|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Samadhi
+1
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 2:57 am Post subject: 1 |
 |
|
Here's the facts as I know them so far:- A flotilla of mostly Turkish backed vessels attempted to break an Israeli blockade.
- The blockade is in place to prevent Gaza from getting missiles that are routinely fired into civilian centers in Israel.
- The flotilla had the option of going to a port and being inspected for weapons by the IDF. No humanitarian aid would have been blocked.
- The leader of the flotilla said its purpose was not to give aid, but to break the blockade.
- The activists claim they were fired upon while the SEALs were precariously rappelling down from helicopters.
- There are no muzzle flashes visible in the video while they are rappelling.
- The SEALs were beaten and stabbed as soon as they reached the deck.
- After activists took the weapons of some SEALs and several men were down after beatings and stabbings the order was given to open fire.
I predict that there will be no weapons on the ship, they knew they would be stopped. This is typical symbolic martyr politics. Despite the videos of people immediately besetting the SEALs with iron bars and other videos of them being stabbed, the activists will be painted as humanitarians and martyrs. I believe they all knew that some of them would die and indeed that was their hope, because it's good martyr politics. And most of the media will play along
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:16 am Post subject: 2 |
|
|
PS: I'm sure there were video devices on the flotilla. I hope that Israel copies any video before giving it back to the owner, not to broadcast but to refute any claims of destruction of video. Because if the pro Hamas group can't find a good edit out of some video they will delete it and say that Israel destroyed all video devices.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:36 am Post subject: 3 |
|
|
Will be? There's already been "protests" outside Israel's embassies worldwide. (I don't many all of them, but several across the planet.)
Mind you, a hostile force boarding your ship... yea, I can see them attacking in an effort to defend themselves. But they should be glad they were merely boarded and not blown out of the water for trying to break a military blockade.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:41 am Post subject: 4 |
|
|
I, for one.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lepton*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:25 am Post subject: 5 |
|
|
| I didn't see it coming, either. It seems so far that the US spokespeople are taking a fairly level-headed approach. The regular anti-Israel hotheads are doing their thing. The rest of the world is due up at the microphone over the next couple days... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:40 pm Post subject: 6 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| No humanitarian aid would have been blocked. |
The problem is, who's definition of humanitarian aid will be used?
Cement to rebuild homes recently bombed? Seems reasonable to consider it as aid, unless you believe it to be a weapon to build bunkers or tunnels.
Also glass, gravel, aluminium, wood, tar and various other construction materials, spare parts for machinery, petrol, etc.
The current trickle of aid that passes "through legal channels" is not sufficient. If it was, then there would not have been such massive international support for this blockade-busting exercise. Many people have drawn comparisons to the Berlin blockade, and see this as a heroic act on the part of the participants. It's amazing to think that the Americans were air-lifting aid to the Germans, against whom they had just finished fighting only a couple of years previous, in order to break that blockade. They certainly knew how to win the hearts of their enemies. Why can't Israel learn from this?
There is no doubt that there is hardship in Gaza, and that the average person living there, is innocent and does not deserve such hardship. The rockets into Israel are wrong but there are limits to what any reasonable country can do in these circumstances. Many bombs were planted in England "in my name", but the British had the sense to realise that I was completely innocent.
Also, it was certainly wrong to do this in international waters. I know that a case can be made for doing it this way, but it sends the message that Israel do not care about international opinion or law, because the U.S. will back whatever they do and will use their power of veto in the U.N. to prevent any sanctions.
Israel will always win the military battle, but the war will never be won until the hearts of their enemies are conquered. Israel needs to appeal to the moderates instead of sending them into the arms of the fundamentalists. In order to seek peace in this way, it needs to stop waving the big stick and start saying "nice doggy". The average person in Gaza is not sending rockets into Israel, but their children will, if Israel continues along this route. After all, they're being punished for it anyway, so why not just do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:36 pm Post subject: 7 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The current trickle of aid that passes "through legal channels" is not sufficient. If it was, then there would not have been such massive international support for this blockade-busting exercise. |
In the first three months:
94,500 tons of supplies were transferred to Gaza from Israel, including 48,000 tons of food products; 40,000 tons of wheat; 2,760 tons of rice; 1,987 tons of clothes and footwear; and 553 tons of milk powder and baby food for the strip’s 1.5 million inhabitants.
