Gaza flotilla raid: 'We heard gunfire – then our ship turned into lake of blood'
Activists aboard Mavi Marmara speak of shock at rapid attacks and deny assaults on Israeli commandos
Robert Booth, Kate Connolly in Berlin, Tom Philips in Rio de Janeiro and Helena Smith
The Guardian, Wednesday 2 June 2010
'Some formed human shields, others fought back with makeshift weapons, while a few of the most vulnerable hid below deck and prayed for the violence and killing to stop.
But what united every survivor who spoke out today about yesterday's pre-dawn assault by Israeli commandos on the pro-Palestinian aid flotilla to Gaza, was a sense of deep shock at the speed, aggression and lethal force of the Israeli response to what they reiterated was nothing more than a humanitarian aid effort.
Speaking on arrival back in Berlin, wrapped in an airline blanket from the Israeli national airline El Al, Norman Paech, a 72-year-old German pro-Palestinian activist described waking up to hear "striking explosions" as the assault began on the Mavi Marmara, the flotilla's informal flagship.
"I hurried up and dressed myself and colleagues said to me 'we're under attack, the Israelis are here'," he said. "The aggression came from the sky, from helicopters from which soldiers came down by ropes. We waited in the fore room and saw them carrying an Israeli soldier who looked to me like he'd had a breakdown. Then the second and third came, but after these three injured soldiers then I saw a lot – maybe 10 – passengers who were severely hurt, injured, covered in blood. They were treated in the salon next to me. One was so badly injured I am sure he must have died soon after. I didn't even consider going upstairs as it was just too dangerous."
One of the strongest condemnations of Israel's actions came from the Swedish novelist Henning Mankell who had been aboard the Swedish aid ship Sofia. Mankell, the author of the Wallander series called for global sanctions against Israel to put pressure on it to lift the blockade of Gaza. "I think we should use the experience of South Africa, where we know that the sanctions had a great impact. It took time, but they had an impact," Mankell said. He also denied there had been any weapons aboard the aid ships. "I can promise there was not a single weapon aboard the ships," he told a reporter who was returning to Sweden with him after the writer had been deported by Israel.
Nilufer Cetin, a Turkish activist, and her baby boy hid in a bathroom below deck as stun grenades, live ammunition and teargas exploded above them. Speaking on her return to Istanbul, she described how "the ship turned into a lake of blood".
"We stayed in our cabin and played games amid the sound of gunfire," she said. "I protected him by staying in my cabin, then went to the bathroom. I put a gas mask and lifejacket on my son. They used smoke bombs followed by gas canisters. They started to descend on to the ship with helicopters." She added the clashes were "extremely bad and brutal".
Iara Lee, a Brazilian filmmaker who was also on the Mavi Marmara, claimed the Israeli troops had invaded the ship after cutting all communications and "started shooting at people". She spoke to Brazil's TV Globo from the prison in southern Israel where an estimated 600 foreign activists, including around 40 Britons, were being held. Israeli officials said tonight that they would all be freed immediately.
Lee said: "[The attack] was a surprise, because it happened in the middle of the night, in the darkness, in international waters, because we knew there would be a confrontation but not in international waters. Their first tactic was to cut all of our satellite communications and then they attacked. All I witnessed first hand was the shooting. They came on board and started shooting at people."
She said the commandos then sent the women to a lower level of the ship.
"They said we were terrorists – it was absurd. They came into the part where the women were, lots and lots of them, dressed in black and with gigantic weapons as if they were in a war. They confiscated all of our telephones and all of our luggage and took everything out of the bags and put it on the floor."
"We expected them to shoot people in the legs, to shoot in the air, just to scare people, but they were direct," she said, in a separate interview with the Folha de São Paulo newspaper. "Some of them shot in the passengers' heads. Many people were murdered – it was unimaginable."
The released activists gave varying accounts of the level of resistance mounted by the passengers.
Annette Groth, a German politician, described at a press conference how she had seen Israeli soldiers outside her cabin, after they had stormed the ship.
"They were shooting without warning," she said. "It was like war … They had guns, Taser weapons, some type of teargas and other weaponry, compared to two-and-a-half wooden sticks we had between us. To talk of self-defence is ridiculous."
Footage of the assault shown on Turkish TV and images released by the Israeli military clearly showed some commandos being beaten with sticks by passengers.
