Israel Storm Ships

[DornochCaley]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10195838.stm

Well i personally find this shocking, but it comes as no surpise.

Israel have been let off long enough with what they have done to the people in the Gaza strip and surely this is the final straw? If our Governments who act like they are the example setters want to continue to do so, they need to act against Israel.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Scotty
corrected spelling of Israel in topic title and text.

[Scotty]

perhaps semantics but in the interests of a serious discussion, perhaps you should spell it Israel

semantics aside, this area of the world contains probably one of the most complicated, intertwined and entangled geopolitical and religious scenarios on the planet going right back to the days of the bible (if you believe in that sort of stuff). The current (and by current I mean post-1948) situation is one in which we as one of the allied powers at the end of the second world war had more than a little involvement in creating (or exacerbating).

You can argue both sides with ease depending on your viewpoint - Israel has regularly been attacked for decades by countries who dont even recognise their right to exist, and they too have performed acts of atrocity that would have brought them huge sanctions (or worse) if they were any other country. No-one is innocent in all of this other than those - on both sides - who end up as 'collateral damage'.

I just hope that somewhere, sometime, a world leader steps up and assertively tries to emulate the process that Jimmy Carter began in 1978 with the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel, and that the international community tried to keep going between Israel and other Arab states with the Madrid conference, Oslo Accords, and the 2000 Camp David talks. Clinton tried hard during his presidency but maybe Obama or one of his successors can go further and bring all sides to the table once again ...........

[starchief]

To think how close Arafat and Rabin came to a deal. I'm sure it was literally only months away from acceptance before the assassination. What a lot of wasted time and lives since then.

[SMEE]

Israel seem to think they have licence to do as they please, as the rest of the civillised world sits back and allows em to run amok. my own personal opinion is....NO WONDER THEY ARE DESPISED (as a nation). They do NOTHING but play the victim card, but all the time...they keep stoking the fires. I fully sympathise with the Palestinians etc!

[Oddquine]

Until such time as the USA steps up to the plate and stops vetoing every resolution in the UNSC which would hold Israel to account, and until the USA stops subsidising Israel's war machine, thus freeing up Israeli money to construct and extend illegal settlements on Palestinian land and blockade Gaza, there is Buckley's Chance of any change in the Israel/Palestine situation.

I find it more than ironic that Iran is being sanctioned because we think there might just be a possibility that they are considering, at some future stage, the acquisition of nuclear weapons.....but Israel can behave like a spoiled child, used to having its own way who has a fast grip on somebody else's toy, and is having tantrums because they are expected to give it back......and all they get in reaction is weasel words.

Faults on both sides, certainly...but as the self-declared "Only Western Democracy in the Middle East"........should we not expect a somewhat higher standard from them, compared to two enclaves in ghettos who control only what Israel allows them to control? Does Israel not offer a horrendously embarrassing example of how Western Democracy works in an area where we would like to see more of it?

[ictchris]

I think Israel have made a big blunder in this attack. There's no justification for attacking a convoy carrying aid, even if some of the aid was on a banned list. I'm not a nautical expert but I doubt that the only way to prevent the ships from docking was to send naval commando's into battle.

If the ship had been carrying weapons then I thinkit would be a different story but unless there was more than meets the eye with this then it's a grave error from Israel.

[DornochCaley]

In my opinion, even if there were a small amount of arms on the ship, there was no need to send in commandos whos sole purpose is to kill. They could of sent in a riot team or something with Tear gas and Rubber bullets. No need for a team of commandos with sub machine guns.

Shocking stuff really. These are civillians.

As much as this sounds rediculous... this is slightly similar to the appeasment of the 1930s......

[DornochCaley]

I think if you start attacking Israeli commandos with iron bars you shouldn't really be suprised if you get hurt.

Let's be honest here, Israel is not the worst human rights violator in the world. It isn't even in the top 20 human rights violating countries in the world. When you watch the news and see all the hate tinged anti Israel protests you have to question, why do none of these people ever protest against the governments of Sudan, The Congo, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Thailand, Burma, Zimbabwe or North Korea?????

Because not many of those Counties pretend to be a "Western Democracy". Not to mention, Israel is being supported but the USA. The people of those places could rise up and fight, like the Thialand people did. But the people of Gaza have no chance when even the essentials are being blocked.

[Charles Bannerman]

As much as this sounds rediculous... this is slightly similar to the appeasment of the 1930s......

I'm not sure I get what you mean.

[latviaman]

As much as this sounds rediculous... this is slightly similar to the appeasment of the 1930s......

I'm not sure I get what you mean.

Me too CB or am I thick??

[Scotty]

As much as this sounds rediculous... this is slightly similar to the appeasment of the 1930s......

