# Israeli Commandos kill 10 in attack on aid convoy



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*WTF?*

*Israel soldiers kill protesters trying to break Gaza blockade*












> Israeli naval ships seized control of a protest flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip on Monday, killing at least 10 people and sparking widespread international condemnation.
> 
> Israeli television, citing foreign media reports, said the death toll could be as high as 16.
> 
> ...





> Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon called the flotilla an "armada of hate and violence" that launched a "premeditated and outrageous provocation." He said Israeli soldiers found evidence that "weapons" had been prepared in advance, but he did not specify whether those weapons included guns.
> 
> Israel's military said protesters managed to grab two guns from Israeli soldiers and use them against the commandos, prompting soldiers to return fire.
> 
> ...





> Berlin said the activists were acting in self-defense after soldiers opened fire.
> 
> "People had the right to defend themselves against soldiers armed with machine guns,'' she said in a telephone interview from Cyprus. The group had been unable to reach passengers since the attack occurred because the Israeli military had blocked telephone signals, she said. "They can spin it any way they want. We're the civilians, and they are the military."


(LA Times)


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Oh great and Netanyahu is in Canada. Too bad we know that Harper won't condemn Israel for this. I hope Obama does the right thing.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Netanyahu has cancelled his visit and is returning to Israel...


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

That's what you get for trying to break through a naval blockade.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing it happened, but people should know better than to try and evade a naval armada.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Oh, THIS is interesting...*


> The attack happened in international waters more than 60 kilometres from shore.


 (CBC)

...I wonder what are the implications of this attack being carried out in international waters, as opposed to the territorial waters of Israel / Gaza / whatever...?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

.


> According to Berlin, flotilla *organizers hoped to bring international attention to Israel's Gaza blockade and expected a confrontation,* "but we never expected this kind of violence."


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *Oh, THIS is interesting...*
> (CBC)
> 
> ...I wonder what are the implications of this attack being carried out in international waters, as opposed to the territorial waters of Israel / Gaza / whatever...?


Ships on the high seas travel under the jurisdiction of their flag country, in this case Turkey. When a ship is involved in a criminal act, any country can claim jurisdiction. I'm sure that's the argument Israel will use.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

dona83 said:


> Oh great and Netanyahu is in Canada. Too bad we know that Harper won't condemn Israel for this. I hope Obama does the right thing.


The chances off BO cutting the flow of money to Israel are absolutely nil.

For one thing the Homeland Security Nazis have devoted themselves to collecting dirt on anyone who is or might become President, a Congressman or Senator. All of this information has no doubt been duly shared with Israeli intelligence. 

Beyond that rest assured that anyone who dares propose appropriate action will be condemned as anti-semitic and a holocaust denier.

Truth is these boats were loaded with peace activists and Israel considers peace as the only viable threat to its security. From that point of view this slaughter of unarmed people in international waters was entirely justified.beejacon


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> Some 700 pro-Palestinian activists are on the boats, including 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire of Northern Ireland, European legislators and an elderly Holocaust survivor.


(Crooks & Liars)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> The flotilla was attacked in international waters, 65km off the Gaza coast. Organizers said the flotilla was carrying 10,000 tones of humanitarian aid headed to Gaza challenging the Israeli blockade.
> 
> The Israeli Army Radio said soldiers opened fire "after confronting those on board carrying sharp objects". Israel says they offered to deliver the aid if the ships turned back.
> 
> ...


(ZCommunications.org)


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

What we have here is another "he said, she said". You take your chances when you are in any confrontation ... but all through history, when they have turned out bad, such as this one, you will get biased views on who started it. None of us were there, and none of the journalists, that I have seen, were close enough to say with absolute certainty that none of the ships passengers might [ note I said might ] have caused the initial rebuffing of the soldiers. The famous saying: "What we have here is failure to communicate" is apt. A classic case of one side hating and having so much distrust of the other that any action, even the slightest movement, would be interpreted as a precursor to an attack. Sad, I know, but I think this is the truth, and the reason a number of people died today.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> Some 700 pro-Palestinian activists are on the boats, including 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire of Northern Ireland, European legislators and an elderly Holocaust survivor.


What does this have to do with the incident?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Rps, the flotilla was some 70 miles outside of Israel's territorial waters. On what grounds did Israeli commandos set foot on the boats?

In any other case, some members of this forum would be "hell, ya! This is why we gots freedums to bare arms! Gotta defend ourselves against the terrrrrists!!" In this case, from the reports to date, Israeli forces boarded ships in international waters and attempted what appears to be an entirely illegal action. People on board attempted to defend themselves.

It's really frustrating to read the mental contortions some people go through to paint things in a particular way....


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Victoria resident Kevin Neish was on board, no one's heard from him since the attack.
CTV British Columbia - Victoria, B.C., man aboard ships stormed by Israelis - CTV News


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

CubaMark said:


> Rps, the flotilla was some 70 miles outside of Israel's territorial waters. On what grounds did Israeli commandos set foot on the boats?


First it was 60, then 65 and now 70km. Which is it?


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

CubaMark said:


> It's really frustrating to read the mental contortions some people go through to paint things in a particular way....


Cubamark, there are no contortions here. You have two highly charged self-interest groups who distrust each other. Why is this any different than the U.S. / U.S.S.R. blockade in Cuba? When you have this much distrust and hatred, these things happen.

Each will blame the other, and unfortunately, each will be right.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

There's video clips being released on the web about the attack:

LiveLeak.com - Redefining the Media
LiveLeak.com - Redefining the Media
LiveLeak.com - Redefining the Media


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

To clarify, if they boarded the ship in international waters is that piracy? Can a country unilaterally board ships like this?

Interesting stuff. If some idiots started dropping onto my boat from helicopters they would be lucky to just get hit with a metal pole.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> To clarify, if they boarded the ship in international waters is that piracy? Can a country unilaterally board ships like this?
> 
> Interesting stuff. If some idiots started dropping onto my boat from helicopters they would be lucky to just get hit with a metal pole.


A stern letter to the UN, what ho?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> To clarify, if they boarded the ship in international waters is that piracy? Can a country unilaterally board ships like this?
> 
> Interesting stuff. If some idiots started dropping onto my boat from helicopters they would be lucky to just get hit with a metal pole.


Yep that is indeed the very definition of Piracy, but Israel has always declared themselves exempt from such things because of the holocaust.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Israel has always declared themselves exempt from such things because of the holocaust.


wha?


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

CubaMark said:


> Rps, the flotilla was some 70 miles outside of Israel's territorial waters. On what grounds did Israeli commandos set foot on the boats?


So if let's just say that some terrorist group steals a destroyer or cruiser or some other warship and starts coming towards Canada (never mind the fact that we wouldn't be prepared, lol, or have the capacity to stop it) we couldn't do anything to it until it was in our water? Can't those cruise missile thingys (amongst other missiles) and like 500mile ranges?

Yes, I realize this isn't the same thing. I'm just trying to understand this 70miles thing. It seems weird that if a country felt a threat from some boat, that they would have to wait until it reached 70miles (or whatever arbitrary number it is) before they could do anything.


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

i-rui said:


> wha?


That would be because Israel can "get away" with things that real, non made up, countries can not. They will always have the "holocaust" card to play, right?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

imnothng said:


> That would be because Israel can "get away" with things that real, non made up, countries can not. They will always have the "holocaust" card to play, right?


Bingo!

Actually I only have two issues with Israel. First: they will use or create any excuse they can find to steal from their neighbours. Second: the aforementioned use of the Holocaust to justify any and every atrocity.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

imnothng said:


> ...real, non made up, countries..


All countries are "made up."


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

Macfury said:


> All countries are "made up."


Yes, but most weren't made up by the "rest of the world" because of something that one country did to people of one religion. I don't see the gypsies getting a country, or ****'s getting a country, or..... bah, never mind.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

imnothng said:


> Yes, but most weren't made up by the "rest of the world" because of something that one country did to people of one religion. I don't see the gypsies getting a country, or ****'s getting a country, or..... bah, never mind.


Well.... would you like them alphabetic or geographic. How about something closer to home: Canada, The United States of America. Something of British origin, Ireland, how about Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, any country that ends is "stan" is usually a European invention, Not sure how old you are, but you would probably be old enough to remember what was Yugoslavia, and the list goes on, we can by-pass Africa if you like.....


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> All countries are "made up."


Are nations?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> In any other case, some members of this forum would be "hell, ya! This is why we gots freedums to bare arms! Gotta defend ourselves against the terrrrrists!!"


Build Strawmen often?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Bingo!
> 
> Actually I only have two issues with Israel. First: they will use or create any excuse they can find to steal from their neighbours. Second: the aforementioned use of the Holocaust to justify any and every atrocity.


Europe's (and the rest of the world to a lesser extent) guilt over their inaction during the holocaust definitely played a part in Israel getting it's nation state. And the Holocaust definitely plays a part in Israel's psychology of how to deal with threats (hard line military might instead of any action that would be considered "soft" or "meek").

But i don't think Israel has "declared themselves exempt" from illegal actions because of the Holocaust. If you can post any official declaration please do. I'd be interested in seeing that.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

imnothng said:


> That would be because Israel can "get away" with things that real, non made up, countries can not. They will always have the "holocaust" card to play, right?


so does north korea have a holocaust card to play?
what about the U.S.?
Russia?
China?

All of those countries have pulled stuff that most countries wouldn't try to "get away" with.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

In no way am I trying to justify the loss of life yesterday, but I think it is pretty easy to understand why Israel is paranoid when they are surrounded by countries who are their sworn enemy, do not acknowledge their right to exist and if they could would commit genocide on the Israeli people. That would make me a little paranoid as well... Just sayin'.


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

i-rui said:


> so does north korea have a holocaust card to play?
> what about the U.S.?
> Russia?
> China?
> ...


No, they have power and military might. (North Korea has China)


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> In no way am I trying to justify the loss of life yesterday, but I think it is pretty easy to understand why Israel is paranoid when they are surrounded by countries who are their sworn enemy, do not acknowledge their right to exist and if they could would commit genocide on the Israeli people. That would make me a little paranoid as well... Just sayin'.


Paranoia is OK but cannot be used to justify murder, theft and illegal occupation! I find Israel's stock line of trying to portray themselves as victim rather than as perpetraitor to be totally repugnant.


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

Rps said:


> Well.... would you like them alphabetic or geographic. How about something closer to home: Canada, The United States of America. Something of British origin, Ireland, how about Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, any country that ends is "stan" is usually a European invention, Not sure how old you are, but you would probably be old enough to remember what was Yugoslavia, and the list goes on, we can by-pass Africa if you like.....


Correct me if I'm wrong, but what other country was created SOLELY because of what one country did to the people?

Who did what to any of the people of any of the countries that you mentioned?


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

imnothng said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but what other country was created SOLELY because of what one country did to the people?


Unilateralist historians of the American Revolution argue that this is how the US was created.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

chasMac said:


> Unilateralist historians of the American Revolution argue that this is how the US was created.


While the US was largely built on a foundation of theft, that still does not make it right.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

C'mon, what country isn't built on theft. To the victor go the spoils has been the way since the beginning of time.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> C,mon, what country isn't built on theft. To the victor go the spoils has been the way since the beginning of time.


If we're not stealing it from some animals, we're stealing it from someone else.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

i-rui said:


> so does north korea have a holocaust card to play?
> what about the U.S.?
> Russia?
> China?
> ...


i-rui, please don't take this a a slight, it is not my intent, but China and Russia have killed exponentially more than the Holocaust. China is in the 70 million range alone.

This is a dichotomous situation and it will only be reconciled when both sides respect the other. I'm not taking a position on this, but this is just the facts....


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> If we're not stealing it from some animals, we're stealing it from someone else.


Exactly.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Rps said:


> i-rui, please don't take this a a slight, it is not my intent, but China and Russia have killed exponentially more than the Holocaust. China is in the 70 million range alone.
> 
> This is a dichotomous situation and it will only be reconciled when both sides respect the other. I'm not taking a position on this, but this is just the facts....


that was exactly my point. emacman was saying that israel only gets away with doing things their way because they play the "holocaust card" (as he put it).

But my point was that countries have in the past (and will continue) to do things that most of the world doesn't agree with & condemns (the US, China & Russia being the big 3 examples) and they don't have to play any kind of "holocaust card".

Israel acts the way they do because they see it as in the best interest of their nation's security. The Holocaust has nothing to do with it (beyond my initial points that it played a part in them being granted their nation state and the psychology of never appearing weak against external threats)

But i've never heard israel declare they can do whatever they want because of the Holocaust.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Sorry i-rui i didn't get that from your post. no worries.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

i-rui said:


> ...
> But i've never heard israel declare they can do whatever they want because of the Holocaust.


Yes and no, they are quite prone to saying the holocaust has taught them never to show weakness or mercy lest someone might take advantage of them. Pretty much the same thing in my books.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Yes and no, they are quite prone to saying the holocaust has taught them never to show weakness or mercy lest someone might take advantage of them. Pretty much the same thing in my books.


