• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I support Israel, and you?

It's not about "personal prejudice," it's about facts and truth. The facts and truth are that the vast majority of the problem lies with the Arab world, they have committed the most faults and thus one cannot say that the blame is equally distributed between both sides. How many wars did Israel start? How many treaties and peace agreements did they go along with? Heck, they gave Gaza away in the hopes of peace and it turned into a hell hole run by terrorists because they people chose that. The problem lies majority with the Arab world and the Palestinians, Israel gets screwed in the process and is guilty until proven guilty just as Netenyahu said.

Opinions are neither "facts" or "truths" simply by you saying so. (or anyone else for that matter) They are merely opinions. People's prejudices cloud that reality.
 
Opinions are neither "facts" or "truths" simply by you saying so. (or anyone else for that matter) They are merely opinions. People's prejudices cloud that reality.
Other's opinions are wrong and not based on facts. The fact is what I have stated, Israel gets screwed by treaties and is guilty until proven guilty in the eyes of the Arab nations and the UN. There is a different between feelings and facts. Looking objectively at what is presented would vindicate Israel and expose the UN and Arab nations for the hypocrisy that they are.
 
Other's opinions are wrong and not based on facts. The fact is what I have stated, Israel gets screwed by treaties and is guilty until proven guilty in the eyes of the Arab nations and the UN. There is a different between feelings and facts. Looking objectively at what is presented would vindicate Israel and expose the UN and Arab nations for the hypocrisy that they are.

Sorry, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. You've said absolutely nothing beyond your prejudiced opinions to support your claims and that quite simply, doesn't cut it.
 
So you have been fine with the boarding if it happened within some 12 mile limit. Seems like you then generally agree with what Israel did.

I wouldn't have agreed either way, but at least if it happeend in Israeli watesr then it wouldn't have violated international law. Israel screwed themselves.
 
I wouldn't have agreed either way, but at least if it happeend in Israeli watesr then it wouldn't have violated international law. Israel screwed themselves.

It didn't violate international law, it's just people like you who would have been against it even if it was done in Israel's territorial waters(as you're admitting here) that deny it.

Here's the Q&A about the legality of the raid from Reuters:
Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal?

LONDON (Reuters) - Israel has said it will continue a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip despite growing global pressure to lift the siege after a navy raid on a Turkish ferry carrying aid killed nine activists this week.

World

What is the legality of the blockade and did Israel's intervention breach international law? Below are some questions and answers on the issue:

CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?

Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognized document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea."

Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.

"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.

WHAT ARE INTERNATIONAL WATERS?

Under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea a coastal state has a "territorial sea" of 12 nautical miles from the coast over which it is sovereign. Ships of other states are allowed "innocent passage" through such waters.

There is a further 12 nautical mile zone called the "contiguous zone" over which a state may take action to protect itself or its laws.

"However, strictly beyond the 12 nautical miles limit the seas are the "high seas" or international waters," Roche said.

The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters.

Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.

CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS?

Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship.

"If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.

Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defense after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons.

Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives.

"But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said.

The use of force may also have other repercussions.

"While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments.

"However, not every operation that the law permits is necessarily prudent from the strategic point of view."

OPPONENTS HAVE CALLED ISRAEL'S RAID "PIRACY." WAS IT?

No, as under international law it was considered a state action.

"Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest," Kraska said.

HAVE THERE BEEN ANY SHIPPING DISRUPTIONS AFTER THE RAID?

None so far but the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), an association which represents 75 percent of the world's merchant fleet, has expressed "deep concern" over the boarding by Israeli forces, arguing that merchant ships have a right to safe passage and freedom of navigation in international waters.

"These fundamental principles of international law must always be upheld by all of the world's nations," the ICS said.
Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal? | Reuters
 
After reading this thread thorough, I was suddenly hit by an epiphany that told me that the relation between Israel and Arab is similar to our country's and North Korea's. They both have similar beliefs, for example of being Abrahamic religions. South Korea and North Korea were the same, unified people. Jews and Arabs once worked side by side during early history. Both are in the same situation, divided by an abyss of hate, suspicion, and prejuidice. I know it because I'm living in South Korea, Seoul, and my city (which includes my poor little home and my even poorer soul) is within range of North Korean artillery, so we'll face a lovely barrage of shells, rockets, bombs, and the old standby of bullets.


