Israelis board aid ship

[BlacqueJacques]

When did they 'search'? From some video it looks like they rappeled onto the ship in the dark, or early morning hours?

 

[Danoff]

Even without a blockade (or an illegal one), the Israeli action may still be legal according to international sealaws, which dictate that searches may be conducted in international waters in case of an armed conflict.

Whether those laws apply here, I dare not say. There is an armed conflict going on between Hamas and Israel, but does that even extend to sea?

Yea but... do the existence of international sealaws really legitimize any action? Perhaps that's a little to abstract for this discussion. If you can classify this as a "search", you might be on to something.

 

[bullie77]

It is redundant (I'm not sure if that is the correct word) to diminuish the Israelo-Arab conflict to the Jerusalem issue (or 'sandbox').

As for if is the blockade legitimate or not, as others point it out already, is a matter that will not gather general agreement. In my personal perspective, from the Israeli point-of-view I'd considered it as legitimate - the defense of the state and Israeli people. As of a humanitary point of view, I would not, as one must be able to separate the palestinian people from their (radical) leaders.

Someone asked if Israel was set in the middle of Africa, if all their neighbours would try to wipe-them-out. I don't see the relevance of this question but, I personally doubt they would. But the fact is that Israel was settled in this part of the world and that's a fact we must face. The problem, or the question if you like, is "Will it ever be possible to have an peacefull co-existance between Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt?"

There is a difference between Israel and Palestinian leaders that people don't seem willing to want to see: Israel does accept the right of an Palestinian free state, under certain conditions. Palestinian leaders demand for that free-state (their right, undoubtfuly), but aim also to destroy the Israeli state (unacceptable). Its this situation that lead to Israel to keep those fulcral areas (Gaza and Transjordan) under their control for security purposes. Is it a fair situation for all the millions of palestinians who just want to live their lifes? No. But the main concern Israel must have is towards Israelis, not palestinians. That's Palestinian leaders responsibility.

Yea but... do the existence of international sealaws really legitimize any action? Perhaps that's a little to abstract for this discussion. If you can classify this as a "search", you might be on to something.

I believe they might pledge to the same principles that nations are using in the Horn of Africa to abroad and even shoot at small vessels in international waters suspicious of engagind in piracy actions.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

"Will it ever be possible to have an peacefull co-existance between Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt?"

Well that is up to citizens of Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt !

 

[Danoff]

Please explain why you feel the blockade is not justified.

Still waiting on this BlacqueJacques.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

Still waiting on this BlacqueJacques.

Oops, sorry was reading another thread.

I think Liz McQueen pointed out that you do not 'punish' or 'persecute' an entire people for the actions of a radical few.

Would this work anywhere? Afghanistan? Iraq?

Imagine a neighborhood with an active 'gang' of criminals; would you wall off the entire neighborhood and reduce food, medicine available to the neighborhood to deal with the gang?

 

[bullie77]

Well that is up to citizens of Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt !

No... it's up to the present and future leaders of Palestine and Syria, specially - considering that Lebanon is a a Syrian/Hezzbollah puppet, and Egypt and Jordan are coming nearer more moderated positions lately towards this subject.

I'll ask again; How can some one expect or hold against Israel the fact that negotiations do not result in anything positive when the other party clearly and assume to defend that besides its independence it aims also to the destruction of Israel?

I think Liz McQueen pointed out that you do not 'punish' or 'persecute' an entire people for the actions of a radical few.

You are both right in theory. The problem is that you cannot identify one from the other. I'm not saying that all Palestinians are terrorists (they aren't, but Hamas/Hezzbollah's tactics (and all guerrilla/terrorist warfare) is based also in this aspect: mixing with the general population. And if you consider that it is Hamas who govern the Palestinian state...

 

[BlacqueJacques]

I'll ask again; How can some one expect or hold against Israel the fact that negotiations do not result in anything positive when the other party clearly and assume to defend that besides its independence it aims also to the destruction of Israel?

And I'll ask how many years will the above be used as the reason to prolong conflict?

And will the affected religions ever forgive themselves and each other for the hurt inflicted?

I am leaving the thread now because I am sure there will be a new Mid-East 'incident' thread in the future

 

[NLxAROSA]

Yea but... do the existence of international sealaws really legitimize any action? Perhaps that's a little to abstract for this discussion. If you can classify this as a "search", you might be on to something.

