What to do about Israel?

[Narnia]

There may well be but that's off topic for me.

[SeanMacGabhann]

The Israel response reminds me of hicks "you all saw him, he had a gun" routine

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SXyNQw-Hwpc

not sure if the link works tho

[mockney piers]

"One of reasons the IRA was planting bombs in England was because the British army had occupied Northern Ireland and the catholics were being victimised by both the British army and the Ulster protestants"

...is a closer description to the state of affairs in palestine than NI. Have you actually ever read a single history book?

Partition was a compromise facet of the negotiated settlement that granted home rule to the Irish Free State(look into it, it sparked a civil war in 1922). As a result of the conflict there arose a defacto partition that was later formalised in a series of treaties culminating in the '37 constitution.

The army didn't 'occupy' Ulster, they were brought to NI to protect the catholic community, but disillusionment, abuses and accusations of siding with the unionists soon soured their presence amongst the catholic community, and they subsequently became a target of the IRA.

The bombs in England were not a response to army presence in NI but a part of the dual strategy comprising specific political ends aimed at forcing the hand of Westminster as they knew Stormont would never compromise without pressure from London. The strategy was partly successful and the ends partly realised.

Narnia, I guess bombing South Armagh would probably be the closest we'd get on Jah Lush's anaolgy.

Palestine (as recognised by the UN) was conquered and occupied as a result of the victory in the six day war. I don't think long-term occupation was part of the plan, I think it developed over time, especially thanks to the unbalanced influence that the hawks have in Israeli politics (think lib dems in our coalition), but that victory was for me when Israel began to lose its way, and ultimately started losing sympathy in world opinion.

Then came the first Lebanese invasion and the Sabra Shatila massacres over-seen (literally not figuratively) by Israeli troops. Then the second invasion and the so-called Gaza war. I think Israel (like Bush with Iraq) has spent what symapthy people had now.

Palestine is entirely controlled by military presence and small illegal communities have been established there at great expense and maintained by military effort and stolen resources.

Personally it seems insane as a strategy and don't understand why it was pursued. It will be unmaintainable the moment the US changes the strategic partnership and stops underwriting it all.

But then Sharon who kicked off this whole phase of the war, undermining and twisting previous admittedly half-hearted moves towards a negotiated settlement (the so called road maps), was a nasty piece of work and a fanatic to boot, so maybe it shouldn't make sense. He saw in 9/11 and the Bush administration's response (simplistic us & them, good & evil) a cynical opportunity for a deeper strategic partnership and that both states would start pushing the boundary of the acceptable with illegal assassinations, torture and invasions. And we find ourselves where we are today, with absolutely no movement towards peace at all.

This latest episode has been a very poor PR own goal, hence the desperate claims that the boats were full of terrorists and weapons. Perhaps if the US forces them to the negotiating table (after all Netenyahu maybe a right leaning conservative, but he's no Sharon) some good may come as a result of all this.

[expat]

Were the ships not in international waters?

[jimmy two times]

No I don't read history books. In fact, I failed my history exam cos I forgot what date it was on.

[mockney piers]

baddamtish ;-)

[northlondoner]

p_glover Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Tobester999 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Have just seen the videos online, may not be aU

> > popular viewpoint, but the soldiers who boarded

> > were violently attacked, and if you attack an

> > armed man, don't be surprised if he bites

> back..

Yeah and if you illegally board a boat in international waters don't be surprised if they try to chuck you off.And P Glover are you seriously suggesting British forces would have opened fire killing ten people when confronted by a violent angry mob? Think you'll find people serving today would be horrified at that unjustified slur. Good job you're now a former soldier .

>

> Totally agree with Tobester999. As a former

> soldier i would of done the same if i was geting

> attacked from all angles with iron bars etc. You

> cant tell me that if you get hit over the head you

> wont receive any serious injuries..including

> death. We all have the right to self defence. I

> didnt see the soldiers attacking people on the

> boat the moment they landed or shooting there way

> on to the boat.

>

> I am led to believe if the boats followed the

> Israel instructions offered days before to dock in

> there port and have the cargo checked they could

> then transport it in to Gaza by land. Maybe they

> had something to hide on that ship.... guns,

> rockets, explosives etc to be used on innocent

> civilians.

[Easties EL]

WTF?!!!? Self Defence? Your shitting me right

[Narnia]

Easties, save that comment for the Fantasy WC when someone is sent off. It's where it belongs.

[matthew123]

Perhaps the Israeli high command were well aware of the likely outcome of their strategy in boarding the lead ship - but having seen this footage of the welcoming party I am not surprised it turned into a bloodbath :

 

[citizenED]

So what poor soldier pulled the short straw to "lead" that landing party?

[northlondoner]

Matthew 123, any pictures of the nine people being shot by the Israelis ? Put them on here when you find them please. Or did the edited footage released by the Israeli authorities only tell the Israeli side of the story. What a coincidence.

[Loz]

Truth is the first casualty of war, and you can bet both sides will be telling massive porkies about this one. I'm waiting for more footage from both sides so I can try and piece things together myself, as any 'eyewitness' accounts will be next to useless.

[matthew123]

What is your point northlondoner?

[Mick Mac]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> When the IRA terrorists where planting bombs in

> England did we go and constantly bomb the shit out

> of Northern Ireland?

No - you went over and shot people instead.....

[northlondoner]

Loz let's say, for arguments sake , a group of activists were able to beat up a group of heavily armed highly trained , combat ready soldiers. Killing NINE people seems an insane over reaction. I'd like to think our troops would never act in such a way. And btw where is St Obama in all this? Imagine US reaction if, say, iranian soldiers killed nine civilians in similar circumstances. I mean, I support the guy, but he's been a bit of a pssuy on this. He should take a break from scoring cheap populist points against BP and show

some actual leadership on this important international issue. Its time to man up.

His government is israels chief supporter and sponsor, after all.

[Ladymuck]

matthew123 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What is your point northlondoner?

I think that NL is saying that your clip is not showing the full story...that it's biased in favour of the Israelis, that's all. (Forgive me if I have the wrong end of the stick NL).

[matthew123]

Yes LM but every story / video is balanced to one side or the other but we only have what exists and I think it adds value to the story of what happened. I am not supporting Israel as pretty much everything they do seems to be aimed at causing conflict; in terms of the soldiers actions I just thought the footage would clear up some misunderstanding if there was any that it was akin to paratroopers landing at the drop of night and shooting people dead in their beds.

[vinceayre]

Israel has to kept onside because the west is relying on it to bomb Iran once they have nuclear bombs.

The state of Israel has always taken a hard line on its security, any moron would know what the outcome of this would be, im quite surprised more people didn't die.

In Ulster we ran a shoot to kill policy that even involved the SAS grabbing terrorists from across the border and then killing them on home soil. Of course when this became know it had to be stopped, but while it ran it was quite successful at stopping the terrorists.

We also used this policy very successfully all over the world especially in Burma with the communist backed terrorists.

It would seem Israel has a similar policy.

[mockney piers]

"No - you went over and shot people instead....."

more facile nonsense.

Here's a breakdown of who did the killing:

Republican paramilitary groups 2057

Loyalist paramilitary groups 1019

British security forces 363

Persons unknown 82

Irish security forces 5

against who did the dying

Civilian 1855

Members of security forces (and reserves) 1123

of whom:

British Army (excluding Northern Ireland regiments) 502

Royal Ulster Constabulary 301

Ulster Defence Regiment 196

Northern Ireland Prison Service 24

Garda S?och?na 9

Royal Irish Regiment 7

Territorial Army 7

English police forces 6

Royal Air Force 4

Royal Navy 2

Irish Army 1

Members of Republican Paramilitary Groups 394

Members of loyalist Paramilitary Groups 151

So in other words they came over and got shot. PLus 125 of those were innocent English civilians killed by republicans, so don't get all high and mighty.

If you're referring to bloody sunday, it was daft to send shock troops to police a peaceful civilian march, but they were fired on by snipers who knew what the response would be and got the result they wanted, a huge recruiting sergeant and the effective end of the civil rights movement as a viable means.

You might also consider that in the recent gaza 'war' the Israelis killed 30 times the number of women and children alone than people killed on bloody sunday. Taking all civilians into account that rises to 54x (762). 14 would be an average day shelling beaches in Gaza or firing missiles at ambulances in the Lebanon.

The actions of the British Army compared to the IDF are simply not comparable at all.

[mockney piers]

Can't dispute much of what you say vinceayre, though I think the main qualitative difference is that once we were found out we stopped the illegal activity, Israel simply doesn't care, even pissing off allies by using forged passports of Irish, Australian and British civilians to do their murdering, and their diplomatic response is "Meh!".

Ooh, and I think the lesson learnt of Iraq, versus N Korea, is that when you have the bomb you DON'T get bombed or invaded.

Ooh, and do you mean Burma or Malay?

[jimmy two times]

You are one with the stats. What they don't demonstrate though is that the British Army were occupying a foreign land...Ireland. The British army were more sympathetic to the Unionist cause.

[*Bob*]

I have the words of one of my old history teachers ringing in my ears from nearly twenty years ago: "Israeli army.. enemies on all sides.. efficient and tough as old boots.. hard as nails.."

Of course he'd never been to Israel.

The people I know who lived there described the (mostly) conscripted army as a unpredictable rabble of undertrained, frightened and often drunken young men who also happened to have guns.

This latest incident - coming not long after the Dubai thing.. Is it just incompetence - or simply not giving a sh1t? Probably a combination of the two.

[mockney piers]

Aagh, stop saying that.

The whole of Ireland had the right to completely cecede from the union. The six counties voted to remain part of Britain and so it remains to this day.

That might not be in perpetuity especially considering the shift in demographics, but stop being so damned simplistic about everything.

For instance the first Ulster rising was a catholic massacre of protestants done specifically to demonstrate their loyalty to the English King whom they deemed to be a Catholic (everyone thought he was, though he claimed not to be, though he almost certainly was) against the encroachment upon royal power of the protestants in parliament. How do you square that circle in your simple 'occupation' world view?!

Plus most of those protestants were economic and political migrants from Scotland, not occupying forces.

Occupation, god you clearly haven't read a word have you, no wonder you failed history.

[northlondoner]

matthew123 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes LM but every story / video is balanced to one

> side or the other but we only have what exists and

> I think it adds value to the story of what

> happened.

My point is that it is dangerous to put too much weight on selected evidence put forward by a partial source-especially one recently shown to be a dab hand at fakery - forged british passports for instance. But even assuming the Israeli military footage has not been maniupulated in any way, does it demonstrate at which point on the timeline the attack on troops occurs? Does it clearly show that these are the first soldiers to board? Or does it show troops being attacked once shooting had already started?The Israeli army is not known for it's restraint or subtlety of approach, after all. I don't know the answer. And I don't think a few edited minutes of Israeli military pictures takes me very far forward in finding out. And I can't escape the point that even if the troops were being attacked as described, killing nine people in response is an outrageous over reaction.