoyer said the flotilla had set a collision course with Israel, ignoring "two week's worth of repeated warnings" that they would not be allowed access to Gaza, and Israeli offers to distribute legitimate aid to Gaza's people.

"Finally, to the extent that this act was in protest of the Gaza blockade, let's be clear: Hamas could end the blockade at any time by recognizing Israel's right to exist, renouncing violence, and releasing Gilad Shalit," an Israeli soldier held by the militant group since 2006, he said.

"In times of increased tension such as now, it is imperative that we not allow these events to distract from our main goals of achieving peace in the region and preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons," said Hoyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh man, that has to be one of the most simplistic and misdirected statements about a tremendously complicated process that spans a huge amount of time, seriously.

 

 

The migration of Jews from Europe started covertly to Israel in the 1800s, whilst the state wasn't created until 1948. there were two world wars, the fall of colonialism and an lot of Arab agency in this time, all of which are variables that affected the outcome.

 

If there was one situation on the planet that does not permit simplistic statements this would be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man, that has to be one of the most simplistic and misdirected statements about a tremendously complicated process that spans a huge amount of time, seriously.

 

 

The migration of Jews from Europe started covertly to Israel in the 1800s, whilst the state wasn't created until 1948. there were two world wars, the fall of colonialism and an lot of Arab agency in this time, all of which are variables that affected the outcome.

 

If there was one situation on the planet that does not permit simplistic statements this would be it.

 

 

It's not meant to tie in the whole of the situation. I was only speaking of after WWII.

There should have been regard for the Palestinians.

 

I also understand that both sides are to blame and take no sides....

 

also:

 

u9Kul.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the 1 hand no matter where the Jews settled

after ww2 they would have ended up displacing

some people. Had it been Haiti they would be

having problems with Haitians instead of Palestinians.

But they had to lay claim to the most disputed piece

of real estate possible. Jews have been most hated for

pretty much ever and you would think because of it

they would try and fly under the radar or lay low or

something. Or maybe not. I suppose to do so is a very

un Jewish move to begin with. I try hard to not dislike

Jews. I dont want to dislike anybody. Best friend was a

Jew. He ended up sending people to my house to rob

me at gunpoint. Had 2 reasonably serious jew ex girlfriends,

Not only did they do shit to piss me off but their families

hated on me for no good reason while i was treating they

daughters with the appropriate respect. Old boss was my

dads best friend and also a jew. I got to kno him, he ended

up firing me for a bullshit reason and made it so i wasn't able

to collect unemployment. He basically was a dude that had

everything given to him from day 1 and thought he was entitled

because of his being jewish. Thats not even my interpretation...

its how he felt. Thats just scratching the surface really. I've never

had a good jew experience except Stan51. Dude sent me a free

Krink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the 1 hand no matter where the Jews settled

after ww2 they would have ended up displacing

some people. Had it been Haiti they would be

having problems with Haitians instead of Palestinians.

But they had to lay claim to the most disputed piece

of real estate possible. Jews have been most hated for

pretty much ever and you would think because of it

they would try and fly under the radar or lay low or

something. Or maybe not. I suppose to do so is a very

un Jewish move to begin with. I try hard to not dislike

Jews. I dont want to dislike anybody. Best friend was a

Jew. He ended up sending people to my house to rob

me at gunpoint. Had 2 reasonably serious jew ex girlfriends,

Not only did they do shit to piss me off but their families

hated on me for no good reason while i was treating they

daughters with the appropriate respect. Old boss was my

dads best friend and also a jew. I got to kno him, he ended

up firing me for a bullshit reason and made it so i wasn't able

to collect unemployment. He basically was a dude that had

everything given to him from day 1 and thought he was entitled

because of his being jewish. Thats not even my interpretation...

its how he felt. Thats just scratching the surface really. I've never

had a good jew experience except Stan51. Dude sent me a free

Krink.

 

 

I have known some Jewish folk to be extremely greedy, but when I sit down and think about it, I've known all kinds of races, colors, creeds, etc who were greedy.

