Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ahtman wrote:
Never gonna happen, just because your view is extreme one way doesn't mean enough other peoples are to actually make it happen. Might want to try and find a way to live with it that is actually plausible.

Give it 15 years. Once the anti-Israeli Jewish lobby outnumbers the pro-Israeli Jewish lobby, as it does amongst Jews under 25, the story will be very different.

In this video you can clearly see the Israelis attacking the ship. The civilians defend themselves with plastic deck chairs among other things.

It looks like they discharge their weapons towards the end of that clip. As a man prepares to attack one of the soldiers the weapon is raised towards his chest and he seems to stumble backwards than falls out of frame. A helicopter insertion into that sort of situation was just painfully stupid, and it's clear that the soldiers were in danger as they started to get thrown around on their lines. The commander in charge of that operation made some horrendous decisions.

Albatross wrote:
What, because nothing ever changes and people who were our friends yesterday never become our enemies tomorrow? Ok... well that hasn't really been borne out by recent events in the Middle East.

Forgive me if I don't have much sympathy for the Israelis, but when you have things like PM Netanyahu attending a celebration of the King David Hotel bombing - well, screw him. I think Zionists reap what they sow.

They do indeed, and they should be reminded that they aren't the 51st state (that's going on as we speak, so bully for the current Pres.), as they have been treated for the last 50 years or so.

However, at the moment, Israel is a strategic asset due to its divisive influence on the Mediterranean seaboard.

I am generally pro-Israel in most situations, but I also recognize that there're really no "good guys" in this situation. I don't think people realize how much this whole conflict is an industry for BOTH sides of the equation. BOTH sides get an influx of money and support every time something like this happens.

I sometimes wonder if it's not all calculated by both sides.

I do have to take issue with the incessant use of the word "illegal." It's just not an effective rhetorical device. People called the 2003 Iraq war "illegal." They call this "illegal." And yet they both happened, and no legal judgement will follow. I'm sure there are international bodies that categorize these things as illegal. But, eventually, you have to realize what's a losing battle, and that repeating yourself is merely trivializing the international bodies involved, and proving that their judgements are, practically speaking, irrelevant.

I do have to take issue with the incessant use of the word "illegal." It's just not an effective rhetorical device. People called the 2003 Iraq war "illegal." They call this "illegal." And yet they both happened, and no legal judgement will follow. I'm sure there are international bodies that categorize these things as illegal. But, eventually, you have to realize what's a losing battle, and that repeating yourself is merely trivializing the international bodies involved, and proving that their judgements are, practically speaking, irrelevant.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if some sort of damning reaction towards israel followed this situation. You're right in that international crime perpetrated by countries is often times not policed by the regulatory bodies, but those same instances are often times still reacted too in ways that strongly rebuff the countries in question. The much increased hostility and isolation Israel will face here specifically because these acts were illegal isn't so different than an international body somehow censuring Israel for it.

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
Never gonna happen, just because your view is extreme one way doesn't mean enough other peoples are to actually make it happen. Might want to try and find a way to live with it that is actually plausible.

Give it 15 years. Once the anti-Israeli Jewish lobby outnumbers the pro-Israeli Jewish lobby, as it does amongst Jews under 25, the story will be very different.

Things may shift to be sure, but that isn't completely dropping one side completely, which is what I was disagreeing with. The US (can't say for the UK) will never just completely abandon Israel.

Albatross wrote:What, because nothing ever changes and people who were our friends yesterday never become our enemies tomorrow?

Of course things can change, but you aren't talking about real change, you are talking about extreme change that isn't practical.

Albatross wrote:I think Zionists reap what they sow.

Oh, that's nice. And here I thought we were talking about Israel and your talking about Zionists, or do you not understand the difference? Which version of Zionist are you using?

Ahtman wrote:

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
Never gonna happen, just because your view is extreme one way doesn't mean enough other peoples are to actually make it happen. Might want to try and find a way to live with it that is actually plausible.

Give it 15 years. Once the anti-Israeli Jewish lobby outnumbers the pro-Israeli Jewish lobby, as it does amongst Jews under 25, the story will be very different.

Things may shift to be sure, but that isn't completely dropping one side completely, which is what I was disagreeing with. The US (can't say for the UK) will never just completely abandon Israel.

That depends on Israels actions in the future. I can see plenty of situations in which it is rebuffed entirely by the US.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
Never gonna happen, just because your view is extreme one way doesn't mean enough other peoples are to actually make it happen. Might want to try and find a way to live with it that is actually plausible.

Give it 15 years. Once the anti-Israeli Jewish lobby outnumbers the pro-Israeli Jewish lobby, as it does amongst Jews under 25, the story will be very different.

Things may shift to be sure, but that isn't completely dropping one side completely, which is what I was disagreeing with. The US (can't say for the UK) will never just completely abandon Israel.

That depends on Israels actions in the future. I can see plenty of situations in which it is rebuffed entirely by the US.

We haven't been talking about theoretical, but what is happening. Either one could in theory do something to get cut off, but that isn't what we are dealing with right now. I'm referring to the actual political climate, not what it might be if one were to maybe do something. There are actions the UK could take to get cut off completely, but that isn't how things are at the moment.

Ahtman wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
Never gonna happen, just because your view is extreme one way doesn't mean enough other peoples are to actually make it happen. Might want to try and find a way to live with it that is actually plausible.

Give it 15 years. Once the anti-Israeli Jewish lobby outnumbers the pro-Israeli Jewish lobby, as it does amongst Jews under 25, the story will be very different.

Things may shift to be sure, but that isn't completely dropping one side completely, which is what I was disagreeing with. The US (can't say for the UK) will never just completely abandon Israel.

That depends on Israels actions in the future. I can see plenty of situations in which it is rebuffed entirely by the US.

We haven't been talking about theoretical, but what is happening. Either one could in theory do something to get cut off, but that isn't what we are dealing with right now. I'm referring to the actual political climate, not what it might be if one were to maybe do something. There are actions the UK could take to get cut off completely, but that isn't how things are at the moment.

The US (can't say for the UK) will never just completely abandon Israel.

You sound like you're talking in absolutes concerning the future, but I'm probably taking your words too literally.

Phryxis wrote:
I do have to take issue with the incessant use of the word "illegal." It's just not an effective rhetorical device. People called the 2003 Iraq war "illegal." They call this "illegal." And yet they both happened, and no legal judgement will follow. I'm sure there are international bodies that categorize these things as illegal. But, eventually, you have to realize what's a losing battle, and that repeating yourself is merely trivializing the international bodies involved, and proving that their judgements are, practically speaking, irrelevant.

This is different, an attack on ships in international waters is a violation of state sovereignty without legitimate cause. The Iraq War wasn't illegal, as legitimate cause was established via the various resolutions against certain activity on the part of that state.

Just to put my input on the situation:

Israel told them not do go.
They went anyway.

It's the fault of the Blockade runners entirely.

As stated before in the thread, if a guy comes at a cop with a knife and the cop shoots him, who is to blame? Is the blame any different if the guy coming at the cop decides that he doesn't recognize the cops governments legitimacy (and there are tons of these, especially in Texas)?

Israel could have easily just torpedoed the whole lot, instead it asked for them to go through the proper channels.

They didn't, and as such they forced the Israeli hand.

Ahtman wrote:
Things may shift to be sure, but that isn't completely dropping one side completely, which is what I was disagreeing with. The US (can't say for the UK) will never just completely abandon Israel.

I'm not sure of that. But then I'm one of the people who consistently makes the point that Israel can be completely abandoned. Combine that sentiment, which isn't unique among young FP professionals, with the isolationist wind blowing through the States and you have a recipe for severing financial aid ties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:
They didn't, and as such they forced the Israeli hand.

They didn't actually run the blockade, or breach the Israeli cordon. That's the issue here.

Gwar! wrote:Just to put my input on the situation:

Israel told them not do go.
They went anyway.

It's the fault of the Blockade runners entirely.

As stated before in the thread, if a guy comes at a cop with a knife and the cop shoots him, who is to blame? Is the blame any different if the guy coming at the cop decides that he doesn't recognize the cops governments legitimacy (and there are tons of these, especially in Texas)?

Israel could have easily just torpedoed the whole lot, instead it asked for them to go through the proper channels.

They didn't, and as such they forced the Israeli hand.

They didn't run the blockade.

:edit:

Dogma beat me.

dogma wrote:They didn't actually run the blockade, or breach the Israeli cordon. That's the issue here.

No, but they were en route to, and had stated MULTIPLE times very publicly that they were.

If someone announced on the news they were going to shoot up a Police HQ, or a Mall, or a School, or anything in face, would the Police wait for them to do it, then take action after they shoot people, or take action preemptively?

Gwar! wrote:

dogma wrote:They didn't actually run the blockade, or breach the Israeli cordon. That's the issue here.

No, but they were en route to, and had stated MULTIPLE times very publicly that they were.

If someone announced on the news they were going to shoot up a Police HQ, would you wait for them to do it, then take action, or take action preemptively?

Well when the police HQ is a country and the parking lot in front of it is an ocean you control you wait until they get into the parking lot ocean before you raid ships full of aidworkers. You don't derail their car in a highspeed chase halfway there.

Thats a really bad analogy Gwar and I think you know that.

The weapon you can see being discharged towards the end of that clip- looks just like a paint ball gun. And it likely is- and probably filled with pepper balls. The IDF commonly uses them during riot control.

If theyre deploying non lethal weapons upon insertion while they entry team is getting beat on with metal pipes- its showing they didnt go into this looking for blood.

They could have easily cleared the deck with some automatic weapons fire or a grenade before fast roping to the deck. Instead they drop in and go non-lethal. Basic military tactics is you hit them hardest upon entry so they dont have time to rally. If they went in planning to kill people they would have done a much better job of that.

Regardless of the politics involved- they didnt drop in and start shooting sleeping aid workers like the initial articles are claiming.

Mistress of minis wrote:The weapon you can see being discharged towards the end of that clip- looks just like a paint ball gun. And it likely is- and probably filled with pepper balls. The IDF commonly uses them during riot control.

If theyre deploying non lethal weapons upon insertion while they entry team is getting beat on with metal pipes- its showing they didnt go into this looking for blood.

They could have easily cleared the deck with some automatic weapons fire or a grenade before fast roping to the deck. Instead they drop in and go non-lethal. Basic military tactics is you hit them hardest upon entry so they dont have time to rally. If they went in planning to kill people they would have done a much better job of that.

Regardless of the politics involved- they didnt drop in and start shooting sleeping aid workers like the initial articles are claiming.

The OPs article was pretty well biased against the Israeli side. I linked to a BBC article a few pages back, they have a pretty even writeup about the situation.

Gwar! wrote:No, but they were en route to, and had stated MULTIPLE times very publicly that they were.

If someone announced on the news they were going to shoot up a Police HQ, or a Mall, or a School, or anything in face, would the Police wait for them to do it, then take action after they shoot people, or take action preemptively?

The police would have jurisdiction in that case. This is a different issue because of the agreed conventions of international law. This was an act of war against Sweden, by strict interpretation.

Did the Israelis identify themselves? Perhaps the aid workers thought they were being attacked by Somali pirates. If I was cruising around on my boat and some piece of @#^& rappelled on to the deck I'd certainly try to defend myself.

The similarities between Israel and the Apartheid regime are striking.

olympia wrote:Did the Israelis identify themselves? Perhaps the aid workers thought they were being attacked by Somali pirates. If I was cruising around on my boat and some piece of @#^& rappelled on to the deck I'd certainly try to defend myself.

The similarities between Israel and the Apartheid regime are striking.

I don't think I've ever heard of somali pirates chopper rappelling onto the deck of a ship.

dogma wrote:Israel can be completely abandoned

Every moment is filled with unmanifested potential; anything can happen. That doesn't mean it is very likely at the moment. The US could fire nukes into Mexico, we certainly have nuclear weapons with the range so can do it. It just isn't likely at the moment under the current conditions, just as completely abandoning Israel is also unlikely.

I am not following the logic of this being a 'preemptive' action. The line was at point B, the boat was at point A...

I have not heard anything about this transport being an attack vessel, with the capability to open fire with anything besides rocks... As in the boat was not a threat, and Israel stepped out of their bounds, and committed what seems to be an act of piracy.

Ahtman wrote:

dogma wrote:Israel can be completely abandoned

Every moment is filled with unmanifested potential; anything can happen. That doesn't mean it is very likely at the moment. The US could fire nukes into Mexico, we certainly have nuclear weapons with the range so can do it. It just isn't likely at the moment under the current conditions, just as completely abandoning Israel is also unlikely.

By the tone of your earlier posts you were speaking to a rather certain future of continued support for Israel, and not the immediate fallout of this event. I think that is where people are hung up on this.

olympia wrote:In this video you can clearly see the Israelis attacking the ship. The civilians defend themselves with plastic deck chairs among other things.

My word, and this was supposed to make me angry with the Israeli soldiers?!

I have fast roped onto a deck before, if i was jumping out the helo into THAT mess, id be very nervous.

And id start blowing peoples faces off as soon as my first buddy got assaulted and thrown overboard.

They outnumbered them on the deck by what? Ten to One?

Id have started shooting. Damn straight i would.

Ahtman wrote:
Every moment is filled with unmanifested potential; anything can happen. That doesn't mean it is very likely at the moment. The US could fire nukes into Mexico, we certainly have nuclear weapons with the range so can do it. It just isn't likely at the moment under the current conditions, just as completely abandoning Israel is also unlikely.

Likelihood is governed by individual, or institutional, belief. If people believe that Israel is indispensable with respect to US security, then it is. Stating that it can be cut loose is simply an acknowledgment of that possibility.

I think we're on the same page here, but for a divergence of perspective.

mattyrm wrote:

olympia wrote:In this video you can clearly see the Israelis attacking the ship. The civilians defend themselves with plastic deck chairs among other things.

My word, and this was supposed to make me angry with the Israeli soldiers?!

I have fast roped onto a deck before, if i was jumping out the helo into THAT mess, id be very nervous.

And id start blowing peoples faces off as soon as my first buddy got assaulted and thrown overboard.

They outnumbered them on the deck by what? Ten to One?

Id have started shooting. Damn straight i would.

If I were you I would wonder what the hell my commander is thinking having us rope down into a hostile civilian environment in international waters when we have ships and control the surrounding ocean areas. The entire operation wasn't necessary and speaks to some incredibly poor decision making on the part of the commander on the ground (who apparently wasn't authorized to act in this fashion). Its not a particular surprise the troops acted in the way that they did given the actions of the civilians, but bear in mind the troops shouldn't have been there at all to begin with. Both sides show certain fault here.

mattyrm wrote:My word, and this was supposed to make me angry with the Israeli soldiers?!

I have fast roped onto a deck before, if i was jumping out the helo into THAT mess, id be very nervous.

And id start blowing peoples faces off as soon as my first buddy got assaulted and thrown overboard.

They outnumbered them on the deck by what? Ten to One?

Id have started shooting. Damn straight i would.

Which is likely the worst thing about all of this... the people that put those soldiers there, either had no idea how many people were on deck... OR were trying to drum up positive PR for Israeli forces.

Dropping 2 soldiers at a time, onto a deck filled with dozens of club wielding passengers, absolutely reeks of stupidity, or an attempt to have 'positive' media coverage.

The much increased hostility and isolation Israel will face here specifically because these acts were illegal isn't so different than an international body somehow censuring Israel for it.

So, hold on... Is conducting air raids on neighboring countries "legal?" Cause I'm guessing it's not.

Israel does "illegal" stuff all the time. Conversely, rocket attacks are made against Israel. Also "illegal" by some irrelevant standard, and yet still going on.

Yelling that it's "illegal" only serves to demonstrate how ill prepared the "law" is to deal with the actual situations it's supposed to cover. If your code of laws is completely out of sync with the reality on the ground, and has absolutely no capacity to enforce itself, then what good is it, and why are we even talking about it?

Here, watch:

International Internet Regulatory Body Bill 001-01 of 31.5.2010

WHEREAS disagreeing with Phryxis is an invalid and pointless pursuit to be avoided at all costs,
WHEREAS excessively large, picture laden signatures are both wasteful of screen real estate, and not at all funny, and also to be avoided at all costs
NOW, THEREFORE do what I just said.

Let me ask you, World Citizen ShumaGorath, why are you an international criminal? FOR SHAME, sir and/or madam! FOR SHAME!

The much increased hostility and isolation Israel will face here specifically because these acts were illegal isn't so different than an international body somehow censuring Israel for it.

Did I just quote the same thing twice? Yes I did. Why? Because thats how many things are wrong with it.

You're suggesting that Israel will face "much increased hostility." For shooting ten people on a boat. Remember the time they invaded Lebanon? Remember the ten thousand other, bigger things they did in the past?

But THIS one is going to change the situation. This is the BIGGY.

I can see plenty of situations in which it is rebuffed entirely by the US.

I hope you realize how incredibly unlikely that is. As has been said, even considering the possibility is somewhat fantastical.

Right or wrong, Israel is in VERY deep with the US, they have a very powerful, very aggressive lobby, and in general all of this is a-ok with the American populace. It'd take a LONG period of negative interaction before they'd be "rebuffed entirely." It'd certainly take a lot more than the petulant frowny face act the Obama administration is putting on.

The Iraq War wasn't illegal

And yet, I've heard it referred to as an "illegal war" countless times. I agree with you, it wasn't "illegal" in any real way, but people call it that regardless.

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
Every moment is filled with unmanifested potential; anything can happen. That doesn't mean it is very likely at the moment. The US could fire nukes into Mexico, we certainly have nuclear weapons with the range so can do it. It just isn't likely at the moment under the current conditions, just as completely abandoning Israel is also unlikely.

Likelihood is governed by individual, or institutional, belief. If people believe that Israel is indispensable with respect to US security, then it is.

So now you know why we won't completely drop Israel. Just look at this thread, generally, there will be enough support that it won't be dropped. The resolution isn't going to be to either side 100% with Israel or 100% with Palestine.

Did the Israelis identify themselves? Perhaps the aid workers thought they were being attacked by Somali pirates.

I'm hoping this is a joke.