starlite68
Registered User
- Messages
- 330
sorry for the incorrect spelling....keyboard playing up...really have to hammer some of the keys! but you get the jest of what im saying.
Israel attacks aid ship
- Thread starter Betsy Og
- Start date
I look for the historical facts that influence current events. The facts are reasonably clear, the motivations and interrelationships between them are not so clear. I try an avoid journalism of the “will somebody please thing of the children” type as if just raises emotions and doesn’t contextualise anything. Robert Fisk is a good example of someone who is very knowledgeable and informative but it’s very hard to read all the hyperbole and annoying that he fails to always mention all of the relevant facts (even though he knows well what they are).
Conor Cruise O’Brien wrote a very informative book on the foundation if Israel but again it is utterly biased in favour of the Israelis. I find it useful to read biased writers from either side and look at what they left out. It’s a bit like watching Fox News and Al Jazeera and looking for what’s in between (not that I’m saying that Al Jazeera is anywhere near as biased as Fox News).
We generally get drawn to opinions that we agree with (we are all biased to some extent) so it’s also useful to try to find those we disagree with and see if they can change our minds.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10245176.stm
This picture of the ship shows that it has a large Irish flag painted on it even though it is a Cambodian ship. Under maritime law, you are fully entitled to board any ship which is displaying the wrong flags or multiple flags.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/tricolour-on-ship-delays-gaza-aid-mission-2179693.html
When this ship was docking in Ireland, it was forbidden from flying the Irish flag by the Marine Survey Office as it is not an Irish ship and so it was breaking the Law.
As well as causing us intense embarrasment and dragging us into a potentially dangerous international incident, the owners of this ship have shown utter contempt for the people of Ireland and our laws and international laws by re-painting the tricolour on the side after leaving Ireland. I value my Irish citizenship and do not appreciate it being illegally abused for a political stunt.
I am also waiting to see if those people who condemned Israel for illegally using Irish identities will also condemn the Rachel Corrie crew for essentially committing the same offence.
I think we're basically in agreement that we (as in the bulk of the "native Irish") were a mass of poor pesants under the control of a ruling class.
That mass of people - be they decended from Celts, Danes, Normans or wherever (®ardless of their religion),were not voters or policy makers. They, or their representatives, didnt collectively engage in or endorse colonial adventures. I'm sure you've heard the quote "Just because one is born in a stable does not make one a horse" which was attributed to one of our Irish aristo types which sums up what is evident from British colonialism in that they thought they were a superior race, better than the native. Sure they even classed aboriginals as flora & fauna!
As regards "whatever we did" - I'm not convinced "we" did anything. Some individuals did, but the mass of poor peasants never stirred up to invade anywhere, they were too busy trying to survive. There never was a popular movement towards colonialism - so until you can show otherwise I dont know where you are going with your argument.
There was never a popular movement amongst the peasantry supporting colonialism in Britain or France (or Germany or Spain) either. In fact that’s the main reason why, from the 1880’s most colonies were effectively run and developed by private companies operating under a state concession. This was typified by Leopold the Second in the Congo and copied to a great extent by the French in the French Congo and to a lesser extent by the British. It was the actions of these concessionary companies that Rodger Casement and later Brazza (the French explorer who 25 years earlier has claimed the French Congo for France) investigated and exposed.
Policy was always set by the ruling elite so using your logic the British and French bear no historical responsibility for the colonial adventures of their predecessors either.
Policy was always set by the ruling elite so using your logic the British and French bear no historical responsibility for the colonial adventures of their predecessors either.
Well to take Britain, doesnt the responsibility lay with the Monarchy and later the House of Commons?
Anyway, this debate started due to an assertion that Ireland has no right to criticise others due to our record of past mis-deeds - your case against the Irish people is as yet unproven.
Yes, when Ireland was rules from the Commons with Irish PM's being elected (in a manner of speaking) by the Irish electorate.
