Israel Flouts International Law Again and Murders Innocent People.

[jodevizes]

The Israeli armed forces have flouted international law by attacking civilian ships in international waters and killing civillians.
As usual they lied and said they were shot at first. Then they said they were attacked with sticks and knives. Well, pardon my ignorance, but if you are sailing in international waters, if you are attacked, you are justified in defending yourself. If this were off the Somalia coast, they would be called pirates.

They are slowly strangling the Gaza strip by denying it access to building materials so that the people can rebuild their houses and schools.

They are not joining talks to keep the Middle East nuclear free

What a shame George and Tony aren't still in power, they could have found another country to invade.

monkeytrousers that last post was nauseatingly idiotic, even by your standards.

Down the gutter again.

Isn't the blockade illegal anyway? So they 'ran' a 'blockade' that's not meant to be there.

Second zazi's comment above.

Again Israel does as it pleases regardless of human suffering. I really hope the Karma bus will come back at them tenfold.

"I am never convinced Song Biird that the Palestinians were there first; the fact that the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa are built on the site of the Temple suggests to me that actually the Jews were there first; in fact, weren't the Romans fighting the Jews in AD70 under Vespasian and then Titus? Seem to remember a bit in the Bible about Israel being Jewish as well."

Palestine was there before modern day Israel. No? It has been very much argued that the Jews today are not even the Jews of the Bible, however that is another argument for another day. My point stands however, that Israel as a state was just thrown on a place where people were already living. It's like carib Indians suddenly being given a huge part of Jamaica and telling the present day Jamaican's "we were here first" so you have to live on this tiny little section of the Island enclosed by a huge wall.

As to your Camp David comment, I've already discussed the supposed "offer" that was given to the Palestinians.

Agree songbiird. Plus: big difference between Jews and their Zionist State policies. I have no problems with the Jews, they are brothers of the Arabs...but I have a huge problem with the State of Israel as such and its 'mad dog' strategy.

'I've heard all the claims that it relates to heavier media coverage, which leads to the question of why Israel always gets such heavy media coverage, or because the EU gives money to Israel (they also give to the PA). Either way it does not explain why the response to anything involving Israel is always more heated than just a few bland comments of "poor them" or "how awful" or "Organisiers of demonstrations are meant to contact the authorities beforehand. They didn't".

Obviously there are political, economic and cultural reasons leading to stronger reactions to some events than others. Llike there are different reactions to the 'free riders' of nuclear power: Israel, Pakistan, India. And to NOrth Korea and Iranian nuclear capabilities. What I am 100 per cent sure is that if an attack from a Middle East country would have hit an Israeli (or Turkish) boat in the High Sea, with holocaust survivor, child and different European nationalities inside the response would have not been only 'verbal' or angry statements in media and forums. Not every country reacts using armed force. some believe these rules are there for the sake of peace and security... So they are left with words.

Songbiird - surely you do not dispute that the Camp David offer was a spectacular missed opportunity? Even the Palestinians do not dispute the published version of Clinton's bridging proposals suggesting that they were offered 97% of the West Bank, sovereignty of their air space, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, the replacement of the IDF by an International Force in the Jordan Valley and the incorporation into Palestine of Arab neighbourhoods in Jerusalem. The Saudi ambassador at the negotiations said it would be 'a crime' if the Palestinians did not accept what was on the table, and yet they allowed the deadline to lapse.

This is interesting reading on the whole Camp David offer. I've read opinions from both sides, this does seem to take a fairly balanced approach to the difficulties on both sides.

Sorry it's a long read, but then it's a complex problem.

If you like that link, here is some further reading from the same source, which covers the offer further.

I'd like to quote a small section from the beginning of the piece " Ehud Barak?s interview with Benny Morris makes it clear why that is the case: Barak?s assessment that the talks failed because Yasser Arafat cannot make peace with Israel and that his answer to Israel?s unprecedented offer was to resort to terrorist violence has become central to the argument that Israel is in a fight for its survival against those who deny its very right to exist. So much of what is said and done today derives from and is justified by that crude appraisal. First, Arafat and the rest of the Palestinian leaders must be supplanted before a meaningful peace process can resume, since they are the ones who rejected the offer. Second, the Palestinians? use of violence has nothing to do with ending the occupation since they walked away from the possibility of reaching that goal at the negotiating table not long ago. And, finally, Israel must crush the Palestinians??badly beat them? in the words of the current prime minister?if an agreement is ever to be reached.

The one-sided account that was set in motion in the wake of Camp David has had devastating effects?on Israeli public opinion as well as on US foreign policy. That was clear enough a year ago; it has become far clearer since. Rectifying it does not mean, to quote Barak, engaging in ?Palestinian propaganda.? Rather, it means taking a close look at what actually occurred."

