Report: Israel attacks flotilla, 10 die

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Dimitrius07

Special to paranoid people, i can`t speak in the name of entire population but i can speak for my self on Turkish matter.

I as a Israeli citizen (another world zionist) i don`t wish harm (or worse) to entire Turkish population, keep your crazy fantasies to your self please and don`t drag me to your level. However i think Turkish government will repeat the unpleasant story with Islam once again (boom!!! backstab in the back- TH style). I don`t expect hugs and kisses but at least some common sense, be so kind .

Erdoghan's government seeks a reform of the constitution, opening the defence ministry more for political influence. If the (Islamic-AKP-dominated) political level can interfere stronger with the internal personell matters of the military, they can infiltrate and influence the secularly-oriented military sector with devout Muslim personnell - with constitutional legitimation. It all is about eroding the constitutional status of the military as guardian of the secular order of the turkish state. The AKP is dominant in the internal pltical landscape of Turkey, and so I fear the worst and see that chnage of the constituional status of the miluitary coming sooner or later. And that would be the final nail in the coffin of Turkey as we have known it in the past few decades. the Turkish military will become a fundamentalist organsiation.

The only chance I see is that the military launches another coup and takes over the helm in Turkey BEFORE such a change of the constitution become implemented - even at the price of a military government in turkey. The Western utopists will cry and yell and demand "democracy!" of course, but I see no need to care for them - preventing a total domiance of Islamic fundamentalism in turkey is much, much more important than to have a temporary democracy of already limited longevity that is being abused by erdoghan to pave the way towards a fundamentalist Islamic state order and society.

So, Dimitrius, you peopl,e in Israel know what you need to expect of Turkey in the forseeable future. Your government sees it that way, too, I think. That'S why they cancelled their trust into Turkey and did not tell them in advance when bombing the Syrian reactor some time ago. I take it as a given that Erdogan would have warned Syria of the incoming strike.

Tunnels and bunker networks gave the Israelis great troubles in Lebanon.

Totally irrelevant. Gaza has an entirely different geology to Lebanon.
All that extremely "dangerous" cement ain't no real use for secret tunnels and bunkers in that ground

A couple of points,

about the Nato-aspect, it's not a question of Skybird's personal preference but rather of Nato's credibility. Either Nato 'works' as it should or it doesn't. I can guarantee that nations like Finland are keeping a keen eye on this situation and keeping it in mind when thinking about whether or not to join up.

Second, the idea that Israel is the only 'democracy' in the Middle-East. If all people aren't allowed to, say, demonstrate and get different treatment from the law enforcement then you're not really different from other non-democratic nations. "Israel is not Finland or Canada", as said yesterday by your defence minister Ehud Barak. Very true but in the sense that Israel is a worse country then Finland or Canada.

Your government sees it that way, too, I think.

I think your statement is correct. Can add anything specific to what you sad right now.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

about the Nato-aspect, it's not a question of Skybird's personal preference but rather of Nato's credibility. Either Nato 'works' as it should or it doesn't. I can guarantee that nations like Finland are keeping a keen eye on this situation and keeping it in mind when thinking about whether or not to join up.

NATO's purpose is not to support member countries in aggressive wars. If that were the case, all of NATO would be in Iraq. If Turkey starts a war with Israel there isn't a chance in heck that the other NATO countries would back them. It may also result in Turkey getting expelled from NATO.

Second, the idea that Israel is the only 'democracy' in the Middle-East. If all people aren't allowed to, say, demonstrate and get different treatment from the law enforcement then you're not really different from other non-democratic nations. "Israel is not Finland or Canada", as said yesterday by your defence minister Ehud Barak. Very true but in the sense that Israel is a worse country then Finland or Canada.

Well its in general a heck of a lot better then the surrounding countries. Also I think that any people would react in the same way (or worse) if in the same position. Lets say we change the people, instead of Israel being the Jewish homeland, it was the Canadian homeland, or the Finnish homeland. Lets say the neighbors hate us as much, and are doing everything in their power to destroy us, including the usual terror bombings, rocket/mortar attacks on towns and cities, etc. Do you honestly think our populations would act any differently (or even with as much restraint) than Israel does? I sure as heck don't. I mean look at the American reaction to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

I am not in the least bit surprised that Israel blocks large gatherings, protests, etc. Especially considering the type of people who would exploit such situations, and regularly hide in the civilian population, and constantly use them as human shields (like setting up military targets right beside schools, or on top of residential apartments), from which to launch terror attacks.