We were never monsters but we are no better or worse than most. Holier than thou attitudes get up my nose; when we had then chance to stomp on a few natives we took it. The fact that most of us were too poor to get the opportunity is not a virtue. If we had had the opportunity and didn’t take it then it would have been virtuous.
starlite68
Registered User
- Messages
- 330
but thats a bit like saying that we would all commit murder if we just knew that we would get away with it! not true
Back in Viking times, the vikings based in Dublin were notorious and colonised a few places e.g. York in England. And they weren't blow in Danes on a temporary stopover. These were vikings who were born in Dublin and of mixed viking/celtic blood stock - generations after the first arrivals - the vikings who founded Dublin assimilated and interbred with the natives. By this time, Dublin was autonomous from the Danes and often fought with them. There decendants are still here.
The Sea Stallion of Glendalough boat is a replica of a Dublin viking ship - the Dublin ships were bigger and more violent than those originating in scandanvia.
Plus ca change whah??
As regards efforts to link us with Blighty's glorious empire, in the words of Yeats "What can I but enumerate old themes", Aunts uncles and all that.......
Plus ca change whah??
As regards efforts to link us with Blighty's glorious empire, in the words of Yeats "What can I but enumerate old themes", Aunts uncles and all that.......
Yea, but in this example it’s more a case of your aunty used to have balls and so used to be your uncle. The fact that she now has none doesn’t change the past
DublinTexas
can edit posts
- Messages
- 320
It’s amazing that the crisis about the deadly shootings on board is still going on.
Even now that are more and more facts coming out that terrorist were on board of the “Mavi Marmara” and that they were prepared to attack the IDF including looking to die as "martyr" the critics of Israel still go on about the blockade.
I think it’s important to remember some basic facts about Gaza. The De-Facto-Regime of Hamas is in control of Gaza and in a state of war with Israel with the support of Iran.
The Hamas makes it very clear that they don’t want any peace agreement with Israel but rather the total destruction of the state of Israel and its citizens by any means (including sending children as human bombs).
Hamas (who by the way was elected by the people of Gaza) has intensified it’s aggressions against Israel since Israel withdraw their troops from Gaza. They fired thousands of rockets (both homemade and imported from Iran) into Israel, is it a wonder that Israel wants to protect its citizens from the war that Hamas is raging?
Hamas does not want peace, Hamas wants the complete destruction of Israel. They do not want any compromise they only want the complete destruction, nothing more nothing less. Everybody who supports Hamas should remember that, their goal is to destroy Israel and every Israeli citizen (be it Jewish, Arab or Christian) with any means needed.
Is it a wonder that Israel wants to ensure that no weapons reach their enemy?
During the last Gaza fight the UN came up with resolution 1860 which asked Israel to leave Gaza which they eventually did. But it also has the following important point:
Israel has the right to have a blockade against Gaza if the blockade is having the goal to prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition.
If Gaza harbour would be open without any control how these “peace activists” a situation would arise in Gaza similar to that of Lebanon, where Iran-Vasall Hisbolla now has about 30 000 to 40 000 rockets with a long range (deep into Israel) and able of delivering more deadly power than ever.
Hamas has clearly shown in the past that any rockets they receive (from Iran for example) will be used against Israel. And as Gaza is nearer to the population centres of Israel this is an extreme danger and would leave Israel with no other option than to re-occupy Gaza if the free flow of weapons into Gaza results in more attacks into their country.
People who are for a total lifting of the blockade will not contribute to a peaceful solution, but in effect contribute to a new active and bloody war in the Middle East that will spin out of control especially with Iran playing a part.
It is important to understand that according to international law and common law between states a blockade is legitimate tool. In fact if you research past incidents you will see that any ship which is clearly communicating that it will breach such a blockage is a military act.
If activists clearly communicate that they are intentional breaching the blockade (and even the Irish activists made this clear as their goal) than Israel has the right to board the ships even in international waters, especially as they have been offered that their goods would be transported to Gaza after inspection in Ashdod.
Those who call the actions of the IDF an act of piracy in my option is not informed enough or are doing this on purpose to steer up the situation further.
This all is not changing the fact that the actions of Israel against the “Mavi Marmara” were totally unprofessional and had a very negative impact on Israel’s Image worldwide.
One cannot for weeks tell the world the valid point that radicals islamists and terrorist are part of the Gaza fleet and then not be prepared when boarding the ships and the radicals are behaving the way one expects from radicals.
This is a major mistake of the military command, they never should have send their soldiers into such a life threatening situation where they were ill equipped and had no other choice than to use live ammunition to defend themselves.
