Looks fair
September 2nd, 2011 at 4:24 pm by David FarrarYNet reports:
UN’s Palmer Report says Israel’s Gaza blockade legal, slams ‘reckless’ violence of Turkish activists facing IDF soldiers; however, Israel’s deadly raid on vessel characterized as ‘excessive, unreasonable’
A long-anticipated United Nations report on Israel‘s deadly raid on a Gaza-bound ship in 2010 justifies Israel’s blockade of the Strip, but accuses the IDF of using “excessive and unreasonable” force to stop the vessel.
The UN’s Palmer Report was first published by the New York Times Thursday evening. The full report is available here.
Addressing Israel’s Gaza blockade, the UN’s Palmer Report notes that the Jewish state “faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza.”
“The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law,” the report says.
The UN panel noted that Israeli forces who boarded the Mavi Marmara in order to prevent it from breaching the blockade faced “organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers,” adding that the violence required the IDF to use force.
I thought that Sir Geoffrey would do a fair job, and without having read the full report, it looks like he did.
The summary that the blockade was legal, that the passengers were armed and violent but that the Israelis used excessive force in responding is pretty much what I expected would be the situation.
Sadly Turkey is rejecting the recommended settlement.
Related posts:
- Palmer to head Gaza inquiry?
- Editorials 2 June 2010
- Sir Geoffrey and Gaza
- Palmer calls for US ships to visit
September 2nd, 2011 at 4:42 pm
No need to thank me. Just passing on the news as it happens
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Just had a quick skim of the report. My thoughts would be — first of all trying to win the United Nations approval is a hopeless task for Israel. The United Nations has many countries that will not be appeased as far as Israel is concerned.
However the report does maintain the blockade is valid and gives reasons for it. That at least is sensible.
I think the problem is in the idea that the Israeli commandos used excessive force. It appears that the landing party was met with force and according to the report over half a dozen of the soldiers were injured, some receiving gunshot wounds. Remember that these are commandos, not police officers. So what would you expect? These are soldiers who tried to use minimum force — some were injured, some were overpowered and captured. I would expect they would start shooting. These are soldiers after all — they are trained to fight and trained to use lethal force.
To me the onus was on those on the ship to not resist the commandos. By violently resisting the commandos to me they received the consequences which a reasonable person would expect.
Now I use the word “reasonable person” to specifically exclude some of the bloggers who I have no doubt will soon be commenting — particularly Luc Hansen — who as far as Israel is concerned is incapable of being reasonable.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Gee Scott, only 9 were killed, what would have happened if excessive force had been used?
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 5:01 pm
@Scott “To me the onus was on those on the ship to not resist the commandos. By violently resisting the commandos to me they received the consequences which a reasonable person would expect. Now I use the word “reasonable person” to specifically exclude some of the bloggers who I have no doubt will soon be commenting — particularly Luc Hansen — who as far as Israel is concerned is incapable of being reasonable.”
Touche.
Sir GP’s report appears reasonable – fault can be found on both sides. But when it comes to the question of causation – had the protesters not tried to send arms to Hamas directly through a blockade, the Israelis would not have boarded the ship in the first place.
The outcome was totally predictable and an ‘action replay’ can be expected if there is another similar attempt by the placard wavers.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 5:03 pm
it’s all the fault of those naughty people from Gaza.
Vote:Steal their land. Lock up a million people inside a small area.
Surround it with a wall. Withhold opportunity of economic activity.
Bomb them and shell them occasionally to show who boss.
And they get ungrateful. What bad people them.
September 2nd, 2011 at 5:08 pm
I haven’t seen the report. Did it resolve the conflicting stories about whether the flotilla was carrying any arms?
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 5:16 pm
“it’s all the fault of those naughty people from Gaza.”
KH nailed it!
its also the fault of the pathetic jew hating left.
fuck em. they shoulda used more force.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 5:23 pm
No comment yet from Luc. She who must be obeyed must have arrived home from work.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 5:28 pm
it’s all the fault of those naughty people from Gaza.
Steal their land. Lock up a million people inside a small area.
Israel stole none of Gaza. They in fact gave away parts of it which they had claim over, if not unquestioned ownership.
The response? Thousands of rockets aimed at the very nation that gave them their territory.
So Israel closed the border.
If Gaza wants peace, they simply need to be peaceful.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 5:33 pm
“No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any
Vote:of the nine deaths. Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were
shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been
adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel.”
September 2nd, 2011 at 5:33 pm
To rephrase what I’ve said before: if this was a peace flotilla, then so is the IDF navy.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Yep Scrubone. Those people from Gaza just don’t know when to be grateful. Lock them up in the worlds biggest prison and they don’t like it. What are they thinking?
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 5:35 pm
“Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great
distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior
to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable:”
“Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent
Vote:resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara
requiring them to use force for their own protection.”
September 2nd, 2011 at 5:37 pm
KH, when was Gaza stolen from the Palestinians?
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Elaycee – “had the protesters not tried to send arms to Hamas directly through a blockade, the Israelis would not have boarded the ship in the first place.”
You made this up. Stick to the facts.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 5:42 pm
KH: I never said they should be happy.
I do however expect them to understand that their own actions lead to their situation.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Who really gives a shit so long as NZ taxpayers money wasn’t used in the trough called the UN and by any of its functionaries.
Oh wait a minute.
UN, Clark, Palmer et al.
These troughs never end.
Vote:Mind you sooner later troughs get lids and then get called coffins.
September 2nd, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Stick to the facts.
Ok. A ship tried to run a legitimate blockade, and was stopped by the IDF.
Thanks in part to the fact that the IDF were stupid enough to believe their claims they were a peace flotilla, several passengers on that ship were shot after they resisted with violence.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Scott Chris – “You made this up. Stick to the facts”…
OK. This good enough?
According to THE PALMER REPORT (read Item 70, 71 etc, starting on page 39). The same PALMER REPORT also says:
Israel has faced and continues to face a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. Rockets, missiles and mortar bombs have been launched from Gaza towards Israel since 2001. More than 5,000 were fired between 2005 and January 2009, when the naval blockade was imposed. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians live in the range of these attacks. As their effectiveness has increased, some rockets are now capable of reaching Tel Aviv. Since 2001 such attacks have caused more than 25 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The enormity of the psychological toll on the affected population cannot be underestimated. In addition, there have been substantial material losses. The purpose of these acts of violence, which have been repeatedly condemned by the international community, has been to do damage to the population of Israel. It seems obvious enough that stopping these violent acts was a necessary step for Israel to take in order to protect its people and to defend itself.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/Palmer-Committee-Final-report.pdf
Enough facts for you now?
And no, I didn’t make it up – I leave that tactic for the likes of you. Now STFU.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Scrubone – “Ok. A ship tried to run a legitimate blockade, and was stopped by the IDF.”
Yup, and the IDF made the……:
“…..decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great
Vote:distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior
to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable”
September 2nd, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Let’s not forget that the ship in question in fact was smuggling guns, and that armed soldiers responding to a ship knowingly running a blockage were attacked.
Regardless of arguments over Israel’s right to exist, etc etc, it is outrageous that Israel has taken so much heat over this. The gun runners got exactly what Israel said they would get and what any blockade running ship that attacks the armed soldiers that respond should expect.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 6:05 pm
TV News has just opened with the report that it was ” excessive “..
Vote:Nothing about their actions being legal..
September 2nd, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Elaycee – “And no, I didn’t make it up – I leave that tactic for the likes of you. Now STFU.”
Yes you did. You claim:
“had the protesters not tried to send arms to Hamas directly through a blockade”
which is made up. I’m not discussing Israel’s right to stop the flotilla, which is legitimate according to the report.
You are aware of what ‘facts’ are I assume Elaycee? They involve you not making them up.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 6:09 pm
ben – “Let’s not forget that the ship in question in fact was smuggling guns”
You just made that up. Stick to the facts.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 6:10 pm
@ben: “the ship in question in fact was smuggling guns” Really? As far as I’m aware no evidence has shown this. The soldiers were attacked upon them trying to board the vessel after they’d already shot two members on the ship.
All this is in the report.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 6:14 pm
It’s good to see a report out of the UN on Israel which doesn’t portray them as complete scum of the earth for once. Considering the UN is renownedly anti-Israel generally, Israel can chalk this one up as a victory I think.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 6:17 pm
@leftyliberal:
Picking the eyes out of the document to suit yourself, eh? The Turks allege that the Israelis fired from the helicopters prior to boarding. But they would, wouldn’t they?
The report does not come to that conclusion, as far as I can see. (see para 129 on page 60)
So, are you misrepresenting the report for your own ends? Otherwise, what pages are you working from?
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Lock them up in the worlds biggest prison and they don’t like it. What are they thinking?
KH, sorry but that’s complete crap.
Where do you get the idea that Gaza is a cramped dusty hole? The Left? Or is that how you prefer to think of it as being like?
Gaza is more like a luxury resort with “Luxury Hotels, 5-Star Restaurants, Exclusive Private Clubs (if you can wrangle an invitation) Equestrian Facilities and Sports Clubs, Water Parks with Olympic Size Pools, Upscale Shopping Malls, Beautiful Beaches, Luxury Rental Cars, and much more!”
