Merged Israel Attacks Palestinian Aid Flotilla, According To Reports

[Lallante]

It can be. Why not?

If the goal were to just bring in supplies, Israel offered methods to do that that didn't involve running the blockade. Instead they chose the method they did for its propaganda value and many reports indicate the violence (by the activists) was planned ahead of time.

So the effect is to diminish the status of Israel while strengthening the status of Hamas.

How does that not support terrorism?

If the methods offered by Israel worked, then we wouldnt have a humanitarian crisis in Gaza in the first place. OR are you now claiming there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza? They are just pretending?

 

[Pardalis]

Both are suspect but a military organisation is more able to fabricate a story and have everyone stick to it

The activist had months to prepare for this, and they are highly ideologically motivated, so motivated (read brainwashed) they had the brilliant idea to bring children along for the ride. They have plenty of resources of their own.

Why don't we wait until the investigation.

 

[Kotatsu]

Did you see the video of them using those things not to fix the engine of a ship, but to beat IDF soldiers who boarded it?

Are you claiming the IDF video was faked Kotatsu?

No, I am claiming that these things were not necessarily brought along to be used as weapons, but that they may have been used as such when they were invaded by the specialist in non-lethal take-over. Having a crescent wrench, a set of pliers, a screwdriver, a length of rope, and some kitchen knives aboard a large ship does not in any way constitute having prepared weapons to attack the Israeli invaders.

So I take it you supported Israel during Operation Cast Lead? Because otherwise I'll make you the poster I single out for supporting my claim.

Did you support Operation Cast Lead Kotatsu?

To be frank, I do not recognise the name, because during that time I was away on extensive field work (and vacation) in northern Sweden, Norway, Japan, Australia, Thailand and Austria, and didn't watch or read any news in any way for well-nigh seven months, so I hope you'll forgive me for having to read up on it (on Wikipedia, so the accuracy of the info I have is subject to the standard wiki-caveats; if you feel this "source" is inaccurate, please feel free to recommend another ones).

So, bearing this in mind, I believe that Israel behaved exemplary here:

On December 26, Israel reopened five border crossings between Israel and Gaza, after an eight-day closure, to supply fuel for Gaza's main power plant and to provide about 100 truck loads of humanitarian aid, including grain and other goods.

despite Hamas having broken the truce and started sending missiles into Negev (and elsewhere) during the week before.

This, too, shows excellent judgment from the Israeli:

Among IDF's measures to reduce civilian casualties were the extensive use of leaflets and phone messages to warn Palestinians, including families in high-risk areas and families of Hamas personnel, to leave the area or to avoid potential targets.[63][159][160][161] Israel used F-4 Phantoms to deliver more than 2 million leaflets urging the population to evacuate.[152] In a practice codenamed roof knocking, the IDF issued warning calls prior to air strikes on civilian buildings.

I do not approve of anyone killing anyone else on either side, and since both sides killed each other during this conflict, it is unlikely that I would have supported either side, had I known about it at the time. However, to the extent that it is possible to put that aside, I believe, from the article I read, that Israel generally behaved admirably, and certainly could be argued to have justification for much of their behaviour during that conflict.

Hamas, meanwhile, appears to have acted like childish brutes and idiots. Provided the Wikipedia article correctly summarises the events, I very much doubt that I would have found anything redeeming in their conduct during this conflict, had I known about it at the time. However, as for approximately seven months I was traveling in areas where I didn't have access to the internet, radios, TVs, newspapers, or even a working mobile phone, I must admit that at the time, I did not support either side, as I was unaware of the events.

Nevertheless, I fail to understand how that operation is in any way relevant to my statement that "the very existence of borders is an insult to human dignity and intelligence, and borders which are actively patrolled and even blockaded are terrible, and I have nothing but contempt for them, regardless of who is doing the blockading", so I would be much obliged if you could explain the connection.

So until there's a "world-wide ban on weapons manufacture" Israel shouldn't be allowed to inspect the cargo headed to Gaza? You're serious?

As I subsequently explained to Lionking (or was it someone else?), it was only a half-serious proposal, and certainly not one which I think Israel should unilaterally explore. I do believe that a world-wide ban on weapons manufacture would be a very good thing, which would solve so many things (provided it was actually carried out), but I do not seriously propose that this falls on the shoulders of Israel.

By "attacked", you mean "forcibly removed", right?

The "forcibly removed" happened after the "attacked", so both terms are relevant, but do not describe the same events. Pushing someone to the ground and stepping him in the face does not constitute "forcibly removing", but "attacking".

I fully realize that many think that this is an idealistic and unrealistic opinion; fine, I accept that. But I think it's the only alternative to perpetual mass slaughter. "This land is ours, not yours" is an attitude that needs to go.

This is a great post.

 

[Mycroft]

As a side note the reason that this is being done is because putting the food and aid through the 'regular channels' basically ensures it almost never gets to anyone and stays in bureaucratic stasis. Getting it there directly is being attempted as a last resort because this is a huge crisis and people are dying.

Food and medicine do get through on regular channels. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide.

 

[bit_pattern]

Well of course there are.

Do you find them credible?

Seriously?

I find your dismissal of eye-witness accounts and direct video footage INcredible, that's for sure

What's the bet you didn't even watch that video and just dismissed any idea that maybe Israel WERE attacking BEFORE the scuffle broke out without looking at the evidence? Ask yourself though, why hasn't Israel released video of what happened BEFORE they illegally boarded and the scuffle broke out?

It is quite clear though from watching the live footage of the incident that people were alreqady injured, and that Israel was already using force, before the incident shown on IDF tapes.

 

[Pardalis]

But I think it's the only alternative to perpetual mass slaughter. "This land is ours, not yours" is an attitude that needs to go.

So no need for the right of return then?

 

[bit_pattern]

Food and medicine do get through on regular channels. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide.

Its been covered, try reading the thread before demanding others provide you with proof. The list of things Israel allows into the strip is very, very small, and seemingly arbitrary (smoked salmon yes, cilantro no) and they have all kinds of guidelines describing the minimum calories needed to survive.

 

[bit_pattern]

So no need for the right of return then?

The right of return threatens the idea of a religiously/racially pure state. I find it funny that so many members of a sceptic forum, that otherwise despise religion, can be so vehement in their support of Israel maintaining a religiously pure state. I for one believe in a one-state solution, in which people of all creeds and religions can live in peace, but that would threaten the religious purity of Israel. The irony of this is very tasty

 

[Lallante]

Can someone tell me, is this satire?

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/humanitarian-crisis-in-gaza-1.237916

I genuinely cant tell. I think it IS satire (dark, dark politically commentating satire) but I cant be sure. what is it trying to say?

 

[Kotatsu]

Box full of plates, stun grenades, metal chains, pipes, and yes, even a menacing plastic chair/step ladder all throw from a height can be very deadly.

Hang on! In the first video -- in which the Israeli ships have not yet approached the Mavi Marmara -- they say that stun grenades and smoke grenades were thrown onto the Mavi Marmara from the helicopters (though this cannot be seen in the video), and this does not constitute a first attack, but throwing them back at the Israeli does?

I would have you note also that the step ladder or stool or whatever it is is actually never thrown. It may very well be that the person holding it was planning to do so, but he never actually does it in the video. Instead, he withdraws it out of sight. Does menacing someone with a stool actually constitute an attack?

 

[Pardalis]

The right of return threatens the idea of a religiously/racially pure state.

I was asking Cleon.

If nobody should have any claims to land, this should apply to everyone, right?

I find it funny that so many members of a sceptic forum, that otherwise despise religion, can be so vehement in their support of Israel maintaining a religiously pure state.

Who said anything about religion, and a religious pure state?

Who do you think you are talking to? The voices in your head?

I for one believe in a one-state solution, in which people of all creeds and religions can live in peace,

And I think that's completely ridiculous.

It's a nice idea, if humans weren't humans. What you're rooting for is a utopia, but reality is different. Humans are sectarian, and these two peoples can't live together in peace, not after decades of war and resentment.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Strange how none of the activist witnesses seem to remember seeing anyone clubbing and stabbing IDF soldiers... even though the videos show otherwise.

Is it collective amnesia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buzOWKxN2co&feature=player_embedded

The goal all along for the Aid Flotilla was to confront Israel and get International sympathy. That is their core goal. This is how they roll. This deceptive way of thinking is due to how they are raised in Islamic teaching which instructs them to lie to thier enemies. THis is why Al Jazzera was onboard as well.

Giving aid and comfort to your enimies is an act of war. This is what they were doing. They were warned not to as well.

By having sympathy, we too are giving aid, support and comfort to our allies enimies.

 

[Thunder]

By having sympathy, we too are giving aid, support and comfort to our allies enimies.

by having sympathy for the activists who were killed by the IDF, who illegally boarded these vessels, we are giving aid and comfort to Hamas?

are you gonna call Homeland Security and report terrorists at JREF?

 

[bigjelmapro]

Lie. The only firearms allegedly used, and this is from Israeli sources, were handguns taken from soldiers that illegally boarded the vessel. If there really WERE firearms and explosive on board you can be sure that Israel would have advertised it widely instead of showcasing this laughable cache of "weapons" ie. the tools you would normally find on board any ship, including knives from the galley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Weapons_on_Marmaris.jpg

In the scheme of things, how is this a lie if the two firearms stated to be found were the ones taken from IDF soldiers and used against them?

The defense is that since the weapons did not belong to the activists, but were found on their bodies when they did use them against the IDF, that they are somehow not responsible for their actions? Great defense.

'Laughable cache'. This defense would actually work if these items were found where they would 'normally' be found on the ship, ie in the galley, where the knives should belong, not on the decks of the ship after the engagement along with the metal pipes, the knives which aren't usually found in the galley.

Additionally, I would like to ask you, do you 'normally' use a machete to cut, say cucumbers when making a garden salad or tabouli? Are these activists expecting a thick jungle atmosphere? Last time I checked, Gaza wasn't the Brazilian rain forest.

As for improvised explosives, cocktails does fall under this subset: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_explosive_device

So where am I lying again?

Swiss cheese.

 

[Lallante]

The motivations of the flotilla arent really relevant to the legality or morality of what happened. The blockade is illegal, the boardings were thus illegal, the deaths were thus murder.

 

[bigjelmapro]

I love that killing 2 soldiers is proof of terrorism when looking to justify assasination, but killing 9 non-national civilians is legitimately within the law of war when looking to justify another.

If I were to argue that the IDF forces were the terrorists, how would that be any less accurate?

Where is this stated as 'proof of terrorism'? Perhaps you have difficulty reading, because I haven't connected the two and neither have I stated that there is its somehow legitimate to kill civilians.

I do enjoy how you fail to provide context and try to pull some sort of half-baked allegation out of this completely, yet again, out of thin air.

And just out of curiosity, what is a 'non-national civilian'? And at what point is a member of a security force permitted to use lethal force? When one is getting shot at? Stabbed? Beaten by a metal pipe repeatedly? I'm well aware that if there's a person with the intent to kill, ie striking one repeatedly with a metal pipe, there's a certain number of strikes at which one is, in the legal sense, trying to kill you. At this point, a civilian loses its status as a protected individual.

Rebuttal? Perhaps you can this time try to stick to the points rather than pull something out of nowhere....

 

[richardm]

whats wrong with a "Free Palestine" banner?

Much better than having to buy it yourself.

"the weapons did not belong to the activists"

At least one of the activists pictured by the BBC last night was in a mob waiting in a stairwell for the Israelis to arrive. He was wearing a gas mask. I can't imagine that gas masks are readily found on even the very worst cruise ships, so it seems possible that at least one of them had gone expecting to deal with tear gas. He was also wielding a club. It hardly matters if the club was improvised or not; he and his mob clearly had no intention of "going quietly".

 

[DC]

146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:

where exactly did they board the vessels?

 

[bigjelmapro]

At least one of the activists pictured by the BBC last night was in a mob waiting in a stairwell for the Israelis to arrive. He was wearing a gas mask. I can't imagine that gas masks are readily found on even the very worst cruise ships, so it seems possible that at least one of them had gone expecting to deal with tear gas. He was also wielding a club. It hardly matters if the club was improvised or not; he and his mob clearly had no intention of "going quietly".

Well the issue of an activist wearing a gasmask is not an issue here and is by no means illegal to wear. What has to be established fully and has to be brought to the attention of all media outlets, is that the intent of the activists were not peaceful, they were not unarmed, they had the intent to maim and/or kill those IDF soldiers who came aboard. To cease with the disinformation ploy that the IDF came down 'guns blazing' and to put the intentions of the IHH in the limelight, both in the past, and with this Gaza flotilla.

This is called responsible reporting and presenting all sides of the story rather than this disgusting sensationalist reporting, ie Jim Clancy, in this blatant attempt at taking sides, steering the interviewee, and being overall abrasive.

 

[richardm]

where exactly did they board the vessels?

in neutral waters. Which under the terms of the act you're quoting is quite acceptable, since the vessels were engaged in activities referred to in Paragraph 67, that is to say

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be ... breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;