Shame on Israel!!!

[JayHawk]

^^ much more intelligent and complete than I could ever dream of being.

 

[JB3]

But I'm not willing to give Israel a pass just because it is a US ally. It would have been easy for any modern navy to prevent this flotilla from docking and redirect it without boarding. The Israelis insisted on boarding because they thought they would find weapons aboard the ships. They lost that bet - the ships were full of cement.

You're completely full of shit.

If the ship would not comply and change their course, no naval officer in their right mind would have attempted to forcefully do so and risk the life and limb of their crew to do so. They did EXACTLY what any naval force in the world would have done; storm the boat and take control.

And why do you continue the lie that these activists were peaceful?

 

[Kulindahr]

"Execution-style" is shooting someone in the back of the head, at close range.

Five of the nine men killed on the Mavi Marmara were killed this way. Furkan Dogan was shot in the head FOUR TIMES! That's not a coincidence. That was an execution.

You're totally basing that on bias, because there aren't any facts to support it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nope. Everything I said is in The Guardian article or the news clips I posted.

False. Nothing was said about anyone being executed.

That was not an attempt to control a hostile and violent crowd (which is usually accomplished by shooting the hostiles in the legs). This was an attempt to kill.

Um, in a combat situation one does not fire at the enemy's legs. In case you haven't watched the videos, there were grenades and improvised incendiaries being used against the IDF. That removes it from the realm of "hostile and violent crowd" to "hostile enemy elements".

You can argue, if you choose, that the Israelis were somehow justified in exercising this remarkable level of violence against people who were, in their own description, armed with knives, metal rods, sling shots, and metal balls.

And grenades and incendiaries.

What the evidence points to is the IDF taking out their frustration on people who were already dead instead of killing more people. That shows a breach of professionalism, but at the same time restraint. If they were what many people claim, they would have just sunk the ship and laughed.

But I'm not willing to give Israel a pass just because it is a US ally. It would have been easy for any modern navy to prevent this flotilla from docking and redirect it without boarding. The Israelis insisted on boarding because they thought they would find weapons aboard the ships. They lost that bet - the ships were full of cement.

They have a declared blockade that is justifiable. Under interantional law they can board and inspect. They expected peace activists; instead what they found were, as a French news source noted, provocateurs.

But, having made the decision to board, it should have been easy to control this non-military and unprofessional mob without killing them. But shooting to kill was clearly the first priority of the Israeli attack force. They aimed for the heads of their victims - and managed to hit most of their targets multiple times at close range (mere inches).

How do you control people trying to kill you without responding in kind?

The answer is simple: if you're sane, you don't try; you respond in kind.

There was no "Israeli attack force". There was a boarding party, and a response force. The response force was there in case violence occurred, to put an end to it. They did.

In situations like that, soldiers are often trained to do a double-tap or a triple-tap, so there's no doubt the target is out of the equation. But we don't know if that was the case; we don't know much of anything because the Turkish people who did the autopsies did a piss-poor job -- either of the autopsies, or of reporting the results. A thorough examination by knowledgeable personnel would tell whether the IDF soldiers were doing double taps or triple taps or just firing because they could -- the patterns and angles of entry wounds will tell that.

Israel clearly seems embarrassed by the action of its military. They have tried to control the depiction of events by erasing all the video and still pictures recorded by members of the Gaza flotilla and releasing only their own video edits. But the autopsy evidence is damning.

The autopsy evidence is miserably incomplete. We don't know if the soldiers were doing double or triple taps, if they were just repeatedly shooting into people already dead, if the bullets came from the same guns. So the autopsy evidence raises more questions than it answers. Where are the pictures of the bodies as they were found? Where are the diagrams showing the angles of shots? Where are the assessments of how quickly the shots were fired? Where are the analyses of how many weapons were used against the different individuals? That's just a start of the questions.

Israel should be embarrassed about the erasing of video and stills; if the operation was legit, they should let it be seen. As it is, we have no idea what they're trying to hide. Did the IDF personnel fire in anger, and just keep shooting the same bodies? Did they shoot people in the back as they were fleeing, or after they were fallen, or because they were spinning, or what? Did all the soldiers misbehave, or did just one or two go sort of berserk?

But the peace flotilla people should be embarrassed, too: Where were their cameras? They were obviously hoping they'd be boarded, so they could attack Israelis; why didn't they have minicams and/or webcams mounted to get recordings from a variety of angles? Were they just out to beat up some IDF people, or were they out to stir up world opinion? Or were they for some reason just as interested in getting a slanted view out as the Israelis?

