Israeli forces storm Gaza aid ship, and beat people on board. Fatalities reported.

[Johnny Canuck3]

If the interest in discussing this has waned, that's ok. It's been interesting for me, finally realizing that there is an unceasing litany of anger and discontent with the actions of Israel - the boarding only being the most recent cause - but zero discussion of what the future should hold.

When asked the hard questions about what should be done with an allegedly criminal state that consistently lies, breaks treaties, and kills innocent people, many anti zionists stayed silent, or reflexively balked at the idea of going in with guns blazing to either kill or evict the criminals.

I expect that the category of 'anti zionists' contains a fair number of people who are 'anti Israeli' because that is the appropriate flavour of the time, amongst the many other positions which it is appropriate for one to take.

For these people, the idea of invasion is disagreeable because another correct position is 'war is bad'. They don't like Israel, but they don't like war, so - war can't be the answer. It's bad.

I think you then get a range, right up to the people who would be happy to see an international force go in with bombs and machine guns, and finish the problem. However, these people usually won't say what they really think, because it looks distasteful, and will tend to alienate the much larger group that is anti zionist, but that isn't really all that firmly wedded to any ideology or belief to the point where they will countenance extermination.

 

[8ball]

This thread is so much better now it mostly consists of 'This message is hidden because Johnny Canuck3 is on your ignore list.' occasionally interspersed with people calling him a wanker.

 

[yield]

There it is. He makes up his own idiosyncratic definition of fascism, and says he agrees with that [his own definition].

The response is, it means something else. You're banned.

He wasn't espousing the bad definition that Crispy is familiar with. But he's banned nonetheless.

Oh well. That's one less poster who isn't happy with the party line. Back to the circle jerk.

You've quoted Fridgemagnet not Crispy JC3

I think you then get a range, right up to the people who would be happy to see an international force go in with bombs and machine guns, and finish the problem. However, these people usually won't say what they really think, because it looks distasteful, and will tend to alienate the much larger group that is anti zionist, but that isn't really all that firmly wedded to any ideology or belief to the point where they will countenance extermination.

You can think what you like.

*Joins Attica's International Brigade*

This thread is so much better now it mostly consists of 'This message is hidden because Johnny Canuck3 is on your ignore list.' occasionally interspersed with people calling him a wanker.

I don't think Johnny Canuck3 is a troll. He likes to argue though.

 

[spring-peeper]

You've quoted Fridgemagnet not Crispy JC3

Crispy didn't look after p&p - fridgemagnet did.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Crispy didn't look after p&p - fridgemagnet did.

Well, we all look after the whole board, we can all ban anyone anywhere. It's not limited by forum. (I certainly banned rachamim though.)

 

[Pickman's model]

(I certainly banned rachamim though.)

 

[Doctor Carrot]

If the interest in discussing this has waned, that's ok. It's been interesting for me, finally realizing that there is an unceasing litany of anger and discontent with the actions of Israel - the boarding only being the most recent cause - but zero discussion of what the future should hold.

When asked the hard questions about what should be done with an allegedly criminal state that consistently lies, breaks treaties, and kills innocent people, many anti zionists stayed silent, or reflexively balked at the idea of going in with guns blazing to either kill or evict the criminals.

I expect that the category of 'anti zionists' contains a fair number of people who are 'anti Israeli' because that is the appropriate flavour of the time, amongst the many other positions which it is appropriate for one to take.

For these people, the idea of invasion is disagreeable because another correct position is 'war is bad'. They don't like Israel, but they don't like war, so - war can't be the answer. It's bad.

I think you then get a range, right up to the people who would be happy to see an international force go in with bombs and machine guns, and finish the problem. However, these people usually won't say what they really think, because it looks distasteful, and will tend to alienate the much larger group that is anti zionist, but that isn't really all that firmly wedded to any ideology or belief to the point where they will countenance extermination.

"la la la la, i'm not listening"

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Crispy didn't look after p&p - fridgemagnet did.

Alright.

I thought it was a loss. I thought he was an eloquent advocate for Israelis, and he was able to provide a wealth of factual counterpoint to the reams of detail brought up by the more dedicated anti zionists. There was more to be learned in the arguments between him and certain people, than from all the talking done by those who aren't really in the know - myself included.

 

[ViolentPanda]

just because a group of soldiers is armed doesn't necessarily mean that they will use those arms. Without using those guns to shoot people in the head, it's entirely clear that the people on the boat were easily capable of defending themselves against the IDF commandos.

It's really very easy to be armed and yet not use your weapon, even under provocation. Happened in west Belfast several times while I was there. You just suck it up.

the calculation obviously was the the IDF wouldn't use deadly force on foreign nationals with the worlds media watching. Had this calculation proved correct, then they'd probably have successfully defended their ship against the IDF assault, and quite possibly succeeded in breaking the blockade.

They miscalculated the IDF reaction to their taking IDF soldiers prisoner, but it was far from inevitable that the IDF would have reacted in this way. It's easy to judge this after the event, but at the time it was a reasonable assumption to make that their bluff could be called and that they could be forced to negotiate. Naive - maybe, stupid - not at all, brave - without a doubt.

From the sounds of it, these guys were shot down in cold blood by the IDF, not in self defence, not to protect their soldiers who were simply being held captive at that point, but simply to enforce IDF will. State sponsored murder basically.

IMHO there's very likely to have been what the general staff will call "a breakdown in communication/the chain of command", and what anyone non-military would call "a colossal cluster-fuck". Somewhere along the line someone didn't communicate up or down the chain of command, and what resulted was an effect of that cause.
Unless, of course (as I have speculated earlier) mayhem was actually what was intended by the IDF and their political masters.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

"la la la la, i'm not listening"

That's been apparent from page 1.

The world's full of people who don't like hearing dissenting opinions.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ask yourself: which posters will take a position that goes against the standard anti zionist doctrine that is most accepted here? You won't need the fingers of both hands to count them.

What a stupid post, given that there's no such thing as a "standard anti-Zionist doctrine".
Get a fucking grip, you crass, ill-informed dogbummer.

 

[danny la rouge]

That's not what I asked. I asked if you put different groups of refugees into the situation the jews/israelis found themselves in, would the different groups do the same things that the Israelis did.

In other words, plop half a million spaniards in palestine in 1947. Or Chechens. Or Somalis. You name the group.

No, you didn't. But fair enough if you want to do it now. It's a silly question, though, for several reasons you certainly know about. First, the date 1947 is deliberately misleading. Jewish settlers, the modern Zionist movement, had been arriving in Palestine since the 1890s. Zionists themselves often date their movement from the 1860s. So let's say that: the 1860.

Why had they been arriving in Palestine? 2 reasons - European anti-Semitism (social and structural - that is, personal and legal impediments put in their way), and the "problem of assimilation": Jews that were losing their Jewish identity. The Zionist movement saw the return to Palestine as an answer to both problems.

The problem they had was the indigenous population: Arabs, majority of them Muslim, and a significant minority of Christians. In the inter war period, they sought to displace them. Remove them from the land. This was not an unprecedented solution at the time, as the Greek/Turkish "population transfer" attests.

So all that happened before 1947. (And, yes, it's an extremely potted history for bb purposes). 1947 is not year zero for the settlement of Palestine by Jews.

Leaving aside the Holocaust for now, we need - for your rather silly question - to assume that the history of Spaniards visa vis settlement of Palestine parallels the actual history of Zionism. If that were the case, and adding in a Spanish Holocaust, then, yes, they'd behave, in 1947, rather similarly. We're assuming the British had behaved as they did? Balfour letter and all? And that the mandate would end, and the evacuation take place? Yes, probably Juan Gurion is going to lead the Spanish in a Spanish-Arab War. Where is this leading us? Anywhere interesting, or just along your goose chase to see if I'm anti-Semitic?

 

[spring-peeper]

Alright.

I thought it was a loss. I thought he was an eloquent advocate for Israelis, and he was able to provide a wealth of factual counterpoint to the reams of detail brought up by the more dedicated anti zionists. There was more to be learned in the arguments between him and certain people, than from all the talking done by those who aren't really in the know - myself included.

Yes, I remember you expressing your views on his banning.

