Support NeoGAF

[RiskyChris]

Hey Cromat how do you justify breaking a cease fire with a nation? How can you tell me Hamas is standing between peace when Israel clearly does not give a shit?

 

[LaserBuddha]

Blockade is the new Waco. :lol

 

[Fularu]

Too many factual errors in this post to address.

1) The Palestinians did not make a counter offer in Camp David. Even US President Clinton has put the blame on the Palestinians. Arafat was not willing to give up the Right of Return, which is basically the destruction of Israel, so no peace was possible with him. Why do you take the word of Palestinians and not Israel and America? Oh right because we are colonialist and Zionist.

Seriously, that's so lol worthy I have a hard time taking you seriously. French news network France 2 ran a special on it with Charles Enderlin making thorough researches on the subject. His conclusion was that Israël destroyed any chance at peace that day. Charles Enderlin is a reservist in the Israeli army, ranked Colonel. So you'll excuse me if I take his word over yours.

2) "There won't be peace between palestinians and israelis as long as Israel doesn't comply with the UN resolutions, doesn't dismantle the colonies in Cisjordania the west bank), doesn't dismantle the East Jerusalem colonies and doesn't allow Palestine to have East Jerusalem as its capital."

Like I said, peace is a compromise, not a surrender. Both sides should reach an agreement by negotiations.

There's nothing in there that's a surrender. Illegally occupied land cannot be anexed, read up on it. Your argument isn't one, you have no legitimacy to be occuping anything beyond the 1967 borders, no legitimacy with the settlements, no legitimacy with Jerusalem East and no legitimacy ruining the lives of 6 million people and stealing all the land, water and dignity.

Palestinians can't concede anything more, because they have nothing left to bargain over.

3) "Seeing how no one in Israël wants that (and by no one, I mean no one among the political elite, the settlers, the ultra religious and so on, I realise there's a very very small minority that understands that the country is destined to fail if it keeps going on), how no one wants to end the colonization of the west bank"

You are an expert on Israeli politics I see. While the current government isn't too keen on peace, i'll give you that, to say that no one in Israel supports making compromises for peace is a blatant lie. In fact, the people of Israel consistently supported peace deals made by Israeli leaders, and supported the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which included the dismantling of settlements.

I suggest you read up on those "peace deals". The only one who was willing to go forward with palestinians was Peretz, and he was betrayed by his own party. Get real. Also it shouldn't be "the dismantling of settlements", it should be "the dismantling of ALL settlements".

4) "It boggles the mind how the Hamas is still beeing presented as a terrorist entity when they have, several times so far, unilaterally decided for a cease fire, to take Israel on their words and see if calm and peace would do anything."

They have never done anything like that. Hamas accepted a truce with Israel that includes smuggling better weapons for themselves for the next round. It's a tactic, not a strategy. Hamas consistently refuses to make peace with Israel, refuses to recognize past agreements and refuses to give up armed struggle, even against Israeli civilians.

Again you're wrong. Hamas respected a 6 months cease fire 3 times. And each time ISrael broke it, daily. Also I'm sorry if I don't shed a tear on Hamas arming themselves. They are defending their homes from oppressors like you.

 

[Ruuppa]

It's not Israel's job to feed Gaza. It's Hamas' job. If Hamas doesn't want its civilians to suffer it should make the necessary adjustments to its policy.

What.

Yes, it is IL's job to feed Gaza, since it doesn't allow anyone else to do it, nor does it allow the resources for Hamas to generate enough food/resources for itself(at least not legally) and for the people of Gaza. So yes, it is their job/moral duty as a civilized nation.

Obviously Hamas deserves a lot of blame for the situation in Gaza, but come on!

