-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gaza aid fleet attacked by Israeli navy
- Thread starter Talas
- Start date
- Status
painful fart
Member
I thought there were black activists that used illegal methods as well, weren´t there?Xeke said:
painful fart
Member
That was not the point that I was getting at, you said in the middle east all partys were guilty. By the current laws back int the 50-60s the black activists were guilty as well.Xeke said:
It´s in the light of the history that we judge that their crimes were justifiable. In a few years time there may be a consensus that running Israels economical blockade of Gaza was justifiable in order to ease the lives of the people living under occupation.
empty vessel
Member
Atrus said:
I'm just talking institutionally. All mainstream American media sources, given that they reflect the power structure within the country itself, have a significant pro-Israeli bias. (Media biases of any country always run in the direction of the power structure.) And if you were to take all experts on international law and line them up, American law professors, on average, will be among the most pro-Israeli and for the same reason.
Xeke said:
It should bother you, since the comparison is apt. Palestinians are the subjugated class of Israel's apartheid state, which is what blacks once were to the US (and South Africa).
tahrikmili
Member
Any news about the footage from the cards the reporters hid in their panties?
A Black Falcon
Member
I'm sure this has been posted here at some point, but I agree almost entirely with this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/opinion/03oren.html
Terrorist supporters whose goals include funding and arming Hamas and attack soldiers are not "peace activists".
I mean, I hope that we (the U.S.) can convince Israel to abandon its settlements in the West Bank, those are clearly a problem and an obstacle towards peace and the two-state solution that is clearly the best path forward. That fence which effectively seizes so much Palestinian land is a problem too. And certainly both sides are guilty of constant incitement. But Israel should not have to talk with people whose main goal is their destruction, or allow people supporting those groups free access to support their enemies... I thought that the American blockade of Iraq in the '90s was overall effective (more could have been done to get in medicines for the Iraqi people, but that was every bit as much their government's fault as it was ours...), and it's similar here. Wars should only happen as an absolute last resort, and methods such as blockades can also be very effective, without the awful toll of invasion. The blockade of Iraq had successfully crippled Sadaam's government and helped keep him from being able to rebuild banned weapons programs, and limit how much he could oppress his people too -- the Kurds in the north had effective independence thanks to US control of the air, for instance. Methods that are not war, but help you achieve your goals, are often good things to try. (The Iraq War itself, of course, was something I strongly opposed from the beginning, but that was very different from the actions of the decade-plus before it.)
I don't know whether it was legal or not to stop the ships that far offshore, and that question does matter, but the action itself was certainly justified, and that matters more. But sure, investigate what happened here. We can't entirely trust one or the other sides' version of the story, both are already working hard to spin it their way... but we'll see, whatever exactly happened, I'm sure it will come out. I don't think that this Islamic "charity" is going to come out of it looking too good, though...
Terrorist supporters whose goals include funding and arming Hamas and attack soldiers are not "peace activists".
I mean, I hope that we (the U.S.) can convince Israel to abandon its settlements in the West Bank, those are clearly a problem and an obstacle towards peace and the two-state solution that is clearly the best path forward. That fence which effectively seizes so much Palestinian land is a problem too. And certainly both sides are guilty of constant incitement. But Israel should not have to talk with people whose main goal is their destruction, or allow people supporting those groups free access to support their enemies... I thought that the American blockade of Iraq in the '90s was overall effective (more could have been done to get in medicines for the Iraqi people, but that was every bit as much their government's fault as it was ours...), and it's similar here. Wars should only happen as an absolute last resort, and methods such as blockades can also be very effective, without the awful toll of invasion. The blockade of Iraq had successfully crippled Sadaam's government and helped keep him from being able to rebuild banned weapons programs, and limit how much he could oppress his people too -- the Kurds in the north had effective independence thanks to US control of the air, for instance. Methods that are not war, but help you achieve your goals, are often good things to try. (The Iraq War itself, of course, was something I strongly opposed from the beginning, but that was very different from the actions of the decade-plus before it.)
I don't know whether it was legal or not to stop the ships that far offshore, and that question does matter, but the action itself was certainly justified, and that matters more. But sure, investigate what happened here. We can't entirely trust one or the other sides' version of the story, both are already working hard to spin it their way... but we'll see, whatever exactly happened, I'm sure it will come out. I don't think that this Islamic "charity" is going to come out of it looking too good, though...
