israeli navy kills gaza activists - Page 5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Xazy · 06-03-2010, 12:46 PM

A country has a right to defend itself, if they are constantly under rocket fire, over 10000 since 2005. And the video I posted earlier and I have seen all show the soldiers being attacked upon boarding the ship. That does not take in to account the fake videos of people being injured found on the ship, almost a million euro, and other facts that do not add up yet. Instead we all jump in and scream instead of waiting for the facts to piece together a whole picture.

silent_jay · 06-03-2010, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

or maybe the israelis fucked up this time.

what is so difficult to fathom about that?

Isarelis, do something wrong, well that never happens, they're always in the right......

rahl · 06-03-2010, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

A country has a right to defend itself, if they are constantly under rocket fire, over 10000 since 2005. And the video I posted earlier and I have seen all show the soldiers being attacked upon boarding the ship. That does not take in to account the fake videos of people being injured found on the ship, almost a million euro, and other facts that do not add up yet. Instead we all jump in and scream instead of waiting for the facts to piece together a whole picture.

please cite these facts.

How does any of that justify piracy and murder again?

Baraka_Guru · 06-03-2010, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

A country has a right to defend itself, if they are constantly under rocket fire, over 10000 since 2005. And the video I posted earlier and I have seen all show the soldiers being attacked upon boarding the ship.

Don't individuals have a right to protect themselves from being fired upon and boarded in international waters?

Willravel · 06-03-2010, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

A country has a right to defend itself, if they are constantly under rocket fire, over 10000 since 2005.

There were 15 Israeli deaths from rocket fire between 2000 and 2008. Also, the flotilla didn't have any weapons on board, as was verified by the Turkish government. The IDF knew they didn't have weapons because the Turks were very public about their inspection. There were no rockets on the boat. There were no guns. When the people on the boat fought back against the attackers, they had to use kitchen knives and sticks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

And the video I posted earlier and I have seen all show the soldiers being attacked upon boarding the ship.

But do you know why? The IDF started firing teargas and smoke bombs onto the main flotilla before boarding, and they hit a man in the head. That was the first attack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

That does not take in to account the fake videos of people being injured found on the ship, almost a million euro, and other facts that do not add up yet. Instead we all jump in and scream instead of waiting for the facts to piece together a whole picture.

You've clearly made up your mind on the issue without all the facts. Please do everyone the courtesy of following your own advice.

Idyllic · 06-03-2010, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

Author Henning Mankell Says Israel Committed Piracy (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

Henning Mankell does not approve of the Israelis "occupation" of Palestine anyway, why would anyone who believes that Israel has a right to exist at all care what he thinks.

Quote:

The Swedish writer Henning Mankell, whose mysteries my wife adores, also uses the word apartheid, repeatedly. He went to the Palestine Festival of Literature and got an eyeful of the occupation, from Hebron to Jerusalem, and wrote a piece for Aftonbladet, translated here. Excerpt:

What I saw during my trip was obvious: the state of Israel in its current form has no future. Moreover, those who advocate a two-state solution have not got it right.

In 1948, the year of my birth, the state of Israel proclaimed its independence on occupied land. There are no reasons whatsoever to call that a legitimate intervention according to international law. What happened was that Israel simply occupied Palestinian land. And the amount of land under possession is constantly growing, with in the war in 1967, and with the increasing number of settlements today. Once in a while, a settlement is torn down. But it is just for show. Soon enough, it pops up somewhere else. A two-state solution will not be the end of the historical occupation.

The same thing will happen in Israel that happened in South Africa during the Apartheid regime. The question is whether it will be possible to talk sense into the Israelis in order for them to willingly accept the end of their own Apartheid state. Or if it this has to take place against their own will. Nor can anyone tell us when this will happen. The final insurrection will of course start from within. But emergent political changes in Syria or Egypt will contribute. Equally important is that, probably sooner than later, the United States no longer will afford to pay up for this horrible military force that prevents stone throwing youths from having a normal life in freedom.

When change is coming, each Israeli has to decide for him- or herself if he or she is prepared to give up their privileges and live in a Palestinian state. During my trip, I met no anti-Semitism. What I did see was hatred against the occupants that is completely normal and understandable. To keep these two things separate is crucial….

The state of Israel can only expect to be defeated, like all occupying powers. The Israelis are destroying lives. But they are not destroying dreams. The fall of this disgraceful Apartheid system is the only thing conceivable, because it must be.

The question, therefore, is not if but when it will happen. And in what way.

Let us all just pretend that nothing existed on this land prior to 1948, except the Palestinians, right? This man is totally biased against the state of Israel to begin with.

Quote:

Quote from Charles Krauthammer - The Weekly Standard, May 11, 1998

"Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity: It is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. You dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the corner candy store."

-------

3,000-2,000 B.C.
Early Bronze Age. Arrival and settlement of Canaanites (3,000-2,500 B.C.).
ca. 1,250 B.C.
Israelite conquest of Canaan.
965-928 B.C.
King Solomon. Construction of the temple in Jerusalem.
928 B.C.
Division of Israelite state into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

587 BCE Babylonian Destruction of the first Temple.
538-333 BCE Persian Return of the exiled Jews from Babylon and construction of the second Temple (520-515 BCE).
333-63 BCE Hellenistic Conquest of the region by the army of Alexander the Great (333 BCE). The Greeks generally allowed the Jews to run their state. But, during the rule of the king Antiochus IV, the Temple was desecrated. This brought about the revolt of the Maccabees, who established an independent rule. The related events are celebrated during the Hanukah holiday.
63 BCE-313 CE Roman The Roman army led by Titus conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple at 70 CE. Jewish people were then exiled and dispersed to the Diaspora. In 132, Bar Kokhba organized a revolt against Roman rule, but was killed in a battle in Bethar in Judean Hills. Subsequently the Romans decimated the Jewish community, renamed Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina and Judea as Palaestina to obliterate Jewish identification with the Land of Israel (the word Palestine, and the Arabic word Filastin originate from this Latin name).

The remaining Jewish community moved to northern towns in the Galilee. Around 200 CE the Sanhedrin was moved to Tsippori (Zippori, Sepphoris). The Head of Sanhedrin, Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi (Judah the Prince), compiled the Jewish oral law, Mishna.
313-636 Byzantine
636-1099 Arab Dome of the Rock was built by Caliph Abd el-Malik on the grounds of the destroyed Jewish Temple.
1099-1291 Crusaders The crusaders came from Europe to capture the Holy Land following an appeal by Pope Urban II, and massacred the non-Christian population. Later Jewish community in Jerusalem expanded by immigration of Jews from Europe.
1291-1516 Mamluk
1516-1918 Ottoman During the reign of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1520-1566) the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem were rebuilt. Population of the Jewish community in Jerusalem increased.
1917-1948 British Great Britain recognized the rights of the Jewish people to establish a "national home in Palestine". Yet they greatly curtailed entry of Jewish refugees into Israel even after World War II. They split Palestine mandate into an Arab state which has become the modern day Jordan, and Israel.

Who has been denied their home? 3,000 years old, one of the oldest collectively cultured peoples and religions known to mankind. Some of the oldest written words known to mankind come out of this religion. I don't think first matters anymore, a right to exist, however, does.

silent_jay · 06-03-2010, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

Henning Mankell does not approve of the Israelis "occupation" of Palestine anyway, why would anyone who believes that Israel has a right to exist at all care what he thinks.

A lot of people don't approve of Israel's occupation, are we to just throw away their opinions on this issue? Again with the "" around words, it is an occupation, what else would you call it, a holiday, a prime posting?
Or is this like the "activists" where you're really saying they're terrorists yet hiding behind the quotation marks so if anyone calls oyu on it you can make something up to defend it without actually showing any proof what so ever to prove your claims.

The_Dunedan · 06-03-2010, 01:46 PM

Idyllic:

You might want to do more research into the history of Zionism. It's actually a very new idea compared to the long history of Judaism, and until WWII was largely regarded as a dangerous and unsanctified heresy. A significant portion of the Orthodox/Hasidic Jewish population -still- defines Zionism in those terms. Check these guys out:
True Torah Jews Against Zionism

They go into far more detail than I can here, but suffice it to say that until very recently, the political re-occupation of the Holy Land by the Jews was seen as effrontery to God: "We get the land back when the Messiah -gives- it back. Until then, it's not ours to give OR TAKE" was the essence of mainstream Jewish teaching until Theodore Herzl came along and turned 1800-ish years of Jewish tradition regarding the Holy Land on its' head.

