Israeli military cleared over flotilla raid

Manic Moran

Lumen wrote: »

I have no particular axe to grind, but can someone link to information which describes the incident from something approaching an objective perspective?

No.

I think the best we're going to get is going to be the UN report which will be out in a while. I look forward to it with some interest.

NTM

enfant terrible

Who do you support? My buddy's Israel. I'm Palestine. Makes the news more interesting.

Badgermonkey

wes wrote: »

Why anyone would have a problem with saving the people of Gaza from an inhuman blockade is beyond me

I certainly don't.

I've a problem with jihadists being allowed onboard who masqueraded as and hid behind genuine activists.

Badgermonkey

jackiebaron wrote: »

What's anti-Israeli about criticising criminals investigating themselves.
It's akin to a redneck sheriff and his deputies "investigating" reports of Klan violence against blacks in Mississippi and him coming back saying "No, sireee! Nothing strange happening here. Just a quiet little community. But if anything does turn up, we'll be sure and let you know".

Farcical.

So you've found them guilty of a crime without due process?

Then you proceed with your deep south parable

Also I said in follow up 'The UN report should certainly provide an examination of the events of last may with an authority the Israeli Commission cannot possibly possess.'

RichieC

Israel does what it likes, I say again... sh*t, they open fire on a US intelligence ship, Kill 34 sailors on board, even open fire on an escape rafter and have the US brush it under the carpet.

thats how bad ass they are.

Nodin

Badgermonkey wrote: »

I certainly don't.

I've a problem with jihadists being allowed onboard who masqueraded as and hid behind genuine activists.

....a bit of a bold leap there.

Badgermonkey

Nodin wrote: »

....a bit of a bold leap there.

You could be right, the UN report should shed more light on that. I'll call them alleged jihadists.

Only one of the six ships was attacked by the IDF and that vessel contained members of an organisation which has provided material support to Hamas, the IHH.

http://www.ihh.org.tr/

Lumen

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Only one of the six ships was attacked by the IDF

Well, from the current UN report (linked above) force was used on multiple ships, and in general the force used seems related to the threat/resistance presented.

Armed resistance (sticks/stabbing weapons) -> shoot them with live bullets.
Passive resistance -> stun grenades, paintballs, plastic bullets, soft-baton charges, electroshock weapons etc.
No resistance -> board without incident.

The violence as reported seems massively disproportionate to the threat, and gratuitous. Even the supposedly non-lethal weapons were used in such a way as to be lethal. For instance:

"Israeli soldiers continued shooting at passengers who had already been wounded, with live ammunition, soft baton charges (beanbags) and plastic bullets. Forensic analysis demonstrates that two of the passengers killed on the top deck received wounds compatible with being shot at close range while lying on the ground: Furkan Doğan received a bullet in the face and İbrahim Bilgen received a fatal wound from a soft baton round (beanbag) fired at such close proximity to his head that parts such as wadding penetrated his skull and entered his brain."

Lumen

Turkel Committee Report

Nodin

Badgermonkey wrote: »

You could be right, the UN report should shed more light on that. I'll call them alleged jihadists.

Only one of the six ships was attacked by the IDF and that vessel contained members of an organisation which has provided material support to Hamas, the IHH.

http://www.ihh.org.tr/

...who is it that alleges they support Hamas....?

wes

Badgermonkey wrote: »

I certainly don't.

I've a problem with jihadists being allowed onboard who masqueraded as and hid behind genuine activists.

Considering that never happened and that was a claim made by Israel, you know the country whose military launched the attack, and were the one who killed people. Calling people who defended themselves Jihadi's is just a nasty way that Israel always likes to blame the victim.

Also, I would like to see some proof of there claim about the IHH as well, that Israel again made. Personally, i find it funny that someone is evil for helping Hamas, but Israel who have shown themselves to be equally murderous, are perfectly ok to be supplied with all kinds of nasty weapons, and even support for nutjob settlers running around East Jerusalem and the West Bank is acceptable in the West.

Mahatma coat

has any more been said about Israel Faking the Radio communications from the Mavi Mara.

Particularly the
'Go back to Auschwitz' bit

That I found really rather distasteful

Manic Moran

Lumen wrote: »

Turkel Committee Report

I've been working my way through it all day, as best I can at work. On page 108 of 296.

I recommend everyone read it, even if you are the cynical type who doesn't trust a word Israel says. It does seem to have the most in-depth description of the processes involved with the border crossings of anything I've read thus far, and does make some interesting legal arguments.

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

does make some interesting legal arguments.

Considering that Israel versions of whats legal tends to go against International law, I doubt there particularly compelling. Also, they very often blatantly ignore it all together. I will stick to the ICJ rulings personally, and not the claims of one of the sides of the conflict.

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

Considering that Israel versions of whats legal tends to go against International law, I doubt there particularly compelling. Also, they very often blatantly ignore it all together. I will stick to the ICJ rulings personally, and not the claims of one of the sides of the conflict.

When the ICJ makes a ruling on the matter, I'll be sure to read it as well. Though for what it's worth, this report does cite the Wall case.

Even the losing side in a court can make interesting and correct points of law. It is short-sighted to ignore them. There is, after all, a reason why the dissenting ruling is published when a court makes its judgement.

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

When the ICJ makes a ruling on the matter, I'll be sure to read it as well. Though for what it's worth, this report does cite the Wall case.

Even the losing side in a court can make interesting and correct points of law. It is short-sighted to ignore them. There is, after all, a reason why the dissenting ruling is published when a court makes its judgement.

NTM

Sure, there are reasons for that, but when we have a country like Israel that purposefully ignores international law in such a blatant fashion, I see no reason why I should listen to there legal reasoning. If the law goes against there interests, Israel will ignore, as they have always done.

Badgermonkey

wes wrote: »

Considering that never happened and that was a claim made by Israel, you know the countries whose military launched the attack, and were the one who killed people. Calling people who defended themselves Jihadi's is just a nasty way that Israel always likes to blame the victim, of one of there murderous outrages.

