Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

nacho libre

karma_ wrote: »

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

ah you beat me to it.
i didn't see your post before replying.

Foxtrol

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

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.

Thanks for a more civil response to my points than I have been receiving previously.

I agree that the offer made by the Israelis was not acceptable to the Flotilla but similarly their offers to the Israelis were also not acceptable. There had to be another solution and for the Flotilla to drive on towards the blockade regardless, with the expectation of not being stopped, was at best foolhardy decision and at worst an act which completely disregards the safety of those on board.

I also will wait for evidence of the use of live rounds directed towards passengers before troops landed. However the evidence from both sides shows the use of non-lethal weapons which which would make a preemptive strike using live ammo completely unbelievable. Even if this is the case how anyone could think that attempting to lynch the commandos would do anything other than escalate the situation is beyond me.

The trip was made to highlight the blockade and in the hopes of Israel blinking or overreacting. They didn't have weapons on board because it would have been a PR disaster for them when the whole trip was designed to make Israel act in a way to further ruin its reputation. There was always a massive risk incidence such as this could occur and to say there wasnt would be naive.

I shall agree to disagree with you but I wanted to take the opportunity to explain my points more clearly.

Johnboy1951

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

The only way I could go along with that is if the Israelis had reason to believe that the communications aboard the vessel would be disabled at their approach.
I am comfortable believing that they were monitoring the comms from the vessel, and would have been well aware that there was continuous feeds going out to various parts of the world (and to the internet?) so the only way they could have believed they might control such comms in time would be to have assurance from someone on board that the facility would be disconnected before they landed.

Maybe they did expect that and it just never happened ..... don't know ....

I still have this niggle that there was something behind the manner of what they did rather than the action itself ......

regards.

Foxtrol

20Cent wrote: »

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'.

There's a list a few pages back of supplies which are banned from enetering Gaza. From that its clear that the Israelis dont embarrass easily.

Johnboy1951

Foxtrol wrote: »

Thanks for a more civil response to my points than I have been receiving previously.

I agree that the offer made by the Israelis was not acceptable to the Flotilla but similarly their offers to the Israelis were also not acceptable. There had to be another solution and for the Flotilla to drive on towards the blockade regardless, with the expectation of not being stopped, was at best foolhardy decision and at worst an act which completely disregards the safety of those on board..

It is my belief that the majority thought it likely they would be diverted to an Israeli port. But I am equally of the belief that none on board expected a commando raid on the high seas.
I am also of the opinion that had the Israelis approached in a civilised manner as the flotilla reached Gazan waters there would have been no resistance. The captain would have diverted to protect his passengers if warned ..... maybe he might even have waited for a warning shot ...... who knows, neither he nor anyone else got the opportunity.

I also will wait for evidence of the use of live rounds directed towards passengers before troops landed. However the evidence from both sides shows the use of non-lethal weapons which which would make a preemptive strike using live ammo completely unbelievable. Even if this is the case how anyone could think that attempting to lynch the commandos would do anything other than escalate the situation is beyond me.

I have only the word of an Israeli representative to the attempted lynching. I have the words of someone on board one boat that the 'non-lethal' weapons were used apparently indiscriminately .... one young person receiving a 'rubber bullet' in the nose, shattering it. Further reports of the commandos actions would indicate, to me, that they were using force on people who were not cooperating but not physically resisting or fighting.
Some people react with flight and others with fight, when threatened and attacked. To expect considered responses in such a situation from those being attacked is asking way too much of them.
Those who attacked drew whatever response they got ..... even if it included an attempted lynching.

The trip was made to highlight the blockade and in the hopes of Israel blinking or overreacting. They didn't have weapons on board because it would have been a PR disaster for them when the whole trip was designed to make Israel act in a way to further ruin its reputation. There was always a massive risk incidence such as this could occur and to say there wasnt would be naive.

There was no indication from previous attempts to run the blockade - some of them successful - that a reaction like this should be considered.
No doubt those on board would have been better prepared to handle such an invasion if it had occurred in or near Gazan waters. They would have been expecting *something* to happen.
There was no reason they would have even considered an event such as this, IMO.

I shall agree to disagree with you but I wanted to take the opportunity to explain my points more clearly.

In turn, I have tried to show some of the reasons why I believe as I do.

I have no problem with someone holding a different view, and can agree to disagree without rancour.

regards.

