Support NeoGAF

[msv]

You act as if the Israeli military indiscriminately opened fire on a humanitarian aid ship, rather than on a bloodthirsty mob which intended to kill them with metal pipes, knives, and their own weapons. From the perspective of the commandos--who were literally fighting for their lives--the situation was crystal clear: kill or be killed. The escalation of force that led to the deaths of crew members is solely in the hands of the crew.

Uh... that was after the boarding. They boarded their ship. Boarding someone's ship without permission is akin to breaking and entering.

The 'bloodthirsty mob' you're talking about, didn't set one foot on the Israeli ships. If they really were bloodthirsty they'd have boarded first, and would've had guns, not some metal pipes :lol

 

[SimpleDesign]

Once again, The U.S. reminds us of its position as Israel's bitch. I just read that they refused to condemn what Israel did.

It's election year, ain't shit going to happen that'll upset the Zionist lobby.

Not to mention the fact that Obama has Rahm Emanuel sitting pretty by his side. His father of course was apart of the terrorist organization Irgun and had this to say about his son being the Presidents right hand man.

"Obviously, he will influence the President to be pro-Israel. Why shouldn't he do it? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floor of the White House."

 

[KHarvey16]

Why should it have?

Well, here's how I see it. If they offload their materials they get some aid to Gaza. If they do not, Israel will stop them. Now while stopping them 60 miles off shore or 10 miles off shore may have some bearing on the legality of the boarding operation, it does not change the fact that the chances of that aid reaching Gaza as they intend is 0%. Their actions make it pretty clear that getting aid to Gaza is not the only purpose of this convoy. Does Israel have a right to then be weary? Note I don't say "the right to justify killing innocent civilians," I just want to point out, from their perspective, why Israel might wonder what they are doing.

Now arguing that the vessel should freely pass beyond the blockade requires some argument against the existence of the blockade itself. The case against the action begins to compound as it relies on other things being wrong. To pretend that the issue is clear cut and straightforward ignores this a bit.

Should there be a blockade? Should Israel be allowed to inspect every incoming vessel? Should it concern them in the least?

 

[nyong]

Uh... that was after the boarding. They boarded their ship. Boarding someone's ship without permission is akin to breaking and entering.

The 'bloodthirsty mob' you're talking about, didn't set one foot on the Israeli ships. If they really were bloodthirsty they'd have boarded first, and would've had guns, not some metal pipes :lol

Aid Ships Posed to Defy Gaza Blockade

This was a planned political stunt from the get-go. Israel was baited into this. The crew were well aware that they were going to be boarded, and they planned a response. The metal pipes and knives were almost certainly used so the violence would look disproportiate in media reports. Remember: this entire thing was planned. Only Israel was really caught off guard with the crew's response.

 

[dogmaan]

Why should it have?

because otherwise it's a publicity stunt designed to incite violence and hatred.

It was never about getting aid through

 

[Dude Abides]

Well, here's how I see it. If they offload their materials they get some aid to Gaza. If they do not, Israel will stop them. Now while stopping them 60 miles off shore or 10 miles off shore may have some bearing on the legality of the boarding operation, it does not change the fact that the chances of that aid reaching Gaza as they intend is 0%. Their actions make it pretty clear that getting aid to Gaza is not the only purpose of this convoy. Does Israel have a right to then be weary? Note I don't say "the right to justify killing innocent civilians," I just want to point out, from their perspective, why Israel might wonder what they are doing.

Now arguing that the vessel should freely pass beyond the blockade requires some argument against the existence of the blockade itself. The case against the action begins to compound as it relies on other things being wrong. To pretend that the issue is clear cut and straightforward ignores this a bit.

Should there be a blockade? Should Israel be allowed to inspect every incoming vessel? Should it concern them in the least?

They made clear what they were doing. Delivering token aid as a protest. If Israel wasn't completely retarded it would have just given them an escort to Gaza and that would have been that.

 

[empty vessel]

Eh give me a break. While Israel certainly commits unspeakable crimes against the Palestinians on a daily basis, this ship is owned and was manned by radical Islamists. The more religious fundamentalists die on a daily basis the better off this world is.

They knew full well what they were doing when they a) challenged Israel and b) attacked vicious war criminal predicates with clubs. Good riddance.

Edit: the only sad part of this entire affair is that, the SOB Erdogan might have just secured himself another electoral victory in Turkey.

