Israel to World: "Suck It."

Yeah, Mordy's a lot of things, but captain save-an-Israel he's not. He might have more invested in it as a state than some of us, but the investment seems mainly of the "i hope one day they'll stop being assholes" variety, and in this case it's "I hope they're not killing unarmed people because that will lead to even more tragedy". A pretty reasonable position, imo.

One of my very brightest Jewish friends from school is Israeli-born and heavily invested in Zionism (let's just say a cousin of hers has been in a coma for four years). I am reluctant to discuss it with her because her emotionalism around I/P is completely at variance to how coolly and logically she looks at any other issue.

I basically feel the same about those heavily invested in anti-Zionisim

so this isn't very good. also feeling more like IDF overkill.

hate to say it but we pretty much saw this coming, can't even for a minute begin to think of rationalizing or defending this massacre though

again, i'd wait till we had a clearer picture of what happened before trying to 'rationalize' it

if it's true that the israeli commandos landed on the ship and just began unloading into the sleeping civilians (as claimed), then indeed that would be indefensible

it'd be indefensible imo even if the civilians weren't 'sleeping' - and it seems there have been a handful of posts itt that have already tried to justify and rationalize it

idk though like - up to 19 people on the boat killed w/ many more wounded compared to 2 attackers wounded - what did they have, slingshots?

pretty standard IDF casualty numbers imo

http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.293313.1275312330!/image/577873088.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_295/577873088.jpg

So it's not short for InDeFensible?

it'd be indefensible imo even if the civilians weren't 'sleeping' - and it seems there have been a handful of posts itt that have already tried to justify and rationalize it

― k3vin k., Monday, May 31, 2010 3:25 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

again, we really don't know what happened. according to the convoy's spokespeople, the civilians were asleep though.

dude - by all accounts the IDF stormed a humanitarian aid boat, slaughtered 10-19 people and barely escaped with a scratch. i think it's pretty clear they fucked up somehow

oh well if they fucked up then clearly it's beyond rationalization

we must use the most emotive language possible in not defending it

sounds like a pretty clean operation, actually.

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev accused the leaders of the flotilla of looking for a fight.

"They wanted to make a political statement. They wanted violence," according to Regev, who said Israel wanted a peaceful interception of the ships trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza. "They are directly responsible for the violence and the deaths that occurred."

so if they knew they are there to provoke, why attack them? Israel should know by now this kind of stuff plays straight in Gazan hands.

We don't know that they "attacked". They were enforcing an existing (admittedly bullshit) law. Do you seriously expect Israel to cave on it just because someone tested them? For every IDF disgusting abuse of power there's some really callous guerrilla strike by Palestinians or their sympathizers. We can get self-righteous when we know what actually happened, but being so ready to point fingers in such a historically-complex situation is rash. We can get self-righteous when we know what actually happened.

think its probably more important at this point to take the helpful step of making heady accusations and questioning other peoples motivations

honestly, think the only way israel comes out of this not looking like psychos is if there was live fire or some other kind of legitimate threat posed by the activists. honestly wouldn't doubt there was non-passive struggling between some activists and the troops (ppl get hysterical, shit happens, not all activists are actually pacifists), but i find it deeply, deeply unlikely that what happened could justify the IDF acing 10-19 civilians

anyway RIP flotilla ppl, it's pretty horrible regardless who shot first

LOL @ drunken copy n paste double.

um is there any book thats a pretty good non partisan (well...) overview of israeli/palestinian conflict for ppl who are sick of "not understanding the context" of shit that goes down there

i mean zionism and the connection b/w jewishness is something that i only get on a very basic level that doesn't really resolve much between what happens in the old testament and what's on the news now also

honestly, think the only way israel comes out of this not looking like psychos is if there was live fire or some other kind of legitimate threat posed by the activists. honestly wouldn't doubt there was non-passive struggling between some activists and the troops (ppl get hysterical, shit happens, not all activists are actually pacifists), but i find it deeply, deeply unlikely that what happened could justify the IDF acing 10-19 civilians

anyway RIP flotilla ppl, it's pretty horrible regardless who shot first

― gbx, Monday, May 31, 2010 6:04 PM (56 minutes ago) Bookmark

having looked at a number of vids, it does seem basically that the israeli soldiers were attacked immediately on landing on the boat. now, landing on the boat unprotected was probably not a good idea, but then hitting soldiers with metal poles is also p stoopid. so i think there was a legitimate threat to the soldiers, but it's still a complete clusterfuck.