In all, the hate between the two sides should be dissovled, but that's going to be a heck of a job, as each day, suspicion and hate will increase.
 
Israel is our closest friend in the middle east. Although in my opinion both sides are right, in their own ways, when it comes to the struggle between Palestine and Israel, we need to be supportive of Israel for a number of reasons. First and foremost is that support towards Israel, be it arms or money, will not be used for terrorism or the killing of innocent victims for no reason other than ideology, and a strong Israel helps combat these forces. Secondly, The Jewish people cannot be expected to be able to trust any other country but their own. After the horrors of World War Two, and prejudice throughout history, they have a right to their own country, the only problem is that their is no ideal place for it. Although the land had been Palestine, you must remember that it did once belong to the Jewish people also, and it is very small, while the rest of the Middle East is controlled by Arabians. The Jewish people need something and the United States cannot turn our backs on them while they are becoming a powerful nation.

The situation is tricky and I feel that the Jewish people would have had a much easier time settling in a rural area of North Africa, however current Israel is their holy land and religious bond are very difficult to break.
 
I support those who want peace and work for it on both sides. True heroes are people who boldly took risks for peace, like Yitzak Rabin. Also, I am supportive of Israel in general when it comes to defending their right to exist, just like I am supportive of the idea of a Palestinian state within the frame of a two state solution.

I am also supportive of the Israeli government when it takes measures of self-defense against terrorist organizations that don't acknowledge its right to exist, like Hamas, but I believe Israel should behave with proportion and try to avoid as much civilian casualties as possible. I am not supportive of acts of revenge, because I don't think revenge is covered by the right to self-defense, no matter if that is a terrorist attack against civilians by Palestinian terrorists, or an unproportional action by the Israeli government that takes into account an overproportional amount of civilian casualties. That's why I don't necessarily agree with all actions by the Israeli government, despite being generally supportive of Israel.

Palestinians need to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and denounce terrorism. Israel, on the other side, has to accept the prospect of a two state solution and a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza.

To me, it looks like the Israeli governments have usually been more ready for peace than Palestinian authorities, not even mentioning the general population. Barak has offered the Palestinian authority an encompassing offer in Camp David in 2000, which failed because of Palestinian unwillingness for compromise. So I understand frustration on the Israeli side and calls for a tougher approach. But I don't think a tougher approach will necessarily be productive. The use of force has not been able to solve the conflict in decades, and I don't see any indication that this will change in the future. I do not approve of further Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Attacking terrorist sites in the Palestinian territories and enforcing weapon embargos is certainly an appropriate means of self-defense, but settling on Palestinian lands or deliberately hurting the Palestinian civil population to exert pressure is not (I don't see this yields a positive effect).

In spite of all understandable frustration, I encourage Israelis not to give up the fight for peace, as unlikely as a prospect for peace may look at the moment. I don't see an alternative. All my best wishes go to the Israeli people and I hope that eventually, they will be able to live in peace as neighbors to a Palestinian state in peace, no matter how much time that takes.
 
Palestinians need to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and denounce terrorism. Israel, on the other side, has to accept the prospect of a two state solution and a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza.
I believe Israel has already recognized the right of the Palestinians to a state of their own in the West Bank and Gaza. (The two states solution)

Besides that and a few other points I have found myself in disagreement with, great post.
 
It's funny that you should say that Israel has the right to defend itself because so did those people on the boat. I will remind this entire thread that this attack happened on international waters.

I support Isreal's right to exsist and defend herself as a soverign nation, but if it turns out to be true that they did attack this ship in international waters, it wouldn't matter if they used paintball guns or toy laser tag rays guns. They would be in the wrong here.

Still, I can certainly understand what prompted them to board the ship. They have a right to protect themselves and if those who wished to do them harm have been smuggling illegal materials (arms, munitions, etc.) into their country using their ports as safe havens, well, I don't think anyone could blame them for taking the actions they've taken to date (referring to the blockade, not the boarding here).
 
