Guest iep Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 ESSINES ESSINES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 And why were they only allowed to interview activists? Because the Israeli government refused to allow them to interview IDF forces....oops, wonder why. i think you're intelligent enough to consider various reasons besides " CUZ THE MURDERD THE INNOCNET ACTIVISTSS !!1", in any case it makes the report inconclusive. So if you think the issue of legality is not so important, then the Palmer report really doesn't back up what you say at all. there are some things i presented that don't need the backing of the palmer report, for example the extreme violence of the IHH activists, previous engagements of idf with the ships and their conduct onboard, the intention of the activist to create a provocation and more. So the main issue is the nine deaths, every report in the world besides the Turkel report says the IDF acted with force that was inappropriate for the situation. The palmer report, whose purpose was not to establish legality, you use as a means of justifying the legality. You ignore the fact that they say the nine deaths were unacceptable, which was the whole point of the report. You brought it into the conversation. It's clear that you think Israel is perfectly defensible. However, I think you'll have to see that your opinion is in the very very small minority. Maybe, like Dershowitz, you think OJ is innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted January 1, 2012 Author Share Posted January 1, 2012 And why were they only allowed to interview activists? Because the Israeli government refused to allow them to interview IDF forces....oops, wonder why. i think you're intelligent enough to consider various reasons besides " CUZ THE MURDERD THE INNOCNET ACTIVISTSS !!1", in any case it makes the report inconclusive. what other conclusion can you draw other than they were trying to cover shit up out of embarrassment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 And why were they only allowed to interview activists? Because the Israeli government refused to allow them to interview IDF forces....oops, wonder why. i think you're intelligent enough to consider various reasons besides " CUZ THE MURDERD THE INNOCNET ACTIVISTSS !!1", in any case it makes the report inconclusive. So if you think the issue of legality is not so important, then the Palmer report really doesn't back up what you say at all. there are some things i presented that don't need the backing of the palmer report, for example the extreme violence of the IHH activists, previous engagements of idf with the ships and their conduct onboard, the intention of the activist to create a provocation and more. So the main issue is the nine deaths, every report in the world besides the Turkel report says the IDF acted with force that was inappropriate for the situation. The palmer report, whose purpose was not to establish legality, you use as a means of justifying the legality. You ignore the fact that they say the nine deaths were unacceptable, which was the whole point of the report. You brought it into the conversation. It's clear that you think Israel is perfectly defensible. However, I think you'll have to see that your opinion is in the very very small minority. Maybe, like Dershowitz, you think OJ is innocent? you are bringing yourself to the level you are usually trying to avoid in other threads, i try to show the reports' problematic methodology in regards to finding out the circumstances that lead to deaths while you try to ignore that problem and keep shoving "look how many reports say the deaths are unjustifiable". i can easily continue this argument without addressing the question of legality of the blockade, it just seemed that everyone is so convinced about the illegality of the blockade so i wanted to show that even the u.n mission thinks differently. great finish, the majority is always right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 The majority is not always right, but in this case they are. There are times when two plus two equals four. You can argue the methodology all you want, but if the Israeli government isn't letting probes have access to the IDF forces who were on board, that particular problem is never going to be resolved. It's up to Israel here to provide the missing piece so that questions about methodology. One UN mission, whose mandate was not to determine the legality of the blockade, thinks that it is legal. The reasons it thinks it is legal have been widely disputed, and the Finkelstein article on it you just dismiss out of hand. The legality of the blockade of course is of importance, because if it is not legal, then the IDF has no reason to board the ships. Meaning the nine activists would still be alive, you wouldn't have to be trying to defend your country's heinous actions, and energy could be focussed elsewhere in the conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 And why were they only allowed to interview activists? Because the Israeli government refused to allow them to interview IDF forces....oops, wonder why. i think you're intelligent enough to consider various reasons besides " CUZ THE MURDERD THE INNOCNET ACTIVISTSS !!1", in any case it makes the report inconclusive. what other conclusion can you draw other than they were trying to cover shit up out of embarrassment? for security reasons embarrassment is actually one of the possible reasons now that you mention it, but not in the way you think it is. deterrence is very important to the idf in general, stories of soldiers from the elite unit getting beaten up by a mob with metal sticks and knives, moreover, getting themselves captured, will be welcomed by our neighbors. one of the reasons for the escalation that lead to the gaza war was the loss of deterrence in a war against hezbollah in 2006, as perceived by hamas. don't you remember the online joy that followed the release of smuggled photos of the wounded soldiers from the ship ? a more tangible reason is the universal unwillingness of any army to reveal the operational tactics of their units, to reveal the soldiers themselves, especially one from the elite units which boarded the ship. i can go on, but i think you're capable of doing it yourself, as far as i remember your not a fan of the "if they have nothing to hide there's nothing to be afraid of" argument yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 The majority is not always right, but