In the complexities of the Middle East Peace process, I do truly sit on the fence, in that I think both the "Palestinians" and the Israeli state are guilty of various crimes against each other. I believe the certain people will conveniently ignore data which conflicts with their opinion.
What I think has to be said is the Palestinians are guilty of terrorism, and I think Israel is guilty of varying crimes against Palestinians my source is this; Click Me (
http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp) - a site run by the Israeli Intelligentsia, but which catalogues crimes committed in the "Palestinian Territories". (Unless of course you happen to be Garfield, in which case this set of Israeli's are and I quote - "anti-Israeli). I post this now, before the obligatory the "UN" is biased argument springs forth as regardless of the Arab block in the UN; Israel does commit crimes in Palestinian "territories".
It strikes me that this article; Un Row threatens to sink Middle East Peace process (
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6877164.ece), stinks of emotional blackmail, with the Israeli government trying to manipulate foreign governments to acquiesce to their point of view...
Thoughts?
It does seem like the Israelis are being a bit stubborn. I did not read the full text of the UN report, but if what the story says is right then all they were asking was for Israel to conduct and investigation and review the events surrounding the actions in question. If they weren't targeting civilians there would be no issue.
This has got me really upset. I'm getting very tired of hearing genocide used as an excuse to commit more genocide. All the time I hear Israeli's crying out for the eradication of Arabs, doesn't really fit along with their "Never again" ideas.
Why is it that the Israeli government should get away with killing 1,000+ Palestinians, but 13 Israeli's dead is a travesty that must be avenged with blood? The Israeli's wouldn't even be dead had those tanks not rolled into the city square.
Yes, there are terrorist groups and guerilla fighters aligned with the Palestinian struggle, but does that mean anyone that wants fair treatment of Palestinians is a terrorist? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. What needs to be done is the criminals should be punished, not the women, children, and seniors who are simply trying to enjoy their day. If the Israeli government doesn't want to be accused of war crimes, they shouldn't commit any. As well, there are plenty of legitimate targets to attack, instead they attack civilian targets like popular hangouts for women and children.
They decide they don't want to make peace talks if they are called on their ****, sounds incredibly childish and I think we in the west should call off allegiance to defend Israel. They've done nothing but create their own problems by furthering the death count of innocent lives.
It's a shame that 4 million Jews died from prejudicial killings only for their children and grandchildren to make the same mistake against another group of people. Then again, maybe I'm biased in that my family learned from that tragedy.
I think that a lot of these conflicts between countries would be solved if people consider what it would be like to put themselves in the other person's shoes. The solution is this: Learn how to share and agree to disagree.
They're both wrong, and they both need a stern talking to from leaders of other countries.
I think that a lot of these conflicts between countries would be solved if people consider what it would be like to put themselves in the other person's shoes. The solution is this: Learn how to share and agree to disagree.
They're both wrong, and they both need a stern talking to from leaders of other countries.
They've had stern talkings to, and if they haven't learnt to share after all this time, it's doubtful that they will any time soon.
And, given their track records, they'd probably disagree about agreeing to disagree. :lol:
I'm getting very tired of hearing genocide used as an excuse to commit more genocide. All the time I hear Israeli's crying out for the eradication of Arabs, doesn't really fit along with their "Never again" ideas.
Why is it that the Israeli government should get away with killing 1,000+ Palestinians, but 13 Israeli's dead is a travesty that must be avenged with blood? The Israeli's wouldn't even be dead had those tanks not rolled into the city square.
Yes, there are terrorist groups and guerilla fighters aligned with the Palestinian struggle, but does that mean anyone that wants fair treatment of Palestinians is a terrorist? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. What needs to be done is the criminals should be punished, not the women, children, and seniors who are simply trying to enjoy their day. If the Israeli government doesn't want to be accused of war crimes, they shouldn't commit any. As well, there are plenty of legitimate targets to attack, instead they attack civilian targets like popular hangouts for women and children.
They decide they don't want to make peace talks if they are called on their ****, sounds incredibly childish and I think we in the west should call off allegiance to defend Israel. They've done nothing but create their own problems by furthering the death count of innocent lives.
It's a shame that 4 million Jews died from prejudicial killings only for their children and grandchildren to make the same mistake against another group of people. QFE. Disagreeing with Israel when they do stupid and/or unacceptable things isn't anti-semitism. Idiocy comes from both sides in this case. Human stupidity ftw! Humanity will likely not need any external intervention to doom itself.
Humanity will likely not need any external intervention to doom itself.
You misanthrope! :xp: Unfortunately, I'm too much of a cynic to find any real fault with your sentiment. :devsmoke:
Frankly, I'm ambivalent about Israel. The Palestinians, however, don't rate sympathy from me either. If they want some kind of "peace" w/Israel, they can't let Hamas or any of the other extremist groups operate w/impunity and use them as shields. The anti-zionist Arab groups use them as a bludgeon against Israel and the Israelis strike back and more Palestinians die. They need to wake up and start turning on these groups themselves. Till they do, they'll merely continue to be victims in a power struggle for control of what amounts to a small piece of land. My attitude can be somewhat summed up by the expression "a pox on both their houses".
Human stupidity ftw!
That actually reminds me of this quote from Albert Einstein:
There are two things that are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe.
Anyways, I think both sides are being stubborn. IMO, doesn't look like they're going to change their opinions on each other. Maybe in a hundred years, but not now. Actually, turn the one hundred years into never.
Both sides have done wrong, but that doesn't give them an excuse to start killing others.
Eh, while I'm traditionally more on Israel's side in this 'debate' -major difference between suicide bombings and military strikes- I get tired of some of the stuff they do. However, looking over the articles, I'm with them again.
What the resolution does according to the article is say that "Israel targeted civilians with military force, investigation must be made". My issue with that is that it is precisely as the Israeli's said, if they can't target civilians they can't defend themselves.
Why?
Because Hamas and all those other wonderful groups just so happen to be civilian, not military. Therefore, they kill a Hamas thug then they've just targeted a civilian and must thus be punished by the UN. If only the Arab world would stop trying to wipe Israel off of the face of the Earth, would make it a bit easier to live in that region. (Makes me glad I'm not there!)
And, to satisfy J7, THE UN IS BIASED!!!!!1111one111!!!!!111
Happy? :xp:
Eh, while I'm traditionally more on Israel's side in this 'debate' -major difference between suicide bombings and military strikes- I get tired of some of the stuff they do. However, looking over the articles, I'm with them again.
