Israel raids ships carrying aid to Gaza, killings civilians

[JMS]

See the big board guys.

What do the rest of the Muslim countries do if a skirmish between Israel and Turkey breaks out and the US is publically on the sidelines?

The arab world doesn't exactly love and cherish Turkey. Remember the Ottoman Empire occupied and brutally suppressed most of the Middle East for centuries and was only rolled off of them post WWI....

Not sure any of the Arab countries would flock to attack Israel because Turkey was waving a flag...

I don't think turkey is more hated in the middle east today than Israel, but traditionally it's pretty close.

[JMS]

We've been on the sidelines for quite some time now. Whenever hostilities break out, do we fight with the Israelis? No. Do we proclaim that we "side with the Israelis?" No. Instead, we declare our neutrality, tell both sides to simmer down, try to broker a cease-fire, and continue to send aid to "both" sides. Granted, our sympathies lie with the Israelis, but we're not an active participant in any of these conflicts.

That's not actually true. If you look at US aid to Israel and map it against her intermitant yet regular troubles you will see a clear pattern. After each of Israel's military episodes already substantial United States aid increases by 2, 4, even 6 times....

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

In 1958 after the Gaza War with Egypt US aid doubled.

In 1967 after the six day war US aid went up 6x's.

In 1973 after the yom kipper war US aid again went up 6x's

In 1979 around the time Israel was invading Lebonon US aid doubled.

We have consistantly had their backs and bolstered them after or shortly before her conflicts.

In Israel's latest troubles the 2006 war with Lebonon, the United States again came to her assistance with weapon and part transfers which made that war possible....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/world/middleeast/22military.html

Israel has not faced an enemy since the 50's without substantial and overwhelming American assistance. Even then we gave them aid, Just not the one sided overwhelming aid they enjoy today.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So none of you are able to answer that?

I dont want to ask a different question, I dont want to talk about why or how this situation came about.

Of course you don't because asking a different question and looking at how Israel might need to change it's course of action would require Israel to admit that they have wronged the Palestinians in the past and that a new direction is needed. Asking a different question isn't just about looking back, it is more importantly about looking forward.

[Madison Redskin]

That's not actually true. If you look at US aid to Israel and map it against her intermitant yet regular troubles you will see a clear pattern. After each of Israel's military episodes already substantial United States aid increases by 2, 4, even 6 times....

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

In Israel's latest troubles the 2006 war with Lebonon, the United States again came to her assistance with weapon and part transfers which made that war possible....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/world/middleeast/22military.html

Israel has not faced an enemy since the 50's without substantial and overwhelming American assistance.

I am well aware of those aid packages and my previous post mentioned them.

[Larry]

Admittedly skipping a few pages, here.

I see a lot of debate over whether this or that item really are or aren't blockaded.

Seems to me that if the people organizing the convoys want to call attention to the things that Israel aren't letting through, then they can do that without any confrontations whatsoever.

Load up a shipload full of supplies. Invite CNN to inspect every single thing that goes into the containers. Heck, let them film every single thing as it's loaded. Let CNN publish a detailed inventory of everything on board on their web site.

Send the cargo through normal channels. Let the Israelis do wherever it is that they do. In fact, do absolutely nothing to call attention to that shipment in any way.

Then, have CNN publish the list of what the Israelis allowed through, and how long it took.

No confrontation needed. And, here's a list of what the Israelis aren't allowing through.

[Kilmer17]

Of course you don't because asking a different question and looking at how Israel might need to change it's course of action would require Israel to admit that they have wronged the Palestinians in the past and that a new direction is needed. Asking a different question isn't just about looking back, it is more importantly about looking forward.

Yes, because having those discussions leads Burgold to post threads about hate and anger on the boards. We get it that folks like you HATE everything Israel does. And insist on injecting that hate into any thread about Israel.

Instead, Im trying to have a decent (and so far have been having) and civilized discussion with folks about what would happen under different scenarios. So please stop interjecting with "Any scenario that doesnt include Israel backing down 100 percent and admitting their satan is wrong". We get it.

