Izzies storm aid ship headed for Gaza

[No Limit]

Israel will send nuke armed subs to Iran:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...f-iran-coast-1.293005?localLinksEnabled=false

I wonder if people would be ok if those subs were parted off our coast. Israel is ****ing insane and totally unstable at this point.

 

[Some_God]

The only choice you have at that point is to shoot people, right? Give me a ****ing break.

And holy shit? They were armed with sticks and chairs? jesus ****ing christ, I would hate to be holding a fully automatic m16 while a guy armed with a stick was coming after me.

I wonder what you would do when you see guys running at you carrying these:

And the IDF soldiers were armed with paintball guns, and used their holstered pistols as a last resort.

 

[CptStern]

the IDF soldiers were armed with paintball guns yet suffered no losses. the protestors who were armed with knives and clubs had 10 deaths. those poor soliders armed with little more than a paintball guns (oh almost forgot about the side arms) helpless in a sea of knives, flaming cocktails and inanimate metal rods managed to kill 10 of their attackers while sustaining no losses themselves.

 

[lord_raken]

This whole situation is messed up. I don't know enough about international law or rules of engagement to make a decision on the legality of their actions.... but boarding a humanitarian boat in international waters is a pretty hard move to legally justify.

But Israel has a history of saying "**** you" to rules and human rights. That being said the protesters may have made some bad choices as well.

There is no real way of knowing who is telling the truth in this situation. I wish there would be a independent investigation.

I'm kinda fed up with Israel and the U.S. has turned a blind eye to all of Israel's Bull Shit for too long. YEs they offer a strategic position from which to conduct operations in the middle east but that doesn't mean we should let them get away with this crap.

And stop Railing on the U.S...... but you can rail on our politicians all you want.

 

[Some_God]

the IDF soldiers were armed with paintball guns yet suffered no losses. the protestors who were armed with knives and clubs had 10 deaths. those poor soliders armed with little more than a paintball guns (oh almost forgot about the side arms) helpless in a sea of knives, flaming cocktails and inanimate metal rods managed to kill 10 of their attackers while sustaining no losses themselves.

Maybe they didn't want to wait to get stabbed. :O

 

[Eejit]

Maybe they didn't want to wait to get stabbed. :O

Yeah, and the dead protesters all happened to have an unfortunate allergy to paint.

 

[delusional]

I wonder what you would do when you see guys running at you carrying these:

And the IDF soldiers were armed with paintball guns, and used their holstered pistols as a last resort.

Looks like the IDF just took a trip to the kitchen.

 

[Baserape>]

Did you read the ****ing article, or this thread before posting?
THEY WERE IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS

"Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked."

 

[The Monkey]

The blockade itself is illegal, thus any attempt to break it and supply aid to the oppressed population of Gaza is morally justified. If you were on international waters, and a helicopter had just shot at your ship from a helicopter, whereafter (according to some accounts), one of your friends was killed, I'd think you'd be pretty pissed by the time the soldiers entered the ship. Thus, their resistance is understandable and justified, if not logical from a retrospective point of view. I like to distance myself from most pro-Palestinian groups because of their ties to radical Islam, and Ship to Gaza is no exception, but what the ships were, as far as anyone knows, there to supply humanitarian aid, a noble task by all standards. The Israeli military are murderers, it's a simple as that.

 

[Sparta]

"Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked."

This has already been addressed. They were not breaching a blockade when they were in international waters, and the "law" Israel is using as justification for seizing those vessels in international waters isn't actually a law.

Not to mention, that only applies to merchant vessels, not humanitarian ships which are exempt to that rule you quote.

 

[unozero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkFnNnss490&playnext_from=TL&videos=NNfOzokGll4&feature=sub

 

[T-6000]

I have heard about this incident yesterday, and while I am surprised at the same time I am not surprised. I've seen Israel do this sort of thing for years on the media. From what I am seeing, much of the Mainstream Media in the U.S. is siding with Israel and defending their actions any way they can. Same with many on forums and comments sections whom are either Americans or Israelis. But most Independent and foreign press (From the Middle East and Europe) have been very critical of Israel. Same with alot of posters from international forums (though I had to use a web translator in some cases).

Normally I don't talk politics online, as I have had bad memories of online arguments in regards to politics before in the past. But, for me, Israel has hit a new low and it's hard for me to stay silent about it.

 

[Gargantou]

To be honest, I think media over here(Sweden) is being way too one-sided, they're not adressing the fact that reports have existed for years linking the Turkish aid organization that organized the convoy to Islamic fundamentalist groups, including groups that act as recruitment platforms for suicide bombers in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Note, I'm not defending what Israel did but it becomes hard to take the media seriously when they all go "ISRAEL BAD, CONVOY GOOD!" and fail to make notice of the notable amount of dubious relations the so called aid organization has to terrorist organizations.

 

[Bob_Marley]

No it's not. Like I said, Read something



Israel knew they were coming, this flotilla made their intentions known and clear to the Israelis long before this whole thing started. This is still illegal. On top of that, The San Remo memorandum is not legally binding, therefore it's not law.

and FINALLY, there is actual law (The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea) that can still be enacted as binding because of several international legal precedents, even though Israel hasn't signed the law. More reading:



So even without signing the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea, and with the San Remo memorandum not being a law, Israel is still pretty screwed on this and acted illegally.

Niether has Turkey, which is the state the ship was flagged under, unlike the French ship in this example. UNCotLotS does not apply in this case. Israel is legally blockading Gaza and in the treaties it is signatory to and has ratified, it has satisfied its obligations under international law.

Then you haven't read anything the released protestors have said have you? Did you even bother to read my earlier post? The one that said they were fired upon before the Israelis boarded them?