However, Paech said he saw no arms being used by the activists. "There were only two men with short sticks but no knives, iron rods, pistols or any real weapons," he said. "Throughout our planning of the mission we said: 'no arms, no explosives', we said we'd only resist politically, with normal means."
An Arab member of the Israeli Knesset, Hanin Zoabi, who was on board the Mavi Marmara, said "not a single passenger …raised a club".
At a press conference in Nazareth, she said: "A clear message was being sent to us, for us to know that our lives were in danger. We were not interested in a confrontation. What we saw was five bodies. There were only civilians and there were no weapons … Israel spoke of a provocation, but there was no provocation."
According to a spokeswoman for the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), Avital Leibovich, its warships gave the activists several warnings before commandos were dropped from helicopters on to the deck of the Mavi Marmara.
"We found ourselves in the middle of a lynching," she told reporters in the Israeli port of Ashdod. About 10 activists had attacked commandos, taking their pistols, she said. "It was a massive attack. What happened was a last resort."
The violence was not confined to the Mavi Marmara. Speaking at Athens airport, Mihalis Grigoropoulos, crew on one of the other five vessels, said the Israelis came down from helicopters and threw ropes from inflatable boats, climbing aboard using teargas and live ammunition.
"We did not resist at all, we couldn't even if we had wanted to," he said. "What could we have done against the commandos who climbed aboard? The only thing some people tried was to delay them from getting to the bridge, forming a human shield. They were fired on with plastic bullets and stunned with electric devices."
Greek activist Dimitris Gielalis, aboard a third vessel, the Sfendoni, gave a similar account. "Suddenly from everywhere we saw inflatables coming at us, and within seconds fully equipped commandos came up on the boat. They came up and used plastic bullets, we had beatings, we had electric shocks, any method we can think of, they used," he said.
The tough treatment did not end after they were taken into custody in Israel, others said.
"During their interrogation, many of them were badly beaten in front of us," said Aris Papadokostopoulos.
one would have too ask WHY the israeli govt find it necessary to stop aid reaching gaza.
In actuality Israel offered to let the flotilla dock in Israel, at the port in Ashdod, and to allow the aid to reach Gaza overland after it underwent an inspection. I'm not sure why this offer would be turned down (which it was) except if the goal of the flotilla was as much political as it was humanitarian, i.e. they were as interested (if not more interested) in breaking the blockade as they were in getting aid to Gaza.
yes i know that yosi. but youll have to excuse me(and many others) if i feel a bit sceptical about the israelis allowing the much needed aid to flow unaccosted.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The problem as I see it is that the Israeli leadership are too arrogant and reckless.
I'd like to see a peaceful settlement to the I/P conflict, but this won't happen as long as the U.S encourages Israels rogue behaviour by defending everything it does, and bankrolling it's military to the tune of $4 Billion of U.S tax-payers money every year. Nobody is benefiting from this current impasse, including the Israeli's. As things stand they are on a one-way road to disaster. It's a type of insanity. As Norman Finkelstein says - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB_CKL5h2_8 - it isn't just rhetoric to accuse Israel of being a lunatic state. A lunatic state is precisely what it has become. And what do you do with a dangerous lunatic? Do you give it money and weapons and defend it when it acts violently? Or do you punish it and try to re-condition it's behaviour?
Israel needs to be punished. It needs to suffer a defeat, either militarily or diplomatically. Personally, I'd prefer to see it suffer a huge diplomatic defeat. I'd like to see U.N 242 implemented and supported by the U.S, and failing that I'd like to see strict international sanctions imposed.
The onus is on the U.S government, but in light of it's latest support of Israels most recent atrocity I see nothing changing anytime soon.
I was also surprised to read (or was I?) that washing machines are a no-no because the timers could be used for making bombs.....
@michelle - sure those tunnels bring in goods. But all that Israel is doing by forcing the use of these smuggling tunnels is enriching Hamas. Hamas controls them & the goods that pass through them, selling goods at inflated prices (law of supply and demand) and stuffing the money in their pockets. So much for Israel trying to crush Hamas! You will also find that the majority of the people of Gaza do not have access to those goods. If people could find all they needed/wanted, there would not be malnutrition, their homes would be rebuilt, etc. Again, Israeli propaganda and spin.
The world sees through this spin, it's no longer effective - really didn't work this time with the aid ship attacks. They may have blocked all communications and held the activist incommunicado to be able to flood the media with their side of the story, forgetting that some members of the aid ships did get messages out. But now that these activists are getting out of Israeli custody, they are talking. So much for damage control. Not that Israel really cares.
