Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

gandalf

Euroland wrote: »

Never ever trust the Israeli propaganda machine, the Israeli Special Forces were planned to kill and they did what was planned.

Actually I don't believe that. I don't believe they meant to kill.

I believe that the whole operation was botched badly from the planning side because they didn't want to give any PR oxygen. They wanted the boarding to happen in secret and the next day say that the boats had been escorted to an Israeli port.

They went wrong because

1. They executed the operation illegally in International Waters.
2. They used shock special forces troops who are used to taking part in assassination and infiltration combat operations and not a police type operation like this.
3. They obviously did not plan the incursion properly for a large vessel with a large number of people on board (again probably because they used shock troops who would normally gun down those they encountered).

Again can any of the people who are defending the IDF actions here explain to me why they didn't

1. Wait for the flotilla to reach territorial waters that they have stewardship over before boarding?
2. Board during daylight hours using assets that are used to carry out operations of this type like customs and by coming alongside the ships in the flotilla?

OhNoYouDidn't

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, it must.

Maybe it feels it must, but they have no legal right to inspect anything that has passed customs. Its between Turkey and Palestine.

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't entirely true, basing my views on the Newsnight episode last night. If a country is attempting to breach a blockade, it does have this entitlement under international law. There is an argument over the legality of it, and it certainly isn't black and white. There is another argument over whether or not the Gaza blockade itself is legal.

All the legal opinion in the media thus far indicates that both the blockade and the assault on the aid ships was illegal under international and Turkish law. If you have a differing legal opinion, lets have it...

Jakkass wrote: »

I call nonsense on this one.

In a conflict situation Israel needs assurances that inappropriate goods are not being brought into Gaza. It isn't enough to trust Turkey or any other organisation.

Well then they should properly isolate themselves from the international community if they don't trust their oldest ally and the Red Cross.

Jakkass wrote: »

You've been severely dishonest concerning the circumstances of the interceptions at least in the post that I quoted.

Says you...

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how "would be" is problematic. Israel allowing the flotilla to dock in Ashdod, is certainly a lot better than Israel turning the vessels back home without the aid being delivered.

But again, its nothing to do with them and they have no right to intercept food, medicine and building supplies donated as aid.

Jakkass wrote: »

So, the IDF should have just let themselves be beaten? - They intercepted 5 other boats without excessive hassle. If the activists had merely obeyed the IDF orders and accepted to dock in Ashdod, this would have never happened bear in mind.

But the point is they were trespassing in the first place and the occupants of the boat have a clear legal right to repel pirates.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is a grey area actually.

Its not even close to being grey. This is what Scofflaw was talking about. You are trying to muddy crystal clear waters.

Jakkass wrote: »

The IDF brought down excessively armed troops, but arguably, at least based on last nights Newsnight they should have dropped far more down on the ship in order to maintain order.

It was due to the lack of control on board that the IDF opened fire, and if they had dropped more down, it might not have gotten to that point.

Or if they had obeyed the law and human decency they wouldn't have had to 'maintain order in the forst place'.

Jakkass wrote: »

It wasn't. The strategic object of the exercise was to take control of the ships so that they could dock in Ashdod, or at least thoroughly warn those on board that their previous warning was serious, and they were going to take action.

I disagree. The strategic objective of the excercise was to kick the living shít out of the aid workers to make the next lot think twice.

Scofflaw

Foxtrol wrote: »

The Flotilla knew this was a win win situation for them. They either break the blockade and then set a precedent or Israel does something stupid to stop them and its amazing "Israel is a monster" PR. Anyone who thinks this was solely about aid is naive at best.

Lucky there's probably nobody here like that, then. It was a win-win for the flotilla because Israel are engaged in something generally regarded as wrong - the blockade of a civilian population who they are - according to themselves, now - not at war with.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Did those on deck know for certain that they hadnt strayed into Israeli waters?

Ships do like to know where they are. They have all kinds of instruments to tell them. And ships are slow, too - if you were in international waters a couple of hours ago and nobody's told you different, you're likely still in them.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Those who fought would have fought anyway just like the element who protest in Ireland always happen to be the ones who the Gardai "pick on"

More "blame the victim" - they're "those type of people anyway".

regards,
Scofflaw

Euroland

prinz wrote: »

The conflict isn't just between Israel and Hamas though.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091901156.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7002576.stm

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3451149,00.html

Gaza desginated a hostile political entity in it's own right, divided from Hamas.

We on this board declare Israel a terrorist state and expect from tomorrow all the rest of the world abiding by our declaration.

