posted
Big deal. A bunch of fanatics tried to break Israel's blockade. Israel offered to take any aid they had and bring it in through proper channels. Israel delivers literally tons of food and merchandise to Gaza every day. It isn't like there's an actual humanitarian crisis there.
They were told to either divert to Ashdod port or be boarded. They refused, so they were boarded. But they were laying in wait, and as soon as the soldiers came aboard, the flotilla people attacked them.
They should have sunk the damned ships.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Big deal ... It isn't like there's an actual humanitarian crisis there ... They should have sunk the damned ships.
Lol. Okay.
A sage bit of commentary I heard from someone earlier:
quote:I think one of the ways that Israel shoots itself in the foot constantly is that they approach situations with a "tactical advantage above all else" attitude. And when you look at it, it served them well when they were fighting their neighbors over the past few decades. It works great for the Force-on-Force, medium- to high- intensity conflicts that they do so well at. Its a ****ing terrible idea in a counter-insurgency and stability environment which I think they're essentially in denial about being in.
Perfect example of this: use of White Phosphorus in cities. Improved WP is fantastic for both creating smoke screens to allow your troops freedom of movement. But its terrible for use inside cities. It might give you a tactical advantage, but the civilian casualties alone are going to ensure that you're created a much worse reaction on the back end.
This is pretty much a description of your armchair approach, lisa. You would take all of israel's counterproductive response and amp it up to 11, all the while utterly convinced of its moral righteousness.
Without even taking a side on who is in the right in this affair, I could safely say that one of the quickest ways to sink Israel would be to put you in charge. You would make it easier for people to bait Israel like this.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do note that Israel has been doing stuff like this for a long time, and people have been saying for decades how they're shooting themselves in the foot... and unaccountably Israel is still there and still in control of whatever piece of ground it chooses to put soldiers on. There are sharp limits to the military importance of Western outrage and Arab outrage.
On the merits of the case, it seems to me that international waters or none, Israel has a strong case for being able to enforce a legally declared blockade. It's the old vexed issues of the distant blockade, what is contraband, the flag covering the goods, and the port of destination all over again, with Israel in the role usually assumed by Britain.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do note that Israel has been doing stuff like this for a long time, and people have been saying for decades how they're shooting themselves in the foot... and unaccountably Israel is still there and still in control of whatever piece of ground it chooses to put soldiers on. There are sharp limits to the military importance of Western outrage and Arab outrage.
"Sharp limits" is the same operating procedure that countries like Burma and the DPRK work on. Efficient, to a point. Leaves you a backwater. Even then, they're not the most important issue. The longitudinally most important issue is the outrage of the Jewish population, as Israel's actions divide the 'people' themselves. Israel's actions are increasingly alienating the Jewish populations of the West, which is going to come around to bite them in the ass. Support in the US is dropping almost comically fast, especially with the young. The days when Israel can bank on the "my country right or wrong" support of the world Jewish population are rapidly waning.
Watch what happens then.
On the merits of the case, storming ships in international waters like this is enough to make this all at the very least incredibly dubious and open up a ton of problems for Israel.
I mean it. They took the bait. They are fools.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps if you find her rhetoric so objectionable, Blayne, you ought to once in awhile rise above its perceived style instead of playing around in the pigpen with it? How would you respond if someone spoke to you like that? How have you reacted?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Have you read the previous thread me and Lisa interacted in? This is precisely how she responded to me when I gave an in detail reply to why I found her Stock Response to my conversational troping annoying, desrespectful and even worse incorrect and out of context with its original use.
IP: Logged |
posted
i guess when I said 'approaching conflict' in the title of my thread i should have been more specific
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The longitudinally most important issue is the outrage of the Jewish population, as Israel's actions divide the 'people' themselves. Israel's actions are increasingly alienating the Jewish populations of the West, which is going to come around to bite them in the ass. Support in the US is dropping almost comically fast, especially with the young. The days when Israel can bank on the "my country right or wrong" support of the world Jewish population are rapidly waning.
What's your support for this idea?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whenever sociologists analyze the rate at which attachment to israel is turning into alienation from israel, they find that each subsequent generation of american jews has a significantly lower percentage of attachment to Israel. Already, a majority of them disagree with Israel's actions surrounding things like settlements, expansions of housing in jerusalem, etc. -- The pro-israel/seminary studies tend to focus on elements like intermarriage diluting attachment to Israel, and the uni studies broadly explore the role that disillusionment plays.
In some areas of methodological study, this is astoundingly evident. Over 70% of american jews want the united states to essentially bully both sides of the israel/palestine conflict into compromise, instead of just letting israel self-determine the 'solution.'
