ISRAEL THREAD (Post new Israel threads = get banned)
1,592 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Devodiere;22500361]Israel is more worried about casualties on their side than being politically in the right. They won't take any action which will posibly endanger Israeli civilians, even if it will work out better in the long run.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that is the real problem here that I have difficulty routing around. Any action they take is likely to claim the lives of quite a few Israeli civilians. So, as a government, their actions are just ridiculously limited.
But all the same, action has to be taken, this current setup is falling apart at the seams.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;22500467]
So Israelis are worth more than those damn dirty Gazans, currently living Israelis are worth more than Israelis in ten years? If this is how they think, they're bigoted and shortsighted and can go fuck themselves.[/QUOTE]
Governments always, and rightfully so, put their citizens first. The government is funded and made possible by the citizens, so yes. Their lives are worth several orders of magnitude more than the lives of other citizens. This is true of every nation and it most certainly not a difficult or unreasonable concept.
[editline]10:16PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;22500467]That would actually be a decent solution except for the fact that Hamas isn't really one group, but if you mean linked directly back to the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, then yes, that would be good. Hamas as a whole mostly adhered to all of the ceasefires with Israel. There was a graph posted a while back that I can't seem to find again, but in the months where there were ceasefires, there were at most a couple rockets fired in those months. That would seem to me to just be part of the group not giving a shit.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah if it winds up being another group...I dunno. That causes problems. Because then it is a radical group in another nation launching attacks on Israel.
I imagine a timeframe would be provided by Israel for the attacks to cease along with the culprits being brought to justice.
Failing that I have no idea what the next step would be. Further negotiations might be tried, but it may very well also lead to full scale war.
[QUOTE=GunFox;22500829]Yeah that is the real problem here that I have difficulty routing around. Any action they take is likely to claim the lives of quite a few Israeli civilians. So, as a government, their actions are just ridiculously limited.
But all the same, action has to be taken, this current setup is falling apart at the seams.
Governments always, and rightfully so, put their citizens first. The government is funded and made possible by the citizens, so yes. Their lives are worth several orders of magnitude more than the lives of other citizens. This is true of every nation and it most certainly not a difficult or unreasonable concept.[/QUOTE]
True enough, I did overreact, but they're still shortsighted if that's their view. In the long run, this will most likely end up saving a good deal of both Israeli civilians, and looking at it monetarily, more importantly, Israeli soldiers, who cost lots and lots of money to train, and lots to replace.
[editline]10:18PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;22500829]
[editline]10:16PM[/editline]
Yeah if it winds up being another group...I dunno. That causes problems. Because then it is a radical group in another nation launching attacks on Israel.
I imagine a timeframe would be provided by Israel for the attacks to cease along with the culprits being brought to justice.
Failing that I have no idea what the next step would be. Further negotiations might be tried, but it may very well also lead to full scale war.[/QUOTE]
That is one of the problems with this type of conflict, because of the actions of all parties involved, everyone is really pissed off at one another, and the slightest thing causes huge overreactions.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;22500898]True enough, I did overreact, but they're still shortsighted if that's their view. In the long run, this will most likely end up saving a good deal of both Israeli civilians, and looking at it monetarily, more importantly, Israeli soldiers, who cost lots and lots of money to train, and lots to replace.
[/quote]
Yeah I agree. The current situation is simply bad across the board and will eventually cause further deaths.
However the government, structured as it is, has the problem in that "it will help us in the long run" probably will be a PR nightmare when some doctor's kid gets blown up in a suicide attack and triggers a local media shitstorm shortly after the blockade is lifted.
So while it may be the best course of action, the problem is that first step.
[quote]
That is one of the problems with this type of conflict, because of the actions of all parties involved, everyone is really pissed off at one another, and the slightest thing causes huge overreactions.[/QUOTE]
It boils down to that "citizens lives are worth more" concept. A few deaths on your side from an opposing nation is worth many of the opposing nation's lives in blood payment. And of course the reverse is true. So then it tumbles into a massive conflict over a few deaths. It's horrible looking from the outside, but at the same time if you look at it from the perspective of each government, they believe they are avenging the deaths of their citizens.
