Sure Israel has blamed the screwups at higher levels for faulty execution and poor planning/cooperations between diffrent departments involved. It then lauds soldiers for gunning down civilians from a formally friendly nation and that there is no way they could have handled things diffrentlly.
See after WWII international law changed, as a concentration camp guard, as the person that pulled the trigger one cannot rely on the defence I was doing illegal stuff but I was under orders. Note how no one at the higher levels is named or sacked either.
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Sure Israel has blamed the screwups at higher levels for faulty execution and poor planning/cooperations between diffrent departments involved. It then lauds soldiers for gunning down civilians from a formally friendly nation and that there is no way they could have handled things diffrentlly.
See after WWII international law changed, as a concentration camp guard, as the person that pulled the trigger one cannot rely on the defence I was doing illegal stuff but I was under orders. Note how no one at the higher levels is named or sacked either.
I am NOT applauding the investigation results by any means.
But misrepresenting them is goosery.
Again, when Israel takes too little action, this is distinct from no action at all. At these times, accusing them of taking no action at all only serves to give them a VALID defense, because the accusation is technically untrue.
Call Israel on what they are ACTUALLY doing, which is wrong in and of itself, rather than trumping up charges.
"To my relief, the investigation found no negligence or failures on any significant matters," said retired Gen. Giora Eiland, Israel's former National Security Council director who led the internal military probe into the May 31 raid.
Or another way to word that sentence:
"To my relief, the investigation I ran found things that aided in my relief"
The report that everybody thought was going to be a sham was a sham? Who knew?
The problem with the report is that it amounts to rummy's "mistakes were made" (or was that Bush? Someone in that execrable administration anyway). It's a meaningless admission if nobody is actually held accountable for their failure.
the problem is that the people responsible are the politicians who made the last minute decisions, not the soldiers on the boats. the soldiers being held responsible would be abu grahib all over again, creating a scapegoat for the leadership who caused the problem, and thereby letting them get away with it.
So, instead, no one is a scape goat and everyone gets away with it!
Much better choice.
And, no, Evander. I don't think a report that says "In its report, the commission found 'no failure, but mistakes' and did not recommend disciplinary action against any individuals." is a report saying they did something wrong. To me, it in fact explicitly says they did nothing wrong.
No, burt, the one quote from a guy ABOUT the report said that they did nothing wrong.
mistakes = things done wrong
but go ahead, trump up charges, and watch as the debate becomes about the extra rhetoric that you just HAD to add, instead of the parts that actually matter.
Which is why the soldiers should still be disciplined for their actions. They're not entirely at fault, but they aren't entirely free of guilt, either. I'm not saying lynch them or anything, but it needs to be made clear that gunning down civilians is not kosher.
Oh no, I wouldn't want the soldiers held responsible for acting as their training informs, after being dropped in the dead of night on to a civilian vessel by the decision of some idiot general or politician. That is, unless they didn't actually do their jobs properly and killed people as a result, which I don't expect is the case. But yes I'd like to see the decision-maker, at whatever level of the military or government it was, admit and apologize for his or her error.
Several dead civilians say no, some shits pretty binary.
Pulling the trigger on another human being pretty binary desison, you pull you don't. maybe it's shade of grey when you pull it multiple time on civilians while illegally boarding their boat.
Painting a bunch of Turkish civilians as antisemitic terrorists that's another pretty binary desison.
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
I'm hoping that everyone has seen the video of the Israelis boarding the flotilla boat. If the Turks had not resisted the boarding then there would have been zero deaths, or even injuries most likely.
The people on the "peace" flotilla wanted to make a statement about what they were doing, and they ended up doing so. They had the option to dock at an Egyptian port to have the materials transported, but they declined. They knew that they would be stopped by a blockade by the Israeli military, so what did they do? Prepare for a peaceful boarding? No. They waved metal pipes in the air, and attacked the Israelis as they boarded, throwing at least 1 man over board and gang beating another with their metal pipes. What did they think would happen? What if a SWAT team had entered my home and I came at them with a metal pipe? I would have 50 bullets in me before I hit the floor.
I think we can all agree that Israel did make mistakes on this issue, but deciding to attack a military force with metal pipes is downright idiotic.
The peace flotilla wasn't about aid for Gaza, it was about challenging the Israeli blockade in a very antagonistic fashion.
I'm hoping that everyone has seen the video of the Israelis boarding the flotilla boat. If the Turks had not resisted the boarding then there would have been zero deaths, or even injuries most likely.
