Israeli forces storm Gaza aid ship, and beat people on board. Fatalities reported.

[agricola]

When two people are surrounded by a baying mob they're likely to stand back-to-back, regardless of whether or not they agree with each other!

Ironically, its probably your decision to dive into the mob armed with an ineffective argument and a similarly badly equipped ally that has prompted this response.

 

[Crispy]

The subject matter is the most divisive on the boards, which is why so many ignore it, imo.

QFT

I'm interested in the subject, but won't post on these threads because if I don't (NOTE: FOLLOWING SENTENCE EXAGGERATED FOR EFFECT) declare painful death on israel and its soldiers, I'll get labelled an anti-palestinian fascist or some other such nonsense. That might not be the case, but there's so much hostility, I don't see why it's worth my time engaing.

 

[sihhi]

Bloody hell, I had no idea.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8320838&postcount=12

One thing though, it was not "Facism" that victimied anyone, but rather the stripe of Fascism practiced by Nazis. The core definition of "Facism" is imply uber-patriotism, putting the state above all else. There is nor racism at all.

On those grounds I proudly call myself a Facist, a Jewish -Facist. The Nazis were unqique in that they combined Fascism with unorthadox economc policies, as well as pseudo-scientific nonsense like eugenics. It is interesting how "Facist" has become a vile insult in such a short time (since WWII).

A real ultra-rightist-style Zionist.

 

[8ball]

I'm interested in the subject, but won't post on these threads because if I don't (NOTE: FOLLOWING SENTENCE EXAGGERATED FOR EFFECT) declare painful death on israel and its soldiers, I'll get labelled an anti-palestinian fascist or some other such nonsense. .

I thought there were plenty of people on this thread who consider that the tack Israel has been taking recently is bad for Israel as much as anyone else.

 

[danny la rouge]

Bloody hell, I had no idea.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8320838&postcount=12



A real ultra-rightist-style Zionist.

Indeed. Was that the reason he was banned, though? Surely not?

 

[laptop]

I think people tend to see the word "Zionism", and think of either Herzl's formulation, or the modern nationalist-Zionist project, when it needs to be borne in mind that there were "Zionisms", and that not all of those Zionist currents were exclusive. A "Jewish homeland" has never had to be "a land for Jews only", just as it's never had to have been sited in the historical bounds of eretz yisroel.

In theory, yes.

But the Herzl project and its allies captured the term - that was the entire raison d'etre of most of them.

The other currents are, sadly, fo practical purposes as extinct as is Palestinian Jewry

 

[Spymaster]

I'm interested in the subject, but won't post on these threads because if I don't (NOTE: FOLLOWING SENTENCE EXAGGERATED FOR EFFECT) declare painful death on israel and its soldiers, I'll get labelled an anti-palestinian fascist or some other such nonsense. That might not be the case, but there's so much hostility, I don't see why it's worth my time engaing.

QED!

 

[sihhi]

I think people tend to see the word "Zionism", and think of either Herzl's formulation, or the modern nationalist-Zionist project, when it needs to be borne in mind that there were "Zionisms", and that not all of those Zionist currents were exclusive. A "Jewish homeland" has never had to be "a land for Jews only", just as it's never had to have been sited in the historical bounds of eretz yisroel.

Of course there were, Chomsky made a point that in the 1930s his opinions meant he was characterised as a Zionist, by the 1960s he was characterised as an anti-Zionist. But his opinions hadn't changed at all.

"I was deeply interested in Zionist affairs and activities — or what was then called 'Zionist,' though the same ideas and concerns are now called 'anti-Zionist.' I was interested in socialist, binationalist options for Palestine, and in the kibbutzim and the whole cooperative labor system that had developed in the Jewish settlement there (the Yishuv) ...The vague ideas I had at the time were to go to Palestine, perhaps to a kibbutz, to try to become involved in efforts at Arab-Jewish cooperation within a socialist framework, opposed to the deeply antidemocratic concept of a Jewish state (a position that was considered well within the mainstream of Zionism)."

