News What were the consequences of Israel's attack on the Gaza Aid Flotilla?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TubbaBlubba
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ship
Click For Summary
A group of peace advocates attempted to deliver humanitarian supplies to Gaza via a convoy, which was intercepted by the Israeli military in international waters. The IDF's response resulted in significant injuries and fatalities among the activists, raising accusations of state terrorism against Israel. The incident has sparked intense debate, with some arguing that the activists provoked the confrontation intentionally for media attention, while others condemn Israel's military actions as excessive and unjustified. The Israeli government had previously offered to allow the supplies to be inspected and delivered through its ports, which the convoy organizers refused. The situation has drawn international criticism, particularly regarding the humanitarian impact of Israel's blockade on Gaza, and has heightened tensions, especially with Turkey, which has expressed outrage over the incident. The legality of Israel's actions is contested, with arguments surrounding international law and the enforcement of blockades. The discussion reflects deep divisions over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the complexities of humanitarian efforts in a militarized context.
  • #481
HossamCFD said:
...
We have a president that is ruling since 30 years and claiming that this is a democratic country, remember ?!

By the way, edited and incomplete videos released from only one side while eliminating the other videos doesn't seem ACTUAL to me. multiple testaments by those who witnessed the action may do.

Now think why Mubarak is still in power, maybe it's Israel fault?(Although we did build for you the pyramids:biggrin:) No I think it's Egyptians fault...

If Mubarak was Israel closest friend, I fear my nation was in real trouble...

The problem is not "edited" videos, but blind (full of hatred) minds...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #482
OmCheeto said:
Deaths due to Pearl Harbor attack: 2,350
Subsequent Japanese deaths: 2,700,000

Significant deaths on 28 June 1914: 1
Deaths resulting: ~80,000,000*

Sometimes it's not about the numbers.
It's about who's going to decide that the next rock/mortar/rocket/missile/nuke does not get thrown.


*argument over this number should probably take place somewhere else. I'm simply trying to make a point.


I agree completely with this statement. The numbers mean nothing it's the intentions. Just because a nation is weaker and doesn't have a powerfull military doesn't mean that it has a right to constantly push a larger nations buttons. Eventually that nation will crack and will decide that 'that's enough' and there will be MANY people from that nation that are willing to die to protect the future of their nation to ensure that the future people never have to endure what they lived through. This is a common theme in ALL wars the only difference I can see between Israel and the other nations is that Israel is actually restraining itself rather than completely destroying and conquering the Palestinian territories.
I feel confident that if Israel had started a war to conquer Gaza there would be a lot of 'loud bickering' coming from certain communities but I highly doubt any unified international support would have been given to Gaza.

Again for those people living in developed parts of the world. Can you honestly say that you would wish your nation would be 'kind and tolerant' of a neigbour nation that acted out towards you the same way the Palestinians have? I mean it's not even JUST the Palestinians, Israel has had to deal with nearly ever Arab nation and military around it... during the Gulf war it even had Iraq BOMBING the hell out of Israel, yet Israel refused to retaliate or get involved.
 
  • #483
OmCheeto said:
Deaths due to Pearl Harbor attack: 2,350
Subsequent Japanese deaths: 2,700,000

Significant deaths on 28 June 1914: 1
Deaths resulting: ~80,000,000*

Sometimes it's not about the numbers.
It's about who's going to decide that the next rock/mortar/rocket/missile/nuke does not get thrown.*argument over this number should probably take place somewhere else. I'm simply trying to make a point.

1. The Japanese had been waging war against China for what, ten years by that point. It's just that we tend to ignore the Sino-Japanese war.
2. Franz Ferdinand's murder was not the only trigger for the great war.

So I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic. Retaliation should always be proportional... and preferably not against civillians.I'm not saying Israel should tolerate the bombings, but I don't think that killing civilians will solve the long-term problem.
 
