Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Scofflaw

paulaa wrote: »

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/und...l-qaeda-links/

Yes, it seems to me that the evidence is not "mounting" unless we're talking of evidence of a PR machine thrashing about clutching at make-believe straws.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

prinz 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.

The IRA always claimed to be at war with the UK, which it considered to be an occupying force. As far as I recall, the UK never accepted that view, and treated the IRA as a terrorist - that is, criminal - organisation.

Has Israel officially accepted that it's at war with Hamas (that is, presumably, Palestine, since Hamas is the Palestinian government)?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BluePlanet

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.

A" state of armed conflict" is declared by the "High Contracting Parties" (the countries at war), not the UN.
Otherwise people in your camp would be leveling the charge that the UN is arbitarily "starting wars by decree".

I'm also rather sure that you've defended Israel's refusal to declare a state of war in Gaza.

Was wondering what was taking you so long to rush to Israel's defense.
These acrobatic attempts at rationalising Israel's aggression are really stretching now.

Foxtrol

gandalf wrote: »

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.

And after reading a few pages back people here were jumping down posters throats for suggesting that it could be in the best interest for some "eye witnesses" on the boats to lie. Both sides have reasons to put slants on stories which back up their positions whether it be by leaving out key points, misdirection or blatant lies. Its blinkered to believe that doing so is only to the Israelis benefit.

bambooze

gandalf wrote: »

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.

Proof? I did no such thing, I linked to an interesting opinion, not in any way can that be said to be proof of anything one way or the other.

Scofflaw

Foxtrol wrote: »

And after reading a few pages back people here were jumping down posters throats for suggesting that it could be in the best interest for some "eye witnesses" on the boats to lie. Both sides have reasons to put slants on stories which back up their positions whether it be by leaving out key points, misdirection or blatant lies. Its blinkered to believe that doing so is only to the Israelis benefit.

That's quite true, but it's also silly to insist on the impartiality of people known not to be impartial.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Foxtrol

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's quite true, but it's also silly to insist on the impartiality of people known not to be impartial.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Can you post were someone claimed that opinion was impartial?

I wouldnt be surprised, however, that there are lots of posters here that would claim that there are impartial eyewitnesses on the boats.

Memnoch

Scofflaw,

I know this has been accepted almost de facto in this thread, but I have not yet seen a single link that shows that Israel do no consider itself at war with Hamas?

Manic Moran

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

At least once, the International Court of Justice in 2005.

I know this has been accepted almost de facto in this thread, but I have not yet seen a single link that shows that Israel do no consider itself at war with Hamas?

This is actually irrelevant to the ICJ's reasoning, part of which was that the territory was seized and occupied as part of a war and that nothing in the passage of time has changed this fact.

NTM

Scofflaw

Foxtrol wrote: »

Can you post were someone claimed that opinion was impartial?

I wouldnt be surprised, however, that there are lots of posters here that would claim that there are impartial eyewitnesses on the boats.

Of what value is the opinion of someone like Richard Kemp if he is not impartial? And clearly he is not impartial if he is "employed to create reports of this type and to make speeches to Zionist organisations" - indeed, he is professionally partial, so it's not a case of "discount[ing] everyone who has ever made a comment on the conflict":

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.

That is actually a plea to allow the statements of the definitively partial to be treated with the same respect as those who are not so known.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Memnoch wrote: »

Scofflaw,

I know this has been accepted almost de facto in this thread, but I have not yet seen a single link that shows that Israel do no consider itself at war with Hamas?

I'm taking that from the Israeli designation of Hamas as a 'terrorist organisation', which isn't something you can designate an accepted military opponent as. The other side in a war may carry out war crimes, but is not a terrorist organisation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

paulaa

Is the backlash starting and will we see more of this kind of action ? Link below complete with photo of "weapons of mass destruction" bound for Gaza

The Swedish dockers’ union decides on a blockade against Israeli ships and goods

People ask themselves how to react to Monday’s bloodbath on the Mavi Marmara. Svenska hamnarbetarförbundet, the Swedish dockers’ union, has made a first contribution to that debate: it has decided on a blockade against Israeli ships and goods from June 15 at 00.00 hour to June 24 at 24.00 hour.

http://ibnkafkasobiterdicta.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/the-swedish-dockers-union-decides-on-a-blockade-against-israeli-ships-and-goods/

Foxtrol

Scofflaw wrote: »

Of what value is the opinion of someone like Richard Kemp if he is not impartial? And clearly he is not impartial if he is "employed to create reports of this type and to make speeches to Zionist organisations" - indeed, he is professionally partial, so it's not a case of "discount[ing] everyone who has ever made a comment on the conflict":



That is actually a plea to allow the statements of the definitively partial to be treated with the same respect as those who are not so known.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What is the value of anyones opinion then?

My point is that it is completely unfair and blinkered for posters to attack those who question whether the eyewitnesses on the boats are impartial while at the same time attacking the Israeli claims and video due to them not being impartial.

Do you agree that both sides have reasons to lie and that both sides therefore cannot be seen as being impartial?

BlaasForRafa

doncarlos wrote: »

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.

Calm down on the hyperbole.

The Winograd commission into the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah was unstinting in its examination of the political and military failings of that operation.

alastair

Manic Moran wrote: »

At least once, the International Court of Justice in 2005.



This is actually irrelevant to the ICJ's reasoning, part of which was that the territory was seized and occupied as part of a war and that nothing in the passage of time has changed this fact.

NTM

Nothing in the passage of time has changed?

Well Israel changed it's status in Gaza from one of an occupying force, to one of an ex-occupier. Oh and then they invaded again - for a short war, where a state of combat did exist (and Israel had to deal with both rockets and hamas as being legal combatants).

There's a pretty comprehensive discussion as to the legal status of Israel's conflict relationship with Gaza/Hamas, and whether a legal state of conflict applies here: http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/why-is-israels-blockade-of-gaza-legal/

In summary - the meat of the piece is as follows:

...it would be possible to argue that Israel’s conflict with Hamas is an IAC (international armed conflict) and Israel is thus entitled to blockade Gaza.

But there’s a catch — and a big one. If the “cost” of the blockade is formally recognizing Hamas as a belligerent, maintaining the blockade would mean recognizing Hamas fighters as privileged combatants. (Just as the armed forces of any state are privileged combatants.) That would be fundamentally unacceptable to Israel, because Hamas fighters would then be entitled to attack Israeli combatants and would have to be treated as POWs upon capture.

Interestingly there has been a shift in Israel's line on Hamas since the boarding of the flotilla (and only since then) - both the Israeli deputy ambassador to the UN and the Israeli Foreign Ministry claim "Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza" - a shift from the previous language used. It'll be interesting to see if they're going to commit fully and treat Hamas as privileged combatants - or if this is just goalpost-shifting for the moment.

conaire1

Rachel Corrie crew member Derek Graham has said they will accept a UN escort into Gaza.
More Here:
http://marne.ie/mvrachelcorrie/

Foxtrol

conaire1 wrote: »

Rachel Corrie crew member Derek Graham has said they will accept a UN escort into Gaza.
More Here:
http://marne.ie/mvrachelcorrie/

Have the UN offered??

alastair

also interesting:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is willing to consider easing the naval blockade on the Gaza Strip, as well as possible creative solutions for monitoring the goods that are allowed to enter the Hamas-ruled territory.

According to Netanyahu, the siege should focus on preventing the smuggling of rockets and weapons in order to avoid what he termed an "Iranian port in Gaza" in a speech he gave in Canada on Monday.

Netanyahu has also expressed willingness to involve international bodies in the enforcement of the naval siege.

The New York Times reported Thursday that the U.S. administration maintains that the naval siege cannot continue in its current format, and has apparently demanded that Israel ease its restrictions on the types of goods that are allowed to enter the Strip. The issue was brought up during a discussion between senior U.S. National Security Council officials and Netanyahu's envoys Isaac Molho and Uzi Arad at the White House, both of whom returned to Israel from Washington on Wednesday.

Netanyahu has communicated to the American administration that he is open to new and creative ideas, but that he believes that any decision that is made must not be made lightly, and that any new format should be examined carefully ahead of time.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/under-u-s-pressure-netanyahu-may-ease-gaza-siege-1.294038

alastair

Foxtrol wrote: »

Have the UN offered??

When asked if any such offer had been made, he said: “Our communication is pretty limited but we would hope there would be people working on that as we speak.”

That'd be a 'no' then.

Mr.Micro

conaire1 wrote: »

Rachel Corrie crew member Derek Graham has said they will accept a UN escort into Gaza.
More Here:
http://marne.ie/mvrachelcorrie/

I cannot see the UN having the balls to escort the vessel, especially as it might offend the bad boy Israel. The UN is a waste of space controlled by the US and never there when it is needed.

Scofflaw

Foxtrol wrote: »

What is the value of anyones opinion then?

My point is that it is completely unfair and blinkered for posters to attack those who question whether the eyewitnesses on the boats are impartial while at the same time attacking the Israeli claims and video due to them not being impartial.

Do you agree that both sides have reasons to lie and that both sides therefore cannot be seen as being impartial?

I do indeed, which is why it's so important to indicate in cases like that of Richard Kemp that the source is part of one of the sides, rather than simply someone who happens to have an opinion on an aspect of the issue.

Originally, Richard Kemp was cited in a way that made that rather less than clear - his Irish Army credentials were played up, his enduring association with Israel not mentioned.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Foxtrol

alastair wrote: »

When asked if any such offer had been made, he said: “Our communication is pretty limited but we would hope there would be people working on that as we speak.”

That'd be a 'no' then.

I'd accept a million euro from Bill Gates. Doesn't mean that theres a chance in hell that hes gonna give it to me.

Scofflaw

alastair wrote: »

Nothing in the passage of time has changed?

Well Israel changed it's status in Gaza from one of an occupying force, to one of an ex-occupier. Oh and then they invaded again - for a short war, where a state of combat did exist (and Israel had to deal with both rockets and hamas as being legal combatants).

There's a pretty comprehensive discussion as to the legal status of Israel's conflict relationship with Gaza/Hamas, and whether a legal state of conflict applies here: http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/why-is-israels-blockade-of-gaza-legal/

In summary - the meat of the piece is as follows:

...it would be possible to argue that Israel’s conflict with Hamas is an IAC (international armed conflict) and Israel is thus entitled to blockade Gaza.

But there’s a catch — and a big one. If the “cost” of the blockade is formally recognizing Hamas as a belligerent, maintaining the blockade would mean recognizing Hamas fighters as privileged combatants. (Just as the armed forces of any state are privileged combatants.) That would be fundamentally unacceptable to Israel, because Hamas fighters would then be entitled to attack Israeli combatants and would have to be treated as POWs upon capture.

Interestingly there has been a shift in Israel's line on Hamas since the boading of the flotilla (and only since then) - both the Israeli ambassador and the Israeli Foreign Ministry claim "Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza" - a shift from the previous language used. It'll be interesting to see if they're going to commit fully and treat Hamas as privileged combatants - or if this is just goalpost-shifting for the moment.

That's the thing, you see - I'm pretty certain this will turn out to be temporary goalpost shifting. Since, as Manic Moran has pointed out, there are international legal opinions (not, as far as I have seen yet, judgements) that hold Israel as being in a state of war, it's very easy for Israel to shift towards that position, because its recognition/refusal of that status is, in international terms, de facto rather than de juro. Unfortunately, that makes it equally easy for Israel to slide back the other way once that's more useful.

cordially,
Scofflaw

alastair

Scofflaw wrote: »

I do indeed, which is why it's so important to indicate in cases like that of Richard Kemp that the source is part of one of the sides, rather than simply someone who happens to have an opinion on an aspect of the issue.

To be honest - when he gave evidence in the UN as to the 'second-to-none' humanitarian credentials of the IDF in Operation Cast Lead, I'm wondering when he experienced the British army using white phosphorus shells in urban warfare amongst a civilian population. The guy proved himself to be a shill at that point.

bambooze

alastair wrote: »

Interestingly there has been a shift in Israel's line on Hamas since the boading of the flotilla (and only since then) - both the Israeli ambassador and the Israeli Foreign Ministry claim "Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza" - a shift from the previous language used. It'll be interesting to see if they're going to commit fully and treat Hamas as privileged combatants - or if this is just goalpost-shifting for the moment.

Perhaps coz hamas is currently firing rockets at israel.. 2 or 3 so far today and I think also yesterday there were others.

Foxtrol

Scofflaw wrote: »

I do indeed, which is why it's so important to indicate in cases like that of Richard Kemp that the source is part of one of the sides, rather than simply someone who happens to have an opinion on an aspect of the issue.

Originally, Richard Kemp was cited in a way that made that rather less than clear - his Irish Army credentials were played up, his enduring association with Israel not mentioned.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Im glad we agree. I hope then you and others will also be as adamant against posters who claim that eyewitnesses statements and statements from those who have previously spoken out against Israel can also not be taken completely at face value either.

paulaa

bambooze wrote: »

Perhaps coz hamas is currently firing rockets at israel.. 2 or 3 so far today and I think also yesterday there were others.

Maybe that's because Israel have killed 7 in Gaza this week already

sceptre

Foxtrol wrote: »

Im glad we agree. I hope then you and others will also be as adamant against posters who claim that eyewitnesses statements and statements from those who have previously spoken out against Israel can also not be taken completely at face value either.

It's pretty obvious that statements from the flotilla people (and the organisation that arranged it) or the strike force (and the Israeli government) are each from people on one side or another in this instance. That's a given.

The difference is when statements are presented as being from a source with no previous record in being hired by either side, as a spokesperson for either side etc as opposed to their statement being presented as one of a previous spokesperson, past hire, etc.

Any statement made by a person can be taken with a grain of seasoning as it's based on their experience. Again though, it's down to whether or not they're presented as an impartial observer when they can be shown not to be so.

bambooze

paulaa wrote: »

Maybe that's because Israel have killed 7 in Gaza this week already

Maybe, just maybe they should stop firing rockets over the border then.. any time they do, israel WILL hit back.

alastair

Foxtrol wrote: »

Im glad we agree. I hope then you and others will also be as adamant against posters who claim that eyewitnesses statements and statements from those who have previously spoken out against Israel can also not be taken completely at face value either.

There's two issues here - the distinction between bias and misrepresentation, and whether those witnesses stand to gain financially for their (non-expert) statements or not. It's easy enough to establish the misrepresentations from Kemp, but we've no means of knowing if the likely anti-Israeli bias of the witnesses is going to present itself as misrepresentation (since the evidence is embargoed and it's down to 'he sez, she sez').