I'm not sure I get what you mean.

well that makes 3 of us !!!

I assume you are referring to the policies of many western nations during the 30s where they tried to solve disputes amicably to avoid war with the dictatorships established by Hitler & Mussolini? I believe the normal description (according to wikipedia) goes something like .... "the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody, and possibly dangerous."

I cannot see how this fits in with storming the ships, although I can see how you might argue that the inaction of many western countries is similar to an appeasement towards Israel. However, I would disagree with the wider concept of "appeasement" being the correct description of this situation. If the USA or other major powers did stand up to Israel and took sanctions against them it would not lead to a war with Israel, but perhaps to Israel pulling back somewhat and maybe coming to the bargaining table (reluctantly). However, that kind of action is never going to happen as most western powers have a fairly active, powerful and influential Jewish lobby within them and in many cases (esp. USA) being seen as anti-Israeli is a career killer for a politician so they just wont go there !!!

[starchief]

I think if you start attacking Israeli commandos with iron bars you shouldn't really be suprised if you get hurt.

Why are Israeli commandos on the boat? There are far more peaceful ways to resolve the situation. Either don't let the boat dock, or let it dock, send the aid back and detain a few ringleaders for a while.

Israel wasn't interested in a peaceful situation.

Let's be honest here, Israel is not the worst human rights violator in the world. It isn't even in the top 20 human rights violating countries in the world. When you watch the news and see all the hate tinged anti Israel protests you have to question, why do none of these people ever protest against the governments of Sudan, The Congo, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Thailand, Burma, Zimbabwe or North Korea?????

I think people do protest against at least some of those - certainly Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe and North Korea. But we exert very little influence over these countries. Sierra Leone and Rwanda are far different countries to ten years ago, whilst the problem in DR Congo isn't the government being corrupt, it's a lack of power due to lack of outside support but with outside interference.

I think Israel is such a rallying point because it just seems they can get away with anything. No matter what happens, there's no sanctions. Hezbollah capture one Israeli soldier (a despicable action) and Israel slaughters thousands indiscriminately, whilst deliberately targeting a UN post killing all inside. Response? Nothing. Not even the slightest hint of sanctions. Meanwhile, Israel holds literally thousands of Lebanese prisoners without a trial. Not a peep from the international community.

I expect a few harsh words but nothing more to come from this latest outrage. Had this been Yemen, Egypt or Iran attacking a supply boat of Israeli goods, the response would have been far different.

Edited May 31, 2010 by starchief

[Renegade]

However, that kind of action is never going to happen as most western powers have a fairly active, powerful and influential Jewish lobby within them and in many cases (esp. USA) being seen as anti-Israeli is a career killer for a politician so they just wont go there !!!

I think it's interesting here to look at Barack Obama's past on this issue. Before he ran and when he ran for the Illinois State Senate he was pro-Palestinian, when he was a State Senator, he still was pro-Palestine, but as soon as he became a full federal Senator, all of a sudden he became pro-Israel like the vast vast majority of the rest of the American political scene. Of course, he had higher aspirations than the US Senate and without a somewhat pro-Israel stance, whereby he can appease the likes of AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups, he would have no chance getting anywhere. Without a pro-Israel viewpoint, he'd have probably have found it hard to be re-elected as Illinois's Senator, far less becoming the President. It would also be worth noting of who his Vice President is. Joe Biden has even said himself that he was "Israel's greatest friend in the United States' Senate". This was just another move to show that Obama does indeed share a viewpoint with the majority of Americans, which in turn, helped him along the way.

I think underneath it all, Obama is not half as pro-Israel as he proclaims to be, and not a patch on the stance of his predecessor. Of course though, without this stance, he wouldn't get very far in his political career.

[Charles Bannerman]

Yes, I think if there's any appeasement at all going on at all, it is of the Jewish vote in the USA.

[DornochCaley]

When i say it is similar to the appeasment of 1930's.. I just mean the fact our Government are standing aside while things go on which are clearly wrong. Obviously, the treaty of Versailles was too harsh.. but the Munich agreement for example.. we stood aside and let Germany take the Sudetenland just as we are standing aside and letting Israel terrorise the innocent people of the Gaza strip.

[ictchris]

Yes, I think if there's any appeasement at all going on at all, it is of the Jewish vote in the USA.

Lol, jews account for less than 2% of the population of the United States.

Most of whom vote Democrat anyway.

When i say it is similar to the appeasment of 1930's.. I just mean the fact our Government are standing aside while things go on which are clearly wrong. Obviously, the treaty of Versailles was too harsh.. but the Munich agreement for example.. we stood aside and let Germany take the Sudetenland just as we are standing aside and letting Israel terrorise the innocent people of the Gaza strip.

Yes, it's exactly the same.

