IDF Flotilla Incident Official Thread (3 Viewers)

[speak]

once i saw one that said "jessica is a ho". 51% of australia totally knows it too.

 

[speak]

[youtube]wSYjuDEZw1w[/youtube]


"Now they are saying that they will launch a fleet against us. That they will send the commandos here. And we say, 'If you send the commandos, we will throw you down from here and you will be humiliated in front of the whole world'"

"Allahu akbar!!!"



dw just a peaceful humanitarian aid mission guyz~~~

 

[Levi Eshkol]

Re: Jesus fucking Christ - IDF massacres Turks on board humanitarian ship

There is an internationally recognised method of telling whether legitimate criticism of Israel has crossed over into anti-Semitic rhetoric, using the platform of anti-Zionism as a cloak for traditional anti-Semitism. It's called the 3 D's - Delegitimisation, Demonisation and finally, what we're dealing with here, Double Standards.

First of all, I've already covered how they were not aid workers - if you're going to ignore that and also ignore the mountains of evidence including clear video footage, then that's your own prerogative. Now you've got me wrong, I'm not trying to refocus anything - I'm happy to have a proper debate with you on Israel if you hold the same standards which you criticise Israel with for other countries. Israel is always condemned harshly for self-defense measures and social problems that are seen as acceptable or inevitable in other nations.

Shut the fuck up. Pull your head out of your arse you twat. "There is an internationally recognised method of telling whether legitimate criticism of Israel has crossed over into anti-Semitic rhetoric..." Piss off. Hey I'm all for getting rid of discrimination based on religion (including Judaism) but none of this, nor any opposition to Israel has a damn thing to do with anti-Semitism and if you're going to sit here and bark to me about how it is I refuse to deal with you any more.

As for dealing with other countries, fine, I'm happy to have that debate any day of the week. Chances are that I'll probably take the same line against murder, discrimination, segregation etc against those who engage in it like I do against Israel. But this thread isn't about what happens in Rwanda, it's about what happens in fucking Israel.

Do you mean to tell me that the media coverage Israel has received has not been indiscriminate and disproportionate? Front page of most if not all big newspapers around the world for days? Even with all the death and suffering in other parts of the world? Has the world completely forgotten about the African continent, does it even exist anymore?

Do you seriously think that the lack of attention on Africa has anything to do with Israel? Honestly? It has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with Africa itself. People don't care about Africa - sad but true. The reason why everyone focuses on Israel isn't because people hate Jews, it's because people don't care about Africans. It's the reason why a genocide in Sudan attracts no attention whereas a terrorist attack in NYC attracts the attention of a century. Again, stop playing the anti-Semitism card. It does more harm than good to your cause, and it does massive damage to Jews who have to deal with morons like yourself who dare to bring the Jewish faith into a very worthwhile and relevant debate against Israel.

And just as a side point, don't try to make the point that Israel gets the hard line on all this stuff whereas other countries don't. A very topical example: Northern Ireland. Nothing to do with Judaism and nothing to do with Israel, and yet a very similar story (independance, occupation, etc) - and you know what? It got a mountain of attention back when it was happening. Your theory that Israel gets a hard time because it's a Jewish state is rotten to the core.

I have nothing to refocus here. You pitter patter around the legalities of the operation, well it's legal by Israeli, US, UK and even Palestinian Authority maritime law.

Well, no it's not. Someone in this thread earlier linked to a wikipedia article on that matter and it showed that the legal opinion over this matter is divided. It showed that point remarkably well.

It's also been undeniably proven that it was the mercanary "activists" who attacked first.

And it's been undeniably proven that even if that was the case, that going and killing - murdering even - nine unarmed people is a dramatic, inexcusable and horrible act. And it's an act that Israel and the members of the IDF ought to be held responsible for. Again, if you want an example I point you into the direction of Northern Ireland and the report in the Bloody Sunday massacre that came out just last week.

We can argue all day about morals

Nice Jonathan, nice. Brush the key topic at hand under the carpet as if it doesn't matter.

but the reality is that if the Mavi Marmara had acted non-violently like all it's genuine aid ship counterparts, there would have been no deaths, no headlines and all the supplies would have been shipped to Gaza through Ashdod (as they were anywhere).

That's one way to put it. I could come up with a thousand others...

the reality is that if Israel wasn't there in the first place, then there would have been no deaths
the reality is that if Israel didn't have a blockade on Gaza that was collectively punishing millions (illegal by international law, i remind you), then there would have been no deaths
the reality is that if Israel had stopped occupying the Palestinian territories decades ago when it should have, then Hamas probably wouldn't have been elected, and there would have been no deaths.

The real reality is that if the IDF hadn't have been so trigger happy against the Turks on board, then noone would have been killed. The reality is that if the IDF had have resorted to less provocative means of capturing those vessels in international waters, then there'd have been no deaths. If Israel had have reacted to the situation with a fucking grain of restraint like every other developed and civilised country in the world, then there'd have been no deaths.