Go HERE to see the photos.
Oh yeh, they’re really badly off…
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 6:21 pm
“If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth”
Joseph Goebbels
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Godwin boundary ^^^^^^^
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 6:27 pm
FE Smith: Correct regarding the allegations of shots being fired prior to boarding being of Turkish origin. I should certainly have noted that in my post. Thanks for clearing it up.
It does not alter my point, however: There is no evidence of any weapons being found among the flotilla, therefore the claims of the ships being a peaceful protest appear substantiated.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 6:30 pm
leftyliberal,
fair play on the amendment to your point, but you are not quite correct when you say no weapons were found among the flotilla. What you mean, I think, is that no weapons bound for Gaza were on the flotilla.
There were definitely weapons in the possession of participants of the flotilla.
Indeed, those photos are from the Mavi Marmara, no less.
EDIT: FWIW, one of those knives looks seriously cool.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 6:32 pm
lefty liberal, looks like they had plenty to hand to use as weapons….
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 6:35 pm
FE Smith: Yep – the Israelis cite “flares, rods, axes, knives, tear gas, gas masks, protective vests and night-vision goggles” as being on board the flotilla (item 50, pp 30). I’m sure, given some of the participants, that some of them were intended to be used as weapons, and indeed some of them may have been used as such.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 6:36 pm
…….Fletch @ 6.18 says about Gaza. “Gaza is more like a luxury resort with “Luxury Hotels, 5-Star Restaurants, Exclusive Private Clubs (if you can wrangle an invitation) Equestrian Facilities and Sports Clubs, Water Parks with Olympic Size Pools, Upscale Shopping Malls, Beautiful Beaches, Luxury Rental Cars, and much more!”………
Vote:Well of course. That’s my point too. Fletch you are clever. Those naughty Gaza people are so ungrateful.
Lets kick em off and go and live there. Coming Fletch ?
September 2nd, 2011 at 6:37 pm
scott chris – the comment “had the protesters not tried to send arms to Hamas directly through a blockade” is factually correct.
“The Israeli military said that in addition to medical aid and construction materials, they found knives, clubs, slingshots, bulletproof vests, gas masks, and night vision goggles aboard the Mavi Marmara. A statement released by the Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel claimed that violence against the soldiers was pre-planned, and that “light weaponry” was found on the ships, including pistols that had been seized from IDF commandos. Israel stated that the naval forces “found weapons prepared in advance and used against our forces.” IDF photos displayed daggers, kitchen and pocket knives, metal and wooden poles, flares, wrenches and slingshots with marble projectiles said to have been used against the soldiers. The activists were said to have also lobbed stun grenades at IDF soldiers, and the IDF furnished video reflecting this”.
And best you look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM
You may want to read this too: http://idfspokesperson.com/2010/05/31/weapons-found-on-the-flotilla-ship-mavi-marmara-used-by-activists-against-idf-soldiers-31-may-2010/
And this: http://idfspokesperson.com/2010/05/31/pictures-of-weapons-found-on-the-mavi-marmara-flotilla-ship-31-may-2010/
And just in case you think that Hamas is nice and innocent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCSnqY-HH5c
Oh, and best read the report…. it may clear the fog for you.
Because my original comment was accurate.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 7:03 pm
KH,
are we getting an answer re when Israel stole Gaza off the Palestinians?
Options are:
1947 – the actual partition plan by the UN? or
1948 – The invasion of Israel by Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the Muslim Brotherhood!!!; or
1949 – The re-drawn boundaries agreed to by the nations involved in the war under the terms of the 1949 Armistice, which left Gaza in Egyptian hands and the West Bank in Jordanian hands); or
1967 – Six Day War (noting again that Gaza was then part of Egypt and the West Bank was a part of Jordan, neither controlled by the ‘Palestinians’ and with no move by either country to set up a Palestinian state.); or
1993 – When it was agreed that the territory would be handed over to the PLO under the Oslo Accords.?
Or another that I might have missed?
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Luc – where are you? Time you put Sir Geoffrey right.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 7:15 pm
F E Smith – accuses lefty of “Picking the eyes out of the document to suit yourself”
Then makes this assertion:
“There were definitely weapons in the possession of participants of the flotilla.”
based on a link to photos courtesy of one of the protagonists. (IDF)
Hardly objective.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Scott,
are you saying the photographs are fake?
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Elaycee: In order to show that your statement is factually correct, you need to show that the knives etc. found on board the ship were destined for Hamas. I’m sure you’ll agree that arguing that Hamas would receive significant benefit from the kitchen knife and stick collection found is not particularly compelling. I’m sure there’s an ample supply of kitchen knives to be found in the 5 star hotels of Gaza that Fletch refers to
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 7:24 pm
ps, also Judge Goldstone, who prepared a report about the conflict in Gaza in 2008 for the UN, has pretty much reversed his opinion of it.
MORE
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 7:27 pm
"kitchen knife and stick collection"
Just a small downplaying of what was found on the ship…..
Love the gas masks, by the way. What were they for?
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Elaycee
We are discussing the findings of the official UN Palmer Report, not any old rubbish you have trawled on the net to reassure yourself that your point of view represents absolute truth.
As I read it:
Israel were legally entitled under international law to stop the flotilla.
A few members of the flotilla party resisted the Israeli boarding.
The Israelis used excessive force, killed 9 protesters without reasonable explanation.
My opinion? Typical OTT Israeli reaction causing more harm than necessary, and perpetuating the conflict due to their bone-headed heavy handedness.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Lets just have a think about this report..
This is perhaps the fairest modern document from the UN regarding Israel.. and it took a New Zealand ex PM to do it!
Easily the most significant part of the report is that Israel’s blockade is legal.. that kills about 90% of the lefty arguments, and the other 10% is Israel’s right to intercede the convoy is upheld (one argument logically following from the other).
The report was finished several months ago, and in the fashion of such UN documents was sent to the parties for comment and bargaining. Although I have to call this speculation we know that with such matters involving Israel it gives a little, say 10%, and the anti-semites take 90%.. and the amended report then apportions 90% of the blame to Israel.
It didn’t happen this time..
I’ve little time for Palmer.. mainly because he is a sanctimonious bugger, but this time the anti-semites found a man who could neither be bribed or threatened and prepared to go just a small way to label Israel’s retaliation as “excessive”.
Time Magazine.. you have your “Person Of The Year”
JC
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 7:41 pm
kia asked “Luc – where are you?”
If she who must be obeyed catches him commenting on Kiwiblog again, it might end in divorce.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 7:41 pm
“Scott – are you saying the photographs are fake?”
Nope. I’m saying that in any court of law, this ‘evidence’ would be inadmissible, and yet you, a Lawyer, choose to use this as evidence to support your political outlook.
Having just accused another of bias. Rich.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Rodders
He’ll be trying to build up brownie points with SWMBO tonight.
Saturday evening is bath night & nookie night.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Scott,
“I’m saying that in any court of law, this ‘evidence’ would be inadmissible,”
Wrong. And as a lawyer, I am, as you point out, particularly able to comment on that statement. So:
We use photos taken by parties to proceedings all the time in cases. Most photographs used in criminal cases are taken by the police, the government agency that is bringing the prosecution, and they are very admissible. As well, I have had clients of mine introduce as evidence photographs they themselves have taken. There is no rule of law that says photographs have to be taken by a third, or an objective/independent, party to be admissible. What is important is that they can be shown to be accurate.
In this case, and to my knowledge, the accuracy of these photographs are not disputed. Indeed, you accept they accurately depict what they allege to depict. So there is no bias involved at all in this.
It is your assertion that is, in fact, ‘rich’.
Which is a pity, because you have been, for the most part, correct on the facts; I disagree with your interpretation, however.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 7:55 pm
I’m here, KIA. Thank you and the other kind souls above for asking.
I haven’t read the report so I can’t comment much on it, yet.
By the time I get around to it it will probably be past the current news cycle, but we’ll see.
But I would like to make a couple of points in passing, if only to keep you all amused.
With regard to F E Smith’s challenge on Israel stealing Gaza, the original post from KH read:
I don’t recall the exact figures offhand, but the majority of Palestinians in Gaza are registered as refugees from what is now Israel.
In addition, the people of Gaza were part of Historic Palestine so stealing, say, Jaffa from Palestinians is similar to the Aussies, say, landing and occupying Huntly. I’m sure we would all say they have stolen Huntly (and we would probably have some idea of how Maori felt/feel!).
Also, in the sense that Gaza remains occupied by Israel, according to all authoritative sources (outside Israel, of course), Palestinians who lived in Gaza before 1948 could consider their land stolen, anyway. Israel maintains tight control over the area, more than enough to be regarded as an occupiying force.
So while a literalist interpretation of a cry from the heart may be convenient, it is insufficient to convey the whole picture, that is, the truth.
And as regards the Mavi Maramara weapons saga, the photos shown by the IDF (and I’m assuming they are the ones that have long been in the public domain) have been long discredited. For example, the supposed molotov cocktail was in fact a discarded drip which had actually been in use (held up by twine) in the immediate aftermath of the attack. The knives, if from the ship, are kitchen and rope knives – a ship needs these for everyday purposes.
