Umm, these people were trying to force a blockade in a warzone, what did they expect?

Originally Posted by DC

Umm, these people were trying to force a blockade in a warzone, what did they expect?

Perhaps some humanity from the Israelis?

Originally Posted by DC

Umm, these people were trying to force a blockade in a warzone, what did they expect?

Even the Serbs stopped shelling Sarajevo long enough to let the UN aid convoys into the city before they destroyed it.

The Israelis of course aren't subject to the same level of international scrutiny because Gaza isn't technically a warzone but a disputed territory. In practice the strategies are identical - to make conditions inside the besieged city so intolerable that it capitulates from within.

And yet somehow I doubt we'll see the masterminds of the Israeli version in the dock alongside Radovan Karadzic any time soon.

As with most conflicts, it doesnt matter what party A does to party B as long as party A has either enough political clout or WMD's to get away with it or if of course party B are assumed to include terrorists. North Korea can for example pretty much do what it wants short of declaring war.

Originally Posted by Midas

Perhaps some humanity from the Israelis?

These are large ships stocked and controlled by an unknown third party, they may fly the humanitarian flag but who knows if they instead stocked them full of rockets and guns?

Originally Posted by JAMC

Even the Serbs stopped shelling Sarajevo long enough to let the UN aid convoys into the city before they destroyed it.

The Israelis of course aren't subject to the same level of international scrutiny because Gaza isn't technically a warzone but a disputed territory. In practice the strategies are identical - to make conditions inside the besieged city so intolerable that it capitulates from within.

And yet somehow I doubt we'll see the masterminds of the Israeli version in the dock alongside Radovan Karadzic any time soon.

These people were not the UN, what's more I assume the Serbs checked the convoys for weapons before letting them through. The Israelis were not denying aid to Gaza, they were controlling it. If these people had gone through proper checks instead of some media show of 'storm the blockade' then their wouldn't be any need for violence.

Originally Posted by DC

These are large ships stocked and controlled by an unknown third party, they may fly the humanitarian flag but who knows if they instead stocked them full of rockets and guns?

How hard would it have been for the Israelis to stop and search them, then let them through, rather than take the aggressive and confrontational action that they did though? OK the people on board the ships knew the situation, but surely Israel must have known before they did anything the storm of protest that their actions would raise around the world! It just reeks of their "we'll do what we want" attitude I'm afraid, and it'll win them no friends whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Midas

How hard would it have been for the Israelis to stop and search them, then let them through, rather than take the aggressive and confrontational action that they did though? OK the people on board the ships knew the situation, but surely Israel must have known before they did anything the storm of protest that their actions would raise around the world! It just reeks of their "we'll do what we want" attitude I'm afraid, and it'll win them no friends whatsoever.

Without blaming either side, as there appears to be enough to go around; exactly how do you propose the Israelis should have stopped them? Put a round across their bow, rammed them? Having seen the video of the Israeli team fast roping to the deck, note that boarding is an accepted way of 'stopping and searching' a ship, and promptly being violently and viciously attacked; I can understand how the boarding party reacted. Recognizing that appearances can be deceiving, and judging only from that video; I think I would have reacted the same way as the Israeli team.

The Israelis had two choices, do nothing, or take the course of action they took. The people on the ships had two choices, be stopped and searched, or take the course of action they took.

So, given your statement, posed as a question, how would you have stopped and searched them without confrontation?

Originally Posted by Don

Without blaming either side, as there appears to be enough to go around; exactly how do you propose the Israelis should have stopped them? Put a round across their bow, rammed them? Having seen the video of the Israeli team fast roping to the deck, note that boarding is an accepted way of 'stopping and searching' a ship, and promptly being violently and viciously attacked; I can understand how the boarding party reacted. Recognizing that appearances can be deceiving, and judging only from that video; I think I would have reacted the same way as the Israeli team.

The Israelis had two choices, do nothing, or take the course of action they took. The people on the ships had two choices, be stopped and searched, or take the course of action they took.

