[Hanoi5]

I found it weird that no one mentioned the incident with the help boats seized by Israeli military forces. From 15 to 10 or 9 deaths, no official number yet. Many people captured, including a journalist from Telesur (Chavez's CNN).

Isn't there a consensus on what's correct or what's wrong in this matter? Where is the line going to be drawn?

[PassedOut]

It was horrendous and, like many of Israel's actions in recent years, very poorly thought out. They are systematically alienating those who have helped Israel in the past. Killing Turks? What stupidity!

[hrothgar]

Hanoi5, on Jun 1 2010, 12:46 PM, said:

I found it weird that no one mentioned the incident with the help boats seized by Israeli military forces. From 15 to 10 or 9 deaths, no official number yet. Many people captured, including a journalist from Telesur (Chavez's CNN).

Isn't there a consensus on what's correct or what's wrong in this matter? Where is the line going to be drawn?

I alluded to this in the Oil Spill thread

Me thinks that the Israeli's really screwed the pooch this time.

Let's ignore the whole question of whether or not the blockade is justified. The tactics that the Israeli's used to turn back the ships seems suicidal.

1. The Turks have already announced that they will be be escorting a future convoy with warships. (The Israelis have attacked NATO forces before, however, at the time everyone wanted to sweep things under the rug)

2. The Egyptians have announce that they will no longer enforce the blockade on the land side and have opened the border...

[hrothgar]

Very interesting piece in the NYT

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/3...s-ship-in-1947/

[helene_t]

The Israeli military has released a video of the incident: http://news.bbc.co.u...uk/10200517.stm

[vuroth]

hrothgar, on Jun 1 2010, 08:07 AM, said:

Let's ignore the whole question of whether or not the blockade is justified. The tactics that the Israeli's used to turn back the ships seems suicidal.

1. The Turks have already announced that they will be be escorting a future convoy with warships. (The Israelis have attacked NATO forces before, however, at the time everyone wanted to sweep things under the rug)

2. The Egyptians have announce that they will no longer enforce the blockade on the land side and have opened the border...

Why is ignoring the legality of an issue a good idea?

I'm not getting why the Turkish government wants to step in on this one. Israel claims the NGO is a terrorist organization. Turkey would be interfering with the internal affairs of another country.

Lastly, didn't Egypt's work on blockading their side of the border with israel reduce the flow of arms to a torrent? How will israel cope without that kind of help?

Loss of life is tragic, but I learned a long time ago that A) there can be no consensus on middle eastern affairs, and there is never a blameless side.

[hrothgar]

I don't think that its possible to achieve any kind of effective consensus on the legality of the Israeli actions.

My hope was that by removing this from the table, it might be possible to focus on the simplier question of whether or not the actions accomplished any kind of constructive result.

I would argue that the subsequent actions taken by the Turkish and the Egyptian governments demonstrate quite effectively that the Israeli actions were counter productive.

As a quick answer to your questions

I suspect that the Egyptian government is stepiing in because they have no choice. The Israeli attack is generating terrible coverage / PR in Western Europe. The political fallout in the Arab world is completely insane. The Egyptian government is probably terrified that massive riots would break out if they didn't open the border.

The Turkish government is stepping in because a Turkish ship was attacked in international waters and Turkish citizens were killed. (I suspect that the Israeli actions a few monthes ago trying to humiliate the Turkish ambassador might have generated some blowback)

Interesting quote from the Turkish Prime minister.

Quote

This irresponsible, heedless, unlawful attitude that defies any human virtue should definitely, but definitely, be punished. No one should dare to challenge Turkey or test her patience for the strength of Turkey’s animosity is as strong as the value of its friendship

[hrothgar]

vuroth, on Jun 1 2010, 06:52 PM, said:

Loss of life is tragic, but I learned a long time ago that A) there can be no consensus on middle eastern affairs, and there is never a blameless side.

As I mentioned, its pointless to try to afix "blame"... The organizers of the flottila are as much to blame for the loss of life as the Israelis.

I do, believe that its possible to evaluate whether different sides are following a smart strategy. From what I can tell, the

1. The Isaeli's over reacted dramatically. In particular, their decision to have commandos rappel one-by-one down into the boats rather than trying to disable the propellers is looking pretty dumb right now.

2. A large number of people participating the flotilla were injured. Some died. However, I suspect that the Gaza blockade is going to be broken permanently in their near future. Israel is further estranged from Western Europe. I suspect that many would deem this a victory...