 

[A Black Falcon]

Well I of course would draw the limit at what I think is ok, that's a given, I wouldn't extend any further than that. But my position isn't exactly radical, all I state is that you take people at their word. Would you be against some kind of police intervention against someone merely stating they were going to shoot up a school, kill the President, rob a bank, rape a woman or molest a child? Of course I do think a penalty for a stated goal should usually be less severe than an act someone has actually committed but I in no way advocate or expect that people just sit on their hands and wait for someone to accomplish what they've set out to do and by all means are in the process of doing. In fact, had this not been a blockade and ships carrying aid there'd be ways people would support seizing a ship in International waters. If the ship was carrying a shitload of sarin gas to Gaza to to kill people people would applaud the quick action and seizure of the ship, it's only because it's an aid ship that people care about the international law.

I'm just not a hypocrite, so I can't say I dislike them breaking international laws when I disagree with Israel but support someone else breaking the law when I agree with it, so basically I disagree with the law itself. If one's stated act is illegal by their own volition I think that country has the right to act before they reach their shores. If people don't like that they shouldn't boast about what they're going to do beforehand.

But the whole point is that Israel would have to be insane to just allow aid ships run by groups with ties to terrorist organizations to send "aid" ships into Gaza, sight unseen, without any check of the contents of the ship to make sure that no weapons and such are on board. And that's why they have to seize the ships, and one of the main reasons why the enemies of Israel want the blockade to come down... it makes getting weapons into Gaza a lot harder!

I didn't mean that. i don't support the blockade. I support their right to protest and act like dipshits.

But the re-writing of history as if this was an unproked incident of peace loving hippies is certainly not reflective of even the most favorable scenario these 'activisits' would want to portray to the world.

The people on the ship had a PR mission to do. Getting shot at is part of the risk you take in that part of the world. And the organizers understood the risks and knew that there was no way they were going to sail past the blockade. that Israel would board them was a given.

And when you attack soldiers, you're crazy if you don't expect them to fight back.

I'm not claiming it is all a lie. My argument is that as far as we can tell the response of Israel to the situation was illegal, brutal and indefensible on legal or moral grounds. And yes, it's quite possible some people on those boats weren't exactely the "hippies" some people think they were, quite possibly even with the ignorance of many people on board. Still what I said above applies.



If we start ignoring legalities were will that take us? Where will you draw the limits? Based on what you personaly think is OK? International laws that are recognized by everyone (or mostly everyone, inlcuding Israel) is what keeps things under a modicum of control and serves as a basis from which everyone can understand and judge situations.

While international law matters a lot, I think the history of the past decade says that no matter what people wish, power can make its own rules as well (eg. the Iraq invasion, which was clearly illegal under international law but the US did anyway). And in this case the US supports the Israeli blockade, so opponents can't get something clearly against it through the UN Security Council; even in the case of Iraq there were some partial Security Council resolutions against the Iraqi government.

No, if their primary goal was to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, then they would fill a ship with humanitarian supplies and sail it to Gaza, which is the most direct way of achieving the goal. That's exactly what they did. Yet you insist that they did not want to do this, despite this being exactly what they did.

No they most certainly wouldn't, they'd comply with the blockade because that is how their cargo of supposedly only humanitarian goods (who knows if they're telling the truth?) would actually get to the people they're claiming they want to help. They didn't do that.

What you are saying is that you think their primary goal should have been to comply with Israel's blockade, which would have been evinced by their complying with the blockade, something they did not do. So, pretty clearly, complying with the blockade was not one of their goals. Delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza, of course, was.

And here you pretty much admit that no, just sending humanitarian aid was not their actual goal. Breaking the blockade was -- and that would certainly involve confrontation, which is a fact that of course they knew.

We should come to grips with the fact that the ship was sent, ordered, and controlled by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), which has supported Hamas since its inception in '95. This was the same group that sent aid into Fallujah during the Operation Iraqi Freedom and whose President (Yildirim) claimed that “a U.S. strike on Iraq is a strike on
Istanbul,” and accused the U.S. of committing a “huge massacre” there. Interpol's tracked communications between IHH and Al Qaeda, and the groups been pegged with buying automatic weapons with the intention of fighting in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya. This wasn't a simple aid trip; they went in meaning to create an international incident in one way or another.

