Deaths as Israeli forces storm Gaza aid ship

[Ridgerunner]

Just to clarify, I was part of Scottish delegation which visited Nablus this April. The friendship between ourselves and Nablus has been ongoing for over thirty years (our City Hall was the first building in the Western world to fly the Palestinian flag on an official basis), and I wasn’t involved when Mr Shaka’a (a PLO supporter) originally visited Scotland, although I met with him in Nablus. He is now very old and frail, and preferred not to comment on the current situation, although I believe he opposed the Oslo Agreement.

(Sorry I had to shorten your post. Not enough room)

There are obviously various opinions in Palestine; some quite at odds with others.

I should not opine about Munib al-Masri, and won’t, until I can learn more. On what little I know, however, he seems possibly to be one of a number of people in the area who are not radical, not murderous, and who simply would like to see the area and its people achieve the very strong potential they inherently have. From what I understand, the al-Masris have long been “go-betweens” in the region, both in business and in politics. It’s almost a “tribal caste” tradition, stretching back a long, long time. Maybe they can pull it off. Who knows? Interesting that the name means “of Egypt”. However that came about, and it would have been a very long time ago, I do know those people are tight with Mubarak as well as King Abdullah, whatever Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood think of either of them. Better not to name any Israelis, perhaps.

The thing is, though, and I think this is shared by many Arabs in the Middle East, particularly some of Munib al-Masri’s “class” (they all know each other over there, at least in the Sunni world) Israel is part of the M.E. and, as little as some would like to think it, crucial to its development.

From what I know, the “land for peace” thing is still negotiable from Israel’s standpoint and also from the standpoint of many Palestinians. But it isn’t just about land. It’s also about cooperation, lines of communication and commerce. But first and foremost it’s about safety. You just can’t have one party shooting rocket bombs at the other and threatening holocausts and expect anything good to come of it. Yes, yes, there’s history and history and history. But the rocket bombs are today. Now, it rankles some (but not all) that Israelis insist on a Jewish State. Given Jewish history, including Israeli history, that’s not hard to understand. On the other hand, there are the “Dar al Islam” people who would not only claim Israel, but Spain, most of Italy and the Balkans as well. And too, there are the groups that are essentially mercenaries in the pay of others, who have no cause other than their pockets. Peace seems a long way off when you look at it that way.

When you look at it from the potential of the people involved, “not peace” seems absurd. Yet, that’s what we have.

Ironically, in the long run it may actually be Iran that forces the parties to cooperate. From what I have understood, absolutely nobody in the Sunni Arab world wants anything to do with Iran; nobody except those who are on Iran’s payroll, that is. (Or that of its client, Syria) Unfortunately, there are those who are, and they are as much at war with other Arabs as they are with Israel, if the truth was acknowledged. Many Arabs trust Israel far more than they trust Iran and, indeed, consider Israel a bulwark against Iran; a role the U.S. seems unwilling to fill, and one Europe abdicated a long time ago. It’s a great shame that the “natural allies” in the region cannot openly make common cause.

Presently, of course, they “can’t”.

I maintain my position (getting back on topic) that regardless of what some think about Israel and “breaking the blockade” and all that, provocation is the very last thing that region needs. Israel had a blockade, as did Egypt. Turkey went along with it. But one of the great difficulties in the region (and elsewhere) is the hoary fiction that there is a single “Muslim world”. Never mind that they murder each other with abandon. Murder a mayor? Blow up two Muslim wedding parties? No problem, just part of being in the Middle East. If an Israeli (or an American or anybody the radicals want to call a “Crusader”) does anything dramatic to a Muslim, or even seems to, it conjures up that “jihad against the infidel” thing, and everybody has to at least pretend they’re on board with it.

Unfortunately, those who participate in provocations, however well intended, do not, in my opinion, serve the interests of peace, but only of those who want unending war in the region, and who want to prevent the development of a 'modus vivendi" from which all (but the overweeningly ambitious and the religious radicals) would benefit.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Because Europe saw the holocaust first hand and are seeing similar traits between Israel and Nazi Germany.
I have to say it… they don’t have AIPAC and a powerful Jewish lobby. Overall Europeans are more educated and more informed than Americans. I’ve been all over the world and that is what I have found.

Remarkable assertions, though I would say consistent in their way.

 

[Mike5575]

That’s anti-semitic right there. Criticizing US support of Israel is just as bad as denying the holocaust.

