# Israel attacks aid ship



## Betsy Og

Now I'm no anti-semite, and have only fleeting knowledge of Middle Eastern politics, but I think it disgraceful that aid ships are being prevented from getting through to Gaza. One of these ships left from Ireland. I've heard no suggestion that there's anything on board except civilian aid.

So whats the excuse?, where does "collective punishment" end, do they want to maximise suffering or what?, and what will be the response of the EU and UN.?? I think its time Israel stopped upping the ante, by all means take out individual terrorists, but punishing a nation is not on


----------



## Sunny

You might not be anti-semitic but you are about to be accused of it. You can't criticise Israel. 

Very interesting reading about it this morning. Check out the various European media outlets against the US media reporting of the same incident. Really is amazing.


----------



## Latrade

Sunny said:


> You might not be anti-semitic but you are about to be accused of it. You can't criticise Israel.
> 
> Very interesting reading about it this morning. Check out the various European media outlets against the US media reporting of the same incident. Really is amazing.


 
Of course you can criticise, I personally think sometimes there's a jump to always blame Israel irrespective of provocation. I don't agree with it being anti-Semitic though whenever that is used in some small circles (funnily enough though it isn't used by the larger Jewish populations), in the same way that criticising Zimbabwe and Mugabee doesn't make me racist. But, there are times when Israel's crimes gain massive media attention, but not so much those committed against Israel. 

My own opinion in general on this issue is that anyone who adamantly blames one side for all ills/supports one side's actions on a black and white fashion clearly doesn't understand the whole mess there. No side is entirely innocent in this.

However, having said that, in this case all criticism is justified. It's a disgrace and that's all there is to it. The blockade is illegal, the action took place in international waters, it just doesn't get any more of a criminal act. 

There's already some questioning of the intentions of those aboard the ships, given that it is suggested some high profile passengers pulled out last minute which may imply some foreknowledge, but that's irrelevant and is from the kind of sources you'd expect that nonsense to derive from.


----------



## Sunny

Not saying you can't criticise but it is only a matter of time before the the anti-semitism card gets played. Happens every time the actions of Israel gets discussed.

Be interesting to see how this one plays out. Israel are their own worst enemy sometimes. They better hope there were weapons (and I don't mean one or two handguns or a few knives) on that ship.


----------



## VOR

Sunny said:


> Check out the various European media outlets against the US media reporting of the same incident. Really is amazing.



+1 Sunny. I had Sky digital on this morning to listen to Morning Ireland. I turned over to Fox after 8.15ish. They had that useless Oliver North war chronicles on. The ticker at the bottom of the screen had chatter about the Isreali embassy in Turkey being under attack. Very little about the killing of people in international waters.


----------



## Latrade

Sunny said:


> Not saying you can't criticise but it is only a matter of time before the the anti-semitism card gets played. Happens every time the actions of Israel gets discussed.
> 
> Be interesting to see how this one plays out. Israel are their own worst enemy sometimes. They better hope there were weapons (and I don't mean one or two handguns or a few knives) on that ship.


 
True, but it's a very difficult one. In my opinion some criticism I see is unjustified and is based upon anti-semitism, but my main point was that it tends not to be the larger Jewish population that play this card. 

I agree on the last point, if that was the reason for the action, then we should know pretty soon whether or not there's anything there.


----------



## Bill Struth

Israel should consider this. If there wasn't an illegal blockade of 1.5 million people then there wouldn't have been any need for a flotilla of boats carrying aid. But of course they won't consider it. The zionist war machine kills first and asks questions later.


----------



## UFC

Latrade said:


> My own opinion in general on this issue is that anyone who adamantly blames one side for all ills/supports one side's actions on a black and white fashion clearly doesn't understand the whole mess there. No side is entirely innocent in this.


 
Yes, but one side is way more guilty/evil than the other.


----------



## csirl

Bill Struth said:


> Israel should consider this. If there wasn't an illegal blockade of 1.5 million people then there wouldn't have been any need for a flotilla of boats carrying aid. But of course they won't consider it. The zionist war machine kills first and asks questions later.


 
It's Egypt who are maintaining the blockade. Gaza is part of Egypt that was abandoned by them in recent years. Why do people criticise Israel for not allowing convoys into a place that wants them wiped off the face of the earth, but Egypt gets no criticism for a blockade of their own people?


----------



## csirl

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/tricolour-on-ship-delays-gaza-aid-mission-2179693.html

Luckily the Marine Survey Office were on the ball - otherwise these ships would have been plastered with tricolours.


----------



## Purple

csirl said:


> it's egypt who are maintaining the blockade. Gaza is part of egypt that was abandoned by them in recent years. Why do people criticise israel for not allowing convoys into a place that wants them wiped off the face of the earth, but egypt gets no criticism for a blockade of their own people?



+1


----------



## Purple

Bill Struth said:


> The Zionist war machine kills first and asks questions later.



That's the sort of simplistic mindless rhetoric that gets people called anti-Israeli. If the "Zionist War Machine" killed first and asked questions later they would have just wiped Gaza off the face of the earth.

My criticism of Israel is that they never apologise for their screw-ups. They never come out and say "Yes, our soldiers panicked and completely over-reacted and now people are dead who shouldn't be." The same holds true when their soldiers shoot civilians at checkpoints (even when they are children on their way to school). Because of this there is a shadow cast over all of their actions.


----------



## micmclo

The flottila was warned last week not to attempt to cross the blockade.
And they tried it anyway
Maybe they thought the IDF would do nothing. But they was always going to be a reaction.


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> My criticism of Israel is that they never apologise for their screw-ups. They never come out and say "Yes, our soldiers panicked and completely over-reacted and now people are dead who shouldn't be." The same holds true when their soldiers shoot civilians at checkpoints (even when they are children on their way to school). Because of this there is a shadow cast over all of their actions.


 
Fair point. Like I said, they are their own worst enemy at times.


----------



## Sunny

micmclo said:


> The flottila was warned last week not to attempt to cross the blockade.
> And they tried it anyway
> Maybe they though the IDF would do nothing. But they was always going to be a reaction.
> 
> I don't see Red Cross ships trying to cross the blockade.


 
Sorry but that is no defence. The ship was in international waters. It was piracy and murder.


----------



## Sunny

Hard to know what Israel hopes to achieve

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8654337.stm


----------



## Bill Struth

Purple said:


> That's the sort of simplistic mindless rhetoric that gets people called anti-Israeli. If the "Zionist War Machine" killed first and asked questions later *they would have just wiped Gaza off the face of the earth*.
> .


 I'd stay they've had a damn good crack at it. Not much of Gaza left as it is.


----------



## Sunny

Bill Struth said:


> I'd stay they've had a damn good crack at it. Not much of Gaza left as it is.


 
That's not just Israels fault. The people have been betrayed by their own leaders for decades. As mentioned above, Eygpt and the other Arab States carry some of the blame and so does the International Community in general.


----------



## Bill Struth

Sunny said:


> Hard to know what Israel hopes to achieve
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8654337.stm


 It would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. Water allowed but not fruit juice? Tea and coffee allowed but not chocolate?


----------



## Bill Struth

Sunny said:


> That's not just Israels fault. The people have been betrayed by their own leaders for decades. As mentioned above, Eygpt and the other Arab States carry some of the blame and so does the International Community in general.


Agree with that.


----------



## csirl

Bill Struth said:


> It would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. Water allowed but not fruit juice? Tea and coffee allowed but not chocolate?


 
At least Israel allows some things through. Egypt, who's people live in Gaza, allows NOTHING through.





> Huwaida Arraf, one of the organizers, said the six-ship flotilla began the journey toward Gaza on Sunday afternoon after two days of delays. She said they expected to reach Gaza, about 250 miles away, on Monday afternoon, and that two more ships expected to follow in "a second wave."
> She said the flotilla was "fully prepared for the different scenarios" that might arise, and that organizers were hopeful that Israeli authorities would "do what's right" and not stop the convoy.
> "We fully intend to go to Gaza regardless of any intimidation of threats of violence against us," she said. "They are going to have to forcefully stop us."


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/30/pro-palestinian-aid-flotilla-sets-sail-for-gaza-st/


Above quote from one of the organisers. Seems to suggest that they were looking for confrontation. The phrase "fully prepared for the different scenarios" seems to back up the Israelis claim that they were armed.


----------



## Bill Struth

csirl said:


> At least Israel allows some things through. Egypt, who's people live in Gaza, allows NOTHING through..


 No one is denying that. But then again Egypt hasn't just murdered foreign citizens in international waters. No other country in the world would get away with it.



csirl said:


> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/30/pro-palestinian-aid-flotilla-sets-sail-for-gaza-st/
> 
> 
> Above quote from one of the organisers. Seems to suggest that they were looking for confrontation. The phrase "fully prepared for the different scenarios" seems to back up the Israelis claim that they were armed.


 
Are you Mark Regev? That phrase could mean absolutely anything.


----------



## Sunny

csirl said:


> At least Israel allows some things through. Egypt, who's people live in Gaza, allows NOTHING through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/30/pro-palestinian-aid-flotilla-sets-sail-for-gaza-st/
> 
> 
> Above quote from one of the organisers. Seems to suggest that they were looking for confrontation. The phrase "fully prepared for the different scenarios" seems to back up the Israelis claim that they were armed.


 


By all accounts, they had sticks, knives and unconfirmed reports that they had a couple of handguns. Hardly prepared for an assult by a professional commando unit in international waters. 

I notice that the Israeli's casulties seems to getting bigger and more serious as the hours the go on..

I cannot think of one thing that allows Israel to defend it's actions on this one. It's citizens were not under threat. (Assuming it was all aid and there is no evidence to suggest it was anything but)


----------



## dereko1969

csirl said:


> Above quote from one of the organisers. Seems to suggest that they were looking for confrontation. The phrase "fully prepared for the different scenarios" seems to back up the Israelis claim that they were armed.


 
Could also mean that they had bullet proof vests, white flags, UN flags - depending on how you view things, obviously to you it means weapons but it wouldn't be my first reading of it.


----------



## Latrade

micmclo said:


> The flottila was warned last week not to attempt to cross the blockade.
> And they tried it anyway
> Maybe they thought the IDF would do nothing. But they was always going to be a reaction.


 
The whole purpose of this was to get a reaction, of that there's little doubt. However, at worst the expectation would be that they would be stopped in Israel's waters (note that even though Israel doesn't control Gaza itself, it still controls the coast and airspace, which contradicts the Israeli statements regarding the legality of the blockade) and either deported or if they refused, detained. 

Their hope was to then raise a lot of media attention to the issue. I don't feel anyone thought Israel would enter international waters, have commandos jump from a helicopter and start shooting people on a boat over some fruit juice and chocolate.

And I also think it's a bit disingenuos saying Israel lets some things through, it really is a very small amount of aid, including medical supplies (which get held up in processing and approval then have to be destroyed because they're past their use). Best estimates are that only 30% of aide gets through.

Egypt has its own problems, in particular the tunnels that it fails to control. But then i feel sorry for Egypt, it entered into the blockade thinking the EU would have troops as support, however, when Hamas came to power it "strongly disagreed" with the EU presence, i.e. get out before we start picking you off. So Egypt was left to defend itself thoroughly on the understanding that if Hamas operates or co-ordinates from Egypt, that makes Egypt a legitimate target. So it's getting threats from the US/Israel, but has no support from anyone else.

So again, it's a mess, there are serious questions regarding the legality of the blockade, there are questions as to the motivations of those in the boats. However, none of that justifies what happened this morning in any context.


----------



## csirl

> Egypt has its own problems, in particular the tunnels that it fails to control. But then i feel sorry for Egypt, it entered into the blockade thinking the EU would have troops as support, however, when Hamas came to power it "strongly disagreed" with the EU presence, i.e. get out before we start picking you off. So Egypt was left to defend itself thoroughly on the understanding that if Hamas operates or co-ordinates from Egypt, that makes Egypt a legitimate target. So it's getting threats from the US/Israel, but has no support from anyone else.


 
There is no reason for Egypt to have a blockade. It should never have abandoned its own citizens. There should be free movement around all of Egypt and equal rights for all Egyptians including those living in Gaza. This problem is entirely caused by Egypt refusal to enforce law and order in its own country. They have no political desire to take on Hamas or any of the other terrorists. They prefer to let their people live in rotten conditions in Gaza.


----------



## Sunny

Latrade said:


> The whole purpose of this was to get a reaction, of that there's little doubt. However, at worst the expectation would be that they would be stopped in Israel's waters (note that even though Israel doesn't control Gaza itself, it still controls the coast and airspace, which contradicts the Israeli statements regarding the legality of the blockade) and either deported or if they refused, detained.
> 
> Their hope was to then raise a lot of media attention to the issue. I don't feel anyone thought Israel would enter international waters, have commandos jump from a helicopter and start shooting people on a boat over some fruit juice and chocolate.
> 
> And I also think it's a bit disingenuos saying Israel lets some things through, it really is a very small amount of aid, including medical supplies (which get held up in processing and approval then have to be destroyed because they're past their use). Best estimates are that only 30% of aide gets through.
> 
> Egypt has its own problems, in particular the tunnels that it fails to control. But then i feel sorry for Egypt, it entered into the blockade thinking the EU would have troops as support, however, when Hamas came to power it "strongly disagreed" with the EU presence, i.e. get out before we start picking you off. So Egypt was left to defend itself thoroughly on the understanding that if Hamas operates or co-ordinates from Egypt, that makes Egypt a legitimate target. So it's getting threats from the US/Israel, but has no support from anyone else.
> 
> So again, it's a mess, there are serious questions regarding the legality of the blockade, there are questions as to the motivations of those in the boats. However, none of that justifies what happened this morning in any context.



Well put.


----------



## UFC

Purple said:


> My criticism of Israel is that they never apologise for their screw-ups. *They never come out and say "Yes, our soldiers panicked and completely over-reacted and now people are dead who shouldn't be."* The same holds true when their soldiers shoot civilians at checkpoints (even when they are children on their way to school). Because of this there is a shadow cast over all of their actions.


 
I think that's because they haven't panicked. I think they genuinely believe they are entitled to do whatever they want.


----------



## Latrade

csirl said:


> There is no reason for Egypt to have a blockade. It should never have abandoned its own citizens. There should be free movement around all of Egypt and equal rights for all Egyptians including those living in Gaza. This problem is entirely caused by Egypt refusal to enforce law and order in its own country. They have no political desire to take on Hamas or any of the other terrorists. They prefer to let their people live in rotten conditions in Gaza.


 
Yes I agree regarding Egypt, but like Israel I have sympathy with the impossibility of what Egypt has to deal with. If it opens up the crossing to Gaza it legitimises Hamas. First, that is contrary to Egypt's policy as it doesn't recognise or want to deal with Hamas, second, Hamas operating out of Egypt and using its borders is bad news for Egypt. Catch 22.

But still, the fact that Egypt isn't playing fair and all the ills imposed on Israel to date and all the threats to Israel doesn't justify Israel's actions this morning.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> By all accounts, they had sticks, knives and unconfirmed reports that they had a couple of handguns. Hardly prepared for an assult by a professional commando unit in international waters.



If someone came at me with a knife and I had an assault rifle I'd shoot them.

The full facts have not emerged yet, and they may never emerge. Israel is not like other countries; it is under constant threat from many of its neighbours and if it lets its guard down it will be attacked. The flotilla knew that they were not going to be let through to Gaza without being boarded so the real question is what were the sequence of events when they were. If the IDF landed on the ship and just started shooting then they are completely in the wrong. If they landed and were attacked (even if the attackers just had sticks and knives) then they were justified in opening fire. 

Israel is in an impossible position, they are being forced to police an Egyptian problem because the Egyptians can do nothing and remain untouched by much of the Western Media/ Western Governments. If Israel does nothing it gets bombarded by Rockets (that are smuggles in through tunnels from Egypt or on ships who claim to  be carrying aid.


----------



## Purple

UFC said:


> I think that's because they haven't panicked. I think they genuinely believe they are entitled to do whatever they want.



I believe they think they are required to do whatever they deem necessary to stop attacks against their country. Not an unreasonable standpoint. If Hamas was not attacking Israel there would be no blockade.


----------



## Latrade

Purple said:


> If someone came at me with a knife and I had an assault rifle I'd shoot them....
> 
> If the IDF landed on the ship and just started shooting then they are completely in the wrong. If they landed and were attacked (even if the attackers just had sticks and knives) then they were justified in opening fire.


 
Purple, we've agreed on Israel before and I share the view that Israel is justifiably twitchy in its responses. However, I just can't support that view in this event. Even allowing for hype and playing with the truth, what do we know? 

1. The ships were in international waters, Israel has no say in what they do while there.

2. Israel sent out commandos in a helicopter who then landed, fully armed onto the ships.

3. "something" happened and non-military citizens of other soveriegn countries (remember Turkey is an ally of Israel) were shot and killed.

You say if some came at me with sticks and knives, you'd shoot. Well if I were in international waters and commandos dropped onto my ship fully armed, I'd defend myself and my colleagues. Those on the boat were perfectly in their rights to react and defend themselves against that action. It doesn't matter if the ones coming aboard are Pirates or Military, they were in the wrong and the passengers had every right to defend against such an act of aggression.


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> If someone came at me with a knife and I had an assault rifle I'd shoot them.


 
So next time a somali pirate boards a ship in international waters and the ship tries to defend itself , the pirate is justified in shooting people?

Not really comparing the two but it was in international waters. The ship was flying under a Turkish flag. Israel had no right to board the ship with a commando unit. It's citizens were not going to be harmed by sticks or knives so unless Israel finds rockets or something in the cargo, it was a completely unjustifed act of murder.


----------



## z107

> I believe they think they are required to do whatever they deem necessary to stop attacks against their country. Not an unreasonable standpoint. If Hamas was not attacking Israel there would be no blockade.



How far back do you want to go?
Recognition of people's republic of China by Egypt?
The Suez Crises?
The Six day war?
Yom Kippur War?

There's a huge amount of stuff going on, that goes back years. A very tangled web indeed.


----------



## Purple

umop3p!sdn said:


> How far back do you want to go?
> Recognition of people's republic of China by Egypt?
> The Suez Crises?
> The Six day war?
> Yom Kippur War?
> 
> There's a huge amount of stuff going on, that goes back years. A very tangled web indeed.



I agree; there's no clear right and wrong in the broader historical context. It veries depending on where you start from.


----------



## Purple

Latrade, Sunny; broadly speaking I agree.


----------



## Betsy Og

At an admittedly simplistic level, if you take the view that the people in the boats were just courting controversy (sounds a bit conspiracy theory to me) then why not let them through and defeat their aims??

If, as seems more likely, it was genuine aid being delivered then Israel's action is basically murder inflicted to ensure wider misery. This defending themselves stuff seems daft to me - I start waving tricolours on the Shankill, a mob approaches me so I gun them down ..... sure I was only defending myself........

Isnt it universally true that you cannot suppress an entire nation indefinitely. Look at Afghanistan, Ireland, India etc. etc. If you make every citizen your enemy then how can you have peace?? Wouldnt Israel be better moving away from punishing peoples and adopting a more surgical approach (as they have shown are capable of doing). 

Would it really hurt Israel or Egypt if people in Gaza had enough to eat??, or medical care, schools, infrastructure etc. I know this sounds like a beauty pagent speech but the current position does seems to defy basic logic and humanity.


----------



## Purple

I think the issue for Israel is to maintain pressure on Hamas. If the quality of day to day life is improved under Hamas they will portray it as a victory for their terror campaign. I'm not saying I agree with them, or even if they are correct that it justifies it, but I think it is their rationale. I really don't understand why the Egyptians don't just put proper security screening in place and re-open the boarder. 

In the long run poverty and oppression breed hatred and violence and whatever the historical rights and wrongs of it, it is Israel that the ire of the people of Gaza is being directed against. Admittedly the Israelis did try to help them a few years ago but how that that evil man Arafat is dead (the man who stole hundreds of millions of international aid from his own people) there might be a change to build a new peace. 

Egypt and Jordan are on side and Syria, despite the rhetoric, is not interested in attacking Israel so from a national perspective it’s only Iran that’s a problem. There will always be huge amounts of Arab money for terrorist groups (very little for schools and hospitals though) but the big players from decades passed are off the pitch at this stage. The USA has given billions of dollars to the Palestinians over the last 15 years (hitting the high water mark during the last Bush presidency), mostly directed through the world bank and the UN. Israel has also spent a fortune giving them aid (and then even more blowing it up!). How much have their oil rich Arab neighbours given?


----------



## csirl

> 1. The ships were in international waters, Israel has no say in what they do while there.


 
There are many circumstances in which the security forces of any nation can seize and take control of any ship flying under any flag in international waters. Even if those international waters are 1,000s miles away from their terroritories. The Proliferation Security Initiative is one I can think off right now and is probably not the one used in this instance (using it as an example), but their are a wide range of these initiatives, many of which are controlled by UN agreements, in existance.


----------



## csirl

> Yes I agree regarding Egypt, but like Israel I have sympathy with the impossibility of what Egypt has to deal with. If it opens up the crossing to Gaza it legitimises Hamas. First, that is contrary to Egypt's policy as it doesn't recognise or want to deal with Hamas, second, Hamas operating out of Egypt and using its borders is bad news for Egypt. Catch 22.


 
I dont understand how Egypt would be legitimising Hamas? Surely Egypt taking control of its own national territory from Hamas would be deligitimising Hamas rule in Gaza?


