BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:35 PM

Emma B: I like it!

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:34 PM

Absolutely, Ed. This is what I have said already several times today when I have encountered such behavior on Facebook...

"The young woman who recently lost her eye when she was shot in the face with a tear gas canister by the Israeli border police is Jewish. She paid a much heavier price on behalf of the Palestinian cause than most of us posting to pages like this one. Many Jews pay a much bigger price for their activism than most people because they are isolated from and condemned by their community and often even by their families. We need their help, and they deserve our respect.

We are not fighting "the Jews". We are fighting oppression."

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:28 PM

OK CarolC
Can we see your clear statement that people who say carry signs and chant "Death to Israelis", "Dealt to Jews", "Death to Arabs" and Death to Muslims" all as equally wrong....I will even throw in "Death to Americans and America, which also seems to come up now and then"

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:27 PM

sorry to lower the tone here but on an earlier radio comedy approach to the weeks news tonight it was suggested that the Israelis could be called 'anti cementic'

If you didn't laugh occasionally; you'd weep

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:17 PM

The Rachel Corrie, an Irish ship, is Malaysian funded by Mahatir Mohamad, the country's former prime minister.
Anifah Aman, Malaysia's foreign affairs minister, said in a statement issued late on Thursday that the Israeli authorities should insure a safe passage for the vessel to Gaza to deliver the humanitarian cargo.
Mairead Corrigan, a Nobel Peace Laureate, is aboard.

Brian Cowen, the Irish prime minister, asked Israel to permit the Irish-owned aid ship, named after an American woman killed by an Israeli bulldozer trying to prevent a house demolition.

The vessel carries cement, a material banned from entering Gaza, in addition to medical and school equipment.

http:/english.aljazeera.net, June 4.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:06 PM

The government of Israel didn't just steal the aid from the flotilla. They have also stolen all of the personal belongings of the flotilla members except for the clothes they were wearing when they were kidnapped. That is cellphones, computers, ipads, clothing, money, and everything else they had with them. The dollar value of this theft is enormous.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:53 PM

Some people are generalizing to all Jews the criticism that should only be leveled to the people who are committing the acts of oppression, and that's wrong, and whenever we see that happening, we need to speak out against it (and believe me, I spend a lot of my day doing just that).

However, there are just as many people in Israel who are shouting things like "death to the Arabs" and other equally wrong and horrific things. I don't think you serve your arguments very well by singling out only one side of that problem for your condemnation or trying to smear the entire Palestinian rights movement or all Arabs because of the behavior of some people in those groups. Just as it would not serve my arguments if I were to only condemn the behavior of those Jews who are shouting things like "death to the Arabs" or to generalize that behavior to all Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:41 PM

It's so sad - Grown men chanting murder against the flotilla members in Israel and yelling that it was a 'crime' that they weren't all shot; then manhandling the young female reporter who filmed them!

Yes makes you ashamed to be human at times

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Roberto
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:34 PM

At the demonstration tonight in Rome, Arab children shouting murderers against Israel. Two days ago, the demonstration in praise of the flottilla with activists shouting murderers at the Jew peole in Rome's ghetto. I'll never support such shame.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:21 PM

The Rachel Corrie's cargo

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:20 PM

Jewish boat to Gaza sailing in July

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:53 PM

Krauthammer? Really? Where's that "cracking up laughing" smiley?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 02:56 PM

I've been trying to find a live feed from the ship, but so far no luck. I saw a report that the ship had recently been outfitted with camera and satellite equipment so that it could document what happens and broadcast a live feed. I also saw, a couple of hours ago, a report saying that the Israelis had already blocked the satellite. I don't know if this is accurate or not. If anyone has any further information, I would be grateful.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 02:41 PM

The Irish relief vessel is on the way.

Will more be killed?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 02:30 PM

So I've got some questions for the hasbaristas in this thread. Please show me the law(s) under which Israel claims the right to impose this blockade on Gaza. And please cite the specific language in the law(s) that pertain to this specific case.

