Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

gandalf

Scofflaw wrote: »

A million videos isn't going to change that, because the people on board had the right to do what you're accusing them of doing.

Ah your forgetting Scofflaw those videos are not for our eyes they are for the eyes of those in the US. Because as long as they have the United States support Israel doesn't have to worry about pesky details like International Law and UN resolutions.

Its the old Bush mantra of if you repeat a lie often enough then people will believe its the truth.

gandalf

BTW as to my motivations for speaking up on this forum about this subject I think Pastor Martin Niemöller sums it up nicely.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Scofflaw

deadtiger wrote: »

Ah your forgetting Scofflaw those videos are not for our eyes they are for the eyes of those in the US. Because as long as they have the United States support Israel doesn't have to worry about pesky details like International Law and UN resolutions.

Its the old Bush mantra of if you repeat a lie often enough then people will believe its the truth.

Ah, no, I appreciate that. More broadly, they're for all Israel's existing supporters, because the existence of videos allows them to say "clearly the facts are disputed" and "there is evidence on our side", and make the doubts go away.

That's why it's important to keep pointing out that the people on board did only what they had every right to do - attempt to repel an illegal assault on their ship by Israeli combat forces. It doesn't matter whether it was stupid, it doesn't matter how long in advance they decided they would try to repel any assault - all that matters is that they did not, and could not, offer military resistance, because they were unarmed on unarmed ships. That makes it a civilian affair, that Israel turned into a lethal military assault in order to seize control of the flotilla - for PR reasons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

20Cent

Ambassador Edward Peck, witness of flotilla siege

For anyone who can't see youtube:
Edward Peck is a former ambassador and deputy director of Ronald Reagan's task force on terrorism.
He was on one of the smaller boats and describes how it was boarded by armed Israeli troops.
Some of the passengers tried to stop them getting into the wheelhouse but were removed forcibly, no major injuries.
One passenger was stunned with a stun grenade. Another was a veteran of the USS Liberty and was hit by paintball pellets.
He is complaining that the language reporting the incident is being twisted. Israel attacked them not the other way around.

gizmo555

deadtiger wrote: »

Because as long as they have the United States support Israel doesn't have to worry about pesky details like International Law and UN resolutions.

It's interesting to contrast, in this context, the widely expressed view that the flotilla should have meekly accepted the Israelis' illegal enforcement of an illegal blockade with some of the long and well established constitutional rights of US citizens in the face of unlawful police arrest, search & seizure:

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting
officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This
premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,
his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to
be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).



http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

Scofflaw

20Cent wrote: »

Ambassador Edward Peck, witness of flotilla siege

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z47wKB94ZGM&feature=player_embedded

Right, hold up there. There are plenty of people who can't get YouTube on their computers, and I don't want this thread to descend into "argument by video".

Further video postings must follow this format: a link to the video (not an embed) and a short summary of what the video contains. People can decide for themselves whether they want to watch them.

Otherwise, we might as well just plug a pro and an anti Israeli YouTube channel into each other and leave them to it.

moderately,
Scofflaw

gandalf

gizmo555 wrote: »

It's interesting to contrast, in this context, the widely expressed view that the flotilla should have meekly accepted the Israelis' illegal enforcement of an illegal blockade with some of the long and well established constitutional rights of US citizens in the face of unlawful police arrest, search & seizure:

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting
officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This
premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,
his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to
be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).



http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

Interestingly the Challenger 1 is a US flagged vessel. That technically makes it US soil, does that mean that mean its covered by the US constitution?

bambooze

ok I'll bite although I can only guess..

deadtiger wrote: »

Why carry out this operation in International Waters?

The legality of that has been debated to death here with opposing opinions by various lawyers and experts on international law being quoted.. so it seems it is not such a clear cut issue as many would like to believe.

Why carry out this operation at night when the risks were higher for the personel assaulting the ships?

Maybe they hoped most people would be sleeping or at least not on deck so they'd have a small window of time to take the bridge before anyone knew what was happening. Not sure why you think the risks to soldiers would be higher at night - these guys are usually trained and equipped for that and should really have the advantage.

