Israeli Navy Raids Gaza Aid Flotilla, 10 Confirmed Dead

[Argus]

Actually you already threw the racisism thing at me last week. Your suggestion that I support Hamas is just equally silly and childish. But go ahead... call me whatever you want. Youre have literally zero credibility or relevence. Nothing more than a cheer leading sports fan.

And you're so much better? You are involved in most of the anti-Israeli topics for some reason, and no matter the particular point under discussion you have always taken the anti-Israeli side.

For some reason, as far as you're concerned, Israel is NEVER in the right, no matter what happens.

But of course, you're a completely neutral and unbiased person.

[Guest American Woman]

No, I only noticed that your post was based entirely on information from one side.

As opposed to all the other posts that were based on information from both sides? a thousand times over.

While duly noting that fact, I also read it that makes your statement absurd and untrue.

My statement is totally true.

Let's say, a convoy of humanitarian aid that has cleared customs of a NATO country.

Let's say to a country that's in the middle of an armed conflict. Like e.g..... Georgia?

How about instead saying a convoy of humanitarian aid to Iraq, when the UN had sanctions against it. Let's say the U.S. or Canadian soldiers wanted to check out the cargo and those aboard the ship attacked the U.S. or Canadian troops with pipes, etc.

Oh, you mean those armed guys that boarded the ships were just Santa Clauses? And their shooting was only Cristmas crackers?

Oh, you mean those people with pipes and weapons in the video were just doing a traditional welcome dance? again.

It does indeed. We need to understand how do you apply criteria justifying use of deadly military force against civilians.

I don't care if someone is a civilian or military. When someone attacks them, they have the right to fight back. If you think differently, so be it. Sit there and be beat up if the occasion ever arises. But I must say, I'm totally impressed by the fact that you've obviously "looked at information from both sides" before drawing your conclusions, unlike anyone who doesn't agree with you. They, of course, have obviously only looked at information from one side.

If you're about to excuse military boarding humanitarian ships and killing several civilians in the process only on their word, would you be applying the same approach in all cases? Or only when this particular military is concerned?

What utter and complete bullsh*t. Yeah, I "excuse" that. Care to accuse me of supporting abusing kittens while we're at it?

But let me ask you this. If you're about to dismiss the right to fight back when attacked, would you be applying the same approach to all cases? Or only when you choose to?

Let me try to put this clearly enough that it should be unquestionably clear. What I would support, in the example I cited earlier, is our military boarding a ship to make sure no arms/ammunition/weapons were on board when a humanitarian ship was headed for a country we/the UN had sanctions against. Whether or not the sanctions were justified, the reality of the situation was that there were sanctions, so one would expect that they be imposed.

In this instance, if the world was so against the embargo against Gaza, it's been pretty quiet about it up until now. And I'm guessing a good portion of "the world" of which I speak supported the sanctions against Iraq.

The way I see it, this issue isn't about supporting the embargo against the Gaza or not. That is what it is. This issue/incident is about the right to fight back when attacked, and I think everyone, when directly attacked, has the right to fight back rather than stand there and be beaten to a pulp.

Edited June 1, 2010 by American Woman

[JB Globe]

The Israelis have a blockade to prevent materials that can be used by Hamas for warmaking purposes from entering Gaza.

The thing is, Israel has taken "war making purposes" to mean anything that benefits Hamas. Thus baby toys which are imported commercially to be sold, would support Hamas' war-making purposes because the merchant would generate income, which would then be taxed, which would then be given to Hamas, who would then use it to buy rockets.

Once you realize how far Israel is taking their "punishment of Hamas" you begin to realize it's really punishment against all Gazans. After all, it's not as if potatoes are WMDs, so why were they banned?

There are plenty of legal ways for aid to enter Gaza, any of which could have been used by these "activists" if their goal really was to provide the Palestinians with aid.

You and I both know that if the flotilla docked in Israel they would have never let the convoy continue on land - the deputy foreign minister accused the organizers of being in league with al-qaeda. I don't think they'd allow them to dock in Israel, period, much less offload their supplies and take them to Gaza if they make that kind of false but inflammatory accusation.

The reality is they were simply there to provoke an incident and try to make Israel look bad, which of course is easy to do due to the rampant media bias against Israel.

The people on that ship were aspiring "martyrs" and set out to do precisely what they did.