 

It's not a Jewish thing. Same with the entitlement deal. All kinds of people feel entitled.

I bet you've known a bunch of Jewish people without knowing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the specifics or the details of the situation besides things i've heard or read, but i do know that statements from Israel that claim Ahmadinejad is threatening to blow up Israel, etc. are inaccurate, and (no pun intended) blown out of proportion. whether or not israel has the right to exist, i really have no opinion, but i plan on reading this book after listening to an interview today:

 

http://www.amazon.com/PALESTINE-Account-7000-Years-History/dp/B001RF68NK/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1275536510&sr=8-2-fkmr1

 

"Paperback, 2008 printing, 142 pages. A very accurate and historical account of Palestine at the time it belonged to Egypt. The story of how the sons of Noah came into Egypt, conquered the murdering priesthood, and then set up and ruled through a new system of government, is indeed an amazing one. Although heavily laced with history, the book is very readable, and throws new light on the 7000-year history of Palestine. Dr. Coleman writes that contrary to most accounts, it was not an empty and barren land, but filled with people working in industries and agriculture. It was indeed a land �overflowing with milk and honey.� The book lays bare the history of the Pharaoh Amenhotep IV and corrects the belief held in many quarters that the ancient Egyptians built great works like the pyramids. Dr. Coleman gives very compelling confirmation that these monuments were built by the sons of Noah and his people known as the Hyskos. Prior to 1917, for 7000 years the country was known as Palestina. It was the name used by both Romans and Arabs. After WWI it was ruled by the British, who received a so-called "mandate" from The League of Nations to administer Palestine as a future national home for the Jewish people. Neither The League nor the British Government had the slightest right under international law to give away land that did not belong to them and "declare" that land as some other nation's territory (the so-called Balfour Declaration). Israel was "created" in 1948 by UN Resolution 181, another illicit act that would be akin to the UN creating "Novo California" out of California and awarding it to Mexico under a "mandate." Resolution 181 allegedly partitioned Palestine into two states, one for Jews and the other for Palestinians. The Arabs and Palestinians objected to the creation of the Jewish state and fought several wars against it, and a virtual state of war is still ongoing."

 

I also posted a very interesting interview between Alan Hart and Alex Jones in the 9/11 thread which speaks on a lot of the corruption and atrocities committed by the state of Israel, and it relates to this discussion. I also want to read Alan Hart's book which deals with Zionism,

 

http://zionismbook.com/

 

I'm not being anti-semetic so please don't attack me if you're Jewish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Casek, you can't just talk about Israel post-WW2. That's like talking about US history post-Spanish War. Just doesn't work because the preceding parts have a direct bearing on how the rest works.

 

 

 

 

 

US starting to put some distance in between Israel's current situation and itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. urged Israel to use caution and restraint with aid boats heading to Gaza

 

 

 

 

 

By Scott Wilson and Glenn Kessler

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, June 3, 2010

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/02/AR2010060200858.html?hpid=topnews

 

 

 

The Obama administration said Wednesday that it had warnedIsrael's government repeatedly to use "caution and restraint" with half a dozen aid boats bound for the Gaza Strip before Israeli commandos raided the flotillathis week in an operation that killed nine people.

 

"We communicated with Israel through multiple channels many times regarding the flotilla," P.J. Crowley, a State Department spokesman, said in a statement issued in response to a question from The Washington Post. "We emphasized caution and restraint given the anticipated presence of civilians, including American citizens."

The acknowledgment shed new light on the administration's contact with the Israeli government before the Monday morning raid, which has inflamed international opinion against Israel and complicated President Obama's efforts to improve U.S. relations with the Islamic world. White House officials said Wednesday that there is a growing consensus within the administration that U.S. and Israeli policy toward Gaza must change, even as Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu flatly rejected calls for his country to lift its blockade of the Palestinian territory.

Netanyahu, addressing his nation Wednesday for the first time since the raid, angrily defended Israel from mounting international criticism over its use of force against the flotilla, which was carrying construction materials, medicine, school paper and other aid to Gaza when Israeli commandos set upon it in international waters.