I am no supporter of Hamas, but firing white phosphorus rounds at civilian targets in the Gaza Strip hardly makes Israel innocent. The closest thing to the holocaust in this situation is what’s going on in the Gaza Strip. And how is criticizing US Support of Israel anti Semitic. I also happen to think the US should mind its own business and not mettle in international affairs. Believe it or not, people in this country are more worried about their own life rather than happens in some distant country. This isn’t the first time a ship with humanitarian aid has been denied passage.

 

[Poco]

Here’s a thought! How about stopping bombing Israeli nightclubs, restaurants, busses and launching rockets into Israeli civilian areas, make a peace offerand try to work with Israel?

Then, IF those “lunatic” Israeli “jack-booted thugs” continue to persecute those poor “Palestinians”…

Somehow I doubt that will happen. Especially considering starting with the 1948 war, the Six-Day war, etc. hostilities are consistently initiated by Israel’s neighbors in an attempt to eliminate Israel entirely.

Also, if you think the Israelis are “too brutal”, I suggest you look up the actions of King Hussein of Jordan in 1970.

On a side note, although it has come into popular usage, maybe as early as post-WW I,
there has never been a “Nation” of Palestine so the term “Palestinian” is somewhat of a misnomer.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Oops! Even Joe Biden said today that Israel had a right to stop the blockade runners. Might separate the Democrats from the garden variety anti-semites on here now. We’ll see.

 

[grampben]

Oops! Even Joe Biden said today that Israel had a right to stop the blockade runners. Might separate the Democrats from the garden variety anti-semites on here now. We’ll see.

My favourite writer on this subject, Alan Dershowitz, also considers himself a liberal and a Democrat. Like I’ve said before, it’s really the far right and left who hate Israel (just think how much Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky have in common on foreign policy!). Generally pro-Israel people (unless it’s for premillenial reasons) are centrists on either side of the spectrum. I mean just because one opposes the idea of terrorists rocketing schools and night clubs of another country shouldn’t mean that they can’t disagree on many other things!

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

On a side note, although it has come into popular usage, maybe as early as post-WW I,
there has never been a “Nation” of Palestine so the term “Palestinian” is somewhat of a misnomer.

1. There was never a “State of Israel” until 1947. So what?
2. Okay, there was never a “Nation of Palestine.” However, everyone, including the Israelis, even their hardliners, refers to the Palestinians as Palestinians. So what about your “misnomer”?

It IS the “State of Israel” and it IS the “Palestinians.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

My favourite writer on this subject, Alan Dershowitz, also considers himself a liberal and a Democrat. Like I’ve said before, it’s really the far right and left who hate Israel (just think how much Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky have in common on foreign policy!). Generally pro-Israel people (unless it’s for premillenial reasons) are centrists on either side of the spectrum. I mean just because one opposes the idea of terrorists rocketing schools and night clubs of another country shouldn’t mean that they can’t disagree on many other things!

You and I have disagreed in the past, Grampben, but on this I could not agree with you more.

 

[Dale_M]

Since the Ship did have Turkish Flags, and was well outside of Israeli territorial waters, then wouldn’t the United States, as a NATO Ally of Turkey have a legal responsibility to come to Turkey’s defense by declaring war on Israel or even enforcing sanctions on that lunatic state, since that is what NATO Allies are supposed to do?

No.

First of all, the ship is registered in the Comoros, an island nation in the Indian Ocean. Despite whatever flags it might have flown, this officially is not an Turkish ship.
translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marinetraffic.com%2Fais%2Ftr%2Fshipdetails.aspx%3Fmmsi%3D616952000&sl=tr&tl=en

Second, the Turkish government has not indicated that Israel has committed an act war.

There is no reason to think this involves NATO in any way.

 

[Poco]

I am no supporter of Hamas, but firing white phosphorus rounds at civilian targets in the Gaza Strip hardly makes Israel innocent.

Not only is that statement untrue and misleading, it is highly “inflammatory”! (Ooops! So sorry. I thought I was in the “pun” thread for a moment. )

From here:

haaretz.com/news/israel-admits-using-phosphorus-bombs-during-war-in-lebanon-1.203078

The announcement that the Israel Defense Forces had used phosphorus bombs in the war in Lebanon was made by Minister Jacob Edery, in charge of government-Knesset relations. He had been queried on the matter by MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz-Yahad).

“The IDF holds phosphorus munitions in different forms,” Edery said. “The IDF made use of phosphorous shells during the war against Hezbollah in attacks against military targets in open ground.”

Edery also pointed out that international law does not forbid the use of phosphorus and that “the IDF used this type of munitions according to the rules of international law.”

Yes, it seems clear there were civilian casualties, but where is the evidence civilians being targeted intentionally?