Scofflaw

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The only way I could go along with that is if the Israelis had reason to believe that the communications aboard the vessel would be disabled at their approach.
I am comfortable believing that they were monitoring the comms from the vessel, and would have been well aware that there was continuous feeds going out to various parts of the world (and to the internet?) so the only way they could have believed they might control such comms in time would be to have assurance from someone on board that the facility would be disconnected before they landed.

Maybe they did expect that and it just never happened ..... don't know ....

I still have this niggle that there was something behind the manner of what they did rather than the action itself ......

regards.

I'd say arrogance, myself. One tends to construct theories based on the idea that the people who come up with these things have discussed them in a calm, rational, and nearly omniscient manner - but that's not really the way it happens.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gandalf

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd say arrogance, myself. One tends to construct theories based on the idea that the people who come up with these things have discussed them in a calm, rational, and nearly omniscient manner - but that's not really the way it happens.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yep I think arrogance is the word alright.

An old Israeli saying describing various less-than-esteemed military leaders says: "He was so stupid that even the other generals noticed." The same derisive remark could be applied almost without exception to the present generation of Israeli politicians.

Thats from an interesting article in the UK Independent thats well worth a read.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-pr-dangerously-distorts-the-israeli-sense-of-reality-1988977.html

Johnboy1951

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd say arrogance, myself. One tends to construct theories based on the idea that the people who come up with these things have discussed them in a calm, rational, and nearly omniscient manner - but that's not really the way it happens.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I must admit to being guilty as charged ...... I have presumed that discussions during planning of this would have had some rational input.

Maybe you are right ...... still find it difficult to believe though

Johnboy1951

deadtiger wrote: »

Yep I think arrogance is the word alright.




Thats from an interesting article in the UK Independent thats well worth a read.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-pr-dangerously-distorts-the-israeli-sense-of-reality-1988977.html

An interesting viewpoint ....... thanks for the link

Grumpypants

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrX7fznVgI

I was just watching this video and at 22 seconds when the first commando hits the ship he is attacked by 4 to 5 "AID workers"

Seem odd to me that anyone thinks you can attack Israeli commando's and be surprised when people get hurt.

IrishTonyO

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

An interesting viewpoint ....... thanks for the link

+1

gandalf

Grumpypants wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrX7fznVgI

I was just watching this video and at 22 seconds when the first commando hits the ship he is attacked by 4 to 5 "AID workers"

Seem odd to me that anyone thinks you can attack Israeli commando's and be surprised when people get hurt.

Well he was illegally boarding a ship in International Waters they had the right to repel the boarders. It was misguided as the boarders were armed Special Force Commandos not trained to deal with civilians.

If Israel didn't board the vessel illegally then all the subsequent and tragic events would not have occurred.

Grumpypants

deadtiger wrote: »

Well he was illegally boarding a ship in International Waters they had the right to repel the boarders. It was misguided as the boarders were armed Special Force Commandos not trained to deal with civilians.

If Israel didn't board the vessel illegally then all the subsequent and tragic events would not have occurred.

Not really talking about the legality of it as that's a chicken and egg situation that never goes anywhere but if you are a soldier entering an unknown territory and you get attacked by 4 or 5 people you are entitled to defend yourself.

Equally if you are on a boat and you get attacked you can defend yourself just don't be surprised if they fight back.

Seem to me this could have been avoided if the "Aid workers" had done like all the other boats and come in to port like asked.

Scofflaw

Grumpypants wrote: »

Not really talking about the legality of it as that's a chicken and egg situation that never goes anywhere but if you are a soldier entering an unknown territory and you get attacked by 4 or 5 people you are entitled to defend yourself.

Equally if you are on a boat and you get attacked you can defend yourself just don't be surprised if they fight back.

Seem to me this could have been avoided if the "Aid workers" had done like all the other boats and come in to port like asked.

Nobody is surprised that the aid workers got hurt in a fight with Israeli commandos. Unfortunately the question here is not which way we would have bet on the two sides in the fight, but whether the actions of the passengers and the commandos were legally and morally correct. That's a question of responsibility and law, not might.

cordially,
Scofflaw

mrboswell

Grumpypants wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrX7fznVgI

I was just watching this video and at 22 seconds when the first commando hits the ship he is attacked by 4 to 5 "AID workers"

Seem odd to me that anyone thinks you can attack Israeli commando's and be surprised when people get hurt.

Here we go AGAIN....they shouldn't have been dropping onto the boat in the first place!

gandalf

Grumpypants wrote: »

Equally if you are on a boat and you get attacked you can defend yourself just don't be surprised if they fight back.

