Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Johnboy1951

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, the flotilla could have done nothing to prevent the bloodshed, other than what they did which was to ensure there were no weapons on board any of the vessels, which might have caused an incident.
Those who brought weapons on board, in an illegal invasion of another country's holding, had it in their power not to do those things.

Israel chose ..... deliberately and with malice, after due deliberation, to invade those vessels in international waters.

Israelis may be the essence of arrogance, but they are not stupid.
So, I cannot accept that this act by Israel was done out of stupidity.
It was done deliberately, with full knowledge of what might happen.

So why did Israel choose to take this action in the manner they did?
Why not wait until daylight? Why not wait until the flotilla was within the waters they control?

Israel has made the decision to create a huge international incident by their actions, and I for one have read nothing that explains their reason for doing so.

If anyone has any suggestions (besides stupidity which I do not accept) I would love to hear them. I have read all 159 pages of this thread and no one has yet addressed this.

I hope to see some interesting replies to that question.

regards.

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

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

We disagree then and you haven't given me one reason to change my mind that the decisions that those on that boat made did not escalate the situation to a point which caused bloodshed.

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.

If you dont believe attempting to lynch armed commandos when surrounded on all sides is a poor decision then theres no point in me arguing further.

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.

Yes thats why I said I could list them but didn't.

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.

I doubt it initially put that way. The flotilla requested things such as you posted earlier or else they were going to ignore the Israeli blockade. In my eyes thats a threat as much as saying follow us to this port or we'll have to make you come.

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

Its relevant because myself and a few other who agree with the majority on most points are continuously having the same points thrown in our faces when we say that the Flotilla's actions shoulder part of the blame.

sensibleken

"They gave it to me in Hebrew and I said, 'Well, I don't understand that' and they gave it to me in English and I said 'Ní thuigim é sin'"

shane dillion. irish member of the flotilla on RTÉ on being given deportation orders to sign

good man yourself

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

dlofnep

He's right. They wanted him to sign a deportation form stating that he illegally entered Israel - when it's clear, he was kidnapped from international waters and taken to israel.

Foxtrol

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

No, the flotilla could have done nothing to prevent the bloodshed, other than what they did which was to ensure there were no weapons on board any of the vessels, which might have caused an incident.
Those who brought weapons on board, in an illegal invasion of another country's holding, had it in their power not to do those things.

Israel chose ..... deliberately and with malice, after due deliberation, to invade those vessels in international waters.

Israelis may be the essence of arrogance, but they are not stupid.
So, I cannot accept that this act by Israel was done out of stupidity.
It was done deliberately, with full knowledge of what might happen.

So why did Israel choose to take this action in the manner they did?
Why not wait until daylight? Why not wait until the flotilla was within the waters they control?

Israel has made the decision to create a huge international incident by their actions, and I for one have read nothing that explains their reason for doing so.

If anyone has any suggestions (besides stupidity which I do not accept) I would love to hear them. I have read all 159 pages of this thread and no one has yet addressed this.

I hope to see some interesting replies to that question.

regards.

Please elaborate on how those who attacked the commandos, those who rejected offers from Israel for a peaceful solution and those who designed the whole trip in a way which made the chances of such a situation occuring quite likely have absolutely zero blame in this incident. Please actually stay somewhere near these points as I generally agree with the rest you are saying.

Scofflaw

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

No, the flotilla could have done nothing to prevent the bloodshed, other than what they did which was to ensure there were no weapons on board any of the vessels, which might have caused an incident.
Those who brought weapons on board, in an illegal invasion of another country's holding, had it in their power not to do those things.

Israel chose ..... deliberately and with malice, after due deliberation, to invade those vessels in international waters.

Israelis may be the essence of arrogance, but they are not stupid.
So, I cannot accept that this act by Israel was done out of stupidity.
It was done deliberately, with full knowledge of what might happen.

So why did Israel choose to take this action in the manner they did?
Why not wait until daylight? Why not wait until the flotilla was within the waters they control?

Israel has made the decision to create a huge international incident by their actions, and I for one have read nothing that explains their reason for doing so.

If anyone has any suggestions (besides stupidity which I do not accept) I would love to hear them. I have read all 159 pages of this thread and no one has yet addressed this.

I hope to see some interesting replies to that question.

regards.

As I'm fairly sure I said earlier in these 159 pages, my opinion is that they were trying to take control of the situation without getting into a media circus. Instead of boarding the vessels in broad daylight with overwhelming force in Gazan waters, surrounded by the world's media - which would have made them look like an arrogant bully - they decided to seize the vessels suddenly and by night in international waters*.

