Ship trying to enter Palestinian waters boarded by the military. Civilians killed.

[Loz]

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Exodus

Exodus 1947 was a ship that carried Jewish emigrants, that left France on July 11, 1947, with the intent of taking its passengers to Mandate Palestine. Most of the emigrants were Holocaust survivor refugees, who had no legal immigration certificates to Palestine. Following wide media coverage, the British Royal Navy seized the ship, and deported all its passengers back to Europe.

[..]

The British Royal Navy cruiser Ajax and a convoy of destroyers trailed the ship from very early in its voyage, and finally boarded it some 20 nautical miles (40 km) from shore. The boarding was challenged by the passengers (the ship was in international waters where the Royal Navy had no jurisdiction), and so the British soldiers used force. Three shipmates, including 1st mate William Bernstein, a U.S. sailor from San Francisco, died as a result of bludgeoning and several dozen others were injured before the ship was taken over.

At the risk of stirring up a massive hornets nest, the similarity is uncanny, really. Israel really needs to start learning from the past.

[Spandex]

I thought this was good. Makes all the pertinent points and nicely skewers all the usual, craven apologetics.

http://www.tenpercent.org.uk/2010/05...ick-of-reading

[M H]

The Arab nations are often accused by israel of being anti semetic..

The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern Semitic-speaking peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites

How can a Semite be Anti-Semitic?

[Hectic Cum Balthazar]

Originally Posted by M H

The Arab nations are often accused by israel of being anti semetic..



How can a Semite be Anti-Semitic?

hey you know... racial definitions.. national borders.. definition of genocide... they're all up for 'debate'.

[V Knid esq]

Ships sail towards a blockaded coast - blockaded legally within international law, note - to deliver "aid" that they could perfectly easily deliver by land.

Why did they do that, do you thiink? Was their main purpose to deliver aid? Or was it to create confrontation?

People on board those ships are filmed and shown on Palestinian TV singing songs about killing Jews.

Woman on one of those ships gives interview for Palestinian TV where she says "there are two happy outcomes that could come from this: one is we land with the aid, the other is martyrdom". (There's video of all this online)

The ships are given multiple warnings that they are sailing an illegal course, both before they set out, and while they're sailing.

A helicopter of soldiers eventually boards one. One soldier is stabbed, one is beaten with an iron bar, one is shot and critically wounded, one is thrown over a 30-foot drop before they retaliate. (There's video of all this online too) THEN they draw their guns and it gets nasty.

Just imagine that situation in another country for a second. A ship is illegally sailing towards, say, the Russian coast and refuses repeated warnings to change course. It's boarded by armed coastguards, who are instantly attacked with extreme violence. I wonder what would happen then?

But yeah, it's a really cut and dried situation isn't it? There's only one bad guy here, isn't there?

[V Knid esq]

Originally Posted by Spandex

I thought this was good. Makes all the pertinent points and nicely skewers all the usual, craven apologetics.

http://www.tenpercent.org.uk/2010/05...ick-of-reading

contemporary frontlines of discourse

Get. To. Fuck.

It really is time to throw the whole fucking internet in the sea.

The first response to that grandstanding bullshit is good though.

This is not the article that will acknowledge Palestinian aggression against Israeli civilians, nor will it demand accountability from Hamas for their part in the brinkmanship faced today. This article will not call for compromises on both sides, on mutual prisoner swaps, or on ceasefires.

This is not the article that will help the public understand a complex issue dominated by recriminations by extremists peddling total innocence against total criminality. This is not the article that will deescalate high passions, roaring tempers, and the instinct for vengeance.

This *is* the article where the author validates their own echo chamber and seduces their own choir. This is also the article where rhetoric reigns and accuracy is sacrificed to idol of political manipulation. This is the article where nothing is said about mutual culpability and nuance, and only my victimization matter.

[soulcheck]

Originally Posted by V Knid esq

Ships sail towards a blockaded coast - blockaded legally within international law, note - to deliver "aid" that they could perfectly easily deliver by land.

Why did they do that, do you thiink? Was their main purpose to deliver aid? Or was it to create confrontation?

People on board those ships are filmed and shown on Palestinian TV singing songs about killing Jews.

Woman on one of those ships gives interview for Palestinian TV where she says "there are two happy outcomes that could come from this: one is we land with the aid, the other is martyrdom". (There's video of all this online)

The ships are given multiple warnings that they are sailing an illegal course, both before they set out, and while they're sailing.

A helicopter of soldiers eventually boards one. One soldier is stabbed, one is beaten with an iron bar, one is shot and critically wounded, one is thrown over a 30-foot drop before they retaliate. (There's video of all this online too) THEN they draw their guns and it gets nasty.

