Today I'm angry about.....

[William the White]

^^^

The first British returnee complains that he was robbed of all his personal possessions...

The Palestinians complain they have been robbed of their homeland...

[William the White]

I'm getting angry about this thread being hijacked by things which should be on the politics thread !

QED

Good point, but it's looking like it may have run its course... PB, having sustained it for quite a while, now considers it sterile so it will probably go away...

If not, i agree, to the pol thread it should go...

[thebish]

The question of whether this was, in any meaningful sense, 'piracy', is simple, however. It's simple because there is not a single legal, or even plain dictionary definition of the word that can be held up as fitting the events that occurred on Monday. Not sure how I can be more plain than that.

really? can I supply you with some then?

Piracy:

Hijacking on the high seas or in similar contexts; taking a ship or plane away from the control of those who are legally entitled to it.

Pirate - commandeer: take arbitrarily or by force.

Piracy is defined by Roget's dictionary as 'robbery or illegal violence at sea'.


There are many, many more that say the same and add the condition that it is an act by a "private" (ie non-state) entity....

however - to deny the description "Piracy" to something that describes Pirate-like activity on the grounds that a strict legal definition might include a non-state condition - is mere sophistry. it is perfectly valid to describe someone (or some state) that acts like a pirate as a pirate.

(nor - contrary to your belief and Tango's - do ALL definitions of piracy include robbery. as you can see above - some allow merely for "illegal violence at sea")

I hope that is helpful.


Incidentally... the International Maritime Bureau defines Piracy as:

the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act.


(that seems to cover Israel's action quite comprehensively)

Which dictionaries are those first two offerings from? Even the Roget's one you mention mentions 'robbery' first and 'illegal' violence second - if the soldiers are shown to have reacted to being attacked with disproportionate force, then I suppose I have to concede that the incident fits within the possible definition you have found of 'illegal violence at sea'. But then I suppose I could be accused of 'piracy' if I hopped onto somebody's dingy and gave them a slap, according to that definition?

To say that a state cannot commit 'piracy' in international law is not sophistry, it's just a bare statement of the legal position. (Underpinning that legal position is probably the idea that piracy has to involve some kind of attempt to make private gain.) Your definition from the IMB mentions an 'intent' to commit a crime - what crime is it you think those soldiers undertook that operation intending to commit?

But none of this sterile debate really matters - if you think 'piracy' is the appropriate word to describe a botched inspection by a state military force that got ugly, then who am I stop you - you, like Humpty Dumpty talking to Alice, can use words to mean whatever you want them to mean.

the first is from Wordnet hosted by Princeton University

the second is the wikipedia entry for piracy

and you quibble with the third for some blustery reason about the ordering of the words - the word "OR" is, I think, the pertinent one in this case - that generally means more than one possibility - in this case, either robbery (as per your understanding) OR illegal violence (a second possibility). the fact that one clause follows another in a list does not mean that you can ignore those lower down the list.

they were responses to your (quite bold) statement that (and I quote you exactly): "there is not a single legal, or even plain dictionary definition of the word that can be held up as fitting the events that occurred on Monday"

I was merely pointing out that your confident claim was, in fact, wrong.


if you jumped onboard somebody else's dinghy and shot dead ten of the occupants when they protested your presence - then, yes - I'd define you as a pirate by that definition - the definition you said did not exist.

are you alice and me humpty? in which case - who is william?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

the first is from Wordnet hosted by Princeton University

the second is the wikipedia entry for piracy

and you quibble with the third for some blustery reason about the ordering of the words - the word "OR" is, I think, the pertinent one in this case - that generally means more than one possibility - in this case, either robbery (as per your understanding) OR illegal violence (a second possibility). the fact that one clause follows another in a list does not mean that you can ignore those lower down the list.

they were responses to your (quite bold) statement that (and I quote you exactly): "there is not a single legal, or even plain dictionary definition of the word that can be held up as fitting the events that occurred on Monday"

I was merely pointing out that your confident claim was, in fact, wrong.

