I was, but then you guys KEPT GOING BACK TO IT, and then I heard this, so I figured “that might shut them up”.
So basically if the IDF say it it must be wrong. I don’t think there’s any denying the fact that the situation in Gaza is grim, but can’t you at least for a second consider where Israel is coming from? They have, right next to them, a hostile group intent on their destruction. Isn’t it justified for them to try to take actions, such as sanctions and blockades, for them to stop prohibited materials from entering the region?
And you still haven’t explained why Israel would punish the Gazans. What would they gain? Cutting of supplies to Hamas, to me, is justified. Its no different from how the US has massive sanctions around countries that it doesn’t like in the hope of cutting off supplies (like, I don’t know, North Korea?). And if they can use the blockade as a bargaining tool to reduce rocket attacks (i.e. reduce sanctions to reduce attacks), as they have in the past, then isn’t that worth it?
And on the US backing Israel; if you’ve been paying attention to a lot of the fallout recently (specifically after the 2009 invasion and the assassination of…that guy in India), the nature of the US-Israel relationship is rapidly changing. The US is growing increasingly critical of Israel and the time of passive inaction is rapidly drawing to a close. There are many people from many different nations who have spoken out against the protester’s actions, but if you’re looking at Turkey’s comments for accuracy, I don’t think you’ll find much there.
Furthermore, most people who have condemned Israel have done so for the blockade, NOT for what they did on the flotilla.
But, just because they have hostiles all around them does NOT mean that they get to do whatever they want to whomever they want.
The flotilla was still in International Waters. Boarding a ship in international waters without permission is akin to piracy and those on the ship have the right to defend themselves.
“Sir, the Federation does have enemies! We must seek them out!”
“Oh, yes. That’s how it starts, but the road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think. Something is wrong here, Mr. Worf. I don’t like what we have become!”
Worf & Picard, The Drumhead, Star Trek: The Next Generation
I agree. However, this wasn’t a case of them doing whatever they want to whomever happened to be around. This was a group of protesters who were warned not to come, but did anyway. They posed a threat because they were going to violate the blockade. If they truly had nothing but humanitarian aid, then why didn’t they do what Israel said and distribute through the existing channels?
That was what Israel offered. They refused. Something looked suss. So Israel boarded the flotilla’s with the objective of securing them, filtering out any stuff that wasn’t allowed through and delivering the rest. They just wanted to make sure there wasn’t a threat; that’s why they boarded the ships with non-lethal weaponry.
Israel told the boats not to come. When they left, they asked them to redirect to another port. When they didn’t, they warned them that they would be boarded. Israeli commandos boarded the vessels with non-lethal weaponry and secure them. They were attacked with pipes, chains, guns and knives. They responded in kind. Soldiers on both sides were injured.
Why should they defend themselves? Israel told them that they were coming on board, that they should not resist, and 8 out of 9 boats did not see the need to defend themselves. They boarded the last one and were attacked. You only need to look at the video for evidence of that. They didn’t start defending themselves when they were attacked by the Israelis; the Israelis defended themselves when the passengers onboard the boat started attacking them.
Maybe because they felt the aid wouldn’t go through that way?
…illegally…
Actually, it was Israel that attacked first by invading the ship. If a burglar comes into your home, you don’t have the right to defend yourself even if the burglar doesn’t show a weapon to you first?
Oh, gee, I dunno…maybe because they were still in International Waters and it was illegal for anyone to board?
Wholly irrelevant.
So, a burglar has a right to defend themselves against an attacking homeowner? O_o
The rioters tied to get through the blockade despite plenty of warnings not to. When Israeli soldiers boarded the ships, the rioters started to riot. The soldiers defended themselves by shooting. The gravest error here has been made by the rioters (or “aid givers”).
Now, you may question the existence of the blockade, being in international waters an all, but that doesn’t change the fact that the blockade was there, that it was widely known that there was a blockade and that Israel gave plenty of warnings to the rioters when they tried to penetrate the blockade regardless of all the previous factors.
They took a swing at Israel. Despite knowledge, despite warnings, they still took a swing. If they had been smart, they would’ve stayed home and send the aid through other means, rather than trying to break the blockade. At that point the question whether Israel was in its right to be there doesn’t matter. The fact is that they were there, that it was known that they were there, and that they sent plenty of warnings.
It’s a war. Innocent civilians die in wars. But I don’t consider these people to be innocent civilians. They knew very well what they were getting into.
Oh and daniel: homeowners get sued/convicted a lot for attacking a burglar.
But that’s not a fair analogy. Israel said “guys, we’re coming on board to secure the ships and then escort you home, don’t resist”. 8 out of the 9 ships had already been boarded and no harm had come to those passengers; why then did these protesters feel the need to resist? Furthermore, the protesters were told NOT to sail their ships towards Gaza, and yet they did.
Moreover, why is it irrelevant that the rest of the ships didn’t resist? To me, that’s a clear indication of the level of harm appreciated. Why did the rest of the ships not appreciate harm to the level that, as per your analysis, the last ship did? Why did every other ship not ‘defend’ itself in the same manner as the last one?
Here’s an analogy for you: Image a boat was coming towards America with a load of Mexican illegals on board. The Americans told them to go away, but they kept coming. When they neared America’s coast, the Americans sent out the Coast Guard with the goal of securing the ships, bringing them into port, processing the illegals and sending them home. When the Coast Guard boarded, however, they were attacked by the Mexicans. They responded, and a few of the Mexicans die, with some of the US guys being seriously injured.
So, in that scenario, would the US have done anything wrong?
Probably not, because they were in US waters.
I was getting more at the morality of their actions, but fair point.
If the ship is still in international waters, yes.
Oh please, you’d all be yelling about the dirty Mexicans attacking your bastions of true justice.
Its all about perception; Israel is perceived as the bad guy, so all the ‘facts’ end up being against them. Take a different example: Guantanamo Bay. US sets up torture centre in far off country so they can escape liability. They then refuse to classify them as combatants so international law doesn’t apply. However, even though they then go on to commit heinous human rights violations against often innocent people (cough David Hicks cough), nobody bats an eyelid. You label the prisoners as terrorists and suddenly the whole thing gets swallowed. Its only very recently that perceptions have changed, but wind the clock back 5-10 years and you see exactly the same thing with Isreal; perception fundamentally alters and changes the way we see legality and morality.
People typically cite non-biased sources when attempting to prove a point. Note how I’m not referring you to eyewitness accounts from passengers on the raided ships who say that the IDF came on board shooting without provocation, and asking you to “reconcile” that as if it was a fact. It’s easy to see how emotions could color an eyewitness’ recollection of events, and it’s easy to see why it’s in the IDF’s interest to manipulate the truth in order to shape public opinion.
Secondly, you said it yourself, Israeli’s Gaza sanctions are similar to other international sanctions with the desired end-result of regime change such as economic sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s and Iran today. Ask yourself why economic sanctions would result in regime change…It’s self-evident that the purpose is to force the population to turn against their own government when the suffering becomes too great for them to bear. That’s why, as I said previously, Israel considers the act of attempting to alleviate suffering in Gaza by delivering donations of food, clothes, and construction materials to be a capital offense punishable by death, because according to the logic of the sanctions, alleviating suffering abets the Hamas government and interferes with the Israeli campaign against them.
That’s definitely true, but its not just limited to eyewitnesses; a lot of media outlets take an extremely biased view of the situation; that means that definitive answers are hard to find. Both sides have motives for manipulating the evidence; Israel because bad press is bad, and the protesters because good press is good.
Given that, I tried to use physical evidence, such as the videos and pictures of the attack, as the bulk of the evidence; there’s a lot in there that can’t be reconciled with the protester’s evidence. But equally there’s a lot of pictures that can’t be readily reconciled with Israel’s point of view; there are no real weapons shown, and while there are bullet-proof vests, the biggest weapon there is a sword. Not guns or anything else.
I thought that you were indicating some more malicious intent on Israel’s part. I think that the point of economic sanctions isn’t just to force the local populace to change governments, since that’s never going to happen in North Korea and other totalitarian states; its also to cut off supplies the regime needs to achieve its destructive ends. Making sure Hamas doesn’t get more weapons is more important to Israel’s security than getting a long-term solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict.
But, given that you’re right in at least one branch of the analysis, why is that a bad thing? The US uses sanctions all the time to try to get regime changes, even where those sanctions result in massive humanitarian crises, and yet they still do it. Why is it intrinsically bad for Israel to try to force the Gazans to elect a non-violent governing body that they can have lasting relations with? Realistically, Hamas stepping down from using violent means is the only way we’re going to get a resolution in Palestine, so isn’t bringing that goal about justified? Moreover, the blockade has been used in the past to a reasonable level of effect, and doesn’t that mean that its a good tool? If not a ‘good’ tool, then at least the least worst one?
I’m not going to deny the situation is fairly dire, I’m just saying that if you look at the West Bank, where there is the peaceful Fatah and (reasonably) good relations with Israel, there’s no sanctions. Israel isn’t targeting the Gazans because they’re Palestinians; they’re targeting them because they reasonably believe that removing the blockade would do more harm than good.
Oh, please. Make some more assumptions about me, why don’t you? I eat babies and kick puppies, don’t I? :brow:
I have never claimed that Israel is the “bad guy”. I’m saying that there is no bad guy here. All sides are trying to do what they think is right and all sides are fucking up, whether it’s Israel, Palestine, the United States or the United Nations. Israel is doing wrong. Palestine is doing wrong. The United States is doing wrong. So is the United Nations.
Hogwash. There are millions of people in the United States that are against Gitmo.
And you talk about me not seeing reality. :meh:
I hate forcing people to debate multiple topics simultaneously with different people so i’ll keep it simple.
Collective punishment is intrinsically bad because
A) It’s self-evidently undemocratic for outside parties to “force” a population to elect a government which said parties determine to be acceptable, and punish them when they determine the democratic outcome to be unacceptable.
B It’s illegal under Geneva to punish a civilian population for the actions of a military force operating in their territory and
C) It’s never been shown to work (Iraq? Iran? N. Korea? Venezuela? Cuba?), and is based on the incredibly naive idea that the population will blame their own government rather than the parties who are enforcing the sanctions.
Correlating with point C, Likud’s policies are blatantly counterproductive to Israel’s interests, since the more the population is radicalized, the more they tend to support Hamas. If the situation in Gaza were normalized, there would be zero popular support for government by a paramilitary organization, but as they are living under a constant state of siege it only makes sense to support a military government.
Are they making a difference? Genuine question, I really don’t know.
Doesn’t matter how many people are with something unless somebody in power listens to them.
The implication was that Americans agreed with what was going on in Gitmo. I explained that there are many Americans that did not. Right now, the American Government and the Americans are two different entities and, it is my not-so-humble opinion that what has caused this is at least a generation’s worth of systemic attacks on the government, culminating in Reagan’s famous “I’ve always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’.”
They have alienated “We the People” from the government and then are dumbfounded when the “government” doesn’t do what “We the People” want. And now, “We the People” are so uneducated and arrogant in their ignorance that this schism is becoming self-perpetuating.
I’ve always felt the four most terrifying words in the English language are “Government is the problem”.
While it is undemocratic for the US to impose sanctions on various countries around the world, it still does it. It still funds the Saudi government even though that’s fundamentally undemocratic. Why? Because its interests outweigh the general concept of ‘democracy’. In instances where a violation of this general tenant of democracy is necessary to save lives, doesn’t that make it worth it?
While I agree that taking military action against the civilians is illegal under Geneva, in the case of Gaza they’re not really two separate things. The populace elected Hamas; Hamas does what it does with a mandate from the people. If it was a totalitarian dictatorship, like in North Korea, I would have more sympathy. I’m not saying I don’t understand where they’re coming from, because I do, and I have grave reservations about Israel and what’s its doing in the region, but to say that you can’t punish a civilian population for what it is vicariously doing seems…contradictory…at best.
The problem with war as it exists today is that war no longer concerns one small part of the country; it necessarily involves the entire populace. During war, the economy, societal structure and government are all geared towards war. With Gaza the concept is taken even further so that every single person is involved in the conflict; from kids who throw rocks at tanks to people who fire mortars into Israel and those who vote for Hamas.
Well with any of the aforementioned examples, they weren’t all done for the same reason. Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea was done to restrain Communism. Iraq and Iran were done to restrain the abilities of the dictators to wage war in the interests of maintaining US resource security, in an attempt to ‘starve out’ both of the governments. While many of them have been unsuccessful in changing the government (in fact, only South Africa comes to mind, and that’s not a perfect example either), they’re good for two reasons other than eliciting organic change within the country; they politically isolate the country and stop them from getting weapons.
I agree, and the way the sanctions work supported that goal. The sanctions were reduced in accordance with a reduction in mortar attacks. It was aimed at restoring faith in the peace process. However, the process collapsed when Gaza recommenced rocket attacks.
I wasn’t so much talking about mass opinion, just the opinion of Gitmo supporters. Those who supported the camp always painted the terrorists as ‘evil’ and thereby justified their acts. Its the same with Israel; it depends on where you stand as how you interpret the facts.
Reagan couldn’t count ololz.
hey, look at that… The same organization is sending yet another envoy to Gaza, and Israel told them to stay away again. Wonder how this will end.
Fun fact: Israel offered them over and over again to dock an Israeli harbor so they can get the goods there, but the activists declined.