When it became apparent that the ship was to come under attack in international waters, after the captain had altered course away from Gaza, and without prior warning, naturally the passengers sought to defend themselves. Especially the Turks. Turks always fight, as Kiwis well know.
I strongly recommend visitors to view the first two videos in the link below of the attack by the IDF as viewed from and on the ship. Smuggling the film past the IDF was a miracle in itself.
http://www.culturesofresistance.org/watch-more-videos
Finally, it is certainly a topsy turvy world when a well armed and highly trained force descending on a civilian ship in international waters is considered to be the victim!
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 8:03 pm
So, Luc’s answer to my question is (A) the 1947 Partition.
Luc, tell me something we don’t know about your abhorrent views on Israel and the Jews. Oh, hold on, don’t; I am just not interested!
With regards the knives, I don’t care what you say but that big curved one is unlike any I have seen used on a boat before!
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Although I have to call this speculation we know that with such matters involving Israel it gives a little, say 10%, and the anti-semites take 90%.. and the amended report then apportions 90% of the blame to Israel.
JC your description of [in fact the majority of people worldwide] who aren’t Israel-firsters as anti-Semites not once but twice in your 7:24 gives the game away re: what’s happening insida your head.
People who use language as you do, seem incapable of considering the other side. Why the hey is that?
What IMO people should do is imagine if the people of Israel weren’t actually the very same thing as the govt of Israel and look at the govt’s actions in that light.
Would they then see a thug, or would they then see an angel?
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 8:07 pm
FE Smith
Okay I was wrong about the photos being inadmissible.
However, do you believe that a photo taken by one protagonist in a dispute, unsupervised by an objective party, constitutes reasonable proof of the culpability of the other party, if that other party disputes the veracity of the photo?
Furthermore, even if these weapons were aboard, do they amount to what is commonly considered to be “smuggled arms”, for the purpose of effectively aiding Hamas’ armed resistance?
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Scott Chris says: “We are discussing the findings of the official UN Palmer Report, not any old rubbish you have trawled on the net to reassure yourself that your point of view represents absolute truth”.
Bollocks – you suggested I was telling porkies when I used the words “had the protesters not tried to send arms to Hamas directly through a blockade.” So I’ve provided you with more than enough evidence that my statement was correct. So stop being disingenuous.
But I think we can agree that Israel was within its rights to impose the blockage and (using your words) OTT when ‘causing more harm than necessary’ when dealing with resistance when they boarded the flotilla.
But the root cause was the decision [by the flotilla] to try and break the blockade.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Scott,
Sure, why shouldn’t it? If there is a dispute, provide proof to the contrary. EDIT: that is what we have to do in NZ Courts.
With regards to your second question: No, I agree with you that arms were not being smuggled for Hamas (or any other terrorist group) on that particular flotilla. The weapons aboard the Mavi Marmara were there solely to use against IDF forces in the event that there was a physical attempt to apprehend the ship.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 8:21 pm
F E Smith
I concede that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that 9 Turks were on board the flotilla with the objective of provoking their own martyrdom.
But what cause would provoke such rage and sacrifice? To them, a just cause.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Scott,
accepted. But what may seem to one person to be a just cause may still be wrong. Or, even if the cause is just, the method may be wrong.
But I doubt they the deceased went aboard with the object of provoking their own martyrdom. I suspect a number of the participants were there to provoke violence if the IDF boarded the ship, with ‘martyrdom’ a possible and accepted possibility.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 8:39 pm
@F E Smith
“But I doubt they the deceased went aboard with the object of provoking their own martyrdom.”
Uhmmm…..
The following is the transcript from Al-Jazeera TV:
Reporter: “Despite the Israeli threats and several unexpected delays, the arrival of the ships at the meeting point before sailing to the Gaza Strip inflamed the emotions and the enthusiasm of the participants.”
Visuals from Gaza flotilla ship of young Muslims shouting Islamic battle chant invoking the killing and defeat of Jews in battle:
“[Remember] Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews!
The army of Muhammad will return!”
(Khaibar is the name of last Jewish village defeated by Muhammad’s army and it marked the end of Jewish presence in Arabia in 628.)
Reporter: “While singing songs reminiscent of the Palestinian Intifada (Palestinian terror war against Israel, 2000 – 2005), participants expressed their longing to reach Gaza.”
A participant: “Right now we face one of two happy endings: either Martyrdom or reaching Gaza.” [Based on Islamic call before battle: "Either victory or Martyrdom".]
[Al-Jazeera TV, May 29, 2010]…
Vote:
September 2nd, 2011 at 8:53 pm
I don’t recall the exact figures offhand, but the majority of Palestinians in Gaza are registered as refugees from what is now Israel.
I don’t recall the exact figures offhand either, but the majority of those refugees from what is now Israel went to Israel because they were promised free land when the Jews were wiped off the face of the earth.
Also, in the sense that Gaza remains occupied by Israel, according to all authoritative sources (outside Israel, of course),
Gaza remains occupied by Israel, according to all propaganda sources that disagree with Israel. The facts on the ground are that there are no Isralei solders in Gaza and the people of Gaza are welcome to be peaceful or wage war. They chose war – even as Israel makes massive sacrifices to offer peace.
Palestinians who lived in Gaza before 1948 could consider their land stolen, anyway. Israel maintains tight control over the area, more than enough to be regarded as an occupiying force.
Gaza remains belligerent towards Israel, more than enough to be regarded as a hostile territory.
When it became apparent that the ship was to come under attack in international waters, after the captain had altered course away from Gaza, and without prior warning, naturally the passengers sought to defend themselves. Especially the Turks. Turks always fight, as Kiwis well know.
The ship was traveling to Gaza for the expressed and open purpose of breaching the blockade, which this report makes clear was legal. So the ship did not come under attack, it was boarded because it did not stop when lawfully ordered to. There was sufficient warning since all other boats in the flotilla did in fact stop.
The passengers had no right, not to mention no reason whatsoever to defend themselves. They made an attack on solders that they themselves had provoked.
Finally, if Turks always fight, then they should have been kept off what was claimed to be a peace flotilla.
Finally, it is certainly a topsy turvy world when a well armed and highly trained force descending on a civilian ship in international waters is considered to be the victim!
It is an even more topsy turvy world when people claim to be the victims when they went out of their way to break the law.
It wasn’t a civilian ship, it was the lead ship
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Other_Andy
Good research. So, if you were an Israeli official charged with the responsibility of finding the best resolution to this flotilla incident, surely a softly softly approach using a tug boat or two would have brought about a better political result for Israel?
No martyrs, kudos from the international community for Israeli restraint.
Instead, we got bone-headed one dimensional foreign policy, which played right into the martyrs hands.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Luc, sorry, but there is no such thing as a specific historical land called “Palestine” or “Palestinians”. ‘Palestine’ was the name given to that whole area by the Romans – even Jews were know as Palestinians before 1948. It would be like calling a New Zealander an ‘Antipodean’. There is no such culture, people, or language – it’s just a generic term. The same goes for “Palestinian”.
There is no Palestinian history, culture, or language, in direct contrast to the Jews. Take a look at this map of the area from 1926 – have a look at the small maps around the edges – ‘Palestine’ at lower right (1250 – 1125 B.C). Do you see any area specifically labelled ‘Palestine’? That’s because the whole area is called that. But it shows where the 12 tribes of Israel settled. The map lower left also shows the dominions of David and Solomon – the Jews have always owned this land.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 10:09 pm
“kudos from the international community for Israeli restraint.”
Would never happen, regardless of what they did.
Vote:September 2nd, 2011 at 10:47 pm
@Scott
Vote:I am glad I am not faced with those decisions.
On a daily basis, they have to deal with people who have been fed on a steady diet of hate and celebrate death and violence.
The Mavi Marmara is a 93 meter, 4,142 GT (gross tonnage) ship. You can’t just push it away. Even if this is possible, where do you push it? Push it back, lock the prop, leave it at sea and let them draw out the whole saga?
Even if you were able to push it all the way to an Israeli port (To be able to tow it you will have to board it to attach a line), you will still have to board it in the end.
Let’s face it, a group of people on board wanted to turn it into a violent confrontation, kill or be killed. No matter what the Israelis would have done, there wa always going to be a violent confrontation.
September 2nd, 2011 at 11:23 pm
“…..a recent book by a Sefik Dinc, a Turkish journalist who records that the ship carried no humanitarian aid, but had on board a large number of Islamist activists spoiling for martyrdom. Dinc’s first-hand testimony and photographs show definitively that violent, heavily armed men set upon and viciously beat Israeli soldiers who had come on board to check for weapons.”
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ruth-dudley-edwards/ruth-dudley-edwards-gazabound-vessel-really-a-ship-of-fools-2806080.html
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 12:24 am
I guess that’s case closed, then. Personal experience trumps all!
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 12:30 am
Actually, my answer was none of the above.
Is this a courtroom tactic, FE, of inventing the answer that suits you.
I wrote, and I will write it again very slowly so you can understand it slowly, that the “they stole our land” refers to the eviction of Palestinians from what is now Israel.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 12:43 am
My attitude to Jews is the same as that to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians etc: I believe in freedom of religion and freedom of no religion. End of story.
