Israeli forces attack humanitarian convoy in intl. waters

[Coyote]

Your outburst

Okay, play to the choir with this rhetoric.

Actually, before I go through your post a bit more, I'd actually like to apologize for this. You're right-- leading off with a comment like that comes across as belittling and automatically puts you on the defensive. I should have considered that more carefully.

I'll comment more later after I read through your post again.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It's amusing to see people complaint about rules made by 'others' whomight not be friendly.

When America does it to the entire world it's realpolitik. When anyone does it to Israel it's just not cricket! Better go kill some civilians and act shocked.

But it's the peace process or humanitarians that cynically perpetuate the conflict, right?

Realpolitik and Might Makes Right is just the flip-side of a coin where the other side is Idealism, Spreading Democracy, and Wilsonian Internationalism. The coin is Whatever Gets What The U.S. Wants (or any power, more generally). People either rely on morality when it gets on their side, or disdain it as absurd when its not. No one is honest enough to take this to the logical conclusion, that is, that if Hitler had won he'd be right. But that's what one gets when one wants to play Defend The State!

Actually, before I go through your post a bit more, I'd actually like to apologize for this. You're right-- leading off with a comment like that comes across as belittling and automatically puts you on the defensive. I should have considered that more carefully.

Thanks, I really do appreciate it. That's very magnanimous of you.

[Sea Skimmer]

You're a moron. International recognition matters. You know just as well as I do that that doesn't count vis-a-vis the criteria by which the U.S. or other powers define states, and therefore candidates for "rogue state"-dom, and certainly not by the UN (and of course, no one was claiming Gaza and the West Bank is a state or are states: that's the central issue of the conflict). The UN did not, and is not going to, pass resolutions against Iraqi Kurdistan, and the U.S. isn't going to call the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic a rogue state (well, actually it might, because the U.S. is that politically and diplomatically intellectually dishonest; but I think it can be accepted for the purposes of this argument, we're pretending that "rogue state" might be an objectively defined category).

Yeah you know, this is yet another time when you should do research. The US did call the Taliban ruled Afghanistan a rouge state, without recognizing its Taliban government as the legitimate rulers! The fact is the very phrase rouge state is mainly used by the US, and its common use is certainly a US creation since we can't just claim being undemocratic is bad, least our dictator-monarch allies be annoyed. It has no objective definition except that it shall fit whatever the days white house press secretary soundbite requires. It certainly means nothing in international law. Most of the time anyone but the US uses the term, its in response to various US statements. So no, it does not make sense to just assume a very specific definition must be used for this or any argument when the entire thing is just a house of cards to shield erratic US foreign policy.

I don't think we ever called the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic a rouge state, but a lot of that would have to do with the fact that no one on earth has ever given a shit about Western Sahara. Nor is that going to change. Too much sand, too few resources and people.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Hmm. Well thank you, having these examples, I will have another pretext using an alternative theoretically objective definition of rogue state to point us U.S. hypocrisy in sheltering the Kurdish rogue state while damning the Taliban rogue state. Of course the real problem comes from trying to use the term, even rhetorically, as, as you point out, it means whatever the Press Secretary requires that week.

[stormthebeaches]

Hmm. Well thank you, having these examples, I will have another pretext using an alternative theoretically objective definition of rogue state to point us U.S. hypocrisy in sheltering the Kurdish rogue state while damning the Taliban rogue state. Of course the real problem comes from trying to use the term, even rhetorically, as, as you point out, it means whatever the Press Secretary requires that week.

Last time I checked Kurdistan is still part of Iraq. I'm not sure how you can call it a rouge state when it is still part of another nation. Taliban ruled Pakistan, on the other hand, was a brutal theocracy that was put into power by a foreign nation (pakistan). I'm pretty certain that they fit the bill as rouge states.

[Edward Yee]

You mean Afghanistan...

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Last time I checked Kurdistan is still part of Iraq. I'm not sure how you can call it a rouge state when it is still part of another nation. Taliban ruled Pakistan, on the other hand, was a brutal theocracy that was put into power by a foreign nation (pakistan). I'm pretty certain that they fit the bill as rouge states.

Last time I checked 'rouge' states just happened to refer to those areas of the US that were largely republican. Now if you were talking about 'rogue' states, I think that's a bit more relevant to this thread.

[Jadeite]

EDIT: Nevermind, the news article I posted was two days old and since the source was already of doubtful credibility, I have removed my post. If it was true, we'd have heard about it from a more mainstream source by now.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Jadeite, your post was true. The Turks did deliver an ultimatum (the exact contents of which have not been released), that terminated at the end of the 3rd of June. All Turkish citizens held in Israel, including those the Israelis were going to charge with crimes, were released and flown back to Turkey today. The Turks gave Israel an ultimatum, and the Israelis folded. There's really no other way to consider that situation.

[hongi]

Erdogan and the core government himself is not, but there is an increasingly pro-Islamist movement in Turkey. IIRC it was ironically one of the first countries to ban the burqua and veil/headscarf, but a female MP recently bucked the ban and wore her headscarf to their Parliament causing something of an uproar; when she was told to remove it a lot of pro-Islamist protests were had. A lot more than people expected. Islam has a long way to go in Turkey before it re-asserts its socio-political dominance, but it's gaining support.

That's not pro-Islamist, that's just pro-Islam.

I've been an Israel supporter for the longest time. Whenever something about the Palestinians came up on the news, I found myself supporting Israel. A lot of that was due to flat out ignorance, I just bought into the idea that one side was suicide bombers and terrorists and the other was reasonable people like me.

But it seems to me that both sides are so blackened with crap that it's hard to say which one has the moral high ground. Like this blockade for example. Punishing Hamas by punishing the people is cruel. It probably won't even work either. What a bloody mess.

[eyl]

IP

You're ignoring the fact that the rules are usually imposed only on Israel even in the context of the same event.

I wonder, have you ever bothered to actually read the UN resolutions condemning Israel? I read most of them, and notcied a pattern - in cases where there were attacks by both sides, or when the Israeli action was a response to an Arab one - Israel was condemned and the other side wasn't. At most, there was a kind of meally-mouthed "we condemn the acts of violence" pap - I know of very few cases where attackers against Israel were specifically condemned by name*. And I remember almost no cases where the UN even bothered to take note of attacks against Israel when Israel wasn't being condemned at the same time.

Another wxample is the ICJ verdict gainst the Israeli security barrier - reading it, they pretty much threw everything that would stick towards Israel, while Israeli claims of defensive necessity were dismissed with virtually no explanation or discussion.

I could find a fair few other examples, given time.

Now frankly, I agree that too many Israelis tend to automatically assume that accusations against Israel are based on bias - but you're equally wrong to assert that bias doesn't exist.

To be fair, Israel is also in violation of more UN Resolutions than any other nation on Earth.

If Israel gets a disproportionate number of UN resolutions levied against it, it follows that it would be in violation of more UN resolutions - you can't use fact B to explain fact A.

Off the top of my head, the only case I remember when an action against Israel was criticised by the UN

[eyl]

Ghetto edit:

*One of the few exceptions - the only one, off the top of my head - was the condemnation of the Egyptian closure of the Suez Strait in 1956.

I'd also like to reiterate one of Coyote's comments - from the Israeli POV, compliance with international law (though most ISraeli probably wouldn't phrase it like that) actually leads to greater harm than violating it. As he mentioned, pretty much every territorial concession Israel has made has ended up with said territory becoming a base for attacks - with the result that currently there are several major cities which have been rocketed. Worse, the rest of the world often doesn't seem to give a shit. True, the rockets on Israeli towns haven't killed too many people - to a large degree because those places have been "bunkered" - but they've devastated the area (which wasn't particularly rich to begin with) economically to the point that several communities in the area have lost most of their population. When this - and I could go on and on with other examples - is virtually ignored by the international community, it's hard to convince your average Israeli to care what that community - whether states/the UN or NGOs and private citizens - thinks.

[Coyote]

...True, the rockets on Israeli towns haven't killed too many people - to a large degree because those places have been "bunkered" - but they've devastated the area (which wasn't particularly rich to begin with) economically to the point that several communities in the area have lost most of their population. When this - and I could go on and on with other examples - is virtually ignored by the international community, it's hard to convince your average Israeli to care what that community - whether states/the UN or NGOs and private citizens - thinks.

It is especially frustrating when Israel pulled out, 100%, of Gaza, in compliance with international wishes. Homes, families, businesses, everything was uprooted, and Israelis retreated behind the 1967 border, which has tended to be the universally agreed demarkation point behind which all Israelis should retreat behind-- and yet the attacks continue into what even detractors of Israel agree as "Israel proper", with no condemnation.