Macha

Foxtrol wrote: »

So do you all believe that there would have been more or less casualties if those on board hadn't attacked the commandos? (And please dont say that the commandos shouldnt have been there as I already agree with you)

You still haven't answered the question of whether you believe those on board had the right to defend themselves.

I'm pretty sure I would sustain less injuries if I didn't resist being kidnapped, for example, but surely you would agree that I have that right to resist?

BluePlanet

Foxtrol wrote: »

Sorry its not victim blaming. I dont run out in front of a car who I can see is speeding if I plan to see my next birthday.

A car traversing a road, even at speed probably has a legal right to be there.
It certainly doesn't have the right to run over pedestrians. And the driver should be brought to book for the speeding offense.
Even if it is driving under the speeding limit, it still has no right to run over pedestrians and infact, must YIELD right of way to crossing pedestrians (if there are no cross-points within 50m of pedestrain).

A rapist or a group of rapists do not have the right to target and rape people.

I'm sorry but your analogy is not really applicable

alastair

prinz wrote: »

It certainly undermines any claim that Israel and Hamas cannot be at war. They made clear that Israel was at fact at war with Gaza itself.

How does it do that? - it intentionally avoids proscribing Gaza or Hamas as an enemy state. You know those Hamas rockets that Israel (rightfully) decries as criminal terrorist acts? They can't be such within a legal state of conflict.

Memnoch

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I dont know how many times I'm going to have to say it but I don't agree with Israels actions I just believe the escalation was due to some on board.

Your belief is misguided and wrong. 3 aid workers were shot before the Israelis even came on board, at least one was already dead. There is video of this as well as statements from numerous first hand accounts.

http://www9.gazetevatan.com/israil-turk-bayrakli-yardim-gemisinde-olum-kustu/308396/1/Gundem

Its like if you choose to walk down a dangerous road on your way home from a night out rather the road next to it which is known for being safe and you end up being mugged. You then decide to pull a knife on and stabs the mugger to protect yourself who then in turn shoots you. It obviously wouldn't be your fault but if you had made other choices it would be much more likely that you wouldnt be dead right now.

These kind of random analogies are completely pointless as well as artificial and false. This wasn't a dangerous road, it was international waters, this wasn't a road, this was a ship. The Israelis had no right to blockade it, and certainly no right to board it in the middle of the night. The people on board had seen others get hurt and believed their lives were in danger, their reactions in desperate self-defence are completely understandable and were necessitated by the Israeli onslaught.

Even in your analogy, which makes no sense, the mugger would be convicted of murder. And so should Israel be.

Foxtrol

BluePlanet wrote: »

A car traversing a road, even at speed probably has a legal right to be there.
It certainly doesn't have the right to run over pedestrians. And the driver should be brought to book for the speeding offense.
Even if it is driving under the speeding limit, it still has no right to run over pedestrians and infact, must YIELD right of way to crossing pedestrians (if there are no cross-points within 50m of pedestrain).

Yes but it doesnt change the fact that I'd still be alive if I didn't run in front of the speeding car.

A rapist or a group of rapists do not have the right to target and rape people.

I never brought rapists into it.

I'm sorry but your analogy is not really applicable

I disagree. I never said what Israel are doing was legal or right. What I'm saying is the situation was escalated by the actions of those on the boats and that there would be no deaths if they had succumb to the Israelis as the rest of the boats did. They would have gotten their PR but not the bloodshed

BlaasForRafa

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, breathing equipment is standard as part of firefighting equipment on board ships, oil rigs, etc. And every ship has any number of metal bars, chains, poles, spiky objects and heavy things - fire axes, even. After all, if your ship catches fire in the middle of the sea, the fire brigade won't be along any time soon.

Have none of you worked at sea, or spent any working time on ships?

I haven't worked at sea but my father did for 40+ years so I had plenty of free trips on ferries over the years and while fire-axes and other firefighting equipment is distributed throughout ferries, iron bars and wooden clubs are not commonly left lying around where passengers could pick them up, such items would be in areas restricted to crew only.

So are you saying that the crew was involved in the attacks on the commandos or gave weapons to the activists? I haven't alleged that but its an interesting point.

It's not a question of whether they came out of it well, or could expect to do so - it is a question of whether they had the right to do so.

What we have here is not some kind of attack on Israel - it's a botched illegal boarding in international waters, with subsequent civilian deaths caused by the armed forces of Israel. Israel wishes to take no blame, but is entirely in the wrong - Israel's supporters wish her to take no blame, and are left having to muddy the waters with quibbling details and attempts to blame the victims.

It really is a matter of whether they would come out of it well, going up against a group of commandos is not very sensible.

And who says they don't want Israel to take blame, I have said in a few threads that I don't think they should have boarded the ship in that way. What I am saying is that I don't think that the troops boarded the ship with the intent to kill as some people allege and that the deaths occurred because the troops were attacked.

prinz

alastair wrote: »

You know those Hamas rockets that Israel (rightfully) decries as criminal terrorist acts? They can't be such within a legal state of conflict.

Of course there can. Many have argued that the Condor Legion bombing of Guernica was a state-sponsored terrorist act. The later bombing of Rotterdam, the allied bombing of Dresden..etc

BluePlanet

Foxtrol wrote: »

Yes but it doesnt change the fact that I'd still be alive if I didn't run in front of the speeding car.

So is Israel the "speeding car" in your analogy?
And the ship's crew the pedestrian?

I'm sorry but it just doesn't fit the situation.
The ship is in International Waters, it IS THE CAR in your analogy.
It's bigger fisically and has a right to traverse in path it has taken.
In fact i'll wager that in customary maritime matters, the smaller vessel has duty of care to get out of the bigger vessel's path, just like in aviation matters.

The Israeli comando's are running an interceptmission, i suppose they are really the pedestrians in your anaology.

Foxtrol

taconnol wrote: »

You still haven't answered the question of whether you believe those on board had the right to defend themselves.

I'm pretty sure I would sustain less injuries if I didn't resist being kidnapped, for example, but surely you would agree that I have that right to resist?

From the info so far then yes they did.

Did any of the other boats resist? Not that I know.

Did anyone from any of the other boats die? No

Do I believe that they were fully aware that it was the IDF? Yes

Do I believe that some would have attacked the IDF even if they were in Israeli waters? Yes.

gandalf

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I have said in a few threads that I don't think they should have boarded the ship in that way. What I am saying is that I don't think that the troops boarded the ship with the intent to kill as some people allege and that the deaths occurred because the troops were attacked.

Yes but the fact they used troops means that they were not equipped to deal with civil disobedience or Policing. Israeli spokesmen that were on several news programs last night claimed the operation was a policing one. Why use Special Forces who specializes in sea-to-land incursions, assassinations, counter-terrorism, sabotage, maritime intelligence gathering and maritime hostage rescue for what essentially was claimed to be a Policing operation?

And this is ignoring the fact the operation was illegal in International Waters?

OhNoYouDidn't

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

It really is a matter of whether they would come out of it well, going up against a group of commandos is not very sensible.

So were the French Resistance or the people who took part in the Warsaw uprising wrong to at least try?

Yet again, the only people in the world who are not allowed fight back are whoever Isreal is picking a row with on any given day.

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

Yes but it doesnt change the fact that I'd still be alive if I didn't run in front of the speeding car.

Completely irrelevant. There are countless examples of people standing up for what's right throughout history being killed by government forces when they have done nothing wrong. They would still be alive if the Israeli's hadn't acted illegally every SINGLE step of the way and that is where the entirety of the blame lies.

I never brought rapists into it.

People are pointing out the ridiculousness of your random analogies and what you are saying is effectively, it's the woman's fault if she gets raped. Or in your words, it's the aid workers fault they got shot.

I disagree. I never said what Israel are doing was legal or right. What I'm saying is the situation was escalated by the actions of those on the boats and that there would be no deaths if they had succumb to the Israelis as the rest of the boats did. They would have gotten their PR but not the bloodshed

Those acting in self-defence and who thought they would be killed did nothing wrong and it is severely disingenuous of you to try and attribute any blame to them.

Let's just lay it out shall be....

Here's what I say...

There would be no deaths if...

1) The Israelis hadn't set up an illegal blockage of Gaza

2) The Israelis were allowing unrestricted humanitarian aid into Gaza as MANDATED by the UN.

3) The Israelis had inspected the cargo in Cyprus as they had been invited to.

4) The Israelis had not attacked the flotilla in the middle of the night with assault troops.

5) The Israelis had not instigated panic by firing onto the passengers on the ship before boarding (whether plastic or live ammunition).

You're saying...

There would not have been any deaths if... after every single step of illegal Israeli action, people who thought they were under attack and about to be killed by a military force that has a REPUTATION for killing civilians, journalists and aid workers had not tried to defend themselves in desperation.

Do you not realise how utterly ridiculous you sound?

Scofflaw

Foxtrol wrote: »

Yes but it doesnt change the fact that I'd still be alive if I didn't run in front of the speeding car.

I never brought rapists into it.

I disagree. I never said what Israel are doing was legal or right. What I'm saying is the situation was escalated by the actions of those on the boats and that there would be no deaths if they had succumb to the Israelis as the rest of the boats did. They would have gotten their PR but not the bloodshed

If the Israelis hadn't chosen an assault style attempt to seize control of the ships, the reaction of the passengers would have been different - and if it had not been different, it would at least have been clearly less reasonable on the part of the passengers, even though it would still have been a case of resisting an illegal attempt to board and seize control of the vessel. If it comes right down to it, you don't even know whether the people who were killed were the right people, or whether they were shot because they happened to be "in the wrong place".

Israel wanted to reduce the PR possibilities of an open boarding, and lethally botched their attempt to do so, killing several people along the way. Your response has been to blame the victims for doing what they were legally entitled to do, when you don't even know whether the people killed were the ones attacking the soldiers or not*.

regards,
Scofflaw

*hint: that's the sort of thing an enquiry is supposed to find out

BlaasForRafa

deadtiger wrote: »

Actually I don't believe that. I don't believe they meant to kill.

I believe that the whole operation was botched badly from the planning side because they didn't want to give any PR oxygen. They wanted the boarding to happen in secret and the next day say that the boats had been escorted to an Israeli port.

They went wrong because

1. They executed the operation illegally in International Waters.
2. They used shock special forces troops who are used to taking part in assassination and infiltration combat operations and not a police type operation like this.
3. They obviously did not plan the incursion properly for a large vessel with a large number of people on board (again probably because they used shock troops who would normally gun down those they encountered).

Again can any of the people who are defending the IDF actions here explain to me why they didn't

1. Wait for the flotilla to reach territorial waters that they have stewardship over before boarding?
2. Board during daylight hours using assets that are used to carry out operations of this type like customs and by coming alongside the ships in the flotilla?

Thats at least a rational analysis based on facts.

To answer you
1. I'm wondering that myself. Possibly they wanted to stop the flotilla before small palestinian fishing boats were able to get to them to receive items or people from the larger ships.
2. Again, we're still really waiting for an answer on this. 5 of the ships were boarded in a relatively normal way but the Marmara is a larger passenger ferry which may have been used to damage israeli ships. We do know that the reason they didn't use other means of disabling it was to avoid the ship being stranded at sea, ironically that may have been a better pr move considering how things turned out.

Foxtrol

BluePlanet wrote: »

So is Israel the "speeding car" in your analogy?
And the ship's crew the pedestrian?

I'm sorry but it just doesn't fit the situation.
The ship is in International Waters, it IS THE CAR in your analogy.
It's bigger fisically and has a right to traverse in path it has taken.
In fact i'll wager that in customary maritime matters, the smaller vessel has duty of care to get out of the bigger vessel's path, just like in aviation matters.

The Israeli comando's are running an interceptmission, i suppose they are really the pedestrians in your anaology.

What im saying is that a guy with a knife is a pedestrian and the guy with the gun is the car. I wouldnt pick a fight with someone I knew was an Israeli commando as I wouldnt pick a fight with a speeding car.

Macha

Foxtrol wrote: »

From the info so far then yes they did.

Great, well then perhaps you might stop heaping blame at their feet and instead consider why their boat was boarded in such an aggressive manner.

It's quite hypocritical of Israel to accuse the flotilla of having PR goals (of course they did) when it's clear that they carried out this attack at night for the very same reasons.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Do I believe that some would have attacked the IDF even if they were in Israeli waters? Yes.

Do you have any evidence of this or is it pure speculation?

eamo12

Well, the facts speak for themselves.

1) The flotilla could have docked at a designated port and have the aid transported to Gaza
2) Israel had every right to intercept the 'peace' activists heading towards their waters, even in international waters
3) The video of the woman on board saying 'deliver aid or martyrdom' says it all about the vessels intentions
4) The lynch mob were bent on killing the commandos
5) The commandos defended themselves as they had every right to do

I have no sympathy at all for these so-called 'peace' activists - after all, they got the propaganda coup they wanted.

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

From the info so far then yes they did.

Did any of the other boats resist? Not that I know.

WRONG

Dimitris Gielalis, Greece
Suddenly from everywhere we saw inflatables coming at us, and within seconds fully equipped commandos came up on the boat.

They came up and used plastic bullets, we had beatings, we had electric shocks, any method we can think of, they used.

Gielalis was on board the ship Sfendoni.

Did anyone from any of the other boats die? No

Yes, congratulations, the Israelis frightened them into not even trying to resist peacefully by killing people on the lead boat. Despite this, as you can read above, the Israelis were brutal in their treatment of the aid workers.

Do I believe that some would have attacked the IDF even if they were in Israeli waters? Yes.

The attack was initiated by the IDF, any response from those on board the ships is self defence.

Mohamed Vall, Al Jazeera reporter
The Israeli assault took those of us on the ship by complete surprise.

During that hour an half in the early morning everybody on board the ship thought that no-one would survive the Israeli attack because we saw about 30 war vessels surrounding this ship and helicopters attacking with very luminous bombs, the sound of them makes you think you are dead

That was a fear of war, complete war, on a ship that was full of men, women and even children.

Scofflaw

Foxtrol wrote: »

What im saying is that a guy with a knife is a pedestrian and the guy with the gun is the car. I wouldnt pick a fight with someone I knew was an Israeli commando as I wouldnt pick a fight with a speeding car.

What do you believe is the relevance of this to the rights and wrongs of the situation? As far as I can see it has none whatsoever.

regards,
Scofflaw

karma_

eamo12 wrote: »

Well, the facts speak for themselves.

1) The flotilla could have docked at a designated port and have the aid transported to Gaza
2) Israel had every right to intercept the 'peace' activists heading towards their waters, even in international waters
3) The video of the woman on board saying 'deliver aid or martyrdom' says it all about the vessels intentions
4) The lynch mob were bent on killing the commandos
5) The commandos defended themselves as they had every right to do

I have no sympathy at all for these so-called 'peace' activists - after all, they got the propaganda coup they wanted.

Spoken like a true fascist.

prinz

Memnoch wrote: »

Yes, congratulations, the Israelis frightened them into not even trying to resist peacefully by killing people on the lead boat. Despite this, as you can read above, the Israelis were brutal in their treatment of the aid workers..

:rolleyes: Actually on board the other ships the "humanitarians" did resist being boarded peacefully. The Israelis used non-lethal means to get control of the ships and everybody is still alive. Exactly how it could have gone down on the Turkish vessel.

alastair

prinz wrote: »

Of course there can. Many have argued that the Condor Legion bombing of Guernica was a state-sponsored terrorist act. The later bombing of Rotterdam, the allied bombing of Dresden..etc

Israel isn't claiming state-sponsered terrorism - it's claiming criminal terrorism. It's very much in Israel's interest to avoid designating their problems with Hamas as an international armed conflict, as it would oblige them to apply the terms of the fourth Geneva Convention (and legitimise the Hamas use of rockets). Since Iseael claims not to occupy Gaza it can't claim that other legal state of conflict - non-international armed conflict. That's why they invent terms like 'Hostile Entity' - that have no applicability to the San Remo laws.

wes

prinz wrote: »

:rolleyes: Actually on board the other ships the "humanitarians" did resist being boarded peacefully. The Israelis used non-lethal means to get control of the ships and everybody is still alive. Exactly how it could have gone down on the Turkish vessel.

The pirates had no business on the boats.

BlaasForRafa

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So were the French Resistance or the people who took part in the Warsaw uprising wrong to at least try?

Yet again, the only people in the world who are not allowed fight back are whoever Isreal is picking a row with on any given day.

The french were armed with stens, bren guns, lee enfield rifles, pistols, grenades and explosives supplied by the British. They also had weapons stolen from the germans. Also may of the resistance were trained by SOE operatives and engaged mostly in ambush operations where they had a good chance of achieving their objective and getting away in one piece.

The polish forces in the warsaw uprising had arms supplied by the allies and stolen from the germans. Again many of the polish had been trained to effectively fight the germans.

Your analogy dosen't work though as in both cases the germans were intent on killing resistance where they found it whereas the Israelis did not go into this with the intention of killing anyone.

BluePlanet

Foxtrol wrote: »

What im saying is that a guy with a knife is a pedestrian and the guy with the gun is the car. I wouldnt pick a fight with someone I knew was an Israeli commando as I wouldnt pick a fight with a speeding car.

Neither would I, but would you let the guy with the gun onto your boat or would you attempt to prevent him from getting onboard?
Particularly if you had numbers on your side.

Memnoch

prinz wrote: »

:rolleyes: Actually on board the other ships the "humanitarians" did resist being boarded peacefully. The Israelis used non-lethal means to get control of the ships and everybody is still alive. Exactly how it could have gone down on the Turkish vessel.

This is not the first time that unarmed aid workers, civilians and even journalists have been shot dead or run over by bulldozers by the IDF. So forgive me if I don't take them at their word as regards to their intentions.

The fact is that the lead boat was the first one attacked and they thought that the Israelis were trying to kill them and tried to defend themselves. By the time the other boats were boarded the word had spread that the Israelis would kill indiscriminately and people didn't even try to defend themselves.

The fact is that the Israelis caused a panic on the lead boat by their actions.