Israel Navy Opens Fire on Gaza Aid Flotilla

[Formaldehyde]

You think it being night will stop people from filming?.

You think everybody has sophisticated infrared video cameras as the Israelis had? And do you think the Israelis would have divulged it on Youtube in a highly edited form if it didn't suit their propaganda purposes? Gee, I wonder where the footage of them killing and wounding innocent people is...

So your willing to risk the lives of your country's citizens just because you won't inspect a boat you think might be carrying weapons?

If it is done in a reasonable manner. Once again, got any evidence that any other country uses "commandos" at night to board ships on the high seas to conduct routine searches? Any at all?

I'm glad your not in charge of defense.

And I'm incredibly glad you aren't in charge of offense.

Oh yeah! What a joke metal poles are! Here Forma, let me come over to your house and crack you over the back of the head with a metal pole and you tell me if it's a weapon or not.

So I guess this means that Israel will next ban all metal poles from Gaza? Because they are such dangerous "weapons"?

 

[nc-1701]

Had to stop reading at post 9...

What's really ironic is that just last week my Dad and I were discussing how improbable it was that Israel would last another 20 years. Then I see this and it just shows exactly why, Israel would collapse quickly without the aid and support of the West, yet they consistently bite the hand that feeds them. Maybe not this time, but as these incidents stack up and the memory of the holocaust fades even America will end up turning our backs on Israel eventually and the Arabs will pick their wretched nation apart.
In this case the humanitarians were completely within their rights to defend themselves, it is only sad they lacked the requisite firepower to do it properly. Maybe next time the Turkish navy will provide a military escort and we can see if Israel is willing to shoot at people who can shoot back, in a genuine way (Hamas is just a militia barely more than a criminal organization they sure as hell don't count as a legitimate military threat.) If they do they better be ready for the consequences, because it's far past time that somebody really bloodied them and reminded them of a little humility in cases like this.

 

[Masada]

Wow! So now you can read intentions. Where can I get your psionic mind reader? It'd help me at exams and in job interviews to know the intentions of others.

Judges do it all the time. Besides, I don't think its a secret that they intended to transport goods to Palestine. Its also not exactly a secret that they had refused to submit to a reasonable request by Israel to be have the shipments searched first, before being transhipped to Palestine. Make of that what you will. I think it gives them sufficient grounds to board (and I'm making the distinction here because I don't think that shooting people was part of that).

The statue Israel is citing has nothing about intent to run a blockade, though is quite clear about running a blockade in the present tense. I would say at the point when it became impossible for the convoy to not enter Israeli waters was the point Israel would have had legitimacy.

Sure, I agree. Under normal circumstances if they had boarded the ships in Israeli territorial waters there wouldn't have been an issue legally. (Granted, shooting 10 people is another matter entirely but we'll leave that for now). But, really where is actionable intelligence bit coming from? I don't know what the standard of evidence required to satisfy reasonable suspicion is. Besides, Mobby is correct: there are numerous instances of countries enforcing blockades outside of there territorial water -- the Trent Incident is an example. For that and other reasons I won't make a comment about the legality or illegality of the act: although frankly if the Isreali law bods hadn't prepared a legal brief beforehand they need to be fired.

 

[warpus]

Come on, nobody thought that the boats might have been carrying weapons intended for Hamas, not even Israel.

 

[emzie]

Sure, I agree. Under normal circumstances if they had boarded the ships in Israeli territorial waters there wouldn't have been an issue legally. (Granted, shooting 10 people is another matter entirely but we'll leave that for now). But, really where is actionable intelligence bit coming from? I don't know what the standard of evidence required to satisfy reasonable suspicion is. Besides, Mobby is correct: there are numerous instances of countries enforcing blockades outside of there territorial water -- the Trent Incident is an example. For that and other reasons I won't make a comment about the legality or illegality of the act: although frankly if the Isreali law bods hadn't prepared a legal brief beforehand they need to be fired.

What I meant by actionable intelligence was any intelligence that would give them justification for boarding the ships. If Israel were to produce that, I'd be interested.

Also, the Trent Affair is hardly a good example! Everyone agrees it was politically an idiotic move, and Lincoln himself undid it.

Come on, nobody thought that the boats might have been carrying weapons intended for Hamas, not even Israel.

Even if they did, it was still a bad idea to act where they did. That's probably, to me, the most shocking part of this whole affair: just how stupid Israel was in acting where and when they did. Far too risky.

 

[Sterf]

I'm taking notes here, anyone not condemning this atrocity by Israel gets on my list of 'would not think twice to have violent diarrhoea upon'.

Can't imagine the hoops your logic would have to jump through to get to the conclusion that this was justified in any way.


Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. Please discuss the points without attacking other posters.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Masada]

What I meant by actionable intelligence was any intelligence that would give them justification for boarding the ships. If Israel were to produce that, I'd be interested.

I'm wondering the same thing myself. But even so, none of us are really sure if this kind of standard is even required. It might be the case that previous cases have been viewed as entirely legal with less in the way of evidence. We don't know.

Also, the Trent Affair is hardly a good example! Everyone agrees it was politically an idiotic move, and Lincoln himself undid it.

Its a perfect example insofar as the Trent was intercepted outside of American territorial waters. Whether or not the parties later regretted the incident is neither here nor there.

I'm taking notes here, anyone not condemning this atrocity by Israel gets on my list of 'would not think twice to have violent diarrhoea upon'.

That's charming. Really, Mr Consensus-Moral-Outrage-is-Mandatory.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Wow! So now you can read intentions. Where can I get your psionic mind reader? It'd help me at exams and in job interviews to know the intentions of others.

Well, assuming you have no firsthand knowledge, you're claiming to be able to read Israel's intentions.

 

[Sterf]

That's charming. Really, Mr Consensus-Moral-Outrage-is-Mandatory.

About as mandatory in the way that holocaust outrage is 'mandatory', meaning 'you'd have to be a pretty despicable excuse for a human being not to condemn this'-mandatory.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Had to stop reading at post 9...

What's really ironic is that just last week my Dad and I were discussing how improbable it was that Israel would last another 20 years. Then I see this and it just shows exactly why, Israel would collapse quickly without the aid and support of the West, yet they consistently bite the hand that feeds them. Maybe not this time, but as these incidents stack up and the memory of the holocaust fades even America will end up turning our backs on Israel eventually and the Arabs will pick their wretched nation apart.

So, you support genocide but the people who disagree with you are the unenlightened Neanderthals?

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

I'm taking notes here, anyone not condemning this atrocity by Israel gets on my list of 'would not think twice to have violent diarrhoea upon'.

Can't imagine the hoops your logic would have to jump through to get to the conclusion that this was justified in any way.

Silly me for waiting to see the facts before I make a judgment on this incident.

If it turns out that it really was an innocent humanitarian ship, I will gladly condemn Israel's actions. But I'm not going to blindly and automatically take sides against Israel just because they're Jewish.

 

[Takhisis]

NEWSFLASH!
Erdogan claims it's state terrorism.
He's also recalled his ambassador to Israel.
Direct quote from said source above:

Israel immediately imposed a communications blackout on the detained activists – some were taken by bus to Beersheva prison in the south of Israel – while simultaneously launching a sophisticated public relations operation to ensure its version of events was dominant. Its prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who defended the assault, put off a meeting with Barack Obama at the White House scheduled for today to fly back to deal with the crisis.​

Ouch... this could escalate due to imbecility and intransigence on both sides, as well as the US carefulyl taking an indecisive stance and letting time pass.

Well, assuming you have no firsthand knowledge, you're claiming to be able to read Israel's intentions.

I can read your intentions too! I have just received a psionic mind-reading device, and it has enabled me to determine why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch!

Anyway, goes to illustrate how people may 'read intentions'.

About as mandatory in the way that holocaust outrage is 'mandatory', meaning 'you'd have to be a pretty despicable excuse for a human being not to condemn this'-mandatory.

There are despicable people out there.

 

[Masada]

About as mandatory in the way that holocaust outrage is 'mandatory', meaning 'you'd have to be a pretty despicable excuse for a human being not to condemn this'-mandatory.

Great, so we're down to equating attempted (and largely successful) genocide with deaths the circumstances for which are still, at this point, essentially unknownable. I'll condemn it when the material facts have been established, the investigations finished and the results are plastered in the broadsheets. Until then, I'll avoid mourning people I didn't know (because that's frankly insincere) and who died in circumstances I don't know much about as yet (because I could be cheering on inadvertently Johnny-cum-Hero who started it and got people unnecessarily killed). At that point I suspect I'll be condemning the Israeli commandos as trigger happy idiots for unnecessarily escalating a situation. But, really I don't know and I suspect non-one knows enough to be draw an opinion on the matter that isn't clouded by their own ideologically tinted glasses.

Anyway, goes to illustrate how people may 'read intentions'.

Hey, it wasn't a feature of the legal system across the Commonwealth and into the United States for a long time. Wait, it was: Mens Rhea. In some places to be charged for murder the judge needs to determine whether you had a guilty mind. I guess he looks at the intentions of the person(!).

Ouch... this could escalate due to imbecility and intransigence on both sides, as well as the US carefulyl taking an indecisive stance and letting time pass.

I don't think Obama is going to sit on the side-lines: he's not Bush and Netanyahu is showing himself to be profoundly silly in his dealings with the United States in this regard. (This could only have come from a senior member of the government or the Prime Minister himself). My guess is that Obama is awaiting an explanation from Israel (on point of law and fact) and his own legal aides to evaluate the legal situation. I expect to see a qualified castigation of Israeli practice as he continues to attempt to get Israel to play ball with everyone else.

There are despicable people out there.

Its the faux moral outrage battalion again (RE: ABOVE).

 

[nc-1701]

So, you support genocide but the people who disagree with you are the unenlightened Neanderthals?

I hope it doesn't come to a genocide but I recognize that is a certainty if Israel continues on it's current course. Now if Israel were willing to end it's settlements, endless military actions, scrap its nuclear arsenal, and vacate all of the territory taken from the Palestinians then I would support American military defense for their country. The fact is though Israel is a rouge state which cannot be controlled, and so long as that's the case I don't feel the case can be made for defending them. so when they are inevitably defeated and probably suffer some type of genocide there will be nobody left who cares and it will be entirely their fault. Though hopefully we can at least evacuate most of their citizens, they don't deserve to die and frankly if they could behave I would support us protecting them, but they can't seem to behave and eventually they will suffer the consequences unfortunate as they may be.

 

[The Imp]

Oh Israel, you sure know how to make people love you.

 

[Sterf]

Silly me for waiting to see the facts before I make a judgment on this incident.

If it turns out that it really was an innocent humanitarian ship, I will gladly condemn Israel's actions. But I'm not going to blindly and automatically take sides against Israel just because they're Jewish.

The whole illegal blockade of Gaza in itself is an atrocity, when you know 80% of people there because of this rely on humanitarian aid just to survive, 90% of industry has closed since anything that can produce anything can't come in (for example, Israel won't even let buckets of margarine in since that could be used in an industrial fashion to make biscuits. Only small pots of margarine. As is fresh meat, raw goods of any kind and empty cans to name a few). All this in an illegal war and blockade that has gone on for far too long. Stuff like this doesn't help, either.

They just perfected the way to basically commit genocide on a people. Just make it last a long time, and somehow the world will ignore it like we are seeing now. Ironically, through blind hatred of the other religion the Israeli people seem to swallow that.

When they add insult to injury by attacking a ship with 10000 tonnes of aid like prefab houses (since they're driven from their own), food, and medical supplies in international waters even, I can't see why anyone wouldn't condemn that. It's pretty damn strange that you would give the ones who killed a dozen people and injured a few dozen more the benefit of the doubt, though. Is it because they came at them with sticks or, as Israeli videos released have shown, with slingshots and marbles?

Also, I take enormous offence in you insinuating that it's because they are Jewish. I and most people who are appalled by this don't give a rat's ass which god they believe in. It's just another thing thrown in to confuse the cold, hard facts.

 

[Ergo Sum]

Silly me for waiting to see the facts before I make a judgment on this incident.

If it turns out that it really was an innocent humanitarian ship, I will gladly condemn Israel's actions. But I'm not going to blindly and automatically take sides against Israel just because they're Jewish.

Yes, because if you don't support Israel it's anti-Semitism. Give me a break. Maybe the people sticking up for the flotilla are doing so because Israel has a long history of these sorts of incidents.

Or maybe it's because it smacks some wrong when they drop commandos with big effing guns on a boat via helicopter and tons of people end up dead, instead of arresting a ship in a more ceremonious manner.

 

[Ayn Rand]

The whole illegal blockade of Gaza in itself is an atrocity

Hamas effectively declared war on Israel when they began their rocket attacks in 2007 - not the other way around. Since then, Hamas have not surrendered, nor have they offered to negotiate surrender/peace terms, such as disarming or stepping down from power. They have not even apologised for their actions. That is why the blockade continues.

The Hamas line of reasoning is this;

i) Make a really stupid decision, such as provoking war with a much more powerful State
ii) Celebrate because some Israelis got killed/hurt as a result of stupid decision
iii) Get defeated in war as a result of stupid decision, and act surprised and bewildered by refusing to understand why you got attacked
iv) Refuse to admit stupid decision was wrong and torture/kill your own muslims who question you [damn traitors! no human rights for them]
v) Pretend to be the ongoing victim of aggression and don't recognise the role of your own actions in provoking a response
vi) Hope you can keep denying reality and sacrificing your own innocent people until World opinion saves you from your own stupidity and irresonsibility

And the Golden Rule is - never make a realistic compromise or show any moral or intellectual judgement, nor any sign of intelligent, rational thinking at all - and remember, individual rights are expendable if the ideological goal justifies it [and the goal always justifies it].

“During Israel’s attack on Gaza, Hamas moved violently against its political opponents and those deemed collaborators with Israeli forces. The unlawful arrests, torture, and killings in detention continued even after the fighting stopped, mocking Hamas’s claims to uphold the law.” Human Rights Watch

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yes. Where have we heard that excuse before? They are all terrorists or terrorist supporters who deserve to be exterminated, because they react in the only way they know how to continuing Israeli apartheid and even apparent genocide.

 

[Eli]

I'm confused.

Does or does not the movie show Israeli soldiers taken down, beaten by group of men with blunt objects, stabbed and thrown overboard?

Does or does not the attachment to this post also proves the existence of knives and bats on board - presumably the same ones actually used against the soldiers?

Were four other ships been boarded successfully under the same conditions, with the hundreds of people aboard them acting calmly and avoiding any confrontation?

And what on earth would you do if you were lying on the floor being beaten by five men with blunt objects or if your friend was thrown from a 10 meters (that's 30 feet for you) height?

As far as I'm concerned it's very simple:
A state has decided to board a vessel approaching it's waters. The legality of this issue is marginal and it's a waste of time to focus on it (for the record, it was legal ).
Four ships were boarded without casualties.
On one ship, a large group of people attacked the commandos in close quarters, overpowering some of them, beating them up, stabbing them and causing life threatening injuries.
At that point the commandos did what any sane man would do and defended themselves. At close quarters knives kill just as well as bullets.

-------

And if you're confused by so much text, I'll leave with a final thought:
Who in their right mind assaults IDF soldiers in the middle of the night with knives and bats and expects not to get shot in return?! Think about it for a moment. Forget all the background, it's irrelevant. YOU DO NOT ASSAULT ARMED SOLDIERS WITH COLD WEAPONS. YOU RAISE YOUR HANDS AND DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD.
No matter the circumstances, if someone raises a knife at me and I'm armed, I might consider shooting for the legs... If everything around is in chaos, you might as well expect one between the eyes.