So, given your statement, posed as a question, how would you have stopped and searched them without confrontation?

I would have to agree, I would personally have to wait until the investigation is complete before deciding who (if anyone) has the moral high ground but from a purely logical standpoint (and the footage I have seen) I can't think of many ways to stop a container ship without boarding, ramming or firing on it. I assume that they were warned that the "police force" were about to board so they knew they weren't pirates and on the assumption that the Israelies didn't indiscriminately open fire for no reason, the "lightly armed" passengers chose to attack highly trained, heavily armed and armoured tactical forces, which is rather stupid; you cannot attack someone who has a H&K SMG with an iron bar and expect to get away unharmed.

Originally Posted by DC

These people were not the UN, what's more I assume the Serbs checked the convoys for weapons before letting them through.

You assume incorrectly. The UN had slapped a self-imposed weapons embargo on the entire former Yugoslavia - the UN "smurfs" were the one's with the ultra-modern high tech weaponry, standing idly by and watching the Serb irregulars raid the JNA stockpiles for AK-74's and the like.

Yes the aid wasn't being delivered by an international peacekeeping force. Something tells me that if it had been, the Israeli's would have thought twice before attacking with helecopter gunships. The only serious weaponry on board those ships was that carried on by the IDF when they descended from the sky.

Originally Posted by DC

The Israelis were not denying aid to Gaza, they were controlling it. If these people had gone through proper checks instead of some media show of 'storm the blockade' then their wouldn't be any need for violence.

Bull. Until the second intifada reached a fever pitch in 2005, the Israeli's were in total military control of the entire Gaza strip, and the territory contained 21 Jewish settlements that fell outside the juristiction of the palestinian authorities. They could re-take it militarily in a heartbeat. What has happened in recent years is a change of tact by the Israeli's in an attempt to limit the damage to their international image.

The reason that aid should not be delivered by proxy through the Israelis is that they will destroy everything that could potentially harm Israel - which in practice is virtually everything. Electricity generators can be used to power the homes of militants as well as moderates - weapons factories as well as water treatment plants. Keeping control of the flow of materials into Gaza allows the Israelis to keep the territory weak - and keeping the territory weak means they don't have to roll around the streets of Gaza city in tanks like they used to.

Originally Posted by ryoden

I can't think of many ways to stop a container ship without boarding, ramming or firing on it.

Ramming I believe is the tactic of choice in these kinds of situations. Happened a lot during the cod wars.

Cod Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by JAMC

Ramming I believe is the tactic of choice in these kinds of situations. Happened a lot during the cod wars.

Cod Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With respect, there is a huge difference between ramming a fishing boat with a warship and trying the same thing on a container ship with nothing larger than a corvette.

Typical, people love to tell Israel what they should and should not do.
The Marmara a container ship?
http://media.shipspotting.com/upload...VI+MARMARA.JPG

Thanks for the pic Barry. Had not seen actual pics and the boarding video I saw did not show the ship, only part of the upper deck and superstructure. I picked up on 'container' from an earlier comment. At that, still much too big to ram with a corvette which I believe is the largest ship in the Israeli Navy.

Originally Posted by Don

Thanks for the pic Barry. Had not seen actual pics and the boarding video I saw did not show the ship, only part of the upper deck and superstructure. I picked up on 'container' from an earlier comment. At that, still much too big to ram with a corvette which I believe is the largest ship in the Israeli Navy.

Yeah sorry I assumed it was a container ship as it was carrying supplies, but yes from that picture it's still quite big and after reading the cod wars account (thanks for that, I had forgotten that piece of history) ramming ships is hardly a safe way to stop them as it seemed one Icelandic ship was nearly sunk after being rammed. So regardless of relative sizes ramming is hardly a safe option.

This is apparently a pic of the INS Hanit (one of Israel's 3 Corvettes, which is indeed their largest surface vessel).
http://img188.imageshack.us/i/saar52rs7.jpg/
It's the only one I could find quickly with a helicopter for scale purposes and it looks to be slightly lower but maybe same length as the other ship, I would say the Marmara out masses the corvetter though from the videos.