[spotlight7]

Hi:

We were on riot control training in Okinawa in the late 60s. I was in uniform along with about one half of my company. The other half of my company was in civilian attire. They had sticks about three feet long and they began to hit the guys carrying rifles on our arms and knuckles.

We had not been attacked for very long before we removed the covers of our bayonets and cleared the area in front of us. A line of troops with fixed bayonets
half stepped across the field and the training appears to be a success.

Victory for Israel is measured by winning every war with their neighbors. They are only one military defeat away from genocide.

Regards,
Robert

[mike777]

It will be very interesting if the Gaza blockade is broken.

Egypt blocks it's side not to help Israel but to help keep the current Egyptian government in power. If the Egyptian side is now open forever and not just a few days the results will be interesting. Weapons such as longer range rockets will not only flow into Gaza from one side, but people, weapons, etc unhappy with the current Egyptian govt will flow out.

If Hamas still wants to achieve its long stated goals, such as the destruction of the Jewish state and helping the Muslim Brotherhood, etc....the near future will be interesting for those in the Strip and those on the other side of the fence.

http://www.fas.org/i...31014-hamas.htm

[Winstonm]

Quote

As I mentioned, its pointless to try to afix "blame"... The organizers of the flottila are as much to blame for the loss of life as the Israelis

I personally believe this is a question that very much needs to be addressed by the world - as it is basically an action justified by "The Bush Doctrine" of preemptively striking a proposed enemy.

This doctrine has never really been challenged in world court or U.S. courts. But it is the reason the U.S. went into Iraq and attacks still inside Pakistan, and it is the same justification Israel has now adopted to strike at so-called terrorist sympathizers who were operating in international waters.

If Syria labeled Israel a terrorism sponsor because of this attack, would they also have the right to attack Israel under the "Bush Doctrine"?

Is this doctrine truly a legal authority or only an example of might makes right?

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Jun 2 2010, 02:29 AM, said:

Quote

As I mentioned, its pointless to try to afix "blame"... The organizers of the flottila are as much to blame for the loss of life as the Israelis

I personally believe this is a question that very much needs to be addressed by the world - as it is basically an action justified by "The Bush Doctrine" of preemptively striking a proposed enemy.

This doctrine has never really been challenged in world court or U.S. courts. But it is the reason the U.S. went into Iraq and attacks still inside Pakistan, and it is the same justification Israel has now adopted to strike at so-called terrorist sympathizers who were operating in international waters.

If Syria labeled Israel a terrorism sponsor because of this attack, would they also have the right to attack Israel under the "Bush Doctrine"?

Is this doctrine truly a legal authority or only an example of might makes right?

I don't think preemption is the right way to frame the Israeli actions.

"Collective Punishment" is much more accurate.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jun 1 2010, 06:29 PM, said:

Quote

As I mentioned, its pointless to try to afix "blame"... The organizers of the flottila are as much to blame for the loss of life as the Israelis

I personally believe this is a question that very much needs to be addressed by the world - as it is basically an action justified by "The Bush Doctrine" of preemptively striking a proposed enemy.

This doctrine has never really been challenged in world court or U.S. courts. But it is the reason the U.S. went into Iraq and attacks still inside Pakistan, and it is the same justification Israel has now adopted to strike at so-called terrorist sympathizers who were operating in international waters.

If Syria labeled Israel a terrorism sponsor because of this attack, would they also have the right to attack Israel under the "Bush Doctrine"?

Is this doctrine truly a legal authority or only an example of might makes right?

I think blockades are quite legal. I think boarding ships to enforce a blockade, even sinking ships is legal.


An act of war maybe, but war is legal.

Of course defending your ship or even running a blockade must also be legal.

See Cuban Missile Crises.

I think an open border with Egypt and how it will affect Egypt will really be interesting over the next few years.

As I mentioned in a thread a long time ago, long range rockets can not only hit Israel but also Egypt.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Jun 1 2010, 06:34 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 2 2010, 02:29 AM, said:

Quote

As I mentioned, its pointless to try to afix "blame"... The organizers of the flottila are as much to blame for the loss of life as the Israelis

I personally believe this is a question that very much needs to be addressed by the world - as it is basically an action justified by "The Bush Doctrine" of preemptively striking a proposed enemy.

This doctrine has never really been challenged in world court or U.S. courts. But it is the reason the U.S. went into Iraq and attacks still inside Pakistan, and it is the same justification Israel has now adopted to strike at so-called terrorist sympathizers who were operating in international waters.

If Syria labeled Israel a terrorism sponsor because of this attack, would they also have the right to attack Israel under the "Bush Doctrine"?

Is this doctrine truly a legal authority or only an example of might makes right?

I don't think preemption is the right way to frame the Israeli actions.

"Collective Punishment" is much more accurate.

Agreed.

But from the news bytes I heard the claim from Israel was in keeping with the same reasoning that established the Bush Doctrine, i.e., we have the right to go anywhere and do anything to anyone in order to stop our enemies from acting against us.

[mike777]

Hanoi5, on Jun 1 2010, 04:46 AM, said:

I found it weird that no one mentioned the incident with the help boats seized by Israeli military forces. From 15 to 10 or 9 deaths, no official number yet. Many people captured, including a journalist from Telesur (Chavez's CNN).

Isn't there a consensus on what's correct or what's wrong in this matter? Where is the line going to be drawn?

What is your take on the blockade?

[gwnn]

Wikipedia says that

Quote

Adam Shapiro, a board member of the Free Gaza Movement, said that the soldiers started opening fire immediately as they came down the ropes.[53] A spokesperson for the Free Gaza Movement said in response that the activists were committed not to pose any violent resistance. "The only resistance that there might be would be passive resistance such as physically blocking the steering room, or blocking the engine room downstairs, so that they couldn't get taken over. But that was just symbolic resistance.

But what does the video then show? Who are the people with poles and who are they attacking? Also Michael Oren (Israeli ambassador to United States) alleged that the IHH people chanted "death to Jews death to Jews", I wonder if that's true?

[helene_t]

The Israelian military may have had safer ways of stopping the ships. Tear gas, or destroying the ships' propulsion, has been suggested.

What about the other side? Couldn't they have delivered the goods via Israel or Egypt so that Israel could have inspected them, making sure there were no weapons in the containers? I suppose Israel isn't opposed to civilian aid per se but that the worry is that shippings to Gaza may contain weapons.

I can't help thinking that the flotilla people deliberately were provoking violence in order to achieve the victory they have now won. Why else would they put so many people on the ships?

I have some sympathy for Israel. OK my own experience from being a kibbutz volunteer for three months is that it's a very racist country, but they do face a difficult situation. Millions of people, especially in their neighboring countries, want them all dead and are willing to do what it takes (including suicide bombings) to achieve that. I think it would be unreasonable to expect Israel to handle their security issues without ever making mistakes.

I have some sympathy for the Palestinians. OK their leaders are criminals but I can sorta understand why so many vote for Hamas, it's not like the situation the Palestinians live in give them much reason to love Israel.

I have sympathy for some of the work done by Western pro-Palestinian charities.

I have absolutely zip sympathy for those Westernes who support anti-Israelian organizations.

[Hanoi5]

My take on the blockade? I think it's wrong to maintain a country without commerce, even counter-productive, whatever you want to achieve.

If Cuba had open commerce with the world I'm sure drugs, music and 'entertainment' in general would have terminated Castro's rule long time ago. With Palestine blocked hatred is just building up and its release will take time to explode. Without the blockade I'm sure an attack from the Palestinians is soon to come and the Israelis will have to act again, etc.

I think it's hard to understand but vengeance is a plate best served cold, and I'm not saying Palestinians should wait to attack the Israelis but that maybe other tactics are needed. Great nations can be built from the bones of the dead, see Japan or Germany.

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Jun 2 2010, 11:20 AM, said:

I can't help thinking that the flotilla people deliberately were provoking violence in order to achieve the victory they have now won. Why else would they put so many people on the ships?

I don't disagree with this statement at all.

I will simply point out that this is the way that civil disobedience works.
You break the law in a glaringly obvious fashion.
If you provoke "the man" to violence, so much the better.

For what its worth, here is a statement from the Gaza Freedom March before the Israeli attack

Quote

A violent response from Israel will breathe new life into the Palestine solidarity movement, drawing attention to the blockade.

[PassedOut]

Liked this quote in Thomas Friedman's latest column: When Friends Fall Out

Quote

One of my oldest Israeli friends, Victor Friedman (no relation), an education professor from Zichron Yaacov, e-mailed me the following on Tuesday: “It’s time we started using our wits. If we used even a tiny fraction of the brain-power and resources we put into ‘defense’ into finding a way forward in terms of living with the Palestinians, we would have solved the problem long ago. The strategic situation has never been more opportune — the Arabs are scared of the Iranians, the Saudi peace plan is still on the table, and the Palestinians are beginning to act rationally. But we lack the leadership to help us make a real change.”

Alas.