IDF Raids Free Gaza Movement Aid Flotilla

[CapitalistSwine]

"Israel is prepared to apologize to Turkey for the flotilla incident and to compensate the families of the injured parties, Turkish newspaper Huriyyet reported on Friday."

Report: Israel to apologize

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=180231&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

Disgusting. Israel has nothing to apologize for, especially to the genocidal Turks.

Edited July 2, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[Black Wolf]

The UN investigates Israel during the flotilla raid

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/09/2010922195831956543.html

[probeson]

This nonsense about the IDF somehow being a victim strains credulity. Only a Zionist would say such a thing. Let's apply Objectivism and common sense to this situation.

If a group of pirates attack a ship and during the course of their attack, they encounter resistance and then kill the people defending themselves against aggression then can someone tell me how in hell this is considered self-defense?

It was a criminal act-plain and simple. Did they initiate force yes or no?

Second of all, it is illegal under international law to board ships carrying the flag of its country of origin and kill people-it's a friggin act of war.

Third, it is immoral to place people in an open air prison and slowly starve them to death ON THEIR OWN LAND.Occupation is an act of aggression also and I can't believe my ears to hear this being defended.

Are you people nuts?

[probeson]

"Israel is prepared to apologize to Turkey for the flotilla incident and to compensate the families of the injured parties, Turkish newspaper Huriyyet reported on Friday."

Report: Israel to apologize

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=180231&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

Disgusting. Israel has nothing to apologize for, especially to the genocidal Turks.

Dude, if it was Israel's vessel that was attacked, you would be up in arms. 10 to 1 that you live in one of the "settlements" built on stolen Palestinian land.

[Jake_Ellison]

This nonsense about the IDF somehow being a victim strains credulity. Only a Zionist would say such a thing. Let's apply Objectivism and common sense to this situation.

If a group of pirates attack a ship and during the course of their attack, they encounter resistance and then kill the people defending themselves against aggression then can someone tell me how in hell this is considered self-defense?

It was a criminal act-plain and simple. Did they initiate force yes or no?

Second of all, it is illegal under international law to board ships carrying the flag of its country of origin and kill people-it's a friggin act of war.

Third, it is immoral to place people in an open air prison and slowly starve them to death ON THEIR OWN LAND.Occupation is an act of aggression also and I can't believe my ears to hear this being defended.

Are you people nuts?

There is only one claim in your posts that isn't obvious nonsense (and therefor worth addressing): the part about the boarding being illegal under international law.

There are no international laws or treaties Israel and the US are a party to, that forbid blockades against an enemy or the boarding of neutral ships suspected of carrying contraband. Israel's actions were not, in any possible sense, illegal.

[probeson]

There is only one claim in your posts that isn't obvious nonsense (and therefor worth addressing): the part about the boarding being illegal under international law.

There are no international laws or treaties Israel and the US are a party to, that forbid blockades against an enemy or the boarding of neutral ships suspected of carrying contraband. Israel's actions were not, in any possible sense, illegal.

Was it an initiation of force-Yes or No?

Is the initiator of force a criminal -Yes or No?

Do you mean to say that because a state does not agree to not initiate force that when it does, it's actions are not immoral and criminal? Yes or NO?

Did the members of the crew that were attacked by this criminal state have a right to defend themselves by any means necessary -Yes or No?

Is occupation an act of aggression and it is the victim that should be helped -Yes or No?

Something tells me that you don't want to understand me. You have no moral position, just a propagandized version of events.

[probeson]

Is Israel stealing land outside its sovereign territory -yes or no?

Is Israel an apartheid state-yes or no?

You get the picture?

[CapitalistSwine]

I don't very much care for your rude attitude probeson. It is not necessary to get your opinion across on this subject. If you really wish, when I have some free time I will address each one of your questions/points thoroughly, however it may be in a day or two as I don't have much free time currently.

Also,

Dude, if it was Israel's vessel that was attacked, you would be up in arms. 10 to 1 that you live in one of the "settlements" built on stolen Palestinian land.

This was unbelievably childish.

[CapitalistSwine]

There is an update, the only problem is that there is not a good way to tell if this is legitimate because the U.N. has had a very thorough history of treating Israel like shit. If we could get actual photo or video evidence then I will believe this, but right now the only video and photo I have seen is of an IDF soldier trying to back up a stairwell and then getting stabbed in the back and the arm with a knife before taking his pistol out...and a bunch of people rushing to physically harm the IDF as they were coming down, before the first one had landed.

UN Report: American Citizen Executed By Israelis During Mavi Marmara Raid

The report shows conclusively that US citizen Furkan Dogan and five Turkish citizens were murdered execution-style by Israeli commandos.

http://www.alternet.org/investigations/148314/un_report:_american_citizen_executed_by_israelis_during_mavi_marmara_raid/

While there has been precedent for Israeli overtones of exaggerated violence towards non-violent individuals (the same can be said and more for Israel's enemies), this does not change the fact that the process of which they attempted a humanitarian mission given the alternatives shows that this was without question an intentional political move.

The results of the three senior members of the investigation – one former judge of the International Criminal Court, a UN war crimes prosecutor, and a renowned human rights expert – CANNOT SIMPLY BE DISMISSED with ridiculous claims of bias

Edited September 29, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[Jake_Ellison]

There is an update, the only problem is that there is not a good way to tell if this is legitimate because the U.N. has had a very thorough history of treating Israel like shit. If we could get actual photo or video evidence then I will believe this, but right now the only video and photo I have seen is of an IDF soldier trying to back up a stairwell and then getting stabbed in the back and the arm with a knife before taking his pistol out...and a bunch of people rushing to physically harm the IDF as they were coming down, before the first one had landed.

UN Report: American Citizen Executed By Israelis During Mavi Marmara Raid

The report shows conclusively that US citizen Furkan Dogan and five Turkish citizens were murdered execution-style by Israeli commandos.

http://www.alternet.org/investigations/148314/un_report:_american_citizen_executed_by_israelis_during_mavi_marmara_raid/

While there has been precedent for Israeli overtones of exaggerated violence towards non-violent individuals (the same can be said and more for Israel's enemies), this does not change the fact that the process of which they attempted a humanitarian mission given the alternatives shows that this was without question an intentional political move.

The results of the three senior members of the investigation – one former judge of the International Criminal Court, a UN war crimes prosecutor, and a renowned human rights expert – CANNOT SIMPLY BE DISMISSED with ridiculous claims of bias

Can you provide evidence that the people who were shot had surrendered, and Israeli soldiers were in a position to secure them? If not, sorry, I can dismiss the circumstances they were shot in as irrelevant just fine.

Soldiers are justified, under the rules of war, to kill enemy combatants in any way they wish, unless they first surrender and can safely be taken into custody. That is how all wars are fought, not just this one.

While there has been precedent for Israeli overtones of exaggerated violence towards non-violent individuals

Even if that were true (I doubt it is), not sure what it has to do with this situation. Everyone on this ship was a combatant, and an aggressor the second the first Israeli soldier was assaulted. Rules protecting civilians don't apply to people who set sail with the express purpose of hindering Israel's military blockade.

[probeson]

There is an update, the only problem is that there is not a good way to tell if this is legitimate because the U.N. has had a very thorough history of treating Israel like shit. If we could get actual photo or video evidence then I will believe this, but right now the only video and photo I have seen is of an IDF soldier trying to back up a stairwell and then getting stabbed in the back and the arm with a knife before taking his pistol out...and a bunch of people rushing to physically harm the IDF as they were coming down, before the first one had landed.

UN Report: American Citizen Executed By Israelis During Mavi Marmara Raid

The report shows conclusively that US citizen Furkan Dogan and five Turkish citizens were murdered execution-style by Israeli commandos.

http://www.alternet.org/investigations/148314/un_report:_american_citizen_executed_by_israelis_during_mavi_marmara_raid/

While there has been precedent for Israeli overtones of exaggerated violence towards non-violent individuals (the same can be said and more for Israel's enemies), this does not change the fact that the process of which they attempted a humanitarian mission given the alternatives shows that this was without question an intentional political move.

The results of the three senior members of the investigation – one former judge of the International Criminal Court, a UN war crimes prosecutor, and a renowned human rights expert – CANNOT SIMPLY BE DISMISSED with ridiculous claims of bias

When you say the UN has a history of mistreating Israel then speak the entire truth and mention specifically the HRC. The General Assembly and Security Council have been pretty lenient by not full out calling the inhuman treatment of the Palestinians what it is-apartheid and it is only the veto power of the US that has prevented an OVERWHELMING majority of world opinion to mete out the isolation and justice Israel deserves.

How odd that when it comes to Israel , its defenders have to see a blow by blow video to believe the results of an investigation but will swear on a stack of bibles that Iran is after nuclear weapons. I realize this is not directly relevant to the flotilla attack but I wanted to mention the double standard.

"While there has been precedent for Israeli overtones of exaggerated violence towards non-violent individuals (the same can be said and more for Israel's enemies), this does not change the fact that the process of which they attempted a humanitarian mission given the alternatives shows that this was without question an intentional political move"

I believe this sums up everything. The "precedent" you mention is really the norm. For proof , look at the Goldstone report and the massacre in Gaza or the reports of Btselem for further evidence that Israel ROUTINELY initiates violence against unarmed, non-violent people...and what "alternatives" are there really? Israel has imprisoned 1.5 million people in an open air prison and will not let anyone out or anyone in without permission on land outside of their sovereign territory and starving the people of Gaza.There is a reason that country after country is trying to break this ILLEGAL medieval siege-IT IS EVIL. Not everyone buys this blatant propaganda that a country stealing Palestinian land , committing war crimes against a defenseless people,while occupying their country, and collectively starving a part of its population is acting in self defense. And anyone who believes otherwise deserves the shame of spending their intelligence, twisting themselves in philosophical knots defending these acts of evil.

You said you could explain all this, I would be more than happy to show that hardly anything you will say to defend these obvious crimes will be true and will probably be taken verbatim from IDF press releases.

[probeson]

Looking through some of the posts here on Israel and its criminal attack of civilians is like walking into a twilight zone of Orwellian double-speak. Has anyone noticed that the initiation of force is being called self-defense? Has anyone noticed that it is being suggested that Israel has the right to starve these people? Has anyone noticed that there is not one instance of criticism for the IMMORAL occupation and military dictatorship being imposed on Palestinians AND DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF HAMAS by Israel?

Also, why is there no mention of why so many people in so many countries are trying to break this medieval siege? Is the whole world , including Nobel Laureates, western politicians, human rights activists, scientists, Israelis, and Jews alike -risking their lives for a mere dislike of Israel? Has anyone even stopped to think that this is pure evil? Has anyone mentioned that Israel is an apartheid state? Why is there no defense for our countryman who was summarily executed according to an impartial UN investigation WHICH ISRAEL RESISTED? Why is there no discussion of if the blockade is moral in the first place and should we be siding with the victims of aggression-THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF HAMAS and the Palestinians. After all, occupation and illegal annexation of land outside one's sovereign borders is the initiation of force and the aggressor forfeits ALL rights, including his right to live. Therefore, any defensive action taken by the victim is moral. If a hulking brute attacked a petite woman with the intention of rape(land theft) and murder(ethnic cleansing) would she be justified in cutting his balls off? Would he have a reasonable defense that she did not fight fair.....

I find this topic to be completely dominated by the Israeli/Jewish narrative and therefore very revealing as well.It is comical listening to the pronouncements of the IDF go unchallenged on a board supposedly committed to reason and the defense of principle.....

Jesus Christ!

Edited October 3, 2010 by probeson

[2046]

Needless to say, there is a disagreement on who is evil and why. A lot of people already responded in your other thread "Who should we be supporting Israel or the Palestinians?" in regards to the general case of Israel vs Palestine:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=19777

You didn't respond, so I was just thinking maybe you forgot about it?

Edited October 3, 2010 by 2046

[whYNOT]

Well, "Jesus Christ!"- Probeson.

For you to know so much about a situation, and be so sure of the morality involved, must be very pleasing to you.

Others have been watching and studying Palestine/Israel for 50 years, and have not reached such glib certainty.

Please go and study all the facts, before laying out those sanctimonious 'principles'.

Here's one new idea for you: can you consider that it is actually Israel, that is under seige?

That Hamas and its backers (Iran) continue to resist any peace accord? Which Israel badly wants?

That... ah, the hell with it - I doubt anything is going to break through your prejudice.

And I doubt your good intentions, with such slanted and loaded 'facts'.

[probeson]

You know what, I did forget. I did not receive any notifications that people had responded but somehow I received updates to this thread. Thanks, I will be sure to respond.

[probeson]

Well, "Jesus Christ!"- Probeson.

For you to know so much about a situation, and be so sure of the morality involved, must be very pleasing to you.

Others have been watching and studying Palestine/Israel for 50 years, and have not reached such glib certainty.

Please go and study all the facts, before laying out those sanctimonious 'principles'.

Here's one new idea for you: can you consider that it is actually Israel, that is under seige?

That Hamas and its backers (Iran) continue to resist any peace accord? Which Israel badly wants?

That... ah, the hell with it - I doubt anything is going to break through your prejudice.

And I doubt your good intentions, with such slanted and loaded 'facts'.

It is a common response and defense of those who support Israel to frame this as a "complicated" issue, it is nothing of the kind. You seem to be suggesting that unless I have studied this issue for a hundred years then I could not possibly know anything about it. Well, the questions I asked are not rocket science. This is supposed to be a philosophical forum where one agrees or disagrees with the substance of an argument, not ad hominem where where one's years of personal experience or academic background is an issue. I submit you that there are some valid points that were made in my reply and maybe it was a rant as well but in my defense, no one is really looking at this from a moral or philosophical view only spreading undigested propaganda.

For instance, look at your response...

"That Hamas and its backers (Iran) continue to resist any peace accord? Which Israel badly wants?"

I mean, seriously.Are you aware that Hamas is on record saying they will agree to an Israel based on the 67 borders. Are you aware that the last cease fire Hamas made with Israel, Israel broke it? I mean, what does Iran have to do with Israel imposing an immoral military dictatorship on the Palestinians? Are you suggesting that Israel is not responsible for its own actions?And just what evidence is there to suggest that Israel wants peace when they are systematically stealing the very land THE CONFLICT IS ABOUT?

[TJ46]

Probeson,

I have to ask...

Have you ever fought in a war?

Have you ever visited either Israel or Palestine yourself?

I have done both, and I am skeptical that you have done either.

Edited October 3, 2010 by TJ46

[probeson]

Probeson,

I have to ask...

Have you ever fought in a war?

Have you ever visited either Israel or Palestine yourself?

I have done both, and I am skeptical that you have done either.

What does this have to do with anything I have said? What does this have to do with me? The facts and issues speak for themselves.

[TJ46]

What does this have to do with anything I have said? What does this have to do with me? The facts and issues speak for themselves.

Except you have an amazing ability for picking out the facts that bolster your position while ignoring all of the ones that don't. That is what it has to do with. Why come here and make these threads when you are not willing to have a serious, neutral, and intellectual argument. It is obvious you are being negligent in your personal research on this issue because you have made a number of statements that are constantly repeated by pro-palestine websites that have been CONSTANTLY refuted. If you had done your due diligence you would not have made these errors while still succeeding in making a decent case for your own position. Instead, it seems like most of your position is based on these ill-conceived and poorly-researched claims and arguments that only look at one side of the issue, rather than a fair and balanced understanding of this conflict. It seems to me like the only reason these 2 threads of yours are still going is because no one wants to spend the immense amount of time needed to refute all of your many claims/arguments sufficiently, and no one really wants to type out several pages of information when they will likely just be thrown to the side by you anyways. Especially when half the time your responses are based on very poor premises that were obviously not thought out very well or introduce any number of logical fallacies as the foundation of a specific claim/argument. All of this information is available, in books and online.

Edited October 3, 2010 by TJ46

[probeson]

Except you have an amazing ability for picking out the facts that bolster your position while ignoring all of the ones that don't. That is what it has to do with.

Then please point out to me what facts are relevant other than the initiation of force? If the aggressor does not assault his victim then there is no conflict to begin with?

No?

[Jake_Ellison]

Then please point out to me what facts are relevant other than the initiation of force? If the aggressor does not assault his victim then there is no conflict to begin with?

No?

No. Individual rights can only exist in the context of a free state. Hamas is an Islamo-fascist terror group, and any country in the World has the right destroy it on principle, because such a group is a threat to individual rights everywhere.

Your reasoning is flawed because non-initiation of force isn't the premise of Objectivist Politics. Individual rights are. Israel is infinitely closer to granting individuals their rights than Hamas or any other Palestinian authority has ever been. We support them because an Israeli victory in this conflict is the only way in which the region (or most of it) can be governed by a peaceful, rights-respecting entity.

I mean, seriously.Are you aware that Hamas is on record saying they will agree to an Israel based on the 67 borders.

So Hamas would be happy to accept territory that has been under Israeli control for 40 years (and in fact is populated by Jews who would undoubtedly be robbed of their homes and likely killed by Hamas, unless the Israeli government does the job for them), in exchange for peace? What principles did you apply when you decided it would be a good idea for Israel to take that deal: surrender to terror and maybe it will end?

No, the Palestinians have the option to take the lands they currently live on, and form a peaceful government on them (one that doesn't have any war criminals in it), or continue living under Israeli occupation. Those are the two options. Getting rid of Jewish settlements through a campaign of terror, or establishing a terrorist state run by Hamas, are not options any Israeli leader should ever leave on the table. That would be self destructive for Israel.

[probeson]

No. Individual rights can only exist in the context of a free state. Hamas is an Islamo-fascist terror group, and any country in the World has the right destroy it on principle, because such a group is a threat to individual rights everywhere.

Okay. Agreed, but by your own logic, this applies to Israel as well. Israel has basically setup an apartheid system of governance where it practices a virulent form of institutional discrimination against its own citizens. Does this count too?

Your reasoning is flawed because non-initiation of force isn't the premise of Objectivist Politics. Individual rights are. Israel is infinitely closer to granting individuals their rights than Hamas or any other Palestinian authority has ever been. We support them because an Israeli victory in this conflict is the only way in which the region (or most of it) can be governed by a peaceful, rights-respecting entity.

You are correct that I am wrong but neither are you correct as to the premise of Objectivist politics. The premise of Objectivist politics is actually the right to life. I could make the case that a state that treats a segment of its population as second class citizens while favoring others is not really a democracy as in a democracy, ALL have an equal share in government- but I won't. As to our regional interests and how to further/protect them....well this is entirely a subjective evaluation and and it's pointless to go into the many reasons why support for Israel worls against our interests.

So Hamas would be happy to accept territory that has been under Israeli control for 40 years (and in fact is populated by Jews who would undoubtedly be robbed of their homes and likely killed by Hamas, unless the Israeli government does the job for them), in exchange for peace? What principles did you apply when you decided it would be a good idea for Israel to take that deal: surrender to terror and maybe it will end?

First, Hamas has said that they will accept an Israel based on the INTERNATIONALLY recognized borders of 67. This is an amazing concession as the only territory they may morally claim does not include Jerusalem. They only have RIGHTS to the land granted under the Partition Plan of 48.

Hamas accepts 67 borders5

If we agree that the moral is the practical then if you steal somebody's land illegally then you give it back or pay them for it. Since they do not want money but what is rightfully theirs then the only moral option is clear. UN resolution 242 made it inadmissible to acquire territory by force so all land stolen is rightfull, legally Palestinian Occupied Territory(OPT). What you call "terror" is their moral right of self defense and the aggressor has forfeited ALL rights when he initiated force in the first place. This is basic Objectivism 101.

No, the Palestinians have the option to take the lands they currently live on, and form a peaceful government on them (one that doesn't have any war criminals in it), or continue living under Israeli occupation. Those are the two options. Getting rid of Jewish settlements through a campaign of terror, or establishing a terrorist state run by Hamas, are not options any Israeli leader should ever leave on the table. That would be self destructive for Israel.

Occupation is aggression. Theft of land is aggression. Colonialism(settlers) is aggression so what you call a "campaign of terror" makes no sense.

If you invade and OCCUPY my home and me and my family retreat to the bedroom and use whatever means at your disposal to resist, can I really be said to be fighting dirty if I used unsavory methods? If you don't like my methods then get the hell out of my home and leave us alone!

It's that simple. The rest of your response is superfluous speculation to defend the indefensible.

Edited October 3, 2010 by probeson

[Jake_Ellison]

Okay. Agreed, but by your own logic, this applies to Israel as well. Israel has basically setup an apartheid system of governance where it practices a virulent form of institutional discrimination against its own citizens. Does this count too?

Nonsense.

[probeson]

Nonsense.

Which part is nonsense? I take it you agree with the rest so I can easily clear up any "nonsense".

[Black Wolf]

Okay. Agreed, but by your own logic, this applies to Israel as well. Israel has basically setup an apartheid system of governance where it practices a virulent form of institutional discrimination against its own citizens. Does this count too?

A dictatorship has four characteristics: one-party rule, executions without trial for political offenses, expropriation or nationalization of private property, and censorship. Above all, this last. ~ Ayn Rand

You are correct that I am wrong but neither are you correct as to the premise of Objectivist politics. The premise of Objectivist politics is actually the right to life.

Really now. Well that's news to me. Because "right to life", if anything, is a conclusion, not a premise that would be reached long before she got to politics.

I could make the case that a state that treats a segment of its population as second class citizens while favoring others is not really a democracy as in a democracy, ALL have an equal share in government- but I won't.

Well, since you're proclaiming to know so much about Objectivism, and are absolutely sure that we're incorrectly applying it's principles, I trust I don't have to point out that "democracy" is not a valid form of government.

First, Hamas has said that they will accept an Israel based on the INTERNATIONALLY recognized borders of 67. This is an amazing concession as the only territory they may morally claim does not include Jerusalem. They only have RIGHTS to the land granted under the Partition Plan of 48.

Hamas accepts 67 borders5

If we agree that the moral is the practical then if you steal somebody's land illegally then you give it back or pay them for it. Since they do not want money but what is rightfully theirs then the only moral option is clear. UN resolution 242 made it inadmissible to acquire territory by force so all land stolen is rightfull, legally Palestinian Occupied Territory(OPT). What you call "terror" is their moral right of self defense and the aggressor has forfeited ALL rights when he initiated force in the first place. This is basic Objectivism 101.

Occupation is aggression. Theft of land is aggression. Colonialism(settlers) is aggression so what you call a "campaign of terror" makes no sense.

Putting someone in handcuffs against their will is aggression. Therefore, Policemen are aggressors because they put handcuffs on robbers. The robbers didn't do anything to the policeman, therefore, the policeman initiated aggression.

If you have a history of violating rights, you can't claim that someone "initiated aggression" against you when their force is being used to stop yours. You don't actually have to be affected by the violators.

If you invade and OCCUPY my home and me and my family retreat to the bedroom and use whatever means at your disposal to resist, can I really be said to be fighting dirty if I used unsavory methods? If you don't like my methods then get the hell out of my home and leave us alone!

Well, you have the right to protect your home for as long as you - or anyone in your house - did not initiate force against people. If you did, anyone - regardless of whether or not the people confronting you were personally affected by you - gets to do what is necessary. You can argue whether or not further actions are wise, but it's not immoral in the sense that you're violating another's rights.