But this is not what the boats wanted, what they wanted was not the welfare of the Palestinians, but an Israel-bashing media storm,

That's right. But I sure as hell hope you're not bringing this up to try to justify Israel's actions, because we all know and agree on the fact that the penalty for criticising Israel is certainly not death.

and because everyone loves a scape-goat and everyone loves a Jew bashing session, that's what we've got.

You're an absolute disgrace to even insinuate that. You're offending me by insinuating that I'm an anti-Semite, and you're offending Jews around the world by associating legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. 40% of Jews live in Israel. I don't see widespread condemnation of the majority of them that live elsewhere, do you? You know, the Jews had the sympathy of the entire world after the Holocaust, and the creation of the Israeli state was permitted because of that sympathy. Israel might have assumed some land that certainly wasn't theirs when they declared Independance, and the partition plan was not at all fair to the Arabs, but they had the world on their side regardless, through the wars they fought, through Munich and through whatever else. How times have changed. The disgust at the Holocaust remains high, but sympathy for Israel and its conduct have shrunk to massive lows. I wonder why? Probably has a lot less to do with anti-Semitism, and a whole lot more to do with their indiscriminate punishment of unarmed civillians in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon; an apartheid wall, illegal settlements, blockades of impoverished states; and a general disdain for world opinion.

First of all, I'm only referring to Israeli-Arabs being treated equally, because they are citizens of Israel, and I have provided other examples of how Israeli-Arabs, like those in Ein Rafa (not even to mention Abu Gosh) are treated equally.

I won't argue with that point. I don't think they're treated with sympathy or even an equal eye by the Israeli public because I assume, that like in almost every Western country, suspicion of Muslims remains high (and probably rightly so). But I would probably concede that they're treated mostly equally by the Israeli government.

I do however dispute the way you ignore the Palestinians in the occupied territories (read: Palestine) in applying a definition of apartheid to Israel.

Those in the occupied territories, and I assume you are referring to Judea and Samaria, are Palestinian citizens, who do not wish to be citizens of Israel, under the autonomous government of the Palestinian authority. Now I'm the last person to argue that the PA is fully autonomous - indeed, the Israeli government is one of the only things holding it together.

Because it is a fucking corrupt peace of shit. The Palestinians have dug themselves a hole and given themselves only two choices - they are either under the incredibly corrupt and flawed Palestinian Authority (we're still waiting to find out where most of the $10 billion of American aid which went to the PA went, apart from the $100,000 a month which we know Arafat gave to his wife to go shopping in Paris) or the Islamic extremists Hamas. I mean first of all give us a fucking viable partner to peace, one which isn't corrupt or religiously fucked in the head

Firstly, don't even fucking attempt to blame the Palestinians for the ineptitude of the Palestinian Government. Second, Israel had a viable partner to peace in both Hamas and Fatah, amongst other organisations, at points in time but these willing partners to peace were crushed by Israel's inability to give them any wriggle room in negotiations (you give us 100 concessions, we'll give you none), and it was further compounded by Israel's rather nasty habit of bombing the fuck out of the Palestine while the Palestinian leaders were trying to acheive something - anything - in a peace deal. Go take a look at the number of Palestinians killed in any given year versus the amount of Israelis killed in any given year. ANY given year. Why on earth would the Palestinian people - or anyone for that matter - support a government when the peace process is clearly acheiving nothing in their eyes? Why should they support a government while at the same time, they are being massacred by their neighbour? These aren't rhetorical questions. The Palestinians haven't dug themselves into a hole, Israel has thrown them into a hole by sabotaging the peace process at any given point in time.

I'm reading a terribly upsetting book right now by (former) Israeli Tanya Reinhart ("The Roadmap to Nowhere: Israel/Palestine Since 2003", Verso Books, 2006). She writes,

"But this more or less exhausted Israel's 'goodwill' measures. For about six weeks, as the Palestinians fully kept to the Road Map's first phase, Israel did nothing to implement its side of the bargain...One might have expected that Israel would freeze military activity in these areas [Gaza] during the ceasefire. In fact, the Israeli army maintained - indeed increased - its level of operations in all Palestinian towns and villages; arrests, shootings, house demolitions, closures and blocking of exits continued as usual.

Although the ceasefire was proving increasingly one sided, the Palestinians continued to adhere to it (with one exception, on 7 July). Israeli society was relieved and hopeful...And indeed, after six weeks of fully observed Palestinian ceasefire, Israel resumed its policy of assassinations, mainly targeting leaders of Hamas."

The failings of the modern peace process have much, much more to do with Israel and much, much less to do with Palestine.

and then you can complain about how we haven't withdrawn back to the similar '67 borders (a move I, and most members of the IDF actually silently support).

That would be a start. But a peaceful resolution would probably require concessions by Israel not merely heading back to a border that was already advantageous for Israel. A mid point between the 1948-1967 borders would be a peaceful solution.

 

[JonathanM]

As for dealing with other countries, fine, I'm happy to have that debate any day of the week. Chances are that I'll probably take the same line against murder, discrimination, segregation etc against those who engage in it like I do against Israel. But this thread isn't about what happens in Rwanda, it's about what happens in fucking Israel.

Yeah, so where is the thread on Rwanda, on the countless other issues? The answer is that there aren't any, and that's my point - everyone is focused on Israel.

