Ships to Gaza incident

[Robert]

You need to learn to read. Plomp said that singing a song about destroying israel makes it plausible that they might be carrying with them some means of--wait for it--destroying Israel (I'm referring to WEAPONS). So they search the ship. When the "activists" attack the soldiers, the soldiers defend themselves. What is so ****ing hard about this that you just can't...quite...get it.

And to complete the football fans analogy, all football fans that enter the stadiums here in Holland are searched before they can. All pockets have to be emptied, there are metal detectors, etc.

[Robert]

There was a time I had CyberShy on ignore, and threads like this allways remind me why. I will forever regret the day I had to set him free during Lord Shiva's ignore-me-fest .

Only feeding yourself with opinions you share, while ignoring people with different opinions, makes a human defenitely stronger!

-------------

Anyway, what bothers me most in these debates is that people really believe that their opinion is superior without self reflection.
that's a new thing. Back in the 90's we were all more eager to accept that it was possible to have different opinions. I think this is not a good development.

I also hardly see people admit stuff anymore.
Or confirm that the other party has some good points.
It's all so black and white.
Everything I say is 100% right and everything you say is 100% wrong.
As if we're not talking about most probably the most complicated conflict on earth.

This black/white thinking, this "everybody who disagrees with me is a complete moron", this "I ignore everybody who has a different opinion" attitude is defenitely not good for democracy and tolerance.

But everybody is of course free to have such an attitude.

[a.kitman]

And to complete the football fans analogy, all football fans that enter the stadiums here in Holland are searched before they can. All pockets have to be emptied, there are metal detectors, etc.

only in this case the football fan/hooligan stayed home and the opposing fans stormed his house.
usually the opposing fans is more rational then the hooligan but this time they where not.

stupid analogy is stupid.

[Robert]

only in this case the football fan/hooligan stayed home and the opposing fans stormed his house.
usually the opposing fans is more rational then the hooligan but this time they where not.

stupid analogy is stupid.

They stayed home?
No, they were approaching the stadium. perhaps they were too much in a distance yet, but they had made clear that they wanted to break into the stadium.

Anyway, you guys keep changing the analogy to your needs.
We departed from the question if singing evil songs was a reason to have your ship searched. Then the football analogy came up, because football fans sing evil songs (that evil?). And yes, the conclusion was that football fans are carefully searched for weapons before they enter the stadium.

Now we only disagree about the question if Israel was allowed to do this in international waters. Both morally and legally.
Perhaps legally not. I'm not a laywer so I can't insist that I have the truth here. (the UN called for a research, so in fact nobody knows the 'truth' here, not even those who claim it).

We can discuss the moral right though. Eventhough there's no objective 'truth' there.
I'd say that Israel was morally right that they entered the ships. They warned, they offered alternatives, the activists made clear from the beginning on that 'troubles' was their goal.

The final question is of it was smart PR wise what Israel did?
Most probably not. But I continue to hold the position that anything Israel does these days gives them a bad image anyway.

[Zevico]

Only feeding yourself with opinions you share, while ignoring people with different opinions, makes a human defenitely stronger!

-------------

Anyway, what bothers me most in these debates is that people really believe that their opinion is superior without self reflection.
that's a new thing. Back in the 90's we were all more eager to accept that it was possible to have different opinions. I think this is not a good development.

I also hardly see people admit stuff anymore.
Or confirm that the other party has some good points.
It's all so black and white.
Everything I say is 100% right and everything you say is 100% wrong.
As if we're not talking about most probably the most complicated conflict on earth.

This black/white thinking, this "everybody who disagrees with me is a complete moron", this "I ignore everybody who has a different opinion" attitude is defenitely not good for democracy and tolerance.

But everybody is of course free to have such an attitude.

This is quite correct. Before hearing that the riot began on one ship run and owned by an Islamist group, I did not know, or have any pretension of knowing what had happened. I had thought about it and reasoned that the likelihood was that if violence had occurred and it had occurred at the instigation of the 'protesters', then that would be because the group in question was Islamist. This is because such groups view Jews as evil subhumans to be destroyed at all costs. It makes sense for them to "resist" and attack Israeli soldiers. At the time I hardly knew that Islamists were involved--I simply knew that a humanitarian mission had been interfered with, and that people had died as a result. This meant that there was the possibility that the incident had occurred as between stock Western protesters who have the sense to value their own lives and know not to beat up soldiers. If that were the case the Israelis would have needed a very good explanation for what motivated protesters to beat up soldiers.

A word on international law. I hardly think it necessary to say that it has no actual force as law and that it is a nonsense to condemn violations of international law per se. International law can inform moral views on the conduct of the parties in question, nothing more. It is not always certain and hardly ever enforceable. Nor does it necessarily provide coherent guidelines as to how people or states ought to conduct themselves in every instance. In this case, the Israelis have imposed a blockade in the course of an existential and violent conflict with Hamas, the de facto government of Gaza. The Israelis know that the protesters took steps to end that blockade and entered international waters to do so because they formed the view that the ships in question intended to break the blockade, as their passengers, crew and supporters readily admitted. To those who say that this breach of international law was unacceptable, I ask--on what grounds?

[Ellestar]

Interesting footage.

Yeah, i wonder, why anyone will jump in the middle of the unfriendly crowd with sticks? Even animals are smart enough to have a survival instinct. Besides, anyone who ordered that assault should have had a contingency plan, what to do if that crowd will actually use the sticks. If that contingency plan was to shoot all civilians in sight (as it seems to be), then the full blame is on Israel anyway. Israel should have thought about less lethal weapons that are commonly used against demonstrations - rubber bullets, tear-gas etc. Flash grenades should have helped too.

Also, given the stupidity of jumping in the middle of the unfriendly mob, and the fact that the only footage we have is from an Israel side (Israel confiscated all other evidence), maybe it's forged. I mean, everyone saw the movies in the recent ten years? If they were able to do it in a Titanic film 13 years ago, surely they can add some sticks to a subpar-quality movie now. Besides, it's much easier to forge it if it's a low-quality night-time footage filmed from afar. But it's harder to forge if someone made it up-close from the board of the ship. So there is a good reason to confiscate all other evidence.

[Robert]

You're in Denial, Ellestar.
And apparently the Israeli are able to jump into a mob with sticks without dying.
And apparently they failed to kill all in sight, and only 9 were killed, which is not that much considering the size of the mob and the violence they used.

I think the "international water" argument is the only valid argument your side may have.
Justifiying the extreme violence of the activists is defenitely not the way you should go.

[Zevico]

Unfortunately for you, just a couple months ago the author admits to being prejudiced against Arabs (just like you )

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2010/03/06/bigotry-thy-name-is-marty-peretz/

Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well. This is, you will say, my prejudice. But some prejudices are built on real facts, and history generally proves me right. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Bzzt. Misquote. Serves you right for failing to read the original source. The original quote comes from an article entitled "Sorry Sorry, But The Verdict Is In On The Long American Excursion In Iraq. And It Is Favorable":

There were moments--long moments--during the Iraq war when I had my doubts. Even deep doubts. Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture like this in the Arab world turning out especially well. This is, you will say, my prejudice. But some prejudices are built on real facts, and history generally proves me right. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Source: http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/so...d-it-favorable


So the question is: what did he mean by a "venture like this"? He explains in the third paragraph of that article:

...Iraq is on its way to making its own inter-ethnic and inter-sectarian history, and it will be a relatively democratic history.

In other words, Mr Peretz was pessimistic about the chance of democracy succeeding in Iraq. Now he sees the "relatively democratic" light. Exactly what prejudice has he injected here? A pessimism about the prospects of success in "the Arab world"? That is hardly prejudice. The "Arab world" is a mess of dictatorships and totalitarian states. Most of its people know little to nothing of democratic governance as it is practised in Western countries.

There are some parts or portions of the Arab world where this broad generalisation does not hold true. But these are a minority. It is apparent that many Arabs think government is justified if it is "right"--that is, if it is controlled by the right people. These are the Islamists, the socialists, and the Islamic fundamentalists. Others, or perhaps the same people, might find some attraction in the notion that that legitimacy is derived from popular support, but this merely means they support majority rule, which can also encompass a tyranny of the majority and can also encompass a tyranny that submits to a dictator or a dictatorial elite.

To say as much does not mean that "Arab" people are ethnically inclined towards tyranny, or that they are less intelligent as a whole, or any other such nonsense. To the contrary, history demonstrates that democracy is a learned process that occurs over generations, and that it sprang where it did mostly due to the relative isolation and stability of the countries of its origin. That the people of the Arab nations did not experience such isolation or stability in no way demeans them.

[Zevico]

Yeah, i wonder, why anyone will jump in the middle of the unfriendly crowd with sticks? Even animals are smart enough to have a survival instinct. Besides, anyone who ordered that assault should have had a contingency plan, what to do if that crowd will actually use the sticks. If that contingency plan was to shoot all civilians in sight (as it seems to be), then the full blame is on Israel anyway. Israel should have thought about less lethal weapons that are commonly used against demonstrations - rubber bullets, tear-gas etc. Flash grenades should have helped too.