----------



## Betsy Og

Purple said:


> I think the issue for Israel is to maintain pressure on Hamas.


 
I think thats their fundamental flaw/miscalculation, their dis-proportionate measures feed hatred and terrorism. You turn ordinary folk into militants. Read an article recently re Afghanistan and it was much the same point that ultimately theres a "hearts and minds" exercise needed - not a "kill 'em all" strategy.


----------



## z104

That's like the British punishing all of Northern Irelands citizens because of the actions of Sinn Fein.

You reap what you sow but they don't seem to cop this. Right now they're sowing hatred.


----------



## BillK

Further to umop3!sdn's question about how far do you want to go back. The Children of Israel have been fighting the Philistines since the time of Moses.


----------



## Latrade

csirl said:


> There are many circumstances in which the security forces of any nation can seize and take control of any ship flying under any flag in international waters. Even if those international waters are 1,000s miles away from their terroritories. The Proliferation Security Initiative is one I can think off right now and is probably not the one used in this instance (using it as an example), but their are a wide range of these initiatives, many of which are controlled by UN agreements, in existance.


 
Are you saying this is one of those justifiable reasons? Really? 

As to Egypt, I keep saying I agree with your point, all I'm saying is that I can sympathise with Egypt. That's it. It isn't easy for them, yes they could grow a pair, but they don't have the full resources to full protect their border and they lost the EU support. 



Betsy Og said:


> I think thats their fundamental flaw/miscalculation, their dis-proportionate measures feed hatred and terrorism. You turn ordinary folk into militants.


 
That's fair enough, but look at the media attention to Israel and Gaza. How widely reported has it been that Hamas continued to violate the cease fire by launching rockets into Israel? Not that widely reported if at all. How widely reported was it that Israel didn't respond to one of these provocations? Again, never. When they do, it's total media coverage, when they show restraint (which is the vast majority of the time), it's ignored.


----------



## DublinTexas

I do not understand what all of his hoo-ha is about.

A bunch of people want to bring aid to people that need it but the people needing it are ruled by a terrorist organisation.

When those bunch of people charter ships and announce they are going to break through a security zone set up to stop terrorists getting weapons the Israeli government offers those people that they can dock in an Israeli port and the goods (after establishing that there are no weapons in it) will be transferred to the intended destination.

Five out of 6 ships take up that offer, just one ship of hardliners decline to do so, despite that it would serve the aid goal (bringing aid).

As it does not serve the political goal of that bunch of people that one ship declines. In fact for me they became Hamas Navy at that moment. 

Israel than takes action as the Hamas navy does ignore the order and tries to board the ships where they are attacked with knives, metal bars, possible guns and thrown overboard. In fact they snatched a gun from the IDF and started firing at other IDF members. Clearly not peace loving.

If these people had nothing to hide, why not allow the boarding, towing into the Israeli port where the aid would have send on. Goal archived, aid delivered and political point made. But instead these people who proclaim there are peace-loving attack other people. 

In in the middle of it, Turkey. These jokers want to join the EU?

Look at the videos they clearly show how violence was used by members of the Hamas navy and that the IDF only used force once they came under attack. I’m sorry but if you hit me with a metal bar, you bet I’m going to take action against you. What would have happened if the IDF would not have responded and allowed the Hamas navy to beat their soldier to death or take them hostage? 

These people are terrorist supporters! They should be jailed and not given the heroes status that some media are giving them. They clearly used violence and I suspect that they clearly hoped that Israel would stop them so that they and their terrorist friends can try to gain political capital out of this.

If they really were only concerned about the aid than they would have accepted the Israeli offer of transporting the aid to Gaza. But that clearly was not the goal.

I’m sorry for the lives lost, but if you volunteer to become a member of Hamas Navy than you have to take the risk that you die or get injured, that’s the price you pay to become a terrorist.


----------



## mathepac

Boarding or attacking a ship in international waters in an act of piracy / terrorism. The captain and crew of a vessel in such circumstances are entitled to take whatever measures they deem appropriate to protect their vessel and their lives. 

In this case the Israelis are the pirates and terrorists and there can be no justification for their murderous actions. 

If our government and diplomats had any liathróidí they'd summon the Israeli ambassador for a meeting and issue a strongly worded PE or expel him / her. I'll be very surprised if it happens or if the Brits, Obama or the EU do anything either.


----------



## johnd

mathepac said:


> Boarding or attacking a ship in international waters in an act of piracy / terrorism. The captain and crew of a vessel in such circumstances are entitled to take whatever measures they deem appropriate to protect their vessel and their lives.
> 
> In this case the Israelis are the pirates and terrorists and there can be no justification for their murderous actions.
> 
> If our government and diplomats had any liathróidí they'd summon the Israeli ambassador for a meeting and issue a strongly worded PE or expel him / her. I'll be very surprised if it happens or if the Brits, Obama or the EU do anything either.[/QUOTE
> 
> Our government will make a lot of angry comments and look serious but do nothing that would displease the Americans, Israel's biggest supporters. The US supports Israel because the pro-Israel lobby in American is very generous to both the Democratic and Republican parties and so they know that with the US support they can get away with anything.


----------



## z104

DublinTexas.

If Israel were allowing enough aid into Gaza then people would not feel the need the deliver it directly to Gaza.

They're allowing in approx: 25% of what is actually needed.

Do you get it now?


Israel were invited to check the cargo at port of departure. 
If the aid goes to an Israely port then there is no telling how long it will stay in a warehouse.

The UN needs to step in here.


----------



## DublinTexas

Niallers said:


> If Israel were allowing enough aid into Gaza then people would not feel the need the deliver it directly to Gaza.
> They're allowing in approx: 25% of what is actually needed.
> Do you get it now?
> Israel were invited to check the cargo at port of departure.
> If the aid goes to an Israely port then there is no telling how long it will stay in a warehouse.


 
The cargo from the 5 ships that agreed to the sensible solution is in Israel now,  I’m sure we are going to hear if it reaches Gaza. 

An invitation to check it at the port of departure is a joke, there are enough points during the route to add weapons to the cargo. The Turkish government claimed they inspected and still people had weapons. So much to the theory of inspection at departure.




Niallers said:


> The UN needs to step in here.


 
Thank you for making me laugh, the UN is about as useful as my local council when it comes to fix the pothole in the street. Making a yellow mark around it and fix it in possible 2013.




mathepac said:


> Boarding or attacking a ship in international waters in an act of piracy / terrorism. The captain and crew of a vessel in such circumstances are entitled to take whatever measures they deem appropriate to protect their vessel and their lives.


The vessel in question was not in international waters (they begin 200 nautical miles of the cost).

The vessel was in the Exclusive Economic Zone and hence the Israel has the right to inspection of the vessel.

What do you think would our government do if a vessel does not agree to inspection in our Exclusive Economic Zone? In fact it’s a criminal offence not to co-operate with a marine office who wants to inspect the vessel.


----------



## Sunny

DublinTexas said:


> I do not understand what all of his hoo-ha is about.
> 
> A bunch of people want to bring aid to people that need it but the people needing it are ruled by a terrorist organisation.
> 
> When those bunch of people charter ships and announce they are going to break through a security zone set up to stop terrorists getting weapons the Israeli government offers those people that they can dock in an Israeli port and the goods (after establishing that there are no weapons in it) will be transferred to the intended destination.
> 
> Five out of 6 ships take up that offer, just one ship of hardliners decline to do so, despite that it would serve the aid goal (bringing aid).
> 
> As it does not serve the political goal of that bunch of people that one ship declines. In fact for me they became Hamas Navy at that moment.
> 
> Israel than takes action as the Hamas navy does ignore the order and tries to board the ships where they are attacked with knives, metal bars, possible guns and thrown overboard. In fact they snatched a gun from the IDF and started firing at other IDF members. Clearly not peace loving.
> 
> If these people had nothing to hide, why not allow the boarding, towing into the Israeli port where the aid would have send on. Goal archived, aid delivered and political point made. But instead these people who proclaim there are peace-loving attack other people.
> 
> In in the middle of it, Turkey. These jokers want to join the EU?
> 
> Look at the videos they clearly show how violence was used by members of the Hamas navy and that the IDF only used force once they came under attack. I’m sorry but if you hit me with a metal bar, you bet I’m going to take action against you. What would have happened if the IDF would not have responded and allowed the Hamas navy to beat their soldier to death or take them hostage?
> 
> These people are terrorist supporters! They should be jailed and not given the heroes status that some media are giving them. They clearly used violence and I suspect that they clearly hoped that Israel would stop them so that they and their terrorist friends can try to gain political capital out of this.
> 
> If they really were only concerned about the aid than they would have accepted the Israeli offer of transporting the aid to Gaza. But that clearly was not the goal.
> 
> I’m sorry for the lives lost, but if you volunteer to become a member of Hamas Navy than you have to take the risk that you die or get injured, that’s the price you pay to become a terrorist.


 
Maybe if you got your facts straight, then you might realise what the hoo-ha is about. 

So much rubbish in your posts that I am not even going to begin going through them.


----------



## Bill Struth

DublinTexas said:


> I do not understand what all of his hoo-ha is about.
> 
> A bunch of people want to bring aid to people that need it but the people needing it are ruled by a terrorist organisation.
> 
> When those bunch of people charter ships and announce they are going to break through a security zone set up to stop terrorists getting weapons the Israeli government offers those people that they can dock in an Israeli port and the goods (after establishing that there are no weapons in it) will be transferred to the intended destination.
> 
> Five out of 6 ships take up that offer, just one ship of hardliners decline to do so, despite that it would serve the aid goal (bringing aid).
> 
> As it does not serve the political goal of that bunch of people that one ship declines. In fact for me they became Hamas Navy at that moment.
> 
> Israel than takes action as the Hamas navy does ignore the order and tries to board the ships where they are attacked with knives, metal bars, possible guns and thrown overboard. In fact they snatched a gun from the IDF and started firing at other IDF members. Clearly not peace loving.
> 
> If these people had nothing to hide, why not allow the boarding, towing into the Israeli port where the aid would have send on. Goal archived, aid delivered and political point made. But instead these people who proclaim there are peace-loving attack other people.
> 
> In in the middle of it, Turkey. These jokers want to join the EU?
> 
> Look at the videos they clearly show how violence was used by members of the Hamas navy and that the IDF only used force once they came under attack. I’m sorry but if you hit me with a metal bar, you bet I’m going to take action against you. What would have happened if the IDF would not have responded and allowed the Hamas navy to beat their soldier to death or take them hostage?
> 
> These people are terrorist supporters! They should be jailed and not given the heroes status that some media are giving them. They clearly used violence and I suspect that they clearly hoped that Israel would stop them so that they and their terrorist friends can try to gain political capital out of this.
> 
> If they really were only concerned about the aid than they would have accepted the Israeli offer of transporting the aid to Gaza. But that clearly was not the goal.
> 
> I’m sorry for the lives lost, but if you volunteer to become a member of Hamas Navy than you have to take the risk that you die or get injured, that’s the price you pay to become a terrorist.


 Jaysis. Bill O'Reilly would be embarrassed posting that!


----------



## Latrade

DublinTexas said:


> What do you think would our government do if a vessel does not agree to inspection in our Exclusive Economic Zone? In fact it’s a criminal offence not to co-operate with a marine office who wants to inspect the vessel.


 
Couple of problems with the EEZ in this case. First it only protects a state's rights over natural resources, fishing, pollution control etc. It still allows for the free passage of ships through and inside. The next problem is that in some areas it is very complicated, the Med particular due to the amount of nations that have coastlines there. Next is the point that it was Gaza territory, there is a question over the legality of Israel commanding Gaza's coastline in the first place.

But the biggest drawback is that the EEZ is a UN agreement, so it only exists, is recognised and enforceable in those states that signed and ratified the agreement. Israel didn't. Therefore there is no EEZ recognised for Israel.

Your assertion that it is right to assume the ships were "hamas" is nonsense. There is no doubt that this was a protest over any kind of aid mission, Israel knew that, Turkey, Ireland and all those involved knew that. Otherwise why were there so many parliamentarians and journalists onboard? They expected trouble, the were to put up some resistance, get arrested, then some would refuse deportation and get their day in court. 

There was no basis to assume and work on the view that this was a terrorist action. 

Like all those hoping for media coverage of a protest, I'm also sure that they hoped Israel would be a bit rough in their handling too, good for the cameras. But that still doesn't justify the action. It could have been handled differently, but Israel decided to drop its commandos onto the ship, what did they expect to happen? Of course people would resist.

The difference is whether you consider sling shots and poles to be the weapons of terrorists (though I suppose if you take in the story of David, maybe sling shots are).

There are numerous journalists on board and I'm sure hours of footage of what happened and yet the only footage released is from Israel. All those on board are still in a communications blackout. What are the odds we'll never get to see that footage? I mean, if that backs up what Israel say happened, where's the problem? Or, as is suggested, will that footage show the ship's passengers raising the white flag once boarded and the Israel acting in aggression first?

The legality of what Israel did is a mess. Unfortunately the only means of legal defence for Israel is one based upon UN law and standards, however Israel can't cherrypick which bits of UN law it uses to support its arguments, in order to use that, then it has to recognise the other bits of UN law and statements that question the whole legality of what is happening with the blockade of Gaza.


----------



## DublinTexas

Sunny said:


> Maybe if you got your facts straight, then you might realise what the hoo-ha is about.
> 
> So much rubbish in your posts that I am not even going to begin going through them.


 
I don’t know what sources you are using, but I looked at several different media outlets and the overall story is the same.

5 out of 6 ships took the Israeli offer, one ship refused.

Israel tells that ship that it wants to inspect it, the ship refuses.

Israel sends it IDF to the ship.

IDF staff is attacked with metal bars, knives, other objects and at least 2 guns against the order of the ships master (who can be heard to tell people to stop resisting).

I suggest you watch the video of the IDF so that you can see for yourself what was going on.

So you cannot dispute that facts can you?

You sure can call my conclusion about these terrorists rubbish, that is you right, but the facts are clear.


----------



## Sunny

Also why did the commondos board at 2am in the morning under the cover of darkness without prior warning that they were boarding to inspect the ship? 

It was a military operation against a civillian ship flying under a soverign nations flag in international waters.


----------



## Sunny

DublinTexas said:


> I don’t know what sources you are using, but I looked at several different media outlets and the overall story is the same.
> 
> 5 out of 6 ships took the Israeli offer, one ship refused.
> 
> Israel tells that ship that it wants to inspect it, the ship refuses.
> 
> Israel sends it IDF to the ship.
> 
> IDF staff is attacked with metal bars, knives, other objects and at least 2 guns against the order of the ships master (who can be heard to tell people to stop resisting).
> 
> I suggest you watch the video of the IDF so that you can see for yourself what was going on.
> 
> So you cannot dispute that facts can you?
> 
> You sure can call my conclusion about these terrorists rubbish, that is you right, but the facts are clear.


 
How do you know what the facts are considering one side has not been allowed to communicate its version of events because the Israeli censor has stopped them. Only the IDF pictures and version of events has been released.

There is no doubt that the soldiers met resistance. The question remains what were the soldiers doing there in the first place. Attacking a professional commando unit with iron bars, sling shots, sticks or even knives does not suggest that the people on the ship were planning for war. If they had been Hamas terrorists as you claim, I am sure they would have been able to source some better weapons than that.


----------



## DublinTexas

Latrade said:


> But the biggest drawback is that the EEZ is a UN agreement, so it only exists, is recognised and enforceable in those states that signed and ratified the agreement. Israel didn't. Therefore there is no EEZ recognised for Israel.


 
Thank you Latrade, I than stand corrected in my interpretation of the EEZ for Israel, I was under the impression that a cost nation has the right to inspect vessels in the EEZ where needed. 



Latrade said:


> Your assertion that it is right to assume the ships were "hamas" is nonsense. There is no doubt that this was a protest over any kind of aid mission, Israel knew that, Turkey, Ireland and all those involved knew that. Otherwise why were there so many parliamentarians and journalists onboard? They expected trouble, the were to put up some resistance, get arrested, then some would refuse deportation and get their day in court. .


 
And they could have archived that in the moment the IDF dropped on board. The people could have had just that, struggled a little, get arrested and then get their day in court. 

But that is not what happened, the people (against the wishes of the ships master) used violence including guns, a far stance away from some resistance.




Latrade said:


> The difference is whether you consider sling shots and poles to be the weapons of terrorists (though I suppose if you take in the story of David, maybe sling shots are).


 
I call guns weapons and that is what was found on board and used against the IDF.



Latrade said:


> There are numerous journalists on board and I'm sure hours of footage of what happened and yet the only footage released is from Israel. All those on board are still in a communications blackout. What are the odds we'll never get to see that footage? I mean, if that backs up what Israel say happened, where's the problem? Or, as is suggested, will that footage show the ship's passengers raising the white flag once boarded and the Israel acting in aggression first?


 
I’m sure more pictures are going to come out and will show all angels, but the existing video is quite clear to me.




Latrade said:


> The legality of what Israel did is a mess. Unfortunately the only means of legal defence for Israel is one based upon UN law and standards, however Israel can't cherrypick which bits of UN law it uses to support its arguments, in order to use that, then it has to recognise the other bits of UN law and statements that question the whole legality of what is happening with the blockade of Gaza.


 
Well, Israel is not the only country that is cherry picking UN laws, the US, the UK, North Korea and other nations are doing that all the time. I mean the whole Iraq war is based on US/UK cherry picking resolutions and lying to get what they wanted.


----------



## Sunny

DublinTexas said:


> I call guns weapons and that is what was found on board and used against the IDF.


 
Again, even Israel are not claiming this. They are saying that their soldiers had their own handguns used against them.


----------



## DublinTexas

Sunny said:


> Again, even Israel are not claiming this. They are saying that their soldiers had their own handguns used against them.


 
Israel says its soldiers boarded the lead ship in the early hours but were attacked with axes, knives, bars and at least two guns.


----------



## Latrade

I don't claim anyone is an angel in this, in fact I've stated all along this was a protest rather than an actual aid visit (IMO).

You're right, all nations cherrypick the bits of UN agreements they comply with or ignore, the problem is you can't then go waving them about to justify the aggressive acts you've just taken. It's a bigger problem than just this incident, Israel's only defences are the recognition of the UN agreement on EEZ and following laws (which it didn't sign to) and that Israel is in a state of war/conflict with Gaza. If it is the latter, then that actually makes the blockade illegal rather than legitimate under the Geneva convention.

As to what happened on board, we have only been shown footage from the IDF and that's it. This contradicts the reports from people in communication with the ship and those who have managed to breach the communication blackout. 

Israel's footage shows a commando dropping onto the ship and coming under attack. We have no idea of the timeline on that footage, was he the first, among the first or later on after things got out of hand?

Reports from witnesses claim to have evidence that the white flag was raised and then there was aggression from Israel and then people responded. Easiest way to clear all this up is for Israel to remove the blackout and release the footage and recordings of all those journalists on board. 

A couple of hand guns among a couple of hundred civilians. Hardly the stuff of a planned act of violence, hardly showing confirmed links to Hamas.


----------



## Sunny

DublinTexas said:


> Israel says its soldiers boarded the lead ship in the early hours but were attacked with axes, knives, bars and at least two guns.


 

“There was extreme violence from the moment that our forces reached the ship. It was premeditated and included weapons, iron bars, knives and at a certain stage firearms,  weapons that were snatched from soldiers,” said Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi, the Israeli Chief of Staff

Again why were a elite commando unit sent in under the cover of darkness with paintguns? It doesn't add up. Why not go in during daylight after giving notice that you were boarding the ship?


----------



## csirl

Sunny said:


> “There was extreme violence from the moment that our forces reached the ship. It was premeditated and included weapons, iron bars, knives and at a certain stage firearms, weapons that were snatched from soldiers,” said Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi, the Israeli Chief of Staff
> 
> Again why were a elite commando unit sent in under the cover of darkness with paintguns? It doesn't add up. Why not go in during daylight after giving notice that you were boarding the ship?


 
The Israelis requested to board the ships before darkness fell. If they had waited until the following morning, the ship would have been too near the coast - ship was not stopping. 

It's very clear from the footage on the news that the people on the ship attacked the Israelis first. 

People need to step back a bit and think about what happened. A ship load of people terrorist sympathies shouting "Death to Israel" with an unknown cargo sailing close to Israel and refusing to allow inspections by customs/maritime officials? What did they expect?

If a similar ship was heading into Dublin bay with people shouting "death to Ireland", would you expect Irish Army to use whatever force necessary to stop it, our would you wait until it sailed up the Liffey and exploded killing 1,000s?


----------



## csirl

Niallers said:


> DublinTexas.
> 
> If Israel were allowing enough aid into Gaza then people would not feel the need the deliver it directly to Gaza.
> 
> They're allowing in approx: 25% of what is actually needed.
> 
> Do you get it now?
> 
> 
> Israel were invited to check the cargo at port of departure.
> If the aid goes to an Israely port then there is no telling how long it will stay in a warehouse.
> 
> The UN needs to step in here.


 
Why should Israel be obliged to let any aid into Gaza? Gaza is part of Egypt, so why can the aid go through Egypt?


----------



## mathepac

DublinTexas said:


> .... Thank you Latrade, I than stand corrected in my interpretation of the EEZ for Israel, I was under the impression that a cost nation has the right to inspect vessels in the EEZ where needed...


