Israel continues its merciless pounding of the defenceless.

[Guest alex]

Dan, were you brought up near Saltwell Park without a foreskin by any chance?

[Park Life 71]

Despite its victory in free and fair elections, the U.S. and Israel sought to undermine and destroy Hamas. Israel suspended the transfer of tax revenues collected from Palestinians in the amount of $50 million a month. This began the strangulation of Gaza and set off a humanitarian crisis.

 

While the public strategy involved the collective punishment of the people of Gaza for electing Hamas, Israel and its U.S. ally also undertook a secret operation to overthrow Hamas, funneling arms and money to Fatah fighters to enable them to carry out a coup in Hamas' base in Gaza. Hamas won the battle for Gaza, and Fatah was routed. Yet mainstream accounts of the conflict present Hamas as having launched a coup in order to come to power.

 

Israel continued to step up its pressure on the people of Gaza, cutting off much-needed supplies, electricity, and essentials and launching a military assault late last month.

 

The siege and the latest invasion of Gaza have caused untold suffering, death, and misery. But they have not accomplished Israel's aim of fomenting a Palestinian opposition ready to topple Hamas. On the contrary, the group continued to gain influence since the 2006 elections.

 

The reason for this is simple. When a people lose their livelihood, their homes, their loved ones, and their dignity at the hands of an occupying power, they resist -- and in this case, the resistance movement is led by Hamas.

 

If elections were to be held in occupied Palestine, Hamas would likely win again. This is not because all the people of Palestine agree with Hamas' Islamist principles -- and not at all because Palestinians are anti-Semitic fanatics -- but because people living under inhuman conditions imposed by an occupying power will turn to organizations that give voice to their aspirations for liberation.

 

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

[Happy Face 29]

The sloppy Israeli propaganda effort against the Free Gaza humanitarian flotilla has been so bad that the pictures released by the Israeli army have been tagged by alert bloggers as forgeries, some of them having been on the Web for years. This site alleges that many of the pictures put out by Israel purporting to show arms on the aid ship still contained internal tags allowing them to be identified as old photos from years ago. Even if the charges of forgery are false, the photos show chains, sticks, an axe– things that would be on any ship.

 

The defiant speech on Wednesday of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu defending the Israeli boarding of an aid flotilla headed for Gaza, and his insisting that the blockade of Gaza would continue displayed all the problems with hyper-nationalist Israeli discourse, of inappropriate analogies, factual errors, propaganda, and magical thinking. These fallacies have dominated the narrative presented by members of the Netanyahu government and those who support it.

 

The first fallacy is to identify all the people of Gaza with the Hamas party-militia, dismissing them all as “terrorists.” But over half of the 1.5 million people of Gaza is children, who can hardly be terrorists. And if Palestine Authority elections had been held in both the West Bank and Gaza this spring, likely Fatah (which recognizes Israel and has agreed to peace talks) would win, not Hamas, according to a recent Angus Reid poll. (The news is even worse for Hamas: nearly a third of Palestinians want to throw in the towel and seek Israeli citizenship. Oh, yeah, Palestinian nationalism is such a threat to Israel; geez, this is like a third of Americans in the 1950s announcing that what they really wanted was Soviet citizenship).

 

So collectively punishing all the people of Gaza, as Israel does, is just wrong. It necessitates half-starving little children, since they are so much of the population. And the Israeli perpetrators of the blockade assume that they are punishing Gaza supporters of Hamas when it is clear that a majority of Palestinians would not vote for Hamas at this point.

 

The Israeli hyper-nationalists argue from contiguity, from things being next to each other, demonizing entire groups and peoples rather than considering their actions in the real world. Thus, IHH, the fundamentalist Turkish charity that sponsored the lead ship in the aid convoy, sympathizes with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. The ship was then branded a “Hamas” vessel. But none of the passengers is known ever to have actually engaged in anything like terrorism and the Turkish government would not allow it to operate if it were actually considered radical (look at the way Turkish security tracks down the Turkish Hizbullah).

