Israel opens fire on Gaza aid flotilla; at least 10 dead, 60 wounded

[rigney]

I had arrived that very afternoon at Ft. Bliss in El Paso, Texas. We had went down from Ohio to do some practice firinng at the McGregor missile range in New Mexico. But, when you arrive at Ft. Bliss to witness a railyard bristlig with every type of ordinance imaginable, it gives you pause to reflect, and also a thought of foreboding. The following is just an excerpt. The entirity of what was the"Cuban Missile Crisis" can be picked up in many archieves. Do I blame the Isralis for their actions today?, Hell No!

 

On October 22, 1962, President John F. Kennedy informed the world that the Soviet Union was building secret missile bases in Cuba, a mere 90 miles off the shores of Florida. After weighing such options as an armed invasion of Cuba and air strikes against the missiles, Kennedy decided on a less dangerous response. In addition to demanding that Russian Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev remove all the missile bases and their deadly contents, Kennedy ordered a naval quarantine (blockade) of Cuba in order to prevent Russian ships from bringing additional missiles and construction materials to the island. In response to the American naval blockade, Premier Khrushchev authorized his Soviet field commanders in Cuba to launch their tactical nuclear weapons if invaded by U.S. forces. Deadlocked in this manner, the two leaders of the world's greatest nuclear superpowers stared each other down for seven days - until Khrushchev blinked. On October 28, thinking better of prolonging his challenge to the United States, the Russian Premier conceded to President Kennedy's demands by ordering all Soviet supply ships away from Cuban waters and agreeing to remove the missiles from Cuba's mainland. After several days of teetering on the brink of nuclear holocaust, the world breathed a sigh of relief.

 

"Gaza Aid Flotilla"? Will something such as this eventually be our worlds Armageddon? But by the same token, no one should ever kick what they consider a mouse into a corner,where it's only chance of survival; "is to fight".

Edited June 17, 2010 by rigney

[mooeypoo]

I did realize that they were rubber bullets. It's irrelevant that they were using rubber bullets or not, the truth is that Israel has caused a great deal of distress with their actions against the terrorists their and they will employ "collective punishment" to deal with problems that they caused. Israel is engaged in illegal activity that needs to be dealt with, this is why the Palestinians are angry and this is why they protest.

Which is still a totally different argument than what you initially posted, and is still a red herring to the CURRENT discussion.

 

The situation isn't as clear cut black-and-white as you seem to make it. I think you should read a bit more what people posted here in the thread; Israel has quite a lot of fault, but the Palestinians - specially Hamas - are far from being innocent lambs. There are terror attacks that kill innocent women and children on the Israeli side too - but other than making an emotional appeal, posting a video showing an incapacitated 5 year old child will prove no point. It's out of context, it's ignoring the background and the other side.

 

I am *all for* finding a solution to the situation. We won't be able to find a solution if we analyze the situation without details, in flat generalized definitions and out of context pieces.

 

Let's have a discussion, not a shock frenzy.

The latter doesn't really help, and can go on forever on both sides.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Interesting. On a side note, what's with the extra-long gun barrels? Something to make the crowd control ammunition work correctly?

I am not sure, but I believe there's a difference in how the bullet picks up speed and you need a longer barrel. Either something with weight of the bullet or something with the way it's built..

 

Not sure, though, I can try and check if you want.

[Mr Skeptic]

Israel is engaging in collective punishment and this goes against the Geneva convention, which states that "No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

 

Well it's a good thing that the Israelis aren't collectively punishing the people then. Embargoes and blockades are certainly allowed. If they can't or are not willing to stop attacks against Israel, is it really so surprising that Israel will try to do it for them?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well it's a good thing that the Israelis aren't collectively punishing the people then. Embargoes and blockades are certainly allowed. If they can't or are not willing to stop attacks against Israel, is it really so surprising that Israel will try to do it for them?

 

The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict found that the blockade was a violation of international law.