[Renegade]

Yes, I think if there's any appeasement at all going on at all, it is of the Jewish vote in the USA.

Lol, jews account for less than 2% of the population of the United States.

I think he means more the pro-Israel vote and lobbyists (most of whom incidentally are not Jewish).

[Charles Bannerman]

Yes, I think if there's any appeasement at all going on at all, it is of the Jewish vote in the USA.

Lol, jews account for less than 2% of the population of the United States.

I think he means more the pro-Israel vote and lobbyists (most of whom incidentally are not Jewish).

Yes, I do. The direct Jewish vote is actually a little bit over 2% but the Jewish lobby, disproportionately to its size, is tremendously influential in the USA from the point of view of its status in the media and its money, with which politicians run campaigns. Jewish influence in American politics has for decades been well known to be significant and more recently, look at the tiny margin which George W Bush won in 2000.

On the question of the Appeasement parallel, there are some broad similarities, but I don't think that is as direct as DC is suggesting. For a start, in the 1930s, much of Europe and not just Britain was guilty of appeasing Hitler who might well have been stopped short in 1936, before he was really militarily strong, had a stand been taken on the Rhineland question. However the main difference is that in Europe in the 1930s there was a clear and direct threat to the appeasers themselves of a second conflict engulfing the continent and they failed to to act in such a way as to protect themselves from it. Much of what motivated this was a desire to avoid a repeat of 1914-18 but there is no such similar danger in the Israel scenario.

On the other hand, it could be argued that there is a limit to which the bigger powers can become involved in conflicts like the Middle East, even though they were involved in setting up the Jewish state in 1948 (and had to endure multiple acts of Jewish terrorism against them in the process by the way - please note that terrorism is not the sole preserve of Arabs.)

We already have a substantial argument that intervention in Iraq should never have happened. I would also imagine that few would suggest that we should go and give the North Koreans a sorting out for sinking the South Korean ship. You could even stretch this argument to ask why for 45 years we "appeased" the Russians when they did what they liked to countries like Hungary and Czechoslovakia etc. There is a limit to which the larger states can become the world's policemen in a military sense.

On the other hand there are probably diplomatic or economic pressures which the larger states could and indeed should be taking against Israel and which might well be effective, but which they are not applying. But there again the Appeasement analogy breaks down because sanctions of this nature would have been no use against Hitler and it was lack of early military intervention that was the problem.

[DornochCaley]

Yes, I think if there's any appeasement at all going on at all, it is of the Jewish vote in the USA.

Lol, jews account for less than 2% of the population of the United States.

I think he means more the pro-Israel vote and lobbyists (most of whom incidentally are not Jewish).

Yes, I do. The direct Jewish vote is actually a little bit over 2% but the Jewish lobby, disproportionately to its size, is tremendously influential in the USA from the point of view of its status in the media and its money, with which politicians run campaigns. Jewish influence in American politics has for decades been well known to be significant and more recently, look at the tiny margin which George W Bush won in 2000.

On the question of the Appeasement parallel, there are some broad similarities, but I don't think that is as direct as DC is suggesting. For a start, in the 1930s, much of Europe and not just Britain was guilty of appeasing Hitler who might well have been stopped short in 1936, before he was really militarily strong, had a stand been taken on the Rhineland question. However the main difference is that in Europe in the 1930s there was a clear and direct threat to the appeasers themselves of a second conflict engulfing the continent and they failed to to act in such a way as to protect themselves from it. Much of what motivated this was a desire to avoid a repeat of 1914-18 but there is no such similar danger in the Israel scenario.

On the other hand, it could be argued that there is a limit to which the bigger powers can become involved in conflicts like the Middle East, even though they were involved in setting up the Jewish state in 1948 (and had to endure multiple acts of Jewish terrorism against them in the process by the way - please note that terrorism is not the sole preserve of Arabs.)

We already have a substantial argument that intervention in Iraq should never have happened. I would also imagine that few would suggest that we should go and give the North Koreans a sorting out for sinking the South Korean ship. You could even stretch this argument to ask why for 45 years we "appeased" the Russians when they did what they liked to countries like Hungary and Czechoslovakia etc. There is a limit to which the larger states can become the world's policemen in a military sense.

On the other hand there are probably diplomatic or economic pressures which the larger states could and indeed should be taking against Israel and which might well be effective, but which they are not applying. But there again the Appeasement analogy breaks down because sanctions of this nature would have been no use against Hitler and it was lack of early military intervention that was the problem.

I know what you mean. Obviously there are other things that had to be taken into consideration when it came to Hitler. Such as Versailles, Britian not ready for war, Communism a "Bigger" threat. But it was really just a broad comparison i was trying to make. Though i probably never made it sound like that.

[Charles Bannerman]

[i know what you mean. Obviously there are other things that had to be taken into consideration when it came to Hitler. Such as Versailles, Britian not ready for war, Communism a "Bigger" threat. But it was really just a broad comparison i was trying to make. Though i probably never made it sound like that.

Yes, i see what you mean too and it's to see that you are thinking critically and analytically about the question in a historical context!

[ictchris]

The REAL danger

[Oddquine]

Has anyone changed their perspective now that footage has been released painting a different story from that portrayed by the 'humanitarian' shipmates. It appears that on boarding the ship the soldiers were attacked with iron bars, knives and other makeshift melee weapons. They proceeded to fire paintball guns to try to disperse the mob who responded with live fire, to which the soldiers returned live fire. As far as I'm concerned, if this version of events is accurate, the actions of the Israeli soldiers were entirely justified.

Frankly...no.

Why was it justified...the soldiers should not have been boarding any ship in International waters in the first place. They were where they shouldn't have been.....much like any intruder.....and have to accept the consequences.

I'd have seen the point if the ships were in Israeli waters without permission..but they were not, were they.......they were sailing through International Waters towards Palestinian Waters.

Kindly explain to me the great and obvious difference between Israel's illegal actions and those of your average Somalian pirate..or is nobody allowed to defend themselves against Somalian pirates either?

[DornochCaley]

Has anyone changed their perspective now that footage has been released painting a different story from that portrayed by the 'humanitarian' shipmates. It appears that on boarding the ship the soldiers were attacked with iron bars, knives and other makeshift melee weapons. They proceeded to fire paintball guns to try to disperse the mob who responded with live fire, to which the soldiers returned live fire. As far as I'm concerned, if this version of events is accurate, the actions of the Israeli soldiers were entirely justified.

Frankly...no.

Why was it justified...the soldiers should not have been boarding any ship in International waters in the first place. They were where they shouldn't have been.....much like any intruder.....and have to accept the consequences.

I'd have seen the point if the ships were in Israeli waters without permission..but they were not, were they.......they were sailing through International Waters towards Palestinian Waters.

Kindly explain to me the great and obvious difference between Israel's illegal actions and those of your average Somalian pirate..or is nobody allowed to defend themselves against Somalian pirates either?

Correct pal. Not to mention, the Israeli propaganda machine is only releasing the footage that will make them look like it was them that were sinned against. Where is the footage of people being shot? As i am sure there will be some.

And if you are going to believe what the Isrealis say, with only their word for it, then you will also have to take into account the Activists claims that the shooting started before the boat was even boarded.

[Oddquine]

Correct pal. Not to mention, the Israeli propaganda machine is only releasing the footage that will make them look like it was them that were sinned against. Where is the footage of people being shot? As i am sure there will be some.

And if you are going to believe what the Isrealis say, with only their word for it, then you will also have to take into account the Activists claims that the shooting started before the boat was even boarded.

How's about a look at Al-Jazeera footage taken before the commandos actually arrived.

Raw footage from Al Jazeera

Certainly appears to give the lie to any Israeli claims of self defence........there looks to have been a death before any Israeli set foot on deck, given a death is mentioned before there is any mention of boarding.

Definitely plenty shooting going on before any boarding anyway.

[CaleyD]

To be honest, I don't trust the video "evidence" from either side...and is often the case the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

What discredits the Al Jazeera video for me is that they claim they are being hit with live fire, stun grenades and tear gas.....yet you can neither hear nor see any evidence of such things from the video. They also claim that all mobile phones are jammed (do you really need to jam mobiles out at sea?) and they can't call for help, but they still have a live satellite link-up to broadcast via....could that not be used to call for help?

One other thing, and it kinda applies to both, why do they always insist on close up/narrow video? Surely if they want to portray the full (and truthful) picture then a wider shot would be more credible?

The only real facts we have without taking the word of one or other side is that we had a convoy of ships deliberately sailing with the intention of breaching a blockade. Whether the cause was just is neither here nor there, if you put yourself into that situation then you have to be extremely naive or extremely stupid to think you're going to be allowed to do so without facing any resistance.

We don't know who fired the first shot or showed the first act of aggression, but having watched several documentaries and knowing a few people who get involved with some of the Greenpeace stuff it is not unknown for the so called "do gooders" to taunt in the hope of a reaction which they can then use to say "look at these bad people who resort to aggression with no justification".

I'm not siding with Israel, not condoning their boarding in International waters and I do think they get away with more than they should in this whole conflict.....however, if you choose to poke a rabid dog, don't come crying about it when he turns round and bites you.

Nobody forced them into that situation, nobody held a gun to their head and told them to sail ships towards a blockade....the did so of their own free will. The people on these ships made their decisions, took their chances and it backfired with horrible consequence.