 

And, since Iran sympathizes with Hamas, as well, and since IHH is a known sympathizer with the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza, actually the ship is not just a Hamas ship but is an Iranian one. Even though Iran had nothing to do with it and even though it had no weapons aboard. All of Gaza is transformed by this way of thinking (if you are sympathetic with a group, you are identical to that group and they are identical to you) into an “Iranian port on the Mediterranean.” In fact, of course, the Israelis do not allow the Gazans to have a port at all, much less an Iranian one. And, if that were the danger, then surely Tyre (in Lebanese Hizbullah territory) is already an ‘Iranian port on the Mediterranean,’ since Iran is a patron of Hizbullah. But wait, that situation already exists. And no one in Europe has been menaced by Tyre, of which most of them have not heard. Imaginary dangers in the future can always be dressed up as more menacing that mundane existing situations.

 

The fallacies of guilt by association, appeals to emotion, poisoning the well, etc., etc. reach such a crescendo in this Israeli discourse that the IHH charity is simultaneously accused of being a stalking horse for Shiite Iran and for Shiite-killing hyper-Sunni al-Qaeda. The absurdity of a whole host of European parliamentarians, former US diplomats, Nobel prize winners, and a Swedish novelist, being fronts for ‘al-Qaeda’ is so profound that it is like a Monty Python skit. ‘No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!’

 

Netanyahu also presents Gaza not as a territory conquered and occupied by Israel, but as an independent Hamas “regime” with which Israel is actively at war– a war that would justify a military blockade that must be honored by other nations. But Gaza isn’t an independent ‘regime’. It is not a state at all. It has no army or navy. It is the height of cruelty for Netanyahu to deny the Palestinians statehood but then to declare that he may half-starve them because he is at war with a Palestinian state! Gaza is a territory occupied by Israel, which controls its borders, air space and seas, and even whether its children may have chocolate and nutmegs (the answer is no, and I can’t help hearing in my mind a version of the line from Seinfeld about the cranky soup chef: ‘No nutmeg for you!’)

 

So the entire ‘blockade of an enemy state during war’ analogy to World War II trotted out by Netanyahu and his minions is mind-bogglingly stupid.

 

Since in the real world Israel is the Occupying power in Gaza, it is responsible under the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 for the welfare of its residents. Israel may not alter their lifeways, may not engage in collective punishment, and may not arbitrarily “put them on a diet” as a Likud spokesman observed was the real motive of the blockade when it was first tried out.

 

And since there is no Gazan state with which Israel can be at war, but only a squalid slum under the Israeli jackboot, it is not in fact legal for Israel to rampage about attacking civilian aid ships in international waters, summarily murdering the humanitarian workers aboard them.

 

After all those imbecilic World War II analogies that the Neoconservatives tried to sell us about Iraq, the idea that Netanyahu is yet again just doing his bit to defeat Adolph Hitler by shooting down humanitarian volunteers rings hollow indeed. It isn’t always 1938 or 1942, folks. Get over it.

 

In reality, the poor Israelis have gradually become one of the last colonial regimes in the world, and they are acting the way the French did in Algeria or the British did in 1950s Kenya before decolonization. The Israelis have the same chance of ultimate success that the British and French empires had once local people began mobilizing socially and politically, which is to say, none. The French polished off several hundred thousand people during their futile resistance to Algerian independence, and that seems to be where Israel is now headed. Except that France was large, populous and could retreat across the Mediterranean, whereas Israel is small, lacking in manpower, and stuck with defending a postage stamp territory from 300 million Middle Easterners almost all of whom deeply sympathize with the people of Gaza. Netanyahuism can hasten the end of this story, to Israel’s detriment, but can do nothing to stop the rest of the Middle East from getting wealthier, better educated and more militarily sophisticated over the next decade.

 

Not to mention that several of the nationals the Israel troops murdered were Turks, whose state is already in the G20 and who already possess a formidable military capacity within a NATO context (which Israel lacks).