 

 

Netanyahu called the criticism "hypocrisy" and described Gaza, where 1.5 million people live in a narrow slice of dunes and refugee camps between southern Israel and the sea, as "a terror state funded by the Iranians."

"The same countries that are criticizing us today should know that they will be targeted tomorrow," he said, just a day after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called Israel's policy toward Gaza "unsustainable." "It's for this and for many other reasons we have a right to inspect cargo heading into Gaza,'' Netanyahu added.

The flotilla was organized by the Free Gaza Movement and a Turkish charity that Israeli officials say has connections to radical groups.

In an interview with Charlie Rose broadcast Wednesday night, Vice President Biden agreed that Israel had a right to inspect the cargo. "You can argue whether Israel should have dropped people onto that ship or not . . . but the truth of the matter is, Israel has a right to know -- they're at war with Hamas -- has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in," he said.

 

 

 

 

 

At the same time, Biden acknowledged that the administration is trying to sway the Israeli government on the issue of Gaza, which has been under some form of an Israeli blockade for five years.

"We have put as much pressure and as much cajoling on Israel as we can to allow them to get building materials" and other designated humanitarian aid into Gaza, he said.

Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to Washington, said that although lifting the blockade is out of the question, Israel shares the administration's goal of improving civilian life in the Gaza Strip. "We are open to the discussion of how best to reconcile the civilian needs of the people of Gaza with Israel's very real security needs," he said in an interview.

The Israeli raid on the flotilla has focused international attention on Israel's closure policy and the mixed results it has achieved.

Israel withdrew its soldiers and settlements from Gaza in 2005 after a nearly four-decade presence in the strip. But it has maintained strict control over the coast and crossing points for goods arriving from Israel, which has come under frequent attack over the years from rockets fired by the Islamist movement Hamas and other armed groups at war with the Jewish state.

In 2007, after Hamas's violent takeover of the strip, Israel effectively closed it to all but a limited amount of humanitarian aid. The goal was to turn the public against Hamas, and prevent arms-making materials from entering. Israel has also linked lifting the blockade -- which includes a ban on nearly all exports from Gaza -- to the release of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier Hamas captured in Israel in 2006.

But Israel has let several aid flotillas land at Gaza over the past two years, missions designed primarily to draw attention to the blockade. Before Monday's most ambitious attempt to run the blockade, Israel had turned back two previous flotillas and detained some participants for more than a week.

Israel said Wednesday that it had completed the deportation of the more than 700 activists detained after the raid. Most of them were flown to Turkey, which was Israel's chief Muslim ally in the region before the raid but has since withdrawn its ambassador.

The administration's acknowledgment that it warned Israel against using excessive force comes as White House officials have been meeting with Israeli diplomats and security officials to discuss how the blockade might be altered to allow more aid to enter Gaza without risking Israeli security.

White House officials said Obama has had several phone calls with Netanyahu since the incident, and national security adviser James L. Jones met with his Israeli counterpart for several hours this week.

A White House official briefed on those meetings said there is "a general sense in the administration that it's time to change our Gaza policy," although he would not elaborate on how the administration might change the way it engages an area controlled by a U.S.-designated terrorist organization.

The official said meetings have been held to explore "alternative approaches to dealing with ships who try to run the blockade, and to ensure the humanitarian aid reaches people in Gaza." The official added that "our militaries are in touch on this."

David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said that discussion should focus on trimming the Israeli bans on many basic items for fear that they could be used for nefarious purposes. "It needs to be streamlined, so that everything is permitted unless it is forbidden, rather than everything is forbidden unless it is permitted," he said. "You have got to use common sense so that you just deny things that can be used for weapons."

Correspondent Janine Zacharia in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think the world fucked up when Israel was created because there was little/no regard for the Palestinians and their right to a homeland?

 

How do you figure?

 

'49 borders are after the war of independence, '67 is after the Yom Kippur war.