Which means  it is now clear to you that all subsequent Israeli actions were illegal and any act of the captain, crew or passengers on the illegally boarded vessel were defensive and thus legal, as they were attacked by armed terrorists boarding their ship, unannounced and illegally, under cover of darkness.

It is evident from the statement quoted above by the spokesman / boss of the Israeli terrorists that there were no weapons on the ship other than those the Israeli terrorists brought with them.


DublinTexas said:


> ....  Well, Israel is not the only  country that is cherry picking UN laws, the US, the UK, North Korea and  other nations are doing that all the time. I mean the whole Iraq war is  based on US/UK cherry picking resolutions and lying to get what they  wanted.


Irrelevant nonsense and off topic. Israel cannot justify its illegal actions, i.e. piracy, terrorism and murder, on the basis that it's OK because other do it.


----------



## Sunny

csirl said:


> The Israelis requested to board the ships before darkness fell. If they had waited until the following morning, the ship would have been too near the coast - ship was not stopping.
> 
> It's very clear from the footage on the news that the people on the ship attacked the Israelis first.
> 
> People need to step back a bit and think about what happened. A ship load of people terrorist sympathies shouting "Death to Israel" with an unknown cargo sailing close to Israel and refusing to allow inspections by customs/maritime officials? What did they expect?
> 
> If a similar ship was heading into Dublin bay with people shouting "death to Ireland", would you expect Irish Army to use whatever force necessary to stop it, our would you wait until it sailed up the Liffey and exploded killing 1,000s?


 
The ship would not have landed by first light. They could have waited or they could have done it earlier. It was a military operation. 

Again it's not very clear from the footage that comes from one side. How do you know they were shouting "death to Israel"? 

Not even going to acknowledge your last point which is stupid in the extreme. Israel never even claimed at any point that there was anything suspect in the cargo. It was about keeping the blockade in place.


----------



## Sunny

csirl said:


> Why should Israel be obliged to let any aid into Gaza? Gaza is part of Egypt, so why can the aid go through Egypt?


 
It should be allowed in any way it can but the easiest way is directly by sea.

John Ging who is the Irishman in charge of the UN relief works in Gaza and is disliked by both Israel and Hamas so must be doing something right welcomed the attempts to break the blockade and has consistently called for an end to it. If he says there is a humanitarian crisis, I would rather listen to him than some Hamas, Egyptian, Israeli spokesman. How in this day and age, the idea of 'collective punishment' can be acceptable by any standards is beyond me.


----------



## csirl

To correct one of my earlier posts about the right of Israel to board the ship in International waters:

It does look like Israel did in fact have the right to board under the Proliferation Security Initiative. The pictures of the boats clearly show that they are flying Palestinian flags, yet none of the ships are registered in Palestine. This alone gives the right to board in International waters (bear in mind that the Marine Survey Office in Ireland seized one of the ships and made the owners remove Irish flags before departing from Dundalk because it was not registered in Ireland and so was not entitled to display the Irish flag). 

Anyone know the country that the ship is actually registered in? Israel, Turkey, Cyprus and all EU countries are PSI signatories, as is Cambodia, where the ship seized by the MSO was registered. 

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c27732.htm


----------



## Purple

While there are many good people in the UN who, on an individual level, do great work I have absolutely no time for the UN as an organisation. It has shown itself to be utterly corrupt and incompetent and has been let by devious and contemptible men like Kofi Anan. When they answer the charges of child sex abuse, slavery and murder by their own people and they have Mr. Anan answer for his active participation in the continuation of the Rwandan genocide  and they account for the millions and millions that disappear every year then they can act with some moral authority. Till then, and while Chine, the country funding genocide in Darfur, has a veto on the security council, the UN should be ignored whenever possible.


----------



## Purple

I find it strange that Sinn Fein are giving out about this. They have  along history of smuggling stuff in on boats that they don’t want the authorities to look at. I heard that some of the cargo originated in Dundalk... is there a provo army surplus shop on eBay that the nutters in Hamas are buying from?


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> While there are many good people in the UN who, on an individual level, do great work I have absolutely no time for the UN as an organisation. It has shown itself to be utterly corrupt and incompetent and has been let by devious and contemptible men like Kofi Anan. When they answer the charges of child sex abuse, slavery and murder by their own people and they have Mr. Anan answer for his active participation in the continuation of the Rwandan genocide and they account for the millions and millions that disappear every year then they can act with some moral authority. Till then, and while Chine, the country funding genocide in Darfur, has a veto on the security council, the UN should be ignored whenever possible.


 
I agree that the organisation is a joke but as you say there are alot of individuals who do great work and try to do the best they can under difficult conditions. I don't have any time for UN security council resolutions or other political rubbish.


----------



## Sunny

csirl said:


> To correct one of my earlier posts about the right of Israel to board the ship in International waters:
> 
> It does look like Israel did in fact have the right to board under the Proliferation Security Initiative. The pictures of the boats clearly show that they are flying Palestinian flags, yet none of the ships are registered in Palestine. This alone gives the right to board in International waters (bear in mind that the Marine Survey Office in Ireland seized one of the ships and made the owners remove Irish flags before departing from Dundalk because it was not registered in Ireland and so was not entitled to display the Irish flag).
> 
> Anyone know the country that the ship is actually registered in? Israel, Turkey, Cyprus and all EU countries are PSI signatories, as is Cambodia, where the ship seized by the MSO was registered.
> 
> http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c27732.htm


 
A country does not have the right to board a  civillian ship in international waters using an elite commando unit, bring the ship and the people aboard into Israel, detain the people, deny them consular assistance and then make them sign declarations that they entered Israel illegally despite not wanting to go there in the first place.

Even Micheal Martin has said Israel has effectively kidnapped 8 Irish citizens.


----------



## Latrade

Sunny said:


> I agree that the organisation is a joke but as you say there are alot of individuals who do great work and try to do the best they can under difficult conditions. I don't have any time for UN security council resolutions or other political rubbish.


 
+1, I've no time for the UN, especially when members of the council are constitutionally bound to destroy Israel and look for the genocide of the jewish population (you're supposed to be dedicated to peace to be part of the council) and they're voting on matters in the middle east directly affecting Israel.

So they're useless, but Israel can't pick and chose which bits of the agreements it uses to justify its aggression. It's all or nothing.


----------



## csirl

Sunny said:


> A country does not have the right to board a civillian ship in international waters using an elite commando unit, bring the ship and the people aboard into Israel, detain the people, deny them consular assistance and then make them sign declarations that they entered Israel illegally despite not wanting to go there in the first place.
> 
> Even Micheal Martin has said Israel has effectively kidnapped 8 Irish citizens.


 
You should read both the PSI and the Geneva Conventions before posting.


----------



## Sunny

csirl said:


> You should read both the PSI and the Geneva Conventions before posting.


 
Give the link showing exactly where it allows it


----------



## UptheDeise

I hear a lot of people calling for a bycott against Israel. Should we also boycott Israeli companies that operate here in Ireland?


----------



## Sunny

csirl said:


> You should read both the PSI and the Geneva Conventions before posting.


 
By the way, what has PSI got to do with it considering that it was set up to deal with ships carrying nuclear material. I obviously missed the part where Israel accused the ships of carrying that sort of material.


----------



## Latrade

csirl said:


> You should read both the PSI and the Geneva Conventions before posting.


 
This is another problem, because not only does Israel ignore the Geneva Convention when it wishes, but again there are parts of this convention that cast significant doubt on the legality blockade itself. In order to use it to justify the boarding of the ship, then Israel must accept the blocakde is against the Convention which would therefore mean that they had no right to board the ship in the first place.


----------



## Sunny

UptheDeise said:


> I hear a lot of people calling for a bycott against Israel. Should we also boycott Israeli companies that operate here in Ireland?


 
No. Just like we shouldn't expel the Israeli Ambassador. It achieves nothing.


----------



## Latrade

Sunny said:


> By the way, what has PSI got to do with it considering that it was set up to deal with ships carrying nuclear material. I obviously missed the part where Israel accused the ships of carrying that sort of material.


 
Actually, to be fair it includes Weapons of Mass Destruction and we all know the US (the main proponents of the PSI) need all the help they can in finding those. Besides which, you can do some real mass damage with a slingshot, I mean, if a really rather sore welt isn't mass destruction, then I don't know what is. And chocolate is toxic to dogs, obviously these terroist scum intended to feed the chocolate to dogs in Israel in order to ensure a huge biohazard problem with all the decaying mutts in the streets. There's no depths terrorists won't resort to, you've got to be one step ahead.

Though again, in support of Israel, if the chocolate was Hersheys, they had every right to stop that ship.


----------



## mathepac

csirl said:


> You should read both the PSI ...


It's abundantly clear from the PSI's own website what its intent is. When and where did the Israelis accuse the ships of carrying WMD or materials to fashion them, unless of course Israel believes that fruit-juice is such a material.?

To quote from the site - the bolding is mine:

"_Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons  have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of *global nuclear  war* has gone down, but *the risk of a nuclear attack* has gone up." —President Barack Obama, April 5, 2009

_The ISN Bureau:


spearheads efforts *to  promote international consensus on WMD proliferation* through bilateral  and multilateral diplomacy;
leads the development of diplomatic  responses to specific bilateral and regional *WMD proliferation  challenges*, including today's threats posed by Iran, North Korea, and  Syria. Develops and supports strategic dialogues with India, Pakistan,  China, and other key states or groups of states.
*addresses WMD  proliferation threats* posed by non-state actors and terrorist groups by  improving physical security, using interdiction and sanctions, and  actively participating in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI);
works  closely with the UN, the G-8, NATO, the *Organization for the  Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)*, the *International Atomic Energy  Agency (IAEA)* and other international institutions and organizations *to  reduce and eliminate the threat posed by WMD*
supports efforts of  the international community *to prevent, protect against, and respond to  the threat or use of WMD* by terrorists; leads coordination for the U.S.  government's as co-chair to the *Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear  Terrorism*, a partnership of 77 countries (and growing) committed to  *preventing, protecting against, and responding to nuclear terrorism*."
I don't see where it mentions axes, knives, iron bars or fire-arms carried by the attacking pirates as justification for illegally boarding a vessel in international waters.


----------



## DublinTexas

Now my beef with this is that the IDF underestimated the resistance that these people would put up. Stupidly they believed that the people on board were humanitarian peace activists and so the IDF were only armed with paintball rifles and hand guns. They should have known better, the handling of this by the IDF was bad. 

Once it was clear that there were militants on board they should have either stopped trying to board or use other measurements to neutralize the militants. But unfortunately they were ill prepared and lessons need to be learned out of that by the IDF.

Now as to the legal right of Israel to inspect a vessel that might carry goods to a hostile group of people I’m sure there will be much discussion and maybe there will be some sort of consensus come out of it.

I still maintain that the IDF has the right to inspect any vessel that tries to get into Gaza and in fact I think that the IDF has the right to seize vessels that are not co-operating in depended on where the vessel is. This is and has been done worldwide by other states.

I’m all for giving the people of Gaza aid and Israel offered to ferry the cargo from the ships to Gaza after inspections (a needed step to prevent further terrorist attacks on their country). Why did the other ships accept that but this one vessel did not? It was a reasonable offer of Israel but clearly the militants on board of this one vessel had different intentions.

In fact I’m for a two state solution. I believe that both nations should exist side by side but until that has been archived Israel has the right to defend herself. And unfortunately at this moment in time it means an inspection of good going into Gaza.

The sooner the 2 states are established the better and it means that both sides need to compromise.


----------



## csirl

> It's abundantly clear from the PSI's own website what its intent is. When and where did the Israelis accuse the ships of carrying WMD or materials to fashion them, unless of course Israel believes that fruit-juice is such a material.?


 
You cant tell what a ship is carrying until it is inspected - hence the reason for the inspections. It is logical to suspect that ship which refuses to allow inspections may be carrying suspect cargo. 



> Originally Posted by *Sunny* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=1046378#post1046378
> _A country does not have the right to board a civillian ship in international waters using an elite commando unit, bring the ship and the people aboard into Israel, detain the people, deny them consular assistance and then make them sign declarations that they entered Israel illegally despite not wanting to go there in the first place_


 
There is no evidence that anyone on the ships signed anything saying they entered Israel illegally. Look at the unlawful combatants section of the Geneva Conventions. It has a definition of an unlawful combatant. The Geneva Conventions specifically exclude unlawful combatants from recieving the benefits of the conventions.


----------



## Bill Struth

csirl said:


> You cant tell what a ship is carrying until it is inspected - hence the reason for the inspections. It is logical to suspect that ship which refuses to allow inspections may be carrying suspect cargo.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that anyone on the ships signed anything saying they entered Israel illegally. Look at the unlawful combatants section of the Geneva Conventions. It has a definition of an unlawful combatant. The Geneva Conventions specifically exclude unlawful combatants from recieving the benefits of the conventions.


 Clutching at straws now...


----------



## Sunny

csirl said:


> You cant tell what a ship is carrying until it is inspected - hence the reason for the inspections. It is logical to suspect that ship which refuses to allow inspections may be carrying suspect cargo.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that anyone on the ships signed anything saying they entered Israel illegally. Look at the unlawful combatants section of the Geneva Conventions. It has a definition of an unlawful combatant. The Geneva Conventions specifically exclude unlawful combatants from recieving the benefits of the conventions.


 
Seriously, is that the best you can do?

Not even going to bother refuting that rubbish.


----------



## DublinTexas

Sunny said:


> Seriously, is that the best you can do?
> 
> Not even going to bother refuting that rubbish.


 
So if this would have happened within 12 nautical miles of Gaza you would not have a problem?


----------



## Sunny

DublinTexas said:


> I still maintain that the IDF has the right to inspect any vessel that tries to get into Gaza and in fact I think that the IDF has the right to seize vessels that are not co-operating in depended on where the vessel is. This is and has been done worldwide by other states.
> 
> I’m all for giving the people of Gaza aid and Israel offered to ferry the cargo from the ships to Gaza after inspections (a needed step to prevent further terrorist attacks on their country). Why did the other ships accept that but this one vessel did not? It was a reasonable offer of Israel but clearly the militants on board of this one vessel had different intentions.


 
So if China sticks up a blockade around Tibet, seizes a ship in international waters on the assumption that they are trying to smuggle weapons into Tibet and brings all the passengers back to the China, you don't have a problem with that?

The other boats didn't agree to anything. They were taken over as well but only put up a peaceful resistence but there are reports emerging of the use of tear gas and plastic bullets by Israeli troops on these boats.


----------



## mathepac

csirl said:


> You cant tell what a ship is carrying until it is inspected - hence the reason for the inspections. It is logical to suspect that ship which refuses to allow inspections may be carrying suspect cargo. ...


There is no obligation on the master of a ship in international waters to submit to an inspection or search; the Israeli terrorists have no justification for their murderous actions.

Even if an arrest warrant for a vessel is issued under international maritime law, the owner / master must be served and the arrest can only be effected by duly authorised personnel in the territorial waters of a participating signatory state; boarding / detaining a vessel in international waters is an act of piracy.


----------



## csirl

I fail to understand why so many Irish people lend their support to a terrorist organisation such as Hamas - a bunch of people who want to inflict genocide on their neighbours, totalitarian rule over their own people and who are very violent.

Israel is far from perfect, but these people are about as evil as they come.


----------



## csirl

mathepac said:


> There is no obligation on the master of a ship in international waters to submit to an inspection or search; the Israeli terrorists have no justification for their murderous actions.
> 
> Even if an arrest warrant for a vessel is issued under international maritime law, the owner / master must be served and the arrest can only be effected by duly authorised personnel in the territorial waters of a participating signatory state; boarding / detaining a vessel in international waters is an act of piracy.


 
There is an obligation under PSI to facilitate a PSI inspection. And PSI is designed to take place without any advance warning, hence no warrants apply.


----------



## Sunny

DublinTexas said:


> So if this would have happened within 12 nautical miles of Gaza you would not have a problem?


 
Course I would. 10 people died.

I just don't see how anyone can't that understand that any Country launching a military operation and boarding a civillian ship in International waters is setting a very dangerous precedent.


----------



## Sunny

csirl said:


> I fail to understand why so many Irish people lend their support to a terrorist organisation such as Hamas - a bunch of people who want to inflict genocide on their neighbours, totalitarian rule over their own people and who are very violent.
> 
> Israel is far from perfect, but these people are about as evil as they come.


 
Show me one post that shows people supporting Hamas? 

Again you are grasping at straws.


----------



## Sunny

csirl said:


> There is an obligation under PSI to facilitate a PSI inspection. And PSI is designed to take place without any advance warning, hence no warrants apply.


 

There is nothing under PSI agreement that justifies the stopping and searching of these vessels. Show me where in the agreement, it allows it.


----------



## Latrade

csirl said:


> I fail to understand why so many Irish people lend their support to a terrorist organisation such as Hamas - a bunch of people who want to inflict genocide on their neighbours, totalitarian rule over their own people and who are very violent.
> 
> Israel is far from perfect, but these people are about as evil as they come.


 
I agree, but then I don't agree with justifying everything Israel does. I can generally be in agreement with Israel of some aspects and actions, but criticise when I think it's wrong. It is wrong in this action. And no matter how many irrelevant documents to try to justify the attack are dug up, they were wrong, Israel is wrong. The G W Bush attitude that this suddenly makes me a Hamas supporter is pathetic. Having some notion of the difficulties for the palestinians does not make me a Hamas supporter, the two are not intrinsically linked.


----------



## RonanC

csirl said:


> I fail to understand why so many Irish people lend their support to a terrorist organisation such as Hamas - a bunch of people who want to inflict genocide on their neighbours, totalitarian rule over their own people and who are very violent.
> 
> Israel is far from perfect, but these people are about as evil as they come.


 
That is unreal !! I really doubt anyone in Ireland who supports the Palastinian struggle gives any support at all to Hamas. Show me one example of genuine support for ordinary palastinians and Hamas also. 

And a quote from our Minister for Foreign Affairs



> 'The seven individuals concerned *did not enter Israel illegally*; rather they were *essentially seized from international waters*, taken into Israel and *asked to sign documents confirming that they entered illegally*. This is simply not acceptable.'


 
What part of this do people on this site not understand?


----------



## DublinTexas

Sunny said:


> So if China sticks up a blockade around Tibet, seizes a ship in international waters on the assumption that they are trying to smuggle weapons into Tibet and brings all the passengers back to the China, you don't have a problem with that? .


The crucial difference here is that Tibet did not attack china, rather the opposite, so yes I would have a problem with it.
Hamas attacks Israel so its Israel’s right to ensure that no weapons are provided to them. 




Sunny said:


> The other boats didn't agree to anything. They were taken over as well but only put up a peaceful resistence but there are reports emerging of the use of tear gas and plastic bullets by Israeli troops on these boats.


And in the end they reached their goal, they get the aid delivered and made their political point.


----------



## RonanC

The Rachel Corrie (with formner UN assistant general secretary Denis Halliday on board) is still on its way to Gaza as we speak, so much for Israel's rubbish that all other 5 ships decided to head to Israel instead of trying to break the blockade. 

I really fear for their safety now as Israel's navy is about to stop the boat and sieze it.


----------



## RonanC

DublinTexas said:


> And in the end they reached their goal, they get the aid delivered and made their political point.


 
The aid will not be delivered, it will remain in warehouses somewhere in Israel, probably because some of the contents of the aid are on an Israeli banned list.. 

Who gave Israel the right to ban anything entering another country, especially if its medical equipment or food which is badly needed.


----------



## mathepac

csirl said:


> I fail to understand why so many Irish people lend their support to a terrorist organisation such as Hamas ...


I'm not sure which Irish people you mean, but please don't confuse my opposition to and abhorrance of the murderous actions of the Israeli pirate terrorists with implicit support of  any other organisation.


----------



## Sunny

DublinTexas said:


> And in the end they reached their goal, they get the aid delivered and made their political point.


 
Well actually they didn't. The aid did not get to Gaza. 

Israel made the political point for them by killing 10 people.

Now it turns out that the Israeli military sabotaged about 5 aid ships before they even left. So much for welcoming the aid.


----------



## Purple

The legalities of boarding a ship in international waters are covered by the San Remo Manual. I have no idea what it says about this situation but for those who think that the niceties’ of international law are relevant here then that's the place you should look.


----------



## Latrade

csirl said:


> There is an obligation under PSI to facilitate a PSI inspection. And PSI is designed to take place without any advance warning, hence no warrants apply.


 
Just for clarification is this the PSI that was cobbled together by the US and gained a few signatories from US supporters that basically allowed the US to stop North Korean ships anywhere they wanted and inspect them? The same PSI that has been used on several occasions and not once yielded an actual cargo of WMD? 

The same PSI that has not been signed up to by every member of the UN, unlike the UN's rules which have? The same UN rules that allow the transport of nuclear materials and weaponary across waters? The same UN rules that actually have a legal basis?

The same PSI rules that's the equivallent of me joinging up with a couple of neighbours and deciding we don't trust the guy in number 4 so we can enter his house at any time, by any means and confiscate any equipment we deem suspicious despite the laws of the land stating something completely different? But we signed it together!

The same PSI that doesn't define WMD?

The same PSI that only is only applicable to those "terroist states" named?

The same PSI that doesn't include Gaza in the list of these states?

The same PSI that doesn't include any of the nations under which the ships were registered in the list of these states?

The same PSI that Israel hasn't invoked, didn't mention and they've only ever said that they were diverting the aid because it was heading to the blockade and haven't once said they suspected anything in the way of weaponary (otherwise if the did suspect there was, wouldn't they have gone aboard with more than paintball guns and side arms?), that they knew it the cargo was just aid supplies but they want to control the route and flow of aid so the ships had to be diverted?

