Israel opens fire on Gaza aid flotilla; at least 10 dead, 60 wounded

[bascule]

The discussion whether Gaza should or shouldn't have control over its territory is a complex one, but Israel, so far, is under the vast experience that Hamas - if left to control the access - uses it to deliver weapons and explosives that are directly used to attack Israeli citizens.

 

And that gives them the authority to preemptively raid ships in international waters?

 

I can only look for the aggressor here, and to me it is clearly Israel. I am certainly not surprised by the excuses they are bandying about, like "When we had armed soldiers rappel onto the decks of their ships in international waters, they retaliated!"

 

I'm a strong proponent of peace and nonviolence, but if I had soldiers descending on me from the sky, you better bet I will retaliate.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I hope people will accept the word of the ICRC.

 

I'll await the judgment of the international community as to whether Israel's actions are in some way excusable.

Edited June 1, 2010 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.

[Skye]

The legality of the blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt is already contested but nothing will come of it.

 

Regardless, it's a cock up. They had days to plan for the operation and clearly didn't have the ability to control the number of people on board the ships.

[bascule]

A good synopsis of events by The Times:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7141520.ece

 

JohnB, The Times lays out the following points regarding this raid:

 

• Israel may face problems justifying the legality of its decision to storm the Turkish aid ship in international waters (writes Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor). Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the high seas are regarded as not belonging to any nation

 

• Boarding a vessel is acceptable in certain circumstances, such as when a boat is suspected of terrorist activities or carrying weapons of mass destruction, but even then Israel, for example, would need to seek permission from the country where the boat is registered, in this case Turkey

 

• Jason Alderwick, a maritime analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that the Israeli raid did not appear to have been conducted lawfully under the convention

 

• Israel declared a 20-mile exclusion zone off its shores, warning pro-Palestinian activists to stay away. Yesterday’s raid took place some 40 miles outside the exclusion zone

 

• Ultimately, it is a grey area, with Israel expected to claim self-defence

 

Turkey has warned Israel that subsequent supply vessels will be escorted by the Turkish Navy

[padren]

I'm a strong proponent of peace and nonviolence, but if I had soldiers descending on me from the sky, you better bet I will retaliate.

 

If you were on a ship in the middle of international waters, and a Navy ship radioed you, told you to turn back, then told you to they were going to board, and then boarded, would you really choose violence as the method of choice to address the difference of opinion regarding maritime law?

 

Even if successful, would you kill (or all but kill with knives and clubs) a bunch of commandos on the belief that it was justified, and risk saying "Ooooh, ok, oops - my bad!" should more information come to light that makes their actions seem reasonable?

 

Taking it up a notch, would you do that in international waters after having announced your intentions to break through a naval blockade? Would you make a mental note to not retaliate the moment you passed over the dividing line into their territorial waters?

 

 

 

 

In some ways this reminds me of Gandhi's march to the river to make salt, in open defiance to laws viewed as unfair that forbid something as simple as making salt or delivering food. It seems to have the same sense of conviction to the cause despite the certainty of being arrested where the opposition is then forced to enforce their laws or abandon them.

 

Only, when they came to confront Gandhi on the riverbank, his group started stabbing and clubbing the officers.

 

If you chain yourself to a tree expecting to get arrested, or go to a in a smoke-in at a police station expecting to get arrested, - pretty much any act of protest in which you are fairly certain to be arrested or detained you kind of loose your credibility if you start beating police officers nearly to death for trying to arrest you. At that point you aren't protesting or participating in some activism, that's pretty much baiting armed conflict.

 

It may be they had every right to defend themselves. But if you use lethal violence to avoid detainment and possible arrest then you are pretty much going to war for that right. Against Israeli commandos that's either pretty stupidly optimistic or a desire to be a martyr. I haven't seen anything that suggests they believed they could repel the attack, so I have to go with the martyr thing as the most probable.

[ewmon]

Defensive? There are 10 people hitting a soldier with clubs and sticks and knives *before the soldier had time to land on the boat*.

 

Yes, defensive. I saw the video of the protesters repelling the IDF boarding party. I didn't see any protesters slingshotting or shooting firearms, torpedoes or missiles at - or otherwise harassing -- IDF ships. The actions of the protesters were defensive in nature; they did not pre-empt the Israelis. The Israelis offensively forced their way aboard their ships on the high seas. The hovering of armed military helicopters in close proximity to the ship and the rappelling of armed commandos onto the ships are both acts of aggression.

 

Even by Israel's most recent announcement, these relief ships were in international waters -- Israel merely decided to spontaneously and arbitrarily extend its 20-mile blockade out to 40 miles.

 

But don't get me wrong. I think the protesters anticipated being stopped and/or boarded by the Israelis, and that they pretty much knew what would happen. What I'm saying is: what the Israelis did here was literally "over the top" and it was what everyone (ie, both sides and the rest of the world) expected them to do. Some protesters made the sacrifice and martyred themselves, as some do, and by doing so, they made their point of highlighting Israel's excessive belligerence. Now the world is unhappy at Israel.

 

In the end, everyone got what they wanted: 1) the protesters made their point, 2) the Israelis acted out their aggressive paranoia, and 3) the world isn't really surprised by any of it. Are we?

 

Are we?? We're not talking about something as shocking as Los Angeles invading Arizona over concerns for its illegal immigrant laws. Right?

[insane_alien]

Even by Israel's most recent announcement, these relief ships were in international waters -- Israel merely decided to spontaneously and arbitrarily extend its 20-mile blockade out to 40 miles.

 

not quite, from what i'm hearing on the news here(bbc) is that the protestors had already announced their intentions to run the blockade. which would mean the IDF were merely preventing it being a problem by the time the ship got to the blockade.

 

also, sticks and metal pipes are not purely defensive weapons. if you think that then you should come to scotland for a bit. you can't go a week without hearing about someone attacked by muggers weilding metal pipes, knifes and/or swords(i kid you not).

 

a pipe makes a very effective offensive weapon.

 

also, from the videos you see the idf being beaten as they decend on to the ship(note that the IDF are not firing on the protestors as they decend).

 

you seem to be making it out that it was some innocent people on a ship having a good old singsong when suddenly in bursts some israeli commandos who start shooting them for no good reason. it is not like that at all.

 

i'm sure if they had not resisted in such a hostile manner, the IDF would have carried out a search of the ship and let them proceed if it was found that the ship were not transporting anything more than humanitarian aid.

[jackson33]

JohnB; I don't think I've ever seen a better laid out 'Legal Brief' and I have seen more than a few presented by some very knowledgeable legal researchers. Additionally the time and interest involved to form your brief and post, needs to be commended and what I'm doing....Well done.

 

It is not unreasonable to conclude that this was a staged event with the sole purpose of propaganda to bring the IDF into disrepute. It is unfortunate that people still fall for this sort of thing.

 

BTW, I predict that neither weapons or munitions will be found on board these vessels. Which the organizers of the event will claim as "proof" of their humanitarian desires. [/Quote]

 

 

While I agree with your summation, that is it's unlikely munitions will be found especially on the 6th Ship (defies common sense to bring attention, with violence), I might suggest a diversionary tactic may have been employed to allow smaller and quicker boats to get into Gaza with those munitions, with contraband while secondary (band items) will be found. The decision to move the embargo line out to 40 miles from 20, was itself for concerns of one or more ships getting by. Then as previously mentioned, hiding parts for missiles or other arms, especially on 6 larger ships would not be all that difficult and at sea, it would be impossible (opinion) to move everything around to detect many of these places.

 

Having said all this, one major problem that has developed from this incident is the Turkish comment, that further relief efforts, will be escorted by the Turkish Navy. I'm not going to guess the current purpose, but there seems to me on a concentrated effort (propaganda/media attention) by either Iran through Hamas, Turkey or if you please the "Islamic/Muslim Brotherhood" to undermine Israel and the IDF (as you suggest), on the World's Stage. I believe further that it's driven by an apparent indecisive American Policy and that of the United Nations. As for the people of Israel, I also believe they Elected Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister) to take a hard line on these issues and I really feel without his leadership at this time, Israel would be looking at a forced two/three State situation, controlled by the UN and a very dim future...

