Israeli Blockade: Who didn't see this coming?

[Samadhi]

[Pablo]

[JF*]

[Death Mage]

Short term: It won't.
Long term: Only the resolution of a full-scale war.
_________________
* 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!]

[Gideon Meir*]

mwahahaha The hasbara effort is a well-oiled machine.

[Nsof]

[Nsof]

[Termital]

From the OP:

"The blockade is in place to prevent Gaza from getting missiles that are routinely fired into civilian centers in Israel.":
Denmark's firewall was put in place to protect the Danes from the evils of (wouldn't you know it?) paedophilia. Of course, it currently protects the Danes from the evils of current The Bold & The Beautiful episodes, but only the most cynical among us will claim that was part of its founders' original agenda. And in any case, it's about actions, not intent.

"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.":
This is a frankly ridiculous statement. Handing aid over to Israel to dispense (or not, which is always an option), at whatever timing suits it, at whatever quantities it feels like, would be providing more leverage to the side that made the aid effort a necessity. Which is kind of messed up, even when not entertaining notions of tampered, sabotaged, or weaponised supplies.

"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.":
When I was in school, I was taught that Wikipedia, accessible as it is, is really poor for academic research. I'm sure my mentors would frown on me for putting faith on an army PR release in video form just because it's pushed onto my screen; ymmv. If for some reason you have to wallow through dubiously edited video, then at least do yourself the favour of viewing propaganda material shot by the crews; some of it is out there.

I also protest claims that the crews' reaction to the boarding attempt is anything but justified. Except perhaps stupid in that there was never any doubt of the outcome. It's the sort of thing that is called courage when exhibited by a friend, but "martyr politics" when by foe; I think I'll stick to the non-denominational stupid. Digression aside, hitting a burglar over the head in my bedroom won't weigh heavy in my conscience - yes, even if I don't allow him the first blow.

"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'm not quite sure how humanitarian activism correlates with the Gandhiesque pacifist methodology, but this statement tends to verify I have lost touch with this forum's soul: I would have thought that violence of this sort was a morally acceptable way of doing good eventually, given some posters' 2003 arguments, and presumably current militia-friendly stances.

Which I suppose leaves the inflammatory conflation that is "martyr". Martyrdom, by its very definition, is a demonstration of belief, where the price paid is meant to speak volumes about the held belief. Strong statements make for good stories, be it the torments and death of St. Catherine, bbqed Tibetans or suicide bombers, hence the coverage. And such stories make for valid heartening/demoralising material, thus a staple of any warfare. Of course, to muddy the semiotics comes the conflation with the behaviour of suicide bombers, whose random, amoral targeting strikes fear in the heart of civilian population, in essence turning the word into a smear. I am sorely tempted to point the suspicious similarities of effects to those of honourable, proper, aircraft carrier and chopper (in this case) warfare, but that's an inflammatory statement to be perhaps argued in a thread of its own.

In all, I could be wrong, but I sense the underlying arguments are that deaths occurred after a policing action over proper aid distribution protocol was met with illegal force, and that activism was, ahem, improper, since it harbours ill feelings towards Israel. From my point of view, things are a lot simpler: Israel hurts Gaza, people care about Gaza enough to organise the trip. Protecting Gaza means hating those that hurt it; as for the army, sympathisers of your enemy are enemy. Both "protect" themselves, the weaker side dies. But just because the setup is symmetrical doesn't mean keeping equal distances is moral.

Regarding Egypt, two things matter: first of all, it is a closet dictatorship with, ahem, certain dependencies, whose most militant opposition tends to cluster under a religious banner. Second, it has its own (minor) Palestinian minority problem. Palestinians displaced by Jews during Israel's creation were the original problem, and, a few generations in, are not granted anything resembling rights; they still are eminently deportable, except for the little problem of nowhere to send them off to. Current regime is very keen in keeping these problems separate, hence the steel barrier. I suppose memories of '67 are also part of the picture .
_________________
_{Better ways to push & pull!}

[Termital]

[Death Mage]

[Jack_Ian]

[Jack_Ian]

[Antrax]

[Jack_Ian]

[Jack_Ian]

[Antrax]

[Jack_Ian]

[Antrax]

[Death Mage]

[Blighty Bloke*]

To be frank and honest, Israel and damned either way. If Israel give way to the Gaza and Palastine wants then the rest of the middle east will want more, and demand more to the point of Israel succumbing to an Arab alliance that will pull Israel apart. An I know damn well Israel will not surrender to that.
If Israel continue with the blockade then the Western world will condemn Israel for their inhumane acts against an oppressed society.
Either way Israel will be the whipping boy in this no win scenario.