 

All this does not end well for Netanyahuism, which, moreover, is itself bankrupt and hypocritical. Israel, which keeps screaming about nuclear proliferation, has as many nuclear warheads as the UK. Netanyahu, who says ‘terrorist’ as often as other people say the word ‘the’ openly celebrates the Zionist terrorist bombing of the King David Hotel late in the British Mandate, which infuriates the British. Netanyahu had a prominent Hamas leader actually poisoned nearly to death in the late 1990s, and the Clinton administration made him produce an antidote because they wanted to negotiate with him. Khaled Mashaal, Netanyahu’s intended murder victim, recently declared that if the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza ended, so would the resistance to it. That’s as close as you will get to a peace offering from Hamas; it couldn’t have been made if Netanyahu had succeeded in his bungling attempt to lift the plot of some old Agathie Christie murder mystery.

 

Netanyahu’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, may be the most corrupt and thuggish politician now serving in elective office anywhere in the world. A former member of the racist Kach party, Lieberman has a thing about wanting to drown people, whether it be prisoners or the entire Egyptian nation. Why it is acceptable to fete Netanyahu and Lieberman in Washington but not to so much as negotiate with Hamas is incomprehensible. And these Israeli thugs get to shoot down innocent aid volunteers in international waters with impunity.

 

But, well, reality cannot be postponed forever. There will be unpleasant consequences for Israelis of their inhumane and illegal blockade of Gaza. Already, a plurality of Norwegians is eager to boycott Israeli products over what they see as Israel’s Apartheid policies toward the Palestinians. If Netanyahu and his successors go on like this, that sentiment is sure to grow throughout the European Union. Israel deeply depends on trade and technology transfers with Europe, and if those dry up in the next decade, it will limit Israel’s growth and even military strength.

 

According to the Bible, the ancient Israelis once had a prophet, who dared instruct Pharaoh, “Let my people go!” The Israelis have fallen into a shameful role for Jews, playing Pharaoh, denying Palestinians not only food, medicine and cement but the very right of citizenship in a state, which is the basis for all civil and human rights. They have to let those people go. We know what happened to Pharaoh when he refused.

 

http://www.juancole.com/2010/06/netanyahu-...-terrorism.html

[Park Life 71]

Dan, were you brought up near Saltwell Park without a foreskin by any chance?

 

He must be, his arguments are that slanted and wierd.

[sniffer 0]

Unlike yours, Parky. You just hate jews.

[Happy Face 29]

The Legal Position on the Israeli Attack

 

I think that anybody with any fairness is bound to admit that the statement William Hague came out with is much better than anything on Israel which New Labour ever came out with, especially this bit:

 

"This news underlines the need to lift the restrictions on access to Gaza, in line with UNSCR 1860. The closure is unacceptable and counter-productive. There can be no better response from the international community to this tragedy than to achieve urgently a durable resolution to the Gaza crisis.

I call on the Government of Israel to open the crossings to allow unfettered access for aid to Gaza, and address the serious concerns about the deterioration in the humanitarian and economic situation and about the effect on a generation of young Palestinians."

 

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/...amp;id=22300485

 

But as I told this afternoon's tremendous spontaneous demonstration on Whitehall, fine words are not enough and we must now see the kind of sanctions regime we saw against apartheid South Africa.

 

A word on the legal position, which is very plain. To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare.

 

Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean however that international law is the only applicable law. The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place

on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody's territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory.

 

There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.

 

Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.

 

Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.

 

In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.

 

Craig Murray is a former British Ambassador. He is also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He negotiated the UK's current maritime boundaries with Ireland, Denmark (Faeroes), Belgium and France, and boundaries of the Channel Islands, Turks and Caicos and British Virgin Islands. He was alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the UN Preparatory Commission on the Law of the Sea. He was Head of the FCO Section of the Embargo Surveillance Centre, enforcing sanctions on Iraq, and directly responsible for clearance of Royal Navy boarding operations in the Persian Gulf.

