BF2S Forums Israelis raid "Aid" Convoy

Diesel_dyk wrote:

henno13 wrote:

Meh, I hate my "friends". One of them posted a sarcastic comment on his Facebook wall that "Israel is sound". At the time, I was reading the first page of this thread and I said that the ship was within Israel's EEZ, so it was techinally legal for them to board the convoy. My comments were swiftly deleted while my friends called me a "Loyalist Sympathiser". They then go on saying that I should support Gaza because "they are like us fenians".

I mean, I can understand where they are coming from, but there is nothing I hate more than people forcing their own opinions on to me while completley ignoring or denouncing my own view as being against my faith. Gaza =/= Northern Ireland. What they can't seem to understand is that it is in a completley different part of the world, where issues are handled differently than here.

Seriously, what the fuck?

By the way, I am a Catholic, and "Loyalist" is a term that describes those who are loyal to the crown i.e Protestants.

the EEZ argument is BS... a cover up for attacking a foriegn flag vessel.
Here's a rebuttle that you can use on the EEZ argument

Check this site out. apparently Israel hasn't declared an EEZ.
http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/376.aspx

First they have to declare one to have it recognized, then the borders of the zone have to be reconciled with the EEZ of their neighbors. There can't be overlap of EEZ zones. That's how these zones got started in the first place. One country decided to declare an EEZ, and other countries thought it was a good idea to declare their own. There's usually some diplomatic back biting between neighbors about offshore resources and the disputes get settled and a border between EEZs gets established.

Last edited by henno13 (2010-06-01 00:04:06)

Dilbert_X wrote:

It had a big fat Turkish flag on it, thats all it needs.

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

the idf one?

I was thinking more one executed by an objective third party.

All the supposed other raids on ships bound for Gaza that no one ever hears about, are they subject to third party investigation?

It is vital that the Israelis succeed in portraying the flotilla as an extremist plot. Whether extremist or not, the plot has generated an image of Israel quite damaging to Israeli political interests. Israel is increasingly isolated internationally, with heavy pressure on its relationship with Europe and the United States.

In all of these countries, politicians are extremely sensitive to public opinion. It is difficult to imagine circumstances under which public opinion will see Israel as the victim. The general response in the Western public is likely to be that the Israelis probably should have allowed the ships to go to Gaza and offload rather than to precipitate bloodshed. Israel’s enemies will fan these flames by arguing that the Israelis prefer bloodshed to reasonable accommodation. And as Western public opinion shifts against Israel, Western political leaders will track with this shift.

The incident also wrecks Israeli relations with Turkey, historically an Israeli ally in the Muslim world with longstanding military cooperation with Israel. The Turkish government undoubtedly has wanted to move away from this relationship, but it faced resistance within the Turkish military and among secularists. The new Israeli action makes a break with Israel easy, and indeed almost necessary for Ankara.

With roughly the population of Houston, Texas, Israel is just not large enough to withstand extended isolation, meaning this event has profound geopolitical implications.

Public opinion matters where issues are not of fundamental interest to a nation. Israel is not a fundamental interest to other nations. The ability to generate public antipathy to Israel can therefore reshape Israeli relations with countries critical to Israel. For example, a redefinition of U.S.-Israeli relations will have much less effect on the United States than on Israel. The Obama administration, already irritated by the Israelis, might now see a shift in U.S. public opinion that will open the way to a new U.S.-Israeli relationship disadvantageous to Israel.

The Israelis will argue that this is all unfair, as they were provoked. Like the British, they seem to think that the issue is whose logic is correct. But the issue actually is, whose logic will be heard? As with a tank battle or an airstrike, this sort of warfare has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with controlling public perception and using that public perception to shape foreign policy around the world. In this case, the issue will be whether the deaths were necessary. The Israeli argument of provocation will have limited traction.

Internationally, there is little doubt that the incident will generate a firestorm. Certainly, Turkey will break cooperation with Israel. Opinion in Europe will likely harden. And public opinion in the United States — by far the most important in the equation — might shift to a “plague-on-both-your-houses” position.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Think this covers it, Israel hasn't claimed an EEZ.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5880e/y5880e09.htm

Trotskygrad wrote:

henno13 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFSEFml31vc

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/1927 … 781775.png

Nice one IDF

nice one henno.

But nlsme, I don't get what your point is with the paintball and pistols statement.

If Israel just sent up unarmed inspectors in a dinghy instead of fast-roping in armed commandos from a heli, I don't think this would've happened.

henno13 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFSEFml31vc

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/1927 … 781775.png

Nice one IDF

Last edited by Cybargs (2010-06-01 08:29:49)

nlsme1 wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

My point is they were NOT a fully armed brigadde of commandos. The arguement could be made that if they were fully armed nobody would have died. I know I wouldn't hesitate to take on somebody with a paintball gun, make it a full auto machine gun, and I would.

That's an interesting argument, but totally irrelevant to my post,

My point was that if the Israelis took non-threatening action, no one would've died. Your point is that if they took VERY threatening action, no one would have died.

I was a cop for 8 yrs. It is called "command presence". You can't REALLY say no one would have died. Just as I CAN"T say nobody would have died if they took my approach. IF.

nlsme1 wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

I was a cop for 8 yrs. It is called "command presence". You can't REALLY say no one would have died. Just as I CAN"T say nobody would have died if they took my approach. IF.

well nothing is definite...

"he said he had fired his gun at an activist who came at him with a knife but was subsequently stabbed in the stomach anyway"

After reading a couple updates, things are not looking good for the Israelis, as they are trying to enforce an illegitimate blockade.

and irony is ironic

"It is reminiscent of the British assault in 1947 on the Exodus, a ship carrying Jewish refugees hoping to break the then British naval blockade on Palestine.

In that incident, too, the assault force underestimated the opposition, resorted to force, and three of the passengers died.

That event did much to undermine British rule in Palestine and increase support for a Jewish state."

I can say with 100% certantaity nobody would have died IF the Isrealis never boarded in the first place.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Isn't this how the new Star Wars movies started?

Honestly though, dropping people in over and over to a bunch of people with clubs and knives seems a little stupid. Should have looked down saw the apposition and gassed them(pepper gas) if they actually wanted to get on the boat.

In all honesty though Israel was way in the wrong with procedure and even doing this in the first place.