Well, I'm quite sure that the Israelis themselves will classify it as a search. But even so, does that really justify using lethal force against what's basically a bunch of rioters? Even not all Israelis feel it does; just read some of the opinion columns at Haaretz.com, one of Israels major newspapers (especially this one is very interesting). Regardless of whether the action was legal (or justified) by itself, the way it was executed was a major cock-up IMO.

Imagine a neighborhood with an active 'gang' of criminals; would you wall off the entire neighborhood and reduce food, medicine available to the neighborhood to deal with the gang?

And what if that gang (Hamas) was elected as formal government of said neighborhood (Gaza) by the very people inhabiting that neighborhood?

 

[Danoff]

I am leaving the thread now because I am sure there will be a new Mid-East 'incident' thread in the future

That's convenient. You still haven't answered my question.

I think Liz McQueen pointed out that you do not 'punish' or 'persecute' an entire people for the actions of a radical few.

Would this work anywhere? Afghanistan? Iraq?

Imagine a neighborhood with an active 'gang' of criminals; would you wall off the entire neighborhood and reduce food, medicine available to the neighborhood to deal with the gang?

Nations respond to governments - in this case, the "gang" you refer to is the government. Just because the US pretends that it has infinite resources and attempts to satisfy everyone and anyone with respect to its military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't mean that Israel must be held to that standard. I've pointed out many times that we'd be justified in making Iraq the 51st state - we just don't want to. Since the Afghanistan "government" isn't actually responsible for the actions of Al Qaeda, that's a little different.

So if your reasoning indeed is that a blockade is unacceptable because not everyone agrees with their government, then you are completely mistaken - the rights of nations depend upon the actions of their governments. Please note that that is not an argument in favor of the legitimacy of the blockade.

 

[KSaiyu]

If only this was dealt with more tact by Israel instead of giving the supporters (though we mustn't assume all) what they wanted. I wish these "supporters" would realise the confrontation they so craved will be of little benefit to the future of Gazans, and that the trade off for painting Israel in a bad light for a few days/weeks is ultimately too costly for something so insignificant.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, after having a chance to research this a little bit, I've come to the conclusion that the blockade is legit, that Israel's actions are legit, and that this was clearly designed to provoke a conflict rather than getting aid to the residents of Gaza.

Here's my rationale.

As best I can tell, you have two choices - you can either take the hardline palestinian view that Israel is not legit and therefore is not a nation with any authority of any kind, or you can take the view that Gaza is Israeli territory. I don't see any wiggle room on that, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Gaza was territory gained during military conflict over Israel's existence. So either Gaza is Israeli, or nothing is Israeli.

Does Israel have the right to blockade foreign supplies coming into its own territory? Yes. And they weren't blockading all supplies. The Israeli military had advertised willingness to take any aid brought to Gazans into Gaza itself. So there isn't even a humanitarian argument. If this transport had been about getting aid into Gaza, they'd have turned over their supplies to Israeli troops so that they could transport the aid into their territory. The ship happened to be carrying contraband, though, so I can see why they didn't want to do that.

So either Israel is a sovereign nation with the right to blockade and inspect anything coming from a foreign country into their territory, or they are not a sovereign nation and do not have the right to exist.

I think you'd be hard pressed to argue the latter, but I know there are many many people around the world who would do so.

 

[Touring Mars]

A somewhat simplistic view, if you don't mind me saying. The obvious alternative to the two choices you highlight is the view held by most countries, including Israel's staunchest allies (the US), that the only viable future for the region is the two-state solution, which would afford both Israel and an independent Palestine sovereign status - regardless of what they might think of the idea themselves.

The Israeli military had advertised willingness to take any aid brought to Gazans into Gaza itself. So there isn't even a humanitarian argument.

Wrong. The Israelis promise to take any aid allowed by Israel into Gaza - not whatever aid anyone else thinks the Gazans might need, like cement. There is a huge difference, and it is infact the crux of this debate - if the aid was all stuff Israel didn't object to the Gazans having, there wouldn't have been a flotilla in the first place!

 

[Danoff]

A somewhat simplistic view, if you don't mind me saying. The obvious alternative to the two choices you highlight is the view held by most countries, including Israel's staunchest allies (the US), that the only viable future for the region is the two-state solution, which would afford both Israel and an independent Palestine sovereign status - regardless of what they might think of the idea themselves.