 

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/201...egal_posit.html

[manc-mag 1]

Unlike yours, Parky. You just hate jews.

 

[Park Life 71]

Unlike yours, Parky. You just hate jews.

 

 

I like the funny ones.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

flimsy pre-electioneering, the sentiment is still the same. quotes from that article include this from Gazi Hamad, a Hamas candidate in the Gaza Strip:

 

"Hamas is still not ready to recognise the right of Israel to exist,"

 

as long as they take that view and don't consider the possibility of a two state solution, this situation will continue.

 

that said, there are those on the right in israel who are just as bad in my eyes. the right ring orthodox cronies and those idiots who won't withdraw from the settlements.

 

it's those same right wing nutcases that were behind the assasination of rabin, which ultimately led to defeat in the election in the mid 90s to netanyahu, the failure of the oslo accord and the hopeless situation we find ourselves in today.

 

 

Your reverse logic is incredible. Israel are occupying the territory. They have grabbed all the power and if they were to offer a two state solution Hamas would jump at it, but Israel won't do that. I can't comprehend how you can blame Hamas for being unflexible while Israel starve millions of people and refuse to enter talks.

 

At camp David in 2000 "all the concessions came from the Palestinian side, none from the Israeli side."

 

http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals....p;href=fulltext

 

In 2006, Hamas were advocating two states....

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-07-hamas_x.htm

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/2...alestinians.usa

 

Last month "Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal stated explicitly that the Palestinian Islamist group will end its armed struggle against Israel if the Jewish state withdraws from Palestinian land it occupied in the 1967 Middle East War."

 

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/05/31/110041.html

[Park Life 71]

HF stop persecuting him he's JEWISH!11

 

 

[Park Life 71]

flimsy pre-electioneering, the sentiment is still the same. quotes from that article include this from Gazi Hamad, a Hamas candidate in the Gaza Strip:

 

"Hamas is still not ready to recognise the right of Israel to exist,"

 

as long as they take that view and don't consider the possibility of a two state solution, this situation will continue.

 

that said, there are those on the right in israel who are just as bad in my eyes. the right ring orthodox cronies and those idiots who won't withdraw from the settlements.

 

it's those same right wing nutcases that were behind the assasination of rabin, which ultimately led to defeat in the election in the mid 90s to netanyahu, the failure of the oslo accord and the hopeless situation we find ourselves in today.

 

 

Your reverse logic is incredible. Israel are occupying the territory. They have grabbed all the power and if they were to offer a two state solution Hamas would jump at it, but Israel won't do that. I can't comprehend how you can blame Hamas for being unflexible while Israel starve millions of people and refuse to enter talks.

 

At camp David in 2000 "all the concessions came from the Palestinian side, none from the Israeli side."

 

http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals....p;href=fulltext

 

In 2006, Hamas were advocating two states....

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-07-hamas_x.htm

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/2...alestinians.usa

 

Last month "Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal stated explicitly that the Palestinian Islamist group will end its armed struggle against Israel if the Jewish state withdraws from Palestinian land it occupied in the 1967 Middle East War."

 

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/05/31/110041.html

 

I think Camp David was the eye opener as to Israel's real agenda. God knows they've been offerred so many concessions and whatnot.

[manc-mag 1]

flimsy pre-electioneering, the sentiment is still the same. quotes from that article include this from Gazi Hamad, a Hamas candidate in the Gaza Strip:

 

"Hamas is still not ready to recognise the right of Israel to exist,"

 

as long as they take that view and don't consider the possibility of a two state solution, this situation will continue.

 

that said, there are those on the right in israel who are just as bad in my eyes. the right ring orthodox cronies and those idiots who won't withdraw from the settlements.

 

it's those same right wing nutcases that were behind the assasination of rabin, which ultimately led to defeat in the election in the mid 90s to netanyahu, the failure of the oslo accord and the hopeless situation we find ourselves in today.

 

 

Your reverse logic is incredible. Israel are occupying the territory. They have grabbed all the power and if they were to offer a two state solution Hamas would jump at it, but Israel won't do that. I can't comprehend how you can blame Hamas for being unflexible while Israel starve millions of people and refuse to enter talks.

 

At camp David in 2000 "all the concessions came from the Palestinian side, none from the Israeli side."

 

http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals....p;href=fulltext

 

In 2006, Hamas were advocating two states....

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-07-hamas_x.htm

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/2...alestinians.usa

 

Last month "Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal stated explicitly that the Palestinian Islamist group will end its armed struggle against Israel if the Jewish state withdraws from Palestinian land it occupied in the 1967 Middle East War."

 

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/05/31/110041.html

 

I think Camp David was the eye opener as to Israel's real agenda. God knows they've been offerred so many concessions and whatnot.

 

 

"oooooOoOoOoOOOoOOoh Mince!" [Alan Partridge/]

[Park Life 71]

UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-1992

 

1. Resolution 106: "...‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid"

2. Resolution 111: "...‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"

3. Resolution 127: "...‘recommends’ Israel suspend its ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem"

4. Resolution 162: "...‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions"

5. Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria"

6. Resolution 228: "...‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"

7. Resolution 237: "...‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"

8. Resolution 248: "...‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"

9. Resolution 250: "...‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"

10. Resolution 251: "...‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"

11. Resolution 252: "...‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"

12. Resolution 256: "...‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation"

13. Resolution 259: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"

14. Resolution 262: "...‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport"

15. Resolution 265: "...‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"

16. Resolution 267: "...‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"

17. Resolution 270: "...‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"

18. Resolution 271: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"

19. Resolution 279: "...‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"

20. Resolution 280: "....‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon"

21. Resolution 285: "...‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"

22. Resolution 298: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem"

23. Resolution 313: "...‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"

24. Resolution 316: "...‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"

25. Resolution 317: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"

26. Resolution 332: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon"

27. Resolution 337: "...‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty"

28. Resolution 347: "...‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon"

29. Resolution 425: "...‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"

30. Resolution 427: "...‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon’

31. Resolution 444: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"

32. Resolution 446: "...‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"

33. Resolution 450: "...‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"

34. Resolution 452: "...‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"

35. Resolution 465: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program"

36. Resolution 467: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon"

37. Resolution 468: "...‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"

38. Resolution 469: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians"

39. Resolution 471: "...‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"

40. Resolution 476: "...‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’

41. Resolution 478: "...‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’

42. Resolution 484: "...‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"

43. Resolution 487: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility"

44. Resolution 497: "...‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"

45. Resolution 498: "...‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"

46. Resolution 501: "...‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"

47. Resolution 509: "...‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"

48. Resolution 515: "...‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"

49. Resolution 517: "...‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"

50. Resolution 518: "...‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"

51. Resolution 520: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut"

52. Resolution 573: "...‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters

53. Resolution 587: "...‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"

54. Resolution 592: "...‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops"

55. Resolution 605: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians

56. Resolution 607: "...‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention

57. Resolution 608: "...‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"

58. Resolution 636: "...‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians

59. Resolution 641: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians

60. Resolution 672: "...‘condemns’ Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount

61. Resolution 673: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations

62. Resolution 681: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians

63. Resolution 694: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return

64. Resolution 726: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians

65. Resolution 799: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.

 

 

 

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html

 

 

Edited June 3, 2010 by Park Life

[Guest alex]

The blockade paid dividends during World War Z mind.

[Dr Gloom 21868]

Dan, were you brought up near Saltwell Park without a foreskin by any chance?

 

He must be, his arguments are that slanted and wierd.

 

[Happy Face 29]

i have family that live in bersheva in the south of israel that live in constant fear that they will be the next victim of a rocket fired over the border from gaza by hamas militants.

 

...

 

i do think the media response to the flotilla has been massively overblown, especially when you look at the evidence.

 

Interesting to contrast these two views.