Israel however also has to concede that the blockade does not only have a security but also a punishment part and that is not right.
Sure Israel is letting more goods into Gaza but still there are goods on the list of prohibited items that not even with the greatest stretch can be used for military purposes by Hamas.
That has to change, goods that clearly cannot be used for Hamas military must be allowed through, the blockade needs to do what it is supposed to do, prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition.
Israel needs to work with the international community to agree and implement a way of inspection that fulfils it’s right for security and accomplishes the inspection/delivery of goods in a fast and reliable way.
As long as Hamas is in Gaza (with or without the popular support) there is a need for a blockade and inspection of goods.
Israel however needs to understand the requirements of the civilian population of Gaza better and ensure that goods are reaching them, even if Hamas with their “kill them all” approach and their own internal fighting is the main driver for the desperation in Gaza.
Even now that are more and more facts coming out that terrorist were on board of the “Mavi Marmara” and that they were prepared to attack the IDF including looking to die as "martyr" the critics of Israel still go on about the blockade.
I think it’s important to remember some basic facts about Gaza. The De-Facto-Regime of Hamas is in control of Gaza and in a state of war with Israel with the support of Iran.
The Hamas makes it very clear that they don’t want any peace agreement with Israel but rather the total destruction of the state of Israel and its citizens by any means (including sending children as human bombs).
Hamas (who by the way was elected by the people of Gaza) has intensified it’s aggressions against Israel since Israel withdraw their troops from Gaza. They fired thousands of rockets (both homemade and imported from Iran) into Israel, is it a wonder that Israel wants to protect its citizens from the war that Hamas is raging?
Hamas does not want peace, Hamas wants the complete destruction of Israel. They do not want any compromise they only want the complete destruction, nothing more nothing less. Everybody who supports Hamas should remember that, their goal is to destroy Israel and every Israeli citizen (be it Jewish, Arab or Christian) with any means needed.
Is it a wonder that Israel wants to ensure that no weapons reach their enemy?
During the last Gaza fight the UN came up with resolution 1860 which asked Israel to leave Gaza which they eventually did. But it also has the following important point:
Israel has the right to have a blockade against Gaza if the blockade is having the goal to prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition.
If Gaza harbour would be open without any control how these “peace activists” a situation would arise in Gaza similar to that of Lebanon, where Iran-Vasall Hisbolla now has about 30 000 to 40 000 rockets with a long range (deep into Israel) and able of delivering more deadly power than ever.
Hamas has clearly shown in the past that any rockets they receive (from Iran for example) will be used against Israel. And as Gaza is nearer to the population centres of Israel this is an extreme danger and would leave Israel with no other option than to re-occupy Gaza if the free flow of weapons into Gaza results in more attacks into their country.
People who are for a total lifting of the blockade will not contribute to a peaceful solution, but in effect contribute to a new active and bloody war in the Middle East that will spin out of control especially with Iran playing a part.
It is important to understand that according to international law and common law between states a blockade is legitimate tool. In fact if you research past incidents you will see that any ship which is clearly communicating that it will breach such a blockage is a military act.
If activists clearly communicate that they are intentional breaching the blockade (and even the Irish activists made this clear as their goal) than Israel has the right to board the ships even in international waters, especially as they have been offered that their goods would be transported to Gaza after inspection in Ashdod.
Those who call the actions of the IDF an act of piracy in my option is not informed enough or are doing this on purpose to steer up the situation further.
This all is not changing the fact that the actions of Israel against the “Mavi Marmara” were totally unprofessional and had a very negative impact on Israel’s Image worldwide.
One cannot for weeks tell the world the valid point that radicals islamists and terrorist are part of the Gaza fleet and then not be prepared when boarding the ships and the radicals are behaving the way one expects from radicals.
This is a major mistake of the military command, they never should have send their soldiers into such a life threatening situation where they were ill equipped and had no other choice than to use live ammunition to defend themselves.
Israel however also has to concede that the blockade does not only have a security but also a punishment part and that is not right.
Sure Israel is letting more goods into Gaza but still there are goods on the list of prohibited items that not even with the greatest stretch can be used for military purposes by Hamas.
That has to change, goods that clearly cannot be used for Hamas military must be allowed through, the blockade needs to do what it is supposed to do, prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition.
Israel needs to work with the international community to agree and implement a way of inspection that fulfils it’s right for security and accomplishes the inspection/delivery of goods in a fast and reliable way.
As long as Hamas is in Gaza (with or without the popular support) there is a need for a blockade and inspection of goods.
Israel however needs to understand the requirements of the civilian population of Gaza better and ensure that goods are reaching them, even if Hamas with their “kill them all” approach and their own internal fighting is the main driver for the desperation in Gaza.
While I agree with your post DublinTexas, I think given the entire history here, that we have to take incidents individually. If it turns out that there were "terrorists" on board then let's see the evidence. Not just Israeli reports, let's get all the footage confiscated released. Again, if they suspected terrorists or weapons smuggling, why only go on board with some paint guns and side arms?
As it looks like, despite my own views last week, the San Remo manual does allow for Israel to board and where there is resistance, "attack". I still don't feel that it gives the right to begin shooting people dead, not in the face of being attacked with catapults and sticks.
I agree with the principle that Israel reacts to aggression, if there were no aggression against Israel, there would be peace. I agree that this argument of Israel "overreacting" or being "disproportionate" is too commonly and falsely used by the media. A nation has the right to protect its citizens. It isn't Israel's fault its weapons are better.
But there are questions over the blockade. First, is Israel still the occupying force there? The most important aspect is that if the blockades are legal, they and other action must distinguish between the military targets of the hostile nation and its citizens. Clearly, all the issues with Israel restricting so much aid through it is also targeting citizens.
The main thing that stands in the way of peace in this area is the hard-lined view that you're either one side or the other. That if you have sympathy with Israel, that means you're part of a Zionist/Neo-Con/NWO conspiracy or if you have sympathy for the Palestinian citizens, then you're a terrorist supporting enemy of the free world.
I call bull on all that. I call bull on anyone who pins their colours completely to one side in this conflict. Both sides have too much innocent blood on their hands to be seen in anyway right or morally right. We know all too well the impacts of when innocent blood is spilled for and against. We know all to well that at some point, the political and humanitarian message that sparked the call to arms gets lost and the "cause" gets taken over by murderous, power hungry zealots who have no intention of letting go of their controlling grip.
While we all justify one side's (either/or) actions, no matter how heinous, we just fuel the fundamentalism on both sides in this stupid argument. And what's it over? There's 148 million km2 of land on this planet and all this blood over 392 km2 and which version of a collection of fables, parables and quasi-history you believe. Thankfully, Carl Sagan's reflections on the pale blue dot, put's everything into perspective.
Anyway, yes, Israel has been wronged before. Yes, Palestinians have been wronged before. But does all that really justify the shootings last week? I'm sorry; I just don't think it does.
As it looks like, despite my own views last week, the San Remo manual does allow for Israel to board and where there is resistance, "attack". I still don't feel that it gives the right to begin shooting people dead, not in the face of being attacked with catapults and sticks.
I agree with the principle that Israel reacts to aggression, if there were no aggression against Israel, there would be peace. I agree that this argument of Israel "overreacting" or being "disproportionate" is too commonly and falsely used by the media. A nation has the right to protect its citizens. It isn't Israel's fault its weapons are better.
But there are questions over the blockade. First, is Israel still the occupying force there? The most important aspect is that if the blockades are legal, they and other action must distinguish between the military targets of the hostile nation and its citizens. Clearly, all the issues with Israel restricting so much aid through it is also targeting citizens.
The main thing that stands in the way of peace in this area is the hard-lined view that you're either one side or the other. That if you have sympathy with Israel, that means you're part of a Zionist/Neo-Con/NWO conspiracy or if you have sympathy for the Palestinian citizens, then you're a terrorist supporting enemy of the free world.
I call bull on all that. I call bull on anyone who pins their colours completely to one side in this conflict. Both sides have too much innocent blood on their hands to be seen in anyway right or morally right. We know all too well the impacts of when innocent blood is spilled for and against. We know all to well that at some point, the political and humanitarian message that sparked the call to arms gets lost and the "cause" gets taken over by murderous, power hungry zealots who have no intention of letting go of their controlling grip.
