Merged Israel Attacks Palestinian Aid Flotilla, According To Reports

[Sword_Of_Truth]

yes...that would be funny.

no...it was not him.

it was a Turkish-American from Troy, NY.

Ah... but now we've established that you have no problems with the IDF drilling "your fellow americans" like they are Saudi Arabia if said "fellow americans" are paranoid anti-semites.

What else do we know about this fellow american from New York whose death might possibly have been hilarious to you? Did he think the Holocaust was totally made up as christopher bollyn does? Did he believe the jews were behind 9/11 as former congresswoman Cynthia "Jihad Cindy" Mckinney (who made headlines trying a similar stunt last year) does?

You should find out more about this dead fellow american of yours. his violent death may turn out to be a comedy gold mine for you.

 

[Kotatsu]

I guess you missed the previous post where I responded to this and to the rest of your post in detail:

Except, of course, for the fact that I actually responded to parts of it. I have now re-read your post three times, and nowhere in it is there a link to a source of your statement that they found large sums of money aboard the convoy ships, nor, indeed, any further mention of this money at all. I have not seen this money mentioned in any of the newspapers I have read, nor on the radio (I don't have a TV), but I have heard several references to the unnecessary and idiotic use of violence by the crew of the Mavi Marmara.

I am fully aware that the idiots of the Mavi Marmara attacked the Israeli soldiers in what can only be described as a despicable, cowardly, and atrocious manner, especially since they had agreed beforehand to use only non-violent resistance methods. I do not in any way condone, applaud, encourage, like, or attempt to justify these people's use of force and violence against the Israeli soldiers. That was not only wrong and entirely unnecessary, but also inappropriate and counter-productive. I can see no way in which the use of force by the Mavi Marmara crew against the Israeli invaders can be justified.

I hope this clears up my view of the crew of the Mavi Marmara somewhat. Could you now, please, post a link to your source for the statement that large sums of money was found on the convoy ships?

Its older and I don't know why I missed it even though its been out and was broadcasted on Israeli news stations, omitted, like the black/white IDF video on most US news networks (besides Fox and a few others). I do know that Netherlands media did show it. Did Swedish media?

I don't have a TV, and haven't even been close to one since this whole affair started, so I wouldn't know about that, but on the radio and in newspapers, they do not cover up the fact that the crew of the Mavi Marmara also attacked the Israeli soldiers.

Here, so you don't miss it, follows replies to your previous post:

There's a difference in agreeing to use 'non-violent resistance' and at the same time stockpiling weapons on the decks and arming a mob. The two are contradictory. This was premeditated.

Yes, it would appear that when (or even if) the Turkish organisation said they would use only non-violent resistance methods, they were lying, having no intention to do any such thing. I can only hope that if there are further convoys, the Turkish organisation is either excluded or forced to have better control of what sort of people they allow to go on board.

You are arguing the morality of killing someone in self-defense and completely ignoring the concept of self-defense. There's no hiding whatsoever. Its standard when faced with such a situation to act in self preservation.

And the fact that this is the accepted standard is the very thing I mean by "hiding". The fact that you are a soldier does not make you any less of a murderer if you kill another human being, and you should be put on trial in the same way a civilian would have been. If the court then finds mitigating circumstances, then maybe you would be let of the hook, but just being a soldier, and being at war with the person you murdered is not a mitigating circumstance.

And yes, I am certainly unaware of most of the legal and technical concepts of war, because it is such a thoroughly abhorrent business. Any regulation that attempts to justify or soften the systematised murder of fellow human beings is inherently wrong.

Then you and I disagree with the concept of murder. Also your definition of murder also disagrees with the standard legal term of self-defense

Which is precisely why I wrote, "Maybe not in the legal sense, but to me, it certainly is in the moral sense" in the post you quoted.

Personally, I think you're being disingenuous in not labeling the mob of activists as having the intent to murder the IDF, at which point stabbing and even striking someone with a blunt object over a certain amount of times is considered to be as such, and labeling an act of self-defense after all methods of non-lethal action were exhausted.

I am not sure that I am "not labeling the mob of activists as having the intent to murder the IDF". Of course, it is impossible for either of us here to know whether their aim was to murder them, subdue them, detain them, or manhandle them and throw them overboard, but at least the people who stabbed the soldiers with knives would seem to be intent on murder (or at least serious injury).

