Fun with Flotillas Pt II

[Moonlight Graham]

Spell it out for us, share your deep knowledge of history and make a point.

No need to spell out the obvious.

[Bob]

No need to spell out the obvious.

Just one worthless post after another with you, I see.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Bob

[DogOnPorch]

More meaningless tripe. It makes no difference if Jews are involved or not. It wouldnt matter if Israel was a nation or muslims, christians, or yoga instructors for that matter. Any country thats engages in those kind of activities would be the focus of a fair ammount of critisism.

You dont think the US would have been critisized if it put Iraq under permanent military administration, moved large number of civilians in, and pumped out oil and gas as fast as they could?

The world doesnt have much stomach for nations that aquire resources or territory in this fassion.

fassion?

Anyhow, you've failed to explain why Arabs should get a do-over for their wars of aggression while the Germans can't...you laughed at the idea. Nor have you explained why South Viet-Nam, attacked and destroyed by North Viet-Nam (1975...not 1967) goes unprotested by the likes of you.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Anyhow, you've failed to explain why Arabs should get a do-over for their wars of aggression while the Germans can't...you laughed at the idea. Nor have you explained why South Viet-Nam, attacked and destroyed by North Viet-Nam (1975...not 1967) goes unprotested by the likes of you.

Interesting, when presented with your sound rejoinder vis-a-vis North Vietnam, we are told that is "different". How is it different? No JEWS?

[DogOnPorch]

Interesting, when presented with your sound rejoinder vis-a-vis North Vietnam, we are told that is "different". How is it different? No JEWS?

Oh yeah...different. Like Parrot's Beak and Fish Hook different. But we both know dre and company view South Viet-Nam's fall as a Martha Stewart 'Good thing'.

Re: the Arab Israeli Wars...poor losers, those Arabs. You and I have lived with this for over 40 years. Dre should be asking why T-62s couldn't defeat good ol' M4 Shermans.

[DogOnPorch]

Oh yeah...different. Like Parrot's Beak and Fish Hook different. But we both know dre and company view South Viet-Nam's fall as a Martha Stewart 'Good thing'.

Re: the Arab Israeli Wars...poor losers, those Arabs. You and I have lived with this for over 40 years. Dre should be asking why T-62s couldn't defeat good ol' M4 Shermans.

My bad...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Campaign#Parrot.27s_Beak_and_Fishhook

Edited June 28, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[dre]

fassion?

Anyhow, you've failed to explain why Arabs should get a do-over for their wars of aggression while the Germans can't...you laughed at the idea. Nor have you explained why South Viet-Nam, attacked and destroyed by North Viet-Nam (1975...not 1967) goes unprotested by the likes of you.

I dont think they should get a do-over. The reality is that for the most part they live on land that belongs to no state. Even Israel does not claim ownership of the vast majority of it. Theres virtually no dispute that the vast majority of this territory is not Israeli. Not from any country on earth, not even Israel.

So you have millions of people living in an area that is claimed by no nation and that no nation has legal claims to. What sense is there in keeping these people perpetually stateless, with nothing to lose? Seems to make a lot more sense to me to help them build a strong government capable of taking on extremist elements. And if this hypothetical palestinian state decides to attack then its a lot easier to deal with a wimpy broke-ass nation than it is to fight a neverending battle against assymetric opponents in a semi-governed wasteland.

The current situation is a perfect breading ground for exactly what Israel claims to be fighting. A Palestinian state would be dirt poor and need mountains of foreign aid. So you could bribe them into being nice to Israel, and cracking down on militants, in the exact same way the US bribed Egypt.

Make them a nation state, with a western backed and funded puppet government!

Nor have you explained why South Viet-Nam, attacked and destroyed by North Viet-Nam (1975...not 1967).

Hold on. Didnt people try to stop that and fail? Its not that they were held to a different standard. A bunch of countires TRIED to hold them to that standard but failed.

goes unprotested by the likes of you

Protested? Iv never been to a protest and I dont think Iv ever started a single thread about Israel or the Palestinians. I think the militants on both sides deserve each other and are fit for each other, but I have some sympathy for the bystanders, both arabs and jews that have been the real victims of this conflict. Most of my posts are actually pretty favorable to Israel, just not favorable to hardcore militants like you and Bob. I think Israel is doing pretty much the same thing any other nation would do in its position. Expecting Israel to abandon the occupied territories means youre expecting a nation in a region where water is scarce to give up more than 1/2 their water supply at a time when the water table is receding. The only way any nation would ever do that is if they were forced to, and its pretty clear that nobody is going to do that in this case. The international community has pissed and moaned but never been willing to voice more than token critisism. We still trade with them, etc.