The people on the "peace" flotilla wanted to make a statement about what they were doing, and they ended up doing so. They had the option to dock at an Egyptian port to have the materials transported, but they declined. They knew that they would be stopped by a blockade by the Israeli military, so what did they do? Prepare for a peaceful boarding? No. They waved metal pipes in the air, and attacked the Israelis as they boarded, throwing at least 1 man over board and gang beating another with their metal pipes. What did they think would happen? What if a SWAT team had entered my home and I came at them with a metal pipe? I would have 50 bullets in me before I hit the floor.
I think we can all agree that Israel did make mistakes on this issue, but deciding to attack a military force with metal pipes is downright idiotic.
The peace flotilla wasn't about aid for Gaza, it was about challenging the Israeli blockade in a very antagonistic fashion.
Yes, let's ignore the blatant violation of international law.
Which is why the soldiers should still be disciplined for their actions. They're not entirely at fault, but they aren't entirely free of guilt, either. I'm not saying lynch them or anything, but it needs to be made clear that gunning down civilians is not kosher.
Which actions should they be disciplined for?
The Israeli story is still that they went in with paintball guns and didn't open live fire until a sidearm had been wrestled away from another soldier.
Under that particular story, what do you fault the soldiers for? The whole "Just following orders" schtick is about just following orders to murder people. That is NOT the orders that were faulty in that scenario. The faulty orders were when and how and where to board the ship. Encouraging soliders to question THOSE orders is a huge mistake.
Again, I am not sure whether or not I agree with the report's findings, and I would MUCH preffer to see an independant investigation. I am not defending the report itself, just pointing out how it makes zero sense to discipline soldiers based on it. The Israel government DOES discipline their soldiers when they find wrongdoing in their actions (a few more were recently added to the ranks of soldiers disciplined for actions during castlead) but the findings of their investigation don't mesh with dicsipline in this scenario.
I'm hoping that everyone has seen the video of the Israelis boarding the flotilla boat. If the Turks had not resisted the boarding then there would have been zero deaths, or even injuries most likely.
The people on the "peace" flotilla wanted to make a statement about what they were doing, and they ended up doing so. They had the option to dock at an Egyptian port to have the materials transported, but they declined. They knew that they would be stopped by a blockade by the Israeli military, so what did they do? Prepare for a peaceful boarding? No. They waved metal pipes in the air, and attacked the Israelis as they boarded, throwing at least 1 man over board and gang beating another with their metal pipes. What did they think would happen? What if a SWAT team had entered my home and I came at them with a metal pipe? I would have 50 bullets in me before I hit the floor.
I think we can all agree that Israel did make mistakes on this issue, but deciding to attack a military force with metal pipes is downright idiotic.
The peace flotilla wasn't about aid for Gaza, it was about challenging the Israeli blockade in a very antagonistic fashion.
Yes, let's ignore the blatant violation of international law.
Israel should be held accountable for breaking international law here, and for poor tactical decision making that lead to an escalation of violence. There's no question to those things.
However, when it comes to the soldiers on the ground/boat, if it does turn out that they were attacked, then their actions in response appear to be warranted. That DOESN'T let the decision-makers off the hook at all, it just makes it clear WHERE the issue was on Israel's part.
If the ship was a trap then the soldiers caught in it were not to blame, but the Israeli government is STILL to blame, because the trap CAUGHT them.
The Israeli story is still that they went in with paintball guns and didn't open live fire until a sidearm had been wrestled away from another soldier.
Under that particular story, what do you fault the soldiers for? The whole "Just following orders" schtick is about just following orders to murder people. That is NOT the orders that were faulty in that scenario. The faulty orders were when and how and where to board the ship. Encouraging soliders to question THOSE orders is a huge mistake.
Again, I am not sure whether or not I agree with the report's findings, and I would MUCH preffer to see an independant investigation. I am not defending the report itself, just pointing out how it makes zero sense to discipline soldiers based on it. The Israel government DOES discipline their soldiers when they find wrongdoing in their actions (a few more were recently added to the ranks of soldiers disciplined for actions during castlead) but the findings of their investigation don't mesh with dicsipline in this scenario.
The part where they killed mans is the part they should be disciplined for. Israel should find fault with the killing of mans in and of itself. Soldiers are not rabid dogs, nor are they brainwashed, nor are they uncivilized brutes. Whichever nutjob flooded that dude's head with bullets may need to be *watched*.
