Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

doncarlos

JimiTime wrote: »

I didn't say anything about deserving to be shot. Its a good indication of motive though. It wasn't just a 'We want to bring aid peacefully to our palestinian bretheren'. There were obviously people on board up for some agro. That they did this, while at the same time having children on board etc says alot. Israel obviously screwed up, but the ship is not beyond blame. It obviously pre-meditated its provocation and came prepared for it. My sympathies for the deaths of the people who were shot, but the flotilla decision makers have alot to answer for here too.

A breathing apparatus now causes agro?
If they were up for agro why were there not proper weapons rather than anything they could lay their hands on from around the ship.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote: »

I didn't say anything about deserving to be shot. Its a good indication of motive though. It wasn't just a 'We want to bring aid peacefully to our palestinian bretheren'. There were obviously people on board up for some agro. That they did this, while at the same time having children on board etc says alot. Israel obviously screwed up, but the ship is not beyond blame. It obviously pre-meditated its provocation and came prepared for it. My sympathies for the deaths of the people who were shot, but the flotilla decision makers have alot to answer for here too.

I'll point out again that this is not the first flotilla, and that no other flotilla has been subjected to a night-time commando assault.

Further, and perhaps more importantly, people have a legal and moral right to challenge the blockade, because the blockade is not itself indubitably legal and moral (indeed, no blockade is). As long as they challenge the blockade with unarmed vessels and unarmed personnel, Israel has no legal or moral right to react with either deadly force or to put people in a position where they might be subject to deadly force. The people on the flotillas are not enemy combatants, and the threat they pose to the Israeli blockade of Gaza is not military but moral.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Memnoch

doncarlos wrote: »

A breathing apparatus now causes agro?
If they were up for agro why were there not proper weapons rather than anything they could lay their hands on from around the ship.

Did you not see the holes in all the Israeli helicopters from Hamas rocket launchers hidden aboard the ship?




(note sarcasm)

JimiTime

deadtiger wrote: »

What they all brought their kids, some brought them, one or two brought them. Did those people bring gas masks too? What exactly is your point?

Really is this is the best you can do you?

Best I can do in what regard? It indicates an expectancy. As for the children, well thats just pedantry. Its obvious they didn't ALL bring their kids:rolleyes:

Laminations

Foxtrol wrote: »

Im not. I personally disagree with both of those actions by Israel, I can however see it from their point of view.

Im being falsely painted as agreeing with everything that Israel does. I just dont believe that 100% of the blame for this sad incident lies with Israel. (Just a large proportion of it)

In this incident 100% of the blame does lie with Israel but people need to remember this is a two sided conflict of retribution, retaliation, provokation, disrespect and hate.

This event furthers my stance of anti-conflict but it doesn't make me pro-palestinian because both sides have done dispicable things

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

This link is to balance the terrible attack on the flotilla by Israel, it is not to highlight that Hamas are worse, neither side are better than the other.

alastair

Foxtrol wrote: »

Again if you go back and read the posts I was given several options that the Israelis could have (but wouldnt) do that would have avoided the bloodshed. I agreed with them with a simple yes, even though I could have gone into excuses as to why the Israeli government would have reasons not to accept them.

I retorted with points that could have stopped the incident from occurring from the flotilla side and I have yet to recieve a straight answer (one that didnt involve excuses as to why it wasnt chosen)

If everyone had stayed in bed then no-one would have died.

If Israel dropped the illegal aid blockade and just checked shipments into Gaza for actual weapons then everyone would have stayed in bed and not died.

If the passengers had just sat there while they were attacked violently with tasers, cs, beanbag guns etc, then maybe no-one would have died (just risked losing an eye or whatnot). I have to say I'm not so sure I'd be prepared to endure such violence without attempting self defence.

Foxtrol

Scofflaw wrote: »

Perhaps you could put a figure on that?

But no, it doesn't really work - I don't necessarily blame the soldiers themselves (depending), but "Israel" decided how the boarding would be done.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I dont have all the facts so theres no way I can put a figure on it that I could in anyway stand by. Its not really the point anyway I was responding to people who were stating that Israel had 100% of the blame.