In terms of its pursuit of Israeli interests they have actually done a pretty good job. Theyve managed the international community fairly well... making concessions at the right times... not going so far and being so ambitious that it would force its benefactors to turn against it. Its been able to use the stupid actions of pathetically weak and unthreatening opponents as a pretense to double the ammount of territory and resources under its control, and its done a good job at framing a bunch of utterly pathetic, low-tech, dim-witted militants as being an existencial threat even though it's a regional nuclear and military super-power that won a war against all its neighbors in less than a week.

Its a pretty solid performance all things considered. Israel has a very good understanding of the geo-political environment.

[bloodyminded]

I am criticizing the left for unjustifiably characterizing Israel as an overly aggressive human rights abusing rogue state that suppresses the noble and helpless Palestinians. The left is now, and has been for many decades, the champion of dishonest argumentation attacking Israel in in this conflict. Moreover, Israel is often deferential to the forces of the left, both internally and externally, when making vital decisions regarding defending ourselves from attacks, both political and terrorist. I blame the left, primarily, for the failure of Israel to make greater progress towards ensuring our security (there will never be a peaceful solution, so long as the Arabs and Muslims cling to their narrative). Israel would be a much more secure and prosperous nation if it weren't for deference to the insanity of the left, that tries to tar us with all the vicious rhetoric - Apartheid, rogue state, racist, discriminatory, colonialist, imperialist, and everything in between. If Israel stopped worrying about appeasing the rats from the left who want to see the destruction of Jewish independence and self-determination, we'd be much better off.

So...the Left is responsible for what the Left does; and it's also reponsible for what the Right does.

That's a mighty convenient stance, and has become quite normnal for that hectoring sector of conservatism that is so obssessed with the Left (or their skewed, oversimplistic view of it) that it has made them pig-headed on all matters Left.

As far as Hitchens goes, much of what he's said about Zionism is misrepresented in Wikipedia, and he's dead wrong about some of these issues, anyways.

I have never looked at his wikipedia page, and don't care about it. I get the words straight from his own mouth.

There are plenty of examples--I've seen several over the years without making a conscious effort to search them out, so presumably there are many more.

He is vehemently anti-religious, so he reflexively has a bone to pick with Israel as it defines itself as "the Jewish state".

Yes, but it's not only that. He very clearly and distinctly talks about what he sees as monstrous and untenable treatment of the Palestinians by Israel. That's plainly his primary issue with the matter, and always has been.

Still, he's not comparable in any way to the dishonesty that comes from Chomsky.

If you're talking about what the two men say of Israel....Hitchens' view is identical. Try to parse out the difference, if you can, in the clip I offer below.

If you're talking about in general, that's false by Hitchens' very own formulation: in an article in Slate ("The Flawed Case Against Regime Change"), he begins by openly admiring and supporting the Bush administration lying the country into war; he agrees that they did, but contends they had no choice. (He doesn't allow the "no choice," get out of jail free card to America's enemies, I note well...only America is "forced" to act as it does.) This is the Straussian "Wise men," Philosopher Kings thesis, in which democratic forms are to be desired, but actual democratic principles of accountability and representation are ruinous, since all we stupid fools must be lied into war periodically. It's startling that a man like Hitchens would take this view (and no doubt his conservative allies were aghast at his cheerful admission). If he openly supports lies and disinformation, in direct contradiciton to the democratic principles which he elsewhere appears to espouse, then obviously, by definition, he is more dishonest than Chomsky. Whatever Chomsky's failings as a polemicist or thinker might be, and whatever sins he might commit while commenting on political matters, it is Hitchens who embraces and makes a fetish out of lies for political purposes.

At any rate, here is a clip of Hitchens on Zionism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQxhyy9Wpb4

(Just incidentally, on the question of dishonesty, Hitchens here says he tried to talk his mother out of Zionism; whereas elsewhere, he says he discovered she was Jewish after she was deceased. Barring some matter of conversion (a possibility, but never mentioned anywhere to my knowledge), Hitchens seems to be making this up. Who knows why.)

