Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    12 Jun '10 13:41 / 1 edit
    After the deadly raid on Mavi Marmara, Netanyahu continues to cling on his notion of self-defense. Every rational person knows that for one to be acting in self-defense one needs to be attacked first. Also for it to be self-defense we can never react in a way that is superior to the first attack.

    So here we have Netanyahu saying was Israel was attacked in the first place and why it had to defend itself the way it did:


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-heffernan/exclusive-netanyahu-expla_b_609948.html
    First of all, let me make one thing clear. Whenever it is attacked, Israel will defend itself, and that is exactly what it has done in this case. Many people in this world--including those who consider themselves good friends of Israel--can be deplorably naïve about what constitutes an "attack." They think an attack requires things like guns, rockets, and stinger missiles. And if they don't see any of those things on a ship, they fail to see how the ship can be "attacking" Israel. They don't realize that even a digital video camera can be a weapon just as deadly as a gun or missile--especially when the camera is deliberately aimed at an Israeli helicopter that is merely doing its job, shooting away in the middle of the night to defend the state of Israel against all those who would provoke it under the specious cover of "international law."

    The video itself is an attack on Israel, a gross invasion of our privacy. To protect that privacy, we arrested everyone we found on board the Mavi Marmara, confiscated all of their video equipment, hard drives with video footage, cell phones, and notebooks. That Ms. Lee could smuggle her video out of Israel even as we generously released her is bad enough; that she posts it online for all to see is a flagrant affront to our dignity as well as our privacy.

    But let us look closely at the video itself. What many people do not realize is that no unedited video can speak for itself--especially not this one. To an untrained eye, the video seems to show a shipful of unarmed civilians being gunned down by Israeli commandoes. But to a trained Israeli eye, the video shows something quite different.

    Take for instance the bulky orange boxes that many of the passengers are shown wearing over their shoulders. To the untrained eye, these appear to be life jackets, and at one point, in fact, the video shows a large white chest on the deck of the ship labelled LIFE JACKETS 36 PCS. But Israeli eyes can see these would-be "life jackets" for what they truly are: suicide vests. Our own intelligence agents have confirmed to us that the men and women on the Mavi Marmara aimed to get as close as they could to Tel Aviv, jump in the water, detonate their vests, and thus generate a tidal wave that would overwhelm our beautiful city on the sea.

    Furthermore, those who claim that the civilians on this ship had no weapons at all have obviously overlooked two things plainly visible in the video: broomsticks and slingshots. Though no one on the ship is actually shown using a broomstick against our heroic Israeli soldiers, the video does show something even more outrageous: as our heroic helicopter hovers gently, solicitously, and unprovocatively over the ship, two people--a man and a woman--are each plainly caught in the very act of shooting straight at it with rubber-banded wooden slingshots. The video does not show exactly what they were shooting, but as David once taught Goliath, even a small stone can be deadly when fired with sufficient force. In fact, microscopic inspection of the helicopter after the raid has revealed at least four tiny dents in the tail section. The point is simply this: whenever one of our helicopters is fired upon--whether with a stinger missile or a wooden slingshot--Israeli has the right to defend itself with deadly force, even against so-called "innocent" civilians.

    One thing more. The idea that we are collectively punishing all the people of Gaza is sheer nonsense. We have nothing against those people and would be happy to see them go anywhere they wish--off to Jordan, for instance--anytime they wish. We just cannot tolerate Hamas because they are a bunch of anti-semitic thugs whose murderous rockets have deliberately killed at least one Israeli civilian for every hundred or so Gazan civilians that we have killed accidentally. And even though Hamas legally won the right to govern Gaza, it did so only by suckering voters with social services like education and health care--services that the so-called "corrupt" party of al-Fatah quite rightly skimps on because unlike the Israelis, the Palestinians are notoriously pampered. By denying all aid to Gaza that does not come through our sensitive hands, we just want to make the people of Gaza see that Hamas can bring them nothing but misery and pain, that their political salvation lies with al-Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas, our peace partner on the West Bank. Let's get one thing straight: we cannot and will not tolerate the existence of any government that refuses to recognize our right to exist, our right to occupy and rule just as much of Palestine as we want to claim. After all, since we are the chosen people, anything we choose to do must be right.

    And one last thing about the video. The fact that only Israeli eyes can see what it truly reveals proves the folly of launching an international investigation of this unprovoked attack on Israel. Whether or not the evidence is visual or verbal, video or spoken testimony, no one but an Israeli can judge the evidence properly. That is why we are perfectly willing to investigate the incident ourselves, and thus to show how decently, honestly, and sensitively we have exercised the right to defend ourselves.


    Ps: This reply by Netanyahu is clearly a parody, but it catches the reasoning of the ones who are condoning this massacre so well, that I couldn't let it pass.
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Jun '10 14:25
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    After the deadly raid on Mavi Marmara, Netanyahu continues to cling on his notion of self-defense. Every rational person knows that for one to be acting in self-defense one needs to be attacked first. Also for it to be self-defense we can never react in a way that is superior to the first attack.

    So here we have Netanyahu saying was Israel was attack ...[text shortened]... f the ones who are condoning this massacre so well, that I couldn't let it pass.
    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Israeli-Palestinian situation, including the reprehensible blockade of Gaza, one thing that is beyond any doubt is that Israel had no real choice but to prevent the flotilla from reaching Gaza.

    There certainly is a story in how cackhandedly/brutally this interdiction or was carried out, but not a story that carries anything like the significance your copious breathless, probably-unread, posts on this topic would have unengaged posters think.

    Isreal had to stop the ships. It had absolutely no other option whatsoever. The way they did it: bit of a shocker, of course. If you think Netanyahu is "off his rocker" then your understanding of the Middle East problem is bog standard Angry Tabloid, and nothing more.
  3. 12 Jun '10 15:15
    On June 9th he starts a thread named "The Gaza flotilla issue - my last take"
    June 12th he starts this thread ranting,raving,frothing about basically the the same topic like some lunatic.
  4. Standard member Tychoo
    F**k the EU, IMF,WB
    12 Jun '10 15:40
    I believe Ben
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 Jun '10 15:49
    Originally posted by FMF
    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Israeli-Palestinian situation, including the reprehensible blockade of Gaza, one thing that is beyond any doubt is that Israel had no real choice but to prevent the flotilla from reaching Gaza.

    There certainly is a story in how cackhandedly/brutally this interdiction or was carried out, but not a story that carries anyth ...[text shortened]... your understanding of the Middle East problem is bog standard Angry Tabloid, and nothing more.
    Why exactly? They had allowed several of these convoys to go to Gaza before without any fanfare. The Turks had inspected the cargoes and vouched that no weapons were on board (I'm not talking about kitchen knives and screwdrivers obviously) so there was no military threat to Israel.

    So why did "Israel had no real choice but to prevent the flotilla from reaching Gaza"?
  6. 12 Jun '10 18:04
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Why exactly? They had allowed several of these convoys to go to Gaza before without any fanfare. The Turks had inspected the cargoes and vouched that no weapons were on board (I'm not talking about kitchen knives and screwdrivers obviously) so there was no military threat to Israel.

    So why did "Israel had no real choice but to prevent the flotilla from reaching Gaza"?
    Really? the US would allow convoys in without inspection just because "the Turks had inspected them"?
  7. 12 Jun '10 18:04
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    After the deadly raid on Mavi Marmara, Netanyahu continues to cling on his notion of self-defense. Every rational person knows that for one to be acting in self-defense one needs to be attacked first. Also for it to be self-defense we can never react in a way that is superior to the first attack.

    So here we have Netanyahu saying was Israel was attack ...[text shortened]... f the ones who are condoning this massacre so well, that I couldn't let it pass.
    when was the last attack from Gaza against Israel?
  8. 12 Jun '10 18:41
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Why exactly? They had allowed several of these convoys to go to Gaza before without any fanfare. The Turks had inspected the cargoes and vouched that no weapons were on board (I'm not talking about kitchen knives and screwdrivers obviously) so there was no military threat to Israel.

    So why did "Israel had no real choice but to prevent the flotilla from reaching Gaza"?
    So why did "Israel had no real choice but to prevent the flotilla from reaching Gaza"?

    because like sh76 said before, it was either that or give up on the blockade, allowing the ship to continue its journey would mean the blockade is useless.
  9. 12 Jun '10 18:46
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    Really? the US would allow convoys in without inspection just because "the Turks had inspected them"?
    the US? I thought we were talking about israel.
  10. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    13 Jun '10 01:53
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    So why did "Israel had no real choice but to prevent the flotilla from reaching Gaza"?
    Perhaps because on this occasion the flouting of the blockade was so ostentatious. If you think that Israel could - politically speaking - have just let this flotilla reach Gaza, then that is fine by me. I understand your position perfectly.
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Jun '10 02:23 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    After the deadly raid on Mavi Marmara, Netanyahu continues to cling on his notion of self-defense. Every rational person knows that for one to be acting in self-defense one needs to be attacked first. Also for it to be self-defense we can never react in a way that is superior to the first attack.

    So here we have Netanyahu saying was Israel was attack f the ones who are condoning this massacre so well, that I couldn't let it pass.
    So here we have Netanyahu saying was Israel was attacked in the first place and why it had to defend itself the way it did:

    ---long speech by Netanyahu---

    Ps: This reply by Netanyahu is clearly a parody











    Really, Adam, it appears to be time you kept your promises and moved on to other issues.