Last edited:
I support Isreal's right to exsist and defend herself as a soverign nation, but if it turns out to be true that they did attack this ship in international waters, it wouldn't matter if they used paintball guns or toy laser tag rays guns. They would be in the wrong here.
Why do people automatically assume that boarding a ship in international waters is against the law?
The US does it all the time when it stops drugs-smuggling ships, and it sure as hell is allowed to do so according to the law.
Same goes for Israel boarding a ship that's intending to run its blockade.
 
partisano-world

Why do people automatically assume that boarding a ship in international waters is against the law?
The US does it all the time when it stops drugs-smuggling ships, and it sure as hell is allowed to do so according to the law.
Same goes for Israel boarding a ship that's intending to run its blockade.

Yes but you have to understand that we're talking about zionists aka babykillers who go around all year killing innocent childrun. Only natural you would expect these people to abide laws that do not exist and try to avoid civilian casualties at the cost of their own lives.

Something is wrong with this picture but I just can't put my finger on it...
 
I believe Israel has already recognized the right of the Palestinians to a state of their own in the West Bank and Gaza. (The two states solution)

Besides that and a few other points I have found myself in disagreement with, great post.

seems some of the senior players within your government disagree with you:
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says Tel Aviv would annul previous peace accords with Palestinians if they decide to go ahead with plans to unilaterally declare an independent state.
Don't declare state, Lieberman warns Palestinians

or is it only that israel believes it is empowered to declare Palestine a soverign state
 
Why do people automatically assume that boarding a ship in international waters is against the law?
The US does it all the time when it stops drugs-smuggling ships, and it sure as hell is allowed to do so according to the law.
Same goes for Israel boarding a ship that's intending to run its blockade.

I don't have a problem with a nation defending it's ports in their own territorial waters. After all, that's what a blockade is all about. I do, however, have a problem with any country including my own going "pirate" against a vessel they suspect may be invading their waters or running their blockade but hasn't yet. This is the only sticking point I'd have concerning this incident. Other than that, I support Isreal's right to defend itself against all aggressors as I would any other soveriegn nation.
 
I don't have a problem with a nation defending it's ports in their own territorial waters. After all, that's what a blockade is all about.


Incorrect. You need to review the definition.

The act of "defending one's ports and territorial waters" is called a Nation, not a blockade. It's nice you agree they have the right to be a nation, sovereign and protecting of its borders (I hope you don't find yourself debating that); however, you need to find out what blockades are for. Once you learn that blockades are "all about" denying your enemy access to logistic avenues, the international waters argument vaporizes. This is very clearly illustrated in international maritime law. No one blockades themself (except crazy people), you wont find a single example. Now, stop calling Israel crazy (it was not blockading itself) and accept the legality of its action.

If you think blockades should be illegal, that's another issue and well beyond the border of debates regarding the state of Israel.
 
Last edited:
seems some of the senior players within your government disagree with you:
Don't declare state, Lieberman warns Palestinians

or is it only that israel believes it is empowered to declare Palestine a soverign state

There's no contradiction there, you're just being delusional as usual.
You're referring to an unilateral declaration of state by the Palestinians, something that every rational person is standing against, including Israel, the US, the EU, the UN and even some sane Palestinian leaders.
We were, however, talking about the two states solution, which is a whole different thing.
And as to the two states solution, the Israeli government is fully behind it.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a problem with a nation defending it's ports in their own territorial waters. After all, that's what a blockade is all about. I do, however, have a problem with any country including my own going "pirate" against a vessel they suspect may be invading their waters or running their blockade but hasn't yet. This is the only sticking point I'd have concerning this incident. Other than that, I support Isreal's right to defend itself against all aggressors as I would any other soveriegn nation.

I don't think you get it.
If a state imposes a blockade it has the right to inspect the ships that are coming into the blockaded port, and see if they're carrying blockaded objects.
If the ship has declared its intention to be the running of that blockade, the blockading state has the right, according to both the international law and common sense, to inspect that ship on international waters.

The US doesn't defend its ports in its own territorial waters when it stops ships on internatioanl waters and searches them for drugs. The US also doesn't breach any law by doing so.
Same goes for Israel.
 
