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

[louis wu]

It's a good idea to point out that the San Remo manual is not international law. It's more of a guide to the law as it is understood by the experts who drafted the manual.

 

But it should give us a good idea of what international law says about blockades and such.

San Remo only addresses blockades or conflicts between states.

 

I am not aware that Israel has ever agreed that Gaza has statehood so nothing in San Remo is relevant.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

My assumption is not that Israelis (military) are more likely to be honest, but that (at least some) the activists on the boat probably did something to provoke the soldiers into going into attack mode.

 

It's possible that Israelis are covering something up, but it seems likely that they are waiting for further analysis to release the video. The longer this takes, the less likely I will consider this to be likely.

 

 

That's true enough, but who originally made this claim, if your intending to say that the IDF is making the smear, it's important to establish the source.

According to Fox the claim was made by the Israeli ambassador to Denmark.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/30/reports-israeli-ships-attack-aid-flotilla-dead/

[pink_trike]

But in many ways, many have chosen the way of the bully, doing onto the underdog, what was done onto them

In the field of psychology this is known as internalizing the aggressor, and it is a common development for individuals and groups of people that have been victimized...they become that which they fear and hate without being aware of it, and then go to great lengths to rationalize and project their aggression onto "enemies" and perceived threats.

[Newbies_Kid]

I guess we're witnessing a case when one of these ships decided to forego Israel's "request" to "submit".

 

Can you tell me where Israel derives the authority to board these ships in international waters? It's my understanding that doing so is generally regarded as "piracy"

 

Right, they are more cruel and brutal than somali pirates. Attacking unarmed civilians who come for peace?. Even Italian mafia won't do such thing. That's what we call, a real coward. I'm from Malaysia, a country who love peace. So it's really sad when our peace convoy got attacked by them.

[padren]

Right, they are more cruel and brutal than somali pirates. Attacking unarmed civilians who come for peace?. Even Italian mafia won't do such thing. That's what we call, a real coward. I'm from Malaysia, a country who love peace. So it's really sad when our peace convoy got attacked by them.

 

Except that it doesn't appear they came in peace, and I would suspect both Somali pirates and the Italian mafia would both defend themselves when lethal force is used on them, probably with quite a bit less restraint than the IDF.

 

If you care to examine why many in this thread contend they "did not come in peace" or the various explanations, legality, and ethics for the actions of both parties, I recommend reading this thread.

[louis wu]

News is emerging that the dead activists were shot multiple times in the head.

No doubt the IDF will explain how it was self defence as the nasty activists were trying to head butt the guns out of the soldiers hands.

 

Some cynics will think that shots to the back of the head at close range are more typical of execution style killings.

Personally I could not possibly comment on the issue.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results

[Mr Skeptic]

Some cynics will think that shots to the back of the head at close range are more typical of execution style killings.

 

Perhaps, but that [execution style killings] totally contradicts all the other facts. Including the claims in that article concerning where the bullet wounds were.

 

In any case, it is quite possible for shots in the back, in the head, and in the back of the head to be fired in self-defense. I can tell you how that could be, if you lack the capability to imagine possibilities other than your favorite.

[mooeypoo]

Also, it's worth pointing out that these are commando soldiers. Once they decided they're lives are in danger enough to warrant live fire, they don't miss.

[louis wu]

Perhaps, but that [execution style killings] totally contradicts all the other facts. Including the claims in that article concerning where the bullet wounds were.

 

In any case, it is quite possible for shots in the back, in the head, and in the back of the head to be fired in self-defense. I can tell you how that could be, if you lack the capability to imagine possibilities other than your favorite.

 

A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has US citizenship, was shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back. Two other men were shot four times, and five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, said Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the council of forensic medicine.

 

Yes my imagination seems to have failed me.

Please explain how this is consistent with self defence. Shot 5 times at less than 0.5m range including in the back and in the back of the head.

 

Notionally the IDF were using pistols rather than automatic weapons.

[JohnB]

San Remo only addresses blockades or conflicts between states.

 

I am not aware that Israel has ever agreed that Gaza has statehood so nothing in San Remo is relevant.

 

Not quite correct. It deals with blockades between belligerents.

