The Gooner Forum

Quartz, why do you re-write history in slant of your very politically motivated view?

When the Israeli government offered a Palestinian state it was on terms that could not be accepted: limited control over its borders and resources, demilitarised. As the Palestinians have a commitment for a state from the UN why would they accpet an Israeli offer of a grand open air prison? In 1988 the Palestinians accepted an idea of a two-state but, in breach of the spirit of the Oslo accords Israeli settlements continued to be illegally built on the most fertile of their land. This festered their animosity which justified Israeli further aggression/sanctions. That is the history as I remember it and I view Israeli/Palestinian lives as equal.

We are going around in circles on this. I am not entering into a posting war of attrition when no new insights are offered. Your persistence in labelling the flotilla as combatants seems to have been reduced to they are adult males and predominantly muslim. That in itself seems to make them legitimate targets to you.

Like I have said before. civilian lives (Israeli/Palestinian) on both sides of this dispute can never be justified. Both sides dehumanize the other. Since operation cast lead 1400 Palestinians have lost their lives and the blockade suppresses an already oppressed people. The definition of terrorist is written by the most powerful nations, who often act with much less regard for civilian life than the peoples they dehumanize as terrorists.

Your posts (and mine too) seem to be getting nowhere.

You predjudice me by using terms such as "Re-write history".

Again, disturbing, because that is exactly what the Palestinian PR campaign has been doing, attempting to deny any Jewish presence in Jerusalem until the late 19th Century, when it is clear to anyone who has ever seen Jerusalem, even on TV, that there is the remains of a 2000 year old massive Jewish Temple (which actually was for all faiths whilst it operated) standing right in the middle of the city!

Your grasp of history is known only to yourself, but why do you not look at the wider picture? Why not mention that out of the former British Mandate of Palestine (plus the French mandate to the North), only a fifth was given to the Jews?

Originally it was to be four fifths, which was a genuine and reasonable area of land for the new Israeli state to succeed in.

Ever since that offer (early 1920's) the Arabs have waged a violent and PR campaign to badger the UN into reducing the land, until it was left as the tiny place it is today.

By 1947 the Arabs had been given Jordan and Syria. They were then offered half the land that currently consists of Israel. They rejected it!


The West Bank was never meant to be given to the Arabs according to the early 1920's British plans to aportion land to Jews and Arabs in the Middle East.

It was commandeered and added to Trans Jordan, it was previously part of the since dismantled Ottoman Empire.

The Palestinians got their state - Jordan.

That in itself an entirely new entity carved out by the British when the Hashemite dynasty got turfed out of Saudi lands and the British wanted them to get something as compensation.


Despite this, the Israelis continued to allow a 24% Arab population to live in and work in Israel, to hold passports and represent the country internationally in sports teams.

But Jews are not allowed to own land in Jordan.

Oslo? In 2000, the Palestinians were printing their own money, printing their own postage stamps, and were about to be allocated an international dialling code.
They were on the brink of their own state.
Arafat chose Intifada.



As for the combatants, they were mercenaries recruited in Turkey, with body armour.

They pre-planned and successfully kidnapped four Israeli soldiers and took them below decks.

This was only ended when the Arab member of the Israeli parliament who was on board, negotiated a swap for injured members of the mercenaries.

unlocked. if the mod that locked it feels it should be locked again then feel free to do so,

Well played, Reb.

It's been a very interesting thread for me.

An excellent and intelligent debate. With no nasty personal comments.

Good stuff.

Quartz, your interpretation of history conveniently groups together the autonomous group of nations established by the League of Nations. A Pan-Arabic state does not exist. Syria, Jordan and Lebanon are states in their own right. Palestine remains a problem but their population cannot be dismissed by grouping them in with a catch all phrase of "Arabs" who already have the state of Jordan. When the League of Nations established its ruling it recognised Jordan and Palestine as seperate states long before the British Mandate parcelled out Palestine further.

You subjectively choose which sections of the governship of the British Mandate you quote. The British (and USA kept consulates) recognised Transjordan when it occupied the West Bank and declared Palestinian lands for the state of Jordan. The British mandate is full of contradictions.

Your interpretation of Arafat, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient is also confusing. At Camp David wasn't it he who accepted a two-state solution and the Israeli's refused??