It wasn't just the Holocaust... if only it were. 

The Jewish people have been persecuted throughout their history, simply because they were Jewish and were good/great merchants etc. (competition) in a "foreign" land. Foreign because they had no land of their own, because they never had a sufficient army to defend what was "their's" (remember Masada for example). 

Once they had a homeland, effectively by US military support, can it come as any surprise that they will do "whatever it takes" to defend it? Is Israel "heavy handed" in its military reaction to perceived threats? You beatcha. Should it be surprising that they react as such...? Not in the least.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

New info - apparently, under the letter of the law and the geo-political context, Israel's attack on aid convoy may have been a legal operation. But as the author of the linked article says (paraphrasing), "legal doesn't equal smart)".

Unsure of the matter of the 10 murders, and how they are treated within this context. I suspect civil suits from the victims' families will be coming...


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

CubaMark said:


> I suspect civil suits from the victims' families will be coming...


That's and interesting comment. Have perceived victims of aggression ever had success in suing Israel? Surely there must be far more egregious examples, yet I do not recall recourse to legal means.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Peaceful volunteers arm themselves and prepare to attack IDF soldiers: LiveLeak.com - Redefining the Media

I love the age of video.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

don't mean to be picky, but the lighting, and non movement would appear it was filmed in a barn somewhere. Not saying this is credible, but...... do you really think this looks real......................


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> don't mean to be picky, but the lighting, and non movement would appear it was filmed in a barn somewhere. Not saying this is credible, but...... do you really think this looks real......................


It doesn't even look like a ship. And why did it stop before the soldiers arrived?


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

Crap, there's soldiers coming with automatic weapons, quick, get a metal bar to hit them with. lol, sorry, but have they ever heard of giving up or retreating to fight another day?

And yeah, that video is pointless I think.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I think some people have their tin foil hat on just a little too tight. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> I think some people have their tin foil hat on just a little too tight. :lmao:


And some people will believe anything they find on the internet.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Macfury said:


> And some people will believe anything they find on the internet.


You leave MacDoc out of this!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Seriously, though MannyP, it's hard to decide what that video represents without knowing if those are the actual people on the boat or if that was the actual boat. The way they're posturing with the weapons seems like a put-on. Presumably this was captured by the boat's own security camera. If so, why are the people on the boat allowing themselves to be filmed arming themselves? I'm not declaring the video to be faked, it just has the look of something designed to make a very specific point.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Well, never thought I'd see "peaceful" protesters use a luxury liner… but I guess that's not in question.

Regardless, the last thing on _my_ mind would be watchful of security cameras when soldiers were on their way. Then again, I'd think twice about bringing a slingshot. It's too bizarre to be true, and yet people doing such things is not unheard of.

With respects to earlier comments about it looking like it was filmed in a barn, well, it was night time. It's not like the boat will wash the ocean with flood lights so we get a beautiful exposed picture. 

Let's suppose it was faked—the Israeli government wants to paint the protestors in a bad light—why would they make a fake video of a bunch of guys getting ready with blunt objects and glass? There are already tons of proper video showing the entire skirmish from multiple angles—both from the perspective of the protestors and the military—nothing in this video shows out of the ordinary.

Now, had they brandished AK-47s, THAT would be a wee be conspicuous.

Or maybe the whole thing was fiction. They colluded with the producers of Wag the Dog and hired Kirsten Dunst to play the role of the soldier thrown over deck.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> Let's suppose it was faked—the Israeli government wants to paint the protestors in a bad light—why would they make a fake video of a bunch of guys getting ready with blunt objects and glass? There are already tons of proper video showing the entire skirmish from multiple angles—both from the perspective of the protestors and the military—nothing in this video shows out of the ordinary.


If the people are the same ones found on the boat, then it's obviously real--it'll sort itself out in a couple of days. The video certainly makes them look pissed off, but the overall effect is a sort of incompetence rather than that of a group of well-organized vigilante protesters.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

That video is hilarious.
I doubt the IDF would be stupid enough to release something like this and expect people to believe it's real.

For one, the IDF soldiers dropped down from helicopters - this looks like the people in the video are fighting some ghost attackers who are trying to board the ship from below.

Just too funny for words.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> New info - apparently, under the letter of the law and the geo-political context, Israel's attack on aid convoy may have been a legal operation. But as the author of the linked article says (paraphrasing), "legal doesn't equal smart)".
> 
> Unsure of the matter of the 10 murders, and how they are treated within this context. I suspect civil suits from the victims' families will be coming...


The linked article states:



> It was at that point the IDF had legal authority - under international maritime law governing maritime blockades *during wartime* - to board the vessels and prevent the vessels from running the blockade. Yes, this action may legally be taken in international waters if those waters are recognized as part of the area under the maritime blockade. It is important to note that the action took place within the zone that was publicly known to be part of the maritime blockade of Gaza, and part of that zone is in international waters.


How can anyone consider this a maritime blockade "during wartime".
Was there ever an official declaration of war by Israel or Hamas? Not as far as I know.
Maritime law governing maritime blockades during wartime just doesn't apply.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

krs said:


> How can anyone consider this a maritime blockade "during wartime".
> Was there ever an official declaration of war by Israel or Hamas? Not as far as I know.
> Maritime law governing maritime blockades during wartime just doesn't apply.


Hamas has vowed to destroy Israel, and has launched rockets and mortars indiscriminately into Israel. Even if war hasn't been declared it's pretty clear there's a conflict.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jfpoole said:


> Hamas has vowed to destroy Israel, and has launched rockets and mortars indiscriminately into Israel. Even if war hasn't been declared it's pretty clear there's a conflict.


A valid point. Within 6 hours of Israel becoming an independent state, they were attacked on four fronts. Many of these countries have never changed their vow to "push the people of Israel into the sea". While I do not support Israel in their West Bank expansion, nor the building of The Wall, I do support their right to exist as a free nation.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

jfpoole said:


> Hamas has vowed to destroy Israel, and has launched rockets and mortars indiscriminately into Israel. Even if war hasn't been declared it's pretty clear there's a conflict.


There are dozens of "conflicts" all over the world - but a "conflict" does not 'legally' permit a maritime blockade and all it involves.
A maritime blockade during wartime also permits supply ships to be attacked and sunk.
How would you feel if Israel did just that - sink the six ships of that last flotilla and then claim "were legally allowed to do that".

Someone will probably prove me wrong but at this time I don't think there are any other "maritime blockades" anywhere else in the world.

