Hypothesis: No Hamas = No More Problems. For anyone. - by SubJeff
demagogue on 4/6/2010 at 15:52
Quote Posted by TafferLing
No, the activists want israel to allow more shit in, like cement, medicine, more food, books and things that may help palestine to become barely functional instead of constantly on the brink of starvation and without any means to even try to bootstrap themselves up.
I didn't word this well. What I meant was, what I said is what Israel's argument is, and Bibi's argument in particular, (also don't forget Egypt and its border), which I noted from the start should be taken with a grain of salt. Of course Israel is going to frame it to look like they're just interested in weapons and anything that props up Hamas against them but then be over-restrictive, and of course the 'importers' are going to frame it as all falling into the humanitarian category and push the envelope, some of them (the activists) with good intentions, others (actual terrorists) with evil intentions.
But the argument you just countered with has to be taken with a grain of salt, too. Basically, the whole situation should be smothered in salt because chances are Israel is going to predictably push to be over-restrictive and the activists predictably push to be under-restrictive, and it cries out for a neutral arbitrator to figure out what both sides need and police it as an honest broker, because just trusting either Israel or the importer's word alone is a fox-guarding-the-hens situation to the other side.
*Zaccheus* on 4/6/2010 at 20:31
Quote Posted by TafferLing
No, the activists want israel to allow more shit in, like cement, medicine, more food, books and things that may help palestine to become barely functional instead of constantly on the brink of starvation and without any means to even try to bootstrap themselves up.
Indeed.
I'll have to double check, but the list of stuff which Israel allows in may include food but seems to lack what is needed to cook that food (e.g. fuel).
Tocky on 5/6/2010 at 15:56
On a boat and under assault (or fighting back depending on your slant) it would be unusual for any long range shots. However the link actually says most were "peppered" with shots which would jibe with a loss of control by panicked commandos. Although the footage released by Israel is bias edited it does show commandos being beaten and thrown overboard so that is a little hard to refute.
From your own link Zaccheus:
[An unnamed Israeli commando, who purportedly led the raid on the Mavi Marmara, today told Israeli news website Ynet News that he shot at a protester who approached him with a knife. "I was in front of a number of people with knives and clubs," he said. "I cocked my weapon when I saw that one was coming towards me with a knife drawn and I fired once. Then another 20 people came at me from all directions and threw me down to the deck below …
"We knew they were peace activists. Though they wanted to break the Gaza blockade, we thought we'd encounter passive resistance, perhaps verbal resistance – we didn't expect this. Everyone wanted to kill us. We encountered terrorists who wanted to kill us and we did everything we could to prevent unnecessary injury.]
I'm not supporting the boarding mind you. It was stupid for commandos to expect only "passive resistance". Now it will be easier than ever for not so peace activists to send arms as well as upping the number of those willing to.
I'm curious why Israel hasn't already taken control of the port at Gaza rather than blockade seeing as how they have no trouble with escalation. Demagogue? You are the most informed and thoughtful one here. Plus I want to have your unbiased babies.
CCCToad on 5/6/2010 at 16:27
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
I am happy to see such an article. On the first page of this thread I wrote a post. I got called an idiot. But there is a lot in this article which agrees with what I wrote. The main points being: Israel (and America) are reversing the roles of aggressor and victim. Second point: how is it possible that people (try to) do this ? Third point: Greenwald points to tribalism the reason.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Calling people you disagree with idiots or insane without addressing their argument is typical for those with an elitist mentality (whether deserved or not)
(
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/28/crazy/index.html)
(
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/25/is-rand-paul-crazier-than-anyone-else-in-d-c.html)
Quote:
these are contentious judgments. I hardly expect the news media to denigrate the policies I’ve named, nor do I expect their Republican and Democratic supporters to be labeled crazy, kooky, or extreme. These disparaging descriptors are never applied to America’s policy establishment, even when it is proved ruinously wrong, whereas politicians who don’t fit the mainstream Democratic or Republican mode, such as libertarians, are mocked almost reflexively in these terms, if they are covered at all.....
Will reporters covering a 2012 Gary Johnson candidacy zero in on his opposition to the war on drugs, and ask him questions like “Will sex offenders who’ve served their time in jail be able to buy ecstasy on their way to a Miley Cyrus concert?” Quite possibly. The press loves to ask questions premised on the most absurd applications of libertarian theory. But Obama won’t face incredulous questions from the establishment press about asserting powers that, if abused, would theoretically enable him to declare a political opponent an enemy combatant, deport him, and murder him using the power of the state.....
the policies and ideology of libertarian politicians should be treated as seriously and equitably as those of Lindsey Graham or Joe Lieberman, especially given the balance of political power in this country. It’s a de facto two-party system. And
crazy, kooky, extreme actions are perpetrated by establishment centrists far more often than by marginalized libertarians.demagogue on 5/6/2010 at 16:59
Quote Posted by Tocky
I'm curious why Israel hasn't already taken control of the port at Gaza rather than blockade seeing as how they have no trouble with escalation. Demagogue?
