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

[mooeypoo]

And if the people on the flotilla would have laid down their arms peacefully instead of fighting, the situation would be different. As was in the other six ships.

[Double K]

And if the people on the flotilla would have laid down their arms peacefully instead of fighting, the situation would be different. As was in the other six ships.

 

I think once you're dead, you've pretty much laid down your arms.

A final shot between the eyes is (if the person is still alive) a summary execution, and at best, if they are already dead - desecration of a corpse ie. mutilation. Both acts are forbidden under the geneva convention and are considered a crime against humanity.

[padren]

I think once you're dead, you've pretty much laid down your arms.

A final shot between the eyes is (if the person is still alive) a summary execution, and at best, if they are already dead - desecration of a corpse ie. mutilation. Both acts are forbidden under the geneva convention and are considered a crime against humanity.

 

Did you catch where Mooey said that practice is now illegal, and doesn't fit the evidence of what happened in this situation?

 

It also doesn't address the point you quoted: If they had laid down arms as did the other boats instead of resist violently, the capture of that boat would probably have been no more eventful than the other six.

[mooeypoo]

I think once you're dead, you've pretty much laid down your arms.

A final shot between the eyes is (if the person is still alive) a summary execution, and at best, if they are already dead - desecration of a corpse ie. mutilation. Both acts are forbidden under the geneva convention and are considered a crime against humanity.

No, a final shot between the eyes is something soldiers do when they are concerned about their - and others - lives. Four rapid shots are the custom for someone who is trained to make sure that a situation is diffused (yes, by resorting to deadly force, when it's decided that there was no choice).

 

We have no proof that the soldiers went to VERIFY a kill, and the sitaution on board - look at the pictures from *both* sources, IDF and the flotilla people - was out of hand. That makes it less likely that the soldiers had TIME to go verify a kill. It's much more likely they shot in rapid succession, like they are trained to do.

 

They're not the only soldiers who are trained to shoot in rapid succession, and that part (when defending their lives, which it seems they intended to do, seeing as they came onboard with painball guns and waited almost 2 minutes of beatings before starting to shoot) is not against the geneva convention.

 

~moo

[padren]

That doesn't seem like it would be legal. The use of lethal force is only supposed to be authorized if they resist being boarded, if I understand things correctly.

 

I'm pretty sure it was the terminology used by the reporter, not the IDF. I believe standard procedure would be to inform the vessel they are in violation and must change course, and that lethal force is authorized to prevent the breech of the blockade.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well, he says they stole everything else, too:

 

Now we can add: they are common thieves. For I was not the only one to be robbed of my money, credit card, clothes, MP3 player, laptop; the same happened to many others on the same ship as me, which was attacked early one morning by masked Israeli soldiers, who were thus in fact nothing other than lying pirates.

 

I still say that's an unfair characterization. Pirates pillage and loot - it's why they are out there at sea and whether they board a vessel or not is determined by whether they can loot it and if it has anything of value.

 

The IDF was there to enforce a blockade against ships entering their territorial waters and docking at an off-limits port. Whether they had legal authority to engage where they did is another matter - one that should be addressed to determine if they are guilty of enforcing the blockade outside of their jurisdiction - not piracy.

 

The US Coast Guard seizes ships and property when they find they've been transporting drugs - sometimes the legality of these acts are contended. Simply contending this however, does not mean the Coast Guard are pirates - just that they may have conducted an operation illegally.

They then answer for a different charge than piracy, one that actually applies to the laws broken in question.

 

To call either "pirates" is a dishonest, simplistic smear. It's like calling George Bush a mass murderer because we disagree with the pretext for a war he started, or worse - labeling the soldiers he sent into Iraq as such.

[Mr Skeptic]

Oh oh, looks like I opened a new can of worms. Let's try to make this short, or it will have to be split.

 

And if the people on the flotilla would have laid down their arms peacefully instead of fighting, the situation would be different. As was in the other six ships.

 

He's talking about the policy in general, as compared to laws against killing disabled non-combatants. He probably didn't catch the meaning of "hors de combat" which means outside the fight. I'd agree that killing a disabled person normally wouldn't be kosher, but if they are going to die anyways from multiple bullet wounds and due to the fact some of them want to die and can still be lethal if alive (suicide bombers), it seems like a bit of a different story. In any case, let me play the bolding game:

 

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise

between two or more of the High Contracting Parties

, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

 

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of

the territory of a High Contracting Party

, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

 

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention,

the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations

. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

 

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict

not of an international character

occurring

in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties

,

each Party

to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following

provisions:

 

(1)

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities

, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

 

Should we split this to a different thread?

[Double K]

He's talking about the policy in general, as compared to laws against killing disabled non-combatants. He probably didn't catch the meaning of "hors de combat" which means outside the fight. I'd agree that killing a disabled person normally wouldn't be kosher, but if they are going to die anyways from multiple bullet wounds and due to the fact some of them want to die and can still be lethal if alive (suicide bombers), it seems like a bit of a different story. In any case, let me play the bolding game:

 

Correct I was talking about the "confirm kill" policy in general, and also as enforced in this case.

 

Also there are confirmed eye witness reports from reliable sources (SMH Journalists) that medical aid to the wounded was not immediately rendered which is in contravention to the geneva convention.

 

With regard to hors de combat, the convention defines that as

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

Hors de Combat, literally meaning "outside the fight," is a French term used in diplomacy and international law to refer to soldiers who are incapable of performing their military function. Examples include a downed fighter pilot, as well as the sick, wounded, detained, or otherwise disabled.

A person is 'hors de combat' if:

 

(a) he is in the power of an adverse Party;

(b) he clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or

© he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself;

provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.

 

 

This does not mean that you took no part in fighting, it means that you are now 'neutralised.'

[mooeypoo]

Correct I was talking about the "confirm kill" policy in general, and also as enforced in this case.

 

Also there are confirmed eye witness reports from reliable sources (SMH Journalists) that medical aid to the wounded was not immediately rendered which is in contravention to the geneva convention.

There are confirmed eye wittness on the side of the IDF that claims the exact opposite. Either we find another objective source, or we decide to treat both sides as unreliable.

 

Incidentally, a Turkish representative to the Red Cross reported that the injured are receiving excellent care in Israeli hospitals. That might not say what was done onboard the ship, but since we seem to not be able to trust eitehr side's accounts, it can at least give us a hint of how Israel, in general, treats the wounded.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

To call either "pirates" is a dishonest, simplistic smear. It's like calling George Bush a mass murderer because we disagree with the pretext for a war he started, or worse - labeling the soldiers he sent into Iraq as such.

 

They can enforce the blockade without stealing the property of those on the ships. Of course, Mankell also believes the boarding was illegal, but stealing his socks was the last straw.

[Double K]

There are confirmed eye wittness on the side of the IDF that claims the exact opposite. Either we find another objective source, or we decide to treat both sides as unreliable.

 

Incidentally, a Turkish representative to the Red Cross reported that the injured are receiving excellent care in Israeli hospitals. That might not say what was done onboard the ship, but since we seem to not be able to trust eitehr side's accounts, it can at least give us a hint of how Israel, in general, treats the wounded.

 

~moo

 

The SMH eye witnesses are well regarded journalists for one of Australia's highest regarded newspapers. They were there as non-participating media coverage. It doesn't get much more reliable. They are non-partisan where-as any middle east news source or the Israeli's are partisan.

[mooeypoo]

The SMH eye witnesses are well regarded journalists for one of Australia's highest regarded newspapers. They were there as non-participating media coverage. It doesn't get much more reliable. They are non-partisan where-as any middle east news source or the Israeli's are partisan.

Of course it gets more reliable - the journalist was part of the flotilla that has a clear agenda against Israel.. he isn't objective. I'm not saying he's completely unreliable, i'm saying I have no way of knowing which eyewitness is right in light of so many conflicting testimonies so far (and we should really wait for the investigation). Hence, I will rather not trust *ANY* eyewitness testimony. Equally.

 

Moreover, just going over Israeli news sources (specially "Haaretz") will show you that Israeli media is*FAR* from being partisan. There are writers there that call for the dismantling of the state of Israel (causing quite a stir among the readers, I can tell you that). Those writers and articles *ARE* published in this media. Israel is a democracy. There is freedom of speech. People speak against the government, as well as for it.

 

I have no way of knowing who is objective; according to the videos, the people aboard the top deck of the flotilla fought back against the soldiers taht (read the international law carefully) came *lawfully* to stop them. Whether you agree with the blockade or not, the action is not unlawful; it follows the international law to the letter (and we've had a few posts about that already, yuo should read them). There was obviously screwups on both sides, but considering the fact that Israel *is* delivering the aid into Gaza, and considering the fact that all the other six ships were handled without any shred of violence, I'm having a lot of difficulties believing that the IDF came *looking* for a fight.

 

The extremists onboard the sixth flotilla declared they mean to be martyrs, and they wanted a fight. The fact the IDF fell into this horrible trap is not just unfortunate, it's horrible, and the way they acted should be investigated and - probably - those who planned this should have their heads rolling. And we probably will hear about those consequences once an inquiry is actually conducted (as opposed to rumors and guesses).

 

But deciding to believe one side on the expense of another just because it's more convinient to our conscience to go with what appears to be the weaker side doesn't help us judge what actually happened and analyze the screwups and see how this stops from happening again.

 

Obviously, there were two sides here to this mess, not just one. As I said before, if the IDF intended to kill and violently attack people, they would've boarded the ship with actual deadly guns instead of paintball guns.

 

There are two sides here, whether we agree with one or the other, ignoring the faults of the side we feel for doesn't really help us analyze this situation and fix it.

 

 

~moo

[Double K]

No, the journalists clearly stated (before even joining the flotilla) that they were there as journalists to document the passage. They were non-participants. I might add that the "investigation" will be carried out by the state of Israel, so it's hardly going to be conclusive either.

[mooeypoo]

No, the journalists clearly stated (before even joining the flotilla) that they were there as journalists to document the passage. They were non-participants. I might add that the "investigation" will be carried out by the state of Israel, so it's hardly going to be conclusive either.

 

You see though that you're making a decision here that all Israelis are unreliable and all flotilla-boarders are reliable?

 

The investigation will not be done by the IDF as far as I'm aware, it will be done by an external committee. And the journalist - was he on the lower decks of the ship with the truly-innocent flotilla aid workers? Did he *see* what went on at the top deck, or did he hear about it from the others? As far as I'm aware, the journalists were on the lower decks. If that's true, the journalist can be the most objective in the world and his testimony will still be unreliable because he didn't *SEE* what happened, and got his information from other (biased) sources.

 

But I'm more curious about another issue - just like I asked the others on the thread that seemed to blame the *entire* event seemingly one-sidedly on Israel: If you claim Israel did the wrong thing, you need to bring up a viable alternative. Letting the ship pass isn't a viable alternative (as you probably, hopefully, read before). What, then, would you suggest was supposed to be done?

 

And how do you explain the other six ships having absolutely *NO* events on-board, if the IDF is so deadly biased and hellbent on murder and theft?

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You see though that you're making a decision here that all Israelis are unreliable and all flotilla-boarders are reliable?

No. Just the ones that declared them to be impartial.

 

The investigation will not be done by the IDF as far as I'm aware, it will be done by an external committee. And the journalist - was he on the lower decks of the ship with the truly-innocent flotilla aid workers? Did he *see* what went on at the top deck, or did he hear about it from the others? As far as I'm aware, the journalists were on the lower decks. If that's true, the journalist can be the most objective in the world and his testimony will still be unreliable because he didn't *SEE* what happened, and got his information from other (biased) sources.

 

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-awaiting-green-light-from-u-s-for-internal-gaza-flotilla-probe-1.294786

 

Nope. By the IDF. Although there'll be a separate investigation to make the US happy as well.

 

Also, the account Double K linked to made it very clear that the journalists were on the upper decks, taking pictures of the action. And I was right -- they said they smuggled three microSD cards out. Hope they release the pictures soon.

 

And how do you explain the other six ships having absolutely *NO* events on-board, if the IDF is so deadly biased and hellbent on murder and theft?

 

Henning Mankell was on one of the other boats, and that was where his stuff was stolen. He also stated that others on the boat were beaten up or Tased if they were too slow or asked for something, like water or a restroom.

 

Also, a nice picture:

 

[Double K]

As far as I could tell from the journalists report they were on the upper decks, but were later forced below decks, searched and had items confiscated. There is also a report from an Australian that was shot that he did not get medical attention, I will find a link to that asap.

[mooeypoo]

Also, the account Double K linked to made it very clear that the journalists were on the upper decks, taking pictures of the action. And I was right -- they said they smuggled three microSD cards out. Hope they release the pictures soon.

I hope so too.

 

Henning Mankell was on one of the other boats, and that was where his stuff was stolen. He also stated that others on the boat were beaten up or Tased if they were too slow or asked for something, like water or a restroom.

If that really happened, I want to see the balls of those soldiers on a plate. I'm not the only one - with and without Israeli citizenship - either.

 

Also, a nice picture:

 

Yes, I head that the people in the lower decks on the sixth flotilla, according to accounts, saved the soldiers from being kidnapped and/or killed by the violent minority that occupied the upper decks.

 

On the other hand, there's also this picture:

(notice the knife on the lower right corner)

(source: http://fotogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/GaleriDetay.aspx?cid=36575&p=1&rid=2)

There is blame on both sides, it seems.

 

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

As far as I could tell from the journalists report they were on the upper decks, but were later forced below decks, searched and had items confiscated. There is also a report from an Australian that was shot that he did not get medical attention, I will find a link to that asap.

I'll ask again: Are you saying that *all* blame is in Israel's side? I just want to be clear on your position here. Seems to me you find absolutely no blame at all on the flotilla side; am I right?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

On the other hand, there's also this picture:

(notice the knife on the lower right corner)

(source: http://fotogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/GaleriDetay.aspx?cid=36575&p=1&rid=2)

There is blame on both sides, it seems.

 

I think that's a steak knife. Maybe they want to treat him to dinner.

 

(not a great weapon in any case, but stabby nevertheless)

[mooeypoo]

I think that's a steak knife. Maybe they want to treat him to dinner.

 

(not a great weapon in any case, but stabby nevertheless)

Yes, the soldier looks very hungry.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, the soldier looks very hungry.

 

Which is funny, actually, since I understand lots of them were given knuckle sandwiches when they first landed on the deck.

 

Must not have liked the taste.

 

 

 

...I apologize, that was in bad taste

[Mr Skeptic]

The SMH eye witnesses are well regarded journalists for one of Australia's highest regarded newspapers. They were there as non-participating media coverage. It doesn't get much more reliable. They are non-partisan where-as any middle east news source or the Israeli's are partisan.

 

That's also how I know that the Bible is true -- it is supported by a lot of well-regarded people, and also it says it's the Word of God and you can't get any more reliable than that!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If you claim Israel did the wrong thing, you need to bring up a viable alternative. Letting the ship pass isn't a viable alternative (as you probably, hopefully, read before). What, then, would you suggest was supposed to be done?

 

Incidentally, what do you suggest would have been a viable alternative for the flotilla?

[Double K]

I'll ask again: Are you saying that *all* blame is in Israel's side? I just want to be clear on your position here. Seems to me you find absolutely no blame at all on the flotilla side; am I right?

 

I'm not "pro" either side, I am pro-truth and that's all.

I am truly skeptical of Israeli accounts given several points; their past history, their past history of distorting the truth to suit their agenda, and their well documented military aggression.

Having said that, I have zero reason to support Hammas, or any other side seen as "against" israel. I just find it hard to swallow that Israel did everything by the book when many accounts point to other than.

 

Also this is an isreali military issue combat knife, which looks terribly similar to the one pictured. It's more than possible this knife was disarmed from the soldier once he was subdued. By the way it is held in the image it's certainly non-threatening as though he has taken it from someone.

 

A viable alternative would be to have someone else (non-Israeli UN peacekeepers) enforce the boardings, this way if there are anti-semetic interests on board they are less likely to attack unless Israel boards. Secondly it wont cause an international incident if there is a stuff up, as it wont look like it's come from a party acting solely in their own interest and with far too much aggression.

[mooeypoo]

Incidentally, what do you suggest would have been a viable alternative for the flotilla?

That's a fair question.

 

My suggestion is that they should have done exactly what the other six ships did, and make an international outcry without being violent against soldiers and creating a situation that increases the chances of more violence.

 

The other six ships had zero casualties, and they made a huge outcry. That would also make the flotilla's point *much* stronger if they wouldn't have a minority group hellbent on creating violence - which makes *them* be part of the side that screwed up instead of being truly innocent, and keeping the right to claim Israel and the IDF as the true "assailant".

 

In the above case I might not have agreed on the issues of whether or not the blockade was justified or not, or whether or not the ships should have or shouldn't have been boarded, but I *would* have seen the point of the Flotilla (and would have agreed partially with some of the points they were making, though perhaps not all).

 

Again, Israel is a democracy, and although I do see the point of the blockade, I think Israel tends to lose sight of the world opinion at times, and sometimes the IDF elects to go for the "easy" route rather than the tougher - but maybe less 'painful' for the palestinians - route. I do think that demonstrations *SHOULD* be done to remind those in power that they're not alone in the world, and that they *ARE* accountable, to their own voters *and* to teh world.

 

But the way this flotilla was handled - the fifth ship in particular - defied this point. Instead of making the point that Israel is, perhaps, doing something wrong here that deserves to be changed, the flotilla actions seemed to show that the 'peace activists' are more interested in slamming Israel than actually doing peace activism. That defies the point of BOTH sides.

 

My biggest problem is the violence on both sides. It seems to me, however, from the example of the other six (!) ships, that without a violent minority that seemingly intended to provoke violence from the soldiers, this could've been ended with zero casualties and total victory for the 'peace activists'.

 

As it were, I think the fifth boat ruined the point of its fellow six ships, honestly.

 

~moo

[Double K]

Just to follow up regarding the Aussie that got shot in the leg

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_536705.html

 

'I've just been left there to lay down on the ground and just bleed, and I can't believe it,' he told national broadcaster ABC from his hospital bed in Istanbul. 'Many of the soldiers that came up, picked up my passport because it was a different colour, looked at it, chucked it on the ground next to me and said, 'Ah, you're Australian'.'

 

Mr Luqman, 20, said that after the raid the Israelis made him 'climb all the stairs on my own without any assistance, and I passed out like three or four times just getting up the stairs on my own.'

 

Nine activists died during the Israeli naval operation against the flotilla, which was attempting to break a blockade on Gaza. Mr Luqman, whose nursing student wife was with him at the time and gave him immediate medical attention, said he was not intending to fight the Israelis and had been trying to seek cover when he was hit.

 

'I was just trying to get into the cabin and (was) just shot, like most of the other people who were just shot for nothing,'

[mooeypoo]

I'm not "pro" either side, I am pro-truth and that's all.

I am truly skeptical of Israeli accounts given several points; their past history, their past history of distorting the truth to suit their agenda, and their well documented military aggression.

And yet you don't SOUND like you're skeptical about the other side *despite* their own history. I find that weird.

 

I'm far from saying Israel is perfect - or even that Israel has acted well in this case, but that doesn't mean I don't see the fault of the flotilla folks as well, which, I believe, I will be very gentle by saying encouraged this deadly situation, and knowingly so.

 

Having said that, I have zero reason to support Hammas, or any other side seen as "against" israel. I just find it hard to swallow that Israel did everything by the book when many accounts point to other than.

I didn't say they did everything by the book, far from it. That doesn't mean they didn't do *anything* by the book, though.

 

Also this is an isreali military issue combat knife, which looks terribly similar to the one pictured. It's more than possible this knife was disarmed from the soldier once he was subdued. By the way it is held in the image it's certainly non-threatening as though he has taken it from someone.

Even *if* that's the knife that belonged to the soldier, the soldiers didn't use those knives against the flotilla folks. Just a short look at the videos shows clearly that they were attacked. The discussion of whether they were justifiably attacked or not is besides the point - they were the ones being attacked, and they waited a full two minute mark before asking to use live weapons (not knives. guns).

 

Knives were found in the flotilla, as well as saws (according to accounrs, and to some of the videos, used trying to cut off the soldier's hands) and bats and big metal rods, and gas masks. Whoever says that knives and metal rods are not deadly weapons has never been (or seen) a riot.

 

What I do agree with is that the operation should've been planned and carried-out differently. I don't know if riot-police is a viable option considering the location of the ships, but I believe there are other ways to stop a boat that don't involve physically boarding it. One more point to consider, though, is that if you stop a boat by, say, doing what the coast-guard is doing, and ruining its propeller, you might create a bigger problem onboard the ship (a humanitarian crisis onboard) because dragging a ship to shore takes *much* more time than driving it to shore.

 

That doesn't mean the operation was done well, not at all, but my point is that the situation isn't black-and-white. There *are* gray areas here. Quite a lot of them.

 

A viable alternative would be to have someone else (non-Israeli UN peacekeepers) enforce the boardings, this way if there are anti-semetic interests on board they are less likely to attack unless Israel boards.

Agreed, but they don't do that. Either they don't care about the weapons sent into the strip, or they don't care to seem like they care enough as to support a blockade. Who knows. But they're not an option.

 

Secondly it wont cause an international incident if there is a stuff up, as it wont look like it's come from a party acting solely in their own interest and with far too much aggression.

I agree. Having a third party do the blockade and the security screening for the aid is preferable.

Israel offer the ships to have the UN and/or an independent party conduct the security checks before the aid continues to Gaza - that is, not have Israel do it, but have another country or the UN do it. That's a third party who's unrelated.

The ships refused.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

.As it were, I think the fifth boat ruined the point of its fellow six ships, honestly.

 

Oh no. No, if there were no deaths, the actions of the flotilla would have been largely unremarkable and nobody would really care. The boats would be towed to Israel, everyone would say "that wasn't so bad," and the blockade would continue.

 

Instead, some people died, and outrage erupted. It doesn't matter if those people were fighting and were a threat; they died. On a mission to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza. Sure, they were asking for it, but they died, and the media had something to latch onto.

 

Now, everyone's interested. Everyone goes, looks, and learns what's happening: Israel is blockading Gaza, many Gazans are in poverty, humanitarian efforts go badly, etc.

 

Now the UN is condemning the blockade and Iran is seizing the PR opportunity to pick on Israel. (Although Iran would take any chance they could get. If Netanyahu sneezed on TV they'd send a ship full of Kleenexes to Gaza, just because.) Nations are demanding investigations and searching through international law. That wouldn't happen if this ended peacefully.

 

No, the protesters succeeded brilliantly. Their actions brought attention to the blockade of Gaza, just as they wanted. They may have brought negative attention upon themselves, but they don't care. In the end, people are demanding action about Gaza now, and so they've won.

 

It's a pity people had to die to achieve that.