5 of the 6 ships complied peacefully, while the last one, commandeered by the President of the IHH resisted violently by attacking them with weapons, stabbing a handful of soldiers with knives, and shooting at them with guns taken off 2 soldiers. The Israeli soldiers didn't go in with the intent to slaughter anybody, as the record shows.

Loss of life is always tragic, but it's clear that this wasn't just the Israeli's stomping down with an iron-fisted glove.

True. It's very important to remember who sent the ship, and what a radical, violent agenda they have. Calling what they want "humanitarian relief" is an extreme distortion of the truth, and I hope that the Western media starts to really realize that...

As I understood it, the Israeli forces had live rounds on their persons, but did not use them until they were given a second go-ahead from back home.

If this is disputed, then so be it. I was wrong on it.

I feel like we fall into this trap with internet debates where you fall into the deep hole of whatever "side" you're in, mostly because we're incoherent when we type in such a disjointed manner. This obviously comes with the assumption that somebody's on a side. I'll claim that my support of Israel comes from the historical background and its role as a pivotal ally in that region. That by no means is my carte blanche approval of the government's actions over all these years - and this applies similarly to all of us.

My primary reason for looking defensive in relation to Israel is that most of us don't have a good sense of the state's origins and the whole idea of a "Palestine." I'm willing to bet at least half of the posters in this thread identify Israel as an entity only from the Balfour Declaration or even the declaration of Statehood on forward, when it goes further back and is a really complex matter.

Yeah, Jews chose where Israel would be, and that they wanted their ancient homeland back, not anyone else. Britain was eventually forced to go along with what they wanted, but it certainly wasn't their idea in the first place.

The reason that people on GAF don't get so defensive when America is being criticized is that the debate is about the policy. People can say 'Bush sucks', 'the war on Iraq is illegal' and so forth, but no one (at least not as many people) comes out and accuses the US of being a genocidal, ethnic-cleansing, land-hungry nation that shouldn't have been 'created' (I reject that word but nevermind now...) in the first place. The argument is about policy. It is not as emotional and hateful as Israel related arguments always are.

Ironically, this approach is what causes Israel and its supporters to be so defensive in the first place. Every time Israel does something people get incredibly hateful and out-of-proportion. Can't you see why an Israeli reading this thread would feel a little bit threatened, while an American reading a thread against the war in Iraq wouldn't?

That's true, hatred for Israel definitely seems to be stronger, and that definitely causes a stronger reaction from the other side, and that makes it very difficult to get towards peace, unfortunately; the extremists on neither side want peace.

But anyway, yes, you're right about Israel, of course -- people do not go around saying that other countries "shouldn't exist" simply because they took land from other peoples. Pretty much every country and people in the world has done that on some scale. England is an imperialist country, the Anglo-Saxons should all go back to Germany and Scandinavia and leave the country to the native Celtic peoples (Scots, Irish, Welsh, Cornish)... except wait, maybe there were other people there before the Celts? So should they all leave too, and leave it to nobody or something? Everyone should just go back to Africa, it'd solve all these problems, right?

... No, things don't work like that. Yes, sometimes land seizures are bad. Things usually are bad for the people having their land taken. It's perfectly reasonable for them to protest it. But acting like this is somehow something different, something unique, something worse... that is just false.

I mean, if the Turks actually believed that they should give back at least the eastern part of their country to Greece, right? I mean, they only took it from the Byzantines in the 1400s... you could go on forever with such things.

What I'm trying to say is trying to say is that once people are settled in a place, expecting them to leave just because other people don't want them there isn't reasonable. Of course, the problem in the Middle East is so intractable because both sides will claim that they are the ones with the better claim to the land, and that they are the oppressed... it's impossible to satisfy both sides. They both want the exact same land. But if we just look at the present-day situation, Israel is there now, and it's not going away. Dealing with today's very difficult situation should be our goal, and indeed it is America's goal, which is why the two-state solution is still the current path forward, as it should be.