Edited to add: I would have been all in favour of the Jews being given, say, Germany. Japan. Any piece thereof. Maybe Vichy France. The Germans and Japanese, after all, started the whole beastly mess and surrendered unconditionally after engaging in a series of war-crimes and crimes against humanity which have since set the standard for atrocity and scale of mass murder. The terms of the Treaty Of Versailles were ridiculous and unfair, but the problem of this humiliation was much worsened by the fact that Germany and Germans were allowed to believe that they had not been defeated. Japan, in particular, could probably do with the sorts of improvements that would have come at that point with the arrival of several hundred thousand armed and very pissed-off settlers supported by the US military. I'm sure Stalin would have been happy to get the Soviet Jews off his hands as well. Maybe the creation of something like Israel in the land of people who actually had it coming would have convinced the Japanese that after being caught raping entire cities, and after having had two cities vaporised, they were this time going to learn to goddamnedbehaveorelse. This would include, among other things, not erecting statues of generals responsible for horrors such as Nanking, along with bothering to teach their schoolchildren more about WWII (and how the Japanese Empire came to be involved) than just "there was a war, and then the Americans dropped two horrible atomic bombs and killed lots and lots of innocent people."

dippin · 06-03-2010, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

Henning Mankell does not approve of the Israelis "occupation" of Palestine anyway, why would anyone who believes that Israel has a right to exist at all care what he thinks.

Let us all just pretend that nothing existed on this land prior to 1948, except the Palestinians, right? This man is totally biased against the state of Israel to begin with.

Who has been denied their home? 3,000 years old, one of the oldest collectively cultured peoples and religions known to mankind. Some of the oldest written words known to mankind come out of this religion. I don't think first matters anymore, a right to exist, however, does.

You do know that being against the occupation of Palestinian territories is not the same as saying that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, right?

This is more of the ridiculous binary thinking: if you are against the eviction without recourse of Palestinians, the establishment of Jewish-only roads, the restriction of Palestinian access to water, and a blockade that keeps even basic necessities out, then you must be for terrorism and the destruction of Israel.

Of course, that is bullshit, but apparently some people refuse to move beyond that.

ring · 06-03-2010, 02:23 PM

Idyllic: Many of the posters in this thread are demonstrating an amazing
amount of patience & understanding with your ignorance. (lack of knowledge)

Please check out the links regarding the history, that others have provided.

Idyllic · 06-03-2010, 08:10 PM

YouTube - Gaza Aid Flotilla debate: Activists or Extremists?

Baraka_Guru · 06-03-2010, 08:50 PM

'Israel is a Lunatic State' - Finkelstein on Gaza Flotilla Attack

roachboy · 06-04-2010, 03:40 AM

Quote:

I don't write poems but, in any case, poems are not poems.

Long ago, I was made to understand that Palestine was not Palestine;
I was also informed that Palestinians were not Palestinians;
They also explained to me that ethnic cleansing was not ethnic cleansing.
And when naive old me saw freedom fighters they patiently showed me that they were not freedom fighters, and that resistance was not resistance.
And when, stupidly, I noticed arrogance, oppression and humiliation they benevolently enlightened me so I can see that arrogance was not arrogance, oppression was not oppression, and humiliation was not humiliation.

I saw misery, racism, inhumanity and a concentration camp.
But they told me that they were experts in misery, racism, inhumanity and concentration camps and I have to take their word for it: this was not misery, racism, inhumanity and a concentration camp.
Over the years they've taught me so many things: invasion was not invasion, occupation was not occupation, colonialism was not colonialism and apartheid was not apartheid.

They opened my simple mind to even more complex truths that my poor brain could not on its own compute like: "having nuclear weapons" was not "having nuclear weapons," "not having weapons of mass destruction" was "having weapons of mass destruction."

And, democracy (in the Gaza Strip) was not democracy.
Having second class citizens (in Israel) was democracy.
So you'll excuse me if I am not surprised to learn today that there were more things that I thought were evident that are not: peace activists are not peace activists, piracy is not piracy, the massacre of unarmed people is not the massacre of unarmed people.

I have such a limited brain and my ignorance is unlimited.
And they're so fucking intelligent. Really.

Ghassan Hage is professor of anthropology and social theory at the University of Melbourne.

ei: A massacre is not a massacre

aceventura3 · 06-04-2010, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

This is Furkan Dogan.

What was he killed for?

Given three categories:

One, those who are concerned about the about Palestinian people, their needs and rights.

Two, those who are concerned about the Palestinian people, their needs and rights - also with a dislike of Israel and the way Israel is handling the issue.

Three, those who simply hate Israel and want it eliminated off of the face of the earth.

I think most people involved with running the blockade fit into categories one and two. However, and I don't know what portion, there are some in category three. Category three is the problem. Category three is the reason there was violence.

Given an old, passive, toothless dog, if you trigger the survival response (SR), violent action will result. Worse, if you have young, testosterone loaded males, with guns, trained to kill and SR's are triggered, people will die and get hurt.

Reasonable people have to consider this question - Are my odds of avoiding death and the death of others increased or decreased by triggering the SR's or heightening the SR's in those being confronted?

Who lead these people?
What was their intent? Goal?
What did they think would happen?
Were they actually surprised by the result?

I can understand young and naive people getting caught up in the moment and doing unwise things, but I can not understand those who would lead others into this without clearly explaining the risks. If the risks were known, the innocent are not so innocent. If the risks were not known, I don't know what to say about that, but they know now.

roachboy · 06-04-2010, 07:24 AM

no, ace. that's not the problem. your imaginary 3rd category of people who you imagine were on an imaginary version of the flotilla. this is much more accurate as an explanation for the problem:

Quote:

Israel’s commando complex
Recently an intelligence official actually called the absence of Palestinian terror a 'propaganda problem.'
By Doron Rosenblum Tags: Gaza flotilla Gaza Hamas IDF

It’s impossible to understand or explain Israel’s passive-aggressive responses to the “flotilla crisis” without reference to the ground from which its current leaders emerged. Both the prime minister and the defense minister are dyed-in-the-wool “creatures of military operations.” Both were steeped in the instant-heroism mentality and the commando spirit − the ethos in which a military force shows up at the height of a crisis like a deus ex machina and in a single stroke slices through the Gordian knot.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s public image grew out of the 1972 rescue of a hijacked Sabena passenger plane, during which he was seen standing on the wing of the aircraft waving his pistol. And one cannot imagine the political career of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu without Operation Entebbe and the myth-cloaked death of his brother Yoni − a mission so glorious and electrifying that its inspiring charge alone could turn his brother into a star, both as “Mr. Terror” and as a veteran of Sayeret Matkal, the Israel Defense Forces general staff’s elite special-operations force.

Those 1970s rescue operations were seen as the continuation of the largest and most miraculous one of all, the Six-Day War. Although decades have passed since the moral “high” was injected into our veins our leaders have never stopped trying to reconstruct it in order to atone for their ineffectiveness as statesmen. And the greater the number of successive failed missions, the greater the longing for the next redemptive mission that would “heal” the trauma and the bad trip of its predecessor. The next “jackpot” always appeared to be around the corner: if not in Lebanon, then in Gaza; if not in Gaza, then in Iran.

Netanyahu and Barak came into power for the second time, despite each man’s record of failure, on the wings of two contradictory, or complementary, hopes: First, that in combination they would deliver the goods and create the redemptive “operation to end all operations,” the smartest one of all. Second, that they of all people − and not civilian leaders such as Ehud Olmert, Shimon Peres or Amir Peretz, who felt a need to overreact militarily − could gain the maturity necessary for an act of diplomatic courage. But so far they haven’t fulfilled either hope. They have demonstrated both a total absence of courage and inspiration in the diplomatic sphere and an absence of creativity in the use of force. So what’s left?

The failure of the flotilla operation is less troubling than the national “jonesing” that has followed it: the frenetic flitting between the poles of reflexive victimhood − Oy oy oy they resisted, they had knives, swords and other weapons, the activists who were killed were “big-bodied” − and of inert heroism ‏(praise for the restraint and sensitivity that resulted in only nine and not 600 deaths; the desperate attempt to cling to the vestiges of the myths of military prowess and the increased stifling of criticism with the slogan “Quiet, we’re saluting”‏). All of these, together with a great sense of missed opportunity: the illusion that a “successful” operation − difficult to define and to imagine in any event − would have relieved, even temporarily, a certain existential angst.

All these responses were more intense this week, although in fact they are constant. They are the responses of addicts who are repeatedly denied their fix: the perfect IDF “operation,” or the decisive war, which will stifle any question and complaints ‏(and any need for statesmanship‏).