What the resolution does according to the article is say that "Israel targeted civilians with military force, investigation must be made". My issue with that is that it is precisely as the Israeli's said, if they can't target civilians they can't defend themselves.
Why?
Because Hamas and all those other wonderful groups just so happen to be civilian, not military. Therefore, they kill a Hamas thug then they've just targeted a civilian and must thus be punished by the UN. If only the Arab world would stop trying to wipe Israel off of the face of the Earth, would make it a bit easier to live in that region. (Makes me glad I'm not there!)
And, to satisfy J7, THE UN IS BIASED!!!!!1111one111!!!!!111
Happy? :xp:
Did you read the B'Tselem website though? Which is the Israeli intelligentsia website :xp:
Did you read the B'Tselem website though? Which is the Israeli intelligentsia website :xp:
C'mon, Jon.........you know they are just a bunch of self-hating Jews.:xp: [sarcasm/parody mode]
"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.
Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."
I wonder if hearing this would have any sort of effect on the Israeli's and Palestinians to get them to stop being so idiotic.
The Palestinians, however, don't rate sympathy from me either. If they want some kind of "peace" w/Israel, they can't let Hamas or any of the other extremist groups operate w/impunity and use them as shields.
Please tell me how palestinians are *alowing* Hamas and others to use them as shields. If men with guns takes cover in your house during a fight, are you *alowing* him to use your family as shields by not either A: flee the house directly into the crosfire or B:futily trying to kick them out?
They need to wake up and start turning on these groups themselves.
When an outside force has occupied most of what you consider your land, you usually don't prioritize fighting an imperfect resistance. That, and this isn't Iraq, Hamas is as much a social movement as an armed group, heck they won an election easily enough. They don't masacre *their* civilians like Al-Quaida, so if you want the Palestinians to turn on them, give them something tangible up front, and promise more to come. Because now, many Palestinians are delusioned with peace talks since they don't feel they have gained much from them.
Because Hamas and all those other wonderful groups just so happen to be civilian, not military.
True, Hamas is by and large civilian, however their military wing (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izz_ad-Din_al-Qassam_Brigades) is very much military the same way guerillia fighters are. I don't see anything wrong with Israel being acused of killing civilians when they kill Hamas members not from the al-Quassam brigades.
Arc: Whatever you are smoking, sharing it with Israelis and Palestinians might get you the nobel peace prize.
Arc: Whatever you are smoking, sharing it with Israelis and Palestinians might get you the nobel peace prize.
I figure that not everything in what I quoted is relevent to the situation, so I considered only quoting various portions of it, but minimalizing/paraphrasing takes away the impact. It's too bad that people like Martin Luther King, Carl Sagan, and Mahatma Gandhi aren't around anymore to offer wise and uniting advice...
There are people offering just as *wise* advice right now, trouble is, it often doesen't work terribly well in complicated situations like Palestine/Israel is. Just as modern India was born in a bloodbath despite Gandhis efforts before he died, a *solution* in Israel/Palestine is unlikely to be painless no matter how wise the advice.
Please tell me how palestinians are *allowing* Hamas and others to use them as shields. If men with guns takes cover in your house during a fight, are you *allowing* him to use your family as shields by not either A: flee the house directly into the crosfire or B:futily trying to kick them out?
As regards Israel and the Palestinian problem, the terrorists appear to have the tacit cooperation of their "victims". If they don't wish to continue to be caught in the middle, they need to turn on Hamas and Hezbelloh themselves. Will that be easy? No. But it will go a long way toward demonstrating they are sincere in their desire for a peaceful settlement. To your second question, yes they are. The alternative isn't much better, but who said life was fair.
When an outside force has occupied most of what you consider your land, you usually don't prioritize fighting an imperfect resistance. That, and this isn't Iraq, Hamas is as much a social movement as an armed group, heck they won an election easily enough. They don't masacre *their* civilians like Al-Quaida, so if you want the Palestinians to turn on them, give them something tangible up front, and promise more to come. Because now, many Palestinians are disillusioned with peace talks since they don't feel they have gained much from them.
Pay extortion and promise more. Got it. Still, last I checked, to the victors go the spoils. Not fair, but again, life's not fair.
True, Hamas is by and large civilian, however their military wing (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izz_ad-Din_al-Qassam_Brigades) is very much military the same way guerillia fighters are. I don't see anything wrong with Israel being acused of killing civilians when they kill Hamas members not from the al-Quassam brigades.
Not much different, really, than killing support troops instead of just line doggies. Frankly, as long as both sides remain intransigent, nothing will happen. Tell me though, how many countries give up territory important for their physical security in the face of implaccable enemies that won't rest till that country seizes to exist.
Arc: Whatever you are smoking, sharing it with Israelis and Palestinians might get you the nobel peace prize.
:p
Terrorist is what the big army calls the little army :¬:.
I'd normally be more supporting of Israel, but I'm not there so I don't know. I grow tired of them and their stuff.
Pakistan. I wish they would knock it the **** off as well and quit hiding amongst their citizens, innocent people, like cowards.
I often think Ozzy's song Revelation: Mother Earth alludes to this situation.
Terrorist is what the big army calls the little army :¬:.
Freedom fighters is what people w/Stockholm Syndrome call terrorists. :xp:
Terrorist is what the big army calls the little army.
:ugh:
Did you seriously just say that?
S: (n) terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)
Source (
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism)
Sure, I can TOTALLY see how the "big army" calls a small army terrorists.[/sarcasm]
Learn what it means before spitting out useless sayings that have been pushed on you by pop-culture. In case you haven't noticed from that definition, there's a major difference between a soldier and a terrorist.
A soldier is a member of the land component of national armed forces; whereas a soldier hired for service in a foreign army would be termed a mercenary.
source (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier)
Unfortunately I couldn't find one that involved following rules of war, but that's the difference between soldiers and terrorists, one has to follow rules -when both parties agree to them- the other just kills anybody (s)he can.
@J7: Haven't read the first article yet, once I have the time I'll get around to it. :(
i agree dropping bombs is morally superior to suicide bombing
I can't honestly sympathize with either side in this. The Israelis are just as barbaric and moronic as the Palestinians.
Hehe I have the best sollution.
The Israelies should like it. Its taken from king Solomon. and its a method I've personally used with kids.
If they can't agree to share the land, we should just take all of it and neither of them can play with it.
What, you mean beat the Iranians to the punch? :devsmoke:
i agree dropping bombs is morally superior to suicide bombing
Cannot believe no one saw fit to comment on this line. Bart, if you drink beer I'll buy you one...
@Arc: great quote from a great mind, all too easily ignored, as we see from snippity remarks here and total ignorance elsewhere.
There are people offering just as *wise* advice right now, trouble is, it often doesen't work terribly well in complicated situations like Palestine/Israel is. Just as modern India was born in a bloodbath despite Gandhis efforts before he died, a *solution* in Israel/Palestine is unlikely to be painless no matter how wise the advice.
Why exactly does it not work? Because it is too simple? Or too truthy? It does not work because humans are human, and has nothing to do with it being good or bad advice. Simply put, most people, including nearly all those in charge, have not the sense to heed a great mind. As Socrates said (I am paraphrasing a bit) "Those best suited to govern would never want the job."
Yes, yes, old post, but I had an exam period from hell, and only have time to reply now.
Qui_gon:
Simply put, most people, including nearly all those in charge, have not the sense to heed a great mind.
And who are those great minds? Who gets to decide? Even if we agree to a list of great minds, what part of their thinking should we use and discard? Since just about everyone we could conceivably put on such a list have some rather bad advice, whether it's Aristoteles view on women or Gandhi's development thinking, we should discard quite a lot of that advice.
Tot:
As regards Israel and the Palestinian problem, the terrorists appear to have the tacit cooperation of their "victims". If they don't wish to continue to be caught in the middle, they need to turn on Hamas and Hezbelloh themselves.
Lets leave Hezbollah out of this as they operate in Lebanon. As for people cooperating with Hamas, of course it happens to an extent, but often it is not as if Hamas needs it. I'd hardly call it cooperating if a neighbour is al-Quassem and launches a quassam missile.
Will that be easy? No. But it will go a long way toward demonstrating they are sincere in their desire for a peaceful settlement.
Problem is, Palestinians basically got two main "parties", and like in the US, while many like neither, it's not as if it's easy to get a new party together. Now the PA is (rightfully) seen as more inneficent and corrupt than Hamas, in adition, it's not as if the PA has much to show for going the peacefull way. Now add that Hamas has done a lot of charity and disaster relief, and it hardly seems fair to expect them to turn on Hamas.
Pay extortion and promise more.
Cuts both ways in this case, though I'd say Israel is a more damaging extorter. Anyways even if you see it as extorting, so what? Thing is, I'm not suggesting you pay Hamas, but rather the population as a whole as a means of proving that you can be trusted to work for a solution even at your own expense.
Still, last I checked, to the victors go the spoils. Not fair, but again, life's not fair.
If this is your position, instead of just a description of the world, this discussion isn't going anywhere.
Not much different, really, than killing support troops instead of just line doggies.
Trouble is, even correcting for Hamas employees, the civilian to military casualties are terrible. That, and who would be considered support troops? Is it enough to be a member of Hamas? What if your work was distributing food?
Tell me though, how many countries give up territory important for their physical security in the face of implaccable enemies that won't rest till that country seizes to exist.
I'd hardly call the different Arab (and one Persian) countries impeccable enemies. As for Hamas, it's hardly much of a direct threat to Israel.
I watched a debate staged by the ABC and audienced by local University students in political studies on television, where the Israeli consulate and a Palestinian representative answered questions by the audience and argued with each other. It was fascinating stuff.
My leaving impressions were strong, the display between the two sides was strong. Some of the major points were that the arguments of the Israeli representative strongly reflected ideological concerns. It was like watching fundamental Christians tell the rest of the world what their politics and laws should be like.
The Palestinian appeared far more pragmatic. He simply concentrated on physical example and grass roots citizenry concerns.
The Israeli could not effectively answer accusations their military was specifically targeting Palestinian civilians in a terror campaign to remove them from the Gaza strip.
His argument was that some local citizens could demonstrate physical records of land ownership and residence stretching back centuries for individual families. They were being robbed of their homes, all nationality aside, for what the nations created by shifting borders had against each other. They were not Palestinian, they were not Israeli, they were just farmers and workers who had lived there for centuries.
Also the Israeli representative could not answer charges that Palestinian civilians were being forced into camps against international human rights conventions.
The basic conclusion was that the Palestinians appeared to be fighting by whatever means dictated for the concerns of specific individuals, where the Israelis were fighting an ideological war not entirely unlike the political atrocities of previous decades. They seemed arrogant, self righteous and completely inconsiderate.
Frequently the Israeli resorted to ad hominem attacks, where the Palestinian appeared concerned only with the issues at hand.
Also I would tender that whilst proved charges of proactive terrorism are abhorrent, many reciprocative methods of legitimate warfare are labelled terrorism by subjective authorities, the American colonists were once terrorists according to the British Empire, remember. Similarly the vast majority of those incarcerated in Gulags during the Stalinist reign were charged with terrorism (virtually synonymous with the Russian word for saboteur). All revolutionaries were labelled terrorists by the governments they sought to oppose. And all partisans are labelled terrorists under military law.
The simple fact is targeting population centres is a viable military strategy, used by Americans just as much as everybody else. Few freedom fighters refuse to target civilians in fact, the IRA notably and yet they are also labelled terrorists.
Lets leave Hezbollah out of this as they operate in Lebanon. As for people cooperating with Hamas, of course it happens to an extent, but often it is not as if Hamas needs it. I'd hardly call it cooperating if a neighbour is al-Quassem and launches a quassam missile.
You saying that Hezbollah doesn't add to the problem simply because they "operate in Lebanon"? "Terrorists" can only effectively operate in areas where they have tacit or active participation from the locals. There are far fewer members of these outfits than locals.
Problem is, Palestinians basically got two main "parties", and like in the US, while many like neither, it's not as if it's easy to get a new party together. Now the PA is (rightfully) seen as more inneficent and corrupt than Hamas, in adition, it's not as if the PA has much to show for going the peacefull way. Now add that Hamas has done a lot of charity and disaster relief, and it hardly seems fair to expect them to turn on Hamas.
John Gotti (mafia don)did a lot for his neighborhood too, but he was still a thug. Just b/c an outfit has a "charity wing" doesn't exonerate it.
Cuts both ways in this case, though I'd say Israel is a more damaging extorter. Anyways even if you see it as extorting, so what? Thing is, I'm not suggesting you pay Hamas, but rather the population as a whole as a means of proving that you can be trusted to work for a solution even at your own expense.
Frankly, the Palestinians need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps before expecting an ambivalent world to rescue them from their own bad choices. I suspect that if the Palestinians visibly turned on Hamas and the PA and renounced violence they'd have an easier time lining the world up behind their cause. As I noted before, I'm under no illusions that such a course would prove easy. I'm also not going to hold my breath expecting it to happen either. ;)
If this is your position, instead of just a description of the world, this discussion isn't going anywhere.
A little of each, actually. :devsmoke:
Trouble is, even correcting for Hamas employees, the civilian to military casualties are terrible. That, and who would be considered support troops? Is it enough to be a member of Hamas? What if your work was distributing food?
That certainly is a problem with guerrilla forces. How to distinguish between "fair" and "unfair" targets...
I'd hardly call the different Arab (and one Persian) countries impeccable enemies. As for Hamas, it's hardly much of a direct threat to Israel.
I'd say that Iranian regime backed anti-zionists are a direct threat to Israel. How serious may be a matter of debate, Still, are you prepared to believe that people who'd suicide bomb and use IEDs (interesting that more of that hasn't happened there....less it's somehow being covered up/ignored) for their stated cause wouldn't do worse if they had the right type of weapons? Now, I don't necessarily believe that Arabs in general are implaccable enemies of Israel or jews in general, but the regimes that run many of their countries aren't losing any sleep trying to make Israel disappear.
Finally, how did the exams go?
I figure that not everything in what I quoted is relevent to the situation, so I considered only quoting various portions of it, but minimalizing/paraphrasing takes away the impact. It's too bad that people like Martin Luther King, Carl Sagan, and Mahatma Gandhi aren't around anymore to offer wise and uniting advice...
Well by the same token, I am glad we have sort of stayed out of it. I remember reading the quote of the US Ambassador to the United Nations standing up and calling on the Arabs and the Jews to stop fighting 'like good Christians.'
There are people offering just as *wise* advice right now, trouble is, it often doesen't work terribly well in complicated situations like Palestine/Israel is. Just as modern India was born in a bloodbath despite Gandhis efforts before he died, a *solution* in Israel/Palestine is unlikely to be painless no matter how wise the advice.
The problem is that neither side is willing to give an additional inch. As much as we talk about 'occupied Palestine' it should be remembered that before Oslo accord, that land was Israeli by right of conquest. Not often used today, but still legal. Israel ceded that land to the dispossessed Palestinians as a place to live. With the death of Yitzak Rabin however, the hardliners among the Israelis immediately built entire towns in sectiong of it, then refused to allow the Arabs to have that specific land on the grounds that Jews already lived there.
By the same token, the Arabs scream about 'the right of return', which is guaranteed by UN mandate. However they ignore the codicil that states you are supposed to return as an active peaceful citizen, not some pushy thug that demands the return of the entire country.
You saying that Hezbollah doesn't add to the problem simply because they "operate in Lebanon"? "Terrorists" can only effectively operate in areas where they have tacit or active participation from the locals. There are far fewer members of these outfits than locals.
Hamas long before they won an election had a stated policy of extermination toward the Jews. As much as we think of people have a right to choose their government, what do you do with someone who has avowed your destruction in charge of a government inside your own territory.
That certainly is a problem with guerrilla forces. How to distinguish between "fair" and "unfair" targets...?
Oddly enough as much as the average American ignores it, under international law and UN Statute, every terrorist group in the world can be charged with crimes against humanity because the civilians on the other side are not to be considered targets except by accident. That has been fact since 1977.
I'd say that Iranian regime backed anti-zionists are a direct threat to Israel. How serious may be a matter of debate, Still, are you prepared to believe that people who'd suicide bomb and use IEDs (interesting that more of that hasn't happened there....less it's somehow being covered up/ignored) for their stated cause wouldn't do worse if they had the right type of weapons? Now, I don't necessarily believe that Arabs in general are implaccable enemies of Israel or jews in general, but the regimes that run many of their countries aren't losing any sleep trying to make Israel disappear.
THis is what I meant a few months ago when I commented on the possibility (I would now say high probability) that Iran will if they do not have it, either build or buy the tech for their own nuclear weapon. The stability of all nations so armed is matched by the stability of the leader who is least stable in that equation.
I have been off and on in following the peace talks in Israel/Palestine and I have come to the conclusion that Israel has no sympathy from me nor does the government of Palestine. I agree that stupidity has run rampant on both sides. My sympathies lie with the people that have to go through hell at the various checkpoints in order to get where they have to go. I am livid that Israel keeps trying to force out Palestinians from their homes and demolish them and in one instance killing an American citizen by running her over not once but twice with a buldozer. I am pissed that Hamas has resorted to violence and condoning it.
The situation is complicated as mach so simply put it. There is not going to be an easy solution considering that both sides think they are right and are refusing to budge an inch to a compromise. Frankly I see this as a repetition of wars fought over the same land stretching back to biblical times. Each side has a historic claim to it but...
Anyway, I am for peace between the two and I would rather see the Palestinians get a fair deal out of everything.
I have been off and on in following the peace talks in Israel/Palestine and I have come to the conclusion that Israel has no sympathy from me nor does the government of Palestine. I agree that stupidity has run rampant on both sides. My sympathies lie with the people that have to go through hell at the various checkpoints in order to get where they have to go. I am livid that Israel keeps trying to force out Palestinians from their homes and demolish them and in one instance killing an American citizen by running her over not once but twice with a buldozer. I am pissed that Hamas has resorted to violence and condoning it.
The situation is complicated as mach so simply put it. There is not going to be an easy solution considering that both sides think they are right and are refusing to budge an inch to a compromise. Frankly I see this as a repetition of wars fought over the same land stretching back to biblical times. Each side has a historic claim to it but...
Anyway, I am for peace between the two and I would rather see the Palestinians get a fair deal out of everything.
The leveling of houses is not to dispossess them, it is the fact that the terrorist organization have taken to 'hiring' suicide bombers by promising to pay for their homes and necessary upkeep. All well and good before modern forensic science, but these days within a week the Israelis not only who, but who he is related to- so they know which house on that block to level. As for the American civilian, according to international law if you are an active part in a conflict, and that includes shielding a belligerent, you are a legitimate target.
The problem is that the terrorsts have finally found just the right way to play our own media after fify odd years. Helzbollah uses small trucks with 8-10 BM21 rocket tubes. They drive them into civilian neighborhoods, fire the rockets and drive like hell, because standard Israeli counter battery practice would now level the neighborhood, a hideous 'crime' on Israel's part.
As for the checkpoints, about eight years ago, Hamas had a pregnant follower try to run a barricade to incense the American press with the 'Brutal attack. on a pregnant woman. The same as Vietnamese fathers having their children, some as much as five years old, setting off mines in full view of the troops being attacked.
The American civilian that was killed was one who was actually protecting those not involved with the terrorist. She was there on a humantiarian effort. I don';t remember all the details.
Some instances of the checkpoints and treatment I thought were distasteful. One such case was when a woman who had family in Israel/Palestine went to see them and was leaving to return home, she was detained for hours on end. She had cerebal palsy and was having her monthly. The authorities wouldn't give her a pad nor let her get one. They let her board the plane without being allowed to do that and the flight attendant gave her a look of disgust. She had nothing to do with terrorists, etc. That was the hell I meant at the checkpoints.
The American civilian that was killed was one who was actually protecting those not involved with the terrorist. She was there on a humantiarian effort. I don';t remember all the details.
Some instances of the checkpoints and treatment I thought were distasteful. One such case was when a woman who had family in Israel/Palestine went to see them and was leaving to return home, she was detained for hours on end. She had cerebal palsy and was having her monthly. The authorities wouldn't give her a pad nor let her get one. They let her board the plane without being allowed to do that and the flight attendant gave her a look of disgust. She had nothing to do with terrorists, etc. That was the hell I meant at the checkpoints.
There are always brutes in every organization.
It's amazing how far a little open-mindedness will go to solve the world's problems...from everyone.
Regarding the attack by Israeli troops on activists trying to break the blockade of Gaza.
I want you to ignore people saying, 'I was unarmed but they hurt me anyway'. Think of these very important facts;
First look up the definition of co-belligerency. A neutral who actively assists a belligerent in a war by definition is a co-belligerent. Back in the days of sail and right up until WWII, this had been used to convince neutrals (Uraguay for example with the Graf Spee) to stay neutral. Because if Uraguay had refused to follow neutrality rules, which gives a warship only 72 hours to remain before it must leave. If you refuse to accept the rules of neutrality, you have to accept that you are now a legitimate military target.
Note before you start screaming that terrorists have a right to attack the US for example for selling military ordinance, sales of arms is not a legal violation, France and Germany were selling weapons to the US during the revolution, but the British never used it as a reason to fight them. Besides, a terrorist organization is not, I repeat, not a government.
The two neighbors who might have assisted the Palestinians at any time, Jordan and Egypt have not. As the article about the attack reported, the blockade of Gaza has the assistance of Egypt. Why would an Arab country assist? Because both of those nations finally signed peace treaties with Israel, and good neighbors do not block another neighbor from putting up a 'do not trespass' sign. Neither has allowed weapons to cross their borders, meaning the Palestinian main state has been getting them by air, and Gaza, by ship. A blockade is a way 'short of bloodshed' to limit another state's capabilities.
As for breaking a blockade, ask the Americans who were fired on by the British in WWI for violating the blockade of the Baltic. Ask the crews forcibly escorted to British ports without bothering to check what their cargoes were. Ask William Jennings Bryan, then Secretary of State for the Wilson government until 1916 if Britain had the right to attack our shipping.
The only difference, as I have said before, is that today the media can blow everything out of proportion a lot faster than 1916. If a fleet of civilian boats had surrounded the Graf Spee as she fled Montevideo, do you think it would have stopped the Brits from blowing that ship to hell?
The only difference, as I have said before, is that today the media can blow everything out of proportion a lot faster than 1916. If a fleet of civilian boats had surrounded the Graf Spee as she fled Montevideo, do you think it would have stopped the Brits from blowing that ship to hell?
No, nor should it have. It's almost a marvel that western militaries (esp the US) can operate at all in the modern era, what with all the second guessing done by many civillians in the press, NGOs, etc...
~snip~
You have got to be kidding me... wow... just wow... Yes, its obviously ok to invade a ship in international waters, slaughter civilians, sorry terrorists; that are attempting to provide food and assistance to a starving people that have been illegally blockaded for 3 years. Israel doesn't even need a PR machine, everyone just turns the other way, just like they do with North Korea.
Ironically there was even a holocaust survivor on board the activist ships, hell there were diplomats from multiple countries. Five friken ships were fired upon by Israeli commandos, IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS, this is essentially a declaration of war and an invasion against Turkey, according to maritime rights. Israel defends the attack by saying a civilian took a rifle from a commando and gunned down 6 soldiers.... just wow... I mean honestly... Was Rambo helping the activists?
I hope this gruesome incident will finally be the spark that leads to increased Israeli awareness, but who am I kidding; this government has gotten away with hundreds of terrorist campaigns, carrying the blood of thousands of women and children. Maybe Turkey or some European nations finally have the gall to do something, especially after these civilians were taken to Israeli prison and interrogated.
Considering that Israel insists on maintaining Gaza as a Palestinian ghetto, ruins and all, I'm surprised that Hamas hasn't gathered more steam, unfortunately. The cruel irony is, when if Israel decides to lift the blockade, there most certainly will be a third intifada, which will also correspond to another Israeli invasion of Gaza and the West Bank, which means even more oppression of Palestinians. Quite the vicious circle.
You have got to be kidding me... wow... just wow... Yes, its obviously ok to invade a ship in international waters, slaughter civilians, sorry terrorists; that are attempting to provide food and assistance to a starving people that have been illegally blockaded for 3 years. Israel doesn't even need a PR machine, everyone just turns the other way, just like they do with North Korea.
Ironically there was even a holocaust survivor on board the activist ships, hell there were diplomats from multiple countries. Five friken ships were fired upon by Israeli commandos, IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS, this is essentially a declaration of war and an invasion against Turkey, according to maritime rights. Israel defends the attack by saying a civilian took a rifle from a commando and gunned down 6 soldiers.... just wow... I mean honestly... Was Rambo helping the activists?
I hope this gruesome incident will finally be the spark that leads to increased Israeli awareness, but who am I kidding; this government has gotten away with hundreds of terrorist campaigns, carrying the blood of thousands of women and children. Maybe Turkey or some European nations finally have the gall to do something, especially after these civilians were taken to Israeli prison and interrogated.