Plus representatives of international aid groups and the United Nations move freely to and from the Gaza Strip.
Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test.
| Activist wrote: |
| There are two possible happy endings, either we will reach Gaza or we will achieve martyrdom |
Link
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:34 pm Post subject: 8 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The current trickle of aid that passes "through legal channels" is not sufficient. If it was, then there would not have been such massive international support for this blockade-busting exercise. |
In the first three months:
94,500 tons of supplies were transferred to Gaza from Israel, including 48,000 tons of food products; 40,000 tons of wheat; 2,760 tons of rice; 1,987 tons of clothes and footwear; and 553 tons of milk powder and baby food for the strip’s 1.5 million inhabitants.
Plus representatives of international aid groups and the United Nations move freely to and from the Gaza Strip.
Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test. |
It's still not enough.
You pick a few big numbers and expect that to suffice as argument,
What about sources of protein? Eggs? Meat?
What about school books? Reconstruction materials?
What you should be answering is "What percentage of the people's needs are met?".
Are you telling me that this constitutes 100%? 50%? Do you know?
I think you underestimate the extent of the damage done to Gaza. It is no longer able to produce its own food. There's only one working mill. There are no tin cans allowed so the farmers can't preserve their fruit, etc.
Practically all the inhabitants now rely on aid for survival and they're not getting it.
Shortly before the botched raid on the flotilla, there was a debate on a radio program I listen to and the blockade was discussed briefly.
I'll include a link here to it, for anyone who wants to listen. It was quite amusing, between a EuroWeenie, Michael D. Higgins, and a right-wing-nutjob, Michael Graham and hosted by George Hook in a Pub.
Michael D. was actually in the Gaza Strip, he knows what he's talking about and, being an academic, only makes statements that he can back up with facts. Enjoy the debate here 21:24. It should be available for about 3 weeks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:14 pm Post subject: 9 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It is no longer able to produce its own food. |
Count me as exceedingly dubious of this statement.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dread Pirate Westley
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:31 pm Post subject: 10 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| Samadhi wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The current trickle of aid that passes "through legal channels" is not sufficient. If it was, then there would not have been such massive international support for this blockade-busting exercise. |
In the first three months:
94,500 tons of supplies were transferred to Gaza from Israel, including 48,000 tons of food products; 40,000 tons of wheat; 2,760 tons of rice; 1,987 tons of clothes and footwear; and 553 tons of milk powder and baby food for the strip’s 1.5 million inhabitants.
Plus representatives of international aid groups and the United Nations move freely to and from the Gaza Strip.
Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test. |
It's still not enough.
You pick a few big numbers and expect that to suffice as argument,
What about sources of protein? Eggs? Meat?
What about school books? Reconstruction materials?
What you should be answering is "What percentage of the people's needs are met?".
Are you telling me that this constitutes 100%? 50%? Do you know?
|
A good rule of thumb is 3 pounds of foodstuffs per person per day. Those 94500 tons spread over 90 days would provide for 700,000 at that level. 1.5 pounds per day is probably enough to survive, which would stretch it out to 1.4 million. This is assuming all the aid is food, which it isn't.
Now, I don't know how much they can provide for themselves, but one way or the other, we are not talking about the Midwestern US, which, depending on the crop, can average over 100 bushels per acre (in 2008, the US average yield for corn was 161.9 bushels/acre) and has huge tracts of cultivated land (Have you ever driven through Iowa? Mississippi River, corn, corn, corn, corn, corn, Iowa City, corn, corn, corn, corn, Grinnell (gets mentioned because I went to college there), corn, corn, corn, corn, soybeans, corn, corn, Des Moines, corn, corn, corn, corn, corn, Missouri River). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:08 am Post subject: 11 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is no longer able to produce its own food. |
Count me as exceedingly dubious of this statement. |
I admit I oversimplified it. Let me qualify that and say, they can no longer produce, process, distribute and pay for their own food, and as such, are totally dependent upon aid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:54 am Post subject: 12 |
|
|
DPW: good math there thanks for the grinding.
Jack: I'm still very dubious. Israel didn't do pull a Dresden. Before their main exports were beef and produce (according to wiki). I agree that they probably need all the aid they are getting but they are getting it.