in this case they are. There are times when two plus two equals four. You can argue the methodology all you want, but if the Israeli government isn't letting probes have access to the IDF forces who were on board, that particular problem is never going to be resolved. It's up to Israel here to provide the missing piece so that questions about methodology. One UN mission, whose mandate was not to determine the legality of the blockade, thinks that it is legal. The reasons it thinks it is legal have been widely disputed, and the Finkelstein article on it you just dismiss out of hand. The legality of the blockade of course is of importance, because if it is not legal, then the IDF has no reason to board the ships. Meaning the nine activists would still be alive, you wouldn't have to be trying to defend your country's heinous actions, and energy could be focussed elsewhere in the conflict. actually if you think of it the testimonies of the soldiers wouldn't change anything, because noone would believe them anyway, like i don't believe the testimonies of the activists. the unhrc report didn't show any investigative skills, they just channeled the testimonies of the activists directly, so if the soldiers testified you'd have 2 sides, one claims that the activists were executed in cold blood, the other saying they only shot to kill when their own lives were in danger, and what would you do with that exactly ? i realize that this kinda harms my previous argument but i just didn't think of it that way before. in any case the methods of investigation of both palmer and unhrc report are simply wank, way below any courtroom drama on tv, if you think differently you're just lying to yourself. i didn't dismiss finkelstein completely, it's just that his argument about the deaths count that you brought is ..well, irrelevant. as far as i understand, the only thing you need to prove to make the blockade legal is that there is a military conflict between the entities. and you really don't need any palmer to tell you that. and yet again, the legality of the blockade is not the issue, like i said 3 times already, the idf's position was clear to everyone involved, they considered the interception of the flotilla as a legal act, while the activists considered the breach attempt legal. but the man point is, and that's hopefully the last time i say it, that the activists knew for 100% that if the flotilla won't comply they will get boarded, and the purpose of the boarding was also as clear as sun to everyone involved, it was to stop the flotilla sailing toward gaza and rerout the ships towards ashdod. there was absolutely no indication or precedent (there were like 5 attempts to breach the blockade before this) that that aim of the israeli soldiers was to kill the activists, this is a fact. given this it is absolutely unreasonable to claim that the activists were defending their lives against the soldiers, and this makes their attempt to kill soldiers completely unjustifiable and the reaction of the soldiers understandable at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atop Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 This thread is designed to make sane persons not sane anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted January 1, 2012 Author Share Posted January 1, 2012 is that a Gaarg? i think besides Asymmetrical's av, that one takes the cake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atop Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 indeed it is.... Sup's is amazing.... which is ironic I love all of them though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 This thread is designed to make sane persons not sane anymore. That's the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a nutshell. Personally, I don't think the flotilla raid, where and when it occurred, was fully justified. That said, I feel compelled to agree and understand most of Eugene's points about the incident. The flotilla was provocative. Every sincere effort by Israeli to deliver the goods after inspection was ignored. The violence and chaos was absolutely intended to rally the Free Gaza cause. Yeah Eugene's stubborn and this "debate" won't progress to anything beyond a sarcasm-laden "agree to disagree" conclusion, but I don't blame him for being so defensive, even a flat-out apologist. While the hostility toward Israeli on WATMM isn't anti-semitic or hateful, but it does often merge into personal attacks against Eugene. Even more so, the level of vitriol toward the flawed policies of the Israeli government and ridiculous pro-Israeli lobby here in the US is almost always associated with the entire country, which has more openly liberal and moderate citizen voices than any other nation in that entire region. For all the well-researched criticism of Israel, I never see one fucking discussion about the legitimacy of Hamas ruling in Gaza. No apologist stances defending or denying the violent voter intimidation in the Palestinian territories, the war on secular Palestinian parties, the enforcing of Islamic law that spits in the face of any WATMMer with any concept of civil liberty. Hell, I'd love to see at least one positive hypothetical proposal of what would happen if Israel lifted it's blockade and removed military personal from the Palestinian Territories. For the record I don't want to start another tangent and the above "questions" are rhetorical. I just find some of the attitudes lately, even when well-articulated, just obscenely hostile when it comes to Israel. There's a sick humor watching people post comments about how Israel is literally evil when they themselves list their country as some Atlantic territorial rock, or live in countries with their own oppressive histories. Self-deprecating criticism of one's own area is perfectly ok (I'm from Texas after all, I know), and snarky homeland bashing is to be expected. Yet if the same targeting seemingly placed on Eugene/Israel was as rampant toward every WATMMer and their home nation, there would be plenty of General Banter topics of pure ignorant country-bashing. /rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 great rant. Even if I don't entirely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Well said. At the very least there's someone taking the time to explain the other point of view in this whole conflict. Wether we agree with it or not, it gives as an opportunity to understand it better. As I do believe Eugene sketches a realistic account of what