Do you seriously think that the lack of attention on Africa has anything to do with Israel? Honestly? It has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with Africa itself. People don't care about Africa - sad but true. The reason why everyone focuses on Israel isn't because people hate Jews, it's because people don't care about Africans. It's the reason why a genocide in Sudan attracts no attention whereas a terrorist attack in NYC attracts the attention of a century. Again, stop playing the anti-Semitism card. It does more harm than good to your cause, and it does massive damage to Jews who have to deal with morons like yourself who dare to bring the Jewish faith into a very worthwhile and relevant debate against Israel.

Do you honestly ever read what it is you're writing?

Yeah, 9/11 attracted huge attention - it was a terrorist attack which knocked down two of the biggest buildings in the world, killed 3000+ people and was responsible for countless other deaths from the Afghanistan war it triggered.

"People don't care about those in Africa, they care about those in Israel" - those people who just so happen to be Jewish. Look at what you've written here, you've just admitted that there is a huge double standard, that people are caring more about the lives of those living in Israel then those in Africa. You admit that it is sad, but you also admit that it is true. So there exists a double standard, which you've been arguing against, and I am standing against this double standard. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's not anti-Semitism, maybe it's just plain old racism, of people not caring about blacks, or of people not caring about those who are poor?

I can't stand those who partake in the Gaza campaign and who have no connection with the actual conflict (i.e. they're not Israeli or Palestinian, the vast majority of those connected with the campaign) who feign horror at the "human deaths" but don't give a flying fuck about anyone else. Or even those Muslims who are concerned for their "brothers and sisters" in Palestine (I hear that rhetoric a lot) but don't give a shit about their brothers and sisters in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. I think they just partake in the chorus against Israel as a pastime, to vent their frustration and anger.

And just as a side point, don't try to make the point that Israel gets the hard line on all this stuff whereas other countries don't. A very topical example: Northern Ireland. Nothing to do with Judaism and nothing to do with Israel, and yet a very similar story (independance, occupation, etc) - and you know what? It got a mountain of attention back when it was happening. Your theory that Israel gets a hard time because it's a Jewish state is rotten to the core.

You just compared Northern Ireland with the Middle-East conflict - apart from the broad umbrella topics you've provided and a few others, they have nothing in common. 'Nuf said. And you're talking merely about attention? Well I'm talking about more than that - was there ever a host of nations calling for the destruction of Northern Ireland? For it to no longer exist?

Nor was there discrimination coming from the United Nations, which didn't give a shit about Northern Ireland. Every year there is an average of 18 resolutions against Israel - as well as it being barred from committees and having, in one particular motion, suicide bombing justified as a means of Palestinian resistance. For instance, while the UN has focused on issues related to 6 million
Israelis and less than 3 million Palestinians, it has ignored millions of deaths and human rights abuses in recent conflicts around the world. The UN has passed hundreds of resolutions condemning Israel but has paid little attention to the millions of deaths, forced displacements, and oppression of other peoples around the world.

1. Algeria: 70,000 killed
2. Bosnia: 200,000 killed
3. Burma: 500,000 displaced
4. Chechnya: 160,000 killed
5. Cambodia: 1.5-3 million killed
6. Congo: 3.1-4.7 million killed
7. Iraq (Under Saddam Hussein):
445,000 killed
138,000 displaced
8. Mozambique: 1.5 million killed
9. North Korea: 1.4-2.4 million killed
360,000 displaced
10. Rwanda: 1.2 million killed
11. Somalia: 1 million killed
12. Sudan (Darfur Confiict):
450,000 killed
2 million displaced
13. Syria: 10,000-30,000 killed

And there has been no condemnation for most of these countries from the UN, only for Israel. I call that discriminatory, even racist (anti-Semitic) attention. The UN also has over 28000 workers providing aid to 4.4 million Palestinian refugees, but under 7000 working to provide aid for 21 million of the other non-Palestinian global refugees.

Well, no it's not. Someone in this thread earlier linked to a wikipedia article on that matter and it showed that the legal opinion over this matter is divided. It showed that point remarkably well.

Legal opinion as opposed to the actual laws themselves.

Provide the article as well if you want to use it as an argument.

And it's been undeniably proven that even if that was the case, that going and killing - murdering even - nine unarmed people is a dramatic, inexcusable and horrible act.

Are you fucked in the head? You've seen the videos. The activists on the deck of the boat, including those who were killed were clearly all armed, it's right in front of your eyes and yet you still deny it - and your crowd calls us brain washed.

The real reality is that if the IDF hadn't have been so trigger happy against the Turks on board, then noone would have been killed. The reality is that if the IDF had have resorted to less provocative means of capturing those vessels in international waters, then there'd have been no deaths. If Israel had have reacted to the situation with a fucking grain of restraint like every other developed and civilised country in the world, then there'd have been no deaths.

No, the reality is that if the Palestinian cause hadn't become one of the banners for Islamic terrorism which seeks to bring an end to our way of life, then 50 well trained mercenaries wouldn't have boarded one of the activists boats, then you wouldn't see the passengers of that boat being told prior to the boarding to kill the Israeli soldiers and throw them from the boat (the video is on you-tube) and you wouldn't see Iran and Syria trying to supply weapons to Hamas so there wouldn't be a blockade in the first place.