And if the law(s) pertain to the rights of belligerents in a war situation, please show me the parts that specify the rights of both sides. That is to say, what right does a country have to enforce a blockade, and what rights do a country have to defend itself against a blockade.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 02:14 PM

Crossposted, Emma. But he was using your words against me.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 02:13 PM

Ok, I'll rephrase, just for you. I think he is attacking what he would suggest are the gross inaccuracies in Krauthamer's assessment of the situation.

Krauthammer, though, is attacking everyone with whom he doesn't agree with his insinuation that they regard Jews as being troublesome. It's certainly an oblique character assassination, but it is a character assassination nevertheless, and since you are endorsing his words, that means that you are also making this character assassination yourself. So you're really not in a position to be pointing fingers about attacking the messenger rather than the message.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 02:13 PM

Carol, BB is repeating a remark addressed to me as I earlier questioned whether a report in a paper which was part of a group dedicated to unconditionally supporting Israeli government actions could/should possibly be regarded as just a teensey weensey itty bitty biased.

I can only reply, as I did previously 04 Jun 10 - 09:35 AM, that I apply the same principles to one of our own UK papers which has a very obvious agenda too.
Strangely, I don't consider querying the objectivity of any source 'weak and pathetic' although sometimes it appears as rare as hens teeth

and btw - I wasn't 'attacking' the source just pointing out as I did for the article I quoted from The Independent

"Of course they were asking for it" 04 Jun 10 - 01:05 PM

the 'political' stance of the source.

Now maybe we can drop the personal insults and return to the topic?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:52 PM

I don't think he's attacking Krauthammer, beardedbruce. I think he's attacking Krauthammer's lies. Big difference there.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:51 PM

By the way, I will use as precedent in my argument in response to Krauthammer, who is not a troublesome Jew, but rather, a troublesome fascist, that Israel attacked Egypt because of a naval blockade. If it was illegal for Egypt to blockade Israel, and if Israel was justified in attacking Egypt because of it, Israel really can't then turn around and say that its own blockade is not an act of war that is subject to defensive action. What's good for the goose...

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:49 PM

I did not intend to imply that YOU had made the statement- but are you saying it is NOT true?

If that is the case, you had best not complain about personnal attacks, since you are useing them as opposed to a debate on the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:43 PM

...or are you doing that thing again where you act like you think that everyone who is on the other side of an argument from you is a part of a borg collective, so it doesn't really matter which one of us says what?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:40 PM

This is for you, Roberto.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpMpHgw7yVk


beardedbruce, are you trying to make it look like that quote in your post there is from me?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:39 PM

The Australian
June 2nd

"ISRAEL'S murder of the human rights activists on the MV Samoud on Monday brings into focus its policy of disregard for human lives and disrespect for international laws and conventions. This policy has been a product of world apathy to the plight of the Palestinians and US blanket support for Israeli actions.

The policy, best described as "shoot first and explain later", is heavily reliant on a well-funded PR department (Hasbara) in the Israeli government. However, the real support for this policy comes from Western governments, including our own, which have provided support and excuses for Israel's actions in the past and today have to share part of the blame for the killing of innocent civilians.

Israel's policy has been practised on a daily basis in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Much of these activities rarely get a mention in the world media. However, the spectacular events and civilian casualties during the war on Lebanon in 2006, the war on the Gaza Strip in 2008 and the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai were well covered in the media. These violations of human rights were hardly investigated, and Israel did not pay any price for its blatant disregard of international law. If anything, these wars have provided testing grounds for Israel's weapons and the footage has been used to sell more arms to the world. One wonders, should not the world community feel responsible for the deaths of those civilians?

Many in Palestine and the Arab world have been calling on the world not to apply double standards when it comes to Israel. Yet many governments, mainly for financial reasons, have found a populist spin to sell to their constituencies to justify the Israeli actions. However, it has become clear the tide is turning and governments that support Israel are running thin on the ground to justify intentional, vicious aggression that violates every norm in our society. Those governments and individuals have to shoulder their responsibility for Israel's latest act.