I just saw another video that shows the Israelies trying to board from a motorised dinghy while being sprayed with water hoses, thrown objects and a swung length of chain so I am not sure if they tried to board via dinghy before the used the combat helo.

Edit: I just found some statistics for the relative ships
MAVI MARMARA

Ship Type: Passenger
Length x Breadth: 93 m X 20 m
DeadWeight: 525 t
Speed recorded (Max / Average): 13.8 / 9.6 knots

VS

Sa'ar Class Corvette
Length x Breadth: 85.64 m x 11.88 m
Standard Weight: 1075 tonnes
Speed 20 knotts

Originally Posted by Don

Without blaming either side, as there appears to be enough to go around; exactly how do you propose the Israelis should have stopped them? Put a round across their bow, rammed them? Having seen the video of the Israeli team fast roping to the deck, note that boarding is an accepted way of 'stopping and searching' a ship, and promptly being violently and viciously attacked; I can understand how the boarding party reacted. Recognizing that appearances can be deceiving, and judging only from that video; I think I would have reacted the same way as the Israeli team.

The Israelis had two choices, do nothing, or take the course of action they took. The people on the ships had two choices, be stopped and searched, or take the course of action they took.

So, given your statement, posed as a question, how would you have stopped and searched them without confrontation?

To be honest Don I haven't yet seen all the details of the how and where, so it's difficult to give any specific answers, but in part it depends on whether they were in international or territorial waters. Of course you can't really stop without some degree of confrontation; it's what happens subsequent to that which is critical.

It was said to be International waters, but that is not really relevant, as Israel are enforcing a naval blockade on an enemy state. They are at war, or at least in a state of conflict with Hamas.
I can quote the relevant law if required.

Originally Posted by Midas

To be honest Don I haven't yet seen all the details of the how and where, so it's difficult to give any specific answers, but in part it depends on whether they were in international or territorial waters. Of course you can't really stop without some degree of confrontation; it's what happens subsequent to that which is critical.

NO kidding it's critical, when you're being set upon by attackers intent on beating you to death. I'll answer your question. There is no way to stop a ship without confrontation unless the captain decides to heave to. They knew they were being boarded and they chose to resist with violence. I hate to see anyone lose their life, but the Israeli boarding team 'appear' to be in a fight for their lives; this is aside from whether the ship was in international or territorial waters.

Remember your question was

How hard would it have been for the Israelis to stop and search them...

The answer is; it's impossible without someone getting hurt or killed if the occupants of the ship decide to resist.

Gaza flotilla: Benjamin Netanyahu resists demand for inquiry - Telegraph

Interesting article.

In an unusually blunt assessment, the head of Mossad, the intelligence agency, Meir Dagan, said Israel was becoming a burden on the United States.
"Bit by bit, Israel is becoming less of a strategic asset for America," he told a Knesset committee on Tuesday.
The US initially supported the blockade, but now sees Israel's Gaza policy as unsustainable. But on that, too, Mr Netanyahu is standing firm.
"The same countries that are criticising us today should know that they will be targeted tomorrow," he said in a televised speech on Wednesday night.

Israel needs to disconnect from the USA and stand on her own feet. The USA under Obama is no friend of Israel's.
Israel is at the forefront of the war against Islamist terror, and Hamas stands with Al Qaeda against Israel and the West in a war against us and our values.
If Israel were to fall (I word it that way, because I don't believe she ever will) then which country would be next?
Many people hate Israel, but they have the world's best intelligence agencies, and they know how to fight terror.

Originally Posted by Midas

How hard would it have been for the Israelis to stop and search them, then let them through, rather than take the aggressive and confrontational action that they did though? OK the people on board the ships knew the situation, but surely Israel must have known before they did anything the storm of protest that their actions would raise around the world! It just reeks of their "we'll do what we want" attitude I'm afraid, and it'll win them no friends whatsoever.