You have to take into account that Hamas is controlling the distribution of all this aid. The Palestinian Authority were saints of generosity compared to these guys. Birth defects and other medical problems have spiked since they took over. A symptom of their thugocracy (IE lack of distribution of medical supplies)? Maybe.
I think it's entirely reasonable for Israel to want to inspect the ship for weapons since hundreds of missiles are fired into Israel every year. Your objection in this regard is of semantics: IE what is a weapon. If you have any examples of unreasonably broad interpretations of this, I am open to hearing them.
I'm not sure what you mean about tin cans...why not? They're extremely easy to make.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:20 am Post subject: 13 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| Your objection in this regard is of semantics: IE what is a weapon. If you have any examples of unreasonably broad interpretations of this, I am open to hearing them. |
How about these weapons: cilantro, sage, jam, chocolate, french fries, dried fruit, fabrics, notebooks empty flowerpots and toys. See here.
| Samadhi wrote: |
| I'm not sure what you mean about tin cans...why not? They're extremely easy to make. |
If you have that highly dangerous chemical Sn, then yes they are easy to make. Unfortunately Sn is too dangerous to be allowed in Gaza since it might be used to launch a massive attack on the defenseless Israeli army.
I agree with you about Hamas and their evil actions. Unfortunately the Gazans are caught in the middle, with Hamas, Israel and Egypt all wanting the blockade to continue, for their own reasons. Frankly, I just think that the ordinary Gazans should not suffer so much because of the action of radicals that are out of their control. It's not like the Gazans can effect change in Hamas. Why put so much pressure on them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:41 am Post subject: 14 |
|
|
Just a quick question: why is Israel responsible for the Gazan suffering and not Egypt? Both are blockading Gaza.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:49 am Post subject: 15 |
|
|
Because if Egypt were at fault, they couldn't claim racism. Or be antisemitic.
BTW, wasn't Hamas voted into power in Gaza, by the ordinary Gazans?
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 7:02 am Post subject: 16 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Just a quick question: why is Israel responsible for the Gazan suffering and not Egypt? Both are blockading Gaza. |
Maybe because Egypt didn't destroy the infrastructure. Just a thought.
To be honest, many are to blame, including Europe for allowing it to happen and even the Gazans themselves are not beyond some blame, but this is going to be like prohibition. Smuggling channels will be opened by moderates who disagree with the policy (rightly, in my opinion) and when this all dies down the smuggling channels will still be there.
This policy will not ensure Israeli security. At most, it might soften the people up, so that when an agreement is reached, the difference will be so palpable, that they won't want to return. But that's a very dangerous game. The chances of actually reaching a settlement become far more difficult when the opposition is radicalised, and the anger being generated now will result in splinter groups being spawned when the moderates finally reach an agreement.
I expect, with the damage being done, that it will be another generation before peace is possible. sigh! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 7:41 am Post subject: 17 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
| BTW, wasn't Hamas voted into power in Gaza, by the ordinary Gazans? |
Yes, they did, and I was hoping that this would be a major step in finding peace, before it all went pear-shaped.
In Ireland, my experience was that when the moderates were in power, the radical elements just kept saying "No" to any reasonable settlement, without coming up with anything positive themselves. Then the radicals were put in power and THEY had to start negotiations. Essentially the people, in their infinite wisdom, said "OK! You try to fix it then". Now the radical elements were put in the spotlight and had to deliver. It got pretty intense. They wouldn't even sit in the same room together. But eventually, when a settlement was reached, the right people were in power to bring the various factions along with it. It was actually surprising how quickly it all happened.
I know that Hamas spout statements about the destruction of Israel, but this is the way radicals work. They need to keep their members in a frenzy. Israel is certainly, for their part, going about the destruction of Hamas and doesn't seem to care what International laws are flouted in the process.
When a people have no say in their own destiny, discontent is bound to arise. When a people are being oppressed into the bargain, then terrorism will result. What else is there? After all, that's why the Americans cherish their right to bear arms. They want government to be afraid of ordinary, non-uniformed, people taking military action against the state (i.e. terrorism).
Currently Israel are so powerful that they can say "These are our terms for peace. Take it or suffer." They can do this because of the huge influence they have in Washington. If this unconditional support for Israel was withdrawn, there might be a chance of actually reaching a settlement, even with Hamas.