If the shoe fits, and it looks like it does ...

 

[painful fart]

This doesn't refute what I've said. You're acting just as biased as you claim the US to be, by selectively choosing what is a fact depending on how it benefits your biased view.

So please give us your unbiased view of the matter. I am all ears.

 

[KRS7]

There are enough undisputed facts--the Israeli military committed an armed assault on a ship carrying humanitarian aid intended for Gaza--that make the morality of the situation crystal fucking clear. The rest is political theater and gamesmanship, hardly the real issue. I don't think it is at all too much to ask that everybody condemn Israel's actions based on what we currently know. And, I would go further, and suggest that anybody who doesn't condemn Israel's actions based on what we currently know is either a fool or a moral reprobate.

Self Righteous Bullshit. I really can't believe I am defending Israel. Since for the most part I think they and Egypt have been royally fucking Gaza over. But to act as if all the facts are crystal clear here is nonsense. Just because you say you are on a humanitarian mission does not give you automatic right to dock and sail anywhere in the world. It just doesn't work that way. They made clear their intentions of breaking this blockade.

Also from what I understand, everyone injured or killed was on the Turkish flagged ship Mavi Marmara. Were there any injuries on the other ships? I am wary to support either side, but it looks like many aboard that ship were itching for a fight. This doesn't mix well with Israel's well known itchy trigger syndrome. Plus you don't raise a white flag and then arm yourself with every melee weapon on the ship.

Hopefully we can hear from both sides and try to find out exactly how events unfolded. Israel should allow international investigators access to the ships' crew and passengers immediately.


The Middle East is just so full of seething hatred on both sides. It is just so horribly fucked.

 

[KHarvey16]

They made clear what they were doing. Delivering token aid as a protest. If Israel wasn't completely retarded it would have just given them an escort to Gaza and that would have been that.

So now imagine you're Israel...do you just take their word for it?

 

[Dude Abides]

So now imagine you're Israel...do you just take their word for it?

Yes. Did you know anything about this before today? It was clearly a bunch of lefty types engaged in a PR stunt. What did Israel have to be afraid of from a bunch of boats? Do you think they had a secret nuke? Were they going to spark an invasion of Israel from Gaza upon their landing?

 

[nyong]

First, none of this is relevant to the moral calculus about whether Israel's military assault on a civilian vessel delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza is deserving of condemnation. There are no facts that remove it from the realm of moral depravity. Second, even if it were relevant, it is premised on Israel's blockade of humanitarian aid entering Gaza being in any way legitimate, morally or otherwise. This vessel had every right--and, relevant to this conversation, especially the moral right--to port at Gaza and offload the humanitarian supplies.

The ship would have been allowed to offload their humanitarian supplies at a different port. Israel was not thwarting their attempt to deliver needed supplies to Palestinians. So the delivery of said supplies is not valid for discussion.

The blockade is a gray area as Israeli's security situation is a valid topic for discussion given the frequency/quantity of weapons being delivered and used against them. And the crew lost the tiniest bit of higher moral ground when they escalated the situation into outright bloodshed, literally leaving the Israeli's no choice but to open fire (in all likelihood). Israel stormed the ships with paintball guns for Christ's-sake...this never should have turned deadly. If they had a problem with the blockade, which is also a valid argument, attemping to murder Israeli soldiers is not the way to go about making a statement.

 

[Esch]

just saw this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB-Mk4bFz-U

looks pretty incriminating.

 

[KHarvey16]

Yes. Did you know anything about this before today? It was clearly a bunch of lefty types engaged in a PR stunt. What did Israel have to be afraid of from a bunch of boats? Do you think they had a secret nuke? Were they going to spark an invasion of Israel from Gaza upon their landing?

What are they afraid of enough to restrict certain materials into Gaza? Also, it's relevant to point out that the ship involved in this violence wasn't one of the ships carrying politicians, Nobel laureates and other diplomats. It was an organization that Israel has claimed to have some reason to suspect of ties to terrorism. Founded or unfounded? I don't know, but it still bears some examination I would think, no?

This is all getting a little off on a tangent now really, since the main question is why was there violence on this particular ship? Why were the other ships boarded without incident?

