Israel..wouldn't we do the same?

[skitzee2k]

If our neighbouring country...say... N.Ireland, If N.Ireland were attacking us, blowing **** up in our country, planting bombs, shooting our troops and shooting missles at us...mainly using weapons smuggled into the country, wouldn't we...
1) Ask to be let on board ships entering the area bringing unspecified goods to N.I. to look for weapons.
2) If denied, asked them to go to an neutral country to have independent auditors check for weapons.
3) If that was denied, assume there was a reason, and board the ships.
4) If fired at, fire back?

This is the chain of events that Israel went through...seems common sense to me.

Lets remember only on ONE of the ships were there casualties...and that is when Israel came under fire.

Let's not get on the bandwagon too quick

 

[oompah]

Let's not get on the bandwagon too quick

Why are you posting about it then.

 

[JMLanders]

Just to put the whole issue into context, could someone provide a brief outline of how one should react when having one's territories illegally occupied (under international law)?

Perhaps someone could further explain why it has ever been necessary for a highly trained professional soldier to shoot a young child, lying prostrate on the ground and causing no threat, in the head?

It is a side of two arguments to be sure.

 

[skitzee2k]

In the same argument you could ask why a 'peaceful' people would vote in a group (Hamas) who glory in the blowing up of buses filled with innocent men, women and children?

I would send the army in to ANY land that was attacking and killing my citizens. People try and treat this like a 'chicken and the egg' dilema...but i'd say that considering on the first day of israel it was attacked and invaded by the neighbouring countries and have been bombed, had missles shot into urban areas and gun men shotting indiscriminately (all done by a party which holds the popular vote in Gaza) that it is VERY clear what started it.

Both sides need to sort themselves out, but Israel are not the aggressors.

 

[JMLanders]

If, hypothetically, a large family of gypsies decided to live in your back garden and after a while the police said it would be OK for them to do so. To keep the peace, you put up with it the best you can, but the gypsies now decide (after a ruck) that they want part of your kitchen and bathroom. They move in and refuse to leave, even though the police say they should, but for a variety of "reasons" the police don't go and remove them.

Would you be happy with this situation

 

[skitzee2k]

Let's find out the details of this gypsy family..

had i previously been shooting at them from within my property? Had i been blowing up their caravans? Do i go around denying the gypsy's right to exist?

Do I even refuse to admit they DO exist? Do I glory in the fact that ages ago a person killed lots and lots of gypsies and carry signs saying 'God Bless [the killer]'?

If not, then it is not a fair analogy.

 

[skitzee2k]

...we are kinda drifting off the point. The point was about the current action in the med.

Do you agree that you would have done the same, or not?

 

[nickso]

Do you agree that you would have done the same, or not?

probably not, we are too soft.

 

[skitzee2k]

i meant we, as people, not as government...

but if NOT doing it is too soft, can i assume you feel doing it was the right thing?

 

[JMLanders]

...we are kinda drifting off the point. The point was about the current action in the med.

Do you agree that you would have done the same, or not?

If all other avenues had been explored then probably yes
One has to be exceptionally careful when potential collateral damage may occur. To shoot the crook, should one also shoot the living shield? It's a tough call to make

 

[skitzee2k]

Is a tough call. I was a bit taken aback when i first read the story that Israel would do such a thing.....it was only when i saw the footage of the commandos being attacked by the people on the boats AS they were landing and before any aggression from the israeli commandos had taken place that I thought it was pretty wrong that Israel were being attacked for firing in self defence.

They are not the most diplomatic people, but living in a war zone for 50 years will do that for you, but this is not a 'war crime' like it is being dubbed, it is a 'fire with fire' senario, regretable, yes, but not criminal.

 

[JMLanders]

I admit to not being as well read up on the history of the area as I maybe ought to be. Even with this limited knowledge, it does seem that there will never be any possibility of peace in the region.

Without wishing to enter a theological debate in any great detail, "we" in the west appear to be at loggerheads with the desired natural expansion of "islam", and we live a fair old distance away from its key epicentre(s). Having a Judaic state forcefully embedded within the region seems doomed to fail from the outset.

I suspect I'll be corrected at length here. To save yourself the trouble, feel free to post some links to some knowledge bases for my perusal.

 

[nickso]

we as a people don't get a choice with such matters. i mean't our government is probably too soft.

i have to admit i've been stuck under a car for two days and haven't looked at the news much. if its as you say in your first post then i agree with boarding the ship and injuring people in self defence.

 

[ellal]

Unfortunately skitzee2 you miss a few points...

The blockade was supposed to have been lifted, and yet Israel still keeps Gaza at subsitence levels.

1. Any attempt to break that blockade is acceptable - the west does nothing purely because Israel is 'more like us' and has america by the b*lls... the other way around, we tend to break blockades... so your no.1 is irrelevant, even apart from the fact that it was in international waters - the word for ignoring that is called piracy

2. It was inspected in Turkey and Cyprus, so misinformed..

3. It had already been done, so no reason for the boarding

4. who exactly boarded/attacked whom first in international waters? And the Israelis fired first from their 'ribs'!

.it was only when i saw the footage of the commandos being attacked by the people on the boats AS they were landing and before any aggression from the israeli commandos had taken place that I thought it was pretty wrong that Israel were being attacked for firing in self defen

Yep, defending yourself against a middle of the night attack is really striking first isn't it...

Actually, those commando's/cowards got less than they deserved before they resorted to their usual brutality!

 

[ajstoneservices]

Seemed pretty reasonable response to me they were fighting for their lives and no choice but to open fire.

Until the Arab world accepts Israels right to exist in peace there will be more of the same. Whether the decisions made in 1948 were right or wrong they cant be changed now.