 

From reading up on blockades' date=' your interpretation is roughly correct and the argument has been put forward that declaring a blockade gives de facto "State" recognition. For example, during the American Civil War the North blockaded certain Southern ports. As a nation cannot blockade it's own ports, it "closes" them, this has been used as an argument that the blockade declaration by President Lincoln was a defacto recognition of the Confederacy as a separate State.

 

It appears to be a bit of a grey area.

 

A point that has also been missed in this discussion is that there are 4 requirements for a blockade to be legal. The biggy is that to be considered legal, a blockade must be [i']enforced[/i]. This was brought in to prevent the so called "Paper Blockades".

 

The upshot is that you have to put warships in the area and you have to intercept vessels entering or heading for the blockaded area. If you choose not to intercept a vessel heading for the blockaded area, then you are no longer considered to be "enforcing" the blockade and it is declared void.

 

In this respect, the Israelis had no choice. They either had to intercept or raise the blockade, those are the only two options available. I suspect that this was well known to the "protestors" on board and the whole point of packing so many people on board was to force a confrontation between the ferry and the IDF.

 

"Presumption of Innocence" was brought up earlier. In the case of blockades, once the blockade is announced it is assumed that all ship masters are aware of it. (Given reasonable time) You can't declare a blockade and start intercepting ships the next hour. However it is based on the assumption that it would be a pretty poor Captain who didn't know that he was sailing for a blockaded port.

 

So it's really sad when our peace convoy got attacked by them.

Assuming the blockade is legal, and there seems little doubt that it is. (Many people don't like it, but that doesn't effect the legality.) Then the bloodshed is entirely on the hands of the "peaceful" activists who attacked armed soldiers with pick handles.

[louis wu]

Also, it's worth pointing out that these are commando soldiers. Once they decided they're lives are in danger enough to warrant live fire, they don't miss.

 

Well moneypoo I understand that you might feel that you have to defend your countrymen right or wrong.

 

So these elite commandos, after shooting a guy in the leg twice, also a shot in the back and then a shot in the face feel the need to shoot him in the back of the head. All close range shots.

The only possible explanation that occurs to you is that it is all self defence. There is no possibility that excessive force has been used.

 

I suspect that you will be in a minority on this issue.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Assuming the blockade is legal, and there seems little doubt that it is.

 

I agree with most of your analysis, but I think I need to repeat a point I made earlier.

 

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

 

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or

(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

 

And evidence would suggest that condition is not met:

 

It is widely accepted internationally that the blockade is hurting the civilian population much more than Hamas, whose grip has tightened in the last three years. It has destroyed a once-entrepreneurial and productive economy, ensured that 80 per cent of its population now depend on food aid, left most of its water undrinkable, and prevented reconstruction of some 75 per cent of the buildings destroyed by Israel's devastating military offensive in the winter of 2008-9, not to mention many, many thousands more destroyed since the beginning of the intifada in 2000; or the building of 100 new schools the UN refugee agency Unrwa desperately needs to meet its ever-soaring demands.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/its-up-to-us-to-lift-the-blockade-1988693.html

 

On the other hand, the casualties from the rockets the blockade is supposed to stop are surprisingly low:

 

http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=883997&ct=3887857

 

Total Deaths Within Israel: 16

 

(although that hasn't been updated for two years or so)

 

I don't know if that figure is accurate, and of course there are injuries and property damage to take into account as well. But making 80% of 1.5m people impoverished to the point of dependence on food aid seems to me to be "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes my imagination seems to have failed me.

Please explain how this is consistent with self defence. Shot 5 times at less than 0.5m range including in the back and in the back of the head.

 

Notionally the IDF were using pistols rather than automatic weapons.

 

Simple. Self-defense applies whether you are defending yourself of your buddies. While some soldiers are willing to risk their lives (to varying extents) to save civilian lives, not too many soldiers are willing to allow their buddies to die, for any reason at all. If you have a soldier on the floor surrounded and being beat on, his buddies can't shoot for the legs since they risk hitting the buddy they are trying to save, and also it would be much less effective than a head shot.

