Reports: Israeli ships attack aid flotilla

Originally posted by mhc_70
To allow weapons to sneak in. There is really no other reason, since actual aid is allowed through.

Funny thing about that is, there were no weapons on board, were there? Aid is allowed into Gaza, but they can't have electricity, water, bandaids, orchards, or drive down the highways? Yeah. Hey but if helps you sleep at night, maybe it really was a flotilla of death invading Israel to attack the poor IDF in their sleep.

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by mhc_70
To allow weapons to sneak in. There is really no other reason, since actual aid is allowed through.

Funny thing about that is, there were no weapons on board, were there?

Aid is allowed into Gaza, but they can't have electricity, water, bandaids, orchards, or drive down the highways? Yeah. Hey but if helps you sleep at night, maybe it really was a flotilla of death invading Israel to attack the poor IDF in their sleep.

Ofcourse not, this was just a show, the only benefit was an attempt to begin to put and end to the blockade for future transports of weapons and, for a few, the chance at martyrdom.

reply to post by mhc_70

Ofcourse not, this was just a show, the only benefit was an attempt to begin to put and end to the blockade for future transports of weapons and, for a few, the chance at martyrdom.

That is all political based speculation and really is nothing but the politics of promoting a war, by insisting that something other was happening than was really happening, for another agenda than really was being pursued, in order to play to the politics of being pro-war.

We have reached a slippery and dangerous slope where the imagined intentions of others become crimes, based on a notion that these imagined intentions are reality, even though they are in stark contradiction to the reality of what really transpired.

Humanitarian Aide organizations are not in the Arms Business. Israel is by the way, the United States is by the way, China is by the way, but Humanitarian Aide organizations do not manufacture, sell or ship arms. They distribute charity, food, medicine, clothing, building materials, and toys for children.

So likening such people to arms dealers is pure nonsense, when it requires heavily theorizing a contradictory and totally imagined scenario for the purpose of the politics of promoting apartheid and genocide.

None of these things occurred, yet in reality for peace to actually be achieved the blockade must end, and Gaza must reach a level of autonomy and economic prosperity that would enable it to focus entirely on it’s own politics of managing a state and making it prosperous as opposed to having to focus on the politics of a rival that covets its lands and is prepared to use apartheid, genocide, propaganda, and military force to prevent them from having autonomy and a prosperous way of life.

So in reality through such theories, all that is ever going to happen, through those kinds of politics of fear and accusation, is that every true path to peace and prosperity and security for both nations will be forever blocked.

It is a dangerous and slippery slope indeed when we no longer judge and respond to people’s real actions, but instead, judge and respond to politically inspired imaginings of what people really aren’t doing, for the sake of casting them in that role, for the sake of the politics of hatred and war.

How in fact could Israel ever have peace, if in reality it never honestly gives peace a chance?

In reality it never has, it simply wages a propaganda war where it claims to give peace a chance, while all the while doing things like murdering humanitarian aide workers trying to bring aide and comfort to people a policy of genocide and apartheid is being waged against by Israel.

The truth is, people who promote such politics have far more sinister agendas in plan, than the ones that they purport are in play by humanitarian aide workers, who are not arms dealers, or soldiers, but people helping people who need help.

There is absolutely no virtue in trying to make the innocent appear guilty of something that they not only did not do, but weren’t even trying to do, and certainly did not do, to promote the politics of war and death.


[edit on 6/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

That is all political based speculation and really is nothing about the politics of promoting a war, by insisting that something other was happening than was really happening, for another agenda than really was being pursued, in order to play to the politics of being pro-war.

We have reached a slippery and dangerous slope where the imagined intentions of others become crimes, based on a notion that these imagined intentions are reality, even though they are in stark contradiction to the reality of what really transpired.

I disagree that the intentions of Hamas are speculation and merely a slippery slope. The blockade is there to stop weapons from entering Gaza, not humanitarian aide.

I am curious what you think the motivation was for running the blockade?

