shades of grey.

there's that expression where it's said that-

there are two topics which should not be discussed between friends/acquaintances; religion, politics.

and the worst topic is; religion AND politics, combined.

i made that mistake, two days ago.

it's a co-incidence.

a few days after i begin to research on to the situation in israel and palestine, a day or two after this post, the infamous Gaza flotilla raid occurred.

after watching a few videos and reading articles on the beloved net, one thing is for certain, palestine is one of the most suppressed nations on this planet, and there's not much left of it.

it's sad to think, chances are that palestine will be studied about in textbooks under the title ''the end of a nation''.

three or so days ago, on facebook, i saw that a person i know had joined a group which stated his support for israel. my mistake was to comment on it.

i think back and realise that it was pretty impulsive of me, but it was the heat of the moment, right after i had watched a video and saw children my age and younger being bombed my israeli helicopters, unannounced, in a peace protest.

it filled me with hurt.

this was the result of my actions:

RECENT ACTIVITY

Mark joined the group I SUPPORT ISRAEL. · Comment ·  · Join this Group

Sumaiya Khan 

.. dude.

Tuesday at 7:57pm · 

Ariel  

well obviously

Tuesday at 8:08pm

Sumaiya Khan 

what does that imply?

Tuesday at 8:09pm · 

Ariel

nothing really, i'm just saying that if i were to take a guess whether he was or wasnt supporting israel, he would. I thought it was obvious

Tuesday at 8:51pm

Ariel

sorry if it looks like i implied something

Tuesday at 8:52pm

Sumaiya Khan 

nah it's all good. =]
yeah, it is pretty obvious, but it shouldn't be about religion/race or whatever- but unfortunately it is for alot of people.

Tuesday at 8:54pm · 

Mark  

just as it is for you. which is why im not bothering to argue :)

Tuesday at 8:54pm

Ariel  

yeah, i know, i reckon casual racism is making a comeback, or is it just my school

Tuesday at 8:55pm

Sumaiya Khan 

ariel, you're right.
i don't judge based on religion. i judge based on action and injustice.

Tuesday at 8:56pm · 

Mark

thats a subjective point of you, sumaiya

Tuesday at 8:57pm

Ariel 

i thought it was a very objective view, open minds

Tuesday at 8:58pm

Mark  

as i understand (though i may be wrong) she is saying that israel behaves in an unjust fashion.
that is her point of view.

Tuesday at 9:00pm

Sumaiya Khan 

i wasn't actually referring to israel when i said injustice- i was saying in general.
watch the news mark. have good evening, ariel. =]

Tuesday at 9:01pm · 

Mark

in that case, my mistake.
i watch the news every evening and read it online as well on a regular basis. but thanks :)

Tuesday at 9:02pm

Ariel  

oh, i just got wat Mark was saying, yeah i can see how he took that differently, i got wat u said the first time tough Sumaiya. In general yeah, open minds

Tuesday at 9:02pm

Simon  

Israel has been under oppression from like just about every country throughout its history, and nobody does anything, it's about time they reacted.

Yesterday at 6:26pm

Sumaiya Khan 

react by stopping medical aid and food entering palestine?

Yesterday at 6:27pm · 

Ariel

They have reacted, their methods and results have been questionable to say the least. Either way, the whole middle-east is simply a displaced cluster-fuck of intolerant douches and overly religious zealots.

Yesterday at 6:31pm

Simon 

you do realise it's all propaganda, that aid supports hamas militants who barrage israel with rocket attacks, is that what you're trying to justify? and does it matter that they intercepted them on international waters, they never would have stopped? should they have just let them pass? invade their homeland? like the romans did? like the british did? modern israel has been invaded 5 times since 1948 by arab nations, do you think they dont have a right to defend their homeland, do you know how up in arms Australia would be if anyone tried to do anything like that? just like we need to defend our home country, they need to defend theirs, they have been living there for 3000 years can you compare that to a country who;s culture only has 200 years of development? and you would think if the government supporting hamas militants in palestine didnt use all their resources to buy weapons and maintain the rocket attacks on israel they wouldnt need aid. please read your history books and know the context of the situation before you try to comment with your propaganda washed views.

Yesterday at 6:49pm

Ariel

who you talking to here?