[QUOTE=GunFox;22501025]Yeah I agree. The current situation is simply bad across the board and will eventually cause further deaths.
However the government, structured as it is, has the problem in that "it will help us in the long run" probably will be a PR nightmare when some doctor's kid gets blown up in a suicide attack and triggers a local media shitstorm shortly after the blockade is lifted.
So while it may be the best course of action, the problem is that first step.
[/QUOTE]
To be fair, it really doesn't seem to me that Israel gives two shits about their PR. They just tend to do what they feel like and not care what anyone thinks. If they do this sort of thing with the world stage, why not do it with your own country? Especially when the end result could be something astonishing, peace.
A resolution to the conflict could also mean less liability for the United
States, as the the people who commit terrorist acts do it against us mainly for our ridiculous amount of support for the state of Israel. After the conflicts cool off, we would no longer have to support them so directly, thus encouraging less radicalization.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;22501107]To be fair, it really doesn't seem to me that Israel gives two shits about their PR. They just tend to do what they feel like and not care what anyone thinks. If they do this sort of thing with the world stage, why not do it with your own country? Especially when the end result could be something astonishing, peace.[/quote]
They don't care about what the rest of the world thinks, they do care about what their people think. If they upset the rest of the world, they get bad publicity, a slap on the wrist and more UN condemnation. If they upset their people, they get kicked out of office and have someone who will adhere to the people's wishes put in power. There is a posibility of changing the mindset of the people from a radical one to a more reasonable one but even then, reasonable people aren't likely to accept deaths on their side as for the greater good.
[quote]A resolution to the conflict could also mean less liability for the United
States, as the the people who commit terrorist acts do it against us mainly for our ridiculous amount of support for the state of Israel. After the conflicts cool off, we would no longer have to support them so directly, thus encouraging less radicalization.[/QUOTE]
I really don't like it when people boil down the Arab worlds hate of the US to just supporting Israel, there's far too many reasons for them to hate the US to count.
The US has a horrible worldwide reputation as an interferer (in more conflicts than just Israel).
They are a good representative of western culture (which is seen as sinful and immoral by many people).
They are a predominately Christian country as opposed to the Muslims Arabs (religion plays a massive part of it just because they are not like them).
A few rich men with hate for the US can rally a lot of support just because they are rich (Osama bin Laden being prime example).
They are the cause of much conflict in the region (Oil demand caused Iraq to invade Kuwait, cold war caused Russia to invade Afghanistan, American weapons helped Iraq and Iran to attack each other for years, US agents caused Iran to destabilise in the 50s, Soviet Union occupation of territories spurred on by the US cold war made many regions impoverished, plenty more if you look it up).
Oh, and they support Israel. Not really a big thing on this list but if you want to believe that is the sole reason, go for it.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;22501525]They don't care about what the rest of the world thinks, they do care about what their people think. If they upset the rest of the world, they get bad publicity, a slap on the wrist and more UN condemnation. If they upset their people, they get kicked out of office and have someone who will adhere to the people's wishes put in power. There is a posibility of changing the mindset of the people from a radical one to a more reasonable one but even then, reasonable people aren't likely to accept deaths on their side as for the greater good.[/quote]
But it is for the greater good, and it's for the greater good of all parties involved, never mind just the Palestinian; but in the long run, a great many Israeli lives would be saved by the resolution of the conflict, as well as the lifting of blockades and damaging sanctions by Israel.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;22501525]
I really don't like it when people boil down the Arab worlds hate of the US to just supporting Israel, there's far too many reasons for them to hate the US to count.
The US has a horrible worldwide reputation as an interferer (in more conflicts than just Israel).
They are a good representative of western culture (which is seen as sinful and immoral by many people).
They are a predominately Christian country as opposed to the Muslims Arabs (religion plays a massive part of it just because they are not like them).