On Israel, it is simply that both sides should abide by UN resolutions, of which the most relevant to a settlement is UNGA242. It’s not my fault that Israel continually flouts international law and persecutes its indigenous peoples, and I object to any nation that does, including New Zealand.
If you read my posts on Maori issues, no doubt you would call my views abhorrent to European New Zealanders. To be consistent, you would have to!
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 12:44 am
It’s OK Rodders, I’m off the leash
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 12:52 am
Hmm, I’m not sure how to respond to that, other than, you are sorely mistaken, my friend. But let me start with recommending a couple of Israeli historians, Benny Morris and Tom Segev. And throw in Ilan Pappe for good measure. Just check your library catalogue. It’s never too late to learn.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 1:21 am
Yes, that point is often presented as some kind of slam dunk. It’s off topic as regards the report, but never mind, I’m sure people won’t object.
This line of argument is disingenuous, to say the least. It takes advantage of lack of knowledge of world affairs before modern nation states arose.
As a general rule, so I am informed by reputable historians, the Romans did not invent names for the areas they conquered, they Romanised the local name. If you look at your map, you will see an area defined by natural borders: the Red Sea, the Jordan river and the Litani river. This has been known as Palestine/Filastin for a very, very long time. Since the Philistine occupation, perhaps.
I suggest here, for you, the book “The Bible Unearthed,” by Israel Finkelstein. Yes, another Israeli. There is not much point in presenting a Palestinian historian to you, is there? But you could look up Nur Musalha, if you are brave enough. Or Rashid Khalidi. But now I’m being provocative!
Anyway, Israel (the man, not the country) will take you through the archeological record of the populating of Palestine, including how the biblical record shapes up to the reality, a study he concludes with this: “Although these stories (in the Bible) may have been based on certain historical kernels, they primarily reflect the ideology and the world view of the writers” (of the Bible).
Palestine has never been a state in the modern sense, because it has always been occupied by one or other of a long succession of great powers, such was its strategic value, but it has its indigenous people. Modern law recognises the claim of indigenous peoples. Palestinians are recognised as the the indigenous people of that area.
Palestinians should have been granted their own state after WWI, but that’s the way it goes. Since we cannot pile injustice upon injustice, the two state solution is the best we can offer, and is one an overwhelming majority of Palestinians, including everybody’s favourite bogeyman, Hamas, accepts.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 1:24 am
http://www.culturesofresistance.org/watch-more-videos
Watch.
Courage, mon ami!
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 7:50 am
Luc, I presume you wait until you hear SWMBO snoring (then you tiptoe along to the computer room)
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 8:11 am
Sir Winston Churchill
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 8:12 am
The law of unintended consequences. Back in 2000 Turkey/Israel were very close, Turkey was secular & Israel had a very strong ally in a volatile part of the World, basically the two most powerful militaries in the region, best mates, that was good for a lot of people.
Vote:The Iraq invasion changed Turkey, pushing it on a path that finds it at best a little less secular, a massively less powerful military in political terms & post the the report no significant diplomatic relationship with Israel.
Would all of this happened were it not for the Iraq war, possibly, Netanyahu is one very abrasive leader & the EU’s insincere courtship of Turkey for membership was not good, but I believe the core event that started the decline was the Iraq war & what changes that made to Turkish public opinion ( due to it’s affects on Trade/Kurd/Religion ) with the consequential implications for political leadership / military political influence.
The real loser in all this is Israel, it’s incredibly isolated now diplomatically & that is most definitely not a good thing.
September 3rd, 2011 at 8:19 am
This was always going to be a fit up as the UN was calling the shots and they are not impartial towards Israel.
The IDF behaved impeccably, they should have sunk the boats just inside the 12 mile limit after hailing them for 10 miles.
Instead they boarded them armed with paintball guns.
Sir Geoff should be ashamed of himself, he’s not a jurist anymore but a political whore doing his hirers bidding.
Vote:If the flotilla was acting illegally against a legal blockade then the sovereign state has the right to exercise her actions against them and that would include sinking the ships.
That they didn’t says everything for Israel and against the UN and it’s report.
September 3rd, 2011 at 8:39 am
For once I am with Israel on this. These arms traffickers sailed into Israel’s blockage. They prepared themselves by being ready to fight. To say Israel used excessive force is pedantic. They simply were not sufficiently prepared to fight the highly trained troops that Israel deployed. I feel sorry for the unarmed citizens which I assume where the focus of criticism lies. But these arms traffickers were asking for trouble and they got it.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 9:22 am
Come on tvb, a few kitchen knives, sticks, tools and gas masks == arms trafficking?
Yes, some on board were likely prepared for the boarding and violence ensued. That some of the bodies ended up with several bullets, some of them in their backs suggests that the IDF is not blameless. There were several things the IDF did wrong, and the report to it’s credit states them clearly with suggestions for how it should be handled should something similar occur in the future.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 9:52 am
I think there are a few facts that are clear:
1. The blockade was, and is, legal under international law
2. The flotilla was not trying to smuggle arms
3. The Israelis had the right to intercept the flotilla
4. When faced with resistance, the IDF used excessive force, killing nine people
While the flotilla members are not completely innocent, in that they sought a confrontation, the outcome was clearly disproportionate compared to what was necessary to stop the flotilla.
The rest of the extraneous comments on this thread re Gaza, refugees, Palestine etc, etc is just the usual entrenched positions with which we are already so familiar.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 10:29 am
As someone said above, the really key point in the report is that the Israeli blockade is legitimate and complies with International Law. If one goes back to the KB threads around this subject at the time it occurred you’ll see that there’s an awful lot of tub-thumping about the “illegal” blockade.
Of course one of the pieces of information that has rarely been referred to – even though it was right in front of people’s faces – is that Gaza could never have been put under a blockade without the help of the evil Jewish state of Egypt, which just happens to also have a border with Gaza. If you do know that, and you also know that Muhbarak is gone, then you’ll also know that the Eygpt-Gaza border has since turned into a sieve. As a result I doubt we’ll see many more “peace” flotillas, since Hamas will focus more on acquiring better weapons than indulging in such symbolism.
It’s rather like the endless talk about Haiti that I heard 30 years ago, which made the place sound like a singular island. To hear the talk one would never have guessed that it shares an island with the nation of the Dominican Republic. Of course, once you know that – together with the very similar history they share (Spanish colony, fights with the French, US occupation, various dictatorial thugs) – you might start asking questions about how two countries sharing the same island and history, could be so different. But that would break the narrative of Western Evil.
Same here. In the early 00′s it was an article of faith with left-wingers that Israel’s control of the Gaza Strip would never be ended by Israel. The settlers who were on that land and the soldiers who protected them were there to steadily take over the place, just like the West Bank. “Trade Land For Peace” was the demand: do that and the beginnings of a two-state solution could be seen, with the same thing eventually being done with the West Bank. Again judging from various blog threads and articles at the time, these demands were made with no confidence that they would be met. The Jews would continue to be intransigent about such a thing since they were controlled by Zionist fanatics like Sharron.
Then, amazingly, the Israelis pulled out, even using their IDF soldiers to physically remove Jewish settlers: fights were common and it caused a lot of anger throughout the country. But Sharron stuck with it and traded land for peace.
And what has been the result? No let up in the demands to trade even more land for peace. A rapid takeover of the place by Hamas as they slaughtered members of the PLO, and promptly turned it into a base for firing countless rockets into Israel.
But perhaps most importantly of all, no let up in the demonisation of Israel. To listen to the outrage nowadays you’d almost think that Israel had never obliged the requests to withdraw settlers and soldiers from Gaza. In order to give this hatred some cover the claims are made that Israel still “effectively” occupies the place, the naval blockade being just one example. Cute! Apparently they’re not only supposed to withdraw they’re supposed to just sit there and watch the place get turned into a giant weapons dump.
Of course the result in Israel itself has been the collapse of the peace movement, whose support has dwindled enormously. Even people who used to believe in “land for peace” now have no confidence in it. They shrug their shoulders, believing that repeating the Gaza exercise elsewhere would simply lead to the same results. Given what they have had to live with who can blame them? But in the West, where the results of such demands do not have to be endured, the whole debate is given the memory hole treatment.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 10:34 am
Palestinians should have been granted their own state after WWI, but that’s the way it goes.
They were in 1948, but chose not to accept it. If you look at history, in 1948 the UN formulated a partition plan for two states in Palestine – one Jewish, one Arab. If you look at the site HERE, you can see the map of how it would have been divided up evenly between both, with Jerusalem being under international administration. The Jews accepted this plan – the Arabs did not.
I know nothing is simple, but the map looks pretty much split 50/50 to me. The Arabs rejected it and 5 countries attacked Israel with help of troops from four other countries. Israel won and the rest is history. Of course, these countries also attacked Israel in 1956, 1967 and 1973 and lost again, but they will keep on trying…
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 10:35 am
Is quoting Ynet on the subject of the State of Israel murdering people the equivalent of asking the unions about labour reform??
People are always going to struggle with gunning down people with sticks. Regardless of who holds the guns and who holds the sticks.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 10:37 am
ps -
Gaza was taken by Israel when they won the Six Day Way in 1967. Israel was willing to trade land captured in a defensive war for peace, as it eventually did with the Egyptians and Jordanians, but neither the Palestinians nor the Syrians have been willing to offer peace in exchange for land, as required by Security Council Resolution 242.