It's very simple, and I have facts to back me up - when there is less terrorism, more supplies go into Gaza. Stop terrorism, and the possibilities for peace are endless.

You're an absolute disgrace to even insinuate that. You're offending me by insinuating that I'm an anti-Semite, and you're offending Jews around the world by associating legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. 40% of Jews live in Israel. I don't see widespread condemnation of the majority of them that live elsewhere, do you? You know, the Jews had the sympathy of the entire world after the Holocaust, and the creation of the Israeli state was permitted because of that sympathy. Israel might have assumed some land that certainly wasn't theirs when they declared Independance, and the partition plan was not at all fair to the Arabs, but they had the world on their side regardless, through the wars they fought, through Munich and through whatever else. How times have changed. The disgust at the Holocaust remains high, but sympathy for Israel and its conduct have shrunk to massive lows. I wonder why? Probably has a lot less to do with anti-Semitism, and a whole lot more to do with their indiscriminate punishment of unarmed civillians in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon; an apartheid wall, illegal settlements, blockades of impoverished states; and a general disdain for world opinion.

/facepalm.

Ok, well first of all that is exactly what I'm insinuating, and you're fucking retarded if you think that Israel was allowed to be created because of the Holocaust. Sure, it sped up the process, but the mass migration of Jews to Palestine had already begun, as had the Jewish independence movement (Zionism was founded by Herzl way before the Holocaust).

And the partition plan was completely fair to the Arabs - it literally gave land, in a completely illogical manner to wherever the population centres were - where there was a clear Jewish majority, the Jews were given land, and vice versa). And of the land the Jews were given, 60% of it was not arable, just desert - this was not the same for the Arabs, yet the Jews still accepted it. Furthermore, it's not an apartheid wall, calling the security fence that is something which should be grievously offending to the black South Africans who genuinely did suffer under real Apartheid. South African apartheid policies were solely motivated by racism in an environment of peace and security whereas Israeli policies are motivated by the need to protect the lives of its citizens in an environment of constant siege and indiscriminate murder (when the Palestinians from the Territories launched a terrorist campaign of suicide bombing against Israeli civilians in September 2000, Israel had to protect its citizens. Checkpoints, bypass roads, and the security barrier were all temporary measures to stem terrorists’ access to Israeli civilian centers. They were designed to separate terrorists from their Israeli victims.)

Firstly, don't even fucking attempt to blame the Palestinians for the ineptitude of the Palestinian Government.

Wait, so it's somehow Israel's fault that the leader of the PA, Yasser Arafat, corruptly handled the gratuitous amount of aid given to the Palestinian Authority by the US and other organisations?

Second, Israel had a viable partner to peace in both Hamas and Fatah, amongst other organisations, at points in time but these willing partners to peace were crushed by Israel's inability to give them any wriggle room in negotiations (you give us 100 concessions, we'll give you none), and it was further compounded by Israel's rather nasty habit of bombing the fuck out of the Palestine while the Palestinian leaders were trying to acheive something - anything - in a peace deal.

Both Hamas and Fatah were built upon foundations of not recognising the state of Israel and of aspiring to its destruction, how are they viable peace partners? The following quotes are in Hamas's founding charter:

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will
obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it”

"Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious.
It needs all sincere efforts."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished
Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose
way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah
over every inch of Palestine"

Really viable.

Go take a look at the number of Palestinians killed in any given year versus the amount of Israelis killed in any given year. ANY given year.

No shit sherlock, it's a world class, state of the art army versus poorly armed terrorist organisations, using human shield tacticts.

I'm reading a terribly upsetting book right now by (former) Israeli Tanya Reinhart ("The Roadmap to Nowhere: Israel/Palestine Since 2003", Verso Books, 2006). She writes,

"But this more or less exhausted Israel's 'goodwill' measures. For about six weeks, as the Palestinians fully kept to the Road Map's first phase, Israel did nothing to implement its side of the bargain...One might have expected that Israel would freeze military activity in these areas [Gaza] during the ceasefire. In fact, the Israeli army maintained - indeed increased - its level of operations in all Palestinian towns and villages; arrests, shootings, house demolitions, closures and blocking of exits continued as usual.

Although the ceasefire was proving increasingly one sided, the Palestinians continued to adhere to it (with one exception, on 7 July). Israeli society was relieved and hopeful...And indeed, after six weeks of fully observed Palestinian ceasefire, Israel resumed its policy of assassinations, mainly targeting leaders of Hamas."

The failings of the modern peace process have much, much more to do with Israel and much, much less to do with Palestine.

Ha, I read that crazy bitches book, "How To End The War of 1948" - I've never seen a more irrational piece of nonsense. And you've also just written a blatant falsity. First of all, Israel did keep its end of the bargain (provide citation for your argument) including releasing 100 prisoners as a sign of good will.

With one exception on the 7th of July? Bullshit.

On June 5, the bodies of two Israelis were found, beaten and stabbed to death.

On June 8, Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi directed an attack that killed four Israeli soldiers in the Gaza Strip.

On June 11, a suicide bomber killed 17 innocent passengers and bystanders on an Israeli bus.

One exception my arse. And I believe Israel's right to protect the lives its citizens justifies its own actions in violating the road map. Again, here is another double standard. Any other country would be justified in protecting its citizens, but not Israel. America is allowed to start 2 wars and run similar operations in countries thousands of miles away with minimal criticism, but Israel can't even in its own territories.

And don't let me hear any nonsense about the Israelis willingness for peace - it's there, and the Palestinians have repeatedly dismissed genuine Israeli offers for peace. Before the Road Map, at Camp David, Ehud Barak offered Arafat all of the Gaza Strip, 98% of the West Bank (forget 90-94%, which Tanya Reinhart supports), which he and the King Hussein turned down.

That would be a start. But a peaceful resolution would probably require concessions by Israel not merely heading back to a border that was already advantageous for Israel. A mid point between the 1948-1967 borders would be a peaceful solution.

How was it advantageous for Israel? I've already said that 60% of it was not arable (much of it is now, thanks to Israel's environmental endeavors, it was actually one of only two countries in the world which is planting more trees than it is losing). The land it was given was also incredibly strategically weak from a military point of view. Also, the supporters of the Palestinians always chant the mantra "pre-1967 borders," but you never actually realise that this would include having to give the strategically important Golan Heights back to Syria (you never hear anything about their human rights abuses, do you?)

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Nor was there discrimination coming from the United Nations, which didn't give a shit about Northern Ireland. Every year there is an average of 18 resolutions against Israel - as well as it being barred from committees and having, in one particular motion, suicide bombing justified as a means of Palestinian resistance. For instance, while the UN has focused on issues related to 6 million
Israelis and less than 3 million Palestinians, it has ignored millions of deaths and human rights abuses in recent conflicts around the world. The UN has passed hundreds of resolutions condemning Israel but has paid little attention to the millions of deaths, forced displacements, and oppression of other peoples around the world.

1. Algeria: 70,000 killed
2. Bosnia: 200,000 killed
3. Burma: 500,000 displaced
4. Chechnya: 160,000 killed
5. Cambodia: 1.5-3 million killed
6. Congo: 3.1-4.7 million killed
7. Iraq (Under Saddam Hussein):
445,000 killed
138,000 displaced
8. Mozambique: 1.5 million killed
9. North Korea: 1.4-2.4 million killed
360,000 displaced
10. Rwanda: 1.2 million killed
11. Somalia: 1 million killed
12. Sudan (Darfur Confiict):
450,000 killed
2 million displaced
13. Syria: 10,000-30,000 killed

And there has been no condemnation for most of these countries from the UN, only for Israel. I call that discriminatory, even racist (anti-Semitic) attention. The UN also has over 28000 workers providing aid to 4.4 million Palestinian refugees, but under 7000 working to provide aid for 21 million of the other non-Palestinian global refugees.

ITT: Proponent of mass murder, illegal occupation and an open air jail tries to divert attention from Israel's horrendous crimes, then claims anti-Semitism. Nothing to see here guys.

 

[JonathanM]

Israel has pretty much ended the blockade of Gaza.

Ball is in Hamas's court. Watch them throw it away.

Civilian goods expected to flow into Gaza

 

[Levi Eshkol]

Jonathan, I can only assume that the points of mine which you don't refer to are those that you agree with, or those that are irrelevant (or ones that were admittedly, a lot of bad language). I assume that your ignoring of my point about the Israel/Arab dilemma being a primarily moral one is something that you agree with, and hence you didn't see fit to devote any more time to it. I assume that your ignoring of the charge that your accusations of anti-Semitism doing more harm than good is something you cannot defend, hence you do not.

Yeah, so where is the thread on Rwanda, on the countless other issues? The answer is that there aren't any, and that's my point - everyone is focused on Israel.

And for good reason: Because Israel deserves to have attention put on it. Attention at the expense of other problems in other countries? Possibly not in all cases. In the case of the flotilla, absolutely. Nations don't go around killing unarmed, or at the least, barely armed, aid activists every day. It is an action that is, in the scope of Western society, fairly unique to Israel. Sadly, it's not an action new to Israel either (Rachel Corrie et al). The attention given to Israel in wake of this event is justified.

However, no matter how much attention is given to Israel does not change the fact that we (I, you, BoS) ought to hold Israel accountable for its actions, regardless of the attention paid to it by the media. If somebody does wrong, they ought to be investigated and challenged. If somebody kills a man, they ought to be charged with murder even if there are others getting away with it for whatever reason. Similarly, while genocide occuring in Sudan is tragic, it does not change the fact that Israel has killed nine people unnessecarily, with questionable legal right and very questionable moral right.

The wrong here is not our attention on Israel, for our attention on Israel is justified. What is wrong, is our lack of attention on other issues. This is the key issue. And once more, if you want to make a thread on Rwanda I'll be happy to participate.

"People don't care about those in Africa, they care about those in Israel" - those people who just so happen to be Jewish. Look at what you've written here, you've just admitted that there is a huge double standard, that people are caring more about the lives of those living in Israel then those in Africa. You admit that it is sad, but you also admit that it is true. So there exists a double standard, which you've been arguing against, and I am standing against this double standard. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's not anti-Semitism, maybe it's just plain old racism, of people not caring about blacks, or of people not caring about those who are poor?

Firstly, my point has always been that regardless of double standards, we ought to still pile attention on those that do wrong. You cannot excuse Israel's actions based on evil elsewhere. This has been my point, and it has been constant. Other than that, I conceded above that a double standard might exist, but I absolutely emphasise that this double standard is biased against the Africans and so on, and not against Israel. As far as I and other humanitarians are concerned, Israel is treated fairly. It is an aggressor, it has a history of this, it is justifiably watched closely. The tragedy is not the attention lumped on Israel, it is the lack of attention focused elsewhere. I cannot make that more clear to you now, and it's the point I've been arguing from the get go.

And I think the boldface part is probably the best explanation.

I can't stand those who partake in the Gaza campaign and who have no connection with the actual conflict (i.e. they're not Israeli or Palestinian, the vast majority of those connected with the campaign) who feign horror at the "human deaths" but don't give a flying fuck about anyone else. Or even those Muslims who are concerned for their "brothers and sisters" in Palestine (I hear that rhetoric a lot) but don't give a shit about their brothers and sisters in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. I think they just partake in the chorus against Israel as a pastime, to vent their frustration and anger.

I think that attention given to these events by outside actors is a great thing. Independant arbitration is probably what's going to solve this conflict at some point down the road (so long as it is done fairly, unlike in 1947), because one thing is for sure now, and it is that neither side is capable of settling the Israel/Arab dilemma.

You're right in that there are too many extremists on both sides. You, for one.

You just compared Northern Ireland with the Middle-East conflict - apart from the broad umbrella topics you've provided and a few others, they have nothing in common. 'Nuf said. And you're talking merely about attention?

Yes. Do you agree with this point? Have you any counter evidence to the wall of attention given to the conflict in Northern Ireland as it relates to the attention given to Israel. I provided you with a clear cut instance of a non-Jewish, land related conflict being given massive amounts of media and pop culture attention as a counter point to your insistence that people only care about Israel because they're anti-Semites.

What's your take on that?

Well I'm talking about more than that - was there ever a host of nations calling for the destruction of Northern Ireland? For it to no longer exist?

No. Why should there be? Israel was founded upon questionable morals, by taking land that wasn't theirs. Northern Ireland was not. Nobody focuses on the termination of Northern Ireland because it is not relevant.

Nor was there discrimination coming from the United Nations, which didn't give a shit about Northern Ireland.

Plain untrue.

Every year there is an average of 18 resolutions against Israel

With good reason. Israel acts as a rogue state with a law for me and a law for thee. It has absolute disregard for human life amongst its neighbours. It conducts unneccesary and violent operations with bare justification. It obfuscates the truth. It engages in apartheid, it participates in collective punishment. I listed five instances of why Israel ought to have resolutions leveled against it. Each of those would have a number of specific examples. I think eighteen resolutions is actually a bit low, as far as Israel goes.

as well as it being barred from committees and having, in one particular motion, suicide bombing justified as a means of Palestinian resistance.

I had a big long reply to this section typed out, but I'm not going to include it for a few reasons. A summary is this: Terrorism sucks. Suicide bombing is terrorism when it relates to an ideology. When suicide bombings are carried out not for the purposes of ideology, but for a struggle against an occupying army (the struggle of the Palestinians against Israel, the occupier, is legal), the illegality of a suicide bombing becomes questionable. Obviously, a cafe filled with civillians is not an occupying army. This would be termed terrorism and this would be morally and legally impermissible.

But suppose a suicide bomber approached a military checkpoint - filled only with IDF members. Does this then become an acceptable form of armed struggle against an occupying force?

1. Algeria: 70,000 killed
2. Bosnia: 200,000 killed
3. Burma: 500,000 displaced
4. Chechnya: 160,000 killed
5. Cambodia: 1.5-3 million killed
6. Congo: 3.1-4.7 million killed
7. Iraq (Under Saddam Hussein):
445,000 killed
138,000 displaced
8. Mozambique: 1.5 million killed
9. North Korea: 1.4-2.4 million killed
360,000 displaced
10. Rwanda: 1.2 million killed
11. Somalia: 1 million killed
12. Sudan (Darfur Confiict):
450,000 killed
2 million displaced
13. Syria: 10,000-30,000 killed

Sources for each please.
As it relates to the UN's approach to the former Yugoslavia - NATO/SFOR : UN Resolutions
As it relates to Myanmar - SECURITY COUNCIL DEPLORES VIOLENCE USED AGAINST MYANMAR DEMONSTRATORS, STRESSES IMPORTANCE OF EARLY RELEASE FOR ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS
As it relates to Chechnya - International response to the Second Chechen War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Need I go on? I found something for three of the first four - only for Algeria could I not find information. I could keep going for the rest of them but I think my point has been made. Just to be clear; your point:

"And there has been no condemnation for most of these countries from the UN, only for Israel."

My point: There obviously has.

Legal opinion as opposed to the actual laws themselves.

Provide the article as well if you want to use it as an argument.

It is within the thread. It is on the Flotilla article. I'm not going to get it for you, you're capable of doing it yourself. The application of law relating to the flotilla is difficult and questionable. It is not, as you say, "legal by US, UK, UN law." It is questionably legal, and somewhat illegal. And it's certainly immoral - even moreso when framed against the wider context of Israel's behaviour.

Are you fucked in the head? You've seen the videos. The activists on the deck of the boat, including those who were killed were clearly all armed, it's right in front of your eyes and yet you still deny it - and your crowd calls us brain washed.

Armed with steel pipes as opposed to IDF commandos - amongst the most well trained in the world - armed with pistols and so on? That's like saying a bee has a chance against my shoe because it has a stinger.

But even if they were armed, you cannot refocus my attention on the specifics as your side so desperately wants. These people are dead. They ought to not be dead. The IDF has every means available to it to respond to these type of situations without lethal force. They chose not to go down that route, and they ought to be held accountable to their use of disproportionate force against aid workers and activists.

No, the reality is that if the Palestinian cause hadn't become one of the banners for Islamic terrorism which seeks to bring an end to our way of life, then 50 well trained mercenaries wouldn't have boarded one of the activists boats, then you wouldn't see the passengers of that boat being told prior to the boarding to kill the Israeli soldiers and throw them from the boat (the video is on you-tube) and you wouldn't see Iran and Syria trying to supply weapons to Hamas so there wouldn't be a blockade in the first place.

No, the reality is that if the IDF hadn't have been so trigger happy against the Turks on board, then noone would have been killed. The reality is that if the IDF had have resorted to less provocative means of capturing those vessels in international waters, then there'd have been no deaths. If Israel had have reacted to the situation with a fucking grain of restraint like every other developed and civilised country in the world, then there'd have been no deaths.

See how I managed to form a pragmatic response to this situation without acting like a general dipshit, yabbering on about Islamic terrorism and such? Give it a try champ.

It's very simple, and I have facts to back me up - when there is less terrorism, more supplies go into Gaza. Stop terrorism, and the possibilities for peace are endless.

I'd like to see those facts. But hey, you're right! Stop terrorism and the peace process would ordinarily get better. Not really the case with Israel though, is it? Hamas extends a ceasefire, Israel responds with aggression, the building of an illegal wall, the the expansion of illegal settlements. And somehow the blame comes back to Hamas. Go Israel! Peace yay!

The Israeli government and the IDF have no interest in peace. This is a shame, because most Israeli citizens do want peace.

Ok, well first of all that is exactly what I'm insinuating,

Right, well, that proves my general thesis that you're a lunatic.

and you're fucking retarded if you think that Israel was allowed to be created because of the Holocaust. Sure, it sped up the process,

Right, small difference.

Ok, well first of all that is exactly what I'm insinuating, and you're fucking retarded if you think that Israel was allowed to be created because of the Holocaust. Sure, it sped up the process, but the mass migration of Jews to Palestine had already begun, as had the Jewish independence movement (Zionism was founded by Herzl way before the Holocaust).

The difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is small. My point here was not all that important, but to restate, it was that the holocaust was a factor in the creation of the State of Israel, with UN backing.

And the partition plan was completely fair to the Arabs - it literally gave land, in a completely illogical manner to wherever the population centres were - where there was a clear Jewish majority, the Jews were given land, and vice versa). And of the land the Jews were given, 60% of it was not arable, just desert - this was not the same for the Arabs, yet the Jews still accepted it.

1. It makes no sense to me, nor anyone else with an iota of neutrality in this issue (as opposed to being Israeli, Arab, or a lunatic like yourself) as to how it was fair for the Arabs to suffer a net loss of land. This is what occured. Land was taken from the Arabs, and given to the Jews, so that they could start a viable nationstate. The image is well known.

See how those specks of white became large masses in 1947?

2. If any method of land division is fair, it is based upon populations. What else would you base it on? Religious assumptions? Division of resources? Lines of longitude?

3. The Jews had no right to arable land that they did not own. Let me make a point clear to you: The Jews were entitled to the land that they owned, purchased through legitimate means. They had no right to land that they did not own (though they were given that land anyway). Under what assumptions are you pretending that they did? Of course they accepted the plan, because they had won a great deal of land that otherwise did not belong to them.

I'm willing to accept that the image I provided above is not 100% accurate, but you'll have a tough time proving that the image has a degree of error such that the Jews were somehow entitled to land that was not theirs for the taking.

Let's move foward 60 years or so and forget it though. The reality on the ground is that what's done is done, and there's no going back to pre-1947. A comprimise must be found.

Furthermore, it's not an apartheid wall,

It segregates groups, and it does so based on race.

Israeli policies are motivated by the need to protect the lives of its citizens in an environment of constant siege and indiscriminate murder (when the Palestinians from the Territories launched a terrorist campaign of suicide bombing against Israeli civilians in September 2000, Israel had to protect its citizens. Checkpoints, bypass roads, and the security barrier were all temporary measures to stem terrorists’ access to Israeli civilian centers. They were designed to separate terrorists from their Israeli victims.)