 

[Dale_M]

On a side note, although it has come into popular usage, maybe as early as post-WW I,
there has never been a “Nation” of Palestine so the term “Palestinian” is somewhat of a misnomer.

eh… I am not sure that means much. In centuries past, the great powers often referred to the region of “the Ukraine”, which did not have independence and was dominated by some other country (say, Russia or Poland.) However, that doesn’t mean that today Ukraine is not a legitimate nation.

 

[Dale_M]

Yes, it seems clear there were civilian casualties, but where is the evidence civilians being targeted intentionally?

No, I don’t think such evidence exists. Israel used white phosphorus in accord with international conventions. However, because civilian casualties did occur, and are likely to occur again with similar uses, I think it means that the international protocols need to be revised.

 

[Poco]

1. There was never a “State of Israel” until 1947. So what?

Let’s go back about 3,000 or so years, shall we? Have you forgotten about Saul, David, Solomon…?

In 1947 they simply “came home”.

1. Okay, there was never a “Nation of Palestine.” However, everyone, including the Israelis, even their hardliners, refers to the Palestinians as Palestinians. So what about your “misnomer”?

“…although it has come into popular usage, maybe as early as post-WW I…”

Umm… That’s what I said.

It IS the “State of Israel” and it IS the “Palestinians.”

Unfortunately, too many of Israels neighbors would like to reduce this to simply “it IS the Palestinians”.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Yes, it seems clear there were civilian casualties, but where is the evidence civilians being targeted intentionally?

I can’t be that coldblooded about “collateral damage” meaning civilians. Does it ultimately matter whether one is dead because one was targeted intentionally or because one just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

 

[Kadaveri]

No, I don’t think such evidence exists. Israel used white phosphorus in accord with international conventions. However, because civilian casualties did occur, and are likely to occur again with similar uses, I think it means that the international protocols need to be revised.

Every investigation of Israel’s use of white phosphorus in Gaza (United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Dugard Commission, read their reports) concluded that Israel committed war crimes in using white phosphorus to attack civilians, who were not ‘collateral damage’ but were deliberately targeted. They dropped white phosphorus on homes, schools, a market, a humanitarian warehouse and two hospitals (Al-Quds hospital and Al-Wafa hospital) despite there being no militant activity in those areas.

HRW: Rain of Fire.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Let’s go back about 3,000 or so years, shall we? Have you forgotten about Saul, David, Solomon…?

I suggest you read the Bible. Theirs was not the “State of Israel.” Secondly, the modern state is almost wholly secular - almost wholly. What is the connection between God’s people, the Nation of Israel, and the Zionist state, which was created by agnostics and secularists, and whose population is well over 90% secular?

In 1947 they simply “came home”.

No, they did not. Original plans were to establish a Jewish state in a part of Russia. If World War II hadn’t occurred, there wouldn’t have been any incentive to create a Jewish state.

Unfortunately, too many of Israels neighbors would like to reduce this to simply “it IS the Palestinians”.

Right. That’s what they would wish. And, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

 

[Ridgerunner]

1. There was never a “State of Israel” until 1947. So what?
2. Okay, there was never a “Nation of Palestine.” However, everyone, including the Israelis, even their hardliners, refers to the Palestinians as Palestinians. So what about your “misnomer”?

It IS the “State of Israel” and it IS the “Palestinians.”

My imppression is that it’s a little more complicated than that. Arab society is fundamentally tribal, not national in the western sense. “Palestinians” are people whose tribes are primarily (though not exclusively) located in Palestine, which includes Jordan. Most Jordanians are Palestinians and most Palestinians live in Jordan. But while they are more concentrated in Gaza, Israel, the West Bank and Jordan, “Palestinians” live all over the Middle East. The next largest tribal group in Jordan are the Bedouin, who also live all over the Middle East. Within the “Palestinian” generic group are the groups to which the most allegiance is given; the tribe itself; a sort of very, very, very extended family. Some tribes have close relationships with other tribes and undying enmity toward others.

In truth, beyond the tribe, Palestinians consider themselves simply “Arabs”, as do Bedouins and others. But that doesn’t mean they necessarily fit well together.

