Pro-Palestinian activists attack US stance on Gaza ships

Pro-Palestinian activists have clashed with Greek police in Athens where they had been protesting over Washington’s stance on a flotilla of ships preparing to sail for Gaza.

About 100 people had been demonstrating outside the US embassy. When some sat down in the road and blocked traffic, police pushed them away using riot shields.

The demonstrators are angry at comments by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton which they said appeared to support a possible Israeli attack.

www.euronews.net...

Since this has not been covered within ats and i am not sure if this has actually hit the news within the U.S. but perhaps people are not aware of who is actually behind this.

The person in question is Ray McGovern, if you are not aware of who this gentleman is then perhaps a brief résumé of his credentials should put things into perspective.

McGovern was a mid-level officer in the CIA in the 1960s where his focus was analysis of Soviet policy toward Vietnam. McGovern was one of President Ronald Reagan's intelligence briefers from 1981–85; he was in charge of preparing daily security briefs for Reagan, Vice President George H.W. Bush, the National Security Advisor, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Cabinet. Later, McGovern was one of several senior CIA analysts who prepared the President's Daily Brief (PDB) during the first Bush administration.

- en.wikipedia.org...





-

Hillary Clinton had suggested that if they did, Israel would have the right to defend itself. The boat has reportedly been stopped at sea by Greek coastguards.

-

So, these are obviously American citizens and are openly being told that if they proceed the outcome could be fatal from an allie to the United States, so at which point do i need to begin headbutting the walls here...Oh how i love how Hillary represents freedom and justice ........ hypocrisy at its finest ....and by no means democracy....!

U.S. Embassy in Athens

U.S. Embassy in Athens

Sorry, this is a thread I don't understand. The article says that the protests are over Hillary Clinton's statement that if the ship enters Israeli waters, Israel has the right to defend itself.

Why bother with the history of the Ambassador who works for Hillary and has, apparently, little to do with this situation?

Secondly, is it the poster's position that Israel cannot control shipping in their waters?

What is this thread supposed to accomplish? I'm sure there are important points I'm missing, please explain them.

reply to post by charles1952


You can pick and choose what you would like to discuss but the obvious is the position that the U.S. has taken regarding the flotilla and the other is the obvious approval in loose translation that Israel has a right to defend itself against a boat with an individual who has served and advised recent presidents and who seems to spear heading a particular move. Something is simply not adding up here, might we be on the verge of witnessing another Liberty incident ?

reply to post by charles1952

Secondly, is it the poster's position that Israel cannot control shipping in their waters?

What is this thread supposed to accomplish? I'm sure there are important points I'm missing, please explain them.

What you are missing is a lesson in geography..

It is NOT Israeli waters...

Originally posted by cerebralassassins
reply to post by charles1952

 

You can pick and choose what you would like to discuss but the obvious is the position that the U.S. has taken regarding the flotilla and the other is the obvious approval in loose translation that Israel has a right to defend itself against a boat with an individual who has served and advised recent presidents and who seems to spear heading a particular move. Something is simply not adding up here, might we be on the verge of witnessing another Liberty incident ?

Dear Cerebralassassins,

Forgive me, I'm not intending to pick and choose. I was just struck by your mention of the Ambassador's history and Hillary's comments and thought those were the important parts of your post. Please correct me if I've erred. Are you, perhaps saying that Hillary is wrong in her statement? If so, what should she be saying?
It seems that there is little covert about this situation. Israel seems to be saying to people with an uncertain purpose, "No, we will not give you permission to enter our territory." And Hillary seems to be saying to those same people "If you can't read the 'No Trespassing' signs, we may not be able to bail you out."
It doesn't look to me like the Liberty because this one appears to be entirely in the open.

reply to post by backinblack


Dear backinblack,

Thank you for trying to clarify things. The reason I mentioned Israeli waters is because the OP directed me to an article which said, in part,

The US ship is one of nine hoping to leave this weekend carrying relief supplies for Gaza. Activists say the US ship has thousands of letters from Americans. They stress there are no plans to enter Israeli waters. Hillary Clinton had suggested that if they did, Israel would have the right to defend itself. The boat has reportedly been stopped at sea by Greek coastguards.