Some point to a sea change in the Palestinian, and even the Hamas, leadership, saying that they have finally discovered the advantages of propaganda and statesmanship over violence and terror. Instead of encouraging and wholeheartedly adopting this approach, Israel, which hasn’t changed its thought patterns for decades, is “caught by surprise” and even dismayed. ‏(Recently an intelligence official actually called the absence of Palestinian terror a “propaganda problem”‏). In the absence of statesmanship, all Israel can offer is another clumsy operation in which it comes off looking like some relic from the 1970s and ‘80s with a commando knife between its teeth. Even worse: It looks like Avigdor Lieberman, Eli Yishai, Moshe Ya’alon and all the rest.

Israel has always complained, condescendingly, that the neighbors it is forced to deal with are Arabs rather than “Norwegians and Swedes.” Now, when it is dealing with Europeans and the entire world, Israel can see how it itself is perceived − and to blush furiously. If it still can.

Israel?s commando complex - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

o yeah, the rachel corrie is due to get to israeli waters in about 24 hours.
israel is trying to get the ship to go to ashdod.
the rachel corrie has no plans of making any stops other than gaza.

Israel: We don't want a confrontation with Gaza-bound ship 'Rachel Corrie' - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

so this ain't over.

ring · 06-04-2010, 07:30 AM

Israel's current government leaders are also nervous about maintaining
their 'don't ask, don't tell' position regarding their nuclear weapons, & NPT status.

But that could & probably should be a topic for another thread.

aceventura3 · 06-04-2010, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

no, ace. that's not the problem. your imaginary 3rd category of people who you imagine were on an imaginary version of the flotilla. this is much more accurate as an explanation for the problem:

I am not clear on what you have a problem with. Are you suggesting there is no category three? Are you saying there is a category three, but they were not involved in this? How do you know, either way?

What is your explanation for the excessive risk taken by those running the blockade? Do you think they did not expect there was risk? There are many simple core questions that are not being addressed in my view - when I give thought to theses questions, I can only conclude, the matter was staged.

And to be clear, just because it was staged is not a judgment on it being "good" or "bad", that is another question. "staged" events can deliver results, but it is what it is. I think we can be honest and call things what they actually are, and if we do that we (not you and me but everyone interested in resolving conflict in the ME) can move on to bigger and broader issues.

roachboy · 06-04-2010, 07:42 AM

ace, i have no interest in debating your imaginary entities, your curious hypotheticals because i don't see either the need for them analytically or the interest of ceding a question of fact to one of aceventura's imaginings.

if you actually read the piece from ha'artez i copied, you'd see that the terrain worth focusing on is almost the opposite of yours, and this not only in the sense empirical world/ace's imagination, but also in the sense set into motion by the subheading of the piece, which i'll leave it to you to scroll way back up there and find.

i'm also not interested in your notion of "excessive risk" being run by the activists. the idf raided the boat in international waters well before there was any reason to assume "Excessive risk"---at the point the ships crossed into gazan waters, the rationale would be like that which obtains for any other act of non-violent civil disobedience.

this is not rocket science, ace.

aceventura3 · 06-04-2010, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace, i have no interest in debating your imaginary entities, your curious hypotheticals because i don't see either the need for them analytically or the interest of ceding a question of fact to one of aceventura's imaginings.

if you actually read the piece from ha'artez i copied, you'd see that the terrain worth focusing on is almost the opposite of yours, and this not only in the sense empirical world/ace's imagination, but also in the sense set into motion by the subheading of the piece, which i'll leave it to you to scroll way back up there and find.

i'm also not interested in your notion of "excessive risk" being run by the activists. the idf raided the boat in international waters well before there was any reason to assume "Excessive risk"---at the point the ships crossed into gazan waters, the rationale would be like that which obtains for any other act of non-violent civil disobedience.

this is not rocket science, ace.

Simple questions.

Reminds me of a quote from Schopenhaur:

"All truth goes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Dude, the event was staged. Those who lead were not surprised by what occurred, they expected it. Regardless of one's position on the politics of the issue, the event was staged. So the next questions are by who and why?

roachboy · 06-04-2010, 08:22 AM

staged. you mean organized as an act of civil disobedience? for non-violent actions to be other than a simple massacre there has to be attention. there has to be publicity, has to be exposure. it's because of the exposure that the maladroit execise of power looses. and that is what the idf did.

i don't think anyone set out to fuck up. but they did. and there's little sense in trying to locate some absurd conspiracy behind the scenes to stand all the little soldiers back up again.

the reason they launched the raid is pretty well summed up in the article above, i think...at the level of political generalities anyway. at the level of who made what decision when and how they combined to generate debacle for israel, that's still being handed around.

but the bottom line here is the siege of gaza. if that siege were not in place, none of this would be happening. it's about defending the siege. what you are doing by attempting to concoct some absurd conspiracy to explain why the idf had to murder 10 unarmed people in international waters is to divert attention away from the problem.

the israelis have brutalized the people of gaza for 3 years.
because they did not like the way an open election turned out, they decided to collectively punish a civilian population.

that's the problem behind all this.

powerclown · 06-04-2010, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

hamas have brutalized the people of gaza for 3 years.

Fixed.

If the 'siege' were not in place, Iran et al would be shipping in arms to Hamas by the ton for the sole purpose of attacking Israel. This particular flotilla was organized by an islamic extremist group based in Turkey, thats some coincidence. The blockade needs to stay up until Hamas recognizes Israels right to exist and ceases it plans for its destruction. Thre is a reason why there have been no suicide bombings in Israel the past few years and it has nothing to do with Hamas not trying.

roachboy · 06-04-2010, 08:59 AM

right powerclown. so collective punishment for an election result you don't like is education in correct conduct and the massacre of 1500 civilians a bit of tough love and up is down and white is black and so it is in the rigid little world of people who imagine that supporting israel means justifying every last thing israel does, no matter how misguided, no matter how brutal (occupation anyone? colonialism anyone?) or self-defeating.

you got a hotline to AIPAC?
you never fail to repeat their line.
is eerie.
fixed maybe.

powerclown · 06-04-2010, 09:13 AM

The fact remains that very few countries around the world recognize or correspond with Hamas, so I wouldn't be so quick to put this on the United States. Hamas has done nothing to improve the plight of their people, on the contrary they keep them in misery with their extremist policies. Do you know how many countries ship in truckloads of humanitarian aid into Gaza on a daily basis? One: Israel.

dippin · 06-04-2010, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

The fact remains that very few countries around the world recognize or correspond with Hamas, so I wouldn't be so quick to put this on the United States. Hamas has done nothing to improve the plight of their people, on the contrary they keep them in misery with their extremist policies. Do you know how many countries ship in truckloads of humanitarian aid into Gaza on a daily basis? One: Israel.

Maybe because Israel bans every other country from doing so. And "humanitarian aid' here is very loosely defined. I've posted the list of banned items before. They are common knowledge at this point. Why do people still insist on the "blockade is keeping weapons out" argument?

The_Dunedan · 06-04-2010, 09:31 AM

The problem, PC, is that the aid wouldn't be needed in the first place if Israel hadn't turned Gaza into something like Warsaw, 1941: a walled-off disease farm where people exist on starvation rations or the near equivalent.

Look, this is Israel we're dealing with. Home of Mossad and Shin Bet. If two of the premier intelligence/counter-terrorism formations in the world can't figure out how to whack the leadership of a terrorist organization that is already pinned in place, they've fallen a long, bumpy way. If Hamas is a problem, I'm fully in favour of taking out their leadership. Hell, whack the leadership and a few firstborne sons, go Russian on their asses. Then make sure the next generation of Hamas/Fatah/whoever-takes-over gets the picture. Play ball, and you get to live. Get froggy with the rockets and suicide bombers, and get ready to die choking on your own cock, while somebody else who's probably smarter than you takes your spot in the Organization and the Government. Anybody who orders the launching of rockets against civilians deserves whatever flavour of nasty comes calling. But punishing the entire population of Gaza for the actions of their government is ridiculous. Garishly punishing the givers of orders while leaving the rest of the population unmolested, however, strikes me as a very effective means of achieving Israel's desired ends: security from Hamas attacks and a socially-integrable Palestinian population. This current silliness, OTOH, is counterproductive at best and is rapidly turning into an albatross.

roachboy · 06-04-2010, 09:40 AM

except that the israeli military and the political right/ultra-right need that command structure to plausibly be in place because it allows for the marketing of the Cause in the way it is marketed.

for example, if you don't want to make any meaningful progress with the west bank because it will inevitably mean dismantling the settlements, then the myth of a symmetrical conflict is useful. that's it's obviously entirely false is beside the point. reality is always secondary in these matters.

the fate of the ultra-right is directly at stake in this, and that of the political right is by extension.

your position presupposes that there's actually an interest in taking out hamas. there isn't any such interest. the only thing that interested the israeli right less than that was allowing hamas to govern, so to moderate. that would have been bad bad bad. whence the siege.