Interesting when one googles this subject - pretty much all "legal opinion" (whatever that means - whose legal opinion?) is that this blockade is permitted and legal except, and I find that rather strange, there is hardly any country in the whole world that supports Israel when it comes to this "legal" blockade.
Shouldn't that just be the opposite - the world in general supporting this maritime blockade?
Something doesn't make sense here.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

krs said:


> How would you feel if Israel did just that - sink the six ships of that last flotilla and then claim "were legally allowed to do that".


How would you feel if there were no blockade, and Hamas continued to attack civilian targets in Israel?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

jfpoole said:


> Hamas has vowed to destroy Israel, and has launched rockets and mortars indiscriminately into Israel. Even if war hasn't been declared it's pretty clear there's a conflict.


Nope this has been a one sided massacre from all the way back in 1967. Israel continues to steal more and more Gazan land and has already stolen virtually all their water.

In the last so called "skirmish" 1400 Gazans were slaughtered for putting a pothole in an Israeli highway. 

The only credible threat to Israeli security is their own abysmal treatment of their closest neighbours.

Sorry but Israel has long since exhausted my store of sympathy, The boats could have been searched when they docked and any actual weapons seized. Murdering 10-30 people in international waters was an unneeded flourish.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> Nope this has been a one sided massacre from all the way back in 1967. Israel continues to steal more and more Gazan land and has already stolen virtually all their water.
> 
> In the last so called "skirmish" 1400 Gazans were slaughtered for putting a pothole in an Israeli highway.
> 
> ...


Keep in mind that the Six-Day war back in 1967 was started by the Arab states of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, with assistance from the Arab states of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria. At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

How time has healed all wounds. I suppose no one remembers the Cuban Blockade.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> Nope this has been a one sided massacre from all the way back in 1967. Israel continues to steal more and more Gazan land and has already stolen virtually all their water.
> 
> In the last so called "skirmish" 1400 Gazans were slaughtered for putting a pothole in an Israeli highway.


By "pothole in an Israeli highway" you mean "rockets aimed at civilians", right?

If the whole point of Operation Cast Lead had been to slaughter Gazans, don't you think the IDF would've killed more than 1400 people? Gaza's a densely populated area that's smaller than Toronto. It wouldn't have been hard.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

More of Israel's "staged" footage minutes prior to soldiers boarding flotilla: LiveLeak.com - Redefining the Media


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Keep in mind that the Six-Day war back in 1967 was started by the Arab states of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, with assistance from the Arab states of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria. At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.


Do look up the Israeli butchering of the sailors on the USS Liberty. They had intended to blame this atrocity on Egypt thus giving them a pretext for the attack on Egypt. I am willing to give that Israel felt threatened in 1967 but they were still the aggressor and continue to this day to occupy the land they stole. 

Today many people in Gaza live in conditions that are almost as horrific as the nazi concentration camps. Foul water, little food and no way to get relief past the Israeli blockade. If Israel wants to live in peace with its neighbours it has to learn to treat them with respect.

BTW Israel has actually admitted that its Nov, 2008 attack on Gaza came 2 days before Hamas started firing homemade rockets into occupied territory and punched that hole in the pavement.

In the latest attack five of the nine victims were shot in the back. The American victim was shot four times in the head after he was downed by a bullet in the chest. Approximately 17 people are still missing and eye witness accounts say they were probably wounded and thrown overboard. American and Turkish flagged ships were hijacked in international waters. Both nations are Israeli allies, though Turkey has understandably started to waver since the Israeli assassination attempt of their president. 

Imagine what the American response would be If Iran or North Korea were to hijack an American flagged ship, as well as a ship of a NATO ally, in international waters. Not only that but then execute an American born citizen. The response towards Israel should be exactly the same as it would be to Iran or North Korea.

At the very least all American aid to Israel should cease until the blockade is either lifted or managed in such a way that only weapons are blocked. Food, water, building materials, motorized wheelchairs, medical supplies should not be denied nor should they be damaged prior to arrival. 

If Israel insists that its highways in occupied territory will suffer irreparable damage without the blockade, than it should be managed by the UN, not Israel. Inspections should occur at the port before or during the off loading of goods and not in an Israeli port.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Nope this has been a one sided massacre from all the way back in 1967. Israel continues to steal more and more Gazan land and has already stolen virtually all their water.
> 
> In the last so called "skirmish" 1400 Gazans were slaughtered for putting a pothole in an Israeli highway.
> 
> ...


Where do you come up with the 10-30 number? 9 were killed.

It is becoming more and more clear that the "peace protesters" reaction to being bordered was a planned in advance. Do peace activists attack armed military personnel with anything and not expect at least self defence? If they are peace activists why didn't they react peacefully, they certainly knew what to expect, that they would be boarded.There were ships that were boarded previously and now subsequently (Israel deports activists challenging Gaza blockade) and when met with passive resistance, their aid is allowed to go to port and the protesters deported.

That those killed were mostly Turks comes as no surprise. I think a thorough investigation would most likely reveal that these "protesters" were similar to suicide bombers (i.e.suicidal martyrs). Essentially by attacking the soldiers they knew they would be killed and this would galvanize international support to break the blockade. It appears that their strategy is working.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> ...Today many people in Gaza live in conditions that are almost as horrific as the nazi concentration camps. Foul water, little food and no way to get relief past the Israeli blockade. *If Israel wants to live in peace with its neighbours it has to learn to treat them with respect.*


You're joking right? Respect is a two way street. Where is there any respect for Israel in the region or the Jewish people? When has there *ever* been. You seem to think that the history of the source of the current conflict only goes back to 1967. Try going back a few millennia, then you will be getting closer to the truth.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

screature said:


> . Try going back a few millennia, then you will be getting closer to the truth.


If we do go that far back, then it was Rome who dominated the region and "all" of Europe. At that time there wasn't anyone who called themselves an Arab and the Hebrews had more than one kingdom on the go too and referred to themselves accordingly.

It was also Rome that allowed the Jews/Hebrews to emigrate to Europe and create the jewish diaspora throughout most of Iberian, western and eastern Europe.

If we start to go that far back...we might as well give Manhattan back to the natives...but wait they immigrated here also....oh my, 'tis a dilemma.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kps said:


> If we do go that far back, then it was Rome who dominated the region and "all" of Europe. At that time there wasn't anyone who called themselves an Arab and the Hebrews had more than one kingdom on the go too and referred to themselves accordingly.
> 
> It was also Rome that allowed the Jews/Hebrews to emigrate to Europe and create the jewish diaspora throughout most of Iberian, western and eastern Europe.
> 
> If we start to go that far back...we might as well give Manhattan back to the natives...but wait they immigrated here also....oh my, 'tis a dilemma.


It is indeed a muddled mess through out history in this region (BTW you have to go back a couple of more millennia before the Roman Empire if you want to go back to the beginning of Jewish/Hebrew history in the region and the names don't really matter, the "people", the various blood lines are still the same) but none-the-less you cannot go back only to 1967 if you want to understand the history of the region and how it got to where it is today.

"It was also Rome that *allowed* the Jews/Hebrews to emigrate to Europe". Lol.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> Where do you come up with the 10-30 number? 9 were killed.


Nine bodies, 17 still unaccounted for. Eyewitness reports of wounded being tossed over board. Until the missing are found the dead has to be assumed to be closer to 30 than to 10.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> You're joking right? Respect is a two way street. Where is there any respect for Israel in the region or the Jewish people? When has there *ever* been. You seem to think that the history of the source of the current conflict only goes back to 1967. Try going back a few millennia, then you will be getting closer to the truth.


As countless bullies have discovered having a heel on some ones throat will never earn their respect.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Nine bodies, 17 still unaccounted for. Eyewitness reports of wounded being tossed over board. Until the missing are found the dead has to be assumed to be closer to 30 than to 10.


Not really, that is a presumption. Eyewitness accounts mean nothing (legally) until their are bodies.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> As countless bullies have discovered having a heel on some ones throat will never earn their respect.


:lmao: True, but this is far from a one way street as you seem to want to portray it. Historically, who started this "bullying" exactly?  It takes two to tango and no one is innocent in this conflict.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> :lmao: True, but this is far from a one way street as you seem to want to portray it. Historically, who started this "bullying" exactly?  It takes two to tango and no one is innocent in this conflict.


Agreed but for the past 33 years the Israelis have used every skirmish as an excuse to expand their stranglehold on stolen land and water, thus making the tension worse. 

Still I do feel that a hijacking of an American flagged ship and the execution of an American born citizen in international waters deserves a much stronger response than what has been forthcoming from the Wimps in Washington.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

*Israel attempts to defend its actions*

This would be relevant if the Israeli commandos had not been hijacking the ship in international waters.



> JERUSALEM – Israel's prime minister claimed Sunday that the Turkish activists who battled Israeli naval commandos in a deadly clash last week had prepared for the fight ahead of time — boarding the ship separately from other passengers after they organized and equipped themselves.
> 
> The comments from Benjamin Netanyahu were the latest in an Israeli campaign to defend its crackdown on Monday that killed nine activists on a flotilla headed to the blockaded Gaza Strip with hundreds of activists and humanitarian supplies on board. The operation has drawn fierce international condemnation, seriously damaged Israeli ties with Turkey, and brought heavy pressure to lift the 3-year-old closure of Gaza.


Entire article here: Israel says activists prepared for fight on ship - Yahoo! News


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> This would be relevant if the Israeli commandos had not been hijacking the ship in international waters.
> 
> Entire article here: Israel says activists prepared for fight on ship - Yahoo! News


I understand the "mistake" made by the Israeli troops in boarding the ships in International waters. Agreed it was dumb and they did indeed make a legal mistake. But in all honesty if this is the "trump card" for the reason for indignation, do you really think the result (in terms of what happened) would be any different if it were within Israeli waters?

I suggest the results would have been the same.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Rps said:


> How time has healed all wounds. I suppose no one remembers the Cuban Blockade.


There was no "Cuban Blockade"
The US was very careful in that respect - read the details in the Wiki:
Cuban Missile Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> I understand the "mistake" made by the Israeli troops in boarding the ships in International waters. Agreed it was dumb and they did indeed make a legal mistake.


So you think it would have been better to board the ship in Gaza territorial waters?
Doesn't make sense to me.
After all, Israel claims *they are not occupying Gaza*, thus the 3 and 12 mile Gaza territorial limit applies, does it not? Boarding a ship in Gaza territorial waters would be the same as invading Gaza again.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> So you think it would have been better to board the ship in Gaza territorial waters?
> Doesn't make sense to me.
> After all, Israel claims *they are not occupying Gaza*, thus the 3 and 12 mile Gaza territorial limit applies, does it not? Boarding a ship in Gaza territorial waters would be the same as invading Gaza again.


Not saying better at all please re-read the post. Merely stating that if the boarding occurring in international waters is the "sticking point" for many as it appears to be, it would have no affect on the outcome, so the international waters element of the argument/situation is a moot point only being used to distract from the significant issues of the matter.

And BTW here is a little Q&A you may find informative, to brush up on your understanding of maritime boundaries and the associated maritime law.

Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal?



> (Reuters) - Israel has said it will continue a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip despite growing global pressure to lift the siege after a navy raid on a Turkish ferry carrying aid killed nine activists this week.
> 
> World
> 
> ...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Can't buy the mistake bit. With modern GPS technology the commandos knew exactly where they were. It was a hijacking in international waters pure and simple.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

You will note that mistake was in quotation marks.  It was not a mistake in that they didn't know where they were. It was a mistake in that "international outrage" would not have been able to be trumped up based on that red herring.

You need to read the post above your last one as well.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> And BTW here is a little Q&A you may find informative, your understanding of Naval boundaries and the associated maritime law is lacking.


I had already read that particular Reuters article and many others on that subject before my post and actually posted about the inconsistency of the legal aspect right in that post.
But I guess you missed that.

Problem is that I don't take this article as gospel just because Reuters posted it.
Sort of odd that pretty much the whole global community East and West) is against what Israel is doing if it is that "legal", don't you think?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> You will note that mistake was in quotation marks.  It was not a mistake in that they didn't know where they were. It was a mistake in that "international outrage" would not have been able to be trumped up based on that red herring.
> 
> You need to read the post above your last one as well.


Nope a hijacking cannot be called a red-herring period.

Found this an interesting read from a former US marine/Irish citizen.