I would imagine there's little point in pursuing a discussion if you're not prepared to countenance for a moment the possibility that there were elements within that convoy intent on and motivated by a violent engagement with the IDF.

If you choose to read my posts you'll see I believe the Israeli governments approach has been misguided. I believe their selective adherence to international law does not serve them well.

It's hard not to be cognisant of how Palestinians are mistreated and humiliated and hindered as they attempt to go about their business.

I'd also acknowledge the malign influence of the Brooklyn orthodox, who persist in an obscene push for settlements within Gaza/West bank, driven by the delusion of biblical entitlement.

It seems to me however, that there is a blind spot, whereby criticism of the Palestinian administration and their supporters at home and abroad or support for any action or position taken by the Israelis assures one is branded a right wing reactionary.

It may well be that Israel will only agree to Palestinian self determination when it can be sure it will be under a system of secular democracy. That, I believe is an understandable decision. The Northern model would give hope that, given time, such a transition might be possible.

In the meantime I just don't buy the Palestine good, Israel bad consensus, the world's a more complex place than that.

wes

Badgermonkey wrote: »

I would imagine there's little point in pursuing a discussion if you're not prepared to countenance for a moment the possibility that there were elements within that convoy intent on and motivated by a violent engagement with the IDF.

Give me a trusted source, and I would be willing to do so, but to expect me to trust Israel is absurd. They have pulled this crap before, and have shown themselves to not be deserving of any trust. Get me a source like the UN, and I will happily consider it. As it stands I don't trust a single accusation made by Israel, as I have every reason to not trust it, especially considering that Israel was caught blatantly telling lies in regards to there attack on the flotilla. Simply put, i refuse to take anything Israel says seriously anymore, and I see no rational reason to change this position.

Finally, without the IDF attacking, there would be no confrontation to begin with. The IDF are the ones who attacked, now I may question the wisdom of the people who defended themselves, it still doesn't change the fact that they were defending themselves from a group attacking there ship.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

If you choose to read my posts you'll see I believe the Israeli governments approach has been misguided. I believe their selective adherence to international law does not serve them well.

It's hard not to be cognisant of how Palestinians are mistreated and humiliated and hindered as they attempt to go about their business.

I'd also acknowledge the malign influence of the Brooklyn orthodox, who persist in an obscene push for settlements within Gaza/West bank, driven by the delusion of biblical entitlement.

None of that changes that I consider the sources of the accusation you present to be inherently untrustworthy. i have no reason to trust a single word that Israel says, and have every reason not to trust them. I can't take any of there accusation seriously, considering there reputation in that department.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

It seems to me however, that there is a blind spot, whereby criticism of the Palestinian administration and their supporters at home and abroad or support for any action or position taken by the Israelis assures one is branded a right wing reactionary.

It may well be that Israel will only agree to Palestinian self determination when it can be sure it will be under a system of secular democracy. That, I believe is an understandable decision. The Northern model would give hope that, given time, such a transition might be possible.

In the meantime I just don't buy the Palestine good, Israel bad consensus, the world's a more complex place than that.

I want proof from a reliable source. Israel is not a reliable source, and there accusation are baseless. Again, i want some proof from a reliable source, like the UN, and I have yet to see such proof, regarding the accusation made by Israel, and in the instance we are talking about, the group that did the killing was the IDF.

Now the Palestinians have there failings as do there supporters, but I would expect some actual proof from a trust worthy source, before accepting such accusations. You provided none, and see no reason to not dismiss such accusations considering I know the source was Israel, who have shown themselves to be simple not worth trusting.

Also, in regards to Israel demanding Secular democracy from anyone is laughable. They insist on being recognized as a Jewish state, and there lands claims are based in the Bible. To ask for secularism from others is simply hypocritical, and if you read the Palestine papers, you will see Israel wants as much land as possible, while making few or no concessions in return.

Also, I think you will find that the Western consensus is the opposite of what you say. Israel is welcome with open arms in the West. They are never punished for there wrong doing, meanwhile the West is happily complicit in the siege of Gaza. It is the Palestinians who are always the villains in the West, and again just look at the Palestine papers for more and more confirmation of this fact. The West is happy to give Israel everything it wants, and to hell with the Palestinians.

Badgermonkey

The consensus refers to the public at large in Western Europe, not western governments. Though it may be of interest to you that Ireland and the United Kingdom have long standing decidedly frosty relations with Jerusalem.

You may also know that the EU is the largest contributor of aid to Palestine.

You refer to 'the Palestinian papers' presumably as your method of information gathering.

That would be akin to me flicking through Ma'ariv and sitting back in the warm glow of having had my prejudices and preconceptions validated.

Manic Moran suggested in an earlier post you read the Turkel Commissions findings and you gave the distinct impression you had little interest in doing so.

Perhaps you'll read a report by Evan Kohlmann for the Danish Institute for International Studies concerning the IHH.

'DIIS is an independent research institution for international studies, financed primarily by the Danish state. We carry out research and analysis on a wide range of issues within the areas of globalisation, security and development.'

http://www.diis.dk

Lumen

wes wrote: »

I want proof from a reliable source. Israel is not a reliable source, and there accusation are baseless.

But you haven't read the accusations; you are writing the report off as a work of fiction without even reading it.

Here is the accompanying letter from the British observers.

The Rt. Hon. (William) David Trimble, Lord Trimble
Brigadier-General (Ret.) Kenneth Watkin, Q.C.

It is an honour for us to serve as Observers to the Public Commission
appointed to inquire into the maritime incident of 31 May 2010. We
understood and accepted the sensitivities that led to our appointment as
observers to the Commission and not, strictly speaking, members of it.
Nonetheless we are satisfied that we had access to all the material before
the Commission and we were fully involved by the Commission in all its
work.

All testimonies, both in open and private session and all formal
meetings of the Commission were, of course, conducted in Hebrew.
However they were simultaneously translated for us into English. In the
early days there were some difficulties with the translation of documents
into English; these were quickly overcome as our work proceeded.
We are glad that the Commission made repeated efforts to hear
both sides, extending to making arrangement for evidence to be given by
video conferencing and offering to take evidence in a neutral location. We
regret that these offers were not taken up. But we would like to express
our appreciation of the Israeli Arabs, who were on the Mavi Marmara and
who gave evidence to us. We would also like to thank the representatives
of the Israeli Human Rights Non-Governmental Organizations who
testified and provided significant material to the Commission.

The Commission made enormous efforts, to get as much information
as possible. This involved going back to the IDF for additional information,
obtaining further staff to examine all the video material (hundreds of
hours) including the CCTV downloaded from the Mavi Marmara and to
collate the material so that it has been able to examine each use of force
by the IDF. We have also been impressed with the efforts of the small but
very dedicated team of lawyers supporting the work of the Commission.
We have no doubt that the Commission is independent. This part of
the report is evidence of its rigour.

On a personal note we want to thank all the members of the
Commission who each have gone out of their way to welcome and assist
us. It is a pleasure to work with them. Special mention must be made of
the chairman, Judge Turkel, for his consideration of us personally and the
clarity with which he directed the work of the commission.

We would also like to extend our sincere appreciation to the tireless
efforts of Commission Coordinator, Hoshea Gottlieb, who has been
instrumental in ensuring our successful participation in this Commission.
We would also like to place on record our enormous regard for those
who have assisted us as Observers from outside of Israel including the staff
who provided the simultaneous translations of all the oral proceedings,
punctuated only by reminders to us to speak into the microphones; the
translators who ensured voluminous texts were available to us in English;
and the ever helpful and diligent administrative staff who have looked
after our every logistical need.
Finally we regret that our acquaintance with Shabtai Rosenne was
cut short by his death. He impressed us with his knowledge, experience,
insight and, above all, with his character and courtesy. He was a true
gentleman.

Manic Moran

Lumen wrote: »

Here is the accompanying letter from the British observers.

He may be Commonwealth, but I'm not sure that the good Brigadier Watkin would appreciate being called 'British'.

I want proof from a reliable source. Israel is not a reliable source, and there accusation are baseless. Again, i want some proof from a reliable source, like the UN, and I have yet to see such proof, regarding the accusation made by Israel, and in the instance we are talking about, the group that did the killing was the IDF.

The IHH do seem to have a tendancy to find the hot spots. Another scrap over an aid convoy (Lifeline 3) ended up with one dead, a number wounded, and, according to Mr Yildirim of IHH, they captured seven Egyptian soldiers. The interviews with the Israeli soldiers who were captured on the flotilla indicate that there did seem to be two groups of people, and they credit the fact that they're still alive to the more peaceful group who restrained (sometimes physically) the others. You may distrust the Israeli government, but there is little reason not to take the statements of individual people at face value, no matter what side they're on. The BBC's Panorama program came to the same conclusion.
Now, all that said, it may be somewhat academic. If the UNHCR's conclusion that the blockade was unlawful is the correct one, then any IHH activists looking for a fight would have been within their rights to do so. Doesn't mean it's necessarily clever, but they would be immune for criticism of unlawful intent.

especially considering that Israel was caught blatantly telling lies in regards to there attack on the flotilla

Remind me.
I'm looking at this pro-flotilla site.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/06/18/flotilla-fact-check/

If those are the most dramatic lies they can come up with, you're very sensitive. I'm not saying to take everything without a grain of salt, but that works for everything.

NTM

Lumen

Manic Moran wrote: »

He may be Commonwealth, but I'm not sure that the good Brigadier Watkin would appreciate being called 'British'.

Oops, I read the "British" description somewhere and repeated without checking it. I was more concerned about Trimble TBH

wes

Badgermonkey wrote: »

The consensus refers to the public at large in Western Europe, not western governments. Though it may be of interest to you that Ireland and the United Kingdom have long standing decidedly frosty relations with Jerusalem.

You may also know that the EU is the largest contributor of aid to Palestine.

Please, if the relationship were as frosty as you suggest, Israel would not have special status in regard to trade with the EU.

You are right that the EU, does give money to the PA, but at the same time, they are complicit in the siege of Gaza, and to be frank the EU could easily put a lot more pressure on Israel, but never bothers.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

You refer to 'the Palestinian papers' presumably as your method of information gathering.

That would be akin to me flicking through Ma'ariv and sitting back in the warm glow of having had my prejudices and preconceptions validated.

Seems to me that you are the one with the preconceptions....

The Palestine papers are the following:
http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/

They were never meant for public consumption, and give us a look at the internal of the peace process. So, your suggestion is to put it simply utter nonsense. I was referring the recently released documents in relations to the peace process, and not Palestinian news papers. I find it hard to believe that anyone who would claim any kind of knowledge of this topic would be unaware of the recently released Palestine Papers.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Manic Moran suggested in an earlier post you read the Turkel Commissions findings and you gave the distinct impression you had little interest in doing so.

Why would I waste my time? I know that Israel will declare themselves innocent and blame the victim. They always do that. Of course, its ok when Israel blames the victim for some bizare reason. This isn't the first white wash from Israel, and I see no reason why they should be take seriously, and I have yet to see anyone provide a compelling reason for me to ignore the multiple white wash that Israel engaged in before.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Perhaps you'll read a report by Evan Kohlmann for the Danish Institute for International Studies concerning the IHH.

'DIIS is an independent research institution for international studies, financed primarily by the Danish state. We carry out research and analysis on a wide range of issues within the areas of globalisation, security and development.'

http://www.diis.dk

I am aware of the report, and the links claimed are over a decade old. You will have to do a hell of a lot better. Also, if the claims were even remotely true, the US and EU would have the organization on the list of supporters of terrorism.

However, it seems perfectly ok for Israel to blame the victim. Sure, if anyone else did that, it would be considered a rather horrible thing to do, but when Israel does it, sure that perfectly fine...

wes

Lumen wrote: »

But you haven't read the accusations; you are writing the report off as a work of fiction without even reading it.

Here is the accompanying letter from the British observers.

Once again, the accused declaring themselves innocent is inherently worthless. This would go for anyone else doing the same thing.

No one would take a Hamas report seriously, so I fail to see the rational in taking an Israeli one seriously.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Remind me.
I'm looking at this pro-flotilla site.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/06/18/flotilla-fact-check/

If those are the most dramatic lies they can come up with, you're very sensitive. I'm not saying to take everything without a grain of salt, but that works for everything.

The fact that they told lies in the first place, further destroys the credibility of there report.

The report is a white wash, as per usual from Israel. They have a history of this, and I see no reason to trust Israel now. The report has 0 cerdibility, and it is being rightly dismissed.

Badgermonkey

Wes,

By your own admission, you refuse to study data provided by one half of the parties of the conflict.

There are informed opinions, then there are just opinions.

You have an answer to everything but a solution for nothing.

To use a fitting term, you appear to be a zealot and you would lead one to believe that you possibly garner your information from some pamphlet to which you subscribe.

You ranted last evening seeking a source, I provided a report from a non partisan institution and your reply was you were 'aware' of the report. Again, you did not read it.

You also seem to possess no understanding of the realpolitik of how foreign policy is formulated and practised, both historically and in the contemporary world, I could suggest some fine material on the subject but with some justification, I fear it also would go unread.

Shalom.

Nodin

Badgermonkey wrote: »

It may well be that Israel will only agree to Palestinian self determination when it can be sure it will be under a system of secular democracy. That, I believe is an understandable decision. The Northern model would give hope that, given time, such a transition might be possible.
.

There is no basis for that statement that I'm aware of. Certainly when the Palestinian populace was far more secular than it is now, there was no mood to do so. Furthermore, it tends towards the idea of Israel as some paternal occupier, which rather ignores the settlements and all they entail.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

In the meantime I just don't buy the Palestine good, Israel bad consensus, the world's a more complex place than that.

Well if you want to argue the merits of imperialism and colonisation, fair play to you. However as theres a general view these days that colonialism was a bad thing, the rest of us will just take that as read.

wes

Badgermonkey wrote: »

By your own admission, you refuse to study data provided by one half of the parties of the conflict.

We are not talking about data here, but rather a report. I have no issue with a trusted 3rd party e.g. the UN going over both side data. BTW, I have said my opinion would apply to anyone who investigates themselves btw.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

There are informed opinions, then there are just opinions.

You have an answer to everything but a solution for nothing.

What are you talking about exactly? What solution is being discussed exactly? Your just coming up random stuff at this point.

As for a solution, I have mentioned multiple times a UN investigation, so your claim is utterly false. Clearly, you are just making stuff up to complain about at this point.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

To use a fitting term, you appear to be a zealot and you would lead one to believe that you possibly garner your information from some pamphlet to which you subscribe.

You ranted last evening seeking a source, I provided a report from a non partisan institution and your reply was you were 'aware' of the report. Again, you did not read it.

Did you read the report firstly? I am aware of the claims of the report (i read a summary), and you did not btw provide a direct link to the report in the first place. Sorry, but I can't read the entire contents of every single report that someone brings up on ther Internet, but I do at least read summaries, and you seemed to ignore the fact, that the EU or the US, did not take the report seriously and add the IHH to the list of sponsers of terrroism. Instead you make claims about people being Zealots, basically engaging in ad hominem attacks, which is pretty pointless.

Also, personally the attitude of blaming the victim is pretty disgusting imho. The fact that so many people are happy to do so, is pretty sad.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

You also seem to possess no understanding of the realpolitik of how foreign policy is formulated and practised, both historically and in the contemporary world, I could suggest some fine material on the subject but with some justification, I fear it also would go unread.

I am well aware of realpolitik actually, and I would argue the one sided support for Israel goes against the EU's interest, but of course you seem to think yourself right, and anyone who disagree's a zealot.

Badgermonkey

wes wrote: »

you did not btw provide a direct link to the report in the first place.

I am well aware of realpolitik actually, and I would argue the one sided support for Israel goes against the EU's interest, but of course you seem to think yourself right, and anyone who disagree's a zealot.

Your first point is simply silly as is your semantic observation concerning the word data. If you wish to engage in trivia that's up to you.

So moving on, the fact you claim the EU adopts a lopsided policy in support of Israel merely reinforces the one eyed approach you seem to take and utterly exposes your assertion that you have an understanding of realpolitik as it pertains to foreign policy as a falsehood.

Read the report, not a summary of.

People who disagree with me certainly are not zealots, cheap shot.

People who adopt an absolutist position, summarily discounting available information with no interest in reading it may be labelled as such.

Are you a member of a political party or an activist organisation?

wes

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Your first point is simply silly as is your semantic observation concerning the word data. If you wish to engage in trivia that's up to you.

Its not semantics at all, the 2 words have different meanings in the context of what we are discussing. So, I had to mention the difference. If you think that data and a report are the same, then that can easily cause a huge mis-understanding.

Also, you mentioned a report, and you then complain about me not reading it. Its not unreasonable to ask for you to link to a report you are referring to.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

So moving on, the fact you claim the EU adopts a lopsided policy in support of Israel merely reinforces the one eyed approach you seem to take and utterly exposes your assertion that you have an understanding of realpolitik as it pertains to foreign policy as a falsehood.

Again, the EU is hopelessly one sided, and I have already pointed out my reasons for saying so. You counter arguement is to essentially say I am wrong and don't get realpolitik.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Read the report, not a summary of.

????

Badgermonkey wrote: »

People who disagree with me certainly are not zealots, cheap shot.

No more a cheap shot than insinuating I was a zealot.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

People who adopt an absolutist position, summarily discounting available information with no interest in reading it may be labelled as such.

I have no interest in reading the Israeli report, as I have explained already due to it being a ridiculous exercise in exonerating themselves. As I have already said, I would apply the exact same reasoning to anyone. The entire exercise make no sense at all.

You have of course ignored this again, and coming out with insinuations of me being a zealot. The real reason it seems is that I disagree with you and nothing more. You ignore my clearly stated reasoning multiple times, and make claims about zealotry, and the only reason I can see, is that I dared disagree with you. (See I can play this game too)

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Are you a member of a political party or an activist organisation?

No. Also, why are we again making this about me? Enough with the ad hominem nonsense already.

Badgermonkey

wes wrote: »

Also, you mentioned a report, and you then complain about me not reading it. Its not unreasonable to ask for you to link to a report you are referring to.

Again, the EU is hopelessly one sided, and I have already pointed out my reasons for saying so.

Search function on DIIS site, Evan Kohlmann, Bingo!

That's how I found it but I'll feed you the link.

http://www.diis.dk/sw562.asp?lsearchdataid=154970

Your defense of not wishing to read a 'ridiculous exercise in exonerating themselves' is somewhat undermined by the fact you will be unable to draw that conclusion yourself without reading it.

With regard to the EU, you have indeed pointed out your reasons, complicit in the occupation of Gaza etc. To elevate these assertions above mere opinion can you refer to an independent report or study which give legitimacy to that belief?

I'll refer you to a speech given in Cairo by Catherine Ashton, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy immediately prior to a visit to Israel in March of last year.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/113352.pdf

'The parameters of a negotiated settlement are well known. A two-state solution with Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security.

Our aim is a viable State of Palestine in the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza strip, on the basis of the 1967 lines. If there is to be a genuine peace a way must be found to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of Israel and Palestine. And we need a just solution of the refugee issue.

The possibility now before us of proximity talks could be the beginning of a new opportunity to find a solution. But we have to be clear: talks not for the sake of talks. We want results and genuine commitment, not a restating of well-known positions. We need a process that leads to outcomes.

Recent Israeli decisions to build new housing units in East Jerusalem have endangered and undermined the tentative agreement to begin proximity talks.

The EU position on settlements is clear. Settlements are illegal, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible. A solution that the Israeli Prime Minister says he supports. He is right, and these talks are urgent.

Urgent because I fear for the future. Urgent, because Israel has a popular Prime Minister who owes it to his people to move to the solution he supports. Urgent, because the Palestinians, despite everything, and with your and our support, are willing to engage.

But there are many obstacles. The decision to list cultural and religious sites based in the occupied Palestinian territory as Israeli is counter-productive.

The blockade of Gaza is unacceptable. It has created enormous human suffering and greatly harms the potential to move forward.'


You might also care to read statements and speeches by the HR and her spokesperson concerning EU foreign policy as it applies to Israel and Palestine.

http://www.eeas.europa.eu/israel/index_en.htm

Manic Moran

I have no interest in reading the Israeli report, as I have explained already due to it being a ridiculous exercise in exonerating themselves. As I have already said, I would apply the exact same reasoning to anyone. The entire exercise make no sense at all.

Out of interest, how would you suggest that a neutral body such as the UN or ICJ would end up reaching a fair and balanced conclusion without looking at what each side has to say? In a court case, witnesses are called by both sides, they obviously are called to support the one side or the other, not because of their unbiased neutrality. On matters of law, lawyers from both sides make their submissions, and it's not just to hear themselves speak. On matters of fact, adjudicators (juries or judges) are given instructions like the following:

"In deciding the facts of this case, you are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses. You will have to decide which witnesses to believe and which witnesses not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says or only part of it or none of it. Every witness starts on an equal basis. You are to listen to all of them with an open mind and judge them all by the same standards." (Jury instructions from an American court)

I don't believe that anyone on this thread has called the Israeli report conclusive, binding, definitive or gospel truth. But it is closed-minded, and contrary to the principles of the common justice system, to flat refuse to see what any one side has to say before coming to your own conclusions. You have already come to your conclusions, it seems. I don't believe you were reluctant to read the UNHCR report. What's the harm to you, other than spending a few hours, in reading the Israeli report? Are you afraid of some secret Israeli hypnotic subliminal verbiage which will destroy your independence?

You might even learn a few things. For example, I was unaware that "according to the report of the International Committee of the Red Cross: ‘Stocks of essential medical supplies have reached an all-time low because of a standstill in cooperation between Palestinian authorities in Ramallah and Gaza.’" I had, evidently foolishly, assumed that any restrictions in availability were due to the Israeli crossing restrictions.

NTM

man.about.town

i am pro Israel, i think hamas are no better than our own IRA, there terrorists after all. am i the only one who watched the video of the raid and thought to myself, if i had a gun and was getting attacked, i would of used it

Badgermonkey

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't believe that anyone on this thread has called the Israeli report conclusive, binding, definitive or gospel truth. But it is closed-minded, and contrary to the principles of the common justice system, to flat refuse to see what any one side has to say before coming to your own conclusions. You have already come to your conclusions, it seems. I don't believe you were reluctant to read the UNHCR report. What's the harm to you, other than spending a few hours, in reading the Israeli report? Are you afraid of some secret Israeli hypnotic subliminal verbiage which will destroy your independence?

That is a concise summation of an approach which can only but fail to arrive at a reasoned and well informed conclusion.

wes

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Search function on DIIS site, Evan Kohlmann, Bingo!

That's how I found it but I'll feed you the link.

http://www.diis.dk/sw562.asp?lsearchdataid=154970

Your defense of not wishing to read a 'ridiculous exercise in exonerating themselves' is somewhat undermined by the fact you will be unable to draw that conclusion yourself without reading it.

I can draw that conclusion from the summary, and the fact that Israel has done exactly the same thing in the past.

Also, the claims in regards to gun running from the report date from 1997, which as I said earlier was a over decade ago, and you know have nothing to do with the floatilla. Also, the other complaint is about organizing protests against the Iraq war, which plenty of Western groups have done as well. Nothing in it relates to the Floatilla, and again if the report was true, why is the IHH not on the EU and the US lists of sponser of terrorism? Seems awfully strange to me that they aren't on there.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

With regard to the EU, you have indeed pointed out your reasons, complicit in the occupation of Gaza etc. To elevate these assertions above mere opinion can you refer to an independent report or study which give legitimacy to that belief?

http://www.christianaid.org.uk/Images/failing-gaza.pdf

Badgermonkey wrote: »

I'll refer you to a speech given in Cairo by Catherine Ashton, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy immediately prior to a visit to Israel in March of last year.

Talk is cheap as they say. The EU says a lot, but does nothing. Again, I will refer to the EU trade agreement with Israel:

http://eeas.europa.eu/israel/index_en.htm

If the EU was serious, about anything said above, they would have used the trade agreement to pressure Israel, to stop stealing Palestinian land, and yet we have seen no action at all, just empty words. Show me some actualy pressure being out on Israel, as opposed to trade agreements, which as you may have noticed was a point I made earlier.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Out of interest, how would you suggest that a neutral body such as the UN or ICJ would end up reaching a fair and balanced conclusion without looking at what each side has to say? In a court case, witnesses are called by both sides, they obviously are called to support the one side or the other, not because of their unbiased neutrality. On matters of law, lawyers from both sides make their submissions, and it's not just to hear themselves speak. On matters of fact, adjudicators (juries or judges) are given instructions like the following:

Except that this report is not a trial by the UN, and to comparison is at best a laboured one.

I would expect the UN to listen to Israels side of things, as well as anyone elses and come to a conclusion.

However, this report, comes to a conclusion that Israel is innocent, and is not comparable to one side in a court case, as Israel has declared itself innocent, which so many have chosen to ignore all of a sudden. You example is massively flawed, and again would you accept such a report from Hamas? Should they be given equal time? Or is the fact they have similarly declared themselves innocent of all wrong doing in the past, and blame the other guy show that such a report isn't really worth bothering with?

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't believe that anyone on this thread has called the Israeli report conclusive, binding, definitive or gospel truth. But it is closed-minded, and contrary to the principles of the common justice system, to flat refuse to see what any one side has to say before coming to your own conclusions. You have already come to your conclusions, it seems. I don't believe you were reluctant to read the UNHCR report. What's the harm to you, other than spending a few hours, in reading the Israeli report? Are you afraid of some secret Israeli hypnotic subliminal verbiage which will destroy your independence?

What the hell are you talking about? Common justice? This is a message board, not a court. Again, this isn't Israel telling it sides of things, but as they have always done, they are simply exonerating themselves, which I am pretty sure goes against Common justice for the accused to do so.

I have better things to do. Israel is well known for white washes, and I have no reason to trust a word they say. There report exonerates themselves, and it isn't as you put it, Israel tellings its side, but rather Israel saying there innocent of any wrong doing. There is a huge difference there. Also, I have explained why I disregard the report several times, and it has nothing to do fear of subliminal messaging or whatever you were going on about.

Honestly, I have better things to do than waste a few hours reading an Israeli report, considering that they have 0 credibitlity in the matter.

I will happily accept the findings of a credible report. As it stands, this is just another Israeli white wash, defended with the usual excuses.

You see, Israel as a source for information is at best questionable, but in the case of a report, that once again declares themselves innocent, and not to mention the fact that generally having the accused investigate and then openly exonerate themselves is inherently ridiculous.

Lumen

There is some quite bizarre positioning in the Israeli report summary, when compared to the witness reports documented by the UN.

I do not understand how it is possible to determine that force used directly against "a civilian who was not considered a direct participant in hostilities" is "in conformity with international law".

The Commission examined approximately 130 incidents in which
force was used (including events when live fire was employed; firing
less-lethal weapons; shooting as a deterrent; threatening with a weapon;
using a Taser, and using physical force under certain circumstances).
The majority of the uses of force involved warning or deterring fire and
less-lethal weapons. Of the total number of uses of force, 16 incidents of
hitting the center of body ("center of mass") with rounds of live fire were
reported by the soldiers.
After examining all the material it can be determined that the IDF
soldiers acted professionally and in a measured manner in the face of
extensive and unanticipated violence. This professionalism was evident,
among other factors, in their continuing to switch back and forth between
less-lethal and lethal weapons in order to address the nature of the
violence directed at them.
The Commission found that 127 uses of force investigated appeared to
be in conformity with international law. In five of the 127 cases, force
appeared to be used against persons taking a direct part in hostilities;
however, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the force used
was in accordance with law enforcement norms. In another five cases,
the Commission concluded that force appeared to be used in accordance
with law enforcement norms, but in two of those cases it did not have
sufficient information to determine whether the person against whom
force was used was a direct participant in hostilities and in three cases
it was determined that the use of force involved a civilian who was not
considered a direct participant in hostilities. In an additional six cases,
the Commission has concluded that it has insufficient information to be
able to make a determination regarding the legality of the use of force.
Three out of those six cases also involved the use of live fire; in two cases
physical force (kicking) was employed; and in one case there was a strike
with the butt of a paintball gun.

Badgermonkey

Your reply is predictable I'm afraid.

'Talk is cheap as they say.'

C'mon, you can surely do better than cliche?

Read the report.

Once again, your defense of not wishing to read a 'ridiculous exercise in exonerating themselves' is somewhat undermined by the fact you will be unable to draw that conclusion yourself without reading it.


Also, 'Israel has done exactly the same thing in the past' is not a valid reason.

Christianaid is not an independent source on the matter as they engage in advocacy for those in the occupied territories. Amnesty International cannot be said to adopt an impartial approach and most certainly cannot be relied upon as an independent source.

No mention in the report thus far of the EU being complicit. Assuming this is one report you've bothered to read, perhaps you could point me to that assertion.

With regard to the EU favouring Israel (generally as it pertains to Israel/OT), I'd ask again that you provide an independent report or study to back that up? Possibly academic papers published in the sphere of international relations, foreign policy, international development, diplomacy, conflict etc.

Think tanks are good too if the material is kosher, no blogs though.

You also sign off with this gem:

'they would have used the trade agreement to pressure Israel, to stop stealing Palestinian land, and yet we have seen no action at all, just empty words. Show me some actualy pressure being out on Israel, as opposed to trade agreements, which as you may have noticed was a point I made earlier.'

The realpolitik / foreign policy conundrum is still giving you trouble.

Nodin

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Your reply is predictable I'm afraid.

'Talk is cheap as they say.'

.

They condemn, but do nothing to stop. Therefore "talk is cheap". I would have thought it obvious.

Nodin

Badgermonkey wrote: »

'they would have used the trade agreement to pressure Israel, to stop stealing Palestinian land, and yet we have seen no action at all, just empty words. Show me some actualy pressure being out on Israel, as opposed to trade agreements, which as you may have noticed was a point I made earlier.'

The realpolitik / foreign policy conundrum is still giving you trouble.

What, dare I ask, are you trying to get at...?

Manic Moran

I do not understand how it is possible to determine that force used directly against "a civilian who was not considered a direct participant in hostilities" is "in conformity with international law".

You never see Gardai do a baton charge against a group of people standing (or sitting) in the middle of the road? It's happened in Dublin recently, I do recall. To wit, use of force against civilians who were not direct participants in hostilities.

This is explained in the full report.

Thus, the Commission examined first whether force was used against a civilian taking a direct part in hostilities. Where it was determined that the person was a direct participant, an assessment of the use of force was first made using the applicable rules of international humanitarian law. If the
person against whom force was used was determined not to have taken a direct part in hostilities, that use of force was assessed solely under law enforcement norms.

NTM

R0ot

An Israeli inquiry is about as accurate as a plumbers estimate.

Lumen

Manic Moran wrote: »

You never see Gardai do a baton charge against a group of people standing (or sitting) in the middle of the road? It's happened in Dublin recently, I do recall.

I don't know what a baton charge is. Running at people and hitting them with sticks?

...

Wikipedia says:

"A baton charge is a coordinated tactic for dispersing violent crowds of people...In most cases, police would strike the arms or legs"

So no, I don't think the practice of striking non-violent, non-threatening people can be justified under "humanitarian law", whether it's in Dublin or anywhere else.

Aside from that, lethally shooting a "non-participant" in the head at point blank range with a beanbag round is a whole different kettle of shit to hitting someone in the leg with a stick.

Manic Moran

Lumen wrote: »

Wikipedia says:

"A baton charge is a coordinated tactic for dispersing violent crowds of people...In most cases, police would strike the arms or legs"

Wikipedia isn't always right. See, for example, this video from the Shell to Sea protests, go to about one minute in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h12RZtxqbo

The demonstrators are not violent, but they are in the way, so the Gardai go in with batons. The police have the authority to enforce compliance.

Aside from that, lethally shooting a "non-participant" in the head at point blank range with a beanbag round is a whole different kettle of shit to hitting someone in the leg with a stick.

True. Mr Bilgen was also shot with several times with conventional ammunition, so multiple Israelis present apparently concluded a need for lethal, not non-lethal force, against this one individual.

NTM

wes

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Your reply is predictable I'm afraid.

'Talk is cheap as they say.'

C'mon, you can surely do better than cliche?

It was pretty straight forward statement of fact. Words mean nothing, if there are no actions to back them up. You can condemn Israel, or any other dodgy regime till the cows come home, but if you give nice trade agreements, your words are rendered worthless. it isn't a difficult concept really. Saying one thing and doing another, is normally considered pretty dishonest.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Also, 'Israel has done exactly the same thing in the past' is not a valid reason.

It is a valid reason, as it show they lack credibility. If someone lies day in and day, its perfectly valid and sensible to ignore such a person.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Christianaid is not an independent source on the matter as they engage in advocacy for those in the occupied territories. Amnesty International cannot be said to adopt an impartial approach and most certainly cannot be relied upon as an independent source.

No mention in the report thus far of the EU being complicit. Assuming this is one report you've bothered to read, perhaps you could point me to that assertion.

I would very much disagree, both parties are not part of the conflict, if you wish to disregard Human Right organization and charities, please go right ahead. Neither are party to the conflict. They are far more deserving of trust than Israel any day of the week. Christian aid gives aid all over the world, and engage in advocacy the world over as well, if you wish to dismiss a charity, on the basis of trying to fight for peoples rights, then that say more about you than anyone else. Also Amnesty fight for Human Rights the world over, again if you wish to dismiss them, it says far more about you.

Btw, the document is also signed by several other organizations, and not just the 2 you mention.

As for where to look, well if you read the document, its pretty clear from the contents which section to look at.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

With regard to the EU favouring Israel (generally as it pertains to Israel/OT), I'd ask again that you provide an independent report or study to back that up? Possibly academic papers published in the sphere of international relations, foreign policy, international development, diplomacy, conflict etc.

Think tanks are good too if the material is kosher, no blogs though.

I already provided the link to the trade agreement, which was the basis of my reasoning. You have yet to address my reasoning, with the exception of vague waffle about realpolitik.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

The realpolitik / foreign policy conundrum is still giving you trouble.

What are you even talking about? You seem to be the one with issue with realpolitik. The simple fact is that you aren't really saying anything at all. All you have done again is avoiding addressing points that i have raised, with a load of waffle.

Badgermonkey

wes wrote: »

As for where to look, well if you read the document, its pretty clear from the contents which section to look at.

All you have done again is avoiding addressing points that i have raised

That's very hypocritical.

There is no reference to the EU being complicit in the report you have linked to, did you read it yourself? To which section do you refer?

It's also hypocritical to claim Israel has zero credibility while admitting you are not prepared to read the Turkel report, thus giving your argument no authority or credibility.

Regarding the issue of realpolitik as it pertains to foreign policy:

Would Israel, a country with a highly developed economy with an increasing focus on scientific research, high tech industry and a culture of venture capitalism suffer as a result of token trade barriers imposed by the EU?

Foreign policy has and always will be fundamentally informed by an economic imperative. To employ trade as a tool in the armoury against Israel would serve only to deprive European business of opportunity and would ultimately harm the interests of ordinary citizens of the EU.

You can argue the rights and wrongs of that all you want, the realpolitik ensures the EU will correctly continue to build ties with Israel for their mutual economic benefit.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/israel/

As an aside, have Cuba or Iran or Myanmar materially changed their behaviour as a result of sanctions imposed upon them?

No.

Nodin

Badgermonkey wrote: »

That's very hypocritical.

There is no reference to the EU being complicit in the report you have linked to, did you read it yourself? To which section do you refer?

It's also hypocritical to claim Israel has zero credibility while admitting you are not prepared to read the Turkel report, thus giving your argument no authority or credibility.

Regarding the issue of realpolitik as it pertains to foreign policy:

Would Israel, a country with a highly developed economy with an increasing focus on scientific research, high tech industry and a culture of venture capitalism suffer as a result of token trade barriers imposed by the EU?

Foreign policy has and always will be fundamentally informed by an economic imperative. To employ trade as a tool in the armoury against Israel would serve only to deprive European business of opportunity and would ultimately harm the interests of ordinary citizens of the EU.

You can argue the rights and wrongs of that all you want, the realpolitik ensures the EU will correctly continue to build ties with Israel for their mutual economic benefit.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/israel/

As an aside, have Cuba or Iran or Myanmar materially changed their behaviour as a result of sanctions imposed upon them?

No.

Your point re the EU merely underlines its hypocrisy.

There are a number of purposes to sanctions, not the least of which is to point out to the offending country that its behaviour is unacceptable.

wes

Badgermonkey wrote: »

That's very hypocritical.

There is no reference to the EU being complicit in the report you have linked to, did you read it yourself? To which section do you refer?

Yes, and the section is pretty damn clear. They don't use the word complicity to be fair, but what they describe is complicity. Seems pretty clear you didn't bother reading the thing.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

It's also hypocritical to claim Israel has zero credibility while admitting you are not prepared to read the Turkel report, thus giving your argument no authority or credibility.

You don't understand the meaning of the word hypocritical I take it, and are just tossing it out there randomly at this point....

I already said why they have no credibility, but you seem completely unable to address any point actually being made, and would rather bang on about hypocrisy instead.

I have yet to see anyone establish why the Israeli report should be taking seriously. You see sources of information need to be evaluated, and you don't need to read every single thing they come out with to establish whether there a good source for information. You see all sources of information are not equal, for example the flat earth society, not the best place for information on science, and the Israeli government not the best place for report into the IDF behaviour. However, if we are to follow your reasoning, we have to read every single thing the the flat earth society comes up with, or we are hypocrites. Personally, I rather be a hypocrite then waste my time, on a bunch of nonsense.

As it stands you reasoning is completely flawed, and thats being very kind.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Regarding the issue of realpolitik as it pertains to foreign policy:

Would Israel, a country with a highly developed economy with an increasing focus on scientific research, high tech industry and a culture of venture capitalism suffer as a result of token trade barriers imposed by the EU?

Being there 2nd largest trading partner, yes they would hurt a great deal by such sanctions.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

As an aside, have Cuba or Iran or Myanmar materially changed their behaviour as a result of sanctions imposed upon them?

No.

You are basically proving my point via the hypocrisy of the EU here, and the EU has sanctions against some of the countries you mention, so basically you entire real politik arguement goes out the Window, as the EU are happy to sanction people as it is, so why not Israel as well? Surely, the EU which claims to be all about Human Rights will sanctions Israel, just like they will Iran.

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

You see sources of information need to be evaluated, and you don't need to read every single thing they come out with to establish whether there a good source for information.

This is true, but there's also a bit of a broad brush here.

For example, the Israeli report quotes statements by both the Captain and Chief Officer of Mavi Marmara referencing the preparations made by IHH personnel prior to the arrival of the Israelis. I have seen no statements since the release of the report claiming that these individuals, no longer in Israeli custody so now free to say what they like, never said what was quoted, or that they made the statements whilst undergoing thumbscrew treatment.

Given that these two individuals are hardly on the side of the IDF, are you planning on entirely disregarding their statements simply because the Israelis asked the questions and reported the answers?

What the hell are you talking about? Common justice? This is a message board, not a court

I thought it was a discussion board. If we're going to have an actual discussion, and not, to quote the Great Palin, "just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says" the same general principles should likely be used as the judicial system uses. After all, the latter is generally uncontroversial and accepted, so the principles should be valid outside a court.

You example is massively flawed, and again would you accept such a report from Hamas?

Has Hamas ever released an investigative report? Of course I'd read such a thing if it existed (and was in English)

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given that these two individuals are hardly on the side of the IDF, are you planning on entirely disregarding their statements simply because the Israelis asked the questions and reported the answers?

Yes, as Israel are hardly the most trust worthy source, and its not like Israel isn't beyond putting its own "spin" on things.

As I said, I am happy to see what a UN investigation says.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I thought it was a discussion board. If we're going to have an actual discussion, and not, to quote the Great Palin, "just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says" the same general principles should likely be used as the judicial system uses. After all, the latter is generally uncontroversial and accepted, so the principles should be valid outside a court.

Okay fair enough, I am pretty sure courts will also dis-regard testimony from people who lie on the stand, and seeing as we know that Israel report have in the past essentially done exactly that, it isn't unfair to dismiss there report, as they are not a trusted source of information. However, once again this is as you pointed out yourself a discussion board, and not a court. There is no possible way any kind of discussion could possibly be held to the same standard, as it would simply be impossible. I am not being paid to read this stuff, and I have limited time, so I don't waste my time reading a source that I have every reason to not trust.

Also, if you want to make comparisons to a court, as I said earlier, the entire concept of the accused being able to investigate and pass judgement on themselves, would be on pretty dodgy ground. This is what Israel reports does, which goes against such concept as common justice.

Ultimately, I see no reason why I should bother with the report, or that it will be in anyway shape or form accurate. Based on past performance from Israel, I see no reason why I should trust anything they say.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Has Hamas ever released an investigative report? Of course I'd read such a thing if it existed (and was in English)

Well, thats great, but personally I wouldn't bother, as there report would be just as tainted as any Israeli one.