Merged Israel Attacks Palestinian Aid Flotilla, According To Reports

[lionking]

Commenting on the retraction, Blumenthal writes, "The more Israel’s claims about the flotilla’s terrorist links are challenged, the more they fall apart."

Like the "reproduced" audio... What a farce, but the zealots here eat up this propaganda BS with aplomb

No such zealotry from you though.

So should Israel allow each and every ship to dock in Gaza when rockets and other weapons have been smuggled in this way in the past?

 

[JihadJane]

Yes, as a last resort. Your own link states that it was planned as last resort, which is why they had paintball guns and tazers, and handguns for emergencies. No where did the IDF or the Israeli government plan to go in 'guns blazing'.

So what, it was high on their list of options.

It's hardly surprising, that if you lower commandos into a crowd of angry protestors that you have already attacked with grenades and gas and who have already shown that they will use force to try to prevent the illegal boarding of their ship, that said commandos aren't going to be greeted with cup cakes and roses.

Nor should people participating in civil disobedience be planning for a fight.

They were resisting the hijacking of their ship on the high seas. Why shouldn't they?

Yes, which is why they went in with body armor and paintball guns and tazers.

Why couldn't they just back off and think of a safer way of stopping the flotilla? Is stopping aid so vital that one must risk killing people, in the "last resort"?

If the Israelis were planning for possible violence why weren't they properly prepared for defusing it rather than escalating it?

Yes, from the moment they hit the deck their lives were in danger. They were each grabbed and separated from one another, and beaten with clubs, pipes and chains.

These were armored commandos with a helicopter hovering just overhead. If the only option available to the Israelis was either do nothing or shoot people if things go wrong then they shouldn't be in the business of intercepting aid flotillas.

First three soldiers on the deck. Doesn't look like anyone is diving in to shelter them, nor rush them inside to 'treat' them.

It's a short, carefully selected snippet and there's a wall in the way!

The first being by boats which were driven off by hoses and projectiles. Semantics?

So why did the Israelis choose to escalate their violence? Why did they even need to board the ships in the first place?

We know that the activists claim people were injured, but whom, or by what, no one seems to know. Then we have the soldiers boarding, which includes using stun grenades and tear gas to disperse the crowd on the upper deck, to make for a more safe landing.

I would have thought chucking tear gas and stun grenades at the crowd would guaranteed that they wouldn't have a "safe landing".

Certainly. Any confirmation that they were?

There is witness testimony that people filming were shot.

This is not skepticism.

It sure it is. What reason on Earth is there to trust the unrepentant Israeli's word about anything to do with this incident?

This isn't state sponsored terrorism, nor is it a war crime. Could you please explain the reasoning and logic behind these accusations?

see post above.

It's the build up to who was shot.

To ascertain whether shooting at people with live ammunition was justified, we need to know who was shot, where and when and by whom. It's not enough to say we saw some short video clips of soldiers being violently overpowered and disarmed.

If the Israelis did indeed provoke the activists to abandon civil disobedience and savagely beat these soldiers, resulting in the 9 deaths, it is very important.

Where do you get your definition of civil disobedience from? The ship was under violent military attack in international waters.

If the Israelis did not provoke the activists to abandon civil disobedience, and they beat the soldiers as part of their plan to elicit the harsh response they got, than that is also important.

Why must there be a conspiracy and are the Israelis unable to control their violence?

Most legal opinion that I've read says that the activists would have been legally entitled to use lethal force to repel the Israeli high seas raid.

The point is that they are not engaged in civil disobedience.

Who says? They were defending their vessel from what they could reasonably have assumed was an illegal raid by notorious abusers, killers, robbers and kidnappers, known for killing peace activists without remorse.

 

[Nogbad]

It might have been prudent of Israel when it was still friends with Turkey and Greece to trust their port authorities to control the cargo loaded onto aid ships. I don't think anyone would seriously expect Israel to be comfortable with Iranian or Somalian ships to come and go as they please but ships from friendly countries?

However, if the blockade was about choking ordinary supplies to Gaza then one might see why such an arrangement might not have been forthcoming.

 

[lionking]

However, if the blockade was about choking ordinary supplies to Gaza then one might see why such an arrangement might not have been forthcoming.

Yet more supplies come into Gaza in a week than on the whole flotilla. This does not support a "choking supply" argument.

 

[theprestige]

It might have been prudent of Israel when it was still friends with Turkey and Greece to trust their port authorities to control the cargo loaded onto aid ships. I don't think anyone would seriously expect Israel to be comfortable with Iranian or Somalian ships to come and go as they please but ships from friendly countries?

However, if the blockade was about choking ordinary supplies to Gaza then one might see why such an arrangement might not have been forthcoming.

Perhaps the prudent thing for Israel to do was to not strain the friendship by making unreasonable demands about port security that their friends were unwilling or unable to agree with?

Besides, if they were such friends of Israel, why didn't they hold the flotilla in port until the cargo had been inspected? It's obvious that the anti-Israel activists wouldn't have made a scene against Turkish port authorities. It would have been a win-win situation: Turkey gives meaningful support to a true friend in a difficult situation, and Israel avoids a no-win scenario by having to enforce its blockade against violent activists.

However, if Turkey was never really a friend of Israel at all then one might see why their support in stopping the shipment might not have been forthcoming.

 

[JihadJane]

They did not attack the vessel. It was boarded in an attempt to halt it's current course which would interfere with the blockade. The Commandos were subsequently attacked which resulted in lethal force being used.

So what's all this international outrage about then?

Is a Turkish flagged vessel attempting to break a blockade enacted by another sovereign state an act of war?

Not if it is an illegal blockade.

Explicitly trained? I don't think so. But, their training may include crowd management, sensitive or not.

Not very good at it, are they?

Based on the videos we've seen of the activists beating the soldiers, tossing them to lower decks, stabbing them with knives and broken bottles, it would not be illogical, or immoral, to assume their lives were in danger, resulting in the use of deadly force.

Is there a reason why you've introduced arbitrary plurals there?

The entire raid was immoral., in my opinion (and illegal in others', better qualified than me) and the deaths are the responsibility of those who decided that a military assault with killer commandos, encouraged to believe they could be confronting terrorists, was the best way to stop a civilian aid convoy.

You asked for provocation. See above.

Sorry, I don't see how that justifies the ensuing rampage of bloody, lethal violence. The troops lowered onto the decks were trained for combat not riot control and crowd management.

How about those faked photos?

I referenced an allegation about them.

 

[Nogbad]

Yet more supplies come into Gaza in a week than on the whole flotilla. This does not support a "choking supply" argument.

That would be so if Gaza had enough supplies. If they do not have enough, or are short of specific items, then every extra would obviously be a bonus.

The UN say that they need considerably more than they are currently getting - I have no way of knowing what the shortfall is but I have no reason to doubt that they may well be short of specific items like cement. I am happy to be corrected on Gaza cement production and consumption though.

 

[portlandatheist]

I apologize if this has already been posted but I find this pretty inspiring. A lone Jewish high school student goes to an anti Israel protest with an Israeli flag.

Fortunately the police are there to protect him from the frothing-of-the-mouth mob

 

[Thunder]

I apologize if this has already been posted but I find this pretty inspiring. A lone Jewish high school student goes to an anti Israel protest with an Israeli flag.

Fortunately the police are there to protect him from the frothing-of-the-mouth mob

Interesting. Hundreds of activists load up onto ships to defy an Israeli boycott. Their simple act of defying the boycott is labeled a "terrorist act".

Meanwhile, a lone Jewish high school student with an Israeli flag goes to an anti-Israel protest, knowing full well what reaction might be.

Is it fair to call this kid a provacateur? An instigator?

Is it fair to argue he was there to make trouble and look like an innocent victim of an angry mob?

....I just watched the first 30 seconds of the video. The kid was clearly their to make trouble. He is lucky he didn't get his ass kicked royally. Funny how he is right by the police at all times. Real hero.

...and he is also wearing an IDF t-shirt. clearly he was there to cause problems. which he did. mission accomplished?

the guy almost started a riot.....and ended the demonstration abruptly. mission accomplished, indeed.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I apologize if this has already been posted but I find this pretty inspiring. A lone Jewish high school student goes to an anti Israel protest with an Israeli flag.

Fortunately the police are there to protect him from the frothing-of-the-mouth mob

Kid seems pretty on the ball. Provides a nice contrast to the screaming mob.

 

[a_unique_person]

First hand accounts of the boarding
http://www.theage.com.au/world/in-their-wake-20100604-xkww.html

Where did the stun grenades come from? The IDF.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I love the woman at 1:25.

It's quite the paradox that the activists claim Israel is the violent bully and Palestine is the victim -- yet whenever the two demonstrate, it's the Palestinians who throw rocks, set things on fire and get themselves arrested, while the Israelis and their supporters show their sympathies peacefully, sometimes under attack from the Palestine crowd.

 

[lionking]

Meanwhile, in the past week 10 rockets and mortars have been fired from Gaza into Israel......

 

[Thunder]

Kid seems pretty on the ball. Provides a nice contrast to the screaming mob.

and his provocation took attention away from a peaceful demonstration.

i wonder how people at a Kristalnacht memorial would react to a Neo-Nazi marching around with a Nazi flag and an SS t-shirt.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I love the woman at 1:25.

It's quite the paradox that the activists claim Israel is the violent bully and Palestine is the victim -- yet whenever the two demonstrate, it's the Palestinians who throw rocks, set things on fire and get themselves arrested, while the Israelis and their supporters show their sympathies peacefully, sometimes under attack from the Palestine crowd.

Sure, mostly. I'd hesitate to make it a universal statement.

 

[Thunder]

Meanwhile, in the past week 10 rockets and mortars have been fired from Gaza into Israel......

and NONE of them were filled with deadly chocolate, vinegar, or ginger.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

and his provocation took attention away from a peaceful demonstration.

The fact that a lone, silent guy with a flag is enough to incite such a powerful reaction from the "peaceful" crowd says quite a lot.

i wonder how people at a Kristalnacht memorial would react to a Neo-Nazi marching around with a Nazi flag and an SS t-shirt.

Probably fairly peacefully, but would very likely be hurt or angered, given that the NSDAP and SS flags are symbols of hatred and oppression, and an organized campaign to exterminate all Jews in the world. Unlike certain other symbols. Cough.

 

[DC]

Meanwhile, in the past week 10 rockets and mortars have been fired from Gaza into Israel......

looks like banning chocolate and dried fruits didn't help.

 

[IDB87]

So what, it was high on their list of options.

What is usually a 'last resort' generally isn't accepted as 'high on the list' of options. In before 'The list only had one option'.

It's hardly surprising, that if you lower commandos into a crowd of angry protestors that you have already attacked with grenades and gas and who have already shown that they will use force to try to prevent the illegal boarding of their ship, that said commandos aren't going to be greeted with cup cakes and roses.

Depends on who the commandos are facing. If it is a group of activists intent on becoming martyrs and lynching the Commandos, surely not. Activists practicing Civil Disobedience may given them the cold shoulder, but certainly not a crowbar to the head.

They were resisting the hijacking of their ship on the high seas. Why shouldn't they?

Physical violence is not practiced by those who practice civil disobedience. No true Scotsman and all, but that is the definition of non-violent protest.

Why couldn't they just back off and think of a safer way of stopping the flotilla? Is stopping aid so vital that one must risk killing people, in the "last resort"?

Is there generally an accepted, practiced, logical, and easy way to disable an entire flotilla of ships that does not include destroying them? I can't think of one.

If the Israelis were planning for possible violence why weren't they properly prepared for defusing it rather than escalating it?

They -were- properly prepared for defusing it, physically anyway. Paint ball guns, tear gas, stun grenades are all used to crowd dispersal/control, and are all non-violent (although incredibly agitating, it seems!). When the activists wear gear that defeats most of the Commandos non-violent methods of control, that in itself escalates the violence.

These were armored commandos with a helicopter hovering just overhead. If the only option available to the Israelis was either do nothing or shoot people if things go wrong then they shouldn't be in the business of intercepting aid flotillas.

The same can be said for the flotilla - they knew they could not break the blockade, and their presence outside of the no-traffic zones would only incite violence. They had no business trying to defy a blockade, morally right or not.

It's a short, carefully selected snippet and there's a wall in the way!

The clubs come up and down regardless of the wall. If there is someone shielding the commandos, I feel sorry for them!

So why did the Israelis choose to escalate their violence? Why did they even need to board the ships in the first place?

Again, the presence of gas-masks and kevlar vests escalates the violence to the point where non-lethal methods are ineffective. Then you have soldiers who are in a helpless situation, being beaten on, and they have guns and the OK to use them in a last option situation. What do you expect?

I would have thought chucking tear gas and stun grenades at the crowd would guaranteed that they wouldn't have a "safe landing".

Again, gas masks defeat tear gas. Stun grenades are noisy and bright, not physically harmful. I don't think they expected a 'safe' landing, merely a landing into a controlled area, which it wasn't.

There is witness testimony that people filming were shot.

Who were these people, where were they shot, what was going on during, who saw them get shot, etc.

It sure it is. What reason on Earth is there to trust the unrepentant Israeli's word about anything to do with this incident?

I suppose it may be the same for you and Israel, as it would be for me and, say, Iran, so I guess you have a point.

To ascertain whether shooting at people with live ammunition was justified, we need to know who was shot, where and when and by whom. It's not enough to say we saw some short video clips of soldiers being violently overpowered and disarmed.

It is enough to say that lethal force was justified based on the clips we saw. A minute is a long time in that situation, and we have no idea how long that footage carries on before they start shooting. After that, it is up to the discretion of the soldier to use lethal force or not (example: moving room from room would warrant discretion when confronting a hiding activist who is not armed) and this is where I would agree with you. However, BAC posted a story from (I believe) a Jordan newspaper in which there were a high number of activists with gunshot wounds to the legs, which is a non-lethal way to disable an opponent, and it also coincides to what Bit posted about the young man with a gunshot wound to his leg (perhaps completely unrelated). If these commandos were 'shooting first and asking questions later' why would there be such a high number of leg wounds?

Where do you get your definition of civil disobedience from? The ship was under violent military attack in international waters.

Has civil disobedience always implied a violent reaction? Or is this new?

Why must there be a conspiracy and are the Israelis unable to control their violence?

"Why must there be a conspiracy about Israel? Why are these activists unable to control their violence?"

Most legal opinion that I've read says that the activists would have been legally entitled to use lethal force to repel the Israeli high seas raid.

Did you share this legal opinion with us already? I may have missed it. I'll look through again, but if you could link it for me, I would appreciate it!

Who says? They were defending their vessel from what they could reasonably have assumed was an illegal raid by notorious abusers, killers, robbers and kidnappers, known for killing peace activists without remorse.

We are arguing a definition. Civil disobedience has nothing to do with violence. It is a non-violent form of protest!

 

[quixotecoyote]

looks like banning chocolate and dried fruits didn't help.

That's what I like about you DC, you instantly go for the same level of condemnation of indiscriminate violence against innocent civilians as you do for defensive violence against armed blockade runners. Gives me hope that some kind of reasonable solution is possible.