Just imagine that situation in another country for a second. A ship is illegally sailing towards, say, the Russian coast and refuses repeated warnings to change course. It's boarded by armed coastguards, who are instantly attacked with extreme violence. I wonder what would happen then?

But yeah, it's a really cut and dried situation isn't it? There's only one bad guy here, isn't there?

Come on knid, I expected links to save me some trouble searchin

[V Knid esq]

Here's the "peace activists" on the flotilla

[V Knid esq]

And here they are doing their "peace activism", when the soldiers had just boarded the boat and hadn't fired a shot.

[dan gulberry]

Oh. Oh dear.

[soulcheck]

@knid thanks

[V Knid esq]

Personally I think it was fucking stupid to board the boat, and lunatic to let off live shots... But look at that footage - do you reckon those soldiers went down there expecting that reception?

[dan gulberry]

Originally Posted by V Knid esq

do you reckon those soldiers went down there expecting that reception?

No, I don't think they expected exactly that reception, and they were following orders anyway - - - but what's your point?

[V Knid esq]

Originally Posted by dan gulberry

No, I don't think they expected exactly that reception, and they were following orders anyway - - - but what's your point?

Ah yes, "just following orders". Orders to board the boat, orders to shoot people, or orders to defend themselves?


My point is this wasn't something that "Israel did". It was a horrible situation, of the sort that it appears the people on the boats were all to keen to provoke, and soldiers drew their guns to protect their lives. Look at that video again. Do you believe their actions in shooting were aggressive or defensive?

[dan gulberry]

I think if you consider those individual acts of attack and defense out of context (I don't even mean a very broad historical context - I just mean as decontextualised as they are in that video clip) you'd have to say that soldiers invaded the ship and were then violently beaten. You'd expect any individual who carries a gun, that they've been trained to use in such a situation, to shoot those who were beating them.

But why would anyone want to take things out of context like that, then proceed to build an argument based on that?

[V Knid esq]

You're spinning. They weren't just beaten, they were shot, stabbed and thrown about. The "peace protestors" were trying to kill them.

And they didn't "invade" the ship, they boarded it as any country's defence force would do if a flotilla of ships repeatedly ignored warnings that they were on a course illegal under international law.

These aren't just matters of perception Dan, you are spinning like crazy.

[dan gulberry]

Not spinning, just attending to what you can see in the clip, in order to make a lazy point about taking this situation out of context (I also think, by the way, that lots of anti-Israel activists do the same).

I know the activists were violent. I don't think this is a problem in itself. I'm not sure how I feel about the lengths they went to. And I'm not sure that those on board would've remained peaceful had the ship been allowed to make its way through, unimpeded.

But we'll never know. And the reason we'll never know is that the idf made their move.

I have to ask, not wanting to really 'get into it' with you, that when you state that the aid could've been delivered "perfectly easily" by land, what do you mean? That it would arrive as speedily and reliably, and without israeli intervention?

[V Knid esq]

no, I think it would have gone through loads of pernicious bureacratic fuckery for a painful amount of time - and then got through. Gaza gets a LOT of aid.


Do you think, given the racist war songs being sung and that woman's desire for maryrdom on that clip, that this sort of situation isn't exactly what the flotilla was aimed at causing?

[platinum ray]

Originally Posted by V Knid esq

Gaza gets a LOT of aid.

from what I understand the Israeli authorities don't let through lots of types of aid though, no cement, no kids toys, no wheelchairs. food has had to be dumped because it had gone off before they let it through.

I deplore violence of any kind, but I can't help thinking that in any similar situation those that attacked the armed soldiers with sling shots, knives and bars would be portrayed as heroes.

IMHO, the Israeli authorities don't have any moral high ground here and their excuse that the flotilla was just a front for Hamas and Al Qaeda doesn't add up. the Israeli government's policy seems to be that might is right and they won't publicly accept any culpability for having a part in creating confrontations like this.

[Hectic Cum Balthazar]

looking forward to the poll after this thread has run its course too

[dan gulberry]

Originally Posted by V Knid esq

Do you think, given the racist war songs being sung and that woman's desire for maryrdom on that clip, that this sort of situation isn't exactly what the flotilla was aimed at causing?

First and foremost, they were aid ships. 'Success' for them would probably be making it to their destination, while along the way highlighting the illegality of the Israeli blockade. Perhaps they expected that this would be achieved only through violent protest. I think that provoking this kind of media attention and discussion was also an objective.