Oh and the self righteous 'humanitarians' don't reek of that attitude? 'We'll storm a military blockade in a warzone which we know will fail but we're doing it because it will cause outcry, while there is a tentative peace process trying to get underway" Where in that does pro-peace or actual care for those inside Gaza appear? And of Israel shouldn't care what other countries think when it comes to defending itself, should it only defend itself after it's checked with every other country to make sure it doesn't upset anyone? I think surviving is pegged a bit high than making friends in Israeli policy.

Originally Posted by JAMC

You assume incorrectly. The UN had slapped a self-imposed weapons embargo on the entire former Yugoslavia - the UN "smurfs" were the one's with the ultra-modern high tech weaponry, standing idly by and watching the Serb irregulars raid the JNA stockpiles for AK-74's and the like.

Oh so you can count on the UN to look after weapons embargoes? Does the UN even have an arms embargo on the Gaza strip? What's more, these people weren't UN. This wasn't a UN aid convoy. These were unknown third parties breaching a blockade and carrying who knows what into the arms of a terrorist organisation. Where exactly does the 'let them through' part of that scenario make sense?

Yes the aid wasn't being delivered by an international peacekeeping force. Something tells me that if it had been, the Israeli's would have thought twice before attacking with helecopter gunships. The only serious weaponry on board those ships was that carried on by the IDF when they descended from the sky.

We know that now. The Israelis needed to make sure that was the case, those in the convoy were unwilling to allow that, so force was used.

Bull. Until the second intifada reached a fever pitch in 2005, the Israeli's were in total military control of the entire Gaza strip, and the territory contained 21 Jewish settlements that fell outside the juristiction of the palestinian authorities. They could re-take it militarily in a heartbeat. What has happened in recent years is a change of tact by the Israeli's in an attempt to limit the damage to their international image.

Yeah, probably, but it also served as a peace offering, a little bit of Palestine back in Palestinian control. But it seems like Hamas and other groups have not been too keen for peace lately.

The reason that aid should not be delivered by proxy through the Israelis is that they will destroy everything that could potentially harm Israel - which in practice is virtually everything. Electricity generators can be used to power the homes of militants as well as moderates - weapons factories as well as water treatment plants. Keeping control of the flow of materials into Gaza allows the Israelis to keep the territory weak - and keeping the territory weak means they don't have to roll around the streets of Gaza city in tanks like they used to.

It's because there's a war on. Frankly I see no issue in choking out a terrorist group.

Originally Posted by DC

Oh and the self righteous 'humanitarians' don't reek of that attitude? 'We'll storm a military blockade in a warzone which we know will fail but we're doing it because it will cause outcry, while there is a tentative peace process trying to get underway" Where in that does pro-peace or actual care for those inside Gaza appear? And of Israel shouldn't care what other countries think when it comes to defending itself, should it only defend itself after it's checked with every other country to make sure it doesn't upset anyone? I think surviving is pegged a bit high than making friends in Israeli policy.

That's not what I meant at all, and I'm certainly not naive enough to think that there aren't plenty of people who'll use 'humanitarianism' as a cover for things far more nefarious, or even to make a political point about how aggressive Israel is during a period when tentative peace talks are underway. But there are ways and means of handling situations, and I think in this particular case, Israel could have handled it a great deal better, especially since they knew the eyes of the world's media were on them.

As far as I'm concerned, Israel is the aggressor in 9 out of 10 'incidents'; the fact that it's received severe condemnation from around the world on a number of occasions, even been called a terrorist nation itself, is a good indication of how people see it. Given that we can't change history - and I think that the creation of the State of Israel was one of the worst post-war blunders that was made (OK, easy to say in hindsight) - one of the best ways for this whole Middle Eastern mess to be resolved would be for there to be a complete embargo on Israel other than any essential food and medical supplies they didn't produce themselves, and in particular on anything remotely connected with military or cash aid, until such time they completely withdrew to the original boundaries created for them and undertook not to engage in any further land grabs of surrounding Palestinian territories. Hand in hand with this there needs to be similar assurances from neighbouring states and ideally the concurrent creation of a properly recognised Palestinian State, but given that Israel has been responsible for the creation of much of the trouble - Hamas wouldn't have risen to such prominence has Israel not continually blockaded and attacked Gaza for instance - many of the problems would resolve themselves once Israel was well and truly confined to its own land.