 

1947-67israel.jpg

 

 

FYI the Sinai was returned to Egypt (because of international pressure) and Israel also returned all the Syrian captured land (not shown on this map, but it was up to Damascus) with the exception of the Golan which it needed as a buffer since there was constant rocket fire and guerrilla attacks coming from there.

 

I'm not sure how much you know about Israel's geography but the Jewish controlled '48 land was not exactly choice. Also while according to the plans Jews would be permitted to visit their holiest site, Jerusalem, the Jordanians (UN control?) forbade them from going there. The Yom Kippur war was monumental for us because we capture the Old City. When it was found the Western Wall was literally a garbage dump.

 

But really, lets not get too off topic. This thread is about the Flotillas, Israel's unpreparedness/dumb response, and Turkey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

e2e, I suggest you listen to this.

 

http://media.smh.com.au/world/world-news/aussie-journo-recounts-flotilla-raid-1542340.html?from=newsbox

 

 

It is one of my favourite journalists from australia, Paul McGeogh who was on one of the ships of the flotilla. He is not at all happy with what went down and gives what I believe is a very objective first hand account of what happened on his vessel.

 

 

 

****Warning: graphic portrayals of people forced to sit, women with 5 soldiers standing around them, weapons with paintballs and deportation of people when they refuse to hand over passports*****

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note, the difference in response from the IDF when they are not being attacked by deadly force and people protest peacefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro Israel? Show me once where I have said Israel was in the right, what it did was acceptable or that I support their actions!!

I get it. You're completely neutral. Kinda in the same way as a CNN news anchorman.

All I have done is explain the strategic situation from both sides.

You're very good at this, Christo. An Israeli spokesperson couldn't do it better.

You are just so anti-Israel that you will not accept anything other than blinding condemnation.

Are we already on such a low level that you have to call me, though obfuscated, an Anti-Semite fanatic? What comes next, the good ol' Nazi?

The soldier's hands were still on the ropes as they were being attacked!!

The soldiers should not have been on the ropes in the first place. By entering the boat without formal approval they were commiting piracy.

I hear that they only had paintball guns with CS gas at first but I am yet to see full proof of that

I heard similar things. However i find it highly unlikely that a pro commando unit would use paintball guns while boarding a ship that houses, according to their intelligence, violent Turk provocateurs and Yemenites with daggers. Also, one of the peace activists told a newspaper (not sure if it was a British or a German one) that the commandos shot with live ammo onto the decks before they even were on the ropes. He is not able to prove his claim though since the Israeli authorities still keep all the cameras, mobile phones, laptops etc. they confiscated under lock. So here we have two contradicting statements.

Secondly, being armed or in possession of a weapon is not the same as threatening people with deadly force.

Is this also true for fruit knives, clubs, bars and chairs? How do you define "threatening"?

The argument is that the IDF only killed people after they were attacked with deadly force.

This is what IDF spokesmen claim.

I watched that footage at least thrice. It doens't even show clearly whether IDF soldiers were on deck before the video starts. ---> interesting footage, nothing more and certainly not a proof for anything.

They were being attacked with metal bars about the head before they even had their weapons drawn.

See above. Also: international waters.

Tell me you wouldn't shoot some one that was trying to smash your skull open.

I wouldn't try to seize illegaly a ship in international waters so i do not even need to think about such a situation.

Yeah, they were sailing in to a naval blockade protected

No, they were 40 sea miles away from the coast in international waters. The IDF has no business there. Their naval blockade (which is of questionable legitimacy itself) starts 10 sea miles off the coast.

They intentionally provoked a military response,

This would be true if the flotilla would already have been in coastal waters.

they then attacked the soldiers with deadly force and then complained that they got shot.

*yawn*

Can you not see the massive and obvious contradiction here.

No.

I think you need to review the law followed in protecting maritime blockades.

Thats exactly what i would recommend you to do.

 

in short:

 

1.) the IDF cites the so called "San Remo Manual" which is an addendum to common maritime law. it comes in effect during war between 2 sovereign countries.

2.) Gaza is not a sovereign country therefore there is no official war between Israel and Palestine/Gaza --> only common maritime law is relevant

3.) surprise, surprise. Israel does, unlike over 160 other sovereign countries, not agree to common maritime law.