Why use military tactics against a purely civilian humanitarian fleet?

Well they were running a military blockade so the military dealt with it.

Why use troops from Shayetet 13 the unit that specializes in sea-to-land incursions, assassinations, counter-terrorism, sabotage and have been involved in the past in killing members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades on an operation against a purely civilian humanitarian fleet?

Perhaps because it was a naval operation, defending a naval blockade and shayetet 13 are naval commandos with experience in boarding ships at sea (but probably not ships with 600 people on board).. and although to some extent it was or should have been at least partially just a crowd control operation which the police are better suited for, I just can't quite picture a bunch of fat police jumping out of helicopters onto the deck of a ship..

Were the soldiers primed by telling them that 75% of the people on board were terrorists?

No idea what intelligence they had, I'd like to know.. I'd say it was unlikely they were told anything like that. Although it seems reasonable to expect them to have someone on board feeding them realtime data. Its not like planting a deep cover agent in the taliban, just hundreds of civilians from all over the world. So if they did, then it would appear the data they were fed was very wrong or terribly misinterpreted. Or maybe they just had no such person on board and no reliable info to go on.. which seems a bit lax to say the least.

FlutterinBantam

karma_ wrote: »

You might at least show a lttle respect and call the city by it's correct name Istanbul.

I'm guessing they were deported to Turkey as that is where the ship originated from. Why do you worry about how they support themselves as long as they don't pop round your door and ask for a donation? Opine away though.

I would baulk slightly at my hard earned tax Euros being used to repatriate people like that.

If they want to go from country to country tilting at windmills,more luck to them, just don't expect me to foot the bill when the run into trouble.


I would assume that that is a fairly rational concern?

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I would baulk slightly at my hard earned tax Euros being used to repatriate people like that.

If they want to go from country to country tilting at windmills,more luck to them, just don't expect me to foot the bill when the run into trouble.


I would assume that that is a fairly rational concern?

It is fairly rational.

I might suggest that you voice your concerns towards the Israeli Government, which illegally kidnapped Irish citizens in international waters - inflicting such costs upon them. From what I understand - Israel paid for the flights out of Israel, but I'm unsure if they paid for the full flights back to Ireland, or the original stopover.

alastair

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I would baulk slightly at my hard earned tax Euros being used to repatriate people like that.

You've met the people in question then?

BluePlanet

alastair wrote: »

You've met the people in question then?

He surely has, subliminaly

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

ok I'll bite although I can only guess..

Thanks

The legality of that has been debated to death here with opposing opinions by various lawyers and experts on international law being quoted.. so it seems it is not such a clear cut issue as many would like to believe.

But they must have realised this themselves. Why leave themselves open to this quite obvious and valid accusation. Even the article that you quoted and found to support that it was legal was not clear cut at all.

Why did they not wait for the ships to reach the waters that they had stewardship over?

The only reason I can think of is it would be daylight and it would make for bad PR? Is that the proper way to initiate an operation that has risks for civilians and your own personnel?

Maybe they hoped most people would be sleeping or at least not on deck so they'd have a small window of time to take the bridge before anyone knew what was happening. Not sure why you think the risks to soldiers would be higher at night - these guys are usually trained and equipped for that and should really have the advantage.

But they didn't again as I said it appeared to happen this way because they didn't want to look bad on the telly!

Is that the right way to govern a country. Break International Law (I know you dispute this) to save a bit of grief on the telly. Its backfired a hundred fold on them now.

Well they were running a military blockade so the military dealt with it.

They hadn't reached the blockade?

Perhaps because it was a naval operation, defending a naval blockade and shayetet 13 are naval commandos with experience in boarding ships at sea (but probably not ships with 600 people on board).. and although to some extent it was or should have been at least partially just a crowd control operation which the police are better suited for, I just can't quite picture a bunch of fat police jumping out of helicopters onto the deck of a ship..

Yes but why use troops who normally use lethal force in their operations against civilians?

No idea what intelligence they had, I'd like to know.. I'd say it was unlikely they were told anything like that. Although it seems reasonable to expect them to have someone on board feeding them realtime data. Its not like planting a deep cover agent in the taliban, just hundreds of civilians from all over the world. So if they did, then it would appear the data they were fed was very wrong or terribly misinterpreted. Or maybe they just had no such person on board and no reliable info to go on.. which seems a bit lax to say the least.