Let me reiterate, for those who will bother to read.
I think the blockade needs to be modified so the following are provided to the Gazans, who are victims in this:
- Medicine
- Health care (and required facilities)
- Staples (includes food staples and living staples)
- Fresh water (and I should have said sewage facilities. edit: both this and functioning health care facilities require some construction to be allowed)
But I just don't see it as realistic to completely eliminate the whole blockade and let all shipments into Gaza unchecked.
Add to the list ALL construction materials so people can rebuilt their homes, hospitals, schools, factories, core materials to get industry going again, tractors, etc. to get farming back on track. And not just living staples, get the sewing machines, toys, spices, kitchenware, white goods, etc. Why should these people have to live on 'basics' because Israel says so? Why can the children not have toys, crayons, paper to write and draw on? Does that seem fair to you? Would you like to be told you can only have what a bully neighbour says you can have? No.
The palestinians have the same right to have a life of 'luxury' as the Israelis. Israel has no right to take this away from the Palestinians.
Let me reiterate, for those who will bother to read.
I think the blockade needs to be modified so the following are provided to the Gazans, who are victims in this:
- Medicine
- Health care (and required facilities)
- Staples (includes food staples and living staples)
- Fresh water (and I should have said sewage facilities. edit: both this and functioning health care facilities require some construction to be allowed)
But I just don't see it as realistic to completely eliminate the whole blockade and let all shipments into Gaza unchecked.
Add to the list ALL construction materials so people can rebuilt their homes, hospitals, schools, factories, core materials to get industry going again, tractors, etc. to get farming back on track. And not just living staples, get the sewing machines, toys, spices, kitchenware, white goods, etc. Why should these people have to live on 'basics' because Israel says so? Why can the children not have toys, crayons, paper to write and draw on? Does that seem fair to you? Would you like to be told you can only have what a bully neighbour says you can have? No.
The palestinians have the same right to have a life of 'luxury' as the Israelis. Israel has no right to take this away from the Palestinians.
Is it safe to travel to Israel?
Israel is an extremely safe country to visit and to tour. In 2008, three million tourists came to Israel, an all-time record, and all three million went back home safe and sound. We would not encourage tourists to come if we felt they would be in the slightest danger.
so, who is getting wiped off the map again??
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
One of the group deported to Jordan today, Walid al-Tabtabai, a Kuwaiti politician who was on board one of the ships with other activists from Muslim countries, said: "The Israelis roughed up and humiliated all of us, women, men and children.
"They were brutal and arrogant, but our message reached every corner of the world that the blockade on Gaza is unfair and should be lifted immediately."
Like many passengers on the flotilla he insisted there were no weapons on any of the ships.
Algerian Izzeddine Zahrour said Israeli authorities "deprived us of food, water and sleep and we weren't allowed to use the toilet".
"It was an ugly kidnapping and subsequently bad treatment in Israeli jail," he said. "They handcuffed us, pushed us around and humiliated us."
Mauritanian Mohammed Gholam said Israel "wanted us to sign documents saying that we entered Israel illegally".
An Algerian activist, who only gave her first name as Sabrina, accused Israeli commandos of taking a one-year-old child hostage.
"They point a gun to his head in front of his Turkish parents to force the captain of our ship to stop sailing," she said.
I'm sorry, I'm confused. The first part of your answer suggests that the goal of the flotilla was primarily political, that they turned down the Ashdod offer because they wanted to provoke a conflict, but then the second part of your answer suggests that they turned down the offer because it wouldn't serve their humanitarian goals. Which is it?
the floatilla was political because up until this week - international coverage and focus was nominal at best ... the organizers were sure to know israel would not allow the goods to enter and that they would have to commit crimes to prevent it ...
as for the second part - what good is accepting the offer to dock in Ashdod!? ... it makes absolutely no sense ... the goal IS to Free Gaza ... only through international pressure will this happen ...
one would have too ask WHY the israeli govt find it necessary to stop aid reaching gaza.
In actuality Israel offered to let the flotilla dock in Israel, at the port in Ashdod, and to allow the aid to reach Gaza overland after it underwent an inspection. I'm not sure why this offer would be turned down (which it was) except if the goal of the flotilla was as much political as it was humanitarian, i.e. they were as interested (if not more interested) in breaking the blockade as they were in getting aid to Gaza.