The fence was partially motivated by security - I'll agree to that. I'll also suggest that its purpose was not limited to this, in that its purpose was a land grab, and to assist in Sharon et al's greater purpose of segregating Israel from its unpleasant, unwanted neighbour. A neighbour that had every right to have land rights well beyond that fence. A neighbour whose tactics which provided half of the reason for the erection of that fence, were born as a result of Israel's policy towards them.

But hey, again, way to address the other points I made there. I'll just assume you agree with everything else I said.

Wait, so it's somehow Israel's fault that the leader of the PA, Yasser Arafat, corruptly handled the gratuitous amount of aid given to the Palestinian Authority by the US and other organisations?

Nice strawman bro! I'll say it again: The ineptitude of the Palestinian Authority is not the fault of the Palestinian people. Can I make that any clearer?

I want to make something else very clear to you: I am not stupid enough to be distracted from the key issues at hand. You, like a lot of pro-Israeli PR activists, attempt to distract from the issues at hand. Distract from the flotilla by talking about terrorism. Distract from a rephrensible comment about Palestinian people by talking about Arafat's shopping habits. It's not going to work here.

Both Hamas and Fatah were built upon foundations of not recognising the state of Israel and of aspiring to its destruction, how are they viable peace partners? The following quotes are in Hamas's founding charter:

And Israel was built upon land it didn't own.

WAKE THE FUCK UP AND DEAL WITH WHAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU

Hamas controls Gaza, and Fatah controls the West Bank. Deal with it you insipid moron. Stop throwing about blame and realise that Fatah and Hamas are there to stay, that they are the democratic representatives of the Palestinians and that they are willing to negotiate. I'm not making this up. I provided to you a book, written by an Israeli, chock full of examples of these two organisations being willing to negotiate. If the Israeli side actually makes a fucking concession for the first time in 60 years, there's a good fucking chance that the Palestinians will see this and make moves towards peace. Some absurd number like 70% of Europeans believe that Israel is the biggest barrier to peace in the Middle East. I believe this. Everyone believes this with the exception of the neocons, and Israel. Hamas sucks balls. Get over it, build towards peace, and they'll go away.

Absolute dickheads like yourself don't give a rats arse about peace. You, and people like you, are the reason why peace is not coming to Israel/Palestine. You're a pathetic, insipid, disgusting animal.

And don't let me hear any nonsense about the Israelis willingness for peace - it's there, and the Palestinians have repeatedly dismissed genuine Israeli offers for peace. Before the Road Map, at Camp David, Ehud Barak offered Arafat all of the Gaza Strip, 98% of the West Bank (forget 90-94%, which Tanya Reinhart supports), which he and the King Hussein turned down.

Concessions moron, concessions. The Palestinians have a right to something. Israel suffered a net gain since 1948. The Palestinians have suffered a net loss. If they get a good deal of land back, and have autonomy, there will be peace. 98% of the West Bank and no autonomy is not an acceptable deal. Those deals failed because they were shit deals offered by Israel, not because the Palestinians were pigheaded idiots.

How was it advantageous for Israel?

Net gain of land.

The land it was given was also incredibly strategically weak from a military point of view. Also, the supporters of the Palestinians always chant the mantra "pre-1967 borders," but you never actually realise that this would include having to give the strategically important Golan Heights back to Syria (you never hear anything about their human rights abuses, do you?)

The Golan Heights does belong to Syria, dipshit. Concessions. Israel has to make concessions. The Arabs have made a tonne since 1967 - about 100 times more dead Arabs than dead Israeli's, a massive loss of land, sanctions, road blocks, barriers - the list is endless. I'm not Arab, but here's a plan I think might just work.

-Total ceasefire on both sides
-An autonomous Palestinian State
-Golan Heights back to Syria
-Sheeba Farms to Lebanon
-100% of the West Bank to Palestine
-100% of Gaza to Palestine with a guaranteed communcation route between the two
-Jerusalem under UN control
-A portion of Israeli land given to Palestine, outside of the West Bank and Gaza.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

'You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Levi Eshkol again'.

 

[JonathanM]

I'm going on army training exercises today so I can't continue responding to this thread for the moment, I'm sure you appreciate how long it takes to respond to large posts, but happy to continue the debate when I get back. I'd particularly like to address a few big flaws in the post you've just made.

But just quickly - yes, sometimes it's when I agree with you, yes, as in with the Israeli-Arab example, but definetely not all the time - I'll respond to anything that I believe I can match with a legitimate response. Your tirade about me doing more harm than good was a pile of nonsense so did not deserve a legitimate response.

And as a matter of curiosity, when you ignore parts of my posts, would the same point you made apply there? Like where I proved Tanya Reinhart had lied in her book as to Palestinian violations of the roadmap, or my post about Israel virtually ending the land blockade?

 

[JaredR]

Israel has pretty much ended the blockade of Gaza.

Ball is in Hamas's court. Watch them throw it away.

Civilian goods expected to flow into Gaza

First they unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, now they unilaterally end the blockade. Where's Shalit, will the bombs stop? Negative.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Oh not this cunt.

 

[BeeemER]