That 75% figure is attributed to Captain M one of the Officers involved in the assault on the ship.

Its right royal cock up that has diminished Israels standing on the International stage, has highlighted the Gaza blockade to the whole world, has left the country, the IDF and the politicians in higher office open to all sorts of accusations some valid and some unfair. And most of all it has left 9 people dead (although there are reports that the death toll is higher and bodies were thrown overboard, but until I see actual evidence of that I'll take it with a pinch of salt).

So bambooze are you happy with the conduct of your politicians and your military with the handling of this situation?

Scofflaw

But they didn't again as I said it appeared to happen this way because they didn't want to look bad on the telly!

Is that the right way to govern a country. Break International Law (I know you dispute this) to save a bit of grief on the telly. Its backfired a hundred fold on them now.

It's funny how often that is the case. Reminds me of the "today is a good day to bury news" story.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote: »

"Your honour, she is a known associate of prostitutes".

...and her plan was that she wanted me to do this, so that I'd then be wrongly accused of having done something wrong.

She is the one who should be on trial here.

Memnoch

I'm not returning to the argument as I promised not to do earlier.

I'm just wondering if someone could provide me links to back up the claim that Israel claims it is NOT at war with Hamas or Palestine.

Thanks.

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote: »

That makes it a civilian affair, that Israel turned into a lethal military assault in order to seize control of the flotilla - for PR reasons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In fairness, Scofflaw, the underlined part is pure speculation.

Macha

bonkey wrote: »

In fairness, Scofflaw, the underlined part is pure speculation.

Why else would they do it in the middle of the night?

Attempts to minimise the PR impact of the other side is a PR strategy itself.

bambooze

deadtiger wrote: »

Thanks

But they must have realised this themselves. Why leave themselves open to this quite obvious and valid accusation. Even the article that you quoted and found to support that it was legal was not clear cut at all.

Why did they not wait for the ships to reach the waters that they had stewardship over?

The only reason I can think of is it would be daylight and it would make for bad PR? Is that the proper way to initiate an operation that has risks for civilians and your own personnel?

But they didn't again as I said it appeared to happen this way because they didn't want to look bad on the telly!

Is that the right way to govern a country. Break International Law (I know you dispute this) to save a bit of grief on the telly. Its backfired a hundred fold on them now.

They hadn't reached the blockade?

Yes but why use troops who normally use lethal force in their operations against civilians?

That 75% figure is attributed to Captain M one of the Officers involved in the assault on the ship.

Its right royal cock up that has diminished Israels standing on the International stage, has highlighted the Gaza blockade to the whole world, has left the country, the IDF and the politicians in higher office open to all sorts of accusations some valid and some unfair. And most of all it has left 9 people dead (although there are reports that the death toll is higher and bodies were thrown overboard, but until I see actual evidence of that I'll take it with a pinch of salt).

So bambooze are you happy with the conduct of your politicians and your military with the handling of this situation?

Presumably their own legal advisers gave them the ok.

They expressed intent to run the blockade even if they hadn't reached it yet and so was covered by the legal blurb quoted earlier.

They were always going to look bad on telly, day or night. Any military turning back an aid convoy will never do much for PR.

Even the police use lethal force under certain circumstances, being initially armed with non-lethal weapons should have prevented the deaths but clearly things didn't go to plan.

The reports of throwing bodies over the side smacks of typical anti-israel propaganda (in this case I believe it was a syrian who first made that accusation ). It simply doesn't pass the smell test - throwing bodies over the side to hide the true death toll and do so in front of 600 witnesses, not to mention the press including a reuters crew on one of the navy ships.

I don't think anyone is truly happy with what happened in the end but I can't accept israel is fully to blame because it is not. There are people and organizations involved in the flotilla that are absolutely not innocent.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote: »

In fairness, Scofflaw, the underlined part is pure speculation.

