Merged Israel Attacks Palestinian Aid Flotilla, According To Reports

[DreadNiK]

That's the question. While I'm no fan of reported IDF conduct in the past, you could make the case that firing live ammunition if you were being beaten with sticks and bars could be a legitimate use of force. What might be important here is whether they continued shooting after the protesters had stopped the attack or not, and if they did anything to precipitate the mob attack (other than landing on the boat).

Of course whatever the case the optics of this whole thing are piss-poor. For both sides, mind you.

+1

 

[Stout]

Whatever it is he is wielding they back off smartish. Although the soldier beside him seems to be brandishing a small arms weapon. The crew do physically attack the soldiers but I don't see any of them with guns. It is more like a pub brawl. So what happens next that resulted in so many dead?

At this point, the what happened next is what I'm waiting for. Right now I'm awash in propaganda, including claims that were tweeted out by freegaza that protesters were shot in their sleep.

I can speculate and assume that the IDF, finding themselves confronted with deadly force, like metal bars and getting tossed off the upper deck, decided to respond in kind. IMO, and it's just my opinion, had the protesters brandished weapons, they would likely be facing the prospect of having their ship sunk rather than commandeered.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Oh please stop with adhom nonsense about rense and stormfront. That is a lie and has no truth to it. If you want my respect it will not come from lying about me.

You can say I'm wrong but the news reports speak for themselves:

And the top youtube videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZenysNLAfc8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFEBbDkyrqQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSFwyWyVo74

Only shaky, chopped up Turkish footage and 1 camera angle of soldiers on the back deck is used. Oh, and I love the reporting of the x amount of activist camera crew used. Take into account the IDF footage, its pretty straightforward.

You can cry and moan about how you are all so misunderstood, but figure it out people. Buy a clue.

Point out where this crying and moaning is happening. Perhaps you can try another angle here.

If the excuse is that people on the ships had knives trying to defend themselves against the commandos - well that is pretty lame. There are things like rubber bullets highly effective against such threats.

And you are boarding a ship.

This was not the first flotilla. Israel should have much experience with these by now. This was reckless and will not help Israel.

Defend themselves against what? Is this a failed attempt comparing the IDF that boarded to Somali pirates?

Paintball guns were used initially, when firearms were used by these activists, as there were a number of firearms confiscated, the gloves are off.

Boarding a ship does not justify such brutality on part of these so called activists. And there is a blockade.

The first flotilla did not have these savages on them. So a failed comparison?

Any other half-baked statements/assertions to shovel through?

 

[Skeptic]

Is Zach a troll or is he for real?

Does this answer your question?

He's a neo-Nazi who tries to impersonate a Jew based on what he thinks Jews are like -- with results about as accurate as can be expected.

 

[Stout]

So much could be duel use though - where does it stop? Building homes from concrete in that climate is preferable to wood. It seems to be the construction material of choice in the Med.

It would, yet i live in a climate that's described as Mediterranean ( west coast of Canada ) yet everybody builds with wood and makes out quite well. My *guess* is it's an availability thing.

Building codes only allow us to go to four stories with wood, technically threes stories and a basement and we have many apartment blocks built using wood framing. I could understand the need for cement if Gaza had no choice but to go up, which they may, seeing how it's the most densely populated region in the world, but the Israeli source I read, explaining the restrictions on cement would appear to make allowances for this need.

 

[bigjelmapro]

You fail to understand what effective means in this context.

Than elaborate this context.

Effective is no longer the standard. That was rather the point. The legality or otherwise of blockades is now a UN matter. Thus the claim that the blockade is de jure legal and thus israels actions are fine doesn't fly.

You can argue that it is legitimate militry activity but that is a seperate argument.

Sorry, the UN has failed in many regards to be effective in pretty much every continent they reside on and the brunt of the programs they are involved with. The UN has failed to act in many instances when it comes to this conflict and have horrid timing when it comes to action. Israel cannot rely on the dragging of feet in the UN to take action against the rearming of Hamas in Gaza. (Also, the failure to apply the UN resolutions against Hezbollah post 2006 is also a damning example). If the issue of the blockade would have been presented to the UN security council, do you realistically think that any action would have been taken? According to the checklist of chapter VII, art 41 is Israel's blockade illegal apart from the voting block that is needed to pass it?

I fail to see, unless you can clarify this for me, that the effectiveness is blockading Hamas's ability to amass weapons and black market items doesn't trump all the rest of the arguing points.

*EDIT And to clarify, the legal act of retorsion is not a military activity, although this doesn't thoroughly apply to the naval blockade, but to the blockade overall.

 

[geni]

Than elaborate this context.

Effective has nothing to do with finding anything. Remeber the rules were put in place to prevent unreasonable dissruption to trade. Countries had found that they could claim they were blockading whoever and then radomly raid ships. This was bad for trade. Instead the requirement was introduced that a blockade be effective. That basicaly meant that they deployed enough force to have a decent chance of stopping the vast majority of ships. There was no requirement that they actualy find anything relivant. For example at least towards the end of WW1 Britian's blockade of Germany was legal.

Thus blockades could be used as a tactic of war without causeing widespread dissruption to trade which I'm sure we can all agree is the important thing. All this long predates Isreal however.

Sorry, the UN has failed in many regards to be effective in pretty much every continent they reside on and the brunt of the programs they are involved with. The UN has failed to act in many instances when it comes to this conflict. If the issue of the blockade would have been presented to the UN security council, do you realistically think that any action would have been taken? According to the checklist of chapter VII, art 41 is Israel's blockade illegal apart from the voting block that is needed to pass it?

Attacking the UN misses the point. If you are going to make the argument that something is de jure legal and therefor fine it had better be de jure legal which means meeting every de jure requirement no matter how objectionable you find them.

 

[DC]

See the footage and then come back if you still think this is true.

i saw it and yes, killing 20 people? yes overreaction on israeli side i think.

 

[JihadJane]

Is Zach a troll or is he for real?

Does it matter?

 

[WildCat]

Not to assign any moral culpability, but a night-time surprise boarding is a high-risk operation and a very unusual response to a maritime situation, so I think it's reasonable to request Israel to explain and defend their choice action.

Seeing that they encountered armed resistance, I think, is prima facie evidence that Israel was justified in its action.

 

[GlennB]

It would, yet i live in a climate that's described as Mediterranean ( west coast of Canada ) yet everybody builds with wood and makes out quite well. My *guess* is it's an availability thing.

A correct guess, I'd say Although there's plenty of wood in the E Med, not much of is of the 'structural' kind, and that which is is horribly expensive.

This is concrete country. Even brick is rarely load-bearing, being mostly used for wall infill in a reinforced concrete frame. Certainly as far as any new-build is concerned.

 

[WildCat]

The news so far indicates that all the deaths were amongst people on board the flotilla, and that none of the Israeli forces were killed. The one serious gunshot injury to an Israeli was reportedly inflicted by somebody snatching his own gun and using it on him.
IMHO, that does not help the credibility of the Israelis' account. Of course, it could be that all the armed terrorists on board the boats were really bad shots.

And, surely, boarding a non-military, not-obviously-armed vessel by force in international waters counts as piracy?

Uh, how does that hurt the Israeli's credibility? I've been on boats that have been stopped and inspected by armed members of the police and Coast Guard, never once did I consider it fair game to try to snatch one of their weapons and open fire on them.

Is that sort of thing the norm where you're from sophia?

 

[funk de fino]

Does this answer your question?

He's a neo-Nazi who tries to impersonate a Jew based on what he thinks Jews are like -- with results about as accurate as can be expected.

Unfortunately, if you read many of your posts he is not far off.

 

[funk de fino]

Only the Israelis would have managed to kill 20 of these idiots. Everyone else would have cuffed a few ears and broken a few bones.

Israels reaction to everything nowadays seems to be to pour more petrol on the flames.

 

[DreadNiK]

Unfortunately, if you read many of your posts he is not far off.

*grabs popcorn*

'oh no he dih-ent!'

 

[WildCat]

What is this trend going that boarding a ship in international waters automatically equals piracy?

It's part of redefining words as part of the propaganda war against Israel. See also genocide, pogrom, "collective punishment", apartheid, etc.


And I'm sure anti-semitism has nothing at all to do with it...

 

[funk de fino]

It's part of redefining words as part of the propaganda war against Israel. See also genocide, pogrom, "collective punishment", apartheid, etc.


And I'm sure anti-semitism has nothing at all to do with it...

And there it goes again................

 

[Zach Aviv]

Thing is, the freedom fighters are telling us that cement is banned in Gaza, along with iron. This is not true, it's merely restricted, meaning you need to justify building with concrete rather than wood. The Israelis are worried about Gazans building bunkers and such.

Now if I know this, and I'm just some guy sitting here safely behind my computer screen, it only stands to reason that the freedomers would know this and would have avoided cement in favour of prefab wood materials if they were truly interested in helping out the people of Gaza.

We Jews not worried about bunkers. We have more than enough military to crush Gaza bunkers. Our goal is to stop inferior Palestinian from developing good social fabric in Gaza and West Bank. We use excuse of Hamas to help this. IDF did well. Killing help put off others with goal of humanitarian aid.

 

[WildCat]

its not an ambush when you are in international waters, and they board YOUR ship.

You don't think the US Navy and Coast Guard do just that every single day?

 

[WildCat]

And there it goes again................

Another substance-free post from funk!