It's especially absurd for them to be praised for anything. If you trick some dumbfuck soldiers into bombing an orphanage you do not give them an award for efficiency in demolitions.
Can anyone here name a time the decision makers for any single military action have been held responsible for failure?
Saying "really, we should blame the old men in [governmental head area]!" is all well and good, but it doesn't actually produce results as far as I've ever seen.
Can anyone here name a time the decision makers for any single military action have been held responsible for failure?
Saying "really, we should blame the old men in [governmental head area]!" is all well and good, but it doesn't actually produce results as far as I've ever seen.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
But what would scapegoating the soldiers accomplish?
If what you want is revenge, then you are wrong to begin with. If what you want is justice, you won't find it in a bunch of men who (supposedly) opened fire only after they were already under attack.
The Israeli story is still that they went in with paintball guns and didn't open live fire until a sidearm had been wrestled away from another soldier.
Under that particular story, what do you fault the soldiers for? The whole "Just following orders" schtick is about just following orders to murder people. That is NOT the orders that were faulty in that scenario. The faulty orders were when and how and where to board the ship. Encouraging soliders to question THOSE orders is a huge mistake.
Again, I am not sure whether or not I agree with the report's findings, and I would MUCH preffer to see an independant investigation. I am not defending the report itself, just pointing out how it makes zero sense to discipline soldiers based on it. The Israel government DOES discipline their soldiers when they find wrongdoing in their actions (a few more were recently added to the ranks of soldiers disciplined for actions during castlead) but the findings of their investigation don't mesh with dicsipline in this scenario.
The part where they killed mans is the part they should be disciplined for. Israel should find fault with the killing of mans in and of itself. Soldiers are not rabid dogs, nor are they brainwashed, nor are they uncivilized brutes. Whichever nutjob flooded that dude's head with bullets may need to be *watched*.
It's especially absurd for them to be praised for anything. If you trick some dumbfuck soldiers into bombing an orphanage you do not give them an award for efficiency in demolitions.
Your response is nice in ideology, but it doesn't work when you are running a military.
If a man has a gun, and it is clear that he wants to shoot you, and you are a soldier, you are supposed to shoot him. I don't LIKE that fact, but as has been said plenty of times, this whole mess could yhave been avoided if the ship had never set said, or if they had submitted to Israeli authority like EVERY OTHER blockade ship.
Instead they hurt the good name of "non-violent protests" by getting violent. I have already heard folks mentioning both the G20 protesters and the Mavi Marmara in order to discredit other LEGITIMATE non-violent protests.
Non-violent civil disobedience is absolutely possible. That is when you let them arrest you as a statement of protest. If you want to turn violent, then you deserve some share of the blame for the aftermath. If you present yourself as being non-violent, AND THEN you turn violent, you are scum of the earth, because you have just worked to discredit the entire non-violence movement.
According to the report, the soldiers didn't go on board with guns cocked and aimed. They came on with paintball guns, and only pulled their sidearms after one of the Turkish men had subdued a soldier with blunt weapons and wrested a sidearm away from him. Why do you find the fault one the soldiers (who boarded intent on capture, not killing, and only responded when the situation was escalted) and not at all with the crew, who attacked the soldiers?
Again, I am not sure whether or not I agree with the report's findings, and I would MUCH preffer to see an independant investigation. I am not defending the report itself, just pointing out how it makes zero sense to discipline soldiers based on it. The Israel government DOES discipline their soldiers when they find wrongdoing in their actions (a few more were recently added to the ranks of soldiers disciplined for actions during castlead) but the findings of their investigation don't mesh with dicsipline in this scenario.
Man, those unnamed guys who were charged with unnamed crimes at a disciplinary trial with unnamed results (ie whether or not they were actually found at fault for anything) and unnamed punishments (assuming they were found at fault for anything) must really be feeling some unnamed emotions right now.
Evander, you're such a good apologetic that I'm not even sure you realize you're one at all.
Can anyone here name a time the decision makers for any single military action have been held responsible for failure?
Saying "really, we should blame the old men in [governmental head area]!" is all well and good, but it doesn't actually produce results as far as I've ever seen.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
But what would scapegoating the soldiers accomplish?
If what you want is revenge, then you are wrong to begin with. If what you want is justice, you won't find it in a bunch of men who (supposedly) opened fire only after they were already under attack.
Not so much scapegoating as, how do you hold the people responsible responsible? If there's no way, there's no discussion. If there is a way, what is it?
Simply pointing up and up until you get to a guy who's too important to bother is a dodge.