I've already said I regard the "activists" as fools, and not just for their tactics, which were worthy of drunken Capuchin monkeys suffering from dementia. Their strategy was scraped from the bottom of a barrel stolen from the stone age: the best bet they have is not to cling to violence, but to end the cycle. But apparently there's something in the culture that prevents any of them from seeing the power of a Ghandi or King.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well and thoroughly said, Sausy!

 

[bankside]

In a great article in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2256168/), Christopher Hitchens makes the case to see this not as a humanitarian mission but as a way of allowing Hamas to curry favour with its population, and he points out the ineffectiveness of delivering humanitarian supplies to legitimate agencies if those supplies are just diverted by HAMAS thugs, or to agencies that have been coopted by HAMAS.

These are good reasons for me to shift my stance. I can't say I now know enough because of this article (or this to change my mind, but there appears to be a case to be made.

The case for a blockade might hold (framed, incidentally, both in terms of Israel's security, and for the sake of Palestinians themselves) , and where Hitchens sees that Israel doesn't come to the peace process with anything like clean hands, he doesn't put those two things together to assert that Israel is not the proper party to maintain that blockade. Not only did they do this very clumsily, they weren't in my view the right party to be doing it at all.

He ends on a note that shows just what Israel can legitimately do about the situation. He's absolutely right:

Israel will never be accepted as a state for Jews, let alone as a Jewish state, until it ceases to govern other people against their will.

 

[Kulindahr]

In a great article in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2256168/), Christopher Hitchens makes the case to see this not as a humanitarian mission but as a way of allowing Hamas to curry favour with its population, and he points out the ineffectiveness of delivering humanitarian supplies to legitimate agencies if those supplies are just diverted by HAMAS thugs, or to agencies that have been coopted by HAMAS.

These are good reasons for me to shift my stance. I can't say I now know enough because of this article (or this to change my mind, but there appears to be a case to be made.

The case for a blockade might hold (framed, incidentally, both in terms of Israel's security, and for the sake of Palestinians themselves) , and where Hitchens sees that Israel doesn't come to the peace process with anything like clean hands, he doesn't put those two things together to assert that Israel is not the proper party to maintain that blockade. Not only did they do this very clumsily, they weren't in my view the right party to be doing it at all.

He ends on a note that shows just what Israel can legitimately do about the situation. He's absolutely right:

Hitchens makes a good case. It fits with, but expands on, what I thought: this was a stunt.

Sadly, both the British and French have offered to both run the blockade and handle vetting humanitarian shipments -- but the offers have been rejected (by both sides, IIRC, which tells me that neither party is being honest).

Maybe NATO should build a navy for the Swiss, and they can do it.....

 

[Kulindahr]

Christopher Hitchens... ends on a note that shows just what Israel can legitimately do about the situation. He's absolutely right:

Israel will never be accepted as a state for Jews, let alone as a Jewish state, until it ceases to govern other people against their will.

The flip side of that is that Palestine will never be a state so long as they harbor people who want to wipe Israel off the map.

Unfortunately what Hitchens says doesn't tell Israel what it can do, legitimately or otherwise, because it doesn't take into account realities on the ground. If they back off, move their wall, and remove the settlements, things will go back to Hamas and others operating out of sanctuary, to try to slaughter Jews.


We're faced here with a point where something new in human relationships is needed. A city shared as capital for two peoples would be one element of it -- I think the whole thing would go in the direction of ways described by libertarian economists for having non-geographical states.

 

[bankside]

In a great article in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2256168/), Christopher Hitchens makes the case to see this not as a humanitarian mission but as a way of allowing Hamas to curry favour with its population, and he points out the ineffectiveness of delivering humanitarian supplies to legitimate agencies if those supplies are just diverted by HAMAS thugs, or to agencies that have been coopted by HAMAS.

These are good reasons for me to shift my stance. I can't say I now know enough because of this article (or this discussion) to change my mind, but there appears to be a case to be made.

The case for a blockade might hold (framed, incidentally, both in terms of Israel's security, and for the sake of Palestinians themselves) , and where Hitchens sees that Israel doesn't come to the peace process with anything like clean hands, he doesn't put those two things together to assert that Israel is not the proper party to maintain that blockade. Not only did they do this very clumsily, they weren't in my view the right party to be doing it at all.

He ends on a note that shows just what Israel can legitimately do about the situation. He's absolutely right:

Reason for editing: Missed a word halfway through before I posted in the first place.
Reason for not just editing it in place instead of quoting yourself, you self-important, self-quoting bastard: Missed some kind of 20 minute deadline, so chill, okay?!?!

 

[bankside]

Hitchens makes a good case. It fits with, but expands on, what I thought: this was a stunt.

Sadly, both the British and French have offered to both run the blockade and handle vetting humanitarian shipments -- but the offers have been rejected (by both sides, IIRC, which tells me that neither party is being honest).

Maybe NATO should build a navy for the Swiss, and they can do it.....

Sometimes I think there should be a little less "offering" and "accepting" in international waters, particularly when those waters are next to two governments having a purse fight and acting like loathsome twats. The British and French should run their own blockade - no further discussion required. It baffles me that Israel would even want to, unless it has unspoken motives.

Umm. Far better the swiss than whatever division of the Catholic church you wanted to nominate last week for this sort of task. I'm sure the swiss would try to find a way not to be disinterested, or even to earn some interest. But it is probably too much not to expect some réalpolitique, no matter who did it, and if you could convince the Swiss to embrace "aggressive neutrality" (?) then it just might work. They have really cool-looking money btw, the best in the world.

The reality on the ground is that Israel can rain missiles on Gaza (and even the west bank if HAMAS were to gain ground there) all day long with only smiles from the international community, if and only if Israel is behind it's green fence.

As long as it is building walls where it doesn't belong and engaging in the Haredification of a proposed foreign capital, it can't credibly claim self-defence.

The biggest, most thoroughly hawkish reason I would offer Israel for withdrawing to the green line is the liberty Israel would gain to act if so much as a paper airplane were launched by HAMAS against Israel.

 

[Gamby6]

Hitchens makes a good case. It fits with, but expands on, what I thought: this was a stunt.

Sadly, both the British and French have offered to both run the blockade and handle vetting humanitarian shipments -- but the offers have been rejected (by both sides, IIRC, which tells me that neither party is being honest).

Maybe NATO should build a navy for the Swiss, and they can do it.....

I don't know which side to believe. I was listening to the interview with spokesman from Israel the other day and he said that Israel request European to oversees the blockade to inspect anything comes in but it was failed because European didn't want to deal with Hamas.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't know which side to believe. I was listening to the interview with spokesman from Israel the other day and he said that Israel request European to oversees the blockade to inspect anything comes in but it was failed because European didn't want to deal with Hamas.

Maybe Israel asked the E.U. . . . ?

 

[irydion]

Israelis were acting in accordance with San Remo rules which do not demand the blockade to take place in national waters, but only state it shouldn't be held in the waters of states neutral in the conflict. Some of the members of this ship were fundamentalists who dreamed of killing / getting killed fighting Jews, and there are videos to prove that. Whose first action when they saw Israeli soldiers was hitting them with sticks and stabbing them with knives, and there are videos to prove that. Of course they had right to defend themselves, also using bullets. Perhaps they've overdone it, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me that they didn't. I can't believe how dumb the media can be to report this as attack on a peace flotilla.

The previous actions of Israel may be the reason for this.
Israel is a state that was created in result of colonialism, terrorism and ethnic clearsing, a state which violates international law whenever it finds it suitable. A state which uses Holocaust as a shield against every criticisement. A state which uses racist policies when it comes its own Arab citizens, and brutal occupation when it comes to Palestinians whose land it occupies and illegally colonises for 43 years already.

But in this case it is right.

 

[BostonPirate]

Israelis were acting in accordance with San Remo rules which do not demand the blockade to take place in national waters, but only state it shouldn't be held in the waters of states neutral in the conflict. Some of the members of this ship were fundamentalists who dreamed of killing / getting killed fighting Jews, and there are videos to prove that. Whose first action when they saw Israeli soldiers was hitting them with sticks and stabbing them with knives, and there are videos to prove that. Of course they had right to defend themselves, also using bullets. Perhaps they've overdone it, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me that they didn't. I can't believe how dumb the media can be to report this as attack on a peace flotilla.

The previous actions of Israel may be the reason for this.
Israel is a state that was created in result of colonialism, terrorism and ethnic clearsing, a state which violates international law whenever it finds it suitable. A state which uses Holocaust as a shield against every criticisement. A state which uses racist policies when it comes its own Arab citizens, and brutal occupation when it comes to Palestinians whose land it occupies and illegally colonises for 43 years already.

But in this case it is right.

how can video show someone dreaming of killing?

the event took place in international water and it was wrong. It was against international law. the only footage we have is what has been edited and released by the israeli gov't.

HOWEVER......

If cuba was lobbing 1000 missiles a year at Florida, we would not have waited for an embargo. Just the idea of it brought us the cuban missile crisis and a blockade that almost started ww3.

And I don't think anyone should put up with that kind of constant attack and be told to just sit on their hands.

as for that racist stuff? it cannot give voting rights to the people that want to destroy it. The palestinians would effectvely take controll of the israelli state and end it's existence.

And let's not forget that Jordan occupied the west bank for how long before the israelis?

Until palestine avowes terrorism and accepts the israelli state as valid, I don't see any pragmtic solution.

 

[JB3]

how can video show someone dreaming of killing?

the event took place in international water and it was wrong. It was against international law. the only footage we have is what has been edited and released by the israeli gov't.

Ah, but the San Remo Manual, which IS international law dealing with armed conflicts at sea, makes what Israel did perfectly legal. The document is quite long, but here are a few choice points:

1)

118. In exercising their legal rights in an international armed conflict at sea, belligerent warships and military aircraft have a right to visit and search merchant vessels outside neutral waters where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are subject to capture.

2)

121. If visit and search at sea is impossible or unsafe, a belligerent warship or military aircraft may divert a merchant vessel to an appropriate area or port in order to exercise the right of visit and search.

3)

Blockade

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94.

 

[BostonPirate]

A 1988 U.N. Convention, to which both Israel and Turkey are parties, prohibits seizure of ships on the high seas or acts of violence against the passengers. Ironically, the treaty was adopted in response to the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985 by Palestinian terrorists.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19487

 

[JB3]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19487

You just ignored the quoted information I gave you. Seizing ships is LEGAL if there is an established blockade and there is reasonable suspicion that the ships in question are carrying contraband.

That law that they quote is from 1988; the San Remo Manual is from 1994 and supersedes it.

The legality of the violence is questionable. The legality of the seizure and blockade, however, are most certainly not.

 

[BostonPirate]

Then why didn't the U.N. support this in it's response? Int'l laws are just a body of treaties.

why did the entire world lie?

 

[irydion]

how can video show someone dreaming of killing?

If someone sings about a battle against the Jews, or poses with a deadly weapon, and later attacks someone with that weapon, it's enough a proof of his intentions for me.

the event took place in international water and it was wrong. It was against international law.

No it wasn't, and it makes no difference that it was in international waters. San Remo prohibits searching foreign ships on neutral waters (that is, national waters of countries neutral in this conflict), not international ones. It also allows blockade to be set as far from shore as military requirements dictate.

the only footage we have is what has been edited and released by the israeli gov't.

it's chosen bits which suited its agenda, but I don't think the guys on the films are actors...

as for that racist stuff? it cannot give voting rights to the people that want to destroy it. The palestinians would effectvely take controll of the israelli state and end it's existence.

Well, if they want to destroy it it's also thanks to israeli policies. If they were given citizenship in the beginning, they'd be acting different. Israel occupies this land for almost half a century and it's not likely it even wants to let these lands go. It wants to keep this land, but without giving its indigenous population citizen rights.

And let's not forget that Jordan occupied the west bank for how long before the israelis?

Jordan claimed the title of Palestine too, and it was a very different story than israeli occupation. Jordanians didn't try to colonise Palestine, and gave its population citizen rights. It was a forced union. Also, this mild occupation lasted 29 years, as compared to 43 of brutal israeli one.

Until palestine avowes terrorism and accepts the israelli state as valid, I don't see any pragmtic solution.

Zionists used terrorism as well, until they got their state... I condemn terrorism and I think Palestinians harm themselves more than Israelis by using it, but they have little choice. On one side we have a very modern military, on another side we have a civilian population that has little possibilities of actual fight with the power that's harrassing them. And for Israel it's just an excuse not to move out of the occupied territory.
Acceptance of israeli independance is one of the things Palestinians can trade for something during negotiations. What Israel demands is Palestinians making concessions even before the talks begin. Does Israel recognise existence of independent Palestine anyway?

 

[bankside]

You know I'm still wondering which international body sentenced Gaza to be under blockade. I think Israel may have a very good case for it, but at the moment it looks like Israel wants to be the prosecutor, judge and jailer.

Why do so many of you not understand that conflict of interest?