It was a pretty nasty arrow to throw Turkey’s way, an integral part of the international community. That their word can’t be trusted? And that even less faith can be put in their word because they are a MUSLEM nation? I am not sure of a strict definition of bigotry or racism, but I would think that this comes pretty close.
“Particularly a Muslim country?” Take away Muslem and insert your own descriptor here. How is it not incendiary and divisive? This is the sort of attitude that has prolonged this dispute. Why should their word be less trusted just because they are Muslem?
Also, to note, it wasn’t “inpsection of shipping” that you were asking for. You were asserting that Turkey’s words can’t be believed, not that the shipping should be inspected.
Furthermore, why is the religious affiliation needed in your follow up? Why can’t you just say Turks and Israelis? Please examine your attitudes and think about what you are saying, these attitudes perpetuate this whole fuck-up, not ameliorate it.
Except FoieGras didn’t mention inspecting cargo. Which I would agree any country has the right to do.
He asked the question why should anyone believe Turkey, much less because they are (presumabley dirty dishonest lying, if you believe the subtext) Muslems.
He is bringing their word into question, implying that they can’t be trusted. After inspecting a cargo and declaring it free of weapons that their word can’t be trusted. IF I were a Turk, this would be highly offensive.
“In effect” = “not what he really said.” Read this again:
The following bit about “particularly a Muslim country” could be read as a implying Turkey would allow smuggling - or it could just mean Israel would be less trusting of a Muslim country. You assumed he meant the first one, and I didn’t.
Well considering that FoieGras appears to be decidedly on the side of Israel in this argument, he is basically saying that Israel is RIGHT to suspect that Turkey is lying. That Turkey’s word cannot be trusted. And that it makes a difference that a democratic country that is a part of Nato is Muslem.
You don’t find that to be somewhat coloured and bigoted?
And yes, I may well be bringing my own biases to the argument. Mind you, I do live beside a large Muslem country, and there is a sizeable Muslem mionority here. I have never had any reason to believe that the word of a Muslem is worth any less than that of the fine, moral and upstanding Christians of America.
And that the words of a Muslem are worth considerably more than those of a Jew? And yes, this is an offensive statement. But see where the arguement gets taken once someone starts asserting that religion has anything at all to do with a nation’s trustworthiness?
Yeah, at this point he does appear to be saying Israel should be less trustful of a Muslim country. Which is wrong. (And for the record, FoieGrasIsEvil, Turkey is officially secular thanks to its military.) As far as I know they haven’t done anything to deserve additional suspicion. It makes sense for Israel to inspect the cargo, but that’s because it makes sense to inspect any cargo - not because of religious issues.
The facts have been cited, quoted, discussed and rehashed again and again in this thread. Your claims are simply counter-factual and strangely so.
International law, specifically, would view the blockade as illegal if it did not blockade all traffic indiscriminately. Just like it would be illegal if instead of providing control it allowed states to inspect goods and then just ship them in. Under the claim of supporting “international law” you are calling for it to be violated. Likewise the laws of a maritime blockade are governed by states existing in a situation of belligerency, not whether or not one occupies the other.
As for the claim that the suffering caused by the 4th Geneva Convention’s guidelines on consignments is somehow worse than what will happen when Hamas gets enough weaponry to attack again, and causes another war? (Unless the position is “just let Hamas shoot rockets into Israel until they get bored” or “sure Israel has the right to self defense, as long as they use ninja demons to infiltrate Gaza and there aren’t civilian casualties.”) It certainly seems odd to suggest that another round of war is somehow going to be less damaging than sanctions. Especially with a totally open coastal border. What sort of weaponry, and how much, do you think Hamas would be able to import
And then there’s the fact that you seem to have created the category of “legal occupation”. The GC imposes certain dynamics of occupiers. We’ve had people claim that they only exist for self-identified occupiers, which they never could cite. Now you’re essentially claiming that they only exist for internationally recognized occupiers. Can you cite that?
Except we didn’t. As you seem to need to be hand-held through everything, here are the basics:
As Israel does not see itself as an occupying power Israel does not feel the need to act as an occupying power as set by the Geneva Conventions.
The UN argues that Israel is an occupying power.
(My guess) The UN Security Council is responsible for enforcing such things and creating resolutions regarding Israel and the occupying power status.
The US, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council with veto rights, throws a hissy fit whenever Israel is even remotely criticised and hence nothing gets done.
Nor is it quite accurate to say that the situation isn’t a cause for concern. No, if Turkey simply had Islamic sentiments that wouldn’t be a problem, but remember it was Erdogan who claimed that genocide could not possibly be going on in Darfur because Muslims are not capable of engaging in genocidal behavior, but that the war the Israel fought in Gaza was in fact worse than what happening in Darfur.
If the Palestinians of Gaza can forget the decades of abuse, oppression and injustice at the hands of the israelis and embrace Gandhi-like tactics, I think they would achieve far better results than ten thousand suicide bombers.
Yes, you did.
Let me quote your own words for you.
Yet again, rather obviously, the Geneva Convention applies to any occupying power. Your claim that an occupying power has to self-identify as such in order for the 4th Geneva Convention to apply and justify actions taken in accord with the GC, is simply an absurdity.
Yes, both halves of that statement have already been identified as not true.
Israel’s supreme court has specifically found that it exists in a state of belligerent occupation.
Likewise, if Israel did not have to act as an occupying power then you’re claiming that the 4th Geneva Convention simply wouldn’t have been applied. Yet, again, as Israel’s supreme court has ruled that it is precisely the state of occupation which governs Israel’s implementation of the 4th Geneva Convention, you don’t have a leg to stand on.
I do have a general idea of what’s going on over there. Nowhere did I say it the situation was simple. Actually I think that one sentence (where I said the only thing keeping the country officially secular is the military’s influence over the government) indicates it’s not simple.
Yes, that’s what happens when you build your house halfway onto someone elses land and then insist they cut down trees whose branches are impinging on “your” property. For such a wise bunch of elders, I’m surprised the current situation might never have occurred to them.
I am not decidedly on the side of Israel. I am asking simple questions WRT what may be the Israeli POV.
I do think that Israel, having a blockade in place, defended it as it said it would. I don’t think they expected this outcome. They do have a right to inspect ships, just like any other nation of commerce does.
I also resent the racist implications. I was merely pointing out (by asking the question) why should Israel automatically trust inbound cargo on ships based on what the country of origin says is on those vessels without inspecting them first? And, tangentially, would Israel be more likely to not trust cargoes coming in from Muslim nations (the point about Turkey not being explicitly a “Muslim Nation” is taken) given the historical avarice between Jews and Muslims?
I thought it was a pretty simple thing, so please don’t read more into it than what it is.
What about the claim made upthread that Israel would reject 3/4ths of the stuff on the aid ships if they did dock at Ashdod for inspections? It sounds pretty ludicrous.
Perhaps I’m not wording or framing my questions clearly. I am very interested in Israel’s relationship to the rest of the world, but I don’t know much intricacy about these matters. Invariably I pop into these threads asking a bunch of questions so I can try to form a clearer outlook. It’s a complicated issue with a lot of violence and religious and ethnic hatred fueling it.
That’s the part that isn’t simple. The Turkish military has traditionally had the role of removing non-secular governments from power. Erdogan neutralized that ability, perhaps permanently.
The first cite I provided details how just a few months ago Turkey’s government arrested numerous members of the military precisely because of their influence over the government and potential to remove non-secular leaders, while the country’s economic minister stated that the goal was to put the military under civilian control.
That the military even has the ability to keep the country secular at this point is certainly not an uncontested fact.
No I don’t get it. I’m not there, I don’t know anybody there and I have no ties to the region. Everything i know about this situation I get from the news and from diplomats familiar with the situation.
If life is so horrible in those camps, why the heck wouldn’t they want to start a new life ina new country? I’d want to get the the heck out of there as soon as i could and find a better life for my family and children.
Well, I think it is reasonable to assume they were also trying to make a point. Its not like Gandhi really needed the salt (and no I don’t think every one of the aid workers are like Gandhi but some of them are trying to be.
Perhaps, they wanted to see how far Israel would go to maintain a blockade that is causing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza (and we have our answer). No humanitarian crisis then no flotilla, no international outrage but as things stand, Israel killed people who were going to feed the hungry, care for the sick and provide shelter to those without homes. Good job, the world hates you now, to a degree that matches the paranoid fantasies of some of the die hard zionists.
Well, there’s probably something else that might have worked if Israel had started with something that wouldn’t have caused a humanitarian crisis but when you have everyone from teh red cross to amnesty international to the UN saying there is a pretty bad humanitarian crisis in gaza and then THIS happens, I don’t know if you get a second bite at that apple.
That’s just your opinion. Your attitude towards “peace” in the middle east has only led to more and more violence. Now israel is on the brink of losing every friend it has in the world.
I don’t remember saying that. Can you point me to where I said that or retract (or perhaps it was idiomatic).
PRETEXT? You make it sound like the humanitarian concerns are manufactured. Go in and treat the Gazans as you would treat Jews and see where that gets you. Negotiate with teh Gazans from teh perspective orf equity rather than from the superior negotiating position you have carved out for yourself over the last 60 years of oppression.
A blockade that causes a humanitarian crisis not the only way to prevent Hamas from getting weapons.
As things stand, it looks like Israel is either going to have to give up more than they ever stood to gain or it is going to die with its boots on.
Well good, and it does make sense to inspect the cargo (though personally I don’t understand why it can only be inspected in Israel, and then forwarded by Israel, but I don’t want to go there right now)