Israel has every right to intercept ships and inspect the cargo to make sure it is not delivering anything of a military nature to a hostile power. If Israel had dropped in, looked around, and let them go on after finding nothing of a military nature it would be one thing, but Israel seized all ships, their cargo, and everyone on board. This was not about Israel defending itself, but Israel wanting to insure no one challenged its economic strangulation of Gaza and its people.

I believe Israel has a right to defend itself, but that is not a blank check for them or anyone else.
 
If Israel had dropped in, looked around, FOUND NOTHING OF CONCERN, and let them go on to the appropriate port... then everything would have been fine.

But Israel dropped in and the crap hit the fan. Israeli soldiers were attacked and contraband (in the form of people without passports but lots of cash, and other cargo) was found. Now, since the boat was obviously an attempt to break the blockade - not only by stating intentions but also by actually attempting to carry contraband (and internationally illegal cargo, in the case of personel without passports carrying large amounts of cash)... I think the seizure was entirely appropriate, don't you? Do you think that when people state their intention to break the blockade and then actually make all efforts to so so, then react violently when authorities try to enact law and order... Israel should then just say "ok, go ahead"?

You're basically saying "I'm fine with Israel as long as they only inspect ships and let anything pass through no matter what happens". So nice of you to accept Israel's right to search ships. Too bad you don't think Israel has any rights beyond that - like, to do anything about what they find or what happens. Do you also think law enforcement should end once a crime has been discovered? Do you believe in law without justice and order?
 
Last edited:
If Israel had dropped in, looked around, FOUND NOTHING OF CONCERN, and let them go on to the appropriate port... then everything would have been fine.

But Israel dropped in and the crap hit the fan. Israeli soldiers were attacked and contraband (in the form of people without passports but lots of cash, and other cargo) was found. Now, since the boat was obviously an attempt to break the blockade - not only by stating intentions but also by actually attempting to carry contraband (and internationally illegal cargo, in the case of personel without passports carrying large amounts of cash)... I think the seizure was entirely appropriate, don't you? Do you think that when people state their intention to break the blockade and then actually make all efforts to so so, then react violently when authorities try to enact law and order... Israel should then just say "ok, go ahead"?

You're basically saying "I'm fine with Israel as long as they only inspect ships and let anything pass through no matter what happens". So nice of you to accept Israel's right to search ships. Too bad you don't think Israel has any rights beyond that - like, to do anything about what they find or what happens. Do you also think law enforcement should end once a crime has been discovered? Do you believe in law without justice and order?

Please don't twist my words around. I am saying if it is apparent the ship is not meant to smuggle weapons then Israel should let it pass. If it is not that is different.
 
Do you think it is or ever was apparent that the ship was not meant to smuggle or otherwise undermine the blockade?

I was being facetious to illustrate a point, I didn't mean to twist your words.
 
Just got ask, is this "special relationship" worth the trillions of dollars we've given to them as welfare?

First of all what trillions of dollars?
Between 1948 and 2008, in a length of 60 years, Israel has received in total aid from the US (Both economic and military aid) a sum of about 101 billion dollars.
That's not even 1 trillion dollars(1000 billion dollars), and yet you're speaking about trillions of dollars (thousands of billions of dollars).
That looks like an attempt to mislead.

Secondly, what trillions of dollars in welfare?
Between 1948 to 2008, Israel has received from the US 30 billion dollars in economic aid. That's quite far from being 1000 billion dollars, not to speak about thousands of billions of dollars.
So again that's another attempt to mislead.

Now besides all that, the economic aid the US gives to Israel is mainly returned to the US' economy through the Israeli commitment in the agreement between the two nations to buy most of its military equipment and gear from the Untied States.
 
Now besides all that, the economic aid the US gives to Israel is mainly returned to the US' economy through the Israeli commitment in the agreement between the two nations to buy most of its military equipment and gear from the Untied States.

Correction: The military aid the US gives to Israel is mainly returned to the US' economy through the Israeli commitment in the agreement between the two nations to buy most of its military equipment and gear from the Untied States
 
Back
Top Bottom