4.) conclusion: Israel is not subject to common maritime law nor the San Remo Manual. Therefore the boarding of a ship in international waters by the IDF is clearly an act of piracy.

 

points 5.) and 6.) would question the legitimacy of the blockade itself, however i'm not going to evaluate this further since the blockade has no real importance in order to determine whether the IDF committed a crime on high seas are not.

 

The IDF boarded the boat, that is not attacking anyone. It may be trespassing but it is not an attack on anyone.

Good one, mate. :)

Israel isn't officially in war with Palestine so wartime law is not applicable.

Gaza isn't a country meaning that you can't "officially" be at war with them.

I agree.

So, I think you could agree that both people live under a low level conflict/war like condition, yes?

Yes, i can agree to that.

3415934352_1c633bd1fc_m.jpg.1731dc5140e1d70b6876acf645188d30.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No my angry and spiteful friend,

C'mon...:rolleyes:

 

They did not raid the boats outside of the territorial waters with ignorance and hate, no matter how much you want to believe that.

Actually, i would like to believe they didn't. Alas, the info i collected so far suggests otherwise.

As I said above, they boarded that far out because it was night.

Doesn't change anything. The boarding was an act of piracy under international law.

And that you seriously bring up a tactical advantage as an excuse/justification for a crime is simply ridiculous.

If they waited until day time they loose tactical advantage (well that's the theory, results show they never had the tactical advantage at all)

As i see it this nightly attack had at least 2 tactical advantages:

1.) Most people are sleeping.

2.) At night it would be hard for the peace activists to record, photograph and film the action.

And if they wait until they are in Gaza waters then they have to contend with all the other Gazan boats.

Perhaps. However, it would not have been the first time the IDF prevented ships from entering Gaza's harbour, no?

and that would surely mean risk to more life and limb.

Not necessarily.

If yo think that any special forces planning is ever based on ignorance and animosity I would suggest that it may be you that is the ignorant one.

I wish i could agree with you generally on this but this would be negligent and naive. In this special case, i would even go so far to add incompetence to the point of utter stupidity to the list.

 

1.) There were Israeli intelligence agents on board (if not the Mossad would be the most incompetent secret service on planet earth, this is surely not the case; also 2 aid ships fell victim to sabotage beforehand). These agents must have known that none of the ships carried weapons which rendered the attack completely unneccessary. Even if provocateurs were on board they would not have an opportunity to commit violence if the Israeli leaders would have let the flotilla enter Gaza without intervening

2.) Why did those agents not disable those provocateurs before the commandos carried out their attack?

3.) If the agents were due to unforeseen circumstances unable to confirm that the ships were clean the Israeli leaders could have ordered UNIFIL to search the ships for weapons. UNIFIL has a legal UN mandate to do exactly this, in this region, including international waters 40 sea miles off Gaza's coast. UNIFIL is stationed in Lebanon and currently led by Germany, by the way.

4.) Boarding using force and violence. Completely unnecessary. The IDF could've sourrounded the flotilla and escorted them to an Israeli harbour. The peace activists had actually trained for such a situation and would've have cooperated (there would probably have been a lot live streams from the escorted boats, indignant comments on twitter etc. but all of this would've been nothing compared to the medial shitstorm Israel is facing right now).

5.) International waters. I'f the boarding would've taken place inside the 10 miles zone Israel could at least have pointed out that they acted in compliance with the Oslo treaty.

6.) Political outcome/consequences. Your friend made a pretty sharp analysis on this in his article.

7.) etc. pp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it. You're completely neutral. Kinda in the same way as a CNN news anchorman.

 

You can't do it, can you? You just don't want to admit that I have actually said nothing pro-Israel and am simply viewing the matter on a strategic level. That is because you have a bias and you cannot let go of it.

 

 

 

You're very good at this, Christo. An Israeli spokesperson couldn't do it better.

 

Are we already on such a low level that you have to call me, though obfuscated, an Anti-Semite fanatic? What comes next, the good ol' Nazi?