As for Israel, while I obviously strongly support it, as a liberal American I do find the idea of a single-religion state somewhat questionable, it stands quite against America's founding principles of religious freedom. However, looking at how much Jews have been hated for thousands of years, wanting to be apart from others makes a lot of sense... and looking at things like this thread, it's obvious that Jews are still hated and still have a need for something like an Israel. Plus there aren't any other Jewish countries, versus many Christian and Muslim ones (though again, America does not have an official religion, and never has; it's just majority Christian), and it makes sense that many people would be more comfortable in a country of their own religion... so yeah, I'm mixed on the issue. But it is a completely different question from "What should be done now?", and should be considered separately. It isn't, but it should be.

Anyway, of course in some respects Israel makes things worse and inflames some of the hatred more with their own extremism, and I am certainly believe that that is also a problem. However, despite that, but I have little doubt that, outside of America which since 1945 and the revelation of how bad the Holocaust had actually been has been Israel's closest ally, antisemites would find some ground to gather popular sentiment against the Jews, as they have been doing for millenia now even if there wasn't an Israel and Jews were still scattered.

The situation in gaza is very bad for the civilian population. But you can't blame it all on Israel. For example, the Palestinians are fully aware they need to find a way to peacefully coexist with Israel. So they elect hamas, who's charter calls for the destruction of Israel. What happens next? Bus bombings, missile attacks, and suicide bombers from gaza.

The blockade is there for a reason and it's a legal action by Israel designed to protect its citizens.

Yeah, all you need to do is look at the contrast between Gaza and the West Bank to see that why what's happening in Gaza is so much worse is largely because of the Palestinans themselves. It is a sad, circular problem really, where Hamas takes power and attacks Israel, Israel attacks Hamas, jobs vanish because of blockades and war, people get angry because of their hardship, this turns more of them to violence and extremism, things die down, and then later whole cycle starts again... The West Bank finally seems to have at least temporarily found a way out of the worst of that cycle, but Gaza has not at all. But a lot of that certainly is because of their own actions.

The blockade's main goal is to pressure Hamas into meeting the conditions of the international community, most importantly recognizing previous agreements signed between Israel and the PLO/Palestinian Authority.

Seeing as Hamas consistently refuses to do so, won't you agree it also shares some of the responsibility for the blockade?

Lets imagine a different, yet similar scenario. In response to the Israeli government's policies, the United States decides to stop all aid and cut all ties to Israel. Obviously Israel would suffer a very big hit, and might get attacked by it's neighbors, causing huge casualties in Israel. Did the US commit an illegal action because it caused dire consequences for the Israeli population? or is the US entitled to hold whatever policy it wants towards another government, regardless of the consequences? Isn't Israel also to blame here?

Lastly, I do agree that the blockade is largely ineffective, because Hamas obviously cares more about its ideology than the population of Gaza. It's causing unneeded suffering to the people in Gaza, and I believe the main reason Israel continues imposing it is because to lift it would make Hamas capitalize on it and say they 'beat the Zionists'.

Good points here, and they are some of the many examples of how impossible the problem seems, and how hard it will be to ever make peace in the region (without moving one people completely out of the area or there being a genocide or nuclear war or something, things that I do not think are going to happen).

 

[Cromat]

Hey Cromat how do you justify breaking a cease fire with a nation? How can you tell me Hamas is standing between peace when Israel clearly does not give a shit?

Both sides broke ceasefires. Before the attack on Gaza, Israel requested that Hamas would extend the 6 month ceasefire, and Khaled Meshal refused. Several days later the attack began.

A ceasefire is useless if the underlying issues aren't resolved.