I find it an interesting take. I often find it difficult to find views that aren't entrenched in one camp or another.

Earthworm I believe that Camp David was a missed opportunity, I am not however sure of the released details. There is a fair bit of evidence to suggest that the 97% of the West Bank was not as it seems. This is my post from Tue 01-Jun-10 17:48:16:

"The figure of 96 (not 73%) represented the percentage of the land over which Israel was prepared to negotiate ? not 96% of the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Left out of the equation was Arab east Jerusalem ? illegally annexed by Israel after the 1967 Arab-Israeli Six Day War ? the huge belt of Jewish settlements, including Male Adumim, around the city and a 10-mile wide military buffer zone around the Palestinian territories.

? the total Palestinian land from which Israel was prepared to withdraw came to only around 46%

There were other major problems with the land Israel were proposing but it's rather long and I have to go make dinner, but quickly, the West Bank would have been carved into three chunks, surrounded by Israeli troops and settlers, without direct access to its own international borders, while the only territory offered to the Palestinians consisted of stretches of desert adjacent to the Gaza Strip that Israel at the time used for toxic waste dumping."

See this link here which is quite reliable for unbiased info on the middle east.

I agree wubbly that it is hard to find accurate information from unbiased sources (one way or another). I'm in the middle of lunch at the moment so I'm going to come back later when I've had a chance to read your links properly.

Songbiird, I think my links are basically a longer version of yours!

Thank you for the links they do make for interesting reading, and I agree that it is difficult to find truly objective information.

For example, your links wubblybubbly are articles written by a man whose father was a close friend of Arafat. The think-tank he works for now is part-funded by a billionaire who was called anti-semitic by the Washington Post (or New York Times, sorry can't remember).

It doesn't give me much confidence in his impartiality and a quick google suggests that the co-author is similarly a former advisor to Arafat.

However, I admit that most of my knowledge comes from Dennis Ross' account of the negotiations and, although they appear to concur with Clinton's account, some have accused him of being biased (he is Jewish).

But then, the different interpretations of history are sadly central to this conflict.

Israeli democracy in action here. You've GOT to admire Ms. Zuabi's calm and focus in the face of such racist hatred. Look at that hand gesture . . .

Her claim that the IDF began firing live rounds onto the Mavi Marmara before the IDF dropped in from helicoptors heartbreakingly confirmed here.

The whole story starts to make more sense if it is actually possible that the passengers picked up anything at hand to defend themselves against the IDF soldiers.

Onto, or warning shots across the bows? She doesn't say that live rounds were fired directly at the ship, so the Guardian report hasn't confirmed that at all. Sounds of gunfire could equally be warning shots to stop so the Israelis could board. Standard.

I am unsure exactly what the people on the ship expected? They were sailing into a blockade, knowing they would be stopped, and chose not to? Once they had boarded the Israelis would not have stopped until the ship was pacified and all potential threats neutralised. Once that was done, then casualties could be dealt with. That's how military operations work.

Potential threats neutralised? Yes, well I suppose by now we ought to know just how some Israeli soliders choose neutralise opponents with sticks.

Scary, I wasn't there and am linking to the testimonies of people who were. I don't quite see how someone on the boat could get shot in the head before the IDF boarded if they were only firing shots across the bows. Are we reading the same reports?

wubblybubbly - 'Potential threats neutralised? Yes, well I suppose by now we ought to know just how some Israeli soliders choose neutralise opponents with sticks.'

I don't know if the Israelis fired first before the attacks we saw carried out on the soldiers as they boarded. As usual at the moment one side says something, the other something else - hopefully the truth will come out. But to say so lightly ' opponents with sticks' then I can't take your comments seriously. You saw that footage - it was extremely violent and looked possible life threatening. Your views and opinions are obviously extremely biased and not very helpful.

I can see how Zaz,ricochet.

Wubbly - the Israel military were doing what they have been trained to do; what our military is trained to do as well, as is the French, the Russian and the US military.

If you poke something fierce with a stick it will retaliate. The convoy strikes me as being the poking stick in this case. Needless and unnecessary provocation. Great PR for those on the ship, but was that the most efficient and quiet way of getting the aid there? I don't think so, and I assume that the aim wasn't getting aid in, but to score points.

Scanty, I've read endless accounts of the people on board these ships, not just the Mavi Mamara. I suppose they're all lying?

I can't imagine that you're denying that the Israeli army have a history of shooting and killing unarmed civillians and children throwing sticks and stones.

The truth will come out? Who's truth? The UN? The ICRC?, Amnesty International?

In the main, these organsiations tend to come to very different conclusions to the internal enquiries carried out by Israel.

These attacks occured in international waters, to citizens of numerous countries, yet Israel are refusing an international enquiry. I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.

Well it terrifes me that scaryteacher is on the armed forces threads and so must know way more about our military forces than me and says that the israelis 'were doing what they have been trained to do; what our military is trained to do as well'

The point of this flotilla wasnt to be a quiet way of getting aid there, the israelis refuse to allow many required aid items and do not allow the through the checkout points.

The blockade is ilegal and immoral, i don think that trying to highlight this and provide desperately needed items to people who are starving to death, dying due to lack of medical treatment, living in squallor can be seen as provocation. The ships were in INTERNATIONAL WATERS which confirms a suspicion i had begun to have that the israelis dont give a shit what the rest of the world thinks but will do whatever they want, be that murdering civilians or stealing body parts or any other unforgivable act.

Yes, those people in Iran. Who are now mostly all dead, raped and mutilated, Fonz. Cool, eh. It is sadly the commitment to political idealism (and perhaps identity) that is the main barrier to normally intellegent people discering the difference between real issues and personal ones. For many liberals, being anti-Israeli is an assertion of their liberalsim. I have learnt the opposite is actually true.

The holocaust happened. It happened becasue of antisemitisim. Neither of these assertions are "paranoia". Primo Levi said the best were exterminated in the camps. Those left might be the most belligerant, the most red in tooth and claw. If so, this is natural selection and what the Nazi's feared, which is why they were so determined to wipe out the lot of them. Genocode happens - has happened. It could happen again - to Israel. This is why the US and the UK, and most euro contries ultimatly protect Israel. For all their condenmations, they know Israel has no alternative. So the world hates the jews...sop whats knew. At least they know where we stand this time and are in a position to protect themselves. All I would ask others, who truly try to empathise, is what would you do? Forget the bigger picture - how do you protect your childs from the rockets every night?

If Israel falls it will be a new shoah.
But what the the US & the Uk government and the West (esp. germany, who have written into its constitution that they will decare war on those who attack Israel) know, is that Israel is the canary in the coal mine - if it falls, Europe will be the next front line. That's all I'll say. Be careful what you wish for. If it's freedom and democracy, you are backing the wrong side.

MT out.

'Stealing body parts' just like the doctors at Bristol did from children who had died there.

I think suicide bombing is an unforgivable act and that those who do it don't give a shit about what anyone else thinks; but I suppose that when a someone walks into a cafe or restaurant in a town in Israel and blows themselves and all those around them to perdition, that is the fault of the Israelis as well?

Littleducks, if you had bothered to copy and paste all of my sentence you would have noted that the most professional militaries in the world, ours included, are trained to land on ships from helicopters and neutralise potential threats. That's what we pay them for. The whole point of having a military is that you can use it. As I said in an earlier comment, if you poke something fierce with a stick, you'll get a response. The flotilla poked and got theirs.

From what you've said, the whole point of this flotilla was to be provocative. There are other ways of highlighting that some people consider the blockade to be illegal; this was one way to draw attention to the fact. It's a shame that those organising it didn't think through all the potential consequences of their actions...or perhaps they hoped for an outcome similar to this.

Actually what I admire in your link Zazizoma is that Zuabi is able to live freely in Israel as a Palestinian, representing the Arab Nationalist Party at the Israeli Knesset.

I might be wrong but I am unaware of any Jewish people living in Palestine who are able to represent their country's interests at the PLN.

I have no axe to grind and try to remain unbiased, but at the moment the reports of the activists are no less self serving than those of the Israelis. For example, in the report you link to I find it hard to believe that the boat is surrounded by the IDF who simply start shooting. No warning shots? No requests to stop? The other five boats were stopped peacefully.

Sorry, Israeli Jews living in Palestine.

Intersting article by Mark Steel from the Independent - just about sums it up I think
www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-of-course-they-were-asking-for-it-1 988684.html

For those of you suggesting that the flotilla activists were asking to be shot, would you say that the people protesting the Iranian election last year were asking to be shot?

Seriously, where is your common sense, decency and above all, compassion? Is the great Zionist ideal so blinding that it erases perception of all other human suffering?

People who have taken personal action to alleviate the suffering of the Gazan Palestinians are terrorists? Would you say that the people aiding Jews during WWII and who were killed by the Nazis because of their 'interference' deserving of their fates?

Of course the flotilla mission was intending to create publicity. It was a protest movement.

I think the activists deserve our admiration, respect and support. If people don't speak out against brutality against oppressed peoples, where does this leave our society?

Or perhaps you buy the Israeli propaganda that the Gazans are living it up, there is "no humanitarian crisis in Gaza", and that the activists were rabid anti-Semites who want the annihilation of the Jews. What is happening here?

Or perhaps it's worse than that and it's not possible for you to recognise anyone with an Arabic name or wearing a headscarf as having peaceful intent.