  • #484
HossamCFD said:
Just because I am Egyptian doesn't mean I support my government's actions all the way. seems a strange logic to you right ?!

arildno said:
Psst..have you heard of..Copts?

HossamCFD said:
And ... ? I really can't see your point, and how would it be relevant

No, how could that possibly be related to your comment??

I am a coptic muslim
Indeed.
 
  • #485
TubbaBlubba said:
Retaliation should always be proportional..
No, first and foremost is that the retaliation shall be effective.

Then, among possible effective measures (of those there might be many or few), one is to choose the one causing least unnecessary damage.

You are NOT to pick an INEFFECTIVE measure just because it seems "proportional" to you.
 
  • #486
estro said:
The problem is not "edited" videos, but blind (full of hatred) minds...

This is why I stopped posting on Al Jazeera-Facebook threads after the incident.

God alone could bring light into those black, ignorant, seething masses of hate filled messages.
 
  • #487
estro said:
(Although we did build for you the pyramids:biggrin:)

I really don't know if you are serious about this or just joking. In case you are serious (which I hope not as this would be the stupidest thing I heard on PF). The pyramids were built in the Third and fourth dynasty around 2650-2575 BC and 2575-2467 BC. the jews, or else, their ancestors the Hebrews, did not even exist until centuries after that, let alone coming to Egypt.

I think some guys need to learn some history.
 
  • #488
arildno said:
No, first and foremost is that the retaliation shall be effective.

Then, among possible effective measures (of those there might be many or few), one is to choose the one causing least unnecessary damage.

You are NOT to pick an INEFFECTIVE measure just because it seems "proportional" to you.

Exactly, but this just isn't something you're going to convince a ideological teenager of, especially one that lives is a very nice and developed nation :smile:. Some people truly believe all the worlds problems are 'non-sense' and never require fighting... there's always 'another better route that doesn't involve deaths'. 10% of the time, this may be the case... the majority of the time though... I'm highly skeptical.

Nothing in war needs to be proportional. A MAJOR component of war theory is exactly the opposite actually, intentionally make things unproportional IN YOUR FAVOUR so you can win the damned thing. I suggest people on these forums read a few notable philosophers on war. Starting with the classics: Sun Tzu "The Art of War' and von Clausewitz "On War". You could then move into more complex theories of modern warfare after you understand the basics.
 
  • #489
HossamCFD said:
I think some guys need to learn some history.

Why plural?
 
  • #490
zomgwtf said:
Nothing in war needs to be proportional. A MAJOR component of war theory is exactly the opposite actually, intentionally make things unproportional IN YOUR FAVOUR so you can win the damned thing. I suggest people on these forums read a few notable philosophers on war. Starting with the classics: Sun Tzu "The Art of War' and von Clausewitz "On War". You could then move into more complex theories of modern warfare after you understand the basics.

Or, as I have done, studied the..Romans.

They knew how to hammer out an empire, and keep it for say, 600 years.

The reason for their being able to do that has very much to do with their treatment of, for example, the Carthaginians, Iberians, Celts in Gaul and Dacians.

Not a very nice, unbloody story, but one of cold, cost-effective rationality.
 
  • #491
estro said:
Now think why Mubarak is still in power, maybe it's Israel fault?(Although we did build for you the pyramids:biggrin:) No I think it's Egyptians fault...
..

Yes indeed, it's the Egyptians fault. I am not the kind of guy that blame others for his own mistakes/laziness. But it's not a secret that many Israeli politicians have raised concerns about about his health situation and who is going to succeed him . It's also not a secret that He has full support from the Obama's administration as opposed to the general public opinion in the US who are not happy with their government supporting a dictatorial regime
 
  • #492
zomgwtf said:
Why plural?