I listened to a talk about studies showing how young adult american jews have a markedly increased amount of alienation from israel, and what factors play into it. Political individuation on the american spectrum was surprisingly subtle, even though a large majority of american jews are liberal/progressive (cue 'ugh') and by and large support Obama. Even in a 2007 study called "Beyond Distancing," the authors concluded that the effects are 'generational and permanent,' in their words.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Zzzzzzzzz, wha... Huh? Sorry I was asleep were you saying something important that you would like people to respectfully listen to?
<smile> Feel better, Blayne? I'm sorry I pissed you off so much.. I felt like you were making a point of ignoring any feedback from anyone else on the subject of the tvtropes site, and it irked me. So I responded the way I did. You can continue to hate me if you like. I'm not sorry for what I did, except that it apparently pissed you off more than I'd intended.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Perhaps if you find her rhetoric so objectionable, Blayne, you ought to once in awhile rise above its perceived style instead of playing around in the pigpen with it? How would you respond if someone spoke to you like that? How have you reacted?
Rakeesh, I did the same exact thing to Blayne the other day. He's entitled to be pissed.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Whenever sociologists analyze the rate at which attachment to israel is turning into alienation from israel, they find that each subsequent generation of american jews has a significantly lower percentage of attachment to Israel. Already, a majority of them disagree with Israel's actions surrounding things like settlements, expansions of housing in jerusalem, etc. -- The pro-israel/seminary studies tend to focus on elements like intermarriage diluting attachment to Israel, and the uni studies broadly explore the role that disillusionment plays.
In some areas of methodological study, this is astoundingly evident. Over 70% of american jews want the united states to essentially bully both sides of the israel/palestine conflict into compromise, instead of just letting israel self-determine the 'solution.'
I listened to a talk about studies showing how young adult american jews have a markedly increased amount of alienation from israel, and what factors play into it. Political individuation on the american spectrum was surprisingly subtle, even though a large majority of american jews are liberal/progressive (cue 'ugh') and by and large support Obama. Even in a 2007 study called "Beyond Distancing," the authors concluded that the effects are 'generational and permanent,' in their words.
On the one hand, who cares? On the other hand, the stats are bad, because that "large majority" is itself made up a very large majority of Jews who have no attachment to Judaism in the first place. I'm not just talking about people who aren't Orthodox; I'm talking about people who barely identify as Jewish. Who have no qualms whatsoever about marrying out. Who know less about Judaism than Eddie Murphy.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Obviously not the person who says 'big deal' in response to this issue and says israel should have just sunk all the ships.
Others who have what I would consider a more realistic appraisal towards managing israel's future are probably going to care. Thus, the tons of talks and plans for managing the issue, inside and out of Israel.
But the fact that you don't care, yes, we have that loud and clear. Thanks!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who cares? Well, insofar as Israel's security can be connected to its standing in the world at large - and I think that's a pretty easy case to make, though just how much can be argued - well, the people who care are those who want Israel to continue to exist as a nation as safely as possible.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Who cares? Well, insofar as Israel's security can be connected to its standing in the world at large - and I think that's a pretty easy case to make, though just how much can be argued - well, the people who care are those who want Israel to continue to exist as a nation as safely as possible.
Ta-da. See, I'm big on future implied trends because they can allow an intragenerational knowledge of a watershed point. The people running Israel these days are all people who fought in the bad old days, and they're incapable of viewing events other than through that lens. It's really stupid and unforgivable, they're as out of date as the WWI generals who kept thinking they were going to win the war with a cavalry charge.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I mean it. They took the bait. They are fools.
I disagree. Yes, it was bait. Yes, it sucks. But I'd rather take a PR hit than a security hit.
I tend to agree.
a PR hit is a security hit.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: snipped for brevity
Zzzzzzzzz, wha... Huh? Sorry I was asleep were you saying something important that you would like people to respectfully listen to?
<smile> Feel better, Blayne? I'm sorry I pissed you off so much.. I felt like you were making a point of ignoring any feedback from anyone else on the subject of the tvtropes site, and it irked me. So I responded the way I did. You can continue to hate me if you like. I'm not sorry for what I did, except that it apparently pissed you off more than I'd intended.
I think I'm actually about to cry and I don't mean this sarcastically.
IP: Logged |
Unless you're making the case that the flotilla was going to stab israelis to death were they allowed to make landfall or otherwise not attacked in international waters, the counterpoint is just too ludicrous to bear.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could have guessed, but I have to keep in mind that you literally think they should have just sunk the ships. I'm sure in your mind that's preferable to letting them make landfall, too.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be interested to learn why they were intercepted in international waters. I mean, the Israelis knew they were coming, right? Why not let them come just a bit further until they were in Israeli waters?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I would be interested to learn why they were intercepted in international waters. I mean, the Israelis knew they were coming, right? Why not let them come just a bit further until they were in Israeli waters?
They wouldn't have been. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip. Intercepting them in international waters was the only way to make sure it was clearly legal.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I could have guessed, but I have to keep in mind that you literally think they should have just sunk the ships. I'm sure in your mind that's preferable to letting them make landfall, too.
Not really. The other 5 ships were also trying to break the blockade, and they were in the wrong. But at least they didn't get violent when Israeli soldiers boarded them. The ship that did can dock in hell, so far as I'm concerned.
Look, it's pretty simple. I don't believe that war is a game. Dumbass marquis of queensbury rules don't make sense. The aggressor has no right to do anything but stand down. And the aggressee has no responsibility to do anything but stop the aggressor from causing harm. By whatever means necessary. Now, I'm quite aware that there are people out there who don't have a clear view of who the aggressor and the aggressee are here. I'm not just talking about this incident, but in general. So I don't expect that argument to work on people with that particular blindness. But whether you agree or not, a modicum of unblinkered observation will tell you that we don't agree with you.
The only thing wrong with this operation was the way in which the politicians tied the hands of the soldiers. They boarded those boats with their weapons strapped to their backs and their pistols holstered. It took about half an hour of brutal beatings and stabbings on the part of the scum on the boats before they finally gave up on doing it the politically expedient way and started fighting back for real. What kind of idiot "leaders" place the welfare of enemies over our own?
I'll tell you something. You talk about a split among the Israeli populace. These idiots on the boat may have done us a favor, because I'd be willing to bet that the percent of the Jews in Israel who approve of this operation is upwards of 95%. A tiny percentage of radical leftists will criticize the operation, and I presume that 80% or more of the Arabs in Israel will criticize it. But we can live with that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
What about being within the Exclusive Economic Zone? Surely you have some leeway there, also it is a legal blockade, where else are they gonna intercept craft?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I could have guessed, but I have to keep in mind that you literally think they should have just sunk the ships. I'm sure in your mind that's preferable to letting them make landfall, too.
Not really. The other 5 ships were also trying to break the blockade, and they were in the wrong. But at least they didn't get violent when Israeli soldiers boarded them. The ship that did can dock in hell, so far as I'm concerned.
Look, it's pretty simple. I don't believe that war is a game. Dumbass marquis of queensbury rules don't make sense. The aggressor has no right to do anything but stand down. And the aggressee has no responsibility to do anything but stop the aggressor from causing harm. By whatever means necessary. Now, I'm quite aware that there are people out there who don't have a clear view of who the aggressor and the aggressee are here. I'm not just talking about this incident, but in general. So I don't expect that argument to work on people with that particular blindness. But whether you agree or not, a modicum of unblinkered observation will tell you that we don't agree with you.
The only thing wrong with this operation was the way in which the politicians tied the hands of the soldiers. They boarded those boats with their weapons strapped to their backs and their pistols holstered. It took about half an hour of brutal beatings and stabbings on the part of the scum on the boats before they finally gave up on doing it the politically expedient way and started fighting back for real. What kind of idiot "leaders" place the welfare of enemies over our own?
I'll tell you something. You talk about a split among the Israeli populace. These idiots on the boat may have done us a favor, because I'd be willing to bet that the percent of the Jews in Israel who approve of this operation is upwards of 95%. A tiny percentage of radical leftists will criticize the operation, and I presume that 80% or more of the Arabs in Israel will criticize it. But we can live with that.
I hear there are Christian groups that are hoping to hasten Armageddon. Maybe you could get them to pay you for your Hatrack posts. I mean, you sure do work hard at it. You ought to get paid. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I could have guessed, but I have to keep in mind that you literally think they should have just sunk the ships. I'm sure in your mind that's preferable to letting them make landfall, too.
Not really.
If you don't think it was preferable, why do you desire it?
quote:Look, it's pretty simple. I don't believe that war is a game.
Nowhere in my analysis do I equate war to 'a game.' I note that actions in war (or in boardings in international waters, which are most entirely a different thing) involve consequences that you want, and which you don't want. Smart leaders avoid these consequences. Dumb leaders 'solve' them in ways which create more problems down the line. You talk about the fact that aggressors have no right to do anything but stand down and that aggressees have no responsibility to do anything but stop the aggressor from causing harm. This is such a retardedly black-and-white analysis of war's 'rules' that it would have justified dropping a nuke on the flotilla, because they're aggressors.
Sadly, the world has concluded that there are additional responsibilities of parties to warfare, and thus we have little things like 'war crimes.' And the real world continues to have consequences above and beyond the tactical, which is why in a situation where its really hardly ambiguous that Israel did the flotilla and the anti-israel forces of the world a favor, you'll muse that the flotilla did YOU a favor.
quote:You talk about a split among the Israeli populace.
posted
Steven. It's getting old. And definitely not hilarious enough for a rolly polly laughy-face.
Lisa is right about Jewish perception of the operation. Or at least Israeli perception. The only thing to lament is that Israel doesn't have Don Draper doing its PR - it's the war of information that we're losing, which is a shame, because we have the facts on our side.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only thing to lament is that Israel doesn't have Don Draper doing its PR - it's the war of information that we're losing
You have more to lament than that.
Case in point: this. Bad move. International waters. Taking the bait. Even if having the facts on your side were an unquestioned assumption, the people running the country turn the road ahead of them into a minefield by acting like this.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I could have guessed, but I have to keep in mind that you literally think they should have just sunk the ships. I'm sure in your mind that's preferable to letting them make landfall, too.
Not really.
If you don't think it was preferable, why do you desire it?
They were offered a chance to change course and make landfall at Ashdod port. They refused. At that point, screw them.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Steven. It's getting old.
Back off. I have no idea what you're talking about, but back off, in a general sense. You're nobody, to take that tone.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is definitely a PR mistake for Israel, but I don't think it is fair to give all the sympathy to a group who knowingly broke a blockade instead of getting their cargo inspected, became violent when their ship was boarded, then began shooting the Israelis, and now complains that the Israelis eventually shot back.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
*shrug* Anyways, one does wonder why Israel is managing its PR so badly when the US is occupying two countries in the Middle East, bombing civilians in a third, and routinely found to be torturing people among other things while still maintaining a superior standing in the world PR game.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Steven. It's getting old.
Back off. I have no idea what you're talking about, but back off, in a general sense. You're nobody, to take that tone.
I'm nobody? Dude. Who talks like that? Just because we're on the internet doesn't give you an excuse to behave like a total jerk. Present your opinions. And back off of Lisa. I, frankly, don't enjoy hearing from you in a post that lacked all substance and was simply there to jab at someone.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is an interesting article. Basically saying the error that the Israeli military made was going in too soft.
quote: Jason Alderwick, a maritime warfare expert at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, faulted the marines for not commandeering the vessel more efficiently.
"Success begins with planning and with decent intelligence, and they have boarded such ships before," he said.
"This time they didn't go in hard enough, fast enough and in sufficient numbers to establish overwhelming control."
Some of the troops wielded paintball rifles - non-lethal weapons designed to bruise, beat back and mark suspects for later arrest, but which apparently proved of limited use against activists who had the protection of life-jackets and gas masks.
I really don't know enough about the situation (this specifically, and the Gaza conflict as a whole) to have an opinion. It has been interesting reading this story though the Australian media though. It started as very much anti the Israeli actions, and seems to have modified since then.
Edit - I should make it clear. I think the prevailing view here the loss of life is dreadful. But it's becoming the opinion that the reasons for the raid itself are understood - it's just that raid was done badly.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I could have guessed, but I have to keep in mind that you literally think they should have just sunk the ships. I'm sure in your mind that's preferable to letting them make landfall, too.
Not really.
If you don't think it was preferable, why do you desire it?
They were offered a chance to change course and make landfall at Ashdod port. They refused. At that point, screw them.
Ok. So I know that I can come to you for opinions involving the desire for vengeful actions that are pretty crazy and would never even be considered by the israelis. Insofar as realistic approaches to the israel situation go, though, I would have to consult others.
Like, seriously, the 'sink all the ships' approach is insane. Petty, too. It's the product of a mind willfully devoted to an extremist approach shut off from consideration of the consequences of israel's actions.
Israel's being stupid, but we (and they!) can be glad they aren't interested in being that stupid.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp. that's not her approach. She was saying "sink all the ships" rhetorically. I'm pretty sure she made that clear in an earlier post.
I think the argument is that Israel drew lines in the sand. And in order to maintain its own security, it cannot waiver, it cannot be subtle, and it must never compromise. It's like the policy of never negotiating with terrorists - once you begin to negotiate, you encourage 100s of other terrorists.
Israel continues to be subtle, it continues to try and fight as morally as it can - they sent in the operatives with paintball guns, and after suffering beatings and stabbings, they did what they had to do.
Mucus is right. The U.S. is not nearly as subtle and hairsplitting in its military objectives - yet it is winning the PR war.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
sorry - I love both of you. I just thought it was funny bc I saw your exchange in the other post.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