However, since the Israeli soldiers must have known that they would be attacked once they entered the Mavi Marmara, having seen the swirling chains, the metal bars, and so on when the boats attempted to enter the ship (as shown in the video where they throw the crate of plates and menace them with a stool) -- since they must have known, or at least suspected this, I do not think they have any right to claim self-defense when they, in spite of all this, still elect to enter the ship.

If they know that "If I so X, I will be attacked" and they still do X and they are attacked, then their violence is not self-defense, but as premeditated as that of the crew of the Mavi Marmara.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Except, of course, for the fact that I actually responded to parts of it. I have now re-read your post three times, and nowhere in it is there a link to a source of your statement that they found large sums of money aboard the convoy ships, nor, indeed, any further mention of this money at all. I have not seen this money mentioned in any of the newspapers I have read, nor on the radio (I don't have a TV), but I have heard several references to the unnecessary and idiotic use of violence by the crew of the Mavi Marmara.

Then the link itself didn't get sourced properly, at which point you can actually google the text that I sourced and it would spit out 1,950 hits. You can choose from Huffingtonpost or MSNBC, whichever. Its there.

Its not such a strange practice that humanitarian aid convoys give money to Hamas. George Galloway has come in with a million pound last time and keys to a few mercedes for Haniyeh. This was only a few months ago as well.

I am fully aware that the idiots of the Mavi Marmara attacked the Israeli soldiers in what can only be described as a despicable, cowardly, and atrocious manner, especially since they had agreed beforehand to use only non-violent resistance methods. I do not in any way condone, applaud, encourage, like, or attempt to justify these people's use of force and violence against the Israeli soldiers. That was not only wrong and entirely unnecessary, but also inappropriate and counter-productive. I can see no way in which the use of force by the Mavi Marmara crew against the Israeli invaders can be justified.

You sound like a politician. The IHH and Hamas see this violence as a perfect form of provocation and used it to great effect in the international media. For them, this is a success.

I don't have a TV, and haven't even been close to one since this whole affair started, so I wouldn't know about that, but on the radio and in newspapers, they do not cover up the fact that the crew of the Mavi Marmara also attacked the Israeli soldiers.

All media outlets that I know of have online media of their TV broadcasts. Check it please.

Yes, it would appear that when (or even if) the Turkish organisation said they would use only non-violent resistance methods, they were lying, having no intention to do any such thing. I can only hope that if there are further convoys, the Turkish organisation is either excluded or forced to have better control of what sort of people they allow to go on board.

I hope so too. But the damage has been done, and the success of such provocations by the IHH will have other organizations queued up for blocks around their aid agency centers

And the fact that this is the accepted standard is the very thing I mean by "hiding". The fact that you are a soldier does not make you any less of a murderer if you kill another human being, and you should be put on trial in the same way a civilian would have been. If the court then finds mitigating circumstances, then maybe you would be let of the hook, but just being a soldier, and being at war with the person you murdered is not a mitigating circumstance.

Has nothing to do with what one is classified as. There's a legal term which classifies self-defense as an exclusion to murder.

Israeli courts have already thrown out the accusations that this was murder and that the IDF, according to the ample IDF footage presented in full, confirms the restraint and the eventual use of lethal force as a last resort and as a form of self-defense.

And yes, I am certainly unaware of most of the legal and technical concepts of war, because it is such a thoroughly abhorrent business. Any regulation that attempts to justify or soften the systematised murder of fellow human beings is inherently wrong.

Which is precisely why I wrote, "Maybe not in the legal sense, but to me, it certainly is in the moral sense" in the post you quoted.

Well, you can choose to martyr yourself at any point when you're attacked with those intending to kill you. You know, just so you can have it written on your gravestone that you won the moral argument.

'Sympathized murder', that's a new one.

I am not sure that I am "not labeling the mob of activists as having the intent to murder the IDF". Of course, it is impossible for either of us here to know whether their aim was to murder them, subdue them, detain them, or manhandle them and throw them overboard, but at least the people who stabbed the soldiers with knives would seem to be intent on murder (or at least serious injury).