 

And at this point, I think I'm pretty much done here. You have your mind made up and nothing anyone can say will change that because it is what you want to believe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

e2e is actually making a lot of really good points, and i don't think he is being biased either... the state of Israel and those who portray themselves as supporters of Israel through aggression and expansion have been putting Israel in more danger than assisting it for some time now. i relate it to those "patriots" that justify the invasion of foreign nations and our current foreign policy and claim they are doing it for the protection of America when in actuality they are putting us at further risk and in more danger. sure, you can discuss the strategic nature of the decisions surrounding the event, and i think it's plain to see from anyone's perspective that it was a total blunder on Israel's part, but to call someone biased for criticizing Israel when they clearly broke international law and even NATO treaties is something else. it's the same here in America when you criticize the Obama administration and you are a "racist" or whatever, when you criticize the Zionists and the current Israeli administration all of a sudden you're an anti-semite.

 

and also, christo... not for nothing, but you seem to be coming off in several of your posts like the IDF and Israel are innocent of any wrong doing. you admit it was a blunder, but attempt to portray the event as if it were simply that. it seems to me like you are claiming the IDF had no aggressive behaviour whatsoever, and the blame should be on those who were on board the vessel for initiating aggression which lead to people being killed. i think a majority of the world is at odds with your perspective of this event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh FFS guys, really.

 

These guys openly said they were going to run a military blockade, everyone knew this was their intent and it was no secret.

 

The IDF raided their boats before they hit territorial waters, probably not the best thing for them to do. But do you really think the passengers on the Mamara would have acted any differently if they were boarded in open or territorial waters? Really?!

 

Fucking ridiculous to say that I am offering any support for any side here. All I am saying is that the protesters cannot be surprised that people get shot when you attack men with guns using deadly force they knew this to be the case and that is why they did it. These guys set a trap for ISrael to over-react, that's exactly what Israel did and now Israel is in the shit. The only difference here is that Some people are acting like these guys were peaceful protestors defending their vessel against piracy. Seriously, how naive do you want to act with this?

 

From Turkey/Palestine's point of view, this was a brilliant strategic move and it worked flawlessly. From Israel's point of view, they had little choice of how to react and they chose the worst choice. Why they didn't foul the props or something such I will never know.

 

 

That's everything I've said in a nutshell but apparently I'm some how pro-Israeli. You guys seriously fuck with my head, sometimes.

 

 

Casek, I would be shocked as shit if they didn't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Netanyahu tells Blair he will 'loosen' Gaza blockade

 

 

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

 

6.3.10

 

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told former British prime minister Tony Blair Thursday that he is willing to loosen the blockade of Gaza in order to allow humanitarian aid to enter the strip.

 

Netanyahu expressed his willingness to allow ships carrying humanitarian goods to enter Gaza port after having been checked for weapons by international inspectors.

 

The prime minister's comments came as world pressure on Israel to end the blockade increases in the wake of the Gaza Flotilla Affair in which nine activists were killed Monday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Jews for the rest of time will be able to point to what happened during the Holocaust in defense for any absurd aggression and behavior they take part in?

 

Pretty ridiculous.

 

If that's the case, than Palestinians should be able to do the same. Not to mention Christian's, and etc and etc.

 

Blacks should be able to just kill whites in America, because we'll we took them for slaves hundreds of years ago, and it COULD happen again.

 

This justification is rather outlandish.

 

Israel to me is the aggressor in most situations that end up with these results. I also love how all you have to do is pull the "aiding terrorist's" card and apparently everything should be kosher.

 

C'mon son.

 

 

 

HAHAH! Just amazing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And at this point, I think I'm pretty much done here.
Pity but no problem, mate. Hope you don't took anything personally so we might have another discussion on political events or strategy later. I always find your texts/analysis very interesting.

You have your mind made up and nothing anyone can say will change that because it is what you want to believe.

If you would come up with evidence that proves me wrong i'd accept that. This time the case is quite clear though, i would say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Jews for the rest of time will be able to point to what happened during the Holocaust in defense for any absurd aggression and behavior they take part in?