Wikipedia or Princeton Wordnet... not exactly what I would call dictionaries but hey ho. I suppose the Roget does it (not doubting you, but I'd be interested in the link to that Roget definition), but only by way of a definition so ludicrously broad as to include me and my minor bodily harm on a dinghy, but there you go.

So yep, well done - I don't think you've directed me to a mainstream academic source (although I admit that would be moving the goalposts to insist on that) like the OED or Webster's, but it's a fair cop in that you have found one (and that's only if the Israeli actions turn out to be illegal, by the way - which is not obvious, as has already been discussed).

[William the White]

So, nice for a simple question to get a simple answer we can all agree on... However complex the process was to get there...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So, nice for a simple question to get a simple answer we can all agree on... However complex the process was to get there...

I still believe it was a fairly simple question - I should have just said that no authoritative dictionary definition (OED, Merriam-Webster) or legal definition fits, but ah *sigh*. Never mind.

[William the White]

So, nice for a simple question to get a simple answer we can all agree on... However complex the process was to get there...

I still believe it was a fairly simple question - I should have just said that no authoritative dictionary definition (OED, Merriam-Webster) or legal definition fits, but ah *sigh*. Never mind.

I do think you were right earlier - it had got into a pretty sterile polemic, tho, of ourse, I'm glad the bish 'won' it... The important thing for me is not about legal definitions or even international law but, in a broader sense, justice. I know you'll agree that is a wider concept than 'law' - given that vile laws are made by vile regimes all the time... And even by benign ones...

I would be interested, in a non-polemical way, simply as an exchange of views, to know why you find it so difficult to see any justice in the palestinian cause. This puzzles me, because it seems so clear to me that Israel has been a militant aggressive power from Deir Yassin to Gaza... This country of settlers, and then occupiers, want to be the whites, and the Palestinians to be the Indians in the reservation... For me it's an act of barely credible generosity, and, in truth, realpoilitik, that the PLO now countenances a two state solution...

You may not be interested in having this discussion, but, if you are, I suggest we move it to the politics thread, or even PM... The invitations there - if you don't want to take it up, that's fine...

[thebish]

So, nice for a simple question to get a simple answer we can all agree on... However complex the process was to get there...

I still believe it was a fairly simple question - I should have just said that no authoritative dictionary definition (OED, Merriam-Webster) or legal definition fits, but ah *sigh*. Never mind.

the piracy definition issue was a side-issue - and in the grand scheme of things, unimportant (Israel will lose no sleep over the piracy name-calling, they have been called far worse and will be called far worse in the future.)

however - to be fair - it was you who focussed the issue down onto the definition of piracy.

(and I did also offer you the definition of the International Maritime Bureau, whose authority you seem to have overlooked)

Having said all that - I don't personally give a stuff if Israel ARE legally defined as pirates. It may be a bit mean - but I have been known to call Rooney "shrek" because he had a bit of the shrek about him... Likewise with Israel and pirates...

I'd be quite happy - in response to your objections - to cease calling Israel pirates - and maybe substitute the phrase "acting like pirates".


But - the heart of this matter is much more interesting than any pugwashology...

Israel/Palestine is one of those (fairly common) issues that inspires people to take sides - and in doing so to suddenly fail to be able to see any legitimacy in the claims of the side they have not taken.

I am probably as guilty of that as anyone - and maybe (being guilty of it myself) I am very quick to spot it in somebody else.

you seemed very quick to justify Israel's actions on the very same grounds that you would then deny the palestinians.

here's one central one..

Israel is said to have the RIGHT to self defence - and thus have the RIGHT to be armed to the teeth and possess nukes.

yet.... it seems the Palestinians have no such right - the main point of this blockade is to deny them a route for bringing in weapons (and to prevent them rebuilding and keep them poor and half-starved if you take a less charitable view).


you may say the Palestinians misuse their weapons.... BUT Israel kills quantatively more (thousands) and proportionately more civilians with their weapons than the palestinians do with theirs.


why do Israel have a right to weapons (self defence) and not Palestine?


there are also most likely holes in the logic that controls my taking of the palestinian side (to put it crudely) - and I would be quite happy to be challenged on that - in fact, as William says - it would make for a very interesting discussion if we could buck the trend of similar discussions in other places where people simply yell at each other and call each other names.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So, nice for a simple question to get a simple answer we can all agree on... However complex the process was to get there...