[Larry]

And now, for Chapter Three in Larry Proposes Moderate Ideas That Might Make Things Better In the Middle East.

The question has been raised: "What can Israel do, to get out of this corner they've painted themselves into?"

Larry's suggestion:

Stop blockading things that aren't weapons.

Long as Israel is blockading things that aren't weapons, then people are going to keep staging publicity stunts designed to force the Israelis to use force to prevent people from smuggling Spaghetti-O's (or whatever).

Israel's choices are:

1) Back down from an escalating confrontation.

2) Continue to be shown to the world, employing military force to intercept food.

3) Or, enact a reasonable policy.

Long as Israel has an unreasonable policy, then protesters are going to continue forcing Israel to enforce an unreasonable policy.

[JMS]

I am well aware of those aid packages and my previous post mentioned them.

My objection to your post was your assertion we armed or aided both sides of the conflicts and that we were on the sidelines and not active partisipants in Israeli troubles.

We have unilaterally and massivley supported the Israel. Before, during and after her conflicts. Nobody considers our actions with respect to Israel neutral or unbiased. Even further than that most believe Israeli actions are synonomous with United States policy around the world and that is why we are roundly critisized in much of the world. It was the rational behind the Arab oil embargo against the US in the 70's and 80's.

It's Osama Bin Laudin's central reason for bombing the world trade center.

No less a source than sitting US Senators and congressmans sermised in the lead up to war in Iraq, that the American Iraq war was really about taking out Israel's biggest systemic threat.

( Hollings(d), Moran(d), etc.....)

As I've said, since 1980 the United States has used our veto in defense of Israel more than all other security council members combined over that period.

We are totally in the tank for Israel, of that have no doubt.

[Madison Redskin]

Yes, because having those discussions leads Burgold to post threads about hate and anger on the boards. We get it that folks like you HATE everything Israel does. And insist on injecting that hate into any thread about Israel.

Outside of one or two posts in this thread, I haven't read any statements that indicate that people "hate everything Israel does." I realize that many people like to think that if you're not with em', you're against em', but that's simply not the case.

[AsburySkinsFan]

We get it that folks like you HATE everything Israel does. And insist on injecting that hate into any thread about Israel.

Kilmer, you're really usually not one for a level headed discussion to begin with, but honestly this is well below your standards.

How in the heck is it "hate" to say that Israel should be nicer to the Palestinians, good grief already!

[AsburySkinsFan]

Larry's suggestion:

Stop blockading things that aren't weapons.

Long as Israel is blockading things that aren't weapons, then people are going to keep staging publicity stunts designed to force the Israelis to use force to prevent people from smuggling Spaghetti-O's (or whatever).

Why do you hate everything that Israel does? Why are you injecting hate into this discussion!?

[GoSkins561]

A person using a crowbar as a weapon doesn't have to be killed. How about shooting in the legs, for example. Or how about pepper spray? The commandos went for the kill, which is overdoing it.

I just watched the video during lunch, so I am way late to this crazy thread, however this post caught my attention.

If beating someone with a metal pipe/crowbar isn't an attempt at killing someone, throwing someone overboard of a large ship,cetainly has to be, right?

Think about it, if you were to grab a crowbar out of the back of a car and hit someone with it, you don't think you could kill them?

I am confident I could easily hospitalize someone inflicting major injuries with one swing, possibly kill them with 3 or 4. IMO, hitting someone with a crowbar can easily be considered as using deadly force.

[skinfan133]

Apples and Oranges.

This is a large chess board folks. Some of you are focussing on one move. You need to see the whole board.

I'll ask this again.

If Israel stops the Turkish Navy and the Turkish Navy escalates their response (rockets, bombings etc), what would happen if the US stated publically our support for Turkey or publically stated we werent involved no matter what?

If you dont think that COULD happen, fine. Im asking for an answer to what if it DID happen.

I know for a fact it WON'T happen. Turkey is a full member of NATO, end of discussion. The United States would be compelled to defend Turkey if Israel attacked them and both nations went to war. If Turkey attacked Israel first (which is just as plausible) the United States would not be compelled to defend Turkey, but most likely the United States would remain neutral in all facets. Very likely other European NATO nations could join, they are very upset about the situation.

