Hypothesis: No Hamas = No More Problems. For anyone.

SubJeff on 2/6/2010 at 01:21

Errr, the activists stated before they left, on camera (search for the video if you want), that they either get to Gaza or become martyrs. They knew this would happen and to suggest that they were naive enough to think that running an Israeli blockade would not get them some military response is to insult their intelligence.

I mean who the frak tries to run an Israeli naval blockade?

Rug Burn Junky on 2/6/2010 at 01:52

It takes a very special kind of self delusion to convince oneself that Israel is somehow the victim of a "PR stunt" or "liberal agenda" in this instance.

Muzman on 2/6/2010 at 04:22

I'm kinda impressed by the stones of the angry mob guys. When I imagine being woken up by soldiers in the dark, rapeling in from helicopter, possessing an uncertain armament/anger level I can't imagine wanting to hit them with sticks. (no one should really say 'they wanted to be shot' at this point. In the vids they look a lot more like they're determined to win).

Fragony on 2/6/2010 at 05:24

Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*

I know as much about international law as most people around the world know about crate stacking in Thief, but this caught my eye:

I think it's pretty clear that (b) applies to the blockade of Gaza.

Various people, including officials within the UN, have stated that the blockade of Gaza is illegal.

As such, Israel would not have had the right to board any ships in international waters.
In fact, I suspect it would have been quite legal for the people on the ship to defend themselves.

I'm pretty sure that Hamas are not the only group firing rockets into Israel.

Nobody is starving, they are one fat lot. Too much of the abundant sweet stuff.

gimme pics of starving Palestinians. Try google.

SE you are wrong there are various groups shooting rockets from Gaza.

Morte on 2/6/2010 at 07:17

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

Someone trying to provoke them, obviously. If they overreact, they're shown to be brutal and unreasonable, as well as drawing attention to the terrible situation in the Gaza strip. It will drive wedges between Israel and the international community, isolating them politically and possibly triggering a political crisis in Israel. If they don't rise to the bait and let them pass, they'll have gotten some much needed supplies through. It's basically a win-win scenario as long as you don't mind being brutalized or shot, or Israel is *really* deft in turning them aside.

And since Netanyahu is basically an idiot who thinks Dick Cheney's an excellent role model, he went for maximum jack-booted thuggery and sent in commandos while they were still on international waters, which was the very worst way to handle things. As usual.

Fragony on 2/6/2010 at 08:07

What does it matter how Israel handles anything, they are condemned anyway.

Morte on 2/6/2010 at 09:16

Quote Posted by Fragony

What does it matter how Israel handles anything, they are condemned anyway.

You might believe that, but as you've demonstrated before what you believe bears little relation to the real world.

Matthew on 2/6/2010 at 09:34

Quote Posted by Zygoptera

Don't suppose he mentioned that Turkish merchant ships are guaranteed under threat of war from NATO to be free from interference in the international waters of the Med?

Not that that will actually happen, of course.

To be fair he sounded like he'd been rousted out of bed for the interview :p And given the identity of NATO's most influential member, that threat has not exactly got a lot of teeth in this particular situation.

Fragony: Israel was possibly damned if it did and damned if it didn't in this situation, but I would submit that they should have tried for the least worst option, that is to say using non-lethal force.

hopper on 2/6/2010 at 09:40

All the discussion about this latest action aside, SE's "hypothesis" is just flat-out wrong. You can't just wish away the most stubborn international political problem of the last 60 years. It is also downright ignorant to assume that if you disband the Palestinians' dominant armed group de jour, even if it could be done, the conflict will be solved. There will always be another group waiting in the shadows to fill the vacuum.

There will never be an end to this conflict unless and until the Palestinians and Israelis alike have a sustainable, internationally recognized state within secure borders to live in. There is no way to achieve that, except through negotiations. But you can't have "negotiations" as long as one side is hell bent on crushing every last bit of resistance from the other side before they'll agree to talk. They've tried it for more than 40 years, and the latest invasions of Lebanon and the Gaza strip show that they're further away from achieving that goal than they ever were.

It is both naive and cynical to postulate that an equitable and sustainable solution can be found, if only one party would simply give up their ability to put force behind their demands. This isn't just about a group of thugs, it's about the Palestinian people. You can't equate 1.5 million people effectively besieged on all sides on a tiny strip of land to a drug cartel.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/opinion/02oz.html?src=me&ref=opinion) Here is an excellent piece that makes the point more eloquently than I can.

Fragony on 2/6/2010 at 10:17

Quote Posted by Morte

You might believe that, but as you've demonstrated before what you believe bears little relation to the real world.

Decides who.

In the real world Erdogan is trying to limit the power of the Turkish army, traditionally pro-Israel. Everybody with at least some knowledge of international politics understands what happened here.