Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Johnboy1951

Ciaran500 wrote: »

The Israeli's borded with paintball guns to use as crowd control, how do you know they were not being shat at with these?

I know neither that those on board were shot at by those boarding nor by those in support; I do believe they were shot at due to their reactions in the video released by the Israelis.
I do not know with what they were shot at ...... projectiles that were rubber coated or not.

Again all I believe is that in the darkest hour of the night those on board were shot at by some unknowns that were not on board, using projectiles which may or may not have been rubber coated.

So my previous post still stands ......... those on board were shot at before they encountered any of the invaders in hand to hand 'combat'.

That alone belies the official statements of the Israeli representatives.

droidus

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, no. If you have always viewed it as being a state of armed conflict, that's fine, but I haven't assumed any hypocrisy on your part. I've pointed out that Israel always claims not to be in a state of armed conflict, because there are duties and legalities attendant on that status that she wishes to avoid. It's not germane whether you have accepted and repeated Israel's view on the matter - you're not on trial here.

Statements:

1. Israel has always claimed not to be in a state of armed conflict.

2. On this occasion, the action taken by Israel is only legal if they are in a state of armed conflict.

3. Israel's supporters are suggesting that Israel is in a state of armed conflict (cf Joe Biden), because this legalises the action taken.

4. But nothing has changed, and Israel has not officially declared itself to be in a state of armed conflict, nor accepted the duties and legalities attendant on that status.

5. It's not going to wash anyway, because retroactively declaring yourself in a state of armed conflict to justify an illegal action isn't legal anyway.

So I'm afraid it doesn't really matter what you say, as long as Israel was not officially in a state of armed conflict it cannot use the existence of a state of armed conflict to justify its actions.

Sure, the statement may be used against it at some future point - but it's irrelevant right now, because Israel couldn't retroactively declare itself in a state of armed conflict anyway. At the time of the incident, Israel was sticking to the line that it was not involved in an armed conflict, and that's all there is to that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well said. And (sorry to labour the point), even if Israel was in a state of armed conflict with Hamas/Gaza, the boarding would still be illegal as the blockade has been deemed Illegal by the UN.

Incidentally, one of the points Ive seen raised about this is this operation may constitute formal recognition of full belligerent status for Hamas with the implication that their fighters become privileged combatants with POW status when captured.

bambooze

gandalf wrote: »

bambooze strikes me as a very intelligent contributor to this thread and I am sure that he will even agree that the IDF is only going to release footage that is beneficial to their version of events.

I wish they'd release all video evidence although I understand that they wont ever release some such as anything that might compromise identities of their special forces guys or certain operational stuff just as anything the SAS does is shrouded in secrecy.

As it is the vids are being released frustratingly slowly.

I suppose they have to extract and process photo/video content from all the phones, cams & laptops they confiscated from 600 people which would take a while but still.. annoying.

There is much criticism in israel over how long it took the idf to release vids, particularly the one showing the beatings. Apparently some in the idf thought it would harm moral in the unit seeing their guys get beaten to a pulp so they didn't want to release it.

IrishTonyO

bambooze wrote: »

I wish they'd release all video evidence although I understand that they wont ever release some such as anything that might compromise identities of their special forces guys or certain operational stuff just as anything the SAS does is shrouded in secrecy.

As it is the vids are being released frustratingly slowly.

I suppose they have to extract and process photo/video content from all the phones, cams & laptops they confiscated from 600 people which would take a while but still.. annoying.

There is much criticism in israel over how long it took the idf to release vids, particularly the one showing the beatings. Apparently some in the idf thought it would harm moral in the unit seeing their guys get beaten to a pulp so they didn't want to release it.

Yeah and the morale of the IDF is far more important than the truth, and being open and honest with the world.

bambooze

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Some of statements made in the media by people on board the ships were made by people not on the lead vessel and you have tried to counter their statements saying the video (from the lead ship) does not show this

Oh I see well that was not intentional, I was not aware any of those were from the other ships. If they were on ships with no violence and they said there was no violence then thats fine as long as its clear they are not talking about that first ship with the violence.