Oh I agree with you the people on the boat were misguided to fight at all especially considering they were facing troops who are normally used in sea-to-land incursions, assassinations, counter-terrorism, and sabotage operations.

Seem to me this could have been avoided if the "Aid workers" had done like all the other boats and come in to port like asked.

According to reports they were the first boat targeted.

All the others were smaller and easier to subdue and were contacted by the captain of the large ship so they knew that people had been killed by the boarding party.

alastair

Grumpypants wrote: »

Not really talking about the legality of it as that's a chicken and egg situation that never goes anywhere but if you are a soldier entering an unknown territory and you get attacked by 4 or 5 people you are entitled to defend yourself.

Equally if you are on a boat and you get attacked you can defend yourself just don't be surprised if they fight back.

Seem to me this could have been avoided if the "Aid workers" had done like all the other boats and come in to port like asked.

Chicken and egg? The boarding in international waters was illegal, the blockade is illegal, and there was no obligation on the passengers (doing nothing illegal themselves) to do anything but resist the boarders. The people responsible for putting the soldiers there knew all of the above, so it's their responsibility to ensure they don't create a situation where people are likely to get killed.

Only one side in this equation were armed with weapons of war. Only one side in this equation have deaths on their hands. And all for a political principle that they chose to overlook in previous years, when presented with a similar challenge, and which is universally condemned by everyone else around the world.

I'm not sure what the scare quotes is about either - the intentions and rationale of the people on the ships is clear enough.

bambooze

Peaceful aid workers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU

20Cent

Where is the video of the murders?
When the IDF releasing that?

bambooze

20Cent wrote: »

Where is the video of the murders?
When the IDF releasing that?

Bloodthirsty?

20Cent

bambooze wrote: »

Bloodthirsty?

No, but we should get the whole picture don't you think?

Don't see anything wrong in that vid, if they were intent on attacking they would have had more than improvised weapons.

A Dub in Glasgo

bambooze wrote: »

Peaceful aid workers?]

Oh dear God, is that it!

Clutching at straws to justify attacking a ship and murdering 9 people. Surely that is not the best the Israeli propaganda machine can come up with?

dlofnep

bambooze wrote: »

Bloodthirsty?

No, he's wondering - like every single major news outlet - why Israel hasn't released a full video of the event, rather than putting out edited videos that only show particular segments of the skirmish.

Moreover - Why did Israel confiscate tapes and photos of the events?

So your post is a red herring, and irrelevant in the broad scheme of things.

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

Peaceful aid workers?

Alternatively this is a video of people repelling illegal boarders on their craft.

It happened in International Waters and was illegal.

ardmacha

There was a riot on the ship, shooting rioters is regarded as excessive force in developed countries.

In general people have a right to resist piracy. Will Isreal be extraditing the pirates?

halkar

bambooze wrote: »

Peaceful aid workers?

Another desperate attempt by Israel. Snip snip snip 10 minute becomes 1 minute. Where is the sound? What happened during missing minutes? Why are the people on board ducking? And finaly what the feck Israelis doing near that boat in International waters?

Reminds me of :

IrishTonyO

bambooze wrote: »

Peaceful aid workers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU

My God! Did you see all their sophisticated weapons!! I assume Israel will tell us a glass bottle is a WMD.
The people on board were doing what they were right to do and trying to stop and illegal invasion/boarding of their vessel.

Grumpypants

alastair wrote: »

. Only one side in this equation have deaths on their hands.

I'm not sure what the scare quotes is about either - the intentions and rationale of the people on the ships is clear enough.

Very true the idiots that organised this flotilla and sent those people into a potentiality life threatening situation. These are the only people to blame. They knew what they where doing they knew what would happen if they did it.

The quotes are because i believe AID workers would be more interested in getting the AID to the needy people than making a big international incident about it and would have ensured the AID got there by going through the correct channels like the Red cross do every day.

IrishTonyO

Grumpypants wrote: »

Very true the idiots that organised this flotilla and sent those people into a potentiality life threatening situation. These are the only people to blame. They knew what they where doing they knew what would happen if they did it.

Do you really believe the IDF/Israeli government are not to to blame for these people deaths?

omega666

IrishTonyO wrote: »

My God! Did you see all their sophisticated weapons!! I assume Israel will tell us a glass bottle is a WMD.
The people on board were doing what they were right to do and trying to stop and illegal invasion/boarding of their vessel.

in fareness a slingshot could sink a warship if it fell into the wrong hands