Of the 6 ships in the Flotilla, 5 agreed to a peaceful inspection and no violence occurred. On the 6th ship, the people aboard it decided to attack the Israeli soldiers, who then responded properly and defended themselves.

The actions of the people on board the Marmara aren't excusable, but then again when you don't employ standard procedure, you get unwanted results. Standard naval procedure for overtaking a boat is: hail the vessel to stop --> fire warning shot across bow --> block ship's path with another vessel ---> shoot and disable propeller via zodiac, frogman, or canon ----> instruct crew to clear the decks, use water canons to clear if necessary ---> lock crew below deck and take over the bridge, tow the vessel into port

Frankly I'm having a hard time understanding why people in Israel seem to be able to be more critical of the tactics used by the IDF in this incident than many posters on this board.

[JB Globe]

Blockade inspection of six vessels....just like the mission required.

Are you being disingenuous or naive?

The incident didn't happen in a political and social vacuum. There is actually something beyond the immediate military confrontation, believe it or not.

This is an enormous black eye for Israel globally - no nation has come out in support of it. Even the US and Canada, which defended Israel's actions in the Gaza War, are silent. Turkey, who is a military ally and key to dealing with Lebanon and Syria is mulling completely breaking off military ties with Israel.

Public opinion on this incident throughout North America and Europe is overwhelmingly negative against Israel.

This is even threatening to bring down Bibi's government in Israel if he doesn't salvage something soon, and Ehud Barak's time as defence minister is probably over.

But you're calling this a success?

God I hope that was sarcasm earlier . . .

[JB Globe]

And although they are secular,they are still an Islamic country at heart.

In exactly the same way that Spain is secular, but still catholic.

[bloodyminded]

Are you saying there are no Hamas supporters here? Are you saying that the predictability of certain people rushing onto this site to condemn Israel every time something happens - generally the same people - has nothing to do with their antipathy to Israel or, conversely, their support for the "other side"?

There may be Hamas supporters here, I honestly don't know. I do know the charge has been laid against me--though not by yourself, to my recollection--even though I've not written a kindly or supportive word about Hamas...ever. (The height of my discourse on Hamas has been my recent remark that their violence is not justifiable, so I'm not sure where my alleged "support" lays, exactly.)

But no, I don't think the routine critics of Israel generally have support for Hamas. They are critics of Israel, full stop.

By the way, given the subject of Israel attacking a flotilla, your own arguments, which seem to consist of "Hamas isn't that bad! We're actually much, much worse!" doesn't really call for a lot of learned discourse.

Not in terms of what it says about this incident, no, I certainly agree with you. I am consciously deferring strong opinion on this until more facts are available and I've become more educated on the ins and outs of it. (And this isn't an implied criticism of either side in this debate; I personally wish to wait a bit so I don't put my foot in mouth, that's all.)

[dre]

And you're so much better? You are involved in most of the anti-Israeli topics for some reason, and no matter the particular point under discussion you have always taken the anti-Israeli side.

For some reason, as far as you're concerned, Israel is NEVER in the right, no matter what happens.

But of course, you're a completely neutral and unbiased person.

Steaming horseshit. I consistantly condemn both sides as I have in this thread. And I didnt start any of the threads youre talking about. If there was active threads about Hamas or the PLO and how utterly useless these organizations have been in either moving towards peace or improving the the lives of the people in their jurrisdiction id be glad to comment.

I also never said that Israel is never right.

You seem to want to invent positions for me then label me based on those invented positions. All the while cheerleading Israel like a gleefull school girl with pink pom-poms.

Ever seen me once come on here justifying a violent act by Hamas? Even one time?

This is just standard operating procedure for guys like you... divert from the subject at hand by accusing the other side in the argument of being a terrorist supporter or an anti-jewish racist.

[Guest American Woman]

Frankly I'm having a hard time understanding why people in Israel seem to be able to be more critical of the tactics used by the IDF in this incident than many posters on this board.

As an American, I'm not having that difficult a time understanding it. I'm thinking that perhaps the Israelis have been conditioned to believe that whatever Israel does is bad, and they must apologize/condemn it no matter what. Because quite frankly, I find it difficult to believe that the people in Israel, regardless of how they feel about the embargo, don't support their troops' right to fight back when attacked. One doesn't have to support the embargo to understand why the troops would fight back when attacked rather than docilely stand there and take it. I'm also having a difficult time understanding why a ship with nothing but humanitarian cargo would object to being checked out when knowingly going to an area that has an embargo issued against it.

[JB Globe]

From Harvard's George Friedman . . . Yet another self-hating Jew I suppose . . .

A pretty money analysis if you ask me

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon charged that the mission was simply an attempt to provoke the Israelis. That was certainly the case. The mission was designed to demonstrate that the Israelis were unreasonable and brutal. The hope was that Israel would be provoked to extreme action, further alienating Israel from the global community and possibly driving a wedge between Israel and the United States. The operation’s planners also hoped this would trigger a political crisis in Israel.

A logical Israeli response would have been avoiding falling into the provocation trap and suffering the political repercussions the Turkish NGO was trying to trigger. Instead, the Israelis decided to make a show of force. The Israelis appear to have reasoned that backing down would demonstrate weakness and encourage further flotillas to Gaza, unraveling the Israeli position vis-à-vis Hamas. In this thinking, a violent interception was a superior strategy to accommodation regardless of political consequences. Thus, the Israelis accepted the bait and were provoked . . .

The ‘Exodus’ Scenario

In the 1950s, an author named Leon Uris published a book called “Exodus.” Later made into a major motion picture, Exodus told the story of a Zionist provocation against the British. In the wake of World War II, the British — who controlled Palestine, as it was then known — maintained limits on Jewish immigration there. Would-be immigrants captured trying to run the blockade were detained in camps in Cyprus. In the book and movie, Zionists planned a propaganda exercise involving a breakout of Jews — mostly children — from the camp, who would then board a ship renamed the Exodus. When the Royal Navy intercepted the ship, the passengers would mount a hunger strike. The goal was to portray the British as brutes finishing the work of the Nazis. The image of children potentially dying of hunger would force the British to permit the ship to go to Palestine, to reconsider British policy on immigration, and ultimately to decide to abandon Palestine and turn the matter over to the United Nations.

There was in fact a ship called Exodus, but the affair did not play out precisely as portrayed by Uris, who used an amalgam of incidents to display the propaganda war waged by the Jews. Those carrying out this war had two goals. The first was to create sympathy in Britain and throughout the world for Jews who, just a couple of years after German concentration camps, were now being held in British camps. Second, they sought to portray their struggle as being against the British. The British were portrayed as continuing Nazi policies toward the Jews in order to maintain their empire. The Jews were portrayed as anti-imperialists, fighting the British much as the Americans had.

It was a brilliant strategy. By focusing on Jewish victimhood and on the British, the Zionists defined the battle as being against the British, with the Arabs playing the role of people trying to create the second phase of the Holocaust. The British were portrayed as pro-Arab for economic and imperial reasons, indifferent at best to the survivors of the Holocaust. Rather than restraining the Arabs, the British were arming them. The goal was not to vilify the Arabs but to villify the British, and to position the Jews with other nationalist groups whether in India or Egypt rising against the British.

The precise truth or falsehood of this portrayal didn’t particularly matter. For most of the world, the Palestine issue was poorly understood and not a matter of immediate concern. The Zionists intended to shape the perceptions of a global public with limited interest in or understanding of the issues, filling in the blanks with their own narrative. And they succeeded.

The success was rooted in a political reality. Where knowledge is limited, and the desire to learn the complex reality doesn’t exist, public opinion can be shaped by whoever generates the most powerful symbols. And on a matter of only tangential interest, governments tend to follow their publics’ wishes, however they originate. There is little to be gained for governments in resisting public opinion and much to be gained by giving in. By shaping the battlefield of public perception, it is thus possible to get governments to change positions.

In this way, the Zionists’ ability to shape global public perceptions of what was happening in Palestine — to demonize the British and turn the question of Palestine into a Jewish-British issue — shaped the political decisions of a range of governments. It was not the truth or falsehood of the narrative that mattered. What mattered was the ability to identify the victim and victimizer such that global opinion caused both London and governments not directly involved in the issue to adopt political stances advantageous to the Zionists. It is in this context that we need to view the Turkish flotilla.

The Turkish Flotilla to Gaza

The Palestinians have long argued that they are the victims of Israel, an invention of British and American imperialism. Since 1967, they have focused not so much on the existence of the state of Israel (at least in messages geared toward the West) as on the oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Since the split between Hamas and Fatah and the Gaza War, the focus has been on the plight of the citizens of Gaza, who have been portrayed as the dispossessed victims of Israeli violence.

