Israel vs. Middle Eastern Arab states

[skaterboy]

well done dagfin.

 

This video shows what a waste of time it is expecting the UN to do the right thing, and when faced with criticism all they can do is threaten to censor those that have the good sense to call them out on their hypocrisy.

 

No mention of looking into the incidents mentioned.

No thought of condemning the actions of Palestinian forces.

No wonder Israel pays no attention to the UN and just gets on with the difficult task of defending their people from enemies wishing their extermination.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results

[Gibber]

"Gaza flotilla activists were shot in head at close range"

 

I'd been assuming that after the "peace activists" had attacked the IDF as seen in the video footage the IDF then opened fire with automatic weapons from the helicopters (as well as with the commandos using their sidearms).

 

Looks like that wasn't the case according to your link.

[EM]

You have been at liberty to expand on this since you first posted it

True colours shown today I think. Nothing short of a state sponsored piratical massacre I would suggest.

with full reference to the armed mob attempting to kill the Israelis, the reason there were no deaths on the other ships and reference to previous precedent of navys boarding civilian vessels if you please darling, chop chop, you've already had over a day to show me that pronouncing Israeli massacres without knowing any other circumstances than a death toll isn't prejudice.

 

You did not clarify whether it was my use of the terms "piratical" or "massacre" which you took particular umbrage with, so I'll consider each in turn.

 

Dealing with the "piratical" aspect first I chose to use this term due to the fact that the boardings took place in international waters. This information was reported by the BBC in the report I heard prior to posting. International law is certainly fuzzy in such cases so I don't expect the IDF to be in court any time soon on a piracy charge. I did feel, and remain of the opinion, that it constituted a barbaric act of piracy.

 

As for whether or not it was a massacre, and if such a description was valid on the basis of the information available immediately, let us consider some definitions.

 

Massacre: To kill in considerable numbers where much resistance can not be made; to kill with indiscriminate violence, without necessity, and contrary to the usages of nations;

 

Massacre: to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons.

 

Now, you and Regev may bleat about how the IDF stormtroopers were only defending themselves, but they were the people who instigated the raid, defined the timing and ought to have been in control throughout. The early BBC report stated that ten protesters had been killed by the Israelis. We all knew what was happening concerning the flotilla's objective. I therefore suggested that it looked like a massacre. Now, with further information available (such as the five corpses with bullet holes in their heads, some from a distance of a few cm), I no longer suggest, but state that it clearly was a massacre.

 

Seems to satisfy those definitions, and the information was available at that time. How could it not be termed a massacre? Do you have a different understanding of what the word means?

 

 

... reason there were no deaths on the other ships

I don't find that of any relevance. There were obviously huge differences between the boardings, I understand that the deaths were only on the helicopter stormed vessel, but it doesn't change the status of the massacre which did occur.

 

 

... and reference to previous precedent of navys boarding civilian vessels

The case of the SS Exodus is remarkably relevant. She was also boarded in international waters and the passengers treated brutally. Interestingly those passengers also resisted their apalling treatment. I see the British treatment of the illegal Jewish migrants in that case as being inhumane too. What about you?

[EM]

Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the council of forensic medicine[/url]"] ... five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, ...

My prejudices tell me that most people shot in the back of the head are being executed, and that those shot in the back are usually running away. My prejudices also tell me that, although conceivable, either situation is much less indicative of death due to self defensive reaction. These terrible statistics argue strongly against the IDF's simplistic excuses, as does their selective editing and suppression of most of the video footage.

[Gibber]

I did feel, and remain of the opinion, that it constituted a barbaric act of piracy.

 

Then your opinion is based on what you feel and not what is grounded in legal concerns open to interpretation. I feel differently and regard this operation falls under the description of carrying out embargo activities at a time of conflict in international waters, which is legal.

 

The term piracy (which I note you chose not to include a definition of) is a completely inadequate description as navies by definition do not fall under this term. Call the operation what you want in accordance to your prejudiced feelings but be aware that by definition piracy is a totally incorrect term with which to do so. If anything the Mavi comes closer to falling under this term considering their aim of provocation and violence from a private vessel.

 

If you are going to argue that you think massacre is correct based on a definition of the term you would be a hypocrite to deny the definition of piracy as it stands and how it is wrong within your statement. If you want to claim you are using the term in a loose, broad colloquial way then fine. Use your terms in different ways if you want, it appears to violate your robust scholarly principles or whatever you called it a few posts ago.

 

Now, you and Regev may bleat about how the IDF stormtroopers were only defending themselves, but they were the people who instigated the raid, defined the timing and ought to have been in control throughout.

 

That’s right but they do still have the right to self defence in the face of life threatening force no matter how cack-handed the operation. They don’t somehow lose that right because of operational incompetence that left them open to attack by the mob.

 

I don't know what kind of control you would find acceptable but I feel that even if the IDF had fouled the prop and towed the ship to port you would still be bleating on about piracy and the unjust treatment of humanitarians.