Nope. Readily apparent that these activists didn't want to take out the IDF for dinner and a movie. After one strikes, stabs and shoots someone, in this case the IDF, its deemed intent to murder. You can keep excusing the activists all you wish. Doesn't stand up to scrutiny though.

However, since the Israeli soldiers must have known that they would be attacked once they entered the Mavi Marmara, having seen the swirling chains, the metal bars, and so on when the boats attempted to enter the ship (as shown in the video where they throw the crate of plates and menace them with a stool) -- since they must have known, or at least suspected this, I do not think they have any right to claim self-defense when they, in spite of all this, still elect to enter the ship.

If they know that "If I so X, I will be attacked" and they still do X and they are attacked, then their violence is not self-defense, but as premeditated as that of the crew of the Mavi Marmara.

That's not the definition of self-defense. The IDF was exercising its right to board the vessel. The issue here is the approach the IDF took in exercising this right. As a security force, be it military, police or whatnot, do not simply walk away from a situation because there's a bunch of lunatics threatening you. A right to self-defense is not voided in such a situation. Otherwise state it.

You have some flawed definitions to go through. And no need to rewrite a few others.

 

[bigjelmapro]

A bit cheesy, but it hits the mark:



Sorry in advance if its been posted already.

 

[Mycroft]

That was not only wrong and entirely unnecessary, but also inappropriate and counter-productive. I can see no way in which the use of force by the Mavi Marmara crew against the Israeli invaders can be justified.

Well, if you're Hamas or of similar ilk, then the justification is the provocation of an incident exactly like this. There have been a lot of other flotillas turned away and barely any mention in the news. This one got lots of attention, and was a huge success in black propaganda against Israel. This will get play for years to come.

The people who organized this had to understand that attacking soldiers with clubs and chains could easily result in getting people killed. If they understood that and went forward anyway, it's very likely that getting someone killed was the point. Dead Europeans make great propaganda and create a lot of public sympathy. These are people who learned the lessons of Rachael Corrie and Tom Hurndall.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Interesting article in regards to forensics:
We had no choice, commando who killed 6 tells 'Post'

The IDF’s understanding is that the mercenaries mainly chose dual-purpose items of this sort rather than guns, since opening fire would have made it blatantly clear that they were terrorists and not so-called peace activists.

Nevertheless, the IDF suspects that the group did have some guns of its own. Israeli forensic experts who examined the ship found casings belonging to a weapon that was not used by the commandos, and the Turkish captain of the ship later told the IDF that the “mercenaries” threw their weapons overboard after the commandos took control of the vessel.

T. said he realized the group they were facing was well-trained and likely ex-military after the commandos threw a number of stun grenades and fired warning shots before rappelling down onto the deck. “They didn’t even flinch,” he said. “Regular people would move.”

Each squad of the “mercenaries” was equipped with a Motorola communication device, the IDF said, so they could pass information to one another. Assessments in the defense establishment are that members of the group were affiliated with international global jihad elements and had undergone training in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

S. on Thursday downplayed his involvement in the operation. “I did what I was trained to do and now I move on,” he said.

In contrast to earlier reports, the commandos said that they began using their weapons within a minute and a half after boarding the ship, due to the extreme violence they faced. One of the reasons S. pulled out his gun right after landing on the ship was because one of the mercenaries was pointing a pistol, snatched from one of the commandos, at another commando’s head.

Guess these mercenaries posing as activists didn't have enough time to get rid of all the evidence that confirms that they did in fact have weapons onboard...

 

[Belz...]

I believe you are confusing "can do no wrong and are merely defending themselves" with "did do no wrong and were merely defending themselves."

No, there are definitely those who believe Israel can do no wrong. I've seen it in other threads, and the discussion here is far too polarized for me to decide who's right. So for now, everybody's wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Don't bring sticks to a gunfight.

Unless you're Steven Seagal.

 

[bigjelmapro]

No, there are definitely those who believe Israel can do no wrong. I've seen it in other threads, and the discussion here is far too polarized for me to decide who's right. So for now, everybody's wrong.

I have yet to find this Waldo. Entertaining to use the term 'polarized' here. If you wish to comment on the matter, then so be it.

 

[Kotatsu]

You sound like a politician. The IHH and Hamas see this violence as a perfect form of provocation and used it to great effect in the international media. For them, this is a success.

Quite; that does not make the behaviour of the crew of the Mavi Marmara in any way justified (I assume we are in agreement about this).

Has nothing to do with what one is classified as. There's a legal term which classifies self-defense as an exclusion to murder.

Israeli courts have already thrown out the accusations that this was murder and that the IDF, according to the ample IDF footage presented in full, confirms the restraint and the eventual use of lethal force as a last resort and as a form of self-defense.

Well, it is hardly surprising that Israeli courts would dismiss those accusations, is it? Otherwise, they'd have to charge their own soldiers with murder and, if they were convicted, the empress knows what would happen.

'Sympathized murder', that's a new one.

You will notice that I never used that phrase, but "systematised murder", which is something quite different.

Nope. Readily apparent that these activists didn't want to take out the IDF for dinner and a movie. After one strikes, stabs and shoots someone, in this case the IDF, its deemed intent to murder. You can keep excusing the activists all you wish. Doesn't stand up to scrutiny though.

It would appear that you are talking to someone else here, as I spent more or less the entire previous post pointing out that I can see no excuses for the behaviour of those activists that attacked the Israeli soldiers. Even in the section you quote, I agree that the people who stab the Israeli soldiers with knives would seem to be intent to murder them, which is, as far as I can tell, an exact agreement with your position.

Where we disagree, albeit only slightly, is that I do not agree that the people who used other weapons than knives in their attacks on the Israeli soldiers were necessarily intent on murdering them. That would, given the videos released by the IDF, seem overwhelmingly likely, but I do not agree hat it can be ruled out that their intent was to subdue the soldiers, possibly in preparation for throwing them overboard. That is, of course, not acceptable either, but the case is not as clear-cut as for those who attacked with knives.

Here, let me spell it out to you in an easy-to-understand manner:

- Is Israel right in blockading Gaza? I decline to have an opinion in this matter, as there are compelling arguments for both sides.

- Are the activists right in saying that Israel has no such right? Yes or no, depending on the answer to the first question.

- Are they right in attempting to break this blockade? Yes.

- Is Israel right in attempting to stop them? Yes.

- Were the activists aboard the Mavi Marmara right in attempting to prevent the Israeli soldiers from boarding their ships? Yes.

- Were the activists aboard the Mavi Marmara right in stockpiling weapons to use to prevent the Israeli from boarding their ship? No.

- Was the IDF right in trying to board the Mavi Marmara despite knowing that the crew of the Mavi Marmara had weapons? It was certainly ill-advised, but if the officers in charge of the operation deemed this was the easiest way to achieve their aims, then I believe they at least had the right to try.

- Were the activists aboard the Mavi Marmara right in attacking the Israeli forces, once they did so, using the stockpiled weapons? No.

- Were the Israeli soldiers right in shooting and killing the activists who attacked them? No.

- Were these shootings in self-defense? No more than the activists' attacks can be said to have been.

- Were they murders? Yes.

- If some of the activists of the Mavi Marmara had killed an Israeli soldier, would that have been self-defense? No.

- Would it have been murder? Yes.

I hope this clear up my view, and that you'll stop ascribing to me the exact opposite of what I write in the very post you quote.

That's not the definition of self-defense. The IDF was exercising its right to board the vessel. The issue here is the approach the IDF took in exercising this right. As a security force, be it military, police or whatnot, do not simply walk away from a situation because there's a bunch of lunatics threatening you. A right to self-defense is not voided in such a situation. Otherwise state it.

Sorry, I do not follow you here. What isn't the definition of self-defense?

Further, I have not suggested that the IDF should have just walked away and left the convoy to their own devices. I could be persuaded that, apart from the unwarranted violence (from both sides) and the subsequent murders, Israel certainly handled reasonably. I have suggested that when it was clear to the Israeli soldiers that the crew of the Mavi Marmara were armed, and intended to use these arms against the Israeli soldiers in the event of a successful boarding, they should not have sent down soldiers, but tried something else.

I have suggested one method, of perhaps dubious utility (1). Doubtlessly the Israeli military commanders, who have much greater experience in these matters than I have, could have come up with other alternatives. But when they choose to send down their own soldiers onto a boat where the probability that they'd be attacked by an angry mob were so overwhelming, then they cannot claim that anything the soldiers did was in self-defense.

The people who organized this had to understand that attacking soldiers with clubs and chains could easily result in getting people killed. If they understood that and went forward anyway, it's very likely that getting someone killed was the point. Dead Europeans make great propaganda and create a lot of public sympathy. These are people who learned the lessons of Rachael Corrie and Tom Hurndall.

I believe that the people who arranged this did understand that, which was why they agreed beforehand to use only non-violent resistance methods such as refusing to comply and standing in the way. It worked out fairly well on the other six ships, after all, despite a lot of unwarranted violence from the IDF. Their main fault was in not screening their crews for idiots beforehand.

---
(1) Yes, WildCat, I have studied physics. However, unlike the physics courses you apparently took, mine didn't contain any in-depth studies of the tonnages and capabilities of the ships in the Israeli navy. Are you intending to comment on my comments on Operation Cast Lead, or are you ignoring it when it turns out that I don't sheepishly obey your preconceived notions?

 

[DreadNiK]

I liked your last post - a lot - let's hope the discussion can continue with this level of clarity and purpose.

(I'm sure you heard the 'however' coming a mile off there...)

- Were the Israeli soldiers right in shooting and killing the activists who attacked them? No.

I really struggle with this -you have several guys standing over you (or one of your comrades) bludgeoning them with weapons (this we see in the video) yet you believe it would be wrong to open fire.

I believe it is crazy to suggest that at the very least a little bit of the blame for the fatalities doesn't lie with those in charge of the intercept operation, but I really fail to see how the soldiers are to blame based on the evidence we have.

Seriously, would you not want to have and think it would be right to use a gun when you and your comrades are being severely beaten and assaulted?


Having similar trouble with:

- Were these shootings in self-defense? No more than the activists' attacks can be said to have been.

Again, what were the activists defending - their boat and their objective, they were trying to stop the activists from boarding and controlling the ship

What were the soldiers defending - their right not to be mobbed and beaten to death (sure we don't know the intentions, but if I'm one of the soldiers, I'm hardly going to take the time between blows to mull over whether they mean to badly bruise/break bones/cripple/kill me, and I don't think I should be expected to. And if they did go for the soldiers' guns, well they are hardly going to stand around debating whether they intend to use them or not (as they apparently did)

 

[Skeptic]

Krauthammer's take.

He is right.

 

[lionking]

Krauthammer's take.

He is right.

Yes he is.

 

[DC]

http://gisha.org/UserFiles/File/HiddenMessages/ItemsGazaStrip060510.pdf

Here is a list of goods that are allowed in, and banned by Israel, as of this present day.

Banned goods include such dangerous items as:

sage
cardamom
cumin
coriander
ginger
jam
halva
vinegar
nutmeg
chocolate ​

fruit preserves

seeds and nuts
biscuits and sweets
potato chips
gas for soft drinks
dried fruit​

fresh meat

horses
donkeys
goats
cattle​

chicks

...wow...that's some serious weapons of mass destruction they are keeping out of the hands of Hamas.

well when you read that list, one wonders why they made this attention stunt wth the flottilla.

reading that list damages Israel far more than the IDF shooting rioting activists.

i think that blockade is not only aimed at preventing rockets getting in Hamas's hands.
when that list is actually true and correct. then i think they should make far more attention stunts to get the attention to that bloackade. i hope in the next stunts noone gets killed anymore.
But still the attention the bloackade is getting now is very good. i hope Israel changes the list of goods.

 

[DC]

Krauthammer's take.

He is right.

If even a blockade, the most passive and benign of defenses, is impermissible, what defenses does Israel have left?

how does banning those items defend your home?

sage
cardamom
cumin
coriander
ginger
jam
halva
vinegar
nutmeg
chocolate

fruit preserves
seeds and nuts
biscuits and sweets
potato chips
gas for soft drinks
dried fruit
fresh meat
horses
donkeys
goats
cattle
chicks

 

[JihadJane]

Re: the woman who heard gunfire before the boarding action. I think the IDF has stated that they fired warning shots before they boarded. So that doesn't seem contradictory to me. Is there any timeline of when things happened? From either or both sides?

They also fired percussion and gas grenades before boarding, apparently in an attempt to terrorize those on board.

Re: people being shot in the head. Among the photos of captured gear are what appear to be bullet resistant vests. I imagine the trained soldiers, once they started firing live ammunition, would shoot for the head IF they had become aware that the defenders had protective vests.

Do you have an independent source verifying these photos?

It has been alleged that they they were taken in 2006.

Were the protestors also wearing bullet-proof long johns? If not, why not shoot them in the legs?

If the protesters were, as you allege, wearing these jackets and that the attackers could have been aware of it, the vests didn't work very well as some activists were shot in the chest.

Why were the Israelis using live ammunition at all?

What makes it bizarre? If an activist wears a gas mask, they are protected from tear gas. You can see in several videos that gas masks are indeed worn while attacking the Commandos, and there are several photos of commandos using tear-gas. So, one way of putting down the activists (in a non-lethal way) is negated and the fighting escalates.

You are assuming that the commandos had a right to violently attack the ships and their crew and that the latter had no right to defend themselves.

So, was their goal to actually break through the blockade, or was it to put themselves in a situation where Israel would respond?

Both. Perhaps you could take some time to read up about what civil disobedience is.

I'm not really into overplaying emotions. It tends to make someone view an event in a certain way which might compromise their skepticism.

What emotions?

The only emotional reaction I’m aware of is yours to my words, presumeably because they don’t fit your preferred narrative and that upsets you. I call a kidnap a kidnap. There’s no need to get emotional about that.

Initial information.

Yes. That is the important information when establishing the initial, preferred narrative

There were over 600 people on board that ship. Do you really think they can silence that many people? That is a lot of witnesses.

All of them were kidnapped and held, incommunicado, in prison, for the vital period when the Israeli were establishing their familiar victim narrative, unchallenged by the witnesses whose communicatoin with the outside world had been cut off.

Now the activists have been released they are communicating a very different version of events to that propagated by the Israeli military.

Imagine if the first images of the assault released to the world had been videos of protestors being gunned down or, perhaps a photographer with a bullet hole in his forehead, for example.

Or, if that’s too strong for your imagination, a commando stamping on a camera.

~~~~~~~~

Their version was that the soldiers just appeared out of nowhere and started executing innocent civilians in their sleep.

No, it isn’t. How many witness accounts have you read/listened to?

Why was there no violence on the five other boats?

There was. Witnesses report that activists, using nothing but their bodies to protect the bridge from these lawless pirates, were attacked with plastic bullets, electric shocks and beaten up.

... why did a group of radical Muslims join the boat where violence erupted

Do you have independent evidence for this claim?

, and why did they carry slingshots, metal rods, knives, and other weapons?

What do you mean by “carry”?

The crew and pasenegers were legally entitled to defend their boat from being attacked and taken over by heavily armed pirates in international waters.

~~~~~~~~~~

Scuffles do not equal violence.

They do, actually, and so do plastic bullets, tasers etc.

Here is an intersting account of the assault on the Mavi Marmara aid ship from Al Jazeera producer Jamal Elshayyal , who was seen broadcasting during the attack before all communications were cut off.

At the time of this interview, shortly after his release from captivity, he had not seen any of the Israeli propaganda videos.


http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/06/201063123021327499.html

 

[DC]

The world is outraged at Israel’s blockade of chocolate for Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.

But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade of chocolate is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel — a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade of chocolate to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.

* cursive = my spin.

yeah totaly understandable mister Krauthammer

maybe the Israelis misunderstood Calorie Bomb?

 

[The Fool]

You haven't looked at the links and the videos, have you? Like the ones showing soldiers being attacked?

yes I have...how does the soldiers being attacked in any way negate anything I said??

but I'm guessing you don't count armed troops landing from helicopters as an attack?

boatloads of "terrorist mercenaries"..why didn't they just sink them with gunfire?

it was a stupid cockup....a stupid cockup you applaud.

olmert decided to let showboats through...the sky didn't fall. Bibi's stupidity is simply going to achieve nothing but the further sullying Israels international standing. I hope its all worth it.

 

[JihadJane]

Yes he is.

Israel, Disarmed
If even a blockade, the most passive and benign of defenses, is impermissible, what defenses does Israel have left?

More pathetic victim posturing from one of the most heavily armed countries in the world, now widely regarded as a rogue state.

Israel's "benign" defense: "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger" - Dov Weisglass, adviser to Ehud Olmert

 

[Kotatsu]

I liked your last post - a lot - let's hope the discussion can continue with this level of clarity and purpose.

(I'm sure you heard the 'however' coming a mile off there...)

Thank you!

I really struggle with this -you have several guys standing over you (or one of your comrades) bludgeoning them with weapons (this we see in the video) yet you believe it would be wrong to open fire.

I believe it is crazy to suggest that at the very least a little bit of the blame for the fatalities doesn't lie with those in charge of the intercept operation, but I really fail to see how the soldiers are to blame based on the evidence we have.

Seriously, would you not want to have and think it would be right to use a gun when you and your comrades are being severely beaten and assaulted?

No, I would like to live in a world where everyone agrees that it is never right to use a gun against another human being, no matter what the reason.

As I said (or implied at least), I do not believe it was right of the commanding officers to send their soldiers aboard the Mavi Marmara once it was clear that the activists there (1) were armed, and intended to use those weapons in case of an Israeli boarding.

To virtually the same extent that it can be said that the violent portion of the activists were provoking their own "martyrdom" by attacking the Israeli, it can also be said that the Israeli commanding officers actively choose to risk sacrificing their soldiers, and for largely the same reason: propaganda. The activist attackers/morons "needed" to attack the Israeli in order to gain additional leverage in what could be termed the "sympathy war" in the West (2). But on the other hand, Israel "needed" to stop the ship in some way, and at least try to come out on top somehow, so I can understand why the commanding officers may have acted the way they did, and sent their soldiers down to a ship where they beyond any shred of a doubt would be at best clobbered.

The statement, "If the activists hadn't attacked the Israeli soldiers, they wouldn't have been killed" is as true as "If the Israeli soldiers had not descended onto the ship, they would never have been attacked". This is not a question about one side being good and the other bad, but a question of there being idiots all over the place, and that idiocy does not recognise national or cultural boundaries.

The soldiers can be blamed insofar as that they obeyed the orders of their superiors.

Again, what were the activists defending - their boat and their objective, they were trying to stop the activists from boarding and controlling the ship

What were the soldiers defending - their right not to be mobbed and beaten to death (sure we don't know the intentions, but if I'm one of the soldiers, I'm hardly going to take the time between blows to mull over whether they mean to badly bruise/break bones/cripple/kill me, and I don't think I should be expected to. And if they did go for the soldiers' guns, well they are hardly going to stand around debating whether they intend to use them or not (as they apparently did)

Well, in my opinion, any soldier who decided to obey his superior's orders to descend onto the Mavi Marmara despite both of them -- I assume -- knowing that the ship was filled with an angry and armed mob has instantly forfeited his right to apply the term "self-defense" to any subsequent action, and especially one which resulted in the murdering of fellow human beings. If, as bigjelmapro asserts, this does not fit the standard definition of murder or self-defense, and if this does not parallel the "rules of war", then the error lies in these definitions and in these rules.

If I made all the rules, the Israeli soldiers responsible for murdering those activists would be charged with murder, whereas their commanding officers would be charged with putting their soldiers in a situation where they felt they had no other option than to murder people. Theirs is in many respects a more heinous and reprehensible crime, as -- I would assume, as that was the way it was when I was in the Marines -- the soldiers are trained to assume that their officer knows what is best, and to trust and obey him.

(And yes, I certainly do agree that there is no reason not to assume that a majority of the attacks on the Israeli soldiers was with murderous intent, and that the Israeli soldier cannot be expected to judge whether angry mob member #1 is trying to murder him or just subdue him. We cannot, however, claim that this is a certainty.)

---
(1) My friend, the mentioning of whom riddles my posts in this thread, has followed this thread with interest, despite not being a member of the forum, and he pointed out to me that perhaps "crew" is the incorrect word to use, and on reflection, I agree, and would like to retroactively withdraw my application of this word to the activists.
(2) As though the very existence of the convoy doesn't show that the Palestinians are winning this "war" by far!