Palestinian Land - Palestinian Land? This is a myth, there was no such thing. If you believe the stories they tell each other, and those gullible enough to listen, about how much land each lying nomad claims he owned, Palestine would be 100 times the size of India. Before the First World War this was the Ottoman Empire and before that the Byzantine Empire, none, except Turks, could own land. The Jews bought the land they live on which is a lot more legal then the imaginary ownership of the Nomadic Bedu. Arabs. This is just a gangster land claim financed by Popes and Muslim interests who have ever hated the Jewish Religion, a religion invented to relieve the burden of slavery, and imitated by Christians and Muslims for less honest purposes.
Long may the Israeli prosper in there own legal Dominion.

I'ts good to see that the 'de-legitimisation of Israel' propaganda has had no effect on coalition.

Excellent video here from Latma TV
So much truth.

Originally Posted by Midas

That's not what I meant at all, and I'm certainly not naive enough to think that there aren't plenty of people who'll use 'humanitarianism' as a cover for things far more nefarious, or even to make a political point about how aggressive Israel is during a period when tentative peace talks are underway. But there are ways and means of handling situations, and I think in this particular case, Israel could have handled it a great deal better, especially since they knew the eyes of the world's media were on them.

Handle how? There's footage of soldiers being pushed into the sea by the protesters, at least one firearm, not to mention glass and wood. And remember this is still the point where they're seizing a vessel which they don't know what was on it, so I think the soldiers erred on the side of 'not being murdered by a humanitarian'

As far as I'm concerned, Israel is the aggressor in 9 out of 10 'incidents'

You would be wrong.

the fact that it's received severe condemnation from around the world on a number of occasions, even been called a terrorist nation itself, is a good indication of how people see it.

From who? The UN Human Rights Committee? As I have explained, they are anything but objective.

Given that we can't change history - and I think that the creation of the State of Israel was one of the worst post-war blunders that was made (OK, easy to say in hindsight)

As I have explained, there was little alternative.

one of the best ways for this whole Middle Eastern mess to be resolved would be for there to be a complete embargo on Israel other than any essential food and medical supplies they didn't produce themselves, and in particular on anything remotely connected with military or cash aid, until such time they completely withdrew to the original boundaries created for them and undertook not to engage in any further land grabs of surrounding Palestinian territories.

Midas, I'm surprised that you would suggest this, as it's not a very good idea. What you have now is a partly radicalised, very well armed (probably nuclear capable) country. To isolate that country is insanity, then you would be removing any reason at all for Israel to care what the world thinks. Furthermore the embargo wouldn't hurt Israel, as it's a country designed to survive long term war and isolation. In this regard it's probably the best at it. What you would end up with is a more radicalised nation, just as well armed (or probably more well armed) with no interest in a two-state solution.

Hand in hand with this there needs to be similar assurances from neighbouring states and ideally the concurrent creation of a properly recognised Palestinian State, but given that Israel has been responsible for the creation of much of the trouble - Hamas wouldn't have risen to such prominence has Israel not continually blockaded and attacked Gaza for instance - many of the problems would resolve themselves once Israel was well and truly confined to its own land.

Not likely to happen, as I don't see Syria or Iran playing ball. And Israel would not have had to blockade Gaza if the people their weren't so insistent on killing Israelis.

If you are going to boycott Israel, Midas, do it properly.
Amongst other things it will mean switching off your computers.
If You

Originally Posted by DC

Handle how? There's footage of soldiers being pushed into the sea by the protesters, at least one firearm, not to mention glass and wood. And remember this is still the point where they're seizing a vessel which they don't know what was on it, so I think the soldiers erred on the side of 'not being murdered by a humanitarian'

Given that the police in every country in the world manage to subdue and arrest people armed with weapons far more deadly than glass and wood every single hour of the day, I'd have thought that Israeli troops could have managed - apparently there were no guns on board. Also if the ship was in international waters as I understand it was, they had no rights be board her in the first place - it seems the Israelis have learnt their lesson this time as far as the Rachel Corrie is concerned - so far at least.

