• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

It is not ANY criticism of Israel that is antisemitic in nature -- it is the completely demonizing nature of the points of view that are so biased against Jews that no other explanation could possibly suffice by way of definition.
And that I fully agree with.
 
I have very divided feelings about the work of Nick Cohen. He used to be strongly socialist in his philosophy and as recently as 2002, he wrote an article "Why it is right to be anti-American", arguing that US foreign policy had a part to play in the rising clash between Islam and the West. All this changed with the invasion of Iraq and what he saw as the capitulation of the liberal left in the face of the common cause emerging between the left and radical Islam. This new position is spelled out in his book, "What's Left". It's one of the most interesting writings of the past few years, I was stimulated and appalled by it in equal measure. He accepts the term neo-con but maintains a much more interesting and broad set of positions on social and economic issues than you'd normally expect from a commentator of such vehemence.

He raises many issues in it that really demand to be taken seriously by liberals and leftists, such as:
  • Why do supposedly progressive forces make apologies for Islamist extremists who represent every rancid, anti-liberal position that progressives hold dear?
  • Why do liberals support the repression of women/gays/ethnic and religious minorities in conservative societies whilst still pretending to hold these rights as being fundamental in their own societies?
  • Why do left liberals spend so much time attacking Israel and so little attacking Sudan, Burma, Iran etc etc?

There are many more, but these are legitimate questions,


and when those same questions are raised in this forum, they are met with nothing but derision.


There is a big difference between being a liberal and being a reactionary leftist. A liberal bases his or her views upon liberal values, wheras the reactionary simply makes common cause with those who share their hate. In some cases, this can make for some very strange bedfellows, indeed, such as women or gay people supporting Hamas or Hizb'allah. At some point, poeple need to ask themselves the question "Who are these poeple? What are THEIR values", and "Do I really share those values?" If not, then people need to seriously reevaluate the nature of the dogma they repeat so thoughtlessly. Allowing yourself to become a useful idiot for the very political philosophy that would persecute you if it ever came to dominate your own society is not particularly wise.
 
You're saying that Gaza has no jobs, no industries, what's not.
So in return I've supplied you with an example of a hotel in Gaza.
Now are you going to say that this hotel is the only place to find jobs at besides at the terrorist organization of Hamas?
Until when are you going to make those baseless statements and believe that you'd be able to get away with it?

You do yourself no favour Apocalypse in coming out with propaganda that is well documented and accessible to us all now we have access to the internet. I first read of this on Haaretz last week but it is the same as what the Guardian speaks of

A similar press office email was sent to foreign journalists two weeks ago, recommending a gourmet restaurant and Olympic-sized swimming pool in Gaza to highlight Israel's claim there is no humanitarian crisis there. Journalists who complained the email was in poor taste were told they had "no sense of humour".

Israel forced to apologise for YouTube spoof of Gaza flotilla | World news | The Guardian

You cannot bluff away the deep humanitarian need there by just picking up the latest piece of propaganda. The need has been going on for much longer and is getting worse.

We for instance saw on our tv's this very week how people who have been in business for years are going out of business while at the same time those who use the tunnel become more wealthy.

Perhaps they are eating at the roots club. The 60-70% of children suffering malnutrition are not.
 
You do yourself no favour Apocalypse in coming out with propaganda that is well documented and accessible to us all now we have access to the internet. I first read of this on Haaretz last week but it is the same as what the Guardian speaks of



Israel forced to apologise for YouTube spoof of Gaza flotilla | World news | The Guardian

You cannot bluff away the deep humanitarian need there by just picking up the latest piece of propaganda. The need has been going on for much longer and is getting worse.

We for instance saw on our tv's this very week how people who have been in business for years are going out of business while at the same time those who use the tunnel become more wealthy.

Perhaps they are eating at the roots club. The 60-70% of children suffering malnutrition are not.

alexa, do notice that your link has not much to do with what you're arguing about.
This link is about an Israeli official sending by mistake a satirical video on the flotilla as one of the evidences he supplied foreign nations with.
Sure it has Israel stating that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza but you could indeed find an article that's speaking about that specifically.

And I completely agree with the statement by the Israeli officials - there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Sure, people depend there way too much on humanitarian aid, but there is no humanitarian crisis in the area.
There is no starvation and there are no plagues.

