Merged Israel Attacks Palestinian Aid Flotilla, According To Reports

[a_unique_person]

If Palestine isn't a state, how can it have it's own waters? If it does have them, making it a state, then your previous argument that the blockade was illegal because they aren't one fall over even more.

Personally since they have a government, I'd say that makes them a state even if others don't recognize them.

Better not say that too loud, Likud reserves the right to attack if the Palestinians declare themselves to be a state.

 

[Cleon]

That was the MySpace group that liked to hang out on roadsides with a "Free Palestine" banner?

No, the group that protested on roadsides existed outside of MySpace. MySpace was merely a way to keep in contact with people interested in coming to events.

Did an algorithm automatically make you a member of that group, or did you join them yourself?

Do you think Israel has a right to exist Cleon?

I've been clear about my position in the past, but here it is again:

I believe it is a recipe for disaster to create a state that is explicitly representative of a single ethnic group/religion on a piece of land that is home to many different ethnicities and religions.

I also believe that the expansion of the settlements as well as the ineptitude, corruption, and other deficiencies of the Palestinian leadership has made a two-state solution impractical (if it was ever really possible in the first place).

Therefore, I think the only long-term solution to the conflict is a secular, democratic state that represents no specific ethnicity or religion. Call this state Israel, call it Palestine, call it Israel-Palestine, call it Canaan, call it the People's Democratic Republic of Snickerbottoms. I don't care.

In fact, I think it's entirely possible that this could happen as an evolution of the Israeli state. I think if Israel were to annex Gaza and the WB, giving citizenship and equal rights to all its inhabitants, it would be a huge step forward for everyone involved.

Unfortunately, that sort of scenario would require a sea change in both Israeli and Palestinian politics.

I fully realize that many think that this is an idealistic and unrealistic opinion; fine, I accept that. But I think it's the only alternative to perpetual mass slaughter. "This land is ours, not yours" is an attitude that needs to go.

I do not believe that the killing of civilians is moral or just. Yes, that includes suicide bombings and other forms of terrorism. It also includes Palestinian civilians killed by the IDF.

I do not support Hamas. I don't think their leadership has been beneficial to anyone, and their attitude towards women (to say nothing of homosexuals) is positively despicable. Not Taliban-despicable, more like Saudi Arabia-despicable, but still pretty bad.

The official policy of your now-defunct (moved to Facebook)

No, the newer group is a different group, run by different (younger) people. But again, it exists as an actual organization; Facebook is merely a way to communicate.

(I swear, I know 13-year-old girls who aren't as obsessed with MySpace and Facebook as you and "Skeptic" are.)

MySpace group seems to be no, Israel has no right to exist and Palestine must be "free".

Actually, no; that group went above and beyond to make sure they didn't endorse a one-state, two-state, bi-national-state, whatever solution. There were people of all points of view involved, including outspoken Zionists.

 

[bit_pattern]

Does anyone have a link to said myspace/facebook groups, so the rest of us can judge for ourselves? Or is it better for y'all to slander without reference?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I do not believe that the killing of civilians is moral or just.

If the civilian is using deadly force towards a soldier, do you consider that the soldier is then able to do so, or do you still think that such a killing is wrong?

 

[bit_pattern]

If Palestine isn't a state, how can it have it's own waters? If it does have them, making it a state, then your previous argument that the blockade was illegal because they aren't one fall over even more.

Personally since they have a government, I'd say that makes them a state even if others don't recognize them.

Beautiful! bigjelmapro, are you reading this? This is exactly the argument I was talking about, the kind of argument that completely discredits the San Remo Manual interpretation of the Israeli blockade! Thanks for that PhantomWolf

 

[Lallante]

If Palestine isn't a state, how can it have it's own waters? If it does have them, making it a state, then your previous argument that the blockade was illegal because they aren't one fall over even more.

Personally since they have a government, I'd say that makes them a state even if others don't recognize them.

The legal definition of a state is in contest among academics. Arguably, a state is whatever the majority of other states treat as a state, hence northern cyprus is not, but (when it seceeded) Bangladesh is. Whether palestine is a state under this definition is still questionable - they do have embassies abroad though...

Alternatively, you could argue that palestine is a de-facto state. In this alternative, the fact that the palestinian government seems to have little or no control over its people, arguably palestine is not a state, or is a failed state. On the other hand there is SOME governance and so who knows.


The point I was making earlier is that Israel doesnt recognise palestine as a state, and it cant have its cake and eat it. If it wants the law of armed conflict between states to apply, it must recognise palestines existance and right to self-determination and territorial integrity. It also needs to stop branding Palestinian fighters as terrorists - if palestine is a state then they are combatants and thus killing, for example, israeli soldiers is legal and Palestinians who are captured should be treated as POWs. On the other hand some palestinian POWS may then be tried for warcrimes etc. So should some israelis.

 

[Thunder]

If the civilian is using deadly force towards a soldier, do you consider that the soldier is then able to do so, or do you still think that such a killing is wrong?

the activists should have given the IDF troops the opportunity to surrender, and if they refused, use what ever force is necessary to arrest them.

the IDF had no right to board this ship.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

From eye-witness accounts, the IDF who were attacking the boat before any of those commando's hit the deck and the scuffles broke out.

I know I might as well be speaking to a brick wall here, but do you want to know what really happened? Have a look:


These men are clearly not expecting a fight, otherwise they would never rappel onto the boat in this manner.

 

[Thunder]

Therefore, I think the only long-term solution to the conflict is a secular, democratic state that represents no specific ethnicity or religion.

in other words, the Jews march into the Sea.

 

[carlitos]

No No No. The lady hiding in the bathroom belowdecks with her kid saw the whole thing. The commandos were lobbing artillery from the helicopter before they landed

 

[DC]

I know I might as well be speaking to a brick wall here, but do you want to know what really happened? Have a look:


These men are clearly not expecting a fight, otherwise they would never rappel onto the boat in this manner.

what about witnesses that claim the IDF shot before they landed?
how do you know that didnt happen?
the short parts of all kind of video doesnt show what exactly happened.

 

[bit_pattern]

I know I might as well be speaking to a brick wall here, but do you want to know what really happened? Have a look:


These men are clearly not expecting a fight, otherwise they would never rappel onto the boat in this manner.

So the numerous eye-witness accounts of shots being fired, and the blatant fact that civilians were injured, all BEFORE they rappeled onto the vessel, are just a load of bollocks because it doesn't fit with your view of how you think the IDF would have gone about things?

 

[Lallante]

So the numerous eye-witness accounts of shots being fired, and the blatant fact that civilians were injured, all BEFORE they rappeled onto the vessel, are just a load of bollocks because it doesn't fit with your view of how you think the IDF would have gone about things?

Dude the IDF are a peaceful organisation committed to bringing humanitarian resources to Pales... . oh **** sorry wrong side.

 

[wuschel]

No nation can allow a bunch of foreigners to interfere with a military operation in its own territory.

How does this apply to Gaza?

 

[Cleon]

If the civilian is using deadly force towards a soldier, do you consider that the soldier is then able to do so, or do you still think that such a killing is wrong?

Like all things, it depends on context. If that soldier is in the process of forcibly boarding the vessel the civilians are on in international waters, in my opinion* the soldiers are the ones using deadly force, and the civilians are responding in self-defense.

* I bold and italicize the "in my opinion" part because I am not a lawyer, I have no clue about the legal specifics of such a situation--and frankly, I don't think most people here commenting about the law know either.
The opinion is merely mine, I do not claim to speak on behalf of international maritime law, because unlike some people I prefer not to common on subject I have no knowledge of. And researching legal subjects hurts my brain.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

No No No. The lady hiding in the bathroom belowdecks with her kid saw the whole thing. The commandos were lobbing artillery from the helicopter before they landed

You can clearly see the level of aggression here:

The ship is not even doing anything, just flying leisurely through the blockade, and BAM! This big Zionist ship opens up on her -- and there's a woman on board!

So the numerous eye-witness accounts of shots being fired, and the blatant fact that civilians were injured, all BEFORE they rappeled onto the vessel, are just a load of bollocks

Let's see, we've got anecdotes from activists on one hand, actual video footage on the other hand, and the fact that the Israelis did not hurt anyone on the other vessels they boarded, which coincidentally were the ones that surrendered without resistance. Who to believe, who to believe...

 

[DC]

You can clearly see the level of aggression here:

The ship is not even doing anything, just flying leisurely through the blockade, and BAM! This big Zionist ship opens up on her -- and there's a woman on board!

Let's see, we've got anecdotes from activists on one hand, actual video footage on the other hand, and the fact that the Israelis did not hurt anyone on the other vessels they boarded, which coincidentally were the ones that surrendered without resistance. Who to believe, who to believe...

so for you the death of 9 people is just one big joke. very telling.

 

[Lallante]

If there is signficant global controversy over whether use of force in a particular situation is legal, and the UN has explicitly told a country not to enforce its blockade, then enforcing it with force is at best reckless as to the legality of that act and at worse tantamount to declaring indifference to international law.

 

[Lithrael]

So just out of curiosity, is there any endorsable group for people who are concerned about both those Israelis and those Palestinians who don't feel like they have that much of a dog in this fight and just were unlucky enough to be born in the area, and think the conflict just pointlessly sucks? Or is that attitude de facto anti-semitic?

 

[carlitos]

@Lallante - Argumentum ad Consequentiam?

ETA - Lithrael, I do think that it pointlessly sucks, and no that attitude is not anti-semitic at all. I have more sympathy for the Western Democracy in the fight, but there is plenty of pointlessness to it all, and plenty of blame to go around. Being born in certain parts of the Middle East is an unfortunate circumstance. Much like being born in Western Democracies tends to be a fortunate circumstance.