Eyewitness Accounts Contradict Israeli Version of Gaza Flotilla Massacre, Turkey Issues Stern Warning to Israel
Even the N.Y. Times, whose preference is usually to believe Israel’s accounts of events, has begun to acknowledge there are competing valid claims by survivors about what happened:
More than 600 activists arrested after Monday’s raid in international waters remained in custody in southern Israel, although an Israeli police spokesman said that about 45 people were being deported. Some of those activists offered descriptions of the raid that differed sharply with accounts provided by Israel, raising more questions about precisely what happened when Israeli commandos descended on the convoy’s lead ship early Monday morning.
It is most unfortunate that the Times’ European correspondent, Alan Cowell, couldn’t have actually presented any of that testimony. This is not very good journalism. CNN has done a better job:
Hanin Zoabi, a member of the Israeli parliament, was on board the Miva Marmara, the ship that was the scene of a confrontation between activists and Israeli soldiers. That clash left at least nine people dead.
The Israeli Navy fired on the ships five minutes before commandos descended from ropes that dangled from helicopters, Zoabi said during a press conference in Nazareth, Israel. She said passengers on board the ship were unarmed.
…Zoabi said she believes Israel has video footage of how the ten passengers were killed, and she called on Israeli authorities to release that footage.
…Huwaida Arraf, one of the Free Gaza Movement organizers, told CNN Israeli troops roughed her up when they responded aggressively to her ship, a smaller one in the flotilla that was near the Turkish vessel where the casualties occurred.
…She said “they started beating people. My head was smashed against the ground and they stepped on my head. They later cuffed me and put a bag over my head. They did that to everybody.”
In the video, she also notes that she was violently shoved into an Israeli police car and beaten in the head and passed out. Her personal possessions and money were also taken by authorities and their return was refused.
The BBC quotes this survivor:
German pro-Palestinian activist Norman Paech said he had only seen wooden sticks being brandished as troops abseiled on to the deck of the ship…
Activist Norman Paech: “There were no knives, no axes and no pistols”
“This was not an act of [Israeli] self-defence,” said Mr Paech, a politician, as he arrived back in Berlin wrapped in a blue blanket.
“Personally I saw two and a half wooden batons that were used… There was really nothing else. We never saw any knives.
Israeli headlines are beginning to absorb the depth of the disaster with “Flotilla Fiasco” and “Botched Raid” among them.
Turkey’s prime minister released this extremely stern statement which to me appears to be a warning shot across Israel’s bow which it should heed very carefully:
“No one should dare to challenge Turkey or test her patience for that the strength of Turkey’s animosity is as strong as the value of its friendship.”
Obama should pay close attention as well. It is unfortunately one thing when powerless Palestinians protest the Gaza siege or the Occupation. But when one of the foremost nations in the Muslim world with a powerful military presence becomes Israel’s implacable foe, that’s another matter entirely. Not only can Turkey make Israel’s life quite a bit more misrerable than it is, it can also wreak havoc with U.S. Middle East policy as well. Witness the joint Turkish-Brazilian intervention into the Iranian nuclear crisis.
I would urge Obama and Bibi to consider carefully what they are doing. If they play this wrong, they could be in for a whole heap of trouble they didn’t anticipate.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Turkish PM: Israeli Raid A ‘Bloody Massacre’ (huffingtonpost.com)
59 thoughts on “Eyewitness Accounts Contradict Israeli Version of Gaza Flotilla Massacre, Turkey Issues Stern Warning to Israel – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم”
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
A second flotilla will be on its way to Gaza soon, and even now as I write this, the Rachel Corrie, which sailed from Ireland, is south of Crete and approaching Gaza. Nobel Prize winner Mairead McGuire is aboard.
May God grant them safe passage.
I have my doubts of the objectivity of the above-mentioned witnesses. Somehow Palestinian activists may be inclined to tell their interpretation of what happened, instead of what actually had.
“I have my doubts of the objectivity of the above-mentioned witnesses. Somehow Palestinian activists may be inclined to tell their interpretation of what happened, instead of what actually had.”
As opposed to the PR departments of the IDF and Israeli MFA, whom are motivated solely by the pursuit of Truth….
Deja heard – he say/he say
the truth died long ago when PROPAGANDA was born
it was programed by Turkey to
1) put some daylight between Turkey and Israel so as to be able to befriend their Moslem Brothers without affecting the real commanders (meaning the TURKISH ARMY)
2) To avenge the ambassador’s insult at the hand of Ayalon/Beitenu gang
3) To hope for a regime change – just as an additional bonus – just in case
It was designed as a propaganda trap and our brilliant government fell head first into the muck – don’t blame the soldiers
Now Erdogan may have a way to bring the Turkish army to his side. If I were him, I would seriously consider ordering the Turkish navy to escort the next flotilla to Gaza. Then I would like to see whether Israel would dare to attack the navy of a NATO country.
A British TV interviewer jousting w. the lizardy Mark Regev said that Erdogan actually told the Turkish parliament that the next aid shipment fr. Turkey might get such an escort. If anyone fr. Turkey is reading this pls let me know if your media confirms this statement. If so, it could be very important. I believe if Israel is confronted by serious power that it will cause the conflict to enter into an entirely new phase.
But Erdogan would have to be careful too not to overplay his hand (which is the very mistake Israel made in attacking the convoy).
I heard that Erdogan is planning to send a Turkish warship escort.
In such case, Israel would be prevented by international law from searching the civil vessel provided the Neutral state warship provides a complete inventory of the cargo in the civilian vessel and said inventory doesn’t include military items
(Contrary to the uninformed public opinion, in the absence of such guarantees Israel had the right to search the vessel).
I imagine that if the warship provides said inventory, Israel will be in a hard position, with the choice of formally declaring war on Turkey, in which case Turkey loses the neutral status and Israel is allowed to search the vessel.
This would be an absurd situation, because Israel could formally declare war, not shooting any bullets at the warship, and then they will be in the full right of blocking the flotilla or even sinking it, (it would be their legal right as in state of war) and then they could cancel the war and declare the war over. The shortest war ever.
Most probably, the Turkish will show arrogance and not provide the list, and this again will entitle Israel to top them by force. It would be legal.
At least this is what transpires from a literal reading of the “San Remo Manual, Section II : Visit and search of merchant vessels”
The Israeli account is far more reliable than the report of the activists on the flotilla. Israel is a democratic state, under the rule of law, with a military responsible to the elected government. There is a free press and a free political opposition. The Israeli authorities are answerable to their citizens, and if the authorities lie, anyone who wants to can publish contradictory information which will be circulated among Israel’s citizenry to whom the officials are responsible.
The activists are answerable to no one.
I can’t believe the absolute howling ignorance of this comment. But hey, be my guest though you should know the more hasbara gets published here the more deflationary pressure there is on the credibility of the material. Just about now every hasbara comment is worth less than North Korea’s currency.
The worst possible reaction which I fear typifies the attitude of many Israelis is that the execrable Caroline Glick came up with in the Jerusalem Post: it is all a matter of a world wide conspiracy against and the eternal hostility towards the Jewish people. This is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in reverse.
It’s the perpetual victimhood thing. It doesn’t work. The oppressor cannot be the victim.
So when are we ever going to hear definite news on how many dead and wounded there are, and who they are? Surely this must be known by now?
From all the witnesses that are said to “contradict” the Israeli version of the events, ther eis not one clear piece of coherent or credible evidence against Israel saying the truth, as proved by the Israeli video.
Firstly, the German politician says that he didn’t see any knives. If he didn’t see, it doesn’t mean there were not!!!
Secondly, there was an Arab israeli politician that obviously cannot afford to be portraited as being on the wrong side. Her only critical claim is that Israelis shouted at the boat before boarding it. Interestingly no other witness said that! Would you think that the others didn’t even realize there was fire, if it was? Also it wouldn’t make sense that Israelis would fire before and then send their soldiers inside to be lynched. Not credible.
Thirdly, it is widely known that Palestinians tend to make up stories and lie to incriminate Israel, while Israel has a long record of acknowledging mistakes and apologize when it is due. Israel government can be right or wrong, but it is highly credible on facts and statments.
This is pure sophistry. There are a number of passengers who say the IDF fired on the boat first, not just the Israeli Palestinian MK.
Your comment is lie-filled and racist. Read my comment rules before commenting again or your next comment may be your last.
If I could muster some forces to quote your similar, repeating statements about the IDF, I would do so.
“Thirdly, it is widely known that Palestinians tend to make up stories and lie to incriminate Israel, while Israel has a long record of acknowledging mistakes and apologize when it is due. Israel government can be right or wrong, but it is highly credible on facts and statments.”
This is an offensive statement and completely baseless. Israel has no credibility, especially after Operation Cast Lead. And I would love to see you show proof of one “story” or “lie” told by “Palestinians.”
You seem to imply that opinions that Israel lies are acceptable, but if I say Palestinians lie, you call this racist?
And you also threaten me that it wuld be my last comment? It makes one wonder …
The people that are surprised at my “offensive accusations” just appear to me they are just diving into an old argument without being properly informed of the recent history (just my impression, not a racist view).
For example, you can just Google “Pallywood”.
To those that are genuinely interested in learning facts, or at least other view, here is a documentary in “60 minutes”.
This is a reputable TV program, certainly you can’t accuse them of racist. Well .. anybody can accuse them of that, but it would reflect more on him than on them …
there are other examples .. I mentioned the A-Dura case … nobody seemed to even pay attention …
Mary .. you said you would love to see proof. Did you even care to Google A-Dura before arguing? I read about the case in depth and formed my opinion. My impression is that your opinion was formed before you knew the facts. Again, just my impression, but I have intellectual honesty to change my mind with sound arguments …
You said that all Palestinians lie or words to that effect. That is racist just as anyone saying that Israelis as a category of people are known as liars. Don’t belabor the pt. You know what I mean & know what you did wrong. If you want to argue the pt. you won’t do it here.
I’m not going to Google that term which I find offensive. And I often find words & phrases used by the far anti Zionist left to be offensive as well (& the offensive words are listed in my comment rules).
“60 Minutes” is mostly propaganda & when it deals w Israeli its almost always hasbara.
Don’t argue the A Dura case. ANother comment rule no no. READ the rules. I’m serious. You’re not going there.
I apologize for any perceived offense that may have been caused by gettin the false impression that when I write “Palestinians” I mean “all Palestinians”. This is certainly not my intention (and not what I wrote). Please accept my apologies and clarification for the misunderstanding.
I know about al Dura. It is Zionist opinion that it was a hoax but commonly known among Palestinians that it was not.
So-called Pallywood films do not get nearly the amount of exposure that the rubbish from the Israeli government gets, so your argument that two wrongs make a right is based on nonsensical reasoning. Israel has a serious credibility problem on its own, and it’s getting worse. Many people, including journalists who were on the Mavi Marmara, are coming forward with statements that are quite damning. And if the Israelis have nothing to hide, why did they confiscate the videos and cell phones of all the activists in the flotilla, and refuse to return them? Why the press blackout?
About Al-Dura, I cannot argue here because of the rules.
My point is that people should get informed before they can call their opinions educated ones. If you saw the video I posted, for example, and form an honest opinion, that would be better than arguing against it without watching the video. I say this as an example to my point on educated opinions – as I cannot give you here arguments about the matter itself.
About your accusation of “nonsensical reasoning” – I never justified one wrong with another wrong. We are now discussing an article that refers to contradictory accounts of events. Therefore it is absolutely relevant to assess the credibility of the sides in respect to reporting events. So I give an argument that many factual claims against Israel suffer from the fact that there is a body of factual evidence that suggests such claims were fabricated. Therefore, further claims that contradict Israeli reports should be taken with a some healthy skepticism.
About Israel “credibility problem”, while I provided vast evidence undermining the credibility of its accusers, you have not provided any factual evidence showing Israel that Israel has lied in its past reports of events.
About the case of the flotilla, I argued that the Israeli version seems more credible because it makes no sense that they would fire first and the go on board vulnerable as the video shows. You have not answered this point. You can keep ignoring it, but that is not what would be expected from an open rational discussion.
About your arguments about “cell-phones” confiscation, I could give you a rational explanation why it would make sense for Israel to do that assuming that Israel report is correct. But before I do that, I would like to know that (a) you are interested at all in hearing arguments in support of opinions that you don’t share, and (b) that Richard does not oppose my explanation on the basis that it is against the rules.
I just reiterate here that assessing credibility in respect to report of facts is not the same as agreeing with the actions. For example, Dori posted in this thread an opinion SUPPORTING the Israeli version of the facts as truthful. But then she still opposes Israel policies. There is no contradiction there. Don’t mix it.
Thanks for your attention.
She doesn’t really need to. If you spend any amt. of time here you’ll see the endless lies of the IDF and various Israeli political leaders. Lying is their middle name.
I’m finding this getting pretty tedious & I don’t want a knock down drag out argument about the IDF confiscating cell phones. Lots of new blog posts. Find something new to comment on.
Mary started the cell phones point, presenting the cell phones as evidence for her points.
I didn’t even get a chance to rebut her argument and you already complain of the cell phone argument is getting tedious.
So will make a new point – by your previous logic, you claiming that all IDF members have “lying” as their middle name, you are offending a large category of Israeli population.
It is ridiculous to say that all IDF members lie. When they speak to Breaking the Silence for instance, they definitely seem to be telling the truth (probably because anonymity frees them from the group pressure that is always so strong in an army).
I do think however, that the official IDF spokespeople have a terrible record of lying. But then, that is what they are hired to do I suppose.
Thank you for clarifying, Elisabeth, as it was not my intention to make such a sweeping generalization. The spokespeople for the Israeli military do indeed have a record of spinning a lot of hooey, as do Mark Regev and the other government mouthpieces.
What we’re obviously seeing now is that the government is having a degree of success in selling a highly laundered and doctored version of the events. By confiscating videos from the passengers they can cut, splice and edit their own, and the passengers’ video to conform to their narrative, which is patently outrageous and insulting to the people who were on those boats. I’ve heard them called, among other things, extremists, terrorists and jihadists. They’ve been accused of an amazing array of criminal acts, including shooting at the commandos, taking hostages, etc. The video supposedly shot from an Israeli ship showing people wielding sticks and clubs can’t possibly be verified because we only have the Israelis’ word for it that it was footage of the melee on the deck of the Mavi Marmara.
Personally, I have a hard time believing the IOF version of events for two reasons. First, the Israeli government and the IOF do indeed have a solid record of lying and covering up their actions, and second, because I know many of the people involved in the flotilla project, and I just can’t imagine them behaving in the ways the Israelis are claiming.
I know pretty well what your views are from your comments. Sorry to have butted in actually.
No need to apologize, my friend. I’m glad you mentioned it because it did need clarifying.
The question rolling around in my mind at this point is, why is it that the Israelis can perpetrate acts of violence against literally anyone and it is hardly questioned, yet when those who are attacked (Palestinians, Lebanese, peace activists) do not submit to the violence and choose to fight back, they’re all labeled as terrorists?
I posted this at the wrong thread first ‘J’, but it illustrates pretty well why official IDF statements are usually taken with a grain of salt.
Your link shows among other things found on board a knife (not kitchen type) with blood stains. At first look is seems plausible that this is blood of an Israeli soldier.
Also shows an electric saw claimed to have been used to cut parts of the ships and get metal poles to be used to lynch the soldiers.
Also shows night-vision equipment that was obviously to be delivered to Hamas for their activities (Richard, do you allow to say Hamas “terrorist” activities here?). This military equipment, not humanitarian aid.
These two are pieces of evidence that support two key IDF claims:
(1) Soldiers were stabbed by the “peaceful” activists.
(2) Soldiers were hit with metal poles.
(3) The cargo included military items for Hamas and not only humanitarian aid. That gives basis to IDF claims that the cargo needed to be searched.
No doubt you will claim that the activists had the right to stab and lynch the soldiers and that it is ok to bring military aid to Hamas. But that is an ideological discussion and I don’t expect you to suddenly change shirts.
But this is a factual discussion about credibility on facts. IDF statements are of course biased as any news reporting, but credible and based on real facts.
If you have evidence against the three factual claims numbered above, you are welcome to show.
Or you can claim (as Richard claims) that there is no need to prove anything because anything the IDF says it false by default and thus there is no need to discuss facts, and any fact discussion is tedious (as Richard claims) .. if so then I shall abandon any attempt to make an intelligent discussion to people that supposedly welcome dissent (as long as we ignore discussion of facts)
These things were not on board the ship if the pictures date from 2003, 2006 etc.
Whether the passengers had the “right” to stab the soldiers is not relevant. The question is, did the soldiers have the right to board the ship and shoot the passengers?
Especially when the autopsy results show that many were shot at point blank range, and in the back of the head:
I hope you will appreciate this new set of facts.
The knife in question is a tiny one and it appears to be rusty, not bloodied. Unless, of course, you want it to be for the sake of supporting your point of view.
The photos are phonies, culled from Israeli photo archives and many are dated 2006 or earlier. There is also a phony recording supposedly of a radio transmission wherein there is a voice saying, “shut up, go back to Auschwitz,” proven to be fake because a female voice on the transmission has been identified (by her husband) as Free Gaza member Huwaida Arraf, who was not onboard the the Mavi Marmara but was on one of the other boats in the flotilla.
A few points:
1 – You post a link from an anti-Israeli site and now you claim the photos are phony. May be they are, but why do post a a link to phony pictures. If you post a link to an official site and claim it is phony, at least you are making a point that we can debate, but this is an anti-israeli site. This is just making noise, not contributing to any intelligent discussion.
2 – You say: Whether the passengers had the “right” to stab the soldiers is not relevant.
Would that mean at least that we agree that the soldiers were stabbed
3 – You say : The question is, did the soldiers have the right to board the ship and shoot the passengers?
Well, I agree that is a good question, but unfortunately we cannot debate this question here because when I tried to review the international law about that RICHARD wrote that I am not allowed to discuss that because he already established that Israeli is on the wrong side and he will not have any dissent on that point. Also, I asked him to post a link or otherwise to the relevant international law, and he ignored my request.
4 – You ask me to appreciate facts about how the activists were shot. I dont see reason at the time to dispute the those facts so this is not in discussion at this time.
In summary: Points 1,3,4 leads nowhere.
The only way I see we can have a productive discussion is along point 2. If you just say if we agree on that facts or not.
I haven’t seen anything, anywhere, saying soldiers were stabbed. Can you provide a reliable link? To an “impartial” source for this information? Not something from AIPAC, ADL or Jihadwatch?
As for international laws, so far as I can see, no one here is a lawyer practicing in that specialty. I have seen argument on this point among finer minds than ours, so I suppose Richard is on the right track, don’t you think? It’s not an issue we can discuss here, obviously.
As for the weapons, photos don’t say a thing, really; they merely make an assertion here which is faulty. The Mavi Marmara was thoroughly searched in Cyprus, and nothing was found, so where did all these bombs, vests and other paraphernallia come from? I doubt the passengers could have secreted the stuff in their underwear!
Don’t take on such a petulant attitude; this is what all you Zionists do when you’re on the defensive, and it’s tiresome. As more information comes out about this tragedy, you may very well become apoplectic before it’s over.
Quite disingenuous. What I actually said was you were not allowed to quote the San Remo manual ad nauseam since you’d already done so, another commenter had already done so, & other commenters pointed out that not only is is not really international law, but the application of San Remo as it was interpreted by the hasbara community & folks like you was wrong. You can talk about issues all you want. But you can’t beat a dead horse like San Remo. Frankly, the hasbara crowd usually deliberately misinterprets international law in Israel’s favor so I detest using it in such arguments.
I don’t misinterpret deliberately anything. I give my honest interpretation, and I also was open to listen to other opinions provided they were substantiated.
I did quoted San Remo twice, but different parts from it, in different contexts and applying to different situations. One applied to current situation and another applied to an hypothetical different situation that another poster presented.
I was not repeating myself.
What you wrote is: “We’ve already dealt w. San Remo and rebutted their relevance. The subject is closed. Period. The blockade is NOT legal. (…)”
I asked you to point me to the objections to San Remo and you ignored.
You have to admit that what you wrote together is plausible of giving a bad impression to a well intentioned posted.
Two times too many. And I see you’ve tried to dredge up the subject again in a separate comment fr. today, thus ignoring my request that you cease talking about this. That comment will be deleted & any future comments that ignore my requests will receive the same treatment.
Re: San Remo–You’re also leaving out the other commenter who quoted hundreds of words fr. San Remo. Some hasbara memo went out providing people references to San Remo and you & 1,000 others dutifully circulated the irrelevant material. I don’t dance to your tune, nor the tune of the MFA or the Israel lobby. I dance to my own tune.
You can nudge all you want about the blockade & complain I haven’t done research you could do yrself. I’ve read so many respected analysts acknowledging it isn’t that I’m simply not going to reopen discussion on this. If you’re really interested in satisfying yrself of views about the illegality of the siege you can easily do a Google search & find the relevant sources yrself.
I write a blog. I make editorial judgments about what I want to spend my time writing; and what I think is less important. This is my view of this matter.
You write: “You can talk about issues all you want. But you can’t beat a dead horse like San Remo”
You seem to mean that we can discuss legality of the blockade without mentioning San Remo. But may be I misunderstand.
Can I post a link to an expert that explains why the blockade in NOT legal?
Yes or no? I will follow your indication.
This is an outright lie. NO ONE, not even the IDF has been able to dredge up any credible evidence that this is the case. If you want to spread lies like this you are skating on very thin ice.
Once again, snark wears very thin very fast. Obviously you’re quite taken w. your own ability to sling the snark. But you’re only the 1,000 hasbarist here whose thought his snark was of the finest kind. No one here has any interest in it. So if you want to continue in the same vein, you’ll wear out yr welcome very fast.
I’ve never said anything of the kind as you claim above. Yes, IDF officers & spokespeople lie whenever it is convenient to their case (I never said they always lie). I never said there is no need to discuss facts. In fact, the way I prove they are lying as I and many others have done regarding the flotilla attack is by mustering facts to disprove lies. Facts are never tedious as long as they are facts. But you tend to belive any “fact” offered by the IDF & its supporters is a fact, when many of us here dispute whether these are facts at all.
About the claim that “The cargo included military items for Hamas and not only humanitarian aid.”
You are quoting me out of context. But I don’t accuse you of doing intentionally, I will explain myself.
A commenter sent me links to this pictures, in an anti-israeli link. The link presented pictures of “night vision” devices as being from the ship, and claimed that these are no weapons. My point was that they are no weapons but they are military *assuming that they were in the ship*! I don’t claim they were in the ship. The commenter later claimed they were phony pics, so I said it is a waste of time to send links to phony pics knowingly.
So you don’t need to waste time explaining they are phony pics on a link that two commenters say they are phony and nobody says they are legitimate. (I don’t claim they are, and I was not the one that posted the link).
And you don’t need to accuse me of spreading lies. I try to support my points as well as possible, and try to be polite in my discussion.
I directed you to the site as it was pointed out there that many of the photographs presented by the IDF as proof of weapons on board the Mavi Marmara appeared to date from 2003 and 2006, indicating that they were part of an IDF propaganda ploy. This was relevant as the discussion between you and me had been on the reliability of claims by the IDF. I can’t believe you still do not get this. I am not going to discuss with you anymore as you are hopeless.
Regarding your statement that
“So-called Pallywood films do not get nearly the amount of exposure that the rubbish from the Israeli government gets”
I think this is factually incorrect.
I think that those Palestinian films get way more media exposure than the Israeli attempts for rebuttal.
I hope I am allowed to say that the “Al-Dura” case is an example of a case that received immensely more exposure from the Palestinian side, while Israel arguments against were given minimal media attention.
I am not arguing here who is right in the “AL-Dura” case, as it is not allowed, I am just disproving the claim that the Israeli version gets more exposure. It is just not true.
“j”, your obsequiously polite responses are not necessary. I’m not new here; I am an activist who has been involved in the Palestinian issues for a long time. I also am acquainted with people who were participating in the flotilla, and between those two things, I will take the activists’ word on what happened a million years before I will trust anything coming from the IOF or the Israeli government.
I agree with Richard that it is inappropriate on this thread to discuss al Dura or the veracity of what you call Pallywood videos. Let’s stick to the topic, shall we? This way, you can spare us the useless hasbara, and I don’t have to get annoyed with you.
[comment deleted per comment rules]
Of course this is a classical case of Rashomon, where it is very hard to see where the truth exactly lies.
However, it is very very hard to argue with the videos that were issued by the IDF. It clearly seems like there was a group of activists waiting for the soldiers and surprising them with clubs, and then throwing one of the soldiers overboard.
Otherwise why did the Israelis shoot only on that ship and not on others? Clearly because they met resistance there and not elsewhere. I tend to believe the accounts of the soldiers (backed by videos) that they felt their life was threatened by the mob.
1) Of course the people on the ship had the right to defend themselves on international water against a pirate attack. If the Israelis would have waited till they entered the territorial waters of Israel (why didn’t they wait???) this could have been a different story.
2) Unrelated, the siege on Gaza is crazy and should end ASAP.
You state very categorically about rights and what should have been done. You sure can have your opinion, but if you intend that this is what the international law says in terms of rights, then it would be wiser to read the law before forming an opinion, or at least an educated one.
I guess at this point everybody would be interested in learning the relevant law, adapted from “San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea”, Section V par 67, and Section III par. 47, 48.
Neutral merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
Passenger vessels when engaged only in carrying civilian passengers are exempt from attack only if they are innocently employed in their normal role, submit to identification and inspection when required; and do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required.
I have already told another commenter to leave off with references to San Remo. It’s irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. Stop attempting fraudulently to exploit irrelevant passages fr. international law. We’ve already dealt w. San Remo and rebutted their relevance. The subject is closed. Period.
The blockade is NOT legal. Anything San Remo says about running a legitimate blockade does not apply to Gaza.
I stand by my word of being open to informed opinion. If you think that you have a rebuttal of my legal argument based on San Remo, please point me to it. Thanks.
(sorry I had put this request earlier in the wrong thread by mistake)
Richard, I believe you that many people in the boat would not do what the other people in the ship did.
In the same way as you clarify that when you mean IDF you don’t mean to generalize all IDF members, you should interpret also that when Israel refers to to violence done by people in the boat they don’t mean ALL people in the boat.
This is the 2nd time you try to read into someone statements a sweeping generalization that is simply not there, and then use this it as a stick against him. Don’t you think this is a bad habit in a discussion?
(I did it once just in purpose but only to illustrate the point, may be I shouldn’t have…)
If you claim the pictures date from 2003, than why the hell are you posting me a link to them?
And why you think they are from 2003?
The link that you posted seems to imply they are recent and from the ship.
I can understand if you post a link to IDF site, and say that you don’t believe it. We can discuss the evidence.
But if you post a link from an anti-Israeli source that shows pictures implying they are from the ship, and you still don’t believe the anti-Israeli site … then what’s your point?
You should read the comments to the pictures. Or read the comments to “MV Rachel Corrie Forcibly Seized by Israeli Navy, Towed to Ashdod” on this blog.
[comment deleted per violation of request to cease & desist discussing San Remo manual]
Surely you make all editorial decisions and I try to follow them.
I don’t know anything about ‘hasbara’ memo, and I didn’t know about the other commenter.
If you honestly review my last comment that you deleted, you will see that I had done exactly what you just asked me to do, to find online an expert opinion that says that explains why they think the blockade was ILEGAL. I was willing to listen to reasons why this blockade would be illegal, and I felt the reasons well scholarly explained within reason.
I am not an agent of ‘hasbara’, I support scholar discussion.
Above I wrote that you don’t agree with discussing the legality of the blockade. Later you clarified that you don’t oppose discussing, but just to quote San Remo in support for the Israeli position.
So please review my comment and see that the link supports the view that the blockade is illegal and explains it.
As editor you can do as you want. But it would fair that you take a clear stand on your policy.
(a) You can honestly explain that you don’t want to allow discussion about the legality of the blockade (as I originally thought).
(b) Or you can clarify that only you delete quotes that quote San Remo in support for the Israeli position. In such case, you will see that my last deleted comment does not do that.
So, it is (a) or (b) ?
New rule for you which I only impose on those who are monopolizing the threads. No more than THREE comments in a single day for you from now on. You may like the sound of your own voice but that doesn’t apply to the rest of us.
I deleted yr comment because I’d told you I didn’t want to continue any discussion of San Remo & yet you brought yet another link attempting to prove something or other about…you guessed it, San Remo. I don’t really care whether San Remo supports or rebuts the notion of the blockade being illegal.
I want this part of the discussion to be over. No more discussion, complaints, explanations about this, period.
I misunderstood at the beginning.
Immediately as you claimed that they were phony, I said it is a waste of time to discuss this. It should have been understood that I am sort of backtracking from my previous post, as I cannot vouch for the credibility of your own link.
If you didn’t understand it then. I won’ t say you are hopeless, but I will say that I hope you will understand it now.
Bottom line – my 1st comment on your link was a product of misunderstanding, caused more misunderstanding, so stop beating me on that point.
By now should be clear that:
a) you claim the pics are phony
b) I don’t say they are not, and ignore my 1st post on the subject as product of misunderstanding.
May be we can resume the discussion on the credibility of the IDF because of two reasons:
1 – this is the main subject of this page. So what else can we talk about?
2 – it is obviously something that interests me. I came to the forum claiming that IDF seems credible to me, but I also came to the forum open to listen to evidence in the contrary to form a more educated opinion.
I often make criticism it is to perceived faults in the argumentation, but if you can correct them and strengthen your position, I will seriously consider them. I hope that you would consider mine as well, but that is less of a concern. I’m not here on propaganda mission.
J, are you going to comment yourself to death? Looks like you’re trying very hard to do so. It’s getting boring. If you’re not here on a ‘propaganda mission,’ then what are you here for? Enough already.
The more you claim this the less convincing the claim becomes. Sounds to me like an excellent point taught in the Israeli School of Hasbara. Always claim to have an open mind & then proceed to tell ’em what you’ve been told to tell ’em.
Methinks he doth protest too much.