In the morning, had all gone according to plan, the vessels would have been under Israeli control, and heading for Ashdod with minimum publicity. No further photo-ops, end of publicity stunt.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*which, of course, some might describe as the actions of an arrogant bully

prinz

alastair wrote: »

Sure, through ....

None of which actually makes it illegal, just calls for it to end.

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

He's right. They wanted him to sign a deportation form stating that he illegally entered Israel - when it's clear, he was kidnapped from international waters and taken to israel.

He's dead right. That's the way to deal with them, not grabbing a bar and trying to cave their heads in.

eamo12

Memnoch wrote: »

The BBC have reported that those on the vessel intended to assault the commandos and we're not acting in self defence or fear for their lives?

This I'd like to see.

It's called a martyrdom mission. Seemingly, for those who died, paradise awaits them.

alastair

prinz wrote: »

None of which actually makes it illegal, just calls for it to end.

Security council resolutions have the force of law. If you don't adhere to the law, you're engaged in illegal activity.

Scofflaw

eamo12 wrote: »

It's called a martyrdom mission. Seemingly, for those who died, paradise awaits them.

You can go and join Euroland in the sin-bin, for the same reasons.

moderately,
Scofflaw

[EDIT]Upped to two weeks for abusive PM.[/EDIT]

karma_

eamo12 wrote: »

It's called a martyrdom mission. Seemingly, for those who died, paradise awaits them.

That's a stretch to say the least. What is so wrong with just seeing these people as aid workers who's only wanted to help other human beings?

It's bad enough that some of them had to die while trying to do the right thing, but to have their deaths marginalised in such a fashion is completely without merit.

IH77

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7926576.stm

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gives a statement after Israeli commandos stormed a convoy of ships carrying aid to Gaza.
He will be speaking in Hebrew and English.

Manic Moran

Ref NATO treaty obligations.

jank wrote: »

What about international waters? Is that covered in the geographic requirement?

No.

That's an appalling and desperate piece of spin (although at least not as disgusting as eamo12's views). There's no such thing as a "policing-type operation" - there are military operations, and civilian operations, with two clear legal frameworks

The Irish Army would disagree with you, I think. Actions performed under the auspices of Aid to the Civil Power would be generally policing operations performed by the military. There is no reason why policing and military are mutually exclusive terms.

but using military force against civilians is generally illegal, so it shouldn't have done.

Are you saying that the Irish Army has never used force against civilians in Ireland? In that case allow me to correct you. Indeed, the only country I can think of where there are any legal restrictions on the military conducting policing operations is the US, and even at that there are a number of ways around it.

NTM

IH77

IH77 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7926576.stm

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gives a statement after Israeli commandos stormed a convoy of ships carrying aid to Gaza.
He will be speaking in Hebrew and English.

It appears as though it was only in Hebrew, despite the BBC web page saying it would follow in English.

Scofflaw

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Irish Army would disagree with you, I think. Actions performed under the auspices of Aid to the Civil Power would be generally policing operations performed by the military. There is no reason why policing and military are mutually exclusive terms.



Are you saying that the Irish Army has never used force against civilians in Ireland? In that case allow me to correct you. Indeed, the only country I can think of where there are any legal restrictions on the military conducting policing operations is the US, and even at that there are a number of ways around it.

NTM

You can use soldiers for a policing action, but the fact that it's a policing action means that it's in a civilian context. Just because you're using soldiers doesn't make it a military situation, or mean that it operates under military rules of engagement.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Byron85

IH77 wrote: »

It appears as though it was only in Hebrew, despite the BBC web page saying it would follow in English.

THey translated some of it.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel had "no other choice" but to stop the flotilla of ships which tried to break the Gaza blockade on Monday.
Nine activists were killed when Israeli troops raided one of the ships in an operation widely criticised abroad.
"This was not a love boat, this was a boat of hate," he told reporters.

These people have no shame or no sense of guilt. All they rely on is hyperbole and the race card in order to get away with what they want. From here on in, whatever happens to Israel, they brought it on themselves due to the actions of their government.

Johnboy1951

Scofflaw wrote: »

As I'm fairly sure I said earlier in these 159 pages, my opinion is that they were trying to take control of the situation without getting into a media circus. Instead of boarding the vessels in broad daylight with overwhelming force in Gazan waters, surrounded by the world's media - which would have made them look like an arrogant bully - they decided to seize the vessels suddenly and by night in international waters*.