Hillary is saying that it is possible for the ships to enter Israeli waters, and that bad things might happen if they do.

(CORRECTION) I'VE MADE A LARGE ERROR which I cannot justify. I see now that I was confusing Mr. McGovern with our ambassador to Greece. Again, I can't explain my fault other than through carelessness.
But I am still baffled a bit by the OP's distaste for the Secretary of State's comments. I can see nothing objectionable in them. Surely the OP's position is more than "I like the Gaza flotilla and dislike disagreement with me." But what?



It doesn't seem that I have to correct anything else I've said, although I'd be happy to if necessary.

Originally posted by charles1952

Originally posted by cerebralassassins
reply to post by charles1952

 

You can pick and choose what you would like to discuss but the obvious is the position that the U.S. has taken regarding the flotilla and the other is the obvious approval in loose translation that Israel has a right to defend itself against a boat with an individual who has served and advised recent presidents and who seems to spear heading a particular move. Something is simply not adding up here, might we be on the verge of witnessing another Liberty incident ?

Dear Cerebralassassins,

Forgive me, I'm not intending to pick and choose. I was just struck by your mention of the Ambassador's history and Hillary's comments and thought those were the important parts of your post. Please correct me if I've erred. Are you, perhaps saying that Hillary is wrong in her statement? If so, what should she be saying?
It seems that there is little covert about this situation. Israel seems to be saying to people with an uncertain purpose, "No, we will not give you permission to enter our territory." And Hillary seems to be saying to those same people "If you can't read the 'No Trespassing' signs, we may not be able to bail you out."
It doesn't look to me like the Liberty because this one appears to be entirely in the open.

Yes and Yes, Hillary has no other option but to say what she has been told and not asked.. Let me try and paint a picture here without hanging myself. The corridors need to remain sterile of unwanted vessels for the next two-four weeks, this has nothing to do with humanitarian aid. The stakes are high and innocent lives will be lost, it was merely an open warning to all far and wide, stay away as we cannot as you pointed "help" when it begins, for when it does and becomes public, it will be too late but than to offer our condolences. You do not have an individual of that caliber for humanitarian aid or ideology in a region that is currently the hotspot of the planet. Remember once your in, your always in.

reply to post by charles1952


But NO flotilla has entered Israeli waters and never intended to..

I don't see the relevance unless you are assuming that waters that Israel blockade are considered theirs..

The last flotilla was attacked in "International" waters..
What's your opinion based on that FACT ??

You know what: I wouldn't be concerned with this if the aid flotilla activists were another nationality and were not U.S citizens, but for Hilary to condone an attack on American citizens is terrible. It goes to show that Hilary thinks: Israeli citizens are more important then American citizens. We the People my arse.

It amazes me people so blindly look at the PLO, a terrorist organization, can be looked towards as a good neighbor to Isreal or a friend of the U.S..

The Beirut barracks bombing (October 23, 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon) occurred during the Lebanese Civil War, when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon—killing 299 American and French servicemen. The organization Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing.

The blasts led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the withdrawal of the Palestine Liberation Organization following the Israeli 1982 invasion of Lebanon.

Wiki

"a small country that was created through an accident in history"

The guy seems level-headed apart from his obvious stance.


Regards, Skellon.

reply to post by backinblack


Dear backinblack,

Thank you for raising questions. The idea of "Israeli waters" was not mine, but raised in the article because of the quote from our Secretary of State. Blockades, for example the Cuban blockade, are normally not conducted in the blockading nation's waters.

I am assuming that the idea of the blockade (at least the stated idea) is to prevent "dangerous" people and supplies from reaching Gaza, there may be others. The Berlin blockade was, I believe, to prevent supplies from reaching citizens to apply political presure.