I feel strongly that those who apportion absolutely zero blame to the flotilla (including organisers who blatantly set the convoy up to goad the Israelis into doing something stupid while rejecting their offers of a peaceful resolution and those on deck who stabbed and beat commandos) arent looking at it with any sort of perspective.

prinz

alastair wrote: »

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

Again we go back to you reading something and a law professor reading the same thing. My money's on him to be closer to the truth.

doncarlos wrote: »

Prinz have you any evidence apart from the partial video and the word of the IDF to support your views?

So now the footage taken on board and broadcast live isn't good enough? Do you have any evidence the Israelis murdered anyone?

deadtiger wrote: »

Can you provide the links to those please

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7142055.ece

A belligerent may stop, inspect and divert any vessel it suspects of intending to breach its blockade, which is what Israel says it intended to do.
While a merchant vessel has a right to freedom of navigation on the high seas, it can be intercepted legally when its express intention is to breach a blockade.

droidus wrote: »

If the blockade is unlawful, (and it is) then all actions which stem from the blockade are unlawful. The activists were in fact attempting to end an unlawful situation which has been condemened repeatedly by the UN including the recent call for cessation by the Security Council.

It's been deemed unlawful? By what competent authority?

Scofflaw wrote: »

I haven't used it at any point. However, since the purpose of the flotilla is to break a blockade that denies people necessary aid, 'humanitarian' certainly applies.

In my view a humanitarian is someone who puts human beings first. Nationality, religion, politics etc second.

Scofflaw wrote: »

You would be arrested at gunpoint, but even if you refused to come quietly, as long as you are not armed (with a gun or other serious weapon), they don't get to shoot you - and that's in a specifically military area, which international waters is not..

Are you saying if I entered a restricted area in a military base, refused to leave and attempted to escape into that area to do whatever I wanted, no military would use weapons to stop me?

Scofflaw wrote: »

International waters are not a military area...

However in armed conflict international waters may be used.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And yes, they do need to be using force to try to breach the blockade for it to be a military matter, otherwise what's happening is purely a civilian affair, where the blockade is 'broken' by moral pressure....

Actually no only the intent to breach the blockade, and a refusal to divert, stop and agree to search is needed.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's a 'first cause' argument anyway - the passengers wouldn't have had anything to react to if the Israelis hadn't boarded them, the flotilla wouldn't have been there if Israel wasn't operating a blockade, etc.

...and Israel wouldn't be operating a blockade if.....

gandalf

JimiTime wrote: »

I didn't say anything about deserving to be shot. Its a good indication of motive though. It wasn't just a 'We want to bring aid peacefully to our palestinian bretheren'.

No of course it wasn't. 10,000 tonnes is a fraction of the amount of aid that Gaza needs. It was primarily a means to highlight the blockade of Gaza by Israel.

Thanks to the Illegal actions of the IDF they have got that message out loud and clear. Unfortunately people were murdered by an illegal boarding party as well.

There were obviously people on board up for some agro.

Based on the contents of the cutelry drawer, the tool box, furniture and poles from the deck.

Based on people reacting to a situation where troops attacked them in the still of the night. Of course some people were going to react to provocation like this. It was stupid as they didn't stand a chance against armed shock troops.

That they did this, while at the same time having children on board etc says alot.

It says that people did not expect a military assault to happen.

It says alot that the Israeli authorities planned a military assault with children present as well doesn't it.

Israel obviously screwed up, but the ship is not beyond blame. It obviously pre-meditated its provocation and came prepared for it. My sympathies for the deaths of the people who were shot, but the flotilla decision makers have alot to answer for here too.

Again this all came from an illegal operation in International Waters. All blame stems from the decision to carry out the operation in International Waters and to use assault tactics to take a civilian ship.

doncarlos

prinz wrote: »

So now the footage taken on board and broadcast live isn't good enough? Do you have any evidence the Israelis murdered anyone?

No it's not good enough as it does not show the entire event. It seems good enough to you as you seem happy enough to only know part of the story.

Scofflaw

Ashashi wrote: »

What I would like to know is, if israel are so sure of their position, release every single video and photo taken by the people on the flotilla, and let the world decide, not drip feeding us israeli bias every couple of hours.

It's an act of piracy, and if Somalians boarded a ship by helicopter at 4 in the morning, there would be celebration if passengers managed to kill a couple.

israel is like a child, when it is caught doing something wrong, it begins to make up stories to get out of trouble. pathetic.

It's always necessary for Israel to supply a story - a narrative, if you like - that allows their supporters to reconcile the incident for themselves.

One of the observed facts about such narratives is that they don't require proof, only that they be plausible and possible, and that they exonerate Israel, or at least spread the blame. The sentiments of the supporters do the rest, until people will (figuratively) die to defend that story, because it has become an integral part of how they see the world and themselves. Attacking them just strengthens the self-belief.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Paddy Samurai

The washington post has a good article on the israeli operation and their options.Hard to believe they chose such a disastrous strategy ,when they seemed to have better options open to them.

Monday’s raid on a seaborne civilian aid mission to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, which left nine dead and about 75 wounded, was carried out by the Israeli navy’s commando unit, “Shayetet 13,” Ostrovsky said.
"It's a fantastic unit. ... It was not typical of Flotilla 13,” he said, using the English translation for Shayetet, which he called “one of the top units in the Israeli military.”
Members of the unit “have trained extensively for overtaking a ship," he said. "However, their training was directed at overtaking a hijacked ship.”
Evidently the tactics weren't adjusted for this mission.
"Mossad probably had more than one man on board" the ships, Ostrovsky said, secret agents who would have been giving Israeli mission planners an accurate picture of what was happening on the vessels.

Responsibility for the raid, which has provoked widespread condemnation and a diplomatic uproar, should be laid at the feet of “the shoot-from-the-hip prime minister,” Ostrovsky said -- Binyamin Netanyahu, whom he blamed for two previous messy intelligence operations in Dubai and Jordan.
Flotilla 13’s typically careful planning, he speculated, was supplanted by orders from Netanyahu or his ultra-conservative foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, to “do something now.”
“Nobody can do a good job in a rush,” he said.
Stopping the flotilla in international waters was “a grave mistake,” Ostrovsky said.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/06/former_mossad_agent_ridicules.html?hpid=topnews

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

I dont have all the facts so theres no way I can put a figure on it that I could in anyway stand by. Its not really the point anyway I was responding to people who were stating that Israel had 100% of the blame.

I feel strongly that those who apportion absolutely zero blame to the flotilla (including organisers who blatantly set the convoy up to goad the Israelis into doing something stupid while rejecting their offers of a peaceful resolution and those on deck who stabbed and beat commandos) arent looking at it with any sort of perspective.

The organisers only aim was to deliver humanitarian aid as declared needed by the UN. Their HOPE was that they would deliver the aid and this would set a precedent allowing further delivery of aid.

The Israelis did not make a single legitimate offer for peaceful resolution. Israel's ONLY offers were for maintainence of an ILLEGAL and IMMORAL status quo.

BlaasForRafa

Scofflaw wrote: »

Breathing equipment is standard on ships, for firefighting.

cordially,
scofflaw

surely breathing equipment for firefighting would be attached to an oxygen supply? The ones in the footage looked like the stereotypical type of gasmask used to fend off tear gas, not for extended periods of firefighting.

Ashashi

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's always necessary for Israel to supply a story - a narrative, if you like - that allows their supporters to reconcile the incident for themselves.

One of the observed facts about such narratives is that they don't require proof, only that they be plausible and possible, and that they exonerate Israel, or at least spread the blame. The sentiments of the supporters do the rest, until people will (figuratively) die to defend that story, because it has become an integral part of how they see the world and themselves. Attacking them just strengthens the self-belief.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What really annoys myself, is that they begin to release footage, that only shows the opposing side in the wrong. People have been killed because of the incomeptence of the IDF, and it has been blamed on the poor innocents on the boat.

But what can we do? Personally, all I can do is voice my anger and frustration, I have attended anti israel protests, most notably during the latest Gaza crisis, but israel is above the law in my opinion. It sickens me.

alastair

prinz wrote: »

Again we go back to you reading something and a law professor reading the same thing. My money's on him to be closer to the truth.