Hamas isn't the only thing standing in the way of peace, but it sure isn't helping and shouldn't receive Israel's aid or sympathy. During the 90's Hamas consistently carried out attacks to hamper peace negotiations.

 

[RiskyChris]

Both sides broke ceasefires. Before the attack on Gaza, Israel requested that Hamas would extend the 6 month ceasefire, and Khaled Meshal refused. Several days later the attack began.

A ceasefire is useless if the underlying issues aren't resolved.

Hamas isn't the only thing standing in the way of peace, but it sure isn't helping and shouldn't receive Israel's aid or sympathy. During the 90's Hamas consistently carried out attacks to hamper peace negotiations.

Why didn't Israel uphold the terms of its end of the bargain? Please tell me this.

Israel broke the cease fire. You're delusional.

 

[Funky Papa]

Gaza convoy tapes edited, Israel acknowledges

(CNN) -- Israel acknowledged Sunday that it edited recordings of what it said were anti-Semitic and anti-American radio calls by pro-Palestinian activists who tried to run the Gaza blockade and that it could not identify the origin of the broadcasts.

The Israeli military released a 26-second recording Friday night in which a warning call to a ship in the flotilla was met with the reply of "Shut up -- go back to Auschwitz." After another voice reports that the convoy has the permission of Palestinian officials to dock in Gaza, a third voice responds, "We are helping Arabs going against the U.S. Don't forget 9/11, guys."

But after the organizers of the aid convoy accused Israeli officials of manipulating the tapes, the Israel Defense Forces reported it had mistakenly identified one of the six ships in the activists' "Freedom Flotilla" as the source of the broadcasts. And it released a nearly six-minute recording of radio traffic that included those calls and several others, along with bursts of static and calls in other languages on the same channel.

"So to clarify: The audio was edited down to cut out periods of silence over the radio as well as incomprehensible comments so as to make it easier for people to listen to the exchange," the Israeli military said in a statement posted on its Web site. And it added, "Due to an open channel, the specific ship or ships in the 'Freedom Flotilla' responding to the Israeli Navy could not be identified."

 

[goomba]

ONE STATE, ONE VOTE.

But Jews wont let it happen because they know they are a minority, tough titty, thats democracy.

 

[Ashes]

We were wrong!

 

[RiskyChris]

Israel admitted it broke the cease fire. They literally said it themselves.

 

[Cromat]

Sympathizing with the Palestinians is fine, but saying that Hamas are trustworthy 'freedom fighters' is just ridiculous....

I bet you were the ones who said Saddam Hussein was pretty cool when the US attacked Iraq. You have to realize: you can oppose Israel all you want, but siding with people like Hamas undermines the very ideologies, human rights and international law you are basing your arguments on.

I just wish you would one day get to experience the 'freedom' that Hamas offers firsthand.

 

[RiskyChris]

Sympathizing with the Palestinians is fine, but saying that Hamas are trustworthy 'freedom fighters' is just ridiculous....

I bet you were the ones who said Saddam Hussein was pretty cool when the US attacked Iraq. You have to realize: you can oppose Israel all you want, but siding with people like Hamas undermines the very ideologies, human rights and international law you are basing your arguments on.

I just wish you would one day get to experience the 'freedom' that Hamas offers firsthand.

Siding with people like the IDF undermines the very ideologies, human rights and international law you are basing your arguments on.

Israel broke the cease fire. Admit it;.

 

[Ashes]

Sympathizing with the Palestinians is fine, but saying that Hamas are trustworthy 'freedom fighters' is just ridiculous....

I bet you were the ones who said Saddam Hussein was pretty cool when the US attacked Iraq. You have to realize: you can oppose Israel all you want, but siding with people like Hamas undermines the very ideologies, human rights and international law you are basing your arguments on.

I just wish you would one day get to experience the 'freedom' that Hamas offers firsthand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7545636.stm

 

[Prine]

The situation in gaza is very bad for the civilian population. But you can't blame it all on Israel. For example, the Palestinians are fully aware they need to find a way to peacefully coexist with Israel. So they elect hamas, who's charter calls for the destruction of Israel. What happens next? Bus bombings, missile attacks, and suicide bombers from gaza.