My bad

English is not my native language anyway :smile:
 
  • #493
First I'd like to say, that pretty much everyone has blinders on of different sorts. How you were raised, your religion, your culture, how the people around you rub off on you, where your news sources come from, what experiences you've been through. If you are asking what is the correct way to look at the world, it depends. Going to the military, and losing friends may give you some perspective, but I don't see how it better educates you to make political decisions less your hatred of the enemy has inspired you to be ruthless to them. your glasses are just as much blinders as someone different than you, and they appeal to your strong emotions based on your experiences. In some cases, your glasses can make you a bit nutty and irrational.
 
  • #494
jreelawg said:
First I'd like to say, that pretty much everyone has blinders on of different sorts. How you were raised, your religion, your culture, how the people around you rub off on you, where your news sources come from, what experiences you've been through. If you are asking what is the correct way to look at the world, it depends. Going to the military, and losing friends may give you some perspective, but I don't see how it better educates you to make political decisions less your hatred of the enemy has inspired you to be ruthless to them. your glasses are just as much blinders as someone different than you, and they appeal to your strong emotions based on your experiences.

I don't htink this is really true. Looking at it with blinders on means you judge the actions just for the actions. Looking at things objectively means taking a step back and thinking critically about what has happened. No appeal to emotions, no appeal to ideologies, just hard facts and knowledge of human nature.
 
  • #495
HossamCFD said:
I really don't know if you are serious about this or just joking.
You have great sense for humor...
I'm aware of the fact that Jews probably has nothing to do with pyramids...

HossamCFD said:
...
the Hebrews, did not even exist until centuries after that, let alone coming to Egypt.

I think some guys need to learn some history.

You're right, some history reading can only make you good...
 
Last edited:
  • #496
I guess I'm talking about peoples perspectives on a broader scale. Maybe I'm using the terms incorrectly. But everything in life is not so clear cut. If you are entirely objective like you say, then you would have no opinion. I'm talking making assumptions of right and wrong, and so forth, and not specifically about the topic of this thread.

Also, what specifically is unique to people with different views in many cases, is their views and understanding of human nature. Maybe the military gives you strong opinions and experiences about human nature which are skewed in the broader picture. The same can be said for pretty much everyone, with their own specific factors.
 
Last edited:
  • #497
zomgwtf said:
Exactly, but this just isn't something you're going to convince a ideological teenager of, especially one that lives is a very nice and developed nation :smile:. Some people truly believe all the worlds problems are 'non-sense' and never require fighting... there's always 'another better route that doesn't involve deaths'. 10% of the time, this may be the case... the majority of the time though... I'm highly skeptical.

Nothing in war needs to be proportional. A MAJOR component of war theory is exactly the opposite actually, intentionally make things unproportional IN YOUR FAVOUR so you can win the damned thing. I suggest people on these forums read a few notable philosophers on war. Starting with the classics: Sun Tzu "The Art of War' and von Clausewitz "On War". You could then move into more complex theories of modern warfare after you understand the basics.

Or you QUESTION what's been established and worked out instead of learning and embracing "the old wisdoms" and then dancing along in a crowd, hand in hand, in a merry tune for the good of Imperialism.

So what if it's established war theory, and the best way of winning the war? Why is winning the war always the best thing? Why is it important that the enemy's side dies rather than your own, even if it means that a hundred times as many enemies will die?

There are ALWAYS alternatives to a head-on assault (in before you point out a specific exception). This conflict is vastly, vastly more complicated than "one side is shooting at the other", and you are fully aware of that. It is a conflict of territory, history, culture, and religion. The problem is that Hamas has gained a following among the general population, through various strategies. KILLING the general population seems to be of dubious effectivity in order to reduce that support, considering Hamas' whole rhethoric is about retaliation.

But what do I know, I'm just an ideological teenager in a first-world country.
 
  • #498
The problem with war philosophies like Tsun Tsu, is that war is hell, and most people don't want to live in a constant state of war. Especially under a philosophy where lying, being sneaky, and stabbing in the back is the best method.

Most people come out of the military with the belief instilled into them, that there is no choice in the matter, war is the way of the world, and always will be.

But what you see also, is an escalation coming from both sides.