the other side of the coin might actually look like. Living actually in Israel and all. Which of itself makes it funny these discussions can get so emotional from time to time. Understandable for Eugene, as he's living it on a daily basis. But for the rest of the board to get so riled up about it (which i admit to have been doing in the past as well) is, when you think about it, completely "out of proportion" IMO. So, kudos to Eugene for sticking to his points in this 'hostile' environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 If you want some criticism of Hamas, look no further than Amnesty International. I'm Canadian, and I'm absolutely disgusted with much of my government's actions. For example, we shouldn't be in Afghanistan. Our government shouldn't be sending advance copies of bills regarding entertainment copyright to the RIAA/MPAA to see if the bill meets their approval. The construction of an oil pipeline through some of our best forest and ending on the BC coast is a disgrace and will certainly cause environmental issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 If you want some criticism of Hamas, look no further than Amnesty International. I'm Canadian, and I'm absolutely disgusted with much of my government's actions. I've always appreciated Amnesty International for their consistency. As for the examples you listed, I could do the same for the U.S. as well as my own state (it'd likely be a much longer list too). The same could be said with many members here who are from the UK and other G8 counties. The reason I mentioned that because much of the most biting anti-Israeli criticism on WATMM from members hailing from small countries that are generally cited as some of the most progressive in the world - therefore an amount of smugness seems to be behind the comments. But that's just my perception, and in all sincerity, I'm sure it could be completely coincidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Well even Norman Finkelstein would agree with you. (last paragraph) I don’t support dismantling Israel. Yes, Israel does horrible things, but so does the U.K. and whatever Israel does that’s horrible, it’s a tiny fraction of what the U.S. does that’s horrible every minute, of every hour, of every day. So, since I don’t see any boycotts calling for the dismantling of the United States, or the dismantling of the U.K. , then I’m not supporting the dismantling of Israel. There’s a deliberate ambiguity about whether you want to end the occupation or whether you want to end Israel. He is also grown tired of Hamas' abuse of human rights. At the same time, these thoughts certainly do not lend any justification to Israeli actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest disparaissant Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 im for dismantling the us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 i want to dismantle all nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest disparaissant Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 i want to dismantle all nations. hifive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 *hi fives, dismantles hands* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest iep Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 okay.. so what's next then... who/what will be the governing bodies keeping the plebs under they thumbs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Well even Norman Finkelstein would agree with you. (last paragraph) I don’t support dismantling Israel. Yes, Israel does horrible things, but so does the U.K. and whatever Israel does that’s horrible, it’s a tiny fraction of what the U.S. does that’s horrible every minute, of every hour, of every day. So, since I don’t see any boycotts calling for the dismantling of the United States, or the dismantling of the U.K. , then I’m not supporting the dismantling of Israel. There’s a deliberate ambiguity about whether you want to end the occupation or whether you want to end Israel. He is also grown tired of Hamas' abuse of human rights. At the same time, these thoughts certainly do not lend any justification to Israeli actions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Chj_ivSqes Great links, thanks for sharing these. I try read different perspectives on any conflict, and I've found Finkelstein to be an interesting one. I respect his reasoning if anything. im for dismantling the us It's quasi-dismantled already. What's the fucking point of being a country when you can't establish the same laws on abortion, marriage, murder and violent crime sentencing, drug use, smoking, healthcare funding and regulation, etc for all 50 States. Oh you meant "U.S." right? Not the "us" as in a collective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Member Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Edit:nevermind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Well even Norman Finkelstein would agree with you. (last paragraph) I don’t support dismantling Israel. Yes, Israel does horrible things, but so does the U.K. and whatever Israel does that’s horrible, it’s a tiny fraction of what the U.S. does that’s horrible every minute, of every hour, of every day. So, since I don’t see any boycotts calling for the dismantling of the United States, or the dismantling of the U.K. , then I’m not supporting the dismantling of Israel. There’s a deliberate ambiguity about whether you want to end the occupation or whether you want to end Israel. He is also grown tired of Hamas' abuse of human rights. At the same time, these thoughts certainly do not lend any justification to Israeli actions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Chj_ivSqes what do you bring finkelstein as exactly ? as a researcher of the conflict who conforms to norms of scientific method or as a propagandist of the palestinian resistance ? both can be justified, but im curious how you see it. even hamas themselves were more modest than finkelsten regarding civilian casualties claiming they lost 600-700 fighters (out of 1400 total deaths). often it just seems like he just wishes for more israelis to be killed in the conflicts against hamas or other organizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest disparaissant Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Oh you meant "U.S." right? Not the "us" as in a collective? no i meant dismemberment. nah i dunno. tear it all down and start anew. 5 turns of anarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.