Can anyone here name a time the decision makers for any single military action have been held responsible for failure?
Saying "really, we should blame the old men in [governmental head area]!" is all well and good, but it doesn't actually produce results as far as I've ever seen.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
But what would scapegoating the soldiers accomplish?
If what you want is revenge, then you are wrong to begin with. If what you want is justice, you won't find it in a bunch of men who (supposedly) opened fire only after they were already under attack.
They swung on to the boat firing automatic weapons beneath them. I don't care if they were using paintball guns or live ammunition. They were never attacked. The people on the ship were defending themselves. The Israeli soldiers were the aggressors. Any blood spilled that day was on Israeli hands.
Can anyone here name a time the decision makers for any single military action have been held responsible for failure?
Saying "really, we should blame the old men in [governmental head area]!" is all well and good, but it doesn't actually produce results as far as I've ever seen.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
But what would scapegoating the soldiers accomplish?
If what you want is revenge, then you are wrong to begin with. If what you want is justice, you won't find it in a bunch of men who (supposedly) opened fire only after they were already under attack.
Not so much scapegoating as, how do you hold the people responsible responsible? If there's no way, there's no discussion. If there is a way, what is it?
Simply pointing up and up until you get to a guy who's too important to bother is a dodge.
There were a group of politicians (I want to say it was netanyahu, and a select group of MKs) who met to make a decision on the mavi marmara right before the soldiers were sent in. THOSE are the men responsible.
The idea that "SOME ONE needs to be held responsible at all costs" is a dangerous one. It is really just "revenge" in disguise. Punishing soldiers who were defending their own lives (after being WRONGLY placed on the ship) will not bring back the men who died, nor will it bring any consequences to the men who are ACTUALLY responsible for those deaths.
Can anyone here name a time the decision makers for any single military action have been held responsible for failure?
Saying "really, we should blame the old men in [governmental head area]!" is all well and good, but it doesn't actually produce results as far as I've ever seen.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
But what would scapegoating the soldiers accomplish?
If what you want is revenge, then you are wrong to begin with. If what you want is justice, you won't find it in a bunch of men who (supposedly) opened fire only after they were already under attack.
They swung on to the boat firing automatic weapons beneath them. I don't care if they were using paintball guns or live ammunition. They were never attacked. The people on the ship were defending themselves. The Israeli soldiers were the aggressors. Any blood spilled that day was on Israeli hands.
Because if a man is firing a paintball gun at you the correct response is to beat him half to death with a pipe?
Sorry, but why do I get the feeling that if the nationalities had been reversed you'd be defending the soldiers?
Evander did you seriously just call out a guy for ad hominem and then tell me that my argument is wrong because I'm a racist on the same page?
But yes, if someone is swinging on to your ship firing automatic weapons, even if they are less-lethal weapons, at you I think it's acceptable to defend yourself against the assault.
In his defense, it's totally my fault for not realizing he was talking about one of many other fuckups on the Israeli side, seeing as how he clearly linked what he was talking about and everything cough cough.
But it wasn't ad-hom. It was complimentary. Truly, I don't think we have a better apologetic in all of the PA forums. It's genuinely impressive.
Although the comment about using money to create political pressure is fucking ironic.
Throwing money at problems doesn't fix them. You have to know WHAT you are doing with the money.
Blanket sanctions and sieges against entire countries in the middle east don't do any good. It doesn't work when Israel does it to Gaza, and it wouldn't work if other countries did it to Israel.
You want an EFFECTIVE boycott of Israeli goods? Boycott ONLY goods made in the settlements. Just keep in mind, as you are doing it, that those plants employ a lot of Palestinian labor, so you are putting Palestinians out of work too.
Israeli bulldozers have destroyed six buildings in occupied East Jerusalem, resuming the demolition of Palestinian property after a halt aimed at encouraging peace talks, provoking Palestinian anger and US "concern".
Tuesday's demolitions were the first since a halt in October aimed at encouraging so-called peace talks, and Palestinians said they proved the Israeli government was not committed to the negotiations.
The demolitions come just a week after Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, pledged to take "concrete steps that could be done now - in the coming days, in the coming weeks - to move the peace process further along in a very robust way" after meeting Barack Obama, the US president, at the White House.
Obama had called for direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians to be restarted before the partial suspension on the construction of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land expires in September.
"My hope is that once direct talks have begun, well before the moratorium [on settlements] has expired, that that will create a climate in which everybody feels a greater investment in success," Obama had said last Tuesday, adding that he hoped mutual confidence-building moves would pave the way to negotiations.
The White House meeting had come as Obama and Netanyahu tried to downplay recent tensions between their countries over Israel's continuing construction of settlements, which is illegal under international law.
The demolitions come just a week after Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, pledged to take "concrete steps that could be done now - in the coming days, in the coming weeks - to move the peace process further along in a very robust way" after meeting Barack Obama, the US president, at the White House.
He wasn't lying. He never said in what direction the peace process would mover further along.
Posts
Israel said that Israel DID do something wrong, just not as much wrong as other people think.
See after WWII international law changed, as a concentration camp guard, as the person that pulled the trigger one cannot rely on the defence I was doing illegal stuff but I was under orders. Note how no one at the higher levels is named or sacked either.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Good thing I never summarized the article.
emphasis mine
I am NOT applauding the investigation results by any means.
But misrepresenting them is goosery.
Again, when Israel takes too little action, this is distinct from no action at all. At these times, accusing them of taking no action at all only serves to give them a VALID defense, because the accusation is technically untrue.
Call Israel on what they are ACTUALLY doing, which is wrong in and of itself, rather than trumping up charges.
emphasis mine
Yes, and?
Again, I am NOT defending the content of the report.
However the report DID state that Israel made mistakes, which is absolutely distinct from "did nothing wrong".
Much better choice.
And, no, Evander. I don't think a report that says "In its report, the commission found 'no failure, but mistakes' and did not recommend disciplinary action against any individuals." is a report saying they did something wrong. To me, it in fact explicitly says they did nothing wrong.
But only because that is what it says.
mistakes = things done wrong
but go ahead, trump up charges, and watch as the debate becomes about the extra rhetoric that you just HAD to add, instead of the parts that actually matter.
no disciplinary action taken against any individuals = but it's okay because? [tiny]we didn't really do anything wrong[/tiny]
Which is why the soldiers should still be disciplined for their actions. They're not entirely at fault, but they aren't entirely free of guilt, either. I'm not saying lynch them or anything, but it needs to be made clear that gunning down civilians is not kosher.
Several dead civilians say no, some shits pretty binary.
Pulling the trigger on another human being pretty binary desison, you pull you don't. maybe it's shade of grey when you pull it multiple time on civilians while illegally boarding their boat.
Painting a bunch of Turkish civilians as antisemitic terrorists that's another pretty binary desison.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
The people on the "peace" flotilla wanted to make a statement about what they were doing, and they ended up doing so. They had the option to dock at an Egyptian port to have the materials transported, but they declined. They knew that they would be stopped by a blockade by the Israeli military, so what did they do? Prepare for a peaceful boarding? No. They waved metal pipes in the air, and attacked the Israelis as they boarded, throwing at least 1 man over board and gang beating another with their metal pipes. What did they think would happen? What if a SWAT team had entered my home and I came at them with a metal pipe? I would have 50 bullets in me before I hit the floor.
I think we can all agree that Israel did make mistakes on this issue, but deciding to attack a military force with metal pipes is downright idiotic.
The peace flotilla wasn't about aid for Gaza, it was about challenging the Israeli blockade in a very antagonistic fashion.
Yes, let's ignore the blatant violation of international law.
Which actions should they be disciplined for?
The Israeli story is still that they went in with paintball guns and didn't open live fire until a sidearm had been wrestled away from another soldier.
Under that particular story, what do you fault the soldiers for? The whole "Just following orders" schtick is about just following orders to murder people. That is NOT the orders that were faulty in that scenario. The faulty orders were when and how and where to board the ship. Encouraging soliders to question THOSE orders is a huge mistake.
Again, I am not sure whether or not I agree with the report's findings, and I would MUCH preffer to see an independant investigation. I am not defending the report itself, just pointing out how it makes zero sense to discipline soldiers based on it. The Israel government DOES discipline their soldiers when they find wrongdoing in their actions (a few more were recently added to the ranks of soldiers disciplined for actions during castlead) but the findings of their investigation don't mesh with dicsipline in this scenario.
Israel should be held accountable for breaking international law here, and for poor tactical decision making that lead to an escalation of violence. There's no question to those things.
However, when it comes to the soldiers on the ground/boat, if it does turn out that they were attacked, then their actions in response appear to be warranted. That DOESN'T let the decision-makers off the hook at all, it just makes it clear WHERE the issue was on Israel's part.
