Jewish Aid Boat to Gaza

irishconvert

I was really heartened to see Israeli Jews taking a stand against the illegal blockade of Gaza. They launched their own aid boat to Gaza on 26th Sept:

http://jewishboattogaza.org/?page_id=165

Apparently it has now been captured by the Israeli Navi:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11425408

Why we are launching this campaign

A. To protest against and challenge the continuing blockade of Gaza, on the basis that it constitutes an illegal, collective punishment of the whole population and a grossly immoral act.

For four years Israel’s blockade has confined the people of Gaza to subsistence living. This externally enforced poverty has created a public and mental health catastrophe. After Israel’s bombardment of Gaza eighteen months ago, there followed even tighter, ever changing and more arbitrary controls, including a total bar on the import of building materials to reconstruct shattered houses, sewage and water systems .

The blockade has also meant Gaza’s population being trapped in one of the most densely populated places on earth. People suffering serious illnesses which cannot be treated within the territory can only seek medical treatment outside Gaza with the permission and at the whim of the Israeli military. Ordinary travel in and out for education, family, business, cultural or sporting reasons continues to be subject to near total prohibition.

Israel also polices Gaza’s long coast, excluding passenger and commercial traffic and denying any opportunity of legitimate trading. In addition, Gaza’s fishermen are prevented from exploiting their own territorial waters. Confined instead to the highly polluted inshore region, they are at constant risk of live fire from the Israeli navy.

Most crucially, Gaza is still prevented from restoring its economy by Israel’s total ban on exports. This means Gaza’s workforce will continue to be without jobs and purchasing power. Even if more consumer goods get in, its people will still be reliant on charity to survive.

I am wondering what the forum's regular defenders of this blockade think of this group.

gurramok

No killings by the Israeli security forces there, surprise surprise:rolleyes:

BlaasForRafa

gurramok wrote: »

No killings by the Israeli security forces there, surprise surprise:rolleyes:

Its a 10 metre yacht not a ferry full of dozens of hyped-up turkish nutters, its not a similar situation :rolleyes:

plus, of the 9 jews on board some were from britain, america and germany so it wasn't a particularly significant protests by "Israeli jews" as OPs post said.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its a 10 metre yacht not a ferry full of dozens of hyped-up turkish nutters, its not a similar situation :rolleyes:

The only nutters involved in that incident was the IDF, who murdered people. Nice of you of course to refer to the IDF's victims as nutters. Your comments as per usual actually make Israel look worse and worse.

It good to see that no one was hurt or killed the IDF. The people involved with this aid boat, are very brave to take such a huge risk.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

The only nutters involved in that incident was the IDF, who murdered people. Nice of you of course to refer to the IDF's victims as nutters. Your comments as per usual actually make Israel look worse and worse.

It good to see that no one was hurt or killed the IDF. The people involved with this aid boat, are very brave to take such a huge risk.

There was no risk at all. As long as they behaved peacefully IDF personnel had no need to defend themselves.

The only reason that the Mavi Marmara action got out of hand is because a bunch of mostly turkish nutters decided to ambush the IDF personnel boarding the ship who were forced to defend themselves.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

There was no risk at all.

The IDF are well known for murdering innocent civilians for no real reason at all. So yes, there was a risk.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

As long as they behaved peacefully IDF personnel had no need to defend themselves.

People have the right to defend themselves against the IDF, when they attack. Trying to claim the IDF are on the defence is absurd, when they were the ones attacking.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The only reason that the Mavi Marmara action got out of hand is because a bunch of mostly turkish nutters decided to ambush the IDF personnel boarding the ship who were forced to defend themselves.

Again, you really make Israel look worse and worse with each post. You will defend there state terrorism no matter what. There is never condemnation from the defenders of Israel, just blaming the victim, and the same old tired excsues.

The IDF attacked the Mavi Marmara, and people on it defended themselves, and the IDF then murdered a bunch of people. The only nutters are the IDF, and the people doing the attacking were the IDF. They are murderers plain and simple, and it is appaling that anyone would defend Israeli state terrorism.

irishconvert

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

There was no risk at all. As long as they behaved peacefully IDF personnel had no need to defend themselves.

The only reason that the Mavi Marmara action got out of hand is because a bunch of mostly turkish nutters decided to ambush the IDF personnel boarding the ship who were forced to defend themselves.

Nutters! LOL, you are funny.

On a more serious point, what is your view of the Jewish group who organised this? What do you think of their reasons for organising it, as detailed in my first post?

BlaasForRafa

The IDF are well known for murdering innocent civilians for no real reason at all. So yes, there was a risk.

Pure hysteria and hyperbole, of course they was no risk. You seek to portray the IDF as murderous and hungry for blood when they are not. They are however professional and will defend themselves where necessary.

People have the right to defend themselves against the IDF, when they attack. Trying to claim the IDF are on the defence is absurd, when they were the ones attacking.

There is a blockade on Gaza, this boat was trying to break that, the Israeli navy was defending it.

Again, you really make Israel look worse and worse with each post. You will defend there state terrorism no matter what. There is never condemnation from the defenders of Israel, just blaming the victim, and the same old tired excsues.

The IDF attacked the Mavi Marmara, and people on it defended themselves, and the IDF then murdered a bunch of people. The only nutters are the IDF, and the people doing the attacking were the IDF. They are murderers plain and simple, and it is appaling that anyone would defend Israeli state terrorism.

The Mavi Marmara was seeking to break the blockade and create a political stunt. The boarding action would have gone peacefully had a bunch of so called activists not attacked the boarding party. Once attacked the boarders had to defend themselves. You can go on and on ad infinitum about how evil the IDF is, it won't change the fact that the boarding party went on with non-lethal weapons, hardly the choice for someone who is looking for a bloodbath.

BlaasForRafa

irishconvert wrote: »

Nutters! LOL, you are funny.

On a more serious point, what is your view of the Jewish group who organised this? What do you think of their reasons for organising it, as detailed in my first post?

Its a bit of a non-event really because they knew long before setting out that they had no chance of getting through, it was a rather pointless excercise.

Interestingly enough, related to Gaza theres an article on haaretz today that most of the tunnels into Gaza have closed because of the relaxing of the blockade and much of the trade is now exports to Egypt. Apparently Hamas are quite miffed at the loss in tax revenue on imports smuggled through the tunnel.

irishconvert

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its a bit of a non-event really because they knew long before setting out that they had no chance of getting through, it was a rather pointless excercise.

Interestingly enough, related to Gaza theres an article on haaretz today that most of the tunnels into Gaza have closed because of the relaxing of the blockade and much of the trade is now exports to Egypt. Apparently Hamas are quite miffed at the loss in tax revenue on imports smuggled through the tunnel.

Nice sidestep of my question. I'll ask it again, what is your view of the Jewish group who organised this? What do you think of their reasons for organising it, as detailed in my first post?

stimpson

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The Mavi Marmara was seeking to break the blockade and create a political stunt. The boarding action would have gone peacefully had a bunch of so called activists not attacked the boarding party.

The fist person to be killed was a journalist who was shot through the head before the IDF had actually boarded the boat.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Pure hysteria and hyperbole, of course they was no risk.

On the contrary, it is hardly hyperbole. It is well known that the IDF have murdered civilians. Trying to deny this is absurd.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You seek to portray the IDF as murderous and hungry for blood when they are not. They are however professional and will defend themselves where necessary.

Sure, there professional murderer's. Also, there body count would speak to the IDF being a murderous thugs more than anything else. You see when an organization has a habit of killing innocent people, they tend to get a repuation, and no amount of apologetics for there murderous attack, which you bizarely call defending themselves will not change that.

More and more, those who support Israel just make it look worse.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

There is a blockade on Gaza, this boat was trying to break that, the Israeli navy was defending it.

Blockade is illegal, and as such there attack was illegal. All this was confirmed by the UN the other day.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The Mavi Marmara was seeking to break the blockade and create a political stunt. The boarding action would have gone peacefully had a bunch of so called activists not attacked the boarding party. Once attacked the boarders had to defend themselves.

The boarders were the attackers. There blockade is illegal. The people on the boat defended themselves from violent attackers, who murdered people fleeing from them, and not just those defending themselves from a violent boarding party of murderous thugs.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You can go on and on ad infinitum about how evil the IDF is, it won't change the fact that the boarding party went on with non-lethal weapons, hardly the choice for someone who is looking for a bloodbath.

You can pretend that the IDF aren't a bunch of murderous thugs, it just make your position look incredibly bad that you refuse to condemn another atrocitiy commited by Israel against civilians. Once again, it was the IDF who murdered people and not the activists on the boat, and as per usual you blame the victim. Also, the first death occured even before the boarding, as pointed out above.

It is appaling the lengths that those who support Israel will go to excuse there state terrorism.

paulaa

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

There was no risk at all. As long as they behaved peacefully IDF personnel had no need to defend themselves.

The only reason that the Mavi Marmara action got out of hand is because a bunch of mostly turkish nutters decided to ambush the IDF personnel boarding the ship who were forced to defend themselves.

It was the people on the mavi marmara who had to defend themselves as the IDF illegally boarded the ship with all guns blazing. They were even shooting at the ship from the launches before the helicopters got near.

BlaasForRafa

paulaa wrote: »

It was the people on the mavi marmara who had to defend themselves as the IDF illegally boarded the ship with all guns blazing. They were even shooting at the ship from the launches before the helicopters got near.

Wrong. And you really shouldn't be propogating falsehoods like this.

There was no shooting until after the troops were attacked and several thrown onto lower decks. Also they did not board the ship with "all guns blazing" unless you are counting paintball guns :rolleyes:

stimpson

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Wrong. And you really shouldn't be propogating falsehoods like this.

There was no shooting until after the troops were attacked and several thrown onto lower decks. Also they did not board the ship with "all guns blazing" unless you are counting paintball guns :rolleyes:

Here's a first hand account:

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/rough-passage-1.315481

paulaa

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Wrong. And you really shouldn't be propogating falsehoods like this.

There was no shooting until after the troops were attacked and several thrown onto lower decks. Also they did not board the ship with "all guns blazing" unless you are counting paintball guns :rolleyes:

I watched it live through the night and you are the one " propagating falsehoods!

How did 9 people dies if they only used paintball guns ? Some of the dead had bullet woulds entering the top of their heads from being shot before the IDF landed on the deck. They had handguns, it was plain to see.

Isn't this re-writing of history par for the course with Israel's supporters ? Sorry but I know what I saw and you are lying

Manic Moran

paulaa wrote: »

I watched it live through the night and you are the one " propagating falsehoods!

How did 9 people dies if they only used paintball guns ? Some of the dead had bullet woulds entering the top of their heads from being shot before the IDF landed on the deck. They had handguns, it was plain to see.

Isn't this re-writing of history par for the course with Israel's supporters ? Sorry but I know what I saw and you are lying

If you want to believe the report of the UN Mission which was released a few days ago as an authoritative timeline, Blaasforrafa's pretty close to the truth. The initial attempt to board was made without the use of live ammunition. Things got more violent during the second attempt.

NTM

paulaa

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you want to believe the report of the UN Mission which was released a few days ago as an authoritative timeline, Blaasforrafa's pretty close to the truth. The initial attempt to board was made without the use of live ammunition. Things got more violent during the second attempt.

NTM

Do you have a link to it please ?

I saw with my own eyes what was happening. There were sounds of shots coming from the boats in the sea around the boat before they boarded.

Ask yourself why no Israelis were killed that night and also why they chose to attack the ship in darkness instead of daylight.

Mr.Micro

UN: Israel actions on Gaza flotilla 'unlawful'

UN report that found Israel violated human rights and broke the law when its troops stormed a Gaza-bound aid flotilla in May.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0923/mideast.html

That is enough for me and the apologists for the IDF can try and justify the murders all the like if murder can be justified in this case.

Manic Moran

paulaa wrote: »

Do you have a link to it please ?

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf

Page 26:

(b) Events on board the M.V. Mavi Marmara
(i) Initial attempt to board the Mavi Marmara from the sea
112. Israeli zodiac boats made a first attempt to board the Mavi Marmara from the sea shortly before 0430 hours. Several zodiac boats approached the ship at the stern from both the port and starboard sides. The approach was accompanied by the firing of non-lethal weaponry onto the ship, including smoke and stun grenades, tear-gas and paintballs. Plastic bullets may also have been used at this stage: however, despite some claims that live ammunition was also fired from the zodiac boats, the Mission is not satisfied that this was the case. The smoke and tear gas were not effective due to the strong sea breeze and later due to the downdraft from helicopters.

113. The Israeli forces attempted to board the ship through attaching ladders to the hull. Passengers engaged in efforts to repel the attempted boarding using the ship’s water hoses and the throwing of various items at the boats including chairs, sticks, a box of plates and other objects that were readily to hand. This initial attempt to board the ship proved unsuccessful. It is the view of the Mission that the Israeli forces should have re-evaluated their plans when it became obvious that putting their soldiers on board the ship may lead to civilian casualties.

Ask yourself why no Israelis were killed that night and also why they chose to attack the ship in darkness instead of daylight.

Attacking in darkness tends to favour the attacker if he's better equipped for it. Even if the equipment levels are equal, darkness aids a smaller force, and the defenders, unless a good sleep plan was implemented, will be tired and groggy.

NTM

BlaasForRafa

stimpson wrote: »

Here's a first hand account:

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/rough-passage-1.315481

Kenneth O'Keefe is NOT a credible witness, that guy is as looney as they come. Even Hamas didn't want anything to do with him.

KeithAFC

A positive action has been taken with aid to help people and its all negative?

Byron85

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Kenneth O'Keefe is NOT a credible witness, that guy is as looney as they come. Even Hamas didn't want anything to do with him.

Yet the IDF is?

paulaa

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Kenneth O'Keefe is NOT a credible witness, that guy is as looney as they come. Even Hamas didn't want anything to do with him.

I watched O'Keefe being interviewed a while ago and he came across as a very level headed, intelligent man who abhors injustice of any kind. I know it's the MO of Israeli apologists to discredit anyone who doesn't think Israel is a paradise on earth but I think you're wrong this time.

Here's something to read if you're at a loose end. It's what some of us have been saying all along.

An expert panel investigating Israel's boarding of a Gaza-bound aid flotilla four months ago said Tuesday that Israel is suppressing footage of the incident it seized from the passengers.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/un-panel-israel-suppressing-footage-of-gaza-flotilla-raid-1.316201#article_comments

BlaasForRafa

paulaa wrote: »

I watched O'Keefe being interviewed a while ago and he came across as a very level headed, intelligent man who abhors injustice of any kind. I know it's the MO of Israeli apologists to discredit anyone who doesn't think Israel is a paradise on earth but I think you're wrong this time.

And its the lefty/muslim/islamic/wooly-headed/commie/anti-authoriatarian/do-gooder (take your pick) types who use words like apologist. I apologise for nothing, neither do I support everything. In this instance I do support the blockade.

As regards Kenneth O'Keefe he discredits himself, he's a paranoid walter mitty type fantasist whose main aim is to seek attention and uses trendy causes to do it. You can check up on his history yourself, he's a deeply bizarre man.

paulaa

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

And its the lefty/muslim/islamic/wooly-headed/commie/anti-authoriatarian/do-gooder (take your pick) types who use words like apologist. I apologise for nothing, neither do I support everything. In this instance I do support the blockade.

As regards Kenneth O'Keefe he discredits himself, he's a paranoid walter mitty type fantasist whose main aim is to seek attention and uses trendy causes to do it. You can check up on his history yourself, he's a deeply bizarre man.

lol With that list it seems there's very few left that you likeand you forgot "self-hating Jews". I have been called an apologist for Hamas before now

I wouldn't consider O'Keefe any more bizarre that the Moldovan Bouncer, Liberman.

Back on topic, it seems the IDF were telling fibs again about the "peaceful" takeover of this Jewish Aid Ship. It seems they just can't help themselves, even treating Holocaust survivors as criminals.

However, testimonies by passengers who were released from police questioning later in the day seemed to counter the IDF's claims, with Israeli activist and former Israel Air Force pilot Yonatan Shapira saying that there were "no words to describe what we went through during the takeover."

Shapira said the activists, who he said displayed no violence, were met with extreme IDF brutality, adding that the soldiers "just jumped us, and hit us. I was hit with a taser gun."

"Some of the soldiers treated us atrociously," Shapira said, adding that he felt there was a "huge gap between what the IDF spokesman is saying happened and what really happened."

And

"Reuben Moscowitz, a Holocaust survivor who took part in the mission, expressed his disbelief that "Israeli soldiers would treat nine Jews this way. They just hit people."

"I as a Holocaust survivor cannot live with the fact that the State of Israel is imprisoning an entire people behind fences," Moscowitz said, adding that "it's just immoral."

"What happened to me in the Holocaust wakes me up every night and I hope we don't do the same thing to our neighbors," Moscowitz said, adding that he was comparing "what I went through during the Holocaust to what the besieged Palestinian children are going through."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/jewish-gaza-bound-activists-idf-used-excessive-force-in-naval-raid-1.316247

Einhard

irishconvert wrote: »

Nutters! LOL, you are funny.

On a more serious point, what is your view of the Jewish group who organised this? What do you think of their reasons for organising it, as detailed in my first post?

Are you somehow suggesting that Jews are a monolithic, entirely homogenous hive mind, and that those who disagree with Israeli policy illustrate the wrongs of that policy? I don't understand why a few dissenting voices from domestic and international Jews is accorded a special credence.

Einhard

Mr.Micro wrote: »

UN: Israel actions on Gaza flotilla 'unlawful'


http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0923/mideast.html

That is enough for me and the apologists for the IDF can try and justify the murders all the like if murder can be justified in this case.

I'm sorry, but I generally find it difficult to take the UN seriously on any issue.

irishconvert

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

And its the lefty/muslim/islamic/wooly-headed/commie/anti-authoriatarian/do-gooder (take your pick) types who use words like apologist. I apologise for nothing, neither do I support everything. In this instance I do support the blockade. .

Do you accept the IDF borded in international waters, which is illegal?

irishconvert

Einhard wrote: »

Are you somehow suggesting that Jews are a monolithic, entirely homogenous hive mind, and that those who disagree with Israeli policy illustrate the wrongs of that policy? I don't understand why a few dissenting voices from domestic and international Jews is accorded a special credence.

I didn't suggest anything, I asked a question of the regular posters who support the IDF. None of them have answered my question BTW.

wes

Einhard wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I generally find it difficult to take the UN seriously on any issue.

And we are suppose to take the IDF seriously? An organization known for purposefully murdering civilians.

BlaasForRafa

lol With that list it seems there's very few left that you likeand you forgot "self-hating Jews". I have been called an apologist for Hamas before now

I usually reserve "self-hating jew" for Finkelstein

I wouldn't consider O'Keefe any more bizarre that the Moldovan Bouncer, Liberman.

ech, I have little respect for Lieberman, in fact I can't stand him

Back on topic, it seems the IDF were telling fibs again about the "peaceful" takeover of this Jewish Aid Ship. It seems they just can't help themselves, even treating Holocaust survivors as criminals.

Thats like something you'd hear from the "big book o' things that activists should say after being detained".

BlaasForRafa

irishconvert wrote: »

Do you accept the IDF borded in international waters, which is illegal?

You don't seem to have gotten the Manics point that it dosen't matter whether the boarding was in international waters or not, its pretty much irrelevant.

Otacon

Neither have you apparently. Manic's point was that the UN report deemed the raid illegal because the blockade was illegal [which is correct]. That doesn't change the fact that the boarding of the ship in International waters was also illegal [which is also correct].

BlaasForRafa

Otacon wrote: »

Neither have you apparently. Manic's point was that the UN report deemed the raid illegal because the blockade was illegal [which is correct]. That doesn't change the fact that the boarding of the ship in International waters was also illegal [which is also correct].

Oh I've got Manics point. My point is that the blockade is there and its not going anywhere whether the UN agrees with it or not.

irishconvert

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You don't seem to have gotten the Manics point that it dosen't matter whether the boarding was in international waters or not, its pretty much irrelevant.

Is it illegal for the IDF to board a ship in international waters? Yes or no?

Otacon

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Oh I've got Manics point. My point is that the blockade is there and its not going anywhere whether the UN agrees with it or not.

Good retort.

It is an illegal blockade but the question put to you was do you consider the boarding of a ship by foreign troops in international waters to be illegal?

KeithAFC

wes wrote: »

And we are suppose to take the IDF seriously? An organization known for purposefully murdering civilians.

Im sure most of those incidents are accidents. IDF are good soldiers.

KeithAFC

Otacon wrote: »

Good retort.

It is an illegal blockade but the question put to you was do you consider the boarding of a ship by foreign troops in international waters to be illegal?

Not when the said boat is full of religious nutters. Its a bit like the SAS going into the republic to take out a few IRA, nothing wrong with it.

stimpson

KeithAFC wrote: »

Not when the said boat is full of religious nutters. Its a bit like the SAS going into the republic to take out a few IRA, nothing wrong with it.

Wow. Expert on maritime law are we?

Otacon

KeithAFC wrote: »

Not when the said boat is full of religious nutters. Its a bit like the SAS going into the republic to take out a few IRA, nothing wrong with it.

There is something wrong with it if the SAS don't get permission from the Irish government for the operation.

Did the IDF get permission from Turkey?

BlaasForRafa

Otacon wrote: »

Good retort.

It is an illegal blockade but the question put to you was do you consider the boarding of a ship by foreign troops in international waters to be illegal?

The fact is it dosen't matter whether I think its illegal or not. Do I agree with it being done? in principle yes I do.

BlaasForRafa

Otacon wrote: »

There is something wrong with it if the SAS don't get permission from the Irish government for the operation.

Did the IDF get permission from Turkey?

They didn't need permission from Turkey, Keiths analogy dosen't quite fit this issue.

irishconvert

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The fact is it dosen't matter whether I think its illegal or not. Do I agree with it being done? in principle yes I do.

That is not the question you were asked. You were asked is: Is it illegal for the IDF to board a ship in international waters? Yes or no?

People would have more respect for you if you gave an honest answer instead of side stepping questions all the time. If the IDF did something wrong just admit it. It doesn't mean you don't support them anymore but you can just be honest and say what they did was wrong.

stimpson

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The fact is it dosen't matter whether I think its illegal or not. Do I agree with it being done? in principle yes I do.

Happy to see 800,000 children without access to clean water and medical care?

Big man.

BlaasForRafa

irishconvert wrote: »

That is not the question you were asked. You were asked is: Is it illegal for the IDF to board a ship in international waters? Yes or no?

People would have more respect for you if you gave an honest answer instead of side stepping questions all the time. If the IDF did something wrong just admit it. It doesn't mean you don't support them anymore but you can just be honest and say what they did was wrong.

I answered the question. IT DOSEN'T MATTER WHETHER THEY WERE IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS. IT IS IRRELEVANT. If you don't get it, thats not my problem.

IrishTonyO

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Wrong. And you really shouldn't be propogating falsehoods like this.

There was no shooting until after the troops were attacked and several thrown onto lower decks. Also they did not board the ship with "all guns blazing" unless you are counting paintball guns :rolleyes:

how do you know? were you there? if not stop the propaganda yourself

irishconvert

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I answered the question. IT DOSEN'T MATTER WHETHER THEY WERE IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS. IT IS IRRELEVANT. If you don't get it, thats not my problem.

Why does it not matter? Either it is illegal for an army to board a ship in international waters or it is not.

KeithAFC

Israel went onto the boat and the passengers on it tried to beat them up. Besides, the parents of the people who got killed, said they wanted to be martyrs. So if they wanted to be martyrs, surely they wanted trouble?

Laminations

wes wrote: »

The people involved with this aid boat, are very brave to take such a huge risk.

I dont know whether it was a huge risk but I agree. It goes to show that not all Jewish Israeilis are war mongering monsters. Kinda puts those posters to shame who thought it appropriate to punish all Israelis indiscriminately with a boycott. Hypocrisy in the highest to use an indiscriminate boycott in protest against a country's use of indiscriminate aid blockades and oppression

BlaasForRafa

IrishTonyO wrote: »

how do you know? were you there? if not stop the propaganda yourself

If all argument was decided on a "were you there?" test then 99% of threads on boards would closed.

Come back with a better riposte next time.