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

I wish they'd release all video evidence although I understand that they wont ever release some such as anything that might compromise identities of their special forces guys or certain operational stuff just as anything the SAS does is shrouded in secrecy.

As it is the vids are being released frustratingly slowly.

I suppose they have to extract and process photo/video content from all the phones, cams & laptops they confiscated from 600 people which would take a while but still.. annoying.

There is much criticism in israel over how long it took the idf to release vids, particularly the one showing the beatings. Apparently some in the idf thought it would harm moral in the unit seeing their guys get beaten to a pulp so they didn't want to release it.

Thanks but you didn't answer the actual question. I assume that you agree with it then

The IDF is only going to release footage that is beneficial to their version of events.

IrishTonyO

bambooze wrote: »

Oh I see well that was not intentional, I was not aware any of those were from the other ships. If they were on ships with no violence and they said there was no violence then thats fine as long as its clear they are not talking about that first ship with the violence.

Most have said there was no violence from the passengers but there was from the IDF, people had broken noses, were shot with tazers etc.

Memnoch

bambooze wrote: »

1) It was said right from the start they had sidearms as well as paintball guns when they landed. I don't know anything about machine guns - is it really likely these commandos were lugging machine guns when they boarded? What on earth would they do with those in a close combat or crowd control situation?

The former American abassador said they had machine guns. I believe it's been mentioned before in the thread that there's a video showing an Israeli soldier with a suppressed Uzi.

2) Yes possibly someone was killed before landing, possibly with rubber coated bullets but since they are supposed to be non-lethal crowd control weapons was the intent really to kill or just disable? (perhaps he was armed with something?) Probably just a f#ckup since it makes little sense to go killing people first before boarding.. doesn't help the guy with his head caved in though.

I'll agree that it might have been a **** up but it severely challenges the Israeli narrative that the activists on the ship attacked their commandos first and that they only killed people in self-defence.

It also lends a lot of credence to the idea that the activists were genuinely in fear for their lives.

3) Then perhaps they should have turned back when warned?

Red herring, already been discussed to death in this thread. You're attempting to side track the dicussion.

They did prepare for battle with metal bars etc before the shooting began.

Lets see, 3 am, international waters, suddenly surrounded by speed boats and helicopters, loud bangs going off everywhere, gun shots (plastic bullets or otherwise), flash bangs. By the IDF who have a reputation for killing unarmed civilians...

yeah I can see why people might want to arm themselves.

bambooze

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Yeah and the morale of the IDF is far more important than the truth, and being open and honest with the world.

Well the video in question was the one that showed the soldiers getting pulverized by a mob so not releasing it was not helping the idf in any way, quite the reverse.

Manic Moran

Sure, the statement may be used against it at some future point - but it's irrelevant right now, because Israel couldn't retroactively declare itself in a state of armed conflict anyway. At the time of the incident, Israel was sticking to the line that it was not involved in an armed conflict, and that's all there is to that.

I would submit that that argument does not hold legal water. Something either is, or it is not. If the international courts have in the past said that it's a state of armed conflict whilst disregarding Israel's statements on the matter, then legally it's a state of armed conflict even when Israel reverses itself because Israel's statements on the matter are being disregarded in the legal sphere.
You may please feel free to wax poetic about Israel's hypocrisy or flexible position, but the legal issue is decided by the facts on the ground.

droidus wrote: »

Well said. And (sorry to labour the point), even if Israel was in a state of armed conflict with Hamas/Gaza, the boarding would still be illegal as the blockade has been deemed Illegal by the UN.

I'm still waiting for the actual resolution on that one. The only one I've seen so far is an expression 'calling for' an end to the blockade, which is a statement of preference, not legal finding. The UN 'calls for' a crapload of stuff which they would prefer to see.

NTM

IrishTonyO

bambooze wrote: »

Well the video in question was the one that showed the soldiers getting pulverized by a mob so not releasing it was not helping the idf in any way, quite the reverse.

maybe it took a bit of time for the editing?

IrishTonyO

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would submit that that argument does not hold legal water. Something either is, or it is not. If the international courts have in the past said that it's a state of armed conflict whilst disregarding Israel's statements on the matter, then legally it's a state of armed conflict even when Israel reverses itself because Israel's statements on the matter are being disregarded in the legal sphere.
You may please feel free to wax poetic about Israel's hypocrisy or flexible position, but the legal issue is decided by the facts on the ground.

In that case Hamas are not terrorists they are war combatants, but that doesn't suit Israel either

doncarlos

bambooze wrote: »

Well the video in question was the one that showed the soldiers getting pulverized by a mob so not releasing it was not helping the idf in any way, quite the reverse.

How the hell did it not help them? Seriously you should read over what you have written before you press the submit button.

That video (if people are stupid enough to accept it and it alone as proof to what happened) seems to prove that the IDF were attacked first.

Why are they so slow to release what happened before and after??

bambooze

IrishTonyO wrote: »

In that case Hamas are not terrorists they are war combatants, but that doesn't suit Israel either

They are democratically elected terrorists.

wes

bambooze wrote: »

They are democratically elected terrorists.

Yes, tell me something I don't know about the Israeli government :P.

IrishTonyO

bambooze wrote: »

They are democratically elected terrorists.

Well if they are terrorists, then no state of war/conflict exists, and the San Remo document is out the window.

bambooze

doncarlos wrote: »

How the hell did it not help them? Seriously you should read over what you have written before you press the submit button.

I said NOT releasing it did not help them. In other words its not like hiding evidence to make them look better in this case coz clearly releasing that was good for them but still some (stupid) officers did not want it released.

Why are they so slow to release what happened before and after??

Hell if I know.

bambooze

wes wrote: »

Yes, tell me something I don't know about the Israeli government :P.

I knew that one was coming.

doncarlos

bambooze wrote: »

They are democratically elected terrorists.

So was Nelson Mandela.

Scofflaw

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would submit that that argument does not hold legal water. Something either is, or it is not. If the international courts have in the past said that it's a state of armed conflict whilst disregarding Israel's statements on the matter, then legally it's a state of armed conflict even when Israel reverses itself because Israel's statements on the matter are being disregarded in the legal sphere.
You may please feel free to wax poetic about Israel's hypocrisy or flexible position, but the legal issue is decided by the facts on the ground.

Fair point. Have the international courts ruled that Israel is in a state of armed conflict...?

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm still waiting for the actual resolution on that one. The only one I've seen so far is an expression 'calling for' an end to the blockade, which is a statement of preference, not legal finding. The UN 'calls for' a crapload of stuff which they would prefer to see.

...or is it, again, just the UN calling for more of the craploads of stuff it would like to see?

cordially,
Scofflaw

paulaa

bambooze wrote: »

Well the video in question was the one that showed the soldiers getting pulverized by a mob so not releasing it was not helping the idf in any way, quite the reverse.

Neither is changing their story after making false claims about the activists

Under Scrutiny, IDF Retracts Claims About Flotilla’s Al Qaeda Links

When placed under journalistic scrutiny, the IDF is being forced to admit that its claims about the flotilla’s links to international terror are based on innuendo, not facts. On June 2, the IDF blasted out a press release to reporters and bloggers with the shocking headline: “Attackers of the IDF soldiers found to be Al Qaeda mercenaries.” The only supporting evidence offered in the release was a claim that the passengers “were equipped with bullet proof vests, night vision goggles, and weapons.”

http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/under-scrutiny-idf-retracts-claims-about-flotillas-al-qaeda-links/

bambooze

doncarlos wrote: »

So was Nelson Mandela.

Not at the same time.

bambooze

Interesting..

Israel should not agree to an independent international inquiry of the raid on the Gaza flotilla that left at least nine people dead, Col. (ret.) Richard Kemp, the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan, told The Jerusalem Post Wednesday.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=177334

prinz

Scofflaw wrote: »

1. Israel has always claimed not to be in a state of armed conflict.

It designated Gaza as a hostile entity and this was greeted by Hamas as a declaration of war.

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

Interesting..

Israel should not agree to an independent international inquiry of the raid on the Gaza flotilla that left at least nine people dead, Col. (ret.) Richard Kemp, the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan, told The Jerusalem Post Wednesday.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=177334

This is the same Richard Kemp that disputed allegations that Israel engaged in war crimes during Operation Cast Lead in December 2008 to January 2009 at the Goldstone inquiry on Israels behalf in the UN.

And the same Richard Kemp that wrote a document entitled "HAMAS, THE GAZA WAR AND ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW" for the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs.

Not exactly an impartial commentator now is he. He seems to be doing a lot of speeches to Zionist organisations both inside and outside Israel, one could say it is in his interest to come out with statements like this yes. Otherwise the speaking engagements might dry up.

Byron85

prinz wrote: »

It designated Gaza as a hostile entity and this was greeted by Hamas as a declaration of war.

Yes but Hamas isn't recognised by Israel as a legitimate authority so it's a moot point. They can keep twisting the rules all they want to suit themselves but some of us actually noticed these things.

doncarlos

bambooze wrote: »

Interesting..

Israel should not agree to an independent international inquiry of the raid on the Gaza flotilla that left at least nine people dead, Col. (ret.) Richard Kemp, the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan, told The Jerusalem Post Wednesday.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=177334

Do you believe that Israel will conduct a fair and honest enquiry when they won't even release any evidence that would prove or disprove their story?

edit: “I believe Israel should do it rapidly and comprehensively and should be completely up front if it has made mistakes – mistakes should be admitted by Israel, but I don’t think it should be subjected to an independent inquiry any more than other Western countries are."

They have already said that they have not made mistakes so how can there be a fair and just enquiry. Who is going to write a report that would prove that the IDF, all Israeli spokemen and the President himself are liars.

paulaa

gandalf wrote: »

This is the same Richard Kemp that disputed allegations that Israel engaged in war crimes during Operation Cast Lead in December 2008 to January 2009 at the Goldstone inquiry on Israels behalf in the UN.

And the same Richard Kemp that wrote a document entitled "HAMAS, THE GAZA WAR AND ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW" for the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs.

Not exactly an impartial commentator now is he.

Exactly. This guy was speaking in Israel where he spends a lot of his time.
He gave evidence against the Goldstone report even though he wasn't in Gaza at the time of Cast Lead.Some of his decisions in Afghanistan were questionable to say the least, where a lot of civilians were killed under his command.
I'm sure his pension is well supplemented with shekels for his support.

Foxtrol

gandalf wrote: »

This is the same Richard Kemp that disputed allegations that Israel engaged in war crimes during Operation Cast Lead in December 2008 to January 2009 at the Goldstone inquiry on Israels behalf in the UN.

And the same Richard Kemp that wrote a document entitled "HAMAS, THE GAZA WAR AND ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW" for the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs.

Not exactly an impartial commentator now is he. He seems to be doing a lot of speeches to Zionist organisations both inside and outside Israel, one could say it is in his interest to come out with statements like this yes. Otherwise the speaking engagements might dry up.

If you're going to discount everyone who has ever made a comment on the conflict as not being impartial then I doubt you're going to find anyone who actually is. All comments from both sides, including those who appear and/or claim to be impartial, should be taking with a pinch of salt.

gandalf

Foxtrol wrote: »

If you're going to discount everyone who has ever made a comment on the conflict as not being impartial then I doubt you're going to find anyone who actually is. All comments from both sides, including those who appear to be impartial, should be taking with a pinch of salt.

But if he is employed to create reports of this type and to make speeches to Zionist organisations you can see why it is in his interest to slant whatever he says to back up the positions that these organisations take.

Coming on to this site and posting a link to an article quoting this man and saying "Interesting" doesn't quite cut it here. We didn't introduce him as "proof" bambooze did and he was rightly pulled up on it.