israeli soldiers kill 9 in international waters

[Romy]

I just watched it on the news.

 

 

 

Apparently, the IDF sent clear messages that it forbids any of the ships to enter Israeli territorial waters. In return, messages were sent that these warnings/requests are ignored.

 

 

 

In addition, shooting from inside Marmara is now claimed as true.

 

 

Lastly, large amounts of knives and clubs were found on the ship.

[1_man_army]

To clarify, the weapons found on board were knives and sticks as well as tools which were used to prevent the IDF boarding. I thought I'd clear this up in case people wrongly thought it was a shipment of arms that were going to be provided to Hamas. Below are images that the IDF released:

 

 

http://idfspokesperson.com/2010/05/31/pictures-of-weapons-found-on-the-mavi-marmara-flotilla-ship-31-may-2010/

[Saru Inc]

Well, I do agree it would have been much better if done on national waters.

 

 

But Israel had requested the ships to stop, sent messages and warning, and these were not stopped, and neither sent any messages back. That, combined with a known history of weapon-smuggling, should very well alert the IDF.

 

I think the logic behind doing that in international waters (and not wait) relies on "The faster it's done, the better & safer".

 

I don't have much to back that theory up other than my own logic though. I can't think of another reason for the IDF not to wait.

 

Why on Earth should the ships stop even if the Israeli's warned them, in international waters? Israel has no jurisdiction there and that's exactly what this boils down to. That's utterly stupid logic, boarding them in international waters is a crime, at a simplistic level it's like a burglar breaking into your house and then acting surprised when the home-owner gets defensive. Even if the ships were carrying arms (which as far as I'm aware there's no evidence for) they wouldn't become more dangerous when they entered Israeli controlled waters and tried to bypass (an illegal!) blockade.

 

The Gaza Freedom flotilla was a publicity stunt to try and raise awareness of the blockade (ironically, they've succeeded), sending five slow moving ships laden with weapons probably wouldn't do their cause much good. It was naive of Israel to think these were ships carrying arms, and even if they did why does that contradict with the statements of the soldiers who said they didn't expect violence?

 

The fact that ships are sailing towards a country, after ignorning every request or message sent to them, raises a red light. Then there's history of smuggling weapons to Gaza, that also raises a red light. Then there's the fact that the ships were not supervised, that also raises a red light. Then there's the fact that even after the IDF's helicopters went on their way, messages were sent again and again - and ignored.

 

With all these red lights, the IDF had to react. It had no other choice. A search, for the millionth time, was obligatory. And when it comes to security, especially when it's Israel, no risks can be taken. None at all.

 

 

If it boils down to the actions being taken in international waters, that's just petty IMO, because the same course of action would have taken place inside national waters, which is where my theory of "the faster the better & safer" makes more and more sense.

 

SPOT ON. I really don't know what else to say. I completely agree Romy.

[tortilliachp]

Well, I do agree it would have been much better if done on national waters.

 

 

But Israel had requested the ships to stop, sent messages and warning, and these were not stopped, and neither sent any messages back. That, combined with a known history of weapon-smuggling, should very well alert the IDF.

 

I think the logic behind doing that in international waters (and not wait) relies on "The faster it's done, the better & safer".

 

I don't have much to back that theory up other than my own logic though. I can't think of another reason for the IDF not to wait.

 

Why on Earth should the ships stop even if the Israeli's warned them, in international waters? Israel has no jurisdiction there and that's exactly what this boils down to. That's utterly stupid logic, boarding them in international waters is a crime, at a simplistic level it's like a burglar breaking into your house and then acting surprised when the home-owner gets defensive. Even if the ships were carrying arms (which as far as I'm aware there's no evidence for) they wouldn't become more dangerous when they entered Israeli controlled waters and tried to bypass (an illegal!) blockade.

 

The Gaza Freedom flotilla was a publicity stunt to try and raise awareness of the blockade (ironically, they've succeeded), sending five slow moving ships laden with weapons probably wouldn't do their cause much good. It was naive of Israel to think these were ships carrying arms, and even if they did why does that contradict with the statements of the soldiers who said they didn't expect violence?

 

The fact that ships are sailing towards a country, after ignorning every request or message sent to them, raises a red light. Then there's history of smuggling weapons to Gaza, that also raises a red light. Then there's the fact that the ships were not supervised, that also raises a red light. Then there's the fact that even after the IDF's helicopters went on their way, messages were sent again and again - and ignored.

 

With all these red lights, the IDF had to react. It had no other choice. A search, for the millionth time, was obligatory. And when it comes to security, especially when it's Israel, no risks can be taken. None at all.