Buba Big Guns
Banned
Islamic charity? You realize people from different religions were on the flotilla. And its already a complete disaster for Israel. Worldwide condemnation including from the UN security council, where the US didnt even veto the condemnation.
All this did was increase the awareness of Israeli barbarity towards Palestine, which is a good thing.
All this did was increase the awareness of Israeli barbarity towards Palestine, which is a good thing.
I'll always be against the blockade because, while I'm sure some people on those ships were indeed supporters of terrorist groups, not everyone was a supporter of a terrorist group. Israel will never ever be able to stop terrorist sympathizers from getting into Gaza or attacking Israel, it's a fucking waste of time. It's the same kind of crap I don't want pulled on American citizens, I'm sure there's Al-Qaeda supporters all over my country, I don't want the military cracking down on everyone because there's 10 people amidst 600 that support Al-Qaeda.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Buba Big Guns said:
This is the part where I would start paying attention if I were Israel. The US didn't reflexively unconditionally and unquestioningly defend us, if I were Israel, I would be paying very close attention to what I was doing from now on, since there's one ship currently en route (which didn't make the original flotilla trip due to technical issues) scheduled to reach Gaza by Saturday if it is not interfered with.
A Black Falcon
Member
jorma said:
I do trust real democracies more than terrorist organizations, yes... but I was trying to say that I'm not going to just trust everything the Israelis say verbatim, certainly I support Israel, as do most Americans, but there are a lot of right-wing militant Israelis who hurt the cause of peace just as much as the Palestinians, perhaps most notably the people in the settlements... both sides keep the awful situation there going, so it definitely would be best for someone impartial to look at it, because otherwise the other side is never going to believe the results.
Of course, both sides just use this for advancing their positions on the matter anyway, so I don't know how much if at all finding out what actually happened will change things, but still, sure, trying to show, for instance, who attacked first and who fired real bullets first is certainly worthwhile.
(On a related note, the idea that people who have been where they are for 60-plus years should still be living in refugee camps is ludicrous. There's no sane reason for it except that the Arab governments get a lot more out of having them continue to live in poverty as a separated "other", focused on bitterness for Israel, instead of working towards integrating them into their societies, as they should have been doing since the beginning... that so many still don't really do that definitely says something about their priorities, I think. They're exploiting the Palenstinians' suffering for political gain.)
Buba Big Guns said:
If you honestly think that that resolution is the one that that Israel's enemies wanted, you're mistaken. It calls for a full and impartial study into what happened, after all -- Israel's enemies don't really want that, they want a criticism and censure and support for the end of the blockade, period. America is never going to support that, but much of the rest of the international community is unfortunately not as strongly on Israel's side (America probably goes a little too far sometimes in supporting the Israeli far right, but that's better than not supporting them enough, and we often use our influence to try to moderate their actions I think, push even the Israeli right towards accepting the two state solution, etc.). So, the enemies of Israel do things like sending these convoys in order to try to get the international community to break the blockade, because it's done such a good job of restricting weapon and money flow to Hamas in Gaza. It's sort of like the American blockade of Iraq, people said "Iraqi children are dying!" ... Well perhaps true, but would it be better if Sadaam really had had chemical or biological weapons again, or a new nuclear program or something like that? And besides, like in Gaza, aid is being given. It's just not distributed to the people fairly. Autocratic regimes who get aid often prefer to keep the stuff for themselves, not give it to the suffering people, sadly enough. Same thing happens with food aid to North Korea too, among many other examples. The Burmese junta was so paranoid that they didn't even allow in any aid at all after the storm killed hundreds of thousands of people in their country a few years ago, they'd rather have all those people die than let anything in...
But anyway, of course aid for suffering people is good. Perhaps Israel should be sending more into Gaza, as long as it isn't stuff that could support the Hamas war effort. But checking whether it is or isn't that material is quite reasonable (ending the blockade would be very bad for Israel, the rocket attacks would surely start up again shortly afterwards), and I have serious doubts whether the stuff is getting fairly distributed in the end anyway.