Exactly, they poked them in the eye instead of just docking in Israe which, to me, makes the captain of the boat responsible for the deaths. The people on that ship provoked this. But most of the people on this forum believe that just because someone is called a peace activists or a humanitarian aid worker they can not do anything wrong. They simply should have listened to the orders that they were given.
one would have too ask WHY the israeli govt find it necessary to stop aid reaching gaza.
In actuality Israel offered to let the flotilla dock in Israel, at the port in Ashdod, and to allow the aid to reach Gaza overland after it underwent an inspection. I'm not sure why this offer would be turned down (which it was) except if the goal of the flotilla was as much political as it was humanitarian, i.e. they were as interested (if not more interested) in breaking the blockade as they were in getting aid to Gaza.
maybe because israel won't allow things like fruit juice, coriander, wood....and up until 2 months ago shoes from entering gaza! not only that but the un reported what israel allows in only meets 1/4 of gaza's daily needs. if they turned the items over they wouldn't be give to gaza
who is israel to tell 1.5 million people they can't use coriander or wood or drink fruit juice!? and can you explain how a resident of gaza having one of those items would lead to the destruction of israel?? it's as crazy as that former soviet state that the us gives aid to that banned things like the ballet
Well.......9 people would still be going home to their families.
Exactly, they poked them in the eye instead of just docking in Israe which, to me, makes the captain of the boat responsible for the deaths. The people on that ship provoked this. But most of the people on this forum believe that just because someone is called a peace activists or a humanitarian aid worker they can not do anything wrong. They simply should have listened to the orders that they were given.
Why should they listen to orders from high sea pirates? OK.. maybe because they were pointing guns at people but apart that? This ship was in international waters, well within their rights. These people did not believe that they would be shot at and they did believe/hope that their ship would be able to deliver the goods. Other ships have managed to do so in the past. Docking in Israel would mean most of the aid would have been confiscated and would not have reached those that needed it. We all know that (except a couple of people here, it seems).
Israel and the IDF are responsible for the deaths.
Exactly, they poked them in the eye instead of just docking in Israe which, to me, makes the captain of the boat responsible for the deaths. The people on that ship provoked this. But most of the people on this forum believe that just because someone is called a peace activists or a humanitarian aid worker they can not do anything wrong. They simply should have listened to the orders that they were given.
First of all - do you even know why this floatilla was organized to begin with!??? It is because Israel is not allowing many items into GAZA (go look at the list of forbidden items) - so, what good is it to dock the ship in Ashdod - so, they can have it confiscated!??
Secondly, the boat is in INTERNATIONAL waters. Attacking a registered ship in international waters and killing civilians is an ACT OF WAR. It is a crime.
These activists are heroes. The people who have died - have died for people who are suffering. I betcha you are one to honour the troops of the US armed forces. If one of them goes over to Iraq and dies - do you make flippant comments like the one above? edit: like the one in the previous page
Exactly, they poked them in the eye instead of just docking in Israe which, to me, makes the captain of the boat responsible for the deaths. The people on that ship provoked this. But most of the people on this forum believe that just because someone is called a peace activists or a humanitarian aid worker they can not do anything wrong. They simply should have listened to the orders that they were given.
Sure, it was the fault of the aid workers that they were mown down and killed. Just as it was the fault of the 1000 Palestinian civilians in Gaza last year that they were slaughtered by the IDF.
Israel apologists love trying to turn reality on it's head, probably because this is all they have. The truth is not in them.
Exactly, they poked them in the eye instead of just docking in Israe which, to me, makes the captain of the boat responsible for the deaths. The people on that ship provoked this. But most of the people on this forum believe that just because someone is called a peace activists or a humanitarian aid worker they can not do anything wrong. They simply should have listened to the orders that they were given.
Sure, it was the fault of the aid workers that they were mown down and killed. Just as it was the fault of the 1000 Palestinian civilians in Gaza last year that they were slaughtered by the IDF.
Israel apologists love trying to turn reality on it's head, probably because this is all they have. The truth is not in them.
In all honesty, maybe I should stay out of this topic. I'm not all that educated on Israel. But from what i've gathered on this topic:
A boat tried going through a BLOCKADE.
Soldiers boarded the boat.
And from the footage I have seen, before the soldiers feet even touch the floor the activists were already throwing stuff at him.
And........people on this forum claim to know more about Israel then people that actually live there or have lived there.
A boat tried going through a BLOCKADE.