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

NATO's purpose is not to support member countries in aggressive wars. If that were the case, all of NATO would be in Iraq. If Turkey starts a war with Israel there isn't a chance in heck that the other NATO countries would back them. It may also result in Turkey getting expelled from NATO.

Sending aid ships equals the Iraq war? I don't think I can accept that comparison.

Well its in general a heck of a lot better then the surrounding countries. Also I think that any people would react in the same way (or worse) if in the same position. Lets say we change the people, instead of Israel being the Jewish homeland, it was the Canadian homeland, or the Finnish homeland. Lets say the neighbors hate us as much, and are doing everything in their power to destroy us, including the usual terror bombings, rocket/mortar attacks on towns and cities, etc. Do you honestly think our populations would act any differently (or even with as much restraint) than Israel does? I sure as heck don't. I mean look at the American reaction to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

I am not in the least bit surprised that Israel blocks large gatherings, protests, etc. Especially considering the type of people who would exploit such situations, and regularly hide in the civilian population, and constantly use them as human shields (like setting up military targets right beside schools, or on top of residential apartments), from which to launch terror attacks.

Well let's think about how the US and Canada have dealth with their native populations. In both countries the natives have been marginalised greatly, in US they are confined to reservations and to a large extent have been annihilated in order to secure more lebensraum for the invaders. So in that sense I guess you're a right, in a way. The Israelis haven't annihilated all of the Palestinians. Then again who says they aren't actively trying to do so now and in the future.

And seeing as Gaza is one of the most tightly populated places on the earth I'm not exactly sure where you suppose it is possible to 'hide' there and not be close to civilian housing.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Wrong, try again.
It was in existance for 11 years.
Though I did make a mistake there as 4 countries apart from Egypt recognised it.

are you talking about the "All-Palestine Government"? you can't be serious. That was setup by the Arab league as a PR stunt prior to 1948 war when they thought they would steamroll over the Jewish settlers and it was effectively dead by the end of the war.

The Egyptians paid lip service to it, but ignored it and ruled gaza directly. When Nasser shut it down in 59, it had long ago given up any semblance of usefelness.

Jordan did not even go that far, they just annexed the West bank as part of Jordan.

For a start there are two seperate events there in what you quoted and they are decades apart.
But on the one you are on about you are again surprisingly very wrong. Meir and Abdullah had already negotiated the deal where Transjordan would sieze the areas of the west bank allocated to the proposed Palestinian Arab State under partition. The origins of that deal go back to before WW2, though the Hashemite dream of a greater Syria went far beyond the just adding the west bank to Transjordan
When the war finally came Jordan took that land and illegally "annexed" it, the only other people to recognise it were the british who had sponsored the kingdom from the outset.

err, yes, that is what I said previously, Jordan just annexed the West Bank in 1949 and ruled it as a part of Jordan until 67.

In the 19 years that Egypt and Jordan ruled Gaza and the West bank from 1948 to 1967, they made no effort to setup an independent Palestinian state.

are you talking about the "All-Palestine Government"? you can't be serious.

Did it exist or not? as it did then your initial claim is false.

That was setup by the Arab league as a PR stunt prior to 1948 war

Now you are wrong again, you are mixing up events and dates.

The Egyptians paid lip service to it

So what?

but ignored it and ruled gaza directly.

Under what terms?

Jordan just annexed the West Bank in 1949 and ruled it as a part of Jordan until 67.

Wrong date for starters. and again, so what?

In the 19 years that Egypt and Jordan ruled Gaza and the West bank from 1948 to 1967, they made no effort to setup an independent Palestinian state.

Wrong in the first part (egypt) and in the second part (jordan) so what?

Would you like some help?
Perhaps you should reread your original post on this tangent and my reply.

