Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

the_syco

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

They are offering a truce! If Israel, or anyone else for that matter, is truly committed to peace they'll jump at the chance to stop the violence. But no they're only offering a truce. Somebody should get on the phone to the IRA, UVF, et al and tell them that the current peace isn't good enough as it can only be defined as a long term truce.

Offtopic, but apart from the bit quoted that wants Israel to bend over and take it, there is nothing for Israel. Do you have linkage to the full wording of the truce in English?

bambooze wrote: »

They do not recognize israel, their charter calls for the destruction of israel

Replace "israel" with Catholics, and you may have the crap that the loylist b*****ds up North spewed.

In war, it's easier to kill the opposition if you view them as sub-human beings.

Memnoch

the_syco wrote: »

In war, it's easier to kill the opposition if you view them as sub-human beings.

And the Palestinian people are treated with complete dignity and respect and not de-humanised as evil, suicidal terrorists at all.

bambooze

Memnoch wrote: »

No. I did not claim that, you're deliberately misrepresenting me.

But what you said was..

But the Israeli Government kills far more people.

Which is not relevant. What is relevant (amongst other things) is who and why.

Hamas are scumbags and terrorists. But so are the Israeli Government and the IDF.
(note I'm not talking about the Israeli or Palestinian PEOPLE)

Well the israeli army is the israeli people, so don't be surprised if they take it personally.

You however, keep insisting that anyone Israel kills doesn't count.

I have never said that.

Hamas is a terrorist organisation

Yes it is in fact, and officially recognized as such by many nations including the EU.

and the Israeli Government is a Terrorist state.

In your opinion.

marius

Wow...apologies if this has been posted already...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0604/breaking4.html

looks like the Rachel Corrie mighht be let in...along with future Humanitarian shipments...

Fingers crossed...I genuinely did not think that this might happen. Wait and see I guess...the devil is in the detail.

bambooze

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

Also the representative from the ZOA also openly referred to the activists as "terrorists" when even the IDF has retracted this claim.

Was he referring to ALL the activists? Or just those in the fight?

gandalf

marius wrote: »

Wow...apologies if this has been posted already...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0604/breaking4.html

looks like the Rachel Corrie mighht be let in...along with future Humanitarian shipments...

Fingers crossed...I genuinely did not think that this might happen. Wait and see I guess...the devil is in the detail.

That is excellent news if its true. The devil will be in the detail.

It still doesn't negate the need for an Independent International Inquiry that has consequences for those that ordered the illegal raid on Monday.

bambooze

marius wrote: »

Wow...apologies if this has been posted already...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0604/breaking4.html

looks like the Rachel Corrie mighht be let in...along with future Humanitarian shipments...

Fingers crossed...I genuinely did not think that this might happen. Wait and see I guess...the devil is in the detail.

Not according to the israeli pm..

"We shall not allow the ships to reach Gaza. Not now and not later on. We intend to direct the Rachel Corrie ship to the Ashdod Port and transfer its civilian goods to Gaza following a security check,"

doncarlos

marius wrote: »

Wow...apologies if this has been posted already...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0604/breaking4.html

looks like the Rachel Corrie mighht be let in...along with future Humanitarian shipments...

Fingers crossed...I genuinely did not think that this might happen. Wait and see I guess...the devil is in the detail.

Not a chance they'll let it through. They still think that they did nothing wrong and would see this as a victory to the "armada of hate" and "terrorists"

marius

bambooze wrote: »

Not according to the israeli pm..

"We shall not allow the ships to reach Gaza. Not now and not later on. We intend to direct the Rachel Corrie ship to the Ashdod Port and transfer its civilian goods to Gaza following a security check,"

I'll not give up yet - where did you get that quote from? When was it made?

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

Not according to the israeli pm..

"We shall not allow the ships to reach Gaza. Not now and not later on. We intend to direct the Rachel Corrie ship to the Ashdod Port and transfer its civilian goods to Gaza following a security check,"

When did he say that? Was it before or after this current situation has become apparent?

Scofflaw

bambooze wrote: »

Not according to the israeli pm..

