Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Scofflaw

Captured commandos have bruises, have been stripped of their equipment. Is that supposed to be some kind of telling point?

We've heard from some very respectable people how the commandos were armed - again, if you need to hear that from someone both there and respectable:

Nobody had any arms of any kind whatsoever that I ever saw, and ever displayed any. The Israelis came in in their helmets and their combat suits. They carried machine guns, and pistols, and stun grenades, and things like that. And a couple of them had paintball guns...uh..two of the paintballs hit one of the members of our party...

That's at 1:31 on this video. The speaker is Edward Peck, former Chief of Mission in Baghdad under Carter and former Deputy Director of President Reagan's White House Task Force on Terrorism.

The point about the arms carried by the IDF soldiers are repeated in an interview he gave on return to the US here.

unimpressed,
Scofflaw

Ben Hadad

Irlandese wrote: »

If this point was not off thread, I would like to comment on it?
Nato and the Un are both less than honest brokers here and thus unsuitable for such a role. The UN in particular is unfortunately particularly corrupt both at general assembly and at basic staff standards levels. Corruption and bias are unfortunately now irredeemebly part of the culture of that organisation, particularly since Koffi Annan's time there.
I speak as an ex, one-time relatively senior staffer.

Is it off thread?

Well if UN & NATO are less then honest brokers and I'm not saying they are, I feel they would be in the best position to provide a report with independence and a perception of idependence, an Israeli investigation, I'm sure you will agree, would be a complete sham.

mossyc123

"Propaganda aims"
Seriously?!
Israel is more concerned with its survival as a state.
Since it came into existence, it has been under constant threat of attack and its not at all surprising Israel will they try to control what comes and goes from a territory run by an out and out terrorist organisation who wish to destroy it.
What's happened since the intifada in 2000 is tragic as the possibility of peace in the region seems to get further and further away...
But the idea that the insufferable, self-righteous fools aboard this so-called "freedom" flotilla are going to change anything is laughable.

wes

I don't think this has been posted yet:
The hijacking of the truth: Film evidence 'destroyed'

The Independent.co.uk account is in imho a very good one, considering all the difficulties due to the limited footage available due to the IDF's theft of the flotilla peoples footage.

halkar

It is no doubt that attack on flotilla have been a PR disaster for IDF and Israeli government. The ship had over 500 activists including many reporters. At the age of information even every mobile phone has camera and video capture functionality. Undoubtedly most of the events captured by these during the attack on the ship which went on for several hours.

If Israeli government were right and nothing to hide, why are they trying to make world believe their case using 2 minute of editted video and random pictures?

They can take the cameras, phones, laptops, pens and papers but they can not take these 500 activists brains where everything is captured in detail. As these activists starting to come out of their shock there will be more and more stories coming out.

BlaasForRafa

Memnoch wrote: »

Then you've been hoodwinked by the Israeli PR machine because this is exactly the kind of narrative they have been trying to create. There has been no evidence to suggest that the activists wanted a physical confrontation.

There is evidence out there, you just choose to ignore it.

BlaasForRafa

halkar wrote: »

They can take the cameras, phones, laptops, pens and papers but they can not take these 500 activists brains where everything is captured in detail. As these activists starting to come out of their shock there will be more and more stories coming out.

A lot of the activists will put their idealogical edit on their experiences, anything they say will have to be examined as they may lack objectivity. There are posters here that attack IDF sources but seem to take what comes from the pro-Gaza side without a grain of salt.

Macha

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

There is evidence out there, you just choose to ignore it.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that Israel illegally boarded a ship in the middle of the night and shot dead 9 civilians. Stop muddying the waters.

dlofnep

mossyc123 wrote: »

But the idea that the insufferable, self-righteous fools aboard this so-called "freedom" flotilla are going to change anything is laughable.

But yet, Egypt opened it's borders to allow aid through. Is that not a change? The same comments were being thrown around when people boycotted South-Africa.

dlofnep

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

There is evidence out there, you just choose to ignore it.

No it isn't. There is no evidence. Only edited videos which portray a skewed view of what happened. When we see an entire unedited video of the entire operation - then you can make such a comment. Until then, no. :rolleyes:

halkar

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

A lot of the activists will put their idealogical edit on their experiences, anything they say will have to be examined as they may lack objectivity. There are posters here that attack IDF sources but seem to take what comes from the pro-Gaza side without a grain of salt.

Little more than half of Mavi Marmara activists were Turks. Others were from different nationalities including Europeans as well as different religions.

From EU Observer

..Norman Paech, a 72-year-old German, underscored the suddenness of the assault, describing how he had barely had enough time to get dressed.

"The aggression came from the sky, from helicopters from which soldiers came down by ropes. We waited in the fore room and saw them carrying an Israeli soldier who looked to me like he'd had a breakdown," he said, according to media reports.

"Then the second and third came, but after these three injured soldiers then I saw a lot - maybe 10 - passengers who were severely hurt, injured, covered in blood. They were treated in the salon next to me. One was so badly injured I am sure he must have died soon after. I didn't even consider going upstairs as it was just too dangerous."

Above was published on EUObserver on 2nd of June.

..Israeli soldier who looked to me like he'd had a breakdown ..

This sounds like the soldier in the pictures released recently in Turkish media.

mossyc123

South Africa wasn't a proper democracy, the black majority had little say in the running of the country.
Whereas the ANC and most every nation of the world wanted a peaceful transition to free and fair elections in South Africa, Hamas, Iran and other Arab nations simply want to wipe Israel off the map.
Not really a like for like comparison.
If they fail to defend themselves, they'll be gone.
Israel doesn't and shouldn't give a damn what the International Community, Human Rights groups, etc make of this issue.

IrishTonyO

mossyc123 wrote: »

........Israel doesn't and shouldn't give a damn what the International Community, Human Rights groups, etc make of this issue.

Why? is Israel beyond International law? Does Israel have no morals? Maybe the fact that Israel does not give a damn about the International Community, is one of the reasons she stands almost alone in the world.

Nodin

mossyc123 wrote: »

South Africa wasn't a proper democracy, the black majority had little say in the running of the country. (........)
.

...theres a thread on this already....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055828565

wes

mossyc123 wrote: »

South Africa wasn't a proper democracy, the black majority had little say in the running of the country.

No, actually they aren't a proper democracy, they are a self proclaimed Jewish state, which is discriminatory against other people.

mossyc123 wrote: »

Whereas the ANC and most every nation of the world wanted a peaceful transition to free and fair elections in South Africa, Hamas, Iran and other Arab nations simply want to wipe Israel off the map.
Not really a like for like comparison.

Israel has peace deals with Jordan and Egypt.

The Arab league have made a offer of peace and full recognition, in exchange for the 1967 borders:

Text: Arab peace plan of 2002

As for Iran, there President can't launch a war, as only the supreme leader can do so. Also, he called for regime change, but either way it doesn't really matter, as he does not have the power to launch an attack on Israel, and he cannot command his countries military forces.

mossyc123 wrote: »

If they fail to defend themselves, they'll be gone.
Israel doesn't and shouldn't give a damn what the International Community, Human Rights groups, etc make of this issue.

Hypebolic nonsense, and if Israel choose to ignore the world, then they will find themselves a pariah state, due to there own recklessness.

BlaasForRafa

No, actually they aren't a proper democracy, they are a self proclaimed Jewish state, which is discriminatory against other people.

Israel is a democracy and to say it isn't is disingenuous.

And many countrys proclaim a state religion (UK for instance) or that the ethos of their state is based on one religion or another.

Even the Irish constitution for instance is riddled with references to Christianity in the preamble

" In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution. "

Israel has peace deals with Jordan and Egypt.

Those peace deals were only made with Jordan after they were defeated in the 6 day war and with Egypt after they were defeated in the Yom Kippur war. Those arab states only dealt with Israel after they were beaten, they did not gift peace to Israel.

mossyc123

Israel has come to peace deals with Egypt and Jordan only after defeating these nations in the 1967 conflict. Who knows maybe Iran will also come to peace with Israel but there's no doubt at the moment they are hostile towards them. Laying out the internal power structures and telling me who can and can't declare war doesn't hide that fact. Iran whips up anti-Israeli sentiment every now and again and will continue to do so even though they probably don't really care about the welfare of the Palestinians.
Re: The South Africa Apartheid comparison, thanks Nodin i see it's on another tread. Just one point on that.
Arab-Israeli's can vote, Black South Africans couldn't.

halkar

mossyc123 wrote: »

Israel has come to peace deals with Egypt and Jordan only after defeating these nations in the 1967 conflict. Who knows maybe Iran will also come to peace with Israel but there's no doubt at the moment they are hostile towards them. Laying out the internal power structures and telling me who can and can't declare war doesn't hide that fact. Iran whips up anti-Israeli sentiment every now and again and will continue to do so even though they probably don't really care about the welfare of the Palestinians.
Re: The South Africa Apartheid comparison, thanks Nodin i see it's on another tread. Just one point on that.
Arab-Israeli's can vote, Black South Africans couldn't.

Israel-to-deploy-nuclear-armed-submarines-off-iran-coast

Using the Israeli argument of Mavi Marmara terrorists, Iran has every right to attack and sink these terrorist submarines at her coastlines.

mossyc123

halkar wrote: »

Israel-to-deploy-nuclear-armed-submarines-off-iran-coast

Using the Israeli argument of Mavi Marmara terrorists, Iran has every right to attack and sink these terrorist submarines at her coastlines.

Eh, yeah if they want to i suppose they could. Would be a pretty stupid move though!

halkar

mossyc123 wrote: »

Eh, yeah if they want to i suppose they could. Would be a pretty stupid move though!

I think Iranian attack on Israeli submarines that stationed on their coastlines would be far more legitimate than Israelis attacking an aid convoy full of civilians. I do not support Iranian government and their policies but I also do not support US-Israeli propaganda against them. With their submariens Israel clearly trying to provoke Iran (with the support of US of course).

dlofnep

halkar wrote: »

I think Iranian attack on Israeli submarines that stationed on their coastlines would be far more legitimate than Israelis attacking an aid convoy full of civilians

It would be certainly more legitimate, but you can be sure - the media would spin it otherwise.

mossyc123

Hypebolic nonsense, and if Israel choose to ignore the world, then they will find themselves a pariah state, due to there own recklessness.[/QUOTE]

Not to be too pedantic but i think Hyperbolic is the word your looking for Wes.
And it's not. History has taught Israel not to trust any of its neighbours...that's why they are so belligerent, they must be that way to survive.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote: »

Then you've been hoodwinked by the Israeli PR machine because this is exactly the kind of narrative they have been trying to create. There has been no evidence to suggest that the activists wanted a physical confrontation. And wanting has nothing to do with it. At the end of the day it was Israel's choice to board ships carrying humanitarian aid with a military force in the middle of the night. And they should not be allowed to get away with reduced responsbility for their arrogant and foolhardy decision.

I won't blindly take any side in this thank you.
The idf operation first time out was blatantly stupid to my eyes.
But then,I think I'd make a better strategist than any israeli defense minister.
I f they didn't want them into Gaza all they needed to do was stop them at the harbour without any boarding.
I guess they wanted names and fingerprints.

Regarding some activists wanting this conflict,I believe some did.
Anyone that doesn't believe that is in cloud cuckoo land.

Or maybe the IDF should have behaved the same way in the first incident as they did in the second one. See how easy that is to spin this sort of conjecture whatever which way?

The people on the irish boat just sat down.The earlier flotilla could have done the same.

Remy13

mossyc123 wrote: »

History has taught Israel not to trust any of its neighbours...that's why they are so belligerent, they must be that way to survive.

complete rubbish. Israel is a nuclear armed superpower backed by the worlds only hyperpower. how is their survival in doubt?

alastair

mossyc123 wrote: »

Whereas the ANC and most every nation of the world wanted a peaceful transition to free and fair elections in South Africa, Hamas, Iran and other Arab nations simply want to wipe Israel off the map.

Patent rubbish. As Wes has pointed out - the Arab League signed up for the Saudi peace plan which simply requires Israel to revert to green line borders - ie: Israeli borders. Iran isn't an arab nation. The fantasy that Israel is surrounded by neighbours plotting away at a new holocaust is just that - a fantasy. Maybe you don't care for the arab states, but at least acknowledge their stated position regarding Israel. Even Hamas have stated that a green line retreat would end their armed campaign - leaving their charter about as meaningful as Likud's.

Dar

mossyc123 wrote: »

Hypebolic nonsense, and if Israel choose to ignore the world, then they will find themselves a pariah state, due to there own recklessness.

Not to be too pedantic but i think Hyperbolic is the word your looking for Wes.
And it's not. History has taught Israel not to trust any of its neighbours...that's why they are so belligerent, they must be that way to survive.

Nonsense. Israel doesn't need to station nuclear missile submarines off the coast of Iran to defend themselves. They can, as they have done in the past, use air forces stationed in Israel. The only possibly reason to do so, and to do so publicly, is as a deliberate act of provocation.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

The people on the irish boat just sat down.The earlier flotilla could have done the same.

The Rachael Corrie was boarded in Israeli-controlled waters - not international waters - ie: they had a legal right to board. They also boarded in daylight and without violence - a fact in opposition to the other ships (even where passive resistance was employed).

BluePlanet

Deleted User wrote: »

The people on the irish boat just sat down.The earlier flotilla could have done the same.

Wasn't the irish ship already in Gaza/Israeli territorial waters?
I thought i read it was 30-35 km off th coast.
That is no longer international waters if true.

And therein lies the difference.
Israel have a right to board a ship when it's in their waters, they don't if it isn't.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

The people on the irish boat just sat down.The earlier flotilla could have done the same.

The first ship was attacked during darkness in international waters, the people on board were defending themselves. You may claim foolishly defending but there is no comaprison to what happened yesterday.

mossyc123

Remy13 wrote: »

complete rubbish. Israel is a nuclear armed superpower backed by the worlds only hyperpower. how is their survival in doubt?

Ok, fair point. Survival is a bit of a stretch and they've been relatively safe in this regard since '73...but there way of life, the freedom to exist in peace has constantly been compromised by there neighbours. They must be fed-up of missiles raining down on them, hence they shut the borders and try control the capabilities of Hamas in this regard. An eminently understandable position to take don't you think?