So you see, the Palestinians could have had that land back if they had sued for peace but they didn’t want to. They rather want Israel destroyed. In the end, Israel gave Gaza back in 2005 as part of the ‘roadmap to peace’, but all they got were more rockets fired from Gaza at them in return.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 11:27 am
All the borders in that region are illegitimate, they were drawn up by the British and not by the citizens, consequently disputes will endure until the people have their say, which is occurring right now.(Arab Spring).
Vote:For defence purposes, a standard emergency flare gun can drop a chopper at short range if hit in the right spot. It’s better than sticks.
September 3rd, 2011 at 11:27 am
Fletch – “In the end, Israel gave Gaza back in 2005 as part of the ‘roadmap to peace’, but all they got were more rockets fired from Gaza at them in return.”
As of December 2010, 327,750 Israelis live in the 121 officially-recognised settlements in the West Bank, 192,000 Israelis live in settlements in East Jerusalem and over 20,000 live in settlements in the Golan Heights.
Step 1 Zionists go home.
Step 2 Violent resistance to cease.
Step 3 Withdraw to pre 1967 borders in compliance with UN resolution 242. Peace keepers move in to secure borders.
Step 4 Palestinian and Israeli statehood formalized and recognized by each country.
Step 5 Peace treaty signed.
If this solution is the same as how events are projected to turn out anyway, then why not just do it now?
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 11:37 am
My eyes have been lifted. My thanks to all the knowledge gained from the posts above.
Vote:1. Gaza is a paradise. Those naughty Gaza people have been keeping that info from us.
2. Everybody who lives there is a local and always has been. There are no refugees there.
3. The idea of palestine is a myth. And there are no such things as palestinians I suppose.
Maybe those Gaza people fire rockets to keep people away from their exclusive country clubs. Do you think that’s it ??
September 3rd, 2011 at 11:41 am
I tried finding Palmer’s report on the UN’s website and no joy. Given Palmer’s political background and the long held hostility that many in the UN have towards Israel, I think these findings are about as good as they get.
Much has been made by left leaning posters on this thread who are less sympathetic to Israel about whether the Mavi Marmara had weapons on board intended for Gaza. This is a red herring. The crucial point is that the IDF had intercepted ships heading to Gaza that DID have weapons on board intended for Hamas or Hezbollah http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_ntbPB_Ur8 OR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbCUDyZE2r0. The threat of such clandestine shipments led the IDF to declare that any ships bound for Gaza would run the risk of an Israeli Navy interception to prevent such arms shipments. In the case of the Mavi Marmara they indicated their public intent to run the blockade. For their to be outrage that the IDF actually carried out its very publicly stated threat to board vessels bound for Gaza beggars belief and to that extent the UN report seems to be unequivocal in stating the legality of the Israeli action.
The second separate issue is that of disproportionate force. The video footage that Other Andy linked made it clear that some activists on board the vessel fully planned and anticipated a violent confrontation. I did view the link that Luc provided filmed I would guess in true Pallywood fashion to show that at least on one side of this ship, the side that the pro Palestinian activists seem to have reasonable control over, they were able to stage manage their reaction for the most favourable interpretation of any incidents. I have no doubt that some of the passengers on board had no intention to be violent and were less interested in a fight with the IDF however, the IDF footage doesn’t lie – its boarding commandos were viciously attacked – hardly the actions of benign peace activists. The actions of the violent few overshadowed the peaceful intentions of the rest of the passengers. The IDF were caught short in that they likely did not anticipate such a response and the worst that can be said is that a few soldiers felt their lives and the lives of colleagues were in sufficient danger as to warrant firing.
I imagine that the IDF have learned a lot from this incident. The boarding of blockade running vessels will be handled with greater care and wariness with perhaps a 2nd crew at a distance ready to fire tear gas at the first sign of any violence. Nothwithstanding the threats of various new flotillas, it would appear that this incident has somewhat cooled the ardour of the Wadestown/Georgetown (DC)/Sloan Sq activist set in becoming part of ‘peaceful’ protests. The Turks have quietly ramped down their anti Israeli rhetoric.
All in all, and I didn’t believe I’d ever say this about the UN, this UN involvement may actually do some good for a change.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 12:48 pm
KH, you still haven’t answered my question. Luc’s answer, it seems from his drunken ramblings, was not (A), as I surmised, but in fact (F) Those Jews Don’t Deserve A State So All Israel Is Therefore Stolen.
But we expect that from Kiwiblog’s resident Anti-Semite.
What about you? When was Gaza stolen from the Palestinians?
And, just so you know, the concept of the Palestinian is a 20th century one. Prior to it gaining political importance they were considered to be Palestinian Arabs. The Jews living there were Palestinian Jews. Indeed, there is no specific ethnicity there, they are still Arabs of a sort, just that it is convenient to label them Palestinians for political purposes. So, technically, you could also describe the Jews resident in Israel as Palestinian. If you wanted to.
EDIT: Oh, and those Palestinians fire rockets and mortars into Israel with the aim of murdering Israelis. They celebrate when a fellow Palestinian cuts the throat of babe in arms. They celebrate when fellow Palestinians murder school children driving in a car with their parents. The unwillingness to negotiate peace, and their determination to murder Jews, is what is unreasonable here.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Do you have any evidence that Luc is an anti-semite, or does his temerity in challenging the Israeli version automatically make him so?
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 12:58 pm
KH, there are only “refugees” because the other Arab countries want there to be refugees. It suits them that way. Those oil-rich countries could take them in if they wanted. Israel had to take in refugees when the Jews were expelled from the other Arab countries.
Scott, in 2005 Israel still dismantled 21 settlements in Gaza and uprooted 8000 Israeli’s. And what did they get for it? Increased rocket fire. That is to say nothing of the deal that Arafat turned down in the Camp David talks in 2000, which would have given them 95% of what they were asking for. Arafat was offered a state with its capital in Jerusalem, control over the Temple Mount, a return of approximately 95 percent of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip, and a $30 billion compensation package for the 1948 refugees. Yet he turned it down.
How do I know? Because Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan was there to help broker the deal. Elsa Walsh interviewed him for the New Yorker –
He did, and it was…
Read the original article PDF’d HERE
So, I am of the opinion that there is nothing one could offer the Palestinians where they would be satisfied, apart from the complete destruction of Israel. Their victim status is a much more useful weapon, wielded by both themselves and the liberal progressive media against Israel.
Vote:In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, an executive member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), said in an interview to the Dutch newspaper Trouw: “The ‘Palestinian people’ does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel.”
September 3rd, 2011 at 1:00 pm
By the way, if the members of the Gaza ‘Peace’ Flotilla travelling on the Mavi Marmara had been in NZ at the time, there would no doubt have been charges of Assault with intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm and probably also Attempted Murder laid against them. To attack soldiers descending from helicopters with IRON BARS and KNIVES, to wrench the gun off one and start to use it, to throw one soldier off one deck and on to a lower deck, to stab some of them, all before the IDF soldiers began to shoot? Yeah, that is real peaceful like.
In fact, the intent of the peace mission can probably be summed up best in the response to instructions from the IDF to turn around: "Shut up. Go back to Auschwitz,"
Of course, they were just helping the Palestinians, weren’t they? Well, maybe or maybe not – "We’re helping the Arabs go against the US, don’t forget 9/11 guys", a
Vote:man said later on during the radio exchange.
September 3rd, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Bigger snippet from new Yorker article –
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 1:09 pm
milkmilo says: “Do you have any evidence that Luc is an anti-semite, or does his temerity in challenging the Israeli version automatically make him so?”
C’mon – as you are a prolific poster on KB, you would (I assume) read a lot of the posts. If you looked at Luc’s ‘contributions’ you would be aware of his prejudices and biases very clearly – after all, almost every single post from Luc is based on his usual myopic meme.
Stop trolling…
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 1:12 pm
So, no evidence then.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 1:16 pm
That’s actually a great example in this thread of the classic Western outlook of the last few decades, which can be summarised as The Devil Made Them Do It. In other words, the primary driver is always what “we” did, we being the West (including Israel). The people concerned – whether Palestinians, Turks or North Koreans, don’t actually operate and act of their own volition, it’s always primarily a response to our actions.
In fact there was an event in Turkey that preceded the Iraq war and far outweighed it, or any Israeli actions, in sliding Turkey towards the Islamist world; the election in 2002 that saw the AKP party take control of Parliament. Besides the facts on the ground in Turkey, If one is going to blame things like the Iraq War or Israel actions of the last ten years, you should be prepared to supply some explanation of why earlier such events did not lead to such things in Turkey. There are plenty to choose from: the various Israeli wars and the Gulf War being not the least of them.
And if you want to talk about “abrasive” leaders of Israel perhaps you should take a look at this incident from the 2009 Davos forum. The AKP leader and Turkish PM, Erdogan, ripped into the Israeli President, Peres: “when it comes to killing, you know well how to kill.” Peres gave it right back to Erdogan, accusing Erdogan of ignoring the long history of Arab violence against Israel, causing Erdogan to storm off the stage. I don’t think anybody has described Peres as “abrasive” in the manner of Netanyahu. In case anybody would have any doubts about Erdogan’s internal impulses regarding Jews, note that as he accused them of deliberately targeting and killing little children, he also called on Turkish people to learn how to make money – like Jews do.
At best the SOB is yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Do you really think that such things are minor factors in what is happening to Turkey or that such things would not have become actionable anyway. Why does the “trigger” of external forces count for more when they’re Western than when they’re Iranian or Saudi theological forces?
No – this is down to the AKP party, who kept their Islamic aspect very quiet up to the 2002 election and even a little way beyond – constantly dismissing such claims as the shouting of nasty people who’d supported the various military coups over the decades. The AKP played it very slowly and carefully for several years.
And if you do want to insist on a Western factor in all this, you might consider this angle, which can be argued as either action or inaction:>/a>
Even on the verge of the 2007 elections you could read articles like this and this, which explained the background of the AKP rise, the failure of the opposition parties, the role of corruption, expressed concern about the AKP’s true intentions, but remained hopeful.
However, since their big win in the 2007 elections they’ve felt less need to hide under the cloak, Erdogans statements being merely the leading example. That election effectively gave them the power to select the next President, next military commander and stack the courts with friendly (Islamist?) judges. By 2009 even the WaPo wasn’t kidding itself any more:
Organised protests aside, as far as opinion polls can tell the Turkish people aren’t that big on the whole deal, even the likely 30% of voters that are the AKP core support. But so what, there are plenty of examples of political parties that pushed far beyond the bounds of their electoral claims and their core base. How many 1984 Labour voters can (or ever could) say that what happened later was what they voted for?
At least they don’t blame National for what happened – much.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 1:20 pm
MM, Elaycee told you what you need to do. Don’t pretend that our not presenting the evidence to you on a plate means there is no evidence. Just go and read Luc’s ravings from days past. Last years bile, especially.
But don’t expect us to do it for you.
EDIT: Well said, Tom Hunter. The biggest cause of the change in the Turkey/Israel relationship is not Israel’s or the West’s actions, but the election of a proto-Islamist to power in Erdogan. His rule has seen a sea-change in Turkey, including a real power struggle with the Army to try to nullify that body’s historic role in keeping the Turkish government secular.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Anti-semitism is a fairly serious charge to make. I’ve read a lot of Luc’s comments and don’t find them to be anti-semitic. In the same way that criticising Treaty claims etc does not make one a racist, criticising Israel does not necessarily make one an anti-semite. The accusation tends to be just a deflection from actual argument.
According to FE Smith I could go back through Luc’s comments and find the evidence he is unable to present. Well, I don’t think accusations work like that. To use the legal analogies he is so fond of; should the party prosecuting the charge present the evidence?
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 1:33 pm
MM, we aren’t making an accusation, nor are you a jury. We are making a statement of fact. We don’t care what you think about the issue, your questioning does not change what is clearly fact. Therefore we need prove nothing.
Nice try, though.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Assertion of a fact does not make it so. Not caring whether I agree does not necessarily make your position correct.
I should have thought that if Luc was so obviously anti-semitic that it would be easy to demonstrate that ‘fact’. Seems not.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 1:40 pm
milkmilo: if you seriously can’t see the obvious, then it can only be put down to myopia.
Or just being a troll…
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 1:44 pm
MM, there is a difference between ‘cannot’ and ‘will not’.
We ‘will not’ because we cannot be bothered justifying our position for you.
Just because you ask does not mean we have to comply. As Elaycee said, you are trolling.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Given that it’s the mikenmild standard of debate – which is to say, one-sentence questions that make no definition of what standard of expression would count as anti-semitism – perhaps I should await such.
However, since the next millenium is approaching I think I’ll just leave you with this:
Case closed for me, but I’m sure mikenmild would willingly engage entire teams of Jesuits to parse that statement or perhaps dismiss it as tongue in cheek – or something, anything but what it so obviously is.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Fletch – My guess is that Arafat didn’t have a mandate from the various Palestinian factions to accept the 2000 Camp David solution to peace, as it still involved ceding land in the West Bank in exchange for Israeli territory to Zionist settlers. The other sticking point then, as it is now, is the descendants’ of displaced Israeli Arab refugees right of return to Israel.
The thing I keep banging on about, is that the Israeli hard line ’10 eyes for 1′ eye policy in response to Hamas resistance makes it politically impossible for the Palestinian factions to even agree to stop rocket attacks, let alone sign any peace agreements. The Israelis on the other hand have an educated and disciplined army who would show restraint if ordered to do so.
That is why I feel the onus is on the Israelis to show the way, as they began to do so with the 2005 Gaza withdrawal, as they are the only side who actually have the power to change the course of this conflict for the better.
As far as any lasting solution is concerned, because the original State Of Israel was arbitrarily imposed on Palestine by the League Of Nations, it is up to the succeeding world authority, the UN, to arbitrarily impose the conditions for the territorial borders of the dual states that they deem fair in light of recent history, and the nearest thing we have to that is Resolution 242, plus compensation for the descendants of the Arab refugees.
The power is in Israel and the UN’s and the USA’s hands to create peace. Mahmood Abbas and Hammas are powerless to make change. Their only option is resistance. Perhaps Israel are satisfied with this state of affairs.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 2:23 pm
As an update to my previous comment I should say that there are critics of Israeli policies and actions that I do not consider Jew-haters (I rather dislike the term anti-Semite, given that there are non-Jewish Semitic peoples). Commentators on this blog including Dim, Pyscho Milt, and Cha, have issued very tough critiques of Israel over the years, but I’ve detected nothing in their comments that even hinted at the usual aspects of Jew hatred.
Similarly there is at least one frequent right-wing commentator here who exhibits the same sort of traditional Jewphobia, to a greater degree than Luc as it happens, though slightly better disguised.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Can one be pro Palestinian without being anti-Semitic. I say yes. Luc Hansen’s position, as I read it, is that the State Of Israel was instituted without a valid moral mandate, and her right to exist was arbitrarily imposed on those who lived in the region prior to 1947 United Nations decision to partition Palestine.
This isn’t racist, it’s logical, but like a lot of idealism, it isn’t practical. Pro-Zionists toss the ‘anti-Semite’ epithet like confetti.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 2:52 pm
“Similarly there is at least one frequent right-wing commentator here who exhibits the same sort of traditional Jewphobia, to a greater degree than Luc as it happens, though slightly better disguised.”
I’m inclined to agree that believers in Jewish conspiracy theories are more likely to be genuinely anti-Semitic.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Just send a warning shot next time and then sink the ship.
Vote:sod the UN.
September 3rd, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Yep, a warning shot right through the middle of the hull, at water level.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 3:09 pm
milkmilo asked: “Gee Scott, only 9 were killed, what would have happened if excessive force had been used?”
Fleet sunk…. No survivors…
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Looks fair but it isn’t ,it’s typical UN diplomacy.
The Israeli commanddoes were entitled to protect themselves from a murderous mob intent on extreme violence.
The Turks don’t like the report.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/09/2011927226423902.html
These Turks are not to be trusted despite the best efforts of the political elites and the MSM to paint a nice picture of a secular ,benign country they are Islamist and illegally occupy European territory*(north Cyprus). They bomb northern Iraq with impunity and oppress domestic religous and ethnic minorities.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Scott,
of course the UN had a moral mandate to establish the state of Israel. Most of the free world at that time agreed that there was a moral mandate, especially after half of Europe had participated in trying to exterminate European Jewry.
What they didn’t have was Arab agreement. But, given the fact that the Mufti of Jerusalem, one of the pre-eminent Arab leaders (and one who actively defined Arabs in Palestine as ‘Palestinians’) was a Nazi collaborater and an active proponent of the Holocaust, that is not suprising. Arguing with Luc is a waste of time, because Luc will never accept that there should be such a State as Israel.
Simple, really.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 4:54 pm
F E Smith – “especially after half of Europe had participated in trying to exterminate European Jewry.”
Using that reasoning, surely it would have been more appropriate to have annexed Bavaria to use as recompense, rather than simply dispossess the Palestinian Arabs. That is what strikes me as being so unfair, and had I been living in the former Palestine and displaced by imperial decree, I would feel implacably aggrieved.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Well, one third of the population of Palestine was already Jewish by that time, while most of the European Jews were dead. Moreover, their had historically been Jews resident in Palestine on pretty much continual basis and there was that whole ‘they used to live here’ thing (which Luc hates/denies as well).
Of course, the demographics would have been different had the Ottomans not tried to wipe out the Armenians 30 years earlier.
But I think you miss the point. The partition in no way deprived the Arabs of land in their ownership. It addressed government.
EDIT: And don’t forget that they weren’t self-governing at that time anyway, so nobody was taking anything off them. They just didn’t want to live in a land with Jews.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Scott 4:52. Good summation.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Hell I’ll have to reassess you Lord Birkenhead. You are actually sticking up for people you can’t claim legal aid for!
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Palestine as defined by the 1920 Franco-British boundary agreement (modern Israel plus the West Bank):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine
In 1900 population about 600,000 of whom 94% were Arabs.
In 1914 population about 797,000 of whom 92% were Arabs.
In 1948 population about 1,900,000, of whom 68% were Arabs, and 32% were Jews.