I still believe it was a fairly simple question - I should have just said that no authoritative dictionary definition (OED, Merriam-Webster) or legal definition fits, but ah *sigh*. Never mind.

I do think you were right earlier - it had got into a pretty sterile polemic, tho, of ourse, I'm glad the bish 'won' it... The important thing for me is not about legal definitions or even international law but, in a broader sense, justice. I know you'll agree that is a wider concept than 'law' - given that vile laws are made by vile regimes all the time... And even by benign ones...

I would be interested, in a non-polemical way, simply as an exchange of views, to know why you find it so difficult to see any justice in the palestinian cause. This puzzles me, because it seems so clear to me that Israel has been a militant aggressive power from Deir Yassin to Gaza... This country of settlers, and then occupiers, want to be the whites, and the Palestinians to be the Indians in the reservation... For me it's an act of barely credible generosity, and, in truth, realpoilitik, that the PLO now countenances a two state solution...

You may not be interested in having this discussion, but, if you are, I suggest we move it to the politics thread, or even PM... The invitations there - if you don't want to take it up, that's fine...

Well I guess you're as entitled to see that as a 'win' for Bish as you were to misuse language in the first place.

I have deliberately restricted my comments to the botched flotilla inspection, because I don't know enough about the history of the formation of Israel to have any useful views on either side's long term cause. You seem incapable of discussing one without the other, which I suppose is understandable if you are lucky enough to have formed a strong view. In the past you have felt the need to lecture me on antisemitism in European history, despite the fact that I have myself stood in the gas chambers at Auschwitz and had the hairs stand up on the back of neck at the horror of reality of what took place there. All I'm saying is that the last people who vowed to wipe Jews off the map had a bloody good go at it, and I feel, ignorant as I am, as though I understand the Israeli cause slightly more than the Palestinian one.

Anyway, I always kick back when I think the majority exaggerates or goes over the top about anything, which is what I saw happening in the reaction to events on Monday.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

(and I did also offer you the definition of the International Maritime Bureau, whose authority you seem to have overlooked)

I'm sorry, in the context of that discussion - does the IMB have any authority as an arbiter of either the English language, or on the law of the sea?

you seemed very quick to justify Israel's actions on the very same grounds that you would then deny the palestinians.

Where did I do this? Where have I denied the rights of the Palestinians?

[Worthy4England]

All seems a bit bizarre to me. Without justifying either side.

If I hold all the aces, I'll do anything I can to stop someone else getting any of them.

What are we suggesting Israel should do? Offer to make it a fair fight?

Strikes me as a bit cloud cukoo...

[Lord Kangana]

So, nice for a simple question to get a simple answer we can all agree on... However complex the process was to get there...

I still believe it was a fairly simple question - I should have just said that no authoritative dictionary definition (OED, Merriam-Webster) or legal definition fits, but ah *sigh*. Never mind.

I do think you were right earlier - it had got into a pretty sterile polemic, tho, of ourse, I'm glad the bish 'won' it... The important thing for me is not about legal definitions or even international law but, in a broader sense, justice. I know you'll agree that is a wider concept than 'law' - given that vile laws are made by vile regimes all the time... And even by benign ones...

I would be interested, in a non-polemical way, simply as an exchange of views, to know why you find it so difficult to see any justice in the palestinian cause. This puzzles me, because it seems so clear to me that Israel has been a militant aggressive power from Deir Yassin to Gaza... This country of settlers, and then occupiers, want to be the whites, and the Palestinians to be the Indians in the reservation... For me it's an act of barely credible generosity, and, in truth, realpoilitik, that the PLO now countenances a two state solution...

You may not be interested in having this discussion, but, if you are, I suggest we move it to the politics thread, or even PM... The invitations there - if you don't want to take it up, that's fine...

Well I guess you're as entitled to see that as a 'win' for Bish as you were to misuse language in the first place.

I have deliberately restricted my comments to the botched flotilla inspection, because I don't know enough about the history of the formation of Israel to have any useful views on either side's long term cause. You seem incapable of discussing one without the other, which I suppose is understandable if you are lucky enough to have formed a strong view. In the past you have felt the need to lecture me on antisemitism in European history, despite the fact that I have myself stood in the gas chambers at Auschwitz and had the hairs stand up on the back of neck at the horror of reality of what took place there. All I'm saying is that the last people who vowed to wipe Jews off the map had a bloody good go at it, and I feel, ignorant as I am, as though I understand the Israeli cause slightly more than the Palestinian one.

Anyway, I always kick back when I think the majority exaggerates or goes over the top about anything, which is what I saw happening in the reaction to events on Monday.

As a very quick response to this, I'm with Ghandi, an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. Explaining one isn't justification enough for the other, else Hitler was right. And he used the Armenian massacres as his template, so the Turks have nowt to be high and mighty about either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_a ... estine_War

[bobo the clown]

As a very quick response to this, I'm with Ghandi, an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.

This'll be the "let me sleep with my 9yr old neice and if my followers don't mind me sleeping with their daughters, but only if they are under 13yrs old, that'd be most acceptable." Ghandi, I assume ?

You know, the one who 'fought' for independence for India, regardless of the fact that this was bound lead to massacres and displacement of millions upon millions of muslims and Hindu's who happened to be in the wrong place at the time & the inevitable violent creation of Pakistan ? The obvious outcome then being Britains' fault, of course.

Way to go, Mohandas.

Nice guy. Always good for a quote though.

[Lord Kangana]

I don't suppose you've ever considered the idea that independence wouldn't have lead to massacres if, and I'm grasping here, they were independent in the first place?

[thebish]

(and I did also offer you the definition of the International Maritime Bureau, whose authority you seem to have overlooked)

I'm sorry, in the context of that discussion - does the IMB have any authority as an arbiter of either the English language, or on the law of the sea?

The IMB is a specialised division of the International Chamber Of Commerce (ICC). The IMB is a non-profit making organisation, established in 1981 to act as a focal point in the fight against all types of maritime crime and malpractice.

so - I thought that their definition might carry some weight.

it's your right to dismiss it - I was only supplying some examples of something you said didn't exist.

I take it, then, that you don't wish to engage in a debate on the wider issues - in which case I shall consider the pugwashery to be parked in the sterile bin.

[bobo the clown]

I don't suppose you've ever considered the idea that independence wouldn't have lead to massacres if, and I'm grasping here, they were independent in the first place?

yep ... but they weren't.

You can't wish facts away.

[thebish]

I don't suppose you've ever considered the idea that independence wouldn't have lead to massacres if, and I'm grasping here, they were independent in the first place?

yep ... but they weren't.

You can't wish facts away.

I'm angry about people like bobo who just use the "angry" thread to debate international politics!!

[Lord Kangana]

I don't suppose you've ever considered the idea that independence wouldn't have lead to massacres if, and I'm grasping here, they were independent in the first place?

yep ... but they weren't.

You can't wish facts away.

Well quite. So your solution would have been?

[bobo the clown]

I don't suppose you've ever considered the idea that independence wouldn't have lead to massacres if, and I'm grasping here, they were independent in the first place?

yep ... but they weren't.

You can't wish facts away.

Well quite. So your solution would have been?

I have no idea.

However, it wouldn't be a one-eyed solution with no view of the second & third phases of it & with a 'hang the consequences' attitude, as arranged by a raging paedophile who's solution could only have benefited one side of the 'new nation'.

[bobo the clown]

I don't suppose you've ever considered the idea that independence wouldn't have lead to massacres if, and I'm grasping here, they were independent in the first place?

yep ... but they weren't.

You can't wish facts away.

I'm angry about people like bobo who just use the "angry" thread to debate international politics!!

A very fair point Vicar and I shall stop immediately.

Mea Culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.