[Pablo]

Blah Blah Blah

I'm getting tired of paying for their war.



Further, I believe that the reason we do is because politicians don't want to lose the Jewish votes in New York and Florida, two states with lots of electoral votes.

More

While you're debating right v wrong and good v evil, your pockets (and mine) are getting picked.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

[Pablo]

[Pablo]

[Death Mage]

It would be better if panel 4 were the presidential seal and his head hidden behind mics, and panel 5 starting with "the President". Hell, ditto all the other leaders as well. Makes it more timeless that way.
_________________
* 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!]

[Pablo]

So, extro, how many more years you you recommend that we continue to sell out our own country, steal resources from those who earn and create them, and hand them over to a country that has no accountability to us and sucks them up as fast as we can provide them, and only asks for more with no intention of ever paying anything back? There is NOTHING patriotic or American about this. This is corruption and you are an icon for the reason for it....unable to think independently, willing to drink whatever koolaid is put in front of you, and willing to ignore or deny reality. Your "good vs evil" view of the world makes you a prime sucker and I'm sure you feel righteous when you pay the part of your taxes that goes to perpetuating the suffering that is going on in the Middle East. It would have ended long ago without U.S. support. Israel would have learned to get along or vanished. Either would be better than what is going on now and what will continue to go on if you have your way.

[Death Mage]

7,515,400 Israelis (as of 2009)

How many of them would you kill to stop sending the funds, Pablo?
_________________
* 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!]

[Zag]

[Nsof]

[Pablo]

[Pablo]

[Pablo]

[Termital]

First of all, as Jack_Ian has kindly noted, I'm not arguing legality regarding international waters interception. Primarily because I feel most of international law, especially the bits about violence, is ex post facto wash. Feel like hurting Serb leadership for war nastiness? Hey presto ICTY! Don't feel like paying up a debt? It is henceforth odious. Or in the case of NYDN, whatever that is, the argument seems to go something like: We [the US] do it, so it's kosher. Then there's the opt in and out whenever you feel like it that accompanies most of this regulation, and the lack of means of enforcement, and you begin to see why I've already wasted more bits than the legality question is worth. I assumed the "has come to mean little" bit was sufficient indication. What I'm arguing is that this bit of antagonism was trivially easy to avoid, but apparently such concerns don't even enter the thought processes of the power that be in Israel. I find this a bothersome indication on several levels, hence the ranting. And just to provide the Raving Lunatic with the insight into my particular shortcomings that he seems to crave, I offer fear: Part of the flotilla bore my nation's colours. Any distress call received would need to be answered by Coast Guard / Navy / Airforce, either directly or through request to a friendly proximate country. I think one can see the potential for greater disaster here. I used "bit" a lot, didn't I?

Now, regarding Antrax's reply:

I concede Israel is drip-feeding the parts of aid it likes, and has been for quite some time. I question the "makes perfect sense" bit; I would not suggest testing the limits of US (and, of lesser importance, EU) willingness to ignore stuff by "being a bastard about it". But then again, this incident once again demonstrates the predictable and increasing disconnect between Israeli perceptions of its actions and the perceptions of the rest of the world, so I'm not putting money on what the future will bring. The flotilla crew didn't either. Surely you can understand that trust in the people who are hurting your self-appointed wards to now help them is kinda difficult to achieve, even when you try, rather than kill. Similarly, I get that letting these ships move about willy nilly defeats the stated purpose of it all, which is why this was bound to happen sooner or later. Maybe it's the double ESL thing, but I'm unsure of how much to read into the "it [(Israel)] isn't [a bastard]"; in any case, may I be granted that: if one reprehends of Israeli Gaza actions,then a) one rightly loathes providing further (aid control) leverage to Israel and b) one rightly discounts current practice as proof of non-bastardry (, in the sense that not busting my kneecaps does not make the person who snapped off my arm anything other than a thug). But enough with endless sentences, and using non-committed parentage as an insult.

Now, regarding the IDF PR clips: Disinterested observers are likely to accept that army propagandists will not run afoul of their moral code by wielding an airbrush. I assume that editing works at least as well, and has the added advantage of not turning my stack of old newspapers into politically explosive kindling some years down the road, Pravda-style. Accepting the veracity of footage is insufficient for "putting faith" in it as ... as what? A complete account of the events? It is evidently not, if only for length. Evidence of Israeli injuries during the boarding? They were universally conceded prior to release, plus duh- who knew participating in military actions may prove hazardous to your health? Perhaps evidence of active protection of vessels by their crew? My memory is a bit hazy, so I'm willing to grant it helped quell doubt that may or may not have been expressed on that point. I do recall other footage, whose dialog indicated physical opposition to the boarding had gone on, but am forgetful of the release sequence. So yeah, I feel it is at best content-free; if I did feel there was content in it, I would have to treat it more like an unreproduced experiment than a law of Physics. See, I don't need to claim bias on some House MD-ian principle: I need only point out that the witness is also a self-justifying participant. Antrax's faith in IDFs truthfulness is understandable, and said video is conducive to comforting "See, cousin David did not do anything too unsavoury"/"Serves them right for clobbering my niece"/"Eye for an eye then" syllogisms on the home front. Since I'm removed from the situation, I can afford to be more reserved in embracing the video's truth of "Tut, tut, that's very ungentlemanly of them activists"/"Oy, I wouldn't want to be that falling Israeli bloke". I am also morbidly curious to ask whether the "your" in "your beliefs" is singular or plural (in which case I would like to know the company I keep), and tempted to note that I can, and indeed hold, a belief sans campaigning, but I think this paragraph has been patronising enough, thus further aggro is unnecessary.

And at this point I'll admit to being an idiot for daring to call a native resident of Palestine a Palestinian. Not because I'm wrong, but because I didn't see this objection coming. One would think that constant living in an area for a goodly number of millennia certifies people as natives. Native enough to name the area after them in fact. I do understand that it's really important for a state, a state that absolutely must be a nation state, a state that feels threatened to be able to lay an exclusive racial, historical claim on its region and my verbiage acted as a reminder of this fallacy. Important as the point may be to the current defining Israeli narrative, I am afraid I will have to keep offending, out of sheer ignorance of the polite, PC term to use in front of Israeli company. The troll in me wants to start calling both sides Palestinians (or Israelis interchangeably) just to get it over with, but I'm sure such nomenclature would be unappreciated by both parties involved, as well as rather confusing on this topic.

Antrax's post 98 is much meatier, and the U.S. financing is also rather interesting, but these will have to wait for a time when I am composed enough for things other than pro forma ripostes.
_________________
_{Better ways to push & pull!}

[extro...*]

[extro...*]

[Antrax]

Pablo, I can't say I understand your comment. Beyond disagreeing with you, do you feel I'm debating unfairly or offensively?
As for the US aid, I'm not sure why 2.6 billion out of roughly 40 is what got you so worked up. I'm also not sure how the flotilla has anything to do with it.

I admit I have no clue what you were saying in most of your post, Termital (this isn't some rhetorical trick to dismiss what you said, I honestly and truly couldn't keep up with the points you possibly tried to make). One part does stand out, though:

[Samadhi]

Termital: I mean this not to denigrate any points you may have had but yours is a wall of text late in the debate. You may have made some good points but you are never specific and go off on tangents.

I mean this in no way to be offensive, I offer it as advice. You can't talk on line like you might with good friends who will listen to you for a long time (despite your lack of brevity) because they are your friends. On line, be brief. You are way too verbose, cut to the chase. Please =)

I only read the first paragraph but....while I'm not sure what you were saying, I'm pretty sure you could have said it in one sentence.

[Edit] I know this is a good thing because unless I am succinct or have a *very* good opener, only a few will read more than the first few lines. I've learned, not very well, to get my main idea out at the beginning. Not a lot of wasted time that way. If they don't care for my idea (don't agree or disagree) they can ignore me, if they do care then they can delve into my thinking.)
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[Samadhi]

Antrax: Aren't about 25% of Israelis of Arab descent (I read some detailed statistics this weekend but my stat-fu fails me)? If so that's about 2 million Arabs that have more rights than they would in any other Arab country.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[Antrax]

To the best of my knowledge it's about 20% Israeli Arab citizens. I don't know how they would've been treated in other Arab countries - it really depends on the country. In Kuwait you get free university education and a free car when you turn 21, or so the legend goes, and we can't compete with that.
I don't really see the relevance, though. Has anyone suggested this is a matter of racial discrimination?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Jack_Ian]

[Jack_Ian]