I wasn't aware that I precluded that. In the current state, however, my understanding is that we have only the two choices I listed.

Wrong. The Israelis promise to take any aid allowed by Israel into Gaza - not whatever aid anyone else thinks the Gazans might need, like cement. There is a huge difference, and it is infact the crux of this debate - if the aid was all stuff Israel didn't object to the Gazans having, there wouldn't have been a flotilla in the first place!

Yea, I thought it was implicit that they'd allow what they considered aid. They put cement on the contraband list due to the fact that gobs of cement are needed to tunnel weapons into Gaza (Israel).

 

[Touring Mars]

I wasn't aware that I precluded that. In the current state, however, my understanding is that we have only the two choices I listed.

Neither the view that either Israel has no right to exist or that Gaza belongs to Israel is anything like reality, atleast outside of the conflict zone anyway. The option that Gaza is not Israeli while Israel is a sovereign nation is entirely realistic and possible. Obviously, it wouldn't spell an end to the conflict, but it would be a good start.

Yea, I thought it was implicit that they'd allow what they considered aid. They put cement on the contraband list due to the fact that gobs of cement are needed to tunnel weapons into Gaza (Israel).

Therein lies the problem - what Israel considers aid, and what Israel considers humane treatment of Gazan civilians is hugely at odds with what many others think. Given that the legality of the blockade hinges upon the effect of the blockade on the civilian population, it stands to reason that Israel believe the blockade to be legal when others would not. In terms of this particular incident, I think the fault lies with both parties - on the one hand for showing no tact or tolerance towards genuine humanitarian goals (as KSaiyu suggested previously); and on the other for showing no regard for Israel's genuine concern with regard to Hamas and other militants/real terrorists being supplied with much needed equipment and means that may facilitate them in their aims of indiscriminate murder. Basically, the fact that neither side has any interest in compromise or entertaining the ideas of the other meant that this incident was nigh on inevitable - so much so that I wouldn't be at all surprised if it happened again next week.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

When did they 'search'? From some video it looks like they rappeled onto the ship in the dark, or early morning hours?

Israel boarded the vessel when they approached it. Given that it was making a break for Gaza, they couldn't afford to wait. So if the aid ship made a break for it at two-thirty in the morning, Israel had to board it at two-thirty in the morning.

They also never had the opportunity to search the vessel. In order to carry out a search, they would first have to board it, take control of it and detain the crew (my sister's boyfriend is in our navy and he's done a few of these in training). The problem in Israel's case is that, based on the video, they barely had the opportunity to board the vessel before they were attacked.

This is the thrust of my point. That whether this was a humanitarian mission, whether the people on the boat were armed, ready for a fight, looking for a fight, shot first, etc. etc. None of it matters if the blockade was legitimate, and none of it matters if it wasn't (ie: it doesn't matter). Again, feel free to point it out to me, but I hadn't seen one person address the central question in this conflict.

I don't see how whether or not the international community considers the blockade to be legal or not is a factor here. Israel believes it is, and they will enforce it. Would they really listen if an aid ship breached their lines with a radio call of "You can't do this because it's illegal; you have to let us through!"? I doubt it. If the aid ships thought this would be enough to see them safely through, that just makes them naive. Well, more naive than they already are.

Wrong. The Israelis promise to take any aid allowed by Israel into Gaza - not whatever aid anyone else thinks the Gazans might need, like cement. There is a huge difference, and it is infact the crux of this debate - if the aid was all stuff Israel didn't object to the Gazans having, there wouldn't have been a flotilla in the first place!

I'm willing to bet that this was a point of contention for the aid workers. They probably figured that either a) going through Tel Aviv would mean the aid would be delayed when the people of Gaza needed the aid "now" or b) what Israel considers to be aid excluded several items that the aid workers were either carrying exclusively (because they felt it was un-humanitarian to exclude it) or as a part of a wider aid package.

 

[Danoff]

Neither the view that either Israel has no right to exist or that Gaza belongs to Israel is anything like reality, atleast outside of the conflict zone anyway. The option that Gaza is not Israeli while Israel is a sovereign nation is entirely realistic and possible. Obviously, it wouldn't spell an end to the conflict, but it would be a good start.

...but since that hasn't happened, it doesn't change the fact that it isn't an option right for how to view this conflict right this very second. Until such an agreement is reached, either Israel owns Gaza, or Israel owns nothing.