[Skybird]

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...srael-1.294833

It’s time to stop demonizing Israel

The flood of hypocrisy and bad faith that seems to have just been waiting across the media worldwide for the Mavi Marmara is by no means acceptable.

By Bernard-Henri Lévy

Of course, my position hasn’t changed. As I said the day it happened, during a fierce debate in Tel Aviv with one of Benjamin Netanyahu’s ministers, I continue to find the manner in which the assault against the Mavi Marmara and its flotilla was effected off the Gaza coast to be “stupid.”

If I’d had any remaining doubt, the inspection of the seventh boat − carried out without a trace of violence Saturday morning − would have convinced me there were other ways Israel could have operated to have kept the tactical and PR trap set by the provocateurs of Free Gaza from snapping shut, and with blood spilled.

That said and repeated, the flood of hypocrisy, bad faith and, ultimately, disinformation that seems to have just been waiting for this pretext to flow into the breach and sweep across the media worldwide − as is the case every time the Jewish state slips up and commits an error − is by no means acceptable.

The catchphrase being trotted out ad nauseum refers to the blockade imposed “by Israel.” The most elementary honesty, however, requires one to make clear that this blockade has been undertaken by both Israel and Egypt, conjointly, along the borders of the two countries that share frontiers with Gaza, and with the thinly disguised blessing of all the moderate Arab regimes. Saying the blockade has been imposed by Israel alone can only be described as disinformation. The moderate Arab regimes, of course, are only too happy to have someone else contain the influence of this armed extension, this advanced base and, perhaps one day, this aircraft-carrier of Iran in the region.

The very idea of a “total and merciless” blockade ‏(Laurent Joffrin’s June 5 editorial in the French daily Liberation‏) “taking hostage the humanity [of Gaza]” ‏(former French prime minister Dominique de Villepin in Le Monde on the same date‏) also constitutes disinformation. We mustn’t tire of reminding others: the blockade concerns only arms and the material needed to manufacture them. It does not prevent the daily arrival, via Israel, of between 100 and 120 trucks laden with foodstuffs, medical supplies and humanitarian goods of every kind. Humanity is not “in danger” in Gaza, and it is a lie to state that people are “dying of hunger” in the streets of Gaza City.

It is debatable whether or not a military blockade is the right course of action to weaken and, one day, bring down the fascislamist government of Ismail Haniyeh. But it is an indisputable fact that the Israelis who man the checkpoints between the territories night and day are the first to make the elementary but essential distinction between the regime ‏(that they seek to isolate‏) and the population ‏(which they are careful not to confuse with the regime, and in particular not to penalize as, once again, aid has never stopped passing into Gaza‏).

Disinformation: the utter silence, throughout the world, about Hamas’ incredible attitude now that the flotilla has carried out its symbolic duty − to trap the Jewish state and relaunch, as never before, the process of demonization. In other words, now that the Israelis have carried out their inspection and brought the aid cargo to those for whom it was supposedly intended, Hamas’ attitude in blocking that aid at Kerem Shalom checkpoint, allowing it to slowly rot, is met with silence.

To hell with any merchandise that has passed through the hands of Jewish customs! Chuck out the “toys” that brought tears to the eyes of good European souls, but became impure after spending too many long hours in the Israeli port of Ashdod! Gaza’s children have been used as nothing more than a human shield for the Islamist gang who took power by force three years ago, or cannon fodder or media vignettes. The children’s games or their wishes are the last thing anyone in the Strip worries about, but who says so? Who shows the slightest indignation?

Liberation recently ran an awful headline − “Israel, Pirate State” − which, if words still mean anything, can only contribute to the delegitimization of the Jewish state. Who will dare explain that, if there is a hostage-taker in Gaza, one who coldly and unscrupulously takes advantage of people’s suffering and, in particular, that of the children − in sum, a pirate − it is not Israel but Hamas?