Well if so, colour me Hamas.


----------



## DublinTexas

Sunny said:


> I just don't see how anyone can't that understand that any Country launching a military operation and boarding a civillian ship in International waters is setting a very dangerous precedent.


 
So when in April this year the Irish Navy boarded a Spanish vessel in international waters (not the EEZ) and escorted them into Castletownbere you would have supported the Spanish if they would have taken metal bars and hit the Irish Sailors, after all they were in international waters?

What are your criteria for outcry here? Its fine for the Irish to board a Spanish Vessel in international waters if they suspect it of fishing violations but it’s not fair for Israel to board a vessel that is trying to break a blockade?


----------



## Latrade

Purple said:


> The legalities of boarding a ship in international waters are covered by the *San Remo Manual*. I have no idea what it says....


 
I think that's a Johnny Cash song.


----------



## RonanC

DublinTexas said:


> So when in April this year the Irish Navy boarded a Spanish vessel in international waters (not the EEZ) and escorted them into Castletownbere you would have supported the Spanish if they would have taken metal bars and hit the Irish Sailors, after all they were in international waters?
> 
> What are your criteria for outcry here? Its fine for the Irish to board a Spanish Vessel in international waters if they suspect it of fishing violations but it’s not fair for Israel to board a vessel that is trying to break a blockade?




It is an illegal blockade put in place by Israel not by any form of international law.


----------



## Betsy Og

DublinTexas said:


> Once it was clear that there were militants on board they should have either stopped trying to board or use other measurements to neutralize the militants.


 
I dont know that there were "militants" as such on board. Ok they put up some resistance against armed intruders - and the repeated beating of someone on deck was disturbing (albeit I presume the soldier had a gun & those attacking might have been justifyably in fear of their lives). But its not like there was an Al Quaida cell or a Hamas troop on board, all armed to the teeth and lying in wait - just wasnt the case so I think the word militant is giving a misleading impression. 

You'd imagine they could have blocked the ships without storming them - if the films are to be believed then you only storm something in an effort to prevent deaths of hostages or some other worse calamity- in this case no-one was in mortal danger until soldiers storm the ship under cover of darkness. Complete balls up on every level by the Israeli's.


----------



## Purple

RonanC said:


> That is unreal !! I really doubt anyone in Ireland who supports the Palastinian struggle gives any support at all to Hamas. Show me one example of genuine support for ordinary palastinians and Hamas also.



I have a problem with Irish people who claim to sympathise with the Palestinian people but direct their ire at Israel instead of Jordan, Syria and Egypt. What I hear from most of them is simpleminded “won’t somebody please think of the children!” type drivel instead of a logical discussion about what has caused the problem, who is prolonging it and, most importantly, whose interest the whole conflict serves. 

People who put the whole blame, or even most of the blame, at the feet of Israel are morons, well meaning maybe but morons none the less.


----------



## Sunny

DublinTexas said:


> So when in April this year the Irish Navy boarded a Spanish vessel in international waters (not the EEZ) and escorted them into Castletownbere you would have supported the Spanish if they would have taken metal bars and hit the Irish Sailors, after all they were in international waters?
> 
> What are your criteria for outcry here? Its fine for the Irish to board a Spanish Vessel in international waters if they suspect it of fishing violations but it’s not fair for Israel to board a vessel that is trying to break a blockade?




Do you have a link? Did they try escaping into international waters? I doubt the Irish Navy just ventured into international waters, found a ship and then boarded it.  

Your question should say breaking an illegal blockade.....


----------



## csirl

Sunny said:


> There is nothing under PSI agreement that justifies the stopping and searching of these vessels. Show me where in the agreement, it allows it.


 
You'll find the text here:

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c27726.htm

"(2) to enforce conditions on vessels entering or leaving their ports, internal waters or territorial seas that are reasonably suspected of carrying such cargoes, such as requiring that such vessels be subject to boarding, search, and seizure of such cargoes prior to entry."


The phrase "prior to entry" is the important one in this case - they do not have to wait until the vessel enters their territory to conduct a search. All that is needed is a reasonable assumption that the vessel is intending to enter. Nobody disputes that this vessel was intending to enter waters controlled by Israel. 

Other sections of the PSI that may be relevant are as follows:

"1. Undertake effective measures, either alone or in concert with other states, for interdicting the transfer or transport of WMD, their delivery systems, and related materials to and from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern. "

Palestine/Hamas would be considered a "non-state actor of proliferation concern."

"c. To seriously consider providing consent under the appropriate circumstances to the boarding and searching of its own flag vessels by other states, and to the seizure of such WMD-related cargoes in such vessels that may be identified by such states."

We know that at least one of the ships was registered in Cambodia. We dont know and will probably never find out if Cambodia gave its consent to Israel to intercept the ships - this information will always be kept confidential. 

Also, there is an over riding principal that a ship who is not displaying a flag or displaying mutliple or incorrect flags is fair game for anyone, even in International waters. I understand that the ship that was boarded was displaying Palestinian flags, but wasnt registered in Palestine.

Whether you agree or disagree with the PSI is immaterial - its the Law.


----------



## Sunny

csirl said:


> You'll find the text here:
> 
> http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c27726.htm
> 
> "(2) to enforce conditions on vessels entering or leaving their ports, internal waters or territorial seas that are reasonably suspected of carrying such cargoes, such as requiring that such vessels be subject to boarding, search, and seizure of such cargoes prior to entry."
> 
> 
> The phrase "prior to entry" is the important one in this case - they do not have to wait until the vessel enters their territory to conduct a search. All that is needed is a reasonable assumption that the vessel is intending to enter. Nobody disputes that this vessel was intending to enter waters controlled by Israel.
> 
> Other sections of the PSI that may be relevant are as follows:
> 
> "1. Undertake effective measures, either alone or in concert with other states, for interdicting the transfer or transport of WMD, their delivery systems, and related materials to and from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern. "
> 
> Palestine/Hamas would be considered a "non-state actor of proliferation concern."
> 
> "c. To seriously consider providing consent under the appropriate circumstances to the boarding and searching of its own flag vessels by other states, and to the seizure of such WMD-related cargoes in such vessels that may be identified by such states."
> 
> We know that at least one of the ships was registered in Cambodia. We dont know and will probably never find out if Cambodia gave its consent to Israel to intercept the ships - this information will always be kept confidential.
> 
> Also, there is an over riding principal that a ship who is not displaying a flag or displaying mutliple or incorrect flags is fair game for anyone, even in International waters. I understand that the ship that was boarded was displaying Palestinian flags, but wasnt registered in Palestine.
> 
> Whether you agree or disagree with the PSI is immaterial - its the Law.


 
Seriously I am not getting into a discussion whether the PSI agreements permit this action. It's ridiculous in the extreme that you use some agreement that covers the illegal transit of nuclear material and weapons of mass destruction to try and justify the actions of Israel. Even Israel have not got that desperate in trying to justify it. 

As for boarding boats in international waters, apparently this is the story

_Under International Maritime law, a navy can board a vessel flying their national flag on the high seas (i.e. international waters). The only place a navy can't board it's own flagged vessels are in the territorial waters of another country.

Under International Maritime Law, if a vessel is not flying it's flag of registry on International waters, one can then make the assumption that it is flagged in your country & board it. This is primarily how the USN, USCG & UKRN board vessels outside of their territorial waters & contiguous zones. 

If you know the flag of the vessel that is suspect, it's country can be contacted and permission can be sought from their Dept of Foreign Affairs to board it._

As far as I know the ship was under a Turkish flag.


----------



## Purple

If the ship is registered in Cambodia then it had to fly a Cambodian flag.


----------



## Latrade

csirl said:


> You'll find the text here:
> 
> http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c27726.htm
> 
> "(2) to enforce conditions on vessels entering or leaving their ports, internal waters or territorial seas that are reasonably suspected of carrying such cargoes, such as requiring that such vessels be subject to boarding, search, and seizure of such cargoes prior to entry."
> 
> Also, there is an over riding principal that a ship who is not displaying a flag or displaying mutliple or incorrect flags is fair game for anyone, even in International waters. I understand that the ship that was boarded was displaying Palestinian flags, but wasnt registered in Palestine.
> 
> Whether you agree or disagree with the PSI is immaterial - its the Law.


 
When did Israel say they suspected the presence of WMD? It wasn't reasonable to assume so.

Palestine/Hamas aren't states. Flying the Palestine flag, isn't flying the flag of another country or state or agent.  

I disagree with the PSI and it isn't law, it's been applied as if it were by some states, but it doesn't have a binding agreement to make it international law. 

even if it were, why didn't Israel say this at the start when it kicked off yesterday? Why talk about approved aid and illegal aid such as fruit juice and concrete? Why didn't they just say we were led to believe there was WMD present. End of story then.


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> I have a problem with Irish people who claim to sympathise with the Palestinian people but direct their ire at Israel instead of Jordan, Syria and Egypt. What I hear from most of them is simpleminded “won’t somebody please think of the children!” type drivel instead of a logical discussion about what has caused the problem, who is prolonging it and, most importantly, whose interest the whole conflict serves.
> 
> People who put the whole blame, or even most of the blame, at the feet of Israel are morons, well meaning maybe but morons none the less.


 
I agree. It's like people abroad used to discuss Northern Ireland. Always simplistic soundbites.

I wouldn't even try to understand, never mind solve the problems in the Middle East!


----------



## Bill Struth

Sunny said:


> I agree. It's like people abroad used to discuss Northern Ireland. Always simplistic soundbites.


 Sounds more like AAM tbh!


----------



## Sunny

Bill Struth said:


> Sounds more like AAM tbh!


 
Well the public sector are overpaid!


----------



## DublinTexas

Sunny said:


> Well the public sector are overpaid!


 
Wow only 113 posts before we had a comment of the public sector.


----------



## TarfHead

Well, I presume the Israeli SWAT team are public servants  ?

If they'd used a private sector SWAT team ..  !


----------



## Sunny

DublinTexas said:


> Wow only 113 posts before we had a comment of the public sector.


 
I was joking! Just trying to prove that Goodwin's law applies to the public sector in Ireland


----------



## mathepac

DublinTexas said:


> So when in April this year the Irish Navy boarded a Spanish vessel in international waters (not the EEZ) and escorted them into Castletownbere you would have supported the Spanish if they would have taken metal bars and hit the Irish Sailors, after all they were in international waters? ...


I think you're grasping at your last straw  in your attempts to justify Israeli terrorism, but I believe this straw is actually a nettle.

There are fundamental differences between :


Territorial waters
The EEZ (you keep mentioning this but clearly still don't understand it)
Irish Fisheries Limits
 All are different, all serve different purposes, and are administered differently from a legal perspective. Another poster has explained EEZ; this link might help with your understanding of Irish Territorial Waters and Irish Fisheries Limits.

The arrest you mention above might  have a connection with fish species quotas, mis-recording of catches or fish sizes; you'll need to check, but there is no evidence that the arrest and detention of the vessel in question  was illegal - AFAIK illegality of the arrest and detention never came up in court. As there was no illegality about the arrest of the Spanish vessel I can't see the connection with this and the illegal Israeli acts of piracy and murder.


----------



## csirl

A question for those who disagree with the Israeli approach:

If you were in charge of the Irish defence forces, what would you do if your attention was drawn to a vessel heading for Ireland, with undetermined cargo, and 600-700 activists shouting "death to Ireland"? And refusing to allow requested inspections. What would you do?


----------



## Latrade

csirl said:


> A question for those who disagree with the Israeli approach:
> 
> If you were in charge of the Irish defence forces, what would you do if your attention was drawn to a vessel heading for Ireland, with undetermined cargo, and 600-700 activists shouting "death to Ireland"? And refusing to allow requested inspections. What would you do?


 
The cargo was determined though, point to where Israel even suggested it wasn't. All they point to is the route the people were taking. Where is it confirmed that there were 700 people shouting "death to Israel"? There's a communication blackout, we don't know what they were shouting or saying up until that point.

Look, there are legitimate reasons to take action. Stuff that actually is international law allows a State to defend itself against a legitimate threat. That's not law made up by the US to get at North Korea, it's actual law. But the problem for Israel is that it doesn't appear that any of the circumstances surrounding this incident meet that criteria. 

The PSI doesn't apply. The San Remo doesn't apply (because to do so Israel would have to explicitly state it is at war and then remove the blockade as a result of that declaration).

The UN Convention on the Law of Sea is the only law applying in this circumstance. The only possible legal route for Israel with the confirmed information we have was to seek permission from Turkey. Did they?


----------



## Betsy Og

csirl said:


> A question for those who disagree with the Israeli approach:
> 
> If you were in charge of the Irish defence forces, what would you do if your attention was drawn to a vessel heading for Ireland, with undetermined cargo, and 600-700 activists shouting "death to Ireland"? And refusing to allow requested inspections. What would you do?


 
Well first off the better analogy would be that they were sailing to Northern Ireland. The fact that they didnt acceed to our illegal demands and verbally abused us was hardly sufficient excuse to kill 10 people. Unless and until it is shown that the ships had arms then how can you interpret Israel's action as anything other than denying ordinary people legitimate aid.

I dont genuinely think the Israeli's were in any doubt what the cargo was - isnt that what their famed intelligence service is supposed to do. Is is credible that 2 Irish senators are just Islamic gun runners? Giz a break.

Its ok to say that simple people dont get the full picture - when you are talking about a negotiated settlement or something - but I think the onus of proof is on those "in the know" to explain how or why the recent actions are legal or justified, if theres such clear logic to put us simpletons in our place then why arent we hearing it??


----------



## mathepac

csirl said:


> ... What would you do?


I'd send out Willie O'Dea. He's perfectly qualified in so many  ways :


 Former Minister for Defence, so reverting to being highly  offensive isn't  a radical move (or without precedent)
 A lawyer, so he knows the loopholes & which transgressions carry the smallest penalties. Besides, if the  worst comes to the worst,  isn't he's great pals with all the judges, getting  locked with them regularly at law library dinners etc?
 A  trained, deadly gun-man with ready access to a huge arsenal of fire-arms  in his constituency
 A very bad case of small-man's disease, so  he punches well above his weight and is very aggressive
Disposable,  so if he doesn't come back our losses are minimal and maybe it gets another  lawyer off the dole queue
Incomprehensible speech even before a  law library dinner, so he can always claim he gave appropriate warnings  before opening fire on innocent bystanders
All in all, perfect.  Do the Israelis want him I wonder?

I hope my response is seen as apportioning the correct level of seriousness to the question posed, rather than the issues at hand.


----------



## csirl

> I dont genuinely think the Israeli's were in any doubt what the cargo was - isnt that what their famed intelligence service is supposed to do. Is is credible that 2 Irish senators are just Islamic gun runners? Giz a break.


 
The israelis claim that only 5 of the 6 ships had humanitarian aid - that the one that was boarded had terrorists intent on violence.


----------



## Purple

Latrade said:


> The San Remo doesn't apply (because to do so Israel would have to explicitly state it is at war and then remove the blockade as a result of that declaration).


 The San Remo Manual is not an international treaty, it is a manual which seeks to establish common points of agreement around armed conflict at sea since the last comprehensive treaty on the matter pre-dates the First World War. I am not aware that a declaration of war is necessary for countries to be covered by international treaties as many conflicts take place between states without such declarations being made (The Falkland Island Conflict springs to mind). 



Latrade said:


> The UN Convention on the Law of Sea is the only law applying in this circumstance.


 Is this convention binding and has everyone signed up to and ratified it? (Ireland has failed to ratify many UN conventions).



Latrade said:


> The only possible legal route for Israel with the confirmed information we have was to seek permission from Turkey. Did they?


 Why would they seek permission from Turkey? The fact that Turkish citizens were on board is irrelevant, as is the ships last port of call. If the ship is Cambodian registered then they are the only relevant authority. 

I’m not by any means saying Israel did the right thing but there’s a whole load of legalistic statements being made here and I would love to see them cleared up since I don’t know what the full facts are either. It was my understanding that the San Remo discussions were started precisely because this was such a grey area with so many contradictory conventions, laws and provisions.


----------



## Sunny

csirl said:


> The israelis claim that only 5 of the 6 ships had humanitarian aid - that the one that was boarded had terrorists intent on violence.


 
Terrorists? Seriously not even Israel is attempting to call them that. Strongest word they have used is activists. Lets see how many of these terrorists get charged with terrorism offences.


----------



## Latrade

Purple said:


> I’m not by any means saying Israel did the right thing but there’s a whole load of legalistic statements being made here and I would love to see them cleared up since I don’t know what the full facts are either. It was my understanding that the San Remo discussions were started precisely because this was such a grey area with so many contradictory conventions, laws and provisions.


 
+1 to the that. My issue with the San Remo is that as I understand it, it is only applied to actual conflict situations. Like when trying to get the UN to agree to genocide, to be a conflict, there has to be some form of official declaration which has a specific definition (IIRC).

My only reference on this is we have the information supplied by Israel, and none of that seems to really suggest there was bone fide suspicion of terrorism or threat. Plus there are 5 International and Maritime Law "experts" who have absolutely stated there is no remit for the boarding, a 6th has also stated the same (Avigdor Feldman, who's an Israeli), but only one stating it is legitimate and he's from the Israeli government (they mentioned the San Remo argument).

On the UN Law, as we know with most of these it isn't ratified by all parties. This one's widely quoted, but isn't ratified by Israel (or US and some others), but then that weakens their argument over territory. 


The boat is flagged as Comoros, but its home port is Istanbul, I think the latter means the discussion and permission should be through Turkey (also as it was a Turkish delegation of sorts).


----------



## Sunny

Just to show that there another side and none of us know the real story because of the blackout.

From CNN:

_Hanin Zoabi, a member of the Israeli parliament, was on board the Miva Marmara, the ship that was the scene of the confrontation between activists and Israeli soldiers. The Israeli Navy fired on the ships five minutes before commandos descended from ropes that dangled from helicopters, Zoabi said during a news conference in Nazareth, Israel. She said passengers on board the ship were unarmed._


----------



## csirl

> The boat is flagged as Comoros, but its home port is Istanbul, I think the latter means the discussion and permission should be through Turkey (also as it was a Turkish delegation of sorts).


 
The flag is all that is relevant (incidently a ships "home port" must be within the country it is registered, so it cannot be Istanbul). Officially the ship is from the Comoros Islands. The fact that the Government of the Comoros has said nothing suggests that they have no problem with the Israeli actions. If the Comoros Islands are ok with it, then all complaints from third parties are irrelevant and an insult to Comoros sovereignty.


----------



## Sunny

csirl said:


> The flag is all that is relevant (incidently a ships "home port" must be within the country it is registered, so it cannot be Istanbul). Officially the ship is from the Comoros Islands. The fact that the Government of the Comoros has said nothing suggests that they have no problem with the Israeli actions. If the Comoros Islands are ok with it, then all complaints from third parties are irrelevant and an insult to Comoros sovereignty.


 
Considering it is an Islamic Country, I think it is more likely that nobody has bothered to ask them! 

But you are right. 10 people dead. Sorry. 10 terrorists dead. Lets move on and not ask any questions because we are insulting the Comoros Sovereignty. You really have come out with some classics today!


----------



## DublinTexas

csirl said:


> The flag is all that is relevant (incidently a ships "home port" must be within the country it is registered, so it cannot be Istanbul). Officially the ship is from the Comoros Islands. The fact that the Government of the Comoros has said nothing suggests that they have no problem with the Israeli actions. If the Comoros Islands are ok with it, then all complaints from third parties are irrelevant and an insult to Comoros sovereignty.


 
I’m still confused on what flag of convenience the Miva Marmra was actually flying, the international shipping register claims it’s Turkey, some reports claim its Cambodia, others Comoros and the video shows it’s flying both the Turkish and the Palestinian flag with no Cambodia/Comoros flag in sight.


----------



## mathepac

Purple said:


> The legalities of boarding a ship in international waters are covered by the San Remo Manual. ...


That manual applies only to armed conflict at sea, as a consequence of a declaration of war. It may be adopted by anyone, but it is binding on no-one and merely lists areas of agreement between the academics and government officials of the 20+ countries participating in the plenary sessions. It and its explanatory and expansion documents are IIRC still in draft form. It is being developed under the auspices of the ICRC.



csirl said:


> ...  If the Comoros Islands are ok with it, then  all complaints from third parties are irrelevant and an insult to  Comoros sovereignty.


What utter nonsense. If Irish citizens were  (are) involved then I would expect our Minister and or Diplomats to have  plenty to say - much more than they appear to saying right now.


----------



## Purple

mathepac said:


> That manual applies only to armed conflict at sea,_* as a consequence of a declaration of war*_.


 Are you sure about that last bit? It doesn't seem clear to me. Many armed conflicts start and end without a declaration of war. For example US and NATO troops in Iraq are covered by international conflict laws but they are not at war.


----------



## Sunny

Think the legalities will have to be sorted out by people alot better qualified than us...

I am going to finish up by repeating that in my opinion there is no justification whatsoever for Israels actions. I would also like to clarify that I am not a Hamas/Terrorist supporter, I believe Israel had a right to exist and to defend itself and that the Middle East is full of absolute nutters and I am glad I don't live there! 

Now, I am off to start a public sector/private sector debate on another thread.


----------



## csirl

I think some of the pro-Palestine supporters are taking everything that the organisers of the flotilla say at face value without hearing both sides of the arguments. Just because they call their cargo humanitarian aid, it doesnt mean that this is true. Israeli news reports are claiming that this was a premeditated ambush and that the ship contained parts which are used to manufacture rockets. 

There are two things which give this vessel away. Firstly, it is very clear from the footage shown on the news this morning that the occupants were only interested in attacking and killing the Israeli soldiers. There were no efforts to discuss, peacefully resist etc. They were attacked the moment they stepped foot on the boat. The other thing I cant get my head around is why, what is a relatively small convey, needed 600 plus people, most of whom are not crew members, to deliver the aid?


----------



## RonanC

The Irish Government has told Israel to allow the Rachel Corrie to complete its voyage to Gaza without any interference. What does this tell you about the *illegal *blockade?? Brian Cowan also said that there would be serious consequences if any Irish person was harmed. I'm delighted to hear this from our Government, finally they grew a pair and are not afraid to stand up to another state.


----------



## DublinTexas

RonanC said:


> The Irish Government has told Israel to allow the Rachel Corrie to complete its voyage to Gaza without any interference. What does this tell you about the *illegal *blockade?? Brian Cowan also said that there would be serious consequences if any Irish person was harmed. I'm delighted to hear this from our Government, finally they grew a pair and are not afraid to stand up to another state.


 
I’m sure Brian Cowan is only too happy to play it hard so that he can divert away from national issues, but that’s beside the point.

I hope the IDF learned from this and only stops the ships once they are inside 20 nautical miles because there the IDF has the right to stop/search such vessels there and not even Mr Cowan from Zanu FF has the right to tell Israel otherwise. 

The right thing to do is to not play into the hands of a terrorist organisation, after all the IHH which is behind these attempts is an organisation that supports suicide bombings. 

Divert to Ashdod, offload the cargo, get it inspected and then ferried over to Gaza. Goal archived, Gaza residents helped, no fuzz, just like the other 15,000 tonnes of aid every week.

Certainly Israel needs to allow more aid into Gaza but at the same time they have the right to ensure that only those things go into Gaza that are really aid and not stuff that will be used by Hamas to attack Israel. So having Israel ferry it over is the sensible solution.


----------



## Betsy Og

csirl said:


> Just because they call their cargo humanitarian aid, it doesnt mean that this is true. *We'll find out soon enough.*
> 
> Israeli news reports are claiming that this was a premeditated ambush  *This is hilarous - must be the first "ambush" in history when those ambushed chose to descend from a helicopter armed to the teeth.* and that the ship contained parts which are used to manufacture rockets. *Again we'll see.*
> 
> There are two things which give this vessel away. Firstly, it is very clear from the footage shown on the news this morning that the occupants were only interested in attacking and killing the Israeli soldiers. *...who were attacking the occupants....* There were no efforts to discuss *..soldiers storming a ship are ordered to do a job, not to commence dialogue...*, peacefully resist etc. They were attacked the moment they stepped foot on the boat. The other thing I cant get my head around is why, what is a relatively small convey, needed 600 plus people *Yes, this is puzzling, but presumably if they were all militants/terrorists they'd have charged the deck in greater numbers, maybe they are family members of those in Gaza, doctors, nurses, journalists etc. etc., I dont think it obviously indicates anything in particular* , most of whom are not crew members, to deliver the aid?


 ..


----------



## Latrade

csirl said:


> The flag is all that is relevant (incidently a ships "home port" must be within the country it is registered, so it cannot be Istanbul). Officially the ship is from the Comoros Islands. The fact that the Government of the Comoros has said nothing suggests that they have no problem with the Israeli actions. If the Comoros Islands are ok with it, then all complaints from third parties are irrelevant and an insult to Comoros sovereignty.



Are you 100% sure of this or is it just your opinion?



csirl said:


> I think some of the pro-Palestine supporters are taking everything that the organisers of the flotilla say at face value without hearing both sides of the arguments. Just because they call their cargo humanitarian aid, it doesnt mean that this is true. Israeli news reports are claiming that this was a premeditated ambush and that the ship contained parts which are used to manufacture rockets.



Seriously, the irony here is just too much. The only source you've quoted is the Israeli military and media, that's really looking at both sides. The other and possibly the biggest irony is that we can't get both sides because the Israeli government has a communication blackout on. Give us a chance!

Again, this went from they were justified to stop the ships because they were heading to Gaza and the blockade to oh and while we were there we found lots of bomb making stuff. I don't buy it.

But here's my deal, I'm prepared when ALL accounts are out to look at it then and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I just believe given that this act was committed by Israel it is for them to prove they had reason to be on board and they acted with reasonable provocation. But I can only do that when they remove the blackout and release the footage of those on board.

The thing I very much doubt is that if the evidence is to the contrary that you will admit Israel acted wrong.

Cease with all this "palestine supporters" Hamas supporters or whatever other name calling you want to throw across. You don't have to be half way to strapping a bomb to your chest and hoping for an eternal life with your pick of 70 virgins to look at this and feel it just doesn't ring right, moral, ethical or even legal. 

I believe in a state's right to defend itself, outside of your average episode of 24, I do not believe that right extends to any act under any circumstances.


----------



## colin79ie

Although the incident was in international waters, if the Isreaelis had waited, then perhaps it would not have been such a disaster for them when the ships entered their territorial waters. UNCLOS gives every ship the right of passage through another state's territorial waters. However, this passage must be innocent. Passage is not innocent if the ship enagages in: Threat or use of force against the state, the use or practice of any weapon, intelligence gathering, adverse propoganda, pollution, fishing, etc.

But attacking a ship not belonging to the state, in international waters is a act of piracy.


----------



## ninsaga

from Brian Cowen today 





> Mr Cowen also said that the Government is "very unhappy" with the current situation, and that the Israeli government hasn't "a leg to stand on" in their detention of Irish citizens, who he says must be released immediately.
> 
> "If any harm comes to any of our citizens, it will have the most serious consequences," said the Taoiseach



....now thats all we need - lets wage war on Isreal - lets get the LE Eithne on route and launch the attack!

Then again - he did make that comment after it was established that no irish citizens were actually harmed - close call there - lets hope one of them doesn't rip & fall when getting on the plane home or Cowen will have to live up to his word!


----------



## mathepac

"If any harm comes to any of our citizens, it will have the most serious  consequences".

Trans:

I'll sail to Haifa and jump up and down on the sea-wall dressed only in me jocks. Signed:  Biffo McFlubber.


----------



## DublinTexas

So for those who don’t trust that the Israeli’s are going to distribute the aid Egypt has now offered that they would accept aid into their port of El-Arish and then pass it through the Rafah border crossing into the Gaza pending inspection and only aid (no weapons etc.).

So if people are serious about aid, than accept that offer instead of the Israeli and your aid will reach the people it needs.

To insist to break the blockade which is imposed to stop a terrorist organisation from attacking civilians is adding nothing.


----------



## Purple

Here’s an idea; why don’t all the peace activists go over there and sing songs till they get Hamas to stop firing thousands of rockets into Israel and sending young women to blow up busses full of school children and old people. Then Israel will lift the blockade. As I said earlier the real question that needs to be asked is who benefits from the current situation. Israel doesn’t; it needs to spend hundreds of millions protecting itself. Most of the people of Gaza don’t; they live in poverty and the hope of a bright future had been taken away from a generation of children. The real beneficiaries are the fundamentalist lunatics in Hamas; little Hitler’s who rule their tiny empires, much like the IRA nutters in the North did/do. Other who benefit are the leadership in Iran who can divert attention away from problems at home by pointing to an enemy at their gates (very 1984ish, or even George W Bush-ish). 
The last time there was full engagement the Americans under Clinton and the Israelis helped Arafat set up the Palestinian Authority and the IDF trained and armed the new police force. The Palestinians then used those guns to attach Israel. That conflict was started by a small group of extremists on both sides but the Palestinians have shown a complete inability to restrain the extremists from dragging the majority into conflict. This culminated in what was in reality a Palestinian civil war (after the embezzler Arafat died) and the West Bank and Gaza are now run by groups that hate and fear each other more than they hate or  fear Israel. So what do the Israelis do? Who do they talk to? How do they get a negotiated peace?


----------



## Betsy Og

That would be a start (using the Egyptian port), but there still remains the point as to whether Israel is entitled or morally justified to impose a blackade on an entire nation. Ditto the Cuban blockade, disallowing civilian supplies to a country does nothing politically but only ensures hardship for ordinary citizens. Does anyone seriously think that Fidel & his crew or the leaders of Hamas go short because the entire country/area is being strangled. Are there going to be fruit juice or bandages bombs landing in Israel if the shipments go through.


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> Here’s an idea; why don’t all the peace activists go over there and sing songs till they get Hamas to stop firing thousands of rockets into Israel and sending young women to blow up busses full of school children and old people. Then Israel will lift the blockade. As I said earlier the real question that needs to be asked is who benefits from the current situation. Israel doesn’t; it needs to spend hundreds of millions protecting itself. Most of the people of Gaza don’t; they live in poverty and the hope of a bright future had been taken away from a generation of children. The real beneficiaries are the fundamentalist lunatics in Hamas; little Hitler’s who rule their tiny empires, much like the IRA nutters in the North did/do. Other who benefit are the leadership in Iran who can divert attention away from problems at home by pointing to an enemy at their gates (very 1984ish, or even George W Bush-ish).
> The last time there was full engagement the Americans under Clinton and the Israelis helped Arafat set up the Palestinian Authority and the IDF trained and armed the new police force. The Palestinians then used those guns to attach Israel. That conflict was started by a small group of extremists on both sides but the Palestinians have shown a complete inability to restrain the extremists from dragging the majority into conflict. This culminated in what was in reality a Palestinian civil war (after the embezzler Arafat died) and the West Bank and Gaza are not run by groups that hate and fear each other more than they hate or fear Israel. So what do the Israelis do? Who do they talk to? How do they get a negotiated peace?


 
There are two sides in it and both are as bad as each other. 

The way to deal with it is the same that the UK dealt with the IRA surely. As sickening as it may be, the only way to deal with the issue is to talk to the extremists and that means Hamas. I am sure the UK Government fell sick in their stomachs having to talk to Gerry Adams and Martin Mc Guinness but they did it. They are now talking to the Taliban as well. 

All I know is that launching all out war against a whole people for the actions of extemist terrorists and engaging in a strategy of collective punishment is not going to solve the issue and will only make the problem worse. Despite having nuclear weapons, superior armed forces and the support of a superpower, Israel is no safer now than it was 15 years ago. Surely the time has come to admit that what they are doing is not working.

Maybe Ireland and the UK can do something in the region that a Country like the US will never be able to achieve. Building houses and the Peace Process are what we do best and Gaza needs both! (obviuosly we need to careful we don't create a property bubble)


----------



## Latrade

Purple I 100% agree with you. Hamas is perpetuating the misery on the very same people it is supposed to be representing. But as Sunny says, refusing to deal with them (despite winning an election) on the basis of being terrorists has never worked in the history of disputes. Like all extreme groups, they only represent the suffering at a very superficial level, most people do not support the violence. However within those extreme groups are people who will sit down, are more moderate progressive people, sticking them behind a blockade doesn't help. There is no will on behalf of the Israeli government (not its people) to engage with Hamas.

Begin conspiracy theories about how much support Israel gets from being at "war" with Hamas. I think that's rubbish, peace and safety would be far more profitable.

However, in my opinion that does not excuse the actions taken by Israel with the ships and those on board. Both sides bring in all kinds of historical wrongs in order to justify a recent act and I don't believe that the actions of Hamas excuse the boarding and shooting of people protesting and perhaps, at worst, guilty of a bit of political devilment.


----------



## DublinTexas

Now the “people before profit alliance” is organizing a march tonight, are they not the same guys who tried to storm Anglo Irish recently? 




Betsy Og said:


> That would be a start (using the Egyptian port), but there still remains the point as to whether Israel is entitled or morally justified to impose a blackade on an entire nation.


In my opinion yes they are. When they left the occupied territory of Gaza an agreement was reached and Hamas has broken that agreement and started firing rockets (both homemade and our Jordan/Iran source). Israel has the right to ensure that only material reaches Gaza that cannot be used to make weapons and as such they need to inspect incoming goods.

It also has the responsibility to allow real aid through that is needed and they clearly need to do more there.



Betsy Og said:


> Are there going to be fruit juice or bandages bombs landing in Israel if the shipments go through.


I would google the material needed to build a rocket but I fear that if I do that the NSA would hunt me down and next time I go to the land of the free the FBI is going to interview me. But you have a point; material that is aid should and must be allowed through. But that requires inspection and that is what Israel tries to do here. Inspect and than deliver what is clearly aid.




Sunny said:


> Despite having nuclear weapons, superior armed forces and the support of a superpower, Israel is no safer now than it was 15 years ago. Surely the time has come to admit that what they are doing is not working.


 
I agree with the assessment that Israel is no safer now than 15 years ago in respect of the Palestinian question, but I don’t think that other countries will make their mistake of attacking Israel again like in June 1967. 

The right solution is a 2 state solution where they both agree on the right of each state to exist and to stop military action. I’m all for it and don’t get me wrong, while I agree with Israel on most of what it’s doing, settlements in occupied territory is wrong.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> The way to deal with it is the same that the UK dealt with the IRA surely. As sickening as it may be, the only way to deal with the issue is to talk to the extremists and that means Hamas. I am sure the UK Government fell sick in their stomachs having to talk to Gerry Adams and Martin Mc Guinness but they did it.


 That would work if it wasn’t for the fact that Hamas are busy killing anyone who wants to talk to Israel. They aren’t just killing them, they are killing their families as well. Israel can be completely over the top in its actions and can, as it has done now, score massive own goals but there is no way anyone should equate extremist like Hamas, who would murderer every man woman and child in Israel if they got the chance, with the government or people of Israel.


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> That would work if it wasn’t for the fact that Hamas are busy killing anyone who wants to talk to Israel. They aren’t just killing them, they are killing their families as well. Israel can be completely over the top in its actions and can, as it has done now, score massive own goals but there is no way anyone should equate extremist like Hamas, who would murderer every man woman and child in Israel if they got the chance, with the government or people of Israel.


 
Who is comparing them to Israel? Hamas like the IRA are vile self serving creatures who have no place in this world. They are a large part of the problem but that also unfortunately means they are a large part of the solution. 

Doesn't mean that Israel can be given carte blanche to do what they like though. Part of the responsibilities of being a democratic state is that you don't sink to the standards of the people trying to destroy you. Otherwise, what are you trying to protect?

I don't know how to get them talking. The answer won't come from blockades though.


----------



## NOAH

israel only exist because of the USA and without them they would be overrun.   the treatment of the Palestinians is worse than apartheid,  big walls,  separate roads,  passports forbidden, millions driven out, does it sound familiar>  aka the wild west when the only good injun was a '''''' one.

the killing of a us citizen may concentrate minds.

I wonder what the reaction would be in an Arab state was behaving like Israel?


----------



## Purple

NOAH said:


> israel only exist because of the USA and without them they would be overrun.   the treatment of the Palestinians is worse than apartheid,  big walls,  separate roads,  passports forbidden, millions driven out, does it sound familiar>  aka the wild west when the only good injun was a '''''' one.
> 
> the killing of a us citizen may concentrate minds.
> 
> I wonder what the reaction would be in an Arab state was behaving like Israel?



What on earth are you talking about?


----------



## NOAH

it means israel can do exactly as they please and not a lot anyone or country can do about it.  Let me give you and example ==  false passports.  Name one other country that used the same ploy.

Israel are untouchable and they know it.     


NOAH


----------



## Purple

Are you seriously suggesting that most, if not all, large countries don’t allow their special forces/ intelligence services use false passports?
Think China, France, UK, USA, South Africa, Russia, Brazil, Holland, Belgium, Australia, Italy, Jordan, Syria, India, Pakistan. 
All of the above have active intelligence services that travel to countries all over the world. France, the USA and Britain have all taken unilateral military actions against other sovereign states  in the last 20 years. The USA has invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada and Panama. Britain participated in both US invasions and France has attacked the Ivory Coast blowing up its air force on the ground (Killing dozens and costing a poor state hundreds of millions) as well as famously and infamously sending hundreds of it’s special forces to fight on the side of the genocidal forces on the ground in Rwanda, killing thousands and prolonging the genocide by weeks which facilitated the killing of at least another 100’000 people. 

In none of the above examples was there any credible threat to the state that did the attacking; they were simply protecting their own economic and/or political interests. 

BTW, in all of the above we have maintained our usual craven and cowardly status of neutrality. In the international integrity stakes Ireland is at the bottom of the pile; cowards and hypocrites who have since the foundation of our state asked other countries to bleed and die to protect our freedom while all we do is occasionally wag our fingers at them because we don’t like the way they do things which we are not prepared to do.

Irish people criticising the behaviour of other states have a cheek.


----------



## Purple

NOAH said:


> israel only exist because of the USA and without them they would be overrun.


 Israel exists because of Britain and Lord Balfore and the general movement of Jews into the Region of the Ottoman Empire loosely referred to as Palestine from the mid 18th century. It is sustained because of financial aid from America and it’s own highly developed industrial base. It is not the only country in the Middle East that is helped by the US.   



NOAH said:


> the treatment of the Palestinians is worse than apartheid,  big walls,  separate roads,  passports forbidden, millions driven out, does it sound familiar>  aka the wild west when the only good injun was a '''''' one.


 As I’m sure you are aware under the partition of British administered Palestine (Trans-Jordan and what’s not Israel) all of the Jewish people were forced to move to Israel and all of the non-Jewish people were forced to move out of Israel. The problem arose because the Hashemite Kingdom in Jordan didn’t want the Palestinians as they would be a threat to their hegemony so the Palestinians were left in no-mans-land. The million Palestinians who are Israeli citizens do have passports and live and move freely within Israel. BTW, there weren’t millions driven out of anywhere (unless you are getting mixed up with the partition of India). Most of the Jewish and Arab who lived in Palestine in the late 1940’s had moved there since the 1860’s.   



NOAH said:


> the killing of a us citizen may concentrate minds.


Agreed



NOAH said:


> I wonder what the reaction would be in an Arab state was behaving like Israel?


 They do, all the time.


----------



## DublinTexas

NOAH said:


> israel only exist because of the USA and without them they would be overrun.


Israel is not the only country in the Middle East that is relying on the USA for support. Kuwait being the obvious example, without the US they would never have driven out Saddam. Saudi Arabia is the other, without the US supporting their particular form of government the people there might have long time ago thrown that regime over.

And the last time someone tried to overrun Israel I think they have proven that they are able to deal with that rather swiftly on their own, thank you very much. 

Also clearly (while never confirmed) the IDF can deploy tactical nuclear weapons so even mad Iran will think twice of trying to over run.



NOAH said:


> the treatment of the Palestinians is worse than apartheid, big walls, separate roads, passports forbidden, millions driven out, does it sound familiar> aka the wild west when the only good injun was a '''''' one.


Well I would suggest you read a little about how Israel came about and you will very fast see that the English (once again them) are responsible for the driving out. And not only Palestinians were driven out of their previous living areas, Israelis were driven out of their too and forces to live in a special area.

Now is there mistreatment on both sides, sure that is unfortunate in light of the armed conflict that Hamas is waging. Only if the 2 states are formed and accept each other’s right to exist we might see a move to the better. But Hamas does not even want to accept that Israel exists. 




NOAH said:


> I wonder what the reaction would be in an Arab state was behaving like Israel?


Ever been to Iran? 




NOAH said:


> Let me give you and example == false passports. Name one other country that used the same ploy.


 
The English during World War II. But otherwise are you saying that no other security service ever is using false passports? The difference here is that Mossad did a bad job and got caught.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Who is comparing them to Israel?


 Earlier you said; 





Sunny said:


> There are two sides in it and both are as bad as each other.


----------



## csirl

Nothwithstanding the comments about Israeli independence. Gaza was part of Egypt until 1967 - years after the state of Israel came into being. Since then it has been abandoned by Egypt - it cant be regarded in the same light as the west bank.


----------



## Betsy Og

Purple said:


> BTW, in all of the above we have maintained our usual craven and cowardly status of neutrality. In the international integrity stakes Ireland is at the bottom of the pile; cowards and hypocrites who have since the foundation of our state asked other countries to bleed and die to protect our freedom while all we do is occasionally wag our fingers at them because we don’t like the way they do things which we are not prepared to do.
> 
> Irish people criticising the behaviour of other states have a cheek.


 
Think you're way OTT. No foreigner has even indirectly bled for our freedom (and Norn Iron semantics not relevant to this discussion) since the early 40's. Since then we, through our involvement in the UN, have bled for others, not the other way around. 

Vis a vis WWII, as a soreign state we reserved the right to defend ourselves. We now know the State knew on which side its bread was buttered and helped the Allies while not making themselves a target for the Nazis. Plenty of Irishmen fought with the Allies (far greater than with the Nazis) and plenty more helped the effort by working in factories in the UK. As a budding nation recently freed from our oppressor I think we played a blinder. "Ireland stood alone for 700 years and never surrendered her soul" - me likes that.

A final question - has the Irish state any blood on its hands? (barring our own of course, HSE & all the rest). I think not, this makes me feel proud that, nearly exclusively among Western European countries, we dont have the blood of colonialism or covert operations on our hands. OK I'm not saying its beacuse we're the nicest, most moral people in the world, it probably has more to do with being too busy trying to sort ourselves out, but nevertheless we can hold our heads high in whatever country we find ourselves.