In the morning, had all gone according to plan, the vessels would have been under Israeli control, and heading for Ashdod with minimum publicity. No further photo-ops, end of publicity stunt.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*which, of course, some might describe as the actions of an arrogant bully

Probably I missed your post on the subject. :mad:

I understand what you mean about doing it all in darkness, but because of all the media on board the actions would be known, and the position of the boats also known.
I do not consider them to be so stupid that they would believe those facts could be prevented from going out from the boat.

Surely the implications of enacting this exercise in international waters by armed commandos on a boat under another country's flag could not have escaped them.

If what you say is correct, then it appears to me to be a very desperate act indeed. There was much to lose if it went to plan, and as we see now as it went wrong they are in real do-do internationally.

I continue to find it difficult to believe they could have made such a stupid decision without having some other agenda.

Thanks for the response to the question.

regards.

IrishTonyO

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

THey translated some of it.




These people have no shame or no sense of guilt. All they rely on is hyperbole and the race card in order to get away with what they want. From here on in, whatever happens to Israel, they brought it on themselves due to the actions of their government.

Where is the translation? got a web address?

Byron85

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Where is the translation? got a web address?

Got it from here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10219391.stm

Johnboy1951

Foxtrol wrote: »

Please elaborate on how those who attacked the commandos, those who rejected offers from Israel for a peaceful solution and those who designed the whole trip in a way which made the chances of such a situation occuring quite likely have absolutely zero blame in this incident. Please actually stay somewhere near these points as I generally agree with the rest you are saying.

We will agree to differ on those points.
They received offers that were not acceptable to them, from Israel who knew quite well their offers would not be acceptable (if made).
They attacked invaders after first being shot at. That is my position and not yours -- until some more convincing proof is available. In addition they had every expectation of being secure from invasion by the fact that they were in international waters. They had every right to react to being invaded and shot at. You may consider their reaction stupid, as is your right, but you cannot take from them the right to defend themselves in the situation in which they found themselves.
The whole trip was designed in a manner to prevent the use of force, by ensuring that no weapons were on board, and by ensuring the cargo and personnel were examined by competent authorities.

So as I said we will have to agree to differ on those matters.

regards.

nacho libre

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

THey translated some of it.




These people have no shame or no sense of guilt. All they rely on is hyperbole and the race card in order to get away with what they want. From here on in, whatever happens to Israel, they brought it on themselves due to the actions of their government.

i don't think that a proportionate reponse in fairness. there are human right groups in israel who are hated by other israelis because they regularly expose crimes commited by their government. you can't condemn a whole state based on the action of their government and those who support them. it's akin to us lazily condemning all americans as war- mongering imperalists after Bush got re-elected for a second term.

UltimateMale

I see that Aengus Ó Snodaigh in the Dail debate today quering Enda Kenny about the FG position on the flotilla and noting the absence of the 'champions of Israel' in the debate .

Byron85

nacho libre wrote: »

i don't think that a proportionate reponse in fairness. there are human right groups in israel who are hated by other israelis because they regularly expose crimes commited by their government. you can't condemn a whole state based on the action of their government and those who support them. it's akin to us lazily condemning all americans as war- mongering imperalists after Bush got re-elected for a second term.

Well then they need to stand up and make themselves heard. I do apologise though for tarring all of them with the same brush. I haven't been this angry about the actions of a government in a while and all I see is arrogance in their responses. Maybe my responses are unfair but I am one person. I'm not the one saying it's ok to shoot people in the head because they're on a ship heading for Gaza.

Byron85

UltimateMale wrote: »

I see that Aengus Ó Snodaigh in the Dail debate today quering Enda Kenny about the FG position on the flotilla and noting the absence of the 'champions of Israel' in the debate .

I received an email from Enda Kenny about the current situation earlier on today.


Dear Bryan

Thank you for your email. The actions by Israeli forces against an international humanitarian mission earlier this week were completely disproportionate and resulted in the unnecessary loss of life. Fine Gael has condemned this action.

An international inquiry must be immediately set up to establish the truth about how people were killed while undertaking a humanitarian mission to get aid to Gaza. I have requested that an emergency meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee take place to discuss this matter and I have asked that both the Israeli Ambassador and the Palestinian representative to Ireland also attend.