Humanitarian Aide organizations are not in the Arms Business. Israel is by the way, the United States is by the way, China is by the way, but Humanitarian Aide organizations do not manufacture, sell or ship arms. They distribute charity, food, medicine, clothing, building materials, and toys for children.

So likening such people to arms dealers is pure nonsense, when it requires heavily theorizing a contradictory and totally imagined scenario for the purpose of the politics of promoting apartheid and genocide.

It sounds like your implying if Hamas had access to weapons they wouldn't use them against Isreal?

None of these things occurred, yet in reality for peace to actually be achieved the blockade must end, and Gaza must reach a level of autonomy and economic prosperity that would enable it to focus entirely on it’s own politics of managing a state and making it prosperous as opposed to having to focus on the politics of a rival that covets its lands and is prepared to use apartheid, genocide, propaganda, and military force to prevent them from having autonomy and a prosperous way of life.

This will only happen when Hamas acknowledges Isreals right to exist and chooses negotiations over violence.

So in reality through such theories, all that is ever going to happen, through those kinds of politics of fear and accusation, is that every true path to peace and prosperity and security for both nations will be forever blocked.

It is a dangerous and slippery slope indeed when we no longer judge and respond to people’s real actions, but instead, judge and respond to politically inspired imaginings of what people really aren’t doing, for the sake of casting them in that role, for the sake of the politics of hatred and war.

Again, in this case, calling it a slippery slope is inaccurate because it is so heavily greased by anti-Isreali groups that it has become a reality.

"Humanitarians" running a blockade designed to stop weapons, but allow humanitarian through, is kind of an oxymoron, no?

reply to post by mhc_70


It sounds like I am implying that once a state and its people reach a certain level of autonomy, prosperity and security they no longer perceive rivals as being a threat to their existence because there are no rivals who are threat to their existence.

Right or wrong, and I happen to believe it wrong, but it is a common practice throughout the ages, the indigenous population of pre-World War I Palestine has been slowly displaced through a violent campaign of land acquisition at their expense by Zionist Israel.

So you understand Zionist is an important distinction because Hebrew Scripture teaches that only the Hebrew Messiah can lead the Jews of the world back to Israel. In reality less than 2% of the world’s Jews want to live in Israel and that is a big factor for not wanting to live there.

Politically it became a place of refuge primarily in the aftermath of the Second World War for displaced and refugee Jews.

As horrible as the Holocaust in Europe was, it was the pivotal factor in creating a mass enough exodus of European Jews who had no desire to move to Palestine before the Second World War, to then finally reach a critical enough mass, where they were numerous enough to first displace the British Governing Authorities through violence, and terrorism, and then to begin displacing the Palestinians through violence and terrorism.

This is all documented history, with the justification being proffered for it the holocaust in Europe, which the indigenous people of Palestine played no role in.

Yet we have seen similar migratory patterns of Europeans displace other indigenous people too. It typically results in one of two things, the migrants waging a war of complete annihilation on the indigenous population to depopulate and completely control the land, or waging a partial war of annihilation until a critical mass that causes the remaining indigenous people to choose submission and terms on how the remainder of them can then survive and hopefully prosper.

What we have seen through history if the new migratory entity that establishes hegemony offers a real piece and real autonomy on real secure lands within or alongside the new entity established by the migrants and abide then by those agreements and treaties, and allow the surviving people to prosper then the indigenous people will in fact just focus on prospering.

We see this throughout the Americas, and we see this throughout the Pacific, and Asia, so yes, at the point the belligerent migratory peoples make real agreements that allow for the remaining indigenous population to focus on their own prosperity without threat of interference or sabotage, or what they have been given slowly being whittled away and undermined then they will in fact choose peace and prosperity, if they no longer view the migratory entity as a belligerent actively engaged in taking more from them.

Yet we have also seen when the migratory belligerent does not honor it’s treaties, tries to change them, and keeps whittling away at the lands and the autonomy of the indigenous people that they will continually fight back against the migratory belligerent as there really is no alternative except complete submission and eventual annihilation.