Baraka_Guru · 06-04-2010, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Hamas has done nothing to improve the plight of their people, on the contrary they keep them in misery with their extremist policies.

Quote:

Is Hamas only a terrorist group?

No. In addition to its military wing, the so-called Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network. Indeed, the extensive social and political work done by Hamas - and its reputation among Palestinians as averse to corruption - partly explain its defeat of the Fatah old guard in the 2006 legislative vote. Hamas funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. "Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. The Palestinian Authority often fails to provide such services, and Hamas's efforts in this area—as well as a reputation for honesty, in contrast to the many Fatah officials accused of corruption—help to explain the broad popularity it summoned to defeat Fatah in the PA's recent elections.

Hamas - Council on Foreign Relations

This helps explain why Hamas became popular enough to get elected. People seem to only know about Hamas' militant aspect.

Quote:

Do you know how many countries ship in truckloads of humanitarian aid into Gaza on a daily basis? One: Israel.

Yes, and this is because of Israel, as is obvious, and it's down to 100 truckloads a day (with an item variety of only 74), compared to well over a dozen times that before the siege.

Do you deny that Gaza is facing a humanitarian crisis?

hiredgun · 06-04-2010, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

The fact remains that very few countries around the world recognize or correspond with Hamas, so I wouldn't be so quick to put this on the United States. Hamas has done nothing to improve the plight of their people, on the contrary they keep them in misery with their extremist policies. Do you know how many countries ship in truckloads of humanitarian aid into Gaza on a daily basis? One: Israel.

This is like saying that a jailer should be lauded for providing food for his prisoners. Yes, the Israelis are to some degree discharging their responsibility for the civilians trapped in their siege. That doesn't imply that the siege itself is hunky-dory, that it is justified, and most importantly, that it is strategically effective in any way.

Willravel · 06-04-2010, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Given three categories:

One, those who are concerned about the about Palestinian people, their needs and rights.

Two, those who are concerned about the Palestinian people, their needs and rights - also with a dislike of Israel and the way Israel is handling the issue.

Three, those who simply hate Israel and want it eliminated off of the face of the earth.

I think most people involved with running the blockade fit into categories one and two. However, and I don't know what portion, there are some in category three. Category three is the problem. Category three is the reason there was violence.

Hold on just a second, I think we may be operating with different information. The civilians captured, taken to Israel, and released have started to give their eyewitness accounts of what happened, and all of them, without exception, say IDF opened fire before landing on the flotilla... not just with teargas and smoke grenades as I previously posted, but with suppressive fire that hit some of the humanitarians. There's already been write-ups about this in the NYT, Guardian, and elsewhere, starting about mid-day yesterday. IDF naval forces opened fire with live rounds before anyone on the aid ships could have possibly done anything to instigate violence other than sailing for Gaza, which isn't an instigation of violence but belligerence.

While I suppose it's certainly possible some people on those aid ships are the third type you describe (though, seriously, as someone relatively active in the Palestinian freedom movement, these people are exceedingly rare), I'm not entirely sure it matters in this specific instance. The violence on the flotilla as the IDF forces foolishly repeled into a crowd was a direct response to the shooting of unarmed civilians, not the other way around. If that wasn't bad enough, the IDF commandos that landed also opened fire. This is when the American citizen from Turkey had 4 shots to the head and one to the chest all from short range.

With all due respect, I cannot see how anyone could be trying to justify the actions of the IDF under orders from Israeli officials given the available information.

Here is a link to the NYT article, in which witnesses attested to the actual timeline of events.

Baraka_Guru · 06-04-2010, 12:17 PM

Will, much of the problem is this:
Israeli PR machine won Gaza flotilla media battle | Antony Lerman | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Idyllic · 06-04-2010, 12:18 PM

Quote:

A flotilla smoke screen?
By JONATHAN SPYER
06/04/2010 12:33

The world condemns Israel for the deadly raid on the Mavi Marmara, ignoring the growing threat of radical Islam.
The international reaction to the events surrounding the Gaza flotilla this week reflects the growing divide between the real strategic situation facing the Middle East, and a strange “virtual” conflict conjured up by Islamist propagandists for consumption by their Western dupes. The emergence and proliferation of this latter perception is testimony both to the tireless, skillful and fervent activity of Islamist ideologues and organizations, and to the profound credulity of considerable sections of Western public opinion.

What happened on the flotilla is a product of the growing Islamization of regional politics and, it appears, the failure of Israeli planners to develop a coherent response to this. The Turkish IHH group (Insani Yardim Vakfi – Humanitarian Relief Foundation), which sponsored the Mavi Marmara, is a grouping connected to the global Muslim Brotherhood. Going back to the 1990s, it has engaged in facilitating the journeys of young Islamists to some of the hottest fronts of the international jihad: to Afghanistan, and before that to Chechnya and Bosnia.
Like other organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, IHH is openly and unambiguously opposed to the existence of Israel, and is keen to assist Islamist organizations seeking to destroy it.

IHH has read the zeitgeist of the early 21st century well. It seeks to combine a superficial commitment to “human rights” and the mantle of victimhood, with support for Islamist militancy against the West. These aspects, and the contradiction between them, have been very much in evidence this week.

Journalists who covered the previous “aid convoy” to Gaza – George Galloway’s over-ground Viva Palestina extravaganza last year – were among the groups least surprised by the week’s events. On that convoy, there was a very notable divide between young, Western leftist participants, and a hard-core group of Turkish Islamists, who openly proclaimed their commitment to jihad and fighting Israel. The Turkish Islamist contingent was there courtesy of IHH.

The latter group were centrally involved in the clashes with Egyptian security forces on the southern Gaza border at that time, in which one Egyptian policeman was killed. Western participants in the convoy, some of whose genuine naivete and out-of-placeness in the Middle East cannot be overstated, were afraid and depressed by their unexpected companions.

It remains a mystery as to how the Israeli authorities remained unaware of this very significant divide between the participants in the flotilla. The Turkish Islamists came to fight in an ongoing conflict whose aims and dimensions they understood with perfect clarity. This may be ascertained by their preparations, their actions and by statements made by them prior to the events.

AT FIRST glance, it appears that simple ignorance of this situation led to the inadequate planning that resulted in what happened on the ship. In the usual Israeli fashion, poor preparation was to some degree offset by the rapid adjustment and skillful performance of the naval commandos. Still, it is to be hoped and expected that the following item of knowledge will now penetrate the awareness of the security establishment: What took place on the decks of the Mavi Marmara was a skirmish in the Israel-Islamist conflict.

The meeting between the ambitions of Islamist states such as Iran from above, and the genuine and massive energies from below that are being generated by Islamist movements form the engine behind this conflict. The Hamas enclave in Gaza is the distant, furthest west outpost of the Iranian-led regional Islamist bloc.

The IHH activists wanted to open the sea road to Gaza. Their purpose was not humanitarian. As has been seen, the Hamas authorities have rejected the rapid entry into the Strip of the paltry aid brought by the convoy. Rather, it was strategic. They hoped to break Gaza’s isolation, and allow the blighted Strip to flourish – as an armed camp pointed at the Jewish state and as an example of Islamic governance.

They have not yet succeeded in this. They have, however, scored an achievement in their accompanying goal of deepening the diplomatic solitude of Israel.

Such were the plans of the Islamist element on the Mavi Marmara, and of the IHH organizers behind them.

In much of the West, there is a flat refusal to engage with or internalize this reality. Instead, an avalanche of copy and media coverage was generated by the events in which Israel’s concerns were seen as utterly inexplicable, the Islamist militants on the ship were depicted as peace-loving humanitarians and it was suggested that sanctions against Israel would be the best way to solve the problem.

What is perhaps chiefly ironic in the situation is that the Western lack of awareness of what is really taking place in the Middle East may even have been mirrored by the Israeli planners who failed to note the difference between Islamist militants and Western fellow travelers. But whether or not that was the case, the Western response to these events reflects a profound disconnect between perception and reality in relation to the region. The establishment of this disconnect is one of the chief strategic achievements of the Islamist side.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Iran, the chief beneficiary of Western and Israeli confusion, this week announced its determination to continue enriching uranium to 20 percent and beyond. Iranian official Ali Asghar Soltanieh casually dismissed the possibility that proposed sanctions would divert Teheran from its course. He also refused to commit to abandoning enrichment, even if the proposed Turkish-Brazilian fuel swap deal were implemented.

