Israelis board aid ship

[FoolKiller]

My doubt lies in the proportion of the response...how many Israeli soldiers were killed during the attack?
There were 9 "civilians" killed in result of Israeli troops actions !
A few years back something similar happened to a Portuguese ship heading to East Timor during the Indonesian occupation but no one was killed and if that was the case here I wouldn't be arguing,but this time there were deaths involved...were they really absolutely necessary?
This is my major doubt about the legality of Israeli actions!

If the IDF reports are to be believed, and video seems to corroborate at least some of their report, two forms of non-lethal weapons were used and the order to use lethal force was not given until one soldier had his handgun taken from him.

Was the resistance by those on the ship really, absolutely necessary if they were just a humanitarian vessel? Just ask humanitarian groups like the Red Cross how they handle it when they send supplies into war torn regions and they are asked to stop to be searched. I bet they stop and allow the search. They do not tell them they will have to force them to stop and then begin attacking when the soldiers take them at their word.

If this had happened on any one of the five other ships, where the crews peacefully did as they were told, I would agree with you. But to me your argument sounds the same as whenever a drug dealer gets shot by a cop and the community is in an uproar, ignoring the fact that the drug dealer had pulled a gun.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Especially the left-wing dominated media in The Netherlands is awful: when the activists were released the headlines read 'Israel deports activists', not 'Isreal releases activists'. Words like that don't just enter headlines by themselves, they're put there by people for a reason (the word has a historical meaning).

That's because they did deport them. They didn't release anyone at all. They were detained, questioned, and deported: sent back to their country - not let free to go and roam about Israel.

There is a difference, and that's why they said deported. That's generally what happens when non-citizens enter a country they shouldn't have, or break rules while they're there.

 

[LizMcQueen]

I think in the ship had journalists, but I've only seen videos recorded by the israeli army. It would be interesting to watch some video from inside, I heard that soldiers started to shoot from their own ships.

 

[arvore]

Do they need to be a necessity to make it ok? I'll give you a quick hypothetical. A man storms into your house with a gun, and murders your wife and kids. You have a gun in your hand. He says he's not going to harm you yet and starts to leave. Is it necessary to kill this man? No.

Israel doesn't have to kill anyone. They could surrender today under the terms that they need to be able to evacuate the country, and turn over control of the state to Hamas.

Likewise, they could have allowed this "aid" convoy through their blockade and not only compromised their blockade but allowed materials into Gaza which I think no one doubts would be used to kill more innocent Israelis.

In my view, Israel would have been within their rights to blow any ships that try to run the blockade right out of the water. Israel has the submarines to do it, and would have been within their rights to kill every single last person on the ship and sink it. That they did not shows restraint... I think perhaps too much restraint. Part of me wishes they had sent a stronger message.... run this blockade and you will be destroyed.

The ship that declared it would run the blockade said they'd need to be forced to stop. I wonder if they would still have tried if Israel's response had been "as soon as you hit Israeli waters we will sink you".

Yes they do ,if we were talking, like I was, about the legal issue of the question.
About the rest of Your post I will just say two things:

1)I never denied Israel the right to defend their people and territory from fundamentalists I just think what the Intenational Community demands it's that they do it within the bounderys of International law.

2)Violence only generates more violence like the History of Mankind proofs to exaustion...

If the IDF reports are to be believed, and video seems to corroborate at least some of their report, two forms of non-lethal weapons were used and the order to use lethal force was not given until one soldier had his handgun taken from him. Was the resistance by those on the ship really, absolutely necessary if they were just a humanitarian vessel? Just ask humanitarian groups like the Red Cross how they handle it when they send supplies into war torn regions and they are asked to stop to be searched. I bet they stop and allow the search. They do not tell them they will have to force them to stop and then begin attacking when the soldiers take them at their word.

If this had happened on any one of the five other ships, where the crews peacefully did as they were told, I would agree with you. But to me your argument sounds the same as whenever a drug dealer gets shot by a cop and the community is in an uproar, ignoring the fact that the drug dealer had pulled a gun.

