Ships to Gaza incident

[Robert]

So you're saying that lives would still have been lost!? You are seriously deranged!

The flotilla would have had no choice but to peacefully allow their ships to be searched. No one would have died.

Yes, the outcome would have been the same (most probably) because these 'activists' went to Gaza to become martyrs.
Do you really believe that it made a difference for those people if Israel boarded the ship in international or national waters?

[MOBIUS]

I sometimes wonder how this happens so regularly. It's not like it that tricky.

Because the people that run the country and the armed forces are nothing better than common thugs...

[Robert]

so you think an operation in the day, with it being made clear what was going to happen and with the press being able to see what was happening, would've had the same outcome as dropping the commandos in at night?

if you genuinely believe that, then you are a fool.

Thanks.
But yes, I do firmly believe so.

It btw was already clear what was going to happen.
The press was already able to know what the intend was from the 'activists' as well.

[Wezil]

Here's the Irish ship:

An Irish woman onboard a ship carrying aid to Gaza has said the crew expects Israeli forces to board the vessel.

Jenny Graham is travelling on the Irish ship MV Rachel Corrie which is about two days from Gaza.

Israel deported 124 foreign activists detained after Monday's raid on an aid flotilla in which nine people were killed.

They died after armed Israeli commandos boarded the largest of the six ships.

Israel claimed its soldiers were shot at; the activists said Israeli troops came on board shooting.

Despite the deaths, the boat, the Rachel Corrie, which left Dundalk about three weeks ago, is still pressing ahead to breach the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

Crew member, Jenny Graham said those onboard sat down regularly and spoke about what they will do and what may happen.

"We have made sure that everybody in the world knows that it's a fact that all of us onboard are unarmed.

"We're all either activists or journalists or crew members on the cargo ship.

"There is nothing untoward onboard this ship. We will not cause any confrontation on board this ship.

"All we have ever asked for, is safe passage into Gaza."

Mairead Corrigan Maguire - a Nobel peace prizewinner - is also onboard.

Civil rights lawyer Michael Mansfield QC said he is concerned, both for her safety and the safety of all of those on board the Irish ship.

continued at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/northern_...d/10212345.stm

[MOBIUS]

Yes, the outcome would have been the same (most probably) because these 'activists' went to Gaza to become martyrs.
Do you really believe that it made a difference for those people if Israel boarded the ship in international or national waters?

If what you say is true (which it isn't!), then the entire world would have seen it and would be supporting Israel and not the other way around! Surely a better outcome for your beloved Israel, no?

Your fanatical ideology has left you completely blind to all logic and reason...

I forgot that you're basically the European Ben...

[C0ckney]

Thanks.
But yes, I do firmly believe so.

It btw was already clear what was going to happen.
The press was already able to know what the intend was from the 'activists' as well.

yes i think we can agree it was always perfectly clear what was going to happen if israeli commandos were dropped onto a crowded ship in the dead of night. for you to argue that the same would've happened under the conditions that rah proposed is just more ridiculous doublespeak.

i mean, i can understand why the israelis want to paint those on board the ship as violent extremists, because it makes their actions look slightly less outrageous. what i can't understand is why anyone else should fall for such an obvious trick.

[Wezil]

That's fine so long as you agree with the cause. Put the shoe on the other foot.

I'm a pretty pragmatic person who doesn't have much faith in international law.

I prefer what we have over the law of the jungle.

The violence came from the Israeli side when they illegally boarded the ship. Illegal search and detention = right to resist.

Boarding a ship does defenitely not equal violence.
I do not see why you can not simply admit that the people on the ships were (mostly) idiots who used extreme violence in the hope to die as a martyr?

Illegal search and detention is violence. I stop you in your car and take you to a place of my choosing against your will. Do you have a right to resist or should you just peacefully go along with my kidnapping?

And resistance can be done without slamming with huge tools on people who are already on the floor. This was not resistance, it was an attempt to become a martyr.

One side arrived descending on ropes from helicopters and you are arguing the people on the ship overreacted? Thanks for pulling the other one.

When they extend that blockade to the high seas I have a problem with it.

A respectable position.
Though I also considered it to be a position of someone who picks theory above reality.

That would only be true if there were no alternatives that could realistically be used. That is clearly not the case.

If that is what it takes, then yes. The illegality came from the Israeli's.

So your position is, in all cases, that a wrong can be countered with a wrong that's 100 times as worse?
If Hamas sends a rocket to Israel, Israel can send 20 rockets back?

Dissimilar situations. In general I'm not a fan of "proportional response" although I do think military attacks should be aimed at military targets and not civilians.

I am saying you have a right to resist illegal search and detention in international waters.

From a murderous bunch of peace activists on a boat full of building supplies?

Yes, if you let one ship pass, more will pass, all will pass.
It also has to do everything with making your point clear.
the only maintainable position in these situations is: either search all ships or search none of them.

Great. Search them in your waters. It's not like this ship was about to elude the Israeli Navy come daybreak.

[MOBIUS]

Shame on you, Israel

Someone asked on this thread why these ships were sailing - part of it was to draw a parallel to the story of the Exodus in 1947:

Israel: remember 1947 and the Exodus ship

srael's attack on the Gaza aid flotilla has poignant parallels with a notorious British act 63 years ago

No one can accuse history of not having a sense of irony. Sixty-three years ago, in July 1947, a passenger ship destined for Palestine and named the Exodus was stopped and boarded by the British navy. The ship was crowded with Holocaust survivors determined to make a new life for themselves in British-controlled Palestine. The British, facing Zionist terrorism and trying to keep promises made to the Palestinian Arabs to limit Jewish immigration, were determined to stop it. Accordingly, when the Royal Navy boarded the ship 20 miles out from Haifa, a full-scale battle ensued.

