Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

eamo12

dlofnep wrote: »

Do you really believe that a group of activists intentionally attack the IDF, knowing that they are known to be trigger-happy?

Absolutely - the promise of martyrdom and paradise is very powerful.

conaire1

I support the flotilla and condemn without reservation the Israeli attack. I sympathise with the victims and their families.
However the naivety of the flotilla organisers leaves me embarrassed.
Seventeen hours later and Israel controls the media info surrounding the attack. Could not one of the 700 on board have anticipated a communications blackout? Even Al Jazeera got blocked.
Ever since the Six Day War, Israel has been brilliant at second guessing its opponents' next move.
Lessons must be learned - know thy enemy.
There will be diplomatic handbags for a few weeks. Israel will go unpunished. USA will patch things up between two important allies - Turkey and Israel.
Next time - still using peaceful protest principles - I want to see pro Palistine action taken to the next - peaceful, I repeat - level.
Remember, we are talking about a military imperial power with a great track record.

Denerick

taconnol wrote: »

Why do you not even stop for a second to consider whether being killed should be a possibility for trying to bring aid into a country suffering a humanitarian crisis?

You just seem to accept this as the status quo, with no consideration.

I said from the very start that I think Israels policy with relation to Palestine is wrong. But I also hasten to point out that one should never be surprised when you begin to attack Israeli soldiers with metal bars and tables that the end result will be a shoot out. Why is this so surprising to you? What are the Israeli's supposed to do? 'Hey lads, one of you missed me, there's a big spot on my forehead thats free'. I live in the real world, not adolescent college boy fantasy land.

Macha

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If they had kept to exclusively peaceful means it wouldn't. Clearly they didn't and the soldiers where forced to defend themselves.

You don't consider illegally boarding a ship in international waters in the middle of the night, armed to the teeth as an aggressive act? It is essentially an act of piracy.

In fact it's the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that gives us the internationally recognised definition of privacy:

Article 101: Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Who says I do?
In this one instance I believe them to be in the right with regards to defending themselves. The legitimacy or not of boarding in international waters is a different matter.

How were they endangered? And why exactly is the legitimacy of boarding in international waters a "different matter"? Simply stating it as such, does not make it so.

WIZE

They were Actually tolds they would be intercepted if they continued to Gaza

The IDF just ****ed up thieir mission have murdered inocent people

The Schalit family on Thursday asked for assistance from international left-wing activists due to arrive in the Gaza Strip later in the day.

If the left-wing activists pressure Hamas to allow international organizations to bring letters and food packages to Gilad Schalit, the kidnapped soldier's family has agreed to support the international expedition's attempt to dock, Army Radio reported Thursday.

Lawyer Nick Kaufman presented the offer to the organization "Free Gaza," one of the organizers of the flotilla headed for Gaza, which promptly refused the offer.

"We are disappointed that the organizers of the flotilla have refused to also provide basic humanitarian assistance to our son, who has been held in Gaza four years in contradiction of international law," said the Schalit family.

The IDF announced Wednesday evening that it was planning to stop the international convoy of nine ships currently on its way to Gaza carrying hundreds of activists and thousands of tons of supplies.

“If they decide to continue sailing and do not listen to the instructions, then they will be stopped, brought to Israel and dealt with by the Interior Ministry, which will return them to the countries they came from,” an IDF statement said.

According to the statement, the IDF will unload the supplies and transfer the shipment to the Gaza Strip, after inspecting it for weaponry.

The Navy has held a number of drills in recent weeks to prepare for the arrival of the small fleet, which is expected to try breaking the Israel-imposed sea blockade on Gaza and dock at its newly expanded port.

The scenarios drilled included the commandeering of the ships, which could, military sources said Wednesday, include violent clashes – depending on the response by the passengers on the vessels.


“We will do everything to ensure that the operation runs smoothly, but are prepared for every possible scenario,” one defense official explained.

Meanwhile Wednesday, the IDF continued its media blitz against the flotilla and released data showing that all of the supplies the ships are carrying were already being transferred by Israel to Gaza via land crossings on a regular basis.

“This flotilla is a provocation that is not needed considering the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which is stable and good,” said Col. Moshe Levi, commander of the IDF’s Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration. Levi said that 100 trucks, loaded with supplies, enter Gaza on a daily basis, and that in the past two months over 1,200 tons of medical supplies were transferred to the Strip.http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article

wes

eamo12 wrote: »

Absolutely - the promise of martyrdom and paradise is very powerful.

Nonsense, these people were murdered by a bunch of pirates, who had no right to board there ship, and none of them taught Israel would attack with commando's in the dead of night. It was the IDF fault, as they had no right to be on that boat, and to murder those people.

Rev Hellfire

dlofnep wrote: »

And where is the entire video that shows the operation from start to end, without edited footage?

Its a valid point, but for me its enough to illustrate that those on board where prepared and willing to use violence. Hardly the actions of a 'peaceful' flotilla.

dlofnep wrote: »

Actually, it isn't a different matter. If they have no right to board the vessel, it's a very relevant matter. It's only a different matter because you have choosen to defend Israel.

Would your attitude be different if this had occurred in Israeli waters?
I suspect not, which is why I believe it to be unimportant with respect to the deaths.

FunnyStuff

sensibleken wrote: »

thats happened to me and i attacked back.

Had he a gun?

Macha

Denerick wrote: »

I said from the very start that I think Israels policy with relation to Palestine is wrong. But I also hasten to point out that one should never be surprised when you begin to attack Israeli soldiers with metal bars and tables that the end result will be a shoot out. Why is this so surprising to you? What are the Israeli's supposed to do? 'Hey lads, one of you missed me, there's a big spot on my forehead thats free'. I live in the real world, not adolescent college boy fantasy land.

None of those adjectives apply to me, funnily enough. But it's just baffling that you consider the Israeli behaviour as their only choice. You really think that? A few people on Boards are perfectly capable of figuring out a few other ways, and there's a thread about it here:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055926359

Again, you just accept Israel's vicious and disproportionate aggression and expect that everyone alter their behaviour accordingly. It's somewhat similar to the idea that women bring sexual assault on themselves by the way they dress, and therefore they should change their behaviour, not the attacker. It's a bizarre mentality that places the onus on the person being attacked, instead of the person carrying out the aggression. It's a mentality I just don't understand.

bonkey

Sand wrote: »

Ships are boarded and inspected all the time.

Indeed they are...in territorial waters.

Ships are not boarded and inspected in international waters all the time, with the exception of events such as piracy.

I dont expect there will be any rational evaluation of this.

I'm trying to get there. I'm not disagreeing with many of the valid points you make. I'm disagreeing with the invalid points you make, and adding additional, relevant counter-points.

I agree that its a tragedy. I agree with you that the organisers of the flotilla made - at best - a serious error of judgement. That said, there is no condoning any military assuming the right to extend its reach into international waters against a target which posed no identifiable military threat.

A rational evaluation involves seeing both sides...and thus far, you seem to be basically saying that the civilians were stupid, and that all the Israeli's did was defend themselves.

Incidentally...has it been confirmed that the civilians opened fire first? From what I've seen, both sides accuse the other of acting first...and I've seen no clear evidence that says either side is telling the truth. Yet various people here (yourself included) seem to be clearly and unequivocably stating that the Israeli's only reacted to being attacked.

gandalf

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Says it all really.

Says that people tried to defend themselves from an illegal boarding of their vessel. It was foolish as they weren't armed. The Turkish authorities saw to that.

Still there is no explanation from the pro-operation cheerleaders here as to why they didn't wait until the ships hit Israeli territorial waters and why they didn't do the operation by pulling navy ships beside the Aid Ship and boarding conventionally during daylight hours.

Denerick

taconnol wrote: »

None of those adjectives apply to me, funnily enough. But it's just baffling that you consider the Israeli behaviour as their only choice. You really think that? A few people on Boards are perfectly capable of figuring out a few other ways, and there's a thread about it here:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055926359

Again, you just accept Israel's vicious and disproportionate aggression and expect that everyone alter their behaviour accordingly. It's somewhat similar to the idea that women bring sexual assault on themselves by the way they dress, and therefore they should change their behaviour, not the attacker. It's a bizarre mentality that places the onus on the person being attacked, instead of the person carrying out the aggression. It's a mentality I just don't understand.

The Israeli's said they would not allow the flotilla to reach Gaza. The crew knew this. They were engaging in a deliberate act of provocation, a media stunt of the most blatant kind, and the end result was a shoot out. I could be wrong, I'll wait until a more balanced account of the events emerges. But these activists knew fine well what would happen, and the village drunk could've told them that attacking commando's with metal bars and tables would not end well. I'm sorry, I do not believe acts of immense stupidity should be admired or honoured. Whatever the moral questions involved.

Mister men

ammonite2 wrote: »

I am outraged, as are most sane people on this thread at these attacks. I've been reading all the posts live getting madder and madder. I have to stop now and get back to my life. This story will roll for a while and then be forgotten as have all the other terrible things that have happen in recent times in that part of the world.
None of our politicians will stand up and be counted. All giving the same guarded response. I wish our leaders would make a stand but, no that will never happen they are all just unwilling to rock the boat with Israel.
Isn't it great living in a country where it's easier for Israel to get an Irish passport than it's citizens. Remember that story?

Great first post. I said it this morning and i'll say it again. This will be a non story within 48 hours of it breaking thanks to our media. If this incident happened the other way around (say Palestine pirates gained entry onto a tourist boat filled with Americans and Israelis) and shot 19 dead it would be wall to wall coverage for weeks with sky news breaking news yellow ticker bar going into overdrive. We live in a society that values life differently depending on where you live and the religon you worship. Fact.

prinz

taconnol wrote: »

You don't consider illegally boarding a ship in international waters in the middle of the night, armed to the teeth as an aggressive act? It is essentially an act of piracy.

Has the legality been established?

taconnol wrote: »

In fact it's the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that gives us the internationally recognised definition of privacy:

The one Israel hasn't signed up to?

dlofnep wrote: »

And where is the entire video that shows the operation from start to end, without edited footage?

Once again, why is the absence of such footage no hindrance to condemn IDF actions?

bonkey wrote: »

Indeed they are...in territorial waters.
Ships are not boarded and inspected in international waters all the time, with the exception of events such as piracy.

Except it does and can legally occur.

Scofflaw

Denerick wrote: »

I said from the very start that I think Israels policy with relation to Palestine is wrong. But I also hasten to point out that one should never be surprised when you begin to attack Israeli soldiers with metal bars and tables that the end result will be a shoot out. Why is this so surprising to you? What are the Israeli's supposed to do? 'Hey lads, one of you missed me, there's a big spot on my forehead thats free'. I live in the real world, not adolescent college boy fantasy land.

That's kind of the point, isn't it - with the reputation of the IDF as it is you can pretty much guarantee that people are going to assume they're being lethally attacked. All of the defensive claims being made here amount to "well, they should have been properly cowed" - but in real life, not everybody ever is, and police/military planners know that. And even that claim amounts to "the aid convoy was in the wrong, and the moment the Israelis chose to do anything about it, the people involved should immediately have given in".

Really, people are just saying "well, more fool them for standing up to being bullied - of course they got hit". Do you really think that excuses the actions of the bully?

regards,
Scofflaw

prinz

bonkey wrote: »

A rational evaluation involves seeing both sides...and thus far, you seem to be basically saying that the civilians were stupid, and that all the Israeli's did was defend themselves..

This is the crucial point that 90+% of posters seem intent on ignoring.

Ardent

Denerick wrote: »

The Israeli's said they would not allow the flotilla to reach Gaza. The crew knew this. They were engaging in a deliberate act of provocation, a media stunt of the most blatant kind, and the end result was a shoot out. I could be wrong, I'll wait until a more balanced account of the events emerges. But these activists knew fine well what would happen, and the village drunk could've told them that attacking commando's with metal bars and tables would not end well. I'm sorry, I do not believe acts of immense stupidity should be admired or honoured. Whatever the moral questions involved.

Well said.

Denerick

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's kind of the point, isn't it - with the reputation of the IDF as it is you can pretty much guarantee that people are going to assume they're being lethally attacked. All of the defensive claims being made here amount to "well, they should have been properly cowed" - but in real life, not everybody ever is, and police/military planners know that. And even that claim amounts to "the aid convoy was in the wrong, and the moment the Israelis chose to do anything about it, the people involved should immediately have given in".

Really, people are just saying "well, more fool them for standing up to being bullied - of course they got hit". Do you really think that excuses the actions of the bully?

regards,
Scofflaw

No, not at all. Put it like this - I wouldn't like to meet Israel in a dark lane. But anyone who goes out of their way to challenge that bully in the dark lane (Using sticks and stones by the way - NOT moral force) are idiots. Sorry. I'm a firm believer in moral force resistance to injustice, but when you meet the immense military capacities of Israel with a few metal bars (Instead of engaging in non violent protest) you should be held as a figure of derision, not international sympathy.

yoshytoshy

Denerick wrote: »

these activists knew fine well what would happen, and the village drunk could've told them that attacking commando's with metal bars and tables would not end well. I'm sorry, I do not believe acts of immense stupidity should be admired or honoured. Whatever the moral questions involved.

I don't think violence was a goal that these people had in mind when they took stock of thousands of items ,like wheelchairs ,clothes and cement.

Personally I thought they may have had to anchor close by and gone on hunger strike or something ,in order to be allowed to pass the blockade at some stage.

In the real world ,where countries have to account for actions ,people don't expect what happened to happen.

Scofflaw

Winty wrote: »

Are you some type of Hybrid online Chugger

Also banned. I have to warn people that this is getting to be more or less a reflex now.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Denerick wrote: »

No, not at all. Put it like this - I wouldn't like to meet Israel in a dark lane. But anyone who goes out of their way to challenge that bully in the dark lane (Using sticks and stones by the way - NOT moral force) are idiots. Sorry. I'm a firm believer in moral force resistance to injustice, but when you meet the immense military capacities of Israel with a few metal bars (Instead of engaging in non violent protest) you should be held as a figure of derision, not international sympathy.

Like the guy in Tianamen Square, yes?

thoughtfully,
Scofflaw

McCalvin

I am another to completely and utterly condemn these killings.

There is no excuses for the deadly force used, particularly when you consider the Isreali forces were supposed to be cream of the crop commandos trained in this sort of operation.

I've never really believed in the pro-palestine's arguments about Israeli propaganda etc. etc. But a quick look around various Israeli news sites and certain American news agencies really is opening my eyes. All of a sudden I wonder how many international rules/guidlines this country break in their quest for [Insert Propaganda here].

For what it's worth, I've mailed Micheal Martin (michealmartintd@eircom.net) and thanked him for his actions (condemning the action and calling Israel's ambassador to Ireland in for talks). I've asked him also to consider severing our ties with their country and expelling Dr Zion Evrony.

wes

Denerick wrote: »

No, not at all. Put it like this - I wouldn't like to meet Israel in a dark lane. But anyone who goes out of their way to challenge that bully in the dark lane (Using sticks and stones by the way - NOT moral force) are idiots. Sorry. I'm a firm believer in moral force resistance to injustice, but when you meet the immense military capacities of Israel with a few metal bars (Instead of engaging in non violent protest) you should be held as a figure of derision, not international sympathy.

The Israeli's dropped commando's on there heads in the dead of night, and according to the people on the Flottila, they also open fire on them. So seems to me that people were attacked by the IDF, and they defended themselves.

Also, even if the IDF were attacked upon landing there Commando's on the boat, that is also an act of defense, as the the command boarding there boat is an act of aggression.

IMHO, either way Israel is in the wrong. They had no business on the boat, and they need to be held responsible, and not those on the floatilla.

thebouldwhacker

I have read through many posts in this thread, heavy stuff, so whats the main view of the boards family Israel right or wrong?

Denerick

Scofflaw wrote: »

Like the guy in Tianamen Square, yes?

thoughtfully,
Scofflaw

Thats completely different. That guy bravely refused to allow a tank to go past him. He didn't charge at the tank like a blithering idiot with a rotten egg.

prinz

wes wrote: »

The Israeli's dropped commando's on there heads in the dead of night, and according to the people on the Flottila, they also open fire on them. So seems to me that people were attacking by the IDF, and they defended themselves. Also, even if the IDF were attacked upon landing there Commando's on the boat, that is also an act of violence.IMHO, either way Israel is in the wrong. They had no business on the boat, and they need to be held responsible, and not those on the floatilla.

So they both committed acts of violence but only the IDF are responsible? :rolleyes:

Macha

I can't believe that the attempts of some individuals to stand up to a bully like Israel are derided, especially given that some of them are now dead. Truly astonishing.

wes

prinz wrote: »

So they both committed acts of violence but only the IDF are responsible? :rolleyes:

The IDF was the aggressor, and the other group defending themselves, so yes the IDF are at fault.

At the end of the day, the IDF were the ones who murdered a bunch of people, and not the the floatilla people who defended themselves from a bunch of pirates attacking them.

Denerick

wes wrote: »

The Israeli's dropped commando's on there heads in the dead of night, and according to the people on the Flottila, they also open fire on them. So seems to me that people were attacked by the IDF, and they defended themselves.

Also, even if the IDF were attacked upon landing there Commando's on the boat, that is also an act of defense, as the the command boarding there boat is an act of aggression.

IMHO, either way Israel is in the wrong. They had no business on the boat, and they need to be held responsible, and not those on the floatilla.

Israel were wrong to board a ship on international waters. Israel were morally wrong to be anywhere near a humanitarian vessel. But the underlying point remains - you do not attack the Israeli's when you are supposed to be engaging in a non violent humanitarian mission.

If it emerges that the Israelis fired first, I'll be more than happy to say that they are a disgrace and human rights abusers and deserve every sanction the world can throw at them. But frankly, if the aid workers threw the first punch, then I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. Whatever moral high ground they had was lost the moment they indulged in any kind of violence.

WIZE

Scofflaw wrote: »

Also banned. I have to warn people that this is getting to be more or less a reflex now.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Does that mean I get my Infraction removed