Warning shots "across the bow" (that is to say, into the ship's path but not at the ship its self) have been the traditional last warning before a boarding action is initiated for hundreds of years. That is likley to be the source of these claims and so irrelevent.

You're right, it doesn't make sense, neither does any of the horrendous rules of engagement I've quoted from numerous other articles I've already posted in this thread. Yet they did it, and the IDF is doing so much harm to Israel that it's beyond me how they can continue to think that in the end they'll be fine. Don't believe me? Maybe believe one of the U.S. protestors

Actually, from an Israeli perspective they make perfect sense. Gaza is a dangerous area, Israel has a small population, limited resources and well (meaning expensively) trained soldiers. Limiting thier own losses comes first. Its not nice, but niether is anyone else in the region.

The IDF, as you articles have shown, do not mess about when it comes to killing people. If they were out for a masaccre there'd be a whole lot more than 9 dead protesters and they wouldn't have bothered with less-lethal weapons at all.

Yeah the whole world is anti-semetic apparently. Israel has never done anything to deserve any criticism. Never mind the apartheid-like conditions in Palestine or the ever-growing expansion of illegal settlements, or the numerous and on-going list of human rights violations it commits on a daily basis to a sovereign people.

Wow, wow, wow. I never said anything about anti-semitism. I simply said that everyone seems to be happy to point the finger at the IDF and ignore the fact that this particular ship was under the control of a radical islamist organisation with links to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Qaeda. Because its not like they'd have any interest in deliberately provoking a violent Isreali response for thier own political ends, is it?

Really. Ask yourself - how does Israel benefit from killing people here? Simple - it doesn't. If it were out to kill people, why would it have used non-lethal force first? It doesn't make any sense.

There are no good guys in this situation, that is the point I am trying to make - this cannot be explained by exclusivly blaming one side or the other.

The real shame of this incident is that when the Rachel Corrie arrives, which is actually staffed by members of the Peace for Gaza movement not the IHH, will probably face a more initially agressive boarding by the IDF with more extensive use of tear gas, paintballs, etc to aviod another situation like this occuring where Israeli forces have no option left to them but to employ lethal force, which was actually quite restrained as according to Israeli SOP they aimed for the protesters legs in order to reduce fatalities (though thankfully they've given up the practice of using sharp-shooters with Ruger 10-22s for crowd control). Which is disapointing as the people on the Rachel Corrie are rather unlikley to react in the same way those aboard the Mavi Marmara. But we shall see.

Then all you have been reading is what the American media have put out about this if you haven't read anything that says they were fired upon first. The G20 Situation is comparable when you look at the size of the comparable crowds and environment. With those kinds of numbers I doubt you'd get much more room between people and protestors in the city as you do.

I do not read the American media. In this case I'm basing my position on what I've read in the British and Israeli media. Additionally, in the G20 situation the police usually don't arrive one by one into the heart of the protesters. As I said, the claim of being fired upon is much more likley to have been warning shots fired accross the bow as a final warning.

The protestors were violent because Israel had already shot at them before boarding, illegally in international waters. Yes, it was a dumb move by the protestors, but Israel started shooting at them and was doing so for five minutes before boarding them. What did they expect would happen?

Well, in five out of six cases what the expected to happen did happen - non violent resistance and a largely peaceful takeover of the vessel. Again, the operation aboard the Mavi Marmara was a complete hash, I've never said it wasn't. The Israelis were clearly unprepared for the kind of violence they ended up facing and so the situation escalted further than it should have, but still the fault is not entirely that of the IDF. They are to blame to a degree, but not exclusivly so.

No but it's still a government agency that's designed to keep out illegal weapons/drugs and anything harmful that shouldn't be coming or going. And I believe the hardest part of putting trust in another nation would be trusting them so much as to give them your weapons. Clearly, Israel could have waited until it was in the the ****ing port, with the passengers still on board to check it. That's what every other customs agency on the planet does.

Arms sales have nothing to do with trust, especially in times of recession. Additionally, customs do not have control over the final destination of the vessel or what it does at sea. Again, this was about breaking the blockade, not delivering the aid.

They couldn't have waited for it to be in the port it was headed for, as it was headed to Gaza (unless you'd like to see Cast Lead 2: Race for the Mavi Marmara to secure the port prior to the arrival of the vessel). Both Israel and Egypt have offered that any aid for Gaza delivered to the relevent port will be guarenteed to get to Gaza. If this were about the delivery of aid they could have gone to Egypt, even if they didn't want to deal with Israel.

Yeah, and the dead protesters all happened to have an unfortunate allergy to paint.

More likely an allergy to a 9mm piece of lead becoming embeded in the body at high velocity. An allergy most people suffer from.

No one is denying that the IDF did use lethal force to deal with the situation, lest of all the IDF its self.

To be honest Israel actually appears to be being surprisingly honest about the whole thing. Normally I would have expected a cashe of Kalshnikovs to have been "found" by this point.

 

[T-6000]

A little more on the situation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf7tl0ozkrQ&feature=player_embedded

http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/56-...on-campaign-against-the-gaza-freedom-flotilla

 

[Sparta]

Niether has Turkey, which is the state the ship was flagged under, unlike the French ship in this example. UNCotLotS does not apply in this case. Israel is legally blockading Gaza and in the treaties it is signatory to and has ratified, it has satisfied its obligations under international law.

Which still isn't legal because Gaza isn't even recognised as it's own state/country, so they don't have the right to blockade it, since there is literally no laws about blockading a state that doesn't exist. Therefore they don't have the right to seize these ships in international waters, even if they were heading to Gaza because of that.

The only thing that says Israel has the explicit right to protecting the seas and borders of Gaza was the Gaza-Jericho agreement from 94, which was a follow-up to the Oslo Accords which Israel declared dead and breached the agreements early last decade, thus is void.

They have literally no legs to stand on about this. The San Remo memorandum excuse doesn't hold up because it's not a law, they broke the Gaza-Jericho agreement therefore Gaza isn't a state and they have no right to blockade it or proclaim ownership over its waters and even if they had signed the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea, that wouldn't protect them because humanitarian ships aren't allowed to be attacked under it.

Warning shots "across the bow" (that is to say, into the ship's path but not at the ship its self) have been the traditional last warning before a boarding action is initiated for hundreds of years. That is likley to be the source of these claims and so irrelevent.

Except there is no mention from Israel what-so-ever of firing shots across their bow as a warning. They've stated the activists were the first to fire shots at them and if that happened, then why aren't the IDF waving around the protestors guns in those hilarious pictures of their so called "weapons"?

They said they stole their pistols and fired shots at them but this contradicts video evidence of the Israelis appearing to shot at them from behind the ship. The bow is the front of the ship. Firing from behind into the back of the ship isn't a warning, it's an attack. And how can the protestors fire from the ship when the IDF have the guns and aren't even on the ship yet?

Actually, from an Israeli perspective they make perfect sense. Gaza is a dangerous area, Israel has a small population, limited resources and well (meaning expensively) trained soldiers.

The same argument could've been made by the Burmese Junta as justification for murdering foreign journalists and its own citizens who happen to record protests. Let's shoot any grandma that walks down the street, one hundred meters and walking away from an IDF soldier. Israel comes first after all. They should be allowed to do this. Children too, don't forget them.

I'm sure Japan also would've thought the same thing about itself in WW2 as they massacred their way across the Pacific. Might want to explain to the Chinese then that they had it coming, like these protestors did.

That is totally reprehensible to attempt to justify the murder of civilians for the good of the state.

The IDF, as you articles have shown, do not mess about when it comes to killing people. If they were out for a masaccre there'd be a whole lot more than 9 dead protesters and they wouldn't have bothered with less-lethal weapons at all.

The articles I linked prove that the IDF trains its soldiers to completely disregard anyone's life that isn't Israeli. Because of that, IDF soldiers often kill Palestinians and protestors with little to no provocation. This incident completely fits into their mold of behaviour. Just because they didn't massacre 600 protestors doesn't mean there weren't a few trigger happy IDF soldiers that ruined shit for everyone.

Wow, wow, wow. I never said anything about anti-semitism. I simply said that everyone seems to be happy to point the finger at the IDF and ignore the fact that this particular ship was under the control of a radical islamist organisation with links to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Qaeda. Because its not like they'd have any interest in deliberately provoking a violent Isreali response for thier own political ends, is it?

What's more likely? An organised international protest being hijacked by unarmed Islamic terrorists to lure Israel into a confrontation (rather than, I don't know, blowing themselves and everybody else up), or trigger happy IDF soldiers shooting civilians?

Honestly, the more I think about it I don't see why it couldn't go either way, but there is nothing about being unruly at a protest that goes hand in hand with islamic terrorism? A protest that has some unruly dickheads is usually considered "a protest" anywhere in the world. I'd hesitate to call it terrorism and I'd say that's a massive stretch to suggest it as such.

Really. Ask yourself - how does Israel benefit from killing people here? Simple - it doesn't. If it were out to kill people, why would it have used non-lethal force first? It doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't make sense to kill dozens of Palestinians for every single Israeli killed, especially when your neighbouring countries already think of you as evil simply because you exist. They're only justifying their hatred.

Brutally killing civilians in an orderly fashion almost daily and then bulldozing their houses to make room for your own people, isn't going to win the hearts and minds of anyone but your own people. Anyone with two functioning brain cells could tell you that but Israel is so fanatically fascist and extreme that they make even Rush Limbaugh blush.

There are no good guys in this situation, that is the point I am trying to make - this cannot be explained by exclusivly blaming one side or the other.

No it can be entirely blamed on Israel. They bought the weapons, they started the fight, they boarded them in international waters illegally when they didn't even have to.

The real shame of this incident is that when the Rachel Corrie arrives, which is actually staffed by members of the Peace for Gaza movement not the IHH, will probably face a more initially agressive boarding by the IDF with more extensive use of tear gas, paintballs, etc to aviod another situation like this occuring where Israeli forces have no option left to them but to employ lethal force, which was actually quite restrained as according to Israeli SOP they aimed for the protesters legs in order to reduce fatalities (though thankfully they've given up the practice of using sharp-shooters with Ruger 10-22s for crowd control). Which is disapointing as the people on the Rachel Corrie are rather unlikley to react in the same way those aboard the Mavi Marmara. But we shall see.

That is just about the only thing we agree on.

Arms sales have nothing to do with trust, especially in times of recession.

Might want to tell that to the USSR during the end of the Cold War. I'm sure they would've loved selling weapons to the U.S. to avoid going under.

Additionally, customs do not have control over the final destination of the vessel or what it does at sea. Again, this was about breaking the blockade, not delivering the aid.

They hadn't broken the blockade yet, at the time the IDF decided to begin this whole operation, the ships captains were actually changing route to avoid breaking the blockade so they could draw this out for longer and bring more attention to it.

And yes, it was just as much about delivering aid as it was about breaking the blockade.

To be honest Israel actually appears to be being surprisingly honest about the whole thing.

Holy living christ, you are brainwashed.

 

[Solaris]

This is certainly a very difficult situation upon which to hold a view.

However, it is pretty hard to see why anyone would have expected a different outcome here. Everyone should know by now that Isreal do not **** around. These were not 'peace protesters' either, it's clear that they were prepared to do everything possible to get to Gaza.

If Isreal's blockade of Gaza is justified, then their actions on that ship are justified however I don't think that is the case.

I'd like to re-itterate my support for the most obvious solution to the whole conflict. Isreal withdraws to the 1968 boundaries, Western forces move into Palestine to help them build a state and protect Isreals security.

 

[Blackthorn]

However, it is pretty hard to see why anyone would have expected a different outcome here. Everyone should know by now that Isreal do not **** around. These were not 'peace protesters' either, it's clear that they were prepared to do everything possible to get to Gaza.

It was naive not to expect this, but I hardly think they were doing everything possible other than sailing their ship towards their destination. Plus, this being the expected response is hardly a defence for Israel. Because you expect someone to commit a crime doesn't excuse it. They were carrying aid, not armaments, and they lacked the means to attack anyone so they were not a threat. What would be the damage if the ship has arrived? Someone gets to rebuild their home, drink clean water or move around. Don't forget they need that aid for damage Israeli forces have caused and continue to do so. The prevention of essential aid reaching a community is a siege designed to cause suffering for the civilian population. People defending such a blockade need to seriously consider what exactly they are defending.

 

[<RJMC>]

my view is that I wont trust in israel

in the latest campaign against gaza at beggining of this year israel keep a media blockade and no reporters could get in

same as this incident where they kept everything secret so yeah they can go whit theyr vertions and such,activist may had attacked the israel soldiers whit knives and such but still I wont be that trusting to israel

btw that curved ancient looking dague is a traditional accesory weared by a tribe of yemenies people,one of the people on the boat was one,they allways carry it like the sikhs

 

[Gargantou]

in the latest campaign against gaza at beggining of this year israel keep a media blockade and no reporters could get in

What people need to realize is that this is not by the choice of Israel as a state, but rather of the IDF as a military.

Heck, even the Jewish Israel lawyers were kept for several days from meeting with their clients(the people aboard the ships who had been arrested and put in confinement.) by the IDF.

Basically, it's common practice for the IDF specifically to put a lid on info relating to their military ops.

The Israeli parliament has even clashed with the IDF multiple times because the IDF has refused to hand them information on various subjects etc.

But I agree, IDF should realize that the media blackout hurts themselves more than others, since it makes it very hard to take the info they release "seriously", since one know that they might very well only be releasing what images they want etc and not show the whole picture.

 

[unozero]

http://networkedblogs.com/4qJfO

 

[T-6000]

I just remembered an unusual incident that happened at the parking lot of Aldi a few years ago. I wasn't with my dad when he went shopping that day, so he had to tell me when he came home. An Israeli man (my dad speculated that he was a student from the nearby college) approached my dad in the parking lot and asked him "Are you an Arab?" He probably thought my dad was an arab since his skin is quite "olivy". My dad answered "No, I'm Greek." The man thought about this for a second and asked "Well should we be enemies?" and my dad said "I don't think so, but if you &^%$ with me I'll break your head in." He then just laughed at my dad and walked off.

 

[Warped]

If I had to chose a side as of lately, it would be of a Pro-Gaza stand point. The people have been abused and neglected and when people are forced to use sticks and stones to fight back with you know its really not fair at all. I still have no clue why we pump billions into Israel when they seem to be doing their own shit right now. We helped them in WW2 and its 2010 now. As a US citizen it baffles me that we continue to help both sides. Pick one or the other and stop bullshitting the world on the issue.

 

[Gargantou]

I'm Pro-Gaza but Anti-Hamas.

 

[Sparta]

I'm Pro-Gaza but Anti-Hamas.

Ditto. Hamas and Fatah are terrible assholes.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Which still isn't legal because Gaza isn't even recognised as it's own state/country, so they don't have the right to blockade it, since there is literally no laws about blockading a state that doesn't exist. Therefore they don't have the right to seize these ships in international waters, even if they were heading to Gaza because of that.

The only thing that says Israel has the explicit right to protecting the seas and borders of Gaza was the Gaza-Jericho agreement from 94, which was a follow-up to the Oslo Accords which Israel declared dead and breached the agreements early last decade, thus is void.

They have literally no legs to stand on about this. The San Remo memorandum excuse doesn't hold up because it's not a law, they broke the Gaza-Jericho agreement therefore Gaza isn't a state and they have no right to blockade it or proclaim ownership over its waters and even if they had signed the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea, that wouldn't protect them because humanitarian ships aren't allowed to be attacked under it.

Well it seems a leading legal expert from Norton Rose would disagree with that position. Link

Except there is no mention from Israel what-so-ever of firing shots across their bow as a warning. They've stated the activists were the first to fire shots at them and if that happened, then why aren't the IDF waving around the protestors guns in those hilarious pictures of their so called "weapons"?

Because they said they were shot with an Isreali pistol, which had been removed from the holster of one of the commandos in the struggle.

They said they stole their pistols and fired shots at them but this contradicts video evidence of the Israelis appearing to shot at them from behind the ship. The bow is the front of the ship. Firing from behind into the back of the ship isn't a warning, it's an attack. And how can the protestors fire from the ship when the IDF have the guns and aren't even on the ship yet?

They said the protesters were the first to use live rounds. Part of the boarding team was deployed via boat. They were probably firing paint rounds or tear gas grenades. When was the video taken, before or after Israeli troops landed via helicopter?

The same argument could've been made by the Burmese Junta as justification for murdering foreign journalists and its own citizens who happen to record protests. Let's shoot any grandma that walks down the street, one hundred meters and walking away from an IDF soldier. Israel comes first after all. They should be allowed to do this. Children too, don't forget them.

Not Israel, the safety of its soldiers. I did not say it was right or justify it, I simply said that it makes sense. Which it does. Your examples in this case are not typical nor are the ROE of the Israeli forces conduting an offensive into hostile territory relevent to those employed during a boarding action.

And the Tatmadaw don't use the safety of its soldiers as justification, they use safety of the state to justify thier brutal repression of "destablizing influences" within Myanmar. Again, not saying its right, but to the minds of the Burmese high command it makes perfect sense. This comparison is irrelevent

I'm sure Japan also would've thought the same thing about itself in WW2 as they massacred their way across the Pacific. Might want to explain to the Chinese then that they had it coming, like these protestors did.

The Chinese civilians typically wern't attempting to breach blockades or beat Japanese soldiers to death. This comparison is, once again, entirely irrelevent.

That is totally reprehensible to attempt to justify the murder of civilians for the good of the state.

In this case the combatants were fired on in self defence for the survival of the troops involved in the boarding action. Thier lives were under threat, until an investigation has been held it cannot be said one way or another if the use of force was disproportionate.

Is it not also reprehensible to justify murder for political aims?

The articles I linked prove that the IDF trains its soldiers to completely disregard anyone's life that isn't Israeli. Because of that, IDF soldiers often kill Palestinians and protestors with little to no provocation. This incident completely fits into their mold of behaviour. Just because they didn't massacre 600 protestors doesn't mean there weren't a few trigger happy IDF soldiers that ruined shit for everyone.

Just because they were on an "aid" ship doesn't mean there wern't islamist extremists among them who were out to provoke a violent action during the inevitable Israeli boarding.

Israel isn't great at playing the media game yet, but they're getting better.

What's more likely? An organised international protest being hijacked by unarmed Islamic terrorists to lure Israel into a confrontation (rather than, I don't know, blowing themselves and everybody else up), or trigger happy IDF soldiers shooting civilians?

I never used the words terrotist or hijack. The Mavi Marmara was under the control of the IHH since before it left port. They are not recognised as a terrotist organistaion (though it is outlawed in Israel due to its ties with terrorist organistations). They do, however, have ties with islamic terrorist organistaions going back many years, and were even found with weapons, explosives and bomb making manuals in thier HQ in 1997 during a police raid (link). This protest is made up of several groups, thats why there wasn't an incredibly violent reaction but passive resistance on 5 of the 6 vessels boarded so far and why the Rachel Corrie won't do it either.

As you said in your previous posts - they were inspected by Turkish Customs before leaving port. That would make getting explosives on board very difficult. Additionally, it doesn't look nearly as good for the cameras. If you're out to discredit a state what supports your position better - provoking a lethal response from a boarding party or blowing up yourself and the boarding party?

These people are not stupid, they know how to play the media game.

Honestly, the more I think about it I don't see why it couldn't go either way, but there is nothing about being unruly at a protest that goes hand in hand with islamic terrorism? A protest that has some unruly dickheads is usually considered "a protest" anywhere in the world. I'd hesitate to call it terrorism and I'd say that's a massive stretch to suggest it as such.

I'm not calling it terroism, I havent called it terrorism in any of my posts. It could certainly be argued that it was a "protest", even so it was a protest with clear political aims - to discredit Israel and break the Gaza blockade. As it became clear that the second of these objectives would not be achieved they moved to achieving the first. Which, as we all saw, they did rather well. Now, I'm not going to argue that Israel has been doing its self any favours in the whole trustworthyness department in recent years, but the immediate and damning condemnation from the international community before any of the facts were clear was a massive success for the IHH.

It doesn't make sense to kill dozens of Palestinians for every single Israeli killed, especially when your neighbouring countries already think of you as evil simply because you exist. They're only justifying their hatred.

Yes, it does. Make sense that is. From a purely statistical point of view Israel cannot afford to take 1:1 losses with the Palestinians - it has a smaller population and lower birth rate.

To be honest they're already doing a pretty good job of justifying it themselves. I mean its not like there are massive refugee camps in the neighbouring countries where even those born on the neighbouring state's soil have been refused citizenship (Except in Jordan) in order to provide another political excuse for hating Israel, is it?

Brutally killing civilians in an orderly fashion almost daily and then bulldozing their houses to make room for your own people, isn't going to win the hearts and minds of anyone but your own people. Anyone with two functioning brain cells could tell you that but Israel is so fanatically fascist and extreme that they make even Rush Limbaugh blush.

They can't win hearts and minds - the aid provided to the Fatah regieme has just driven the Palestinians further into the arms of Hamas as Fatah are seen as cosying up to Israel.

No it can be entirely blamed on Israel. They bought the weapons, they started the fight, they boarded them in international waters illegally when they didn't even have to.

They did have to, they are maintaining the blockade. The boarding was legal. They attempted to halt the ships and resolve the situation peacefully.

Might want to tell that to the USSR during the end of the Cold War. I'm sure they would've loved selling weapons to the U.S. to avoid going under.

By the end of the Cold War the CIA were buying weapons from the Soviet Army in Afghanistan and from the government of Czechoslovakia (link) to arm the Afghans.

They hadn't broken the blockade yet, at the time the IDF decided to begin this whole operation, the ships captains were actually changing route to avoid breaking the blockade so they could draw this out for longer and bring more attention to it.

They had stated that they were intending to put into port in Gaza, time frame is irrelevent.

Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.

link

It was bound for Gaza, Gaza is considered a belligerent territory in its conflict with Israel.

And yes, it was just as much about delivering aid as it was about breaking the blockade.

If that were the case they could have redirected to Israel or Egypt in order to deliver the aid and still achieved a partial sucess without bloodshed. Delievery of the aid, was, at best, third on the list of priorities after breaking the blockade and discrediting Israel by inducing a violent response.