Edited June 28, 2011 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

So Bob is still calling for genocide in the occupied territories and eradicating the Palestinians.

Bob is just as bad as he claims Hamas and Palestinians to be. I'll bow back out of this thread and let you guys carry on.

[DogOnPorch]

I dont think they should get a do-over. The reality is that for the most part they live on land that belongs to no state. Even Israel does not claim ownership of the vast majority of it. Theres virtually no dispute that the vast majority of this territory is not Israeli. Not from any country on earth, not even Israel.

In 1988, Jordan said: these 'Palestinians' and the so-called (since 1967) West Bank are now Israel's problem...dropping all claims to the area.

So you have millions of people living in an area that is claimed by no nation and that no nation has legal claims to. What sense is there in keeping these people perpetually stateless, with nothing to lose? Seems to make a lot more sense to me to help them build a strong government capable of taking on extremist elements. And if this hypothetical palestinian state decides to attack then its a lot easier to deal with a wimpy broke-ass nation than it is to fight a neverending battle against assymetric opponents in a semi-governed wasteland.

What's a legal claim involving war? As BC-2004 often puts it: You have no particular rights to any land...just the right to defend it. If the opposite was true, there'd be flotillas to Saigo...errr...Ho Chi Mihn City. But even you seem resigned that North Viet-Nam won their war and that South Viet-Nam isn't coming back. The situation with Poland and Germany...similar deal to what happened in the Arab-Israeli Wars. Germany attacked and lost the war...and lost land in the process. The drill is well known to them. But...Arabs are somehow supposed to be different with UN242 et al which is only applied to Israel.

If Israel wanted to, there'd be no more problem. But, they're not going to do the genocide route unlike their opponents who can't wait for the slaughter of Jews to begin...again.

The current situation is a perfect breading ground for exactly what Israel claims to be fighting. A Palestinian state would be dirt poor and need mountains of foreign aid. So you could bribe them into being nice to Israel, and cracking down on militants, in the exact same way the US bribed Egypt.

Make them a nation state, with a western backed and funded puppet government!

Have another beer.

Hold on. Didnt people try to stop that and fail? Its not that they were held to a different standard. A bunch of countires TRIED to hold them to that standard but failed.

During the Viet-Nam war, useful idiots sided with the Communist North and managed to effect a withdrawal of US + Allies from the country, paving the way for the Red's victory and subsequent kill-spree all across Indochina. Mission accomplished: Death tole about 3 million, give or take. The fact that NVN was given a pass by these same idiots re: invading Laos and Cambodia isn't lost on me...you perhaps.

Protested? Iv never been to a protest and I dont think Iv ever started a single thread about Israel or the Palestinians. I think the militants on both sides deserve each other and are fit for each other, but I have some sympathy for the bystanders, both arabs and jews that have been the real victims of this conflict. Most of my posts are actually pretty favorable to Israel, just not favorable to hardcore militants like you and Bob. I think Israel is doing pretty much the same thing any other nation would do in its position. Expecting Israel to abandon the occupied territories means youre expecting a nation in a region where water is scarce to give up more than 1/2 their water supply at a time when the water table is receding. The only way any nation would ever do that is if they were forced to, and its pretty clear that nobody is going to do that in this case. The international community has pissed and moaned but never been willing to voice more than token critisism. We still trade with them, etc.

I'm a militant, eh? Give Hamas a big smooch for me.

In terms of its pursuit of Israeli interests they have actually done a pretty good job. Theyve managed the international community fairly well... making concessions at the right times... not going so far and being so ambitious that it would force its benefactors to turn against it. Its been able to use the stupid actions of pathetically weak and unthreatening opponents as a pretense to double the ammount of territory and resources under its control, and its done a good job at framing a bunch of utterly pathetic, low-tech, dim-witted militants as being an existencial threat even though it's a regional nuclear and military super-power that won a war against all its neighbors in less than a week.

Its a pretty solid performance all things considered. Israel has a very good understanding of the geo-political environment.

Now you're just making stuff up. But, then, I expect that from you and your relativist ilk. The Mufti never existed...Yasser Arafat wasn't Egyptian...Hamas/PLO/Hezbollah aren't really giving the Nazi salute.