There's talk that Turkey will send navy boats with the next convoy, but the only sources are Indian TV, so I don't know how likely it is. Be a hell of an escalation if they did.

the rich-historical-irony-o-meter wd p much go through the roof

turkey goin ham

o shi

xpost. I really enjoyed 'Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present' by Michael B. Oren. yet it concerns it's self with america's involvement with the middle east as a whole. But israel and palestine are both explored in depth in the book.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/books/review/Rodenbeck.t.html here's the nytimes review of the book.

Geez, if I made a list of things I wish I could delete from this board, idealistic talk about Israel/Palestine from when I was just getting out of college would be #1.

This, though, I think we talked about this kind of thing somewhere else:

"They wanted violence. ... They are directly responsible for the violence and the deaths that occurred."

This totally reactive, stop-hitting-yourself position sometimes seems like the entire intellectual bedrock of the IDF. "We didn't kill you; you committed suicide by doing something we asked you not to." Just pretending to be robotically morally neutral, agency-free.

yeah that's certainly the most infuriating part -- "we had no choice!!"

I never really know what press to turn to when these I/P conflicts arise--everything is just so deeply partisan and emotive either way unlike few other topics. It's hard to know precisely what to believe.

Like in Europe, so many people are flooding to the streets protesting, which just doesn't happen when other countries commit war crimes (e.g. North Korea sinking that ship last week). Does it touch such a nerve with people because of the whole bitter religious backdrop, or just because people know the U.S. (and therefore the UN) will do fuck all about it, so they feel that have to make a huge noise?

Sometimes they even manage to sound aggrieved and annoyed about it, like it's so burdensome how people keep making them kill them. "Can't a guy get through a single day of stopping basic resources from reaching people without someone coming along and forcing us to kill them? It's just so rude."

I call it Look What You Made Me Do syndrome - total abuser MO.

why can't we have both

Sometimes they even manage to sound aggrieved and annoyed about it, like it's /so burdensome/ how people keep making them kill them. "Can't a guy get through a single day of stopping basic resources from reaching people without someone coming along and /forcing/ us to kill them? It's just so rude."

nabisco is otm

It's the Bull Connor school of law enforcement

Like in Europe, so many people are flooding to the streets protesting, which just doesn't happen when other countries commit war crimes (e.g. North Korea sinking that ship last week). Does it touch such a nerve with people because of the whole bitter religious backdrop, or just because people know the U.S. (and therefore the UN) will do fuck all about it, so they feel that have to make a huge noise?

anyone i've ever met who has a real bee in their bonnet about palestine has been anti-american, far-left, and/or muslim; europe has a lot of people like that.

Does it touch such a nerve with people because of the whole bitter religious backdrop, or just because people know the U.S. (and therefore the UN) will do fuck all about it, so they feel that have to make a huge noise?

not really: the UN is doing fuck-all about north korea torpedoing a warship/90 people being blown up in pakistan on friday/____________ but for some reason I/P engages people in a special way

on the matter of press releases, neither side really covers themselves in glory, but this is kind of a side issue

There are a number of obvious reasons why Israel is held to a higher standard than say North Korea.

1. The USA supplies large amounts of arms and aid to Israel

2. Israel proports to be a democracy that respects human rights

3. Israel was founded on principles of human rights and a need to give an oppressed people a safe haven

And more beyond that, I'm sure.

4. china is on the security council

Israel was founded on principles of human rights

:/

Israel does seem to be heading toward greater isolation and rogue status, a la North Korea.

Israel was founded on principles of human rights

:/

― ᵒ always toasted, never fried (crüt), Monday, May 31, 2010 7:38 PM (31 seconds ago)

Maybe I should say, Isreal's inception coincided with a desire to increase human rights.

i hope the UN security council, comprising moral giants like um the UK(!), US(!!), russia(!!!), and china(!!!!), condemns israel pdq

I think if israel was founded on a desire to increase human rights they must've have turned a blind eye towards those who already were living there, much like how america was founded.

tbf, Israel's has a good human rights record for its own citizens--it's very much a liberal democracy (gay rights, free speech/press, fair judiciary etc.). It's just how it treats Gaza...

I think if israel was founded on a desire to increase human rights they must've have turned a blind eye towards those who already were living there, much like how america was founded.

― Jacob Sanders, Monday, May 31, 2010 8:43 PM (27 seconds ago) Bookmark

undeniably, but also a lot like other instances of forced expulsions of ethnic groups much closer in place and time to the mandate of the late 1940s -- iraq, egypt, libya, etc

tbf the USA shares almost all the same faults as Israel, although not in quite so glaring a way. In the matter of human rights criticism, it surely acts as a proxy and a buffer state for the USA, as it does in so many other ways.