 

Rocket attacks rarely kill more than single figures. More often than not nobody is killed. It's difficult to remember when the Israeli response to them has been measured, diplomatic condemnation though, it's guaranteed to be heavy-handed, military and fatal. Which you seem to be suggesting is appropriate, given the fear they create. Terrible as they are, I think mitigation comes from them being fired from occupied territory engaged in resistance.

 

However, here we have Israel killing 9 people in international waters in what amounts (according to the lawyers) to an act of war against Turkey, and you think the measured, diplomatic condemnation and calls for an investigation (that have already been rejected by Israel and the US...and therefore the UN) is "massively overblown".

Edited June 3, 2010 by Happy Face

[NJS 4375]

my mum is jewish, my dad is catholic.

 

 

A guilt therapist's wet dream.

 

 

The only thing you said which I'd question is that if most Israelis are liberals and/or sympathetic why do they keep electing leaders like Netanyahu?

 

Or is this another argument against PR/coalition governments?

[Dr Gloom 21868]

my mum is jewish, my dad is catholic.

 

 

A guilt therapist's wet dream.

 

 

The only thing you said which I'd question is that if most Israelis are liberals and/or sympathetic why do they keep electing leaders like Netanyahu?

 

Or is this another argument against PR/coalition governments?

 

you should meet my brother. he makes woody allen look like a balanced human being.

 

most israelis i have met are liberal but i'm sure there are plenty of hardline nutcase wankers out there too who spoil it for most ordinary people.

[Dr Gloom 21868]

i have family that live in bersheva in the south of israel that live in constant fear that they will be the next victim of a rocket fired over the border from gaza by hamas militants.

 

...

 

i do think the media response to the flotilla has been massively overblown, especially when you look at the evidence.

 

Interesting to contrast these two views.

 

Rocket attacks rarely kill more than single figures. More often than not nobody is killed. It's difficult to remember when the Israeli response to them has been measured, diplomatic condemnation though, it's guaranteed to be heavy-handed, military and fatal. Which you seem to be suggesting is appropriate, given the fear they create. Terrible as they are, I think mitigation comes from them being fired from occupied territory engaged in resistance.

 

However, here we have Israel killing 9 people in international waters in what amounts (according to the lawyers) to an act of war against Turkey, and you think the measured, diplomatic condemnation and calls for an investigation (that have already been rejected by Israel and the US...and therefore the UN) is "massively overblown".

 

i'm not disputing that. when the israelis attack the palestinians the casualties are almost always vastly higher than vice versa. but that doesn't mean rocket attacks aren't dangerous. i wouldn't fancy it if people were firing them into england from wales. my family in israel live in constant danger - they don't fear for their lives because that threat is part of every day life over there and they become used to it. you never know when the next sucide bomber is going to attack. that said, the wall - though widely condemned - has made a big difference in reducing the number of suicide bombings in israel.

 

but i repeat, the idf were blatantly attacked as they landed on the boat - see earlier photo and video evidence in thread.

 

did they over-react? when you look at the casualties you would have to say yes. but there had to be a reaction.

 

the 5 other ships all followed the idf instructions to dock so the aid could be checked and safely transported by israeli military. there would have been no casualties if the 6th boat had done likewise.

[Ketsbaia 0]

i have family that live in bersheva in the south of israel that live in constant fear that they will be the next victim of a rocket fired over the border from gaza by hamas militants.

 

...

 

i do think the media response to the flotilla has been massively overblown, especially when you look at the evidence.

 

Interesting to contrast these two views.

 

Rocket attacks rarely kill more than single figures. More often than not nobody is killed. It's difficult to remember when the Israeli response to them has been measured, diplomatic condemnation though, it's guaranteed to be heavy-handed, military and fatal. Which you seem to be suggesting is appropriate, given the fear they create. Terrible as they are, I think mitigation comes from them being fired from occupied territory engaged in resistance.

 

However, here we have Israel killing 9 people in international waters in what amounts (according to the lawyers) to an act of war against Turkey, and you think the measured, diplomatic condemnation and calls for an investigation (that have already been rejected by Israel and the US...and therefore the UN) is "massively overblown".