That's quite true, of course - however, I have made my case for it, and I do think it fits the bill across the board. It explains why:

1. it took place at night, when filming and photographing of the incident would be minimal

2. the assault took place in international waters, because to wait for Gazan waters would have meant waiting for broad daylight

3. it was an assault rather than a boarding, because the aim was to take control as quickly as possible

As I say, I think the assault was an attempt to create a fait accompli - the world's media would have woken up in the morning to a flotilla already under Israeli control, heading quietly for Ashdod. No dramatic standoffs, no overwhelming display of Israeli force in daylight, no views of Gaza. Situation resolved from a PR point of view by a quick surgical strike...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Run_to_da_hills

How Israel’s ministry of foreign affairs fakes photos of seized weapons.

We have all seen this before havent we. :rolleyes:

http://ibnkafkasobiterdicta.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/gaza-flotilla-how-israels-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-fakes-photos-of-seized-weapons/

karma_

bambooze wrote: »

I don't think anyone is truly happy with what happened in the end but I can't accept israel is fully to blame because it is not. There are people and organizations involved in the flotilla that are absolutely not innocent.

Well see, it matters not whether you can accept it or not because Israel is the only one to blame, that you cannot speaks more about a lack of empathy than anything else.

If you really want to label aid workers as being 'not innocent' it sets a dangerous precedent. No government or armed force is infallible, that we can recognise that and accept responsibility for wrongdoing when it is our own government or forces is important.

sceptre

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

How Israel’s ministry of foreign affairs fakes photos of seized weapons.

We have all seen this before havent we. :rolleyes:

http://ibnkafkasobiterdicta.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/gaza-flotilla-how-israels-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-fakes-photos-of-seized-weapons/

We've discussed it earlier in the thread if that counts:) Various posts from post 2522 to about 2550.

droidus

bambooze wrote: »

They expressed intent to run the blockade even if they hadn't reached it yet and so was covered by the legal blurb quoted earlier.

This is nonsense and its been repeated countless times in this thread.

There is no legal basis for the blockade. it is unlawful, therefore the attack on the flotilla is unlawful. The security council called for the blockade to be lifted in resolution 1860 following the massacre in Gaza last year. Prior to that the siege was said to be in direct violation of International Humanitarian law which constituted collective punishment, and was condemned by the UN human rights council in January 2008 (the 15th such condemnation on human rights in the occupied territories in the preceding 2 years). In March of the same year, aid agencies and NGO's such as Amnesty, CARE International UK, CAFOD, Christian Aid, Medecins du Monde UK, Oxfam, Save the Children UK and Trocaire issued the joint report 'The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion':

Amnesty etc... wrote:

The situation for 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is worse now than it has ever been since the start of the Israeli military occupation in 1967. The current situation in Gaza is man-made, completely avoidable and, with the necessary political will, can also be reversed.

Gaza has suffered from a long-term pattern of economic stagnation and plummeting development indicators. The severity of the situation has increased exponentially since Israel imposed extreme restrictions on the movement of goods and people in response to the Hamas take over of Gaza...

Israeli human rights group B'tselem outlined these breaches of humanitarian law and the effects of the economic strangulation of Gaza even prior to the Hamas takeover in 2006, in their March '05 report 'The Gaza Strip - One Big Prison':

B'tselem wrote:

Despite the easing of restrictions that Israel declared following the Sharm el-Sheikh summit in February 2005, there has been almost no improvement in the movement of Palestinians to and from Gaza, nor in the movement of goods. The report illustrates the extent to which Israel treats many fundamental human rights – among them the right to freedom of movement, family life, health, education, and work – as “humanitarian gestures” that it grants or denies at will...

...The strangulation of the Gaza Strip increased following Palestinian attacks against civilians in Israel and the Occupied Territories over the past few years. Targeting civilians is a “war crime” and never justified. Israel is entitled, even obligated, to protect its citizens. However, Israel’s right to self-defense does not permit it to trample on the rights of an entire population...

The blockade is UNLAWFUL, therefore the attack on the flotilla was UNLAWFUL - in fact, you could argue that the flotilla was attempting to ENFORCE international law and was impeded by an illegal military assault - an act of war or an act of criminality.

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

They expressed intent to run the blockade even if they hadn't reached it yet and so was covered by the legal blurb quoted earlier.

But the blurb you quoted was not clear cut. It had loads of provisions to that legality?

Also given the blockade is considered illegal as well the protesters felt they had a right to try and get humanitarian aid through (no matter how naive that is). They certainly did not deserve to be hunting down by a Israel special forces unit that is trained to kill.

They were always going to look bad on telly, day or night. Any military turning back an aid convoy will never do much for PR.

Especially when they blow at least 9 of them away.

Even the police use lethal force under certain circumstances, being initially armed with non-lethal weapons should have prevented the deaths but clearly things didn't go to plan.

As a very last resort and a police force would know not to isolate themselves in the middle of a crowd of people who were hostile to them.

Again I feel that while the Israeli Special Forces are specialists at boarding ships they normally kill those who don't want them boarding those vessels so they were the wrong assets to put into play against civilians.

The reports of throwing bodies over the side smacks of typical anti-israel propaganda (in this case I believe it was a syrian who first made that accusation ). It simply doesn't pass the smell test - throwing bodies over the side to hide the true death toll and do so in front of 600 witnesses, not to mention the press including a reuters crew on one of the navy ships.

As I said I am taking those reports with a pinch of salt. However given the haphazard way that the Israeli authorities have dealt with this situation and the aftermath expect more of these outlandish rumours to surface and unfortunately some are going to take hold.

I don't think anyone is truly happy with what happened in the end but I can't accept israel is fully to blame because it is not. There are people and organizations involved in the flotilla that are absolutely not innocent.

If they didn't board vessels in International Waters and if they didn't carry the operation out like they were assaulting a vessel filled with terrorists then this situation would not have occurred. They bare full responsibility for the deaths, injuries and the kidnapping of civilians from International Waters.

doncarlos

bambooze wrote: »

no more than anyone here would trust israeli media reporting on gaza..

Except for your goods self and a select few others.

bambooze

"I want to be a shahid"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSAxAj2KIdU

In footage captured on the Gaza flotilla, a passenger describes how he has attempted in previous convoys to become a martyr and that “with god’s luck” he will succeed on this flotilla. While the Gaza flotilla passengers had presented themselves as peace activists who would not act violently towards Israeli forces, this provides further evidence to the contrary.

BluePlanet

bambooze wrote: »

"I want to be a shahid"

Honestly is there a POINT to this video?
Is it just your idea to spam this thread with what you think is material that denigrates the crew?

Johnboy1951

bambooze wrote: »

An aid organization involved has "clear, long-standing ties to terrorism and Jihad"

Vid evidence clearly shows them tooled up for battle before israelis boarded..

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

I have read no real comments on the video posted above, so just want to ask if others see what I believe is shown.

People prepare to repel boarders - they are aware of the Israelis surrounding them. They prepare with various 'weapons' they can make from whatever they have available.

Keeping watch they appear to see the Israeli forces approach, so they go to the sides of their deck, and begin to wave their sticks and bars and so on.
Immediately one of those - to the right side of the video - ducks in a manner indicating to me he was fired upon by the invading forces.
This occurred BEFORE any of the invaders were within 'hitting distance' of the deadly weapons the defenders had at their disposal.

In view of this, it is my opinion that the Israeli forces came on board shooting at those on board, who had no means to shoot back.

I also feel comfortable believing that if the sound track was released with this video we could hear that shot (and other shots) being fired as well as what the defenders had to say about it.

I am under the impression that this video was released by the Israelis as proof of wrong-doing by the defenders.
I put it to those who care to watch that it is more proof that the Israelis came aboard shooting.

So to all those who believe the Israelis did not shoot before being attacked personally, maybe you would reconsider this evidence released by the Israelis themselves.

regards.

gandalf

BluePlanet wrote: »

Honestly is there a POINT to this video?
Is it just your idea to spam this thread with what you think is material that denigrates the crew?

The point is to deflect from the Illegal & Botched Boarding in International Water by Special Forces trained for Combat operations and killing on civilian vessels.

That's the point and to be honest given this person is quite articulate I find such submissions lazy and self defeating.