Coming back to the flotilla; DanielD and yourself mentioned the pictures of the Israeli soldiers hurt and immediately labelled the peace activists thugs or maybe hired mercenaries. Before you take this as a black white scenario please consider the following:

1.
The following pictures which show activists tending to the Israeli wounded.
If the aim was to use deadly force why tend to injuries? Is prejudging their intentions as kidnap likely? Unarmed amateurs knowing special forces are around the vessel. If you insist on calling them armed then there is a fundamental disagreement. MA4's or a catapult. Which would you prefer?
http://intifada-palestine.com/2010/06/f ... -soldiers/

2.
If the aim was to use deadly force against the Israeli soldiers, there was time to do so. They did not. They tended to their injuries once disarmed. If there was an aim to kill then they could have killed.

Perhaps it should be considered that the aim of this particular vessel was to make a stand. This stand stunk of amateur night. The force with which it was met seems entirely disproportionate. There are reports of a 60year old man shot at point blank range. Multiple times.

I agree with DanielD that flotilla was a publicity stunt. It is right to bring world attention to a blockade that is immoral. Taking an amateur stand against a military which is known to readily demonstrate disproportionate, often lethal force was ill advised if not stupid.

For you to paint the Israeli position as justifiable and proportionate is also ill advised.

Cockerill's chin wrote:Quartz, your interpretation of history conveniently groups together the autonomous group of nations established by the League of Nations. A Pan-Arabic state does not exist. Syria, Jordan and Lebanon are states in their own right. Palestine remains a problem but their population cannot be dismissed by grouping them in with a catch all phrase of "Arabs" who already have the state of Jordan. When the League of Nations established its ruling it recognised Jordan and Palestine as seperate states long before the British Mandate parcelled out Palestine further.

You subjectively choose which sections of the governship of the British Mandate you quote. The British (and USA kept consulates) recognised Transjordan when it occupied the West Bank and declared Palestinian lands for the state of Jordan. The British mandate is full of contradictions.

OK, long post alert! But complex subject so here goes:

More about background to formation of nation states:


Balfour Declaration 1917 signalled British government's intent for Jewish state in area of Palestine.

1919 Feisal I and Chaim Weizmann had agreed to work together to sort out states for both Arabs and Jews.

San Remo conference 1920 granted the Palestine Mandate to Britain after Ottoman Collapse/Defeat. This mandate comprised of areas today known as Israel, West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jordan.

That Mandate was allocated to the Jews, it was sizeable enough for the Jews, it had a good amount of agricultural land.

1921 the British gave the West Bank and Jordan to Emir Abdullah. They did not want him to attack the French in Syria, and besides, his family had got turfed out of Mecca.
Jews were immediately banned from buying land in the new, artificial state of Trans-Jordan.

So then you get Jews squashed into the 23% that remained of the rest of the Mandate, and Arabs pressured the British into reducing that land down by a further 50% in the 1947 partition plan.

So you are left with 21 Arab nation states, the remnant of colonial borders, with little basis in individual historical identity.


It makes a dog's dinner of the region, and neither Israel, nor the West Bank/Gaza, are able to be secure without plenty of tension.
The Palestinians have no long term connection to the land, they are a mix of Arab invaders from the 7th century onwards, plus Arab and Balkan economic migrants from the 19th onwards.



New Palestinian state:

I am interested in peace, but only one that allows for a viable Israel, and a viable Palestinian state.

Trying to carve up the West Bank is a betrayal of the British proposals for the Jews, and not economically or militarily viable for either side in the long term.

Far better to redraw borders and start afresh, setting up a Palestinian state in the North of Saudi Arabia, where there are large coastal areas of groundwater.
If Hamas in Gaza, and the PLO in the West Bank, cannto see eye to ey (which is likely), then set up another Palestinian state in the Sinai, where there is plenty of land.

Both states would have large coastal areas and would be natural trade posts on the route from Africa to Asia.
Instead of European Union, American and Israeli tax money going to the PA who fritter too much away on Paris apartments and Swiss Bank accounts, use it to build up a geographically planned state. A larger, less intense Dubai.

The technology is there but...

...sadly it suits the Arabs to have the Palestinians living in refugee camps across the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq...as a thorn in the side of Israel.
It suits ideas of pan Arab nationalism and Islamic colonialism too.

The Islamists just cannot abide having a tiny Jewish state in the middle of their planned for Khilafa (Sharia Law sate for the world).