While we all justify one side's (either/or) actions, no matter how heinous, we just fuel the fundamentalism on both sides in this stupid argument. And what's it over? There's 148 million km2 of land on this planet and all this blood over 392 km2 and which version of a collection of fables, parables and quasi-history you believe. Thankfully, Carl Sagan's reflections on the pale blue dot, put's everything into perspective.
Anyway, yes, Israel has been wronged before. Yes, Palestinians have been wronged before. But does all that really justify the shootings last week? I'm sorry; I just don't think it does.
[broken link removed]
It's strange that assaults carried out by Iranian secret service operatives on civilians in Ireland, with Gardai looking on (and in one case getting pushed out of the way), makes such a tiny impact in the media. I would suggest that if the same thing happened when the Israeli Foreign Minister was speaking the hump-clad, sandal-wearing, Guardian reading right-on brigade would have been apoplectic.
Some people are so PC that they will not criticise any country that is not predominantly white just in case they are ever accused of racism or ignoring the colonial legacy. You can be a repressive totalitarian theocratic dictatorship as long as you are not populated by Europeans or their descendants but woe betide any western democracy that steps out of line.
In Ireland we are a little more selective; as long as the a repressive totalitarian theocratic dictatorship is anti American or (even better) anti-Israeli we just love ‘em.
It's strange that assaults carried out by Iranian secret service operatives on civilians in Ireland, with Gardai looking on (and in one case getting pushed out of the way), makes such a tiny impact in the media. I would suggest that if the same thing happened when the Israeli Foreign Minister was speaking the hump-clad, sandal-wearing, Guardian reading right-on brigade would have been apoplectic.
Some people are so PC that they will not criticise any country that is not predominantly white just in case they are ever accused of racism or ignoring the colonial legacy. You can be a repressive totalitarian theocratic dictatorship as long as you are not populated by Europeans or their descendants but woe betide any western democracy that steps out of line.
In Ireland we are a little more selective; as long as the a repressive totalitarian theocratic dictatorship is anti American or (even better) anti-Israeli we just love ‘em.
True, but 14 response as to the 238 here.
There is no doubt, there is a shift to the My Enemy's Enemy in some media sources, it's typical poor journalism. In an attempt to counter the Fox lack of balance, they come up with their own lack of balance at the other extreme. The BBC have become the worst at this as well as some of the UK's liberal leaning media.
As Purple has said earlier, it's actually impossible to find a pure balanced look at this without too much bias. There was the Euston Manifesto which started out reasonable, but again became tainted with too much support in all circumstances for an individual's pre-manifesto bias.
I've many friends who are so aggressively opposed to Israel, they don't care who they support or promote in order to achieve that goal. One friend organised a panel speaking out against Israel. Several of those included where Muslim Clerics who had regular columns in the Guardian, even though I pointed out to my friend that he should check the personal websites of these Clerics where they openly called for the genocide of the Jewish race, he should pay particular attention to the part on their website where they call for the genocide of all homosexuals. I though that might be worth paying attention to consider he himself was gay.
He was prepared to overlook this "slight difference of opinion" in order to run what he felt was a very informative and successful panel. The point being, that when you look at the policies of those very vocal against Israel, the vast majority of those opinions are abhorent to most liberal minded folk, it's just the Israel bit they agree on. I can't square that circle, I can't give up on ideals of equal rights and social justice just because there's a small common ground on who's to blame.
Some of my friends are so supportive of any action on behalf of Israel that you're accused of being a terrorist supporting, homphobic, democracy hating suicide bomber.
Again, the vast majority of US foriegn policy is abhorent to me. I'm not prepared to give total support or credence to them on the basis of one area of occasional agreement.
I find that US foreign policy is far more fair minded and balanced on most issues that EU foreign policy. They are willing to speak out against China in Darfur and against the government in Myanmar (Burma). They give much more to help the fight against AIDS in Africa and are far more proactive in supporting and nurturing good governance in African countries. The fact that their policy in the Middle East is so strongly pro-Israel should not blind people to their lower profile broader policies.
The EU on the other hand doesn’t have a proper foreign policy and turns a blind eye to the disgraceful actions of member states in their former colonies.
The EU on the other hand doesn’t have a proper foreign policy and turns a blind eye to the disgraceful actions of member states in their former colonies.