Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

doncarlos

bambooze wrote: »

Have you proof every single IDF member is a liar?

I'm sure their not all liars, but a lot that have made statements so far have proved to be. Like the officer who said 75% of the ship were attacking them and they all had knives. He also said there was 20 people who threw him overboard when the video showed it was three.

bambooze

wes wrote: »

The IDF is an organization, so calling an organization proven liars, is not the same, as saying each individual IDF member is a liar.

Ok, so which organization are proven liars, that were involved in Jenin, and were also on the Floatilla then?

I don't know who was on board but a whole lot of people from many pro-palestinian groups were caught out in the past including members of the PA government like Saeb Erekat. It's not impossible or even unlikely for some people on board to also be liars, the likelihood of them being anti-israel is quite high.

doncarlos

Third time lucky??

doncarlos wrote: »

Bambooze, Prinz

These are indisputable facts;

1. There was a video released by the IDF showing their soldiers being attacked when they were boarding
2. Footage of what happened before and after that would prove what happened is being withheld by the IDF
3. The IDF have made claims and now have withdrawn them.
4. The reports from the IDF and EVERYONE on the boats conflict
5. The IDF and Israel have been known to lie in the past.

What compels you to believe what the IDF are telling you?

P. Breathnach

prinz wrote: »

Nope. No more than anyone else knows there wasn't.

Not good enough.
1. There is no evidence that petrol bombs were thrown.
2. A plastic bottle is not suitable for a petrol bomb.
3. Ships, at least so far as I know, do not normally carry supplies of petrol.
4. The reasonable probability is that if materials were available and being used to make petrol bombs, more than one would be made.

It is for those making accusations of wrong-doing to back up their claim, and your claim lacks reasonable support. It's commonly referred to as "the burden of proof". You are not entitled to make a claim and then challenge others to prove it is not valid (well, not since the days when women were burned as witches).

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

Okay now you're back tracking. You're REPEATEDLY taken the claims of the IDF at face value.

Like assuming that the protesters we're trying to "murder them". And then conccoted some convoluted conspiracy to justify this.

How is it back tracking?. I made informed decisions on which parts of each stories I have taken in the narrative which I currently believe to be true. Yes several of these points do come from the tape but even though it has been edited you cannot deny the pieces it shows. I also dont believe any of the face value claims which I have believed and posted on have either been in some way corroborated by tape or eye-witnesses themselves. Please correct me if im wrong on this.

I will slightly backtrack on the murder claim as though I think one or two on the boat may have set out to commit murder the rest only planned for GBH and moved on to attempted manslaughter. (may be corrected on this as well if someone with more legal knowledge than me can correct my terminology)

On that note do you claim that the IDF went out with the aim of "murdering" those on the flotilla?

Byron85

Just got this update from the CorcaighPalaistín Link:

contact with the rachel Corrie apparently lost, meant to be reaching Gazan waters tomorrow morning.

gandalf

prinz wrote: »

Have you independent picture or video evidence of these fireworks?

Well if you look at 27 seconds into the IV video as we will now call it. You can see a box of "Smoke Torch"'s so you could safely assume that they are your flares/fireworks.

I notice that the second before this there are vicious scarf weapons and on the same frame as the "Smoke Torches" there is some nasty looking water

droidus

bambooze wrote: »

Unlike say, palestinian activists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin#Massacre_allegations

Palestinian activists, IDF spokesmen, Haaretz... they all lied about Jenin:

On April 12, 2002 Ha’aretz reported that “The IDF issued a rare 'clarification' Friday, which corrected a slip of the tongue (our emphasis) by the army's chief spokesman, Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey. Kitrey told Army Radio on Friday that, ‘there were apparently hundreds of people killed in the Jenin refugee camp’.” (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo= 151544&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0)

- Under the headline “200 Palestinians are believed to have been killed” the Ha’aretz paper reported on April 12, 2002 that, “The IDF intends to bury today Palestinians killed in the West Bank camp. Around 200 Palestinians are believed to have been killed in clashes with Israeli soldiers since the start of the operation last week, although it is unclear how many of the bodies can be buried.” (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=151227&contrassID=

- Ha’aretz reported on April 14, 2002: “The exact number of Palestinian dead at the camp is still not known. The IDF places the toll between 100 and 200.”
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Documents/Setting%20the%20Record%20Straight%20Concerning%20the%202002%20Israeli%20Massacre%20of%20Jenin.htm

And media which reported these claims from Israeli sources were obviously in on the lies as well.

