Re: which nuances am I ignoring? - Edit 1
Before modification by Legolas at 03/06/2010 01:27:37 PM
They were offered to be allowed to bring the ships into an Israeli port and have them inspected but they refused. I guess you can argue that making a political against the blockade is a means to bring in more aid but they could have gotten the majority of what was on those ships through without the drama and loss of life. I have not heard any reports of there being items on the ships that would not have been allowed to enter legally.
Exactly, they want to make a political statement against the blockade, so it's not good enough if Israel offers to let the aid in this time but continues the blockade.
As for items that would not have been allowed in, I understand they were carrying some concrete and other building materials, which Israel refuses to let through because it can be used for military purposes as well as civilian ones. Oh, and they were carrying toys. Why are toys banned, you will ask? Who knows, but they are. As is chocolate, apparently. See link.
I am not ignoring that. I do draw distinctions. If the IDF had killed people on the ships they were not attacked on then I would join in criticizing them. The people on the other ships were not killed. I heard some reports that some of them were knocked around but they also used water canons on the troops as they approached so it is hardly surprising that a few of them got handled roughly. It looks like the other ships still need a little training on what non-violent protesting really means.
Okay then.
Have they in any way condemned the actions of that group or placed any of the blame of violence on them? I have them interviewed several times and I have not heard even a hint that they felt the people attacking the troops were at fault. I have even heard them admit that the troops were attacked.
They haven't exactly had much time for that yet. I don't know if they will, either, if they do it probably won't be now at the height of the scandal. So I guess rather than public condemnations, I expect to see them not cooperating with that group anymore.
I have always thought of you as being level headed for a European
I am not sure what you are referring to when you say I don't believe it is genuine. If you may that it is genuine that Israel has often behaved badly then I believe that. If you are talking about the anti-Israel feelings in Europe then I guess I am wrong because I think it mostly just anti-Israeli thinking. Europeans seem to be able over look all sorts of bad actions by others but for someone reason they want to focus all of their energy on condemning Israel. I would like to think it is out of the deep love Europeans have for the Palestinian people but I really don't believe that to be true since they never showed much signs of it before and seem more concerned with being against something then anything else. Sort of like Iraq, they didn't really seem to be concerned what was happening there until it became a chance to be criticize the US.
I am not sure what you are referring to when you say I don't believe it is genuine. If you may that it is genuine that Israel has often behaved badly then I believe that. If you are talking about the anti-Israel feelings in Europe then I guess I am wrong because I think it mostly just anti-Israeli thinking. Europeans seem to be able over look all sorts of bad actions by others but for someone reason they want to focus all of their energy on condemning Israel. I would like to think it is out of the deep love Europeans have for the Palestinian people but I really don't believe that to be true since they never showed much signs of it before and seem more concerned with being against something then anything else. Sort of like Iraq, they didn't really seem to be concerned what was happening there until it became a chance to be criticize the US. Yes, I meant that that somewhat naive stance on Israel is genuine. Obviously it's hard to make generalizations. In Muslim circles in Europe, there will be some - definitely not all, and I think far less than a majority, but some - who are genuinely anti-Semitic. In Eastern Europe, there's a number of disgusting political parties who are anti-Semite as well as racist towards the Roma (gypsies) and other minorities. And among the European extreme right, there are some Holocaust deniers, which in most cases is linked with anti-Semitism as well.
But for the general population, it is what I said. I've told you before what those reasons are why they focus so much on Israel when there are so many other conflicts - the fact that Israel is a Western country (which is also why they focused so much on the US invading Iraq), and the fact that the Jewish people was victimized in the Holocaust. The concept of a victimized country (to the extent you can say that, obviously the Israeli establishment of 1948 and that generation had not suffered in the Holocaust itself) becoming an oppressor itself, finding itself forced to use harsh methods, that is very disturbing for a pacifist worldview. None of that is about anti-Semitism, it's about anti-Zionism.
I am not ignoring his point I just don't think it is valid. If I bought a ship tomorrow and announced publicly that I was going to illegally sail it Ireland and unload it without going through customs do you believe they would wait for me to enter heir water to stop me? Of course not. I have pointed out repeatedly that despite all of the noise about legality ships are boarded in international waters on a regular basis. So I didn't ignore the nuance but I have yet to see anyone make a convincing argument that their actions were illegal.
Actually, I rather think they would. Within their own waters the legal side of things is simple and clear-cut, whereas in international waters the whole thing becomes a lot more, well, international. Not to mention that it's obviously more practical to stay within their own waters and not have to go so far.
I consider them separate issues. I have nowhere defended the blockade and I consider the main argument here to be who is responsible for the violence. If you say it is Israel simply because there should have been blockade then I would say there would be no blockade if were not for Hammas attacking Israel and you would say Hammas would not attack Israel citizens if it were not for ..... Goes on forever so the real issue who started the violence this time and how is to be held accountable for it. If the people on the ship who are attacked the IDF are to blame do we really want to encourage that sort of behavior by giving them what they want?
We don't want to encourage that sort of behaviour, no, but neither do we want to give the impression that the blockade is acceptable. On the issue of who is responsible for the violence we don't really disagree, if that's the only thing you want to argue about.
I've thought from the beginning that the Israeli troops weren't remotely stupid enough to open fire unless they had no choice. Not against foreign activists, anyway.