Now your situation here, in fantasy land, is pretty interesting if Turkey is attacked and we don't do anything. If that were to happen we would be seen as huge hypocrites internationally speaking and NATO would be pretty much finished

[Kilmer17]

Kilmer, you're really usually not one for a level headed discussion to begin with, but honestly this is well below your standards.

How in the heck is it "hate" to say that Israel should be nicer to the Palestinians, good grief already!

It's not, but that's a far cry from what you do.

[JMS]

No confrontation needed. And, here's a list of what the Israelis aren't allowing through.

Larry, I think when the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Comittee is stopped at the Gaza Checkpoint and his shipment of food is denied entry then the sitting Secretary of State complains to Israel about it publically in the newspaper; we are beyond your CNN based solution.

The world well understands the Israeli policy here, the only folks who don't are the American public with their myopic attention span and preclivity to ignore the news.

That's what makes this flotila so dangerous. It captures the attention of even the US taxpayer who will seek to better understand the issues.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's not, but that's a far cry from what you do.

Whatever Kilmer, you're right I hate EVERYTHING that Israel does, I am anti-Israel, down with Israel!! Get a grip.

Gonna have to mute you for awhile buddy, because this nonsense has gone on long enough for me.

[JMS]

Larry's suggestion:

Stop blockading things that aren't weapons.

Agreed, In certain instances where extreme pressure has been brought to bare, Israel has shown the capacity to back down in favor of their greater interests.

Long as Israel is blockading things that aren't weapons, then people are going to keep staging publicity stunts designed to force the Israelis to use force to prevent people from smuggling Spaghetti-O's (or whatever).

Granted.... But remember the real issue isn't the blockade.. The blockade is just the tactic Israel has decided to use against the real issue.

The real issue is the Palistinians ongoing issues with Israel.

I think Israel is going ot have troubles until she deals fairly on that central issue.

Israel's choices are:

1) Back down from an escalating confrontation.

2) Continue to be shown to the world, employing military force to intercept food.

3) Or, enact a reasonable policy.

4) Reoccupy Gaza which they occupied for 30 years.

5) Bomb the ports which the flotila will need to unload their supplies.

6) Bomb the supplies after the flotila unloads them and sails away.

Long as Israel has an unreasonable policy, then protesters are going to continue forcing Israel to enforce an unreasonable policy.

Israel has many unreasonable policies. This one just happenned to catch the worlds attention.

[bird_1972]

Israel has many unreasonable policies. This one just happenned to catch the worlds attention.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[JMS]

I know for a fact it WON'T happen. Turkey is a full member of NATO, end of discussion. The United States would be compelled to defend Turkey if Israel attacked them and both nations went to war. If Turkey attacked Israel first (which is just as plausible) the United States would not be compelled to defend Turkey, but most likely the United States would remain neutral in all facets. Very likely other European NATO nations could join, they are very upset about the situation.

Now your situation here, in fantasy land, is pretty interesting if Turkey is attacked and we don't do anything. If that were to happen we would be seen as huge hypocrites internationally speaking and NATO would be pretty much finished

If Israel sank a Turkish warship, it would be the equivelent of bombing Turkey... Attacking warships started the American involvement in the Spanish American war, WWI, and the Vietnam War.

If the US turned our backs on a NATO country after she had been attacked it wouldn't just be the end of NATO, it would be the end of all of our defense treaties as our word would be no good.

Not that it would ever come to any of that. If it did come to that, it's much more likely we would impose a cooling off period on both sides and twist their freaking arms economically politically and militarily until they both appologized to each other.

No American ally is going to war with Israel, and Israel certainly isn't going to war with an important American Ally. If the United States had to and was motivated enough, we could make life so uncomfortable for either side to require them to back down. We could put such a crimp in their weapons supply that they would be reduced to throwing spit balls at each other from 3,000 miles distances.

The legitamate threat here to Israel is not a Turkish military confrontation. The legitamate threat to Israel is a public opinion fiasco resulting in an popular economic boycott of Israel by the EU or another major traiding partner. That's a much more likely threat than war with Turkey in my opinion. It's a threat which would hurt Israel more than war with Turkey too.

[Baculus]

How can ANYONE who supposedly believes in the rule of law support this attack? Do we believe that Israeli can do whatever they wish? Of course, for some conservatives, they'll support Israeli no matter what.

This entire incident disgusts me.

[Kilmer17]

How can ANYONE who supposedly believes in the rule of law support this attack? Do we believe that Israeli can do whatever they wish? Of course, for some conservatives, they'll support Israeli no matter what.

This entire incident disgusts me.

As has been posted, it seems Israel followed International law.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

How can ANYONE who supposedly believes in the rule of law support this attack? Do we believe that Israeli can do whatever they wish? Of course, for some conservatives, they'll support Israeli no matter what.

This entire incident disgusts me.

I'll get flamed for this, but from what I have seen many (cetaintly not all) believe that god will come back to Israel and then the believers will ascend to heaven.

Crazy.

And sadly there are people dumb enough to support anything Israel does. And it isn't even like they care about the Jews. Its just the brainwashed minds of those tards who really believe in this stuff.

Their are many who support Israel because they are awaiting the return of Christ. And when he does return, Israel will be wiped out because they didn't believe that Jesus was the son of god.

Its also the same people who claim aliens kidnappend them and rubbed noxiemia on their booty.

[sacase]

If Israel sank a Turkish warship, it would be the equivelent of bombing Turkey... Attacking warships started the Spanish Americna war, WWI, and the Vietnam War.

If the US turned our backs on a NATO country after she had been attacked it wouldn't just be the end of NATO, it would be the end of all of our defense treaties as our word would be no good.

Not that it would ever come to any of that.

No American ally is going to war with Israel, and Israel certainly isn't going to war with an important American Ally. If the United States had to and was motivated enough, we could make life so uncomfortable for either side to require them to back down. We could put such a crimp in their weapons supply that they would be reduced to throwing spit balls at each other from 3,000 miles distances.

Actually, it would be a lot more complicated than that. I think if the Turkish Warship runs the blockade then it would be considered an act of war on the part of turkey, which may mean we do not have to defend them. It is an interesting situation none the less and I am sure the midnight oil is burning in the pentagon assesing what our military strategy would be.

On another note.

IDF: Hamas stops flotilla aid delivered by Israel

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/02/israel.palestinians.aid/

Jerusalem (CNN) -- Israel has attempted to deliver humanitarian aid from an international flotilla to Gaza, but Hamas -- which controls the territory -- has refused to accept the cargo, the Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday.

Palestinian sources confirmed that trucks that arrived from Israel at the Rafah terminal at the Israel-Gaza border were barred from delivering the aid.

Ra'ed Fatooh, in charge of the crossings, and Jamal Khudari, head of a committee against the Gaza blockade, said Israel must release all flotilla detainees and that it will be accepted in the territory only by the Free Gaza Movement people who organized the flotilla.

Israel said it had 20 trucks of aid found on the ships, such as expired medications, clothing, blankets, some medical equipment and toys.

Israel has released all foreign flotilla detainees by Wednesday, but four Israeli Arabs remain in custody.

Nine people died Monday when Israel intercepted an aid vessel bound for Gaza.

Under Israeli policy, humanitarian aid must come through Israel and be checked by Israeli authorities who are looking to intercept smuggled weapons bound for militants aiming to attack Israel.

As part of this policy Israel forbids ships from dropping off goods at Gaza ports and works to thwart smuggling via tunnels between Gaza and Egypt.

[skinfan133]

As has been posted, it seems Israel followed International law.

how do you come to that conclusion?

[Kilmer17]

how do you come to that conclusion?

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-48994620100602

Reuters) - Israel has said it will continue a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip despite growing global pressure to lift the siege after a navy raid on a Turkish ferry carrying aid killed nine activists this week.

What is the legality of the blockade and did Israel's intervention breach international law? Below are some questions and answers on the issue:

CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?

Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognised document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea".