Organizer of the Gaza flotilla admitted they started the violence

[Mouthwash]

The failure of the convoy to behave as if there is a war on does not seem just cause for a massacre given that there was not, in fact, a war on.

There was, in fact, a war on. That was public knowledge. But you claimed that you were talking about an 'official' war, so I'm asking why.

 

[Traitorfish]

There was, in fact, a war on. That was public knowledge. But you claimed that you were talking about an 'official' war, so I'm asking why.

If the IDF is conducting an "unofficial war" against Palestine, and consequently regarded the convoy as enemy combatants, then the IDF's motivation for the massacre does not seem to hinge on one foolhardy activist getting uppity with a soldier. If they did not regard the convoy as combatants, then how could one uppity activist justify the use of military force?

It was either a counter-insurgency operation, or the use of military force against civilians. If the former, why would this excuse be necessary? If the latter, how could this excuse be sufficient? In what framing does this revelation fundamentally change what we take away from the massacre?

 

[Mouthwash]

If the IDF is conducting an "unofficial war" against Palestine, and consequently regarded the convoy as enemy combatants, then the IDF's motivation for the massacre does not seem to hinge on one foolhardy activist getting uppity with a soldier. If they did not regard the convoy as combatants, then how could one uppity activist justify the use of military force?

It was either a counter-insurgency operation, or the use of military force against civilians. If the former, why would this excuse be necessary? If the latter, how could this excuse be sufficient? In what framing does this revelation fundamentally change what we take away from the massacre?

Well this is a nice big false dichotomy. Why must the IDF have regarded them as either enemy combatants or harmless activists? If civilians try to interfere in an active war zone, I think shutting them down with a minimum of coercion is a reasonable response. Stroll past a police blockade if you want a real life demonstration.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well this is a nice big false dichotomy. Why must the IDF have regarded them as either enemy combatants or harmless activists? If civilians try to interfere in an active war zone, I think shutting them down with a minimum of coercion is a reasonable response. Stroll past a police blockade if you want a real life demonstration.

Did the IDF ever officially recognise it as a war zone? Or was it merely assumed that everyone knew to treat it as such? Because we're rapidly circling back to the "I can do what I like" line of defence.

 

[Kyriakos]

Turkey isn't in the graph.
Oh. Darn. My bad.

Quality graph at any rate Germany looks particularly real, what with the things not to be named & current far right parties.
Views about the policy of the state of Israel are not the same as being anti-semitic. Sales of mein kampf, on the other hand

 

[Mouthwash]

I don't see how this:

the "I can do what I like" line of defence.

follows from this:

was it merely assumed that everyone knew to treat it as such?

It doesn't seem obvious to me that, if a country blockades its neighbor without formal justification, people from elsewhere in the world should expect to bypass the blockade freely.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I believe much of the controversy centered around Israel conducting a 'massacre' on board the flotilla. Whatever you think of them boarding a ship in international waters, they did not start shooting without cause.

What a crock. If I were beating your face in with a stick and you managed to drag out a gun and shoot me I doubt that you'd accept judgement based on "well there was no shooting until you started it." Your apologizing for every action of the IDF, no matter how grotesque, is disgusting.

 

[Traitorfish]

It doesn't seem obvious to me that, if a country blockades its neighbor without formal justification, people from elsewhere in the world should expect to bypass the blockade freely.

This is the "I can do what I like" part. The assumption that the IDF can conduct itself however it pleases, can make up the rules as it goes along, and everyone else is expected to keep up or be treated as an enemy combatant. If the IDF is determined to conduct itself as the army of a rogue state, then by all means, go ahead and massacre civilians, but the IDF do not then have the right to present themselves as the wronged party.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"While conducting an undeclared war violence broke out, but it wasn't our fault." - Israel

 

[Sommerswerd]

A blockade is more like a threat to punch someone in the face.