Hence, the perception that the criticisms are entirely one-sided. Think of how it appears to an Israeli who sees this happening, and then hears international condemnation for not allowing Hamas even more supplies? All they are left with is, "I guess they really do just want us all to lay down and die, then." From a perspective like that, they have nothing to lose in the eyes of the international community.

In Israel, it come across like this-- the international community calls for an end to the oppression of the Palestinian people, and the argument is couched in terms of respect for human rights. So we end up with this pattern developing in an Israeli perspective:

Sudan: Critical of Israel, but brutally suppresses Darfur and openly engages in "ethnic cleansing". Some international condemnation, some international action taken, but generally allowed to simmer.

Syria: Critical of Israel, but has been brutal to Lebanon and assassinates political leaders and supports an organization in Lebanon that targets civilians. Very little condemnation.

Iraq: Critical of Israel, but has (in the past) used gas weapons on its own ethnic minorities, drained swampland to starve out Shia'a southerners. Very little international comment at the time. True, they got invaded and the government decapitated, but we all know the "bring freedom to the Iraqi people" was a post-invasion fig leaf invented by spin doctors. Ethnic violence continues there; albeit at a low level.

Saudi Arabia: Critical of Israel, constantly engaged in simmering border war with Yemen including military equipment used against civilians. Almost no public comment whatsoever.

Algeria & Morocco: Critical of Israel, both suppress rights of ethnic Berbers. Almost no public comment whatsoever.

Turkey: Critical of Israel (now) but brutal to ethnic Kurds and Armenians, very little public outcry.

All these violations of human rights go uncriticised and unpunished, or the outcry is muted or met with one or two "condemnations" that typically go uncommented in the News. But suddenly, when there are Palestinians being oppressed --and again, remember that I agree that the strategies used aginst the Palestinains are heavy-handed -- Israel gets the full fury of global condemnation directed against it, and many of the people leading the charge are these very nations.

That tells them that this isn't so much a "human rights" issue as it is a "nail Israel" issue, and that is why so much criticism gets ignored. Commentary about human rights is seen as insincere and inconsistently applied by a global community that claims to care about such things all the time, but only sharpen their knives when it comes to Israel's case with the Palestinians. They see global human rights activists allying and working with brutal regimes engaged in ethnic cleansing to "get Israel".

Couple that with historical anti-Semitism, which does exist, and you can see why what should be legitimate criticisms get ignored as Jew-bashing, since the only Jewish state in the region is one that gets this kind of intense scrutiny and condemnation.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with and support this notion, but that, again, is the perspective that this stuff is seen through in Israel.

I think that a lot of the criticism against Israeli policies are legitimate, and that the international community needs to keep up pressure specifically on the Settlements issue. But in order to be seen as a serious debate in good faith by Israel, the international community should focus as much attention on other nasty human rights violations and not let "enemies of Israel" get off the hook (which is how it is perceived now). That means that the right to Israel to be secure within its borders needs to be taken as seriously as the right to Palestinians to live free of oppression.

My thought on this is not to "let Israel off the hook because others are just as bad or worse" --that is a poor argument to make under any circumstances-- but that people should understand why this is s frutrating to Israelis and why the international condemnation is brushed off as "anti-Semitism" (which in turn is viewed by the international community as an attempt to use the "victim card" to artificially regain the moral high ground). If anything, international criticism should be put on full blast for all of them, and (IMO) criticism of Israel should be consistent and focused-- removal of Settlements and an agreement based on the 1967 borders.

[Zed]

Sudan: Critical of Israel, but brutally suppresses Darfur and openly engages in "ethnic cleansing". Some international condemnation, some international action taken, but generally allowed to simmer.

There is an arrest warrant for the sitting president of Sudan. I wouldn't exactly consider this to be a lack of action.

Turkey: Critical of Israel (now) but brutal to ethnic Kurds and Armenians, very little public outcry.

Turkey gets plenty of criticism for its treatment of the Kurds and its denial of the Armenian genocide.


I'm not disputing the general gist of what you said, mind - but I think these two comparisons are somewhat problematic.

[Coyote]

Ohh, I didn't know about the arrest warrant for the Sudanese President, that is good to hear.

The Kurd & Armenian thing does get some media attention, but when compared to the constant limelight of the Israel and Palestinian problem, it pales in comparison. When was the last time the Kurds were a lead story? Again, not to detract from what you say, since it can be argued that the Kurds started out with legitimate complaints that have been used to push terrorist actions (an argument that might be made by, say, Turks and Syrians) that call for action.

