Israel v. The Middle East

[Red Arrow]

Please don't hate me Red...

"Stupid is as stupid does"....

Couldn't resist it!

Thereby making you just as stupid.

[Red Arrow]

I don't think Israel's oppression of the Palestinians has been going on for centuries. It's going on today.

I'm not an Israel hater by any means, but I still think what they're doing in Gaza is beyond deplorable.

And I am not an Israel lover.  They do some pretty deplorable things. The Palestinians are just as deplorable in my mind.  I believe that if the Palestinians would stop launching rockets and sending suicide bombers, the Israelis would make an honest effort at peace.  The Palestinians have repeatedly proven otherwise.  I'm sure that we could go on about artificial political borders all over the world but I'm not really interested.  The three major religions in the area all claim some rights to the area.  All three have stolen the ground from someone else.

[rwarn17588]

Attacking a ship in international waters is stupid. You know that if a bunch of Palestinians attacked an Israeli ship in international waters, you know damned well it would be labeled a terrorist action. Or piracy, at the least.

Hell, even Israeli newspapers such as Haaretz think this move was boneheaded.

[heironymouspasparagus]

There have been several times when Palestinians had cease fires for some fairly extended times over the past 60 years.  (Probably just pausing to reload...)  And each time, Israel did something confrontational.

At least for this go round (since 1920), the Israeli's are the invaders.  Palestinians are probably just as culpable, but they don't have the billions per year from the US to help arm themselves.  (1800 years ago, it was the other way around.)

So, how far back should we go?
Talk radio goes back 18 months when talking about all the Bush stuff (so they don't talk about it).  Is that long enough?

In Guidoworld, the Palestinians have always and will always be considered the aggressor.  So we know for an absolute fact that his time frame goes back no further than 1948 (1 year after the 1947 takeover of Palestine by Israel).  And since the Muslims around the area took (violent) exception to that several times over the following decades, I guess that makes them aggressors.  But if one steps back just one little extra step - just a year or two - then the Israeli's were the aggressors and at that point had a long history of terrorism in that territory.

So, how far back should we go before forgetting everything that went before?

When do long standing conflicts and hatreds become irrelevant? 

Why do most American's not have a clue about why so much of the world really doesn't like us very well, almost to the point if dislike (maybe hate)?  And please, spare me the plaintive bleat about how many want to come here.  It ain't because the like us, it is a clear case of "follow the money".

[guido911]

More from the "peaceful protesters"

[nathanm]

More from the "peaceful protesters"

Is there a reason you think that victims of piracy ought not fight back?

[guido911]

Is there a reason you think that victims of piracy ought not fight back?

Piracy? So now you are an expert in international and maritime law. Here's an idea, let's allow a real lawyer to chime in on the legality of the IDF's boarding of the flotilla. Mind you, this is from the notoriously and rabidly conservative nutjob Alan Dershowitz:

The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security.

Third, were those on board the flotilla innocent non-combatants or did they lose that status once they agreed to engage in the military act of breaking the blockade? Let there be no mistake about the purpose of this flotilla. It was decidedly not to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza, but rather the break the entirely lawful Israeli military blockade. The proof lies in the fact that both Israel and Egypt offered to have all the food, medicine and other humanitarian goods sent to Gaza, if the boats agreed to land in an Israeli or Egyptian port. That humanitarian offer was soundly rejected by the leaders of the flotilla who publicly announced:

"This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians." (AFP, May 27, 2010.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/israels-actions-were-enti_b_596285.html

[Red Arrow]

So, how far back should we go before forgetting everything that went before?

When do long standing conflicts and hatreds become irrelevant? 

Evidently more than 1000 yrs.  The Crusades are still an everyday subject when it comes to explaining why Christians are so despicable.

[HoneySuckle]

And I am not an Israel lover.  They do some pretty deplorable things. The Palestinians are just as deplorable in my mind.  I believe that if the Palestinians would stop launching rockets and sending suicide bombers, the Israelis would make an honest effort at peace.  The Palestinians have repeatedly proven otherwise.  I'm sure that we could go on about artificial political borders all over the world but I'm not really interested.  The three major religions in the area all claim some rights to the area.  All three have stolen the ground from someone else.