That's half true, most governments do not want to take the Palestinians but where I'd disagree is the part about Muslim governments having to be the ones to take them AND why there should be refugees in the first place. The real problem isn't that refugees in other countries from Palestine are having to live in camps as opposed to always being granted citizenship but that they have to leave their country in the first place, to focus on the camps themselves is just oh so silly. It shouldn't be a problem if countries don't want to take a massive influx of Palestinians because there shouldn't be a massive exodus of Palestinians.Ashes1396 said:
You're already trusting Israel to define which is which here. It's amazing how labels like these can ignore the sheer body counts on either side of the conflict, and which group is suffering under the supposed 'democratic' country they have absolutely no say in.A Black Falcon said:
Early American revolutionaries did some horrible shit too. Sam Adams was a great terrorist.
Come on, we all know the UN is a toothless dog. They have condemned any number of recent events caused by Israel, who have even killed UN inspectors, and done nothing about it. The strongest dictate what is legal and illegal, and you seem content with that.Fjolle said:
A Black Falcon
Member
mAcOdIn said:
It was sixty years ago. No matter what the reasons for it, the current-day situation is what I'm talking about there. For a comparison, I'm sure many of the Sephardic (Spanish, that is) Jews were very bitter about being forced out of Spain in the late 1400s for instance, but did they spend the next 60 years just complaining and living in poverty? No, of course not, they moved elsewhere and moved on.
Tens of millions of people have been forced to move in the past century, you know. For another example, almost all of the Germans from Eastern Europe were all forced to go to Germany after World War II. Huge numbers died, not that many people cared considering what the Nazis had just done, even though most of the victims were not responsible for that. They're now integrated into German society just like any others, not separated out in refugee camps for the Germans from Russia, the Germans from Poland, the Germans from Czechoslovakia, etc, etc, etc. What the Arabs have done, kept the Palestinians separated out in their own camps where they have little hope, is very, very different... and because anti-Israeli sentiment is increased by poverty, joblessness, and such, people have nothing else to focus on other than their anger. Very convenient for the anti-Israeli side. That anger wouldn't be anywhere near as prevalent had they done the right thing back 60 years ago, and how would they sustain their campaign of hatred without it?
A Black Falcon said:
You are actually suggesting that palestinians in the west bank and gaza should just yield the land to Israel, move to another arab land (who surely has a duty to accept them) and move on with their lives already? Is that what i'm reading here?
A Black Falcon
Member
jorma said:
Huh? No, I said nothing about Israel taking Gaza and the West Bank away or something... I was talking about Israel proper, and comparing the people who were forced to leave it back in the 1940s to the peoples forced to leave other places. Sometimes people move into someone elses' lands and force them to move. It's kind of sad, but it happens. If you just obsess over it forever and never move past that, you're not doing anything useful. Comparing the Palestinian Arabs to the Eastern European Germans or the Spanish Jews or many other groups shows very, very clearly how much worse off the Palestinians are than so many of those groups...
(I said that I support removing the Israeli settlers in the West Bank and returning that land to Palestinian control. But Israel itself has a right to exist and should and will be protected from its enemies who want to destroy it. The West Bank today has a little hope, because it's not in the control of people trying to destroy Israel anymore and thus can begin to actually build something. But Gaza, Gaza is still hopeless in the grip of Hamas...)
A Black Falcon
Member
jorma said:
Read the new version of my post...
tahrikmili
Member
A Black Falcon said:
This argument is 100% flawed demagoguery. The Sephardic Jews were forced out of a country that wasn't ethnically or historically theirs to begin with, and settled in another country that wasn't ethnically or historically theirs either.
How's that relevant to the Palestinian situation? It's a false comparison.
I would say much of the problem is that "Palestine" isn't gone yet, so there's very little real incentive for countries to fully take them on or for them to give up on their land yet, it's a ongoing conflict not a "this is over and deal with it," type thing.
But, also keep in mind some of the countries with those camps, Syria and Lebanon, two countries not exactly rolling in cash or stable on their own to take over the role of providing relief for these people directly if they were to become citizens, it's easier for them to allow Western nations to continue footing a large part of the bill through the UN. I don't know the state of the Jordinian camps and whether they can move on and get citizenship from there or not, Jordan *might* be able to handle them on their own if they dissolved the camps, but frankly, if it was a Western created problem in the first place shouldn't it be a Western based solution? If we are going to carve up their land, then OK refugee camps, maybe they should be in countries that supported the creation of Israel in the first place?