 

 

If it boils down to the actions being taken in international waters, that's just petty IMO, because the same course of action would have taken place inside national waters, which is where my theory of "the faster the better & safer" makes more and more sense.

 

SPOT ON. I really don't know what else to say. I completely agree Romy.

there only the issue between doing something illegal, and something legal. It boils down to "if they waited it would have been legal" meaning it WAS illegal. The consequence? Egypt ended the blockade on their side. You can't let someone waltz all over you like they own the world, when they could have waited an hour, two tops, and done everything legally, so it would be defendable.

 

Israel really make it hard to like them, although deep down i feel sympathy for them. their actions are getting harder and harder to defend; lowering themselves closer and closer to the terrorists on the other side, civilians caught in the middle.

[lordkafei]

Israel had to do what it did, whether it's legal or not, moral or not, and any other negative definition you can throw at it.

This is false as a matter of fact, regardless of whether or not one believes Israel has the right to impose a blockade on Gaza.

 

They had other options. They chose a violent military confrontation.

 

No, they chose a confrontation. The people on the boat escalated it to violence.

 

I do wonder if they intentionally boarded in int'l waters or were the victims of bad GPS. It's happened to the US military recently; it's not a stretch that the Israeli military was bitten too. But that's pure supposition on my part.

 

 

If Israel continues to try to "go it alone", if they defy the world and claim they have the right to do whatever they want and ignore international law, Israel will cease to exist, probably within our lifetimes.

 

If Israel truly goes it alone, they'll re-conquer Gaza & the West Bank. Without the US to pull back on the leash, they'll deal with Hamas & drive them back out to Syria.

 

Which is why the US will not come down that harshly on Israel, IMO.

[qeltar]

With all these red lights, the IDF had to react. It had no other choice. A search, for the millionth time, was obligatory. And when it comes to security, especially when it's Israel, no risks can be taken. None at all.

 

SPOT ON. I really don't know what else to say. I completely agree Romy.

Well, maybe *you* can try to answer the questions that she refuses to.

 

How is not a bald-faced lie to claim that the IDF "had no other choice", when everyone here knows full well that as long as the ship didn't land, nothing could happen with any alleged weapons on the boat?

 

No, they chose a confrontation. The people on the boat escalated it to violence.

Yep. And the IDF escalated it further to outright slaughter.

 

If Israel truly goes it alone, they'll re-conquer Gaza & the West Bank. Without the US to pull back on the leash, they'll deal with Hamas & drive them back out to Syria.

And that may help them in the short run. In the long run, it guarantees their ruin.

 

Which is why the US will not come down that harshly on Israel, IMO.

The US won't come down harshly on Israel because the US is Israel's [bleep]. That's the sad truth of the matter. Mostly thanks to the pro-Israel lobby, and the fundamentalist nutjobs that pervade every level of our society. They like Jews and they hate Muslims and the rest is window-dressing.

 

But if Israel goes too far, they might just kill the golden goose -- and then they will have REAL problems, unlike hysterical imagined "security threats" from protest ships.

[michel555555]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/israel-investigation-attack-gaza-flotilla-us

 

U.S. once again proves to be Israel's lap dog. Israel will now be leading the investigation into the attack and i'm sure they'll do it in an unbiased way /sarcasm.

[Romy]

How is not a bald-faced lie to claim that the IDF "had no other choice", when everyone here knows full well that as long as the ship didn't land, nothing could happen with any alleged weapons on the boat?

 

Because security comes first.

 

The Marmara gave the IDF a clear message that it's going to ignore it's requests not to enter Israeli international waters.

 

As the post Saru quoted says- Too many red lights were raised, that's where it didn't have a choice.

 

Yes, looking back, Israel definitely should've waited, but back before it happend, I believe anyone who knows a little about security and knows about past attempts, would try to stop the ship ASAP, regardless of any rules that may be broken

 

As I had stated before, I cannot defend the illegality of Israel's actions. It was illegal, I won't deny it, I don't want to deny it. But I think that as a decision maker, I would've done the same thing. Infact, I think many of us here would.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/israel-investigation-attack-gaza-flotilla-us

 

U.S. once again proves to be Israel's lap dog. Israel will now be leading the investigation into the attack and i'm sure they'll do it in an unbiased way /sarcasm.

 

Oh, you can bet it won't be biased.

 

Past comitees of inquiry in Israel were judged many times for being too harsh, they don't usually try to cover things up.

[qeltar]

How is not a bald-faced lie to claim that the IDF "had no other choice", when everyone here knows full well that as long as the ship didn't land, nothing could happen with any alleged weapons on the boat?

 

Because security comes first.

A non-response. The alternative I suggested would not have been any more of a security risk than what they did. In fact, it would have been *less* of a security risk.

 

This point has been made numerous times. You keep responding with "security comes first" when the actions taken have *reduced* Israel's security.

 

By the way, if security trumps everything else, why not just bomb Gaza to smithereens? Oh sure, a million and a half people will die, but hey, security comes first, and Israel is more important than anyone else.

 

Right?

 

The Marmara gave the IDF a clear message that it's going to ignore it's requests not to enter Israeli international waters.

Then they could have and should have acted when they did enter Israeli waters. What did you think was going to happen -- they would stand on the deck of the ship and toss AK-47s three miles onto shore?

 

Actually, if anyone at the IDF had half a brain, they would have handled this in such a way that nobody here would even know about it.

 

As the post Saru quoted says- Too many red lights were raised, that's where it didn't have a choice.

That's false. Period. They had many choices. They could have just blocked the ship from landing. They could have disabled the ship and towed it to Ashdod. There were many other options, so saying they "didn't have a choice" is dishonest. Every time you say it, you reduce your credibility further.

 

I believe anyone who knows a little about security and knows about past attempts, would try to stop the ship ASAP, regardless of any rules that may be broken

LOL. Are you kidding? Military people around the entire world, even ones that support Israel, are standing in slack-jawed amazement at how badly the IDF messed this up. The entire operation was a disaster from the word go.

 

To claim that those who know about security would have done this shows that you don't know anything about security.

 

Here's a guy who does:

 

"Perfect example of how NOT to do a raid. ... It demonstrated--to Israel's surprise--a fairly high level of tactical incompetence. The IDF, somewhat like the French Army of 1940, has been living off of its past victories for too long. The IDF today isn't the Haganah of the 1930s, the Stern Gang of the 1940s or the IDF of 48, 56 or 67. ... What they could have done--let the ships in. Show the world how caring, etc. Israel is. Don't give the Free Gaza movement the PR victory; take it from them by escorting the ships in, providing Israeli "volunteers" to help unload. Have plenty of international media there for the show."

 

As I had stated before, I cannot defend the illegality of Israel's actions. It was illegal, I won't deny it, I don't want to deny it. But I think that as a decision maker, I would've done the same thing. Infact, I think many of us here would.

You're still talking in circles.. it was illegal but they had the right to do it... they shouldn't have done it but you'd have done it anywyay. :rolleyes:

 

Oh, you can bet it won't be biased.

Yes, an investigative team filled with nice unbiased Israelis like yourself couldn't possibly be biased. LOL.

 

Another good point I heard today: the Israelis call the people on the boats "terrorists", yet those people could have easily killed the Israeli soldiers and didn't. Meanwhile, Israel could have avoided this entire conflict but instead killed a bunch of people for no valid reason.

 

Who's the good guy and who's the bad guy again?

[Romy]

How is not a bald-faced lie to claim that the IDF "had no other choice", when everyone here knows full well that as long as the ship didn't land, nothing could happen with any alleged weapons on the boat?

 

Because security comes first.

A non-response. The alternative I suggested would not have been any more of a security risk than what they did. In fact, it would have been *less* of a security risk.

 

This point has been made numerous times. You keep responding with "security comes first" when the actions taken have *reduced* Israel's security.

 

By the way, if security trumps everything else, why not just bomb Gaza to smithereens? Oh sure, a million and a half people will die, but hey, security comes first, and Israel is more important than anyone else.

 

Right?

 

You're forgetting you're saying that right now, when you know all that you do, what the ship contained, what it's specific intents were, etc.

 

The IDF did NOT know these things. The lack of knowledge demanded an action. I again agree that something else should've been done, and again repeat I would've done the same thing if I knew the ship is officially ignoring rquests not to enter international waters, knew it was unsupervised, knew I have no idea what's inside, and knew it's heading towards Gaza.

 

The Marmara gave the IDF a clear message that it's going to ignore it's requests not to enter Israeli international waters.

Then they could have and should have acted when they did enter Israeli waters. What did you think was going to happen -- they would stand on the deck of the ship and toss AK-47s three miles onto shore?

 

Actually, if anyone at the IDF had half a brain, they would have handled this in such a way that nobody here would even know about it.

I can again point out what I pointed out up this post, and in the past, just so you could again say they had other choices.

 

Technically speaking, they did. In reality, these things are just scary, as stupid as it sounds. An unsupervised ship is now heading towards a terror organization, ignoring all requests to stop, possibly containing weapons, and you have to stop it. It now boils down to whether or not you agree it's a tough decision, and that you have to consider your actions with no delayes. Knowing you a little, I doubt you do. And I bet you're going to give me an, oh so very sophisticated and belittling answer, for which I'll calmly respond, just to witness another reaction.

 

As the post Saru quoted says- Too many red lights were raised, that's where it didn't have a choice.

That's false. Period. They had many choices. They could have just blocked the ship from landing. They could have disabled the ship and towed it to Ashdod. There were many other options, so saying they "didn't have a choice" is dishonest. Every time you say it, you reduce your credibility further.

Same as above, pretty much.

 

I believe anyone who knows a little about security and knows about past attempts, would try to stop the ship ASAP, regardless of any rules that may be broken

LOL. Are you kidding? Military people around the entire world, even ones that support Israel, are standing in slack-jawed amazement at how badly the IDF messed this up. The entire operation was a disaster from the word go.

 

To claim that those who know about security would have done this shows that you don't know anything about security.

 

Here's a guy who does:

 

"Perfect example of how NOT to do a raid. ... It demonstrated--to Israel's surprise--a fairly high level of tactical incompetence. The IDF, somewhat like the French Army of 1940, has been living off of its past victories for too long. The IDF today isn't the Haganah of the 1930s, the Stern Gang of the 1940s or the IDF of 48, 56 or 67. ... What they could have done--let the ships in. Show the world how caring, etc. Israel is. Don't give the Free Gaza movement the PR victory; take it from them by escorting the ships in, providing Israeli "volunteers" to help unload. Have plenty of international media there for the show."

 

I can again repeat Israel should've done something else, but it did not, for what I see as justified, and you do not. Now go ahead and explain how biased and unreasonable I am.

 

As I had stated before, I cannot defend the illegality of Israel's actions. It was illegal, I won't deny it, I don't want to deny it. But I think that as a decision maker, I would've done the same thing. Infact, I think many of us here would.

You're still talking in circles.. it was illegal but they had the right to do it... they shouldn't have done it but you'd have done it anywyay. :rolleyes:

 

No, it was illegal and they had no right to do it. However, I CAN understand the reasoning behind it.

 

Oh, you can bet it won't be biased.

Yes, an investigative team filled with nice unbiased Israelis like yourself couldn't possibly be biased. LOL.

Look up other commitees of inquiry in Israel. You'll notice a pattern of harsh judgement against Israel's actions. These commitees are known for their unbiased, cold judgements.

[qeltar]

A non-response. The alternative I suggested would not have been any more of a security risk than what they did. In fact, it would have been *less* of a security risk.

 

This point has been made numerous times. You keep responding with "security comes first" when the actions taken have *reduced* Israel's security.

 

By the way, if security trumps everything else, why not just bomb Gaza to smithereens? Oh sure, a million and a half people will die, but hey, security comes first, and Israel is more important than anyone else.

 

Right?

 

You're forgetting you're saying that right now, when you know all that you do, what the ship contained, what it's specific intents were, etc.

Wrong, sorry.

 

What I said was based on both the law and on intelligent handling of these sorts of situations. Not on what the ship contained.

 

I have said from the start that it didn't matter what the ship contained. *You* were trying to justify Israel's actions based on what you, or they, *thought* it contained.

 

It was wrong for them to storm the ship, period. Whether or not it had any contraband on it.

 

The IDF did NOT know these things. The lack of knowledge demanded an action.

A reasonable person, faced with a situation with many unknowns, would use caution and wait until they knew more, only taking aggressive action as a last resort when it became absolutely necessary.

 

You are standing here with a straight face instead arguing that since the IDF had a "lack of knowledge", they were justified in carrying out a military assault on a civilian ship?

 

The mind boggles.

 

I again agree that something else should've been done, and again repeat I would've done the same thing if I knew the ship is officially ignoring rquests not to enter international waters

If you think something else should have been done, saying you would have done the same thing means you knew it was a bad idea but would do it anyway? Or you think one of the most renowned military and intelligence organizations in the world couldn't figure out how to properly handle a protest ship?

 

Again: Boggle.

 

I can again point out what I pointed out up this post, and in the past, just so you could again say they had other choices.

 

Technically speaking, they did.

Well, glad we *finally* got that "they had no choice" bullcrap out of the way. :)

 

In reality, these things are just scary, as stupid as it sounds.

Well, if the people in charge of your military are unable to keep their emotions in check in order to make sound decisions, then maybe they should step down and go plant beets on a kibbutz. As a US taxpayer and therefore involuntary shareholder of the IDF, I'm a bit fed up with this sort of guns-a-blazin' incompetence.

 

It now boils down to whether or not you agree it's a tough decision

They should have never boarded the ship.

 

It wasn't a tough decision at all. That's why everyone around the world is baffled at the sheer, utter stupidify of what Israel did.

 

When I turn on talk radio and hear a guy like Michael Savage, who is a rabidly pro-Israel and anti-Muslim Jewish right-winger, and even *he* is flabbergasted at the sheer idiocy of what Israel did, that says something. (I was quite surprised.)

 

Now go ahead and explain how biased and unreasonable I am.

No need, you're doing a fine job. ;)

 

No, it was illegal and they had no right to do it. However, I CAN understand the reasoning behind it.

Because you think Israel is above the law, and your security is more important than the security or even lives of anyone else. Gotcha.

 

We're supposed to consider the Israelis the good guys, while you sit here saying that it was acceptable to kill a dozen people and wound dozens more only based on a *suspicion* that guns were on the ship. Amazing.

 

Look up other commitees of inquiry in Israel.

I don't care if Moses himself is resurrected and put in charge. When there's an incident involving two parties, you do NOT put one of those parties in charge of the investigation. Hell, even my 9-year-old understand *that*.

[db300]

A reasonable person, faced with a situation with many unknowns, would use caution and wait until they knew more, only taking aggressive action as a last resort when it became absolutely necessary.

 

Completely agree with this reasoning. This event was very poorly handled.

[The_Gabe]

This is how I see it:

 

They tried to enter Israeli waters

They did not respond to warning messages.

 

IMO, Israel handled it well enough, shots were fired from inside the ship, and weapons were found. 9 lives lost for possibly quite a lot more is fortunate.

[magekillr]

Will respond to earlier conversations tomorrow, but I thought I'd post this before bed (I just got back from work):

 

However, in raw video captured by an Al Jazeera producer and published to YouTube late Monday, two journalists provide a play-by-play of the harrowing event as pops and cracks echo in the background. Even before the Israeli forces were aboard, one says, they were pelting the boat with tear gas and stun grenades, injuring numerous people.

 

Then he confirms the first death, saying the individual was killed by "munitions," but not specifying whether it was a bullet or something else. Then he confirms that Israeli forces were boarding the ship.

 

Another of the reporters featured in the video works for the Iranian network Press TV. "We are being hit by tear gas, stun grenades, we have navy ships on either side, helicopters overhead," he said. "We are being attacked from every single side. This is in international waters, not Israeli waters, not in the 68-mile exclusion zone. We are being attacked in international waters completely illegally."

 

"The organizers are telling me now, they are raising a white flag -- they are raising a white flag to the Israeli army," the Al Jazeera reporter said. "This is after one person has been killed; a civilian has been killed by munition. That number could be more ... Despite the white flag being raised, despite the white flag being raised, the Israeli army is still shooting, still firing live munitions."

 

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0531/raw-video-reporter-claims-israelis-fired-activists-boarding-ship/

 

Hanin Zoabi, a member of the Israeli parliament, was on board the Miva Marmara, the ship that was the scene of the confrontation between activists and Israeli soldiers. The Israeli Navy fired on the ships five minutes before commandos descended from ropes that dangled from helicopters, Zoabi said during a news conference in Nazareth, Israel. She said passengers on board the ship were unarmed.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/01/gaza.raid.resolution/index.html?npt=NP1

 

It's no wonder Israel held these people hostage for so long and took all of their belongings, including their clothes. Once again, an official story put out by the IDF, is nothing but false propaganda.

 

Also see Glenn Greenwald today on MSNBC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf_Qvl1un7M

 

Glenn is Jewish. Another self-hating Jew going off the rails again, I guess.

[qeltar]

Israel handled it well enough

So in your mind the mere act of refusing to give in to Israeli demands -- while in international waters, note -- justifies a death sentence being imposed on those who refuse, with the Israeli military acting as judge, jury and executioner?

 

That's pretty sad.

 

This is the single biggest PR blunder in Israeli history. Not only do they come across looking like the bad guys -- which is basically because they are, in this case -- they have put the entire Gaza operation in jeopardy, risked relations with their most important Muslim ally, alienated the US just as Netanyahu was about to come visit, and greatly increased the chances of a new major war in the region. World support for Israel is dropping to new lows, Hamas, Turkey and Iran are all emboldened, and the IDF look like a bunch of idiotic thugs incapable of doing anything without messing it up.

 

If you think this is handling a situation well, I'd hate to see what you consider to be handling a situation poorly!

[Matok]

justifies a death sentence being imposed on those who refuse, with the Israeli military acting as judge, jury and executioner?

"refuse" is quite an understatement, lets call it defensively lynching ..

At this point you know as well as i am that those guys were more then happy to kill one or two israelis just to demostrate their "refusal" to the Israel policy.

(small refreshment)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaiMjAULWn0

 

 

This is the single biggest PR blunder in Israeli history. Not only do they come across looking like the bad guys -- which is basically because they are, in this case -- they have put the entire Gaza operation in jeopardy, risked relations with their most important Muslim ally, alienated the US just as Netanyahu was about to come visit, and greatly increased the chances of a new major war in the region. World support for Israel is dropping to new lows, Hamas, Turkey and Iran are all emboldened, and the IDF look like a bunch of idiotic thugs incapable of doing anything without messing it up.

This pretty much sum it up - we messed it up , big time.

A bigger problem is that the Hamas and their allies learned a new and much more effective way to gain world sympathy - hordes of ships are heading our way as we speak - just hope lessons were taken.

Its sad (and ironic) how human-rights actives will be now,more then ever, the primary weapon for the fundamental islamic regimes.

 

But the biggest problem is that i dont see anyone in the current Israel leadership responsible enough to navigate Israel out of this crisis with minimum damage.

[Romy]

A non-response. The alternative I suggested would not have been any more of a security risk than what they did. In fact, it would have been *less* of a security risk.

 

This point has been made numerous times. You keep responding with "security comes first" when the actions taken have *reduced* Israel's security.

 

By the way, if security trumps everything else, why not just bomb Gaza to smithereens? Oh sure, a million and a half people will die, but hey, security comes first, and Israel is more important than anyone else.

 

Right?

 

You're forgetting you're saying that right now, when you know all that you do, what the ship contained, what it's specific intents were, etc.

Wrong, sorry.

 

What I said was based on both the law and on intelligent handling of these sorts of situations. Not on what the ship contained.

 

I have said from the start that it didn't matter what the ship contained. *You* were trying to justify Israel's actions based on what you, or they, *thought* it contained.

 

It was wrong for them to storm the ship, period. Whether or not it had any contraband on it.

 

Newsflash.

 

It's not the first time Israel had stopped ships in international waters.

 

EACH time, except for this event, Israel had caught huge amounts of weapons and ammo. No one condemned what it did.

 

 

You also still don't realize what the situation holds, not that I think you will. I can describe it again as a hopeless try, but I'm pretty sure you'll again throw a belittling comment and say they were wrong. They WERE wrong, but it WAS within reason. Here's my description, for what it's worth:

 

You've noticed a flottila of ships approaching the Gaza strip. You've sent them messages and requests via radio communication, just to find out they ignore your requests and go on their way. It is definitely not the first time these occurences end up in finding large amounts of weapons, to be smuggled to the hands of the Hamas. The ships are unsupervised, and you have absolutely no idea what's inside. The ships are getting closer and closer, and you have to make a decision NOW.

 

The IDF did NOT know these things. The lack of knowledge demanded an action.

A reasonable person, faced with a situation with many unknowns, would use caution and wait until they knew more, only taking aggressive action as a last resort when it became absolutely necessary.

 

You are standing here with a straight face instead arguing that since the IDF had a "lack of knowledge", they were justified in carrying out a military assault on a civilian ship?

 

I do not justify the assault, I justify the reasoning. Stop spinning things around.

 

I again agree that something else should've been done, and again repeat I would've done the same thing if I knew the ship is officially ignoring rquests not to enter international waters

If you think something else should have been done, saying you would have done the same thing means you knew it was a bad idea but would do it anyway? Or you think one of the most renowned military and intelligence organizations in the world couldn't figure out how to properly handle a protest ship?

 

No, it means that today I know it wasn't a good decision, because I know the details, I am not under any pressure, and understand things better.

 

Two days ago, the IDF didn't have all these privileges, and it had to act.

 

 

 

The IDF made a bad decision. There's no question about it. But I can understand the reasoning behind it, and honestly think many others including myself would've taken the same decision.

 

It now boils down to whether or not you agree it's a tough decision

They should have never boarded the ship.

 

It wasn't a tough decision at all. That's why everyone around the world is baffled at the sheer, utter stupidify of what Israel did.

 

When I turn on talk radio and hear a guy like Michael Savage, who is a rabidly pro-Israel and anti-Muslim Jewish right-winger, and even *he* is flabbergasted at the sheer idiocy of what Israel did, that says something. (I was quite surprised.)

 

"The IDF made a bad decision. There's no question about it. But I can understand the reasoning behind it, and honestly think many others including myself would've taken the same decision."

 

No, it was illegal and they had no right to do it. However, I CAN understand the reasoning behind it.

Because you think Israel is above the law, and your security is more important than the security or even lives of anyone else. Gotcha.

I just said they had no right to do it. Are you for real?

 

I disagree with the decision taken, it was a bad decision. I can understand it, and the reasoning behind it though.

 

We're supposed to consider the Israelis the good guys, while you sit here saying that it was acceptable to kill a dozen people and wound dozens more only based on a *suspicion* that guns were on the ship. Amazing.

 

Again, stop spinning things around. It isn't acceptable, it is understandable.

 

And that "*suspicion*" turned out to be correct EVERY other time.

 

Look up other commitees of inquiry in Israel.

I don't care if Moses himself is resurrected and put in charge. When there's an incident involving two parties, you do NOT put one of those parties in charge of the investigation. Hell, even my 9-year-old understand *that*.

 

And every 9-year old would easily understand these commitees are unbiased. It doesn't take a genius to understand they'll harshly judge everything that's been done, history points at that clearly.

 

Trust me, these commitees are the best judges you'll get, no other will do a finer job and criticizing the operation. Not only are they not biased, but they know exactly the mentality and history of things, and can thus base their investigations much better.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with someone else running this, but trust me, you won't get a better judge anywhere else (perhaps except for Turkey and Iran, but that's another story...)

[Satenza]

The fact that ships are sailing towards a country, after ignorning every request or message sent to them, raises a red light. Then there's history of smuggling weapons to Gaza, that also raises a red light. Then there's the fact that the ships were not supervised, that also raises a red light. Then there's the fact that even after the IDF's helicopters went on their way, messages were sent again and again - and ignored.

 

Despite the fact that all ships had been through customs and checks in Turkey, which was prior to this event a close ally of Israel.

 

With all these red lights, the IDF had to react. It had no other choice. A search, for the millionth time, was obligatory. And when it comes to security, especially when it's Israel, no risks can be taken. None at all.

 

It had already been searched. It was in international waters. The flotilla posed no threat in the slightest. As shown with the assortment of kitchen knives and wooden sticks found on board.

 

If it boils down to the actions being taken in international waters, that's just petty IMO, because the same course of action would have taken place inside national waters, which is where my theory of "the faster the better & safer" makes more and more sense.

 

Lol - no it isn't "petty". What is petty is the fact that you're just another Israeli apologist who passes over the aim of the mission and ignores the facts. The people on the boat weren't terrorists they were activists and the only act of terror is the boarding of their ships in the dead of night and the killing of innocent people. You still claim like the rest of the Israeli apologists on this thread that the victims here weren't those shot dead in cold blood, but were the soldiers who illegally boarded a ship designed to provide aid to the very people the soldiers are starving to death.

 

The main problem in this incident and the main problem for the past 60 years concerning this crisis is that people like you can't recognise the obvious. Perhaps you didn't read the UN resolutions or the Oslo Accord. Maybe you were away when F16's roared over Gaza and decimated it and killed women and children indiscriminately. You obviously didn't see the people of Gaza running from phosphorous whilst their skin burnt off. If you did you'd perhaps develop a shred of humanity and realise who the perpetrators of these war crimes are.

[Nero]

This is why it's annoying to try and debate these things maturely. Anytime you try and defend Israel's actions (or even state that you understand the reasoning behind them) everyone looks at you like you just killed a raped a baby in front of them and labels you an 'Israeli apologist', or thinks you condone whatever heinous act Israel has done recently.

 

1.) What they did was justified

2.) What they did was wrong

3.) They handled the situation badly

 

That's it. I don't think anyone here will disagree that killing the people on board was a good thing, but Israeli forces had full justification for doing so. The ship was heading towards their waters, with potential weapons or other illegal materials on board. They are currently at war with Hamas and its territories (though, it's much the same as the War on Terror - you're fighting against an ideal so it's not exactly an 'official' war), and these ships were delivering materials to Gaza. There was a possibility that the ship only had aid supplies such as food and water, but in Israel's situation, they absolutely cannot take the chance that they didn't and allow them into their waters and their land (and nobody go throwing out some [cabbage] about how it's not their land, or you better start [bleep]ing at France for stealing the land of the Romans, or England for stealing Scotland, or Russia for stealing Lithuania's land).

 

From what I can see of the videos that have surfaced, Israeli troops boarded the ships and were attacked. I've also heard that Israeli troops fired on the ship and killed people, then boarded, but that doesn't make any sense at all considering you can clearly see them boarding with paintball guns (or some of them without any weapons drawn at all). Considering these are professional soldiers, they'd probably know not to descend into a mob you just pissed off unarmed or under-armed.

 

And I'm not quite sure people really understand what Israel means to the western world's foreign policy. Israel is the sole ally of the west in the middle east; this shouldn't give them a carte blanche to do whatever the [bleep] they want, but you don't drop an ally and kick them around because they defended their foreign policies/interests.

 

tl;dr the modern popular image of the unicorn is sometimes that of a horse differing only in the horn on its forehead, the traditional unicorn also has a billy-goat beard, a lion's tail, and cloven hooves

[Satenza]

1.) What they did was justified

2.) What they did was wrong

3.) They handled the situation bad

 

That's it. I don't think anyone here will disagree that killing the people on board was a good thing, but Israeli forces had full justification for doing so. The ship was heading towards their waters, with potential weapons or other illegal materials on board. They are currently at war with Hamas and its territories (though, it's much the same as the War on Terror - you're fighting against an ideal so it's not exactly an 'official' war), and these ships were delivering materials to Gaza. There was a possibility that the ship only had aid supplies such as food and water, but in Israel's situation, they absolutely cannot take the chance that they didn't, and allow them into their waters and their land (and nobody go throwing out some [cabbage] about how it's not their land, or you better start [bleep]ing at France for stealing the land of the Romans, or England for stealing Scotland, or Russia for stealing Lithuania's land).

 

No it didn't have weapons on board - they had aid. The ships were checked in Istanbul by Turkey a close ally and member of NATO. The passengers went through the highest security checks.

[Nero]

No it didn't have weapons on board - they had aid. The ships were checked in Istanbul by Turkey a close ally and member of NATO. The passengers went through the highest security checks.

Turkey =/= Israel

 

'Oh no President Kennedy, none of those ships heading to Cuba have nuclear weapons on board, we checked them ourselves!' -Nikita Khrushchev

[Satenza]

No it didn't have weapons on board - they had aid. The ships were checked in Istanbul by Turkey a close ally and member of NATO. The passengers went through the highest security checks.

Turkey =/= Israel

 

They had the checks on live stream to the entire world. Everybody in the world knew nothing was on board. Turkey was an ally. A NATO member.

 

You're clearly insane if you think Israel still had justification.

 

'Oh no President Kennedy, none of those ships heading to Cuba have nuclear weapons on board, we checked them ourselves!' -Nikita Khrushchev

 

What are you talking about. The Soviets and the US didn't even speak to one another during that period of the Cold War. Let alone were allies.

[Nero]

And the live streams meticulously went over the cargo manifests and opened up crates and documented the contents? No, they said 'Oh there are the Israeli's, let's talk about how life sucks in Gaza because it gets us viewers'.

 

Of course Israel had justification. Here is a ship that is heading towards their waters, to deliver materials to a territory that is under blockade, and is refusing to halt and be searched before doing so.

 

Israel is not a part of NATO and neither is it an ally of Turkey.

[Satenza]

Lol. Yes it is. They have military agreements, trade agreements et cetera. None of which I agree with. The fact Turkey is a member of NATO and some of the flotillas were sailing under the turkish flag means that because of this act of piracy and attack NATO could legitimately launch full scale war against Israel - that is how serious it is.

 

The reason I bring up NATO apart from this is because the majority if not all of NATO countries are allies of Israel in some sense. Therefore when Israel attacks one country, the agreement under NATO is that it is an attack on all countries. Any checks that Turkey do must be full and to the highest standard because otherwise if there had been bombs and weapons on board Turkey would be kicked out of NATO and perhaps even worse.

 

Turkey would never let armaments through. To suggest it would is insanity.

 

Edit: Also Israel is in partnership with NATO despite not being a fully fledged member.

[Nero]

No, it isn't. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm. Next time please check your facts before posting. A trade agreement and certain military agreements does not mean two countries are allied.

 

You're daft if you think NATO is going to attack Israel. First, NATO is a dog and it's teeth is the USA. For NATO to attack Israel it would force the US to pick one or the other, and NATO would not be stupid enough to risk losing the US from membership, or it would turn into the abject failure that the League of Nations was.

 

Your whole argument centering around NATO is irrelevant though, since Israel is not, and has never been, a member state of NATO.

 

That's not the point. The point is that Israel has full justification to search a vessel that is entering its territory with the intent of delivering materials to an area that Israel presently has under a military blockade. Whether said vessel was searched previously by another country is irrelevant, since that country is not Israel.