For example, if you are fighting an enemy in combat, and your best friends all die in front of you at the hand of the enemy. You might come out of the situation with the view that piece is not good enough, it doesn't accommodate the revenge you lust for.

And on the other side, a man may be kneeling beside the body parts of his child thinking the same thing, peace is not good enough without revenge.

In the end, you have a whole lot of people just out to destroy each other.

Then you have the people who realize the faults and confusions of the individual, and take the stance they cannot learn. They say the only way to peace is though war and tyranny, or through fascism. To advance this method, they egg on the confused individuals and perpetuate their faults and weakness. Kind of like the sith lord would. And meanwhile, the truths and strengths of human nature take a back seat in a world that chooses to make them irrelevant.
 
  • #499
Israelis = Nazis?

eruera said:
The Israeli's are acting toward the people of Gaza as the Nazi's did to the Jews or have they forgotten.
eruera said:
To use Nazi's as a comparison was a mistake to which I humbly apologise.
arildno said:
No, it was not a "mistake".

I agree. It was clearly deliberate … deliberately offensive and bizarrely untrue. :frown:
eruera said:
I am just disgusted with the heavy handed tactics which cost lives when a shot across the bow would have avoided loss of any life.

A shot across the bow? That is ridiculous … the ship would have refused to stop anyway, and called the Israelis' bluff.

Nobody on that ship believed that the Israelis wanted to sink it
i] because they know the Israelis tend to try to use minimum force (as they did anyway on this occasion :approve:)
ii] because the Israelis wanted the food and medicines to get to Gaza, which would not be achieved by sinking the ship.

The Israeli soldiers, far from being heavy-handed, acted with considerable restraint, leaving their firearms holstered far longer than any neighbouring army would have done, despite sustaining serious injuries.

Paradoxically, if they had been heavy-handed, firing weapons from the start, there would probably have been no deaths.
 
  • #500
TubbaBlubba said:
So what if it's established war theory, and the best way of winning the war? Why is winning the war always the best thing? Why is it important that the enemy's side dies rather than your own, even if it means that a hundred times as many enemies will die?

Are you suggesting that people should allow themselves to be killed for the purposes of ensuring the smallest total number of people be killed?
 
  • #501
TubbaBlubba said:
Why is winning the war always the best thing?
Sometimes it's not. See Vietnam.
Why is it important that the enemy's side dies rather than your own, even if it means that a hundred times as many enemies will die?
Because sometimes, people are so nationalistic/patriotic that it seems that they will fight to the last person before they will give up. See Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
There are ALWAYS alternatives to a head-on assault (in before you point out a specific exception). This conflict is vastly, vastly more complicated than "one side is shooting at the other", and you are fully aware of that. It is a conflict of territory, history, culture, and religion. The problem is that Hamas has gained a following among the general population, through various strategies. KILLING the general population seems to be of dubious effectivity in order to reduce that support, considering Hamas' whole rhethoric is about retaliation.
Very good. I think?
But what do I know, I'm just an ideological teenager in a first-world country.

And that's your http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q29YR5-t3gg".

-------------------------
my apologies for introducing a music video into the thread, but I couldn't resist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #502
Office_Shredder said:
Are you suggesting that people should allow themselves to be killed for the purposes of ensuring the smallest total number of people be killed?

I don't know. I honestly don't know. But it always gets me when people get so bloody worked up because it's about THEIR people. And it's not just in war. Recently, the somewhat arising xenophobia in Sweden has raised similar feelings within me - People get so damned worked up about what is WE, what is SWEDISH, and what is FOREIGN and EVIL.What I do know is that there is no real way to win a war, only various ways of losing it.

Om: My opinions will certainly change with the years, as they always have. But I am quite certain that they will not move further toward the support of the ever imperialistic institutions in the West.
 
  • #503
With Israel, things are a bit different than a lot of other places in that there is very little hope for peace in the long term. There are too many muslim nations around them to kill them all. They really do have little choice it seams but to live in a constant state of war. This is why I don't think Helena Thomas is being racist, maybe ignorant, when she says Jews should leave Israel and go to other countries. For their own good it might be the best thing. Especially when you consider the way technology is advancing so fast, and weapons proliferation is going to be such a tough issue. Their neighbors are willing to die for revenge, and are only getting more and more blood thirsty.

Hopefully there will be some kind of transcending factor which will bring piece, but you really cannot count on that.
 
  • #504
TubbaBlubba said:
I don't know. I honestly don't know. But it always gets me when people get so bloody worked up because it's about THEIR people. And it's not just in war. Recently, the somewhat arising xenophobia in Sweden has raised similar feelings within me - People get so damned worked up about what is WE, what is SWEDISH, and what is FOREIGN and EVIL.


What I do know is that there is no real way to win a war, only various ways of losing it.

Om: My opinions will certainly change with the years, as they always have. But I am quite certain that they will not move further toward the support of the ever imperialistic institutions in the West.

Absolutly. We should all just submit to sharia law and convert to islam or accept our place as beneath those that do convert. This shall insure minimal loss of life and we can console ourselves with the knowledge that we are all people of the world...
 
  • #505
jreelawg said:
With Israel, things are a bit different than a lot of other places in that there is very little hope for peace in the long term. There are too many muslim nations around them to kill them all. They really do have little choice it seams but to live in a constant state of war. This is why I don't think Helena Thomas is being racist, maybe ignorant, when she says Jews should leave Israel and go to other countries. For their own good it might be the best thing. Especially when you consider the way technology is advancing so fast, and weapons proliferation is going to be such a tough issue. Their neighbors are willing to die for revenge, and are only getting more and more blood thirsty.

Hopefully there will be some kind of transcending factor which will bring piece, but you really cannot count on that.

You do have a good point in this. Regardless of what happens with the Gaza strip and how you feel about that, when that story's over then the next will start. Creating Israel was probably a pretty bad move in the first place, but there's not much to be done about it now... And meanwhile America will fight to the last drop of blood to keep their military base-, erh, Israel afloat.

Indeed, whatever would be required for peace in the Middle East would be a change significant enough for the entire world to feel it.

ibnosis: What you say has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, so I'm not quite following you.
 
  • #506
TubbaBlubba said:
Om: My opinions will certainly change with the years, as they always have. But I am quite certain that they will not move further toward the support of the ever imperialistic institutions in the West.

I believe I've asked you for sources to support these imperialistic aims of Israel and you have yet to substantiate the it. In fact it seems like it is a common recurring pattern in this thread with yourself... actually on the entire forum, I never see you back up anything with citations, even when asked.

Start supporting your theories or else I think I'm going to start reporting posts, cause it's getting kind of over done now.

Anyway: I for one, certainly do not give a f*** how people live culturally or what they value over in the Middle East, if they try to bring this into my nation through wars and terrorism and constant bombings then, yes. I will go in there and **** their **** up.
 
  • #507
TubbaBlubba said:
And meanwhile America will fight to the last drop of blood to keep their military base-, erh, Israel afloat.

America hasn't dropped much blood fighting for Israel. Money, certainly, but not a lot of blood
 
  • #508
TubbaBlubba said:
...
America will fight to the last drop of blood to keep their military base-, erh, Israel afloat...

Office_Shredder said:
America hasn't dropped much blood fighting for Israel. Money, certainly, but not a lot of blood

I hope until the last dollar.:smile:

I'm actually quiet surprised for good by the forum, never thought there are so many people abroad who understand our position.
 
  • #509
jreelawg said:
The problem with war philosophies like Tsun Tsu, is that war is hell, and most people don't want to live in a constant state of war. Especially under a philosophy where lying, being sneaky, and stabbing in the back is the best method.

Most people come out of the military with the belief instilled into them, that there is no choice in the matter, war is the way of the world, and always will be.

But what you see also, is an escalation coming from both sides.