Therein lies the problem - what Israel considers aid, and what Israel considers humane treatment of Gazan civilians is hugely at odds with what many others think. Given that the legality of the blockade hinges upon the effect of the blockade on the civilian population, it stands to reason that Israel believe the blockade to be legal when others would not.

This is a separate argument. Whether or not the blockade is humane I think has little to do with whether or not Israel has the right to police ships who have declared that they will enter their waters - and have the right to use force against those ships if they refuse to submit to such searches. A blockade and search of foreign goods being transported into your own lands is legitimate - and the use of force against those who would not submit to that search and attempt to run the blockade is also legitimate. If you think Israel is not treating their citizens (the Gazans) humanely, that's another - larger issue which cannot rest on the existence of a naval blockade alone. When it comes to imports, that falls under the jurisdiction of that nation's government.

I maintain my position that stopping, searching, and refusing (by force if necessary) a foreign shipment into a nation is a legitimate function of that nation's government (from an international perspective).

I don't see how whether or not the international community considers the blockade to be legal or not is a factor here. Israel believes it is, and they will enforce it. Would they really listen if an aid ship breached their lines with a radio call of "You can't do this because it's illegal; you have to let us through!"? I doubt it. If the aid ships thought this would be enough to see them safely through, that just makes them naive. Well, more naive than they already are

I didn't say "legal".

 

[magburner]

Some Israelis, are hypocrites and animals!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I didn't say "legal".

Legit or legal, it makes no difference with my point: Israel believes they are right in blockading Gaza and will respond in kind to any any attempt to breach that blockade. Trying to call the Israeli bluff would have protected the fleet of aid ships from being intercepted and boarded by the navy about as well as wet paper towel would.

 

[Danoff]

Some Israelis, are hypocrites and animals!

The same could be said of the British. Also of Americans, Palestinians... just about any category of people you choose to list.

Legit or legal, it makes no difference with my point: Israel believes they are right in blockading Gaza and will respond in kind to any any attempt to breach that blockade. Trying to call the Israeli bluff would have protected the fleet of aid ships from being intercepted and boarded by the navy about as well as wet paper towel would.

I would like to think that they would not have created the blockade in the first place if it were not legit.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I would like to think that they would not have created the blockade in the first place if it were not legit.

Oh, I feel the same way.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

Why hasn't the global community ALREADY imposed sanctions on Israel or given consequences to Israel? They've committed numerous war crimes (white sulfur bombs) and have been building illegal settlements for YEARS, Why don't the superpowers global community do anything? Turkey has terminated army practices with them for a while now.. but the big nations don't do crap!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why hasn't the global community ALREADY imposed sanctions on Israel or given consequences to Israel? They've committed numerous war crimes (white sulfur bombs) and have been building illegal settlements for YEARS, Why don't the superpowers global community do anything? Turkey has terminated army practices with them for a while now.. but the big nations don't do crap!

Because those sanctions would most likely lead to Israel's destruction. Israel is not a rogue nation like North Korea; you cannot hit it and expect it to fall in line. If you hit Israel, Israel will hit back. They are a nation in a constant state of war; all of Israel's neighbours endorse the eradication of the Jewish state. If Israel were to lose the support of the global community or be shackled with trade sanctions, other nations - like Iran - would immediately take the opportunity to attack. Israel does not rely on the global community for its survival, but to lose the support of said community would certainly weaken them. Perhaps not by much, but enough to encourage opportunits like Tehran into action. Ignoring one crime prevents another, greater one from being committed.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

Because those sanctions would most likely lead to Israel's destruction. Israel is not a rogue nation like North Korea; you cannot hit it and expect it to fall in line. If you hit Israel, Israel will hit back. They are a nation in a constant state of war; all of Israel's neighbours endorse the eradication of the Jewish state. If Israel were to lose the support of the global community or be shackled with trade sanctions, other nations - like Iran - would immediately take the opportunity to attack. Israel does not rely on the global community for its survival, but to lose the support of said community would certainly weaken them. Perhaps not by much, but enough to encourage opportunits like Tehran into action. Ignoring one crime prevents another, greater one from being committed.

Well, Israel must be punished for their crimes. Just because their existence is in threat doesnt mean that they can do any crimes they want.
Also, why doesn't Britain do something? They're the people who caused this Palestinian VS Israelis conflict. If they had separated the two states properly instead of bailing ou and failing, the wars would not have happened,

 

[niky]

Yup.

Israel is not a rogue nation threatening to rain death-bombs on the rest of the world or anyone who doesn't agree with them. They're an isolated nation surrounded by states which have repeatedly stated the wish to see them destroyed.

The main sticking point has always been the Gaza strip... but Israel did not set out to capture it in the Six Day war... and they have given administrative control over it back the the Palestinian people. The area remains a hotspot because certain radicalist groups want to keep the populace there in turmoil. It's the splinter in the Israeli thumb that the radicals use to point out to the rest of the world that Israel shouldn't be there. And I can't help thinking that some of the hawks in Tel Aviv view it as a way of convincing the populace that they should be left in power.

Most people in the area, Israel and Palestinian alike, would like nothing more than to have peace. But as long as power brokers on both sides play this out, that's not going to happen.

think Liz McQueen pointed out that you do not 'punish' or 'persecute' an entire people for the actions of a radical few.

I'll agree with that, but there's a problem:

Imagine a neighborhood with an active 'gang' of criminals; would you wall off the entire neighborhood and reduce food, medicine available to the neighborhood to deal with the gang?

And what if that gang (Hamas) was elected as formal government of said neighborhood (Gaza) by the very people inhabiting that neighborhood?

That Hamas "gang" is now a government. And unlike the PLO, they haven't changed and started making concessions to Israel... Hamas, instead, remains a radical group... whose party line is death to all Jews, or the like.

Now... you have a government whose stated intent is your destruction, and which supports terrorist attacks on your population... do you just sit back and let them do this? Or do you invade their country and wipe the organization off the map?

In Israel's case... since Hamas uses the Palestinian population as a human shield and hides behind their legitimacy... you impose a blockade.

Now, this doesn't cover the controversy over the creation of Israel itself in modern times (and the Ottoman Empire was hardly modern...)... or the wars in which Israel annexed the West Bank (when Egypt blockaded Israel and kindly lined up its entire army on the border for Israeli pilots to shoot at... after Israel demolished the Egyptian air force... and Jordan and Syria tried pinch the Israelis in the bum on the other end...)

Some Israelis, are hypocrites and animals!

Some Israelis are hypocrites, maybe... are we talking politicians? But last I looked, all humans are classified as animals. Except those who are vegetables.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Well, Israel must be punished for their crimes.

Then what, exactly, do you propose? How will you punish Israel without inviting other nations to attack it for the sole reason that it exists?

Just because their existence is in threat doesnt mean that they can do any crimes they want.

No, it doesn't. But as has been proven time and again, we don't exist in a perfect world. There is no way to prosecute Israel without leaving it open and exposed. And we're not talking about some tiny little border skirmish between the Israelis and Iran or whoever - although they do not admit it, Israel is known to possess nuclear weapons. There is also the specualtion that they possess the entire unholy trinity and have chemical and bilogcal weapons stockpiled. Any full-scale war between Israel and her neighbours will inevitably see the use of those weapons.

One day, Israel will have to face up to its actions. But until then, it is better to do nothing but wait.

Also, why doesn't Britain do something? They're the people who caused this Palestinian VS Israelis conflict. If they had separated the two states properly instead of bailing ou and failing, the wars would not have happened,

Actually, that's not even close. The creation of the Israeli state was just one event in a very bitter history that can be traced as far back to the Crusades.

 

[hellnback]

News tonight said a second boat is a coming and gonna try the same thing...

*Ding Ding* - round two

Can't say they haven't been warned... (or aren't aware of what could happen)

 

[bullie77]

And I'll ask how many years will the above be used as the reason to prolong conflict?

And will the affected religions ever forgive themselves and each other for the hurt inflicted?

You think it is a void argument?! So what would you suggest? To Israel sit and negotiate with who wants above all their destruction? What's there to negotiate?!

I think it is reasonable to expect at least that Palestinians recognize the right to exist of the Israeli state before sitting on the table, don't you?

Ok, after having a chance to research this a little bit, I've come to the conclusion that the blockade is legit, that Israel's actions are legit, and that this was clearly designed to provoke a conflict rather than getting aid to the residents of Gaza.