While international aid agencies say there is no starvation or acute medical crisis there, malnutrition is creeping up, water treatment and sewage are problematic and the economy has been almost entirely shut down by the blockade, which is also enforced by Egypt. The United States and other world powers say that the situation is untenable and that a new approach must be found.
Israeli Military Boards Gaza Aid Ship - NYTimes.com

That's from a very recent article, I believe.
 
and when those same questions are raised in this forum, they are met with nothing but derision.

I don't believe that's true. What I believe is regularly treated with scepticism, "derision" if you insist, is the assumption that to show support for the parlous situation the Palestinian people find themselves in, and criticising or even questioning Israeli policy towards them, is tantamount to siding with the most rancid, extreme and illiberal stances of others that might support the Palestinian situation. Supporting the suffering Palestinian and buying into the Islamist "project" are two completely different matters. I don't believe that you (and many other regular posters) can make that distinction, or choose not to in the interests of political expediency.

There is a big difference between being a liberal and being a reactionary leftist. A liberal bases his or her views upon liberal values, wheras the reactionary simply makes common cause with those who share their hate. In some cases, this can make for some very strange bedfellows, indeed, such as women or gay people supporting Hamas or Hizb'allah. At some point, poeple need to ask themselves the question "Who are these poeple? What are THEIR values", and "Do I really share those values?" If not, then people need to seriously reevaluate the nature of the dogma they repeat so thoughtlessly. Allowing yourself to become a useful idiot for the very political philosophy that would persecute you if it ever came to dominate your own society is not particularly wise.

Well, firstly, Nick Cohen and many others do not exonerate western liberals from criticism. He does distinguish between 'liberal' and 'leftist' positions, but he excoriates both for their attitudes towards Israel and Islam for different, but equally serious, failings. I agree with him, in part, in his issues with both. I take issue with him, in part, similarly.

To find common cause with supporters of the Palestinian people, I repeat, is not necessarily to find common cause with an entire Islamist religious/political agenda. I can find common cause with some neo-cons in their criticism of the retrogressive social agenda of radical and/or conservative Islam and the states that practice it. That does not mean I buy into their ideas of 'exporting democracy', which to me seems to be a policy of imposition of failed neo-liberal capitalism on the entire World. I cannot and will not buy into a concept of the World that is divided between us and them, West and Islam, liberal and authoritarian. I find that too many debaters here reduce the infinite complexity of political debate into this dualist nonsense. I reject that.
 
alexa, do notice that your link has not much to do with what you're arguing about.
This link is about an Israeli official sending by mistake a satirical video on the flotilla as one of the evidences he supplied foreign nations with.
Sure it has Israel stating that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza but you could indeed find an article that's speaking about that specifically.

The link Apocalypse includes the quote I gave about foreign journalists being sent two weeks ago details of a hotel in Gaza (the roots club I believe) in order that to try to show there was no humanitarian need in Gaza. When foreign journalists said this was in poor taste Israel accused them of having no humour.

That was what I was highlighting. That is what you have also done. That is what is in the link I gave you.

And I completely agree with the statement by the Israeli officials - there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Sure, people depend there way too much on humanitarian aid, but there is no humanitarian crisis in the area.
There is no starvation and there are no plagues.

Your own quote
While international aid agencies say there is no starvation or acute medical crisis there, malnutrition is creeping up, water treatment and sewage are problematic and the economy has been almost entirely shut down by the blockade, which is also enforced by Egypt. The United States and other world powers say that the situation is untenable and that a new approach must be found.

They aren't starving yet, just fat you say in other threads. Fat little bellies one of the sure signs of malnutrition. I have previously provided links to 60% of the children of Gaza suffer from malnutrition and anemia though I have since found people saying the number is nearer 70%. A significant percentage also suffer stunted growth another clear sign of malnutrition but for you all will be alright untill the world sees these children dying of starvation or of a plague from impure water.

We live in a different world Apocalypse. You could never see the humanitarian need because for you it does not exist till they are dead. I am truly shocked by your response.
 
The link Apocalypse includes the quote I gave about foreign journalists being sent two weeks ago details of a hotel in Gaza (the roots club I believe) in order that to try to show there was no humanitarian need in Gaza. When foreign journalists said this was in poor taste Israel accused them of having no humour.

He didn't read my original link to that article Alexa, no need to think he'll bother this time.

-- We live in a different world Apocalypse. You could never see the humanitarian need because for you it does not exist till they are dead. I am truly shocked by your response.

The Israeli Govt line is that there is no crisis, thus people like Apocalypse will deny forever and a day (while pretending to "seek the truth") anything or any other version of facts could exist.
 
Thankfully, not all Israelis buy into the notion that any critic of Israel (including Jewish critics) is by definition anti-semitic. ]

I've read the phrase "reductio ad anti-semitism," very appropriate in this thread. We are seeing the evolution of Goodwin / Godwin's law to envelope anyone daring to discuss the subject of Israel on debate / discussion boards such as this.
 
Thankfully the majority of the Israelis would tell you that Uri Avnery is an idiot.
Even more thankfully, you are correct in your assertion that not all Israelis are "buying into the notion that any critic of Israel is by definition anti-semitic", since I for one do not even know one person who follows that line of thought.

Oh sorry , I should have said ' so anyone who is a critic of Israeli policies is regarded as either anti-semitic or "an idiot". Too funny!
 
Oh sorry , I should have said ' so anyone who is a critic of Israeli policies is regarded as either anti-semitic or "an idiot". Too funny!

Avnery is an idiot, do you want me not to regard to an idiot as an idiot merely because he takes an anti-Israeli position? :lol:
 
We live in a different world Apocalypse. You could never see the humanitarian need because for you it does not exist till they are dead. I am truly shocked by your response.
I would never see a humanitarian crisis until such crisis would actually exist.
I do believe however that there is a need to supply Gaza with humanitarian aid, contrary to your accusations.
 
I would never see a humanitarian crisis until such crisis would actually exist.
I do believe however that there is a need to supply Gaza with humanitarian aid, contrary to your accusations.

60/70% of children suffering from malnutrition, poor water, electricity regularly cut, medical supplies short, 40% + unemployed, most who are employed employed in black market activity and you see no humanitarian crisis?

True, I know you would allow them access to the minimum number of calories necessary for survival but I think you are 'normalising the unthinkable'.

My wish remains that the Gaza port is opened under EU supervision, even though I read yesterday that Israel had said no to this, and that the Gaza people may start to thrive through the oil found off their coast which they have not yet had access to.

Oh and just for something different. Here is a picture of a Turk helping an injured soldier on board the Mavi Marmara

IDF soldier taken care of by Turkish activits on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
 
So you're basically agreeing with the statements you were responding to?
Because nothing that you've said contradicts them one way or another.
Already explained. It only took 3-4 posts for you to catch up. Well done.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...a-flotilla-says-hamas-144.html#post1058794455
Well Mr Chomsky, the footage published by the IDF, the one you're trying so hard to ignore, shows the activists attacking the soldiers the moment they've boarded the ship.
They were grouping up at the top deck and were waiting with knives and crowbars for the arrival of the soldiers, certainly not looking like they were just shot at or are being shot at.
Where have I ignored the footage? I know the footage released by the IDF (the night vision IR movie) starts with the attacks on the soldiers – the bit I’m waiting for you to catch up on is the fact that the IDF has all the protesters’ cameras and equipment. Thus we have no other versions as the IDF haven’t released any other footage from before the attacks on the soldiers.
I’m guessing I’ll have to repeat this in at least 2 more posts before it sinks in.
I believe that is irrelevant.
Let me make this clear to you:
By taking the words of the activists for granted(=as facts) you're admitting to a deep agenda-motivated dishonesty and irrationality.
I do not see any sane reason to take the word of those who came there for the sake of anti-Israeli propaganda, definitely not as they have no evidence to back their claims and most definitely not as they were caught lying more than once.
Guess what Einstein? I’m repeating myself already – I’l quote rather than type it again.
explaining yet again why there is no counter evidence said:
Where have I ignored the footage? I know the footage released by the IDF (the night vision IR movie) starts with the attacks on the soldiers – the bit I’m waiting for you to catch up on is the fact that the IDF has all the protesters’ cameras and equipment. Thus we have no other versions as the IDF haven’t released any other footage from before the attacks on the soldiers.
I’m guessing I’ll have to repeat this in at least 4 more posts before it sinks in.
[
My thoughts on you.
Reductio ad anti-Semitism
I've never heard any other poster saying such things.
You've seen a poster who's an anti-Israeli being called an anti-Semite.
That by no means implies that being anti-Israeli means you're an anti-Semite.
Reductio ad anti-Semitism
Those bodies are wrong when they're wrong and right when they're right, enough said.
And all of them are wrong on this one matter. All based in different countries with their own observers on the grounds.
Yeah, right….
”According to reports, people were attacked and were beaten on other ships as well" = depending entirely on the witnesses words and referring to the incidents as facts, using the term "according to reports", implying that it's a news report and not a questionable witness account by one of the activists.
Yes, I’m referring to the reports with links to the BBC pages. You obviously didn’t look (yet again) because of course – you know best, being the resident IDF spokesperson here.
You're saying that Gaza has no jobs, no industries, what's not.
So in return I've supplied you with an example of a hotel in Gaza.
Now are you going to say that this hotel is the only place to find jobs at besides at the terrorist organization of Hamas?
Until when are you going to make those baseless statements and believe that you'd be able to get away with it?
No, I didn’t. Post 1431 – You’ve lied and substituted my “many” for your “any”
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...a-flotilla-says-hamas-144.html#post1058793003
Will you do the honorable thing and withdraw your lie or do we go around yet another set of posts before you own up to your reading comprehension failure?
40 seconds in average.
Thank you.
Now you're just making a fool out of yourself.
I was not comparing their power but has laid an analogy based on your claim that if a weapon doesn't kill many it means that it is not a "killing weapon".
I thought I asked for where I said it wasn’t a “killing weapon?”

If not, please find it for me. I recall saying it was more of a (note that I’m repeating this for the umpteenth time) they’re more of a “psychological rather than physical threat.”

Don’t worry, I’m patient – I know you and your friends will eventually get it.
Once more, you're making a fool out of yourself.
Let's lay out the differences between the government statement and your statement here, shall we now?

The government statement refers to the actual result.
The actual result of those rockets is more of a psychological damage than a physical damage.

Your statement claims that the rockets are not "killing weapons", referring to the physically damaging potentiality of the weapon by itself.
I’ll ask again – where did I say they are not killing weapons? “StephenA59 got it first time when I replied him – you’re taking a little longer for the lightbulbs to go off but I can wait.
Here, I’ll even post my original statement to help. Do you want me to use crayon for my words next time?
me said:
The blockade has not stopped the rocket launches – besides which, the rocket launches are more of a psychological weapon than a real weapon. The current blockade is simply an extension of the one started after the Second Intifada of 2000-2001. In 10 years that some form of blockade or restriction has been in place – it hasn't stopped weapons being fired at Israel.
I’m sure one of your nice Moderator friends watching my every word for can explain it for you.

Why I'll never even dream about calling you an anti-Semite, since I do not believe that you are.
Once more, you've drawn the conclusion entirely on your own, which should really be enough to deliver the message.
Reductio ad anti-Semitism

I'm referring you to the statements above the question mark.
The flotilla raid, as far as international law is concerned, was fully legit.
The Q&A of Reuters agrees with me, as I've shown you, so I do not feel the need to waste further time debating over the obvious truth.
I couldn't find any real news source (Reuters, AP, etc) that says the Israeli actions were against international law.

I do not doubt for a moment that you too know that the Israeli raid was done fully in accordance with the international law, yet you just cannot admit to being wrong.
And one last time – the links were to differing opinions around the world. Since this is at the root of current problems in Gaza and Israel – I don’t see anyone on this forum clearing that up.
Which reminds me – very early on – I originally said “it doesn’t matter anyway as whether the raid was legal or not and whether the blockade is legal or not – International Law can not be enforced and even if it could – the US has Israel’s back”
Nothing has changed my opinion since then – even going round the houses with you.
 
State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Over 100 countries have made a formal statement recognizing the State of Palestine.

I noticed, though, that you didn't answer my question. What and who defines a sovereign State?

...

Montevideo is the capital of Urugay. The signatories were not all from South America. They were from the Americas as a whole. The United States was also a signatory.

What does that have to do with the Middle East? I think qualifications for statehood has a lot to do with the Middle East, especially when the discussion is related to Palestine.
I still think this has no bearing or precedence in regards to the Palestinian people claiming Israel as their state. I think the Balfour agreement carries much more weight. Besides some of the criteria that is required or expected by the Montevideo Uruguay agreement hasn't been met. It also could be considered a micro nation perhaps and if so also hasn't met the requirements. That said Israel out weighs and requirements as to be recognized by this agreement than any Palestinians people could muster, I believe this isn't the avenue to pursue. Palestine will have to become a state and to do so will have to recognize Israel and make peace. As long as the Arab community namely Hamas rules the roost, this will never be achieved. A interesting read is the Origins of Palestine and the Palestinian people, strange how they have become to be considered Arabs....they are not or at least their ancestry isn't.

Over 100 countries have made a formal statement recognizing the State of Palestine.
When did this happen and was it before Israel was official recognized as a state or after. The Palestinian territory was recognized for awhile while under British rule but it was not a state or country. You can even do a world atlas research stretching back 2000 years or more and you will not find a country called Palestine.

The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman "Palaestina"
 
Last edited:
I still think this has no bearing or precedence in regards to the Palestinian people claiming Israel as their state.
Majority of Palestinians accept the two-state solution. The above statement is false.
I think the Balfour agreement carries much more weight.
Britain already declared that the Balfour Declaration ceased to become Mandate policy when they issued the White Paper of 1939.
Besides some of the criteria that is required or expected by the Montevideo Uruguay agreement hasn't been met. It also could be considered a micro nation perhaps and if so also hasn't met the requirements.
What criteria/requirements does Palestine not fulfill? They have a permanent population. A defined territory. They have a government. And they have entered into relations with other States. Make notice how the Montevideo Convention makes no comments relating to borders.
That said Israel out weighs and requirements as to be recognized by this agreement than any Palestinians people could muster, I believe this isn't the avenue to pursue.
No one said Israel did not meet the qualifications of a State...?
Palestine will have to become a state and to do so will have to recognize Israel and make peace.
Is that one of the requirements of the Montevideo Convention?
As long as the Arab community namely Hamas rules the roost, this will never be achieved. A interesting read is the Origins of Palestine and the Palestinian people, strange how they have become to be considered Arabs....they are not or at least their ancestry isn't.
What are their ancestry then? Caucasians? Africans? Turks? Arabs have had a majority presence in Palestine for over a millennium.
When did this happen and was it before Israel was official recognized as a state or after.
... Why not read the link?
The Palestinian territory was recognized for awhile while under British rule but it was not a state or country. You can even do a world atlas research stretching back 2000 years or more and you will not find a country called Palestine.
State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.
The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman "Palaestina"
It's Filastin. And I already knew this 3 decades ago.
 
It is not ANY criticism of Israel that is antisemitic in nature -- it is the completely demonizing nature of the points of view that are so biased against Jews that no other explanation could possibly suffice by way of definition.

Not true. Most of the people who slag off Jews about Palestine are pro-Arab and therefore cannot be anti-semetic. :shrug:
 
I stand by my position but shouldn't have resorted to malice and contempt in my posts since page 110+ so I would like to apologise for the tone of my posts to Apocalypse.

I'm not familiar with the norms for issuing an apology on this forum - whether to create a new thread or post it elsewhere so I'm attaching it to the thread where I offended.
 
Majority of Palestinians accept the two-state solution. The above statement is false.

Britain already declared that the Balfour Declaration ceased to become Mandate policy when they issued the White Paper of 1939.

What criteria/requirements does Palestine not fulfill? They have a permanent population. A defined territory. They have a government. And they have entered into relations with other States. Make notice how the Montevideo Convention makes no comments relating to borders.

No one said Israel did not meet the qualifications of a State...?

Is that one of the requirements of the Montevideo Convention?

What are their ancestry then? Caucasians? Africans? Turks? Arabs have had a majority presence in Palestine for over a millennium.

... Why not read the link?

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It's Filastin. And I already knew this 3 decades ago.
Degreez I haven't forgotten, I'll reply over the weekend.
 
Back
Top Bottom