The bid to shape global perceptions by portraying the Palestinians as victims of Israel was the first prong of a longtime two-part campaign. The second part of this campaign involved armed resistance against the Israelis. The way this resistance was carried out, from airplane hijackings to stone-throwing children to suicide bombers, interfered with the first part of the campaign, however. The Israelis could point to suicide bombings or the use of children against soldiers as symbols of Palestinian inhumanity. This in turn was used to justify conditions in Gaza. While the Palestinians had made significant inroads in placing Israel on the defensive in global public opinion, they thus consistently gave the Israelis the opportunity to turn the tables. And this is where the flotilla comes in.

The Turkish flotilla aimed to replicate the Exodus story or, more precisely, to define the global image of Israel in the same way the Zionists defined the image that they wanted to project. As with the Zionist portrayal of the situation in 1947, the Gaza situation is far more complicated than as portrayed by the Palestinians. The moral question is also far more ambiguous. But as in 1947, when the Zionist portrayal was not intended to be a scholarly analysis of the situation but a political weapon designed to define perceptions, the Turkish flotilla was not designed to carry out a moral inquest.

Instead, the flotilla was designed to achieve two ends. The first is to divide Israel and Western governments by shifting public opinion against Israel. The second is to create a political crisis inside Israel between those who feel that Israel’s increasing isolation over the Gaza issue is dangerous versus those who think any weakening of resolve is dangerous.

The Geopolitical Fallout for Israel

It is vital that the Israelis succeed in portraying the flotilla as an extremist plot. Whether extremist or not, the plot has generated an image of Israel quite damaging to Israeli political interests. Israel is increasingly isolated internationally, with heavy pressure on its relationship with Europe and the United States.

In all of these countries, politicians are extremely sensitive to public opinion. It is difficult to imagine circumstances under which public opinion will see Israel as the victim. The general response in the Western public is likely to be that the Israelis probably should have allowed the ships to go to Gaza and offload rather than to precipitate bloodshed. Israel’s enemies will fan these flames by arguing that the Israelis prefer bloodshed to reasonable accommodation. And as Western public opinion shifts against Israel, Western political leaders will track with this shift.

The incident also wrecks Israeli relations with Turkey, historically an Israeli ally in the Muslim world with longstanding military cooperation with Israel. The Turkish government undoubtedly has wanted to move away from this relationship, but it faced resistance within the Turkish military and among secularists. The new Israeli action makes a break with Israel easy, and indeed almost necessary for Ankara.

With roughly the population of Houston, Texas, Israel is just not large enough to withstand extended isolation, meaning this event has profound geopolitical implications.

Public opinion matters where issues are not of fundamental interest to a nation. Israel is not a fundamental interest to other nations. The ability to generate public antipathy to Israel can therefore reshape Israeli relations with countries critical to Israel. For example, a redefinition of U.S.-Israeli relations will have much less effect on the United States than on Israel. The Obama administration, already irritated by the Israelis, might now see a shift in U.S. public opinion that will open the way to a new U.S.-Israeli relationship disadvantageous to Israel.

The Israelis will argue that this is all unfair, as they were provoked. Like the British, they seem to think that the issue is whose logic is correct. But the issue actually is, whose logic will be heard? As with a tank battle or an airstrike, this sort of warfare has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with controlling public perception and using that public perception to shape foreign policy around the world. In this case, the issue will be whether the deaths were necessary. The Israeli argument of provocation will have limited traction.

Internationally, there is little doubt that the incident will generate a firestorm. Certainly, Turkey will break cooperation with Israel. Opinion in Europe will likely harden. And public opinion in the United States — by far the most important in the equation — might shift to a “plague-on-both-your-houses” position.

While the international reaction is predictable, the interesting question is whether this evolution will cause a political crisis in Israel. Those in Israel who feel that international isolation is preferable to accommodation with the Palestinians are in control now. Many in the opposition see Israel’s isolation as a strategic threat. Economically and militarily, they argue, Israel cannot survive in isolation. The current regime will respond that there will be no isolation. The flotilla aimed to generate what the government has said would not happen.