But, also keep in mind some of the countries with those camps, Syria and Lebanon, two countries not exactly rolling in cash or stable on their own to take over the role of providing relief for these people directly if they were to become citizens, it's easier for them to allow Western nations to continue footing a large part of the bill through the UN. I don't know the state of the Jordinian camps and whether they can move on and get citizenship from there or not, Jordan *might* be able to handle them on their own if they dissolved the camps, but frankly, if it was a Western created problem in the first place shouldn't it be a Western based solution? If we are going to carve up their land, then OK refugee camps, maybe they should be in countries that supported the creation of Israel in the first place?
A Black Falcon
Member
tahrikmili said:
Many Germans had been living in Eastern Europe for thousands of years. Then suddenly they were all forced out violently, with a massive loss of life, and had move to another country. And yet Germany did not protest and try to claim that those people should have "RIght of Return", they accepted it and built their new, homogeneous society. Try to call that one a flawed comparison....
But also, the Spanish Jew example shows how back in the Middle Ages, it was the Christians who more persecuted the Jews, and the Muslims who more accepted them. After World War II that made a complete reversal. It's interesting, for people who like history like I do at least...
Aaron said:
The US certainly did treat the American Indians terribly, no question. They, unluckily for them, mostly died off of Western diseases (90+% of Indians died of Western diseases, it's estimated by many), and were very far behind technologically as well, leaving them with little ability to resist the US... and unlike the Spanish in Latin America, the British had little interest in integrating the Indians into their society in any way. It's definitely an awful history. But we have to deal with the country as it is now, and we're not exactly going to give the whole country back to the Indians or something. And so we've tried to find other ways to even begin to try to compensate for the past... Indian reservations have some self-governing powers, etc. There's still definitely bitterness, of course (and rightfully so), but that alone doesn't solve things. I don't know how directly comparisons can be made between the two cases though, they are quite different.
mAcOdIn said:
Lots of excuses here that don't hold up when you consider how long they have had to come up with solutions, and bad ideas too (oh come on, even if it was somehow offered as if the Palestinians would want to move to Europe or North America or something? I doubt it very much!), but nothing more. No actual solutions to the current situation, certainly. It's really too bad that the Muslim states continue to grandstand like this instead of actually trying to solve their problems internally (or with Western help, I'm sure if there was a genuine offer something would be worked out), it does nobody any good really except the radical extremist recruiters on both sides.
Ashes1396 said:
I kind of addressed that already, I think.
A Black Falcon said:
Oh yes, and also, the Gazan people have voted for Hamas, despite knowing what it means. That definitely reduces my sympathy somewhat, innocent victims and people who do things to themselves are not the same. Of course probably the votes were not entirely fair, with how Hamas totally controls Gaza, but still they have a lot of popular support...
Aaron said:
True, the old saying that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter is probably right. As far as right and wrong go though, every situation is different and needs to be looked at independently. And here for instance, only one side is calling for the utter destruction of the other...
While the other side is slowly causing that destruction.A Black Falcon said:
Terrorism doesn't come out of nothing. It's normally something borne out of frustration when a group of people are oppressed and suffering under the uncaring hands of a more powerful group. Situations like this give rise to Hamas. The way to defeat them utterly is to remove the pressure that gives rise to such extremism. This is something Israel has at best given a very token effort towards. Hamas is nothing. Israel could destroy them completely, but they choose not to because it's not in line with their greater interests.
So as long as Israel is allowed to do as they will, the suffering in Gaza will continue. They are fine with Hamas existing because it's a crutch to justify their own terrorism.
[QUOTE="A Black Falcon]
OH yes, and also, the Gazan people have voted for Hamas, despite knowing what it means. That definitely reduces my sympathy somewhat, innocent victims and people who do things to themselves are not the same. Of course probably the votes were not entirely fair, with how Hamas totally controls Gaza, but still they have a lot of popular support...[/QUOTE]
45% of people living on the gaza strip are children under the age of 15, why should they be punished so severely for an election result from 2006?
OH yes, and also, the Gazan people have voted for Hamas, despite knowing what it means. That definitely reduces my sympathy somewhat, innocent victims and people who do things to themselves are not the same. Of course probably the votes were not entirely fair, with how Hamas totally controls Gaza, but still they have a lot of popular support...[/QUOTE]
45% of people living on the gaza strip are children under the age of 15, why should they be punished so severely for an election result from 2006?
Aaron said:
They shouldn't, at all, i think the blockade is an abominable crime against humanity. I just reckon that line of arguing might work better with pro-isreali sympathizer, as their treatment of palestinian children is so fucking indefensible that i find it hard to believe anyone would condone it.