If the ship was a trap then the soldiers caught in it were not to blame, but the Israeli government is STILL to blame, because the trap CAUGHT them.
The part where they killed mans is the part they should be disciplined for. Israel should find fault with the killing of mans in and of itself. Soldiers are not rabid dogs, nor are they brainwashed, nor are they uncivilized brutes. Whichever nutjob flooded that dude's head with bullets may need to be *watched*.
It's especially absurd for them to be praised for anything. If you trick some dumbfuck soldiers into bombing an orphanage you do not give them an award for efficiency in demolitions.
Saying "really, we should blame the old men in [governmental head area]!" is all well and good, but it doesn't actually produce results as far as I've ever seen.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
But what would scapegoating the soldiers accomplish?
If what you want is revenge, then you are wrong to begin with. If what you want is justice, you won't find it in a bunch of men who (supposedly) opened fire only after they were already under attack.
Your response is nice in ideology, but it doesn't work when you are running a military.
If a man has a gun, and it is clear that he wants to shoot you, and you are a soldier, you are supposed to shoot him. I don't LIKE that fact, but as has been said plenty of times, this whole mess could yhave been avoided if the ship had never set said, or if they had submitted to Israeli authority like EVERY OTHER blockade ship.
Instead they hurt the good name of "non-violent protests" by getting violent. I have already heard folks mentioning both the G20 protesters and the Mavi Marmara in order to discredit other LEGITIMATE non-violent protests.
Non-violent civil disobedience is absolutely possible. That is when you let them arrest you as a statement of protest. If you want to turn violent, then you deserve some share of the blame for the aftermath. If you present yourself as being non-violent, AND THEN you turn violent, you are scum of the earth, because you have just worked to discredit the entire non-violence movement.
According to the report, the soldiers didn't go on board with guns cocked and aimed. They came on with paintball guns, and only pulled their sidearms after one of the Turkish men had subdued a soldier with blunt weapons and wrested a sidearm away from him. Why do you find the fault one the soldiers (who boarded intent on capture, not killing, and only responded when the situation was escalted) and not at all with the crew, who attacked the soldiers?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3842402,00.html
These guys?
Man, those unnamed guys who were charged with unnamed crimes at a disciplinary trial with unnamed results (ie whether or not they were actually found at fault for anything) and unnamed punishments (assuming they were found at fault for anything) must really be feeling some unnamed emotions right now.
Evander, you're such a good apologetic that I'm not even sure you realize you're one at all.
Not so much scapegoating as, how do you hold the people responsible responsible? If there's no way, there's no discussion. If there is a way, what is it?
Simply pointing up and up until you get to a guy who's too important to bother is a dodge.
And really, I know your arguments are bad, but you don't have to resort to ad hominem. You're better than that.
They swung on to the boat firing automatic weapons beneath them. I don't care if they were using paintball guns or live ammunition. They were never attacked. The people on the ship were defending themselves. The Israeli soldiers were the aggressors. Any blood spilled that day was on Israeli hands.
There were a group of politicians (I want to say it was netanyahu, and a select group of MKs) who met to make a decision on the mavi marmara right before the soldiers were sent in. THOSE are the men responsible.
The idea that "SOME ONE needs to be held responsible at all costs" is a dangerous one. It is really just "revenge" in disguise. Punishing soldiers who were defending their own lives (after being WRONGLY placed on the ship) will not bring back the men who died, nor will it bring any consequences to the men who are ACTUALLY responsible for those deaths.
Because if a man is firing a paintball gun at you the correct response is to beat him half to death with a pipe?
Sorry, but why do I get the feeling that if the nationalities had been reversed you'd be defending the soldiers?
But yes, if someone is swinging on to your ship firing automatic weapons, even if they are less-lethal weapons, at you I think it's acceptable to defend yourself against the assault.
But it wasn't ad-hom. It was complimentary. Truly, I don't think we have a better apologetic in all of the PA forums. It's genuinely impressive.
Although the comment about using money to create political pressure is fucking ironic.
Throwing money at problems doesn't fix them. You have to know WHAT you are doing with the money.
Blanket sanctions and sieges against entire countries in the middle east don't do any good. It doesn't work when Israel does it to Gaza, and it wouldn't work if other countries did it to Israel.
You want an EFFECTIVE boycott of Israeli goods? Boycott ONLY goods made in the settlements. Just keep in mind, as you are doing it, that those plants employ a lot of Palestinian labor, so you are putting Palestinians out of work too.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/07/2010713232211445287.html