Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

doncarlos

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

whereas the Israelis did not go into this with the intention of killing anyone.

How do you know this?

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

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.

I don't believe that due to the IDF pirates murdering several people on board.

gandalf

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

Where the majority of the aid would have been filtered according to the ridiculous Israeli prescribed list.

2) Israel had every right to intercept the 'peace' activists heading towards their waters, even in international waters

No it didn't, that was a clear act of a Rogue Nation. Also if the Israeli government was so worried about negative PR it would have made more sense for them to carry out this operation within their own territorial waters and not offer a hint of illegitimacy to the interception and boarding operation!

3) The video of the woman on board saying 'deliver aid or martyrdom' says it all about the vessels intentions

I haven't seen that video but I would say it says something about her intentions but I doubt she speaks for everyone on the flotilla.

4) The lynch mob were bent on killing the commandos

Or some people reacted to being boarded illegally. They were misguided because when you bring a stick to a gun fight you are going to lose.

5) The commandos defended themselves as they had every right to do

They dealt with the situation as they were trained to do which again begs the question why use Specialist Combat troops on what was claimed to be a Policing operation?

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

Your sympathy and mine are secondary to the fact that International Law was flouted and because of this people were killed by those that flouted those Laws.

The question for the International Community is why do we let some countries flout International law on a regular basis yet use that same law as a basis to wage wars against other countries?

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

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 believe in peaceful protests, not terrorism. I dont believe in an eye for an eye.

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.

If you want to go into a rapist analogy this is like leaving your child with someone who is a known pedophile. The organisers and the dog on the street knew the IDF could overact with terrible consequences and this boat (not the other boats) decided to fight with them. Im blaming Israel but to revert to that analogy the parent should be looked at as well.

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.

I disagree. I doubt the politicians and Noble Peace prize winners were attacking the commandos with knives.

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).

I agree with all that. I would also add:

6) If the boat had surrendered peacefully (like all the other boats did, with no casualties)

Do you disagree with that addition?

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?

Seeing as Im agreeing with all you're points I wouldnt be so quick to call me ridiculous. Again do you agree with my one addition to that list?

alastair

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

Non-lethal violent means. Which anyone there had a right to defend themselves against.

BlaasForRafa

deadtiger wrote: »

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?

Police are not commonly trained to fast-rope from helicopters onto moving ships.

philologos

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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

Again, if Israel has an at-war status with Hamas, it is in their interest to check to see if there are any materials that could be used to construct rockets. It is clear why Israel would wish to do this, and I personally can understand such a concern.

I would hope that Israel will make continued efforts to encourage Palestinian freedom in Gaza, and allow for free trade between Gaza and the outside world commercially, and allow for aid to enter freely.

That freedom doesn't exist under a Hamas government though, and we would be deceiving ourselves if we said that a Hamas government was not a threat to Israel.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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...

Apart from BBC's Newsnight?

I do think the international waters issue, is a problem for Israel in this case. They should have waited until they entered the Gaza exclusion zone before taking action. The warning could have been issued in international waters. I don't see an issue with saying that you are about to enter blockaded waters and we would appreciate if you would dock at Ashdod.

Even the Wikipedia article concerning this debacle shows that the legal views concerning this aren't the most clear.

As for Turkish law, I don't see why Turkish law is relevant outside Turkish waters.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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

Countries don't just blindly trust other countries in security operations, they seek assurances for themselves. Especially in a region which currently holds at-war status with them and vice versa.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Says you...

Yes, I do say so, and I have good reason for saying so. You totally ignored that the IDF had given the ships clear warning of what they were doing before they even intercepted the ships.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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

This is assuming that Israel knew for a fact that all that was on there was food, medicine, and building supplies. The fact is that all they had was the word of others.

The aid would have got to Gaza if the flotilla had docked at Ashdod. The point isn't really about the aid, but it was to clearly defy Israel, and ignore the warnings that they had been given by the IDF.

Surely they would have known that they would have acted on their warning?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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.

That is if we agree that Israel didn't have the right to board the ships following their warnings. This is unclear.

The San Remo Manual Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts At Sea has certain measures which do allow for interceptions at sea. That is only if one considers that Hamas is actually at war with Israel. That's where the grey area comes in.

There is also an agreement that suggests that Israel has the authority of security on the sea stretch around the coastline of the sea of Gaza.