For example, if you are fighting an enemy in combat, and your best friends all die in front of you at the hand of the enemy. You might come out of the situation with the view that piece is not good enough, it doesn't accommodate the revenge you lust for.

And on the other side, a man may be kneeling beside the body parts of his child thinking the same thing, peace is not good enough without revenge.

In the end, you have a whole lot of people just out to destroy each other.

Then you have the people who realize the faults and confusions of the individual, and take the stance they cannot learn. They say the only way to peace is though war and tyranny, or through fascism. To advance this method, they egg on the confused individuals and perpetuate their faults and weakness. Kind of like the sith lord would. And meanwhile, the truths and strengths of human nature take a back seat in a world that chooses to make them irrelevant.

A very important post, and I'll make a first comment:
(a) war is hell, and (b) most people don't want to live in a constant state of war.
Both (a) and (b) correct. That is why MOST people will do their best not to think of war, even if it occurs right in the neighbourhood. The stories of the baffling "normality of life" in war-torn London or other area are endless.
This unwillingness of reflecting upon war is a source of strength needed to build up a humane, civil society again/keep it going.

That is why we should be DEEPLY troubled about wide-spread ideologies romantizing/gloryfying, or, even, the worst of all, SANCTIFYING war, since this mentality attacks the very core of our basic humanity. People imbibed&indoctrinated on such ideologies are unwittingly slipping into collective psychopathy.


This is not mere hypothesizing:
1. The gory rituals of the Aztecs, their murderous ravagings of subject tribes is one such example.

2. We have preserved thousands of lines of Viking poetry; the nobility in those societies developed a death cult, and praised&practised it.
One such ritual in the Wotan worship was "catching the babe on the spear-edge":
In this, at some village they had just razed, the Vikings would place themselves in a closed ring with their spears upright.
Then a villager child, two years old or so, was thrown into the air above the ring.
The man whose spear skewered the child was granted the right to rape the child's mother.

One Viking was tauntingly nick-named "kiddie-lover" by his comrades, because he always refused to take part in that particular ritual.
 
Last edited:
  • #510
Office_Shredder said:
America hasn't dropped much blood fighting for Israel. Money, certainly, but not a lot of blood

Fair enough.

zomgwtf said:
I believe I've asked you for sources to support these imperialistic aims of Israel and you have yet to substantiate the it. In fact it seems like it is a common recurring pattern in this thread with yourself... actually on the entire forum, I never see you back up anything with citations, even when asked.

Start supporting your theories or else I think I'm going to start reporting posts, cause it's getting kind of over done now.

I wasn't speaking specifically of Israel, but rather the West in general. At least when looking at America, I think that the theme of imperialism is pretty self-evident, and has been going on since... The end of World War II, maybe, starting with Japan? Then moving on to Korea, then unsuccessfully Vietnam, not to mention Chile, etc etc etc, escalating in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's the whole idea that "We" bring our superior ideas to "them" in order to improve their quality of life (which can probably objectively be considered lower, regardless of culture).

It seems common to immediately assume that the individual, rather than perhaps the sociological constructs, are superior. "My standard of living is better because MY ideas on society are better!". Well, YOU didn't think most of those ideas up - you had someone else give them to you.

So let's superimpose this onto say, Iran, with all of its Sharia laws. The people didn't think these laws were the best - They were the laws that they were given. Many of them were certainly also given the thoughts that the west and its ideals are bad. So what happens with a head-on confrontation? Well, it's not unlikely that it results in STRENGTHENING the idea that the west is bad.

I'm not sure what citations you want. Obviously there's a plethora of citations on people considering the west imperialist, but it's not exactly something you can measure, it's more of an ideological stance.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 126 ·
5
Replies
126
Views
17K
  • · Replies 123 ·
5
Replies
123
Views
17K
  • · Replies 128 ·
5
Replies
128
Views
21K
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
12K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
10K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 490 ·
17
Replies
490
Views
40K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K