 

If the IDF had controlled the situation by using greater force from the first instance using, for example tear gas, stun grenades, warning shots followed by an aggressive, suppressive yet short of lethal boarding party or whatever, you would indeed again be bleating on about piracy and Israel's disproportionate unprovoked military actions against humanitarians. Israel and its spokespersons know this reaction is common from Israel’s many prejudiced critics which is probably why the IDF didn’t control the situation using these means which would probably have ended up with no no life threatening violence from the subdued “humanitarians†and no resultant deaths.

 

And remember who it was that really instigated this crisis. They were offered the option of unloading the cargo and having it delivered to Gaza but chose the antagonistic provocation of sailing on. Which of itself would be within reason to make their point in my opinion, it’s also fine to do this and employ the passive resistance techniques some of the crew had said was their intent like placing themselves in positions like the door to the engine room which would require their physical removal by the IDF. However, they chose to attack the soldiers with deadly intent, this of course is not ok. And at this point it doesn’t really matter which side of the conflict you give more credence to because it means the IDF then have the right and indeed no option but to defend themselves and people died as a result of it.

 

This operation didn’t somehow set off these “peace activists†and “humanitarians†their intent was violence and their actions resulted in life threatening violence.

 

If the Israelis had boarded the vessel and started shooting and killing the crew I would be the first to call it a massacre, because you pre-judged Israel because of your feelings (and these feelings as we have seen many times before like when you claimed Zionism is worse than Nazism, are purely negative emotions to anything that Israel does including exist) before the fact was known that the soldiers were close to being killed.

 

We all knew what was happening concerning the flotilla's objective. I therefore suggested that it looked like a massacre.

I don’t know what you mean by that. At the time some of the more clear minded of us knew what their main objective was, it wasn’t delivering their cargo if this is what you are referring to.

 

Seems to satisfy those definitions, and the information was available at that time. How could it not be termed a massacre? Do you have a different understanding of what the word means?

 

It was self defence, if they had boarded and started shooting with no other reason than to kill it would be a massacre. This is what you thought had happened before any other facts because of your prejudice. You’ll note I took you up on this before I knew any of the other circumstances on board. I could have waited to be certain but I was 100% sure that the IDF didn’t board the ship and start shooting unarmed civilians as the result of a predetermined plan of action.

 

... reason there were no deaths on the other ships

 

I don't find that of any relevance. There were obviously huge differences between the boardings, I understand that the deaths were only on the helicopter stormed vessel, but it doesn't change the status of the massacre which did occur.

 

That reason is the crew of the other ships didn’t try to kill the Israelis. The crew of the Mavi were arming themselves before any boarding operation took place. Seeing the soldiers rappel one by one onto the deck must have seemed like a gift.

 

My prejudices tell me that most people shot in the back of the head are being executed, and that those shot in the back are usually running away.

 

Well that would be prejudiced speculation, try to take into account the chaotic situation clearly shown on the footage and characteristic of close combat.

 

The case of the SS Exodus is remarkably relevant.

 

Very different circumstances I’m afraid. I would say the story of the SS Exodus is very interesting on its own and to all who are interested in this thread.

 

There has been a massacre in Britain recently. Would you call it a massacre if these people had been shot as a result of a premeditated attempt to bludgeon that taxi driver to death?

 

I'd like to say good try EM, but I'm not the liar here.

[EM]

The term piracy (which I note you chose not to include a definition of) is a completely inadequate description as navies by definition do not fall under this term. ... be aware that by definition piracy is a totally incorrect term with which to do so.

I do not know if it is deliberate or accidental, but one way or another you are ignoring a particularly important aspect of my statement. I alleged "state-sponsored piracy," not merely common or garden piracy. As with the difference between "state-sponsored terrorism" and "ordinary terrorism," I believe the state sanctioned varieties to be ethically more heinous.

 

Now, to define piracy as you do is incorrect. Ever heard of Drake, Dampier or Raleigh? Those guys, and many others, were privateers. What are privateers? State sponsored pirates.

 

Privateer: To function under official sanction permitting attacks on enemy shipping and seizing ship and cargo; to engage in government-sponsored piracy.

 

You presumably consider that Wiktionary have that wrong and your definition is correct. Let me know when you have managed to convince them to let you change it. I reckon you'll have quite a slog.

 

More later.

[Gibber]

I do not know if it is deliberate or accidental, but one way or another you are ignoring a particularly important aspect of my statement. I alleged "state-sponsored piracy,"

 

You seem to missed out the state sponsored bit yourself in your last post.

 

You did not clarify whether it was my use of the terms "piratical" or "massacre" which you took particular umbrage

 

I don’t suffer the prejudiced witterings in your posts with any hope of self consistancy anymore than for objective consistancy.

 

I’m fine with the Wiktionary definition.

 

“A privately owned warship that had official sanction to attack enemy ships and take possession of their cargo"

 

To privateer is the verb that one engages in from a privately owned vessel which does indeed include the terms of your definition namely to function under official sanction permitting attacks on enemy shipping etc. None of the Israeli vessels were privately owned, it was a governmental military operation.

 

Unless you think the State of Israel to have somehow sponsored itself(!) in implementing its stated policy aims using its own armed forces and its own hardware within international law (as per interpretation). Perhaps the government of Israel decided on its actions and acted with the blessing of the “government backing†of the Israeli government, which it just so happened to also be !!?

 

It was the State of Israel that conducted this operation, your state sponsored definition once again relies on your prejudiced view of Israel. If you want to include how you regard everything as negative about Israel in your posts on Israel then that would be something. But you can’t expect us to agree with you when you don’t and claim something to be that it is not, in anything other than; as I have pointed out already, “using the term in a loose, broad colloquial way†to reflect your negative feelings.

 

If you want to vent your anger at a whole country then do so in this way, there are plenty here, like euripdes a few posts back, who will applaud it without question. Just be clear that this is what you are doing rather than some scholarly critique of intellectual merit.

 

From your odd definition the UK fisheries protection fleet is a state sponsored pirate fleet and I daresay every navy (and probably coastguard, customs etc.) in the world falls under this definition. Perhaps you could get the Oxford English Dictionary to change their definition of navy to suit your incredible etymological breakthrough.

[EM]

^

"Straw man" argumentation again.

 

You are arguing against the premise that the forces seizing the ships were privateers. Unsurprisingly this is a trivial task, given that the IDF are not private. As ought to have been entirely clear from what I wrote, I was not making such a ridiculous claim. The point of the quote was to provide an example (and it is far from isolated) showing that navies certainly can engage in piracy, thereby refuting your incorrect definition.

[Gibber]

Navies, by definition, cannot engage in piracy.

 

By your argument any navy engaging in an activity shared by privateers namely "To function under official sanction permitting attacks on enemy shipping and seizing ship and cargo" makes them state sponsored pirates.

 

These actions do not make them state sponsored pirates aka privateers it is the fact that the vessel and possibly captain and crew are private and engaging in these activities.

 

Like I said these actions do not make piracy because then every navy in the world that engages in these activites or is even sanctioned to do so by their government would be a pirate fleet. Clearly not true by any reasonable definition, you used the term only as an expression of disapproval of something that Israel did.

 

And we know you disapprove of the IDF's actions, you should stop trying to validate the wording of these expressions of disapproval into fact by throwing dictionary terms around and hoping something will stick. By all means express your disapproval of Israel but you should have more behind it than "its bad because it's Israel". That is prejudice.

 

I think you've had enough sonny.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Clearly not true by any reasonable definition, you used the term as an expression of disapproval of something that Israel did.

 

Israel hardly holds the moral highground when it comes to clarity and reasonable definition...

 

"These were without a doubt terrorists. I could see the murderous rage in their eyes and that they were coming to kill us.

murderous mercenaries - affiliated with international global jihad elements"

“S. did a remarkable job,†T. said. “He stabilized the situation and succeeded in hitting six of the terrorists.â€

he is being considered for a medal of valor.

 

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445

[EM]

Navies, by definition, cannot engage in piracy.

By your limted definition, but not by more general definitions. You are, for obvious reasons, choosing to limit the term to activities which preclude its use as criticism of your favoured actors. As I have already pointed out, such a limitation is not supported by general usage. As a final example consider this description of Drake:

Wikipedia: His exploits were legendary, making him a hero to the English but a pirate to the Spaniards

 

The Elizabethans would have been just as keen to call their Admiral a pirate, as you are to accept that Israel engages in piracy. Whether or not it is appropriate to use the term depends on how far the activity deviates from the standards and ethics of those making the observation. Israel is increasingly being described as a rogue state acting outwith accepted international standards. In the case of the blockade itself I am unaware of a single state which is not now supporting its cessation. Even the US says it needs to end. Have I missed out some supportive state?

[Gibber]

I would describe your approach to the noble art of debate as being riddled with irrationality, emotional spin, diversion and above all the use of "straw man" tactics.

 

You are emotionally charging a criticism of Israel with an incorrect claim of piracy, what is your criticism of Israel's recent operation that doesn't rely on this or your prejudice that Israel is always wrong?

[EM]

...what is your criticism of Israel's recent operation ...

Grossly disproportionate behaviour which is completely counter-productive to all parties including Israel.

 

... your prejudice that Israel is always wrong?

Yet another blanket Gibber pronouncement of supposed fact. Something which you may hold as an opinion, but which is not actually the case. Contemptible, plain and simple.

[Gibber]

There you go, you can do it, keep it up.

 

Yet another blanket Gibber pronouncement of supposed fact. Something which you may hold as an opinion, but which is not actually the case. Contemptible, plain and simple.

 

If you want you can post a few things you do find agreeable about Israel.