The vitriolic statements spouted by the radical elements are just a smokescreen. I think that when/if negotiations actually occur, you would hear a more reasonable language being spoken. It makes no sense to refuse to speak to Hamas. A lasting settlement can only be reached if they are involved in the solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 7:55 am Post subject: 18 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| You have to take into account that Hamas is controlling the distribution of all this aid. |
I know. And they're selling it in order to get cash for their own nefarious purposes. It's a mess. But the blockade is not the answer.
There needs to be proper distribution of aid withing Gaza, controlled by International Aid Agencies. Israel cannot expect to be able to perform this task. Even though their heart might be in the right place, they do not have the street-cred to allow them to perform the action properly and any problems that exist will only serve to increase the hatred.
It's a massive undertaking. Let the Aid Agencies, who have vast experience in these matters, do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 8:11 am Post subject: 19 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| Antrax wrote: |
| Just a quick question: why is Israel responsible for the Gazan suffering and not Egypt? Both are blockading Gaza. |
Maybe because Egypt didn't destroy the infrastructure. Just a thought. |
That's odd. If you'll allow me, I'll split it into two parts. First of all, there was a humanitarian crisis in Gaza before 2007 (cast lead) but after 2005 (unilateral disengagement). Was Israel acting okay back then?
Secondly, are there any other examples where a country is forced reparations due to damages during a war? I can see how it can be a part of a concession, but why would a winning country be considered wrong for not repaying the loser's damages?
International politics really confuse me.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 8:36 am Post subject: 20 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| Antrax wrote: |
| Just a quick question: why is Israel responsible for the Gazan suffering and not Egypt? Both are blockading Gaza. |
Maybe because Egypt didn't destroy the infrastructure. Just a thought. |
We destroyed most of Germany and Japan in WWII because it was war. The US and allies helped rebuild both. We didn't have to. What we did is particular to the 20th century. It is analogous to the Gaza war since the US was also attacked first. Then after winning we were very humanitarian, but we didn't let Japan or Germany get significant arms for a long time. Doing this is a NEW idea. You are suffering from some very lofty feelings in your 20/20 view if you think any victor is obligated in any way, even if they started it.
Plus, if you think Israel doesn't want peace you are a complete fool. They have given quite often and been boned. I can't think of one country in the middle east that hasn't reneged on them at least once after significant concessions (which Israel honors). And virtually all of them (government or major factions) say they want to eliminate Israel (off the map according to Iran).
Seriously. Suppose there were a slice of land in the US just below DC and above Maryland. Suppose the government living there swore to end the US, and was dedicated to killing all Americans. A flotilla is coming in that the US hasn't inspected.
Are you seriously telling me that you would be OK with that ship going uninspected?
[Edit: And if there were hundreds of missiles flying out of there every year into civilian areas......
What do you think Americans would do if a missile flew in from say....Tijuana into San Diego every day? Or into your comfy couch wherever you are?]
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:02 am Post subject: 21 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| International politics really confuse me. |
That's because they're new politics. The American Indians weren't pissed off ever because they were being attacked. They constantly and brutally fought amongst each other. Just like human kind has since before we gained sentience. They hated losing most of the time but it wasn't a moral struggle. It wasn't Avatar you damned hippies.
Then the enlightenment happened and our societies were sufficiently fat and happy to help those we defeated rise up and join us.
That was an easy war. If they join you in philosophy they are your ally. Win-win. Now, the argument is essentially that if you're a big guy and some midget is punching you and stabbing you....if you punch him out, or take his knife...you owe him. And you have to give him his knife back and hug him while he's holding the knife. And a couple Franklins for good measure.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:10 am Post subject: 22 |
|
|
Israel is not expected to rebuild the infrastructure they destroyed.
They are only expected to allow Aid Organisations to do it.
And let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's about missiles.
The destruction of Gaza and suppression of its people is a matter of policy for the Israeli government. Essentially, they want to keep Gaza on life-support until the regime changes.
In many ways it's similar to the Cuban embargo.
But just because the U.S. did it, doesn't make it right.
You might find this Document enlightening. I've placed it in Google Docs, in case you are unable to view the original MSWord Doc or would rather see its contents without downloading it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:23 am Post subject: 23 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| They are only expected to allow Aid Organisations to do it while maintaining the safety of their citizens |
See what I did there?
As for policy, I really doubt the suppression of the palestinians is policy. Just like our policy is not the suppression of cubans living under a shit regime.