Give me a bloody break about those rockets that are launched.  What does Israel retaliate with?  Certainly not some rocket that does not kill thousands!!!!

[HoneySuckle]

There have been several times when Palestinians had cease fires for some fairly extended times over the past 60 years.  (Probably just pausing to reload...)  And each time, Israel did something confrontational.

At least for this go round (since 1920), the Israeli's are the invaders.  Palestinians are probably just as culpable, but they don't have the billions per year from the US to help arm themselves.  (1800 years ago, it was the other way around.)

So, how far back should we go?
Talk radio goes back 18 months when talking about all the Bush stuff (so they don't talk about it).  Is that long enough?

In Guidoworld, the Palestinians have always and will always be considered the aggressor.  So we know for an absolute fact that his time frame goes back no further than 1948 (1 year after the 1947 takeover of Palestine by Israel).  And since the Muslims around the area took (violent) exception to that several times over the following decades, I guess that makes them aggressors.  But if one steps back just one little extra step - just a year or two - then the Israeli's were the aggressors and at that point had a long history of terrorism in that territory.

So, how far back should we go before forgetting everything that went before?

When do long standing conflicts and hatreds become irrelevant? 

Why do most American's not have a clue about why so much of the world really doesn't like us very well, almost to the point if dislike (maybe hate)?  And please, spare me the plaintive bleat about how many want to come here.  It ain't because the like us, it is a clear case of "follow the money".

Amen!  Good post.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Dershowitz loses his argument in the first sentence; The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters.

Yes, it is legal under international law to enforce a LEGAL blockade in intl. waters under the umbrella of self defense.  (Art. 51 of UN charter).  The question is, does Israel have a legal blockade here?  There still seems to be many questions about that.  Israel thinks so.  That don't make it so.  Most of the trend seems to be no, from the UN direction, and certainly world opinion now if nothing else, but there certainly is much noise and commotion left to endure before that is settled.

And just because the US does it, again, don't make it legal or right.  The previous regime proved that over and over again.

Guido,
Do you really believe that piracy is something other than depriving the rightful owner of the lawful use of his/her property on the high seas?  Something that justifies Israel's action?  Beyond the fact that they have the biggest set of guns in the area?
Certainly don't have to be a lawyer to figure that one out, but a lawyer would certainly try to warp it around to mean something else.  (Are you a lawyer by any chance??)

[buckeye]

This (perhaps) tongue-in-cheek post from the Volokh Conspiracy set off a whole bunch of interesting discussion, including some on the legality of Israel's blockade:

http://volokh.com/2010/06/02/let-turkey-have-gaza/

[Gaspar]

Strange thread. . . 

Liberals usually love Israel during election time.

[altruismsuffers]

@ heironymouspasparagus: Thank you for being a level headed well mannered debater who sticks to the topic at hand unlike most of the pinheads on this forum.

Let me point out a few things here.  Israel has all the video evidence, we do not know what happened BEFORE the ship was boarded that could have provoked an angry attack by the victims of these pirates.  This is why the Rachel Corrie has taken a pit stop, to install more surveilance cameras to catch any wrongdoing on film before proceding to Gaza.  Secondly the weapons they found were literally sticks and stones to my knowledge NO israelis were killed yet 9 activisits were killed. 

[nathanm]

Strange thread. . . 

Liberals usually love Israel during election time.

"Liberals" are not the unified front you imagine. If we were, folks like yourself would have been in the political doghouse since Roosevelt and you'd have no hope of ever winning a majority in Congress or the Presidency until said unified front broke down.

This is why Democrats, despite their massive advantage in party affiliation don't see that translate into constant electoral wins.

You haven't been paying attention to the sniping at Obama coming from the lefties, all while you try to call him a red commie.

It also helps that you have a news network dedicated to pushing the right wing cause.

Back to the Israeli situation, they go far beyond what is necessary to prevent arms from being transported into Gaza. They are interdicting things like goats, cows, and children's toys. What possible justification do they have for that?