Three immigrants were killed and dozens injured as British troops beat the passengers on to three separate prison ships. From there these Holocaust survivors were transported back to Germany and were once again placed in camps. The world was horrified; an American newspaper ran the headline "Back to the Reich". Delegates from the UN Special Commission on Palestine who watched what occurred were similarly shocked; the Yugoslav delegate cited that what happened to the Exodus "is the best possible evidence we have for allowing Jews into Palestine".

Since then, the fate of the Exodus has achieved legendary status: Leon Uris used it as the basis of his 1958 bestseller of the same name; an award-winning film starring Paul Newman came out in 1960; and the former Israeli foreign minister, Abba Eban, drew a direct link between the Exodus story and the ending of British rule in Palestine. Tellingly, a 1996 documentary celebrating the story is entitled, "Exodus 1947: The Ship That Launched A Nation".

This week another small flotilla of ships was making its way to Palestine. Crammed with humanitarian aid and some 600 international peace activists and human rights workers, it was set for Gaza.

Beset by violence and poverty, Gaza is home to 1.5 million dispossessed and imprisoned Palestinians. Under Israeli control since 1967, Gaza has seen it all and been through it all. Yet the events of the last two years are without precedent. Under blockade since 2007, bombarded in a three-week-long assault that is called a war, its people have been barely subsisting since – "put on a diet", according to Israeli government adviser Dov Weisglass. Much that is essential for everyday life is banned: cement is banned, pencils banned, paper banned, toys banned, medicines and food restricted.

Of course you can agree with all this and say it is the terrorist organisation Hamas that is to blame. You can say that even though all this is illegal under international law it is necessary for Israel's security. Or you can ask how banning toys is fighting terror.

Like Mary Robinson after the war you can be shocked, of course: "Their whole civilisation has been destroyed. I'm not exaggerating … It's almost unbelievable that the world doesn't care while this is happening." Or you can believe Israel's foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman: "There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Despite Hamas's war crimes against Israeli citizens … Israel continues to respond in the most humane way possible."

Regardless of whom you choose to believe, this morning the world witnessed another example of Israel's humanity. Just like the British all those years ago, Israel boarded and attacked the small flotilla far out to sea; at least 10, possibly 16 were killed and dozens injured, the survivors transferred to holding camps or prisons inside Israel before deportation. But for Israel's foreign minister this was never an aid convoy, but "a blatant provocation" and "violent propaganda". Which is odd, really, since the convoy, if left unimpeded, would not have gone to Israel itself. As for violence, well, we can all see who supplied that.

However, even as Israel celebrates its success in stopping the aid for Gaza, it should be aware that its position on blockading a whole people is not sustainable. At the time of the Exodus affair, future Israeli prime minister Golda Meir declared: "To Britain we must say: it is a great illusion to believe us weak. Let Great Britain with her mighty fleet and her many guns and planes know that this people is not weak, and that its strength will stand it in good stead." Replace Great Britain with Israel and the same applies today.

[Wezil]

:

I forgot that you're basically the European Ben...

He hasn't earned the "Mr." yet.

[Robert]

If what you say is true (which it isn't!), then the entire world would have seen it and would be supporting Israel and not the other way around! Surely a better outcome for your beloved Israel, no?

Your fanatical ideology has left you completely blind to all logic and reason...

I forgot that you're basically the European Ben...

Dude, you really need to learn to handle people with different opinions.
It's a basic skill you need in debates.

[Robert]

yes i think we can agree it was always perfectly clear what was going to happen if israeli commandos were dropped onto a crowded ship in the dead of night. for you to argue that the same would've happened under the conditions that rah proposed is just more ridiculous doublespeak.

i mean, i can understand why the israelis want to paint those on board the ship as violent extremists, because it makes their actions look slightly less outrageous. what i can't understand is why anyone else should fall for such an obvious trick.

You have not seen the videos of the people on the ship, have you?

[Robert]

He hasn't earned the "Mr." yet.

Then just call me Robert

[MOBIUS]

He hasn't earned the "Mr." yet.

Mr Ben!

[C0ckney]

You have not seen the videos of the people on the ship, have you?

i have and they and totally, completely and utterly irrelevant. people sing pretty provocative songs at football matches for example, does that justify gunning them down?

if your argument rests on this, then you have no argument at all.

[Robert]

Illegal search and detention is violence. I stop you in your car and take you to a place of my choosing against your will. Do you have a right to resist or should you just peacefully go along with my kidnapping?

If I am in the process of getting in your house to kill your family and die in the process as a martyr, without any police being available to help you, yes please kidnap me.

One side arrived descending on ropes from helicopters and you are arguing the people on the ship overreacted? Thanks for pulling the other one.

Yes.
Every sane person would surrender. These guys came to Gaza to die in a huge fight.
That's why it would also have happened during daylight within Israel's territory.

That would only be true if there were no alternatives that could realistically be used. That is clearly not the case.

You're an idealist, and you are so much enlightened that you can't place yourself in the shoes of these extremists.

Dissimilar situations. In general I'm not a fan of "proportional response" although I do think military attacks should be aimed at military targets and not civilians.

I am saying you have a right to resist illegal search and detention in international waters.

That's fine with me as well, but don't complain if extreme violence will be answered with proportional violence in which some people die.