To answer your highlighted point in your above quoted paragraph:

No one says that all Arabs are exactly the same, and it is recognised that Arabic as language varies from North Africa to Saudi Arabia.
Yet there is little or nothing culturally or genetically to distinguish the Palestinians in the West Bank, from those in Jordan, from their cousins in Lebanon, Egypt and Syria. For it is the descendants of immigrants from those countries whose children and grandchildren make up the "Palestinian people".

Cockerill's chin wrote:

Your interpretation of Arafat, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient is also confusing. At Camp David wasn't it he who accepted a two-state solution and the Israeli's refused??

Well it was President Clinton who said that whatever Barak offered, Arafat refused. Barak offered 93% of West Bank (7% being lived on by Jews), plus 7% of land of Israel to make up the difference.

Cockerill's chin wrote:
Coming back to the flotilla; DanielD and yourself mentioned the pictures of the Israeli soldiers hurt and immediately labelled the peace activists thugs or maybe hired mercenaries. Before you take this as a black white scenario please consider the following:

1.
The following pictures which show activists tending to the Israeli wounded.
If the aim was to use deadly force why tend to injuries? Is prejudging their intentions as kidnap likely? Unarmed amateurs knowing special forces are around the vessel. If you insist on calling them armed then there is a fundamental disagreement. MA4's or a catapult. Which would you prefer?
http://intifada-palestine.com/2010/06/f ... -soldiers/



2.
If the aim was to use deadly force against the Israeli soldiers, there was time to do so. They did not. They tended to their injuries once disarmed. If there was an aim to kill then they could have killed.

Perhaps it should be considered that the aim of this particular vessel was to make a stand. This stand stunk of amateur night. The force with which it was met seems entirely disproportionate. There are reports of a 60year old man shot at point blank range. Multiple times.

I agree with DanielD that flotilla was a publicity stunt. It is right to bring world attention to a blockade that is immoral. Taking an amateur stand against a military which is known to readily demonstrate disproportionate, often lethal force was ill advised if not stupid.

For you to paint the Israeli position as justifiable and proportionate is also ill advised.

If I might answer these questions aimed at DanielD?

1.) + 2.) It is widely reported in Israel that some of the activists helped tend the wounds of the Israeli soldiers. It is also widely reported that on the other five boats, the people were activists, who said that the soldiers were civil when they boarded. No one has disputed that.

But on the sixth boat, there were 50 or so mercenaries who had boarded in Bursa in Turkey. They had no been searched for weapons, unlike the rest of the activists. They tried to kill the Israeli soldiers who boarded, and tried to kidnap three of them, dragging them below decks in attempt to keep them until they got to Gaza.

A 60 year old man shot at point blank range does not signify innocence. These Turks had sang Islamic war songs, spoke to relatives prior to the voyage of hopes that they be martyred, and sang songs about Auschwitz.
At the point that soldiers were attacked an dragged below deck, there soldiers' colleagues opened fire. Point blank or long range, they were attacking the attackers, and saving their colleagues.


You mentioned on another thread about the cropped photos?


Initially they were released by IHH (the Turkish militant group, not the Mod!). Reuters has now admitted editing out of the photo, the knife belonging to the Turkish militant.

Links to story here:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/08 ... commandos/

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=gaza+f ... =firefox-a

Again you are selective in your history. The Balfour letter also stated the civil/political rights of the Arabs in Palestine should not be affected.

The San Remo declaration did not allocate the mandate to the Jewish people but expressed for a Jewish state to be established within Palestine with the borders to be agreed by the Allied powers.

Wholesale relocation of the Palestinians out of their Palestine is entirely unacceptable and outrageous. More in line with International Law and History (which you have a sudden taste for) would be for Israel to recognise the illegality of the growing settlements on Palesinian land and further homes in East Jerusalem. Even the USA grows weary.

But on the sixth boat, there were 50 or so mercenaries who had boarded in Bursa in Turkey. They had no been searched for weapons, unlike the rest of the activists. They tried to kill the Israeli soldiers who boarded, and tried to kidnap three of them, dragging them below decks in attempt to keep them until they got to Gaza.

Quartz, not only do I think this is untrue but it is demonstrably so. You have posted footage of the pre-amble to the incident. Do you see fifty mercenaries? Mercenaries suggests combatants. Having seized the footage of the incident and selectively released what could be constructed to support the Israeli actions; the best Ayalon could find is a catapult, kitchen knife and a broken glass bottle. These are so obviously not mercenaries and any labelling of them as so is ridiculous.