The short answer to that last question is that Israel went through great trouble in 2005 pulling *out* of Gaza, with all these images of crying, sniffling Israeli settlers being drug out by Israeli military, kicking and screaming uncontrollably (IIRC in some cases helicoptered out in dangling cages like animals), which was apparently traumatic for the country to watch... But it still had (again IIRC) majority support because Israel is prone to occupation fatigue. It's exhausting always being demonized by world opinion for occupying land that except for a few extremist settlers they consider third world and don't want anyway.
And I think Israel prefers the position of not being responsible for the suffering of Gazans, and you sometimes get this weird dynamic where Israel is still considered the occupying power over Gaza by the UN and a lot of NGOs and responsible for the Gazans' well-being, and Israel will always dispute it (read the wiki page on (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip) Gaza on that). They get perpetually demonized as an occupier, but then when they try to get away from it, they aren't allowed to. That right there helps explains why they prefer to have the blockade out in international waters, not "Gaza" waters, and tow the ships into Ashkelon (Israel) and do the inspection there, not in Gaza. There's no impetus to re-occupy Gaza or do anything "administrative" there.
The question at issue, of course, is whether the fact you have a noose around everything that comes in and out of the country and can indiscriminately send tanks in, as Israel did in Jan 2009, gives you occupier status with all the responsibilities, and just saying you're not an occupier is a cheap and cynical way to not take care of your treatment of Gaza when you have so much effective control (not that Hamas has gone out of its way to develop a functional administration to take effective control itself; not that Israel has given them enough latitude to; not that Hamas has given Israel any reason why they can handle such latitude responsibly; etc, etc.) Me being sympathetic to human rights and all, I'm not keen on them trying to ditch human rights obligations too conveniently either, though I recognize the tough gap between what Israel wants to do (leave Gaza the hell alone, if it weren't for the rockets) and what it is able to.
That reminds me that everything going on in Gaza has to take into account those Jan 2009 operations into Gaza (to stop the rocket showerings) where even by US standards, lol, Israel went way overboard shelling everything in sight (but not re-occupying it) and got heavily demonized then, as if to dramatize the extent of Israeli frustration with Gaza.
We really need native Israelis and Gazans to give their own impressions, though, but I wouldn't blame them for not wanting to deal with it in a public thread, esp not one with shots of the Nintendo avenger.
*Zaccheus* on 5/6/2010 at 22:13
I'd just like to say that I do not support Hamas' militant attitude towards Israel, just in case anyone was wondering. Both sides will eventuall need to learn to live as neighbours. I think most people on both sides really just want the killing to stop.
Quote Posted by Tocky
On a boat and under assault (or fighting back depending on your slant) it would be unusual for any long range shots. However the link actually says most were "peppered" with shots which would jibe with a loss of control by panicked commandos.
Quote:
The results revealed that a
60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back.
Quote Posted by Tocky
Although the footage released by Israel is bias edited it does show commandos being beaten and thrown overboard so that is a little hard to refute.
It shows the attackers being beaten with
something at
some point and
someone being thrown overboard.
Quote Posted by Tocky
From your own link Zaccheus:
[An unnamed Israeli commando, who purportedly led the raid on the Mavi Marmara, today told Israeli news website Ynet News that he shot at a protester who approached him with a knife. "I was in front of a number of people with knives and clubs," he said. "I cocked my weapon when I saw that one was coming towards me with a knife drawn and I fired once. Then another 20 people came at me from all directions and threw me down to the deck below ...
"We knew they were peace activists. Though they wanted to break the Gaza blockade, we thought we'd encounter passive resistance, perhaps verbal resistance - we didn't expect this. Everyone wanted to kill us. We encountered terrorists who wanted to kill us and we did everything we could to prevent unnecessary injury.]
Seriously, why should anyone believe a word he says?
Quote Posted by Tocky
I'm not supporting the boarding mind you. It was stupid for commandos to expect only "passive resistance".
You know, if those had really been Hamas activists, many of those soldiers would sadly be dead. It's a good job that they did not encounter any armed terrorists.
Quote Posted by Tocky
Now it will be easier than ever for not so peace activists to send arms as well as upping the number of those willing to.
Perhaps. It will also be easier for Israel to defend pre-emptive heavy handedness if they ever want to.
Quote Posted by Tocky
I'm curious why Israel hasn't already taken control of the port at Gaza rather than blockade seeing as how they have no trouble with escalation. Demagogue? You are the most informed and thoughtful one here. Plus I want to have your unbiased babies.
They would be making themselves a target for people who really are out to kill them.
Chimpy Chompy on 5/6/2010 at 22:57
Just following on from Tocky's post, the impression I've gotten is of Commandos going aboard expecting light resistance (paintball guns??), getting mobbed and panicking\resorting to lethal force. Aside from the morality of them going aboard in the first place, it seems quite a cockup.
Matthew on 5/6/2010 at 23:00
One thing is for sure, SD has won the tag war hands down.
Edit: whoa, holy post deletion Batman!