That is why I chose the first historical referent, the 1st World War. The blockade ignored international waters, Neutral ships were stopped as they approached a line even with Greewich, and asked their port of call. If they inended to go anywhere in the Baltic, even just to Southern Norway, they were seized. If they said they were going somewhere else, the Brits would board them anyway 'just to make sure'. If anything they carried was consigned to a Baltic port, they were seized anyway. Any attempt at resistance would lead to the ship being fired on, and a number of Americans and other neutrals were fired upon, though the events were never fully reported. One of the reasons Bryan resigned as Secretary of State was the same reason Collin Powell did, because the government they worked for was hushing it up to keep the people back home unaware, or flat out lying to them.
But if they lean on anyone, they have to lean on both. The Palestinians are not being reasonable either. If everyone told both sides to wake up, smell the coffee, and grow up, maybe it would end.
Considering that Israel insists on maintaining Gaza as a Palestinian ghetto, ruins and all, I'm surprised that Hamas hasn't gathered more steam, unfortunately. The cruel irony is, when if Israel decides to lift the blockade, there most certainly will be a third intifada, which will also correspond to another Israeli invasion of Gaza and the West Bank, which means even more oppression of Palestinians. Quite the vicious circle.
If we want the circle to end, we need to make both sides toe the line. Israel is being hardline about it, but even after the election Hamas is calling for the return. As I explained in an earlier post, the UN guarantees the right to return, but that guarantee demands that you foreswear resistance to that government. You make peace, you stick to peace, and stop pointing at a piece of ground that has not been yours for half a century and saying, 'I want that back now!'
Tom Clancy in The Sum of all Fears did it best. If a group of Arabs blocked a road in a sit in, and began singing 'Give Peace a Chance', the Jews would not be willing to break it up. If the head of Hamas joined them, maybe the ones pushing to take it all back would finally shut up.
No, nor should it have. It's almost a marvel that western militaries (esp the US) can operate at all in the modern era, what with all the second guessing done by many civillians in the press, NGOs, etc...
It's a very contemporary matter but one that has been in study of scholars for some decades now. The thought that "civil societies" are somewhat replacing state-centrism is far from true (see Czempiel, 1991), although they do have a voice in politics. As for INGOs ("I" stands for International) being an independent action themselves, that's another disputed point. In fact, it's a challenge to even find a INGO that's not funded by a government somewhere.
Considering that Israel insists on maintaining Gaza as a Palestinian ghetto, ruins and all, I'm surprised that Hamas hasn't gathered more steam, unfortunately. The cruel irony is, when if Israel decides to lift the blockade, there most certainly will be a third intifada, which will also correspond to another Israeli invasion of Gaza and the West Bank, which means even more oppression of Palestinians. Quite the vicious circle.
Q.F.T.
It's difficult to point the guilty one here, but seeing recent events I can only judge Israel.
Building a wall around a whole region, barb wires around it, military all round. Sounds like one big WW2 concentration camp to me, the irony.
I've been too Germany a few weeks ago to visit WW2 concentration and elimination camps with co-students. The German people that worked there were very clear about who was guilty in WW2. They told us themselves that peer pressure and short sightness led to the events and that even current generations regret it all.
However, the Israel people do the exact same thing to their neighbours right now. I find it shocking. The land was Palestinan to begin with, now look how much land those people have left. It's WW2 all over again.
And over here, I hear politicians say 'This attack on a help convoy needs to be investigated.'
Investigated? It's murder.
Only sensible answer was the Turkish. They withdrew their ambassador and clearly stated to be preparing for sanctions.
How can we allow this? Murder in our back yard?
Hamas being in control in the region is imo only logical. If your whole family is killed, everything you love is being destroyed, I'd vote for revenge too.
It is interesting that today, people aboard those boats, that 'unarmed civilians' admitted they were armed in some cases with sticks knives and handguns.
The reason I used people following in Gandhi and Martin Luther King was because if you do not want a violent confrontation, you do not offer violence. Their 'we have a right to defend ourselves' comment is true, but to quote from the New Centurion's Kilvinski's law, if they use their fist, you use your stick. They use a stick, you use your gun, cancel his ticket right then and there.
It is a dozen times worse when your facing not a cop, but a soldier.
That is why I chose the first historical referent, the 1st World War. The blockade ignored international waters, Neutral ships were stopped as they approached a line even with Greewich, and asked their port of call. If they inended to go anywhere in the Baltic, even just to Southern Norway, they were seized. If they said they were going somewhere else, the Brits would board them anyway 'just to make sure'. If anything they carried was consigned to a Baltic port, they were seized anyway.
First, this isn't World War I, nor is it even on the same scale. We now have the UN and a much more internationally organized society. This isn't even a war, one side has a rag tag army probably consisting of less than a 1,000 men with no artillery or air craft to speak of; while the other side has the U.S. bending over, hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and top of the line aircraft and artillery. It's like Indians vs. Americans all over again.
But if they lean on anyone, they have to lean on both. The Palestinians are not being reasonable either. If everyone told both sides to wake up, smell the coffee, and grow up, maybe it would end.
Would you be reasonable if you were consistently starving everyday, housing oppressive soldiers, living in rubble, and constantly living in fear of air raids? I'm sure the average Palestinian just wants the nightmare to end, wants to be able to sell their crops and crafts without having to walk through 20 security checkpoints, but hell, if one idiot Palestinian throws a soda bottle at an Israeli; Israel uses it as an excuse for "massive retaliation" and levels Gaza along with some neighboring Arab country, killing thousands.
If we want the circle to end, we need to make both sides toe the line. Israel is being hardline about it, but even after the election Hamas is calling for the return. As I explained in an earlier post, the UN guarantees the right to return, but that guarantee demands that you foreswear resistance to that government. You make peace, you stick to peace, and stop pointing at a piece of ground that has not been yours for half a century and saying, 'I want that back now!'
The problem isn't "We want all our land back now, leave." If you look at a map of Palestine, since 1970, it has shrunk year after year. The Palestinians are still losing more and more land, and Israel still insists on building illegal settlements, probably as an excuse for massive retaliation.
Tom Clancy in The Sum of all Fears did it best. If a group of Arabs blocked a road in a sit in, and began singing 'Give Peace a Chance', the Jews would not be willing to break it up. If the head of Hamas joined them, maybe the ones pushing to take it all back would finally shut up.
And here is the greatest irony, many many many Arabs have had peaceful demonstrations, even this running of the blockade can be considered a peaceful demonstration on the level of Ghandi or MLK. Running in the face of the bulldog with nothing but aid and food for a starving people, then getting fired upon. There was even a video of a few activists dressing up like Na'vi from Avatar, holding up peaceful signs. Guess what happened? Israeli soldiers FIRED at them with assault rifles, they just plain open fired on a group of civilians dressed like Na'vi.
It is interesting that today, people aboard those boats, that 'unarmed civilians' admitted they were armed in some cases with sticks knives and handguns.
"O' lord, knives, sticks, and handguns; I guess our only option is to open fire on five boats with various European ambassadors and activists, murdering 50 isn't so bad is it, I mean we do air raid like 1000 civilians a year right?"
Also, where did you see that they admitted they had "sticks" as I was under the impression that none were available for interview because they were taken to an Israeli jail to be "interrogated."
MLK and Ghandi's philosophy was all about inciting a violent overreaction by the oppressor, so they lose the moral high ground and look like idiots world wide. Ghaza and running this blockade seem a lot like inciting overreaction... we can only hope the international community is ready to treat Israel like any every other country and hold them accountable for their actions.
Building a wall around a whole region, barb wires around it, military all round. Sounds like one big WW2 concentration camp to me, the irony.
I would say that it's more akin to a gigantic version of the Warsaw Ghetto (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto). No less ironic, though.
First, this isn't World War I, nor is it even on the same scale. We now have the UN and a much more internationally organized society. This isn't even a war, one side has a rag tag army probably consisting of less than a 1,000 men with no artillery or air craft to speak of; while the other side has the U.S. bending over, hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and top of the line aircraft and artillery. It's like Indians vs. Americans all over again.
If you refuse to accept history, you are doomed to repeat it, according to Seneca. Sure the Palestinians are few in number, primarily because they are unable to fight in the force on force way. After all, they tried three times and failed. So instead they murder other civilians and call it war. If you are not willing to hold both sides accountable. As for numbers, There are a lot more than the 1,000 you mention. As for artilery what do you call the BM21 rocket tubes used by Hezbollah?
Would you be reasonable if you were consistently starving everyday, housing oppressive soldiers, living in rubble, and constantly living in fear of air raids? I'm sure the average Palestinian just wants the nightmare to end, wants to be able to sell their crops and crafts without having to walk through 20 security checkpoints, but hell, if one idiot Palestinian throws a soda bottle at an Israeli; Israel uses it as an excuse for "massive retaliation" and levels Gaza along with some neighboring Arab country, killing thousands. .
Good histrionics, but really not accurate. Who occupied and trashed the Church of the Nativity back in 2000? The International Boy Scout society?
The problem isn't "We want all our land back now, leave." If you look at a map of Palestine, since 1970, it has shrunk year after year. The Palestinians are still losing more and more land, and Israel still insists on building illegal settlements, probably as an excuse for massive retaliation. .
Actually your history is not very accurate. Both Gaza and what was then called the West Bank was fully occupied by Israel in 1967. Also, it was not until the Oslo Accord that they even had a ntion to call home again. These horrible nasty Jews relocated out of those areas, and gave it to the Palestinians. If Yitzhak Rabin had not been assassinated, we would not have the hardliners in office who now have siezed about 1% of that originally promised land. That I agree was wrong.
And here is the greatest irony, many many many Arabs have had peaceful demonstrations, even this running of the blockade can be considered a peaceful demonstration on the level of Ghandi or MLK. Running in the face of the bulldog with nothing but aid and food for a starving people, then getting fired upon. There was even a video of a few activists dressing up like Na'vi from Avatar, holding up peaceful signs. Guess what happened? Israeli soldiers FIRED at them with assault rifles, they just plain open fired on a group of civilians dressed like Na'vi.
"O' lord, knives, sticks, and handguns; I guess our only option is to open fire on five boats with various European ambassadors and activists, murdering 50 isn't so bad is it, I mean we do air raid like 1000 civilians a year right?"
Also, where did you see that they admitted they had "sticks" as I was under the impression that none were available for interview because they were taken to an Israeli jail to be "interrogated." . You still don't get the point, or just feel yours must be right. Once you have a weapon of any type in your hands in a military controntation, you have crossed from civilian to solder. Even an unarmed mob can do this because the original reporter (Who you now claim is a liar about the weapons) stated that they surrounded and tried to disam the Iaraeli soldiers, again a hostile act.
MLK and Ghandi's philosophy was all about inciting a violent overreaction by the oppressor, so they lose the moral high ground and look like idiots world wide. Ghaza and running this blockade seem a lot like inciting overreaction... we can only hope the international community is ready to treat Israel like any every other country and hold them accountable for their actions.
No it was not. I lived through the 60s, though I was not a member of any movement, and I remember what King was trying. He did not want confrontations, he wanted people to be embarrassed by even thinking of violence in return. Gandhi did not win in India by causing confrontations, he did it by making the British look stupid trying to call what he was doing an 'armed insurrection'. What the Palestinians are doing, using civilian neighborhoods to strike from, Hezbollah firinig rockets across the border, that is where you're trying to force over reaction.
Either you want peace, in which case King's way is the way to go, or you just want to make one side look bad. As we can see from what you have said aboive, facts have little to do with that.
First, this isn't World War I, nor is it even on the same scale. We now have the UN and a much more internationally organized society. This isn't even a war, one side has a rag tag army probably consisting of less than a 1,000 men with no artillery or air craft to speak of; while the other side has the U.S. bending over, hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and top of the line aircraft and artillery. It's like Indians vs. Americans all over again.
Hardly. The Americans didn't have the same proscriptions on use of power that you have today. Custer's fate pretty much showed that the "Indians" weren't exactly helpless either. Still, today's insurgents/asymetrical warriors have access to much nastier weapons than did the Indians, who ultimately lost. Might we be so lucky in the modern era. Face it, rpgs, AKs and IEDs are hardly bows'n arrows. It doesn't hurt these people that they also have a sympathetic press and global financing.
Would you be reasonable if you were consistently starving everyday, housing oppressive soldiers, living in rubble, and constantly living in fear of air raids? I'm sure the average Palestinian just wants the nightmare to end, wants to be able to sell their crops and crafts without having to walk through 20 security checkpoints, but hell, if one idiot Palestinian throws a soda bottle at an Israeli; Israel uses it as an excuse for "massive retaliation" and levels Gaza along with some neighboring Arab country, killing thousands.