That distinction isn't relevant. Do you really think that whether something is an act of violence of not depends on the reason they are doing it?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A blockade is more like a threat to punch someone in the face.

That distinction isn't relevant. Do you really think that whether something is an act of violence of not depends on the reason they are doing it?

The same thing applies here as with Mouthwash's nonsense. If I'm standing over you with a stick and "just threatening" to beat your face in, would you say that shooting me before I start means that you are the one who "started the violence"? If so, please go find someone willing to wield the stick and see how waiting for them to swing first works out for you.

 

[innonimatu]

A blockade is more like a threat to punch someone in the face.

You know that threat is useless unless you do punch people who break it in the face. There is no denying the violence inherent to an effective blockade.

 

[Mouthwash]

This is the "I can do what I like" part. The assumption that the IDF can conduct itself however it pleases, can make up the rules as it goes along,

There are no rules in international affairs (why is an anarchist even appealing to such a thing?), but there is a general code of conduct that armies should be expected to follow. Now a police blockade might have the force of law behind it, but that isn't a requirement for it being just. Suppose that an African-American citizen's militia is surrounding a neighborhood containing violent neo-Confederates. Is it reasonable to expect that an attempt to enter that neighborhood - holding mysterious boxes that you claim don't contain weapons - might be met with some degree of force?

and everyone else is expected to keep up or be treated as an enemy combatant.

No one is being treated as an enemy combatant.

If the IDF is determined to conduct itself as the army of a rogue state

There is no such thing, and you're sounding more statist with each post.

 

[Traitorfish]

There are no 'rules' in international affairs (why is an anarchist even appealing to such a thing?), but there is a general code of conduct that armies should be expected to follow. Now a police blockade might have the force of law behind it, but that isn't a requirement for it being just. Suppose that an African-American citizen's militia is surrounding a neighborhood containing violent neo-Confederates. Is it reasonable to expect that an attempt to enter that neighborhood - holding mysterious boxes that you claim don't contain weapons - might be met with some degree of force?

I would hope that the militia would be more realistic about what their blockade represented, and what the use of force represented. I would hope that if they chose to use violence to enforce their blockade, they would be forthright about it, they would not attempt to frame themselves as the victims. I also hope they wouldn't just massacre like nine people because they got spooked, because that's terrible and insane.

No one is being treated as an enemy combatant.

I recognise that suggesting that the IDF killing somebody means that they've been identified as a combatant is perhaps unduly charitable.

There is no such thing, and you're sounding more statist with each post.

I was mostly using the term rhetorically. Israeli nationalism, Israel's whole public narrative, is so deeply invested in its declared liberalism and democracy and civilisation, it's Western-ness, that it's entertaining to suggest that it's really just a DPRK-style bucaneer-potentate with a decorative parliament.

I mean, the flags are even kinda similar. Stripes, stars; coincidence!?

edit: TIL you can buy an Israel/DPRK solidarity flag pin. Who is that even for? Possibly it is for me? Have I already put in a bulk order? Questions abound.

 

[Mouthwash]

I would hope that the militia would be more realistic about what their blockade represented, and what the use of force represented. I would hope that if they chose to use violence to enforce their blockade, they would be forthright about it, they would not attempt to frame themselves as the victims.

How's Israel doing that? The blockade was openly declared.

I also hope they wouldn't just massacre like nine people because they got spooked, because that's terrible and insane.

I'm talking about the reasons that Israel boarded the flotilla in the first place, not why they started shooting. Unless you think "guy grabbing your gun" is just a harmless spook?

I recognise that in suggesting that the IDF killing somebody means that they've been identified as a combatant is perhaps unduly charitable.

Hmm, walked right into that one.

I mean, the flags are even kinda similar. Stripes, starts; coincidence!?

I think think of another nation with stripes and stars on its flag...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How's Israel doing that? The blockade was openly declared.

If I decide to start clubbing people on the sidewalk openly declaring that intention doesn't make the act legal or not violent.