Yet here is where all your arguments and suppositions fail, at the beginning by the refusal of many to see a indigenous population as being indigenous and migrants of a belligerent nature truly being migrants of a belligerent nature. It does not matter what circumstances caused the migration, what matters is the belligerency of the migrants in relation to the indigenous population, especially considering that the indigenous population was not responsible for the circumstances that led to the migration of other peoples intent on taking over, stealing and usurping their lands and recourses for their own.

So the argument many choose is patently false from the onset.

The second thing you are failing to see is that Israel is not only armed but heavily armed. Are you really saying that Israel will not use its weapons on the indigenous population that it is in fact been slowly displacing through an armed war of aggression.

Yes people who find that their lands and livelihoods are being threatened by migratory peoples do in fact fight back against them.

In reality all you are advocating is that one side should be given the absolute right of armed force to impose it’s will while the other side should be given no right or consideration or method to protect itself.

So it really is at its core level an argument for the bullying through force, of an entire people, in a lopsided way that only allows for one side to dominate the other side, with that one dominating side, intent on preventing the indigenous people from reaching any level of security and economic prosperity where they would no longer feel threatened and a need to try to fight back and protect themselves.

Certainly a illegal blockade being conducted against such a society is a very real method to prevent economic prosperity and security from being achieved.

So in reality when you strip away the religious dogmas, and the propagandas and take away the coined labels, all you do have is a migratory people, attempting to displace an indigenous population in its entirety by being the only armed force and the superiorly armed force that is intent on the complete depopulation of the indigenous people.

If Israel was actually contained to the 48% of Palestine the Original Mandate granted them, and was peacefully and productively engaged with the Palestinians they were tasked to live alongside with as two antonymous people that would be entirely different.

I could then say Zionist Israel stuck to its contractual obligations, and agreements and the Palestinians are 100% in the wrong.

But the truth is that the Zionist political entities have never made an attempt to abide by the accords and treaties but simply used them for a toe hold to wage a bloody and slow war of genocide and apartheid against an indigenous people, for the sake of constantly growing and expanding their state and making a profit through those very actions, by getting the rest of the world to fund that very slow and cruel effort, through the skilled use of propaganda meant to obscure every basic fact.

So in reality all many people are doing is in fact promoting a might makes right concept of its ok for one migratory people to displace an indigenous population if they can but convince everyone else that there is a legitimate reason for doing that.

Yet the truth is a big part of that convincing is through slandering the indigenous population by purporting that very natural reactions on its behalf are inhuman and wrong, when in fact they are very natural reactions, all the while with the migratory belligerent never actually doing one thing that would enable the prosperity and security the indigenous population requires to no longer feel threatened and in danger.

Here is a hint for you, telling people that they should not feel threatened and endangered because half measures that still leave them feeling threatened and endangered is not going to actually make such people no longer feel threatened and endangered when that migratory entity is still actively engaged in things and actions that do threaten and endanger them and impact their autonomy security and economic vitality.

That is the absurd part of the propaganda war being waged by Israel. Telling me I should love someone or something because they supposedly did something that makes me love them is not going to make me love them. They actually have to do something that convinces me to love them, not that convinced them that they should be loved, or convinced others that are not affected that they should be loved.

Bottom line is people who don’t live in Gaza and haven’t had to suffer the displacement of a belligerent migratory people, really should not be imagining what is going on in the minds of people who have been displaced by a belligerent migratory people.

They shouldn’t be assuming that the Israeli propaganda and half measures are sufficient to give peace of mind and security to people who have been continually displaced and watched their standard of life continuously disintegrate by a migratory belligerent people.

It’s a foolish notion, and peace if very easy to obtain.

No I can’t imagine any nation or society would feel secure with an entity imposing a blockade on it, or see that entity as anything but the belligerent thread that it is.

Israel in fact uses its arms all the time, not just on Palestinians but peaceful humanitarian aide workers trying to help them in charitable life sustaining ways.

The argument some people are promoting is totally flawed from start to finish and ignores most of the facts, the true reality, and the lessons from history.

Thanks.


[edit on 6/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by mhc_70

 

"How in fact could Israel ever have peace, if in reality it never honestly gives peace a chance? "





The truth is, people who promote such politics have far more sinister agendas in plan, than the ones that they purport are in play by humanitarian aide workers, who are not arms dealers, or soldiers, but people helping people who need help.




[edit on 6/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

""How in fact could Gaza ever have peace, if in reality it never honestly gives peace a chance? "


You see the discussion cuts both ways...

Peace workers DO NOT pick up HANDGUNS so either they did not and were unarmed peace workers or they did and ...

May I ask if you would support a kurdish free state/country?


[edit on 6-6-2010 by gambon]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I appreciate your well thought out response, however the broad generalizations due nothing to advance the discussion.

The fact is the blockade is not stopping humanitarian shipments from entering Gaza, its about inspections to prevent weapons from entering Gaza.

So I ask you again, what was the motivation for trying to run the blockade?

Originally posted by gambon

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by mhc_70

 

"How in fact could Israel ever have peace, if in reality it never honestly gives peace a chance? "





The truth is, people who promote such politics have far more sinister agendas in plan, than the ones that they purport are in play by humanitarian aide workers, who are not arms dealers, or soldiers, but people helping people who need help.




[edit on 6/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

""How in fact could Gaza ever have peace, if in reality it never honestly gives peace a chance? "


You see the discussion cuts both ways...

Peace workers DO NOT pick up HANDGUNS so either they did not and were unarmed peace workers or they did and ...

May I ask if you would support a kurdish free state/country?


[edit on 6-6-2010 by gambon]

Not sure I understand what your saying here.

reply to post by gambon


Once again this is the root of the problem, the labeling and assigning of roles to people.

You are either a human being or you or not a human being. If you are a human being your highest calling should be to your own morality and your own identity. If you need a state, a religion, or an organization or label, to define your morality and enforce it for you, then you are in fact abdicating your responsibilities as a human being, to dance on the political strings of a state, of a religion, of an organization of a label you or they have created to shape your morals and politics for their own purposes and agenda.

The use of labels is used for the following reasons, to divide people, to assign them rigid roles based on a label, and to set them against one another in those roles for the purpose of politics and achieving an agenda using those people as logistical tools.

So yes if your mind and conscious and morals are for rent to a God or Government who you are going to let define your existence and right and wrong, you are in fact a tool of such Gods and Governments and not acting in a capacity as a human being.

How about this, spend a little less time imagining how others are supposed to behave within the labels and roles you are in fact attempting to create for them, along with rules that go along with them that you have created, and spend a little more time, being responsible for yourself, and your own humanity.

These were human beings, engaged on a charity mission of giving to others, it matters not one hair how you imagine they are supposed to behave in that capacity.

In reality all you are doing is labeling people for the purpose of a class society, where different people, are bound to different sets of rules.

Soldiers have the right to kill and defend themselves and are properly functioning in their role when they kill and defend themselves. Humanitarian aide workers have no right to defend themselves against this labeled class of human beings, and are not functioning properly in their role when they defend themselves, and thus are at fault of not adhering to the role and the label you have created to uniformly control and define their behavior.

All in reality many are arguing here for is labels that denigrate our own unique humanness and obliterate it, to assign rigid political roles, replete with restrictive rules, meant to disenfranchise our own humaneness and get us to either act in inhumane ways, or support the inhumane actions of others.

All some are arguing for is State and State alone or God or God alone, or State combined with God be the arbiter and dictator of morality and the confines of roles that human beings are then labeled with and assigned to for the politics of State, or God or God and State.

This is tragically flawed thinking, and in reality when you strip all the labels and their political dogmas and rules assigned to them away, all you have is a migratory people, seeking to displace a indigenous population of human beings for the purpose of creating a labeled place where there rules and definitions rule supreme and our imposed on others through force of arms.

I reject this thinking, and this way of life. I am my own highest authority, and the only one who limits me in my actions is my self, and the only one who is best suited to judge them is me. No one else can define me for me, and it’s pointless for them to try to do so, so why anyone is trying so hard to label and define others is beyond me.

All people are human, I treat all human beings the same, with equal standards of morality and conduct across the board.

Labels exist for one reason, and that is to convince one group of people that they are better than another group of people and entitled through that to what they want from lesser groups of people as a result.

That’s how that works.

I highly encourage everyone to drop their labels and become human beings, and to stop wanting to make other people fit labels and rigid roles that only exist for the politics of divide and conquer, control by the state, and war.

Thanks.

the using of label is also very handy when comparing dichotemy,

I brought the human angle in YOU labelled one side AS, what does it say ahh here we go
the one side as
"uniformed henchmen of a state"
and the other
" humanitarian aide workers"


those are labels...

both sides are human , with all the faults that can entail...
...

are humanitarian aide workers holding guns humanitarian aide workers , or something else?


[edit on 6-6-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 6-6-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 6-6-2010 by gambon]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


What kind of labels would have to apply to someone, that would make you deny their right to exist?

Originally posted by mhc_70
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

I appreciate your well thought out response, however the broad generalizations due nothing to advance the discussion.

The fact is the blockade is not stopping humanitarian shipments from entering Gaza, its about inspections to prevent weapons from entering Gaza.

So I ask you again, what was the motivation for trying to run the blockade?

First no they are not broad generalizations they are rather just factual simple analysis of the situation without the labels and politics of nationality, ethnicity and religion mixed into it.

You see in life everything is about logistics, and one of the most important logistical elements in any undertaking is the human beings who have to be manipulated and motivated to carry out the logistical tasks.

This is what politics is all about and the labels that politicians create, to assign to people in order to regulate their behaviors and attitudes when it comes to carrying out the logistical elements the state needs to achieve its goals.

The vast majority of such politics and labels are based on dogmas that create dual sets of rules, one set of rules for the oppressors and antagonists and belligerents, and another set of rules for the defenders, victims and dispossessed.

The State of Israel should not be regulating the flow of goods and services into Gaza or be the conduit for it.

There is no entity regulating the flow of goods and services into Israel or acting as a conduit for it.

So here we see those two different sets of rules at play. Totally different standards arrived at through the politics of labeling totally similar human beings, as being two different animals in fact while they are the same animals.

So then it all becomes about the politics of manipulation through labeling, and getting people to accept that certain labels deserve one set of privileges and liberties, while another labeled people do not.

That is all that is at play here, and the reason I won’t pretend the dogmas that create the circular complexities that prevent resolution are real is because they aren’t real. They are all contrived labels and attitudes meant to separate humanity into labeled enclaves and provide different sets of rules for one label to rule over and oppress another and one people to have to accept that imposition.

So in reality it’s all a circular path to self defeatism, war, violence, and detaching ourselves from our universal brotherhood for the sake of religious, state and corporate entities who profit off of, and control through managing and manipulating our divisions.

Getting caught up in the drama and petty intrigues for the sake of spectacle as those labels and manipulations are machinated and assigned is as defeating as any one thing can be.

In reality you are asking me to speculate on another motive for the deliverance of aide, other than to be simply charitable, and you are asking me to do that in relation to people I have ever met, and personally do not know, which is not a scientific method to arrive at motive, while at the same time promoting the distrust of one label as it is politically defined, while promoting the blind trust of another label as it is politically defined all for the purpose of political divide and conquer.

The truth is if I had reservations about the humanitarian aide workers motives or agenda I would be seeking clarification of that through them, not other entities that clearly have a political agenda in suggesting that the humanitarian aide workers had another agenda.

Strip out the labels and the word games, and the dogmas and doctrines, politics and dual sets of rules, and you have a base, basic situation that then becomes very easy to identify the root problems, and very easy to then begin solving.

They can only be solved when you use one set of rules for both parties, and place both parties on a even footing as both parties being human, and both parties entitled therefore to the same privileges, security, trust and credibility.

Just about everyone’s argument is failing to consider that this is required to achieve an understanding.

The truth is there are successful models for granting an indigenous displaced population autonomy self governance and prosperity.

In fact I wish I was a Miccosukee Indian here in South Florida, where the tribe actually splits all it’s revenue with every member of the tribe evenly. They are not taxed by the tribe or the Federal Government and actually turn a handsome profit off of their resources and lands that all share equally in. They are free to work for the tribe or outside of the tribe if they want to, or not work at all and simply exist. Currently the compensation for simply existing is a check for about 64,000.00 a year from the Tribal Government for just being an Indian.

In fact we would all be well served in reexamining how our labeled nations and societies work, as there is no reason for any of us to be exist simply to serve the state, the state should be serving us.

This whole argument is about the right of state over others, and the state is not a human being, we are.

Originally posted by mhc_70
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

What kind of labels would have to apply to someone, that would make you deny their right to exist?

I wouldn't attempt to apply a label at all, I would in fact be trying through dialouge to convince them we can both exist, and to establish a real way to do that through a process of give and take that they and I could agree with.

Israel is dictating what peace should and must be, and no that is not a negotiation of give and take, that is not an attempt at coexistence or compromise.

The truth is I have no real enemies because at the point someone in my life and world takes that kind of advesarial stance I immediately open a dialouge to clear up any misunderstandings and to formalize a way that we can continue to interact in productive and mutually supportive ways.

It is looking at those mutually supportive aspects and working at promoting them that is what makes peace amongst rivals or people of different phillosophies or perspectives possible.

You end up making their world a more prosperous place, they end up making your world a more prosperous place, and it takes a very genuine desire to want to do that, but the reality is everyone does benefit from that, so it's all about having a real mutual benefit to promote and sell, and that point where someone chooses an adversarial stance with me, then yes it is on me to ascertain what could be mutually beneficial and to sell it through communication to that other party.

It's very simple, the truth is all the money Israel has wasted on it's policies of genocide and apartheid could have at this point bought every Palestinian a mansion on Lake Geneva and paid them a 100,000 per year salary, and every Israeli too!

When you begin to understand how the oil companies and military industial complex are managing Israel and Palestine you begin to really see an obscene waste of money, through murderous and disengenous effort, that robs both Israeli and Palestinian alike of a quality of life.

Who profits are the State and the Corporations not the people.

I am interested in helping all the people, on both sides of this divide for they all are suffering because of the politics of their leaders and the way they are being manipulated to distrust and fight one another, for profit.

For control.

Those who can not seperate themselves from the dogmas and myths of the political and corporate entities will never be able to see the situation and the problem for what it truly is, or who is truly profiting off of it, and to what extent and why.

Strip all the labels and politics away and all you have is brother, fighting brother, for the sake of Master.

It really is that simple.

[edit on 6/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
First no they are not broad generalizations they are rather just factual simple analysis of the situation without the labels and politics of nationality, ethnicity and religion mixed into it.

You see in life everything is about logistics, and one of the most important logistical elements in any undertaking is the human beings who have to be manipulated and motivated to carry out the logistical tasks.

This is what politics is all about and the labels that politicians create, to assign to people in order to regulate their behaviors and attitudes when it comes to carrying out the logistical elements the state needs to achieve its goals.

The vast majority of such politics and labels are based on dogmas that create dual sets of rules, one set of rules for the oppressors and antagonists and belligerents, and another set of rules for the defenders, victims and dispossessed.

In this context your "label" arguement holds no water because Hamas openly rejects Israels right to exist. Therefore they placed the label on themselves, so calling them a threat to Israels existence is an accurate label.



[edit on 6-6-2010 by mhc_70]

[edit on 6-6-2010 by mhc_70]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The use of labels is used for the following reasons, to divide people, to assign them rigid roles based on a label, and to set them against one another in those roles for the purpose of politics and achieving an agenda using those people as logistical tools.

Are you not doing the same with your constant references to "Zionists"? Is that not a label and, to you, a negative one?

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
How about this, spend a little less time imagining how others are supposed to behave within the labels and roles you are in fact attempting to create for them, along with rules that go along with them that you have created, and spend a little more time, being responsible for yourself, and your own humanity.

Again, isn't that what you are doing when you tell us about what good Jews should be doing as opposed to bad Jews?

