myata

Well, how do we really know who was (and did) what in this situation? We either take words for truth according to our beliefs, or insist on detailed objective and independent investigation.

Even with that in mind, having carefully watched and listened the entire episode I haven't found anything inherently damning in it.

Don't you just feel what they need to be blamed for being attacked and shot, and find any (however unlikely or patently false) justification for that? Yes they had the full legitimate right to challenge the illegal blockade, rather than waiting indefinitely for it to be eased either by Israel's benevolence or (non existent or ineffectual?) Western influence. And yes, they said as much (that they were going to challenge any attempt to stop them) which is evidenced in this very forum. And yes, they had the full right to such resistence as much as american nationals or any other people would were they boarded in high seas by heavily armed intruders. Whether Israel's actions were illegitimate assault, or were in excess of legitimate self defense, or were completely justifiable should be a subject for objective and independent enquiry. In the absense of such all we have is facts: nine dead civilians and eyewitness accounts some of which btw were played by the media. Of course you can believe anything, that you can't substantiate it with any rational argument is the point though. I believe so I do and my belief is all the justification I need for what I do. No, "the rest of the world" is in no way obligated to share your beliefs but you could try objective, impartial and fair view of the events for a change. That approach could actually result in finding some common understanding with other people, as opposed to expecting them to do what you think they should be according to your belief - and making do it by force, if they resist.

Not everybody was so lucky, especially in more densely populated lands. But I know it's so easy to overlook if that's what we (don't) want to see. Gosh TB, if you're so good at seeing futures, why not applying that wonderful ability to more rewarding avenues, like e.g. (big hint here) winning lotteries? Of course we already addressed the argument of power and dominition, it rarely tend to last "forever" or even over longer historical intervals, factors like environment and demographics can be much more essential. Back to self proving cheering (I'm right because I know that I'll be proven right), as alternative to rational argument?

And there's another kind of examples too, of people who thought they had natural claim to govern inferior savages (and as natural extension of this to their land). And look there their status and power and command is, now. I'm not sure all is clearcut here, and there's a long way to go, specifically with East Jerusalem which will be a blocking point for any settlement effort that wouldn't involve some sort of compromise acceptable to both sides. And that may be a long long way in reaching.

But of course, not like anybody is objecting to that. So far, however it looks very much like the construction train rolls on "rocket attacks" or not, and guess what not many of the "global democracy leaders" are interested enough to even notice, not to mention, condemn it strongly and promptly or even, god forbid, take practical steps.

Delivering civilian goods to populatoin where illegal military blockade prevents it may very well be. But this would be far off and entirely up to the willing members of the world community. For starters, a concerted strong statement, on illegitimacy of the ongoing construction in the occupied lands, or civilian effects of the ongoing blockade would do, so any takers on from our global leaders of peaceful justice and democracy?

Same force that brough about this change; that friendly hush-hush behind the curtains diplomacy so miserably failed, and keeps failing to. Just shows that it's time to drop the pretenses and call things as they are as and when they happen. All that "friendly mediation" is complete and useless waste of time with no other purpose but to distract from or at least delay realization that objective, impartial and practical approach is the only one that has brought real reasults.

We can attempt to start only with the resources of keeping the events in focus, maintaining factual, impartial view of the situation and reacting based on objective evidence whenever an event requiring reaction (see earlier) has occured. Over time if not solving the conflict completely (as it did in South Africa) this approact will bring everybody a long way toward its resolution. As evidenced by this one fact. As well as lack of any visible progress in the "default alliance" mode, that cannot contribute to solving anything for the obvious logical reason that it only encourages hostile behaviour of the side that enjoys default support (and assistence; and cover up).

Well here's another factual evidence that concerted, objective and persistent attention by international community can bring real, positive results: BBC: Israel to allow civilian goods in Gaza If will work in establishing approaching to lasting settlement in the same way as it's working in blockade of Gaza. If we maintain objective fact based view of situation, reacting in force to any act of hostility and aggression, discarding all default excuses or stamped justifications and allowing nobody be beyond scrutiny or law.

Yes you read me right. People have full legitimate right to resist illegal military blocade, illegal military occupation and so on, even by force if necessary. We cannot deny it as a natural right of every oppressed people or individual without taking from them the very status of humanity, as you just did for the obvious reason ("animals" -Bob)

My comments aren't addressed though to zealots on either side who are prepared to use any excuse to justify virtually any act of hostility and aggression. Only to rational viewers prepared to take an objective view of the situation and looking for ways to its deescalation and eventual resolution. Think how it played out e.g. in South Afica.