Were they shot at?Couldn't experient ,well trained Elite Israeli Troops submit a dozen of rioters whithout killing them?The issue here ,at least for me is the proportion of the response to the severity of the attack...
Besides from my POV this all humanitary convoy issue was ment to make Israeli look bad from the eyes of the International Community(no one really believed the Israelis would allow them to reach Gaza),a trap,and the innusitated violence use by the Israelis assured that goal was acomplished...

 

[FoolKiller]

I think in the ship had journalists, but I've only seen videos recorded by the israeli army. It would be interesting to watch some video from inside, I heard that soldiers started to shoot from their own ships.

There have been videos released by both sides. Both sets of video lack proper context.

The IDF admit they began shooting from the helicopter when things were apparently getting out of control, with riot control paintballs and stun grenades. Trust me, if those large assault gun looking things were being fired with live ammunition there would be many more dead people.

Were they shot at? Couldn't experient ,well trained Elite Israeli Troops submit a dozen of rioters whithout killing them?The issue here ,at least for me is the proportion of the response to the severity of the attack...

According to IDF reports, the group tied the first rope from the helicopter to the boat in an attempt to bring down the helicopter. Due to the number of people on the boat (20-30, definitely more than a dozen) they could only get one soldier on board at a time, which meant it was dozens to one. Some of the videos show what appears to be soldiers being overwhelmed and beaten on the ground.

After a rioter takes a soldier's handgun and turns it on the soldiers is supposedly when the lethal force order was given. Deadly response as a response to deadly response does not sound out of proportion to me.

Hopefully before all is said and done we will get clearer answers.

Besides from my POV this all humanitary convoy issue was ment to make Israeli look bad from the eyes of the International Community(no one really believed the Israelis would allow them to reach Gaza),a trap,and the innusitated violence use by the Israelis assured that goal was acomplished...

From my POV, since all aid ships get to Gaza after an inspection, it seems like these people wanted to create a false image of an extremely violent Israel. Violence would have never occurred had they not started it.

 

[RacecarBMW]

Guys here is a new piece of information from someone aboard the ship (he is Canadian)

Apparently the Israeli shot at the ship before boarding it. That wasn't showed in the footage.

Here is my source

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/06/03/kevin-neish-gaza.html?ref=rss

Also Why on earth board a ship at 4:30 in the morning

 

[a6m5]

Guys here is a new piece of information from someone aboard the ship (he is Canadian)

Apparently the Israeli shot at the ship before boarding it. That wasn't showed in the footage.

Here is my source

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/06/03/kevin-neish-gaza.html?ref=rss

Also Why on earth board a ship at 4:30 in the morning

I think I read that in this thread already.

4:30 in the morning would make sense, if they were literally trying to catch the passengers sleeping.

 

[RacecarBMW]

I think I read that in this thread already.

4:30 in the morning would make sense, if they were literally trying to catch the passengers sleeping.

Oh sorry I probably missed it

They could at least do it during the day.

I sometimes forget that I am not sleeping at home and if I wake at 4 a.m. then I might get kind of violent

Edit: For anyone wondering I am joking but i would certainly be mad if I was woken up at 4 am with guns in my face

 

[Public'sTwin]

Oh sorry I probably missed it

They could at least do it during the day.

I sometimes forget that I am not sleeping at home and if I wake at 4 a.m. then I might get kind of violent

Edit: For anyone wondering I am joking but i would certainly be mad if I was woken up at 4 am with guns in my face

Time of day doesn't matter. If they waited another ~4 hours, where do you think the ship would've been?

Secondly, is his word to be considered unfallible? (I imagine if the helicopter opened fire, the ship would have sustained much more damage than reports are suggesting.)

 

[niky]

My doubt lies in the proportion of the response...

I realize that Danoff has already answered this in his own colorful way, but I'd like to note: Proportion of response is a complaint that has customarily been levelled at Israel... but the plain fact of the matter is, Israelis were being killed on a near-daily basis before this, due to terrorist attacks. Israel's response to this was "an eye for an eye", with their rocket attacks on suspected Hamas positions. And if Hamas uses human shields? Not their problem (from their point of view).

An embargo, where soldiers board and seize a vessel only after it has refused to admit to inspection, and where soldiers only open fire on their attackers after being assaulted, seems less of an issue than previous Israeli actions, doesn't it?

And yet, activists always make a point of singling out police/military brutality... because it makes their cause seem ever-so-important.

Believe you me... I've seen this up close and in-person. The best way to get your cause on the news? Provocation. Nothing gets an armed man more upset than a rock thrown at his head, or molotov cocktails. Provoke an armed response, get some well-meaning but utterly clueless peace advocates to stand between you and the man with the gun. Blood for the camera... but not your blood... theirs.

That's how it works. And that's how the radicals play the cameras and the media. But if you're watching from their side... if you ever get to take a video from behind their lines, before the action starts, you'll see that the first shot or first attack invariably comes from that nondescript man hiding in the crowd, who sneaks away when things get nasty.

Some of my classmates in College were radical leftists. Some of them were even Islamic radicals. I've very nearly gotten a face full of tear gas watching these 🤬-holes at work. Since then, I've learned never to trust what you see or hear on the news.... as it's so easy to manipulate a witness who's only there after blood has been shed.

 

[Denur]

Time for some comic relief.

 

[FoolKiller]

Guys here is a new piece of information from someone aboard the ship (he is Canadian)

Apparently the Israeli shot at the ship before boarding it. That wasn't showed in the footage.

Here is my source

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/06/03/kevin-neish-gaza.html?ref=rss

Shot at the ship with what? Was it the anti-riot non-lethal paintball guns? Stun grenades? Or bullets?

And then this article itself has a contradiction in it.

"It was a bloodbath and there were bodies strewn about, and medical attention given to them and a number of people with holes in their heads and it was pretty dramatic, but I did not see a weapon, a gun, anywhere on the Turkish Arab humanitarian aid side," Neish said.

"They were using chains, lengths of pipes, sticks, against the machine-guns," he said.

Neish said around six to eight people began disarming the soldiers, pulling weapons off their ammo belts, ammo packs and helmets. But Neish said he didn't see any machine-guns on the soldiers.

Were there machine guns or not?

Also Why on earth board a ship at 4:30 in the morning

Why would you try to run a blockade at 4:30 in the morning?

 

[Danoff]

Yes they do ,if we were talking, like I was, about the legal issue of the question.

Well, from a legitimacy and sovereignty point of view, they're entitled to sink the ship.

2)Violence only generates more violence like the History of Mankind proofs to exaustion...

Incorrect.

Without even trying, I'll cite the US revolutionary war and the US civil war both of which were violence that generated greater respect for human rights.

 

[arvore]

Well, from a legitimacy and sovereignty point of view, they're entitled to sink the ship.

Well they didn't teached that rule in the Law School I attended...
Would you be kind enought to enlighten me and quote the International Law you're refering to...?

 

[RacecarBMW]

Shot at the ship with what? Was it the anti-riot non-lethal paintball guns? Stun grenades? Or bullets?

Even if it was paintball guns that was an attack and the people on the ship responded with beating them with pipes and sticks.

 

[Danoff]

Well they didn't teached that rule in the Law School I attended...
Would you be kind enought to enlighten me and quote the International Law you're refering to...?

I'm not.

 

[arvore]

I'm not.

It figures...
It was also only a figure of speech...

 

[Touring Mars]

I don't think he meant 'he's not kind enough to enlighten you'... I think he means he's not referring to an international law...

In other news, maybe the Irish will have more luck - or rather, I hope they are not as keen for a gunfight as their Turkish counterparts. The Rachel Corrie is bound for Gaza, but apparently they will offer no resistance if the Israelis board the ship, which they almost certainly will if they ignore the Israeli demand to divert to Ashdod.

 

[arvore]

I don't think he meant 'he's not kind enough to enlighten you'... I think he means he's not referring to an international law...

In other news, maybe the Irish will have more luck - or rather, I hope they are not as keen for a gunfight as their Turkish counterparts. The Rachel Corrie is bound for Gaza, but apparently they will offer no resistance if the Israelis board the ship, which they almost certainly will if they ignore the Israeli demand to divert to Ashdod.

Thank You for clarifying that Touring Mars...
Weird thought since I've always stated ,and that was the reason of my intervention in this discussion,that we were talking about the legal aspect of the subject, since ,in my POV, the Moral and Political aspects are so complex and intricated that it's difficult to find that one of the sides has all the reason and the other none...In Law & Ethics usually things aren't just Black or White and the grey areas are common thats why I find scary that one of the sides(or both in this case) thinks he has all the reason and the other none...those are common roots of Intolerance that lead to wars and innocent blood sheding

Anyway I hope this time events evolve in a more civilized way and both parts are able to make their point without so drastic consequences in terms of Human Lifes costs...

 

[hellnback]

It seems that when the second activist boat that tried to run the blockade were directed to cease and prepare to be boarded, did things "by the book" this time and guess what??? Nothing happened.

Go figure.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It seems that when the second activist boat that tried to run the blockade were directed to cease and prepare to be boarded, did things "by the book" this time and guess what??? Nothing happened.

Go figure.

The Israelis released some of the activists from the first flotilla and said they were quite civil about it all. It's a case of the actions of a few bringing down the whole - by all accounts, the Turkish boat was the only one to actually attempt to repel the boarding force and the media reported that the Israelis boarded and raided all of the ships. I'm pretty sure we'll find the "civilian" casualties were limited to just one boat, the Turkish one.

 

[RacecarBMW]

http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/press-releases/1217-idf-admits-it-doctored-the-audio-tapes


Israeli admitted they doctored the audio tapes

what ever that means

 

[DK]

http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/press-releases/1217-idf-admits-it-doctored-the-audio-tapes


Israeli admitted they doctored the audio tapes

what ever that means

"Doctored" is just another word people use instead of "edited". Also, I wouldn't consider that source to be neutral.

 

[Danoff]

I don't think he meant 'he's not kind enough to enlighten you'... I think he means he's not referring to an international law...

^ This. Thanks TM for clarifying.

 

[oJayTo]

I think in the ship had journalists, but I've only seen videos recorded by the israeli army. It would be interesting to watch some video from inside, I heard that soldiers started to shoot from their own ships.

All video cameras were seized by the israelis, In the irish examiner a couple of days ago there was an interview with one of the aid workers and her camera was seized while she was recording the commandos commiting mass murder(Thats what it was people dont deny it) She also said all recording equipment was seized of other crew members phones, camcorders etc.

Also read that all the boats are now sitting in an israeli harbour going nowhere fast:tdown:

 

[magburner]

Yes, it was. The crime of running a legitimate blockade with weapons. Remember, 5 of 6 ships complied with the instruction, the one that didn't said force would need to be used and then attacked the soldiers boarding the ship. This ship was the only one containing weapons and amongst the people on board was a Dutch Hamas activist.

Have you got any actual proof that the ship boarded was smuggling weapons into Gaza? I am quite sure that I have not seen or read any reports to substantiate that fact. Just because the Israeli commandos were attacked when they boarded the ship, it does not mean that the ship was smuggling weapons.

I do agree, that the intentions of those on board the ship, were to cause grief, but I do not believe for a second that their ulterior motive was to kill Israeli soldiers, or smuggle weapons.

I don't condemn Israel's actions in this matter - they were attacked first by people intent on defying their legitimate blockade and take weapons to an enemy which, as recently as 18 months ago, bombarded their towns and cities with rocket and mortar fire, using their own people as shields against retaliation by placing rocket bases in houses.

How can Israel be attacked in international waters? I'm sure that there may be some legitimacy in self-defence in this instance. The ship was clearly outside the 68-mile exclusion zone, so how can the assault be justified?

I'm not disputing the fact that the convoy was contentious. Israel must have known this the moment they decided on the course of action they did. What I am disputing is the heavy-handed approach.

I saw one report on the BBC, from one of the released English activists, that claimed the Israelis started firing on the the ship BEFORE it was boarded.

Is my logic twisted? Am I a Nazi-like automaton? Because I don't condemn shooting back?

If you condone the subjugation of a race because of a few extremists, then yes, you are a Nazi-like automaton!

Israel may not be the friendliest regime, and their treatment of the Palestinians may be far from acceptable, but it doesn't make them automatically wrong in this case. Not only that, but Israel are not the only ones letting down the civilian population of Gaza. Arguably, it is Hamas themselves who are responsible for their current plight as much as anyone else.

You have to wonder why HAMAS has any support at all. I believe that Israel are just as guilty as HAMAS. Did Israel work with the previous Palestinian Government before HAMAS 'siezed' power? Of course they didn't. They pushed the Palestinians into a corner, giving them no other option.

Are the Israelis willing to work with any Palestinians other than HAMAS? Of course they are not! Israel should be trying to work with other Palestinians inspite of the fact that they refuse to work with HAMAS.

The blockade is only justifiable in view of Israel's objection to those who seek to arm her military opponents in Gaza - but let's be totally clear - Israel's opponents, principally Iran, are most certainly willing/trying and would enjoy nothing more than the UN, the US or anyone else for that matter to come along and force the Israelis to drop their naval blockade.

The aid flotilla originated in Turkey, and Turkey is a member of NATO. Turkey was also one of the few Arab nations to have good relations with Israel. So, why would Turkey condone the act of arming the enemy of a friendly nation?

I really don't understand why people hammer down on Israel so much, when it is so clear that the whole incident was orchestrated by Hamas and related organisations.

Of course the incident was orchestrated. Though, depending on which side of the fence you sit on, the intentions of the flotilla were different. I see the aid flotilla as a challenge to the Israelis right to subjugate a race of people. Supporters of Israel see it otherwise.

 

[niky]

Did Israel work with the previous Palestinian Government before HAMAS 'siezed' power? Of course they didn't. They pushed the Palestinians into a corner, giving them no other option.

Never heard of Yasser Arafat? Or the PLO? It was through diplomatic talks with the PLO (which was formerly a terrorist organization) that the Palestinians were given the power to govern themselves.

This is the same PLO that launched terrorist attacks on Israels in the 70's. And yet, under Arafat, they reversed their stance, recognized Israel's right to exist. In return, Israel recognized Palestine's right to exist.

Isn't compromise wonderful?

So yes, I'd say the Israeli government can learn to get along with a Palestinian Authority that isn't t trying to kill their citizens and saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth.

Israelis right to subjugate a race of people. Supporters of Israel see it otherwise.

Perhaps you missed the point where the Israeli government legitimized and gave power and autonomy to Palestine? (which I mentioned above and which Famine has mentioned countless times?)

 

[Famine]

Have you got any actual proof that the ship boarded was smuggling weapons into Gaza? I am quite sure that I have not seen or read any reports to substantiate that fact.

A statement from an Israeli spokesman said that they uncovered contraband and weapons - including molotov cocktails - in the ship.

Just because the Israeli commandos were attacked when they boarded the ship, it does not mean that the ship was smuggling weapons.

No, the fact they were smuggling weapons meant that.

I do agree, that the intentions of those on board the ship, were to cause grief, but I do not believe for a second that their ulterior motive was to kill Israeli soldiers, or smuggle weapons.

Except they shot at Israeli soldiers first and were smuggling weapons. If that wasn't their intention, they have a very funny way of showing it.

How can Israel be attacked in international waters?

Who said they were? I said that the Israelis were attacked when they boarded the ship.

I'm sure that there may be some legitimacy in self-defence in this instance. The ship was clearly outside the 68-mile exclusion zone, so how can the assault be justified?

It wasn't an assault. It was a boarding. They were then attacked - their response was self-defence.

I'm not disputing the fact that the convoy was contentious. Israel must have known this the moment they decided on the course of action they did. What I am disputing is the heavy-handed approach.

They were shot at first. That's not a heavy-handed approach but a proportionate response.

I saw one report on the BBC, from one of the released English activists, that claimed the Israelis started firing on the the ship BEFORE it was boarded.

Yes, I've seen similar claims. Given that they could sink the ship without ever setting foot on it, I doubt there's much truth behind it. Especially as the soldiers boarded the ship with live weapons and didn't use them against the "melee" armed people on board, until live weapons were used against them.

If you condone the subjugation of a race because of a few extremists, then yes, you are a Nazi-like automaton!

It has nothing to do with "subjugation of a race". Your initial statement was that anyone who defended the actions of Israel in this instance was using "the twisted logic of Nazi-like automatons". Regard:

I really do not understand how anyone can still defend the action of Israel. This was a crime committed in international waters. If ANY other country had acted as Israel had, things would be different now. Instead, we have to stomach (again), the twisted logic of Nazi-like automatons.

Israel has a blockade on a region known for terrorist acts upon their land - allowing through materials which cannot be used (easily) for these acts. They requested six ships in an aid flotilla subject themselves to inspection at Ashdod. Five ships complied, the six requested force be used to make them comply. Upon boarding the ship, Israelis were attacked, some with their own weapons, and chose to return fire. The ship was found to contain weapons destined for the region known for terrorist acts and one member of the crew was a Dutch Hamas leader.

I defend their actions in this instance. Had they opened fire first, or sunk the ship or in any other way behaved aggressively first I would not defend their actions. I'd like you to demonstrate that your statement that they behaved criminally is correct. I'd also like you to do this without tacitly insulting people who disagree with you (to say nothing of the concept that a Jewish state can behave like Nazis).

You have to wonder why HAMAS has any support at all. I believe that Israel are just as guilty as HAMAS. Did Israel work with the previous Palestinian Government before HAMAS 'siezed' power? Of course they didn't.

Of course they did. They worked with successive Fatah leaders Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas. The very existence of the current Palestinian Authority and Palestinian homeland are entirely down to Western-mediated discussions between Fatah and Israel. Fatah called for an end to terrorism and even cracked down on activists in Palestinian territories themselves.

If there's one group Hamas hates as much as Israel, it's Fatah - they don't even recognise the validity of Mahmoud Abbas's presidency of the Palestinian Authority. That's the kind of people you're dealing with here - Hamas are hardline Islamists and, whereas Fatah succeeded in getting partial resolution from Israel through politics, Hamas wants Israel and Fatah wiped out - a tactic which has failed to work solidly since 1948.

They pushed the Palestinians into a corner, giving them no other option.

This sentence is wholly correct if talking about Hamas.

Are the Israelis willing to work with any Palestinians other than HAMAS? Of course they are not! Israel should be trying to work with other Palestinians inspite of the fact that they refuse to work with HAMAS.

Of course they are. First, see above. Secondly, they're still working with Abbas. The situation is complicated considerably by the fact Hamas won the elections in 2006, prompting Fatah to resign all of their seats rather than work in opposition and that Hamas don't recognise Abbas's presidency - or Israel's existence.

Hamas currently hold all the political power and are terrorists. Israel are working with Fatah, but Hamas refuse to recognise either entity.

Of course the incident was orchestrated. Though, depending on which side of the fence you sit on, the intentions of the flotilla were different. I see the aid flotilla as a challenge to the Israelis right to subjugate a race of people. Supporters of Israel see it otherwise.

And those of us in the thread who think that everyone in the conflict are acting like dicks?

Hamas use innocent civilians as human shields and bomb another country's civilians, then whine when they get shot at in retaliation. Israel with its vast military resources kill a hundred civilians for every one of theirs killed because they have an itchy trigger finger and wonder why terrorists keep wanting to settle the score. Fatah eschew terrorism for politics but throw their toys when politics goes against them.


Israel have a blockade to prevent items that could be used against them by terrorists reaching terrorists. The only ship carrying these items - and the leader of Dutch Hamas, a terrorist organisation - says you'll have to force us to stop. Israel force them to stop, and in the process, nine people die when Israeli soldiers retaliate to being attacked. Everyone involved is an idiot.

 

[Dotini]

http://original.antiwar.com/deen/2010/06/15/israeli-attack-may-violate-international-maritime-laws/

We realize the High Court of GTP has already ruled on the matter, which therefore must be considered closed. Even so, some vain activity persists in those quarters of the benighted outside world which has not yet received the beneficence of our Council.

 

[Famine]

Oddly, I was going to return to this thread today to mention that the Bloody Sunday massacre in Northern Ireland has now been found to be the fault of the British military at the time - opening fire on, and killing, innocent civilians.

I suppose all of us Brits should now be tarred with the "hypocrites and animals" tag and accused of "Nazi-like" and "automaton" behaviour?

We realize the High Court of GTP has already ruled on the matter, which therefore must be considered closed. Even so, some vain activity persists in those quarters of the benighted outside world which has not yet received the beneficence of our Council.

I don't believe the "High Court of GTP" has commented on the legality of either the blockade or the boarding - just the legitimacy of it. But thanks for reading.