The tougher Israel is, the more the flotilla’s narrative takes hold. As the Zionists knew in 1947 and the Palestinians are learning, controlling public opinion requires subtlety, a selective narrative and cynicism. As they also knew, losing the battle can be catastrophic. It cost Britain the Mandate and allowed Israel to survive. Israel’s enemies are now turning the tables. This maneuver was far more effective than suicide bombings or the Intifada in challenging Israel’s public perception and therefore its geopolitical position (though if the Palestinians return to some of their more distasteful tactics like suicide bombing, the Turkish strategy of portraying Israel as the instigator of violence will be undermined).

Israel is now in uncharted waters. It does not know how to respond. It is not clear that the Palestinians know how to take full advantage of the situation, either. But even so, this places the battle on a new field, far more fluid and uncontrollable than what went before. The next steps will involve calls for sanctions against Israel. The Israeli threats against Iran will be seen in a different context, and Israeli portrayal of Iran will hold less sway over the world.

And this will cause a political crisis in Israel. If this government survives, then Israel is locked into a course that gives it freedom of action but international isolation. If the government falls, then Israel enters a period of domestic uncertainty. In either case, the flotilla achieved its strategic mission. It got Israel to take violent action against it. In doing so, Israel ran into its own fist.

[JB Globe]

I'm thinking that perhaps the Israelis have been conditioned to believe that whatever Israel does is bad, and they must apologize/condemn it no matter what.

Actually the opposite is true. In America especially, the public has been conditioned to believe that Israel is the eternal good guy in this conflict. Criticism of Israel is so stiffled by the ADL and Israeli lobby groups that politicians and journalists who take rational criticisms based on factual information against Israel, get blacklisted as anti-semites or self-hating Jews even when they go out of their way to say their criticisms are purely about Israel, and not about Jews in general.

Israelis are able to criticize their government's policies more openly, precisely because they know that these policies are crafted by politicians belonging to different parties and ideologies, whereas in the US as well as Canada to an extent Israel and Jews are viewed as a monolith - whereby anything Israel does is supported by all Jews. ie - if Netanyahu's neo-con foreign policy is a dismal failure, progressive Israelis will have no problem criticizing it, but do the same thing in the US, and you'd be an anti-semite because the public and press view a criticism of the policy of a certain political party as an attack on Jews in general.

Because quite frankly, I find it difficult to believe that the people in Israel, regardless of how they feel about the embargo, don't support their troops' right to fight back when attacked.

That's actually not what people are so angry about in Israel, they're angry about HOW the interception of the blockade was done, the specific strategy used, and the lack of planning involved for the interception itself, as well as the PR counter-offensive that followed.

There is also a lesser debate as to the merits of just letting the flotilla get through, the fallout might have been less damaging.

But this is the Middle East, and like Thomas Friedman says - everyone plays by Middle East rules. And sometimes that means a counter-productive commitment to being "tough" even when the softer approach might be more beneficial.

[GostHacked]

The way I see it, this issue isn't about supporting the embargo against the Gaza or not. That is what it is. This issue/incident is about the right to fight back when attacked, and I think everyone, when directly attacked, has the right to fight back rather than stand there and be beaten to a pulp.

I am starting to look at it like that as well.

When you try to run this blockage, Israel only has one course of action, to board. I guess even in retrospect I expected them to board regardless. The people on the ship seem to have two options, let them board, or fight them off. Knowing Israel's actions during conflicts (balls to the wall take no prisoners), it's not surprising either to see the activists on the Turkish vessel fighting back.

International waters tells me that there is really no right course of action here. IDF boarded and the activists fought back. Since the convoy had not entered Gazan or Isreali waters, then you can look at it like a hijacking of a ship. Israel should have waited until the ships entered their waters to take any action. Then you might not have as much international condemnation on Israel's actions.

One argument could be 'Why wait for them to enter Israeli waters?' But I guess we now know the answer.

[BCMan]

I still FAIL you student...You are missing an important point. go back for research as soon as you finish doing your ABCs.

Gee...i figured someone with a least a high school diploma would already know...

okay...a blockade to be legal must have a reason (to deny aid to the enemy, Hamas), it must be declared, (israel has and as published the coordinates in accordance to maritime law) it must be inforceble...

What more do you yearn to know?

[M.Dancer]

I still FAIL you student...You are missing an important point. go back for research as soon as you finish doing your ABCs.

I think at this point we can both agree on one thing. You dodn't know what you are babbling about. But please feel free to babble on for the general amusement of all your readers.

[myata]

As opposed to all the other posts that were based on information from both sides? a thousand times over.

Well some of them were. Not that one, though.

How about instead saying a convoy of humanitarian aid to Iraq, when the UN had sanctions against it. Let's say the U.S. or Canadian soldiers wanted to check out the cargo and those aboard the ship attacked the U.S. or Canadian troops with pipes, etc.

Oh, you now equate one sided and likely illegal blocade of Gaza by Isreal with UN sanctioned operation?

In any case, if Canada etc didn't have serious reasons to do that, and / or it caused unwarranted loss of life it would cause serious repercussions for those who commanded operation, not in the least in Canada itself.

Oh, you mean those people with pipes and weapons in the video were just doing a traditional welcome dance?

Why would anybody be welcoming armed belligerents seeking to board ship in international waters?

I don't care if someone is a civilian or military.

Yes and it shows.

When someone attacks them, they have the right to fight back.

Does the same rule apply to people on the ships that were attacked (i.e. stopped by force) in the international waters? Or it applies only to those on the "right" side of your vision?

If you think differently, so be it. Sit there and be beat up if the occasion ever arises. But I must say, I'm totally impressed by the fact that you've obviously "looked at information from both sides" before drawing your conclusions, unlike anyone who doesn't agree with you. They, of course, have obviously only looked at information from one side.

I did read several news reports that cited information from both sides, and in a complex situation like this can't really think of a reason to cite an excerpt from one side, other than unquestioned prejudged apology of it regardless of the actual situation.

Yeah, I "excuse" that.

And that's fine, understanding that's it's a general nature of things and you'll excuse it as easily if and when the same methods are used by others.

But let me ask you this. If you're about to dismiss the right to fight back when attacked, would you be applying the same approach to all cases? Or only when you choose to?

I was about to ask the same of you, so let's see:

1) There's a country with a bunch of A-bombs, full of C-bombs bursting of tanks and all kind of explosive ammunition that is occupying other people's territory and persting in expropriating other people's land.

Who has the right to "fight back" here?

2) Heavily armed military patrol boards unarmed humanitarian ship in the international waters.

Who is the attacker, and who has the right to fight back?

Let me try to put this clearly enough that it should be unquestionably clear. What I would support, in the example I cited earlier, is our military boarding a ship to make sure no arms/ammunition/weapons were on board when a humanitarian ship was headed for a country we/the UN had sanctions against.

But there's no UN sanctions against Gaza. And you still unquestionnably support foreign military using excessive force against civilian ship. How so?

In this instance, if the world was so against the embargo against Gaza, it's been pretty quiet about it up until now. And I'm guessing a good portion of "the world" of which I speak supported the sanctions against Iraq.

Wow, that's quite a leap of logic there. So absense of vocal condemnation (although that wouldn't be entirely true, particularly on the UN part, see e.g. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932010_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip) somehow equates with official sanctioning of Isreal's blocade?

This issue/incident is about the right to fight back when attacked, and I think everyone, when directly attacked, has the right to fight back rather than stand there and be beaten to a pulp.

While reserving the right to attack oneself, unconditionally and without restrictions or limitations? I'm afraid there's no logical way out of this conundrum, only physical one, ie. to wait till one manages to beat the other to.. and so on.

[BCMan]

I totally agree with you...it’s not the fault of poor soldiers. it the politics and the agenda that they are thought that turns those soldiers in to Zionist slaves.

I know a lot of Jews and most of them condemn the actions taken by the IDf, they blame the current government more than the soldiers who have to follow orders of those brainwashed politicians.

Most of the daily army routine involves political agendas. IDf soldiers strongly oppose what they are told but they are unable to do anything. This comes from family members of IDF soldiers.

The reason why they opposed the check-up was because they knew these items would be rejected by IDF since most of the items include building materials, something that is essential but not allowed.

Furthermore; IDF was aware that the activists were coming weeks before they sailed and had enough time to prepare for such encounter.

It’s obvious that the cargo would be seized completely if it was given to the IDF.

As an American, I'm not having that difficult a time understanding it. I'm thinking that perhaps the Israelis have been conditioned to believe that whatever Israel does is bad, and they must apologize/condemn it no matter what. Because quite frankly, I find it difficult to believe that the people in Israel, regardless of how they feel about the embargo, don't support their troops' right to fight back when attacked. One doesn't have to support the embargo to understand why the troops would fight back when attacked rather than docilely stand there and take it. I'm also having a difficult time understanding why a ship with nothing but humanitarian cargo would object to being checked out when knowingly going to an area that has an embargo issued against it.

[BCMan]

So, I am to understand that you want to ditch your lesson which you attempted and failed by turning the argument against me.

A classic internet troll forum trick however still fails

To make this fair for you, I would change the question. What is the importance of internal relations in the global political arena?

I think at this point we can both agree on one thing. You dodn't know what you are babbling about. But please feel free to babble on for the general amusement of all your readers.

[M.Dancer]

What is the importance of internal relations in the global political arena?

You decided to stop babbling about blockades and now you wish to babble about domestic politics vis a vis foreign relations?

Go ahead..babble on.....I'm sure someone who "know(s) lots of Jews" and apprently managed to poll them so quickly will have much to babble about...

[Argus]

No I do not cheer every action. I have been very critical of Israel. When Isreal withdrew from lebanon I was one of the first who said they should keep fighting...when they pulled out of Gaza I said they should reoccupy the place...

No, withdrawing from Lebanon was wise, and withdrawing from Gaza as well. I had hoped that would lead to something, but unfortunately, the Palestinians, as someone once said, never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. If they'd responded properly, and ensured there were no attacks across the border on Israel, the Israelis would have been much more hard-pressed to justify not also vacating the West Bank. Yes, there are a lot of settlements there, but as the Palestinians got more and more independance Israel would have had to close down some, and the rest would have been very difficult to maintain or justify.

But of course, the Palestinians couldn't miss the opportunity to start tossing rockets at Israel. It made them feel so incredibly brave and masculine and probably got them lots of brownie points for virgins in the afterlife.

As for this naval action, I condemn Israel for not going in fully armed and lobbing tear gas canisters from the get go. 11 Israelis are wounded because of it.

The Israelis kind of suck at resistance to low level violence. The riot cops in some places are so heavily armored and padded that no matter how many things the rioters throw, including scores of firebombs, they can easily control them. Israeli soldiers generally don't wear anything. They also don't have much in the way of crowd disbursement equipment, other than guns. You ever see Israeli water cannon in action? I haven't. The Asians, Europeans and South Americans have lots of these water cannon trucks. They've also got lots of beanbag guns and other devices to break up riots without causing deaths. Israel - not so much. Throw a work at Israeli soldiers and they'll shoot you.

Paintball guns? Whose goofy idea was that?

The South Koreans would have boarded that ship en masse, wearing lots of padding and wielding their long clubs and shields.

Of course, an argument can be made the idiots who attack soldiers and cops violently don't deserve such consideration, but at the very least from the perspective of public relations the fewer deaths the better.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

Who is 'all'? I don't support terrorism.

You don't seem too hot to support those who fight it either.

[M.Dancer]

The Israelis kind of suck at resistance to low level violence. The riot cops in some places are so heavily armored and padded that no matter how many things the rioters throw, including scores of firebombs, they can easily control them. Israeli soldiers generally don't wear anything. They also don't have much in the way of crowd disbursement equipment, other than guns.

The Israelis could learn a ting or two about handling demonstrators from experts like Iran, Syria, egypt....

[naomiglover]

Are pasta and crayons still banned by Israel from going into Gaza?

I'm glad to see that they finally allowed diapers to go in.

[naomiglover]

I can understand how toys are a security risk.

[ironstone]

So why do these people do an end run around organizations like the Red Cross to name one?This question is posed by the Israeli government.Is it because they know the Red Cross would never smuggle in arms?The weapons are getting in somewhere,tunnels being one source.

[naomiglover]

Among the large range of goods currently forbidden are jam, chocolate, wood for furniture, fruit juice, textiles, and plastic toys.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8654337.stm

[dre]

No, withdrawing from Lebanon was wise, and withdrawing from Gaza as well. I had hoped that would lead to something, but unfortunately, the Palestinians, as someone once said, never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. If they'd responded properly, and ensured there were no attacks across the border on Israel, the Israelis would have been much more hard-pressed to justify not also vacating the West Bank. Yes, there are a lot of settlements there, but as the Palestinians got more and more independance those Israel would have had to close down some, and the rest would have been very difficult to maintain or justify.

But of course, the Palestinians couldn't miss the opportunity to start tossing rockets at Israel. It made them feel so incredibly brave and masculine and probably got them lots of brownie points for virgins in the afterlife.

The Israelis kind of suck at resistance to low level violence. The riot cops in some places are so heavily armored and padded that no matter how many things the rioters throw, including scores of firebombs, they can easily control them. Israeli soldiers generally don't wear anything. They also don't have much in the way of crowd disbursement equipment, other than guns. You ever see Israeli water cannon in action? I haven't. The Asians, Europeans and South Americans have lots of these water cannon trucks. They've also got lots of beanbag guns and other devices to break up riots without causing deaths. Israel - not so much. Throw a work at Israeli soldiers and they'll shoot you.

Paintball guns? Whose goofy idea was that?

The South Koreans would have boarded that ship en masse, wearing lots of padding and wielding their long clubs and shields.

Of course, an argument can be made the idiots who attack soldiers and cops violently don't deserve such consideration, but at the very least from the perspective of public relations the fewer deaths the better.

No, withdrawing from Lebanon was wise, and withdrawing from Gaza as well. I had hoped that would lead to something, but unfortunately, the Palestinians, as someone once said, never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. If they'd responded properly, and ensured there were no attacks across the border on Israel, the Israelis would have been much more hard-pressed to justify not also vacating the West Bank. Yes, there are a lot of settlements there, but as the Palestinians got more and more independance those Israel would have had to close down some, and the rest would have been very difficult to maintain or justify.

There is ZERO chance of Israel vacating the West Bank. They pump 30% of their fresh water from there, and no country on earth would just casually give up 1/3 of their water supply never mind a country in that region which is getting drier. The Israeli settlements there for he most part are to give them a basis to assert permanent control over the mountain aquifiers.

Israel isnt building settlements in the west bank because of Palestinians attacks... they are building settlements to secure territory and resources. Which is why prior to the latest outbreak of violence when attacks on Israel were at an all-time low, SETTLEMENT BUILDING INCREASED.

Tell me how Israel is going replace the more than 1/2 of their fresh water that they pump out of the occupied territories. Desalination? Good luck. Magic?

Until the water is resolved its IMPOSSIBLE for Israel to withdraw from the west bank. And its going to get much much worse. You will probably see Israel at war with Lebanon and Jordon within a couple of decades over water... In fact Israel threatened to Invade Lebanon for pumping water out of the Litani river in 2003.

The historically troubled relations between Israel and the Palestinians have also been magnified by water. Mutual reliance on the West Bank Mountain Aquifer, which rests atop the demarcating border of the disputed West Bank territory (and currently provides 1/3rd of Israel’s water supply and 80% of Palestinian consumption), has created friction between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Despite being the most important source of long-term water for Israel, use of the Aquifer – as a result of its uncertain status – has not been implemented to the fullest extent possible. Israeli officials, while cognizant of the growing water crisis, fear Israeli dependency on potentially Palestinian-controlled water sources.

Efforts at cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians have so far proven markedly ineffective. Despite the passage of the 1995 Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which included a Water Annex dealing specifically with water resource distribution, Israeli-Palestinian relations have continued to be plagued by conflicts over water. The Palestinian Authority, in spite of the "equitable distribution" formula constructed under the Water Annex, has claimed to be suffering from uneven water allocation under Israeli guidelines maintaining water distribution proportions at 1967 levels. Even the Multilateral Water Resources Group, created in 1992 as part of the peace process negotiations, has failed to affect movement toward agreement on water sharing between the parties.

In the north of the country, growing Syrian designs over the Golan Heights, where Israel has remained firmly entrenched since the 1967 War, threaten to jeopardize another source of dwindling Israeli water, the Lake Kinneret Basin. At the same time, the possibility of Palestinian control of the West Bank suggests, at the very least, a further reduction of available water to Israel, currently utilizing the majority of the West Bank Aquifer. Due to an amalgam of factors, Israeli security prerequisites for dealing with the Palestinian Authority – the ability to protect its water sources from hostile action, pollution or co-option – are not currently met, making water a critical emerging issue of dispute between the parties. These fundamental disagreements have deadlocked talks between the parties and edged them closer to confrontation.