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
These were human beings, engaged on a charity mission of giving to others, it matters not one hair how you imagine they are supposed to behave in that capacity.

And if some of them were not interested in charity, but provocation and violence? What then?

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Soldiers have the right to kill and defend themselves and are properly functioning in their role when they kill and defend themselves. Humanitarian aide workers have no right to defend themselves against this labeled class of human beings, and are not functioning properly in their role when they defend themselves, and thus are at fault of not adhering to the role and the label you have created to uniformly control and define their behavior.

Again, you are doing the same thing, assigning roles to people and what they are allowed and not allowed to do. You tell us the "humanitarian workers" have every right to attack, kill and maim if they feel threatened, but not soldiers being attacked by said "humanitarian workers".

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
All in reality many are arguing here for is labels that denigrate our own unique humanness and obliterate it, to assign rigid political roles, replete with restrictive rules, meant to disenfranchise our own humaneness and get us to either act in inhumane ways, or support the inhumane actions of others.

Again, you are doing the same thing, with your constant attempts to cast the MV Mavi Marmara incident specifically and the Palestinian Question in the most stark black-and-white terms. You assume an automatic innocence for those that claim the role "humanitarian worker" and an automatic assumption of malfeasance on the part of the Israelis. Anyone who disagrees with this assessment is accused of condoning murder, a police state, or of being a Nazi.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
All people are human, I treat all human beings the same, with equal standards of morality and conduct across the board.

It is a nice theory, but ultimately a naive one, that could function only in a world of the most profound black and whites. Morality is all well and good for armchair philosophizing but those moralities break down once they met real world situations. Nothing is simply good or bad but varying degrees of both, completely subjective based on the observer.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

I wouldn't attempt to apply a label at all, I would in fact be trying through dialouge to convince them we can both exist, and to establish a real way to do that through a process of give and take that they and I could agree with.

It would take require some pretty bad labels to make one believe what Hamas openly admits, no?

Also, where is your indignation for Egypt which also supports the blockade and therefore could also be accused of placing labels?

Israel is dictating what peace should and must be, and no that is not a negotiation of give and take, that is not an attempt at coexistence or compromise.

Has there ever been a time throughout history, when reacting from a defensive position, the more powerful country did not dictate peace?

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Acknowledging self described democrats as democrats for the purpose of helping them identify their own actions is not labeling them.

Acknowledging a self described Christian as a Christian for the purpose of helping them identify their own actions is not labeling them either.

In fact they are doing the labeling, much the same some posters have described themselves as atheists.

Yet whether a person sees themselves as an atheist adhering to the cult of a state’s political correctness, or a democrat adhering to their leaders party lines, or a Christian adhering to their scriptures and ministers teachings does not prevent me from seeing the problems they create for themselves and one another through ideology and philosophy as a human thing or them as human beings.

It is very flattering by the way that how I think and feel is more of a focus than the topic itself.

The truth is though I am not wishing to label anyone; I am simply acknowledging the labels that others are using, while I watch them try to assign other labels to other people to redefine their actions and intent and to judge them through the labels that they are creating.

Personally I feel empathy for people who do require a label to give them selves an identity. I was born in America but I don’t need the Government or Politicians of America to define for me what that means, or should mean.

I define what it means for me, I am a human being and my morality and perspective is not limited to the nation of my birth or its politicians or its dogmas.

Defining myself as something others define, is in fact simply creating a prison for me, to encapsulate me as an entity, and to frame for me perspectives and agendas, of theirs and not my own.

The States if they must exist should exist to serve us, not for us to serve them, and it is we who should define the state, not the state defining us.

There is a difference between true freedom and liberty, liberty is only the freedom the state grants.

I feel I can control myself, and govern myself, and live a simple code of do no harm, and provide positive things to the world. I do not need a state definition for that, or the state to tell me how to do that, or the state to prohibit me from doing that, or the state to compel me to harm others either, or act in destructive ways.

It really is that simple, and this problem between Israel and Palestine is very simple too.