They used paintball guns, as is apparent from the commentary in the film and the film itself. Given that they only had live sidearms, it is apparent that they did not expect violence.

[a.kitman]

Now we only disagree about the question if Israel was allowed to do this in international waters. Both morally and legally.
Perhaps legally not.

if the bording was illegal what moral right does israel have here?
the boats where hardly a military threat. there was no personal or property at risk waiting for the boats to cross the magic line in the water.

[Zevico]

The "magic line in the water" has no significance in the circumstances of this incident.

There is also the point that undue delay on the part of the navy could result in flotilla coming to close too shore and attempting to break the blockade. Israel's claimed territorial waters extend 22 kilometres from the coast. 22 kilometres can easily be traversed in less than an hour in practically any ship with an engine. There were some 600 protesters (500 on one boat) to be detained. There was a great deal of sense in boarding the flotilla's boats early to increase the (temporal) margin of error available to the navy in executing the operation. There is also the point that it may be difficult to estimate the amount of time available to execute the operation.

[a.kitman]

so your "moral" argument boils down to: thos boats could out run the israel navy?
your going to have a hard time backing that up.

[Zevico]

so your "moral" argument boils down to: thos boats could out run the israel navy?
your going to have a hard time backing that up.

It is not a matter of outrunning the navy. It is a matter of the resources available to the commander of the operation. The Israelis landed two dozen commandos to take over a ship with 500 people. How many people did they have available for this operation? How many did they think were necessary? The Israelis had a choice: do it earlier with far less people and less boats and resources or do it later and expend more resources.

As to morality, I have already said that I do not consider international waters to be sacred, and I see no reason for them to be considered as such by enforcers of blockades when they know or have reasonable grounds to believe that the ships in question intend to break the blockade.

[Ellestar]

You're in Denial, Ellestar.
And apparently the Israeli are able to jump into a mob with sticks without dying.
And apparently they failed to kill all in sight, and only 9 were killed, which is not that much considering the size of the mob and the violence they used.

I think the "international water" argument is the only valid argument your side may have.
Justifiying the extreme violence of the activists is defenitely not the way you should go.

I'm not justifying anything. I'm not saying that IDF soldiers were wrong to use the only effective weapons they had either. It's all irrelevant. Someone made a decision to drop soldiers in the middle of the angry mob, and the only effective weapon soldiers had against the threat they jumped in was lethal. So, obviously, we got dead bodies as a result. It's very simple, you put soldiers in a situation where they can only kill, you get corpses. So, the blame is on IDF officers who ordered to execute that stupid plan, and that means that Israel is responsible for a bloodshed. That is, they were responsible for it anyway, i just wanted to argue that this footage does nothing to prove Israel is not responsible, even if it's not forged.

They used paintball guns, as is apparent from the commentary in the film and the film itself. Given that they only had live sidearms, it is apparent that they did not expect violence.

I never heard about an effective use of paintball guns against an angry mob. Looks like IDF failed as well Also, you just said that they had paintball guns as a main weapon. If they didn't expect violence, they shouldn't have had the need to bring a paintball gun either. So something doesn't add up.
Besides, as i already said in this thread, what's the point to send marines with live ammo on military helicopters during the night for an inspection? That's not exactly their field of expertise. If you don't expect violence, it's more logical to send customs officers on boats.

The "magic line in the water" has no significance in the circumstances of this incident.

There is also the point that undue delay on the part of the navy could result in flotilla coming to close too shore and attempting to break the blockade. Israel's claimed territorial waters extend 22 kilometres from the coast. 22 kilometres can easily be traversed in less than an hour in practically any ship with an engine. There were some 600 protesters (500 on one boat) to be detained. There was a great deal of sense in boarding the flotilla's boats early to increase the (temporal) margin of error available to the navy in executing the operation. There is also the point that it may be difficult to estimate the amount of time available to execute the operation.

They were moving away from the coast for some time before the assault.

[a.kitman]

It is not a matter of outrunning the navy. It is a matter of the resources available to the commander of the operation. The Israelis landed two dozen commandos to take over a ship with 500 people. How many people did they have available for this operation? How many did they think were necessary? The Israelis had a choice: do it earlier with far less people and less boats and resources or do it later and expend more resources.

As to morality, I have already said that I do not consider international waters to be sacred, and I see no reason for them to be considered as such by enforcers of blockades when they know or have reasonable grounds to believe that the ships in question intend to break the blockade.

so giving up the san remo defence its now about the idfs resources. give me a break. there is no reason to belive these people could break the blockade if they where allowed to cross the magic line first.

and international waters are not sacred there are laws there. there are times when it is moral to break laws but this was not one of them.