[Ziggy Stardust]

IIf Israel gets a disproportionate number of UN resolutions levied against it, it follows that it would be in violation of more UN resolutions - you can't use fact B to explain fact A.

Uh ... the point is that they shouldn't be violating the UN resolutions at all. If Israel is in blatant disregard of the UN's declarations, it follows that more resolutions will be passed against them.

[Zed]

The entire point is that nations that have more violations of human rights, and therefore violate more rules of the United Nations, receive less attention in the form of U.N. resolutions.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The entire point is that nations that have more violations of human rights, and therefore violate more rules of the United Nations, receive less attention in the form of U.N. resolutions.

I never said that it is fair or just that the UN be ignoring the other human rights violations, merely that Israel shouldn't be very surprised that they are getting slapped by them. I never said I disagreed with Coyote's argument.

[Shroom Man 777]

So what if other countries are getting less reprimands for violating human rights? If the UN doesn't scold Lithuania for violating human rights, but scolds Israel for violating human rights, how does that invalidate scolding Israel for violating human rights, how does it make Israel's human rights violations less scoldable? That's a big ad hominem.

[Vympel]

Glenn Greenwald on NBC

It's a pity his new shit conked out moments before the interview started, hence the crappy audio quality, but goddamn its refreshing to see someone who's not spewing right-wing Likudnik propaganda on a mainstream news show for once.

[Stravo]

To follow on Coyote's points is my own observations from watching these kind of events unfold in the past is the absolute silence that surrounds how Palestinians are treated by other muslim powers. Egypt has its own blockade in place but is it protested? Are peace brigades trying to run that blockade? The hypocrisy of muslim powers decrying the state of a minortiy that apparently they hate as well can be galling especially when seeing the fervor at which criticisms are leveled at Israel.

Apparently there are protests now going on that Israel is using seized video to prove its point that the men were in danger and were attacked. On some level it would be interesting to see the quote I loved so far coming out of this debacle be proven somewhat true - "This was not a Love Boat...it was a boat of hate." by their own videos

News Link
.

[Coyote]

If the UN doesn't scold Lithuania for violating human rights, but scolds Israel for violating human rights, how does that invalidate scolding Israel for violating human rights...?

It doesn't, and that's my biggest concern with bringing this up. I am trying to avoid making it sound like a call to "give Israel a break" because others are "as bad or worse". All I'm trying to do is shed some light on why Israel behaves as it does, since if looked at from that point of view it sheds light on why "legit criticism" gets dismissed as "anti-Semitism" or "hypocrisy", and why the Israeli government feels it is justified in ignoring things like public opinion and organized resolutions, sanctions, etc.

If anything, I'd prefer to see the international community's critiques of human rights violations be more uniform and universally applied. Rather than "give Israel a break" (and lower standards) I'd prefer to see Israel's harshest critics be judged and condemned as harshly as Israel is (and raise standards for human rights) so that the criticism of Israel carries more validity that cannot be ignored.

I hate to say it, but by giving Israel critics a break, the international community hands Israel an excuse to dismiss criticism easily. This erodes the overall effectiveness of what are otherwise very valid critiques.

[eyl]

IIf Israel gets a disproportionate number of UN resolutions levied against it, it follows that it would be in violation of more UN resolutions - you can't use fact B to explain fact A.

Uh ... the point is that they shouldn't be violating the UN resolutions at all. If Israel is in blatant disregard of the UN's declarations, it follows that more resolutions will be passed against them.

Conversely, if Israel is slapped with more numerous UN resolutions which it views to be unjustified or ignoring its security concerns, since it will then ignore them it will be in violation of a greater number of resolutions.

[Kanastrous]

So what if other countries are getting less reprimands for violating human rights? If the UN doesn't scold Lithuania for violating human rights, but scolds Israel for violating human rights, how does that invalidate scolding Israel for violating human rights, how does it make Israel's human rights violations less scoldable?

It creates the distinct impression that the goal is not to hammer on nations that violate human rights, but rather to hammer specifically on Israel, using a rather suspect claim of devotion to the cause of human rights, as an excuse.

I think that there is a peculiar form of racism involved, and it's not Jew-hatred. Over several decades it starts to look as though the message is all you brown and black types fucking each other over is really not a terribly major concern...but those generally whitish-European-looking Israeli types ought to be held to a higher standard.

[Shroom Man 777]

Well, yes, definitely those other people should be held accountable too. I wouldn't feel the least bit sorry at 'em if they got the same amount of shit Israel ends up getting too.