You say the activists tried to kill the first soldiers who landed. This is a confusing assertion. Why did they not succeed?

The photographs show the soldiers disarmed and surrounded by activists yet killings did not happen. That strongly suggests, even to you, that killing was never an intention. What they did do was attend to the soldiers wounds. (See photographs of the previous post).

I have already discussed your kidnapping notion. Unfeasable and highly unlikely. Where is the footage of when the Israeli special forces opened fire? Do you think that maybe the activist holding the camera was considered as dangerous as the activist holding the catapult? As I have said, making a stand against the IDF was such a stupid thing to do but never could their wholesale massacre be justified.

I am glad you want peace in the region but saddened that you offer no compromise to achieve it. The extreme Hamas get democratically elected and Yisrael Beitenu get brought into the Israeli coalition. Things do not look good for the region as long as extremists have sway.

As a by the way. Cropping out the kitchen knife was a disgraceful act by Reuters and whoever sanctioned it should not be a journalist.

Cockerill's chin wrote:Again you are selective in your history. The Balfour letter also stated the civil/political rights of the Arabs in Palestine should not be affected.

They were not affected. They were given 77% of the Mandate as Trans-Jordan.
The offered 50% of the rest! Which they rejected.

Cockerill's chin wrote: The San Remo declaration did not allocate the mandate to the Jewish people but expressed for a Jewish state to be established within Palestine with the borders to be agreed by the Allied powers.

We differ. The San Remo declaration offered a viable Jewish state. But then the British changed their mind and allocated 77% of the Mandate land to Trans-Jordan after the Heshemites fled Mecca.

Cockerill's chin wrote:
Wholesale relocation of the Palestinians out of their Palestine is entirely unacceptable and outrageous. More in line with International Law and History (which you have a sudden taste for) would be for Israel to recognise the illegality of the growing settlements on Palesinian land and further homes in East Jerusalem. Even the USA grows weary.

Points I make are:

1.) Palestinians are a relative newcomer to the land.

2.) Jews have afar more ancient claim, and a unique spiritual claim that is absent from Palestinians.

3.) Border changing, state creation, and population movement are regular features of word history up to 1949, and are used to solve tensions.
I am not arguing for Palestinians to be dumped in refugee camps, but of the building of a modern, technologically empowered, geographically planned state.
One that would take huge financial sacrifice from all the backers.

4.) So called "East Jerusalem" is a notion almost entirely absent from the Israeli psyche. In spiritual terms, the West Bank is as much part of Israel as land near Tel Aviv.
The West Bank has been disputed territory since the Ottoman collapse in 1918, and American "weariness" has no moral imperative to me.

QuartzGooner wrote:But on the sixth boat, there were 50 or so mercenaries who had boarded in Bursa in Turkey. They had no been searched for weapons, unlike the rest of the activists. They tried to kill the Israeli soldiers who boarded, and tried to kidnap three of them, dragging them below decks in attempt to keep them until they got to Gaza.

Cockerill's chin wrote:
Quartz, not only do I think this is untrue but it is demonstrably so. You have posted footage of the pre-amble to the incident. Do you see fifty mercenaries? Mercenaries suggests combatants. Having seized the footage of the incident and selectively released what could be constructed to support the Israeli actions; the best Ayalon could find is a catapult, kitchen knife and a broken glass bottle. These are so obviously not mercenaries and any labelling of them as so is ridiculous.

You say the activists tried to kill the first soldiers who landed. This is a confusing assertion. Why did they not succeed?

The photographs show the soldiers disarmed and surrounded by activists yet killings did not happen. That strongly suggests, even to you, that killing was never an intention. What they did do was attend to the soldiers wounds. (See photographs of the previous post).

Weapons shown and found are clear for the world to see, that attack was pre-planned. Various hunting catapults, jars of stones, daggers, knives, wooden bats, iron bars, an IED and a pistol.

The mercenary members of IHH failed to kill the soldiers because other soldiers fought back!

Cockerill's chin wrote:
I have already discussed your kidnapping notion. Unfeasable and highly unlikely. Where is the footage of when the Israeli special forces opened fire? Do you think that maybe the activist holding the camera was considered as dangerous as the activist holding the catapult? As I have said, making a stand against the IDF was such a stupid thing to do but never could their wholesale massacre be justified.

The continued holding of Gilad Shalit without access to Red Cross, by Hamas, is seen as the biggest Hamas 'victory" by the Gazans.
Any chance to add to that, they will try.