The world has reacted angrily to the Gaza flotilla events and so it should. It should also express harsher sentiments on the three-year blockade of the Gaza Strip, which amounts to collective punishment forbidden under international law. It is likely, too, that Israel will pay a small price in the short term for its actions. These condemnations are symbolic only and are ineffective in the long term. They need to be followed by decisive actions that will send a message to Israel that the world is not willing to tolerate this any more.

Not only governments have responsibility to act but also every individual who feels compelled to react to this needless aggression and loss of lives. The nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions of Israeli products and institutions campaign has been in place for a few years. It empowers every citizen in the world to express disgust at Israel's action.

The Australian government has described Israel's action as deplorable and called for a full investigation. Although this is commendable, the Australian people should demand Australia reassess its close ties with Israel. On the day the government sent ASIO officers to Israel to investigate the passport forging affair, Australia signed a $250 million arms deal with Israel. This speaks volumes on the real relationship with Israel.

The Australian government and others across the world should endorse the BDS campaign, as they did with South Africa, and demand that Israel end the blockade of the Gaza Strip, agree to a UN peacekeeping force, dismantle the illegal settlements and the apartheid wall and enter into immediate and serious negotiations to end this 62-year conflict.

Inaction will be interpreted as an endorsement for Israel's act and a caveat for its next atrocity"


Well now we could go on posting excerpts from the Press ad infinitum - even take a straw poll to detirmine which countries regard the attack and killings on the Flotilla as illegal

Oh, I'm sorry, that would be 'the usual suspects' - The UN, Europe etc.....

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:33 PM

"If you can't refute the content attack the source - weak and pathetic."


So he is right about the statements of fact, since you can only attack the writer?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:29 PM

Jon Stewart (a "troublesome Jew") on Charles Krauthammer

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:22 PM

Krauthammer: Those troublesome Jews


Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 4, 2010

The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.

But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.

In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.

Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.

Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.

Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?

But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense.

(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.

Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to fight them here.

But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.

Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.

(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense -- military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.

The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli -- the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war -- effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.

(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.

But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?

Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.

What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence.

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:17 PM

http://imeu.net/news/article0019152.shtml#1

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:16 PM

Roberto, snipes are not arguments. They are the absence of an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Roberto
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:15 PM

CarolC, your critical sense is so sharp when directed towards Israel and so dull when applied to Hamas. Far better informed: a self-appointed medal.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:12 PM

mousethief, Hamas has done a lot to try to stop the rockets. Of course, it's efforts were hampered a bit when Israel massacred a couple of hundred of their police in the massacre of '08/'09. Kind of hard to keep order if all of your police have been blown to bits, and it seems like Israel must have wanted to make it difficult for Hamas to keep order, or they wouldn't have blown up all of those police. But all of that aside, what government has complete control of its people? The people who are firing the rockets are in opposition to Hamas, and they are doing it to undermine Hamas' efforts to bring a resolution to the situation. Hamas has adhered to every ceasefire they have agreed to, including the unilateral ones. This is a fact and is not disputable.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:07 PM

CarolC, whether you don't know what you are talking about, or you have political reasons to pretend you're blind. It is not a matter of different ideas, but of basic perception of the situation.

Roberto, it's quite obvious that I am far better informed than you are. Everything I have said is backed up with facts and evidence. You, apparently, have swallowed the propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:07 PM

btw The Independent is one of the youngest UK national daily newspapers.
The daily edition was named National Newspaper of the Year at the 2004 British Press Awards.
The Independent is regarded as leaning to the left politically, although it has not affiliated itself to any political party and a range of views can be found on its editorial and comment pages.
- Wiki

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:05 PM

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gowX__3_lydhbbod1bkCtlWMPf3g

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:05 PM

Oh well while it's ok to post newspaper articles in their entirity here is one from The Idependent**

Wednesday, 2 June 2010
"Of course, they were asking for it"
Mark Steel

It's time the Israeli government's PR team made the most of its talents, and became available for hire. Then whenever a nutcase marched into a shopping mall in somewhere like Wisconsin and gunned down a selection of passers-by, they could be on hand to tell the world's press "The gunman regrets the loss of life but did all he could to avoid violence."
Then various governments would issue statements saying "All we know is a man went berserk with an AK 47, and next to him there's a pile of corpses, so until we know the facts we can't pass judgement on what took place."

To strengthen their case the Israelis have released a photo of the weapons they found on board, (which amount to some knives and tools and wooden sticks) that the naive might think you'd expect to find on any ship, but the more astute will recognise as exactly what you'd carry if you were planning to defeat the Israeli army.
It's an armoury smaller than you'd find in the average toolshed in a garden in Cirencester, which goes to show the Israelis had better destroy Cirencester quickly as an essential act of self-defence.

It's a shame they weren't more imaginative, as they could have said "We also discovered a deadly barometer, a ship's compass, which could not only be frisbeed at someone's head but even had markings to help the assailant know which direction he was throwing it, and a set of binoculars that could easily be converted into a ray-gun."

That would be as logical as the statement from the Israeli PM's spokesman – "We made every possible effort to avoid this incident."

Because the one tiny thing they forgot to do to avoid this incident was not send in armed militia from helicopters in the middle of the night and shoot people.
I must be a natural at this sort of technique because I often go all day without climbing off a helicopter and shooting people, and I'm not even making every possible effort.

Politicians and commentators worldwide repeat a version of this line.
They're aware a nation has sent its militia to confront people carrying provisions for the desperate, in the process shooting several of them dead, and yet they angrily blame the dead ones.

One typical headline yesterday read "Activists got what they wanted – confrontation."
It's an attitude so deranged it deserves to be registered as a psychosis, something like "Reverse Slaughter Victim Confusion Syndrome".

Israel and its supporters claim that Viva Palestina, made up of people who collect the donated food, cement and items for providing basic amenities such as toilets, and transport them to Gaza, wanted the violence all along.
Because presumably they must have been thinking "Hezbollah couldn't beat them, but that's because unlike us they didn't have a ballcock and several boxes of plum tomatoes".

One article told us the flotilla was full of "Thugs spoiling for a confrontation", and then accused them of being "Less about aid and more about PR.
Indeed, on board was Swedish novelist Henning Mankell." So were they thugs or about PR? Did they have a thugs' section and a PR quarter, or did they all muck in, the novelist diverting the soldiers with his characterisation while the thugs attacked them with a lethal spirit level?

But some defenders of Israel are so blind to what happens in front of them there's nothing at all they wouldn't jump to defend. Israel could blow up a cats home and within five minutes they'd be yelling "How do we know the cats weren't smuggling semtex in their fur for Hamas?"

If this incident had been carried about by Iran, or anyone we were trying to portray as an enemy, so much condemnation would have been spewed out it would have created a vast cloud of outrage that airlines would be unable to fly through.

But as it's Israel, most governments offer a few diplomatic words that blame no one, but accept the deaths are "regrettable".
They might as well have picked any random word from the dictionary, so the news would tell us "William Hague described the deaths as 'hexagonal'", and a statement from the US senate said "It's all very confusing. In future let's hope they make every effort to avoid a similar incident."










one of the youngest UK national daily newspapers. The daily edition was named National Newspaper of the Year at the 2004 British Press Awards. Originally a broadsheet newspaper, since 2003 it has been published in a tabloid format. The Independent is regarded as leaning to the left politically, although it has not affiliated itself to any political party and a range of views can be found on its editorial and comment pages.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:38 PM

Hamas hasn't done a lot to stop rocket-launchers.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:37 PM

"Hamas has adhered to all of the ceasefires that it has agreed to including unilateral ones, mousethief. There is no reason not to trust Hamas. And whatever else you might want to say about them, their primary concern is the welfare of their people. "


Right. (sarcastic remark)

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Roberto
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:37 PM

"There is no reason not to trust Hamas. Their primary concern is the welfare of their people"

"If Israel were to be handed to the Palestinians, all of the Jews who wanted to remain there would be able to and those who didn't want to remain there would be able to leave. It would be a democratic state"

CarolC, whether you don't know what you are talking about, or you have political reasons to pretend you're blind. It is not a matter of different ideas, but of basic perception of the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:34 PM

A bit more about Emily Henochowicz, the Jewish girl from America who lost her eye on Tuesday when Israeli police fired a teargas cylinder direct at protesters in Jerusalem.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:17 PM

Hamas has adhered to all of the ceasefires that it has agreed to including unilateral ones, mousethief. There is no reason not to trust Hamas. And whatever else you might want to say about them, their primary concern is the welfare of their people.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:07 PM

But I wouldn't trust Hamas any farther than I trust Israel, which has a lot to do with human-powered ballistics.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:56 AM

I don't remember if this was posted previously in this thread or not, but just in case it hasn't been, here it is...

Hamas renews offer to end fight if Israel withdraws

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:36 AM

bobad, it has been proven, both through testimonies, and through the videographic evidence, that the Israelis were not acting in self-defense, that they were the ones who attacked first, and that the ships' passengers were the ones who were acting in self-defense. So that's all the rebuttal that is needed to your editorials.

By the way, those paint pellets that the Israeli government is pretending were all innocent, were full of paint and and glass fragments. The glass fragments caused serious soft tissue damage.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:24 AM

number6, from all of the information I have, and I have a lot of information from people in Palestine, if Israel were to be handed to the Palestinians, all of the Jews who wanted to remain there would be able to and those who didn't want to remain there would be able to leave. It would be a democratic state.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:14 AM

Israel has been a theocracy for some time.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:01 AM

It has become obvious that Israel is not about to engage in diplomatic relations with any country that opposes its policies. The old Ben-Gurion Zionism is dead. The new Zionism
is totalitarian and obtuse.

The US media is culpable for transmitting Israel's lies.

The Shas Party of Jewish Fundamentalists are in control of Likkud.

Israel is a theocracy.

Rahm Emanuel's father was a member of the Irgun.

Obama and Biden have been snowed by Israel. (Not to mention BP and Wall Street).

Disinvest in Israel now!

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:01 AM

There is no such country as "The Jewish State". IT DOES NOT EXIST

Netanyahu, 2 June 2010: "The Jewish state has a right to defend itself"

"Jerusalem, Apr. 19 [2009] (ANI): The Palestinian Authority and the Hamas have rejected Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's precondition for peace talks that the Palestinians recognize his country as a Jewish state."

Oh, whom to believe?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Mr Happy
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:29 AM

Rachel Corrie news here:


Meanwhile, the MV Rachel Corrie aid ship is heading towards the coast of Gaza, aiming to break the Israeli blockade.

Activists on board told the BBC's Andrew North in Jerusalem by telephone that they were about 150 miles (240km) away and aimed to arrive just outside Israel's 20-mile (30km) exclusion zone off Gaza by Saturday morning.

They said there were 20 people on board, including five Irish nationals, six Malaysians and nine crew members.

One of the activists, former Nobel peace prize winner Mairead Corrigan Maguire, said their humanitarian aid shipment included cement and construction materials - items banned by Israel.

Israel has made it clear it will not allow the ship - named after a US college student who was crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer as she protested about house demolitions in Gaza - to dock in the Palestinian territory.

The Israeli government has instead offered to take the aid in by land, once it has checked there is nothing in the shipment that can be used for weapons.

********

Above excerpt from BBC here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10236884.stm

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:10 AM

Well Emma, here's another editorial from the same newspaper which, according to your criteria, is dismissible due to lack of cedibility.

They Shouldn't Have Been There

Israel's soldiers may have acted in self-defence, but boarding a flotilla of aid ships on the high seas violated international law

By Michael Byers, Citizen Special June 3, 2010 Comments (3)


Israel probably regrets its decision to interdict a flotilla of six ships from NATO countries. But instead of apologizing unconditionally, it argues that its soldiers were justified in using lethal force to defend themselves after they had boarded the Turkish-registered Mavi Marmara.

By focusing on this narrow issue, Israel is distracting attention away from the necessary, preliminary question of whether the soldiers had any right to be there in the first place, the answer to which turns on two different strands of international law.

Is the blockade legal?

The interdiction was intended to enforce the three-year long blockade of Gaza, a policy of questionable legality under international humanitarian law -- the so-called jus in bello governing the conduct of armed conflict.

The issue here is not whether blockades in general are legal, but whether this particular blockade -- which extends to most civilian goods and thus has serious affects on non-belligerents --goes too far.

Last year, the UN Human Rights Council asked Justice Richard Goldstone, the former chief prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, to investigate the matter.

Goldstone found that the blockade was a form of collective punishment directed against the population of Gaza, and thus a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention which Israel ratified in 1951.

Collective punishment is also prohibited under customary international law which applies even if, as Israel argues, it is no longer an occupying power in Gaza and therefore not constrained by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Last November, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued his own report, which also focused on the indiscriminate nature of the blockade and called for it to be lifted. He wrote: "In particular, the Government of Israel should allow unimpeded access to Gaza for humanitarian aid and the non-humanitarian goods needed for the reconstruction of properties and infrastructure."

If Goldstone and Ban are right, the Israeli blockade itself is illegal, and so, too, is any attempt to enforce it against ships carrying nothing more than humanitarian aid.

Does self-defence stretch this far?

Regardless of the legality of the blockade, Israel -- like all other countries -- has an inherent right of self-defence that is codified in Article 51 of the UN Charter. But the existence of this right does not mean that it extends to the use of force against foreign-flagged vessels in international waters when not carrying military supplies destined for a belligerent party.

Self-defence is an exception to the UN Charter's prohibition on the use or threat of force against the "territorial integrity or political independence" of nation-states. As an exception, the right of self-defence must be narrowly construed -- especially when it runs up against other, fundamental rights.

In international law, ships are treated as an extension of the territory of their state of registry. Beyond 12 nautical miles from shore, they exercise one of the oldest rights in international law, namely the freedom of navigation on the high seas.

Self defence is also limited by requirements of necessity and proportionality. For this reason, we must ask whether the Israel Defence Forces acted in a necessary and proportionate way in boarding the vessels -- before they came into contact with the passengers.

Israel has indicted ships in international waters before. In 2002, it seized the Karine A, a freighter in the Red Sea laden with 50 tons of Iranian-made weaponry. But Monday's incident was different, since nobody is suggesting that the ships were carrying munitions to Hamas.

Israeli officials have claimed that the flotilla was opening the floodgates for further blockade-breaking. But although there is legitimate debate about whether the right of self-defence extends to pre-emption, the causal links here are tenuous at best.

The threat was not "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation" -- which is the centuries-old test for necessity.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the Israeli soldiers boarded the ship to check it for weapons, but you do not board for this purpose by surprise in the dark of night.

The true motive for the interdiction was revealed by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman last Friday, when he said that the aid mission was a "violent provocation" that his country was ready to stop "at any cost."

There were other options. Israel could have diplomatically engaged Turkey, arranged for a third party to verify the absence of munitions, and then peacefully escorted the flotilla to Gaza. Such an approach would have done more for its long-term security than this illegal action in support of an indiscriminate and therefore illegitimate blockade.

Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. In 2004, he was a visiting professor of law at the University of Tel Aviv.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/They+shouldn+have+been+there/3104730/story.html#ixzz0ptPetsJE

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:35 AM

"If you can't refute the content attack the source - weak and pathetic."

I apply the same principle to being informed by the UK paper, The Daily Mail, that scores of Polish immigrants at various locations are trapping and BBQ'ing swans and that Christmas decorations have been banned so as not to offend non christians

Sorry for the 'aside' folks