Edited June 28, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Bob]

I dont think they should get a do-over. The reality is that for the most part they live on land that belongs to no state. Even Israel does not claim ownership of the vast majority of it. Theres virtually no dispute that the vast majority of this territory is not Israeli. Not from any country on earth, not even Israel.

So in one breath, they don't deserve a do-over, and in the next breath, they deserve independence? Which is it? Either they go back to the increased autonomy that they had between 1949 and 1967 (when we didn't hear a peep about Jordanian or Egyptian "occupation"), which they used for launching hostilities against Israel, or they remain under military rule. We're not going to gamble with our lives so that the "Palestinians" can try YET AGAIN to conduct themselves civilly. This isn't some theoretical social science project. They're under military rule because of their history of violence against us, and for no other reason. And they remain under military rule because of their ongoing violence against us, and for no other reason.

So you have millions of people living in an area that is claimed by no nation and that no nation has legal claims to. What sense is there in keeping these people perpetually stateless, with nothing to lose? Seems to make a lot more sense to me to help them build a strong government capable of taking on extremist elements. And if this hypothetical palestinian state decides to attack then its a lot easier to deal with a wimpy broke-ass nation than it is to fight a neverending battle against assymetric opponents in a semi-governed wasteland.

First of all, who cares if they're stateless? They have passports, they have civil and security administration over their major population centres, they've got Palestinian passports, they've got electricity, water, waste removal, hospitals, Swiss chocolate, movie theatres, universities, and everything else a society needs. The military administration of Judea and Samaria is a consequence of their commitment to violence, both historic and current. They have nobody to blame but themselves.

You've advanced the false argument about "Palestinian" independence being in Israel's best interests, before. As if somehow Israel will be "allowed" to act more decisively to crush terrorism in the event of a sovereign Palestinian state. You even go so far as to suggest that Israel (and the West, I presume?) should build up a "strong government capable of taking on extremist elements". There are some clear false suppositions here. First of all, you must assume that the Palestinians and their government WANT to stop terrorism. That doesn't exactly jive with their regular support of terrorism and incitement. Consider the Fogel murders in Itamar, after Abbas "condemned" the terrorism (in which he suggested that Israel does similar things when he condemned "both sides", as you regularly do), the PA official newspaper (all Palestinian media is state-controlled) spread lies about the Israeli police searching for some aggrieved "foreign thai worker", and suggested that the murders were committed by some foreign worker and being blamed on the Arabs for political purposes. This lie is still alive and well, despite the admission and NO REMORSE of the two convicted murderers. That's just a small example among many demonstrating that the Palestinians and their leadership have no intention of combating terror. Indeed, they support terror materially and politically.

Not that it's too relevant, but Israel and America have been training and arming Palestinian "security forces" since the Oslo Accords. Has that yielded tangible security benefits? Of course not, all improvement to the security situation are the product of Israeli security and intelligence.

So in summary, you're assuming the Palestinians and their leadership are sincere about tackling terrorism, when the reality is the opposite - they support materially and politically. You're also assuming Israel and America haven't taken concrete steps to strengthening the PA towards these false hopes. You're wrong about that, too.

Lastly, this assertion of yours that someone "Palestinian independece" will change that nature or logistics of this conflict is ridiculous. How exactly would the PA having independence change the security situation for Israel? Would having a seat at the UNGA suddenly stop the terrorists from embedding themselves within the civilian infrastructure? Are the terrorists suddenly going to start playing nice? Will the "international community" stop condemning Israel for defending itself? With you, reality is flipped up on its head.

Perhaps the security situation in Afghanistan would be improved if we armed the Taliban and gave them independence. And once they have independence, America will be allowed to use nuclear weapons when another 9/11 happens, right?

The current situation is a perfect breading ground for exactly what Israel claims to be fighting. A Palestinian state would be dirt poor and need mountains of foreign aid. So you could bribe them into being nice to Israel, and cracking down on militants, in the exact same way the US bribed Egypt.

The "breeding ground" is their own culture and historical narrative, as well as the ever-increasing incitement and indoctrination. Israel bears not one iota of responsibility for their commitment to violence/Jihad/terrorism. They are the ones teaching it to their children with Hamas versions of Mickey Mouse praising martyrdom. They are the ones spreading hatred of Jews and Israel on their television and radio shows. They are the ones who author the textbooks and compose curriculum at all levels of their educational system. They are the ones spreading their propaganda.

We've seen this commitment to Jihad from all levels of Muslim society, including all sorts of professionals from Canada (remember the Ottawa and Toronto arrests?), America (Nidal Hassan at Fort Hood and Faisal Shezad from Times Square come to mind), and across Europe. People like you try to blame others for the actions of the terrorists. We've seen this before, a million times over. As if somehow we are responsible for this mass murder, as if these terrorists have legitimate grievances and as if their sensibilities can or should be appeased by us. It's [/]our[/] fault they murder us. Nevermind the fact that they were murdering long before the Six-Day War. What was causing the terrorism during the Arab riots of the 1920s? Take your time, I'm sure you'll find a way to blame the Jews for those pogroms, as well.

I wonder, do you make such vile suggestions in the presence of the Israeli family you claim to have? What a shameful embarrassment you must be.

Lastly, the idea that we can bride the Arabs into behaving reveals your own contempt for the people you pretend to champion. Do you not get it, yet? The Arabs think this land belongs to them. No amount of money is going to make them give up their commitment. Did the endless suicide bombings and their proud proclamations of loving death as much as we love life not convince you of their commitment? The Arab nationalism isn't for sale. Many Arabs have refused Israeli citizenship and Israeli compensation for lands seized for security purposes. Their self-respect isn't for sale. They don't strap bombs to themselves (including young children and persons with mental disabilities) because they want a pay raise or a decrease in unemployment levels. You literally make shit up as you go along.

Hold on. Didnt people try to stop that and fail? Its not that they were held to a different standard. A bunch of countires TRIED to hold them to that standard but faProtested? Iv never been to a protest and I dont think Iv ever started a single thread about Israel or the Palestinians. I think the militants on both sides deserve each other and are fit for each other, but I have some sympathy for the bystanders, both arabs and jews that have been the real victims of this conflict. [/i]Most of my posts are actually pretty favorable to Israel, just not favorable to hardcore militants like you and Bob. I think Israel is doing pretty much the same thing any other nation would do in its position. Expecting Israel to abandon the occupied territories means youre expecting a nation in a region where water is scarce to give up more than 1/2 their water supply at a time when the water table is receding. The only way any nation would ever do that is if they were forced to, and its pretty clear that nobody is going to do that in this case. The international community has pissed and moaned but never been willing to voice more than token critisism. We still trade with them, etc.

Every post of yours on this issue is an attempt to demean Israel, or at best, to drag Israel into the same mud as the Arabs, with dishonest (or ignorant) parallels drawn between our society and theirs. As if somehow Israel doesn't retain the moral high ground in every single dimension.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

So...the Left is responsible for what the Left does; and it's also reponsible for what the Right does.

That's a mighty convenient stance, and has become quite normnal for that hectoring sector of conservatism that is so obssessed with the Left (or their skewed, oversimplistic view of it) that it has made them pig-headed on all matters Left.

I have never looked at his wikipedia page, and don't care about it. I get the words straight from his own mouth.

There are plenty of examples--I've seen several over the years without making a conscious effort to search them out, so presumably there are many more.

Yes, but it's not only that. He very clearly and distinctly talks about what he sees as monstrous and untenable treatment of the Palestinians by Israel. That's plainly his primary issue with the matter, and always has been.

If you're talking about what the two men say of Israel....Hitchens' view is identical. Try to parse out the difference, if you can, in the clip I offer below.

If you're talking about in general, that's false by Hitchens' very own formulation: in an article in Slate ("The Flawed Case Against Regime Change"), he begins by openly admiring and supporting the Bush administration lying the country into war; he agrees that they did, but contends they had no choice. (He doesn't allow the "no choice," get out of jail free card to America's enemies, I note well...only America is "forced" to act as it does.) This is the Straussian "Wise men," Philosopher Kings thesis, in which democratic forms are to be desired, but actual democratic principles of accountability and representation are ruinous, since all we stupid fools must be lied into war periodically. It's startling that a man like Hitchens would take this view (and no doubt his conservative allies were aghast at his cheerful admission). If he openly supports lies and disinformation, in direct contradiciton to the democratic principles which he elsewhere appears to espouse, then obviously, by definition, he is more dishonest than Chomsky. Whatever Chomsky's failings as a polemicist or thinker might be, and whatever sins he might commit while commenting on political matters, it is Hitchens who embraces and makes a fetish out of lies for political purposes.

