Comments:Israeli navy fires on Gazan fishing vessels

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

This is absolute nonsense

Headline is misleading, no mention of warning shots, boundary crossage by "fishing" vessels, etc.

Eh... All these things are mentioned. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Fishing boats or not, they were being used for illicit purposes. That is way too many people for a little fishing boat! RAWRR!


It's a headline. It is not a story. Had it said something like unarmed fishing boats it would have a bias. Nowehre does the headline claim they were wrong to shoot. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 09:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't tell whether some of these complaints are real, or sarcastic Soapy (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

More disgusting oppression of the Palestinians. How can Israel ever hope to end the conflict when the military does things like this? It's baffling. -- (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"[They] violated security boundaries off the coast of the Gaza Strip ... out of the permitted fishing zone," I'm guessing you miss that part of page, and Hamas has a history of using any means to sneak weapons into Gaza like using UN aid.--KDP3 (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Israel can import weapons, but Hamas cannot? Soapy (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you really asking that kind of question? A democratic nation vs a terrorist organization who's goal is to kill every single jew. Jesus Soapy.-- (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
In 2006 Hamas won a democratic election in the Gaza Strip and beat out the Palestinian Authority. Israel and the United States immediately responded by punishing the Gazans for voting the wrong way in a free democratic election and, along with tightening their crippling sanctions, tried to instigate a military coup to overthrow the elected government. Hamas has on numerous occasions reaffirmed its desire for a two-state solution based on the internationally recognized boundaries, something that Israel and the United States to this day refuse to accept. When the June 2008 truce was broken in November after Israel bombed an area of Gaza, Hamas immediately asked to renew the ceasefire, Israel refused and 1,400 Palestinians died including 400 children in the Gaza massacre later that year. This is just one example of too many to count Israeli atrocities in the still occupied Palestinian territories. Soapy (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
How could there be democracy if Hamas execute Fatah party members? Hamas main goal is to kill every single Jew and their actions lead to the death of innocents by hiding in there houses and schools while shooting blindly into Israel. Soapy you should check you'r mind set. Standing with Terrorist is not good for the mind. You are defending a group of people that base them self off the Nazis (who won a election to). And the blockade was put in place when Hamas began preparing for war with a Syrian and Iranian nation dos not want a Israel a democratic Israel nation to exist.-- (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is a vile disgusting organization which will one day be banished from this earth. By controlling what goes in and out of Gaza Israel can weaken Hamas to the point when they dissolve or surrender. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

In the words of Malalai Joya: no nation can donate liberation to another nation. -- (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

EPIC. The last line of the article states that nobody was injured in any of the attacks and this makes top story. Meanwhile, 400,000 people die in Darfur over 6 years, which equals TWO HUNDRED PEOPLE A DAY. Good to know you racist whites care that much more about Arabs than Blacks. 0 white injuries >> 200 black deaths. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Well this is English wikinews, and the U.S and Britain play a major role in the conflict as the main arms suppliers to Israel. Also there has been some serious violence in Palestine, and the issue is the main reason for antagonism in the Arab world against the U.S since 1948. Darfur is tragedy, a very bad one, the only problem is there's just not a whole lot that can be done at this point. One thing which I think is important to note, is that for all the aid that gets sent to these African countries, 10 times as much is paid to the IMF to repay interest on loans that were given for infastructure that was never built. The same would go for the Congo too, although there the West plays a huge role by being home to the multinational corporations that are mainly responsible for the millions of deaths there each year. The only solution to that problem is to end capitalism in my opinion. Soapy (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
End Capitalism? China is the one supporting Sudan and its genocide in Darfur (which is an other reason why I hate the UN inaction). Communist China is to blame for many of the problems in Africa while Iran and Syria is the reasons for anti-democratic terrorism in Iraq. Yes its horrible the US is not doing anything in Africa. But China is pulling all the strings.-- (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
China is not a communist nation by any stretch of the imagination. In fact now that I think about it the U.S is enormously responsible for the atrocities in Darfur. In 1998 the Clinton administration bombed the Al Shifa pharmecutecal plant in Sudan. The Clinton administration claimed it was manufacturing chemical weapons for Saddam Hussein, this turned out to be false. Well I'm sure the U.S didn't care, but Al Shifa was responsible for the manufacture of 50% of the tuberculosis medication for the country and 90% of the malaria medication. This catastrophe resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people, however the much more serious consequences were that the civil war which had abated was restarted by the bombings. This civil war is continuing in the form the crisis that we see in Darfur today. Soapy (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)