 

The shots from multiple directions is more interesting. It is doubtful that a soldier walked around someone shooting them all over, and said person remained standing during that time. Or, maybe several soldiers shot him over a prolonged period while he remained standing. A more likely explanation is that said person got shot near-simultaneously by several soldiers. Now, it could be that the soldiers all pointed their guns at the guy and said, "OK we all shoot him on the count of 3. 1, 2, 3!" To me this seems less likely than that the guy did something particularly dangerous (such as attempt to stab or shoot someone) and instantly got gunned down by several soldiers.

 

As to why I said execution style killings don't fit any of the facts, is because such killings require the killer have complete control over the victim. Apart from that not being the case (consider how many soldiers got badly wounded for example), but multiple bullets used also contradicts this.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The only possible explanation that occurs to you is that it is all self defence. There is no possibility that excessive force has been used.

 

I suspect that you will be in a minority on this issue.

 

I suspect your inability to imagine how you might be wrong is showing here too. What you have here is called a strawman.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

The anticipated advantage isn't military, it's civilian. The purpose is to stop terrorism and continuous firing of rockets on a million Israeli citizens. The fact they stay inside their bunkers and hence are not killed enough to make the world be sad doesn't mean the situation is - or should be - acceptable by the government that is in charge of protecting them. And since the group that does this refuses to acknowledge Israel and speak peace, there is very little left to do to protect the citizens.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz has an account of how the shooting started:

 

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-navy-3-commandos-nearly-taken-hostage-in-gaza-flotilla-raid-1.294114

The fourth commando, K., saw his team leader on the deck, with a Turkish activist holding the pistol he had grabbed from him and pointing it to his head. K. jumped from the rope and managed to shoot the activist holding the gun. This happened 20 seconds after the first soldier landed on the deck.

 

Waiiiit a minute. I just recalled something. Earlier accounts said that the first people to drop onto the deck were armed with paintball guns, not firearms. How did this work? Did "K." draw his sidearm and fire while jumping from the rope onto the deck, before the activist could fire? Did they have sidearms?

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And since the group that does this refuses to acknowledge Israel and speak peace, there is very little left to do to protect the citizens.

This is false, considering the six-month truce that occurred in 2008, with success.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Cap'n Refsmmat
Consecutive posts merged.

[padren]

Yes my imagination seems to have failed me.

Please explain how this is consistent with self defence. Shot 5 times at less than 0.5m range including in the back and in the back of the head.

 

Notionally the IDF were using pistols rather than automatic weapons.

 

It's seems pretty reasonable with a semi-auto pistol. If you are cornered or on the ground being bludgeoned and are able to get to your firearm, it makes sense to fire rapidly, quite possibly while shielding your face. If the individual shot in the face turned as they fell it would seem reasonable.

Alternatively if he was standing right over the shooter similar patterns could emerge.

 

What seems unreasonable to me, is why someone would be executed in such a fashion: It's somewhat overkill for the calculated execution for a subdued non-combatant.

 

Honestly, which is more likely? The short distance implies close-quarter combat or close-quarter execution, but the variance in the locations of where the individual was hit, combined with the number of shots is not consistent with an execution.

It would be more damning if the people shot were all at a greater distance since the weapons they were using to attack the soldiers were almost all close range. Longer range gunfire would have to either involve stray rounds, or to protect someone being attacked at a greater distance.

 

 

 

I think the greatest thing I'm having trouble understanding is how the IDF could be expected to use restraint after being attacked upon boarding:

 

The ship showed up to interfere with a military operation. That is established. The justifications or intentions of either party are a non issue when it comes to interfering with military operations.

 

When you interfere with such an operation, and that military moves against you no matter the circumstance you really have one of two options:

 

A) Surrender, offering only passive resistance.

Please note: This is what is protesters do.

 

B) Resist with violence.

Please note: This is what combatants do.

 

What I don't understand is how anyone can engage in an open conflict with any military violently for any reason and expect their safety to be a priority. It really doesn't matter who is right or who is wrong: when you engage the military units (on your ship, in your house, in your bathroom) if you try to fight you have to expect a fight. It may be a worthwhile stand to take: "I will not stand for a military invasion of my bathroom!" and a cause worth dying for, but don't kid yourself that chances are, that's what you'll be doing. We have a set of rather imperfect tools to peacefully deal with unjust or illegal use of military force - none of those involve violence. We can choose to say that the peaceful tools here have proven to be ineffective, and all manner of techniques effecting change have failed due to the unfair stubbornness and even outright corruption of the IDF.

In that case, perhaps resorting to violence is understandable - lets say we support the activists' use of violence - that is still engaging a military in combat. No amount of unique circumstance can change that fact.

 

1) You attempt to break a military blockade

2) You get boarded, as anyone enforcing a military blockade will have to do

3) You can surrender (and use passive resistance) or you can fight the military.

 

If they surrendered and were still met with violence from the IDF then I'd be up front condemning the IDF. Choosing to meet the IDF with violence as they boarded (even if it turns out the IDF was boarding illegally) is going to reciprocate violence.

I'm even okay with the choice of those people to use violence! Their lives, their call. Everyone has the right to live or die for whatever they believe in.

What I don't get is what else the IDF was supposed to do when they were met with lethal force upon boarding. I don't understand how that is considered an outrage. It's like protesting a railway by jumping in front of a train, then being upset when you wake up in a hospital with your legs cut off and lucky to be alive.

 

When you engage a military with violent force, the series of events are just as locked in as train is to it's tracks.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Waiiiit a minute. I just recalled something. Earlier accounts said that the first people to drop onto the deck were armed with paintball guns, not firearms. How did this work? Did "K." draw his sidearm and fire while jumping from the rope onto the deck, before the activist could fire? Did they have sidearms?

 

I believe they all had sidearms, but they were holstered as last-resort only their lives were dangerously in harms way. They had the paintball guns out for the engagement, but the person grabbed the holstered firearm as he was mobbed.

 

At least that's what I think happened based on what I read before.

[louis wu]

Not quite correct. It deals with blockades between belligerents.

 

From reading up on blockades, your interpretation is roughly correct and the argument has been put forward that declaring a blockade gives de facto "State" recognition. For example, during the American Civil War the North blockaded certain Southern ports. As a nation cannot blockade it's own ports, it "closes" them, this has been used as an argument that the blockade declaration by President Lincoln was a defacto recognition of the Confederacy as a separate State.

 

It appears to be a bit of a grey area.

 

A point that has also been missed in this discussion is that there are 4 requirements for a blockade to be legal. The biggy is that to be considered legal, a blockade must be enforced. This was brought in to prevent the so called "Paper Blockades".

 

The upshot is that you have to put warships in the area and you have to intercept vessels entering or heading for the blockaded area. If you choose not to intercept a vessel heading for the blockaded area, then you are no longer considered to be "enforcing" the blockade and it is declared void.

 

In this respect, the Israelis had no choice. They either had to intercept or raise the blockade, those are the only two options available. I suspect that this was well known to the "protestors" on board and the whole point of packing so many people on board was to force a confrontation between the ferry and the IDF.

 

"Presumption of Innocence" was brought up earlier. In the case of blockades, once the blockade is announced it is assumed that all ship masters are aware of it. (Given reasonable time) You can't declare a blockade and start intercepting ships the next hour. However it is based on the assumption that it would be a pretty poor Captain who didn't know that he was sailing for a blockaded port.

 

 

Assuming the blockade is legal, and there seems little doubt that it is. (Many people don't like it, but that doesn't effect the legality.) Then the bloodshed is entirely on the hands of the "peaceful" activists who attacked armed soldiers with pick handles.

 

John B

 

that is a well thought out post, far superior to most legalistic style posts on this issue that I have come across on other forums.

 

But I have to take issue with your conclusion that the blockade is almost certainly legal.

One of the criteria in assessing the legality of a blockade is whether the military impact is disproportionate to the impact on civilians. By that measure the Israeli blockade would fail - it is clearly being used not purely for defence purposes but also to oppress the civilian population in the hope of stirring up dissent against Hamas - why else would they be blocking building materials amongst many other innocuous items such as chocolate.

The humanitarian argument would have to be tested in court and complicated arguments can be made on both sides (and just which court will try the issue?).

 

The main problem with Israeli actions is not the debatable legality of the blockade itself, but the international waters aspect.

 

San Remo is clearly written only for belligerents who are nation states, and cannot apply to Israel-Gaza. I state this with such confidence because as well as my brilliant research capabilities and innate understanding of legal matters I asked a MOD lawyer about it. This guy is expected to have opinions on what the Royal Navy can and cannot do on the high seas.

UNCLOS is apparently the overreaching relevant international law. As Israeli forces attacked a Turkish flagged ship in international waters they were not acting legally. Israel is a signatory to the 1988? treaty which responded to the Achille Lauro incident. Apparently this means that a Turkish flagged ship cannot be intercepted in international waters without consulting and liaising with the Turkish Government. Consultation did not happen so the interception is not legal.

 

I am sure that you will be able to find legal opinion that justifies the boarding in international waters, but the issue is to say the least highly contentious and has serious ramifications.

 

In theory the Turks can invoke NATO provisions that require all their NATO allies to join them in fighting the Israeli navy. The USA would have to help the Turks or leave NATO.

Fortunately the Turks seem very keen on getting those Israeli drones that are on order and not in making a bad situation worse.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Another contradiction in news stories.

 

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-navy-3-commandos-nearly-taken-hostage-in-gaza-flotilla-raid-1.294114

 

The soldiers reported that the activists had fired on them during the confrontation and that at least two commandos suffered gunshot wounds. After the incident, 9mm bullet casings were found - a kind not used by the naval commandos.

 

The Israel Defense Forces says that during the operation a number of pistols and an M-4 rifle were taken from soldiers, but they believe that the Turkish activists had other weapons.

 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-autopsy-shows-gaza-activists-were-shot-30-times-1.294255

 

Nine Turkish activists killed in an Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship were shot a total of 30 times and five died of gunshot wounds to the head, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Friday.

 

Autopsy results showed the men were hit mostly with 9mm bullets, many fired at close range, the Guardian said, quoting Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the Turkish council of forensic medicine which carried out the autopsies on Friday.

 

Who shot the 9mm bullets? The M4 carbine fires 5.56mm rounds, not 9mm rounds. Was it their sidearms? Why'd they go around shooting with their sidearms instead of with their M4s?

 

There's something inconsistent here. First they say 9mm isn't used, then everyone's shot with 9mms, but the Israelis don't deny they did the shooting.

[louis wu]

The anticipated advantage isn't military, it's civilian. The purpose is to stop terrorism and continuous firing of rockets on a million Israeli citizens. The fact they stay inside their bunkers and hence are not killed enough to make the world be sad doesn't mean the situation is - or should be - acceptable by the government that is in charge of protecting them. And since the group that does this refuses to acknowledge Israel and speak peace, there is very little left to do to protect the citizens.

 

Here you are definitely wrong.

 

Hammas has unilaterally declared and observed several ceasefires, all of which have been ended by Israeli military action.

 

When the peanut king, AKA former US President Jimmy Carter, devised a peace plan Hammas found it acceptable, Israel refused to go along.

[mooeypoo]

Here you are definitely wrong.

 

Hammas has unilaterally declared and observed several ceasefires, all of which have been ended by Israeli military action.

Hamas declared it doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, and vows to continue the fighting. There were limited cease fires but overall, in the past 8 years, continuous rockets were fired on Israeli cities in the southern part of Israel, forcing thousands of people to live in bunkers.

 

Hamas' official charter calls for the elimination of the State of Israel. The UN and many other countries in the world posed a condition to Hamas for the beginning of talks that it drops this call so that talks can begin. Hamas refuses to. I'm not sure how a country can talk peace with a group that vows to destroy it and refuses to reconsider this vow.

 

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1980_1989/THE%20COVENANT%20OF%20THE%20HAMAS%20-%20MAIN%20POINTS%20-%2018-Aug-8

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_charter.pdf

 

When the peanut king, AKA former US President Jimmy Carter, devised a peace plan Hammas found it acceptable, Israel refused to go along.

First, we will need to look at the proposed plan before we jump to the conclusion that Israel is violent and power hungry. For that matter, if the proposed plan was harmful to Israel security (and I'm not talking about "giving up territories" - Israel has done that before both with Egypt and with the palestinians) then there's little surprise Israel wouldn't accept it, isnt' there?

 

But I must wonder if you might be confusing Hammas and Fatah here. Jimmy Carter was president in 77-81, and Hammas was formed in 1987. It's doubtful that the proposal was in front of them.

 

Fatah is a completely different entity, and Israel *is* communicating with Fatah and has a fairly decent cooperation (more or less) with the Fatah-controlled west bank, as was pointed out earlier in this thread.

 

General overview of the differences between Hamas and Fatah: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5016012.stm

 

 

~moo

[louis wu]

Simple. Self-defense applies whether you are defending yourself of your buddies. While some soldiers are willing to risk their lives (to varying extents) to save civilian lives, not too many soldiers are willing to allow their buddies to die, for any reason at all. If you have a soldier on the floor surrounded and being beat on, his buddies can't shoot for the legs since they risk hitting the buddy they are trying to save, and also it would be much less effective than a head shot.

 

The shots from multiple directions is more interesting. It is doubtful that a soldier walked around someone shooting them all over, and said person remained standing during that time. Or, maybe several soldiers shot him over a prolonged period while he remained standing. A more likely explanation is that said person got shot near-simultaneously by several soldiers. Now, it could be that the soldiers all pointed their guns at the guy and said, "OK we all shoot him on the count of 3. 1, 2, 3!" To me this seems less likely than that the guy did something particularly dangerous (such as attempt to stab or shoot someone) and instantly got gunned down by several soldiers.

 

As to why I said execution style killings don't fit any of the facts, is because such killings require the killer have complete control over the victim. Apart from that not being the case (consider how many soldiers got badly wounded for example), but multiple bullets used also contradicts this.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

I suspect your inability to imagine how you might be wrong is showing here too. What you have here is called a strawman.

Well I guess we will have to maintain our separate positions on the issue.

 

I found your scenarios very unconvincing. Shot by several soldiers in defence of one man under attack, with all shots fired from within 0.5m.

 

I am not in the IDF, but basic training dictates that trained soldiers in combat situations do not group so closely lest they are all taken out by one grenade or burst of fire. Keep some separation from your colleagues is basic stuff.

 

Do you not find it possible that training designed to deal with suicide bombers came into play?. I believe EDF elite commandos are trained to kill wounded possible suicide bombers. Get the kill in quick, however possible. in case that bomb gets activated.

An EDF man under attack gets several shots off and then ingrained reflexes lead him to finish off a downed opponent.

[mooeypoo]

I am not in the IDF, but basic training dictates that trained soldiers in combat situations do not group so closely lest they are all taken out by one grenade or burst of fire. Keep some separation from your colleagues is basic stuff.

If you are not in the IDF, how do you know what the basic training dictates?

 

As it were,these aren't regular soldiers, these are soldiers from an elite commando unit. Their usual missions isn't crowd dispersal, and they're trained very well to do covert missions and hand-to-hand combat with and without arms. When they *want* to kill, they kill.

 

According to the accounts, they started off shooting the feet, until they thought their lives (and their comrades lives) were in immediate danger when some of the protestors stole their guns and tried using them against the soldiers. At that point, the decision was quick, and final, and fatal. If an elite commando soldier decides a person is a threat and must be stopped immediately, that person is usually stopped immediately.

 

Do you not find it possible that training designed to deal with suicide bombers came into play?. I believe EDF elite commandos are trained to kill wounded possible suicide bombers.

Again. the usual case is that if a commando soldier wants someone dead, they're not wounded - they're dead. The problem in this scenario is that the soldiers felt they lost control over the situation and that their lives are at immediate risk. They took action, and as commandos, they are very good at this action.

 

Get the kill in quick, however possible. in case that bomb gets activated.

An EDF man under attack gets several shots off and then ingrained reflexes lead him to finish off a downed opponent.

If you know what you're doing, a single shot kills. Movies are fun to watch, but reality favors practicality, and in practical cases, you favor quick shots that don't waste your ammo. There's no *need* to shoot someone 4 times in the head. One shot is enough.

 

~moo

[louis wu]

Hamas declared it doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, and vows to continue the fighting. There were limited cease fires but overall, in the past 8 years, continuous rockets were fired on Israeli cities in the southern part of Israel, forcing thousands of people to live in bunkers.

 

Hamas' official charter calls for the elimination of the State of Israel. The UN and many other countries in the world posed a condition to Hamas for the beginning of talks that it drops this call so that talks can begin. Hamas refuses to. I'm not sure how a country can talk peace with a group that vows to destroy it and refuses to reconsider this vow.

 

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1980_1989/THE%20COVENANT%20OF%20THE%20HAMAS%20-%20MAIN%20POINTS%20-%2018-Aug-8

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_charter.pdf

 

 

First, we will need to look at the proposed plan before we jump to the conclusion that Israel is violent and power hungry. For that matter, if the proposed plan was harmful to Israel security (and I'm not talking about "giving up territories" - Israel has done that before both with Egypt and with the palestinians) then there's little surprise Israel wouldn't accept it, isnt' there?

 

But I must wonder if you might be confusing Hammas and Fatah here. Jimmy Carter was president in 77-81, and Hammas was formed in 1987. It's doubtful that the proposal was in front of them.

 

Fatah is a completely different entity, and Israel *is* communicating with Fatah and has a fairly decent cooperation (more or less) with the Fatah-controlled west bank, as was pointed out earlier in this thread.

 

General overview of the differences between Hamas and Fatah: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5016012.stm

 

 

~moo

On April 21, 2008, former US President Jimmy Carter met with Hamas Leader Khaled Meshal and reached an agreement that Hamas would respect the creation of a Palestinian state in the territory seized by Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967, provided this be ratified by the Palestinian people in a referendum. Hamas later publicly offered a long-term hudna with Israel if Israel agreed to return to its 1967 borders and to grant the "right of return" to all Palestinian refugees. Israel has not responded to the offer.[40][41] In November, 2008 Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, de jure Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority and de facto prime minister in Gaza, stated that Hamas was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1949 armistice lines, and offered Israel "a long-term hudna, or truce, if Israel recognized the Palestinians' national rights."[42]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

 

This was 2008. Are you sure you are Israeli? You seem out of touch with current affairs.

[mooeypoo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

 

This was 2008. Are you sure you are Israeli? You seem out of touch with current affairs.

 

Let's not make things personal, and try to avoid mockery, please, okay? The thread was great so far - we've managed to have calm and relaxed discussion. Let's try and keep it up.

 

 

I'm well aware of the agreements that were proposed with Hamas and with Fatah, and I will say again that as long as Hamas states *OFFICIALLY* that they intend for the destruction of Israel, then there is no point to talk about peace talks with Israel.

 

How can you discuss peace agreements with anyone that vows to kill you and refuses to drop this vow?

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm well aware of the agreements that were proposed with Hamas and with Fatah, and I will say again that as long as Hamas states *OFFICIALLY* that they intend for the destruction of Israel, then there is no point to talk about peace talks with Israel.

 

How can you discuss peace agreements with anyone that vows to kill you and refuses to drop this vow?

 

Well, if they say they'd accept a truce with Israel if they got a Palestinian state accepted by Israel, I guess compromise is an option for them.

 

 

 

 

But in any case, we don't need our own Middle Eastern conflict opening up here with the snide remarks. We're talking about current events, not each other.

[mooeypoo]

Well, if they say they'd accept a truce with Israel if they got a Palestinian state accepted by Israel, I guess compromise is an option for them.

Israel isn't saying there's no possibility for a Palestinian state; the current government denies the option for a 2-state solution (a solution which many citizens, including myself, are for), but that wasn't like that with the previous administration. Also, there's no doubt *some* format of a state will be given to the palestinians, the question is what type and what conditions and what Israel will need to concede - and what the Palestinians will need to concede.

 

Peace is about compromise, and you have to be able to discuss a compromise in order to make one. You can't discuss anything with an entity that doesn't want to talk to you.

 

Again, look at the differences between Gaza and the West Bank. Israel *does* discuss with Fatah, and things are much better.

 

~moo