At any rate, here is a clip of Hitchens on Zionism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQxhyy9Wpb4

(Just incidentally, on the question of dishonesty, Hitchens here says he tried to talk his mother out of Zionism; whereas elsewhere, he says he discovered she was Jewish after she was deceased. Barring some matter of conversion (a possibility, but never mentioned anywhere to my knowledge), Hitchens seems to be making this up. Who knows why.)

I saw that video before, and he's mischaracterizing Zionism. Either way, I don't want to get into a dialogue about Hitchens on Zionism. I mean really, what do I care what Hitchens said with Charlie Rose so many years ago?

Towards blame levied towards the left or the right, you're right - I forgot to mention this awhile ago. The right is responsible for what the right does, and the right is responsible, in my view, for accepting and deferring to the left on vital issues. Still, in the context of a democracy everyone has a vote, but I can still blame the left for seducing people with its idiocy and compelling them to vote in a self-destructive manner. That's happening in the USA, in Canada, and in Israel.

[bloodyminded]

I saw that video before, and he's mischaracterizing Zionism. Either way, I don't want to get into a dialogue about Hitchens on Zionism. I mean really, what do I care what Hitchens said with Charlie Rose so many years ago?

Well, I don't know; you get pretty exercised about anti-Zionism.

Until it's someone you admire for other reasons...at which point: "who cares"?

At any rate, I was only informing you that Hitchens is a "rat", by your own formulation. That's not my assessment, but yours.

Towards blame levied towards the left or the right, you're right - I forgot to mention this awhile ago. The right is responsible for what the right does, and the right is responsible, in my view, for accepting and deferring to the left on vital issues. Still, in the context of a democracy everyone has a vote, but I can still blame the left for seducing people with its idiocy and compelling them to vote in a self-destructive manner. That's happening in the USA, in Canada, and in Israel.

This would make some sense if before there was such thing as a "left," everything was trucking along nicely. Not the case, of course. The Left has been crucial to many of the improvements in society we now take for granted.

More to come, by the way.

Besides, in the broadest sense, the Left ain't so bad. At the least, I hope you can appreciate that it's strange for me to hear myself characterized in the way you do it. It feels quite divorced from my lived reality.

Edited June 28, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bud]

Well, I don't know; you get pretty exercised about anti-Zionism.

Until it's someone you admire for other reasons...at which point: "who cares"?

At any rate, I was only informing you that Hitchens is a "rat", by your own formulation. That's not my assessment, but yours.

hitchens is quite honest and candid. here he is a year ago talking about obama's policy towards israel:

Edited June 29, 2011 by bud

[DogOnPorch]

2nd Gaza flotilla ship sabotaged, organizers say.

Organizers of a flotilla of pro-Palestinian activists seeking to break the blockade of Gaza say Israel has sabotaged a second ship.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/06/30/gaza-flotilla-sabotage.html

These Israeli agents must be pretty slick. 9-11 planned demolition slick...lol.

[DogOnPorch]

From the first flotilla.

Edited June 30, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Bob]

From the first flotilla.

If the IDF had any sense it would give clear instructions to the angry mob on the deck of the ship to lay down on their stomachs and place their hands behind their backs before boarding the ship - and if they don't comply, open with live fire. They will comply with simple instructions quite quickly once they are being shot.

If the IDF sends soldiers, again, one-by-one, rappelling onto a deck filled with raging Islamist Jihad-seekers while armed with paintball guns, only to put the soldiers in a position where they are easily injured or murdered... well, I hope the Israel public calls for Ehud Barak's blood if he messes this up again. The Mavi Marmara fiasco was yet another example of Israel playing politics with the soldiers, giving them terrible operational instructions and RoE. Thank God no soldiers was murdered. Part of me almost feels that the defense establishment wanted to sacrifice a soldier on the altar of political optics - as if we need another dead Jew to hold up to the "international community" to prove that our description of this ISM Islamist group as violent agitators is accurate.

In my view, the fact that the soldiers were injured and almost murdered displays what a total failure that operation was.

[dre]

If the IDF had any sense it would give clear instructions to the angry mob on the deck of the ship to lay down on their stomachs and place their hands behind their backs before boarding the ship - and if they don't comply, open with live fire. They will comply with simple instructions quite quickly once they are being shot.