> While in Israeli custody I, along with everyone else was subjected to endless abuse and flagrant acts of disrespect. Women and elderly were physically and mentally assaulted. Access to food and water and toilets was denied. Dogs were used against us, we ourselves were treated like dogs. We were exposed to direct sun in stress positions while hand cuffed to the point of losing circulation of blood in our hands. We were lied to incessantly, in fact I am awed at the routineness and comfort in their ability to lie, it is remarkable really.
> 
> We were abused in just about every way imaginable and I myself was beaten and choked to the point of blacking out… and I was beaten again while in my cell. In all this what I saw more than anything else were cowards… and yet I also see my brothers. Because no matter how vile and wrong the Israeli agents and government are, they are still my brothers and sisters and for now I only have pity for them. Because they are relinquishing the most precious thing a human being has, their humanity. *ex-US Marine Ken O’Keefe*​


Entire article and video here.
Video: Freedom Flotilla Passengers Grabbed Israeli Weapons To Stop The Killing : Infowars Ireland


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> I had already read that particular Reuters article and many others on that subject before my post and actually posted about the inconsistency of the legal aspect right in that post.
> But I guess you missed that.
> 
> Problem is that I don't take this article as gospel just because Reuters posted it.
> Sort of odd that pretty much the whole global community East and West) is against what Israel is doing if it is that "legal", don't you think?


I saw it but you seem to think opinion trumps fact. I had no way of knowing that you had read this article as you cited no sources for your info. BTW, this isn't about "trusting" or believing Reuters, the links to the source documents are right there at the bottom of the Reuters article.

The legality isn't what the "outrage" is about and has nothing to do with the boarding. Boardings had occurred before and the international reaction was basically non existent, because they were within their legal rights. The outrage is over the loss of life and whether or not the military overreacted or opened fire without provocation.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Nope a hijacking cannot be called a red-herring period.
> 
> Found this an interesting read from a former US marine/Irish citizen.
> 
> ...


This a testimony, it may have occurred, it may not, it is not yet a proven fact.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Nope a hijacking cannot be called a red-herring period.
> 
> Found this an interesting read from a former US marine/Irish citizen.
> 
> ...


No hijacking here. Read the article I posted the link to and the source documents.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> I saw it but you seem to think opinion trumps fact. I had no way of knowing that you had read this article as you cited no sources for your info. BTW, this isn't about "trusting" or believing Reuters, the links to the source documents are right there at the bottom of the Reuters article.


I read those too.

For one - right at the beginning of the linked article " San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994" it states:



> SECTION I : SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE LAW
> 
> 1. The parties to an *armed conflict at sea* are bound by the principles and rules of international humanitarian law from the moment armed force is used.
> 
> 2. In cases not covered by this document or by international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of the public conscience.


I don't really see how the conflict between Israel and Hamas can be considered a "Conflict at Sea" - does Hamas even have any Naval military equipment?
So does this San Remo manual which is being quoted even apply?

But let's assume for now that it does - further down in that same document is states:



> SECTION III : ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT EXEMPT FROM ATTACK
> 
> Classes of vessels exempt from attack
> 
> ...


.........which really begs the question: Did Israel even request a proper inspection and was that denied? 
The way I read this, even if this were a legal blockade, Israel cannot force a ship carrying humanitarian aid to unload at a port of their choosing. 
All they can do is inspect the cargo and then let the ship proceed to its original destination.

Instead they chose to attack the supply ship in the middle of the night by dropping armed soldiers from helicopters.

I don't think it's that clear cut at all that the Israeli action of either the blockade or the activities that fateful night were legal.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> The legality isn't what the "outrage" is about and has nothing to do with the boarding. Boardings had occurred before and the international reaction was basically non existent, because they were within their legal rights. The outrage is over the loss of life and whether or not the military overreacted or opened fire without provocation.


You seem to be reading Israeli propaganda.
The United Nations, Arab League and European Union have all been publicly stating their opposition to the continuation of the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip, so have the heads of many countries. Even the US has said officially that the Gaza situation is "unsustainable and untenable".


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

krs said:


> .........which really begs the question: Did Israel even request a proper inspection and was that denied?


from every report i read that's what happened. The other 5 ships on the convoy agreed to de diverted to the Israeli port for inspection, but the Mavi Marmara didn't respond and continued on course for Gaza.

It's fair to criticize Israel on how they handled this, 9 dead is a terrible result. But i still haven't heard any real practical solutions on HOW a boarding party should access a ship that doesn't respond to warnings and has a group of violent activists on the deck. I don't think there's any kind of etiquette guide for this kind of thing. Maybe just gas the top deck, and then continue to gas every room/deck as you move through out the boat? But if they have gas masks (which apparently the activists did) that's not going to be of any use.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> ....Turkey has understandably started to waver since the Israeli assassination attempt of their president.


wha? I remember there was some half-ass conspiracy theories....but there was never any real sort of concrete credible evidence.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> The legality isn't what the "outrage" is about and has nothing to do with the boarding. Boardings had occurred before and the international reaction was basically non existent, because they were within their legal rights. The outrage is over the loss of life and whether or not the military overreacted or opened fire without provocation.





screature said:


> This a testimony, it may have occurred, it may not, it is not yet a proven fact.


Well, from what's been released from the video ( legit or not  ), the peaceful protesters "provocated" soldiers with blunt objects, and tossed another over a ledge some 15-20 feet to the deck below of their luxury liner.

Loss of life is unfortunate, but those protestors were anything but peaceful.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> I read those too.
> 
> For one - right at the beginning of the linked article " San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994" it states:
> 
> ...


The basis of your premise is that this was an "attack". It was a bordering that went wrong, largely because of the actions of the "peace"  activists.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> You seem to be reading Israeli propaganda.
> The United Nations, Arab League and European Union have all been publicly stating their opposition to the continuation of the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip, so have the heads of many countries. Even the US has said officially that the Gaza situation is "unsustainable and untenable".


Not at all just reading the facts. I agree that the "Gaza situation is "unsustainable and untenable". This is not relevant to the matter we are discussing. All conflicts are unsustainable and untenable, they mutate and become something else but nothing lasts forever and something has to give. But once again, this isn't really the issue here, it is the actions that occurred during a specific event that we are discussing.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Well, from what's been released from the video ( legit or not  ), the peaceful protesters "provocated" soldiers with blunt objects, and tossed another over a ledge some 15-20 feet to the deck below of their luxury liner.
> 
> Loss of life is unfortunate, but those protestors were anything but peaceful.


I think I have been saying that all along... not quite sure what to make of your post.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> I think I have been saying that all along... not quite sure what to make of your post.


Sorry, I was just riffing off of what you were saying.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Sorry, I was just riffing off of what you were saying.


Ok that is what I thought, just wanted to clarify.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Whether or not you or I believe that the Israeli Mossad was prepared to assassinate the Turkish president is somewhat irrelevant. What is relevant is what the Turkish president has reason to believe.



> Turkish media sources detail information implicating the Israeli Mossad in a plot to assassinate Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
> 
> An e-mail found on a personal computer belonging to one of the members of the underground Ergenekon organization exposed Mossad's role in the failed assassination efforts against Erdogan, Turkish media outlets reported on Friday.
> 
> ...


Entire article here:

Israel planned to kill Erdogan: Report


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

lol at an "email" on a laptop being evidence.

I have an email from a Nigerian Prince on my mac telling me i could be rich.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

i-rui said:


> lol at an "email" on a laptop being evidence.
> 
> I have an email from a Nigerian Prince on my mac telling me i could be rich.


That was my reaction as well. Besides I do give the Mosad credit for not being that incredibly stupid. 

However my point is whatever the origin of the eMail, it will cause the Turkish president to somewhat distrust Israel, especially given current SNAFU.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> That was my reaction as well. Besides I do give the Mosad credit for not being that incredibly stupid.
> 
> However my point is whatever the origin of the eMail, it will cause the Turkish president to somewhat distrust Israel, especially given current SNAFU.


Maybe that's why Turkey's blocked access to several internet sites -- the president's afraid of email?

turkey blocks internet access - Google Search


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> The basis of your premise is that this was an "attack". It was a bordering that went wrong, largely because of the actions of the "peace"  activists.


You can't call dropping soldiers from helicopters in the middle of the night "boarding"- boarding as a peaceful measure to inspect the cargo that was being delivered for humanitarian purposes.

Diverting ships to an Israeli port is not an option per the rules governing blockades.

And as was pointed out - the port of Gaze is to shallow to allow these ships to dock so the ship has to anchor and the cargo has to be transferred using smaller vessels - an ideal situation to inspect the cargo if that is all Israel wanted to do.

BTW - now that Israel had a chance to inspect the cargo on all ships with a fine tooth comb, were there any weapons found?

Also surprised me to read that the blockade is not just for weapons but also for anything considered luxury goods and a wide variety of non-military material.
One would think that this is also illegal


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

krs said:


> You can't call dropping soldiers from helicopters in the middle of the night "boarding"- boarding as a peaceful measure to inspect the cargo that was being delivered for humanitarian purposes.
> 
> Diverting ships to an Israeli port is not an option per the rules governing blockades.
> 
> ...


Boarding doesn't imply a peaceful measure at all in fact it's been used in to describe Somali pirates' activities recently in the media. :heybaby:

FWIW


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> Boarding doesn't imply a peaceful measure at all in fact it's been used in to describe Somali pirates' activities recently in the media. :heybaby:
> 
> FWIW


The big difference being that generally the Somali Pirates try not to kill people on the ships they "board".

I believe in this case "hijacking" is probably the most accurate word. "Boarding" is a little too euphemistic, given that an American citizen and at least eight others were executed in the process.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> The big difference being that generally the Somali Pirates try not to kill people on the ships they "board".
> 
> I believe in this case "hijacking" is probably the most accurate word. "Boarding" is a little too euphemistic, given that an American citizen and at least eight others were executed in the process.


What about the "peaceful protesters" who assaulted and stabbed the soldiers boarding the boat? What about the other five boats that were boarded without incident? The fact that so much scrutiny is being directed at the IDF and not at the so-called "peaceful protesters" on the sixth boat screams double standard.

Speaking of double standards, where's the outrage directed at Egypt's role in the blockade? Egypt shares a border with Gaza that, until the aid convoy was boarded, was sealed. Egypt participated in the blockade with Israel. Why, then, has all the criticism been directed at Israel?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jfpoole said:


> What about the "peaceful protesters" who assaulted and stabbed the soldiers boarding the boat?...


Oh it is irrelevant, because to admit that the "peace" protesters weren't so peaceful would mean that you would have to admit that they were culpable in the situation and it wasn't all the Israeli army's fault. 

It would mean you would have to take an unbiased look at the situation and that just doesn't serve the anti-Israel sentiments of some of the posters here very well.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

screature said:


> Oh it is irrelevant, because to admit that the "peace" protesters weren't so peaceful would mean that you would have to admit that they were culpable in the situation and it wasn't all the Israeli army's fault.
> 
> It would mean you would have to take an unbiased look at the situation and that just doesn't serve the anti-Israel sentiments of some of the posters here very well.


A valid point, Screature. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Sorry Screature I am not at all anti-Jewish. nor am I anti-Semitic which would also imply a hatred for most of the rest of the Middle East. I am simply tired of Israel committing murder, stealing from their neighbours then trying to cloak it in a false claim of national security. In this case the BS is so blatant it is impossible to ignore.

FWIW I think a nation that trashes those three commandments on such a frequent basis would have a very difficult time convincing anyone that they were truly Jewish.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Sorry Screature I am not at all anti-Jewish. nor am I anti-Semitic which would also imply a hatred for most of the rest of the Middle East. I am simply tired of Israel committing murder, stealing from their neighbours then trying to cloak it in a false claim of national security. In this case the BS is so blatant it is impossible to ignore.
> 
> FWIW I think a nation that trashes those three commandments on such a frequent basis would have a very difficult time convincing anyone that they were truly Jewish.


I never singled you out eMacMan. You are not the only one to post with a certain "bent" to your posts on this matter and you certainly aren't alone with that particular viewpoint in general.

I also never said anyone was making anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic posts. I said some were making posts with anti-Israel sentiments. A different matter altogether and absolutely true.

Here is where I am coming from.

I have gone through the anti-Israel position myself, but in the end this situation is so complex as to be almost irreconcilable/fully comprehensible by even the most learned historians, politicians and diplomats let alone those who actually live it on a day to day basis. 

As I have said before, no one is innocent in this conflict and because of that each "incident" needs to be judged on its own merits and facts. I and others have pointed out the obvious sticking points with this particular situation which make it far from being one which would indicate complete innocence on the part of the "peace" protesters. 

Consequently I am not able to buy verbatim the testimonies of the "innocent" witnesses and "victims". There are always two sides to every situation/story and due to the "sticking points" alluded to earlier I cannot rationally ascribe all the blame to Israel in this matter despite the loss of life.

Because of the lack of information I am not even convinced that this was a tragic event and not a carefully orchestrated and thought out event created by martyrs for their cause to galvanize international anti-Israel sentiment.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

For thirty odd years I staunchly defended the Israeli position but that is simply no longer possible.

Simplifying what Israel has done down to a 2 person interaction comes out like this. Person A is Jewish and attempts to hijack Person Bs car. "A" has an automatic pistol, "B" has only whatever he can find at hand. 

They struggle for the pistol. 

If "A" is victorious he claims to be innocent of all crimes because "B" was not Jewish and "A"s laws only apply to interactions with other Jews.

However if "B" is victorious then "A"s relatives claim "B" should be executed for murder without the formality of a trial as he killed a Jew. The fact that "A" was attempting to steal from "B" is irrelevant because "B" is not Jewish.

Seems to me that only way to prevent a nation from following the path of nazi Germany or Soviet Russia is to insist that the laws of the land also apply to those who run the land. Israel exempting itself from four of the ten commandments whenever they interact with non-Jewish neighbours is how they got themselves into this mess and how they completely lost my sympathy.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm not sure how that analogy is relevant here, eMacMan. Here's a different one:

Let's say Aaron's speeding. Sure, Aaron is breaking the law, but Aaron thinks he has a good reason (his wife's about to give birth and he's trying to get her to the hospital). Unfortunately, two police officers see Aaron speeding and pull him over. Now, if Aaron's reaction is to get out of the car and start stabbing one of the officers, what do you think the second police officer should do?

The IDF boarded five ships without incident before boarding the sixth ship. Why did Israel have to gain by attacking the so-called peaceful protesters on the sixth ship besides save its own soldiers who were under attack?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

jfpoole said:


> I'm not sure how that analogy is relevant here, eMacMan. Here's a different one:
> 
> Let's say Aaron's speeding. Sure, Aaron is breaking the law, but Aaron thinks he has a good reason (his wife's about to give birth and he's trying to get her to the hospital). Unfortunately, two police officers see Aaron speeding and pull him over. Now, if Aaron's reaction is to get out of the car and start stabbing one of the officers, what do you think the second police officer should do?
> 
> The IDF boarded five ships without incident before boarding the sixth ship. Why did Israel have to gain by attacking the so-called peaceful protesters on the sixth ship besides save its own soldiers who were under attack?


Nope: It was a hijacking, whether or not there was resistance does not mitigate in the least that the IDF were engaged in a hijacking. Six ships were seized at least five passengers were shot in the back. An American citizen was executed. Passengers were forced against their will to go to an Israeli port. That is a hijacking.

If Israel wants my respect it will have to earn it just like any other nation, so far they are failing miserably.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

krs said:


> Diverting ships to an Israeli port is not an option per the rules governing blockades.


Where do you see that? Part V Section II, # 121:

121. If visit and search at sea is impossible or unsafe, a belligerent warship or military aircraft may divert a merchant vessel to an appropriate area or port in order to exercise the right of visit and search.



eMacMan said:


> The big difference being that generally the Somali Pirates try not to kill people on the ships they "board".


Actually, Somali Pirates have killed many people in the past when they've taken over a ship. My guess is if a crew came at Somali Pirates with metal poles and attacked them, the Pirates wouldn't think twice about killing anyone trying to harm them.



eMacMan said:


> Nope: It was a hijacking, whether or not there was resistance does not mitigate in the least that the IDF were engaged in a hijacking. Six ships were seized at least five passengers were shot in the back. An American citizen was executed. Passengers were forced against their will to go to an Israeli port. That is a hijacking.


Israel has a legal right to inspect ships as part of the blockade. It sucks that events turned out the way they did, but if the Mavi Marmara co-operated with the search the violence could have been averted (as seen with the other 5 ships which the Israeli navy took control of).

I understand the outrage. The violence could have been avoided. But seeing this thing as black & white (with Israel as 100% in the wrong) isn't the answer.

But there are several things that bother me about the blockade. I'm not sure if this is 100% correct, but it's been reported that Toys, paper and pens and other items for children are part of the banned products....which is just ridiculous (if true).


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Nope: It was a hijacking, whether or not there was resistance does not mitigate in the least that the IDF were engaged in a hijacking. Six ships were seized at least five passengers were shot in the back. An American citizen was executed. Passengers were forced against their will to go to an Israeli port. That is a hijacking.
> 
> If Israel wants my respect it will have to earn it just like any other nation, so far they are failing miserably.


Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree. It was not hijacking, not even close. You can call it that all you want, the rules of the sea (which you were provided the links to earlier) indicate otherwise.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jfpoole said:


> I'm not sure how that analogy is relevant here, eMacMan. Here's a different one:
> 
> Let's say Aaron's speeding. Sure, Aaron is breaking the law, but Aaron thinks he has a good reason (his wife's about to give birth and he's trying to get her to the hospital). Unfortunately, two police officers see Aaron speeding and pull him over. Now, if Aaron's reaction is to get out of the car and start stabbing one of the officers, what do you think the second police officer should do?
> 
> The IDF boarded five ships without incident before boarding the sixth ship. Why did Israel have to gain by attacking the so-called peaceful protesters on the sixth ship besides save its own soldiers who were under attack?


Much better analogy IMO.


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

EmacMan, the flotilla was contacted prior to boarding and they were peaceably given their options. Here is a radio recording of the communications that went on. 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






As for the claims of doctored audio, dead space and worthless chatter was cut out to shorten the clip. In fact there's an unedited version online to counter those claims.


Furthermore how could anyone say Israel has no rights to impose a naval blockade on Gaza, especially after the the Karin A



+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.







Let's not forget this past November the "Francop". (Play the following video's simultaneously)




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.




 and 



+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






They have caught and stopped the transfer/importation of weapons in the past, this is the reason why there is a naval blockade that forces every ship to Ashdod for a search. You have to be ridiculously deluded to believe there should be no security blockade.. Why don't you protest the American/Canadian boarder, they do a heck of a lot of car/truck searches... and guess what they find all types of illegal and contraband items.

On top of all this Israel takes all such refuge relief and allows NGO's and other approved organizations to properly dispense of the AID in Gaza.


There are 1.5 million people living in Gaza and only one of them really needs humanitarian aid. Only one of them is locked in a tiny room and never sees the light of day, only one of them is not allowed visits and is in uncertain health. His name is Gilad Shalit, and this month four years will have passed since he was kidnapped. 

EMacMan care to explain why not even the Red Cross can visit to ascertain Gilads standards? Hamas and Fatah get better treatment in Israeli jails. Your double standards sicken me. You should be ashamed of your humanitarian beliefs.

EmacMan you are disgustingly biased. Anti-Israel sentiment is this generations Anti-Semitism. New name, new look... Same Hate. It is one thing to criticize Israel, it's another to claim they shouldn't exist. While you haven't explicitly stated that opinion, I'm still calling you out on it.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

More footage of "peaceful" protestors—this one showing them firing slingshots at helicopters as they hover while soldiers rappel to the deck below (around 3:00 mark): LiveLeak.com - Redefining the Media

Now I can see why this looks like it was shot in a barn.


----------