 

[msv]

Aid Ships Posed to Defy Gaza Blockade

This was a planned political stunt from the get-go. Israel was baited into this. The crew were well aware that they were going to be boarded, and they planned a response. The metal pipes and knives were almost certainly used so the violence would look disproportiate in media reports. Remember: this entire thing was planned. Only Israel was really caught off guard with the crew's response.

What's wrong with trying to bait them? You make it sound like baiting people is worse than invading and killing people...

Also, in baiting them they have shown that the opposition is ruthless and does not take any sort of moral high ground. This being 'planned' doesn't change the moral issue.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

So please give us your unbiased view of the matter. I am all ears.

Unbiased view is that there have only been conflicting reports of the events that have taken place between the boarding party and the ship running the Gaza blockade and that there isn't enough concrete evidence to make judgements on either party yet.

 

[nyong]

What's wrong with trying to bait them? You make it sound like baiting people is worse than invading and killing people...

Also, in baiting them they have shown that the opposition is ruthless and does not take any sort of moral high ground. This being 'planned' doesn't change the moral issue.

If I charge a cop with a knife and start stabbing him and he shoots me, I baited the cop into shooting me. If I charge a cop with a metal pipe and beat him until he's unconscious, then throw him out a second story window, then start charging his partners, I've baited them into shooting me.

This is the sense that I use the word "bait"

 

[Learn2read]

If I charge a cop with a knife and start stabbing him and he shoots me, I baited the cop into shooting me. If I charge a cop with a metal pipe and beat him until he's unconscious, then throw him out a second story window, then start charging his partners, I've baited them into shooting me.

This is the sense that I use the word "bait"

you are either insane or lying through your teeth

 

[nyong]

you are either insane or lying through your teeth

Read through the thread. This actually happened. In fact, it can be verified through video-footage if you feel so inclined to check it out.

Here's one video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbkg98R9ENs

 

[msv]

If I charge a cop with a knife and start stabbing him and he shoots me, I baited the cop into shooting me. If I charge a cop with a metal pipe and beat him until he's unconscious, then throw him out a second story window, then start charging his partners, I've baited them into shooting me.

This is the sense that I use the word "bait"

Your sense of the word bait has nothing to do with the issue at hand. They didn't charge. IDF is the one that charged. They were in neutral territory, IDF ventured out and invaded them.

 

[nyong]

Your sense of the word bait has nothing to do with the issue at hand. They didn't charge. IDF is the one that charged. They were in neutral territory, IDF ventured out and invaded them.

The ship expressed intent to run a legal blockade, one which was not creating a humanitarian crisis considering aid was not prevented from reaching Gaza. And even if you want to argue that the IDF charged first, they charged with paintball guns. And the crew responded with knives and pipes. And the crew is still responsible for baiting the IDF into using lethal force.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

If I charge a cop with a knife and start stabbing him and he shoots me, I baited the cop into shooting me. If I charge a cop with a metal pipe and beat him until he's unconscious, then throw him out a second story window, then start charging his partners, I've baited them into shooting me.

This is the sense that I use the word "bait"

Where do you live? Because I want to build a high wall around your house. I will allow you ONE meal per day. Doesn't matter how many people are living there. You get one. And if you call up any of your friends to bring you food, I'll shoot them. It'll be their fault for being shot since I did give you fair warning.

.


Also its funny Israel released a video AFTER everything had already became chaotic. Why did Israel also impose an information blackout?

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Your sense of the word bait has nothing to do with the issue at hand. They didn't charge. IDF is the one that charged. They were in neutral territory, IDF ventured out and invaded them.

They knew they were going to be boarded long before their approach. They could have handed over the aid to be deployed into Gaza for inspection and at least had some chance of it getting through.

Getting aid supplies through was obviously not their intent, especially if the above video is an accurate representation of what happened initially upon boarding the boat. But then we'll have to wait and see just how mis-placed their alleged intentions were.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

The ship expressed intent to run a legal blockade, one which was not creating a humanitarian crisis considering aid was not prevented from reaching Gaza. And even if you want to argue that the IDF charged first, they charged with paintball guns. And the crew responded with knives and pipes. And the crew is still responsible for baiting the IDF into using lethal force.

Legal blockade? http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=32967&Cr=palestin&Cr1

Yea seems legal to me :lol

Read the thread. Israel only lets in 1/4 of the necessary aid into Gaza. I really dont see how anyone can defend this apartheid regime.

 

[msv]

The ship expressed intent to run a legal blockade, [..not relevant..] And even if you want to argue that the IDF charged first, they charged with paintball guns. And the crew responded with knives and pipes.

Intent to charge isn't charging, don't conflate them. Paintballs hurt like hell, so there's not much of a chasm there.

And the crew is still responsible for baiting the IDF into using lethal force.

What? Again, who cares about this baiting bullshit, stop it already, it's completely irrelevant. This is starting to sound like someone saying that a girl with a short skirt is baiting rapists.

 

[painful fart]

Unbiased view is that there have only been conflicting reports of the events that have taken place between the boarding party and the ship running the Gaza blockade and that there isn't enough concrete evidence to make judgements on either party yet.

If you expect the conflicting reports to stop you will never be making a statement. Besides conflicting reports has not stopped US making statements on previous matters.

You can keep spinning this event as circumstances of the killings are unclear, but most governments seems to have a pretty clear view that an aid ship was attacked on international water resulting in a number of killed crew members.

 

[nyong]

Legal blockade? http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=32967&Cr=palestin&Cr1

Let me put it to you this way: the blockade is not illegal. Last I checked, it still has the full backing of the United States and Egypt. And there are certainly legal arguments to be made in favor of the blockade. It's a grayer area that you would like to believe.

Intent to charge isn't charging, don't conflate them. Paintballs hurt like hell, so there's not much of a chasm there.

Paintballs hurt, but knives and pipes can kill. Did you bother watching the video? The Israelis never would have opened fire (in all likelihood) had their lives not been threatened.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

If you expect the conflicting reports to stop you will never be making a statement. Besides conflicting reports has not stopped US making statements on previous matters.

You can keep spinning this event as circumstances of the killings are unclear, but most governments seems to have a pretty clear view that an aid ship was attacked on international water resulting in a number of killed crew members.

Now you don't know what spinning means. And yeah, the details in question are important in order to make a judgement. Should one jump in gung-ho like you and just condemn whichever party they happened to be allied against? Your selective use of 'facts' is exactly what you should be referring to when mentioning any notion of 'spin' by the way.

 

[Animal]

Boat was surrounded, attacked and boarded in international waters.

Boat was shot at before commandos boarding.

Activists had every right for self defense at the moment the commandos set foot on ship.

 

[painful fart]

They knew they were going to be boarded long before their approach. They could have handed over the aid to be deployed into Gaza for inspection and at least had some chance of it getting through.

Getting aid supplies through was obviously not their intent, especially if the above video is an accurate representation of what happened initially upon boarding the boat. But then we'll have to wait and see just how mis-placed their alleged intentions were.

Thanks for showing your bias.

Their intent is make Israel stop throtteling the aid to minimum levels as they have been doing since they started to enforce the blockade. Giving the aid over to Israel would not help on that matter.

Did you read this?

Israel's policy was summed up by Dov Weisglass, an adviser to Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, earlier this year. 'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,' he said. The hunger pangs are supposed to encourage the Palestinians to force Hamas to change its attitude towards Israel or force Hamas out of government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/16/israel

Thanks to hukasmokincaterpillar for finding that one.

Obviously that tactic has back-fired, the Palestinians has not become more friendly with the occupation forces. Can´t really say I am surprised.

 

[Deku]

because otherwise it's a publicity stunt designed to incite violence and hatred.

It was never about getting aid through

i think most people understand it was a publicity stunt. the other two points are up for debate.

 

[painful fart]

Now you don't know what spinning means. And yeah, the details in question are important in order to make a judgement. Should one jump in gung-ho like you and just condemn whichever party they happened to be allied against? Your selective use of 'facts' is exactly what you should be referring to when mentioning any notion of 'spin' by the way.

:lol

 

[AkuMifune]

i think most people understand it was a publicity stunt. the other two points are up for debate.

Flotilla: We are on a diplomatic mission to gaza...
Israel: If this is an aid ship, then where is your ambassador? You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor!

But seriously, it was obviously a stunt that Israel walked into with guns blazing. What idiots.

 

[luoapp]

Boat was surrounded, attacked and boarded in international waters.

Except it's not, it's in Israel's Exclusive economic zones and according to UNCLOS, 'Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. "

 

[Animal]

Except it's not, it's in Israel's Exclusive economic zones and according to UNCLOS, 'Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. "

Wrong economic zone is not equivalent to ownership.

and you better source that with a link.

 

[Dhx]

What I'm seeing from my point of view (please correct me if any of these 'facts' are incorrect):

1. This was a political statement as much as an aid mission. Intent was made publicly to defy the blockade. This is also not the first incident.

2. Several European ports denied the flotilla access (as it was no secret what the intent was here) and thus Turkey was chosen as the staging point.

3. Egypt also blockades Gaza.

4. Israel offered to allow the flotilla to port at Haifa where all aid would be unloaded and sent to Gaza. I'm going to go out on a limb further and guess international monitors would likely have been present to ensure this.

5. Israel informed the flotilla it would be boarded if it continued on it's present course toward the blockade. The flotilla presses on.

6. Israeli Navy Seals board the flotilla and are attacked. Chaos ensues.

So what we're looking at here is a group that cared more about making a political statement than bringing one stitch of aid to Gaza. If this was about aid, they would have taken the Israeli's up on the Haifa offer. Therefore, let's take aid out of the picture and think logically. If this wasn't about aid and the flotilla knew it would be boarded, what could it possibly be about other than an attempt to give Israel a PR disaster by provoking armed soldiers into firing upon poorly armed mobs?

They had a live feed to the internet ready and waiting ffs.

(grammar edit)

 

[gutter_trash]

the RCMP had the chance to arrest Netanyahu in Ottawa earlier today but failed to do their job

look, soft face Harper is there to softball him back home

 

[Animal]

What I'm seeing from my point of view (please correct me if any of these 'facts' are incorrect):

1. This was a political statement as much as an aid mission. Intent was made publicly to defy the blockade. This is also not the first incident.

2. Several European ports denied the flotilla access (as it was no secret what the intent was here) and thus Turkey was chosen as the staging point.

3. Egypt also blockades Gaza.

4. Israel offered to allow the flotilla to port at Haifa where all aid would be unloaded and sent to Gaza. I'm going to go out on a limb further and guess international monitors would likely have been present to ensure this.

5. Israel informed the flotilla it would be boarded if it continued on it's present course toward the blockade. The flotilla presses on.

6. Israeli Navy Seals board the flotilla and are attacked. Chaos ensues.

So what we're looking at here is a group that cared more about making a political statement than bringing one stitch of aid to Gaza. If this was about aid, they would have taken the Israeli's up on the Haifa offer. Therefore, let's take aid out of the picture and think logically. If this wasn't about aid and the flotilla knew it would be boarded, what could it possibly be about other then an attempt to give Israel a PR disaster by provoking armed soldiers into firing upon poorly armed mobs?

They had a live feed to the internet ready and waiting ffs.

Dude you're omitting allot of other details that would greatly put doubt into your assessment which may or may not be true. :lol

 

[Buba Big Guns]

What I'm seeing from my point of view (please correct me if any of these 'facts' are incorrect):

1. This was a political statement as much as an aid mission. Intent was made publicly to defy the blockade. This is also not the first incident.

2. Several European ports denied the flotilla access (as it was no secret what the intent was here) and thus Turkey was chosen as the staging point.

3. Egypt also blockades Gaza.

4. Israel offered to allow the flotilla to port at Haifa where all aid would be unloaded and sent to Gaza. I'm going to go out on a limb further and guess international monitors would likely have been present to ensure this.

5. Israel informed the flotilla it would be boarded if it continued on it's present course toward the blockade. The flotilla presses on.

6. Israeli Navy Seals board the flotilla and are attacked. Chaos ensues.

So what we're looking at here is a group that cared more about making a political statement than bringing one stitch of aid to Gaza. If this was about aid, they would have taken the Israeli's up on the Haifa offer. Therefore, let's take aid out of the picture and think logically. If this wasn't about aid and the flotilla knew it would be boarded, what could it possibly be about other than an attempt to give Israel a PR disaster by provoking armed soldiers into firing upon poorly armed mobs?

They had a live feed to the internet ready and waiting ffs.

(grammar edit)

A lot of your points have been addressed in the first couple pages of the thread.

 

[LQX]

the RCMP had the chance to arrest Netanyahu in Ottawa earlier today but failed to do their job

look, soft face Harper is there to softball him back home

Don't be ridiculous. You think your country would possibly be prepared to go to war with Israel over kidnapping there leader? That's how it would be viewed and even with the US as neighbor it would be a stupid thing to do or even contemplate.

 

[KHarvey16]

Boat was shot at before commandos boarding.

Where was this established?

 

[Animal]

Ugh I'm dreading tomorrow morning when I turn on my computer to find a bunch of Israel apologists having freshly defecated in this thread.

It happened in all previous middle-east conflict threads.

When North-America is awake, relatively sane discussions. When North-America sleeps, speculative shit deflecting wall of confusion. :lol

 

[Animal]

Where was this established?

Already established in this thread. :lol

 

[painful fart]

What I'm seeing from my point of view (please correct me if any of these 'facts' are incorrect):

1. This was a political statement as much as an aid mission. Intent was made publicly to defy the blockade. This is also not the first incident. Yes.

2. Several European ports denied the flotilla access (as it was no secret what the intent was here) and thus Turkey was chosen as the staging point. I know Israel put a lot of pressure on Cyprus to hinder people entering the ships going onboard, but in the end the ships got away, I don´t know about other ports.

3. Egypt also blockades Gaza. Yes, long time allie of the US as well.

4. Israel offered to allow the flotilla to port at Haifa where all aid would be unloaded and sent to Gaza. I'm going to go out on a limb further and guess international monitors would likely have been present to ensure this. Yes

5. Israel informed the flotilla it would be boarded if it continued on it's present course toward the blockade. The flotilla presses on. Yes it seems to be the case, still on international water though.

6. Israeli Navy Seals board the flotilla and are attacked. Chaos ensues. Yes, ending up killing 9 crew members according to Israel

So what we're looking at here is a group that cared more about making a political statement than bringing one stitch of aid to Gaza. If this was about aid, they would have taken the Israeli's up on the Haifa offer. Therefore, let's take aid out of the picture and think logically. If this wasn't about aid and the flotilla knew it would be boarded, what could it possibly be about other then an attempt to give Israel a PR disaster by provoking armed soldiers into firing upon poorly armed mobs?

Well if you take the Israeli blockade of aid out of the picture you are missing a pretty important part of what this was about. That blockade has hampered the people of Gaza for many years and no one seems to care, these boats were carrying people that actually cared.

Again, did you read this:

Israel's policy was summed up by Dov Weisglass, an adviser to Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, earlier this year. 'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,' he said. The hunger pangs are supposed to encourage the Palestinians to force Hamas to change its attitude towards Israel or force Hamas out of government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/16/israel

 

[Dead Man]

because otherwise it's a publicity stunt designed to incite violence and hatred.

It was never about getting aid through

Of course it was a publicity stunt, but I don't think hatred was the motivation, more like sympathy for starving/cut off people and international action. Which is what they are getting, slowly.

 

[Dhx]

A lot of your points have been addressed in the first couple pages of the thread.

Slowly wading through it now, but so far the thread seems to be a huge argument about Israel boarding an aid ship in international waters and using deadly force. I did also skim the last two pages and that line of thought persists. One would have to have their head in the sand while browsing GAF from the Emerald City to subscribe to that notion.

The Israeli military is hardly a saint, but let's not pretend this was ever about aid.

 

[KHarvey16]

Already established in this thread. :lol

No, I don't think it was. How do we know what you said is true?

 

[Deku]

Ugh I'm dreading tomorrow morning when I turn on my computer to find a bunch of Israel apologists having freshly defecated in this thread.

It happened in all previous middle-east conflict threads.

When North-America is awake, relatively sane discussions. When North-America sleeps, speculative shit deflecting wall of confusion. :lol

i think if you're viewing this as haivng 'sides' you've already decided on who to blame.

Israel's policy is the root cause, it's terrible.

The provocation was what it is. The organizers of this civil disobedience miscalculated that Israel would treat them to kid gloves even as they acted like impudent children as the world is watching.

It was a grand miscalculation on their part that cost 10 lives, but the real damage is to Israel's reputation, so the activists have achieved their objectives.

There are no winners here, the situation is terrible.

 

[Ashes]

Are we going to go out and take aid to to gaza on july 1st or what. Lets start an international aid to gaza day!

 

[Animal]

No, I don't think it was. How do we know what you said is true?

You must find the youtube link in this thread with the translated 10min raw footage. That's enough hints for you.

EDIT: I don't even think you need the translated one come to think of it.