 

Pretty ridiculous.

 

Yeah and some could very well argue that this mind set that is almost a political theory has done more to harm their security than create benefits. A Jewish friend of mine that I did my honours with (and who went straight from uni to work as an advisor to Prime Minister and cabinet) wrote his paper on whether the ISraeli settlements create a security buffer for Israel or are a longer term cause in instability. I never got to read it but would have been super interesting.

 

 

 

If that's the case, than Palestinians should be able to do the same. Not to mention Christian's, and etc and etc.

 

 

YEah the Armenians have a history a little bit similar with Turkey that still dominates their relations as well.....

 

 

Blacks should be able to just kill whites in America, because we'll we took them for slaves hundreds of years ago, and it COULD happen again.

 

This justification is rather outlandish.

 

For them it's not so much a justification but a lesson learned the hardest possible way and it is very strong within them because there are still people alive that were in the camps and hunted by the Nazis and they are still telling their children and grand children the stories that end with "never again".

 

I think you guys need to get this concept of "justification" out of your head. That is a concept that really doesn't fit in to the way a lot of the world works. When nations are creating policy it's the national interest that decides what they will do, not if their is justice in their actions. If law isn't on their side, they will then spend resources to either change the perception of what they are doing (for instance in the WTO, at the UN, international arbitration or through the media with public/electorate perception and that is what we see the Israelis doing now) or they will prepare for the inevitable response from the world and deal with it as best they can.

 

One great example is the second Gulf War. There was no UN backing, the legalities of the invasion were shaky at best but they invaded anyway and dealt with the consequences because (in their minds) it was in more in the national interest to break the rules than it was to follow them. It's the same as if you have a child rapist stalking your little sister. It is in your family's interest to protect your sister. Your choices are following the law (which can't do anything until he commits a crime) risking having this guy rape and kill your sister or shooting the guy yourself and dealing with the consequences as best you can. In the eyes of the law there is no justice in shooting him before he can harm your family. However it is obviously in your family's interests in not waiting until he acts before you do anything. So, you act on family interest, shoot the guy and get the best lawyer you can because it is worth it to save your sister.

 

When you're in the hot seat and you have the safety of the whole nation to make calls on, international law doesn't seem to matter as you can't take risks with the safety of 7 million people. Nations will always choose national interest regardless of what the law says is justified. The Palestinians are the same. They want to protest their interests against Israel but are vastly outsized qualitatively and quantitatively. They can either accept the law and try to defend themselves using AK-47s against F-15s and tanks or they can disregard the law and launch suicide attacks inside Israel. Of course they disregard the law because it is in their best interests to do so.

 

People and nations will most of the time only uphold the law when the cost for breaking it is higher than the gain, not because of any notion of justice. So viewing international relations from a perspective of what is and isn't justified will most of the time result in you not seeing what the actual play is and also frustrated with the result.

.

 

.

.

.

.

Politics is a matter of interests, justice is a matter of philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just to add another thing, I'm just explaining things the way I see it.

 

Me explaining the situation above seems to have been misconstrued as me supporting the Israeli action (even when I have said it was a blunder fro the start). It all comes down to my claim that there were people aboard the Mavi Marmara that were there to incite a disproportionate response by the Israelis and then use the consequences against them. I say that because it is a very common tactic that is used against the Israelis and they fall in to it much of the time exactly because of the historical/cultural reasons I've described above. Secondly because my friends who work in the security field in both countries chat to me about it and third because a peaceful protest cannot include violence (especially when you are provoking arrest) and the footage clearly shows that a small number of the protestors used violence not exactly of a defensive nature.

 

That's all I say, nothing more than that. I'm never going to say anything was justified by anyone in any international relations issue because when dealing with relationships that are based on the use of power justice becomes an irrelevant concept..., and most of all because I am not a philosopher. I don't know what "right and wrong" actually is so I therefore cannot determine the justified against unjustified. I just see what is and what is not, I leave the rest for others to moralise over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...