media refuses to show this clip. peace activist? lol

thoughts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaiMjAULWn0&feature=popular

 

Simply the truth. Yet still large parts of the world insist on attacking Israel for the "Israeli massacre".

 

Those IDF soldiers had absolutely no right in stepping their foot on that ship in the first place, they provoked that attack by attacking a non-military vessel in internationel waters. Boarding a foreign vessel in international waters to take control constitutes piracy.

Every weopen in that footage was improvised, im pretty sure that if they really had planned on attacking they would have thought of something better, not to mention that defending yourself does not make you any less peaceful at all. You seem to have gotten a completely misled understanding of what a peace activist in fact is, a product of propoganda you sure are.

Your wrong by the way, this footage was never censored.

 

The IDF did not attack. They were boarding the vessel because they had to physically (after they did not stop through radio) stop the Turks from crossing the barrier, as they have every right to search any ship crossing through it. Five of the six ships complied as they should.


Unfortunately, Israel just can't take any risks when the ships could be transporting arms to terrorist groups.

 

Unboard the ship were turks, arabs and europeans. The barrier is an israeli selfmade and strongly UN condemt barrier that no man is obligated to apply himself to. According to international laws Israel has no right to get unboard the ship without permission, nor do they have any right to proceed the enclosere of Gaza. I suppose that with "terrorist groups" you mean the palestinians and Hamas. How can Hamas and the rest of the palestinians possibly be a terrorist group when their terrorized in their own land?

 

aha you can tell that kid is a dumb brainwashed American

 

Some would say that you yourself are one brainwashed "terrorist".. Behave my brother and try to join the debate instead.

 

If I was in the same situation as those soldiers, I would have opened fire. They were completely out of control by hitting them with metal poles, stabbings, etc.

 

I Agree To What Nick Stated Above, I Would Of Done The Exact Same Thing.

 

I must say that I too would have opened fire. But in that case of me being an israeli commando I would have no right getting unboard of that ship to begin with. Were it however the case that I be one of those already unboard, I would have resisted much similar to those men as I too believe in justice and in what is right and wrong.

 

The UN is completely biased towards Israel. Any person seriously interested in the situation in the middle east must take the UN input very lightly. Actually, Israel had the complete right to do what they did and the process (including the blockade) was completely legal.
If you want to see how, see this link (renowned lawyer and Harvard law professor):
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/israel_s_actions_were_entirely

And, lol? How are they terrorized exactly?

 

Israel were suspicious the ships were headed towards their claimed territory carrying weapons, they had every right to search the ship under international law. They were attacked, and retaliated.

 

Many more would say that the UN in fact is completely biased towards Palestine and not Israel, for the UN to even recognize Israel as a legitimate state despite how it came into existence is biased. For them to not have run sanctions against Israel for their refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is completely biased, when they however consistently for similar reasons support sanctions against against Iran.

Now instead of giving me a link from a clearly biased israeli newspaper, come up with your own arguments or at least copy and paste from that link some of what you find relevant.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Israel justifies its interdiction of the “Freedom Flotilla” by reference to Article 67 of the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea, which permits the attack of neutral merchant vessels that “are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture.” The interdiction thus depends on the legality of the blockade of Gaza, so let the debate on whether the siege was illegal or not come to an end as it is all connected to the blockade of Gaza.

Consider the Egyptian blockade of Israel in 1956 and 1967 by closing the Straits of Tiran. These actions were condemned by the UN as an illegal restriction on ships and precipitated armed conflict. Yet they were designed to stop the shipment of weapons into Israel. How can Israel blockade Gaza in this manner after protesting the closing of the Straits?

Roughly 60 years ago Israel did not exist, somehow it came into existence though. Where arabs were previously settled, jews now settle and as generous arabs might be I strongly doubt that out of generosity they simply gave it away. It started pre to 1948 with the UN supported Yishuv's forces crushing the Arabs which then resulted in the full collapse of the Palestinian Society and the establishment of the israeli state. In the very first years alone at least 600.000 palestinians were directly expelled from their homes, those who resisted were beaten, tortured and killed. Countless atrocities have since taken place including the Sabra and Shatila Massacre supervised by Ariel Sharon during the 1982 Lebanon War, who himself was later chosen as the head of the israeli state. There's really no point in me going any further with this history lesson contradicting your assumption of Israel being the victims, as you yourself might aswell do some research on neutral websites, and not on Jerusalem Post.

 

Israel came into existence by valid means. If you actually examine the raw facts, the vast majority of land plowed by Zionists was bought in legitimate circumstance. And btw, check out how countries such as the U.S and Australia were established.
Dude, have you even considered the implications of allowing Iran nuclear weapons? Iran is completely undemocratic, corrupt, run by terrorists and refuses to adhere to international law. Within a week Israel would be a smoldering crater. Perhaps parts of the U.S. Perhaps half the globe?
With neighbors like those Israel has one need some sort of formidable defense if situations ever became dire.

Dershowitz is one of the most impartial lawyers in the U.S. I have to write my essay atm, I'll paraphrase it later.

And it is legal. Israel established a blockade (and a hospital) on its conquered territory. Oh, and, Egypt participated in the blockade.

Though I am not versed in those events, just judging by your post I can already make four arguments: First, that (I'm guessing) the straits are international territory, and therefore not in the jurisdiction of Egypt; second, that Israel is not a terrorist state but a democracy; and third, that Egypt's closure of the straits (at least in 1967) seems to be an explicit attempt to render Israel unable to defend itself (the six day war). Lastly, a 'closure' of a canal means that nothing can get through. Israel lets all humanitarian goods through, but just can't risk letting in weapons.