The following is not an exact fit because Europe isn’t very tribal anymore, but talking about establishing a “Palestinian state” is a little bit like talking about establishing a “Slavic state” or a “Nordic state” somewhere. Sometimes things like that can work. German unification and Italian unification was a bit uneasy, but basically worked. However, cross-tribal state creation doesn’t always work out. Jugoslavia (the artificially created homeland of the “South Slavs”) was a bad idea from start to finish, because it didn’t take into account the fact that the South Slavs were a lot more “tribal” than Germans or Italians and hated each other. The present composition of Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia/Herzegovina and (Albanian) Kosovo (formerly all part of Jugoslavia) actually reflects the “tribal” realities of the former “South Slav Homeland” that the state-makers in the west just assumed would work. But even in the present South Slav states, it took some serious and awful wars to get it straightened out, and it still isn’t, entiely.

Lebanon is a “multi tribal” Arab state that isn’t working. It worked only as long as one tribe (Maronite Christians) remained dominant. Once they lost dominance, tribal conflict took over.

So, in a way, there can be a “Palestinian state” in the West Bank or Gaza, but it would not be the largest “Palestinian state”. There are also non-Palestinian tribal people in what we think of as “Palestine”, and Palestinian tribes that don’t get along. So, then, who would be a citizen of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and/or Gaza? What tribe or coalition would rule, and by virtue of what? I suppose things like that can be worked out somehow, but it’s not as obvious as it might seem to westerners, especially to Americans.

 

[Poco]

I can’t be that coldblooded about “collateral damage” meaning civilians. Does it ultimately matter whether one is dead because one was targeted intentionally or because one just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Maybe not to the one who is dead. However, I think it matters significantly where the combatants are concerned.

I suppose I simply fail to understand your lack of outrage towards those who use women and children as human shields, use their own children as suicide bombers and intentionally target civilians, including women and children, yet are so quick to condem Israel for defending itself.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, they did not. Original plans were to establish a Jewish state in a part of Russia. If World War II hadn’t occurred, there wouldn’t have been any incentive to create a Jewish state.

I’ll agree in part but disagree in part. True, the modern Zionist Movement did have in mind a Jewish state in Russia. But there also were always Jews in Israel, from time immemorial. They and Arabs lived under Turkish rule. Sometimes the Turks favored one group; sometimes another, but essentially oppressed all. In the 19th Century, western nations pushed the Turks to accept more Jews into what is now Israel, and the Turks did. The Arabs didn’t like it, but the Turks ruled, so that was that. After WWI, of course, the Brits took over and largely prevented Jewish emigration to Palestine, which then included Jordan. Nevertheless, Jews still emigrated there, willy-nilly. Of course, the numbers greatly increased after WWII, and the Jews warred on the Brits, who took the part of the Arabs, but ultimately gave the whole game up. The Brits created Jordan and gave it the West Bank, all under Hashemite (Bedouin) rule. Egypt got Gaza. Ultimately the Brits left and the Jews and Arabs had it out. The Jews won three rounds, and ended up with the West Bank and Gaza. (Sinai too, but they gave it back to Egypt)

Jordan almost certainly would not take back the West Bank now. Egypt definitely wouldn’t take Gaza back. So here we are.

True, Stalin had it in mind for a time to create a “Jewish” segment in the far northeast (a truly terrible place). Even gave it that name, (Jewish SSR or Jewish Oblast, I can’t remember which) but didn’t shove all the Jews into it. It seems later he decided to kill them all instead. But, as Solzhenitsyn put it “God told him (Stalin) to depart from his ribcage” before Stalin got it off the ground.

So, I am not entirely persuaded that WWII provided the incentive for creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. It does seem to have provided an occasion or window of opportunity.

 

[BobCatholic]

What is the connection between God’s people, the Nation of Israel, and the Zionist state, which was created by agnostics and secularists, and whose population is well over 90% secular?

Citation please for that “well over 90% secular” figure.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Religious_affiliation

Jewish 75.5%
Muslim: 16.8%
Christian: 2.1%
Druze: 1.7%
Unclassified by Choice: 3.9%

From that 75.5%, that’s further divided:

According to a 2004 Israel Central Bureau of Statistics Study on Israelis aged over 18, 8% of Israeli Jews define themselves as haredim (or Ultra-Orthodox); an additional 9% are “religious” (predominantly orthodox, also known in Israel as: Zionist-religious, national-religious and kippot srugot); 12% consider themselves “religious-traditionalists” (mostly adhering to Jewish Halakha); 27% are “non-religious traditionalists” (only partly respecting the Jewish Halakha), and 43% are “secular”. Among the seculars, 53% say they believe in God. Due to the higher natality rate of religious and traditionalists over seculars, the share of religious and traditionalists among the overall population is even higher.

So 43% of 75.5% is 32% plus the 3.9% is 35.9% of the total population. That’s nowhere near “90% secular” as you say.

Or am I missing something?