You've an awful lot of faith in the good professor over a simple reading of the articles as presented - which tell a different story - and I guess you didn't like the legal expert's I linked to? Nope. Wonder what that's about.

Scofflaw

prinz wrote: »

In my view a humanitarian is someone who puts human beings first. Nationality, religion, politics etc second.

Which would lead to me classing efforts to break the Gaza blockade as humanitarian, and efforts to maintain it as not.

prinz wrote: »

Are you saying if I entered a restricted area in a military base, refused to leave and attempted to escape into that area to do whatever I wanted, no military would use weapons to stop me?

In civilised countries, yes - as I said, Greenham Common, Shannon. If you tried it in some countries, you would of course be shot, but the whole point is that israel is not supposed to be like those countries.

prinz wrote: »

However in armed conflict international waters may be used.

It's been pointed out repeatedly that there is no 'armed conflict' in the legal sense, and that Israel itself denies there is one.

prinz wrote: »

Actually no only the intent to breach the blockade, and a refusal to divert, stop and agree to search is needed.

...and Israel wouldn't be operating a blockade if.....

You insist on treating this as if the vessels concerned were armed, and intended breaking the blockade by force. It is clear that they were unarmed, and that they neither intended to, nor could have ever done so. The attempt was to get through the blockade by moral pressure - it is not a military action. It really doesn't matter how many times you try to make out that it was by talking about "breaking" and "armed conflict" - it wasn't. There was one military action here, by the IDF, and it occurred in what was, and should have remained, a civilian context.

regards,
Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa

Paddy Samurai wrote: »

The washington post has a good article on the israeli operation and their options.Hard to believe they chose such a disastrous strategy ,when they seemed to have better options open to them.


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/06/former_mossad_agent_ridicules.html?hpid=topnews

Thats a sensible analysis, something which seems to be lacking from the more rabid anti-israelis knocking around.

As I said previously hopefully this will bring down netanyahu.

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

I've tried repeatedly pointing this out to Foxtrot, who doesn't seem to be able to grasp this and keeps parroting the same pointless, pedantic argument in vain hope of laying a portion of the blame at the flotilla.

Mate you're the one who gave me options that you thought would have stop the bloodshed way further in the past than the options I gave you a for few days ago. I agreed with you without giving excuses as to why the options weren't taken. I didnt come up with this concept you did but you still scurried away quickly when I turned the attention to what the flotilla could have done back on you.

The fact that you (and no one else) will not answer no to the question clearly shows that you know deep down that if they had softened their stance and rightly or wrongly agreed to going to the Israeli port there would not have been bloodshed.

Memnoch

prinz wrote: »

...and Israel wouldn't be operating a blockade if.....

There is no "if." The fourth Geneva Convention specifically prohibits collective punishment of a civilian population.

So it doesn't matter what Hamas did or did not do. Israel only allowing 25% of what the UN says is needed in aid through to Gaza and arbitrarily prohibiting items such as chocolates, pasta, pencils, notebooks, equipment to build water treatment plants etc is illegal and in contravention to the UN resolution that aid to Gaza should be unrestricted.

alastair

prinz wrote: »

It's been deemed unlawful? By what competent authority?..

The UN - a well known arbitrator on issues of international law and humanitarian issues.

mrboswell

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

surely breathing equipment for firefighting would be attached to an oxygen supply? The ones in the footage looked like the stereotypical type of gasmask used to fend off tear gas, not for extended periods of firefighting.

Maybe they took the tanks off?

The footage was from the israeli navy - sure they always act responsibly and tell the truth - how could we ever question them???

BlaasForRafa

mrboswell wrote: »

Maybe they took the tanks off?

The footage was from the israeli navy - sure they always act responsibly and tell the truth - how could we ever question them???

And they did what, get lucasfilm to CG out the tanks? Theres a conspiracy theory forum for that kind of suggestion.

Byron85

The Israeli ambassador needs to be expelled after this inexcusable snub to the government.

Ambassador withdraws from Oireachtas meeting
Meanwhile, Israel's Ambassador to Ireland Dr Zion Evrony has withdrawn from a meeting of the Oireachtas Foreign Affairs Committee, which was scheduled to take place tomorrow.
The Israeli embassy said Dr Evrony withdrew due to 'unforeseen circumstances'.
Committee Chairman Dr Michael Woods said: 'This eleventh hour volta face by the Ambassador is a most disappointing development.
'The Committee had been anxious to seek answers from him regarding his Government's actions against vessels in international waters carrying humanitarian supplies for the people of Gaza.'

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0602/mideast.html

Does their arrogance know no bounds?

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

Mate you're the one who gave me options that you thought would have stop the bloodshed way further in the past than the options I gave you a for few days ago.

I did not give you any options. I've simply listed how Israel has acted illegally and indeed criminally every step of the way, which is why they are entirely to blame.

I agreed with you without giving excuses as to why the options weren't taken. I didnt come up with this concept you did but you still scurried away quickly when I turned the attention to what the flotilla could have done back on you.

There is no concept but for the fact that Israel have acted illegally. When you show me WHERE the aid workers acted ILLEGALLY, THEN I will agree that they should also share the blame.

The fact that you (and no one else) will not answer no to the question clearly shows that you know deep down that if they had softened their stance and rightly or wrongly agreed to going to the Israeli port there would not have been bloodshed.

No one will answer your question in the way that you want because it is based on a false, prejudiced and presumptive premise.

The question isn't what would or wouldn't have happened IF the protesters had kotowed to Israeli threats.

It's that these demands have no validity in the first place.

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

The organisers only aim was to deliver humanitarian aid as declared needed by the UN. Their HOPE was that they would deliver the aid and this would set a precedent allowing further delivery of aid.

You have it backward. They wanted to highlight the situation as they knew full well that the most likely outcome was something like this. Their HOPE would be that the aid went through and a precedent was set.

The Israelis did not make a single legitimate offer for peaceful resolution. Israel's ONLY offers were for maintainence of an ILLEGAL and IMMORAL status quo.

You must not understand peaceful then. You're second sentence is something that isnt agreeable but anit-peace.

doncarlos

Foxtrol wrote: »

You have it backward. They wanted to highlight the situation as they knew full well that the most likely outcome was something like this. Their HOPE would be that the aid went through and a precedent was set.

What precedent?? Aid has gotten through in the past

prinz

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which would lead to me classing efforts to break the Gaza blockade as humanitarian, and efforts to maintain it as not..

When I see the same people having a similar concern for people of other nationalities, religions, politics etc I would concur. They could easily have called for the release of the captive Israeli soldier as a pre-condition before departing for instance.

Scofflaw wrote: »

In civilised countries, yes - as I said, Greenham Common, Shannon. If you tried it in some countries, you would of course be shot, but the whole point is that israel is not supposed to be like those countries.

Good to know, if I try to force my way into a US or British Army base they wouldn't dream of using firepower to stop me.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's been pointed out repeatedly that there is no 'armed conflict' in the legal sense, and that Israel itself denies there is one..

Well Israel called Gaza a hostile entity and Hamas greeted it as a declaration of war. I don't think anyone needed the lawyers to draw up the papers.

Scofflaw wrote: »

You insist on treating this as if the vessels concerned were armed, and intended breaking the blockade by force.

I insist on viewing the regulations as they are written. Silly me, I should just jump on the Israelis are wrong bandwagon.

alastair wrote: »

You've an awful lot of faith in the good professor over a simple reading of the articles as presented - which tell a different story - and I guess you didn't like the legal expert's I linked to? Nope. Wonder what that's about.

Like I said. Not black and white. Not clear cut as it's being made out to be.

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

You have it backward. They wanted to highlight the situation as they knew full well that the most likely outcome was something like this. Their HOPE would be that the aid went through and a precedent was set.

This is demonstrably wrong since previous flotillas have actually succeeded in delivering aid. As has been REPEATEDLY pointed out in this thread.

You must not understand peaceful then. You're second sentence is something that isnt agreeable but anit-peace.

This makes no sense, please reply in English.

prinz

Memnoch wrote: »

This is demonstrably wrong since previous flotillas have actually succeeded in delivering aid. As has been REPEATEDLY pointed out in this thread..

This wasn't just another flotilla though. The Israelis made clear this convoy was not getting through on numerous occassions.