As I do not find the postings about the Freedom Flotilla II suitable under the Terror and Terrorism zone I am posting these links here, with reference to the Israeli accusations of the members' intent to use "chemical" weapons against an eventual IDF boarding force. Enjoy!

http://ustogaza.org/

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...6061b49f2d.671

Fred

The Israelis had no qualms about using WP on unarmed civilians in Gaza, so what are they whining about.

..and, they are preparing the world for another massacre, but this time they cannot even fool themselves anylonger, nobody believes them anymore (highlights by me):

Security officials initially told the cabinet that Israel had no information that anyone linked to a terror group was planning to take part in the flotilla, the Haaretz newspaper reported on Monday.

But by nightfall, the assessment had changed dramatically, with a military spokeswoman telling reporters they had information about "radical elements" who were planning to murder Israeli soldiers.

"There are radical elements on board the American boat who have said they want to kill Israeli soldiers," said Lieutenant Colonel Avital Leibovitz.

"We also know that one of the boats is carrying dangerous incendiary chemicals that these human rights militants want to use against Israeli soldiers," she said.

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2011...nsgazaflotilla

Same story as always, international law has only to be abided to by other nations, not by Israel (according to their view on things). Gets boring: What right do they have to mess with strictly humanitarian help for the civilians in Gaza?

Seno has it right with his remark about WP. You might prolong the list with lots of more stuff, all well documented: Using civilians as human shields when entering houses is just the most repugnant of them, there were plenty others.

On the long run they will dig their own grave politically, people are becoming used to show their indignation all over the world by now (we here in Spain are the best example ) and it looks we, the people, will not much longer tolerate being led around by a ring in the nose by a band of totally corrupted state terrorists.

Rattler

Ok well I guess one of us will have to try a counter argument (we can't get any discussions going when we all agree).

The problem here is that Israel is right, this flotilla is little more than a provocation if they really were just about delivering aid there are multiple channels open to them including Egypt.

That being said I think there is also a valid argument that sometimes you have to be provocative in order to keep the worlds attention on something that they see is wrong and lets face it they know what Israel's response will be just another heavy handed bash-fest that will make the worlds media.

What we have are two intransigent parties who are determined to inflict their will on the other and in the end neither will win.

Originally Posted by MontyB

---snip--- What we have are two intransigent parties who are determined to inflict their will on the other and in the end neither will win.

That welll may be true, however, it has been amply demonstrated that the embargo is more just an example of the Israelis trying to make life intolerable for the Gazans by controlling the importation of materials used for reconstruction, rather than any legitimate military reason.

If you take notice of any Israeli attacks, they always try to destroy as much infrastructure as possible

I would agree but again you are always going to have conflict when you have two sides who are unprepared to compromise.

Looking at it objectively a win for the flotilla is to sail in to port to deliver its supplies and a win for Israel is to prevent resistance from getting weapons to kill Israeli's without coming across like jackbooted Nazi's, now I may not be the worlds best diplomat but even I can see a basic solution to this (the flotilla stops and is searched prior to entering port) where every body wins however neither side is going to allow this to happen.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I would agree but again you are always going to have conflict when you have two sides who are unprepared to compromise.

Looking at it objectively a win for the flotilla is to sail in to port to deliver its supplies and a win for Israel is to prevent resistance from getting weapons to kill Israeli's without coming across like jackbooted Nazi's, now I may not be the worlds best diplomat but even I can see a basic solution to this (the flotilla stops and is searched prior to entering port) where every body wins however neither side is going to allow this to happen.

Did the US compromise with Tojo in WWII? If one's country is attacked or invaded, compromise is hardly an option.

As long as both sides share that view all you will be doing is filling body bags.

Also to some degree they did compromise in the end as Hirohito remained on the throne and avoided a war crimes indictment.
In the end a small concession to end a war was the best course of action.

Originally Posted by MontyB

As long as both sides share that view all you will be doing is filling body bags.

Also to some degree they did compromise in the end as Hirohito remained on the throne and avoided a war crimes indictment.
In the end a small concession to end a war was the best course of action.

The decision to leave Hirohito on the throne was made after the War was won, and it was done for a very good reason, which had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the war.

For the Palestinians to be expected to compromise, would effectively commit them to extinction. I don't see that as either logical or allowable, and I don't think that they do either.

Originally Posted by senojekips

The decision to leave Hirohito on the throne was made after the War was won, and it was done for a very good reason, which had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the war.

For the Palestinians to be expected to compromise, would effectively commit them to extinction. I don't see that as either logical or allowable, and I don't think that they do either.

Nah, a compromise dictated on the victors terms can hardly be a real compromise.