The blockade is there for a reason and it's a legal action by Israel designed to protect its citizens.

This is bulllshit reasoning and give the perpetrator free reign to do what it wants in name of its security. Palestinians are being denied their humanity because they are deemed a threat. Why arnt Palistinians allowed to do the same in name of its security? Starve you Israeli's until you go back to 1967 borders? Would that be supported? Why are you more important then them?

 

[empty vessel]

Which is exactly what israel wants. don't believe for a second that they are idiots. It's calculated. As long as they can use the "lol terrorists" card, no one will come down to force them to make peace. And since they don't want peace, they're perfectly happy with the current situation where palestinians are getting more land stolen on a daily basis, where settlers and settlements srping up every day and where the west bank is in such a state that creating a state is virtually impossible.

This is exactly right. So many people assume that Israel is seeking peace, when, in truth, it isn't seeking peace or a resolution, but the opposite--hostilities--that it can in turn leverage as pretext to continue its colonialist enterprise. Israel's desire for conflict is the very problem. Israel must be made to establish peace, and it is only the US that can make Israel establish peace.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Oh shit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10250354.stm

In another development on Sunday, a senior Iranian military figure said the country's elite Revolutionary Guards were ready to escort aid flotillas to Gaza if ordered to by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"The Revolutionary Guards' naval forces are fully prepared to escort freedom and peace flotillas carrying humanitarian aid from all over the world to the oppressed people of Gaza," Ali Shirazi, Ayatollah Khamenei's naval representative, told Mehr news agency.

Smacky Smores presents: THE ROAD TO WAR!

Spoiler

(Eat Smacky Smores.)

 

[Ashes]

Iran should calm down.

 

[Solideliquid]

Oh shit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10250354.stm



Smacky Smores presents: THE ROAD TO WAR!

Spoiler

(Eat Smacky Smores.)

And that's how it starts.

 

[2San]

Iran should calm down.

It's just an individual, though he is a high ranked one. Doubt it'll lead to anything.

 

[Ashes]

Looks it.

 

[RiskyChris]

I wonder if the cognitive dissonance shattered Cromat's noggin like a fine glass exposed to hf sound.

 

[Cromat]

I wonder if the cognitive dissonance shattered Cromat's noggin like a fine glass exposed to hf sound.

Not really.

I have to go and I already spent about an hour and a half replying to this thread. I would love to continue this discussion later.

If you want to you can say you 'beat me' with your internet conviction.

Cheers.

 

[RiskyChris]

Not really.

I have to go and I already spent about an hour and a half replying to this thread. I would love to continue this discussion later.

If you want to you can say you 'beat me' with your internet conviction.

Cheers.

I beat you because you tried to claim two sides broke the cease fire together, lol.

 

[nyong]

I wonder if the cognitive dissonance shattered Cromat's noggin like a fine glass exposed to hf sound.

Yes, because people only disengage from internet discussions when they're losing. This is easily the most cyclical thread I have ever read on this forum. You could waste hours, days even, without making progress. The best I hope for is to provide/gain fodder for outside discussion that might actually go somewhere.

EDIT: I don't say this of all people, of course. There is good discussion to be had, but some of the more vocal people have done nothing but repeat themselves ad nauseum for dozens upon dozens of pages.

 

[RiskyChris]

Yes, because people only disengage from internet discussions when they're losing. This is easily the most cyclical thread I have ever read on this forum. You could waste hours, days even, without making progress. The best I hope for is to provide/gain fodder for outside discussion that might actually go somewhere.

The cycles begin and end with you. You're the cycles.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Oh shit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10250354.stm



Smacky Smores presents: THE ROAD TO WAR!

Spoiler

(Eat Smacky Smores.)

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

I'm calling it - if an Iran / Isreali war breaks out, Isreal will steamroll Iran.

 

[RiskyChris]

I'm calling it - if an Iran / Isreali war breaks out, Isreal will steamroll Iran.

Yea but Iran will give HAMAS TERRORISTS a nuke to use while they backs turned!

 

[scorcho]

I'm calling it - if an Iran / Isreali war breaks out, Isreal will steamroll Iran.

with what army, or are you projecting this following a recent game of Risk?

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

Yea but Iran will give HAMAS TERRORISTS a nuke to use while they backs turned!

You think Isreal don't have their own nukes? They already have their submarines within striking distance of Tehran... who's to say what kind of missiles are on board.

And Hamas already got steamrolled, they aren't doing anything anytime soon - all bark and no bite. There is also the world police USA willing to step in here as part of the 'war on terror'.

And let's not forget the gulf in modernised military equipment between the two countries. All parties suck hard, but Isreal are in the better position (as bad as that is).

with what army, or are you projecting this following a recent game of Risk?

I like playing armchair commander. It's my only shitty contribution to these threads.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I'm calling it - if an Iran / Isreali war breaks out, Isreal will steamroll Iran.

well that's a given.

anyone who's looked at the equipment each military has access to, it wouldn't even be close.

but it will be tough for Israel because of the lack of airspace they can fly through. who will give them access? Iraq and Turkey won't. Saudi Arabia? UAE?

 

[scorcho]

which is about as useful as pointing out that the US would steamroll in Iraq or Afghanistan due to the massive military imbalance. there's more to war than just weapons and tactics.

 

[LaserBuddha]

which is about as useful as pointing out that the US would steamroll in Iraq or Afghanistan due to the massive military imbalance. there's more to war than just weapons and tactics.

The U.S. basically can't fight dirty enough to use our superior technology and numbers to steamroll Iraq/Afghanistan. Otherwise it would be easy.

Israel will have to show restraint at some level (otherwise they know they will lose in the long run) but not to the degree that we do.

 

[RiskyChris]

which is about as useful as pointing out that the US would steamroll in Iraq or Afghanistan due to the massive military imbalance. there's more to war than just weapons and tactics.

Any and all war strategy fetish dreams will never happen, geopolitics is way more complicated.

Iran and Israel will probably enter war about the same time the rest of the world is shooting each other.

 

[scorcho]

Israel will have to show restraint at some level (otherwise they know they will lose in the long run) but not to the degree that we do.

regardless of their nuclear weapon there will be drastic regional ramifications due to any war with Iran, which would also be a massive blow to US interests as well. if anything, merely engaging into a conflict with Iran would be indicative of them losing in the long run.

 

[Ashes]

News update:
Kouchner and Hague pressure Israel over Gaza

The EU could play a bigger role in ensuring aid gets into Gaza and weapons are kept out, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has said.

He urged Israel to accept an international probe into the deaths of nine activists on a Turkish aid ship.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10251805.stm

 

[Solideliquid]

well that's a given.

anyone who's looked at the equipment each military has access to, it wouldn't even be close.

but it will be tough for Israel because of the lack of airspace they can fly through. who will give them access? Iraq and Turkey won't. Saudi Arabia? UAE?

In this case the Saudis would open access to Israel. It's in their interest as Saudi Arabia would most likely come under attack by Iran at some point.

 

[RiskyChris]

Pictures surfacing of members of the Flotilla offering medical aid to injured soldiers.

They were probably beaten later while in custody, LOL.

 

[Ashes]

Pictures surfacing of members of the Flotilla offering medical aid to injured soldiers.

They were probably beaten later while in custody, LOL.

Already been mentioned. IDF view is that the pictures show the brutal violence exerted on Israeli soldiers.

 

[nyong]

Pictures surfacing of members of the Flotilla offering medical aid to injured soldiers.

They were probably beaten later while in custody, LOL.

