Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

karma_

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

So what kind of a peace activist are you if you can't stay peaceful yourself?
I mean, if it is ok for a peace activist to become brutally violent when he feels a threat, how come an Israeli soldier is criticized if he shoots those he perceives as a threat?

so brutal violence should be met with deadly violence?

gandalf

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

So what kind of a peace activist are you if you can't stay peaceful yourself?
I mean, if it is ok for a peace activist to become brutally violent when he feels a threat, how come an Israeli soldier is criticized if he shoots those he perceives as a threat?

He is criticized because he shouldn't have been there in the first place.

As I have said already those troops were put into a situation they shouldn't have been by their superiors.

Archie D Bunker

karma_ wrote: »

so brutal violence should be met with deadly violence?

Violence begets violence...

yoshytoshy

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Violence begets violence...

If someone broke into my house ,you can be guaranteed I won't be making them a cup of tea.

IrishTonyO

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Violence begets violence...

so does that mean the countries of the people attacked can now justifiably attack Israeli citizens??

karma_

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Violence begets violence...

During the NI civil rights marches, violence was often started, I suppose you think they should have been blown away too?

Foxtrol

sensibleken wrote: »

it is difficult to stay peacefull when soldiers from a country who have a reputation for killing peacefull resisters board your ship in the night from military helicopters supported by several armed vessels surrounding yours

That is unbelievably hypocritical. So its ok for the peace protesters to attack commandos when they feel a threat but not for the commandos to protect themselves when they are under attack? (If the commandos were using stun guns and rubber bullets as reported by those on the boats then their intent was not solely to kill the protesters)

It really is unfortunate that so many protests are tarnished by those who seek any situation to provoke an authoritative figure.

Maguined

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Violence begets violence...

Yes landing commandos onto a civilian flotilla in international waters is a violent act and begot more violence.

Maguined

Foxtrol wrote: »

That is unbelievably hypocritical. So its ok for the peace protesters to attack commandos when they feel a threat but not for the commandos to protect themselves when they are under attack? (If the commandos were using stun guns and rubber bullets as reported by those on the boats then their intent was not solely to kill the protesters)

It really is unfortunate that so many protests are tarnished by those who seek any situation to provoke an authoritative figure.

Its not hypocritical its about context, If an attacker breaks into my home to steal its contents and violently threatens me i am allowed defend myself with violence. If i break into your home and threaten to steal your property and assault you that is not me defending myself as its your home.

The Israeli commandos have no right to be on the ships just as a thief has no right to be in your home so forcing their way onto the ships in international waters gives the humanitarians the right to defend themselves from attack.

paulaa

alastair wrote: »

You don't like Israel's record - thats clear. That doesn't remove from the fact of the treaty and the legality of Israel military controlling Gazan waters. The PA might have signed up for a rotten deal, but sign they did.

Do you have a link to this treaty ?

It still doesn't change the fact that Israel boarded a vessel in International, not Israeli, waters. They are wrong and incompetent in their handling of this and have opened Israel up to even more scrutiny and condemnation than ever before.

Bibi hightailed it back to Israel after the US administration cancelled it's meeting with him. I'm sure even he realises that they cocked up big time, this time

alastair

Foxtrol wrote: »

It really is unfortunate that so many protests are tarnished by those who seek any situation to provoke an authoritative figure.

The IDF had no authority in international waters.

and protecting yourself might also involve weighing the merits of not landing on top of 600 people in the middle of the night over shooting 9 people dead.

Byron85

Ardent wrote: »

Ha! This despite video footage out there clearly showing knives and metal bars being used to attack IDF soldiers on the head ship.

In that case my kitchen is a weapons manufacturing plant.

Give over.

paulaa

IrishTonyO wrote: »

so does that mean the countries of the people attacked can now justifiably attack Israeli citizens??

That is a big danger now isn't it ?
After Cast Lead the number of attacks on Jewish people, regardless of whether they supported the Tel Aviv regime or not, around the world increased. I really hope this doesn't happen as it solves nothing.

paulaa

Foxtrol wrote: »

That is unbelievably hypocritical. So its ok for the peace protesters to attack commandos when they feel a threat but not for the commandos to protect themselves when they are under attack? (If the commandos were using stun guns and rubber bullets as reported by those on the boats then their intent was not solely to kill the protesters)

It really is unfortunate that so many protests are tarnished by those who seek any situation to provoke an authoritative figure.

The commandos should not have been there in the first place, they had no authority aboard those ships. The people they attacked had every right to defend themselves, they were the ones getting killed after all.

alastair

paulaa wrote: »

Do you have a link to this treaty ?

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/THE+ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN+INTERIM+AGREEMENT.htm

ARTICLE XII
Arrangements for Security and Public Order

1. In order to guarantee public order and internal security for the Palestinians of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Council shall establish a strong police force as set out in Article XIV below. Israel shall continue to carry the responsibility for defense against external threats, including the responsibility for protecting the Egyptian and Jordanian borders, and for defense against external threats from the sea and from the air, as well as the responsibility for overall security of Israelis and Settlements, for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order, and will have all the powers to take the steps necessary to meet this responsibility.

Byron85

And now it seems that the Israelis attempted to sabotage some of the ships before they left. Now, surely the illegality of that cannot be debated.

There is speculation that two passenger boats in the Freedom Flotilla may have been sabotaged by the Israeli military. This is what a spokeswoman for the Free Gaza Movement said:

Two passenger boats sailing to Gaza as part of the aid flotilla attacked by Israel malfunctioned at the same time and in the same way earlier in their voyage, prompting suspicions they may have been sabotaged.
Challenger I and Challenger II, carrying 36 activists from the Free Gaza campaign, were forced into port in Cyprus on Friday evening when both their steering systems broke down on the journey from Heraklion in Crete, a campaign spokeswoman said.
The problems emerged as Israel's military establishment gave strong indications that clandestine attempts were made to sabotage some of the ships ahead of yesterday's bloody confrontation, in which at least nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed.

Foxtrol

Maguined wrote: »

Its not hypocritical its about context, If an attacker breaks into my home to steal its contents and violently threatens me i am allowed defend myself with violence. If i break into your home and threaten to steal your property and assault you that is not me defending myself as its your home.

The Israeli commandos have no right to be on the ships just as a thief has no right to be in your home so forcing their way onto the ships in international waters gives the humanitarians the right to defend themselves from attack.

The IDF did not drop into their house. They were on a flotilla which had an aim to antagonise Israel (along with other aims such as bringing food etc).

A better comparison would be with another protest (where you chose to be in the situation unlike your house comparison). You decide to peacefully block traffic by walking very slowly down the road. A Garda decides to move you. You however resist and hit the Gard repeatedly. The Gard takes out his baton and knocks you out.

Now should the Gard have taken a better course to stop you from what you were doing? Yes.

Should he have used less force when he was defending himself? Yes.

Were you wrong to provoke him by assaulting him? Yes.

I'm not condoning Israels actions but the actions of the protesters were far from "peaceful"

gandalf

Foxtrol wrote: »

The IDF did not drop into their house. They were on a flotilla which had an aim to antagonise Israel (along with other aims such as bringing food etc).

A better comparison would be with another protest (where you chose to be in the situation unlike your house comparison). You decide to peacefully block traffic by walking very slowly down the road. A Garda decides to move you. You however resist and hit the Gard repeatedly. The Gard takes out his baton and knocks you out.

Now should the Gard have taken a better course to stop you from what you were doing? Yes.

Should he have used less force when he was defending himself? Yes.

Were you wrong to provoke him by assaulting him? Yes.

I'm not condoning Israels actions but the actions of the protesters were far from "peaceful"

Yes but if the Garda is outside the jurisdiction of the state, then you can ignore his instructions and if he "takes out his baton and knocks you out" its assault.

This event did not take place in Israeli territorial waters or waters that Israel patrols because of treaties. It happened in International Waters where they have no jurisdiction.

Scofflaw

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

prinz wrote:

..because it's cool to be 100% anti-Israel.

Hmmmm..... immature maybe....cool....no;)

If neither of you have anything better to contribute to this discussion than that kind of remark, perhaps it would be better if you said nothing?

Both of you know better - grow up.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Foxtrol

alastair wrote: »

The IDF had no authority in international waters.

paulaa wrote: »

The commandos should not have been there in the first place, they had no authority aboard those ships.

If you had actually read my previous posts you'd clearly see that I'm not saying that the IDF had a right to do what they did. I am however saying that there is also blood on the hands of the "peaceful" protesters who attacked the commandos.

youcrazyjesus!

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

So what kind of a peace activist are you if you can't stay peaceful yourself?
I mean, if it is ok for a peace activist to become brutally violent when he feels a threat, how come an Israeli soldier is criticized if he shoots those he perceives as a threat?

Because if you're a acting lawfully and peacefully and somebody arrives with weapons and attempts to seize your property and kidnap you you have a right to defend yourself. It's really simple.

BluePlanet

The whole argument about the protestors being violent is just another red herring.
The ship was in International Waters, therefore Israel had no authority.
By boarding the ship they were commiting an act of piracy.
Crews have the right to defend themselves against acts of piracy.

Foxtrol

deadtiger wrote: »

Yes but if the Garda is outside the jurisdiction of the state, then you can ignore his instructions and if he "takes out his baton and knocks you out" its assault.

This event did not take place in Israeli territorial waters or waters that Israel patrols because of treaties. It happened in International Waters where they have no jurisdiction.

So you believe that if a Garda dressed in full uniform, just over the boarder, tried to move you off the road you would be fully entitled to assault him to the point were he feared for his life and thought it was necessary to use his baton in order to protect himself?

youcrazyjesus!

Foxtrol wrote: »

That is unbelievably hypocritical. So its ok for the peace protesters to attack commandos when they feel a threat but not for the commandos to protect themselves when they are under attack? (If the commandos were using stun guns and rubber bullets as reported by those on the boats then their intent was not solely to kill the protesters)

It really is unfortunate that so many protests are tarnished by those who seek any situation to provoke an authoritative figure.

It's not hypocritical at all, these idiots arrived in the dead of night to seize ships in international waters and kidnap people, the crew were well within their right to defend themselves. The commandos should not have been there at all. They had no right to seize the ships and no right to kidnap people.

youcrazyjesus!

Foxtrol wrote: »

So you believe that if a Garda dressed in full uniform, just over the boarder, tried to move you off the road you would be fully entitled to assault him to the point were he feared for his life and thought it was necessary to use his baton in order to protect himself?

The Gardai would be acting illegally, he is just a citizen. If he attacks you with guns and attempts to kidnap you and seize your property you're entitled to use force to defend yourself, if you feel your life is under threat you're entitled to use lethal force. The Garda is not entitled to use lethal force, non lethal force or any force at all. Everything he does that interferes with you is illegal, in it's totality.

I feel the discussion is well beyond this braindead "but what if" scenario making.

yoshytoshy

Foxtrol wrote: »

So you believe that if a Garda dressed in full uniform, just over the boarder, tried to move you off the road you would be fully entitled to assault him to the point were he feared for his life and thought it was necessary to use his baton in order to protect himself?

Thats not the issue here ,if the garda jumped from a tree and smashed through your windscreen ,of course there would be consequences.

Wibbs

BluePlanet wrote: »

By boarding the ship they were commiting an act of piracy.
Crews have the right to defend themselves against acts of piracy.

Correction act of war not piracy.

youcrazyjesus!

Foxtrol wrote: »

If you had actually read my previous posts you'd clearly see that I'm not saying that the IDF had a right to do what they did. I am however saying that there is also blood on the hands of the "peaceful" protesters who attacked the commandos.

If somebody attacks me I'm no less peaceful in nature for defending myself from assault.

Foxtrol

BluePlanet wrote: »

The whole argument about the protestors being violent is just another red herring.
The ship was in International Waters, therefore Israel had no authority.
By boarding the ship they were commiting an act of piracy.
Crews have the right to defend themselves against acts of piracy.

And expect the pirates not to defend themselves? Again Im not saying Israel was right in what they did but I can understand how an 18 or 19 year old commando would have had to use force if they feared for his or her lifes (some of them are still critically injured). I am agreeing with you that Israel came at this situation completely wrong but the protesters escalated the situation which led to these sad deaths

youcrazyjesus!

Wibbs wrote: »

Correction act of war not piracy.

Well no, it was piracy and criminal. The ships were not military ships.