A few rich men with hate for the US can rally a lot of support just because they are rich (Osama bin Laden being prime example).
They are the cause of much conflict in the region (Oil demand caused Iraq to invade Kuwait, cold war caused Russia to invade Afghanistan, American weapons helped Iraq and Iran to attack each other for years, US agents caused Iran to destabilise in the 50s, Soviet Union occupation of territories spurred on by the US cold war made many regions impoverished, plenty more if you look it up).
Oh, and they support Israel. Not really a big thing on this list but if you want to believe that is the sole reason, go for it.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying it is, our interventionist foreign policy is. It's what led to the militarization of most of the Terrorist groups in the first place. Israel is one of the symptoms of the main problem. But not supporting Israel as blindly and as fiercely as we do would be a good start.
The more powerful groups don't really give a shit that we're Christian, and the additional people joining usually join for political reasons, rather than moral ones.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22494728]Well, you're right, [b]both these declarations of war are unreasonable[/b][/QUOTE]
So lets summarize what just transpired for readers.
1. Jews want a state of their own after suffering through extraordinary losses under Nazi pogroms.
2. Jews specifically want the Holy Land because its written in the Torah.
3. Jews get the Holy Land through UN.
4. Native Arabs revolt (declaration of war)
Lets go to the hypothetical scenario where after suffering immense loss during WW2, Gypsies want Israel as their homeland. Suppose the state of Israel already exists as it does now:
1. Gypsies suffered immensely in WW2 under Nazi pogroms, and want a state of their own.
2. Gypsies specifically want Israel from Haifa to Jerusalem because its written in their Holy Book
3. UN declares that Gypsies are right, and Israel should give up their statehood to the Gypsies
4. Israel revolts.
You specifically agree that Arabs should [b]not[/b] have declared war since [u]its unreasonable[/u]. Similarly, you agree that Israel also should not revolt against Gypsies since [u]its unreasonable[/u].
You're basically suggesting Israel pack up and leave if any other cultural group claims Israel belongs to them and UN's word is the final word. Are you willing to stick by those words? Are you willing to give up the state of Israel to the Gypsies?
I sure as fuck hope you don't work in Israel PR.
[editline]11:38PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;22501979]But it is for the greater good, and it's for the greater good of all parties involved, never mind just the Palestinian; but in the long run, a great many Israeli lives would be saved by the resolution of the conflict, as well as the lifting of blockades and damaging sanctions by Israel.[/QUOTE]
Yep. Being a leader means sometimes making tough decisions. If US leaders were worried about public perception, heck, Civil Rights and Women's Rights would never have been passed. Knowing full well that he is forever about to lose the south to Republicans, LBJ still passed the Civil Rights act.
If he was worried about the votes, he would've played it safe and kept the south as a stronghold of Democrats.
[QUOTE=BigDumbBear;22503001]So lets summarize what just transpired for readers.[/quote]
Gypsies wanted their own state but they were kinda gobbled up by the Soviet Union where no-one had their own country. If they were in Western europe, they would have probably recieved a bit of land from other countries similar to the way poland came out of WW1. Currently there is a chance that they can take a portion of an eastern european country if there is enough support for it, but they seem to be less unified now so it's unlikely to happen.
The Jews had been pushing for their own state in Palestine for a while and the Holocaust was a major determining factor. There were already Jews living there and it was a historical home to them, plus the other locations in the world where they could go were Europe (where they had just been massacred), America (possible choice but were unlikely to give them a state or take all the refugees), Africa, South America, Asia or Australia (none of them had any Jews before, why should they now?). Palestine was a good choice for many reasons, not just because their religious texts said so.
[quote]Yep. Being a leader means sometimes making tough decisions. If US leaders were worried about public perception, heck, Civil Rights and Women's Rights would never have been passed. Knowing full well that he is forever about to lose the south to Republicans, LBJ still passed the Civil Rights act.
If he was worried about the votes, he would've played it safe and kept the south as a stronghold of Democrats.[/QUOTE]
This isn't really comparable to the civil rights stuff because the sacrifice there was slaves, the sacrifice here is your peoples lives. It may be the greater good but it's still hard to make civilans allow themselves to be put in danger.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;22503418]
This isn't really comparable to the civil rights stuff because the sacrifice there was slaves, the sacrifice here is your peoples lives. It may be the greater good but it's still hard to make civilans allow themselves to be put in danger.[/QUOTE]
He was using it as an example of political suicide for the greater good of the country. It's a perfectly fine analogue for that.
Also, the "civil rights stuff" as you call it, wasn't Slavery, it was you know, civil rights for blacks. This happened in the 1960s.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;22503568]He was using it as an example of political suicide for the greater good of the country. It's a perfectly fine analogue for that.
Also, the "civil rights stuff" as you call it, wasn't Slavery, it was you know, civil rights for blacks. This happened in the 1960s.[/QUOTE]
I'm not particularly familiar with American history, oh well.
The point I was trying to make is that it's not just political suicide, it's willful endangerment of your own people. If violence occured because of the civil rights, it was related to the people's reaction to it. If violence occured because of Israel dropping the blockade or whatever action they take, it is completely the governments fault for their deaths. The downside of civil rights is disaproval, the downside of Israels actions is your own people's death. There is a bit of a difference.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;22501107]A resolution to the conflict could also mean less liability for the United
States, as the the people who commit terrorist acts do it against us mainly for our ridiculous amount of support for the state of Israel. After the conflicts cool off, we would no longer have to support them so directly, thus encouraging less radicalization.[/QUOTE]
Meh, I'm not in support of any overt policy change as a result of terrorist activities.
Ideally we'd never have embarked on the "war on terror" and instead just funded the fuck out of the central intelligence agency and unleashed them against terror cells.
Media is the real weapon for a terrorist organization. Keeping their actions as subdued in the media as possible as well as the acts being taken to counter them is the best solution.
[QUOTE=GunFox;22504062]Meh, I'm not in support of any overt policy change as a result of terrorist activities.
Ideally we'd never have embarked on the "war on terror" and instead just funded the fuck out of the central intelligence agency and unleashed them against terror cells.
Media is the real weapon for a terrorist organization. Keeping their actions as subdued in the media as possible as well as the acts being taken to counter them is the best solution.[/QUOTE]
The CIA is honestly what got us some of these groups in the first place. The CIA isn't really great at foresight. But the "War on Terror" is also just a stupid thing in the first place, and if we wanted to wage a proper "War on Terror" we would be doing it very differently than we currently are. The current strategy seems to be more of a "War on Insurgents." A true War on Terror would focus far more heavily on PR, anti-radicalization and preventative measures
The media thing does hold true, yeah, but there's a point where you do need to report on some of their actions. Can't really let a massacre go unnoticed.
To be honest, my support of non-interventionism isn't just because of the terrorist threat, I just think it's a good idea anyway. Unless someone directly asks us (either via diplomatic channels or established alliances, such as NATO) to come and assist, we shouldn't get involved in any sort of proxy conflict. It's just asking for people to dislike us for one reason or another.
[editline]02:07AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Devodiere;22503676]I'm not particularly familiar with American history, oh well.
The point I was trying to make is that it's not just political suicide, it's willful endangerment of your own people. If violence occured because of the civil rights, it was related to the people's reaction to it. If violence occured because of Israel dropping the blockade or whatever action they take, it is completely the governments fault for their deaths. The downside of civil rights is disaproval, the downside of Israels actions is your own people's death. There is a bit of a difference.[/QUOTE]
But what you keep forgetting is the fact that if Israel were to go back to the 1967 borders, Hamas as a government and official agency would stop all attacks against them for a minimum of ten years. Hamas does have a reasonably good track-record of honoring these sorts of agreements.
So even if in the very short-term, more lives are lost, what the people would need to be convinced of is that it is for the greater good of not just the people of Palestine; but for the people of Israel, as well.
[QUOTE=BigDumbBear;22503001]So lets summarize what just transpired for readers.
1. Jews want a state of their own after suffering through extraordinary losses under Nazi pogroms.
2. Jews specifically want the Holy Land because its written in the Torah.
3. Jews get the Holy Land through UN.
4. Native Arabs revolt (declaration of war)
Lets go to the hypothetical scenario where after suffering immense loss during WW2, Gypsies want Israel as their homeland. Suppose the state of Israel already exists as it does now:
1. Gypsies suffered immensely in WW2 under Nazi pogroms, and want a state of their own.
2. Gypsies specifically want Israel from Haifa to Jerusalem because its written in their Holy Book
3. UN declares that Gypsies are right, and Israel should give up their statehood to the Gypsies
4. Israel revolts.
You specifically agree that Arabs should [b]not[/b] have declared war since [u]its unreasonable[/u]. Similarly, you agree that Israel also should not revolt against Gypsies since [u]its unreasonable[/u].[/QUOTE]
Palestine was under the ownership of the British Empire, the Arabs didn't own it, it the current situation you are saying Israel is already a developed State in the region.
Also why would Gypsies want the Holy Land as their state, it's got nothing to do with them in anyway.
Britain gave the Jews the land because they owned it and could do with it what they wished. The Arabs had no ownership of that land so why should they go to war immediately apart from their Anti-Semitism. I don't remember them declaring war on Britain when they controlled Palestine.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;22504156]The CIA is honestly what got us some of these groups in the first place. The CIA isn't really great at foresight. But the "War on Terror" is also just a stupid thing in the first place, and if we wanted to wage a proper "War on Terror" we would be doing it very differently than we currently are. The current strategy seems to be more of a "War on Insurgents." A true War on Terror would focus far more heavily on PR, anti-radicalization and preventative measures
The media thing does hold true, yeah, but there's a point where you do need to report on some of their actions. Can't really let a massacre go unnoticed.
To be honest, my support of non-interventionism isn't just because of the terrorist threat, I just think it's a good idea anyway. Unless someone directly asks us (either via diplomatic channels or established alliances, such as NATO) to come and assist, we shouldn't get involved in any sort of proxy conflict. It's just asking for people to dislike us for one reason or another.
[/QUOTE]
The CIA isn't really the problem. It's the federal government's inability to understand that they need time and money to accomplish what they do. The federal government generally doesn't provide the necessary resources and at the same time demands instant information from the CIA, even when it means putting agents at extreme risk.
The constant push for instant information and the inability of the CIA to fund the number of programs it needs to has resulted in both gaps in information and bad information being passed along.
Not to mention they have spent the entirety of their existence spying on governments and funding insurgencies. Now they have to spy on terrorist organizations frequently in countries which the government isn't friendly either. It's a total shift of tactics.
[QUOTE=BigDumbBear;22503001]So lets summarize what just transpired for readers.
1. Jews want a state of their own after suffering through extraordinary losses under Nazi pogroms.
2. Jews specifically want the Holy Land because its written in the Torah.
3. Jews get the Holy Land through UN.
4. Native Arabs revolt (declaration of war)
Lets go to the hypothetical scenario where after suffering immense loss during WW2, Gypsies want Israel as their homeland. Suppose the state of Israel already exists as it does now:
1. Gypsies suffered immensely in WW2 under Nazi pogroms, and want a state of their own.
2. Gypsies specifically want Israel from Haifa to Jerusalem because its written in their Holy Book
3. UN declares that Gypsies are right, and Israel should give up their statehood to the Gypsies
4. Israel revolts.
You specifically agree that Arabs should [b]not[/b] have declared war since [u]its unreasonable[/u]. Similarly, you agree that Israel also should not revolt against Gypsies since [u]its unreasonable[/u].
You're basically suggesting Israel pack up and leave if any other cultural group claims Israel belongs to them and UN's word is the final word. Are you willing to stick by those words? Are you willing to give up the state of Israel to the Gypsies?
I sure as fuck hope you don't work in Israel PR.[/QUOTE]
Well it's not like that at all. It's more like this:
1. 1880 - Zionism beings, a few Jews decide the end for antisemitism will be a Jewish state for the soon-to-be Jewish nation.
2. 1890 - Jews everywhere begin immigrating to Palestine under Ottoman rule, the Ottomans don't care a lot about them, but they don't let too many in. They do sell them lands to work (swamps). A few Jews try to think of other possibilities for where a Jewish state could be built, but they all get rejected, only Palestine seems like a reasonable claim.
3. 1900 - Still minor Jewish immigration from all over the world into Ottoman controlled Palestine.
4. 1914 - WWI starts, the Jews decide to help the British in the war against the Ottomans. After the war a lot more Jews are able to immigrate under British rule.
5. 1920 - Balfour declaration, which states that the Jews are allowed to build their national home in the British mandate of Palestine and will eventually have their own state.
6. 1930 - The British start to come up with partition plans, all in favor of the Arabs, but most of them are rejected by the Arabs and only one is rejected by both sides. Jewish immigration is at its highest so far. The Arabs realize that the Jews won't stop coming and armed conflicts being on a larger scale. The Jews form defensive militant organizations, some with the help of the British too, and aggressive terrorist organizations which are condemned by the majority of the Zionist community.
7. 1940 - Antisemitism is a real threat in Europe, Nazi Germany is advancing and is set to conquer the whole of Europe and eradicate the Jews. The Jewish community in Palestine decides to help the British again in their world war.
8. 1945 - WWII is over and so is the holocaust, many survivors rush to Palestine, the rest mostly to America. The world sees that the Jews must have their own state.
9. 1947 - A UN committee comes up with several partition plans, only one is accepted, but only by the Jews. They declare independence one year later and are then under attack by all of their neighbors and a few other countries as well.
Many people think that one day in 1948 the Jews woke up and said "oh we want a state in Palestine" but that's not true. The Jews have planned and built their national home there for 60 years before declaring a state, and they had every right to do so.
So if the Gypsies were immigrating to Israel for 60 years, building their national home, then them having a state there would be justified and reasonable.
Edit: And I forgot to mention that the Arabs sold the Jews their lands, the Jews didn't steal anything.
Wait, so just living somewhere eventually gives you the right to take it over? Palestinians have been living there and building their homes for longer then 60 years so don't they have more of a right?
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;22506103]Wait, so just living somewhere eventually gives you the right to take it over? Palestinians have been living there and building their homes for longer then 60 years so don't they have more of a right?[/QUOTE]
Well the UN gave mostly-Jewish parts of Palestine to Israel and mostly-Arab parts to their supposed to be country.
The Desert was given to Israel to even the odds, it's literally 80% of the land they got in the UN partition plan and it's one big huge pile of sand and rocks.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22495684]Half of Palestine was desert which was populated by nobody (The bottom half). The other half was mostly given to the Arabs, and the lands not given to them were populated mainly by Jews.[/QUOTE]
I think recent military strategies in the "War on Terror" are starting to show their worth. The US seems to have more success with anti-radicalization and agreements with moderates than simply shooting everyone they can find. Hopefully, this success will continue.
Aid shipment my fucking ass.
[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=67b_1275959417[/url]
It's from 2009 lol.
[QUOTE=Brage Nyman;22507778]Aid shipment my fucking ass.
[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=67b_1275959417[/url][/QUOTE]
Have a clock.
[QUOTE=Hoffa1337;22507897]Have a clock.[/QUOTE]
Have a lock.
[QUOTE=Atl4s;22509415]Have a lock.[/QUOTE]
Have a block(ade)
[url]http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/137997?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook[/url]
It's Official: There was No Humanitarian Aid on Mavi Marmara
[quote]The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has informed Israel's representatives the world over that there were never any humanitarian supplies or equipment aboard the Mavi Marmara, where Israeli commandos were ambushed by armed mercenaries posing as peace activists. The commandos opened fire and killed nine of the attackers after three soldiers had been brutalized and temporarily captured.
Of the seven flotilla ships that were intercepted by Israel on May 31 and afterward, only four were freight ships, the MFA reported to its embassies and consulates: The Challenger 1 (a small yacht), the Sfendonh (a small passenger boat) and the Mavi Marmara (a passenger ship) did not carry any humanitarian aid, except for the passengers' personal belongings.
The four freight ships are the Gaza, the Sofia, the Defeny and the Rachel Corrie. As of June 7, Israel had only offloaded equipment from the Defeny. The equipment offloaded was loaded onto 26 trucks, and an additional eight trucks are waiting at the Kerem Shalom crossing to enter Gaza.
The equipment includes:
1. 300 wheelchairs
2. 300 new mobility scooters
3. 100 special mobility scooters for the disabled
4. Hundreds of crutches
5. 250 hospital beds
6. 50 sofas
7. Four tons of medicine
8. 20 tons of clothing, carpets, school bags, cloth and shoes
9. Various hospital equipment - closets and cabinets, operating theater equipment, etc.
10. Playground equipment
11. Mattresses
The equipment remaining at Ashdod Port on the three ships which have not been offloaded include some 2000 tons of construction equipment - building materials and tools, and construction waste (rubble, toilets, sinks and cement) for re-use.
The MFA noted that:
The equipment does not constitute humanitarian aid in the accepted sense (basic foodstuffs, new and functional equipment, fresh medicines).
The humanitarian aid on all the ships was scattered in the ships' holds and thrown onto piles and not packed properly for transport. The equipment was not packaged and not properly placed on wooden bases. Because of the improper packing, some of the equipment was crushed by the weight in transit.
The medicines and sensitive equipment (operating theater equipment, new clothing, etc.) are being kept in cool storage at the Defense Ministry base. Some of the medicines have already expired, and some will expire soon. The operating theater equipment, which should be kept sterile, was carelessly wrapped. A large part of the equipment, particularly shoes and clothing, was used and worn.[/quote]
Apparently someone managed to smuggle out an hour of footage, and is going to show it on an UN press conference today.
[url]http://culturesofresistance.org/UN-press-conference[/url]
I bet it won't show much but I'm interested to watch it.
Do you know when will it be released?
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22511644]I bet it won't show much but I'm interested to watch it.
Do you know when will it be released?[/QUOTE]
I don't know when it's going to be made fully official, unfortunately.
It seems to have been on Democracy Now though:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlkj7gUl0wc[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuODT3cPSGU[/url]
First video on 6:15 - "We were able to get a hold of some Israeli soldiers but obviously we were so brainwashed on non-violence as our methodology that we didn't kill any of the Israeli soldiers, actually when they got injured, during the commotion, they actually got treated by our passengers :downs:".
Yes, because being thrown down from one deck to another and beaten excessively with metal pipes and folding chairs when you are already on the ground is only being treated!
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22512092]First video on 6:15 - "We were able to get a hold of some Israeli soldiers but obviously we were so brainwashed on non-violence as our methodology that we didn't kill any of the Israeli soldiers, actually when they got injured, during the commotion, they actually got treated by our passengers :downs:".
Yes, because being thrown down from one deck to another and beaten excessively with metal pipes and folding chairs when you are already on the ground is only being treated![/QUOTE]
Ah, I don't think you have seen that picture then, give me a couple of minutes, and I'll track it down. It was part of a couple of pictures that was smuggled out and released by a Turkish newspaper.
[editline]07:50PM[/editline]
Actually found it on Wikipedia:
[Img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Idf_soldier_treated.png[/img]
Well they show them on the second part, some of the non-violent passengers treated the Israeli soldiers, but the way she says it it's like there were no violent passengers at all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.