Turkey is a State that has cordial relations with Israel and the United States and its Minister for Foreign Affairs has stated that by carrying out this act Israel has breached international law. Historically, Israeli governments have never put the actions of their security forces under critical focus, but these events demand that this policy must change.

Fine Gael has consistently called for the lifting of the blockade on Gaza and for the free movement of Palestinians in the West Bank. In the interim, aid must be allowed into Gaza and I believe that the EU should oversee the transporting and safe delivery of humanitarian aid as an independent third party. If we are serious about the prevention of suffering and of further loss of life then this is a role the EU must insist upon with the Israeli and Palestinian Governments.

Yours sincerely



Enda Kenny TD
Leader of Fine Gael

UltimateMale

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

I received an email from Enda Kenny about the current situation earlier on today.


Dear Bryan

Thank you for your email. The actions by Israeli forces against an international humanitarian mission earlier this week were completely disproportionate and resulted in the unnecessary loss of life. Fine Gael has condemned this action.

An international inquiry must be immediately set up to establish the truth about how people were killed while undertaking a humanitarian mission to get aid to Gaza. I have requested that an emergency meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee take place to discuss this matter and I have asked that both the Israeli Ambassador and the Palestinian representative to Ireland also attend.

Turkey is a State that has cordial relations with Israel and the United States and its Minister for Foreign Affairs has stated that by carrying out this act Israel has breached international law. Historically, Israeli governments have never put the actions of their security forces under critical focus, but these events demand that this policy must change.

Fine Gael has consistently called for the lifting of the blockade on Gaza and for the free movement of Palestinians in the West Bank. In the interim, aid must be allowed into Gaza and I believe that the EU should oversee the transporting and safe delivery of humanitarian aid as an independent third party. If we are serious about the prevention of suffering and of further loss of life then this is a role the EU must insist upon with the Israeli and Palestinian Governments.

Yours sincerely



Enda Kenny TD
Leader of Fine Gael

Good responce from FG but I think the absence of the 'champions of Israel' a good little dig at the Israeli apologists

karma_

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

Well then they need to stand up and make themselves heard. I do apologise though for tarring all of them with the same brush. I haven't been this angry about the actions of a government in a while and all I see is arrogance in their responses. Maybe my responses are unfair but I am one person. I'm not the one saying it's ok to shoot people in the head because they're on a ship heading for Gaza.

They do exist and do good works, B'Tselem is probably the best known.

Scofflaw

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Probably I missed your post on the subject. :mad:

I understand what you mean about doing it all in darkness, but because of all the media on board the actions would be known, and the position of the boats also known.
I do not consider them to be so stupid that they would believe those facts could be prevented from going out from the boat.

Surely the implications of enacting this exercise in international waters by armed commandos on a boat under another country's flag could not have escaped them.

If what you say is correct, then it appears to me to be a very desperate act indeed. There was much to lose if it went to plan, and as we see now as it went wrong they are in real do-do internationally.

I continue to find it difficult to believe they could have made such a stupid decision without having some other agenda.

Thanks for the response to the question.

regards.

I appreciate the points you make - about there being media on board and so on - but it's also clear that they made a point of confiscating or destroying cameras and other recording devices. The majority of people would presumably have been asleep, and from any distance at night it would have been impossible to get clear footage of what was happening.

I don't think it was as desperately risky an act as all that - risky, yes, but if you assume that the IDF had good intel, then they would have known that there were no guns or defensive equipment on board, and that therefore they could expect to take over a vessel full of frightened and disoriented people quite quickly as long as they were quick and brutal enough.

To me, it looks like a very typical piece of military planning for an inappropriate (civilian) context. They have, historically, always gone for the 'shock and awe' quick-military-solution approach where possible, from Entebbe on.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nacho libre

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

Well then they need to stand up and make themselves heard. I do apologise though for tarring all of them with the same brush. I haven't been this angry about the actions of a government in a while and all I see is arrogance in their responses. Maybe my responses are unfair but I am one person. I'm not the one saying it's ok to shoot people in the head because they're on a ship heading for Gaza.

well i've been talking to an israeli friend of mine about this and we have had heated discussions about it. So i know how you feel. Unfortunately in these things the moderate voices tend to be drowned out. It doesn't help when you have a right- wing government in charge with links to extreme nationalists.

but there are groups like this:www.btselem.org/

20Cent

It would be interesting to see an inventory of aid that is being brought in the flotilla. I reckon it would be very embarrassing to the Israelis'.