From who? The UN Human Rights Committee? As I have explained, they are anything but objective.

Many sources in many countries around the world have soundly condemned Israel time after time.

As I have explained, there was little alternative.

There are always alternatives, and you'd have thought that a country that was under intense international scrutiny for its actions would have been somewhat more circumspect to put it mildly.

Midas, I'm surprised that you would suggest this, as it's not a very good idea. What you have now is a partly radicalised, very well armed (probably nuclear capable) country. To isolate that country is insanity, then you would be removing any reason at all for Israel to care what the world thinks. Furthermore the embargo wouldn't hurt Israel, as it's a country designed to survive long term war and isolation. In this regard it's probably the best at it. What you would end up with is a more radicalised nation, just as well armed (or probably more well armed) with no interest in a two-state solution.

That's purely a matter of conjecture and personal opinion. The whole Middle East situation is not going to be resolved until Israel pulls back to its original boundaries, returns all captured land to its original owners and compensates them. Can you suggest a better way to accomplish this - everything else seems to have been tried?

Not likely to happen, as I don't see Syria or Iran playing ball. And Israel would not have had to blockade Gaza if the people their weren't so insistent on killing Israelis.

I'd suggest you learn a bit more about the situation and what lead up to the blockade before making statements like that; if the Palestinians hadn't been deprived of their land, homes, food and aid, then killed in increasing numbers when they dared complain, Hamas wouldn't have risen to such power and they wouldn't have been driven to such extreme measures. It all boils down to one simple fact: Israel has gone beyond the borders set for it in 1948 and refuses to pull back to them!

Originally Posted by Midas

Given that the police in every country in the world manage to subdue and arrest people armed with weapons far more deadly than glass and wood every single hour of the day, I'd have thought that Israeli troops could have managed

First of all, police, not troops do that, different training. Secondly, dealing with unknown assailants in a confined ship in the middle of the night is not exactly easy. If they were so called peace activists, they shouldn't have attacked the troops.

apparently there were no guns on board.

Varying reports says there were.

Also if the ship was in international waters as I understand it was, they had no rights be board her in the first place - it seems the Israelis have learnt their lesson this time as far as the Rachel Corrie is concerned - so far at least.

Warzone, very little care for international waters.

Many sources in many countries around the world have soundly condemned Israel time after time.

And many others support her. Apparently many sources in many countries around teh world thought it was flat. Didn't mean they were right, did it? And aren't you a climate change skeptic Midas? Same situation isn't it?

There are always alternatives, and you'd have thought that a country that was under intense international scrutiny for its actions would have been somewhat more circumspect to put it mildly.

I meant there were no alternatives to the creation of Israel. But what alternatives were there in this case? There was let them through, or stop them.

That's purely a matter of conjecture and personal opinion.

Take Israel and the whole middle east part of the equation out. You still end up with the same result of isolating a radicalised, well armed country that is easily capable of supporting itself indefinitely. Israel is not North Korea or Iran who are still developing countries, you can't isolate Israel and expect it to collapse. If anything you push it further away from the the international community and remove any incentive it has to give a dam about Palestine.

The whole Middle East situation is not going to be resolved until Israel pulls back to its original boundaries, returns all captured land to its original owners and compensates them. Can you suggest a better way to accomplish this - everything else seems to have been tried?

I'd suggest you learn a bit more about the situation and what lead up to the blockade before making statements like that; if the Palestinians hadn't been deprived of their land, homes, food and aid, then killed in increasing numbers when they dared complain, Hamas wouldn't have risen to such power and they wouldn't have been driven to such extreme measures. It all boils down to one simple fact: Israel has gone beyond the borders set for it in 1948 and refuses to pull back to them!