Perhaps they should force the militants to base themselves elsewhere so that they don't become unwitting targets.
And here is the greatest irony, many many many Arabs have had peaceful demonstrations, even this running of the blockade can be considered a peaceful demonstration on the level of Ghandi or MLK. Running in the face of the bulldog with nothing but aid and food for a starving people, then getting fired upon. There was even a video of a few activists dressing up like Na'vi from Avatar, holding up peaceful signs. Guess what happened? Israeli soldiers FIRED at them with assault rifles, they just plain open fired on a group of civilians dressed like Na'vi.
:rolleyes: There were ~6 ships that in the flotilla. How many of them suffered casualties? I seriously doubt that this blockade run was remotely anything more than an outright provocation. If they were truly peaceful, they'd have stopped before things could spin out of control.
"O' lord, knives, sticks, and handguns; I guess our only option is to open fire on five boats with various European ambassadors and activists, murdering 50 isn't so bad is it, I mean we do air raid like 1000 civilians a year right?"
Also, where did you see that they admitted they had "sticks" as I was under the impression that none were available for interview because they were taken to an Israeli jail to be "interrogated."
Perhaps after any pending investigation we may find out what really happened. Wouldn't put it past either side to put some kind of spin.
MLK and Ghandi's philosophy was all about inciting a violent overreaction by the oppressor, so they lose the moral high ground and look like idiots world wide. Ghaza and running this blockade seem a lot like inciting overreaction... we can only hope the international community is ready to treat Israel like any every other country and hold them accountable for their actions.
Well, one thing we know the UN can mostly get behind....bashing Israel. I think it's almost pavlovian at this point. ;)
I've never been a great supporter of Israel, but leaving the Israel/Palestine thing aside for a moment to focus on this 'Peace Flotilla', I find it hard to sympathise with the activists.
I'm not saying that Israel was right in its response - I think that it was a bit of an overreaction to intercept the vessels before they crossed the exclusion zone, even if it does have maritime law on its side, but it had made it clear to everyone that it would continue to enforce the blockade - yet it seems the leaders of this flotilla chose to ignore those warnings precisely because this would happen.
I hope that any "prompt, impartial, credible and transparent" investigation of the situation takes that into account.
Then again there are nations outside of this issue that are guilty of perceived wrongs in their own countries. Funny though that domestic situations don't pack the same punch as an international incident.
@ Astor: When a deliberate action is undertaken, despite warnings, there is a motive behind it. The activists, from their view, were trying to prove a point by challenging the existing system. That seems to usually be the case when the wronged struggle against the wrong.
If you refuse to accept history, you are doomed to repeat it, according to Seneca. Sure the Palestinians are few in number, primarily because they are unable to fight in the force on force way. After all, they tried three times and failed. So instead they murder other civilians and call it war. If you are not willing to hold both sides accountable. As for numbers, There are a lot more than the 1,000 you mention. As for artilery what do you call the BM21 rocket tubes used by Hezbollah?
Your right, maybe the IDF could use a textbook that covers WW2. I'm not justifying Hamas or Hezbollah, nor am I applauding the idiots who fire off a dinky rockets into Israel. However, there is a stark and clear contrast between 2 deaths and 1000 deaths, that you apparently fail to see.
Actually your history is not very accurate. Both Gaza and what was then called the West Bank was fully occupied by Israel in 1967. Also, it was not until the Oslo Accord that they even had a ntion to call home again. These horrible nasty Jews relocated out of those areas, and gave it to the Palestinians. If Yitzhak Rabin had not been assassinated, we would not have the hardliners in office who now have siezed about 1% of that originally promised land. That I agree was wrong.
http://bristol.indymedia.org/attachments/jan2009/landloss.jpg)
You still don't get the point, or just feel yours must be right. Once you have a weapon of any type in your hands in a military controntation, you have crossed from civilian to solder. Even an unarmed mob can do this because the original reporter (Who you now claim is a liar about the weapons) stated that they surrounded and tried to disam the Iaraeli soldiers, again a hostile act.
I'm not claiming he's a liar, but currently, we can't get any activists to give their side of the story, as they are currently being interrogated in some Israeli facility. Do you honestly believe it was ok to open fire with assault rifles against a crowd with sticks and chairs? If other countries can disarm entire groups of pirates (with AKs) and ship them off to prison without any casualties, I don't see why it's so hard for the Israeli army to disarm a group of activists.
No it was not. I lived through the 60s, though I was not a member of any movement, and I remember what King was trying. He did not want confrontations, he wanted people to be embarrassed by even thinking of violence in return. Gandhi did not win in India by causing confrontations, he did it by making the British look stupid trying to call what he was doing an 'armed insurrection'. What the Palestinians are doing, using civilian neighborhoods to strike from, Hezbollah firinig rockets across the border, that is where you're trying to force over reaction.
Like someone else said, these activists knowingly ran the blockade to prove a point, to confront injustice, probably to illicit an overreaction on the part of Israel. Do you think Hamas honestly believes they can take back Israel by firing rockets? No, they want to illicit an overreaction on the part of Israel so they lose the moral highground. Israel plays right into their hands everytime they open fire, drop bombs, or invade neighbors.
MLK and many students would knowingly sit in white only restaurants or walk by police barricades to illicit an overreaction on the side of injustice; then the TVs do their job and make said side look like fools.
Either you want peace, in which case King's way is the way to go, or you just want to make one side look bad. As we can see from what you have said aboive, facts have little to do with that.
Your right in that Hezbollah and Hamas differ from MLK as they both use violence to illicit greater violence, so they don't really follow the passive resistance philosophy; but their motives are the same: catalyze an overreaction by the aggressor. Palestine will probably never gain some leverage until an Arab MLK props up, which I highly doubt. The children there grow up being told the enemy is over there, that they are the cause of their suffering, and again, Israel plays helps to confirm and legitimize this propaganda by annually invading. So all Hamas has to say is: "See I told you so," and bam another basket of young fools runs out and gets killed.
However, the Arabs might not even need an MLK, if they keep popping out 7+ babies per family, they'll soon outnumber the Jews in Israel. I can't see how the current Israeli government can maintain power in future decades without instituting some sort of apartheid.