Cockerill's chin wrote: I am glad you want peace in the region but saddened that you offer no compromise to achieve it. The extreme Hamas get democratically elected and Yisrael Beitenu get brought into the Israeli coalition. Things do not look good for the region as long as extremists have sway.

I and all Jews I have ever met, want peace.

Unfortunately there is a chunk of Islam, the Global Jihadists,who want conquest of the world, and forced conversion to Islam, or death for it's inhabitants.

I personally would offer no territorial "Compromise" over the Holy Land of Israel, but I offer every financial and technological assistance to set up a viable Palestinian state.
Generous of me, considering 800,000 Jews have been driven out of Arab countries by state pogroms 1948 - present day, carrying little but two suitcases, or less in many instances.
As in line with my religion, I do not demand expulsion of Arabs from Israel, as they are clearly Israeli citizens and "guests in our land".

Firstly, some of those pictures in CC's post above look like soldiers being detained if anything...

Secondly (and I can be a pedantic crunt at times ) that was NOT an assault onto the boat by the commandos. A Spec Ops assault would have been at least six well armed troops (a rifle squad) fast roping down all at once from both sides of the helicopter and using stun grenades, to establish a CQB (close quarters battle) perimeter to allow the 2nd and 3rd squads to then rope in. That is standard spec ops assault protocol the world over.

They roped in one at a time armed with riot control weapons initially. That is "boarding" the boat, NOT "assaulting" the boat and there is a huge difference between the two.

I'm not condoning the killings but to my mind the people on the boat that then attacked the commandos with knives and iron bars must shoulder some of the blame for the ensuing escalation in violence and thus the deaths of their comrades. It is too simplistic to just blame the commandos alone.

People are too quick to label the people on that boat as either Jihadist mercenaries or innocent protesters, depending on their view point. My guess is that in reality it was a mix of the two. Very little in life is black or white, there are shades of grey.

DB10GOONER wrote:
People are too quick to label the people on that boat as either Jihadist mercenaries or innocent protesters, depending on their view point. My guess is that in reality it was a mix of the two. Very little in life is black or white, there are shades of grey.

Shades of grey are nearly always marginalised by the extremists.

As you have seen the initial soldiers who landed were disarmed. The young man with the head injury was taken below to have wounds tended.

Kidnapping is never an option because:

1. The aim was to highlight the blockade.

2. Kidnapping Israeli soldiers would be immoral and a propoganda gift to an Israeli Government desperate to justify the open air prison around Gaza

3. It would also justify the dehumanization of the all those involved in the struggle for Palestine as militants and animals.

4. It was never achievable. Those who disgracefully took Shilat were fundamentalist/armed militia. If you are going to take four Israeli soldiers you come to the party with more than a slingshot, especially when there are special ops in close proximity and many miles to reach shore.

Your view is embedded in your need to label all those who want to assist Palestine as flawed and aggressive. This is not the case Quartz. These people were stupid to make an amateur stand against the soldiers. The force with which they were met was completely out of line with the resistance offered. Sadly, though, this is not atypical of the aggression demonstrated by the Israeli military on numerous occassions.

Unfortunately there is a chunk of Islam, the Global Jihadists,who want conquest of the world, and forced conversion to Islam, or death for it's inhabitants.

I personally would offer no territorial "Compromise" over the Holy Land of Israel, but I offer every financial and technological assistance to set up a viable Palestinian state.
Generous of me, considering 800,000 Jews have been driven out of Arab countries by state pogroms 1948 - present day, carrying little but two suitcases, or less in many instances.
As in line with my religion, I do not demand expulsion of Arabs from Israel, as they are clearly Israeli citizens and "guests in our land".

I agree about the chunk of Islam part, and that worries me...that fanatic stupidity can be bred by religion is the greatest falling point of the notion of religion in my opinion. That goes for all religions, not just Islam.



And a question for Quartz/DanielD:

Is the land on which Israel is currently situated (i.e Tel Aviv ect.) an exact correspondence to Jewish territory in Biblical times? What exactly was that territory in that time anyway? I always though the Jews were caught somewhere between Egyptian and Roman empires but my biblical knowledge is not that great... Or does a Jewish state pre-date the Romans/Egyptians??



Apologies for dragging down the intellectual level of the thread.

No worries Ram, we're used to it. After all, you are Australian!!