Laughable, but given the strategic context, catastrophic disinformation was clearly seen in the speech given in Konya, in central Turkey, by a prime minister who throws in prison anyone who dares to evoke the genocide of the Armenians in public, but who has the nerve, there, before thousands of fired-up demonstrators yelling anti-Semitic slogans, to denounce Israeli “state terrorism.” Still more disinformation: the lament of the useful idiots who, before Israel did, fell into the clutches of these strange “humanitarians” who, in the case of the Turkish IHH, are Jihad enthusiasts, anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish apocalyptical fanatics, both men and women − some of whom, just days before the incident, expressed their wish to “die as martyrs.” ‏(The Guardian, June 3; Al Aqsa TV, May 30‏).

How can a writer of the calibre of Sweden’s Henning Mankell allow himself to be taken advantage of this way? When he tells us he is thinking of forbidding the translation of his books into Hebrew, how can he really forget the sacrosanct distinction between a stupid or wrong-headed government and the masses of those who do not identify with it? How can a chain of cinemas ‏(Utopia‏) in France decide to cancel the release of a film, “A Cinq heures de Paris,” in the same way, simply because its writer, Leonid Prudovsky, is an Israeli citizen?

Finally, the battalions of Tartuffes who regret that Israel is declining the demand for an international inquiry are disinformers as well. The truth is, once again, much simpler and more logical: What Israel is refusing is an inquiry requested by the UN Human Rights Council, where those great democrats − the Cubans, Pakistanis and Iranians − reign. What Israel does not want is a procedure of the kind that resulted in the famous Goldstone report, commissioned after Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. The five judges on that sympathetic commission − four of whom had never made a secret of their militant anti-Zionism − wrapped up 575 pages of interviews of Palestinian fighters and civilians, conducted under the watchful eye of Hamas political commissioners ‏(an absolute and unprecedented heresy in this kind of work‏), in a matter of mere days.

Such a botched inquiry would amount to a masquerade of international justice, something Israel simply cannot stand for. Its conclusions would be known in advance and would only serve to haul, as usual and perfectly unilaterally, the region’s sole and unique democracy into the defendants’ dock.
One last word. For a man like me, someone who takes pride in having helped to conceive, with others, this kind of symbolic action ‏(the boat for Vietnam; the march for the survival of Cambodia in 1979; various and sundry anti-totalitarian boycotts and, more recently, the deliberate violation of the Sudan border to break the blockade hiding the perpetration of massacres in Darfur‏) − in other words, for a militant of humanitarian interference and all the media fuss that goes with it, this pathetic saga has something of a caricature to it, a gloomy grimace of destiny.

But this is all the more reason not to give in. All the more reason to reject this confusing of genres, this inversion of values. All the more reason to resist this hijacking of meaning, that places the very spirit of a policy conceived to counter the intent of barbarians at their service.

Destitution of the anti-totalitarian dialectic, its imitations and its reversals. Confusion of an era when we combat democracies as if they were dictatorships or fascist states. This maelstrom of hatred and madness is about Israel. But it also concerns, as we should be well aware, some of the most precious things established in the movement of ideas in the last 30 years, especially on the left, and these are thus imperiled. A word to the wise is sufficient.

Translated from the French by Janet Lizop.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Kazuaki,

I think no NATO memeber is fulfilling the treaty and the spirit of NATO anymore when it provokes military incidents intentionally and by that is the agressor. Turkey behavinglike that would not be in a psoiton to call others for help over a case of being attacked. It would be the aggressor in that it provokes the incident.

NATO waging war against Israel to cover a Turksh provocation? Not with me.

When what are at least nominally called "aid ships" and they get attacked, by most books you are considered the victim, not the aggressor.

By this logic, when USS Yorktown participated in its "Freedom of Navigation" activities in Soviet territorial waters in the 80s, if it had gotten sunk, NATO should not have stood by America, seeing America was the aggressor. Somehow, I don't think that would have been the case at all.

I just translated the article "as is", and the german original indeed mentions intenrational law ruling that the breaking of a military blockade is a military act in itself.

Generally, when one "breaks" a blockade, I think most think of using warships to sink the ships supporting the blockade, not running it with civvie ships.

This apparently is not the only source thinking so, but some days ago, if you go back several pages, you will see that somewhere out there again I quoted, "on the fly", another source. And persnally, if just thinking with my own mind about it: I too think that the breaking of a military blockade, or the eattempt to do so, is a military action itself. That'S why I labelled all those activists onboard those ships as combatants, passive combatants. If it would not have been able to board the ships and they would not have stopped all by themselves, and the Isaeli navy therefore would have opened fire with ship guns and "activists" would have gotten killed, I would not see them as collateral losses, but as killed combatants. Becasue - a blockade is a blockade, and trying to break thorugh it is indeed an act of force - like is enforcing such a blockade.

A large problem with this position is that it renders equivalent the military and the civilian, and also the equating of passive resistance to active military action, which would be counter to modern Western ideas of "civilized" warfare and humanitarianism, and effectively removes the Western (and Israeli) objection to terrorism.

After all, generally we call people who sneak shot militaries "guerillas" or "freedom fighters" and those who sneak shot civilians "terrorists". But if military is equivalent to civilian, where's the distinction. Which would mean that Hamas is morally correct to fire 10,000 rockets into Israel civilian areas.

and bunkers, you mentioned. Well, not wanting to be rude, but there you really show great naivety when saying a bunker is adefensive installation and thus is of no harm in war. If the enemy uses bunkers not to give shelter to civilian population, but to store his ammo and weapons, his command posts and combatants, and uses bunkers to hide himself and put himself out of reach from hostile counterfire and uses them as firing platforms from which to strike against the enemy, then they are hardly to be described that harmelss as you did. In fact they strengthen the offensive capabilties of those using them the way I descriobed. And we know that Hamas is doing it, we also know that Hamas copies tactics, procedures and tries to copy the armament of Hezbollah which is adivsing Hamas since the end of the Lebanon war. Tunnels and bunker networks gave the Israelis great troubles in Lebanon.

Nothing you've written here actually attacks the point that bunkers themselves are pretty harmless existences. You can say the same of food, water and medicine in its value in facilitating attacks...

One rule of war: you shall not allow your enemy any hideouts, untouchable supply lines and safe havens. What you identitfy to be of use for the fighting and propaganda capacity of your enemy - kill and destroy it. Only this way wars against determined enemies are being won. And Hamas is determined to destroy Israel. Can't get any more determined, I would say.

A simplistic, purely military view that ignores the relation between wars and politics. Besides, instituting this total war policy will actually, again, legitimise Hamas civilian attacks - after all, no leaving untouchable supply lines and safe havens to the enemies, so any area you can hit is open.

In any case, I don't think world public opinion, as a practical matter, will allow such a policy to be instituted by Israel, a receiver of F-15s and Apaches and thus held to a higher standard than the average Islamic terrorist.

Besides, instituting this total war policy will actually, again, legitimise Hamas civilian attacks - after all, no leaving untouchable supply lines and safe havens to the enemies, so any area you can hit is open.

Thats the beauty of the use of that arguement, many people here have used it on topics coveriing a wide range of conflicts.
They hilariously legitimise that which they wish to condemn.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Did it exist or not? as it did then your initial claim is false.

if you actually believe the "All-Palestine Government" was an independant Palestinian state, then I really dont know why you have a problem with Israel's actions in the ME, since the current Palestinian Authority, even with all its restictions is 1,000 times better than that Egyptian puppet organization on its best days....

if you actually believe the "All-Palestine Government" was an independant Palestinian state,

How long have you had this problem with the English language?

then I really dont know why you have a problem with Israel's actions in the ME

You really do need to learn to comprehend.
The problem I have with some Israels actions in the middle east are the same as the problems I have with the actions of other middle eastern countries and all their overseas sponsors.
But its OK I know you got stuck with being unable to understand the simple words......"really, where?"...and due to that failure have been flailing in the dark ever since.

[Bilge_Rat]

Tribesman,

just answer the question:

do you believe the "All-Palestine Government" of 1948-59 was an independent Palestinian State?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

When what are at least nominally called "aid ships" and they get attacked, by most books you are considered the victim, not the aggressor.

Breaking a blockade is breaking a blockade. By your logic a force breaking a blockade could be demanded to be allowed success if only it does not shoot at those opposing forces enforcing the blockade. That is absurd. It does not matter whether the blockade runner is armed and doe snot use its weapons, or has no weapons. The frigate running a blockade is the same like a trader running a blockade.

By this logic, when USS Yorktown participated in its "Freedom of Navigation" activities in Soviet territorial waters in the 80s, if it had gotten sunk, NATO should not have stood by America, seeing America was the aggressor. Somehow, I don't think that would have been the case at all.

Can't comment, don't know the details of that incident.

Generally, when one "breaks" a blockade, I think most think of using warships to sink the ships supporting the blockade, not running it with civvie ships.

See above. Abloackade is a blockade. It has a purpose, that is to prevent, limit or control the flow of goods to an enemy one is at war at. Any effort trying to counter that prevention or control of goods transports, is breaking the blockade. So is smuggling.

A large problem with this position is that it renders equivalent the military and the civilian, and also the equating of passive resistance to active military action, which would be counter to modern Western ideas of "civilized" warfare and humanitarianism, and effectively removes the Western (and Israeli) objection to terrorism.

The blockade by Israel is legal, was supoported actively by Egypt, and tolerated by many araba states. Now will you finally please spend some time on trying to understand what purpose a blockade has and what it tries to acchieve. It's becoming a bit boring that time and again I must point out and explain the very obvious. the Israeli blockade to Gaza is not even a total one, but one that is about inspections and just filtering out certain items that can be of military use for Hamas.

After all, generally we call people who sneak shot militaries "guerillas" or "freedom fighters" and those who sneak shot civilians "terrorists". But if military is equivalent to civilian, where's the distinction. Which would mean that Hamas is morally correct to fire 10,000 rockets into Israel civilian areas.

Civilians voluntarily lining up with combatants - become combatants themselves that way, because they have chosen one combatant side to line up with. Civilians in Israel that get terroised by randomly aimed missiles do not do that, nor does the Israeli military confuse the situation by hiding in civilian crowds like Hamas and Hezbollah does. The activists on those ships, on the other hand, voluntarily joined blockade runners and knew what they were doing and said that that was what they wanted and what they were doing. they have chosen sides in a conflict they knew they were heading into. That's what made them no neutral civilians but blockde runners. And since running through a blockade is an act of conflict in itself, they were combatants even if they were just sitting on the deck.

Your defnition and destinction of guerillas and terrorists is neither precise, nor complete, btw, but that is another thread.

Nothing you've written here actually attacks the point that bunkers themselves are pretty harmless existences. You can say the same of food, water and medicine in its value in facilitating attacks...

You could say the same of weapons and explosives, too, in principle they are pretty harmless if not being used. Your arguing here is so very absurd and naive that I refuse to seriously answer to that again.

A simplistic, purely military view that ignores the relation between wars and politics.

No. you just mess up the meaning of war and think there is a way war could be fought in a civilised way, like a sports event. It isn'T. It's neither fair nor just. It's only a war either needed, or a war not needed. The first you fight, the second you better stay away from.

Besides, instituting this total war policy will actually, again, legitimise Hamas civilian attacks - after all, no leaving untouchable supply lines and safe havens to the enemies, so any area you can hit is open.

Civilians are no combatants as long as they do not line up with a combating side/party/faction, and Hamas does not aim at military targets when firing it's unguided rockets - it intentionally tries to aim them at civilians as best as it can and hopes to kill them by as high scores as possible.

Understand the difference between terror, and collateral damage. The first (terror) is wanted and intended in the first. The latter (collateral damage) cannot be avoided (but is wanted to be reduced, and if you know just a bit about for example the way the Israeli Air Force issues warnings before point-attack that house of a known activist to give the people (and the target as well) enough time to escape, then you know what makes a decisive difference between the IDF and the Hamas.)

Taking out military important assets (offensive and defensive weapon sites, bunkers, sensors, ammuntion stores, bridges, forces, vehicles, communications, militarily usable infrastructure) , sometimes cannot be done without accepting civilian casualties as well. But that is still something different from trying to intentionally kill as many civilians as possible. where even that basic difference is not understood or is rejected, any further discussion is useless.