"We shall not allow the ships to reach Gaza. Not now and not later on. We intend to direct the Rachel Corrie ship to the Ashdod Port and transfer its civilian goods to Gaza following a security check,"

The important bit there being "civilian goods" - according to the determination of Israel and no-one else.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

marius wrote: »

I'll not give up yet - where did you get that quote from? When was it made?

Yesterday.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DeltaB

Reading through this thread its clear that there's a diverse range of opinion on the subject. I just wanted to let people know of a mass demonstration calling for an end to the Gaza blockade taking place at the Garden of Remembrance tomorrow at 2pm, organised by the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign and supported by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It will march to the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Also Dr Fintan Lane and Fiachra O Luain who were both on the flotilla when it was attacked, will be arriving home today. A press conference will be held at 4pm in the Central Hotel.
Just in case anyone's interested.

bambooze

Andre Abu Khalil, a Lebanese cameraman for Al Jazeera TV, who was aboard the Mavi Marmara told Reuters some 20 Turkish men tried by force to prevent the boarding commandos from reaching the wheelhouse and commandeering the ship.

Using slingshots, metal pipes and wooden rods they initially succeeded in wounding and overpowering four Israeli soldiers and dragging them below decks, he told Reuters.

After a 10-minute standoff the Israelis opened fire, according to the cameraman.

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=177478

gandalf

When attacked in International Waters illegally people are entitled to try to repel the borders.

It was fool hardy as they were dealing with men who normally kill while on Operations of this type and some of those who tried to repel them paid the ultimate price.

I also note that it doesn't provide any backup at all beyond naming the reporter. (Nice touch on the jpost site btw linking an adult site to the Al Jazeera name. Childish in the extreme by them)

bambooze

gandalf wrote: »

When attacked in International Waters illegally people are entitled to try to repel the borders.

It was fool hardy as they were dealing with men who normally kill while on Operations of this type and some of those who tried to repel them paid the ultimate price.

I also note that it doesn't provide any backup at all beyond naming the reporter. (Nice touch on the jpost site btw linking an adult site to the Al Jazeera name. Childish in the extreme by them)

Eh?

doncarlos

bambooze wrote: »

After a 10-minute standoff the Israelis opened fire, according to the cameraman.

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=177478

You do realise that a stand-off means nobody attacking??

Nice one mate that is the first time that you have actually been objective in the whole argument. Congratulations on taking your blinkers off

bambooze

gandalf wrote: »

I also note that it doesn't provide any backup at all beyond naming the reporter.

It says reuters.. google is your friend..

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6524AN20100603

Fuhrer

bambooze wrote: »

It says reuters.. google is your friend..

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6524AN20100603

"They were banging the pipes on the side of the ship to warn the Israelis not to get closer."




"The standoff lasted about 10 minutes until the Israelis opened fire, he said: "One man got a direct hit to the head and another one was shot in the neck.""




The Jerusluem Post story as expected distorts, takes out of context and tries to paint what happened in a completly different light.

bambooze

Fuhrer wrote: »

"They were banging the pipes on the side of the ship to warn the Israelis not to get closer."




"The standoff lasted about 10 minutes until the Israelis opened fire, he said: "One man got a direct hit to the head and another one was shot in the neck.""




The Jerusluem Post story as expected distorts, takes out of context and tries to paint what happened in a completly different light.

That was AFTER the initial 4 commandos had been injured and dragged below deck, effectively as hostages - according to that article.

droidus

bambooze wrote: »

What good is a truce with hamas? There was already a truce, there have been many, and still the rockets fly (4 since yesterday). A truce to hamas is merely time to regroup and rearm for the next conflict. It is not peace. They do not recognize israel, their charter calls for the destruction of israel, their aim is ALL of mandate palestine. Even if a truce was made with hamas and they stuck to it for a while, what about islamic jihad, pflp, al aqsa martyrs, etc etc? Truce doesn't cut it.

Yes, we cant possibly have a truce with Hamas, the want to destroy all Jews etc... :rolleyes:

I do agree that the offer of a truce will probably come to nothing as Israel routinely ignores peace offers, dating back to Arafat's implicit offer of recognition at the UN in '74.

Lets just take a brief sample of the peace offers rejected by Israel in its more recent attempts to 'stop the rocket attacks'.

Time Magazine wrote:

Mar. 13, 2008: Moving Toward an Israeli-Hamas Truce

When Palestinian militants this week laid down their terms for a cease-fire with the Israelis — an end to Israeli military operations in Gaza and in the West Bank, and the re-opening of borders into the besieged Mediterranean strip — it wasn't long before the Israelis responded.

In Bethlehem on Wednesday evening, Israeli agents disguised as Arabs and driving a car with a Palestinian license plate ambushed and killed four suspected militants, including a senior commander of Islamic Jihad...

MSNBC wrote:

April 21, 2008: Hamas offers truce in return for 1967 borders

The leader of Hamas said Monday that his Palestinian militant group would offer Israel a 10-year "hudna," or truce, as implicit proof of recognition of Israel if it withdrew from all lands it seized in the 1967 Middle East War.

Khaled Mashaal told The Associated Press that he made the offer to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter in talks on Saturday. "We have offered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as a proof of recognition," Mashaal said.

CS Monitor wrote:

April 25th 08: Israel rejects Hamas cease-fire offer as humanitarian crisis deepens in Gaza

Israel rejected a cease-fire offer from the Palestinian group Hamas as a humanitarian aid crisis erupting in the Gaza Strip threatened wider instability. The crisis in the troubled Palestinian territory deepened as President Bush, meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Washington, offered assurances that a two-state deal is possible before he leaves office in January.

Hamas offered a six-month truce to Israel on Friday if Israel would end a blockade it has imposed since June on the Gaza Strip, after Hamas seized the disputed territory...

Ma'an News wrote:

Nov 23, 2008 Egypt reportedly brokers Hamas-Israel ceasefire, easing blockade of Gaza
Gaza – Ma’an – An agreement has been reached between Palestinian resistance factions in the Gaza Strip and Israel, Hamas announced on Sunday.

The agreement centers around a pledge to stop firing on Israeli targets in return for Israel opening crossing points into the besieged Strip, a top Hamas leader said.

Hamas official Ayman Taha announced that he had received a telephone call from Egyptian intelligence on Friday, which delivered a message from Israel asking that operations be scrapped in exchange for opening the crossing points...

YNET wrote:

30 Dec, 08: UN official says Israel attacked during lull
Palestinians in Gaza believed Israel had called a 48-hour "lull" in retaliatory attacks with Hamas when Israeli warplanes launched a massive bombardment of Hamas installations in the Gaza Strip, a UN official said Monday.

Karen Abu Zayd, commissioner of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) which helps Palestinian refugees, raised the possible violation of an informal truce in a video press conference with UN reporters from her base in Gaza...

IPS wrote:

Jan 9, 2009 Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer in December

WASHINGTON, Jan 9 (IPS) - Contrary to Israel's argument that it was forced to launch its air and ground offensive against Gaza in order to stop the firing of rockets into its territory, Hamas proposed in mid-December to return to the original Hamas-Israel ceasefire arrangement, according to a U.S.-based source who has been briefed on the proposal.

The proposal to renew the ceasefire was presented by a high-level Hamas delegation to Egyptian Minister of Intelligence Omar Suleiman at a meeting in Cairo Dec. 14. The delegation, said to have included Moussa Abu Marzouk, the second-ranking official in the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, told Suleiman that Hamas was prepared to stop all rocket attacks against Israel if the Israelis would open up the Gaza border crossings and pledge not to launch attacks in Gaza.

REUTERS wrote:

Fri Jan 9: Israel rebuffs U.N. resolution, pursues Gaza war

Israel rejected a U.N. resolution calling for a ceasefire in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip on Friday and warplanes and tanks pounded the Palestinian enclave.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert dismissed Thursday's binding Security Council resolution demanding an "immediate and durable" ceasefire in the two-week-old war as "unworkable."

PRESSTV wrote:

Fri, 09 Jan 2009 : Israel pounds Gaza during truce hours

Israel has violated a three-hour truce declared to allow the passage of humanitarian aid, and has resumed attacks on the Gaza Strip.

Israeli troops violated the truce on Friday and continued their attacks on the costal sliver.

The cities of Jabaliya and Beit Lahiya in the north and the Zeitun neighborhood of Gaza City came under Israeli tank fire, witnesses said on Friday...

Id also like to ask - exactly what state should Hamas recognise? The state that currently occupies most of Palestine in clear violation of international law and over 60 UN resolutions? The state that violently rejects Palestinian national rights? The state that wont even officially define its own borders?

The fact is that Hamas for their many faults are far closer to accepting a 2 state solution than Israel or the US

From the Likud charter:

...it says about settlements:

“The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”

Therefore annihilating the slightest chance of a two-state solution.
On Palestinian self-rule it says:

“The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs”

Therefore annihilating any chance of seeing a Palestinian sovereign state.
On Jerusalem:

“Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem, including the plan to divide the city presented to the Knesset by the Arab factions and supported by many members of Labor and Meretz.”

Therefore annihilating any chance for future peace negotiations because east Jerusalem as capital of a future Palestinian state is non-negotiable for any Palestinian.


We have therefore established that the Likud party charter does not recognize Palestine and will not accept a sovereign Palestinian state. The soon-to-come non-recognition of Likud by the international community and an implemented blockade on Israel should therefore not come as a surprise for Israelis.


http://www.thecommentfactory.com/likud-has-a-charter-which-does-not-recognize-the-right-of-palestine-to-exist-1657/

And of course previous Israeli governments have taken almost identical views::

When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert addressed a joint session of the U.S. Congress in 2006, he declared his continuing belief "in our people's eternal and historic right to this entire land." Yet, he said, he understood the necessity of compromise. Hamas has taken a similar position: it considers Palestine in its entirety to be sacred Muslim land, it considers the state of Israel to be illegitimate, but yet it has made clear on numerous occasions that it was willing to compromise, and that it would accept a two-state solution on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state, along with a truce that could last 20, 30, or 50 years, or even indefinitely.

Israel and the United States, however, refused to pursue these Hamas offers and refused to talk with Hamas at all -- despite the fact that a majority of Israelis and conservative analysts such as Efraim Halevy, the former head of the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, supported such talks.

And Israel and the US's record at the UN displays their repeated rejection of Palestinian national rights - one example:

Hamas has not recognized Israel, but Israel and the United States have not recognized an independent Palestinian state.

Consider General Assembly resolution 63/165 that was adopted on December 18, 2008. The resolution reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to an independent State of Palestine, and further urged all States and United Nations entities to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination. The resolution passed by the overwhelming vote of 173 in favor and 5 opposed, with 7 abstentions. The five nay votes were the United States, Israel, and three tiny U.S.-dependent Pacific island nations.

Of course, Israel may say that it is willing to accept a Palestine state, just not on the 1967 borders, and indeed so long as it is confined to a tiny swath of unviable territory. But if Hamas returned the favor, saying it was willing to recognize Israel, but only if it were confined to Tel Aviv and its suburbs, one doubts Israel and the United States would consider that adequately forthcoming.

http://www.zcommunications.org/question-and-answer-on-gaza-by-stephen1-shalom

By your logic, Hamas would have every right to blockade Israel to prevent them 'rearming', kill at will and do whatever they want in violation of international law in pursuit of its own 'security', because Israel utterly rejects the 2 state solution and does not recognise Palestinian sovereignty or the 'right' of a Palestinian state to exist.

Or we could simply accept the fact that deeds mean far more than words, and recognise that despite the charter, Hamas has repeatedly made what appear to be genuine and long-standing offers of truce, of which this is but the latest.

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

It says reuters.. google is your friend..

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6524AN20100603

Fair enough. But that makes this operation even more botched than it appeared in the first place and I wonder why the fact that the troops were captured wasn't mentioned by the IDF before this.

They mentioned they were attacked, provided endless videos of said attacks, endless videos of the arms caches but nothing about captured troops.

That would explain the switch to live ammo to me, it doesn't excuse it. It also doesn't excuse the fact the operation should not have occurred in International Waters and it doesn't excuse the fact that the boarding should have been done in daylight hours.

Although I am still very curious why the IDF did not mention anything about this before now? Do you not find that very very strange bambooze?

Given all the inconsistencies and the apparent inability of the IDF and Israeli government to give an accurate account even to their own public an International Investigation is the only way the truth can be determined.

doncarlos

bambooze wrote: »

That was AFTER the initial 4 commandos had been injured and dragged below deck, effectively as hostages - according to that article.

But this confirms that the Israelis were not being attacked or lives in danger when they opened fire. You do realise you have posted a link which (seeing as you have accepted it as fact) proves that the IDF are liars.

doncarlos

gandalf wrote: »

That would explain the switch to live ammo to me,

It also explains why the video has not been released. If there was indeed a stand off and the IDF were not being attacked like they claimed the video would show them shooting guys that were not advancing or attacking.

If this guys report is accurate the whole incident makes perfect sense.

*Rubber bullets and less than lethal weapons used by IDF
*IDF board ship
*Overwhelmed and four captured (This is the video released)
*Video stops
*Stand off between IDF and men with broken bottles, sticks, pipes etc
*IDF open fire

bambooze

doncarlos wrote: »

But this confirms that the Israelis were not being attacked or lives in danger when they opened fire. You do realise you have posted a link which (seeing as you have accepted it as fact) proves that the IDF are liars.

I'd say its a fair assumption that being captured by that mob would not really be considered good for ones health.

Irlandese

doncarlos wrote: »

You do realise that a stand-off means nobody attacking??

Nice one mate that is the first time that you have actually been objective in the whole argument. Congratulations on taking your blinkers off

Talking about blinkers, we should remember that these highly trained commandos arrived
WITHOUT their standard assault rifles, obviously only equipped for minor difficulty, with paintball "toy" guns and their standard issue side arms.
The IDF intention was clearly different to that of the small cadre of organised violent extremists who attacked them and put the commandos' lives at risk, including with their own pistols, taken from their holsters, not their hands.
That the IDF commandos held off for so long is a mystery to those of us who have worked in the field and know the drill.
So, yes, by all means, take off those blinkers, friend.......

doncarlos

bambooze wrote: »

I'd say its a fair assumption that being captured by that mob would not really be considered good for ones health.

I'd concur but the IDF are claiming that they only changed to live ammo when they thought their lives were in danger. Your post disproves this claim. Why not continue to use less than lethal weapons? There was a stand off. Why not continue to use rubber bullets, paintball guns etc?

bambooze

gandalf wrote: »

Fair enough. But that makes this operation even more botched than it appeared in the first place and I wonder why the fact that the troops were captured wasn't mentioned by the IDF before this.

They mentioned they were attacked, provided endless videos of said attacks, endless videos of the arms caches but nothing about captured troops.

That would explain the switch to live ammo to me, it doesn't excuse it. It also doesn't excuse the fact the operation should not have occurred in International Waters and it doesn't excuse the fact that the boarding should have been done in daylight hours.

Although I am still very curious why the IDF did not mention anything about this before now? Do you not find that very very strange bambooze?

Given all the inconsistencies and the apparent inability of the IDF and Israeli government to give an accurate account even to their own public an International Investigation is the only way the truth can be determined.

Well there is this although it talks about 3 soldiers not 4 and other differences so the situation is still not clear..
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-navy-3-commandos-nearly-taken-hostage-in-gaza-flotilla-raid-1.294114

gandalf

But then again if the people on board the ship knew they were in International Waters then they could assume they were well within their rights to repel the boarders or to try and capture them.

Again it was foolish given what transpired. From reports the operation was not a surprise to those on board the ships as well as the Israel forces on the sea started to surround the flotilla from around midnight onwards and the attempt to board the ship was at around 4am. As I have said the operation was botched badly.

doncarlos

Irlandese wrote: »

Talking about blinkers, we should remember that these highly trained commandos arrived
WITHOUT their standard assault rifles, obviously only equipped for minor difficulty, with paintball "toy" guns and their standard issue side arms.
The IDF intention was clearly different to that of the small cadre of organised violent extremists who attacked them and put the commandos' lives at risk, including with their own pistols, taken from their holsters, not their hands.
That the IDF commandos held off for so long is a mystery to those of us who have worked in the field and know the drill.
So, yes, by all means, take off those blinkers, friend.......

What blinkers? Can you read through my posts and show where I have been blinkered?
You claim to have worked in the field and know the drill. Does your training tell you to position yourself in the middle of an angry mob?
What training had these commandos in crowd control or dealing with civilians?
Why take their side arms anyway if there was no need to use it??
You say violent 'extremists' any evidence to support this or are you swallowing all the crap spewing from Israel that they were terrorists too??