 

[ViolentPanda]

Bloody hell, I had no idea.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8320838&postcount=12



A real ultra-rightist-style Zionist.

His spiritual and political mentor, back when he was a Kahaneite, was a disciple of Jabotinsky.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Indeed. Was that the reason he was banned, though? Surely not?

That was the the strawberry jam that topped the scone of doom that comprised his various expositions about and defences of, fascism. His somewhat explicit fulminations about those who he referred to as "Palestinians" (always with the quote-marks) may have aided his demise too.

 

[free spirit]

Yep, sorted.

so getting back to this, there's some interesting eye witness accounts coming out that relate to this.

But the account of Andre Abu Khalil, a cameraman for Al Jazeera TV, described how activists seized four Israelis before other commandos stormed aboard, firing on activists. "There were four Israeli soldiers brought to the lowest deck. They had fracture wounds," the Lebanese told Reuters. The soldiers were captured during attempts to descend on to the ship from helicopters.

On Monday, an Israeli commando said he was struck with metal bars while other troops were held down and stripped of their helmets and equipment. "Twenty Turkish men formed a human shield to prevent the Israeli soldiers from scaling the ship, said Abu Khalil. "They had slingshots, water pipes and sticks. They were banging the pipes on the side of the ship to warn the Israelis not to get closer." The standoff lasted 10 minutes until the Israelis opened fire.

[guardian]
so firstly, it obviously was possible for them to successfully resist the first Israeli assault, capture 4 Israeli commandos, and prevent any more from boarding the ship without the use of live ammunition.

If this account is correct, the Israeli's didn't use live ammunition because they were under attack, they used it to clear a path for them to board the boat.

Now the Israelis may argue that they were doing it to rescue their captured comrades, but this is not self defence, and their release could easily have been secured via negotiation. The ship was 68 miles out from palestine, leaving plenty of time or the Israelis to attempt negotiation. No negotiation appears to have taken place, and the Israelis seem to have simply decided to use deadly force to overcome those who were successfully resisting them.

This is basically outright murder as far as I can see.

As for whether they were right to resist... the turks who were shot appear to mostly be experienced aid workers, and others who it would seem likely to have some level of experience of this type of situation. Their calculation would have been that while the Israelis were armed, that they were unlikely to actually use deadly force against a ship carrying aid, and against humanitarian aid workers. Many aid workers are likely to have been in situations where they have to stand up to gun toting soldiers, essentially facing them down and daring them to shoot them or get out of the way of the aid they're delivering. If they didn't then the vast majority of aid would simply be pilfered by armed thugs (aka armies) around the world.

In this situation, with the world media aboard the ship, I can see why they felt safe enough to call the IDF's bluff and attempt to force their way through the blockade.

They took a calculated risk and lost, probably because the IDF has such an inherent fear of it's soldiers being captured that this over-ruled their desire to avoid fatalities. At 4 in the morning in the middle of the ocean, when your ship is being assaulted by commandos, and the oportunity presents itself to overpower them and prevent the loss of your ship, I can easily understand why they may not have been able to see this from that angle, and fully respect and support their decision to resist. Had I been there, I'd have been supporting that decision actively rather than via the internet after the event.

 

[free spirit]

At around 4.10am I woke up, went up to the deck where I could see outside and I saw boats, small dinghies but bristling with guns and Israeli military, speeding towards the ship. Helicopters then appeared. Gas and sound bombs were used and the reports from Sydney Morning Herald [a reporter from the newspaper was on Challenger, another boat in the flotilla] were that at 4.20am they reported gunshots, and the Challenger transmitted this information.

We made two attempts to get the message across in the written form as well as the many announcements over the Tannoy. We wrote a sign in Hebrew saying: "SOS! Need medical assistance. People are dying. Urgent."