There have been a number of times throughout this thread that I wish he was here posting. I didn't read much of his stuff - mainly because of the squabbling that occurred and I hated his posting style - but when I wanted to be able to read the other side of the issue.

imo - it was a loss. However, the banning must have cut down on fm's work considerably. Sorting out p&p was a nightmare back then.

 

[danny la rouge]

What are you playing at?

Prodding the rightist.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What a stupid post, given that there's no such thing as a "standard anti-Zionist doctrine".
Get a fucking grip, you crass, ill-informed dogbummer.

Who says anything different when it comes to this issue?

Sas does. Spymaster, to a degree. Me. There are probably one or two others amongst the regular posters.

Out of hundreds and hundreds.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No, you didn't. But fair enough if you want to do it now.

Hey: I asked the question. You might know just about everything, but it don't apply to the contents of my head.

And you answered: 'no'.

 

[danny la rouge]

Hey: I asked the question. You might know just about everything, but it don't apply to the contents of my head.

And you answered: 'no'.

The actual sentence didn't read in reality as it did in your head, then.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

First, the date 1947 is deliberately misleading.

I just picked 1947 as being a significant postwar emigration year. I was waiting to see who would be the first to quibble with it.

The point is that jewish emigration to palestine increased significantly after the war.

My question revolved around the transplantation of a large number of refugees to palestine after WW2. Would they have behaved differently in the intervening years?

That is, and always was the question I was asking.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But...........you said I hadn't read any books?

No I didn't.
In fact, if you strain your fogged brain, I asked on an earlier which books on the Middle East you had read, and recommended some others.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What is it that I have arse about face?

Your face and your arse.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes, I remember you expressing your views on his banning.

There have been a number of times throughout this thread that I wish he was here posting. I didn't read much of his stuff - mainly because of the squabbling that occurred and I hated his posting style - but when I wanted to be able to read the other side of the issue.

imo - it was a loss. However, the banning must have cut down on fm's work considerably. Sorting out p&p was a nightmare back then.

Yeah. Shortly after that, I became somewhat disinterested with p and p also. So did others. And it went from being one of the most vibrant forums on the board, to becoming almost moribund.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No I didn't.
In fact, if you strain your fogged brain, I asked on an earlier which books on the Middle East you had read, and recommended some others.

You should be happy. Because of you, I began reading about the Middle East, the war years, etc. I even read about the Spanish Civil War, the Chechens, etc. I realized that although I did know a fair number of things, there was a ton I didn't know.

I've been trying to do some backfilling over the past couple of years.

 

[spring-peeper]

Yeah. Shortly after that, I became somewhat disinterested with p and p also. So did others. And it went from being one of the most vibrant forums on the board, to becoming almost moribund.

Yip. Slowly those with opposing views left or were banned. Doesn't matter what they did or say, they were attacked. Not much fun when the only reason you come here is to express your pov.

The middle east forum died after rach left.

World basically died when we lost a number of the Americans.

This may possibly be the revival of world, but I doubt it. This is just a thread about you offering different points of view and the others running around calling you names.

No - that isn't true. There have been some very interesting posts and, as usual, U75 was on top of the situation. Not only do I get up-to-date information, but interesting analysis from poster who I come to respect.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No, you didn't. But fair enough if you want to do it now. It's a silly question, though, for several reasons you certainly know about. First, the date 1947 is deliberately misleading. Jewish settlers, the modern Zionist movement, had been arriving in Palestine since the 1890s. Zionists themselves often date their movement from the 1860s. So let's say that: the 1860.

Why had they been arriving in Palestine? 2 reasons - European anti-Semitism (social and structural - that is, personal and legal impediments put in their way), and the "problem of assimilation": Jews that were losing their Jewish identity. The Zionist movement saw the return to Palestine as an answer to both problems.

I can't remember the book, but I recall a tome on Jewish anarchists in Britain that mentioned that in the late 19th and early 20th century our esteemed Jewish establishment (which was functionally part of the British establishment per se) provided "assistance" to British Jews of eastern/central European descent to go to Palestine. The inference to be drawn was that the motivation wasn't charity, but a two-pronged operation to move some of the (mostly poor) eastern/central European-descended Jews out of the country, and to "seed" Jews in Palestine.

The problem they had was the indigenous population: Arabs, majority of them Muslim, and a significant minority of Christians. In the inter war period, they sought to displace them. Remove them from the land. This was not an unprecedented solution at the time, as the Greek/Turkish "population transfer" attests.

There's a good book which documents the perfidy of the Mandate authorities from the perspective of Samuels and his inner circle, and their laying of the groundwork (outside of their remit) for a Jewish state rather than a Jewish national home, called "A Broken Trust - Sir Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians" by Sarah Huneidi

 

[ViolentPanda]

Who says anything different when it comes to this issue?

Sas does. Spymaster, to a degree. Me. There are probably one or two others amongst the regular posters.

Out of hundreds and hundreds.

Bollocks. You're claiming that there's a standard anti-Zionist doctrine. If you had a clue what you were talking about, you'd be aware of the extremely wide spectrum of opinion even among anti-Zionists on Urban, but acknowledging that fact would hardly suit your posture, would it?

 

[sihhi]

I'm just watching an interview with one of the IHH organisers live on Turkish TV, he saw the Israeli commandos consulting a list of sixteen names and pictures from their pockets, when they were tied up handcuffed on the ship.

Also the interrogators put pressure on the IHH chief organiser to publicly declare that IHH had not intended to resist Israeli soldiers but some probably Al-Qaida types had infiltrated the organisation to cause a scene and others were caught along in the rush. If he did this they might allow some more supplies through to Gaza.

This news is finally out in the open
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results

Although the report about Furkan Dogan (misspelled in article) doesn't tally with what was said in the Turkish press today.

The results revealed that a 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back. A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has US citizenship, was shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back. Two other men were shot four times, and five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, said Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the council of forensic medicine.

The findings emerged as more survivors gave their accounts of the raids. Ismail Patel, the chairman of Leicester-based pro-Palestinian group Friends of al-Aqsa, who returned to Britain today, told how he witnessed some of the fatal shootings and claimed that Israel had operated a "shoot to kill policy".

He calculated that during the bloodiest part of the assault, Israeli commandos shot one person every minute. One man was fatally shot in the back of the head just two feet in front him and another was shot once between the eyes. He added that as well as the fatally wounded, 48 others were suffering from gunshot wounds and six activists remained missing, suggesting the death toll may increase.

 

[Spymaster]

the Royal Navy are never going to deploy against an Israeli blockade in reality, not matter how much you might want it to.

the only way they'd ever be likely to consider it would be to protect a civilian flotilla containing large numbers of UK registered boats and a lot of UK citizens, following a major incident against UK registered ships and citizens on a previous floatilla, eg the sinking of one or more resulting in the deaths of tens / hundreds.

It's possible the Turkish navy might be considering such a move after 9 of their citizens have been killed, but if this does happen, then it would be as a result of the brave actions of the activists who's actions you've spent most of the thread condemning / calling stupid, rather than as a result of a desire to fulfil your wishes.

This sounds to me like "people must die for progress to be made". The Turkish navy aren't going to unilaterally break the blockade either.

We have a difference of opinion that we're unlikely to resolve but I'm grateful for your thoughtful responses. You've probably been the only poster worth engaging with on this thread.

 

[spring-peeper]

The results revealed that a 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back. A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has US citizenship, was shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back. Two other men were shot four times, and five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, said Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the council of forensic medicine.

The findings emerged as more survivors gave their accounts of the raids. Ismail Patel, the chairman of Leicester-based pro-Palestinian group Friends of al-Aqsa, who returned to Britain today, told how he witnessed some of the fatal shootings and claimed that Israel had operated a "shoot to kill policy".

He calculated that during the bloodiest part of the assault, Israeli commandos shot one person every minute. One man was fatally shot in the back of the head just two feet in front him and another was shot once between the eyes. He added that as well as the fatally wounded, 48 others were suffering from gunshot wounds and six activists remained missing, suggesting the death toll may increase.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Bollocks. You're claiming that there's a standard anti-Zionist doctrine.

I'm saying that it's fashionable here to be anti zionist. I'm sure that anti zionists have their doctrinal disagreements, just like trotskyites and stalinists etc etc all do.

 

[bingiman]

Unlike you, I prefer to have the facts before making groundless assertions.

Unlike you, I don't slander people when I don't know anything about them.

Welcome back dickhead