It is only made complex by the people who through the elaborate ritual of labels, religion and statist politics make it complex by letting their imaginations be the substitute for true dialogue with one another.

It is very simple.

reply to post by mhc_70


Egypt is a functioning dictatorship that has had the same politician in power for 40 years.

Yet Egypt did not murder the people delivering charity to Gaza, Israel did. Egypt has closed a border with Gaza for political reasons of the functioning dictatorship, but it is not attempting to impose a blockade through other avenues like the open Gaza Coastline that is in fact Gaza’s Coastline.

So it’s an apple and oranges comparison and off topic.

There is a lot wrong with how most nations are handling this situation, yet only one nation is imposing a blockade on Gaza and that is Israel.

Only one nation has killed people on charity missions to Gaza and that is Israel.

That is what this thread is about.

Anyone who follows my posts on ATS knows I am critical of very many national, religious and political entities, and many people on ATS do follow my posts, in part for that reason.

This thread though is about the people murdered by Israel while trying to deliver aide to Gaza.

If you want to start a thread on Egypt and its relation to the Palestinian situation, and invite me to comment on it, I will be happy to.

I will say this, though in conclusion, one person’s or one nation’s errant or poor actions do not excuse another’s.

I apply the same standards across the board. I am not advocating that Israel has no right to exist within fixed lawfully recognized borders peacefully.

I am not claiming this is a ‘Jewish’ problem or an ‘Islamic’ problem as those are just labels. I am stating it is a political problem, and a very simple one once you strip away the labels, dogmas, politics and dual rules, and apply one set of rules and standards to everyone period.

It is very simple.

The Law only functions when the same set of rules is applied to all, and all have to adhere to them, always.

If not then the Law only becomes a self serving tool of chaos and control.

It is no longer just, and it no longer protects anyone, it is very simple.

The more complex and shifting a authority entity attempts to make the rules, the less likely anyone will ever be able to adhere to the rules, and then the state can impose it’s authority in violent and liberty and freedom robbing ways as a response.

Simple basic laws, applied evenly, prevent misunderstandings and are easy for everyone to adhere to.

Real logic and real wisdom does a lot more to understand and solve a problem than political correctness and conventional wisdom. As the adjectives suggest its about politics and not being truly correct and its about the convention of politics and not real wisdom.

Take away convoluted political correctness and apply simple rules evenly, and self defeating conventional wisdom and learn through the real examples of the past, and then you have a very simple easy to manage and solve situation.

Things are only as simple or as hard as people choose to make them through dysfunctional thinking and false dogmas.




[edit on 6/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

There is a lot wrong with how most nations are handling this situation, yet only one nation is imposing a blockade on Gaza and that is Israel.

Blockade presents a different picture than then the reality that it just allows for inspections to occur in an effort to prevent weapon transports.

I have seen no evidence of any humanitarian aide not entering Gaza.

reply to post by mhc_70


Have you seen evidence of a blockade by chance?

They are defined as an act of war. Have you seen evidence of Israeli Politicians in power in Gaza? If not then Israel is not Gaza and has not legal right to inspect or prohibit what goes in and out of it.

We don't inspect what goes into Canada on the high seas, or prevent ships from reaching Canada, because the United States Inc, is not Canada see how that works?

Have you seen evidence of Gazans trying to blockade Israel and prevent weapons shipments like say illegal White Phospherous Grenades from being imported that are then going to be used on children in Gaza schools by Israeli Armed Forces?

So once again, it is nothing but the promotion of two different sets of rules.

Differently applied for different political purposes.

It is a faulty strategy that is doomed to the failure it is obviously creating.

It has not achieved its stated objectives because the objectives are not realizable through such methods.

The only thing realizable through such methods is confrontation, because they are confrontational methods.

Once again very simple if you are able to stop thinking in defensive or offensive political and religious terms, and simply view things for what they are.

Dual standards, and dual rules, for the sole political agenda and advantage of one side, seeking to dominate and impose itself on the other side through the use of dual rules and dual standards.

Very, very simple, once you let go of the dogmas and the labels, and the speculative assumptions.

Thanks.