This item was buried at the bottom of the front page on the Reuters Web site, below a report of a cyclone off the coast of Oman. The main headline, at the top of the page and accompanied by a large photograph, was on Binyamin Netanyahu’s opposition to an international inquiry into the Mavi Marmara events. The news agenda suits the aims of the Teheran regime and its allies perfectly. The real business proceeds quietly, while the world remains diverted by the noisy sound and light show 1,500 kilometers to the west.

The writer is a senior researcher at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, IDC, Herzliya.

Words from the website listed above, Hamas - Council on Foreign Relations wherein it is these words, quoted below, that far surpass the “humanitarian” action of hamas for their own people, considering that if they just accepted Israel’s right to exist and stopped the persecution and killing of Jews and real non-combatant innocents (people who are not carrying chains, and metal poles, and flash grenades, and knives…. using these things as weapons makes you an armed combatant, period), then the issues between Palestine and Israel would begin to smooth over and the two, Palestinians and Israelis, could find ways to work together, as this IS what Israel wants. If I were a tyrannical autocratic theocracy, using my people to shield me and to die for me and to “expose” my enemy as some ruthless tyrants I would want them to love me enough to at least make it look like I really give a shit about their welfare, when in actuality the only thing they care about is the destruction of Israel and all Israelis, and next all infidels who stand against the regimes based on extreme fundamental Islam.

Quote:

What is Hamas?
Hamas is the largest and most influential Palestinian militant movement. In January 2006, the group won the Palestinian Authority's (PA) general legislative elections, defeating Fatah, the party of the PA's president, Mahmoud Abbas, and setting the stage for a power struggle. Since attaining power, Hamas has continued its refusal to recognize the state of Israel, leading to crippling economic sanctions. Historically, Hamas has sponsored an extensive social service network. The group has also operated a terrorist wing, carrying out suicide bombings and attacks using mortars and short-range rockets. Hamas has launched attacks both in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and inside the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel. In Arabic, the word "hamas" means zeal. But it's also an Arabic acronym for "Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya," or Islamic Resistance Movement.

What are Hamas’s origins?
Hamas grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, a religious and political organization founded in Egypt with branches throughout the Arab world. Beginning in the late 1960s, Hamas's founder and spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, preached and did charitable work in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, both of which were occupied by Israel following the 1967 Six-Day War. In 1973, Yassin established al-Mujamma' al-Islami (the Islamic Center) to coordinate the Muslim Brotherhood's political activities in Gaza. Yassin founded Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood's local political arm in December 1987, following the eruption of the first intifada, a Palestinian uprising against Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas published its official charter in 1988, moving decidedly away from the Muslim Brotherhood's ethos of nonviolence.
The first Hamas suicide bombing took place in April 1993.

Where does Hamas operate?
Historically, Hamas has operated as an opposition group in Gaza, the West Bank, and inside Israel. Most of the population of Gaza and the West Bank is officially ruled by the Palestinian Authority government, so Hamas’ new role as the legislature’s controlling party has forced the group to reconsider the function and scope of its operations. For instance, since taking power in 2006, Hamas leaders have embarked on several diplomatic visits throughout the region. Early on, some observers hoped that political legitimacy—and the accountability that comes with it—could wean Hamas away from violence. But to date, the group has refused to eschew violence and remains adamant about reversing the decision by its rival faction, the more secular Fatah movement, to recognize Israel's right to exist. In the summer of 2007, Hamas tensions with the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a Fatah man, came to a head and Hamas routed Fatah supporters, killing many and sending others fleeing to the West Bank. The result was a de facto geographic division of Palestinian-held territory, with Hamas holding sway in Gaza and Fatah maintaining the internationally recognized Palestinian Authority government in the West Bank town of Ramallah. Egyptian efforts to reconcile the two factions have come to nothing.
Since coming to power in Gaza, rockets fired from the Hamas enclave have consistently landed on Israeli cities near the border, sometimes producing casualties. Israel consistently alleged that Iranian and other weapons were being smuggled into Gaza through a series of tunnels, and with Egypt maintained tight control on the enclaves borders. International aid agencies say this led to severe shortages. A six-month ceasefire calmed things somewhat in 2008, but toward the end of the year, Hamas called off the truce and resumed firing rockets into Israel. The response was an air assault in late December and, in the first week of 2009, a full blown Israeli invasion of the territory.

In what does Hamas believe and what are its goals?
Hamas combines Palestinian nationalism with Islamic fundamentalism. Its founding charter commits the group to the destruction of Israel, the replacement of the PA with an Islamist state on the West Bank and Gaza, and to raising "the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine." Its leaders have called suicide attacks the "F-16" of the Palestinian people. In July 2009, Khaled Meshaal said Hamas was willing to cooperate with the United States (WSJ) on promoting a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Hamas, he said, would accept a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders provided Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to Israel and East Jerusalem be recognized as the Palestinian capital. The proposal fell short of recognizing the state of Israel, a necessary step for Hamas to be included in peace talks.

Is Hamas only a terrorist group?
No. In addition to its military wing, the so-called Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network. Indeed, the extensive social and political work done by Hamas - and its reputation among Palestinians as averse to corruption - partly explain its defeat of the Fatah old guard in the 2006 legislative vote. Hamas funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. "Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. The Palestinian Authority often fails to provide such services, and Hamas's efforts in this area—as well as a reputation for honesty, in contrast to the many Fatah officials accused of corruption—help to explain the broad popularity it summoned to defeat Fatah in the PA's recent elections.

How big is Hamas?
Hamas’s military wing is believed to have more than one thousand active members and thousands of supporters and sympathizers. On March 22, 2004, more than two hundred thousand Palestinians are estimated to have marched in Yassin’s funeral. On April 18, 2004, a similar number publicly mourned the death of Rantisi.
Where does Hamas’s money come from?
Since its electoral victory to lead the PA, Hamas has had public funds at its disposal, though it does not have access to the foreign-aid dollars traditionally provided by the United States and European Union to the PA. Historically, much of Hamas's funding came from Palestinian expatriates and private donors in Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Persian Gulf states. Iran also provides significant support, which some diplomats say could amount to $20 million to $30 million per year. In addition, some Muslim charities in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe funnel money into Hamas-backed social service groups. In December 2001, the Bush administration seized the assets of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest Muslim charity in the United States, on suspicions it was funding Hamas.

What attacks is Hamas responsible for?
Hamas is believed to have killed more than five hundred people in more than 350 separate terrorist attacks since 1993. Not all Hamas's attacks have been carried out by suicide bombers. The group has also accepted responsibility for assaults using mortars, short-range rockets, and small arms fire. In 1996, Hamas bombings played an important role in undermining the election hopes of Labor Party leader Shimon Peres, who represented the succession to assassinated Oslo Accords signatory, Yitzhak Rabin. (Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu, who ran against the accords, won instead). Between 2001 and 2003, in particular, Hamas and its comrades of Palestinian Islamic Jihad carried out dozens of such attacks, ultimately leading Israel to begin construction of a barrier between itself and Palestinian regions.

How does Hamas recruit and train suicide bombers?
The organization generally targets deeply religious young men—although some bombers have been older. The recruits do not fit the usual psychological profile of suicidal people, who are often desperate or clinically depressed. Hamas bombers often hold paying jobs, even in poverty-stricken Gaza. What they have in common, studies say, is an intense hatred of Israel. After a bombing, Hamas gives the family of the suicide bomber between three thousand dollars and five thousand dollars and assures them their son died a martyr in holy jihad.
The recruits undergo intense religious indoctrination, attend lectures, and undertake long fasts. The week before the bombing, the volunteers are watched closely by two Hamas activists for any signs of wavering, according to Nasra Hassan, writing in the New Yorker. Shortly before the "sacred explosion," as Hamas calls it, the bomber records a video testament. To draw inspiration, he repeatedly watches his video and those made by his predecessors and then sets off for his would-be martyrdom after performing a ritual ablution and donning clean clothes. Hamas clerics assure the bombers their deaths will be painless and that dozens of virgins await them in paradise. The average bombing costs about $150.