And Israel wouldn't have had to crack down on the terror groups if they hadn't continued to attack Israel. We could go back and back until eventually you reach the 1920s Arab riots and subsequent massacres of Jews. Now your suggestion they return to their original lands is absurd, what would you be doing then? What message would that send? It's ok to try and destroy a country and genocide its people because when you lose you'll just get your land back? It's rewarding the Palestinians and Arabs for attacking Israel. Besides, why should Israel return to the borders set for it in 1948? The Arabs and Palestinians never agreed to such borders.

The Police in every part of the world, are political dogs bodies: we, the people of this country, pay out billions of pounds to the victims an/or relatives of those who have been professionally tortured, maimed and murdered by our kindly Stasi, Thatcher gsve them carte blanche to kill and severly maim our miners, and this has cost us billions in payoffs. Dozens are killed and injured every year by illegally speeding Stasi cars, it took 31 years for them to admit they murdered Blair Peach, and they hid the evidence. Israel is correct in doing what it has to do but, idiots never want to hear the truth....... look at the people using this dumb cannon fiodder for their own nefarious ends.

Originally Posted by DC

Oh so you can count on the UN to look after weapons embargoes?

What does it matter? If, as you say, there's a war on then imposing an embargo on one side only is the worst possible thing you can do. It guarantees slaughter.

Originally Posted by DC

Does the UN even have an arms embargo on the Gaza strip? What's more, these people weren't UN. This wasn't a UN aid convoy. These were unknown third parties breaching a blockade and carrying who knows what into the arms of a terrorist organisation. Where exactly does the 'let them through' part of that scenario make sense?

I don't think there is an embargo - but I think the current UN activities are limited to handing out food parcels. If Isreal had truly "handed Gaza back to the palestinians" as you said, then they forfiet any right to dictate what can and can't enter or exit the territory via it's non-Israeli borders. Gaza is either Palestinian controlled or Israeli controlled. At the moment it is Israeli controlled, but receives no Israeli support in terms of infrastructure. As Isreal is in defacto control of the territory it also has a responsibility to provide minimum living requirements to the people living there. If it continues to refuse to let virtually nothing into the area then it is appropriate to describe the situation as a siege.

Originally Posted by DC

We know that now. The Israelis needed to make sure that was the case, those in the convoy were unwilling to allow that, so force was used.

Excessive force. That's the point.

Originally Posted by DC

Yeah, probably, but it also served as a peace offering, a little bit of Palestine back in Palestinian control. But it seems like Hamas and other groups have not been too keen for peace lately.

As above, Israel has maintained control of all the crucial aspects of Gaza's security, energy supply and trade links - the palestinian authority in the area is not in full control of it, the Israelis are.

Originally Posted by DC

It's because there's a war on. Frankly I see no issue in choking out a terrorist group.

The palestinians will not change their allegiances from Hamas to Fatah because of Israeli pressure - if anything it's more likely to cement Hamas' position as the dominant political force in the Gaza strip. All Israel's actions are doing is creating a prime situation for a humanitarian disaster - for which they will be entirely responsible.

Originally Posted by JAMC

What does it matter? If, as you say, there's a war on then imposing an embargo on one side only is the worst possible thing you can do. It guarantees slaughter.

I don't think there is an embargo - but I think the current UN activities are limited to handing out food parcels. If Isreal had truly "handed Gaza back to the palestinians" as you said, then they forfiet any right to dictate what can and can't enter or exit the territory via it's non-Israeli borders. Gaza is either Palestinian controlled or Israeli controlled. At the moment it is Israeli controlled, but receives no Israeli support in terms of infrastructure. As Isreal is in defacto control of the territory it also has a responsibility to provide minimum living requirements to the people living there. If it continues to refuse to let virtually nothing into the area then it is appropriate to describe the situation as a siege.

Excessive force. That's the point.

As above, Israel has maintained control of all the crucial aspects of Gaza's security, energy supply and trade links - the palestinian authority in the area is not in full control of it, the Israelis are.

The palestinians will not change their allegiances from Hamas to Fatah because of Israeli pressure - if anything it's more likely to cement Hamas' position as the dominant political force in the Gaza strip. All Israel's actions are doing is creating a prime situation for a humanitarian disaster - for which they will be entirely responsible.

What we are enmeshed in is the Global World of the patronisingly brutal public relations drivel. The continueing vapid and empty rhetoric of a bunch of Gaza gangsters and their brainless hangars on, is designed to draw financial support for an illegal murderous occupation of land which decent people were trying to exist in peace upon

Originally Posted by coalition

What we are enmeshed in is the Global World of the patronisingly brutal public relations drivel. The continueing vapid and empty rhetoric of a bunch of Gaza gangsters and their brainless hangars on, is designed to draw financial support for an illegal murderous occupation of land which decent people were trying to exist in peace upon

If you're implying that Gaza belongs to Israel and is occupied by the Palestinians then I have nothing further to say to you.

Originally Posted by JAMC

If you're implying that Gaza belongs to Israel and is occupied by the Palestinians then I have nothing further to say to you.

No, I was saying that some ordinary people settled in Gaza as part of the agreed handover, for good or bad it was a beginning for a sort of peace treaty which one hoped could be evolved. This was not suitable to the beastial murderers who moved in and set up a prison for those defenceless people. If I were an Arab and, could choose where I would live, I would rather live in Israel with the Jews than anywhere with other Arabs.

They do not stop at forcing children to be suicide bombers, and other perversions. Each time Israel attempts a rapproachment these pigs increase the atrocities. I have seen what these so-called freedom fighters do to those who will not support them, it actually insults an animal to call them such.

PS. I can't seem to recall when you did say anything to me, but anyway, I can never see this resolved unless we find another Planet for one or t'other.

Originally Posted by coalition

No, I was saying that some ordinary people settled in Gaza as part of the agreed handover, for good or bad it was a beginning for a sort of peace treaty which one hoped could be evolved.

Are you talking about the Jewish settlements in Gaza?

Originally Posted by coalition

PS. I can't seem to recall when you did say anything to me, but anyway, I can never see this resolved unless we find another Planet for one or t'other.

Even if we were to colonize Mars tomorrow, the Israeli's and Palestinians wouldn't voluntarily share a colony. The schism between the two peoples is now engrained into what it means to belong to either group - because the root cause has been left unaddressed for over 60 years.

Originally Posted by Midas

How hard would it have been for the Israelis to stop and search them, then let them through, rather than take the aggressive and confrontational action that they did though? OK the people on board the ships knew the situation, but surely Israel must have known before they did anything the storm of protest that their actions would raise around the world! It just reeks of their "we'll do what we want" attitude I'm afraid, and it'll win them no friends whatsoever.

I really don't think Israeli policy revolves around 'winning friends'. When faced with the raw terror of numerous groups focused on eliminating an entire race, survival, one would think, far outweighs the idea of having friends.

That being said, the container ship knew exactly what it was heading into: a clearly stated blockade in a disputed territory/warzone. And a flotilla carrying aid for the Gaza would not have any reason to fire at the Israeli navy.

Originally Posted by kizzay

I really don't think Israeli policy revolves around 'winning friends'. When faced with the raw terror of numerous groups focused on eliminating an entire race, survival, one would think, far outweighs the idea of having friends.

That being said, the container ship knew exactly what it was heading into: a clearly stated blockade in a disputed territory/warzone. And a flotilla carrying aid for the Gaza would not have any reason to fire at the Israeli navy.

See my remarks here concerning Israel and its policies....

Originally Posted by Barry

I'ts good to see that the 'de-legitimisation of Israel' propaganda has had no effect on coalition.

Excellent video here from Latma TV
So much truth.

After 3,000,000 views this pro-Israel satirical video has been removed by YouTube on the alleged grounds of a copyright breach.
Yeah, right.
Youtube Pulls "We Con the World" Parody - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News