If the IDF sends soldiers, again, one-by-one, rappelling onto a deck filled with raging Islamist Jihad-seekers while armed with paintball guns, only to put the soldiers in a position where they are easily injured or murdered... well, I hope the Israel public calls for Ehud Barak's blood if he messes this up again. The Mavi Marmara fiasco was yet another example of Israel playing politics with the soldiers, giving them terrible operational instructions and RoE. Thank God no soldiers was murdered. Part of me almost feels that the defense establishment wanted to sacrifice a soldier on the altar of political optics - as if we need another dead Jew to hold up to the "international community" to prove that our description of this ISM Islamist group as violent agitators is accurate.

In my view, the fact that the soldiers were injured and almost murdered displays what a total failure that operation was.

It was a failure but not for the reason you think. Boarding the ship at all was stupid, and the incident forced Israel to relax the siege, and damaged its already atrocious image around the world.

Smart like dumptruck.

A zodiac full of somalian pirates could have done a better job.

[GostHacked]

If the IDF sends soldiers, again, one-by-one, rappelling onto a deck filled with raging Islamist Jihad-seekers while armed with paintball guns, ...

So the IDF set themselves up for failure by using paintball guns?? I am not buying the paintball gun thing at all.

[DogOnPorch]

So the IDF set themselves up for failure by using paintball guns?? I am not buying the paintball gun thing at all.

There's video that shows the painball guns. But...sure...believe what you want to. Meanwhile the video clearly shows 'activists' shooting 30lb slingshots into the helicopter's rotors...carrying chains...clubs, etc.

BTW: When/If the police pull you over, do you reach for your tire iron? Why not?

[jbg]

I dont think they should get a do-over. The reality is that for the most part they live on land that belongs to no state. Even Israel does not claim ownership of the vast majority of it. Theres virtually no dispute that the vast majority of this territory is not Israeli. Not from any country on earth, not even Israel.

If the Arab countries had accepted the 1947 proposed partition lines that would have been true. But they didn't. At that point all of the Palestine Mandate (except for the part previously hived off as "Transjordan" to appease these same people, to no good effect) was up for grabs. S

So any further negotiations amounts to getting a do-over or a mulligan.

[DogOnPorch]

If the Arab countries had accepted the 1947 proposed partition lines that would have been true. But they didn't. At that point all of the Palestine Mandate (except for the part previously hived off as "Transjordan" to appease these same people, to no good effect) was up for grabs. S

So any further negotiations amounts to getting a do-over or a mulligan.

Remember when dealing with dre he thinks the Arab-Israeli Wars were all about water.

[Bob]

There's video that shows the painball guns. But...sure...believe what you want to. Meanwhile the video clearly shows 'activists' shooting 30lb slingshots into the helicopter's rotors...carrying chains...clubs, etc.

BTW: When/If the police pull you over, do you reach for your tire iron? Why not?

I didn't want to be the one to say it, because I find GostHacked such a repulsive poster. Aside from the obvious use of paintball guns seen in the video DogOnPorch shared on this very page of this thread, several soldiers were stabbed and severely beaten. Anyone who uses the term "peace activists" to describe the mob on the Mavi Marmara is either lying or clueless.

But of course, GostHacked doesn't "buy it".

[DogOnPorch]

I didn't want to be the one to say it, because I find GostHacked such a repulsive poster. Aside from the obvious use of paintball guns seen in the video DogOnPorch shared on this very page of this thread, several soldiers were stabbed and severely beaten. Anyone who uses the term "peace activists" to describe the mob on the Mavi Marmara is either lying or clueless.

But of course, GostHacked doesn't "buy it".

As with dre...so with Gosthacked. The Mufti never existed...Yasser Arafat wasn't Egyptian...Hamas/PLO/Hezbollah aren't really giving the Nazi salute. Oh...and Israeli settlers should get the Hell out of Gaza...lol.

[Bob]

Remember when dealing with dre he thinks the Arab-Israeli Wars were all about water.

Although he's right that water security was an important issue contributing to the Six-Day War, he is ridiculously reductionist when describing the wars.

As if issues of independence, religion, territory, security, and historical tensions are irrelevant or even secondary concerns. And moreover, it's always Israel's fault. The "Palestinians" are always non-actors who are victimized by circumstances beyond their control.