Is Hamas popular among Palestinians?
According to Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki, in late 2006 Hamas still enjoyed public backing, though most Palestinians also wanted to see a negotiated settlement with Israel. According to Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, the U.S. security coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Territories, brutal internal clashes in Gaza have caused Hamas to lose some goodwill among Palestinians. In fact, the group has a history of fluctuating approval: Following the collapse of the peace process in the late 1990s, Hamas’ popularity rose as Arafat’s fell. In the spring of 2002, during a period of intensified armed conflict between Israeli security forces and Hamas militants, polls showed that Arafat's Fatah faction of the PLO and the Islamists each commanded support from roughly 30 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza (the remaining Palestinians were either independent, undecided, or supported other factions). But trust in Hamas reportedly dropped in 2004. In a poll conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center (JMCC) after Arafat's death, 18.6 percent of Palestinians named Hamas as the Palestinian faction they most trusted, down from 23 percent a year earlier. Hamas experienced a short-lived spike in popularity after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005; after a rocket explosion at a Hamas rally September 23, 2005, killed fifteen people, Hamas blamed Israel and launched rocket attacks against it. Israel retaliated with punitive air strikes, which Palestinians blamed Hamas for provoking. The explosion was revealed to be an accident. In late 2008 and early 2009, during another violent flare up which resulted in Israeli land raids into the Gaza Strip, several news agencies reported that Hamas' popularity had stayed constant or even increased. By the end of June, public support for Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip fell again to 18.8 percent, according to recent JMCC polls.

Facts found within the above information;

1. Hamas is the largest and most influential Palestinian militant movement.

2. Since attaining power, Hamas has continued its refusal to recognize the state of Israel, leading to crippling economic sanctions.

3. The group has also operated a terrorist wing, carrying out suicide bombings and attacks using mortars and short-range rockets.

4. Hamas has launched attacks both in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and inside the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel.

5. In Arabic, the word "hamas" means zeal. But it's also an Arabic acronym for "Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya," or Islamic Resistance Movement.

6. Hamas published its official charter in 1988, moving decidedly away from the Muslim Brotherhood's ethos of nonviolence.

7. The first Hamas suicide bombing took place in April 1993.

8. hamas has refused to eschew violence and remains adamant about reversing the decision by its rival faction, the more secular Fatah movement, to recognize Israel's right to exist.

9. In the summer of 2007, Hamas routed Fatah supporters, killing many and sending others fleeing to the West Bank.

10. Since coming to power in Gaza, rockets fired from the Hamas enclave have consistently landed on Israeli cities near the border.

11. Hamas called off the truce and resumed firing rockets into Israel. Which led to the dec08/jan09 invasion by Israel.

12. Hamas is believed to have killed more than five hundred people in more than 350 separate terrorist attacks since 1993.

13. Not all Hamas's attacks have been carried out by suicide bombers. The group has also accepted responsibility for assaults using mortars, short-range rockets, and small arms fire.

14. In 1996, Hamas bombings played an important role in undermining the election hopes of Labor Party leader Shimon Peres, who represented the succession to assassinated Oslo Accords signatory, Yitzhak Rabin. (Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu, who ran against the accords, won instead). Between 2001 and 2003, in particular, Hamas and its comrades of Palestinian Islamic Jihad carried out dozens of such attacks, ultimately leading Israel to begin construction of a barrier between itself and Palestinian regions.

15. The organization generally targets deeply religious young men—although some bombers have been older.

16. After a bombing, Hamas gives the family of the suicide bomber between three thousand dollars and five thousand dollars and assures them their son died a martyr in holy jihad.

17. The recruits undergo intense religious indoctrination, attend lectures, and undertake long fasts. The week before the bombing, the volunteers are watched closely by two Hamas activists for any signs of wavering, according to Nasra Hassan, writing in the New Yorker. Shortly before the "sacred explosion," as Hamas calls it, the bomber records a video testament. To draw inspiration, he repeatedly watches his video and those made by his predecessors and then sets off for his would-be martyrdom after performing a ritual ablution and donning clean clothes. Hamas clerics assure the bombers their deaths will be painless and that dozens of virgins await them in paradise. The average bombing costs about $150.

Yes, hamas are very good people, they treat their constituents well, they “fund” them and keep them feed and happy with their 70 million a year help, what good would being in Gaza do if they lost all there would be bombers er.. scratch that, “support.” How many suicide bombers at 3 to 5 thousand plus 150 dollars each, can 70 million buy? A lot!

dippin · 06-04-2010, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

Words from the website listed above, Hamas - Council on Foreign Relations wherein it is these words, quoted below, that far surpass the “humanitarian” action of hamas for their own people, considering that if they just accepted Israel’s right to exist and stopped the persecution and killing of Jews and real non-combatant innocents (people who are not carrying chains, and metal poles, and flash grenades, and knives…. using these things as weapons makes you an armed combatant, period), then the issues between Palestine and Israel would begin to smooth over and the two, Palestinians and Israelis, could find ways to work together, as this IS what Israel wants. If I were a tyrannical autocratic theocracy, using my people to shield me and to die for me and to “expose” my enemy as some ruthless tyrants I would want them to love me enough to at least make it look like I really give a shit about their welfare, when in actuality the only thing they care about is the destruction of Israel and all Israelis, and next all infidels who stand against the regimes based on extreme fundamental Islam.

Facts found within the above information;

1. Hamas is the largest and most influential Palestinian militant movement.

2. Since attaining power, Hamas has continued its refusal to recognize the state of Israel, leading to crippling economic sanctions.

3. The group has also operated a terrorist wing, carrying out suicide bombings and attacks using mortars and short-range rockets.

4. Hamas has launched attacks both in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and inside the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel.

5. In Arabic, the word "hamas" means zeal. But it's also an Arabic acronym for "Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya," or Islamic Resistance Movement.

6. Hamas published its official charter in 1988, moving decidedly away from the Muslim Brotherhood's ethos of nonviolence.

7. The first Hamas suicide bombing took place in April 1993.

8. hamas has refused to eschew violence and remains adamant about reversing the decision by its rival faction, the more secular Fatah movement, to recognize Israel's right to exist.

9. In the summer of 2007, Hamas routed Fatah supporters, killing many and sending others fleeing to the West Bank.

10. Since coming to power in Gaza, rockets fired from the Hamas enclave have consistently landed on Israeli cities near the border.

11. Hamas called off the truce and resumed firing rockets into Israel. Which led to the dec08/jan09 invasion by Israel.

12. Hamas is believed to have killed more than five hundred people in more than 350 separate terrorist attacks since 1993.

13. Not all Hamas's attacks have been carried out by suicide bombers. The group has also accepted responsibility for assaults using mortars, short-range rockets, and small arms fire.

14. In 1996, Hamas bombings played an important role in undermining the election hopes of Labor Party leader Shimon Peres, who represented the succession to assassinated Oslo Accords signatory, Yitzhak Rabin. (Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu, who ran against the accords, won instead). Between 2001 and 2003, in particular, Hamas and its comrades of Palestinian Islamic Jihad carried out dozens of such attacks, ultimately leading Israel to begin construction of a barrier between itself and Palestinian regions.

15. The organization generally targets deeply religious young men—although some bombers have been older.

16. After a bombing, Hamas gives the family of the suicide bomber between three thousand dollars and five thousand dollars and assures them their son died a martyr in holy jihad.

17. The recruits undergo intense religious indoctrination, attend lectures, and undertake long fasts. The week before the bombing, the volunteers are watched closely by two Hamas activists for any signs of wavering, according to Nasra Hassan, writing in the New Yorker. Shortly before the "sacred explosion," as Hamas calls it, the bomber records a video testament. To draw inspiration, he repeatedly watches his video and those made by his predecessors and then sets off for his would-be martyrdom after performing a ritual ablution and donning clean clothes. Hamas clerics assure the bombers their deaths will be painless and that dozens of virgins await them in paradise. The average bombing costs about $150.

Yes, hamas are very good people, they treat their constituents well, they “fund” them and keep them feed and happy with their 70 million a year help, what good would being in Gaza do if they lost all there would be bombers er.. scratch that, “support.” How many suicide bombers at 3 to 5 thousand plus 150 dollars each, can 70 million buy? A lot!

Quote:

This is more of the ridiculous binary thinking: if you are against the eviction without recourse of Palestinians, the establishment of Jewish-only roads, the restriction of Palestinian access to water, and a blockade that keeps even basic necessities out, then you must be for terrorism and the destruction of Israel.

silent_jay · 06-04-2010, 12:50 PM

Quote:

(people who are not carrying chains, and metal poles, and flash grenades, and knives…. using these things as weapons makes you an armed combatant, period)

Are you ever going to show proof the activists on the ship were terrorists, or are you just going to keep this circle jerk of implying it going repeatedly?

Quote:

then the issues between Palestine and Israel would begin to smooth over and the two, Palestinians and Israelis, could find ways to work together, as this IS what Israel wants.

You sure do assume to know what Israel wants a lot, and for someone who said earlier that passing blame on this incident at the moment is too soon, you sure do pass blame at every opportunity, you're just all over the place on this one, one minute they're "activists"(terrorists even though you won't come right out and say it), then it's don't pass blame, yet you blame the activists from your first post when you called them 'hate filled animals', really Idyllic, you're all over the place, and talkign out both sides of your mouth, it sure would be nice to get a straight response from you other than these implied terms, then you feigning ignorance when you're called on it.

Baraka_Guru · 06-04-2010, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

Yes, hamas are very good people, they treat their constituents well, they “fund” them and keep them feed and happy with their 70 million a year help, what good would being in Gaza do if they lost all there would be bombers er.. scratch that, “support.”

I'm not defending Hamas; I'm pointing out the broader scope of what they really are, unlike you who would rather wag the dog.

Quote:

How many suicide bombers at 3 to 5 thousand plus 150 dollars each, can 70 million buy? A lot!

At least 13,592 a year. That's 37 a day. What's your point?

Never mind, because it was completely lost.

I could list the law and human rights violations conducted by Israel, but that wouldn't be the point here. We're not watching a scoreboard. We're not keeping a tally.

aceventura3 · 06-04-2010, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Hold on just a second, I think we may be operating with different information. The civilians captured, taken to Israel, and released have started to give their eyewitness accounts of what happened, and all of them, without exception, say IDF opened fire before landing on the flotilla... not just with teargas and smoke grenades as I previously posted, but with suppressive fire that hit some of the humanitarians.

I don't know what happened and the truth may prove elusive because even eye witnesses may not know the whole story. I stand by the points in my post. I acknowledge that there may have been innocent victims. I acknowledge that people on both sides may have over-reacted given their SR's. But, the simple questions remain on the table in my opinion and I still come to the same conclusions.

Quote:

There's already been write-ups about this in the NYT, Guardian, and elsewhere, starting about mid-day yesterday. IDF naval forces opened fire with live rounds before anyone on the aid ships could have possibly done anything to instigate violence other than sailing for Gaza, which isn't an instigation of violence but belligerence.

Why go in guns blazing on this one ship? If what you share is true, we are talking cold blooded murder. Do you think the Israeli government authorized this act of potential murder as described or was it a case of individuals over-reacting?

Quote:

While I suppose it's certainly possible some people on those aid ships are the third type you describe (though, seriously, as someone relatively active in the Palestinian freedom movement, these people are exceedingly rare), I'm not entirely sure it matters in this specific instance. The violence on the flotilla as the IDF forces foolishly repeled into a crowd was a direct response to the shooting of unarmed civilians, not the other way around. If that wasn't bad enough, the IDF commandos that landed also opened fire. This is when the American citizen from Turkey had 4 shots to the head and one to the chest all from short range.

Again, a fundamental question is why would they take the high risk of challenging trained military (trained to kill), in the dark, with a radio response of defiance, with innocent people on-board (aged and children), and not be prepared for a potential violent response? They had to be prepared for this, or they expect us to accept the unbelievable. Why would they expect a reasoned response from young people in the military? Again, at this point, you will never make me believe they did not know or expect that there would be violence.

I am not arguing the politics of the issue, I am just stating what I now see as obvious given the information made available to me. The motivation has to go beyond food and aid. And if so, what was the motivation - I think I know - but do you insist that it was only food and aid?

Quote:

With all due respect, I cannot see how anyone could be trying to justify the actions of the IDF under orders from Israeli officials given the available information.

My questions are simple. I have not read clear responses. Hell, you could even say they where just foolish and reckless. Even if the other party is wrong or responds with excessive force, they should have known the risk and I expect that they did. There was clearly another agenda outside of food and aid - we may disagree on what that is, but how can you honestly take the position that food and aid was the only thing on the agenda?

---------- Post added at 09:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

staged. you mean organized as an act of civil disobedience?

I personally know people who actively engaged in civil disobedience both in this country and in African nations. There was never, according to their accounts, any pretense of the risks involved and they were fully aware of what and why they did what they did and where willing to accept the consequences. They would not allow participants to not know and understand the risks, nor would they put children on the front line. There was honor. In this case, why does it take so much effort to get to what is obvious? Why didn't/don't they say what is obvious from the very beginning? I think I know why, do you?

Willravel · 06-04-2010, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't know what happened and the truth may prove elusive because even eye witnesses may not know the whole story.

So far we have definitive evidence the information coming out of Israel is dishonest (edited tapes, lies about people on the flotilla, stories changing), however we still don't have any evidence the witnesses from the aid shipment are lying. This, to me, signals that, if you are to put the word of one party over the other, logic dictates it should be the civilian humanitarians. A lot of people may be uncomfortable with that answer, but it remains regardless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Why go in guns blazing on this one ship? If what you share is true, we are talking cold blooded murder. Do you think the Israeli government authorized this act of potential murder as described or was it a case of individuals over-reacting?

Judging by the recent history of IDF reaction to what it perceives as a threat, it seems perfectly reasonable. Please remember, Israel has an admitted policy of asymmetrical warfare, in which they respond much more strongly than what's necessary in dealing with any perceived attack or threat. This flotilla represents a new kind of threat to Israel, one they don't know how to defend against. Consider the case of the young American woman that was run over by an Israeli bulldozer for trying to, using nonviolent protest, stop the bulldozing of Palestinian homes to expand settlements. They didn't hesitate to respond to nonviolent resistance with deadly force.

The simple concept behind the asymmetrical response policy is deterrence. The Israeli government justifies the way it reacts to possible threats with the rationalization that it will deter further possible threats of a similar nature. Consider how it reacted to Lebanon in 2006 or Gaza in 2008. These were not proportional responses by any measure. Similarly, the response to blockade running in the name of nonviolent resistance was always going to be a violent one on the part of the IDF because that's how they respond to anything. What I don't think the humanitarian protesters understood was just how far the IDF was
prepared to go in the name of preventing the next aid flotilla.

The irony is Israel's policy of extreme response is its greatest threat in that it inspires similarly extreme reactions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Again, a fundamental question is why would they take the high risk of challenging trained military (trained to kill), in the dark, with a radio response of defiance, with innocent people on-board (aged and children), and not be prepared for a potential violent response?

Why? For the people of Gaza. It's the same reason aid workers go into war zones all over the planet, from Darfur to Burma, with the singular mission of helping the helpless. Is it foolish? I can't really say. It's certainly idealistic and it's absolutely brave. The only way this blockade is going to end is if pressure from the rest of the world becomes unbearable, and this incident has certainly set us on that path.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am not arguing the politics of the issue, I am just stating what I now see as obvious given the information made available to me. The motivation has to go beyond food and aid. And if so, what was the motivation - I think I know - but do you insist that it was only food and aid?

The primary mission was to get aid to Gaza. The secondary mission was nonviolent protest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

My questions are simple. I have not read clear responses. Hell, you could even say they where just foolish and reckless. Even if the other party is wrong or responds with excessive force, they should have known the risk and I expect that they did. There was clearly another agenda outside of food and aid - we may disagree on what that is, but how can you honestly take the position that food and aid was the only thing on the agenda?

So the "agenda" of nonviolent protest against a humanitarian disaster should be condemned? I strongly, strongly disagree. These people risked their lives, and some of them lost their lives, in the name of freeing an imprisoned and abused people. They chose to respond to the Israeli government in a much more brave and selfless way than the Palestinian terrorists who fire rockets. We could all learn a thing or two from the agenda they were pushing.

Willravel · 06-04-2010, 04:01 PM

Additional findings of the dead humanatarians:

Quote:

The results revealed that a 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back. A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has US citizenship, was shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back. Two other men were shot four times, and five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, said Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the council of forensic medicine.

Gaza flotilla activists were shot in head at close range | World news | The Guardian

Self-defense gunshot wounds do not occur in the backs of the aggressors. The IDF naval commandos are highly trained, suggesting that shots fired are not going to miss their mark and coincidentally hit a whole bunch of people from behind because of poor marksmanship, but due to intentional executions.

Let that word sink in: executions.

The_Dunedan · 06-04-2010, 05:44 PM

I'll forsake further comment in favor of our military members, but to say this: such wounds are easily achievable when dealing with a self-defense shooting at close and crowded quarters.

hiredgun · 06-04-2010, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Additional findings of the dead humanatarians:

Gaza flotilla activists were shot in head at close range | World news | The Guardian

Self-defense gunshot wounds do not occur in the backs of the aggressors. The IDF naval commandos are highly trained, suggesting that shots fired are not going to miss their mark and coincidentally hit a whole bunch of people from behind because of poor marksmanship, but due to intentional executions.

Let that word sink in: executions.

I don't think it's likely that execution is an accurate description. What is the evidence for this? For whatever reason, some passengers picked up knives and bars and attacked the boarding party - this means that the moments that followed were likely very chaotic, and in hand-to-hand combat the injuries we see here don't surprise me.

Badly botched, unprepared to subdue the passengers in a practical way, yes. Execution? I really don't think that's what happened.

ring · 06-04-2010, 06:15 PM

More eyewitness accounts from the activists:

http://www.examiner.com/x-38220-Orla...egin-to-emerge

Four shots to the head? Five shots to the stomach?

If you don't believe these were executions,
would you agree that perhaps this could be the excessive asymmetrical warfare tactics
that Will mentioned earlier?

06-03-2010, 01:46 PM	#168 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Idyllic: You might want to do more research into the history of Zionism. It's actually a very new idea compared to the long history of Judaism, and until WWII was largely regarded as a dangerous and unsanctified heresy. A significant portion of the Orthodox/Hasidic Jewish population -still- defines Zionism in those terms. Check these guys out: True Torah Jews Against Zionism They go into far more detail than I can here, but suffice it to say that until very recently, the political re-occupation of the Holy Land by the Jews was seen as effrontery to God: "We get the land back when the Messiah -gives- it back. Until then, it's not ours to give OR TAKE" was the essence of mainstream Jewish teaching until Theodore Herzl came along and turned 1800-ish years of Jewish tradition regarding the Holy Land on its' head. Edited to add: I would have been all in favour of the Jews being given, say, Germany. Japan. Any piece thereof. Maybe Vichy France. The Germans and Japanese, after all, started the whole beastly mess and surrendered unconditionally after engaging in a series of war-crimes and crimes against humanity which have since set the standard for atrocity and scale of mass murder. The terms of the Treaty Of Versailles were ridiculous and unfair, but the problem of this humiliation was much worsened by the fact that Germany and Germans were allowed to believe that they had not been defeated. Japan, in particular, could probably do with the sorts of improvements that would have come at that point with the arrival of several hundred thousand armed and very pissed-off settlers supported by the US military. I'm sure Stalin would have been happy to get the Soviet Jews off his hands as well. Maybe the creation of something like Israel in the land of people who actually had it coming would have convinced the Japanese that after being caught raping entire cities, and after having had two cities vaporised, they were this time going to learn to goddamnedbehaveorelse. This would include, among other things, not erecting statues of generals responsible for horrors such as Nanking, along with bothering to teach their schoolchildren more about WWII (and how the Japanese Empire came to be involved) than just "there was a war, and then the Americans dropped two horrible atomic bombs and killed lots and lots of innocent people." Last edited by The_Dunedan; 06-03-2010 at 06:45 PM..

06-04-2010, 07:30 AM	#176 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	Israel's current government leaders are also nervous about maintaining their 'don't ask, don't tell' position regarding their nuclear weapons, & NPT status. But that could & probably should be a topic for another thread. Last edited by ring; 06-04-2010 at 09:05 AM.. Reason: forgot leaders

06-04-2010, 07:42 AM	#178 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace, i have no interest in debating your imaginary entities, your curious hypotheticals because i don't see either the need for them analytically or the interest of ceding a question of fact to one of aceventura's imaginings. if you actually read the piece from ha'artez i copied, you'd see that the terrain worth focusing on is almost the opposite of yours, and this not only in the sense empirical world/ace's imagination, but also in the sense set into motion by the subheading of the piece, which i'll leave it to you to scroll way back up there and find. i'm also not interested in your notion of "excessive risk" being run by the activists. the idf raided the boat in international waters well before there was any reason to assume "Excessive risk"---at the point the ships crossed into gazan waters, the rationale would be like that which obtains for any other act of non-violent civil disobedience. this is not rocket science, ace. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-04-2010, 08:22 AM	#180 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	staged. you mean organized as an act of civil disobedience? for non-violent actions to be other than a simple massacre there has to be attention. there has to be publicity, has to be exposure. it's because of the exposure that the maladroit execise of power looses. and that is what the idf did. i don't think anyone set out to fuck up. but they did. and there's little sense in trying to locate some absurd conspiracy behind the scenes to stand all the little soldiers back up again. the reason they launched the raid is pretty well summed up in the article above, i think...at the level of political generalities anyway. at the level of who made what decision when and how they combined to generate debacle for israel, that's still being handed around. but the bottom line here is the siege of gaza. if that siege were not in place, none of this would be happening. it's about defending the siege. what you are doing by attempting to concoct some absurd conspiracy to explain why the idf had to murder 10 unarmed people in international waters is to divert attention away from the problem. the israelis have brutalized the people of gaza for 3 years. because they did not like the way an open election turned out, they decided to collectively punish a civilian population. that's the problem behind all this. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-04-2010, 08:59 AM	#182 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	right powerclown. so collective punishment for an election result you don't like is education in correct conduct and the massacre of 1500 civilians a bit of tough love and up is down and white is black and so it is in the rigid little world of people who imagine that supporting israel means justifying every last thing israel does, no matter how misguided, no matter how brutal (occupation anyone? colonialism anyone?) or self-defeating. you got a hotline to AIPAC? you never fail to repeat their line. is eerie. fixed maybe. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-03-2010, 12:46 PM	#161 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	A country has a right to defend itself, if they are constantly under rocket fire, over 10000 since 2005. And the video I posted earlier and I have seen all show the soldiers being attacked upon boarding the ship. That does not take in to account the fake videos of people being injured found on the ship, almost a million euro, and other facts that do not add up yet. Instead we all jump in and scream instead of waiting for the facts to piece together a whole picture.

06-03-2010, 02:23 PM	#170 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	Idyllic: Many of the posters in this thread are demonstrating an amazing amount of patience & understanding with your ignorance. (lack of knowledge) Please check out the links regarding the history, that others have provided.

06-04-2010, 09:13 AM	#183 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	The fact remains that very few countries around the world recognize or correspond with Hamas, so I wouldn't be so quick to put this on the United States. Hamas has done nothing to improve the plight of their people, on the contrary they keep them in misery with their extremist policies. Do you know how many countries ship in truckloads of humanitarian aid into Gaza on a daily basis? One: Israel.

06-04-2010, 09:31 AM	#185 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	The problem, PC, is that the aid wouldn't be needed in the first place if Israel hadn't turned Gaza into something like Warsaw, 1941: a walled-off disease farm where people exist on starvation rations or the near equivalent. Look, this is Israel we're dealing with. Home of Mossad and Shin Bet. If two of the premier intelligence/counter-terrorism formations in the world can't figure out how to whack the leadership of a terrorist organization that is already pinned in place, they've fallen a long, bumpy way. If Hamas is a problem, I'm fully in favour of taking out their leadership. Hell, whack the leadership and a few firstborne sons, go Russian on their asses. Then make sure the next generation of Hamas/Fatah/whoever-takes-over gets the picture. Play ball, and you get to live. Get froggy with the rockets and suicide bombers, and get ready to die choking on your own cock, while somebody else who's probably smarter than you takes your spot in the Organization and the Government. Anybody who orders the launching of rockets against civilians deserves whatever flavour of nasty comes calling. But punishing the entire population of Gaza for the actions of their government is ridiculous. Garishly punishing the givers of orders while leaving the rest of the population unmolested, however, strikes me as a very effective means of achieving Israel's desired ends: security from Hamas attacks and a socially-integrable Palestinian population. This current silliness, OTOH, is counterproductive at best and is rapidly turning into an albatross.

06-04-2010, 09:40 AM	#186 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	except that the israeli military and the political right/ultra-right need that command structure to plausibly be in place because it allows for the marketing of the Cause in the way it is marketed. for example, if you don't want to make any meaningful progress with the west bank because it will inevitably mean dismantling the settlements, then the myth of a symmetrical conflict is useful. that's it's obviously entirely false is beside the point. reality is always secondary in these matters. the fate of the ultra-right is directly at stake in this, and that of the political right is by extension. your position presupposes that there's actually an interest in taking out hamas. there isn't any such interest. the only thing that interested the israeli right less than that was allowing hamas to govern, so to moderate. that would have been bad bad bad. whence the siege. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-04-2010, 12:17 PM	#190 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Will, much of the problem is this: Israeli PR machine won Gaza flotilla media battle \| Antony Lerman \| Comment is free \| guardian.co.uk __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

06-04-2010, 05:44 PM	#198 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	I'll forsake further comment in favor of our military members, but to say this: such wounds are easily achievable when dealing with a self-defense shooting at close and crowded quarters.

06-04-2010, 06:15 PM	#200 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	More eyewitness accounts from the activists: http://www.examiner.com/x-38220-Orla...egin-to-emerge Four shots to the head? Five shots to the stomach? If you don't believe these were executions, would you agree that perhaps this could be the excessive asymmetrical warfare tactics that Will mentioned earlier? Last edited by ring; 06-04-2010 at 06:18 PM..