And lest we forget, at least 56 people died in the Jenin massacre, many of them civilians, including a nurse and a paraplegic who was repeatedly run over by a tank. Of course the full death toll will never be known as the IDF prevented the Red cross and humanitarians from entering for 2 weeks after and there are probably still bodies under the rubble today.

The witness testimony of survivors can be found here - and they are horrifying:

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

I believe that many had a plan to repel any Israeli incursion but they unfortunately forgot who they were dealing with. I think most wanted a scene were certain people took beatings of sustained mid-level injuries but in the heat of the moment things got out of hand and people crossed the line. They were not provoking a response from the Gardai (or similar) rather Israeli commandos who when threatened reacted to protect themselves.

You have absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE to back up this pure conjecture. But yeah, believing in Santa Claus is absolutely your right. Just don't expect anyone else to ever take it seriously.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Proof that it was a firework in the original video? No? My point being anyone can make claims. I don't see why I should have to provide any more proof than another poster making an idenitcal claim.

You have repeatedly asked for proof from other posters, and now you are refusing to do the same.

You made a very definitive statement of there being a firebomb, in this post:

prinz wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM

Between 51 and 53 seconds in. That is a crude firebomb, not a firework.

Your claims have been debunked comprehensivly, and I have no clue why you are still posting about this.

wes

bambooze wrote: »

I don't know who was on board but a whole lot of people from many pro-palestinian groups were caught out in the past including members of the PA government like Saeb Erekat. It's not impossible or even unlikely for some people on board to also be liars, the likelihood of them being anti-israel is quite high.

So you can't provide any link then. Ok, thats good then, that we have established that.

stumpypeeps

I've being listening to varying factions in this debate for a while now, my initial reaction tends to side with the Palastinians and be generally disgusted by Israel, however, on further reflection its so difficult to form any real opinion one way or another. These conflicts are such a grey area.

What is obvious is that Israel are completely tactless with their public relations, intentionally or not. They are also very heavy handed of course. I believe that the Palastinians are not quite as sympathetic as they come across and are winning the propaganda war hands down.

I don't want to detract from innocent civilians being punished on either side but both governments/regimes are as culpable here for their own citizens struggles as the other.

gandalf

Someone has confirmed that the bottle is a standard Saline Solution Bottle that is sold in Turkey in the AH Rachel Corrie thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66235189&postcount=204

Fuhrer

prinz wrote: »

Ironic

How is it Ironic?


Do you even know what that means?


I can stand by my claims based on evidence, the only way you can stand by your claim is that "Anything is possible!"

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

You have absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE to back up this pure conjecture. But yeah, believing in Santa Claus is absolutely your right. Just don't expect anyone else to ever take it seriously.

Eh this has been several times in the media and on this board, including a page or two back by Wibbs who I was quoting. Sure the whole bloody flotilla was just one big scene to call out the Israelis on their blockade. Do you really think its too unrealistic that some hardliners took it one step further to get a larger reaction from the IDF?

It it far more realistic premise than yours which involves the IDF intentionally shooting people from helicopters only to then send in commandos with paint guns and tasers to be taken hostage

gandalf

stumpypeeps wrote: »

I've being listening to varying factions in this debate for a while now, my initial reaction tends to side with the Palastinians and be generally disgusted by Israel, however, on further reflection its so difficult to form any real opinion one way or another. These conflicts are such a grey area.

What is obvious is that Israel are completely tactless with their public relations, intentionally or not. They are also very heavy handed of course. I believe that the Palastinians are not quite as sympathetic as they come across and are winning the propaganda war hands down.

I don't want to detract from innocent civilians being punished on either side but both governments/regimes are as culpable here for their own citizens struggles as the other.

TBH I agree with you and I have said similar on this thread numerous times.

Both sides with a view to the general conflict are wrong and both are going to have to made serious concessions to each other to resolve this.

However it doesn't absolve Israel from breaching International Law when it feels like it just because the US is blocking any attempt to hold them responsible for their actions. Flagrant disregard for International Law is a dangerous precedent and it should not be tolerated.

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

How is it back tracking?. I made informed decisions on which parts of each stories I have taken in the narrative which I currently believe to be true. Yes several of these points do come from the tape but even though it has been edited you cannot deny the pieces it shows.

The fact that it has been edited means EVERYTHING. Without context it has no value.

Let me break it down very simply for you.

Here is what the tape objectively shows:

As Israeli soldiers absail down onto the boat they are mobbed and attacked by some passengers on the boat with what look like bars or sticks (wooden or metal) of some type. And one is later thrown over board. (I think we both agree on this bit.

Now.... two possible explanations have been provided for this video.

Israeli version: The soldiers were attacked without provocation by protesters intent on causing an incident.

Flotilla version: The soldiers had already shot and killed at least one person on the boat and considering the IDF's reputation in this matter people felt they had to defend themselves.

Now...

One of the above is the statement of an organisation with a track record for killing innocent civilians and in fact committing war crimes and then LYING about it. AND They also confiscated all the possible evidence that would prove ONE WAY or the other, what the truth REALLY is, and REFUSE to release this to any independent authority.

While the other is based on eye-witness reports from international citizens in good standing.

So when you chose to believe the FORMER over the LATER, it leads me to seriously wonder about your objectivity here.

On that note do you claim that the IDF went out with the aim of "murdering" those on the flotilla?

To be honest. I'm not sure. Consider their track record, it's possible, but I'm more inclined to believe that they just botched the operation badly.

bambooze

doncarlos wrote: »

Third time lucky??

These are indisputable facts;

1. There was a video released by the IDF showing their soldiers being attacked when they were boarding
2. Footage of what happened before and after that would prove what happened is being withheld by the IDF
3. The IDF have made claims and now have withdrawn them.
4. The reports from the IDF and EVERYONE on the boats conflict
5. The IDF and Israel have been known to lie in the past.

What compels you to believe what the IDF are telling you?

1. Yes
2. Yes, so far.
3. Which? Not denying it has happened but it could easily be due to them finding more data that contradicted what they assumed earlier - it will take time to piece together many disparate sources of data into the correct timeline.
4. Thats not true, there are some differences in some reports but that is to be expected since everyone will not have seen the same thing and many, most even will not be aware of the timeline and will have no way to know what was going on in areas they could not see. There have been very few reports published so far that I am aware of, considering 600+ were on board.
5. Perhaps and I would hope those responsible were reprimanded.

So far the evidence I have seen, while not entirely conclusive yet, still seems to support the IDF version and I have seen all too many cases in the past where everyone jumped on the blame israel bandwagon only to find later that israel was right.

Foxtrol

gandalf wrote: »

Someone has confirmed that the bottle is a standard Saline Solution Bottle that is sold in Turkey in the AH Rachel Corrie thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66235189&postcount=204

They're probably right. Whether fire bombs or fireworks no one can dispute that they were still thrown at the IDF. Before I get shouted at, this didnt give the IDF the right to shoot people but it also didn't the escalation of the situation to the point were there was bloodshed.

Fuhrer

bambooze wrote: »

So far the evidence I have seen, while not entirely conclusive yet, still seems to support the IDF version and I have seen all too many cases in the past where everyone jumped on the blame israel bandwagon only to find later that israel was right.

Like when they denied having White Phosphorus?


The problem with the evidence is that it only shows Isreals side of the story and then only the parts designed to earn them sympathy.

It shows them getting attacked, nothing else.

Nothing about the timeline of events, no footage of them shooting people dead.

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

Eh this has been several times in the media and on this board, including a page or two back by Wibbs who I was quoting. Sure the whole bloody flotilla was just one big scene to call out the Israelis on their blockade. Do you really think its too unrealistic that some hardliners took it one step further to get a larger reaction from the IDF?

There is a lot of conjecture actually.

I've highlighted a part in bold above. Even if we accept the above to be true.. that could just mean (and this is what I believe), that the flotilla hoped the Israeli's would give way to moral pressure.

But you draw other conclusions. Namely that they wanted to provoke a reaction, and that they resorted to violence to achieve this, and further, that they planned this violence.

This second part of your theory is PURE conjecture that is already based on conjecture. As I said. Zero evidence. And building a straw man.

It it far more realistic premise than yours which involves the IDF intentionally shooting people from helicopters only to then send in commandos with paint guns and tasers to be taken hostage

That is not my premise. As I've outlined a fair few times.

stumpypeeps

gandalf wrote: »

However it doesn't absolve Israel from breaching International Law when it feels like it just because the US is blocking any attempt to hold them responsible for their actions. Flagrant disregard for International Law is a dangerous precedent and it should not be tolerated.

I agree with this sentiment but I think too much stock has been put on this technicallity. Its tended to overshadow the real question. Should Israel have prevented the Flotilla from entering Gaza?

Its actually within the bounds of fairness that any threat from sea can be met early in international waters. The question of course is whether the flotilla posed a threat. Thats the crux of the argument.

sceptre

Memnoch wrote: »

Now.... two possible explanations have been provided for this video.

Israeli version: The soldiers were attacked without provocation by protesters intent on causing an incident.

Flotilla version: The soldiers had already shot and killed at least one person on the boat and considering the IDF's reputation in this matter people felt they had to defend themselves.

Leaving aside the former track record of lying etc (which has now been made as a contention/point/etc several times so it's there as made), one of those is indeed true and one of those is indeed false.

I'd still prefer to rely on the particular events rather than past history on the grounds that even a stopped clock with a known history of lying tells the truth twice a day. At the moment, particular events are not making the IDF case seem sympathetic given that they've got all the video evidence and they're releasing parts selected by them, which hence can't be relied upon to tell the full story. That's aside from the contention of some on this thread that even the IDF-released footage doesn't paint them in a good light.

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

The fact that it has been edited means EVERYTHING. Without context it has no value.

Let me break it down very simply for you.

Here is what the tape objectively shows:

As Israeli soldiers absail down onto the boat they are mobbed and attacked by some passengers on the boat with what look like bars or sticks (wooden or metal) of some type. And one is later thrown over board. (I think we both agree on this bit.

Now.... two possible explanations have been provided for this video.

Israeli version: The soldiers were attacked without provocation by protesters intent on causing an incident.

Flotilla version: The soldiers had already shot and killed at least one person on the boat and considering the IDF's reputation in this matter people felt they had to defend themselves.

Now...

One of the above is the statement of an organisation with a track record for killing innocent civilians and in fact committing war crimes and then LYING about it. AND They also confiscated all the possible evidence that would prove ONE WAY or the other, what the truth REALLY is, and REFUSE to release this to any independent authority.

While the other is based on eye-witness reports from international citizens in good standing.

So when you chose to believe the FORMER over the LATER, it leads me to seriously wonder about your objectivity here.



To be honest. I'm not sure. Consider their track record, it's possible, but I'm more inclined to believe that they just botched the operation badly.

I believe even without context there is some value. I can guarantee that if there weren't any tapes there would be many more people from the flotilla claiming there was no resistance. (I've no evidence but it would make sense) If I was Israels PR people I would have actually let there be condemnation of the incident and let the claims that there was no resistance be made public before releasing the video discrediting them and the flotilla. Complete irrelevant side issue I know.

I am currently leaning towards the IDF version because it makes absolutely no sense to send troops with non lethal weapons on board a boat which you have just shot live rounds onto which have killed a passenger. Also, seeing as the flotilla itself was directed to provoke the IDF I wouldn't put it past 20 or 30 on a boat of 600+ to provoke the IDF further. This is the logic to my argument and I have yet to hear an eye witness, poster or commentator who can dispute this logic. Feel free to try though

karma_

Foxtrol wrote: »

I am currently leaning towards the IDF version because it makes absolutely no sense to send troops with non lethal weapons on board a boat which you have just shot live rounds onto which have killed a passenger. Also, seeing as the flotilla itself was directed to provoke the IDF I wouldn't put it past 20 or 30 on a boat of 600+ to provoke the IDF further. This is the logic to my argument and I have yet to hear an eye witness, poster or commentator who can dispute this logic. Feel free to try though

This isn't a logical assessment of what happened, it is opinion.

I'm not sure how much evidence you need given what has been discussed at length in this thread.

bambooze

droidus wrote: »

Palestinian activists, IDF spokesmen, Haaretz... they all lied about Jenin:

And media which reported these claims from Israeli sources were obviously in on the lies as well.

And lest we forget, at least 56 people died in the Jenin massacre, many of them civilians, including a nurse and a paraplegic who was repeatedly run over by a tank. Of course the full death toll will never be known as the IDF prevented the Red cross and humanitarians from entering for 2 weeks after and there are probably still bodies under the rubble today.

The witness testimony of survivors can be found here - and they are horrifying:

Saeb Erekat, a Palestinian cabinet minister, on a phone interview to CNN from Jericho, estimated that there were a total of 500 Palestinians killed.

Palestinian Information Minister, Yasser Abed Rabbo, accused Israel of digging mass graves for 900 Palestinians in the camp

According to retired IDF General Shlomo Gazit, the death toll was 55 Palestinians and 33 Israelis.

Amnesty International's report concluded "No matter whose figures one accepts, "there was no massacre."

Human Rights Watch completed its report on Jenin in early May, stating "there was no massacre,"

Lorenzo Cremonesi, the correspondent for the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera..
"In short, it was all talk and nothing could be verified," wrote Cremonesi. "At the end of that day, I wrote that the death toll was not more than 50 and most of them were combatants".

A BBC report later noted, "Palestinian authorities made unsubstantiated claims of a wide-scale massacre," and a reporter for the Observer opined that what happened in Jenin was not a massacre.


Edit to add: as for your claim that "the full death toll will never be known" and "there are probably still bodies under the rubble today."..

Amnesty's report specifically observed that "after the IDF temporarily withdrew from Jenin refugee camp on April 17, UNRWA set up teams to use the census lists to account for all the Palestinians (some 14,000) believed to be resident of the camp on April 3, 2002. Within five weeks all but one of the residents was accounted for.”

gandalf

stumpypeeps wrote: »

I agree with this sentiment but I think too much stock has been put on this technicallity. Its tended to overshadow the real question. Should Israel have prevented the Flotilla from entering Gaza?

Its actually within the bounds of fairness that any threat from sea can be met early in international waters. The question of course is whether the flotilla posed a threat. Thats the crux of the argument.

It is a very important technicality though. Because of a precedent is set that International Law can be breeched for "defence" reasons it might as well not exist at all. I am sure that you can see how that is a bad thing.

Also the blockade is technically illegal because there is no state of war between Israel and Gaza?

Once the flotilla hit the waters that Israel has stewardship over then yes they have the right to stop them, turn them around or let them through. As has happened on previous occasions.

The actual crux of the argument is why they stopped them the way they did and why was the operation carried out in International Waters when they must have known the controversy that was going to create.

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

There is a lot of conjecture actually.

I've highlighted a part in bold above. Even if we accept the above to be true.. that could just mean (and this is what I believe), that the flotilla hoped the Israeli's would give way to moral pressure.

But you draw other conclusions. Namely that they wanted to provoke a reaction, and that they resorted to violence to achieve this, and further, that they planned this violence.

This second part of your theory is PURE conjecture that is already based on conjecture. As I said. Zero evidence. And building a straw man.

They would give into pressure or would overreact. There is no other expectation that they could have when they refused to give into the Israeli requests. It had been proven by now anyway that it was not about the specific aid the ships were carrying as it wouldnt be close to what was needed (it has apparently also come out that one boat didnt even have any aid on it, just passengers).

[/QUOTE]That is not my premise. As I've outlined a fair few times.[/QUOTE]

What is your premise then, that there weren't non-lethal weapons used by the first commandos and hostages weren't taken or that no one was shot before they boarded?

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

Human Rights Watch completed its report on Jenin in early May, stating "there was no massacre,"

They also stated that

Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes.

Anyway that is taking us away from the original topic which is the illegal assault on a civilian convoy in International Waters and we wouldn't want that to happen.

I think that IV video has given the discussion the shot in the arm it needed eh

Foxtrol

karma_ wrote: »

This isn't a logical assessment of what happened, it is opinion.

I'm not sure how much evidence you need given what has been discussed at length in this thread.

Which bits do you have evidence to disprove? I have been (unfortunately) on this thread quite a lot and have seen nothing to dispute it.

And I generally base my opinions on logical assessments of situations. Doesn't everyone who isn't completely biased???