It's not surprising that the kinds of people willing to confront the idf in such a way are also the kinds of people you describe - some of them, at least. Not all activists agree, ideologically.

As for Gaza getting loads of aid, that may be true, but as plat ray says, it takes a very long time, certain types of aid don't ever arrive, and food is needlessly spoiled.

[soulcheck]

We should bomb the fuck out of all that region.

And north korea on the way too.

[Loz]

OK, I'm going to take a few points here, and reply to them.

Ships sail towards a blockaded coast - blockaded legally within international law

The law seems a bit grey on this, to say the least. First of all, blockades are generally only considered legal if they can be proven to protect the country performing the blockade. The success of the Gaza blockade is pretty questionable.

Also, a big point seems to be that the ships were boarded in International Waters. Which according to quite a lot of people, is illegal unless you have the permission of the flag carrier of that ship (Turkey in this case) or are in a state of war with the flag carrier (again, Turkey for this particular vessel)

Why did they do that, do you thiink? Was their main purpose to deliver aid? Or was it to create confrontation?

Little doubt about this one. It was clearly for both reasons. Confrontation, whether violent or indeed peaceful, is a pretty effective way of highlighting your plight. Imagine if Rose Parks had avoided confrontation and simply stood up and moved to the back of the bus.

Also, as previously stated, at least one ship (which ran into trouble and is currently docked in Crete) was carrying building supplies. Which are currently banned by Israel, and are absolutely essential for the rebuilding of Gaza. Remember, Gaza was pretty much levelled in the last major offensive from Israel, and they don't have the building materials to rebuild power plants, hospitals, etc. How you can think this is fair, I'm really not sure.

Woman on one of those ships gives interview for Palestinian TV where she says "there are two happy outcomes that could come from this: one is we land with the aid, the other is martyrdom". (There's video of all this online)

She could have meant it, or she could have been mouthing off in anger and for the cameras. I'm sure plenty of people throughout history have said things similar to "we're going to succeed or die trying" and not all of them meant it truthfully.

The ships are given multiple warnings that they are sailing an illegal course, both before they set out, and while they're sailing.

I'm not really sure what the point is? Are you saying that if an authority tells you to do something, even if you don't believe that you should, you should do it anyway? Should Brian Haw have packed up his protest all those years ago because the British government told him to?

And here they are doing their "peace activism", when the soldiers had just boarded the boat and hadn't fired a shot.

According to a lot of recently released protesters on this ship and others, the Israelis' started firing before they boarded the boat. Which makes it even less cut and dry, doesn't it? Someone is lying, and I see no reason to believe one party over another. Surely an investigation is required? Preferably a fully independent one.

I also notice that the video is very tightly edited. I would be suspect of a video from either side which was as edited as that one is. It's very likely that they are making sure that you see what they want you to see.

I've also read that the protesters have similar videos on youtube, which show a different story. It's almost as if these videos are propaganda, isn't it?

[Orang Utan]

you cunts are shit at arguing about israel

[Loz]

Check this out, too

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...rritories-gaza

[V Knid esq]

Haha yeah when Palestinian anti-Israel campaigners talk about martyrdom it's just a turn of phrase. And guys singing songs about killing the Jews and trying to kill soldiers with knives, guns and iron bars are like Rosa (or "Rose" if you prefer) Parks. Yeah I hadn't thought of it that way.

[V Knid esq]

Originally Posted by Orang Utan

you cunts are shit at arguing about israel

To be fair so is most of the world.

[thepigjockey]

Remember, there were a lot of protesters on board six ships, and as Dan G said there would have been a range of protesters on board. Who's to say that the martyrdom lady was typical of the activists? Who's to say that the 'throw the jew down the well' Borat-isms were being sung on every ship?

I think this is a perennial problem for protest movements- the fact that there is one main big point to be made, but many more strategies, viewpoints, etc. What's the solution to that? Do nothing?

[V Knid esq]

Originally Posted by thepigjockey

Remember, there were a lot of protesters on board six ships, and as Dan G said there would have been a range of protesters on board. Who's to say that the martyrdom lady was typical of the activists? Who's to say that the 'throw the jew down the well' Borat-isms were being sung on every ship?

I think this is a perennial problem for protest movements- the fact that there is one main big point to be made, but many more strategies, viewpoints, etc. What's the solution to that? Do nothing?

Er, maybe just don't allow the racist thugs to be part of your protest. It's quite easy: "if you're going to sing racist war songs, sorry, but you can't come on our peace protest. Have your own protest but don't come on ours".

How about that?

[thepigjockey]

Easier said than done. And tricky to police if there are 6 separate ships.