On the other hand others are saying that freedom of navigation exists in the high seas, and that Israel shouldn't have intercepted until it reached the sea of Gaza.

They should have waited.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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

I disagree, I'm not trying to muddy any waters, I'm trying to get to the bottom of this for myself. It isn't crystal clear, the Israel - Palestine conflict is never crystal clear.

I disagree with the Gaza blockade in essence, and I would hope that it would be lifted in the future, with free commercial trade, and with free aid transmission subject to security checks.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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

I've made clear that the international law is unclear on the legality of Israel's interception.

However, this would have had to happen within the sea of Gaza itself if not in international waters.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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.

This is contrary to the facts. 5 of the 6 boats were intercepted peaceably, and Israel had made clear that they required them to dock at Ashdod.

Their aim wasn't to kill anyone. It's hugely unfortunate that anyone had to die.

BlaasForRafa

doncarlos wrote: »

How do you know this?

I used logic. If they had intended to kill people they would have been armed with Uzis and Tavors not paintball guns and beanbag guns.

prinz

wes wrote: »

The pirates had no business on the boats.

Piracy can't be conducted by a recognised military commissioned vessel.

Selkies

BluePlanet wrote: »

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.

I wouldn't try and prevent anyone holding a gun from doing anything.
Being alive is fantastic

gandalf

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Police are not commonly trained to fast-rope from helicopters onto moving ships.

So are you saying that this was not a Policing operation?

But the official Israeli spokesman on Newsnight last night said it was

BluePlanet

Jakkass wrote: »

This is contrary to the facts. 5 of the 6 boats were intercepted peaceably

Peaceably by who's standards?
Only if getting shocked via electric devices, bruised by rubber bullets and beaten count as "peaceably" in your book.

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Police are not commonly trained to fast-rope from helicopters onto moving ships.

Indeed - but you seem to be begging the question of why it was necessary to "fast-rope from helicopters onto moving ships".

regards,
Scofflaw

BluePlanet

Selkies wrote: »

I wouldn't try and prevent anyone holding a gun from doing anything.
Being alive is fantastic

Some people have more guts than others.

gandalf

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I used logic. If they had intended to kill people they would have been armed with Uzis and Tavors not paintball guns and beanbag guns.

Well there was a video clip shown last night on Newsnight of an Israeli Soldier with a silenced Uzi.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Piracy can't be conducted by a recognised military commissioned vessel.

Ok, privateers then. Still the IDF had no business on those boats, and no business murdering people.

Scofflaw

Selkies wrote: »

I wouldn't try and prevent anyone holding a gun from doing anything.
Being alive is fantastic

The right to resist aggression is not dependent on the capacity to do so.

regards,
Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa

deadtiger wrote: »

So are you saying that this was not a Policing operation?

But the official Israeli spokesman on Newsnight last night said it was

You know thats not what I'm saying.

It was a policing type operating carried out by troops trained in fast-roping from helicopters onto ships, it would have carried on being a policing operation if the mob hadn't attacked the commandos with iron bars and clubs.

alastair

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, if Israel has an at-war status with Hamas...

Which it doesn't. That's why the terms of the San Remo laws can't apply (and even if they did the articles posted above would disallow the boarding in international waters).

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You know thats not what I'm saying.

It was a policing type operating carried out by troops trained in fast-roping from helicopters onto ships, it would have carried on being a policing operation if the mob hadn't attacked the commandos with iron bars and clubs.

They weren't a mob, just people defending themselves from armed nutters attacking there boat.

doncarlos

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I used logic. If they had intended to kill people they would have been armed with Uzis and Tavors not paintball guns and beanbag guns.

And people where shot dead with paintball guns and beanbag guns?

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

I believe in peaceful protests, not terrorism. I dont believe in an eye for an eye.

This was a peaceful protest, not terrorism. It had nothing to do with an eye for an eye. It had everything to do with self-defence which is completely different and justifiable.

If you want to go into a rapist analogy this is like leaving your child with someone who is a known pedophile. The organisers and the dog on the street knew the IDF could overact with terrible consequences and this boat (not the other boats) decided to fight with them. Im blaming Israel but to revert to that analogy the parent should be looked at as well.

Actually, a more appropriate analogy would be if a known paedophile breaks into your house to rape your children and you try and stop him and throw him out and he kills you for it.

I disagree. I doubt the politicians and Noble Peace prize winners were attacking the commandos with knives.

Firstly, I don't buy the knives bit. The israelis CLAIM they were used and they show photographs of knives emptied out of the kitchen. There's little proof to back that claim.

The people defended themselves with whatever they could pick up.

I agree with all that. I would also add:

6) If the boat had surrendered peacefully (like all the other boats did, with no casualties)

Do you disagree with that addition?

I disagree very strongly. Even if I assume that the Israelis did not want to kill anyone initially. The fact is that they botched the operation and started a PANIC on the lead boat.

I GENUINELY believe that the people on the lead ship were IN FEAR OF THEIR lives and thought they had NO CHOICE but to try and defend themselves with whatever was at hand.

The other smaller boats had less people on them and were easier to manage, and also the people on those boats had already seen what was happening on the lead ship where people HAD been killed.

As observed by this al jazeera reporter:

"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."

Seeing as Im agreeing with all you're points I wouldnt be so quick to call me ridiculous. Again do you agree with my one addition to that list?

I'm calling your attempts to blame the victims of this terrible atrocity ridiculous.

Foxtrol

doncarlos wrote: »

And people where shot dead with paintball guns and beanbag guns?

And the commandos were stabbed with the daisy's these humanitarians were greeting them with.

BlaasForRafa

deadtiger wrote: »

Well there was a video clip shown last night on Newsnight of an Israeli Soldier with a silenced Uzi.

That was a soldier on the rear deck of the ship who landed after the troops landed on the upper forward deck of the ship.

If the bridge had been secured quickly then there would have been no need to land anyone on the rear deck of the ship at all. Once reports were made that activists were firing guns then its logical to land troops with protection. Also, it was a suppressed Uzi not a silenced Uzi.

doncarlos

Foxtrol wrote: »

And the commandos were stabbed with the daisy's these humanitarians were greeting them with.

No they were stabbed by knives the humanitarians were defending themselves with

Scofflaw

Foxtrol wrote: »

And the commandos were stabbed with the daisy's these humanitarians were greeting them with.

No, they were hit with what people had to hand. They fired back with what they had to hand.

regards,
Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

They weren't a mob, just people defending themselves from armed nutters attacking there boat.

You obviously are just ignoring the fact that some of these activists were waiting and prepared for the Israelis.

droidus

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.

The first soldiers on the ship were not killed, they were not shot at, they were captured by the defenders of the ship.

Moments later another bigger helicopter landed more troops and this time they fired immediately at people and killed as many as they could so that they could reach the cabin and take control of the ship.

I saw blood spilt on the ship and everyone knew that there was no weapons. we all knew the Israelis would intercept us and try to stop us, but we didn't think that they would open fire at the first moment.

I have been shown the picture of a Yemeni man, and this is ridiculous, who was on the ship and most people know that every Yemeni in the world has a Yemeni style knife, that is a cultural thing and does not have anything to do with violence.

I understand now that in Israel they are trying to make a big deal about that, saying that the boat was full of violent people and just because of that one man.

Othman Battiri, Al Jazeera crew member

At 4:15, tens of Navy boats carrying tens of soldiers tried to board the ships. They were met by resistance. Peaceful resistance. Helicopters came and tried to download soldiers. They could not.

At that moment, they started firing live ammunition.

First, they fired sound and gas bombs and rubber bullets. Some people were injured from the rubber bullets. Then, live bullets were used. I saw several men being wounded. We tried to help some of the wounded. I saw four people who were killed.

I saw two people die before my eyes. One of them had a bullet in the chest. The other was bleeding but I did not know where he was shot.

We went down to see the other dead people. One had a bullet in his head as if he was hit by a sniper. Live bullets were every where.

They did not respect that all those on the ships were civilians. There were no weapons.

There was not firing by the activists on the soldiers. As media we stand witnesses on that.

They four dead people that I saw were all Turkish. Two were old men. The other two were younger. One of the young people was a coordinator in the media room. His name is Juwdat.

We heard that more people were killed. I only saw four. Most of the fighting took place on the upper level around the room of ship captain, where the activist tried to prevent the soldiers from trying to control the captain’s room. This is where live ammunition were used.

The attack started at 4:15 and ended around 5:30 when we heard that the ship was controlled by the Israeli's.

Around 7:00 they asked us to leave our rooms and they started tying our hands.

Issam Zaatar, Al Jazeera cameraman

I was filming, and then he [an Israeli solider] ran after me with a stun gun.

He could not catch me. One of his colleagues hit my hand from behind with a stun gun. My camera fell down. He ran to crush the camera with his feet.

I told him, don't break my camera. If you want the tapes, I will give them to you. I told him these are media equipment. They had no limits.

They used rubber bullets. They used tear gas bombs. It was an unbelievable scene.

Haneen Zubi, Palestinian member of the Knesset

We were expecting the Israeli army to stop us, to prevent us from entering but surely we didn't expect such a war against us.

It was 14 ships which approached us, nearly at 4.30 in the morning. Fourteen ships that I could count and one helicopter. Maybe more than 10 soldiers, I couldn't say exactly [how many] were getting out of the helicopter.

On the second floor of the ship there were just passengers who are journalists, a nurse and organisers of the flotilla who didn't have anything in their hands.

After 20 minutes, maybe 15 minutes, there were three dead bodies.

It ended at six, when a voice from the microphone said the ship was controlled by the Israelis, 'please enter the rooms'.
Norman Paech, former member of the German parliament

This was not an act of self-defence [by the Israeli army], but rather it was completely disproportionate - although we were counting on our ship being blocked and maybe checked.

This was a very serious offence, this was a war crime.

I personally saw two and a half wooden sticks which were used [by activists].

We had not prepared in any way to fight. We didn't even consider it.

No violence, no resistance - because we knew very well that we would have absolutely no chance against soldiers like this.

Mihalis Grigoropoulos, Greece

I was steering the ship, we saw them [Israeli soldiers] capture another ship in front of us, which was the Turkish passenger vessel with more than 500 people on board and heard shots fired.

We did not resist at all, we couldn't even if we had wanted to. What could we have done against the commandos who climbed aboard?

The only thing some people tried was to delay them from getting to the bridge, forming a human shield. They were fired upon with plastic bullets and were stunned with electric devices.

There was great mistreatment after our arrest. We were essentially hostages, like animals on the ground.

They wouldn't let us use the bathroom, wouldn't give us food or water and they took video of us despite international conventions banning this.
Nilufer Cetin, Turkey

We stayed in our cabin and played games amid the sound of gunfire.

My son has been nervous since yesterday afternoon ... I did not need to protect my son.

They knew there was a baby on board. I put a gas mask and life jacket on my son.

We did not experience any other problems on board, only a water shortage.

We took walks on the deck, played games with my son. The curtains were drawn, so I did not see the raid as it was happening. I only heard the voices.

There are lightly and heavily wounded people.

There are thousands, millions of babies in Gaza. My son and I wanted to play with those babies. We planned to deliver them aid. We wanted to say: 'Look, it's a safe place, I came here with my baby-son.'

I saw my husband from a distance, he looked okay. The ship personnel was not wounded, because they [the soldiers] needed them to take the ship to port.

I will go again if another ship goes.

Cetin returned to Istanbul airport with her one-year-old son.

Youssef Benderbal, France

The instructions were clear. Do not provoke, remain calm and go to meet them [the commandos] saying 'we are pacifists and not terrorists'.

Masked commandos took possession of the ship. They were aiming for the captain's cabin.

Benderbal was not on board Mavi Marmara, the lead ship of the flotilla, but on one of the other five ships. He gave this account to Europe 1 radio after arriving at a Paris airport.

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.

Mutlu Tiryaki, Turkey

When we went up to the deck, they emerged from helicopters and military boats and attacked us.

They approached our vessel with military ships after issuing a warning. We told them we were unarmed. Our sole weapon was water.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/2010/06/20106193546785656.html

Memnoch

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

That was a soldier on the rear deck of the ship who landed after the troops landed on the upper forward deck of the ship.

If the bridge had been secured quickly then there would have been no need to land anyone on the rear deck of the ship at all. Once reports were made that activists were firing guns then its logical to land troops with protection. Also, it was a suppressed Uzi not a silenced Uzi.

The activists did not have guns. Even the Israelis have stopped making this claim as it has been completely rubbished.

Even if the activists managed to grab guns OFF the Israelis, this then proves that it was the Israelis who used the guns first.

Selkies

BluePlanet wrote: »

Some people have more guts than others.

Yeah people like that always seem in a hurry to show off the guts, in the figurative and literal sense.

"You know what a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed"