Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Byron85

The Israeli ambassador has just snubbed our government. Please see my previous post and just try to defend the actions of the ambassador.


http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66199947&postcount=2335

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

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 didnt see it that way. I gave a simple yes or no response, sadly as the answers didnt suit your cause you couldnt bring yourself to offer the same.

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.

Maybe not Illegally but I'd say stupidly.

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.

Rather than you're points which involved basically involved kowtowing to the Flotilla threats.

mrboswell

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

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

Obviously not.
israel blatantly breaks international law and sanctions are regularly proposed in the UN but the US constantly veto them.

isreal tell you want they want you to know, show you what they want you to see. They tried to say kitchen knives were sophisticated weapons.

People have constantly called for the facts - I'm not that interested in israeli facts unless they can be vouched.

Incidentally your reference to lucasfilm - maybe he came up the plan for that murderous shambles that happened out at sea.

Memnoch

prinz wrote: »

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

Yes, I understand the Israelis made countless threats that they would try to enforce an illegal blockade.

Doesn't change the fact that the humanitarians could reasonably expect that the Israeli's would give way to moral pressure, you know, instead of murdering them in international waters.

doncarlos

prinz wrote: »

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

Prinz if I tried to stop you walking down o'connell street and you resisted and I shot you. Who would be right you or I

sensibleken

prinz wrote: »

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.

ad hominem arguement. you dont know if those people are not active in other causes and it does not matter if they are not.

and a pre condition for what. delivering aid? the blockade is wrong because it is collective punishment. the paletinian people are not collectively holding that soldier captive

prinz

alastair wrote: »

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

The UN as a whole declared it to be de facto illegal?

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

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

Point out when its been at this scale and when its been advertised in such a way as to basically rub it in the Israelis face.

This makes no sense, please reply in English.

Apologies I wasnt in any way clear. You claimed that being asked to go to an Israeli port was somehow not "peaceful". How does being asked to go to a port have anything to do with peace?

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

I didnt see it that way. I gave a simple yes or no response, sadly as the answers didnt suit your cause you couldnt bring yourself to offer the same.

Not going to repeat myself. As Scofflaw has pointed out, you are trying to make a "first cause" arguement. As in, "if this hadn't happened, then..." The fact that you framed this as a question doesn't change the pedantic or prejudicial nature of the arguement.

You're picking an ARBITARY point to suit YOUR cause and then blaming me when I refuse to take the bait.

Maybe not Illegally but I'd say stupidly.

I don't care what you think is stupid or not. I'm simply concerned with who is responsible, and in my opinion, those who acted criminally are.

Rather than you're points which involved basically involved kowtowing to the Flotilla threats.

Err, the flotilla didn't make any threats. They took an entirely legal course of action. Again, the UN resolution on this issue clearly states that aid into gaza should be allowed UNRESTRICTED.

mrboswell

prinz wrote: »

The UN as a whole declared it to be de facto illegal?

I don't know if you know how the UN works - Countries have to vote

http://www.un.org/english/index.html

Foxtrol

doncarlos wrote: »

Prinz if I tried to stop you walking down o'connell street and you resisted and I shot you. Who would be right you or I

Obviously you but it wouldn't make you any less of an idiot for rubbing it in his face that you were going to do it with your mates & when he tried to stop you then pulling knives and iron bars on him forcing him to kill you, even though he didnt actually want to.

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

Point out when its been at this scale and when its been advertised in such a way as to basically rub it in the Israelis face.

I don't really care about Israel's face as that has no bearing on the criminality and therefore responsibility of the matter.

Apologies I wasnt in any way clear. You claimed that being asked to go to an Israeli port was somehow not "peaceful". How does being asked to go to a port have anything to do with peace?

Because Israel's goal had nothing to do with "peace." But only to do with maintaining an illegal status quo, i.e. collective punishment on the civilian population of gaza in contravention of the geneva convention of human rights by restricting the amount and type of aid going there.