Nothing I have seen so far seems to contradict the idea that ships in Israeli waters without permission are at risk. The objection seems to be that the Israelis have no right to blockade Gaza. Surely Israel would disagree, and the US (and the rest of the world) seems to be unwilling to challenge that blockade by force.

Is there a solution? Would complete inspection of the ships prior to docking be sufficient? I was wondering about the OP's solution (and now, yours as well).

reply to post by charles1952


The first question is the legality of the blockade..
I have seen no evidence to suggest it is legal.

Secondly, if the sole purpose is to stop weapons getting into Gaza then why does Israel ban livestock,pencils,paper and chocolate ??

Personally, I see no reason why ANYTHING is banned, even weapons.

Israel is allowed weapons on a grand scale for such a small country..

Also everyone blames Hamas yet as far as I'm aware Israel also restrict goods entering the West Bank, why??

Dear backinblack,

Again, thank you. This is not a field I know much about and your questions will drive me to some research. Your encouragement makes ATS worthwhile. I promise not to abandon this thread but it's a little late tonight and I might not get back until tomorrow.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by charles1952

 

The first question is the legality of the blockade..
I have seen no evidence to suggest it is legal.

I don't know who determines legality in such a case, but Israel has been doing it for quite some time and I don't know of any "legal" action taken to stop it. If the blockade was declared to be illegal and was forced to disband, that would solve the question, but I don't think it will happen (at least, any time soon).

Secondly, if the sole purpose is to stop weapons getting into Gaza then why does Israel ban livestock,pencils,paper and chocolate ??

Personally, I see no reason why ANYTHING is banned, even weapons.

I'm assuming that Israel believes that weapons shipped to Gaza have a reasonable chance of being turned against Israel. I believe that was our rationale for the Cuban blockade. It's hard for me to object, if that's the case. As for banning paper, etc., that's the second area I have to look into. I don't know what their thinking is.

Israel is allowed weapons on a grand scale for such a small country..

.

Sorry, I don't see their size as a factor. They do have a lot of enemies. I'm willing to go one-on-one, I might even survive two-on-one, but if it gets worse than that I want the biggest weapon I can find. (Yes, I realize it's a spotty analogy, but some people in and out of Israel argue that having nuclear weapons is the only reason they still exist.)

Also everyone blames Hamas yet as far as I'm aware Israel also restrict goods entering the West Bank, why??

I don't know the answer. Thank you for giving me another area to look into. By the way, about your comment "everyone blames Hamas"; do you see them as much in the wrong as Israel?

reply to post by charles1952

I don't know the answer. Thank you for giving me another area to look into. By the way, about your comment "everyone blames Hamas"; do you see them as much in the wrong as Israel?

Many say Israel has input into Hamas actions but I'm unsure about that..
I think firing uncontrolled rockets is a waste of time and any injuries or deaths of civilians should be condemned.

Having said that, while Israel continues invading Palestine through ongoing stealing of land for settlements, then ALL Palestinians have every right to defend their land and attack the invader..

So why does Israel continue with the settlements??
THAT'S what everyone should be asking..
Heck, they don't even try to hide the fact but it seems to be mostly ignored by MSM and our corrupt politicians..

Dear backinblack,

I've taken a quick look at the question of blockade legality that you've raised. I've only checked about a dozen sources. They seem to range from "It's possibly illegal, but it's not absolutely clear," to "It absolutely is legal."

Here's an example of the "absolutely legal" school of thought:
Reuters' analysis from June 2010

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by charles1952

 

Many say Israel has input into Hamas actions but I'm unsure about that..
I think firing uncontrolled rockets is a waste of time and any injuries or deaths of civilians should be condemned.

Having said that, while Israel continues invading Palestine through ongoing stealing of land for settlements, then ALL Palestinians have every right to defend their land and attack the invader..