I think that is pretty much clear. Historically, AFAIR, only once Israel didn't retaliate to a attack/provocation: on the first Gulf War when some Israeli cities were hitted by Saddam's SCUD missiles. I remember a gigantic effort from the US in trying to avoid the entry of the Israeli armed forces in the conflict.

Here's my rationale.

As best I can tell, you have two choices - you can either take the hardline palestinian view that Israel is not legit and therefore is not a nation with any authority of any kind, or you can take the view that Gaza is Israeli territory. I don't see any wiggle room on that, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Gaza was territory gained during military conflict over Israel's existence. So either Gaza is Israeli, or nothing is Israeli.

Does Israel have the right to blockade foreign supplies coming into its own territory? Yes. And they weren't blockading all supplies. The Israeli military had advertised willingness to take any aid brought to Gazans into Gaza itself. So there isn't even a humanitarian argument. If this transport had been about getting aid into Gaza, they'd have turned over their supplies to Israeli troops so that they could transport the aid into their territory. The ship happened to be carrying contraband, though, so I can see why they didn't want to do that.

I need confirmation on what I am going to say but I'm pretty much convinced that Israel do not claim the Gaza Strip and Transjordan as Israeli territory. The do acknowledge their status of foreign land although under Israeli occupation due to national security reasons. I know such a status isn't "legal" under international rights laws but, when were talking about national security, Israel doesn't care much about them anyway - and pardon me my provocation, on that department they pretty much do and act as the US (Patriot Act, not acknowledging the authority of the International Penal Court in Den Haag, etc.)

The obvious alternative to the two choices you highlight is the view held by most countries, including Israel's staunchest allies (the US), that the only viable future for the region is the two-state solution, which would afford both Israel and an independent Palestine sovereign status - regardless of what they might think of the idea themselves.

Agreed about being the most viable way out of it. However, again, two fulcral questions raise from this:

1) This solution isn't possible when one party (Palestinians) does not aknowledge the right of existance of the other (Israel);

2) The status of Jerusalem, that both claimed with similar arguments.

Why hasn't the global community ALREADY imposed sanctions on Israel or given consequences to Israel? They've committed numerous war crimes (white sulfur bombs) and have been building illegal settlements for YEARS, Why don't the superpowers global community do anything? Turkey has terminated army practices with them for a while now.. but the big nations don't do crap!

Sure... but answer me this:

Why not the global community already imposed sanctions or given consequences to Palestinian authority for their terrorist actions?

Why not the global community already imposed sanctions or given consequences to Turkey for their repression on the curdish people?

Why not the global community already imposed sanctions or given consequences to US for the outrageous violations of civil rights of foreigners in their countries under suspicions of terrorist activities?

Shall I continue?...

Well, Israel must be punished for their crimes. Just because their existence is in threat doesnt mean that they can do any crimes they want.

No it means that because of their existence is threatened they SHOULD do whatever is necessary to avoid that destruction. Its called self-defense. And self-defense can mean to attack first prevently if cleared that the objective of the other party is to attack you at first opportunity.

More or less the same argument George W. Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq, only in the Israeli case there's clearly, the basis to justify and support that theory. (Sorry again my north-american friends, isn't anything personal against you).

 

[Famine]

They've committed numerous war crimes (white sulfur bombs)

White phosphorus.

Also, why doesn't Britain do something? They're the people who caused this Palestinian VS Israelis conflict. If they had separated the two states properly instead of bailing ou and failing, the wars would not have happened,

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaah. Britain caused a centuries-old conflict by not creating Israel 62 years ago.

Incidentally, I've seen a lot of the coverage and videos and I can't make out where there were ships that were stormed. Reports say that 5 of the 6 ships were towed to Ashdod and inspected without incident. The 6th refused, said that force would be required and attacked the IDF soldiers as they boarded (an Israeli spokesman said that some IDF soldiers were shot with their own guns before they fired - the veracity of this notwithstanding, I think defending yourself against people attacking you with knives and iron bars is just fine). When finally towed to Ashdod, the ship contained munitions, including molotov cocktails.

So "Israelis storm aid ships" is a little misleading. One ship from six was "stormed" after refusing to comply with blockade conditions and it wasn't carrying aid.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

Well actually what happened was that when there was the British Mandate of Palestine, the Jews and Palestinians were all in the mandate. But, when Britain wanted to leave, they wanted to make the city of Jerusalem shared. But, both sides didn't agree and Britain decided to give up and leave the area without finding other solutions.