The images show battered and bloodied Israeli commandos surrounded by activists on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, which was heading to Gaza as part of an aid flotilla.

The raid has provoked protests by supporters and critics within Israel The IHH apparently hoped that the images would show how its activists had given medical attention to stricken Israelis, even while they were under attack.

I'm reminded of certain beheading videos where soon-to-be-victims were treated with tea, good food, and medical care. Before having their heads violently sawed off on film, of course. Considering those soldiers wouldn't have been "battered and bloodied" were it not for the pipe/knife-wielding crew, showing their treatment on film is a pretty lame attempt to gain sympathy.

"Watch me beat this guy's head in with an iron pipe, then apply a bandage to the gaping wound! I'm a good person!!"

 

[scorcho]

ah, still equating the blockade breakers with terrorists. are you a spokesman for the Israeli gov't or just IDF?

 

[RiskyChris]

Scathing commentary brought to you by nyong.

 

[nyong]

...probably not the picture I would have chosen if wanting to prove my humanity, but whatever.

 

[RiskyChris]

[IG]http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e272/cebrooks02/ihh_1651631c.jpg[/IMG]

...probably not the picture I would have chosen if wanting to prove my humanity, but whatever.

Actually people with humanity don't CHOOSE and CENSOR their output, chump.

 

[nyong]

Actually people with humanity don't CHOOSE and CENSOR their output, chump.

You do--of course--realize the irony of this statement? Both sides claim to have footage, and thus far both sides have cherry-picked what they've released. I think it's safe to assume why.

Not that you're completely unaware of this to some extent. Sooner or later that second synapse of yours is going to fire, and you'll make the entire connection.

 

[scorcho]

all the more reason to have an impartial, UN-led inquiry of the incident.

 

[RiskyChris]

You do--of course--realize the irony of this statement? Both sides claim to have footage, and thus far both sides have cherry-picked what they've released. I think it's safe to assume why.

Not that you're completely unaware of this to some extent. Sooner or later that second synapse of yours is going to fire, and you'll make the entire connection.

You're sooooooooooooooo cute.

 

[Ashes]

I'm reminded of certain beheading videos where soon-to-be-victims were treated with tea, good food, and medical care. Before having their heads violently sawed off on film, of course. Considering those soldiers wouldn't have been "battered and bloodied" were it not for the pipe/knife-wielding crew, showing their treatment on film is a pretty lame attempt to gain sympathy.

"Watch me beat this guy's head in with an iron pipe, then apply a bandage to the gaping wound! I'm a good person!!"

This reminds you of beheading videos where tea and good food is served before their vicitims heads are violently sawed off? WOW.

Anyways, as far as we know, they had this soldier at their mercy; its god awful that he was beat up; and yet he isnt dead? why aren't they beating him to death with metal bars and stuff? Where is the life threatning situation that allowed for murder in self defence? Or do they only fight in full view of the IDF navy?

 

[victreeb3l]

Yes, because people only disengage from internet discussions when they're losing. This is easily the most cyclical thread I have ever read on this forum. You could waste hours, days even, without making progress. The best I hope for is to provide/gain fodder for outside discussion that might actually go somewhere.

EDIT: I don't say this of all people, of course. There is good discussion to be had, but some of the more vocal people have done nothing but repeat themselves ad nauseum for dozens upon dozens of pages.

:lol This coming from you? Ok guy :lol :lol :lol

---

Has this been posted yet?

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2010/06/american-activist-detained-by-israel-tell-his-story/

Paul Larudee, an American citizen and longtime pro-Palestinian activist, was on board one of the ships carrying humanitarian relief to Gaza that was raided by the Israeli navy on Monday. He dove into the Mediterranean Sea, only to be captured and held in an Israeli prison for two days.
This was not Larudee’s first brush with Israeli authorities, but it was easily his most dramatic. He spoke with Salon about the raid and his captivity this afternoon from Greece, where he arrived after being released by Israel.