Let's see. A group of heavily armed individuals attempts to "board" an american ship in the international waters. What would be your interpetation of such episode, from the terminological point of view? Again I'm not necessarily saying that I support what they did or planned to do. Only what in my view it's certainly legitimate or at least more legitimate than stopping ships by force in the international waters. After all, isn't that what those notorious pirates do? It's very obvious which side has initiated the incident. Do attempt to explain that it has a legitimate right to do so. We already discussed this at length but I understand that it settles hard if you believe that some of us have a natural claim to force and violence, while any resistance to it by anybody else outside the club is deemed as hostility and belligerence.

I already said and many times over: no default excuses; coined phrases; labels should be accepted in this situation if we want to see any real progress going forward. Each episode of violence; aggression; mass deprivation of rights and mass killing must be investigated on its own merit, objectively and independently of the sides directly involved. And each such act determined to be an act of aggression; violence; mass deprivation of rights, etc must be reacted to in real and practical manner and in concert by international community to show the perpetrator, whoever it may have been found to be in any such episode, that behaviour of the kind will no longer be tolerated. That is, if we want to see any real progress going forward.

Dictionary: Collective punishment such as destruction of homes is inhumane, barbaric and attrocious Using live ammunition against adolescents is atrocious Killing over a thousands of civilians in war started to retrieve two soldier is atrocious Just what pops in the mind right away. However I'm not looking for another terminology debate so I'll qualify my earlier statement as "aggression". No, nothing in the earlier history however tragic, should and could justify or legitimize any acts of aggression.

Even with reservations about correctness of translation that no fair minded individual can take for granted without independent verification from a side directly involved in the conflict, I could see nothing in this video but 1) determination to reach Gaza and 2) resist armed assault if it happens. No incitement of unprovoked violence, nothing to confirm Israel's claims of weapons smuggling (we'll have to see the conclusion of independent enquiry on that). No, Israel does not hold exclusive rights on violence in the region, and if need be force and violence can be resisted with such. Though it may not be the best strategy one cannot deny that it's a legitimate strategy.

It may be in one isolated episode, but one should also keep in mind the long term picture. UN reacted to Kyrgiz events just as it should keep reacting to the events in Israel and Palestine from objective and factual position.

You're saying it. But do keep talking to yourself, it's very rewarding not to mention the entertainment value.

If you call "terrorists" people who blow up homes, then you certainly support them. No, I don't.

Indeed it's entirely irrelevant as justification of Israel's own atrocities.

on stolen land plus, of course that Arabs have no exclusive prerogative on blowing up homes. Now, it more or less makes sense, enjoy!

It does upset me, just as it doesn't negate or diminish Israeli or any other atrocities. And of course unlike these volatile and unpredictable events, Israeli land policies are authorised and advocated by its very government.

Well, it's not an election but a discussion supposedly decided by logic and reason. But what if somebody decided to believe that "anti-" is everybody but themselves (it wouldn't be too far off in the case in question). How do you convince them otherwise, short of full brain transplant and/or reboot of consciousness? But I sincerely admire your efforts guys, nonetheless.

That's why we absolutely should stop sending trains of cash and putting our lives on the line there. Average humanitarian assistence, training and educating maybe, as long as we can safely get out if need be. Investing massively into another puppet regime that will play us nice pretty tunes up to the second it's kicked out is the worst possible option. It's a complete and utter waste and it won't achieve anything of the kind used for its justification.

What we seem to be struggling to understand is what once a label has been created it can be stretched to fit any view. This particular posters considers that ethnic cleaning would be justified because anybody who objects or resists to the original taking of land; or occupation of Palestinian territories; or illegal appropriation thereof is anti Israel therefore anti nationalist then anti Zionist then, right you got it. Nothing can be gained by arguing the meaning of a label simply because it has different meanings for different people. Killing or taking of land or possession or persecution of people based on ethnicity is wrong not because its anti this or pro that. Anybody can use and indeed have used this line of argument over and over again in the long course of history. It's wrong because it's murderous and destructive and it contradicts our nature and our principles. If we finally understand this, in truth rather than in the words only, objective principled postion would be the only option consistent with what we think we are.