It wasn't until 7am that the Israelis started allowing the first critically injured people off and they were delivered into Israeli hands. An attempt was made to send a medic with each of the critically injured people. Instead, the medics were cuffed and put on the deck.

[PSC campaigns director Sarah Colborne in the guardian]
so according to this timeline it seems to have taken around 2 hours for the Israelis to even begin to evacuate the casualties, and even when they were taken off the ship, the medics that were travelling with them were prevented from treating their patients and handcuffed.

 

[sihhi]

Now the Israelis may argue that they were doing it to rescue their captured comrades, but this is not self defence, and their release could easily have been secured via negotiation. The ship was 68 miles out from palestine, leaving plenty of time or the Israelis to attempt negotiation. No negotiation appears to have taken place, and the Israelis seem to have simply decided to use deadly force to overcome those who were successfully resisting them.

The soldiers have no right to be there - these were international waters.
The only rights they have are to not inhibit any ship sailing there.

The case should be legally seen on a par with Mexican navy ships surrounding and commandeering a cargo of US-made vehicles heading for Japan. Illegitimate, armed pirates have no 'rights' when it comes to freeing other armed pirates who have been immobilised.

 

[Spymaster]

.... it obviously was possible for them to successfully resist the first Israeli assault, capture 4 Israeli commandos, and prevent any more from boarding the ship without the use of live ammunition.

If the account that you quoted is factual, it's exactly what I've been saying throughout the thread.

I can think of nothing whatsoever that is as certain to elicit a deadly response from the IDF than the the taking of four of its soldiers hostage and chucking one overboard. At this point, deaths were vitually assured.

So was it a responsible action?

If this account is correct, the Israeli's didn't use live ammunition because they were under attack, they used it to clear a path for them to board the boat.

Now the Israelis may argue that they were doing it to rescue their captured comrades, but this is not self defence, and their release could easily have been secured via negotiation.

Negotiate with the IDF????

The beginning, middle and end of such negotiations would consist of "give us our soldiers back or we'll sink your ship. And by the way, we're still taking your boat".

No negotiation appears to have taken place, and the Israelis seem to have simply decided to use deadly force to overcome those who were successfully resisting them.

This is basically outright murder as far as I can see.

Perhaps, but they're murders that could largely have been prevented by not taking/resisting the soldiers.

In this situation, with the world media aboard the ship, I can see why they felt safe enough to call the IDF's bluff and attempt to force their way through the blockade.

Me too. But I can't see why they'd feel safe enough to resist an armed boarding with bits of wood.

At 4 in the morning in the middle of the ocean, when your ship is being assaulted by commandos, and the oportunity presents itself to overpower them and prevent the loss of your ship .....

But no such possibility ever existed!

Had I been there, I'd have been supporting that decision actively rather than via the internet after the event

Then I'm glad you weren't there. Urban may well have been short a poster, and the ship would still have been taken and the supplies impounded.

I'd love to see the blockade successfully run. But by the Royal Navy, not a bunch of blokes with sticks.

 

[tarannau]

I ask again, what method of self defence would have been acceptable to you against surprise masked dangling attackers with guns?

Sounds like they didn't do too badly if they took 4 hostages with sticks tbh

Are you sure you're not confusing self defence with utter capitulation. How would resistance ever be possible? It's as if you're setting up an impossible standard just to be a bit of a provocative, repetitive tit

 

[Blagsta]

What's "responsible action" got to do with it?

 

[Spymaster]

I ask again, what method of self defence would have been acceptable to you against surprise masked dangling attackers with guns?

None, in this case. Perhaps a token effort to prevent the boarding, but no more than that.

Sounds like they didn't do too badly if they took 4 hostages with sticks tbh

It's as if you're setting up an impossible standard just to be a bit of a provocative, repetitive tit

If stupid gung-ho tits keep asking the same silly questions, I'm afraid I'm going to give the same repetitive answers.

 

[free spirit]

The soldiers have no right to be there - these were international waters.
The only rights they have are to not inhibit any ship sailing there.

The case should be legally seen on a par with Mexican navy ships surrounding and commandeering a cargo of US-made vehicles heading for Japan. Illegitimate, armed pirates have no 'rights' when it comes to freeing other armed pirates who have been immobilised.

hmm, technically it seems not, as it can't be defined as piracy if it's carried out by a state, or done for political reasons.

"Piracy is the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act." - International Maritime BureauUNCLOS Article 101: Definition
In the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, "maritime piracy" consists of:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).[107]

looks like a legal grey area to me, I'm far from an expert on international maritime law, but there must be loads of situations where navies have boarded ships outside of their territorial waters, eg anti drug smuggling operations, and anti piracy operations (unless these have specfic legal cover from the IMO, or UN or something?)

Morally though, IMO they had every right to resist, and temporarily detain their attackers to prevent the ship being seized, and if successful to prevent those on board from suffering the violent arrests that had taken place on the other ships.

The problem with this approach being that the Israeli's were never likely to allow their soldiers to be kept as captives aboard a ship heading for Gaza. It sounds harsh, but I'm wondering if they might not have been better to have stuck a life jacket on them and chucked them overboard for the Israelis to pick up from the water. At least this way the Israeli's would know where they were, wouldn't have the excuse that they thought their lives might be indanger to board the ship using deadly force, and would have had to stop the assault in order to pick up their soldiers from the water. Easy to say after the event though, and who knows what the reaction would have been to this course of action.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'd love to see the blockade successfully run. But by the Royal Navy, not a bunch of blokes with sticks.

I sense we have common ground here. Nato should indeed be assisting in breaking the blockade, and if not Nato, then the UK unilaterally.

However, on the self defence issue: thank fuck it wasn't us faced with boarding commandos. We've been discussing tactics since Monday morning.

 

[DotCommunist]

The chances of the Royal Navy getting stuck in are about the same as me growing a vagina on the small of my back and it taking me on a freakshow tour.

 

[tarannau]

As many people have pointed out to you on many occasions, it's difficult to know how you'd react in a confusing situation with all sorts going around. I'll take the word of ex soldiers, medical experts and experienced protestors over the word of some simplitic internet numpty any day. It's like you want to listen with your fingers in your ears

The smiley makes you look even more of the tryhard contraversialist tit than needs be tbh.

 

[danny la rouge]

The chances of the Royal Navy getting stuck in are about the same as me growing a vagina on the small of my back and it taking me on a freakshow tour.

"Should" is not "will".

 

[tangentlama]

Bloody hell, I had no idea.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8320838&postcount=12



A real ultra-rightist-style Zionist.

He was Kahanist from his youth into adulthood, then Likud, then followed Sharon into Kadima. He was never able to shed his earlier ultra-right Kahanist programming though. He was taken by Kahane Chai group with lots of other young orthodox kids from NYC in USA into a training camp in the mountains, and militarised whilst he was still a child to fight for Israel.

 

[free spirit]

If the account that you quoted is factual, it's exactly what I've been saying throughout the thread.

I can think of nothing whatsoever that is as certain to elicit a deadly response from the IDF than the the taking of four of its soldiers hostage and chucking one overboard. At this point, deaths were vitually assured.

So was it a responsible action?

just because a group of soldiers is armed doesn't necessarily mean that they will use those arms. Without using those guns to shoot people in the head, it's entirely clear that the people on the boat were easily capable of defending themselves against the IDF commandos.

the calculation obviously was the the IDF wouldn't use deadly force on foreign nationals with the worlds media watching. Had this calculation proved correct, then they'd probably have successfully defended their ship against the IDF assault, and quite possibly succeeded in breaking the blockade.

They miscalculated the IDF reaction to their taking IDF soldiers prisoner, but it was far from inevitable that the IDF would have reacted in this way. It's easy to judge this after the event, but at the time it was a reasonable assumption to make that their bluff could be called and that they could be forced to negotiate. Naive - maybe, stupid - not at all, brave - without a doubt.

From the sounds of it, these guys were shot down in cold blood by the IDF, not in self defence, not to protect their soldiers who were simply being held captive at that point, but simply to enforce IDF will. State sponsored murder basically.

 

[Spymaster]

I'll take the word of ex soldiers, medical experts and experienced protestors over the word of ...... [Spymaster]

That's your perogative.

However, on the self defence issue: thank fuck it wasn't us faced with boarding commandos. We've been discussing tactics since Monday morning.

Perhaps though the outcome would have been preferable.

 

[MikeMcc]

As many people have pointed out to you on many occasions, it's difficult to know how you'd react in a confusing situation with all sorts going around. I'll take the word of ex soldiers, medical experts and experienced protestors over the word of some simplitic internet numpty any day. It's like you want to listen with your fingers in your ears

The smiley makes you look even more of the tryhard contraversialist tit than needs be tbh.

I can understand the reaction of the individual soldiers whilst being attacked, they would have been in fear of their lives. The operation was poorly planned and the initial rappel onto the ship was dreadful, the guys were pretty much dropped down individually into the crowd. At thet point it was pretty much assured that there would be deaths. Whether there was subsequent killings that were reprisals is unknown and cannot be proved one way or the other.

One thing that's conspicous by it's absence is any crowing from the IDF to say that they've found anything like weapons etc. The collection of kit they did display was pretty much anything that folks could lay their hands on from around the ship, kitchen knives, hammers, poles, etc.

 

[laptop]

One thing that's conspicous by it's absence is any crowing from the IDF to say that they've found anything like weapons etc. The collection of kit they did display was pretty much anything that folks could lay their hands on from around the ship, kitchen knives, hammers, poles, etc.

The artful arrangement with the Palestinian scarf was a particularly impressive bit of bollocks...

 

[Spymaster]

They miscalculated the IDF reaction to their taking IDF soldiers prisoner......

..... but it was far from inevitable that the IDF would have reacted in this way.

I believe it was.

Naive - maybe ..... brave - without a doubt.

Here we agree, but on the bravery issue, I'm with Falstaff, "The better part of valor is discretion, in which better part I have saved my life".

From the sounds of it, these guys were shot down in cold blood by the IDF, not in self defence, not to protect their soldiers who were simply being held captive at that point, but simply to enforce IDF will. State sponsored murder basically.

Quite possibly.

 

[likesfish]

mike has it about right the IDF got away with it on 5 of the 6 ships because the activists judged anything more than token resistance would in there blood being shed
On the 6 the activists were up for a fight and the idf gave them the chance if the IDF had managed to land there commando's together on an empty bit of deck even the most hyped up person is not going to charge a bloke with a gun.

 

[free spirit]

I'd love to see the blockade successfully run. But by the Royal Navy, not a bunch of blokes with sticks.

and you have the chutzpah to call other people stupid

the royal navy are never going to go up against a country who's military continues to be largely funded and equipped by the US.

If western governments wanted the blockade to end, the first step wouldn't be them running the blockade militarily, it'd be withdrawing the funding that pays for the helicopters, boats and weapons used to enforce the blockade in the first place.

I guess that if this did happen, and Israel still refused to back down, then possibly you could have a point, but the simple fact is that it takes the actions of concerned citizens such as those involved in this floatilla to even make the issue something other governments need to even give the appearance of giving a toss about.

You may want the RN to get involved all you want, but the reality of the situation is that it's the people in the floatilla and their supporters who're forcing the issue onto the agenda, rather than governments, just as it has been with most issues of any significance throughout recent history (other than those that a significant politician, or the establishment generally have a bee in their bonnet about themselves).

Actions speak way louder than words, and achieve results as has been shown time and again, but they often require people with bottle to stand up and be counted, a concept you appear to have problems with.