I absolutely agree that every human, group, and nation has the right to self-defense. While that theme seems to show up a lot on ATS, I can't disagree at all.

So why does Israel continue with the settlements??
THAT'S what everyone should be asking..

HELP! Cut me some slack! I haven't caught up with the blockade issue yet! You'll have me spending the rest of my life researching. (Which, of course, sounds like a lot of fun, but it's not lucrative.)

Heck, they don't even try to hide the fact but it seems to be mostly ignored by MSM and our corrupt politicians..

If we survive at all it will be despite the MSM and corrupt politicians.

Originally posted by charles1952

Is there a solution? Would complete inspection of the ships prior to docking be sufficient? I was wondering about the OP's solution (and now, yours as well).

Sure we could provide a solution but this wont be a one paragraph solution, so i will begin with the first and obvious question on the lips of most people.

Which country is considered the most neutral and which organization is considered and has the authority to condemn or accept any and all actions made by humans on this planet ?

reply to post by cerebralassassins


Pro Palestinian activists attack US?


Wow, could the article have been using any more underhand tactics?

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by cerebralassassins

 

Pro Palestinian activists attack US?


Wow, could the article have been using any more underhand tactics?

I was waiting to read in some paper that the P.L.O. have launched a full scale amphibious attack and are on route to the U.S. coastline but it would take them several months since paddling with canoes is somewhat difficult in the open ocean.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by charles1952

 

I don't know the answer. Thank you for giving me another area to look into. By the way, about your comment "everyone blames Hamas"; do you see them as much in the wrong as Israel?

Many say Israel has input into Hamas actions but I'm unsure about that..
I think firing uncontrolled rockets is a waste of time and any injuries or deaths of civilians should be condemned.

Having said that, while Israel continues invading Palestine through ongoing stealing of land for settlements, then ALL Palestinians have every right to defend their land and attack the invader..

So why does Israel continue with the settlements??
THAT'S what everyone should be asking..
Heck, they don't even try to hide the fact but it seems to be mostly ignored by MSM and our corrupt politicians..

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you basically brush off Hamas' actions with an obligatory "should be condemned" statement. Hamas kills their own people. Hamas is directly responsible for more deaths in Gaza than anyone. They set up their rockets on civilian roof tops and fire away at Israel (usually at civilian targets), KNOWING that Israel will have no other choice but to retaliate. And because of Hamas' calculated proximity to civilians, when Israel does retaliate, civilians ultimately become victims as a result of collateral damage. It's very sad, yes. But no one is happier than Hamas when that happens, because they know it will generate international outcry against Israel. Let's not forget that the U.S., Japan, Israel and the EU recognizes Hamas as a terrorist organization. I'm not saying Israel is perfect, but they DO have a right to defend themselves. If they didn't have to worry about constant missile attacks and suicide bombers on a regular basis, things would be much different over there. But this is Hamas, who along with many other people in that region, refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.


And I also want to throw this out there regarding the last flotilla ....

If everyone on the flotilla were just peaceful loving humanitarians, and Israel simply jumped on their boat and killed 9 people for no real reason...then why didn't they shoot and/or injure people on any of the 5 other boats as well? I mean..if you're gonna kill and injure people just to kill and injure people...why just 9? Were they listening to the white album before they boarded and just figured they'd go with number 9?

If all they wanted was to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza...if helping the Gazans was really the most important thing.. then why did the flotilla turn down offers from Israel AND Egypt to deliver to Gaza the humanitarian aid that was on the boats before they departed for Gaza? Why? Because they WANTED to make a stink. THAT was their main goal.

There were 6 boats, but only ONE had the incident. It should also be mentioned that IHH the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation which also owns the the vessel, Mavi Marmara, the ONE boat in the flotialla where the 9 pipe wielding "activists" were killed..is ALSO a member of Union of Good..also known as the Charity Coalition, which is an umbrella organization consisting of over 50 Islamic charities and funds which funnel money to organizations belonging to Hamas.