Yesterday at 7:09pm

Simon  

sumaiya, at least you seem to know why they reacted not just oh they stopped aid omg theyre so bad

Yesterday at 7:10pm

Sumaiya Khan 

i have done my research, and i'm studying this for school atm for my task before the attacks, which disproves the fact that i have propaganda views. i personally have nothing against israel- so you're saying that after seeing the slaughter of 19 peace protesters, and the constant bombing of palestine, and the shooting of ships carrying MEDICAL AID, and commenting that it's wrong then i'm seen as antisemetic and my views are propaganda inflicted?
the state of israel was founded in 1948- after world war two.
and you talk about history books- many of them have subjective views and are filled with propaganda.
my point is that killing innocent people for the ''just in case'' is heaving injustified.- in waters which were not even israeli.
nothing against israel or it's people- just against the israeli defence force.
and you do realise that israel controls everything which reaches the palestine. 80 percent of the popluation have anemia and other conditions and over 45 percent unemployed. Palestine is one of the most heavily oppressed countries in the world.
if they had a problem with the ships, they would have acted in a manner which didn't involve the killing the activitists and asked to look- not pull a surprise attack.
that act was wrong. that's my point.
so please, don't fucking give me a history lecture.
instead of looking at the history, focus on the present.
and the present is -PALESTINE IS BEING OPPRESSED.
and they're dying out.
and don't comment back. checking is not wrong, the WAY they did it -was.

Yesterday at 7:11pm · 

Ariel  

the whole topic is covered in shades of grey. i cant justify any sides actions and i dont believe they can either

Yesterday at 7:12pm

Sumaiya Khan 

thank you. the ACT was wrong. that's my whole point.
it's very controversial, so i cbf commenting on it further.

Yesterday at 7:13pm · 

Stas  

@simon:

true. i was talking to a relative back there. and there are rockets attacks nearly every day. like its dangerous to walk outside cos you never know what will happen. 

so fair enough they reacted. like no countries are helping them and their situation aint getting any better.

Yesterday at 7:14pm

Sumaiya Khan 

the same for palestine, stas.

Yesterday at 7:15pm · 

Ariel

Mark, we're sorry for raping your Facebook page.

Yesterday at 7:16pm

Sumaiya Khan 

haha yeah, sorry mark!

Yesterday at 7:16pm · 

Simon 

so you're saying it;s justified that they should be allowed to enter Israeli waters? the state of israel was founded in 1948 to gain some sort of control over their people, their country, not let foreigners trample all over them, so are you saying the bloodshed of israeli civilians is subjective, that it never happened? that no one ever tried to take israeli soil? you do realise hamas uses the most inhumane military techniques? they place thei bases near hospitals and schools because they know israel wont launch airstrikes on them, they place artillery positions in schools and use civilians as human shields? so your saying letting israeli solders be shot at by hamas militants hiding behind civilian shields is the best option? israeli does whatever it can to avoid civilian involvement but its difficult when the enemies tactics is to use civilian involvement and no israel does not control everything that reaches palestine do you think israel controls the smuggling of
guns rockets and antitank rockets into palestine through the help of iran? i dont think so, palestine is in its economic state as it puts all it resources into harassing israel. palestine oppressed? israel was oppressed 3000 years before palestine. so dont give me that shit it was not a suprise attack they were warned and they chose to defy israels warnings.

Yesterday at 7:25pm

Ariel

- they didn't enter israeli waters.
- you cant say that Israel was formed in the 40's and then say that its been opressed for 3000 years.
There are no sides in this conflict. They're fundamentally the same people. It's just a bunch of infighting between pissed off intolerant douchbags who care more about money, land and religion than the welfare of their respective peoples

Yesterday at 7:34pm

Sumaiya Khan 

you're basing everything palestine stands for on the doings of the hamas militants? you're defining palestine as supporters of terrorist organisation?- that's pretty low of you.
and for your info, if you bothered researching on the attacks, you'd know the ship wasn't even in israeli waters, so that's half your argument gone.
honestly simon, i cbf doing this. 
if doing 'whatever they can' they kill off a nation. then alright. kudos to you.

Yesterday at 7:35pm · 

Sumaiya Khan 

what simon meant to say was -the jewish people were oppressed for 3000 years.

Yesterday at 7:36pm · 

Mark  

whoa just came back.
i looked up the law that the israelis have been using to justify their action. its paragraph 67a of the san remo agreement and it says:
"67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;"
i therefore assume that israeli intelligence would have worked out that there is a possibility of their being weapons/contraband/whatever on the ship, and therefore boarded it to check it.
whether the arabs on board or the israeli commandos started firing first, we do not know as yet because the investigation isnt complete, but 5 of the 6 ships did stop and turn around when they were ordered to. only on the last one did shit go down.
under this law, it is my assumption (which of course may be wrong), the israelis had the right to torpedo those ships if they felt like it (there arent any restriction on how to "attack" them, only that they may) so i think that landing some troops on board is not so bad.
but of course, as yet we dont know who started the violence, but i find it extremely difficult to believe that a squad of israelis landed and opened fire on those on board for shits and giggles. especially when they were successful on the other 5 ships where there was not a single casualty or problem.

Yesterday at 7:44pm

Simon

essentially Israel is an embodiment of the Jewish people, yes and yes the Palestinian people, a majority of them have an ingrained sense of prejudice for israel yes, and that is reflected by their government, which does not condemn the actions of the hamas militants, yes thats what im saying, okay if you want to be like that, ill just let you stand for, let just bully israel and get really angry if they react for the next 3000 years because the 3000 before wasnt enough, you would think with our "democratic, and peace minded world-views" no country or person would stand for this, but apparently not

Yesterday at 7:45pm

Ariel  

well we all saw the footage, they dropped in all commando but idk who instigated the violence but i think its more than fair that the ship's passengers defended themselves after an entire squad of soldiers stormed their ship. And i dont think they wer all arabs, there wer like 3 australians on ther and i think they were protesters and aid workers.

Yesterday at 7:49pm

Sumaiya Khan 

ariel- most of the people were activists on the ships.
and foreigners who weren't arab.
mark- ''the israelis had the right to torpedo those ships''-
um no they didn't- it wasn't on israeli waters.
but okay.

simon- that's very narrow minded of you. to base the action of one group on the whole country.

Yesterday at 7:52pm · 

Mark  

they didnt storm. storm implies to land and kill everyone aboard.
they told the ship to stop, the ship didnt stop. so they ordered commandos on to the ship to make a point so that they would get the hint and turn around.
i hardly think that they would have thought it a good idea to rock up and kill everyone for shit and giggles, israel is aware of the horrible press it gets as it is and they dont want more. i find it extremely difficult to believe that they were ordered by their superiors to 'storm'..

Yesterday at 7:52pm

Sumaiya Khan 

alright i'm tired.
just know that this shit is way beyond our comprehension as we don't know the story from both sides. and even history books can't fulfill that knowledge needed.
good night to all.

Yesterday at 7:55pm · 

Ariel

ok, sorry, i havent brushed up on the definition of 'storm' recently. I meant a generally swift militairy advanement. and yes, the ship did antagonise the israelis, but i'm with Sumaiya when she says that ther could've been a much more civil way of dealing with the issue, but i'm not taking any particular side.
And simon, israel is not the embodiment of all jews, more jewish people live in the states than in israel, thats too much of a generalization

Yesterday at 7:56pm

Mark 

it doesnt say in that law that they have to be in israeli waters. as it says, "believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade". i assume that means that it doesnt matter what waters theyre in.
australia actually did the same thing recently too. an autralian war ship intercepted a boatload of pirates off the somalian coast recently and they boarded them, arrested them and had them sent back to somalia. those werent australian waters, those were somalian. but noone seemed to question australia..
obviously its a grey area in the law, because it doesnt say anything about whether the waters have to be international, or belonging to the nation that is running the blockade.
in any case, if a nation were to have a blockade on an enemy nation, it wouldnt be running the blockade on in its own waters. if australia were to hypothetically attack new zealand, we wouldnt run a naval blockade in australian waters, theyd be new zealand's.
thats just how war works..

Yesterday at 7:57pm

Mark 

anyway i have dinner, good discussion :)

Yesterday at 7:58pm

Ariel

nothing to disagree about ther

Yesterday at 7:59pm

** i deleted the surnames as they have a right to their own privacy, and so no one can easily search them up on facebook.

as it can be clearly seen, i listened to my open-minded insticts, and decided not to continue.

sure, you can turn my 'cbf' into giving up and realising that their arguments make sense so much more than mine.

the truth is, it's not. i'm not backing down because i have nothing left to say. i'm backing down because i have SO DAMN MUCH left to say, and if i continue it might get nasty and would continue forever with bitter tension. however, i choose to behave in a civilised manner and leave it.

everyone has the right to their own opinion and it's very unwise to challenge other people's views.

i have a few clear points to state:

i didn't bring religion and bias into it, they did.

just because australia did so, doesn't justify the actions. and the reason why it wasn't heavily publicised was the reason that they didn't ruthlessly slaughter those on board.

alteast one of these fellows can talk to a relative back there in israel.

if i had had a relative in palestine, then i wouldn't be able to comminicate with them, because of the severe oppression.

haha fuck that, if i had had relatives in palestine, they would probably be dead.