I might find "this document" interesting. No offense but sometimes I find my naval lint interesting. I'm going to ignore both for now though (barring a better teaser...hey....my car keys!).
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:29 am Post subject: 24 |
|
|
So again, Jack_Ian, was Israel on the side of the good guys before cast lead?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:30 am Post subject: 25 |
|
|
BTW You rightly criticized me for linking some random "facts." Your unsourced, highly opinionated data is arguably worse.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:03 am Post subject: 26 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| So again, Jack_Ian, was Israel on the side of the good guys before cast lead? |
Israel is in a tough spot and I believe it's heart is in the right place. It's only right that security for its citizens be paramount. If you're asking whether I believe Israel acted at all times correctly then I would have to say "No".
Government backed settlements, The Wall, Assasinations…
I would consider all of these reprehensible.
Indiscriminate missiles and suicide bombings, equally so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:10 am Post subject: 27 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| I might find "this document" interesting. No offense but sometimes I find my naval lint interesting. I'm going to ignore both for now though (barring a better teaser...hey....my car keys!). |
The document is from an Israeli, Human Rights Organisation, Gisha, that is well informed about the situation. They are a lot closer than you or me to the action and provide many links to corroborate their stance. But, I guess if you are not willing to put the effort into actually reading from a reputable source, then there's no point in continuing this conversation. Hell, you didn't even read my post, since I suggested it would be "enlightening" rather than "interesting". Perhaps you get your enlightenment from your navel lint. That would explain a lot.
| Samadhi wrote: |
| BTW You rightly criticized me for linking some random "facts." Your unsourced, highly opinionated data is arguably worse. |
What would be the point in providing you with sources? You plainly have no desire to read any link I post. Yes, I have stated my opinion, so naturally my post is therefore opinionated. Better than just echoing some nonsense from a shock-jock.
If there is a specific statement of fact that I have made that you require a reputable source for, then please let me know and I'll see if I can get it for you in large print with crayon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:36 am Post subject: 28 |
|
|
Oh my! I'm getting a little hot under the collar about this and I don't even live there.
Perhaps it's time for me to take a step back. I really don't have the time to devote to this discussion that it really needs.
Essentially, while I do not live in the Middle East, I do have some experience, being Irish, of how terrorism survives and how it is destroyed. I've seen it first-hand.
It took many many failed government policies to bring it to a conclusion here.
I see those same policies being used in the Middle East and I know that they will fail and set the peace process back.
You might like to poke holes in my various posts, but I hope that you will see me overall position. Which is…
1) Long-term Israeli security will not be achieved by oppressing it's enemies but rather by engaging with them.
2) What's happening now in Gaza is oppression.
3) A fair settlement will involve a great deal of pain for both sides (given how far they are apart).
Do you doubt any of these statements? If not, then I'll be happy to move on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:14 am Post subject: 29 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| First of all, there was a humanitarian crisis in Gaza before 2007 (cast lead) but after 2005 (unilateral disengagement). |
I'm really not sure what your point is here Antrax. Does it matter whether there was a crisis before? Surely the issue is how to solve the current humanitarian crisis? Is it your argument that the blockade is not causing hardship because there was hardship before? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:24 am Post subject: 30 |
|
|
I'm just trying to figure out where Israel went wrong. Egypt is blockading Gaza, but nobody's saying they shouldn't. So, clearly it's about something that Israel does and Egypt doesn't, or vice-versa. You said it's about infrastructure, so I wanted to make sure that before we destroyed whatever infrastructure was over there, we were okay, otherwise that's not really your point, is it?
So again, you have two countries bordering the Gaza strip. Between the two, it's under siege. One is wrong to do so, one is right. What is the difference between them that makes it so?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quailman
His Postmajesty
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:14 pm Post subject: 31 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
I'm just trying to figure out where Israel went wrong. Egypt is blockading Gaza, but nobody's saying they shouldn't. So, clearly it's about something that Israel does and Egypt doesn't, or vice-versa. You said it's about infrastructure, so I wanted to make sure that before we destroyed whatever infrastructure was over there, we were okay, otherwise that's not really your point, is it?
So again, you have two countries bordering the Gaza strip. Between the two, it's under siege. One is wrong to do so, one is right. What is the difference between them that makes it so? |
One of those countries controls over 80% of Gaza's land border, 100% of it's maritme access and all of its airspace. The UN and other international bodies still consider Israel to be an occupying power.
So yeah, one of those two countries is held more accountable than the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:06 pm Post subject: 32 |
|
|
Again, I should probably warn I know very little about international law. However, some things are odd about your reply, Quailman.
First of all, I don't understand how it's Israel that controls the air space and not anyone else. Maritime access makes sense as Gaza's access is a corridor surrounded by Israeli-controlled areas on both sides, but air?
Secondly, and much more importantly, it's not much of a blockade if only 80% is closed off, is it? So unless the rule is that the majority holder is to be accountable for the actions of everyone else, I don't really see how the responsibility isn't shared between all countries blockading an area.
Also, as an interesting aside, since you're old enough to have been lived during that period: before peace with Egypt (79), did you condemn Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt for mutually controlling 100% of Israel's land, sea and air borders?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:52 pm Post subject: 33 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| First of all, I don't understand how it's Israel that controls the air space and not anyone else. |
That's the way Israel wanted it. See here.
Also, Egypt is not an occupying force and as such is not responsible for the inhabitants of Gaza.
Israel, is an occupying force. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:32 pm Post subject: 34 |
|
|
I'm a bit confused. This is probably a language issue, but how is Israel an occupying force if it's not in the area it's supposedly occupying?
Specifically, 1 and 2 are about every country's right to disallow people and goods to enter or leave it. Nobody's disputing this, I hope.
3 is the blockade, which is what we're talking about, I believe. 4 I'm not sure I understood. This "west bank" is in Israel or not?
5 is just insulting. Israel has never, despite immense criticism from people here, withheld the tax money due to the PA. It "can", in the same sense Obama can veto everything and screw everybody over. Not realistic.
And you keep refusing to answer, which really makes it difficult to understand your position. I have to admit I don't have much access to objective observers on the conflict, so please forgive me for trying to figure out exactly what your position is.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:55 pm Post subject: 35 |
|
|
Jack: Sorry for being snarky. However, the fact that it is an Israeli link does not mean it can't be ridiculously biased. There are groups inside Israel that are as unhinged as any groups we have here. I glanced at it, saw that it was unsourced and didn't particularly care to read it at 2:30 am.
I didn't even look at the document because you didn't really say why you wanted me to look at it. Anyway.
I would like to repeat one bit you missed
| Me wrote: |
Seriously. Suppose there were a slice of land in the US just below DC and above Maryland. Suppose the government living there swore to end the US, and was dedicated to killing all Americans. A flotilla is coming in that the US hasn't inspected.
Are you seriously telling me that you would be OK with that ship going uninspected? |
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:33 am Post subject: 36 |
|
|
One of the "aid" ships was named the "Rachel Corrie". Remember her?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Poisonium
annoyed by the old
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:17 pm Post subject: 37 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| One of the "aid" ships was named the "Rachel Corrie". Remember her? |
Another one was Swedish crime fiction writer Henning Mankell (famous for the Wallander series). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LordKinbote
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:29 pm Post subject: 38 |
|
|
| Poisonium wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| One of the "aid" ships was named the "Rachel Corrie". Remember her? |
Another one was Swedish crime fiction writer Henning Mankell (famous for the Wallander series). |
No, Henning Mankell was *on* the boat, Rachel Corrie was the NAME of one of the boats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Poisonium
annoyed by the old
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:52 pm Post subject: 39 |
|
|
| LordKinbote wrote: |
| Poisonium wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| One of the "aid" ships was named the "Rachel Corrie". Remember her? |
Another one was Swedish crime fiction writer Henning Mankell (famous for the Wallander series). |
No, Henning Mankell was *on* the boat, Rachel Corrie was the NAME of one of the boats. |
Oh, sorry, I only skimmed your message, as I usually do while reading. Missed that bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LordKinbote
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 2:01 pm Post subject: 40 |
|
|
| Poisonium wrote: |
| LordKinbote wrote: |
| Poisonium wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| One of the "aid" ships was named the "Rachel Corrie". Remember her? |
Another one was Swedish crime fiction writer Henning Mankell (famous for the Wallander series). |
No, Henning Mankell was *on* the boat, Rachel Corrie was the NAME of one of the boats. |
Oh, sorry, I only skimmed your message, as I usually do while reading. Missed that bit. |
You must have skimmed it, since it wasn't my message.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