[Mr Skeptic]

Only laws that are enforced are laws. Otherwise they are just suggestions, empty words, moral outrage, etc.

[mooeypoo]

The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict found that the blockade was a violation of international law.

There's also a bit of a problem with Goldstone report. Frankly, I believe the Israeli government was acting insanely stupidly when it declared that it will not cooperate with the investigation (The distrust between Israel and the UN is not entirely unjustified, but still).

 

But that noncooperation also meant that the Goldstone committee didn't quite get to see both sides, at least that's the complaint Israel has against it.

 

Of course, the *reason* it didn't get to see both side *is* the Israeli government, but seeing as the UN soldiers were involved in some anti-Israel actions in the past, and Israel has a very deep distrust of UN judgment... <sigh> as you can see.. things are.. complicated. :\

 

It's an annoying circle.

 

 

Just a bit of background, the major reason of distrust of the UN by Israelis and Israel government has to do with these events: http://judaism.about.com/library/1_terrorism/bl_hardov_un.htm

 

But there were other events. In general, though, the UN acts more or less as a democracy of the countries that are represented. Israel is tiny. The arab world is huge. I'm not saying the UN holds no merit - by far I am not saying that - but we should REMEMBER that we're not talking about a totally impartial body. It has legal bodies under it, but it's still a democratic procedure, and the question of its impartial nature is a big one. Very big one.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There's also a bit of a problem with Goldstone report. Frankly, I believe the Israeli government was acting insanely stupidly when it declared that it will not cooperate with the investigation (The distrust between Israel and the UN is not entirely unjustified, but still).

 

But that noncooperation also meant that the Goldstone committee didn't quite get to see both sides, at least that's the complaint Israel has against it.

 

Of course, the *reason* it didn't get to see both side *is* the Israeli government, but seeing as the UN soldiers were involved in some anti-Israel actions in the past, and Israel has a very deep distrust of UN judgment... <sigh> as you can see.. things are.. complicated. :\

I don't think Israel's "side" mattered in the Goldstone Report's judgment of the legality of the blockade. What mattered was what was happening to the Gazans and whether Israel, as an occupying power, had a legal obligation to provide for their well-being. The Wikipedia article cites the specific page of the report where this is discussed.

 

But there were other events. In general, though, the UN acts more or less as a democracy of the countries that are represented. Israel is tiny. The arab world is huge. I'm not saying the UN holds no merit - by far I am not saying that - but we should REMEMBER that we're not talking about a totally impartial body. It has legal bodies under it, but it's still a democratic procedure, and the question of its impartial nature is a big one. Very big one.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstone_Report#Composition

 

The Report was not composed by the UN as a whole. It was composed by a South African judge, an English international law professor, a Pakistani lawyer, and an Irish military official. They weren't politicians or representatives of the member countries -- they were legal and military experts.

[mooeypoo]

I don't think Israel's "side" mattered in the Goldstone Report's judgment of the legality of the blockade. What mattered was what was happening to the Gazans and whether Israel, as an occupying power, had a legal obligation to provide for their well-being. The Wikipedia article cites the specific page of the report where this is discussed.

That's true, and in that aspect I'm in total agreement with the report, btw. However, my problem is that it didn't relate to the problem of what happens to both peoples *without* the blockade (hence, allowing Hamas to grow as a terrorist organization, terrorize both palestinians and Israelis). So I understand the "that's a bad option!" conclusion. I do. But if the alternative is worse, then it's irrelevant, and without a proper alternative, doing nothing *is* worse.

 

The UN has a tendency to be very critical of Israel's side -- which is okay, it should be, Israel should change a whole lot of things when it comes to treating the Palestinian people -- but it conviniently tends to ignore the problems on the Palestinian side. Hamas is the governing power, and the fact is that Hamas is treating its own people *VERY* badly. They prevent and sabotage the distribution of food, they use civilian institutions as their terrorist/military bases (that is against international conventiosn too, you know). And yet, you barely hear the UN say anything about them.

 

My problem isn't what the UN says about Israel. My problem is that it says almost nothing about the Palestinian side, and that doesn't seem to be a very unbiased way to go.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's true, and in that aspect I'm in total agreement with the report, btw. However, my problem is that it didn't relate to the problem of what happens to both peoples *without* the blockade (hence, allowing Hamas to grow as a terrorist organization, terrorize both palestinians and Israelis). So I understand the "that's a bad option!" conclusion. I do. But if the alternative is worse, then it's irrelevant, and without a proper alternative, doing nothing *is* worse.

The whole "it's illegal" argument is predicated on the fact that the blockade is ineffective compared to the amount of damage it does to Gaza. That is, not blockading would be better, both because there'd be less civilian suffering and because Gazans would be less motivated to fight back.

 

The blockade has merely increased Hamas' hold on Gaza and made it easier for them to recruit fighters and suicide bombers. Would those children joining suicide brigades be doing it if they had functioning schools and parents who could afford to give them food? No.

 

 

The UN has a tendency to be very critical of Israel's side -- which is okay, it should be, Israel should change a whole lot of things when it comes to treating the Palestinian people -- but it conviniently tends to ignore the problems on the Palestinian side. Hamas is the governing power, and the fact is that Hamas is treating its own people *VERY* badly. They prevent and sabotage the distribution of food, they use civilian institutions as their terrorist/military bases (that is against international conventiosn too, you know). And yet, you barely hear the UN say anything about them.

 

My problem isn't what the UN says about Israel. My problem is that it says almost nothing about the Palestinian side, and that doesn't seem to be a very unbiased way to go.

 

Um, no.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstone_Report#Accusations_of_war_crimes_on_the_part_of_Palestinian_armed_groups

 

The report also stated there is evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity by deliberately launching rockets and firing mortars into Israel, calculated to kill civilians and damage civilian structures.

 

The Goldstone report blames both sides.

[Peron]

Which is still a totally different argument than what you initially posted, and is still a red herring to the CURRENT discussion.

 

The situation isn't as clear cut black-and-white as you seem to make it. I think you should read a bit more what people posted here in the thread; Israel has quite a lot of fault, but the Palestinians - specially Hamas - are far from being innocent lambs. There are terror attacks that kill innocent women and children on the Israeli side too - but other than making an emotional appeal, posting a video showing an incapacitated 5 year old child will prove no point. It's out of context, it's ignoring the background and the other side.

 

I am *all for* finding a solution to the situation. We won't be able to find a solution if we analyze the situation without details, in flat generalized definitions and out of context pieces.

 

Anyone who knows what they are talking about, knows that the Israeli state is a illegal one. The Jewish people had no state, they had no "homeland" but after the holocaust and the rise in antisemitism the British government voted to establish a Jewish state in Palestine.

When the Jewish state was established, a war broke out between the Jews and the Palestinians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947-1948_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine

 

Is this not well recorded history?

Edited June 18, 2010 by swansont
fix quote tag

[Mr Skeptic]

Anyone who knows what they are talking about, knows that the Israeli state is a illegal one. The Jewish people had no state, they had no "homeland" but after the holocaust and the rise in antisemitism the British government voted to establish a Jewish state in Palestine.

 

Ah, I see. And what tribe are you from? Or are you from an illegitimate country that has taken land from others?

[swansont]

Anyone who knows what they are talking about, knows …

 

Veiled ad hominems are still ad hominems, and are not permitted. Deal with the subject matter, not the people involved in the discussion.

[mooeypoo]

When the Jewish state was established, a war broke out between the Jews and the Palestinians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947-1948_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine

 

Is this not well recorded history?

The Jews and Arabs lived in the land of Israel for thousands of years. If you want to go even further back, the area was formerly occupied by tribes that do not exist anymore, was conquered by the Israelites, they settled and developed the land, and many of them (not all) were kicked out forcefully in the Babylonians (Iraq of today) empire took hold of the place. Since then, the place switched hands and while there was always some settlement of jews there, the control of the area changed from the Turks and Ottomans and British, etc.

 

In 1948 the UN *VOTED* on the creation of a Jewish state next to an arab one. A division of the land of Israel into two states. While the Jews went to the streets to celebrate, the arab countries attacked.

 

The war of 1948 started by the arab nations, Peron. Not by Israelis. When you discuss history, you should learn it first.

 

Now, all the arguments about going back to certain borders - 1948 vs 1967 vs 1973, etc - all those exist as a result of multiple wars that happened from multiple fronts. The arab countries attacked Israel in *EACH* and every one of those wars, meaning to annihilate the state. Israel defended itself successfully in each one. Because there were so many attempts to annihilate the state of Israel, the fear of giving back land is a SECURITY one.

 

We can argue if it still holds. We can argue if there should be 1948 lines or whether it should be 1967 lines, but to argue that Israel has no right to exist is not knowing what the history is.

 

The general consensus in this thread seems to be to take the UN's word as generally unbiased - or, at least, generally valid. The argument that the UN found Israel at fault was raised quite a lot. So, it seems, that we take the decisions by the UN as valid. One of those decisions was to create the State of Israel.

 

To claim it has no right to exist is not knowing history, and claiming that on one hand the UN's claims of maltreatment of the palestinians are valid but the creation of Israel is not (BOTH done by the UN), is having a double standard.

 

~moo

[jackson33]

All in all, it's America's responsibility to control Isreals actions against the Palastines. It is the United States that gives money to the Isreali government to stay afloat. [/Quote]

 

Peron and briefly; The US recognizes Israel, both as a State and ally, in an area (middle east) that is not really friendly with either. It's in her (US) INTEREST to maintain stability and frankly has no power to control anything, directly.

 

Thread; I introduced this well back on this thread, so hope it's not far off topic now. Radical Muslim power, regardless who/what/where you judge that to be, will seize any opportunity to form opinion in the general Muslim population. Their goals for eons have been to annihilate the Jewish people, destroy there faith and the control of whatever on this planet they can, especially in already perceived their territories. Where US policy, actions and support have tried to unite these factions, all that has resulted is paying blackmail for different periods of time, each time the price going up. Your welcome to call this relief, welfare or humanitarian, but it has literally been used to finance future actions.

 

The current US administration in begging for a year or so of reduced tension, with a 400M$ proposed grant to the ruling authority in Gaza, to build schools or other nice things to talk about, but few believe much will actually be used for these purposes and the end result will be in support of the militants, their followers, not going for the needs of those that need anything the most.

 

These comments are of course my opinions, but actions from or by the American Government, over the past 18 months have fueled the fire (encouraged the flotilla/protest), far more often than not. Worse yet, staying on opinion, Israel is being placed into a position, anything done will be seen in a negative light, again especially in the Muslim World and could possibly be restrained past the point of self defense.

 

 

 

moo/Peron; I had the above written a couple days ago, deciding it may have been off topic, however you have increased the scope of conversation;

 

After WWII, throughout Europe there were a good many refugee camps that had been set up for folks leaving the various Countries, while Germany was invading them, which obviously included a good many Jewish from each. It's my understanding, the allied forces (particularly the US) requested England to solve the problem, leading to what the UN finally did after it's formation. Since 'moo' has a vested interest, not particularly a fan of my opinions I'll offer the following History Outline (maps and all) for the area and leave it to you two to argue out, I'm not sure peron is totally wrong, however.

 

 

Israel was responsible for bringing about some of its own problems. The Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were packed and ready to leave following their 1967 defeat. Suddenly the victorious one-eyed IDF General Moshe Dayan persuaded them to stay.[/Quote]

 

http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

 

 

 

CR; As for the UN or their authority under international law, I'm not sure they are relevant. Even where their actions are recognized (by membership) the 'Security Council' is basically concerned with the issues we're talking about, where the 5 permanent members (veto power) rarely agree on anything.

 

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers, outlined in the United Nations Charter, include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action. Its powers are exercised through United Nations Security Council Resolutions....

 

There are 15 members of the Security Council, consisting of 5 veto-wielding permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) and 10 elected non-permanent members with two-year terms....[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council

[padren]

This could probably use a new thread, but here's the latest from the folks that never take off their Bad Idea Jeans:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100622/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gaza_blockade_13

 

JERUSALEM – Iran said Tuesday it would send a blockade-busting ship carrying aid and pro-Palestinian activists to Gaza' date=' fueling concern in Israel, where commandos were training for another possible confrontation at sea.

 

Israel warned archenemy Iran to drop the plan. The Iranian announcement came days after Israel eased its three-year-old blockade of Gaza under international pressure following its deadly raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla last month.

 

"No one in their right mind can believe that a ship sent by the ayatollahs and their Revolutionary Guards has anything to do with humanitarian aid," said Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor. "I don't think there is one single country in this region and beyond that would let such an ayatollah ship come near its coasts."[/quote']

 

It makes you wonder if people just want to start wars. How can people think this is a good idea? Any thoughts on how this will go?

[mooeypoo]

Very badly, probably.

 

 

On that note, though, their plan will serve nothing other than start a war, really. Israel eased up the blockade, and released a plan to be a bit more transparent: http://www.israelpolitik.org/2010/06/21/israels-updated-gaza-strip-policy/

 

Also, this is an interesting interview with tony blair: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=179110

Anyone thinking of organizing an aid flotilla for Gaza should instead utilize the legitimate existing land crossings, where Israel is now lifting restrictions on civilian goods, Quartet envoy Tony Blair said on Monday.

 

“If we implement this policy so that the things that people are trying to bring in by flotilla you can bring in through the legitimate existing crossings, do it that way,” Blair urged in an interview with The Jerusalem Post. “That is the more sensible way to do that,” he said, amid reports that one or two ships may seek to sail from Lebanon to challenge the naval blockade in the next few days.

[padren]

Very badly, probably.

 

On that note, though, their plan will serve nothing other than start a war, really. Israel eased up the blockade, and released a plan to be a bit more transparent: http://www.israelpolitik.org/2010/06/21/israels-updated-gaza-strip-policy/

 

If it wasn't for a lack of resources, spare time, and a healthy fear of death and/or Evin Prison I would love to take an aid flotilla to Iran the day before theirs enters Israeli waters. If I was to cruise on into Iranian waters demanding that I be allowed to unload all my "aid" without customs or inspections for the benefit of the Iranian people - including items outright banned - I really wonder how far I would get. Especially if I condemned their national government and declared they had no right to board or inspect, refused to acknowledge radio contact. I'm sure I could find some reasons to take the moral high ground and state why we just would simply refuse to acknowledge any authority or authenticity of the Iranian government and it's actions to carry out it's policies.

 

Somehow I would bet the Iranian government wouldn't be so quick to turn around and release (deport) the freedom protesters on board.

[mooeypoo]

If it wasn't for a lack of resources, spare time, and a healthy fear of death and/or Evin Prison I would love to take an aid flotilla to Iran the day before theirs enters Israeli waters. If I was to cruise on into Iranian waters demanding that I be allowed to unload all my "aid" without customs or inspections for the benefit of the Iranian people - including items outright banned - I really wonder how far I would get. Especially if I condemned their national government and declared they had no right to board or inspect, refused to acknowledge radio contact. I'm sure I could find some reasons to take the moral high ground and state why we just would simply refuse to acknowledge any authority or authenticity of the Iranian government and it's actions to carry out it's policies.

 

Somehow I would bet the Iranian government wouldn't be so quick to turn around and release (deport) the freedom protesters on board.

(un)fortunately, Israel is held to different standards than the rest of the countries in the Middle East.