Holy living christ, you are brainwashed.

Attack the arguments, not the man.

Anyway, I said "surprisingly" honest, not "entirely" honest. Theres a world of difference between the two. Now, I'm sure you'll agree, it would be much more usual for the IDF to have "found" (ie planted) some rifles or explosives on the ship - they havent. That is surprising.

 

[<RJMC>]

I just remembered an unusual incident that happened at the parking lot of Aldi a few years ago. I wasn't with my dad when he went shopping that day, so he had to tell me when he came home. An Israeli man (my dad speculated that he was a student from the nearby college) approached my dad in the parking lot and asked him "Are you an Arab?" He probably thought my dad was an arab since his skin is quite "olivy". My dad answered "No, I'm Greek." The man thought about this for a second and asked "Well should we be enemies?" and my dad said "I don't think so, but if you &^%$ with me I'll break your head in." He then just laughed at my dad and walked off.

lol what?

I dont want jews to come nearby asking me to be enemyes

 

[T-6000]

lol what?

I dont want jews to come nearby asking me to be enemyes

Yeah, I couldn't hardly believe it either. I mean, over here where we live there are alot of racist, white supremest rednecks but they mostly keep to themselves and don't cause trouble with my dad or I. Last year I saw some videos of how Israelis treated U.S. visitors and tourists. One video showed nearly an entire neighborhood going hostile on documentary worker and he had to be escorted out by police. Another one was of an Israeli telling an american tourist that they weren't welcome in Israel. Some of the videos are taken down, but a few are still up. Late last year an Israeli poster told me that I was an American scum and I needed to burn in hell, and on top of that I was filth to him since I wasn't one of the chosen ones. That literally made my jaw drop. Not all Israelis are this fanatical, thankfully, as there are some Israelis that welcome foreigners and oppose the actions of their government. But how the hell do you tell the good ones from the fanatical ones? And some may consider me anti-semetic for speaking out against Israel's action (yeah, as if they know me at all personally), I know there are good Jews out there too. My dad and I painted for a couple of wealthy jewish families and despite their wealth they were quite humble. Hell, one of the families actually left us a cooler, filled with drinks for us!

Anyways, I'd better get back on topic. After reading the eyewitness accounts of the passengers of the aid boat, I don't blame them for beating the hell out of the IDF soldiers. On international waters they opened fire on the boat with rubber bullets and tear gas at first. Then a few minutes later they opened fire on the boat with live rounds. After that they attempted to bard the boat and that's when they were attacked. I too would use any makeshift weapon and beat them if they opened fire on me like that. Latest reports have come in that an american was one of those killed, shot 4 times in the head. This won't even dent U.S.-Israel relations at all. The IDF claims that the boat opened fire first, but the IDF has a long history of opening fire first and blame it on the victim. An international investigation will reveal the truth, but so far Israel has opposed it. And that tells me they have something to hide. If they are confident that the aid boat opened fire first, then the investigation will reveal that fact.

 

[No Limit]

Well looks like they killed a 19 year old american during the raid. And when I say kill I don't think I'm putting enough emphasis on it as the guy got shot in the head 4 times and once in the chest. I mean clearly, when someone is coming at you with a club you need to fire off 4 shots in the head and one in the chest:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060301931.html

JERUSALEM -- A U.S. citizen of Turkish origin was among the nine people killed in a botched Israeli effort to stop a Turkish aid ship from reaching the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, a Turkish official said Thursday.

...

The American citizen was identified by the Anatolia news agency as Furkan Dogan, a 19-year-old student. His body had four bullet wounds to the head and one to the chest, the news agency reported.

All these shots were fired at close range.

Again, apparently to many of you this is the only logical way to deal with protestors.

 

[T-6000]

Well looks like they killed a 19 year old american during the raid. And when I say kill I don't think I'm putting enough emphasis on it as the guy got shot in the head 4 times and once in the chest. I mean clearly, when someone is coming at you with a club you need to fire off 4 shots in the head and one in the chest:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060301931.html



All these shots were fired at close range.

Again, apparently to many of you this is the only logical way to deal with protestors.

If they didn't open fire on the aid boat, then maybe they wouldn't have been faced with angry aid workers with clubs. It's typical of pansy IDF soldiers to open fire on unarmed people first. And yet if you defend yourself against these pansy soldiers then you are a terrorist and an Anti-Semite.

There were no weapons on the boat, either:

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/a-view-from-israels-left-field/

Some may say that the aid workers are lying to the teeth, an international investigation would show which side was telling the truth and which side wasn't. But Israel opposes it, and to me that is an admission of guilt.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Again, apparently to many of you this is the only logical way to deal with protestors Who are trying to beat/stab/shoot you to death.

fixed that for yah.

All these shots were fired at close range.

Funny that, I mean its not like you would expect that people who are attempting to kill a man with melee weapons to be enguaged at close range, is it?

 

[No Limit]

fixed that for yah.



Funny that, I mean its not like you would expect that people who are attempting to kill a man with melee weapons to be enguaged at close range, is it?

You say this like you are so sure of this. So I'm sure you have a reason for why Israel at this point has only released a few minutes of tape, only the minutes that make them look good when they have hours more of video that they are hiding. So if what you say is true and Israel has nothing to hide why haven't all the tapes been released?

In addition, why is Israel and the United States blocking a international investigation in to this?

 

[T-6000]

Here are some interesting interviews of the "dangerous terrorists that supported Hamas" by Democracynow.org :

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/3/huwaida

Meanwhile another aid ship, named "Rachel Coorie", is heading to Gaza. Let's see what the pansy IDF will do this time? Maybe they'll sink that ship and try to tell everyone that it was shipping Nuclear Warheads from Iran to Hamas.

 

[Blackthorn]

fixed that for yah.

They could have, y'know, not landed on the ship in the first place.

 

[Sparta]

Well it seems a leading legal expert from Norton Rose would disagree with that position. Link

Yet it leads back to the San Remo memorandum again as justification and I've already pointed out that that is highly disputable.

Because they said they were shot with an Isreali pistol, which had been removed from the holster of one of the commandos in the struggle.

Yet this still doesn't fit in with the narrative they presented, because a number of witnesses that have been released say Israel fired before they boarded. You can look this up for yourself here, but here's just one link of many.

http://www.israel-palestinenews.org/

Meanwhile, in Nazareth, Israeli Arab MP Haneen Zuabi - who was on the flotilla - told a press conference that Israeli forces began firing while still in the helicopters hovering over the ships.

Pretty hard to debate that.

Not Israel, the safety of its soldiers. I did not say it was right or justify it, I simply said that it makes sense. Which it does. Your examples in this case are not typical nor are the ROE of the Israeli forces conduting an offensive into hostile territory relevent to those employed during a boarding action.

The examples I've quoted throughout demonstrate that this kind of action is typical of the IDF regardless of whether there was is immediate threat or not, what makes you think they'd raise the restrictions on the ROE while they're "defending their waters" from perceived hostile threats? It's a foregone conclusion that'd at least be operating under the same ROE as they do in Palestine, after all, they never gave a damn about any foreign protestors in Palestine, why would they give a shit about foreign protestors trying to run through their blockade? To think otherwise is just intellectually dishonest.

And the Tatmadaw don't use the safety of its soldiers as justification, they use safety of the state to justify thier brutal repression of "destablizing influences" within Myanmar. Again, not saying its right, but to the minds of the Burmese high command it makes perfect sense. This comparison is irrelevent

Not at all. That form of logic you were using before to justify the IDF's ROE is the same form of logic used to justify the Tatmadaw's actions. The end result is supplying an excuse to shot unarmed civilians that are neither provoking nor threatening. You're using the size and population of Palestine and Gaza and small population of Israel compared to surrounding nations as an excuse to allow the IDF to ultimately murder any unarmed civilian that they perceive as threat, regardless of whether they are or not.

While I'm talking about that, I'll also get this outta the way...

Yes, it does. Make sense that is. From a purely statistical point of view Israel cannot afford to take 1:1 losses with the Palestinians - it has a smaller population and lower birth rate.

Congratulations! You're officially an apologist for fascist murderers!

The Chinese civilians typically wern't attempting to breach blockades or beat Japanese soldiers to death. This comparison is, once again, entirely irrelevent.

While it's certainly disputable their may have been a hostile element on board the ship, it's known for certain that not everyone on board the Mavi Mamara was associated or hostile so it can't honestly be presumed that everyone who fought back was attempting to kill the IDF and not simply defend themselves.

Either way, they wouldn't have tried to beat them to death/defend themselves if the IDF hadn't put them in a situation where they were forced to scavenge weapons from the ship in fear for their lives.

In this case the combatants were fired on in self defence for the survival of the troops involved in the boarding action. Thier lives were under threat, until an investigation has been held it cannot be said one way or another if the use of force was disproportionate.

They opened fire before boarding the ship, I've stated this several times now as multiple witnesses have come out and said they were shot at from the helicopters before the IDF boarded them. If that's the case (and I believe the witnesses over the IDF for reasons I shouldn't have to point out by now) it wasn't an act of self-defense on the behalf of the IDF, it was an attack by the IDF and the protestors were justified in defending themselves.

You don't let a killer free because their victim fought back before they were killed. If this was the case and the IDF fired first, they are at fault.

Just because they were on an "aid" ship doesn't mean there wern't islamist extremists among them who were out to provoke a violent action during the inevitable Israeli boarding.

Certainly, yet all of the released protestors (who were released because I presume they weren't the violent or extremist ones) state that the IDF attacked first, so regardless of whether there were extremists on board or not, they gave them what they wanted without the extremists even having to provoke them.

Israel isn't great at playing the media game yet, but they're getting better.

Israel are fantastic at it, are you blind? If the U.S. did this, the only people in the U.S. that would be defending would be.... well no one. The American left sides largely in favour with Obama, but they'd quickly call out the military for killing civilian protestors as would the right. But the thing is, even the crazies on the extreme end of the right, like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, the people who would've stood up for the Bush administration if they'd done this, all those people, they'd be falling over themselves to pick on the government for such a massive ****-up like this.

Yet Israel does it, and the public opinion in the U.S. is split. Israel itself thinks it wasn't the best thing that could've happened but that they were in their rights to hijack and kidnap foreigners in open freaking waters. You do not achieve that result by being bad at the media game. That is a flat-out falsehood.

I never used the words terrotist or hijack. The Mavi Marmara was under the control of the IHH since before it left port. They are not recognised as a terrotist organistaion (though it is outlawed in Israel due to its ties with terrorist organistations). They do, however, have ties with islamic terrorist organistaions going back many years, and were even found with weapons, explosives and bomb making manuals in their HQ in 1997 during a police raid

Oh please, we both know you were flat-out implying it even if you weren't stating it directly when you stated there might be links between the IHH and pick-a-terrorist-group. "Oh, isn't it interesting that the organisation that organised the flotilla can be linked to an islamic terrorist organisation. Not that I'm implying they might have been terrorists". Nonsense. If you weren't implying it, then why bring it up?

Al Jazeera has had its cameramen and journalists detained in different countires because of its supposed ties to terrorism yet nothing has ever been proven. Sami Al Hajj was detained for six years in Guantanamo and then released without charge all because of a payment given to him to take across country to a representative of a "charity". This ended up being a ploy that would put the money into hands of Chechen rebels.

For a few years, because of this "tie" to a terrorist organisation, the U.S. considered Al Jazeera to be a possible front group for Al Qaeda. Because one of their journalists got conned into delivering some money.

"Supposed ties" to terrorist organizations is a better way of saying "a rumour"

These people are not stupid, they know how to play the media game.

No they don't. They're most common solution to fighting Israel, these terrorists/islamic extremists/ne'er-do-well's, is to kill civilians and themselves with suicide bombs and Qassam rockets. They don't give a shit about how the media portrays them. They've never won a single public relations battle for themselves like you're suggesting they have with this, the IDF have always won them for the terrorists by obliterating Palestinian civilians and therefore shooting themselves in the foot. It's no different here.

It could certainly be argued that it was a "protest", even so it was a protest with clear political aims - to discredit Israel and break the Gaza blockade.

Of course it was! That's the goal of a protest! To attract attention and sway the public opinion!

As it became clear that the second of these objectives would not be achieved they moved to achieving the first. Which, as we all saw, they did rather well.

Israel discredited themselves all on their own, when they went massively overboard detaining all of the peaceful protestors who had already passively surrendered on the other five ships. They did that by tazering them in the back, shooting them with rubber bullets, firing tear gas at them and generally being disproportionately violent towards people who had already surrendered. Even the ones forming a ring near the captain's cabin to delay them were subjected to disproportionate violence.

On top of that, they let the two of violent protestors slowly bleed to death when they could've treated them. Even if they are in the right on EVERYTHING else, that alone is worth condemnation.

To be honest they're already doing a pretty good job of justifying it themselves. I mean its not like there are massive refugee camps in the neighbouring countries where even those born on the neighbouring state's soil have been refused citizenship (Except in Jordan) in order to provide another political excuse for hating Israel, is it?

Hey, here's a clue: Their wouldn't be any refugee camps if the IDF and Israeli government weren't so amazingly brutal and oppressive and actually worked towards peaceful solutions that aren't just "Israel gets to keep every bit of land they've stolen since 1967, Palestine gets what's left".

They can't win hearts and minds - the aid provided to the Fatah regieme has just driven the Palestinians further into the arms of Hamas as Fatah are seen as cosying up to Israel.

Yeah, so they should just stop providing aid altogether and continue to brutally oppress them, that'll work better.

They did have to, they are maintaining the blockade. The boarding was legal. They attempted to halt the ships and resolve the situation peacefully.

The blockade's legality is highly debatable, as is the legality of the boarding. As for that last sentence, that's complete bollocks to say that attempted to resolve it "peacefully".

By the end of the Cold War the CIA were buying weapons from the Soviet Army in Afghanistan and from the government of Czechoslovakia to the Afghans

.

Yeah, only to further bankrupt them by sending the weapons to to the Taliban to prolong the resistance against the Soviet Union, which drove them further into financial disaster. That's not the same as two allies buying and selling weapons to each other in peacetime. The maneuver by the C.I.A. was an act of financial warfare, the move by Israel to sell Predator drones to Turkey is not the same at all. It was just like any other transaction its military-industrial complex makes.

It was bound for Gaza, Gaza is considered a belligerent territory in its conflict with Israel.

Thanks to Israel, Gaza isn't actually considered a self-governed territory as referenced earlier with the Gaza-Jericho agreement falling apart. Gaza cannot be considered belligerent because of that. And again, that article relates to the San Remo memorandum, which I've been over time and time again as being highly debatable and most likely a bollocks excuse as well.

If that were the case they could have redirected to Israel or Egypt in order to deliver the aid and still achieved a partial sucess without bloodshed. Delievery of the aid, was, at best, third on the list of priorities after breaking the blockade and discrediting Israel by inducing a violent response.

Oh **** off, they did not deliberately invoke a violent response. They provoked a response, definitely, but they didn't start attacking them.

Attack the arguments, not the man.

Usually I try adhere to this mantra in the politics forum.

But I make exceptions for someone who says others deserve to die for attempting to bring attention to the plight of a people who should have the right to live a normal life, without being shot/bombed/having their home destroyed, their water supply ruined and being completely discriminated against in their own land, at random by an oppressive, fascist government. All because they fought back when being boarded in international waters by a foreign military who attacked them.

Had it coming IMO. Israel said they would not permit the ship to enter Israeli waters, but they went ahead anyway.

You're an asshole.

I'm done here. We're not convincing each other of anything and you're a terrible person.

 

[Solaris]

This has got to be one of the more bizarre situations I've seen in quite a while actually.

There are quite a few people (myself included) falling into this trap of blaming the victim.

The argument goes:

1. Isreal's blockade is doing a lot of damage and resulting in loss of life
2. The Blockade should be broken
3. Those who broke the blockade deserve what they got, after all, the parasailing commado pirates were only defending themselves


Something is wrong here.

 

[No Limit]

Something is wrong here.

Usually the party that is suppressing the evidance is at fault. All Israel has to do is release all the tapes unedited. Yet they refuse to do that. They are guilty as shit.

 

[Baserape>]

All Hamas and her cronies have to do is stop lobbing rockets at Israel and demanding it's destruction. Simples.

 

[Solaris]

All Hamas and her cronies have to do is stop lobbing rockets at Israel and demanding it's destruction. Simples.

The problem long predates Hamas.

In the good old days the movement was led by the more respectable PLO. The issue is the occupation of Palestine by Isreal. Isreal needs to withdraw to 1968 boundaries and the West needs to send troops to guarantee it's security.

 

[Shakermaker]