Maybe we havent shouted equally as loudly at every foreign indiscretion but to say we have a cheek to criticise other at all is nonsense. Plus your argument is a bit contradictory - we're the worlds worst for not picking up on every foreign nations indiscretion equally, so from here on we should keep our mouths firmly shut and criticise nobody.  Doesnt make sense to me.


----------



## Purple

During the height of the colonial era we were part of the UK and Irish men went to the colonies in their droves to crack heads and stamp on the natives. Look at the role of Michael O'Dwyer (a Tipperary man) and Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer (Indian born of Irish stock, educated in Cork) in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre (the bit in the film “Gandhi” when the British Army opened fire with machine guns on a civilian crowd).

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of Irish men committing the most horrendous acts all over Africa and India. The idea that just because Ireland as a state didn’t have any colonies in 1922 doesn’t excuse the actions of Irish people before that.
Since the late 1940’s we have hid behind NATO (during the cold war), allowing other countries to spend billions defending us from an aggressive and totalitarian Soviet Union. We have willingly traded with countries with terrible human rights records that were supporting terrorists and terrorist organisations that were killing our neighbours.


----------



## Betsy Og

Purple said:


> The idea that just because Ireland as a state didn’t have any colonies in 1922 doesn’t excuse the actions of Irish people before that.
> 
> Since the late 1940’s we have hid behind NATO (during the cold war), allowing other countries to spend billions defending us from an aggressive and totalitarian Soviet Union. We have willingly traded with countries with terrible human rights records that were supporting terrorists and terrorist organisations that were killing our neighbours.


 
Thats just daft - the Irish people are to be cowered because a few of their stock were bad???, so all Americans should keep the head low because they produced Jeffrey Dahmer, Austrians - Arnold Swarz , France - Thierry Henry ???

Irelands geography is such that we're NOW lucky to be surrounded by relatively stable countries - but believe you me they are not spilling a drop for our benefit, nor spending a Euro to defend "us". We have a fortunate accident of geography at last, should we unnecessarily waste money for the sake of it, we could line up tanks along the sand dunes in wait for the Russians or, I dunno, some Jihad Armada, but would you explain it to the pensioners why we have to cut back so that we can be real men defending Western Civilisation? We play our part through the UN, why should we be a lacky for the US under the guise of NATO?

Re the Cold War, that was more about global superpowers jockeying for position than anything else - after WWII the Russians and the rest of the Allies had their carve up and away they went, I dont think its credible that Britain and France, as nearby examples, feared a Soviet invasion. Apart from that if you want to defend an outcrop deep in the South Atlantic for your own economic greed then you're on your own .........

When exactly did we trade with countries that were killing our neighbours?? We may have bought South African bananas in Dunnes Stores, and sold beef to the gulf, but I dont recall us propping up Libya or anything.


----------



## Purple

Betsy Og said:


> Thats just daft - the Irish people are to be cowered because a few of their stock were bad???, so all Americans should keep the head low because they produced Jeffrey Dahmer, Austrians - Arnold Swarz , France - Thierry Henry ???


 If it was just one or two or even a few hundred that would be one thing but Irish people have a long history of siding with the oppressor when the opportunity arose. From the Irish who fought to keep slavery in the USA to those who murdered their way around the colonies.  



Betsy Og said:


> Irelands geography is such that we're NOW lucky to be surrounded by relatively stable countries - but believe you me they are not spilling a drop for our benefit, nor spending a Euro to defend "us". We have a fortunate accident of geography at last, should we unnecessarily waste money for the sake of it, we could line up tanks along the sand dunes in wait for the Russians or, I dunno, some Jihad Armada, but would you explain it to the pensioners why we have to cut back so that we can be real men defending Western Civilisation?


 No one is suggesting that. We should just be grateful that other countries spent 50 years spending their taxes and risking their troops to keep us free so that we didn’t have to.  

 We play our part through the UN, why should we be a lacky for the US under the guise of NATO? [/QUOTE] So you’re cool with the Chinese and Russians having a veto over when and where we send our troops but you don’t think we should work with the UK, Germany, France, Holland, Belgium and our other EU neighbours? 



Betsy Og said:


> Re the Cold War, that was more about global superpowers jockeying for position than anything else - after WWII the Russians and the rest of the Allies had their carve up and away they went, I dont think its credible that Britain and France, as nearby examples, feared a Soviet invasion.


 They did indeed fear a Soviet invasion, and with get good reason. They feared it so much that they landed the biggest amphibious invasion force in history in Normandy in 1944 to stop the Russians occupying Western Europe... or do you really think that D-Day was about stopping the already defeated Germans??? They then went into Korea to stop the totalitarian Chinese. The Cold War was far more than a bluffing game. The fact that it didn’t turn into a hot war in Europe (unlike the millions it killed in Africa and South East Asia) doesn’t diminish that. 



Betsy Og said:


> When exactly did we trade with countries that were killing our neighbours?? We may have bought South African bananas in Dunnes Stores, and sold beef to the gulf, but I dont recall us propping up Libya or anything.


Yes, we sold beef to the Libyans and we campaigned at EU level to stop trade embargoes against them even when they were the training ground for every second nutcase from the Provo’s to the budding Al-Qaida.


----------



## Betsy Og

Purple said:


> If it was just one or two or even a few hundred that would be one thing but Irish people have a long history of siding with the oppressor when the opportunity arose. From the Irish who fought to keep slavery in the USA to those who murdered their way around the colonies.
> 
> *I'm sure we've a long history of fighting with the underdog too (did you not see braveheart ) e.g. Irish who crossed over and fought with the Mexicans in Texas. The point is that we, as a State, or even in any meaningfully collective way, have never backed the cause of colonialism so why should the State now unnecessarily and unfairly assume a mantle of shame for the actions of other states (or actions by some individual Irish people).*
> 
> We play our part through the UN, why should we be a lacky for the US under the guise of NATO?


 So you’re cool with the Chinese and Russians having a veto over when and where we send our troops but you don’t think we should work with the UK, Germany, France, Holland, Belgium and our other EU neighbours? 
*I've no difficulty joining an EU Rapid Response Force etc., as long as we retain the right to consider if what we are are being asked to do is morally justifiable, e.g. to get back to the original thread, I wouldnt have sent the Irish rangers to storm one of the aid ships.*

They did indeed fear a Soviet invasion, and with get good reason. They feared it so much that they landed the biggest amphibious invasion force in history in Normandy in 1944 to stop the Russians occupying Western Europe... or do you really think that D-Day was about stopping the already defeated Germans??? *I was labouring under that apparent mis-apprehension.* They then went into Korea to stop the totalitarian Chinese.* & Chile when it suited them, econmoically*. The Cold War was far more than a bluffing game.  The fact that it didn’t turn into a hot war in Europe (unlike the millions it killed in Africa and South East Asia) doesn’t diminish that. 

Yes, we sold beef to the Libyans and we campaigned at EU level to stop trade embargoes against them even when they were the training ground for every second nutcase from the Provo’s to the budding Al-Qaida. *OK - that wasnt our finest hour*
[/QUOTE]

Overall my point is that I think you are going to great lengths to assume or infer guilt on the nation such that we shoud be rendered speechless - even though you obviously think we should be more active, more squeaky clean etc. etc. 

Re "them doing the dirty work we wont do" - you'll note that, from the outset I've said I've no problem with states killing terrorists or aggressive armies etc, its the unnecessarily engaging apparent civilians on aid ships, & covert or even overt operations for your own greed that I have a difficulty with.


----------



## Purple

From Ian O'Doherty in todays Indo

_"Because make no mistake, hatred for Israel far outweighs any love for the people of Gaza for many of these activists, who tend to be a rag bag collection of fundamentalists, extremists and ill-informed do-gooders who know that in the current climate it is far easier and socially acceptable to be seen as being on the Palestinian side than it is to be on the Israeli one.

In fact, this sense of moral and intellectual confusion was perfectly illustrated at the anti-Israeli march outside their embassy earlier this week.

Pictured at the front of the demo, a bunch of people brandishing the Hamas flag. 

And then, just behind them, was a flag from the Labour party's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered membership.

So, let's get this straight -- a bunch of LBGT rights activists are happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with the party which has branded homosexuality a moral perversion which can only be dealt with by execution?

How far out of whack does your moral compass have to be before you go marching, as a gay person, beside people who openly declare that they want you dead?"_


----------



## Sunny

Come on Purple, your arguments are good enough that you don't have to resort to    quoting a muppet like Ian O'Doherty! The guy is an idiot of the highest order. You might as well have used Brendan O'Connor!


----------



## Purple

Betsy Og, my point is that we are no better than any other state morally. The fact that we didn't have the means or opportunity to act badly as a state doesn't diminish that and when Irish people have had the opportunity to side with the oppressor they have do so in their droves. Why we think our economic and military weakness gives us the right to pontificate at those who do the heavy lifting that we can't do is beyond me. 

It's a big dangerous world full of aggressive and hostile states. Because we are located in Western Europe and are therefore lucky enough to bask in the peace and security that our neighbours provide some Irish people think that the rest of the world would be the same if only everyone was nice to each other. These people are, in my opinion, at the very least naive and as worst dangerously stupid.  

The road to hell is paved with good intensions and littered with the corpses of well meaning fools.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Come on Purple, your arguments are good enough that you don't have to resort to    quoting a muppet like Ian O'Doherty! The guy is an idiot of the highest order. You might as well have used Brendan O'Connor!



Thanks, but do you disgaree with his point;  "_So, let's get this straight -- a bunch of LBGT rights activists are happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with the party which has branded homosexuality a moral perversion which can only be dealt with by execution?_"


----------



## mathepac

Purple said:


> From Ian O'Doherty in todays Indo_..._


Those few words bestow on the article in question all the gravitas and credibility it deserves. Filed [broken link removed]

I understand that in appreciation of his role as a serious journalist he's in line for promotion to here.


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> Thanks, but do you disgaree with his point; "_So, let's get this straight -- a bunch of LBGT rights activists are happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with the party which has branded homosexuality a moral perversion which can only be dealt with by execution?_"


 
No, these marches always attract weirdos who haven't got a clue what they are marching for. Same with every protest march I have ever seen.

I disagree with him about hating Israel and loving Gaza. I neither love nor hate either of them. Just because I disagree with alot of Israels actions and policies doesn't mean I hate them. There are plenty of people who live in Israel who disagree with the road they are going down. Doesn't mean I don't recognise the all good in Israel or that I hate them. Just because I am not Jewish and live In Ireland doesn't mean I don't have a right to voice an opinion without bing called a Israel hating, Hamas loving, terrorist sympathiser. Just as people here who support Israel no matter what are arab hating, zionist warmongers.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> No, these marches always attract weirdos who haven't got a clue what they are marching for. Same with every protest march I have ever seen.
> 
> I disagree with him about hating Israel and loving Gaza. I neither love nor hate either of them. Just because I disagree with alot of Israels actions and policies doesn't mean I hate them. There are plenty of people who live in Israel who disagree with the road they are going down. Doesn't mean I don't recognise the all good in Israel or that I hate them. Just because I am not Jewish and live In Ireland doesn't mean I don't have a right to voice an opinion without bing called a Israel hating, Hamas loving, terrorist sympathiser. Just as people here who support Israel no matter what are arab hating, zionist warmongers.


 I agree with all of that.


----------



## mathepac

Purple said:


> During the height of the colonial era we were part of the UK and Irish men went to the colonies in their droves to crack heads and stamp on the natives. Look at the role of Michael O'Dwyer (a Tipperary man) and Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer (Indian born of Irish stock, educated in Cork) in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre (the bit in the film “Gandhi” when the British Army opened fire with machine guns on a civilian crowd).
> 
> There are dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of Irish men committing the most horrendous acts all over Africa and India. ....


It is true that hundreds of thousands of Irishmen have served as the cannon fodder of imperialist Britain down the centuries, but how many of these unfortunate young men would have preferred to remain at home tending farms, raising families, working at a trade or teaching school? 

The reality for a lot of them was they either took the king's shilling or starved and have their families starve. They were the dis-enfranchised majority, slaves in their native country (no vote, no property, no livestock, no religion, no land, no education, no language, no prospects) who in order to survive, joined the British army.


----------



## csirl

mathepac said:


> It is true that hundreds of thousands of Irishmen have served as the cannon fodder of imperialist Britain down the centuries, but how many of these unfortunate young men would have preferred to remain at home tending farms, raising families, working at a trade or teaching school?
> 
> The reality for a lot of them was they either took the king's shilling or starved and have their families starve. They were the dis-enfranchised majority, slaves in their native country (no vote, no property, no livestock, no religion, no land, no education, no language, no prospects) who in order to survive, joined the British army.


 
+1. The famine and its consequences (i.e. displacement, poverty etc.) - which lasted into the first couple of decades of the 20th century - produced a lot of recruits for the British. Irish regiments were used as canon fodder in the Boar War and First World War.


----------



## mathepac

Purple said:


> ... Look at the role of Michael O'Dwyer (a Tipperary man) and Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer (Indian born of Irish stock, educated in Cork) in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre (the bit in the film “Gandhi” when the British Army opened fire with machine guns on a civilian crowd)...


This seems to have been a tactic generally employed by the British  and its directly employed terrorist squads, including the Black & Tans and Auxiliaries and not an isolated army incident attributable to O'Dwyer or Dyer (Anglicised form of O'Dwyer).

The British murder squads (a combination of RIC and Auxiliaries) entered Croke Park on 21/11/1920 and murdered 14 unarmed civilians, including Michael Hogan, a Tipperary footballer, (the bit in the film “Michael Collins” when the British terrorists opened fire on a civilian crowd).  Later that night three unarmed prisoners who were being tortured in custody were shot dead by their British torturers. 

So it seems that in 1919-1920, in both India and Ireland, the British colonists had a generalised shoot to kill policy in place, which their terrorist police and army employees used to murder unarmed civilians.


----------



## Purple

mathepac said:


> It is true that hundreds of thousands of Irishmen have served as the cannon fodder of imperialist Britain down the centuries, but how many of these unfortunate young men would have preferred to remain at home tending farms, raising families, working at a trade or teaching school?
> 
> The reality for a lot of them was they either took the king's shilling or starved and have their families starve. They were the dis-enfranchised majority, slaves in their native country (no vote, no property, no livestock, no religion, no land, no education, no language, no prospects) who in order to survive, joined the British army.



The same can be said for many young men across England Scotland and Wales. Remember that there was a potato famine in England at the same time as our one, most particularly in Cornwall. It is the people at the top who made the decisions and many of them were Irish. The notion that poverty exonerates the Irish poor and the same poverty doesn't exonerate the English poor is misty eyed nonsense.


----------



## Purple

mathepac said:


> This seems to have been a tactic generally employed by the British  and its directly employed terrorist squads, including the Black & Tans and Auxiliaries and not an isolated army incident attributable to O'Dwyer or Dyer (Anglicised form of O'Dwyer).
> 
> The British murder squads (a combination of RIC and Auxiliaries) entered Croke Park on 21/11/1920 and murdered 14 unarmed civilians, including Michael Hogan, a Tipperary footballer, (the bit in the film “Michael Collins” when the British terrorists opened fire on a civilian crowd).  Later that night three unarmed prisoners who were being tortured in custody were shot dead by their British torturers.


 My great Uncle fought in the civil war. He was one of the men who occupied the Four Courts and started the whole thing off. He had been shot twice during the war of independence. He used to tell stories about how the younger guys (like him) would vomit and sometimes cry when British soldiers were being tortured to death. He also spoke of the way they tried to strike terror into informants by killing them in front of their families. 
Oh, and most of the RIC were Irish.


mathepac said:


> So it seems that in 1919-1920, in both India and Ireland, the British colonists had a generalised shoot to kill policy in place, which their terrorist police and army employees used to murder unarmed civilians.


Yep, just like everyone else. In fact the Brits were about the best of them. But them again for most people in Ireland at the time being British and being Irish was just about the same thing.


I'm proud of being Irish and living in a republic but this guff that we are somehow more noble and morally entitled than Britain or anyone else is sickening.


----------



## starlite68

Purple said:


> QUOTE=mathepac;1047801]
> 
> 
> I'm proud of being Irish and living in a republic but this guff that we are somehow more noble and morally entitled than Britain or anyone else is sickening.


 we did not take over any other country by force or enslave their people!
Thats what makes us more morally entitled.


----------



## Purple

starlite68 said:


> we did not take over any other country by force or enslave their people!
> Thats what makes us more morally entitled.



Yes we did. We were part of the UK during the high point of the colonial era from 1860 to 1910. The fact that we are now an independent country doesn't mean that we get to ignore that. The Brits and the French haven’t colonised anyone since the 1920's either. Does that mean that they get to ignore their own history?
The Belgians haven’t colonised anyone since their King did so in the 1880’s. Does that mean they get to ignore the hundreds of thousands of Congolese that were butchered and starved by Belgians there up ‘till nearly 1920?


Our holier than thou attitude is just another form of Jingoism.


----------



## Ruam

Purple said:


> Yes we did. We were part of the UK during the high point of the colonial era from 1860 to 1910. The fact that we are now an independent country doesn't mean that we get to ignore that. The Brits and the French haven’t colonised anyone since the 1920's either. Does that mean that they get to ignore their own history?
> The Belgians haven’t colonised anyone since their King did so in the 1880’s. Does that mean they get to ignore the hundreds of thousands of Congolese that were butchered and starved by Belgians there up ‘till nearly 1920?
> 
> 
> Our holier than thou attitude is just another form of Jingoism.



The British have not colonised anyone since the 1920s?  What about Iraq, Afganistan, the Suez crisis, British support for the apartheid regime?  

What about the Franch's involvement in the genocide in Rwanda?  

The rich countries of the world, and I include Ireland in this, have continued to colonise the third world to this day ensuring that they stay poor and subservient to western countries.


----------



## mathepac

Purple said:


> ... Our holier than thou attitude is just another form of Jingoism.


That is the most utterly ridiculous position I've ever heard anyone adopt.

Between the act of union in 1800 and our winning the war of independence 120+ years later, do you have any idea how many armed insurrections, popular non-armed uprisings, protests and political agitations there were in order to try to boot the Brits out and achieve self-determination for what had been referred to as the Kingdom of Ireland prior to 1800?

Extrapolating from your position,  black South Africans were responsible for apartheid because some of them worked for the Afrikaaner establishment as civil servants.  End of term report-card for Walter Sisulu, Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Tutu: "Must try harder for independence other-wise guilty of self-oppression. Obviously National Party members. Ongoing colonisation in other parts of the world is also their fault".


----------



## z104

There was no Famine in Ireland in the 1840's. To suggest that it was a Famine leads people to believe that there was a shortage of food in the country. There was no shortage of Food in Ireland in the 1840's. There was an abundance of food in the 1840's.
There was however a Genocide in Ireland in the 1840's by the inaction of government(British) to distribute this abundance of food to the people who had none.

Almost a Final solution.


----------



## Purple

mathepac said:


> That is the most utterly ridiculous position I've ever heard anyone adopt.
> 
> Between the act of union in 1800 and our winning the war of independence 120+ years later, do you have any idea how many armed insurrections, popular non-armed uprisings, protests and political agitations there were in order to try to boot the Brits out and achieve self-determination for what had been referred to as the Kingdom of Ireland prior to 1800?



The short answer is yes, I do. Do you have any idea how much popular support most of them had? Do you know who the people were who cheered at the execution of Wolfe Tone? 
By the 1880's the establishment in Ireland was, for the most part, in favour of the union. It is those in power that set policy be that in Ireland or England.

My point is simply that many, many Irish people, of both low and high birth, were in favour of colonialism and saw nothing wrong with the actions of the European colonial powers. Tens of thousands of us were active participants. 
When the Irish Nationalist Party did oppose the government in the House of Commons it was for political gain as much as any pangs of conscience. 

We are not a morally superior race. We are just like everyone else; willing to act in ways that disadvantage others when it is to our own benefit. The record of the few Irish people who were in positions of power, positions to influence events, through the colonial era shows that. 

To suggest otherwise is jingoistic and hypocritical. 

There is a long history of inter-tribal oppression in Southern Africa. Just about all of the slaves sold to American and European traders were caught and sold on by Africans; they were doing it for hundreds of years before that selling men women and children to each other and to Arab traders. Even a man like Stanley, a vile amoral egotist who saw nothing wrong with opening fire on civilians, was appalled by the barbarity and cannibalism that he saw less than a hundred and fifty years ago.

No people, be they oppressed or oppressors, is any different at their core. The only difference is circumstance and opportunity.


----------



## z104

What about the Irish slaves that were sold to work in plantations in Barbados.. Who sold them?


----------



## Purple

Niallers said:


> There was no Famine in Ireland in the 1840's. To suggest that it was a Famine leads people to believe that there was a shortage of food in the country. There was no shortage of Food in Ireland in the 1840's. There was an abundance of food in the 1840's.
> There was however a Genocide in Ireland in the 1840's by the inaction of government(British) to distribute this abundance of food to the people who had none.
> 
> Almost a Final solution.



Read the last answer here, he says it better than I could. The facts just don't back up your theory. Life is complex and simplistic views usually don't stand up to scrutiny with the truth being somewhere is the middle, between both extremes.