Such actions are unavoidably as you put it "anti-peace".

doncarlos

Foxtrol wrote: »

Obviously you

Thank you. The rest of your post was irrelevant.

prinz

mrboswell wrote: »

I don't know if you know how the UN works - Countries have to vote
http://www.un.org/english/index.html

I'll take that as a no from you so shall I?

doncarlos wrote: »

Prinz if I tried to stop you walking down o'connell street and you resisted and I shot you. Who would be right you or I

If you were giving a lawful instruction, you told me that if I continued walking you would use force and I continued walking, then I'd shoulder most of the blame. If it were found you used excessive force you'd shoulder some of the blame. Very same thing applies to this convoy. I never said Israel don't share the blame for what happened. I'm just not going to blame them 100%.

alastair

prinz wrote: »

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

They had said the same in previous years. And then backed down.

prinz

alastair wrote: »

They had said the same in previous years. And then backed down.

But as you and I both know, the Israelis are unpredictable at best.

RonMexico

Michael Martin should wait and see how Israel treat the Rachael Corrie shipment. If they do as we expect them to do and seize the ship then Martin should boot out the Israeli ambassador, especially after he snubbed the commitee hearing tomorrow and combined with the passport scandal and this weeks events.

He is here to represent Israel. If he treats us with contempt and his staff help to facilitate the stealing of passports then they should be deported on the first flight back to Israel.

Actions speak louder than words with these arrogant bully boys.

doncarlos

prinz wrote: »

I'm just not going to blame them 100%.

Ok what percentage of the blame should Israel get and who makes up the rest?

Are you not appealed that Israel are talking 0% of the blame?

mrboswell

prinz wrote: »

I'll take that as a no from you so shall I?

I'll say it again - israel blatantly breaks international law and sanctions are regularly proposed in the UN but the US constantly veto them.

If you know how it works then why post such nonsense.

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

Not going to repeat myself. As Scofflaw has pointed out, you are trying to make a "first cause" arguement. As in, "if this hadn't happened, then..." The fact that you framed this as a question doesn't change the pedantic or prejudicial nature of the arguement.

You're picking an ARBITARY point to suit YOUR cause and then blaming me when I refuse to take the bait.

Thats exactly what you were doing when you first made those points to me. Picking up the"first cause" argument when they were points that suited YOUR argument. I responded to them as Im not blinkered and can see that poor decisions were made on both sides. You wont answer it because you dont want to admit that the boats could have done something to stop the bloodshed even though it was something that was against what they set out to do.

I don't care what you think is stupid or not. I'm simply concerned with who is responsible, and in my opinion, those who acted criminally are.

People who hold a level of fault arent always the ones who have done something illegal, they're sometimes people who make stupid decisions. I could list hundreds of stupid decisions I've made that put me at some level of fault in a situation I got myself in. It doesnt mean the other person was right to do what they did but I brought about the situation and hold some (small) bit of the blame.

Err, the flotilla didn't make any threats. They took an entirely legal course of action. Again, the UN resolution on this issue clearly states that aid into gaza should be allowed UNRESTRICTED.

I purposely used the same language that you did. I agree the Flotilla and Israel made requests and not "threats" as you called it when speaking of Israel.

Everyone (including everyone on the boats) knows that Israel doesnt listen to the UN. Before you jump at me I dont agree with this.

Scofflaw

mrboswell 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?

More likely didn't put the tanks on, just grabbed the masks. They could also be emergency masks. Ships of that tonnage are legally required to carry both.

cordially,
Scofflaw

prinz

doncarlos wrote: »

Ok what percentage of the blame should Israel get and who makes up the rest? Are you not appealed that Israel are talking 0% of the blame?

50/50, 60/40, 70/30.. Who makes up the rest? Specifically for the deaths (a) the people who decided that they would refuse to comply with instructions - captain/crew/organisors, and (b) those who actually attacked those soldiers. If it is found that some of those Israeli soldiers were killing bystanders etc with unprovoked violence then they should be held accountable.

mrboswell wrote: »

If you know how it works then why post such nonsense.

Well forgive me for querying something presented as fact.

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

I don't really care about Israel's face as that has no bearing on the criminality and therefore responsibility of the matter.

I'm not agreeing with it but they were dealing with Israel. What did they expect when they stirred up the beehive?

Because Israel's goal had nothing to do with "peace." But only to do with maintaining an illegal status quo, i.e. collective punishment on the civilian population of gaza in contravention of the geneva convention of human rights by restricting the amount and type of aid going there.

Such actions are unavoidably as you put it "anti-peace".

Its how they believe they'll get peace through driving out Hamass. Stupid plan in my opinion but thats Israel for you.

gandalf

prinz wrote: »

Originally Posted by deadtiger
Can you provide the links to those please

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

Thanks for that. It is not very clear cut though is it.

The more important question is whether the blockade itself is causing excessive damage to the civilian population of Gaza. If so, it is illegal and must end.

Here is another opinion that was quoted earlier in the thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66175080&postcount=1262

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

Thats exactly what you were doing when you first made those points to me. Picking up the"first cause" argument when they were points that suited YOUR argument. I responded to them as Im not blinkered and can see that poor decisions were made on both sides. You wont answer it because you dont want to admit that the boats could have done something to stop the bloodshed even though it was something that was against what they set out to do.

No. I was showing you that Israel has acted illegaly at every single juncture. Nothing you've said changes this.

I don't believe it was a poor decision. The responsibility for stopping the bloodshed lies with those who acted illegally to cause said bloodshed. And there too must the blame lie.

People who hold a level of fault arent always the ones who have done something illegal, they're sometimes people who make stupid decisions. I could list hundreds of stupid decisions I've made that put me at some level of fault in a situation I got myself in. It doesnt mean the other person was right to do what they did but I brought about the situation and hold some (small) bit of the blame.

Too much of a generalisation that doesn't apply here. Also I'm not responding to pointless analogies, as I've said before there is no end to them.

I purposely used the same language that you did. I agree the Flotilla and Israel made requests and not "threats" as you called it when speaking of Israel.

Saying, come to Ashod or we will forcibly board your ship, subdue you with violence and take you there is not a request. It is a threat.

At no point did the flotilla make any threats. They simply said that they were delivering humanitarian aid and were perfectly in their right to do so.

Everyone (including everyone on the boats) knows that Israel doesnt listen to the UN. Before you jump at me I dont agree with this.

It's irrelevant whether you agree with it or not. Israel acted criminally. It is to blame.

Edit: I'm done with this discussion. I'm glad that the vast majority of fair minded people in the world see the situation and Israel's actions for what it is. Though I've no doubt they will, yet again, "get away with it." The people who intractbly defend Israel always have and always will no matter what. Personally I consider such stances to be disgusting and in opposition to common human decency.

mrboswell

prinz wrote: »

Well forgive me for querying something presented as fact.

What? A fact that the US are in israel's back pocket and veto any bad word that is said about them in the UN. You knew the answer - why query it as a fact?

I'm sure that the israelis are delighted to have you as their guard dog in this forum.

prinz

deadtiger wrote: »

Thanks for that. It is not very clear cut though is it.

No problem... it's not clear cut. That's what I have been saying all along.

prinz

mrboswell wrote: »

What? A fact that the US are in israel's back pocket and veto any bad word that is said about them in the UN. You knew the answer - why query it as a fact?

I queried a claim that the UN had declared the economic blockade as illegal.

mrboswell wrote: »

I'm sure that the israelis are delight to have you as their guard dog in this forum.

Yeah, I'm sure. Still waiting for my cheque from Mossad though. Recession and what not, I had to do it. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

alastair wrote: »

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

They had said the same in previous years. And then backed down.

I presume they say it about every convoy, at least intitially - otherwise, what's the point of a blockade?

However it's not really a question of whether they thought they would get through, but of whether they expected to be attacked by commandos - and that they clearly had no reason to expect, since it has never happened to any previous convoy, whether or not the Israelis said they would let it through.

Therefore the dropping of armed men onto their decks at night, accompanied by choppers and flashbangs, wasn't part of "standard procedure" for such convoys.

cordially,
Scofflaw

alastair

prinz wrote: »

The UN as a whole declared it to be de facto illegal?

Sure, through UN High Commission on Human Rights Investigation and the mechanism of General Assembly votes, alongside statements by the Secretary General. The most recent Security Council utterance on the matter, despite US support for Israel, states the following:

“The Security Council stresses that the situation in Gaza is not sustainable. The Council re-emphasizes the importance of the full implementation of resolutions 1850 (2008) and 1860 (2009). In that context, it reiterates its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stresses the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza."

Resolution 1860 requires unimpeded provision and distribution of aid into Gaza.