Gaza aid flotilla to set sail

[neonplanet40]

lol

[Saracen]

Shame the worlds in such a mess to be honest

Why can't people just live in peace and get along!

Amen (in a strictly secular way) to that.

It often (nearly always) comes down to "you've got it and I want it", or "you took it from me and I want it back", and I suppose the second one is merely the sequel to the first episode.

If the above doesn't apply, then it's probably "my supreme being (who I can't even actually prove exists) is better than yours" so I'm better than you.

Or, all too often, it's the second of those being used as cover for the first.


There you are .... the Saracen History of Planet Earth. I should to get it published, Ought to be a best-seller.

[jim]

There you are .... the Saracen History of Planet Earth. I should to get it published, Ought to be a best-seller.

Strangely enough, I fear it could wind up being a touch short.

[Lucio]

Strangely enough, I fear it could wind up being a touch short.

That has to be the first time I've seen *anyone* say that Saracen might come up a little short in his writings!

Ahem


Jokes aside, what seems clear to me on this issue is that a lot of people feel they have to take a "side" in this when in all honesty, it doesn't really concern them at all. Why should I be morally outraged that one country I don't know much about shoots up the citizens of another country I don't know much about in what appears to have been avoidable circumstances??

[chrism]

Why should I be morally outraged that one country I don't know much about shoots up the citizens of another country I don't know much about in what appears to have been avoidable circumstances??

Empathy?
If shown scenes of suffering, do you first enquire as to the nationality of the people before deciding whether to sympathise?

[Lucio]

Empathy?
If shown scenes of suffering, do you first enquire as to the nationality of the people before deciding whether to sympathise?

Hang on, do you want me to empathise with them or sympathise with them? They're two very different ideas.

And seriously? I don't think either should be a reflex action.

[aidanjt]

Indeed, springing to the defence of A or B in any conflict only inflames it and increases the polarisation of A and B.

[chrism]

Hang on, do you want me to empathise with them or sympathise with them? They're two very different ideas.

And seriously? I don't think either should be a reflex action.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. But it could be either - both of them involve caring.

And I do care if the citizens of one country get shot up by another, regardless of which country it is.

[chuckskull]

Honestly I can sympathise and empathise with both sides in this conflict. Especially the civilians. Both sides have been wronged many times and it's a cycle that will continue so long as the leadership on both sides continue the way they do. Putting religion and personal agenda's before the good of the many.

I've met Palestinians and Israelis, online and off, the vast majority of whom seemed to be lovely honest people, who wanted the conflict to end and live in peace with one another. Many have lived in peace with and were friends with people the other 'side'(ugh). I've seen Israeli's cry for Palestinians and vice versa.

It is a horrible and divisive conflict propagated by the fundamentalist minority, on both sides of the border.

If you've not seen it, Ross Kemp's 2 parter on the conflict is well worth a watch. One of the most unbiased pieces of journalism I've seen on the subject.

Sadly so long as people feel the need to take a side, there will always be sides to take

[Lucio]

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. But it could be either - both of them involve caring.

And I do care if the citizens of one country get shot up by another, regardless of which country it is.

Actually, no, both of them *don't* involve caring.

Empathy is the ability to feel or experience events as another person would experience them. In this case it would mean being able to understand the mindset behind either side so as to understand them better. What tends to happen is that people empathise with one side far more than the other and thus "take" that side.


To sympathise is much more closely related to caring as it means to understand what has happened and hope to find a way to make it "better" for them. The interesting thing about sympathy though is it takes communication with the involved party.


Both descriptions of course are crude generalisations but as best as I can conjure without going into some epic length essays.



If you'd asked me to specifically empathise with both sides, I could do so, but it'd take some time, effort and a damn site more information that we're being given. To sympathise with either side though? I repeat my question, why bother? There simply isn't a *need* for us to publically declare "we feel bad for your father/son/daughter etc getting shot". It's meaningless and vain for us to assume that in doing so we're "better" or "helping" someone so far away with just words.


If you honestly think that what is happening to the people in the Gaza strip is wrong, do something, go out there and meet these people and make them real. Same goes if you think Israel is the right side to support.

[format]

[AD-15]

Yes they have, you just haven't given it any critical thought. You're stuck like a record on 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and even 5th hand accounts of the events that occurred, while ignoring 1st hand video evidence which completely contradicts the claims made by the people on the flotilla.

And the videos I posted? And that others posted? And forensic evidence? And eyewitness accounts? Are they just some kind of one big massive cover-up designed by "Jew-haters"?

You cannot possibly make the assumptions you have based on how little you (and we) know. What you can take into account is that Israel, as usual, has attempted to hide something by confiscating as much footage as it possibly can, publishing only its view; and also the past actions (crimes) of Israel. Israel has a long history of this kind of oppression.

Ok, think of it this way, if someone was shooting at you from a helicopter, would you stand there waving your pipe at them, or would you bolt? If you answer anything other than 'bolt', you're a liar.

Furthermore, firearms kill people, that's what they're designed to do, marine commandos who're trained to board ships are expert shooters, if they were shooting to kill, the deck would have been full of dead people before they landed, not full of people waving weapons.

Again, you're making ridiculous assumptions. You simply do not know enough to say these things. I could come up with explanations in support of the other side which would hold an equal amount of weight. Again, looking at the bigger picture, you can see who is in the wrong. Israel has attacked innocents before. And it's usually protesters and peace activists. Waving around great big poles or sitting waving a white flag. Ever heard of Rachael Corrie?

I fully understand the actions of the activists. They were trying to defend themselves as best as possible, they were aware of the things that Israel has done to activists in the past, and the abuse they were about to face. I bet many were fully aware of the torture they were going to receive as they were hauled into notorious Israeli prisons.

Looks like, lots more dead bodies will be laid at the feet of the "whose invisible man in the sky is better" argument.

This is not as religious a conflict as you (and plenty of others) seem to believe. I won't go as far as to say that it's completely non-religious, it isn't, but to claim the opposite is completely untrue. Since when has God dealt in real-estate?

Before 1948, the indigenous Arab peoples were not all Muslims. There were Jewish Arabs, and Christian Arabs, and Muslim Arabs. No (abnormal) religious tensions whatsoever. The Ottoman Empire, which controlled Palestine before the British did, were also religiously tolerant. The vast majority of Jews that migrated to Palestine were from places like Eastern Europe and Russia, the USA. So their ancestry argument as a means to make a claim for the land is complete and utter rubbish. The people living in Palestine have always been Afro-Arab. Some Jewish, some Christian, some Muslim.

Infact, the original Semetic peoples are the ancestors of many Arab people today. The Arab people are a mix of the many groups in the Middle East from thousands of years ago, including the Semites, Babylonians, Egyptians, and Mesopotamians. It just happens to be the case that many people have converted to Islam over the long history of the region.

Yeah, saw that yesterday, had a bit of a giggle from it.

I cannot comprehend how anybody could find any humour in this, considering the situation. Nine people were murdered. Dead. More are starving to death in Gaza. Not only is the situation extremely grave, there are blatant lies being told in that video. Of course, it's not unexpected for Israelis to try and cover up the oppression Gaza's people face.

There were 12 people murdered on the streets here in the UK recently (something that Israel has done plenty of times in the West Bank). Can we have a giggle about maniacs with big massive guns now?

I certainly hope not...

I am willing to give the content and purpose of the flotilla the benefit of doubt, but the game was up the second the IDF tried to board the ship. For an aid vessel, there are two choices: 1. Attack the soldiers, and risk getting yourself killed, and the people who did not sign up to die killed. Or 2, Do what the Rachel Corrie crew did. For an aid worker, which one do you think is more beneficial? Either way, the boat will be taken over and every aid worker killed is one less who won't be able to do another trip. Frankly speaking, 1. wouldn't even register as a option to me if it wasn't for the fact that it happened or if the convoy was politically motivated.

That's unless each and everyone is ready to die for the cause and/or you have the muscle (arms) to break the blockade military. But then, it would no longer be an aid ship.

This is a very good evaluation IMO, but you have to consider the past actions of Israeli soldiers. Plenty of activists have taken the peaceful option in the past when confronted. Many of them have still been brutally murdered.

If I was on the ship, and I heard Israeli commandos were to be raining from the sky, I'd certainly be absolutely petrified. It's not hard to come to the conclusion that fighting may infact give you the best opportunity to survive. Maybe they thought they could overpower the soldiers, who knows.

Anyone who claims they were just looking for a fight though, I have to say, is a bit of an idiot.

a) Israel didn't sign up to the law of the sea, they're not bound by that treaty.
b) Whether they boarded the ship in international waters or off the Gazan coast is irrelevant, arbitrary waffle, people still would have been killed for trying to murder the boarding party irrespective of *where* it was boarded.

Legal or illegal, there is still the moral side of things. Besides, Israel has demonstrated it doesn't give a crap about "illegal" and "UN resolution".

So they're starting to sound like just another load of Islamic nutters who got exactly what they wanted. At least they decided to go up against people who could fight back instead of blowing themselves up amongst women and children in marketplaces, like they usually do...

What the hell is your problem? They are clearly passionate about trying to help the people of Gaza, willing to risk their lives to do so. In my book, anyone like that is a great person. Risking your own life to try and make a small improvement in the lives of people who have been oppressed for so long.

Their view is clearly that the people on the flotilla died for a worthy cause, and that they were murdered by evil people, and that they will be rewarded in some sort of afterlife for their selfless actions. Why are you calling them nutters because of this?

I'm a religious guy, and I certainly believe that if I do good I will be rewarded. Infact, you'll find billions of people believe the same thing.

Whether you believe the Israeli commandos were in the right or wrong is up to you, it's also up to them for them to form their own opinion. If you disagree with it, there's certainly no need to start throwing around such offensive language.

So, the "Peace Activists" apparently grabbed two soldiers and held them hostage

So capturing two attackers and preventing them from doing any harm.

and then paraded around waving their guns.

Considering the panic on board the ship, it's a big stretch to say that the fact that they were running with guns in their hands means they were "parading" the weapons.

Under those circumstances i'd have probably grabbed myself a weapon too... A country with a record like Israel is going to send commandos onto the ship in the night armed and i'm supposed to take it in good faith that I will be ok?

This is absolutely what I've been trying to say, thank you for putting it so well.


On the humanitarian crisis in Gaza:

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2...333613851.html

Not sure whether it's worth posting it (I think these videos are only available for 7 days), but I'll link it anyway:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ht_02_06_2010/

[aidanjt]

I cannot comprehend how anybody could find any humour in this, considering the situation. Nine people were murdered. Dead. More are starving to death in Gaza. Not only is the situation extremely grave, there are blatant lies being told in that video. Of course, it's not unexpected for Israelis to try and cover up the oppression Gaza's people face.

The humour in it isn't that people died, it's that pro-Palestinian 'peace activists' turned getting their asses kicked in a confrontation they initiated, into a PR boost for the pro-Palestinian crowd, hence "we con the world". And I'd thank you to not put words in my mouth.

Anyway, cba with the rest of the strawmen. Your bias is clear.

[AD-15]

it's that pro-Palestinian 'peace activists' turned getting their asses kicked in a confrontation they initiated

Really? Because the way I see it, it was the landing of Israeli commandos on the ship that made the activists attack them. Not the other way round (then again, that should be obvious). Unless of course you're suggesting attacking a ship in the middle of the night doesn't count as confrontational.

Your bias is clear.

That's practically laughable considering the content of your posts.

[TooNice]

Why should I be morally outraged that one country I don't know much about shoots up the citizens of another country I don't know much about in what appears to have been avoidable circumstances??

Perhaps some sort of culpability of sort? The US (government, but also many of the people if CNN comments are anything to go by) are decisively pro Israel and the UK has that tendency of siding with the UK?

As an isolated event, more people died from the sunken South Korea boat yet people don't talk much about it. Granted, as SK as a nation is doing reasonably well, and with so little known about NK, people may have trouble empathising with the population who might not be doing so well.

Or maybe it's a perceived unfairness between Israel and Palestine. One is much more powerful than the other, and has no trouble taking a heavy handed approach given half a chance, with the other side (especially Gaza). Well, just couple of random guesses.

This is a very good evaluation IMO, but you have to consider the past actions of Israeli soldiers. Plenty of activists have taken the peaceful option in the past when confronted. Many of them have still been brutally murdered.

If I was on the ship, and I heard Israeli commandos were to be raining from the sky, I'd certainly be absolutely petrified. It's not hard to come to the conclusion that fighting may infact give you the best opportunity to survive. Maybe they thought they could overpower the soldiers, who knows.

Anyone who claims they were just looking for a fight though, I have to say, is a bit of an idiot.

Perhaps (I certainly do not know enough to know either way), though at least the Rachel Corrie made it with no casualty. But if the IDF are as barbaric as you make them to be, then surely the journey itself was doomed to be one of martyrdom?

Overpower one of the most (if not the most) powerful army on the middle east? With that little fire-power? I am sorry, but IMHO one would need more than a few screw loose to genuinely think they had a fighting chance. Even if you push back once they can still sink you/rain bullets.

Unfortunately I would find it far more credible that some members out of the 500 on the flotilla (not saying all, or even most) were willing to choose the road of a martyr than *any* single individual think they can somehow forcefully fight their way through the blockade.

[aidanjt]

Really? Because the way I see it, it was the landing of Israeli commandos on the ship that made the activists attack them. Not the other way round (then again, that should be obvious). Unless of course you're suggesting attacking a ship in the middle of the night doesn't count as confrontational.

As I've pointed out before, trying to break a blockade is a militarily hostile act. Even the mentally ill understand that assaulting a soldier in a war zone is liable to get you shot. Assaulting a navy is no different.

But because you're for 'peace' (while buying assault rifles, and building IEDs), that makes you invulnerable to bullets? Hardly.