----------



## z104

"I have often said, and written, it is Famine which must consume them (the Irish); our swords and other endeavours work not that speedy effect which is expected, for their overthrow"

- Lord Deputy of Ireland Sir Arthur Chichester in a letter to Lord Burghley, Queen Elizabeth's chief adviser, in 1601


The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Earl of Clarendon wrote a letter to Prime Minister Russell on April 26th, 1849, expressing his feelings about lack of aid from the British House of Commons: "I do not think there is another legislature in Europe that would disregard such suffering as now exists in the west of Ireland, or coldly persist in a policy of extermination."​


----------



## Purple

Niallers said:


> "I have often said, and written, it is Famine which must consume them (the Irish); our swords and other endeavours work not that speedy effect which is expected, for their overthrow"
> 
> - Lord Deputy of Ireland Sir Arthur Chichester in a letter to Lord Burghley, Queen Elizabeth's chief adviser, in 1601
> 
> 
> The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Earl of Clarendon wrote a letter to Prime Minister Russell on April 26th, 1849, expressing his feelings about lack of aid from the British House of Commons: "I do not think there is another legislature in Europe that would disregard such suffering as now exists in the west of Ireland, or coldly persist in a policy of extermination."​



So Naillers, you think that the English and French etc are a bunch of vile and immoral people and the Irish are somehow morally righteous? That seems to be the gist of many of the posts here. I propose that we simply lacked the opportunity and means to oppress others. I base that on a belief that people are broadly the same around the world and it’s only social conditioning and circumstance that varies.

BTW, the food that was exported to Britain during the famine was exported by Irish people and the division was not between the English and the Irish, it was between Catholics and Protestants.


----------



## UptheDeise

+1. It's been said that without the Scots and Irish, Britain would never had it's empire as we help them capture the jewel in the crown - India.


----------



## DublinTexas

What a difference the attitude of those on board makes.

The MV Rachel Corrie got boarded by the IDF and is now on the way to Ashdod from where the aid is going to Gaza.

"The ship has been boarded and there was full compliance from the crew and passengers on board," the spokeswoman said.

If the militants on board of the Miva Marmra would have shown the same co-operation nobody would have gotten hurt.

I congratulate both the people on the Rachel Corrie and the IDF to have this done peacefully and most certainly the political point of those on the Rachel Corrie has been made. They refused an offered deal made by the Israeli PM but when the blockade was enforced they did not use violence. 

Those kind of actions I can support, but not those of the militants on board of the Miva Marmra and the blunders of the IDF in trying to seize the ship.


----------



## z104

DublinTexas said:


> What a difference the attitude of those on board makes.
> 
> The MV Rachel Corrie got boarded by the IDF and is now on the way to Ashdod from where the aid is going to Gaza.
> 
> "The ship has been boarded and there was full compliance from the crew and passengers on board," the spokeswoman said.
> 
> If the militants on board of the Miva Marmra would have shown the same co-operation nobody would have gotten hurt.
> 
> I congratulate both the people on the Rachel Corrie and the IDF to have this done peacefully and most certainly the political point of those on the Rachel Corrie has been made. They refused an offered deal made by the Israeli PM but when the blockade was enforced they did not use violence.
> 
> Those kind of actions I can support, but not those of the militants on board of the Miva Marmra and the blunders of the IDF in trying to seize the ship.


 
Israel has no right to board the ship and take people to a country where they did not intend to go. If anybody was on a ship and it was boarded by pirates in the dead of night then it is only normal that people would defend themselves from attack..

If a thief/rapist/murderer broke into your house a 4 am in the morning would you defend yourself or would you say help yourself.


----------



## ninsaga

DublinTexas said:


> What a difference the attitude of those on board makes.
> 
> The MV Rachel Corrie got boarded by the IDF and is now on the way to Ashdod from where the aid is going to Gaza.
> 
> "The ship has been boarded and there was full compliance from the crew and passengers on board," the spokeswoman said.
> 
> If the militants on board of the Miva Marmra would have shown the same co-operation nobody would have gotten hurt.
> 
> I congratulate both the people on the Rachel Corrie and the IDF to have this done peacefully and most certainly the political point of those on the Rachel Corrie has been made. They refused an offered deal made by the Israeli PM but when the blockade was enforced they did not use violence.
> 
> Those kind of actions I can support, but not those of the militants on board of the Miva Marmra and the blunders of the IDF in trying to seize the ship.



..... so a PR coup for Isreal then it appears - just let them board on international waters and do what they like If any other nation did this I'm sure you wouldn't think the same


----------



## Purple

Niallers said:


> Israel has no right to board the ship and take people to a country where they did not intend to go. If anybody was on a ship and it was boarded by priates in the dead of night then it is only normal that people would defend themselves from attack..


 So when the IRA was smuggling gund into Ireland to kill women and children you would have opposed a boarding of a suspect ship while it was in international waters?




Niallers said:


> If a thief/rapist/murderer broke into your house a 4 am in the morning would you defend yourself or would you say help yourself.


If there was a history of thiefs/rapists/murderers breaking into your house by passing through your neighbours land and he did nothing to stop it would you therefore stop people from crossing his land to get to yours?


----------



## z104

If the IRA were smuggling guns into Ireland I wouldn't expect the British to punish the entire country becuase of it. That is what the Israelis are doing. They're blanket puinishing the entire Gaza strip for the actions of extremists.

Purple, If Sinn Fein were the ruling party in Ireland and the IRA kicked off again. Would you think it ok that the country was blocked by the British from receiving, paper, cement, toys, herbs and kept to a point where you were more concerened about where your next meal was going to come from than your freedom.

It's all aimed at keeping the Palastinians to a low point and to break their will.

The abused has become the abuser.


----------



## starlite68

Niallers said:


> If the IRA were smuggling guns into Ireland I wouldn't expect the British to punish the entire country becuase of it. That is what the Israelis are doing. They're blanket puinishing the entire Gaza strip for the actions of extremists.
> 
> Purple, If Sinn Fein were the ruling party in Ireland and the IRA kicked off again. Would you think it ok that the country was blocked by the British from receiving, paper, cement, toys, herbs and kept to a point where you were more concerened about where your next meal was going to come from than your freedom.
> 
> It's all aimed at keeping the Palastinians to a low point and to break their will.
> 
> The abused has become the abuser.


great post


----------



## UptheDeise

Sunny said:


> Come on Purple, your arguments are good enough that you don't have to resort to quoting a muppet like Ian O'Doherty! The guy is an idiot of the highest order. You might as well have used Brendan O'Connor!


 
Doesn't take away from the fact that the idots of both LBGT and Labourites support Hamas.


----------



## Purple

Niallers said:


> If the IRA were smuggling guns into Ireland I wouldn't expect the British to punish the entire country becuase of it. That is what the Israelis are doing. They're blanket puinishing the entire Gaza strip for the actions of extremists.
> 
> Purple, If Sinn Fein were the ruling party in Ireland and the IRA kicked off again. Would you think it ok that the country was blocked by the British from receiving, paper, cement, toys, herbs and kept to a point where you were more concerened about where your next meal was going to come from than your freedom.


 No, but I wouldn't think it unreasonable for them to check shipments to make sure that was all that was coming in.
Look, Israel doesn’t cover itself in glory in how it behaves and the Palestinians are in a deplorable state but Israel didn’t create the current situation and it doesn’t cause its continuation. It reacts, often in a very heavy handed way, to the actions of others.
Those who find the plight of the Palestinian people unacceptable you should direct your ire at Hamas, Jordan (historically), Syria and Egypt. Remember the Palestinians have always been a football for the rest of the Arab would, they weren’t let in to the Arab League for decades, and are still treated deplorably in other Arab countries, the ones that are let in that is.


----------



## z107

Why was it 'Okay' for the British army to bring guns into Ireland, but not the IRA?


----------



## Tinker Bell

In much the same way as the Kuwaitis that fought against the invading Iraqi army were freedom fighters but the IRA who fought against the British invaders were called terrorists. This is not answering your question - just an analogy.


----------



## Ancutza

I'm so, so sick and tired of the State of Israel and it's gung-ho, 'screw you' attitude to the rest of the world that I just wish it would vanish up it's own bum-hole.  We'd all sleep better at night.


----------



## Tinker Bell

You've got to take a look at who armed them to the teeth. And the reasons for so doing. And while you're at it, check out the Jewish connections to the USA/Brit media. And if you're really bonkers, read why they regard these actions as a Divine right - in the sacred book (available in all good newsagents).


----------



## starlite68

umop3p!sdn said:


> Why was it 'Okay' for the British army to bring guns into Ireland, but not the IRA?


 yes..i would like an answer  to that too?


----------



## ninsaga

from here. 


> Earlier, Swedish dockworkers will launch a weeklong blockade of Israeli ships and goods arriving in the Nordic nation to protest Monday's attack on a Gaza-destined aid lotilla.
> 
> Swedish Port Workers Union spokesman Peter Annerback says workers will refuse to handle Israeli goods and ships during the June 15-24 blockade. The union has some 1,500 members and supports Ship to Gaza, which took part in the flotilla.


----------



## Betsy Og

UptheDeise said:


> +1. It's been said that without the Scots and Irish, Britain would never had it's empire as we help them capture the jewel in the crown - India.



To our "Ireland had a empire" crew, I said in the very first post on this point that Irish may not be intrinsically any better than any others but, as the kid psychology shows say "England & France aren't bold, they just did bold things".  Ireland, for a variety of reasons, didn't. Fact.

So while we coulda/shoulda/woulda, we didn't. Not as a state (having none) nor in any meaningful collective way. 

Arguments to the contrary appear to me to be classic Aunt <anatomy part> Uncle.


----------



## Purple

Betsy Og said:


> To our "Ireland had a empire" crew, I said in the very first post on this point that Irish may not be intrinsically any better than any others but, as the kid psychology shows say "England & France aren't bold, they just did bold things".  Ireland, for a variety of reasons, didn't. Fact.
> 
> So while we coulda/shoulda/woulda, we didn't. Not as a state (having none) nor in any meaningful collective way.
> 
> Arguments to the contrary appear to me to be classic Aunt <anatomy part> Uncle.



Right, so while we were part of the UK we participated actively in empire building but once we got our independence we got to forget about all that. Kind of like a child saying "Game over!... New game!" BTW, I never suggested that Ireland had an empire, I really don't understand where you got that from. I simply pointed out that we were part of the UK and the UK had an empire.
Your thesis seems to be that actions by Irish people before 1922 don't count because we were ruled from London.
It's a nice idea but the reality is just a little bit more complex than that.


----------



## Purple

umop3p!sdn said:


> Why was it 'Okay' for the British army to bring guns into Ireland, but not the IRA?


It's funny that so many Shinners support Hamas and not Israel since the historical parallels between the Jews and the Northern Irish Catholics are so strong.
In answer to your question; the same thing that made it OK for the Irish government to bring them in to this part of Ireland but not the IRA.


----------



## Purple

Ancutza said:


> I'm so, so sick and tired of the State of Israel and it's gung-ho, 'screw you' attitude to the rest of the world that I just wish it would vanish up it's own bum-hole.  We'd all sleep better at night.



Well you must be a big fan of the Iranian government so. How do you feel about them hanging homosexual teenagers?

Name one other state in the Middle East that treats the Palestinians who live there better than Israel treats the over one million Palestinians who live in Israel proper and are full citizens there.
Tell me how the oil rich Arab states have helped their Arab brothers since 1948.
Tell me why the Palestinians were excluded from the Arab League for years.
Tell me why Yasser Arafat got away will stealing millions from his own impoverished people.
Explain why after a two state solution was agreed and the USA and Israel (not the oil rich Arab states) pumped over one billion dollars into the Palestinian territories Palestinian extremists derailed the whole thing and plunged their own people into anarchy and even greater poverty.

And please don’ start talking any rubbish about the Palestinians being there first. Read a bit of history before you do that.    

The greatest ironies in all of this are; One, the Jews and the Palestinians are generically the same people. The Jews didn’t invade the land of Canaan, the people there just converted and Two, the only nation in the Middle East that doesn’t want a poverty stricken and unstable Palestinian population is Israel. The rest of them want things to stay as they are so that simpletons in the West wag their finger at the excesses of Israel and ignore the much greater crimes being perpetrated by most of the Arab states.


----------



## Purple

Tinker Bell said:


> You've got to take a look at who armed them to the teeth. And the reasons for so doing. And while you're at it, check out the Jewish connections to the USA/Brit media. And if you're really bonkers, read why they regard these actions as a Divine right - in the sacred book (available in all good newsagents).


The same people who armed the Saudis armed Israel. The British, Americans, Dutch, Swedish, French, Russians and Chinese are also arming countries in the Middle East. Christians, Jews and Muslims all claim a divine right in the Middle East. That's why they call it the Holy Land.

Religions are all just different brands of crazy to me so I don't buy any of it. I try to be rational. I try to look at the whole picture and ask the simple questions. Ask yourself who benefits from Gaza being a waste ground, a breeding ground for fanatics? It isn't Israel so who is it? It does benefit Israel’s neighbours who oppose its existence as it is a constant propaganda coup against Israel. That question contextualises all others.


----------



## z107

> It's funny that so many Shinners support Hamas and not Israel since the historical parallels between the Jews and the Northern Irish Catholics are so strong.


I don't support Sinn Fein, or any political party because none of them represent my views. I have no other comment to make on this.


> In answer to your question; the same thing that made it OK for the Irish government to bring them in to this part of Ireland but not the IRA.


That doesn't answer my question.
During the Irish war of Independence, was it 'okay' for both sides to arm themselves?


----------



## Purple

umop3p!sdn said:


> That doesn't answer my question.
> During the Irish war of Independence, was it 'okay' for both sides to arm themselves?



What are you getting at?


----------



## Moral Ethos

I would like to know who is picking up he bill to repatriate these people back to Ireland?


----------



## Purple

Moral Ethos said:


> I would like to know who is picking up he bill to repatriate these people back to Ireland?



I presume the Dept. of Foreign Affairs is. In fairness they are Irish citizens and while I disagree with their methods I admire their courage and it does highlight the plight of the people of Gaza, if in a simplistic and anti-Israeli way.

BTW, did anyone notice the protest marches in Israel, protesting against the actions of the IDF and government. Good to see a democracy in action.


----------



## UptheDeise

Purple said:


> I presume the Dept. of Foreign Affairs is. In fairness they are Irish citizens and while I disagree with their methods I admire their courage and it does highlight the plight of the people of Gaza, if in a simplistic and anti-Israeli way.
> 
> BTW, did anyone notice the protest marches in Israel, protesting against the actions of the IDF and government. Good to see a democracy in action.


 
Yes, it tis a good thing to see indeed. Now, if only the gazians would march and protest about hamas, that will be good as well. Oh wait though...


----------



## Betsy Og

Purple said:


> Right, so while we were part of the UK we participated actively in empire building but once we got our independence we got to forget about all that. Kind of like a child saying "Game over!... New game!" BTW, I never suggested that Ireland had an empire, I really don't understand where you got that from. I simply pointed out that we were part of the UK and the UK had an empire.
> Your thesis seems to be that actions by Irish people before 1922 don't count because we were ruled from London.
> It's a nice idea but the reality is just a little bit more complex than that.



Ffs, we had to fight to practice our religion, then we were let starve, then we had to fight for independence, so obviously we were on the inside all along... Sinn fein famously had an abstentionist policy so we ABSOLUTELY can distance ourselves from the actions of a colonial occupier pre independence. P.s. Is this a wind up?, are you Kevin Myers having a laugh?


----------



## Ancutza

> I presume the Dept. of Foreign Affairs is. In fairness they are Irish  citizens and while I disagree with their methods I admire their courage  and it does highlight the plight of the people of Gaza, if in a  simplistic and anti-Israeli way.
> 
> BTW, did anyone notice the protest marches in Israel, protesting against  the actions of the IDF and government. Good to see a democracy in  action.



 Oh please!! give it a rest already! I'm about to lose my dinner and I spent the last 2 hours cooking it.

One of my wifes best friends from high-school is an israeli doctor/tank commander who posted loads of shots of himself on Facebook,standing in front of Merkava tanks, during operation Cast Lead (you know, the one where they fired white-phosphorus shells at civilians?) Apparently he's going to be back in the country of his birth next month for a knees-up.  I'm looking forward to a frank and open debate with him about why it's wrong to counterfeit the passports of friendly nations so you can go about assasinating people in 3rd party countries and the relative merits of air-burst shells over the ones that hit the ground before they go off.  No doubt he'll enlighten me as to how they got the plans to reproduce the Berlin Wall and fascinate me with regaling stories of how one of his tanks took out a journalist on live TV because the journalist had the temerity to point a TV camera at said tank.  Remember that one?  Think it was about a year ago.  Abit after his mates in the infantry shot-up a screaming and terrified small kid crouching beside a wall with his Dad killing both of them too.

Should be a night to remember.  I'll keep you posted.


----------



## Purple

Betsy Og said:


> Ffs, we had to fight to practice our religion, then we were let starve, then we had to fight for independence, so obviously we were on the inside all along... Sinn fein famously had an abstentionist policy so we ABSOLUTELY can distance ourselves from the actions of a colonial occupier pre independence. P.s. Is this a wind up?, are you Kevin Myers having a laugh?



Sinn Fein wasn't founded 'till 1905 so they are indeed in the clear. Irish people were actively involved in colonial wars from the 1700’s through to the late 1890’s. Many of them were part of the Protestant establishment and unionists but they were Irish none the less (or do you have to be a Catholic to be properly Irish?). 
On a personal note my family is in the clear; good IRA stock during the war of independence and before that just too dirt poor to matter.

Generally we forget that modern Irish Nationalism is a recent thing with the first “Patriots”, men like Henry Grattan (a protestant) looking to repeal Poynings Law in the 1780’s. During the time of Cromwell we were Clan based and had no real notion of a national political identity. If we had then there wouldn’t have been a three way war going on at the time. 
The idea that we can superimpose our modern national commonality on history and treat the last 400 years (since the Tudor re-conquest) as if we were France under German occupation is nonsense. Our modern definition of Irishness, the one I believe in (a democratic liberal republic) just didn’t exist back then. It did in the minds of some but for most people such notions were either irrelevant (if they were poor) or dangerous (if they were part of the establishment). Certainly after the Ascendancy there was a very much planted and English hue to the establishment but they, as so often happens, turned native (or saw that they could get richer with more self government) and so we get back to Grattan.

It is not possible to simply say we were an occupied nation and so whatever we did was done under duress.


----------



## Purple

Ancutza said:


> Oh please!! give it a rest already! I'm about to lose my dinner and I spent the last 2 hours cooking it.
> 
> One of my wifes best friends from high-school is an israeli doctor/tank commander who posted loads of shots of himself on Facebook,standing in front of Merkava tanks, during operation Cast Lead (you know, the one where they fired white-phosphorus shells at civilians?) Apparently he's going to be back in the country of his birth next month for a knees-up.  I'm looking forward to a frank and open debate with him about why it's wrong to counterfeit the passports of friendly nations so you can go about assasinating people in 3rd party countries and the relative merits of air-burst shells over the ones that hit the ground before they go off.  No doubt he'll enlighten me as to how they got the plans to reproduce the Berlin Wall and fascinate me with regaling stories of how one of his tanks took out a journalist on live TV because the journalist had the temerity to point a TV camera at said tank.  Remember that one?  Think it was about a year ago.  Abit after his mates in the infantry shot-up a screaming and terrified small kid crouching beside a wall with his Dad killing both of them too.
> 
> Should be a night to remember.  I'll keep you posted.




While you are at it ask him why his fellow officer thinks it's alright to murder children. 
While there were some sickening excesses during Operation Cast Lead, such as using white phosphorus rounds, killings that take place outside of the heat of battle disturb me more since, as in the case I linked to, a well trained and experienced officer who was not under fire made a decision to kill a child in cold blood. It is shameful that he is not in prison for murder since murder is what it was. If you want to start a thread on Israeli excesses, up to and including mass murder, I’ll be happy to contribute but that doesn’t change the broader facts of the situation.


----------



## Purple

UptheDeise said:


> Yes, it tis a good thing to see indeed. Now, if only the gazians would march and protest about hamas, that will be good as well. Oh wait though...



In fairness there's not much opposition to Hamas; they've murdered most of the opposition.


----------



## NOAH

That is the internal opposition and  the IDF are getting on with murdering the rest.  Very soon there won't be many left so israel will get the lot and if I recall that was the object of the excercise from day one. Then the west(usa) will have a nice buffer state in the middle east in case the oil is turned off.


----------



## Purple

NOAH said:


> That is the internal opposition and  the IDF are getting on with murdering the rest.  Very soon there won't be many left so israel will get the lot and if I recall that was the object of the excercise from day one. Then the west(usa) will have a nice buffer state in the middle east in case the oil is turned off.



You either don't know anything about the recent history of the issue or you are choosing to ignore it.


----------



## NOAH

this is now part of history as well 

 "  one thing is fast becoming clear – many of the dead were shot multiple times at point-blank range. One was a journalist taking photographs. "A man was shot ... between the eyebrows, which indicates that it was not an attack that took place from self-defence," Hassan Ghani, a passenger, said in an account posted on YouTube. "The soldier had time to set up the shot." Mattias Gardell, a Swedish activist, told the TT news bureau: "The Israelis committed premeditated murder ... Two people were killed by shots in the forehead, one was shot in the back of the head and one in the chest." ​​I leave you to guess what it is describing.​​naoh​


----------



## Purple

I was talking about this comment;





NOAH said:


> That is the internal opposition and  the IDF are getting on with murdering the rest.  Very soon there won't be many left so israel will get the lot and if I recall that was the object of the excercise from day one. Then the west(usa) will have a nice buffer state in the middle east in case the oil is turned off.





It seems clear that the IDF at the very least made an utter balls up of the landing but ask yourself who benefits from what happened. It certainly isn't Israel.

You can quote from passengers and I could quote from family members of Palestinian children shot by the Israelis on their way to school… we could also quote from family members of Israeli children blown to bits while on the bus on the way to school. All conflicts are full of emotion, suffering and rage. Both sides can claim the moral high ground depending on when you start counting and where you are looking from. Doing so solved nothing and sheds no light on the issue. Ask the simple logical questions, the ones based on medium term self interest, and look for the root causes of current events, not the victims of the eventual consequences.      

The blockade of Gaza should be highlighted but so should the real reasons; a fundamentalist Islamo-Facist group called Hamas, the active attempts by Arab states to derail the Camp David peace talks and the Palestinian Authority that resulted from them, the inaction of Egypt and the far right religious fundamentalist nut-jobs on the Israeli side. 
The Palestinians are the victims here, of that there is no question but who’s victim are they?


----------



## Ancutza

Purple,  I'd just *love* to bring you out to dinner with Robert Fisk.  We'd have a rare 'ould time altogether!!!   If we can arrange it then I'll pick up the tab but you have to bring a member of the Knesset!


----------



## Purple

Ancutza said:


> Purple,  I'd just *love* to bring you out to dinner with Robert Fisk.  We'd have a rare 'ould time altogether!!!   If we can arrange it then I'll pick up the tab but you have to bring a member of the Knesset!



You move in more salubrious circles than me. I'm just a guy who reads. 
I don’t know any members of the Knesset but if you have the contacts how about bringing along one of the Arab members?


----------



## starlite68

i read myself purple...but a word to wise, not all in the printed matter can be takn as gospel! in fact most of it can and should be taken with a large grain of salt.


----------



## starlite68

sorry for the incorrect spelling....keyboard playing up...really have to hammer some of the keys! but you get the jest of what im saying.


----------



## Purple

starlite68 said:


> i read myself purple...but a word to wise, not all in the printed matter can be takn as gospel! in fact most of it can and should be taken with a large grain of salt.



I look for the historical facts that influence current events. The facts are reasonably clear, the motivations and interrelationships between them are not so clear. I try an avoid journalism of the “will somebody please thing of the children” type as if just raises emotions and doesn’t contextualise anything. Robert Fisk is a good example of someone who is very knowledgeable and informative but it’s very hard to read all the hyperbole and annoying that he fails to always mention all of the relevant facts (even though he knows well what they are).

Conor Cruise O’Brien wrote a very informative book on the foundation if Israel but again it is utterly biased in favour of the Israelis. I find it useful to read biased writers from either side and look at what they left out. It’s a bit like watching Fox News and Al Jazeera and looking for what’s in between (not that I’m saying that Al Jazeera is anywhere near as biased as Fox News).     

We generally get drawn to opinions that we agree with (we are all biased to some extent) so it’s also useful to try to find those we disagree with and see if they can change our minds.


----------



## csirl

Niallers said:


> Israel has no right to board the ship and take people to a country where they did not intend to go. If anybody was on a ship and it was boarded by pirates in the dead of night then it is only normal that people would defend themselves from attack..
> 
> If a thief/rapist/murderer broke into your house a 4 am in the morning would you defend yourself or would you say help yourself.


 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10245176.stm

This picture of the ship shows that it has a large Irish flag painted on it even though it is a Cambodian ship. Under maritime law, you are fully entitled to board any ship which is displaying the wrong flags or multiple flags.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/tricolour-on-ship-delays-gaza-aid-mission-2179693.html

When this ship was docking in Ireland, it was forbidden from flying the Irish flag by the Marine Survey Office as it is not an Irish ship and so it was breaking the Law.

As well as causing us intense embarrasment and dragging us into a potentially dangerous international incident, the owners of this ship have shown utter contempt for the people of Ireland and our laws and international laws by re-painting the tricolour on the side after leaving Ireland. I value my Irish citizenship and do not appreciate it being illegally abused for a political stunt. 

I am also waiting to see if those people who condemned Israel for illegally using Irish identities will also condemn the Rachel Corrie crew for essentially committing the same offence.


----------



## Sunny

Post in error


----------



## Betsy Og

Purple said:


> The idea that we can superimpose our modern national commonality on history and treat the last 400 years (since the Tudor re-conquest) as if we were France under German occupation is nonsense.
> 
> It is not possible to simply say we were an occupied nation and so whatever we did was done under duress.


 
I think we're basically in agreement that we (as in the bulk of the "native Irish") were a mass of poor pesants under the control of a ruling class. 

That mass of people  - be they decended from Celts, Danes, Normans or wherever (&regardless of their religion),were not voters or policy makers. They, or their representatives, didnt collectively engage in or endorse colonial adventures. I'm sure you've heard the quote "Just because one is born in a stable does not make one a horse" which was attributed to one of our Irish aristo types which sums up what is evident from British colonialism in that they thought they were a superior race, better than the native. Sure they even classed aboriginals as flora & fauna!

As regards "whatever we did" - I'm not convinced "we" did anything. Some individuals did, but the mass of poor peasants never stirred up to invade anywhere, they were too busy trying to survive. There never was a popular movement towards colonialism - so until you can show otherwise I dont know where you are going with your argument.


----------



## Purple

There was never a popular movement amongst the peasantry supporting colonialism in Britain or France (or Germany or Spain) either. In fact that’s the main reason why, from the 1880’s most colonies were effectively run and developed by private companies operating under a state concession. This was typified by Leopold the Second in the Congo and copied to a great extent by the French in the French Congo and to a lesser extent by the British. It was the actions of these concessionary companies that Rodger Casement and later Brazza (the French explorer who 25 years earlier has claimed the French Congo for France) investigated and exposed.   

Policy was always set by the ruling elite so using your logic the British and French bear no historical responsibility for the colonial adventures of their predecessors either.


----------



## Betsy Og

Purple said:


> Policy was always set by the ruling elite so using your logic the British and French bear no historical responsibility for the colonial adventures of their predecessors either.


 
Well to take Britain, doesnt the responsibility lay with the Monarchy and later the House of Commons?

Anyway, this debate started due to an assertion that Ireland has no right to criticise others due to our record of past mis-deeds - your case against the Irish people is as yet unproven.


----------



## Purple

Betsy Og said:


> Well to take Britain, doesnt the responsibility lay with the Monarchy and later the House of Commons?


 Yes, when Ireland was rules from the Commons with Irish PM's being elected (in a manner of speaking) by the Irish electorate.

We were never monsters but we are no better or worse than most. Holier than thou attitudes get up my nose; when we had then chance to stomp on a few natives we took it. The fact that most of us were too poor to get the opportunity is not a virtue. If we had had the opportunity and didn’t take it then it would have been virtuous.


----------



## starlite68

but thats a bit like saying that we would all commit murder if we just knew that we would get away with it!   not true


----------



## csirl

Betsy Og said:


> Well to take Britain, doesnt the responsibility lay with the Monarchy and later the House of Commons?
> 
> Anyway, this debate started due to an assertion that Ireland has no right to criticise others due to our record of past mis-deeds - your case against the Irish people is as yet unproven.


 
Back in Viking times, the vikings based in Dublin were notorious and colonised a few places e.g. York in England. And they weren't blow in Danes on a temporary stopover. These were vikings who were born in Dublin and of mixed viking/celtic blood stock - generations after the first arrivals - the vikings who founded Dublin assimilated and interbred with the natives. By this time, Dublin was autonomous from the Danes and often fought with them. There decendants are still here.

The Sea Stallion of Glendalough boat is a replica of a Dublin viking ship - the Dublin ships were bigger and more violent than those originating in scandanvia.


----------



## Betsy Og

csirl said:


> the Dublin ships were bigger and more violent than those originating in scandanvia.


 
Plus ca change whah?? 

As regards efforts to link us with Blighty's glorious empire, in the words of Yeats "What can I but enumerate old themes", Aunts uncles and all that.......


----------



## Purple

Betsy Og said:


> Plus ca change whah??
> 
> As regards efforts to link us with Blighty's glorious empire, in the words of Yeats "What can I but enumerate old themes", Aunts uncles and all that.......



Yea, but in this example it’s more a case of your aunty used to have balls and so used to be your uncle. The fact that she now has none doesn’t change the past


----------



## DublinTexas

It’s amazing that the crisis about the deadly shootings on board is still going on.

Even now that are more and more facts coming out that terrorist were on board of the “Mavi Marmara” and that they were prepared to attack the IDF including looking to die as "martyr" the critics of Israel still go on about the blockade.


I think it’s important to remember some basic facts about Gaza. The De-Facto-Regime of Hamas is in control of Gaza and in a state of war with Israel with the support of Iran.


The Hamas makes it very clear that they don’t want any peace agreement with Israel but rather the total destruction of the state of Israel and its citizens by any means (including sending children as human bombs). 


Hamas (who by the way was elected by the people of Gaza) has intensified it’s aggressions against Israel since Israel withdraw their troops from Gaza. They fired thousands of rockets (both homemade and imported from Iran) into Israel, is it a wonder that Israel wants to protect its citizens from the war that Hamas is raging? 


Hamas does not want peace, Hamas wants the complete destruction of Israel. They do not want any compromise they only want the complete destruction, nothing more nothing less. Everybody who supports Hamas should remember that, their goal is to destroy Israel and every Israeli citizen (be it Jewish, Arab or Christian) with any means needed.


Is it a wonder that Israel wants to ensure that no weapons reach their enemy?


During the last Gaza fight the UN came up with resolution 1860 which asked Israel to leave Gaza which they eventually did. But it also has the following important point:





> 6. *The Security Council calls upon member states to intensify efforts to provide arrangements and guarantees in Gaza in order to sustain a durable ceasefire and calm, including to prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition* and to ensure the sustained reopening of crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access between the Palestinian Authority; and in this regard, welcomes the Egyptian initative, and other regional and international efforts that are underway.


 
Israel has the right to have a blockade against Gaza if the blockade is having the goal to prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition.


If Gaza harbour would be open without any control how these “peace activists” a situation would arise in Gaza similar to that of Lebanon, where Iran-Vasall Hisbolla now has about 30 000 to 40 000 rockets with a long range (deep into Israel) and able of delivering more deadly power than ever.


Hamas has clearly shown in the past that any rockets they receive (from Iran for example) will be used against Israel. And as Gaza is nearer to the population centres of Israel this is an extreme danger and would leave Israel with no other option than to re-occupy Gaza if the free flow of weapons into Gaza results in more attacks into their country.


People who are for a total lifting of the blockade will not contribute to a peaceful solution, but in effect contribute to a new active and bloody war in the Middle East that will spin out of control especially with Iran playing a part.


It is important to understand that according to international law and common law between states a blockade is legitimate tool. In fact if you research past incidents you will see that any ship which is clearly communicating that it will breach such a blockage is a military act. 


If activists clearly communicate that they are intentional breaching the blockade (and even the Irish activists made this clear as their goal) than Israel has the right to board the ships even in international waters, especially as they have been offered that their goods would be transported to Gaza after inspection in Ashdod.


Those who call the actions of the IDF an act of piracy in my option is not informed enough or are doing this on purpose to steer up the situation further.


This all is not changing the fact that the actions of Israel against the “Mavi Marmara” were totally unprofessional and had a very negative impact on Israel’s Image worldwide. 


One cannot for weeks tell the world the valid point that radicals islamists and terrorist are part of the Gaza fleet and then not be prepared when boarding the ships and the radicals are behaving the way one expects from radicals. 


This is a major mistake of the military command, they never should have send their soldiers into such a life threatening situation where they were ill equipped and had no other choice than to use live ammunition to defend themselves. 


Israel however also has to concede that the blockade does not only have a security but also a punishment part and that is not right.


Sure Israel is letting more goods into Gaza but still there are goods on the list of prohibited items that not even with the greatest stretch can be used for military purposes by Hamas.


That has to change, goods that clearly cannot be used for Hamas military must be allowed through, the blockade needs to do what it is supposed to do, *prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition.*


Israel needs to work with the international community to agree and implement a way of inspection that fulfils it’s right for security and accomplishes the inspection/delivery of goods in a fast and reliable way.


As long as Hamas is in Gaza (with or without the popular support) there is a need for a blockade and inspection of goods.


Israel however needs to understand the requirements of the civilian population of Gaza better and ensure that goods are reaching them, even if Hamas with their “kill them all” approach and their own internal fighting is the main driver for the desperation in Gaza.


----------



## Purple

+1 Excellent post DublinTexas


----------



## Latrade

While I agree with your post DublinTexas, I think given the entire history here, that we have to take incidents individually. If it turns out that there were "terrorists" on board then let's see the evidence. Not just Israeli reports, let's get all the footage confiscated released. Again, if they suspected terrorists or weapons smuggling, why only go on board with some paint guns and side arms? 

As it looks like, despite my own views last week, the San Remo manual does allow for Israel to board and where there is resistance, "attack". I still don't feel that it gives the right to begin shooting people dead, not in the face of being attacked with catapults and sticks.

I agree with the principle that Israel reacts to aggression, if there were no aggression against Israel, there would be peace. I agree that this argument of Israel "overreacting" or being "disproportionate" is too commonly and falsely used by the media. A nation has the right to protect its citizens. It isn't Israel's fault its weapons are better.

But there are questions over the blockade. First, is Israel still the occupying force there? The most important aspect is that if the blockades are legal, they and other action must distinguish between the military targets of the hostile nation and its citizens. Clearly, all the issues with Israel restricting so much aid through it is also targeting citizens. 

The main thing that stands in the way of peace in this area is the hard-lined view that you're either one side or the other. That if you have sympathy with Israel, that means you're part of a  Zionist/Neo-Con/NWO conspiracy or if you have sympathy for the Palestinian citizens, then you're a terrorist supporting enemy of the free world. 

I call bull on all that. I call bull on anyone who pins their colours completely to one side in this conflict. Both sides have too much innocent blood on their hands to be seen in anyway right or morally right. We know all too well the impacts of when innocent blood is spilled for and against. We know all to well that at some point, the political and humanitarian message that sparked the call to arms gets lost and the "cause" gets taken over by murderous, power hungry zealots who have no intention of letting go of their controlling grip.

While we all justify one side's (either/or) actions, no matter how heinous, we just fuel the fundamentalism on both sides in this stupid argument. And what's it over? There's 148 million km2 of land on this planet and all this blood over 392 km2 and which version of a collection of fables, parables and quasi-history you believe. Thankfully, Carl Sagan's reflections on the pale blue dot, put's everything into perspective.

Anyway, yes, Israel has been wronged before. Yes, Palestinians have been wronged before. But does all that really justify the shootings last week? I'm sorry; I just don't think it does.


----------



## Purple

Generally speaking I agree Latrade


----------



## Purple

[broken link removed]
It's strange that assaults carried out by Iranian secret service operatives on civilians in Ireland, with Gardai looking on (and in one case getting pushed out of the way), makes such a tiny impact in the media. I would suggest that if the same thing happened when the Israeli Foreign Minister was speaking the hump-clad, sandal-wearing, Guardian reading right-on brigade would have been apoplectic. 

Some people are so PC that they will not criticise any country that is not predominantly white just in case they are ever accused of racism or ignoring the colonial legacy. You can be a repressive totalitarian theocratic dictatorship as long as you are not populated by Europeans or their descendants but woe betide any western democracy that steps out of line.  

In Ireland we are a little more selective; as long as the a repressive totalitarian theocratic dictatorship is anti American or (even better) anti-Israeli we just love ‘em.


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> [broken link removed]
> It's strange that assaults carried out by Iranian secret service operatives on civilians in Ireland, with Gardai looking on (and in one case getting pushed out of the way), makes such a tiny impact in the media. I would suggest that if the same thing happened when the Israeli Foreign Minister was speaking the hump-clad, sandal-wearing, Guardian reading right-on brigade would have been apoplectic.
> 
> Some people are so PC that they will not criticise any country that is not predominantly white just in case they are ever accused of racism or ignoring the colonial legacy. You can be a repressive totalitarian theocratic dictatorship as long as you are not populated by Europeans or their descendants but woe betide any western democracy that steps out of line.
> 
> In Ireland we are a little more selective; as long as the a repressive totalitarian theocratic dictatorship is anti American or (even better) anti-Israeli we just love ‘em.


 
Might be interested. 

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=139098


----------



## Latrade

Sunny said:


> Might be interested.
> 
> http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=139098


 
True, but 14 response as to the 238 here. 

There is no doubt, there is a shift to the My Enemy's Enemy in some media sources, it's typical poor journalism. In an attempt to counter the Fox lack of balance, they come up with their own lack of balance at the other extreme. The BBC have become the worst at this as well as some of the UK's liberal leaning media.

As Purple has said earlier, it's actually impossible to find a pure balanced look at this without too much bias. There was the Euston Manifesto which started out reasonable, but again became tainted with too much support in all circumstances for an individual's pre-manifesto bias.

I've many friends who are so aggressively opposed to Israel, they don't care who they support or promote in order to achieve that goal. One friend organised a panel speaking out against Israel. Several of those included where Muslim Clerics who had regular columns in the Guardian, even though I pointed out to my friend that he should check the personal websites of these Clerics where they openly called for the genocide of the Jewish race, he should pay particular attention to the part on their website where they call for the genocide of all homosexuals. I though that might be worth paying attention to consider he himself was gay. 

He was prepared to overlook this "slight difference of opinion" in order to run what he felt was a very informative and successful panel. The point being, that when you look at the policies of those very vocal against Israel, the vast majority of those opinions are abhorent to most liberal minded folk, it's just the Israel bit they agree on. I can't square that circle, I can't give up on ideals of equal rights and social justice just because there's a small common ground on who's to blame.

Some of my friends are so supportive of any action on behalf of Israel that you're accused of being a terrorist supporting, homphobic, democracy hating suicide bomber.

Again, the vast majority of US foriegn policy is abhorent to me. I'm not prepared to give total support or credence to them on the basis of one area of occasional agreement.


----------



## Purple

I find that US foreign policy is far more fair minded and balanced on most issues that EU foreign policy. They are willing to speak out against China in Darfur and against the government in Myanmar (Burma). They give much more to help the fight against AIDS in Africa and are far more proactive in supporting and nurturing good governance in African countries. The fact that their policy in the Middle East is so strongly pro-Israel should not blind people to their lower profile broader policies. 
The EU on the other hand doesn’t have a proper foreign policy and turns a blind eye to the disgraceful actions of member states in their former colonies.


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> I find that US foreign policy is far more fair minded and balanced on most issues that EU foreign policy. They are willing to speak out against China in Darfur and against the government in Myanmar (Burma). They give much more to help the fight against AIDS in Africa and are far more proactive in supporting and nurturing good governance in African countries. The fact that their policy in the Middle East is so strongly pro-Israel should not blind people to their lower profile broader policies.
> The EU on the other hand doesn’t have a proper foreign policy and turns a blind eye to the disgraceful actions of member states in their former colonies.


 
Yeah I agree.


----------



## Latrade

We'll agree to disagree on the US Purple. They seek to impose their idea of democracy and liberty on people. I'll admit, on paper, their model isn't a bad one, in practice and in the hands the government and military, it doesn't mean squat.

And they too seek the "my enemy's enemy" philosophy to the same extent as those vehemently anti-Israel. All that happens is that one murderous zealot is replaced with another and instead another group of innocent people suffer. 

The EU, the UN are just as disgraceful.


----------



## Purple

I wouldn't say the USA or the EU are as bad as the UN.


----------



## csirl

Purple said:


> I wouldn't say the USA or the EU are as bad as the UN.


 
Every organisation is a sum of its parts. The UN gives membership and a voice to violent, repressive, human rights abusing and undemocratic regimes.


----------



## Latrade

csirl said:


> Every organisation is a sum of its parts. The UN gives membership and a voice to violent, repressive, human rights abusing and undemocratic regimes.


 
Yeah but the UK's just had a general election and change of government, give them a chance.


----------



## mercman

This might be slightly old, but I have been sent this link which is true and factual: It is a link from youtube and is quite extraordinary. The link is www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MEtQU5x5sE or if you prefer to type in 'palestinian corruption and humanitarian aid' and you will be brought to this very interesting clip,


----------



## NOAH

what exactly is your point???   Have you any idea how much Isreal/USA spends on defence  annually?

In a phrase  " Get Real"

noah


----------



## mercman

So the Israelis should forgo defending themselves from attack but it is OK for billions to be handed to their neighbours that choose to waste their money.

Sorry your point doesn't stick. Maybe you should 'get real', especially when the facts are placed in front of your nose.


----------



## Purple

Mercman, this itn't news (or at least it isn't new news). The media in the USA have been talking about this for years, including the left of centre CNN. The media in Ireland and the UK (and France) is so anti-Israeli that it doesn't report this sort of thing.

Google Arafat's missing millions for more.


----------



## mercman

Purple said:


> Google Arafat's missing millions for more.



Thank you purple, I am so aware of this. But unfortunately it does appear that the general mass wish to beat the Israelis and the Jewish populous with a stick. Ignorance is bliss and all that, but if people wish to throw insults and to have the world media slice and dice probably the most prejudiced people ever in the world, they may as well read the entire facts and learn of their own inadequacies before they keep making noise and blaming others.

Apologies for reopening a more or less dead thread.


----------