Lol, your argument is nothing more that they should willingly give up their land just cuz.A Black Falcon said:
I have a solution, UN Mandated and enforced two State solution with the original borders and a split Jerusalem. There's solution one. Israel stops dicking around and pretending they want peace and just flat out admit they're never ever giving any land back that they've taken so people from that land can decide for themselves to give up on it or not instead of dangling, what's most likely, a fake fucking carrot in front of their and the world's face. That's solution two. Finally, one of the sides could totally eliminate the other and then clearly the other side would have to leave with no recourse to get their land back, that's solution three.
However, having other countries offer to take in refugees is not a false solution as you claim. The refugee camps are a byproduct of what would seemingly be a much shorter conflict. You say that the Muslim nations insist on handling this themselves but it's not so, they'd love for us to get involved, so sure there's a lot of Muslim apathy towards the Palestinian refugees but there's more Apathy in the west, ever since they were established we've basically upheld the status quo instead of doing much about it. They're fucking refugee's living in refugee camps, you can forcibly, in a manner of speaking, move the camp to another country. There is nothing stopping the US or the UK from creating a nice refugee camp for them all to live in with a path of citizenship. Saying they wouldn't move if we offered is a completely ignorant claim because you don't know if they would. You're using it as an excuse for not trying.
The Muslim States may not be so quick to offer them all permanent citizenship but again, what does that have to do with anything? Why does it need to be Muslim governments? Again, anyone can offer to take them in as citizens or refugees, why is the onus on the Muslim governments, especially among the poorest of them? And why are they the grand-standers when it's Israel that's prevented them from moving back? Further, their reasoning does make sense in a heartless way, if there is a quick and easy path for people to no longer be "Palestinian" and all Isreal needs to do is kick people out each year until there's none left and the surrounding countries just take them in one by one, what would stop Israel from doing that? It is partly that no one will take them that Israel can't kick them all out.
I don't want to throw the racist card out there, but I don't understand why it's Muslim this, Muslim that with regard to who needs to deal with this with you. They didn't create this problem it was created because of western meddling, it's like we went in, fucked up their sand castle and told them to fix it themselves and then blame them when it's shit.
But anyways, the situation was caused by Western meddling, I think it's time for the West to meddle again.
I don't even need to call for an emotive reaction; you can use statistical human cost/loss:
http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2009.html
http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2009.html
A Black Falcon
Member
Aaron said:
Elections have consequences, yes they most certainly do. That is what democracy is, and why it's so great: People vote, and then things happen depending on how they voted. Of course Israel is going to try to punish people who voted for Hamas. Just compare Gaza to the West Bank, the ones who voted against Hamas are comparatively rewarded, the ones who voted for it punished. (It would be good if Palestine could have true, multi-party elections and democracy with two major parties that both aren't trying to destroy Israel... but at least they HAVE elections, which is more than can be said for a lot of the Arabic world...)
As for how long ago the last election was, considering that Hamas and Fatah are not exactly friendly, I'm not exactly expecting Hamas to hold a true, open, multiparty democratic election in Gaza anytime soon... even in a dominated territory, every election that isn't rigged is an unknown. Right now they have unquestioned power there. Why potentially damage that with an election? There's always a chance that the people would realize that they'd be better off if they had done like the West Bank did...
Some more testimonials:
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-212069-gaza-returnees-share-horror-stories-from-israel.html
How many of these are needed until they cannot just be shrugged aside as lies?
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-212069-gaza-returnees-share-horror-stories-from-israel.html
How many of these are needed until they cannot just be shrugged aside as lies?
Well, I know I already responded but I wanted to address this again. You're probably completely full of crap. Sweden took in 137 refugees from India who had taken them in from Iraq because of the Iraq war. 165 Palestinians left Iraq for India and 137 decided to move to Sweden, that's well over 80 percent. http://www.unhcr.org/news/NEWS/4919b20b4.htmlA Black Falcon said:
Granted they weren't from a "proper" refugee camp however that's a pretty large percentage that raises doubt to your claim that most would choose against it if given the opportunity.
fortified_concept
Banned
Xeke said:
So you don't like others comparing the African-American movement with Palestinians but when it comes to the most stupid comparison between riots and going against an illegal military blockade you go ahead and do it -and what a surprise- you decided the second is much worse.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked