It is not a “dumb talking point.” The point of the inspection was to determine whether they had weapons. Allowing these ships to pass without inspection, even if they contaned no contraband, would have set the stage for contraband to be shipped in the next run or the run following that.
Blockades frequently suffer individual failures. So what? That has nothing to do with the point being made. To the extent that any ships are permitted to pass, more groups would be encouraged to send more ships, putting a greater burden on the Israeli Navy to search more ships while increasing the risk that some group would send arms through in the hopes of being lost in the crowd.
Defense against a clear aggressor–and even a proportionate retaliation–are always going to be seen (by the larger international community) as more justifiable than actions like this.
I don’t believe blockading Gaza is serving Israel’s long-term security interests at all–the reverse, in fact.
I don’t believe that is true, nor do I believe that similar constructions about Israelis would be true. Both sides are drinking from the same poisoned well and therefore tend to perceive only the worst in each other.
The difference is that the Israeli government has more ability than any other player to begin the purification of this well that they must share if Israel is to survive.
I think in the present example the smart approach for the Israeli government would have been to approach the convoy, closer to shore, with a small civilian vessel–the navy ships keeping their distance–bearing an unarmed civilian inspection team, and request permission to come aboard and look at the cargo. At that point, any possible result is no worse than neutral for Israel.
It doesn’t say anything good that your argument immediately moves on to fiction in order to support your claims. Only a portion of Lebanon was even involved in the fighting (the southern areas where Hezbollah was headquartered), and even then the entirety of the combat zone was hardly “flattened”. The north wasn’t touched.
If you will distort such basic facts to score rhetorical points, it doesn’t point to your argument as being particularly reliable, now does it?
P.S. This seems to be a repeat of a tactic you just demonstrated: Manchester City Center was not “flattened”. If you can’t make your points without relying on fiction, it’s a pretty good indicator that you haven’t got much of a point. Don’t make fact-checking the order of the day, eh?
Are you completely unfamiliar with idiomatic English, FinnAgain, or just engaging in your usual boring sophistry? By any informal reading of the sentence, Manchester city centre was flattened. No, of course Manchester wasn’t subject to a Vesuvius-style pyroclastic flow, or a Monty Python foot stamping the city out of existence—and with all respect, you’d have to be as thick as pig shit to think that’s what I meant, given I posted a photograph of the aftermath—but, again, to those familiar with English, this is as good a candidate as any for being described as “flattened”.
This is exactly how selective blockades, which is apparently Israel’s justification for stopping maritime traffic sailing directly to Gaza, are supposed to work. Every ship gets stopped. If they have contraband aboard, said contraband is confiscated. If not, they are allowed through. It’s a long, tedious business involving lots of tedious inspections on the high seas, not generally in a port belonging to the blockader. I can cite evidence from the World Wars and prior regarding this. The important point regarding these particular ships is that said tedious inspections seem to never have been contemplated by the Israeli authorities.
Except that it does. Alessan has repeatedly claimed that these ships getting through to Gaza in any form means that the door will be opened to any two-bit gunrunner in the Middle East to make the trip to Gaza to deliver weapons. The fact that the Israeli Navy will still be on patrol for these activities in the future regardless of the success or failure of this particular flotilla is being, to the best of my comprehension, ignored.
Except that at the present time there is no crowd of ships waiting for Israel to show a sign of weakness by allowing an internationally-advertised group of ships carrying documented cargoes through. They could have easily let them through with a cursory inspection once they entered Gazan waters instead of the forcible boarding that actually happened. Hell, they could still have gone through with the forcible boarding if they had just sent a customs boat to the flotilla politely requesting to search them, instead of their forcible demand that ships under a neutral flag in international waters enter an Israeli port to offload their cargo.
As for my rude tone earlier, I apologize and will gladly comply with your instructions to tone it down.
So how many Israeli citizens have to die to achieve the support of the international community? And what good is that support when you get it?
That’s the way Israelis see it. Maybe, in a coldly logical sense, you’re right. But we as a nation can’t accept that logic. Despite the fact that we’re seen as people who like to portray ourselves as victims, the fact of the matter is that our national ethos (or pathology) is based on the fact that we *don’t *see ourselves as victims. We refuse to BE victims. If we can prevent Israeli citizens from being killed, then we will do so - we have to - even though doing so may hurt us in the long run. It’s the whole “lambs to the slaughter” thing, on a national level
It’s a cruel paradox. The enlightened world only supports victims, and we’ll do whatever we can so that we don’t become victims.
And of course, we trusted the world to protect us before. It didn’t work out well.
That’s a legitimate point of view. I currently disagree, but it’s worth arguing.
A band of terrorists acting with the approval of the Lebanese government - and therefore one it was responsible for. If the Lebanese had made even a token effort to stop Hizballa, maybe you’d have a point.
Even a perfect and permanent blockade of Gaza won’t prevent would-be enemies of Israel from obtaining weapons.
It might keep some rockets from being fired from Gaza, but it creates more new enemies for Israel at all the other borders, and beyond.
I actually think the diplomatic value of lifting the blockade entirely, and working in other ways to support Palestine as a viable independent state, are worth more to Israel’s long-term security than any arms-interdiction program could ever be.
This is exactly correct. Unfortunately for everyone except diplomatic realists (aka cynical creeps like me and Henry Kissinger) nations tend not to think in this kind of long term method if they perceive a major threat to exist (which is how Israel regards the situation in the Palestinian areas, and not entirely without reason).
Israel has been supporting the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, very successfully, for some years now. From personal experience I can tell you that the economy there is booming, roadblocks and checkpoints are down to a bare minimum, and terrorist attacks have reached the lowest levels in decades. It’s a huge success story, just one that doesn’t get much press.
The problem with Gaza is the Hamas government. If they would at least agree to talk with Israel - would at least show some sort of willingness to accept a two-state solution - or at least stop shooting rockets - then the situation there would be very different.
I’m used to dealing with people using deceptive claims that are later backpedaled from, yes. If the facts are, for example, “A portion of Lebanon was involved in the fighting and even then the damage was comparatively limited in most locations.” becomes “Lebanon was completely flattened!!!” or “One bomb went off in 1996 that damaged several buildings” becomes “The city center was flattened!!!”
Just in case you’re curious words and phrases like “completely”, “all”, “totally”, “without exception” are not idioms. Saying that something happened to “the whole of” a country is not an idiom.
Calling the facts “sophistry”, however, shows that your argument can’t be taken at face value. Wild exaggeration designed to score rhetorical points tends to do that.
Actually, those familiar with English will recognize deliberately hyperbolic bombast (and I notice you’ve tried to switch the topic away from your fiction about Lebanon to your fiction about Manchester). Several buildings were damaged. The city center was not flattened.
You don’t have to accept the facts or present a credible argument, you’re certainly not going to be forced to play straight and represent reality with your words. But when you claim that one bomb “flattened” an entire area or that limited bombing in only individual targets in the minor part of a country “flattened the entire country!” it’s rather obvious that facts have been thrown out in favor of rhetoric. And that’s, ya know, bad.
You don’t know this at all. You have absolutely no information that is different from anyone else’s in order to hold this idea. The only evidence available is that some IDF soldiers boarded a ship and a dozen or so people were killed with many more wounded.
You don’t know the sequence of events. You don’t know if the people on the ship armed themselves with crowbars and knives before or after the IDF soldiers started shooting. You don’t know if the difference between this ship and the others is the presence of 1 or 2 extra-aggressive soldiers.
You know nothing at all beyond what I just laid out, yet you seem to be proposing the idea that:
Peace-protesters who are actually not into peace but are into war laid in wait to kill IDF soldiers
They did this to precipitate a violent incident to get their scars to make Israel look bad.
The super well-trained Israeli forces took the bait.
Instead of scars you have a massacre.
Why isn’t it more reasonable to propose:
Peace-protesters are actually peace protesters and did not come explicitly armed.
Prior to embarking on their mission, well-trained soldiers had their heads filled with rhetoric about terrorist sympathizers on the boats.
They engage in a night time raid (Why the fuck was it at night anyway?) and the soldiers misinterpret protesters’ behavior or think a camera is actually a gun.
Start shooting, protesters retreat and arm themselves, some soldiers get hurt and protesters get killed.
Both scenarios are based on the same exact data except you had to add in the super-secret real reason for the flotilla.
Which is, of course, the basics of the problem. Much like Northern Ireland, the Middle East has gone on so long it doesn’t matter IMHO who, in the midst of time, “fired the first shot”. The fight is older than those fighting. Palestinians fire rockets because the Israelis bomb them. But the Israelis bomb them because Palestinians fire rockets. Both sides have got to sit down and talk without preconditions. As soon as someone says “we’ll talk once you stop attacking us” then you may as well give up as both sides see themselves as defending themselves.
Yes there have been ceasefires, but also both sides have broken ceasefires. It takes more than a ceasefire to stop what’s going on and on that count both sides have come up short.
Well, I appreciate that you’re able to say this, at least.
For the record, I support Israel’s right to exist, and the rights of all Israelis to live in peace and security. I respect the tenacity of the Israeli people generally, and the bravery of their armed forces in times of legitimate self-defense.
But Israel needs something more if it is to become truly enduring.
And with that, I will leave the argument to others for the time being.
Most of Lebanon was involved in the Israeli campaign, one way or the other. Earlier, you claimed “only a portion of Lebanon was involved in the fighting”. This is categorically false, as the map of locations bombed by Israel found here clearly shows. Perhaps you were speaking idiomatically?
The “one bomb” (actually a truck bomb packed with 1.5 tons of Semtex and fertiliser) caused £1billion in damage. The repair work was only finished in 2005, 9 years after the explosion, after the whole of the city centre was remodeled. Again, to those without an ulterior agenda or autism, this is a candidate for being described as “flattened”.
Yes, wild exaggeration like implying only the south of Lebanon was involved in the conflict. You are a liar. This is a pattern of behaviour that has stretched over many years. You categorically could not tell the truth if your life depended on it. What’s even more amusing is the 'roid rage you get yourself worked up into whilst weaving yet another intricate web of deception. This is precisely why you are the pariah of GD.
Be the bigger man. Do what he never does and allow for the possibility that he was mistaken. Stating false “facts” doesn’t automatically make someone a liar.