[padren]

Yes, defensive. I saw the video of the protesters repelling the IDF boarding party. I didn't see any protesters slingshotting or shooting firearms, torpedoes or missiles at - or otherwise harassing -- IDF ships. The actions of the protesters were defensive in nature; they did not pre-empt the Israelis. The Israelis offensively forced their way aboard their ships on the high seas. The hovering of armed military helicopters in close proximity to the ship and the rappelling of armed commandos onto the ships are both acts of aggression.

 

Even by Israel's most recent announcement, these relief ships were in international waters -- Israel merely decided to spontaneously and arbitrarily extend its 20-mile blockade out to 40 miles.

 

But don't get me wrong. I think the protesters anticipated being stopped and/or boarded by the Israelis, and that they pretty much knew what would happen. What I'm saying is: what the Israelis did here was literally "over the top" and it was what everyone (ie, both sides and the rest of the world) expected them to do. Some protesters made the sacrifice and martyred themselves, as some do, and by doing so, they made their point of highlighting Israel's excessive belligerence. Now the world is unhappy at Israel.

 

In the end, everyone got what they wanted: 1) the protesters made their point, 2) the Israelis acted out their aggressive paranoia, and 3) the world isn't really surprised by any of it. Are we?

 

1) They were not defending their lives, they were not being boarded by pirates, and they were refusing to respond by radio, and they responded to being boarded with lethal force. Clubs and knives are lethal weapons.

 

2) It was more than obvious that the Israeli's felt they were within their legal right to board the boats - they may very well have been wrong as it will be settled with a more detailed examination of international law. I'm all for settling that debate but it's not the sort of debate you settle with clubs and knives in the heat of the moment while ignoring all attempts at radio contact. That is a gross disregard for human life.

 

3) I am very critical of Israel on many factors in how it handles the Palestinian issues, but this makes me more sympathetic to Israel, not Palestinians. I don't hold it against the Palestinians what a flotilla of aggressive people do, but it only sets back their cause.

[bascule]

I'll await the judgment of the international community as to whether Israel's actions are in some way excusable.

 

The UN security council has condemned the acts of Israel, and almost went as far as to condemn the entire nation of Israel outright until the US stepped in and convinced them to water down their language.

 

From the rest of the article/transcript it sounds like this may very well spark an international incident between Israel and Turkey. Most of those killed were Turks. The ships were running under Turkish flags. Israel did not contact the Turkish government before proceeding with the raid. And now Turkey claims any subsequent supply ships will be escorted by the Turkish Navy.

 

This isn't going to end well.

[John Cuthber]

Yeah, these activists were expecting - and planning - for violence. Look at the stuff that was found:

 

As far as I'm aware it's perfectly legal for people on a ship in international waters to carry arms in order to defend themselves from, for example, pirates.

 

In the interest of balance can we also have a video of the weapons that the other people brought; you know- the soldiers who had guns and such (and a helicopter).

Saying "they were were armed so we attacked them" isn't an excuse in the first place.

Those arms were only used after the boat was attacked.

 

Finally, if the excuse is "they came armed" then both sides can use it so it has no meaning.

 

Up till relatively recently, "Piracy with violence" was still a capital offence in the UK. As far as I can see an unprovoked attack my armed people in international waters is piracy.

 

Don't misunderstand me; both sides are wrong, but the numbers of deaths show which side is more wrong.

[padren]

From the rest of the article/transcript it sounds like this may very well spark an international incident between Israel and Turkey. Most of those killed were Turks. The ships were running under Turkish flags. Israel did not contact the Turkish government before proceeding with the raid. And now Turkey claims any subsequent supply ships will be escorted by the Turkish Navy.

 

This isn't going to end well.

 

With the Turkish Navy escorting them, they would probably have to stop right at the border of international waters. Then, if any civilian vessel tried to make a break for it that close, they'd pretty much have to sink them to enforce the blockade.

 

While the needless loss of life would be much higher, it would be more legal.

 

 

 

Just a question Bascule:

I am not suggesting that during this event, the only way to ensure the vessels did not reach port was to either sink them in territorial waters or board them in international ones - that question is out of my range - but if they had to choose one or the other, which would you consider the better choice?

 

One seems more ethical, the other more legal.

[insane_alien]

john, seeing as the IDF may have to deal with more heavily armed terrorists(note: i am not calling the people on board the turkish vessel terrorists), it is understandable that they have better weapons.

 

however, it has been mentioned before that the IDF boarding the vessel were using a non-lethal primary weapon with a deadly weapon only for worst-case scenario, which this unfortunately turned out to be the case.

 

i'm not going to pass comment on who started it because it doesn't matter in the long run, both sides escalated the conflict and only one side was going to win once that started.

[Pangloss]

Once again the UN shows its weak, pacifist, cowardly, appeasing, irresponsible, unrealistic, and unscientific nature. I wonder which pack of cheese-eating surrender monkeys wrote up the language this time.

 

 

the numbers of deaths show which side is more wrong.

 

I disagree. In my opinion there are FAR more important principles than preserving life.

[forufes]

Is this the thing that forufes was talking about over in this thread?

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52353

actually i was wondering why they'd not let them in to begin with, but that wasn't interesting since no people have died yet..

A question for our American friends. If the National Guard has sealed an area and you try to drive in with a truck, what would happen?

if the blockade was for three years on people starving and missing basic life supports, then to hell with what happens, some people just can't shush their consciousness and have the balls to do something about it.

I just want to remind everyone that not everything is as it seems.

true:-(

but that makes you wonder if you'll EVER know what happened.

 

an exposed lie isn't necessarily followed by a truth, it just could be a better concealed lie. the first lie may even be the truth:confused:

 

not quite, from what i'm hearing on the news here(bbc) is that the protestors had already announced their intentions to run the blockade. which would mean the IDF were merely preventing it being a problem by the time the ship got to the blockade.

so we should ticket cars approaching the speed limit?

 

also, sticks and metal pipes are not purely defensive weapons.

what constitutes a defensive weapon then?

you even can beat a person to death with a shield.

 

also, from the videos you see the idf being beaten as they decend on to the ship(note that the IDF are not firing on the protestors as they decend).

THAT, was what made me think the video was faked (the first time i saw it), they totally didn't behave like special ops. absolutly not, wasn't anywhere near what you expect of a prepared soldier.

 

The flotilla seems to have had more than just peace keepers. They were ready for the military, and they were armed. The ignored requests to stop, the refused to allow inspection, and they moved on fiercely ahead - seemingly to 'show off' that they mean business.

they were determined.

many flotillas have been sent back home, many trucks with food and medicine waited for days if not weeks on the borders then returned home, they didn't cross all those miles to be handcuffed and sent back home, you heard IA, you can reason that clubs and bars are weapons sent for the Palestinians, the video you posted even shows kitchen knives! and in my other thread i linked to how even chocolate and other stupid stuff wasn't let through. humanitarians and activists can come in peace, but they get fed up and frustrated too.

 

The navy boarded those ships with paintball guns meant to disprese small crowds - and met heavy resistence with LIVE fire.

not that my account is supposed to be more accurate, but i read somewhere that the guns they used were two rifles captured from the soldiers.

 

The soldiers were defending themselves with the paintball guns, and when those didn't help, they tried, still, not to shoot.

i'm sorry, i really can't digest the wording here. they were DEFENDING themselves?

they rappel down from helicopters to DEFEND themselves?

 

you can storm a castle. or you can claim it yours and "defend" it.

btw moo, i really admire your clear and reasonable attitude here, let's not clash unless it's really necessary. lol, ok?

 

We're talking about "Shayetet 13", which is the most elite unit in the Israeli navy. These aren't soldiers that panic and just decide to shoot.

exactly what i thought when i saw the video, idk it just didn't make sense.

 

 

 

Once again the UN shows its weak, pacifist, cowardly, appeasing, irresponsible, unrealistic, and unscientific nature. I wonder which pack of cheese-eating surrender monkeys wrote up the language this time.

 

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=80268&sectionid=3510303

[padren]

actually i was wondering why they'd not let them in to begin with, but that wasn't interesting since no people have died yet..

 

if the blockade was for three years on people starving and missing basic life supports, then to hell with what happens, some people just can't shush their consciousness and have the balls to do something about it.

That's a dangerous conflation. The justifications for the blockade are irrelevant - if someone opposes the blockade, they need to work to have the blockade condemned.

 

(A) Getting arrested or detained in an act of defiance against a law you feel is unjust is a form of "protest" or demonstration. It's actually quite respectable. Gandhi did it very well.

 

(B) Using lethal force for reasons other than self defense in an act of defiance against a law you feel is unjust is an act of war, rebellion, insurrection or even terrorism depending on the circumstances.

 

These are not equatable. Noamount of just cause makes the former into the latter. It may at times, make the latter justifiable, such as the American Revolution - but in that war the activists made no qualms about what they were doing or what they were in for.

 

so we should ticket cars approaching the speed limit?

Do you keep driving when a cop trying to pull you over with lights flashing, because as far as you know "You've done nothing wrong, therefore you can ignore him and then beat him to an inch of his life if he tries to arrest you?"

 

what constitutes a defensive weapon then?

you even can beat a person to death with a shield.

Regardless of whether you would call them defensive or offensive weapons, they were used with lethal force at a time that they were not under any physical threat.

They were used to protect what they considered their ship's sovereignty, and their right to break the blockade, and they were used in a fashion that could very easily cause life threatening injuries.

 

Defensive or not, they were not used defensively.

THAT, was what made me think the video was faked (the first time i saw it), they totally didn't behave like special ops. absolutly not, wasn't anywhere near what you expect of a prepared soldier.

The other ships acquiesced to the IDF's request to board. They did not encounter any resistance up to that point, and did not expect to find any there. They also did not have the trademark weapons and were under orders to avoid lethal conflict unless absolutely necessary to preserve their own lives.

 

Personally I am not qualified to determine how special ops do and do not behave, but I personal found the explanations of their behavior to be reasonable.

they were determined.

many flotillas have been sent back home, many trucks with food and medicine waited for days if not weeks on the borders then returned home, they didn't cross all those miles to be handcuffed and sent back home, you heard IA, you can reason that clubs and bars are weapons sent for the Palestinians, the video you posted even shows kitchen knives! and in my other thread i linked to how even chocolate and other stupid stuff wasn't let through. humanitarians and activists can come in peace, but they get fed up and frustrated too.

Frustration may be an explanation for violence, but it is not a justification for violence.

Again, the issue is not whether those weapons were being sent to the Palestinians in breech of the blockade. They had already stated their intent to breech the blockade and were in the process of attempting to do so.

 

The weapons indicate they expected an armed conflict with the Israeli forces. That changes them from being victims to provocateurs.

When you say "they didn't cross all those miles to be handcuffed and sent back home" I think you are entirely correct, and that is the damning evidence in this against them.

 

What was supposed to happen? They thought they'd be allowed to dock? That they would valiantly win a naval victory against the Israelis, getting their supplies through and join the rebellion?

 

They went there knowing they'd be turned back or arrested. That's a protest and it draws attention to the issue, but they took it past the point of protest and elevated it to armed conflict.

 

Again it's not if the fight is justified - if you are peaceful protesters than you act like it, if you are taking up arms then you are taking up arms. You can't call yourself one thing and act like the other, and then say it's justified because "the other guys" are so wrong.

 

not that my account is supposed to be more accurate, but i read somewhere that the guns they used were two rifles captured from the soldiers.

 

 

i'm sorry, i really can't digest the wording here. they were DEFENDING themselves?

they rappel down from helicopters to DEFEND themselves?

 

you can storm a castle. or you can claim it yours and "defend" it.

(1) They were there to board and redirect the ships to the proper ports where the aid could be inspected before being sent on to Gaza.

(2) They were there to peacefully enforce the blockade without injury or loss of life to the protesters.

(3) Upon boarding, they were attacked with lethal force. They attempted to stop the attackers through non-lethal force, but as the attacks continued and became more lethally dangerous they were forced to open fire, and ceased as soon as they stabilized the situation.

[mooeypoo]

Just adding some information, here is an official press release from the Consulate General of Israel in New York:

On May 31, 2010 the world watched as the

aboard a flotilla claiming to to be on a humanitarian mission to Gaza.

 

However their actions never matched their words.

 

Get the insider facts of what really happened in this special edition Israel Line.

 

- Consulate General of Israel in New York

 

***

Flotilla Facts

 

On May 30th, the "Free Gaza Flotilla" left the shores of Cyprus under the guise of delivering humanitarian aid but with the outspoken intention to break international law and break the maritime blockade that is being imposed on Gaza by Egypt and Israel to prevent the deliverance of weapons to Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization that has fired over 10,000 rockets at Israeli civilians.

 

Despite offers made by

Israel

and the

Gilad Shalit

family that the flotilla can dock at the Israeli port city of Ashdod in order for the cargo to be checked and then delivered to the people of Gaza, the organizers chose violence over humanitarian aid.

 

After

countless calls to dock the ships in Ashdod were ignored

, Israel was forced to impose the blockade, which international law requires them to do (a country can only impose a maritime blockade if they have the means to enforce it).

 

Even after the events that unfolded on May 31st, Israel

brought the aid shipment to dock

, inspected it, and has already delivered it to the people of Gaza.

 

Click on the links to learn more.

 

Read on to see what happened once Israel was forced to impose the blockade.

First Hand Account

 

As news of of casualties aboard the flotilla started to emerge, the reports were quite disturbing.

 

To read a first hand account of what the Israeli commandos were faced with, click

here

.

 

Video Evidence: Israel Soldiers Attacked on Flotilla

 

The voice of an image speaks louder than a thousand words.

 

View the reality that the Israeli soldiers were faced with once they reached one ship.

 

WARNING: The reality includes intended lynchings with the use of crowbars, metal rods, knifes, an electric saw, and the throwing of an Israeli soldier off the deck, head first.

Click

to view footage of the attempted lynching on board the flotilla.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Also, this is from the MFA website as well, regarding the legality of the events:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Rulings/Justice_Ministry_HCJ_petitions_Gaza_flotilla_1-Jun-2010.htm

[insane_alien]

i think thats pervfectly conclusive and we can dispense with the false notion that the 'protestors' were merely defending themselves.

[Pangloss]

Here's an interesting irony. Apparently one of those arrested on the flotilla was Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Corrigan. Corrigan made headlines last fall when she criticized the choice of Barack Obama as a Peace Prize recipient, saying:

 

"They say this is for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples, and yet he continues the policy of militarism and occupation of Afghanistan, instead of dialogue and negotiations with all parties to the conflict.

 

"Furthermore, I believe the Nobel Committee has not met the conditions of Alfred Nobel's will where he stipulates it is to be awarded to those who work for an end to militarism and war, and for disarmament. This is not the first time the Nobel Peace Committee in Oslo has ignored the will of Alfred Nobel and acted against the spirit of what the Nobel Peace Prize is all about."

(source)

[padren]

As well as the fact that an 86-year-old Holocaust survivor was among the people on the ships.

 

I say all the power to them to use any and all political clout and resources to get the blockade lifted. Using political clout and violence to try to break through the blockade... I hope she left her peace prize back on shore.

[ewmon]

from what i’m hearing on the news here(bbc) is that the protestors had already announced their intentions to run the blockade. which would mean the IDF were merely preventing it being a problem by the time the ship got to the blockade.

 

I know something about law. It's called a preemptive strike. If a neighbor states his intentions to enter my property, and I see him walk into the street toward my property, it is illegal for me to go out and attack him in the street. It's called "taking the law into your own hands".

 

Otherwise, how far out onto the high seas can Israel arbitrarily extend its 20-mile limit? Apparently as far as it wants. Oh, wait a minute ... those were 20 Israeli nautical miles, meaning of arbitrary length and subject to change without notice.

 

sticks and metal pipes are not purely defensive weapons.

 

They’re defensive when someone invades my property. Unless the protesters were boarding Israeli ships and beating the occupants therein, to stand on your property and beat someone entering your property is defensive.

 

from the videos you see the idf being beaten as they decend on to the ship

 

Yep. It’s called repelling an armed boarding party on the high seas. If you were a homeowner enjoying a loud raucous party, and you saw a neighbor with a gun walking up your sidewalk toward your open front door, would you think nothing of it or simply say to yourself that you deserve whatever he wants to do with his gun? Hmmm...... I doubt it.

 

you seem to be making it out that it was some innocent people on a ship having a good old singsong when suddenly in bursts some israeli commandos who start shooting them for no good reason

 

No, not at all. I said, “I think the protesters anticipated being stopped and/or boarded by the Israelis, and that they pretty much knew what would happen.” That is, there would be a physical confrontation and maybe someone would get hurt.

 

i’m sure if they had not resisted in such a hostile manner, the IDF would have carried out a search of the ship and let them proceed if it was found that the ship were not transporting anything more than humanitarian aid.

 

Maybe, but how did Israel behave? Israel behaved as pirates on the high seas instead of waiting for the ships to violate the 20-mile restricted zone.

 

How could Israel justify what it did: “Uh, hi there ship people, nice to meet you. You refused to stop for us on the high seas, as is your right, when we hailed you. Tsk, tsk tsk! Well, you also haven’t violated the 20-mile limit that we announced, but regardless, we decided to literally fall out of the sky and forcibly board your ship while armed, and we will search it and take its cargo. You see, we can force you to adhere to more restrictions that the rules allows, but we don’t have to hold ourselves to those rules. You might call this lawlessness, and you’d be right, but we’ll kill you anyway.”

 

Let's not also forget that the Israelis also commandeered these ships on the high seas. That's the neighborhood equivalent of being carjacked.

 

1) They were not defending their lives

 

Wait a minute — it's the commandos who weren't defending their lives when they boarded the ships.

 

they were not being boarded by pirates

 

For all intents and purposes, the commandos acted as pirates.

 

they were refusing to respond by radio

 

Refusing to respond by radio on the high seas is not a violation of international law and does not warrant boarding.

 

they responded to being boarded with lethal force. Clubs and knives are lethal weapons.

 

Well, they responded to being invaded. Yes, clubs and knives are lethal weapons — and, strangely enough, so are the firearms brought aboard by the invading forces. The only two firearms found on board were the two pistols taken from the commandos. As for lethal weapons, let's not fool ourselves. A “shod foot” is considered a lethal weapon, and a small woman wearing stiletto high heels can easily apply well over 2,000 psi pressure by stomping on someone. In some American jurisdictions, a knife with a blade exceeding 1½ inches is a lethal weapon.

 

Woman Kills Man With Shoe

 

And have you seen the photos of the woman with high heels stomping a kitten to death?

 

2) It was more than obvious that the Israeli’s felt they were within their legal right to board the boats

 

Yes, Israel felt it was justified, but most of the world is saying their "feelings" were wrong.

 

I’m all for settling that debate but it’s not the sort of debate you settle with clubs and knives in the heat of the moment while ignoring all attempts at radio contact. That is a gross disregard for human life.

 

It seems the people who disregarded human life and who were settling it with weapons were the armed Israeli pirates who illegally boarded ships on the high seas. They were the ones with the firearms ... the ones who killed the protesters who are dead. Any dead Israelis? No.

 

In my neighborhood analogy, I’m walking down the street to visit a friend’s home. Another neighbor comes out onto the street and starts following me. “Hey, Ewmon, come here. I want to talk with you. Don’t you try to go to your friend’s house, or I’ll stop you at the edge of his property.” Now, do I stop in the middle of the street and let this guy frisk me and confiscate stuff, or do I just continue on my way and mind my own business?

 

###

 

Uh-oh! This just in:

 

As news came out of the Israeli Defense Forces’ action, the Jerusalem Post reported that it was under what it called a “cyber attack”:

 

“Thousands of abusive e-mails were sent to newspaper staff members and general department addresses in an attempt to crash the system. The spam filter, used to separate junk mail and protect the network from viruses, showed 4,000 e-mails received in a matter of seconds. There were also attempts to hack the firewall, which can flood the network with useless data and allow entry to the newspaper’s online operating system.”

[padren]

Maybe, but how did Israel behave? Israel behaved as pirates on the high seas instead of waiting for the ships to violate the 20-mile restricted zone.

Would you:

1) Prefer they board 40 miles out where the legality is disputed on both sides?

or

2) Prefer they wait until there is no ambiguity, and sink all the vessels killing all of them?

 

Apparently, if that many ships got within 20 miles, they would not have been able to peacefully board them all in time to stop them. That of course is a failure of the Israeli Navy, but what result would you prefer?

 

...

 

Ok, I just cut about three pages worth of quote/response to try to keep this succinct. The bulk of what I am trying to convey here, is that people dispute who has "the legal right of way" all the time. People settle these disputes in courts, especially when it's between law enforcement/military branch and civilians.

 

The right of way in question:

 

(1) The boats thought they had the legal right to remain close to territorial waters, while making it clear they intent to run the blockade, and suffer no interference from the Israeli Navy.

 

(2) The Israeli Navy thought it had the legal right to enforce it's blockade against vessels that had clearly stated that was their intention, while still 40 miles from their shores.

 

 

If the boats have the right of way, they can float out there as long as they want. If the Israelis have the right of way, they can board their boats and direct them to port as ordered. This is the important part, because when you have a dispute concerning the right of way with a military or law enforcement branch they will be in the process of doing what they are there to do - and that usually involves the carrying of weapons and quite possibly search and seizure.

 

If it sounds like I am belaboring it, I'm sorry but it's a very important point:

 

Say SWAT team busts down your door and tells you at gun-point to get on the ground, only to discover later they had the wrong house - they don't even have a warrant for your address!

No matter how bad that mistake was it would not make them pirates or common thugs. They would be subject to legal ramifications and you would be able to sue, but trust me if you tried to repel them with lethal force, (while knowing full well they were SWAT police) on the grounds that simply "they had no right to invade your home, they were at the wrong address so it's their fault" you or some of your guests would probably get shot. You would have made a bad situation worse. When it comes to the enforcement of laws, you just can't handle disputes that way.

[Double K]

I wouldnt be surprised if Israel staged those videos after they had control of the vessels and had all the men in their bunks. It's certainly not outside the realms of possibility. I would like to support Israel on some of their choices, but they just continually make it so hard. I can not see any instance where, if properly managed, live arms should need to be fired on anyone armed with a stick. They have a mentality of shoot first, cover it up, and then ask questions later. This has been demonstrated on more than one occasion, and when caught with their hands in the cookie jar, as was the case with a passport forging debacle during an assassination, they wont admit to doing the wrong thing and take their punishment. It seems they feel they are above reproach and above playing by the rules that the rest of the world must adhere to.

[mooeypoo]

I'm sorry, but do you have evidence for these cases? I am not sure I know which examples of such blatant cover-ups you're talking about?

[Double K]

Australia's relations with Israel have hit a new low, with Foreign Minister Stephen Smith expelling an Israeli diplomat over the faking of four Australian passports used in the killing of a senior Hamas official in January.

 

http://www.theage.com.au/national/israel-responsible-for-faking-passports-20100524-w59w.html

 

Israel has been caught spying in Washington again

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/062000/0006006.html

 

USS Liberty

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html

 

Theres just a couple to get you warmed up

[Skye]

Say SWAT team busts down your door and tells you at gun-point to get on the ground, only to discover later they had the wrong house - they don't even have a warrant for your address!

No matter how bad that mistake was it would not make them pirates or common thugs. They would be subject to legal ramifications and you would be able to sue, but trust me if you tried to repel them with lethal force, (while knowing full well they were SWAT police) on the grounds that simply "they had no right to invade your home, they were at the wrong address so it's their fault" you or some of your guests would probably get shot. You would have made a bad situation worse. When it comes to the enforcement of laws, you just can't handle disputes that way.

 

The problem with this analogy is that a ship is sovereign territory of the country whose flag it flies, in this case apparently Turkey. Illegally boarding a ship isn't simply a policing mistake but can be an act of war, which is why Turkey has said they'll escort further convoys.