Israel getting in deep shit each passing day

[somnia]

People, the way they react to the soldiers has nothing to do with them being peace activists or not, ffs. It's irrelevant.

[Belgarion]

NORMAN PAECH, GERMANY

"Moments later, we heard detonations and then soldiers from helicopters above us dropped down on board. The soldiers were all masked, carrying big guns and were extremely brutal."

DIMITRIS GIELALIS, GREECE

Activist Dimitris Gielalis, who had been aboard the Sfendoni, was among six Greeks who returned home on Tuesday.

"Suddenly from everywhere we saw inflatables coming at us, and within seconds fully equipped commandos came up on the boat. They came up and used plastic bullets, we had beatings, we had electric shocks, any method we can think of, they used."

Mr Gielalis said the boat's captain was beaten for refusing to leave the wheel, and had sustained non-life-threatening injuries, while a cameraman filming the raid was hit with a rifle butt in the eye.

ARIS PAPADOKOSTOPOULOS, GREECE

Aris Papadokostopoulos was aboard the Free Mediterranean, travelling behind the Mavi Marmara and carrying mainly Greek and Swedish activists.

"The Turkish ship [the Mavi Marmara] was in front of us... on which there was a terrible raid from the air and from the sea and from everywhere, with shooting," he said.

Mr Papadokostopoulos said aboard the other boats, commandos beat activists but nobody was gravely injured.

He said no-one put up resistance on the Free Mediterranean, which was carrying a cargo of wheelchairs, building material and medical and pharmaceutical aid.

"Some people were hit by clubs and electric shocks. During their interrogation, many of them were badly beaten in front of us," he said.

KEVIN OVENDEN, BRITAIN

Kevin Ovenden of Britain said a man who had pointed a camera at the soldiers was shot directly through the forehead with live ammunition, with the exit wound blowing away the back of his skull.

NORAZMA ABDULLAH, MALAYSIA

"They fired with some rubber bullets but after some time they used live ammunition. Five were dead on the spot and after that we surrendered."

ABDUL RAHMAN FAILAKAWEE, KUWAIT

"The attack was totally barbaric," he said by telephone from a bus taking the freed activists to Amman. "They used legitimate and maybe illegitimate weapons: rubber bullets, live ammunition, sound bombs and tear gas bombs. They also used batons as they landed to beat those on board to control the ship."


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6512XE20100602
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6520ET20100603

[No‘am]

You forgot that Brazilian woman that said that the soldiers shot people in the head with live fire from point blank range the moment they dropped from the helicopters, plus our Arab MP that was on Mavi Marmara that said that nobody carried any wooden or metal clubs/poles/weapons and nobody beat the soldiers at any point.

[Belgarion]

I'm just quoting, as you all do. It's up to people whom to believe.

[Joost]

Mr Papadokostopoulos said aboard the other boats, commandos beat activists but nobody was gravely injured.

I'm interested in the reports from the people on the other ships.

[Daijin]

You forgot that Brazilian woman that said that the soldiers shot people in the head with live fire from point blank range the moment they dropped from the helicopters,

That's interesting considering that a female German MP from the leftist party said that all women were locked into a room in the belly of the ship where they couldn't even hear anything happening from the battle three decks above them. But then, this Brazilian woman might have some kind of mythical insights or remote perception.

[The Rider Of Rohan]

...Or a huge imagination and a talent for propaganda.

[The Rider Of Rohan]

I have done some reading into who these people are, especially since earlier on in this topic they were depicted as a collection of nobel-prize-winners and diplomats (or words to that extend).

The provocation wad orchestrated and conducted by Free Gaza Movement, which is a collaboration of numerous extremist groups including the International Solidarity Movement and the Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH). The FGZ itself is not known for huge controversies itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Gaza_Movement

International Solidarity Movement

- Includes a member with ties to terrorist organisations who is considered a Islamic Jihad terrorist by Israel

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/113302_shield20.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... y_Movement

International Solidarity Movement and the Humanitarian Relief Foundation

- Ties with Al-Qaida
- Ties with Hamas
- Ties with the Global Jihad
- Weapons and explosives found during previous police raids

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_ ... s_e105.htm

Make out of it what you want.

[Belgarion]

GUNSHOTS AT CLOSE RANGE

Autopsy results on the nine dead Turkish activists from Monday's raid showed they had been shot a total of 30 times, many at close range, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Saturday. Five were killed by gunshots to the head, it said.

Turkish-American activist Fulkan Dogan was shot five times from less than 45 cm (18 inches) away, in the face, the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back, the paper said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65005R20100605

I guess the IDF soldiers have mistaken him for a zombie.

[spamel]

GUNSHOTS AT CLOSE RANGE

Autopsy results on the nine dead Turkish activists from Monday's raid showed they had been shot a total of 30 times, many at close range, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Saturday. Five were killed by gunshots to the head, it said.

Turkish-American activist Fulkan Dogan was shot five times from less than 45 cm (18 inches) away, in the face, the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back, the paper said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65005R20100605

I guess the IDF soldiers have mistaken him for a zombie.

lol! Indeed, pesky zombies!

I hope they learnt from their mistakes and don't send in a nuclear missile or two for the next ship going in! Overkill is a dish best served in international waters!

[Daijin]

GUNSHOTS AT CLOSE RANGE

Autopsy results on the nine dead Turkish activists from Monday's raid showed they had been shot a total of 30 times, many at close range

Doesn't that actually strengthen the account of the soldiers? You know, getting lynched by an angry mob and such? Clear single sniper shots from far away wouln'd really fit into that picture.

[Led Guardian]

There must be a reason most of the world is condemning the actions of Israel, I don't buy into the fact that there is a world wide conspiracy to make the Israelis feel bad!

I'd just like to note that saying that there must be a [good] reason for the worldwide condemnation isn't a valid argument. It's akin to saying that there must have been a reason that medieval doctors bled patients. They did it, therefore it was sensible and justifiable. They may have a valid reason for condemning Israel, but to say that they had one simply because they performed the action doesn't make sense.

[spamel]

There must be a reason most of the world is condemning the actions of Israel, I don't buy into the fact that there is a world wide conspiracy to make the Israelis feel bad!

I'd just like to note that saying that there must be a [good] reason for the worldwide condemnation isn't a valid argument. It's akin to saying that there must have been a reason that medieval doctors bled patients. They did it, therefore it was sensible and justifiable. They may have a valid reason for condemning Israel, but to say that they had one simply because they performed the action doesn't make sense.

What?! I think it is quite obvious that the international community condemned the action for a number of reasons:

1. Boarding a ship in international waters, going against the UN Law of the Sea Convention
2. Totally disproportionate use of firearms, a supposed necessity to quell the mob of the ship they were illegally boarding

I don't think it has anything to do with medieval medicine! I think you were being pedantic on my use of the word must so I'll change it to there is a reason the world thinks Israel acted like a bunch of dicks! Funnily enough, they stopped the second ship within their own seas and did it correctly and nothing untoward occurred. It took 9 lives to figure it out though...

[Led Guardian]

There must be a reason most of the world is condemning the actions of Israel, I don't buy into the fact that there is a world wide conspiracy to make the Israelis feel bad!

I'd just like to note that saying that there must be a [good] reason for the worldwide condemnation isn't a valid argument. It's akin to saying that there must have been a reason that medieval doctors bled patients. They did it, therefore it was sensible and justifiable. They may have a valid reason for condemning Israel, but to say that they had one simply because they performed the action doesn't make sense.

What?! I think it is quite obvious that the international community condemned the action for a number of reasons:

1. Boarding a ship in international waters, going against the UN Law of the Sea Convention
2. Totally disproportionate use of firearms, a supposed necessity to quell the mob of the ship they were illegally boarding

I don't think it has anything to do with medieval medicine! I think you were being pedantic on my use of the word must so I'll change it to there is a reason the world thinks Israel acted like a bunch of dicks! Funnily enough, they stopped the second ship within their own seas and did it correctly and nothing untoward occurred. It took 9 lives to figure it out though...

Of course I was being pedantic. It's important to state points clearly in an argument. And the medieval medicine bit was an analogy. I was making the point that just because someone does something does not mean it is done for a correct reason; which, as you guessed, is what your use of the word "must" implied. Your argument is now stated much more clearly.

[spamel]

Of course I was being pedantic. It's important to state points clearly in an argument. And the medieval medicine bit was an analogy. I was making the point that just because someone does something does not mean it is done for a correct reason; which, as you guessed, is what your use of the word "must" implied. Your argument is now stated much more clearly.

Yeah, nice one! Can you teach me what a noun is next please?

[Daijin]

1. Boarding a ship in international waters, going against the UN Law of the Sea Convention

That's simply not true. If the clear aim of a vessel is to break through a blockade the blockading country is allowed to search and even attack the ship outside its own waters.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-ders ... 96285.html

[spamel]

1. Boarding a ship in international waters, going against the UN Law of the Sea Convention

That's simply not true. If the clear aim of a vessel is to break through a blockade the blockading country is allowed to search and even attack the ship outside its own waters.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-ders ... 96285.html

Haha! And you don't think, as a jew himself, Alan Dershowitz' view might be slightly biased? Give me a break! Look up the UN Law of the Sea convention for yourself and I think you'll find they blatantly did go against it, they broke international law, and don't take the word of somebody who so obviously sympathises with Israels' plight!

[Daijin]

So, because he's a Jew he simply invents new facts and laws? Interesting.

Some more people arguing in support of the lawfulness of Israels actions, but behold, they too have suspiciously Jewish names:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/75249 ... SlTG0XObHo

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... mainpromo1

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/02/1 ... ction.html

Here an excerpt from the very Jewish sounding Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality:

"5.1.2 (3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion.

5.2.1 As an exception to Principle 5.1.2. paragraph 1 and in accordance with Principle 1.3 (2nd sentence), belligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.

5.2.10 Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked."

[t.a.j.]

lawful =/= good

And accordingly, critics should accept the lawfulness of Israeli actions, but instead point at their ethic failings.

[No‘am]

2. Totally disproportionate use of firearms, a supposed necessity to quell the mob of the ship they were illegally boarding

Someone saying that there was dispropotionate use of firearms, especially if it's said for political reasons while not knowing or disregarding the facts, doesn't make it true either.

[Daijin]

lawful =/= good

And accordingly, critics should accept the lawfulness of Israeli actions, but instead point at their ethic failings.

That's funny because when people here realized that ethical criticism didn't work too well considering the facts they came with the legal argument. That's doesn't work as well, so back to the "ethic failings".

Oh darn, we've got to find something to blame them for. After all, it's Israel!

[spamel]

"5.1.2 (3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion.

5.2.1 As an exception to Principle 5.1.2. paragraph 1 and in accordance with Principle 1.3 (2nd sentence), belligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.

5.2.10 Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked."

I keeps saying there "if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade," and yet they were nowhere near their waters so they should have waited for the ship to approach their waters. An Israeli minister stated on the BBC that they had no suspicion of them carrying arms or contraband, so how can it be justified?

[t.a.j.]

lawful =/= good

And accordingly, critics should accept the lawfulness of Israeli actions, but instead point at their ethic failings.

That's funny because when people here realized that ethical criticism didn't work too well considering the facts they came with the legal argument. That's doesn't work as well, so back to the "ethic failings".

Oh darn, we've got to find something to blame them for. After all, it's Israel!

First off, I said that you were right regarding the legal situation. Secondly, I was advising those who would wish to criticize those recent Isreali actions to do so on an ethical rather than on a legal basis. I have not followed the prior discussions and honestly don't care much. A bunch of civilians died and that's a tragedy. Whether or not the soldiers and their officers behaved in understandable or even justified was given the situation they were in is of little consequence to me. Most soldiers are when they commit their monstrous deeds. They are under command, under duress, under threat, under attack, at war,....
If anything needs to be talked about, it is why there is a situation in which people do such deeds.

War, it seems, reduces all those who wage it to barbarism and evil. Fighting the Nazis was a good reason to get into a war and we may assume that fighting that evil was a motivation for it, but in the end, the US ended up massacring civilians on a grand scale, with Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki being just the most famous of the bunch. I don't know enough about the details of the development of the whole conflict to point fingers and blame. And that is not the point. The point is to end it.

And it seems that for a long long time now, Israeli military and government have tried to force the Palestinian resistors into submission, often enough by applying what force the had available against the Palestinian people. Far as I can tell, that kind of shock and scare tactics did nothing but create anger and resentment. The armed resistors on the other hand have tried similar tactics with what little force they had available.

So it seems to me that the only difference between the Palestinian resistors and the Israeli government and military is that the later is far more powerful. And that is the reason than that I hold blame against them. They seem to be in a position, where they could give up without losing too much. They could allow a sovereign Palestinian state and still allow a reasonable save and free life for the Israelis. And the Palestinian resistors cannot do that. Giving up would mean giving up any chance of living save and free from persecution and racism.

At least, that is how things seem to me.

And any defense of Israeli politics needs to justify not a single event, but the policy that leads to such events. It needs to argue that either Israeli government and military cannot act in such a way as to stop the conflict or else, why acting in such a way would be worse for Israeli and Palestinians than keeping up the conflict is for Palestinians and Israelis.

[Daijin]

I keeps saying there "if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade," and yet they were nowhere near their waters so they should have waited for the ship to approach their waters. An Israeli minister stated on the BBC that they had no suspicion of them carrying arms or contraband, so how can it be justified?

One of the organizers publically stated breaking the blockade was the purpose of the whole operation. The events leading to the boarding show clearly that the operation was meant to breach the blockade. If they in the end found weapons or not isn't of any importance (they did find illegal material, by the way).

As for t.a.j, I don't even know where to start and I don't have the time to begin with a lengthy discussion about the history of the middle east conflict. I just wonder why people feel such an urge do express their opinion on this specific topic (opposed to so many other conflicts and topics) even though their opinion is fueled only by a vague sense of right and wrong, strong and weak but not clouded by knowledge.

[Belgarion]

I don't care about the legality of the action. I still believe that it was disproportional usage of force, and a failure of IDF's brainless interception strategy.

[Belgarion]

That's funny because when people here realized that ethical criticism didn't work too well considering the facts they came with the legal argument. That's doesn't work as well, so back to the "ethic failings".

Oh darn, we've got to find something to blame them for. After all, it's Israel!

Discussing the legality of this action is somewhat important, though, since if it's illegal, you could say that the passengers had every right to defend themselves against some raiding force in international waters. Don't you agree?

[Andreas]

In that case, the IDF had every right to shoot the shit out of those guys after they attacked the IDF soldiers.

[t.a.j.]

As for t.a.j, I don't even know where to start and I don't have the time to begin with a lengthy discussion about the history of the middle east conflict. I just wonder why people feel such an urge do express their opinion on this specific topic (opposed to so many other conflicts and topics) even though their opinion is fueled only by a vague sense of right and wrong, strong and weak but not clouded by knowledge.

Several reasons. For one thing, this conflict is highly publicized. Secondly, anything regarding Jews is always very sensitive and will attract attention, centuries of anti-semitism and the development of Jewish identities and culture during the diaspora will give you that.

As for the other attack: I have never claimed great knowledge of the conflict. I have said what seems to me to be the case, given what information I have.
That is really just this: The conflict lasts very long. One side has an army, with air force, navy, nukes and special forces. The other side has rebel insurgents and suicide bombers.
From this I conclude merely that whatever strategy either side has employed has not been working very well and that one side is much more (militarily) powerful than the other side.
You are more than welcome to enlighten me, or to point me at sources where I can deepen my knowledge. Until then, I do not claim to know it all, and all my judgments remain, as ever, conditional on the truth of my beliefs.

I also fail to see what is wrong about a sense of right and wrong, which is concrete enough to consider both the violent death of human beings as well as becoming killers a bad thing. War is a tragedy not only for the innocents who die, but also for the soldiers who kill them. It is ever the profiteers, never seen upon the fields of carnage, who bear the blame for it. I'd call that many things, but not vague.

[spamel]

I keeps saying there "if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade," and yet they were nowhere near their waters so they should have waited for the ship to approach their waters. An Israeli minister stated on the BBC that they had no suspicion of them carrying arms or contraband, so how can it be justified?

One of the organizers publically stated breaking the blockade was the purpose of the whole operation. The events leading to the boarding show clearly that the operation was meant to breach the blockade. If they in the end found weapons or not isn't of any importance (they did find illegal material, by the way).

As for t.a.j, I don't even know where to start and I don't have the time to begin with a lengthy discussion about the history of the middle east conflict. I just wonder why people feel such an urge do express their opinion on this specific topic (opposed to so many other conflicts and topics) even though their opinion is fueled only by a vague sense of right and wrong, strong and weak but not clouded by knowledge.

Maybe breaching the blockade was their intention, it is quite obvious that was what they were going to do. It states "breaching", not "going to breach a blockade soon"! So again, I say their actions were not justified at that time. If they had waited until they were in their waters, then they would have been, and there wouldn't have been the uproar that their has been. I think it is quite simple, arguing the case for Israel just seems plain dumb to me. The second takeover of a ship heading for the blockade has not been met with such revulsion, because they did it correctly.

[spamel]

In that case, the IDF had every right to shoot the shit out of those guys after they attacked the IDF soldiers.

No, because they instigated the whole thing. If they were accosted after legally boarding their ship then it would be a different matter altogether. The fact remains, if they hadn't boarded the ship then they wouldn't have been set upon.

[Daijin]

If they had waited until they were in their waters, then they would have been, and there wouldn't have been the uproar that their has been.

Do you really believe that? Sorry, but that seems to me quite a naive assumption to make given the history of the reactions to any of Israel's "controversial" actions during the last 25 years.

The second takeover of a ship heading for the blockade has not been met with such revulsion, because they did it correctly.

Same unit, same tactics. Don't you think the difference in the outcome might be somehow connected to the behaviour of the people on board the ships? Just an idea.

[spamel]

If they had waited until they were in their waters, then they would have been, and there wouldn't have been the uproar that their has been.

Do you really believe that? Sorry, but that seems to me quite a naive assumption to make given the history of the reactions to any of Israel's "controversial" actions during the last 25 years.

The second takeover of a ship heading for the blockade has not been met with such revulsion, because they did it correctly.

Same unit, same tactics. Don't you think the difference in the outcome might be somehow connected to the behaviour of the people on board the ships? Just an idea.

It wasn't the same though, they didn't carry it out in international waters. HELLLLOOOOOO? IS ANYBODY LISTENING?

Regardless of what happened AFTER they boarded, the fact that they boarded the first ship in international waters without any reason to suspect there was any contraband on board (As stated by an Israeli minister on the BBC) and outside of their own waters so they were not at that time breaking a blockade then they have broken international law. It's quite simple to understand.

[The Rider Of Rohan]

I think that the contradiction of contraband is justified by definition, when an organisation tied to terrorism in multiple ways sails a ship through a widely-known blokkade. Especially if you know that last week it turned out that another shipped carried armed activists who injured several military men who were just doing their job.

[spamel]

I think that the contradiction of contraband is justified by definition, when an organisation tied to terrorism in multiple ways sails a ship through a widely-known blokkade. Especially if you know that last week it turned out that another shipped carried armed activists who injured several military men who were just doing their job.

When you say armed activists, you mean simple folk wanting to bring the unfair treatment of a people to the worlds' eyes and they just so happened to lay their hands on some sticks to defend themselves against armed thugs illegally boarding their ship!

[The Rider Of Rohan]

That's not what I meant. What I wrote is what I meant. And see... I didn't even need an explanation-mark to make my point.

Face it. Two weeks have passed, a lot of facts have surfaced and it is pretty clear that Israel did nothing wrong and people who were on that boat were to blame for the full hundred percent. So please find a way to deal with reality and move on.

[spamel]

That's your opinion, time will show that it is the wrong one.

[The Rider Of Rohan]

I doubt it. When this thread started a lot of countries instantly condemned Israel for the actions. Then, as the facts became clear, countries weakened their opinions. If Israel was truly wrong the world would have demanded nato-interference. Instead, countries agreed that it is up to Israel to start their own research into what happened. That says a lot.

Unbelievable in retrospect that the USA was the only country who reacted wisely to what happened two weeks ago.

[spamel]

The US and Israel are best buddies, they were bound to keep quiet about it all. NATO wouldn't get involved on something like that, UN at best. They'd never send in Troops though, they'll just waffle on about it at UN meetings. It is pathetic really.

[The Rider Of Rohan]

Buddies or not, more countries could and should follow America's example in relation to Israel.

[spamel]

Buddies or not, more countries could and should follow America's example in relation to Israel.

I was surprised, as America are usually the first to jump in. I think if it had been any other country but Israel, they probably would have too!

[Daijin]

Several reasons. For one thing, this conflict is highly publicized. Secondly, anything regarding Jews is always very sensitive and will attract attention, centuries of anti-semitism and the development of Jewish identities and culture during the diaspora will give you that.

So, the history of Jewish suffering and anti-semitism justifies double standards when judging Israel?

That is really just this: The conflict lasts very long. One side has an army, with air force, navy, nukes and special forces. The other side has rebel insurgents and suicide bombers.

And this limited knowledge allows you to deliver moral judgement? How about not voicing an opinion?

From this I conclude merely that whatever strategy either side has employed has not been working very well and that one side is much more (militarily) powerful than the other side.

Meaning that military superiority binds to making concessions? This lets some historical conflicts appear in a totally different light - the American Civil War for example.

You are more than welcome to enlighten me, or to point me at sources where I can deepen my knowledge.

What do you expect me to do? To lecture about the history of the conflict? I could give you a list of literature if you're interested.

I also fail to see what is wrong about a sense of right and wrong, which is concrete enough to consider both the violent death of human beings as well as becoming killers a bad thing.

It's a problem when it is limited to the simple equasion of "weak" = good or at least to be supported and "strong" = bad.

During the history of this conflict Israel has made concession time and again, withtrawing from occupied territories, sticking to the idea of land for peace, acknowledging terror organizations as partners in negotiations. Simply putting preasure on the strong party in this conflict doesn't lead anywhere, at least if the aim is not to put an end to the "Zionist entity" in the Middle East.

[Joost]

During the history of this conflict Israel has made concession time and again, withtrawing from occupied territories, sticking to the idea of land for peace, acknowledging terror organizations as partners in negotiations. Simply putting preasure on the strong party in this conflict doesn't lead anywhere, at least if the aim is not to put an end to the "Zionist entity" in the Middle East.

Yet Israel still occupies an area stretching beyond its officially recognized borders. Ultimately this is illegal according to international law (and, as a result, it can easily be argued that the current blockade of Gaza is illegal too).

[The Rider Of Rohan]

It might be illegal, but so is the terrorism and the Jihad. The thing with suicide-bombers is that it is hard to protect a country from them, and extreme conditions make for extreme measures. Obviously it would be infinitely better if there was no foreign threat that Israel had to protect itself from, but unfortunately that is not the case.

[Joost]

Yes but two wrongs never make a right, do they? Also, if Israel's "extreme measures" would be effective, Palestinian terrorist attacks would have been stopped by now, wouldn't they?

[The Rider Of Rohan]

No they don't. At the very best they put a lid on the thing. Like I said it would be better if there was no conflict at all to resolve. But as long as you still have a jihad going on and Hamas calling for another intifada, that's a difficult thing.

And I do believe that statistically there have been less suicidebombers in Jerusalem after Iseael took these measures.

[Daijin]

Actually, after building the barrier there haven't been any at all. Some have tried but nobody succeeded, at least not with bombings.

[The Rider Of Rohan]

Well, in that case it is justified. If an illegal blockade saves the lives of hundreds of innocent Israeli citizens, then they have my consent.

Obviously such a blockade shouldn't exist for a day longer than absolute necessity indicates and should be enforced by as little lethal or non-lethal force as possible. With the recent call for another intifada, and no incidents during another attempt to break the blokkade, I would say that Israel complies by both of these terms.

[t.a.j.]

Several reasons. For one thing, this conflict is highly publicized. Secondly, anything regarding Jews is always very sensitive and will attract attention, centuries of anti-semitism and the development of Jewish identities and culture during the diaspora will give you that.

So, the history of Jewish suffering and anti-semitism justifies double standards when judging Israel?

You did not ask for justifications, you asked for reasons. Hence, I suggested reasons. If you want justification, look at the dead and the ruins, at the repressions of Palestinians in Israel. You might find it there.

That is really just this: The conflict lasts very long. One side has an army, with air force, navy, nukes and special forces. The other side has rebel insurgents and suicide bombers. From this I conclude merely that whatever strategy either side has employed has not been working very well and that one side is much more (militarily) powerful than the other side.

Meaning that military superiority binds to making concessions?

Yes, how about that, no? That power should come with responsibility, that the strong should defend the weak, not subject them. How unreasonable to suggest that war with it's terrible price should be prevented whenever possible and that those who have the power to do that, have a moral responsibility to do so, even if it goes against their own interests.

You are more than welcome to enlighten me, or to point me at sources where I can deepen my knowledge.

What do you expect me to do? To lecture about the history of the conflict? I could give you a list of literature if you're interested.

That was what I asked for. I would prefer online resources, though for ease of access.

I also fail to see what is wrong about a sense of right and wrong, which is concrete enough to consider both the violent death of human beings as well as becoming killers a bad thing.

It's a problem when it is limited to the simple equasion of "weak" = good or at least to be supported and "strong" = bad.

That I did not do.

During the history of this conflict Israel has made concession time and again, withtrawing from occupied territories, sticking to the idea of land for peace, acknowledging terror organizations as partners in negotiations. Simply putting preasure on the strong party in this conflict doesn't lead anywhere, at least if the aim is not to put an end to the "Zionist entity" in the Middle East.

Again, the point is not to say who did what bad thing. The point is to ask what any party could do to stop the whole damn misery from going on. Never said that Israel got a warm welcome in the middle east.