 

i'm not disputing that. when the israelis attack the palestinians the casualties are almost always vastly higher than vice versa. but that doesn't mean rocket attacks aren't dangerous. i wouldn't fancy it if people were firing them into england from wales. my family in israel live in constant danger - they don't fear for their lives because that threat is part of every day life over there and they become used to it. you never know when the next sucide bomber is going to attack. that said, the wall - though widely condemned - has made a big difference in reducing the number of suicide bombings in israel.

 

but i repeat, the idf were blatantly attacked as they landed on the boat - see earlier photo and video evidence in thread.

 

did they over-react? when you look at the casualties you would have to say yes. but there had to be a reaction.

 

the 5 other ships all followed the idf instructions to dock so the aid could be checked and safely transported by israeli military. there would have been no casualties if the 6th boat had done likewise.

 

Chicken and the egg scenario. Sounds very much like live ammunition and apparently non-lethal weapons were used prior to boarding the boat, leaving some dead and injured. If that is the case it's no surprise that when the commandos dropped down from their helicopters they're set about by a bunch of extremely angry and scared civvies.

[Happy Face 29]

but i repeat, the idf were blatantly attacked as they landed on the boat - see earlier photo and video evidence in thread.

 

did they over-react? when you look at the casualties you would have to say yes. but there had to be a reaction.

 

the 5 other ships all followed the idf instructions to dock so the aid could be checked and safely transported by israeli military. there would have been no casualties if the 6th boat had done likewise.

 

Israel had no jurisdiction over these boats to order them to do anything, so whether or not one of them refused to comply is moot.

 

I don't deny they were attacked when they invaded the boat, but I wonder what you'd do if you were being shot at without provocation and the people doing the shooting were coming at you? Would you lie down and wait to be massacred?

 

Haneen Zoabi, who is a Palestinian Arab citizen of Israel and an MP for the National Democratic Assembly or Balad party, was on board the Mavi Marmara when it was stormed by Israeli commandos in international waters. She told Asharq Al-Awsat that … “”the operation began at around 11.30 pm on Sunday…we saw the lights of vessels far away. At around 1.30 am, these ships approached our ship, and at around 4 am there were around 13 ships and dinghies surrounding our ship…and as they approached they began to fire machine guns [at the ship], and then suddenly there were helicopters with commandos disembarking [onto our ship] whilst firing weapons, and firing a water cannon onto the deck of our ship.”…

 

“We were expecting an intercept and inspection mission, with the ship then being escorted to the Port of Ashdod, but we did not expect this to take place with such military intensity, and utilizing such weapons. This was a terrible attack on 600 activists, who are civilians, parliamentarians, and peace activist, and Israel has described them in a negative manner since the flotilla left port as being ‘terrorists’ and this is in order to justify aggression against them.” … MP Zoabi also indicated that another aim of this Israeli aggression was to intimidate and deter anybody from participating in future attempts to break the Gaza blockade. …

 

… “there were no plans for resistance, this came as a natural response in self-defense, and this is something that could have happened at any time or place…for

when somebody finds themselves under attack they find themselves in a natural manner trying to defend their lives by all available means.

”

 

http://www.juancole.com/2010/06/eyewitness...chine-guns.html

[Ketsbaia 0]

Fight or flight, innit bruv. Fight and you're a supporter of al Qaeda, member of Hamas and Jew hater, flight and you get your head bagged and the shit kicked out of you by the IDF.

[Happy Face 29]

BBC News 24 should really have a reporter broadcasting live from the Rachel Corrie 24/7 at the moment so we can all see where the provocation begins and the reaction becomes excessive.

[Ketsbaia 0]

BBC News 24 should really have a reporter broadcasting live from the Rachel Corrie 24/7 at the moment so we can all see where the provocation begins and the reaction becomes excessive.

 

I doubt they'd risk it.

[Sonatine 11329]