Zionist movement’s emigration began in the late 19th century, comprised mainly of Ashkenazi Jews. Palestine was then little bigger than Northland.
It’s not as if the land was empty before the Israelis moved in. Bit like New Zealand, but one tenth the size, and more recent.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 6:46 pm
mikenmild
A good clue to Luc’s anti semitism is to examine his core beliefs on Israel and its ancient history, the literature he invariably turns to for his sources and the obsession that is his blog. He is an avowed Palestinian apologist – all his posts here and on his own blog are for that intent indeed he can and will hijack almost any thread with the plight of Palestinians and the naughtiness of Israel. The historical sources he cites to deny the reality of thousands of years of archeologically verifiable Jewish history in Palestine are the ancient history versions of Holocaust denial. When challenged to produce the land deeds that proved the loudly claimed pre 1948 Palestinian ownership of the vast majority of Israel he linked to a pretty looking pro Palestinian produced map of villages that was really an easy to read visual geographical summation of their claims that were utterly and completely unverifiable and were not even close to legal proof of ownership – kind of like how certain Maori tribes overlapped claims on disputed land claiming it was THEIR iwi’s because well someone said so.
It is one thing to dispute the recent history such as using the Stern Gang’s antics as proof the entire IDF is evil and cruel and to believe the exaggerations of the Jenin incursions or to close your eyes to the use of civilians and their apartment blocks in which they live by Hezbollah and Hamas to stash and fire weapons, its a whole other category of the anti Israel line to pretend that the Jews have made up the whole ancestral homeland thing. Only the most venal and true believing Jew hating Arabs believe that but that’s where Luc is at I’m afraid.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 7:17 pm
kia – “The historical sources he cites to deny the reality of thousands of years of archeologically verifiable Jewish history in Palestine”
The region between Egypt, Syria and Arabia has been controlled and settled by numerous different peoples, including Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Ancient Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, the Sunni Arab Caliphate, the Shia Fatimid Caliphate, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottomans, the British and modern Israelis and Palestinians.
Modern archaeologists and historians of the region refer to their field of study as Syro-Palestinian archaeology.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 7:30 pm
I’ve posted this before, but here’s KISS rocker Gene Simmons (who is actually Israeli, born to a holocaust survivor), saying that Obama doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about when he says that Israel should go back to it’s 1967 borders, and that Obama needs to grow up and has no “f*ckin idea what the world is like”… too true… He also says that the UN is “the most pathetic body on the face of the planet” – also true…
Vote:
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Scott Chris –
Mark Twain describes the land as very empty on his adventures…
Also, Benny Morris and others say that the Arabs contributed to the “refugee problem” by telling Arabs to leave so the army could come in.
—snip—
Morris, who is harshly critical of traditional Israeli history with regard to the refugee issue, summarizes the problem caused by the Palestinian and Pan-Arab attack: “The Palestinian Refugee problem was born of war, not by design. . . . The Arab leadership inside and outside Palestine probably helped precipitate the exodus. . . . No guiding hand or central control is evident.”25 Morris states that “[d]uring the first months, the flight of the middle and upper classes from the towns provoked little Arab interest.”26
It looked like a repeat of the exodus that had taken place during the riots of the late 1930s, and the Husseinis “were probably happy that many of these wealthy, Opposition-linked families were leaving.”27 Morris points out that “no Arab government closed its borders or otherwise tried to stem the exodus.”28 Finally, Morris notes that these refugees would
be utilized during the following years by the Arab states as a powerful political and propaganda pawn against Israel. The memory or vicarious memory of 1948 and the subsequent decades of humiliation and depri-vation in the refugee camps would ultimately turn generations of Pales-tinians into potential or active terrorists and the “Palestinian problem” into one of the world’s most intractable.29
—snip—
A research report by the Arab-sponsored Institute for Palestine Studies concluded that the majority of the Arab refugees were not expelled and 68 percent of them “left without seeing an Israeli solder.”34 At the very least, the issue is too complex and multifaceted for simple finger-pointing in only one direction.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 8:02 pm
Fletch – “saying that Obama doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about when he says that Israel should go back to it’s 1967 borders”
Gene Simmons – Asked about his claim of having had sex with 4,600 women he told Terry Gross: “If you want to welcome me with open arms, I’m afraid you’re also going to have to welcome me with open legs.
Now here’s a guy who knows what he talking about…..
“Mark Twain describes the land as very empty on his adventures…” see my 6.44 pm post
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Chris, keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that’s too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today . . . No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.
Why should they be squeezed into a little box in lands that they have always historically owned? Aren’t they allowed anything?
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Fletch – “keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands”
Arabs are not all the same people, just as Europeans aren’t.
In Mark Twain’s heyday, there were 400,000 Arabs in an Ottoman Palestine the size of Northland. But I recognize Israels right to exist, having been recreated by UN decree.
“Why should they be squeezed into a little box in lands that they have always historically owned?”
The Children of Israel left home, which has also been home to many other tribes.
The region between Egypt, Syria and Arabia has been controlled and settled by numerous different peoples, including Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Ancient Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, the Sunni Arab Caliphate, the Shia Fatimid Caliphate, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottomans, the British and modern Israelis and Palestinians.
Vote:September 3rd, 2011 at 9:42 pm
Gee mikenmild can’t tell me if Hamas are anti-semitic, so how would he be able to tell if Luc Hansen is anti-semitic.
Vote:September 4th, 2011 at 1:23 am
Perhaps I mispoke there, Tom, in the emotion of the moment, but do notice I said “Israelis”, not Jews.
In fact, I prefer not to use the term Jews in the context of the Israeli/Palestine issue, just as I avoid using the term “Muslim” in the same context, because at heart this is not a religious dispute, or even a racial/ethnic identity dispute, but a dispute over land.
The accusations of anti-Semitism are but the standard slings and arrows from supporters of the Palestinian dispossession and oppression for the moral stand I take.
I use my legal name, I can be traced, and I am happy to engage people in reasoned discourse. There is precious little of that from those posters above who delight in attacking me personally and who, in fact, demonstrate all the traits required of serial bullies.
Anonymous bullies, of course.
Vote:September 4th, 2011 at 2:03 am
Sorry, Mike points 1 and 4 are wrong.
Point 1. This committee is not a court of international law, although no doubt if Turkey is successful in getting a case to the ICJ, this report would be presented as evidence.
Point 2: The flotilla was still in international waters, by a long way, and the captain of Mavi Marmara, the lead ship, had altered course to head away from Gaza before the IDF acted.
I suggest you watch the video I linked to above.
And take a look at this interview featuring Norman Finkelstein, an American
Radicalhero: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/2/as_turkey_freezes_israel_ties_criticsA transcript accompanies the interview video for the convenience of the viewer.
And you can watch the film American Radical on You Tube.
Vote:September 4th, 2011 at 2:21 am
Pathetic stuff, really, especially from someone who apparently passed the Bar exam. Mind you, so did Winston (Peters, that is, not the anti-Semite with the cigar!)
I have said many times that Israel is a fact, end of story for the forseeable future. It is a legitimate member of the UN and the saddest thing I find about Israel is the same as the for the US, that a nation, even if born of injustice, could have been a shining light of human enlightenment instead of just another imperialist rogue state backed by immense military might.
I support the resolution of the present conflict along the lines of UNGA242. That is, two states. But not two states for two peoples: that’s as apartheid in nature as Israel currently is. Rather, neighbours, just like Australia and New Zealand, with relatively free interchange of citizens, regardless of ethnicity or creed.
Hark! Is that an Apache helicopter I hear throbbing overhead?
Vote:September 4th, 2011 at 2:37 am
Thanks for your reply in my absence, Scott, but I would add that Jewish presence in Palestine and beyond is undeniable. But the original Jews were Semites, West Asiatic Semites according to Israel Finkelstein, whom we (the West) generically refer to today as Arabs.
In this modern era, sensible people don’t go back thousands of years to violently reclaim supposed past lands, dispossessing the recognised indigenous people of the land. That’s crazy stuff. Where would it end? Seven billion people claiming squatter rights in Ethiopia?
Mind you, I suppose all eras were modern in their time!
Vote:September 4th, 2011 at 8:05 am
And another thing. Based on the Israeli precedent reclaiming The Promised Land on the basis of historical sovereignty, I’m sure all the pro-Zionists on this thread will be in favour of the creation of a separate Maori state. I prefer a united New Zealand personally.
Vote:September 4th, 2011 at 10:33 am
Well I learned some more things. It goes like this.
Vote:Some people living in what is now Israel didn’t like some new guys moving in.
the new guys moving were peaceful and generally – you know – lovely
So – for no reason at all – get that, no reason.
The first guys moved out, and sat over various borders protesting.
Just to make the new guys look bad. And have been doing it for 50 years now. Thats naughty.
Mind you I am not sure that is exactly correct.
Some on this blog say the first guys were not there anyway.
And only moved in the day before they moved out again.
And the new guys weren’t new guys at all. Having been there all the time anyway.
My special thanks to F E Smith and Fletch and others
September 4th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
KH, really it has nothing at all to do with land. If the Arabs laid down their weapons tomorrow there would be peace. If the Jews laid down their weapons, they would be wiped from the planet. As far as who owned what land originally – isn’t that a bit of a moot point anyway? This is as simple a way as i can put it (since you seem to prefer simple) –
The U.N drew up a plan in 1948 saying, we’re going to split up this area of land evenly between both of you guys (Jews and Arabs), and put Jerusalem under international control so that there is no squabbling. The Jews said, sure OK, it’s a deal. The division of the area looks fairly 50/50 and fair to me (MAP). The Arabs said no way, and promptly attacked the Jews (8 countries attacked them in all) but the Jews won – and people say there is no God?
Anyway, I know you don’t believe in God, but if you did then you’d know that God gave that land to Abraham and his descendants forever. It says so right in the Bible. And that Abraham’s descendants would be as numerous as the stars.
Vote:Looking back at history, the Jews should have been defeated or wiped out many times. There is a legendary story concerning an agitated Frederick the Great who, in frustration, demanded from his cabinet that somebody provide him with proof of the existence of God. There was a momentary silence before one of his counselors spoke up: “Have you considered the Jew, your Majesty?” he asked.
September 4th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
ps, Frederick the Great part taken from an article HERE that proves that countries are blessed that bless the Jews, and countries that turn against the Jews lose their prosperity. Are you listening Obama? America turns her back on the Jews at her own peril.
Snippet –
Vote:September 4th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
“So – for no reason at all – get that, no reason.
The first guys moved out, and sat over various borders protesting.”
Absolute rubbish. There was a war started by or with the support of the ‘first guys’ within minutes of Israel achieving statehood and a lot of the ‘first guys’ left as a result. What the ‘first guys’ did not expect was to lose said war.
EDIT:”really it has nothing at all to do with land. If the Arabs laid down their weapons tomorrow there would be peace.”
Probably the truest thing said in this thread.
Oh, and KH? You still haven’t answered my question- when was the land stolen?
Vote:September 4th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Luc’s latest fiction includes his rejection of milkmilo’s comment: “the blockade was, and is, legal under international law”
Luc opined: “This committee is not a court of international law, although no doubt if Turkey is successful in getting a case to the ICJ, this report would be presented as evidence.”
Of course, the blockade is a legitimate and legal tool of defence set in place by Israel and has been recognised as such by the UN appointed panel in the Palmer Report. And the NOTAM to this effect (Notice to Mariners) remains in place.
Luc’s usual tactic of attempting to discredit anything that is contrary to his own jaundiced views, is tiresome. Luc – you should be in the MSM – they have a habit of omitting facts from their opinion pieces too.
Vote:September 4th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Fletch – “The Arabs said no way, and promptly attacked the Jews (8 countries attacked them in all) but the Jews won – and people say there is no God?”
So why didn’t God intervene on behalf of the Holocaust victims? Same race. Or perhaps they had been punished enough for killing Jesus, but then, I thought that’s what hell is for.
Vote:September 4th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Scott, please don’t go there.
Vote:September 4th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Spot the troll….
Vote:September 4th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
FE Smith – I apologize if I offended. What I meant was, I do not believe that God interferes in the affairs of man.
Vote:September 4th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
No, no, Scott, I wasn’t offended, I just didn’t want the question (which is an interesting one) to derail us into a religious debate, something that I think KB has too many of.
KH,
Still waiting…
Vote:September 4th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
My opinion is, by definition, not fiction. It is a fact that that is my opinion.
The problem is that there has never been a ruling by a suitably qualified legal authority in the issue.
However, in view of your certainty on this, I look forward to you supporting Turkey in requesting the UN to refer it to the ICJ.
But wait! Israel objects! Why?
Why would it refuse the opportunity to once and for all to silence those pesky, noisy naysayers, like, for example, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and influential people like Richard Falk?
I’ll leave you to figure that one out.
I hope you checked out the links I have provided above to both film of the actual event and interviews with a participant in the flotilla and Norman Finkelstein.
Vote:September 4th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Luc
Vote:I’m happy to withdraw my comment about the blockade. I see now that the opinion in the UN report is by no means universally held.
September 4th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Cheers mm.
The whole thing is quite murky when you consider all the report consists of is Israel says/Turkey says and a skewed panel offers subjective findings. No investigation was permitted. It’s a joke, really. I would love to have a quiet chat with Sir Geoffrey about what really went on.
I’m posting this link just to answer some of the wilder claims made above about the Gaza Strip and inject some rationality into the discussion.
And Wikipedia actually has a reasonably balanced article on Gaza too.
Vote:September 4th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
OK F E Smith …. You got me.
Vote:I have been educated by so many on this blog with so much more knowledge than me and I have learned.
1. No Land stolen
2. Gaza is in fact an exclusive country club.
3. They fire rockets at Israel to keep this exclusivity a secret. (Source above- well nobody has proved that idea wrong.)
4. There are no refugees in Gaza. They all lived there all the time and forever. No Newbies.
5. There actually are no Palestinians. It’s a myth. It’s just some PR construction.
6. There was nobody at all on the lands that Israel now occupies. (or them now there were always there anyway.)
7. There were some naughty people who moved in the night before, in 1948, so they could be kicked off the next day. And have something to complain about. Wicked behaviour that.
Thank you all for all this new knowledge I have gained in this instructive weekend. The source of all these new and old facts can be found in this very blog above. Especially Fletch and also F E Smith. So it must be true.
September 5th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Fletch – ever noticed that God conveniently stopped doing ‘miracles’ just when technology became available to document them?
Why doesn’t He just send 10 plagues or something on the nations that are against Israel, or part some seas or some bullshit like that, rather than ‘working through the hearts and minds of political leaders’ and crap like that.
Vote:
September 5th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
http://i.imgur.com/tylPd.jpg
Vote:September 5th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
OK I take back what I wrote, here is some evidence:
Vote:
September 5th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
KH, your answer is full of falsehoods and the form of your sarcasm is just rude. Have the courage to debate your assertions like an adult or else don’t join the debate.
Related to this topic, an interesting quote from the Telegraph via Powerlineblog on the recent disruption of the Israel Philharmonic at the Proms:
Vote:September 5th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
I’m not sure a protest against Israel becomes automatically anti-semitic just because not every breach of law or human rights by other countries is subject to similar protests.
While I wouldn’t support, for example, John Minto and his crowd protesting agasint an Israli tennis player, I don’t consider them anti-smites because they do.
Vote:September 5th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
MM – I’m reposting the text below (I am not the author, and these are not necessarily my views), as you may find it interesting.
However, as a side point, if you recognise that certain sides (i.e. Hamas) are anti-semitic, then how do you classify their apologists?
Who here would fit the “3D”s test?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not all anti-Zionists are Jew-haters! Or are they?
Whether Jew-hate drives an anti-Zionist can be difficult to assess. For more about that, see 3D Test of Anti-Semitism: Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization by Natan SHARANSKY at http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-sharansky-f04.htm. I tend to agree with SHARANSKY’s ideas in that article and consider his 3D Test apt.
Alan DERSHOWITZ provides a relevant list of examples in “When Legit Criticism Crosses the Anti-Semitism Line” at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/when-legit-criticism-cros_b_3524.html. Here is one quote from that article: ‘”As Thomas Friedman of The New York Times accurately put it, “Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction — out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East — is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest”‘
To discuss this, we must have a brief working definition of Zionism. Here is mine:
Zionism is the national self-determination aspiration of the Jewish People. This aspiration has always been inherent in the daily lives of Jews.
The idea of Zion has been central in Jewish history, thought and culture for well over 3000 years. During all that time, Jews have identified and have been consistently identified by others as a People of unique and common heritage and culture. Jews had and have an ongoing presence in and are linked indissolubly to the Holy Land which for Jews was and is Eretz Yisrael, the traditional Land of Israel with Jerusalem as its capital.
So, are all anti-Zionists bigoted Jew-haters? Based upon the above, my answer is NO!
Vote:September 5th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
There’s nothing that I would disagree with there Tim. It is a sensitive area, and the borderlines between criticising the Israeli government, opposing Zionism and outright anti-Semitism can become quite murky.
It”s perfectly possible to criticise Israel over Gaza, say, without agreeing with everything Hamas says or everything they do. Most reasonable people would abhor both terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens and disprotionate reprisals against Palestinians. As in most protracted conflicts, no side is completely innocent and no side totally blameworthy.
One can only hope that over time the desire for a lasting peace will outlast the cycles of atrocity and revenge. Sometimes though that is a faint hope.
Vote:September 5th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
OK – But the question is whether it’s possible to ignore Hamas, or somehow downplay the effect of what they do, which is inevitably what seems to happen.
Agree, although I don’t know what would be a “proportionate” response to Grad Missiles raining down over a civilian population, fired cynically from within civilian areas, and storage of munitions within Mosques and schools. What would you suggest is “proportionate”?
I couldn’t agree more here. When I lived in Israel I was involved with PeaceNow, which was founded by Amos Oz. One of the big initiatives was tolerance and dialog between Arabs and Jews. It’s no secret that meeting places such as “Mike’s Place” where Arabs and Jews met were targets for Hamas. Hamas has aimed to kill off tolerance within it’s own people, to replace with it’s extremist ideals.
Please forgive me if I aim to point this fact out to people who condemn Israel and ignore Hamas and without acknowledgement. I believe I have been and seen with my own eyes and made up my mind objectively.
Vote: