Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

20Cent

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Seemingly the Israeli ambassador has pulled out of a meeting that the Oireachteas requested for tomorrow

Once all the Irish involved are released and clear he should be pulled out of the country and sent home.

gandalf

Roibead wrote: »

Work it out for yourself

Unlike others I don't like to assume things. So again in what capacity did you see the Lebanon and Gaza? I am sure someone as verbose and well travelled such as yourself would be only too glad to share their experiences with us all.

I am genuinely interested.

prinz

Zulu wrote: »

The truth that Israel intentionally committed a war crime by boarding a civilian ship in international waters and murdering it's passengers? Where's that the middle of exactly?

:rolleyes: If only life was this easy.

Memnoch wrote: »

Except those aboard the ship WERE in fear of their lives due to the illegal 3 am assault on their ship in international waters by fully armed Israeli commandos that have a reputation for killing civilians, aid workers and journalists..

Very easy to claim after the fact, with world opinion on your side.

IrishTonyO

20Cent wrote: »

Once all the Irish involved are released and clear he should be pulled out of the country and sent home.

I really do believe he should be expelled. It is a grave insult to agree to meet the committee and then pull out. It is his job to represent Israel in Ireland and to answer questions put to him by our government

prinz

wes wrote: »

The floatilla people have made such a claim, and I find it hard to believe you are unaware of it.

This claim does not correspond with footage from both sides.

prinz

IrishTonyO wrote: »

I really do believe he should be expelled. It is a grave insult to agree to meet the committee and then pull out. It is his job to represent Israel in Ireland and to answer questions put to him by our government

Quite possibly, and rightly, he may be busy packing up at the embassy.

doncarlos

prinz wrote: »

This claim does not correspond with footage from both sides.

If all footage was released wouldn't we know exactly what happened. Who is withholding this footage?

gandalf

prinz wrote: »

This claim does not correspond with footage from both sides.

But we do not have full footage from both sides so really you shouldn't be making judgement calls at all based on whats out there.

We do know that this operation took place in International Waters and as such it was an illegal operation. Everything else that happened is a result of this illegal operation. Those are the facts.

wes

prinz wrote: »

This claim does not correspond with footage from both sides.

According to you that is, and pretty much no one else. The footage shown by either side, does not discount the floatilla peoples claim, as the footage is incomplete, due to Israel's stealing the floatilla peoples footage, and not releasing there own unedited footage.

Foxtrol

20Cent wrote: »

8) 3/4ers of the aid is confiscated.

That makes no sense mate.

Im gonna assume you're tacking that onto the end of the others. They new full well they were bringing supplies that Israel didnt allow in (Im not sayin I agree with this)

My point is that bloodshed could have been stopped if they had taken those two options. The reason they decided not to take the options does not change the fact that choosing either would have avoided deaths.

deravarra

IrishTonyO wrote: »

I really do believe he should be expelled. It is a grave insult to agree to meet the committee and then pull out. It is his job to represent Israel in Ireland and to answer questions put to him by our government

And he answers? Really?

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

Eh sorry let me refresh your memory of your earlier post:

I've already answered all of your points. I'll attempt to briefly do so one last time.

6) The boats surrendered peacefully

The timing and manner of the Israeli assault on the lead boat made it impossible for a peaceful surrender. The Israeli attack caused a panic among people who were in fear for their lives.

"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."

7) That they gave in to the request to stop at the Israeli port.

Why should they? The whole point of the expedition was to deliver humanitarian aid to gaza in accordance with the UN resolution that says that aid should be allowed into gaza UNRESTRICTED.

If they had stopped, the Israelis would have stripped the aid of everything from their banned arbitrary list and continued to only allow aid through to gaza at a rate which the UN and EU have stated is less than a QUARTER of what is needed by people in a desperate situation. Which would have defeated the entire point of the humanitarian mission.

You cannot blame the aid workers for acting perfectly legally.

When Israel illegally denies humanitarian aid to gaza and then tries to enforce an illegal blockade by first making illegal threats and then following those threats by illegally boarding an aid ship in international waters and then illegally murdering civilians aboard an aid ship, to somehow assert that those who acted perfectly legally at every step are somehow to blame, does not make any sense to me.

prinz

doncarlos wrote: »

If all footage was released wouldn't we know exactly what happened. Who is withholding this footage?

Yes, and it all should be. No qualms there.

deadtiger wrote: »

But we do not have full footage from both sides so really you shouldn't be making judgement calls at all based on whats out there..

Either should other people. Oh wait no, if it's calling Israelis cold blooded murdering pirates that's ok.

deadtiger wrote: »

We do know that this operation took place in International Waters and as such it was an illegal operation. Everything else that happened is a result of this illegal operation. Those are the facts.

The legality of the operation is open to debate.

prinz

Memnoch wrote: »

The timing and manner of the Israeli assault on the lead boat made it impossible for a peaceful surrender. The Israeli attack caused a panic among people who were in fear for their lives.

Remind us of the death toll from the other ships?

KyussBishop

prinz wrote: »

IrishTonyO wrote: »

I really do believe he should be expelled. It is a grave insult to agree to meet the committee and then pull out. It is his job to represent Israel in Ireland and to answer questions put to him by our government

Quite possibly, and rightly, he may be busy packing up at the embassy.

Indeed and it's well past time that he be kicked out.

Memnoch

prinz wrote: »

This claim does not correspond with footage from both sides.

What footage from both sides? The Israelis confisicated and destroyed the vast majority of the footage from the flotilla by siezing all their laptops, phones, cameras, blackberries etc.

Since the Israeli's have siezed all the objective evidence we only have the word of the civilians to go on.

And I'm inclined to believe that word over that of the people who have destroyed the objective evidence in the first place.

gandalf

prinz wrote: »

Either should other people. Oh wait no, if it's called calling Israelis cold blooded murdering pirates that's ok.

If they assault a civilian ship on International Waters travelling under the flag of a nation that they are not at war with then they leave themselves open to being called pirates.

The legality of the operation is open to debate.

It seems to be open to debate by Israel and its supporters only.

doncarlos

prinz wrote: »

Yes, and it all should be. No qualms there.
.

But it's not, that's the problem. If I was on trial and I had a piece of evidence that proved I was innocent I'd make sure everybody knew about it.

20Cent

Foxtrol wrote: »

That makes no sense mate.

Im gonna assume you're tacking that onto the end of the others. They new full well they were bringing supplies that Israel didnt allow in (Im not sayin I agree with this)

My point is that bloodshed could have been stopped if they had taken those two options. The reason they decided not to take the options does not change the fact that choosing either would have avoided deaths.

Have you seen the list of banned items?
Most of the aid would not be allowed in.
That would defeat the purpose of going there in the first place.

There was another option which was don't board the ship and shoot people dead.

prinz

Memnoch wrote: »

What footage from both sides?

The footage that was being broadcast from the deck live as the boarding started. The one that makes no mention of people having been killed already. The one that's been shown on TV repeatedly.

deadtiger wrote: »

If they assault a civilian ship on International Waters travelling under the flag of a nation that they are not at war with then they leave themselves open to being called pirates..

It's not piracy.

deadtiger wrote: »

It seems to be open to debate by Israel and its supporters only.

...and professors of law and the like. Obviously Israeli stooges. :rolleyes:

Memnoch

prinz wrote: »

Remind us of the death toll from the other ships?

The people on the other ships had already learnt that the Israelis were killing people who tried to resist.

The other ships were smaller, with less people on board and so harder to botch up, even there when NO self-defence was offered the Israelis violently assaulted the people on board.

prinz

Memnoch wrote: »

The people on the other ships had already learnt that the Israelis were killing people who tried to resist..

Really? Evidence?

Memnoch wrote: »

The other ships were smaller, with less people on board and so harder to botch up, even there when NO self-defence was offered the Israelis violently assaulted the people on board.

No. Not self-defence but they did offer passive resistance to being boarded, which was dealt with without loss of life on any side.

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

I've already answered all of your points. I'll attempt to briefly do so one last time.

The timing and manner of the Israeli assault on the lead boat made it impossible for a peaceful surrender. The Israeli attack caused a panic among people who were in fear for their lives.

"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."

I know you're very fond of that quote. I disagree with you as there were no fatalities on the other boats. Unless you believe that the Israelis would have shot people no matter what the actions of the crew were.

Why should they? The whole point of the expedition was to deliver humanitarian aid to gaza in accordance with the UN resolution that says that aid should be allowed into gaza UNRESTRICTED.

If they had stopped, the Israelis would have stripped the aid of everything from their banned arbitrary list and continued to only allow aid through to gaza at a rate which the UN and EU have stated is less than a QUARTER of what is needed by people in a desperate situation. Which would have defeated the entire point of the humanitarian mission.

You cannot blame the aid workers for acting perfectly legally.

When Israel illegally denies humanitarian aid to gaza and then tries to enforce an illegal blockade by first making illegal threats and then following those threats by illegally boarding an aid ship in international waters and then illegally murdering civilians aboard an aid ship, to somehow assert that those who acted perfectly legally at every step are somehow to blame, does not make any sense to me.

I could have come up for logical rational as to why the Israeli mindset (not mine) would have not agreed with your points but the simple facts were that the actions you described (rightly or wrongly) would have stopped people from dying.

It really is a simple yes or no answer, not excuses as to why the choice wasnt made. Simply, if the flotilla had agreed to go into the Israeli port would there have been deaths on the boat?

sensibleken

Roibead wrote: »

I thought you said every country in the world they don’t all seem to be there.

Just for the book, I have been in Gaza and Lebanon and seen first-hand what your oppressed people do to their own.

When you actually know what you’re talking about come back to me and apologise.

well then your incorrect as i clearly said nearly every country. so your arguements are

1. if you disagree with me you are a jew hater

2. 'you werent there maaan'

this disccussion is not about the internal policies of lebanon, gaza or lichtenstein for that matter. stop trying to derail the thread because you cannot quote sources

Memnoch

prinz wrote: »

The footage that was being broadcast from the deck live as the boarding started. The one that makes no mention of people having been killed already. The one that's been shown on TV repeatedly.

Now I'm starting to believe that you are being deliberately dishonest as the following footage has (i believe) been pointed out many times.

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

Note the report from the journalist in English 30 seconds in.

I believe this is from before the Israelis landed, because 1) there is no evidence of an on going struggle upstairs, surely we would have heard the screaming and the rioting

2) The Israelis attacked journalists and cameramen and stopped them recording the moment they were on board

alastair

prinz wrote: »

The legality of the operation is open to debate.

:rolleyes: On what basis? Not according to the Convention on the High Seas, nor the Law of the Seas, nor the San Remo Manual.

Foxtrol

20Cent wrote: »

Have you seen the list of banned items?
Most of the aid would not be allowed in.
That would defeat the purpose of going there in the first place.

There was another option which was don't board the ship and shoot people dead.

Read my post again. I dont agree with the band items. God I cant make it any clearer.

The purpose wasnt aid. It was to make an issue of the blockade in the hopes that they would set a precedent by passing it or Israel would do something stupid and international pressure would force it to end.

There was lots of options both sides could (and should) have taken to prevent this.

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

I know you're very fond of that quote. I disagree with you as there were no fatalities on the other boats. Unless you believe that the Israelis would have shot people no matter what the actions of the crew were.

It doesn't matter what you disagree with me. All that matters was the the Israelis caused the panic on the LEAD boat, and the first hand account from someone ON THAT BOAT is the proof of this.

I've already explained why there were no fatalities on the other boats and have no desire to repeat myself endlessly.

I could have come up for logical rational as to why the Israeli mindset (not mine) would have not agreed with your points but the simple facts were that the actions you described (rightly or wrongly) would have stopped people from dying.

It really is a simple yes or no answer, not excuses as to why the choice wasnt made. Simply, if the flotilla had agreed to go into the Israeli port would there have been deaths on the boat?

Utter and complete nonsense. It is the person who is acting criminally and illegally that is responsible, not the person who refuses to be cowered by threats. Your repeated attempts to blame the victims are frankly disgusting.

KyussBishop

The Irish Times wrote:

Forged passport inquiry urges expulsion of Israeli
...
This week, Mr Martin strongly hinted that expelling the ambassador was not an option. “Our position all along has been to maintain diplomatic relations so that we can convey our views on the Middle East conflict directly to the Israeli government via the ambassador. That is the whole purpose of a diplomatic relationship,” he told The Irish Times .

“When you take action to suspend or discontinue that, you undermine your basic approach as a Government to influence the course of things.”
...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0602/1224271678155.html?via=rel?via=rel

This is very disappointing You can directly email Micheal Martin here, requesting that the ambassador be expelled:
micheal.martin@oireachtas.ie

Scofflaw

Roibead wrote: »

If Russia had these ships coming to break a blockade of Chechnea, its military would have attacked and destroyed the ships. If the USA were blockading a portion of Mexico due to a terrorist entity there, it would have opened live fire on the ships. Only the Jew haters of the world condemn Israel with irrational and factual accusations. Let’s face it, the world is full of hypocrites and people who side with evil terrorists and their supporters to satisfy their Jew-hatred.

I was quite specific about playing the anti-Semitism card. Banned for a week.

moderately,
Scofflaw