Soldiers boarded the boat.
And from the footage I have seen, before the soldiers feet even touch the floor the activists were already throwing stuff at him.
And........people on this forum claim to know more about Israel then people that actually live there or have lived there.
Israel imposed a media blackout immediately after the attack so only a handful of reports from the aid workers have so far gotten out. I'm sure we'll be hearing more over the coming days. Here's one:
Huwaida Arraf, one of the Free Gaza Movement organisers, claimed she was beaten when Israeli troops boarded her ship.
She told CNN:
Live blog: quote
"They started coming after our ship so we took off and they charged us also. Eventually, they overtook our ship and they used concussion grenades, sound bombs and pellets."
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."
I wonder if the Israeli's will confiscate all of the video footage of the attack taken by those on board the ships, or if we'll get to see that footage soon?
Exactly, they poked them in the eye instead of just docking in Israe which, to me, makes the captain of the boat responsible for the deaths. The people on that ship provoked this. But most of the people on this forum believe that just because someone is called a peace activists or a humanitarian aid worker they can not do anything wrong. They simply should have listened to the orders that they were given.
Sure, it was the fault of the aid workers that they were mown down and killed. Just as it was the fault of the 1000 Palestinian civilians in Gaza last year that they were slaughtered by the IDF.
Israel apologists love trying to turn reality on it's head, probably because this is all they have. The truth is not in them.
In all honesty, maybe I should stay out of this topic. I'm not all that educated on Israel. But from what i've gathered on this topic:
A boat tried going through a BLOCKADE.
Soldiers boarded the boat.
And from the footage I have seen, before the soldiers feet even touch the floor the activists were already throwing stuff at him.
And........people on this forum claim to know more about Israel then people that actually live there or have lived there.
Maybe try educating yourself a bit then.
Boats were in international waters
Soldiers illegally boarded said boats armed to the teeth and threatening
Some activist trying to stopped armed pirates illegally boarding their boat from all sides in the middle of the night (would you not try to stop someone breaking into your house?)
No one claims to know more about anything. Some are more educated on certain matters than others. Some have blinkers, some don't. Some are brainwashed by propaganda, some aren't. A mix of people, really.
I wonder if the Israeli's will confiscate all of the video footage of the attack taken by those on board the ships, or if we'll get to see that footage soon?
I read that people had to leave the boats without being able to get their stuff. Mobile phones, cameras, etc. were confiscated on the boat as soon as the IDF got control. The blackout then started.
Exactly, they poked them in the eye instead of just docking in Israe which, to me, makes the captain of the boat responsible for the deaths. The people on that ship provoked this. But most of the people on this forum believe that just because someone is called a peace activists or a humanitarian aid worker they can not do anything wrong. They simply should have listened to the orders that they were given.
Sure, it was the fault of the aid workers that they were mown down and killed. Just as it was the fault of the 1000 Palestinian civilians in Gaza last year that they were slaughtered by the IDF.
Israel apologists love trying to turn reality on it's head, probably because this is all they have. The truth is not in them.
In all honesty, maybe I should stay out of this topic. I'm not all that educated on Israel. But from what i've gathered on this topic:
A boat tried going through a BLOCKADE.
Soldiers boarded the boat.
And from the footage I have seen, before the soldiers feet even touch the floor the activists were already throwing stuff at him.
And........people on this forum claim to know more about Israel then people that actually live there or have lived there.
don't believe everything the Israeli propoganda machine spins.
see this picture? This is an Israeli propaganda photo and caption that appeared on the website of Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
let's see if you can spot what's wrong with it. no cookies for guessing. it's too easy.
There's a number of things not credible about this:
The Israeli assault took place in darkness. There is bright daylight coming through the window.
Who took the picture? The Israeli commandos supposedly being threatened with stabbing? It's a great picture!
Everyone behind the man with the knife looks quite calm and not as if they are under attack by the Israeli army.
People on the ship were ordered to wear life jackets before the Israeli attack and most were on the video feed. No one is in this picture.
How do they know he's a "left-wing activist"? He doesn't fit my stereotype of a left-wing activist. Did they take the time to interview him while he was supposedly trying to stab them?
Reality check: If this photo even comes from the ship it shows a man carrying a ceremonial dagger, perhaps in a demonstration of bravado in front of cameras and journalists. What it certainly wouldn't do is justify a military assault on the high seas and the murder and wounding of dozens of civilians on a humanitarian aid ship. After all, suppose they had lots of daggers on the ship, what were they going to do, sail to Gaza and "stab" Israel?
As yet, on this message board and on the Guardians comment section, nobody's been able to answer my question: if the Israeli's wanted to conduct a peaceful search of the flotilla's cargo then why did it board the boats at night in darkness armed to the teeth with stun grenades, pistols, and machine guns, whilst most of the aid workers were asleep?
Surely an inspection in broad daylight with the co-operation of those on board would have made more sense?
let's see if you can spot what's wrong with it. no cookies for guessing. it's too easy.
There's a number of things not credible about this:
The Israeli assault took place in darkness. There is bright daylight coming through the window.
Who took the picture? The Israeli commandos supposedly being threatened with stabbing? It's a great picture!
Everyone behind the man with the knife looks quite calm and not as if they are under attack by the Israeli army.
People on the ship were ordered to wear life jackets before the Israeli attack and most were on the video feed. No one is in this picture.
How do they know he's a "left-wing activist"? He doesn't fit my stereotype of a left-wing activist. Did they take the time to interview him while he was supposedly trying to stab them?
Reality check: If this photo even comes from the ship it shows a man carrying a ceremonial dagger, perhaps in a demonstration of bravado in front of cameras and journalists. What it certainly wouldn't do is justify a military assault on the high seas and the murder and wounding of dozens of civilians on a humanitarian aid ship. After all, suppose they had lots of daggers on the ship, what were they going to do, sail to Gaza and "stab" Israel?
-Ali Abunimah
good grief ... it's STILL on the website! ... that's ridiculous! ...
let's see if you can spot what's wrong with it. no cookies for guessing. it's too easy.
There's a number of things not credible about this:
The Israeli assault took place in darkness. There is bright daylight coming through the window.
Who took the picture? The Israeli commandos supposedly being threatened with stabbing? It's a great picture!
Everyone behind the man with the knife looks quite calm and not as if they are under attack by the Israeli army.
People on the ship were ordered to wear life jackets before the Israeli attack and most were on the video feed. No one is in this picture.
How do they know he's a "left-wing activist"? He doesn't fit my stereotype of a left-wing activist. Did they take the time to interview him while he was supposedly trying to stab them?
Reality check: If this photo even comes from the ship it shows a man carrying a ceremonial dagger, perhaps in a demonstration of bravado in front of cameras and journalists. What it certainly wouldn't do is justify a military assault on the high seas and the murder and wounding of dozens of civilians on a humanitarian aid ship. After all, suppose they had lots of daggers on the ship, what were they going to do, sail to Gaza and "stab" Israel?
-Ali Abunimah
good grief ... it's STILL on the website! ... that's ridiculous! ...
Unbelievable. Even a child could decipher this bullshit!
Yet again today the U.S has defended Israel at the U.N Security Council and blocked calls for an independent investigation into the killings on the aid flotilla:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ju ... lotilla-us '...The United States has blocked demands at the UN security council for an international inquiry into Israel's assault on the Turkish ship carrying aid to Gaza that left nine pro-Palestinian activists dead.
A compromise statement instead calls for an impartial investigation which Washington indicated could be carried out by Israel.
...The Americans also blocked criticism of Israel for violating international law by assaulting a ship in international waters...'
The U.S stands alone in the world in preventing a peaceful settlement to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Every year at the U.N the following resolution - based on 242 - is vetoed by the U.S in defiance of the whole of the international community.
We have Israel and the U.S on one side and the whole world - barring a few South Pacific Islands - on the other side. This is why Israel will continue to run amok in the world, in breach of international law, and why further atrocities will be committed and go unpunished:
Peaceful Settlement of The Question of Palestine
November 26, 2008, the United Nations General Assembly, as it does every year, voted on a resolution to end the Israel Palestine conflict. The GA/ 10791 (documents A/63/L.35; A/63/L.36) called for a two state settlement on the 1967 borders, East Jerusalem for the Palestinian State (west for Israel), and a “just” resolution to the refugee problem
The draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/63/L.35) was adopted by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:
In favour:Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.
You guys keep talking about this having happened in international waters, and making this out to be a significant point, one that makes Israel's actions tantamount to piracy. Maybe the following article excerpt will inject some actual knowledge into the discussion.
There were several smart pieces yesterday about the flotilla fallout. One was written by Michael Sean Winters in the lefty National Catholic Reporter. It is called “Judging Israel.” And it judges the Jewish state fairly. But perhaps the most important take on the episode appeared in The Daily Beast. The piece (“Israel Was Right”) was written by Leslie H. Gelb, a senior ideas man in the American foreign policy establishment, a former New York Times columnist, and the longtime president (now president emeritus) of the Council on Foreign Relations. Writes Gelb:
Israel had every right under international law to stop and board ships bound for the Gaza war zone late Sunday. Only knee-jerk left-wingers and the usual legion of poseurs around the world would dispute this. And it is pretty clear that this "humanitarian" flotilla headed for Gaza aimed to provoke a confrontation with Israel. Various representatives of the Free Gaza Movement, one of the main organizers of this deadly extravaganza, have let it slip throughout Monday that their intention was every bit as much "to break" Israel's blockade of Gaza as to deliver the relief goods.
[…]
Regarding international law, blockades are quite legal. The United States and Britain were at war with Germany and Japan and blockaded them. I can't remember international lawyers saying those blockades were illegal—even though they took place on the high seas in international waters.
On that note, here are the relevant passages from the Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality:
5.1.2 (3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if 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, capture or diversion.
5.1.2 (4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they (a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy; (b) act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces; (c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system; (d) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or (e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
5.2.1 As an exception to Principle 5.1.2. paragraph 1 and in accordance with Principle 1.3 (2nd sentence), belligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.
5.2.10 Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.
I would recommend that before you guys start ranting and raving about the illegality of something under international law that you actually bother to know the law first. You will even notice that the last sentence of the last paragraph (5.2.10) suggests that even had the soldiers not been attacked by the activists, since the ships had already been warned not to try to breach the blockade and were nevertheless attempting to do so that the Israelis were within their rights under international law to attack them. This loss of life was tragic, and I truly mean that, but if you have to blame someone Israel really doesn't seem to be a good target in this case.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
You guys keep talking about this having happened in international waters, and making this out to be a significant point, one that makes Israel's actions tantamount to piracy. Maybe the following article excerpt will inject some actual knowledge into the discussion.
There were several smart pieces yesterday about the flotilla fallout. One was written by Michael Sean Winters in the lefty National Catholic Reporter. It is called “Judging Israel.” And it judges the Jewish state fairly. But perhaps the most important take on the episode appeared in The Daily Beast. The piece (“Israel Was Right”) was written by Leslie H. Gelb, a senior ideas man in the American foreign policy establishment, a former New York Times columnist, and the longtime president (now president emeritus) of the Council on Foreign Relations. Writes Gelb:
Israel had every right under international law to stop and board ships bound for the Gaza war zone late Sunday. Only knee-jerk left-wingers and the usual legion of poseurs around the world would dispute this. And it is pretty clear that this "humanitarian" flotilla headed for Gaza aimed to provoke a confrontation with Israel. Various representatives of the Free Gaza Movement, one of the main organizers of this deadly extravaganza, have let it slip throughout Monday that their intention was every bit as much "to break" Israel's blockade of Gaza as to deliver the relief goods.
[…]
Regarding international law, blockades are quite legal. The United States and Britain were at war with Germany and Japan and blockaded them. I can't remember international lawyers saying those blockades were illegal—even though they took place on the high seas in international waters.
On that note, here are the relevant passages from the Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality:
5.1.2 (3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if 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, capture or diversion.
5.1.2 (4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they (a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy; (b) act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces; (c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system; (d) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or (e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
5.2.1 As an exception to Principle 5.1.2. paragraph 1 and in accordance with Principle 1.3 (2nd sentence), belligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.
5.2.10 Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.
I would recommend that before you guys start ranting and raving about the illegality of something under international law that you actually bother to know the law first. You will even notice that the last sentence of the last paragraph (5.2.10) suggests that even had the soldiers not been attacked by the activists, since the ships had already been warned not to try to breach the blockade and were nevertheless attempting to do so that the Israelis were within their rights under international law to attack them. This loss of life was tragic, and I truly mean that, but if you have to blame someone Israel really doesn't seem to be a good target in this case.
If the blockade is legally constituted, then provided there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that the vessel is carrying weapons beyond those normally carried by a vessel (and yes, almost all merchant vessels of any size have some perfectly legal weapons in the captain's safe) / weapons of mass destruction AND a whole host of other conditions are fulfilled, then you MAY be able to legally board a vessel to search it without out first referring to the flag nation for permission to execute the search.
It isn't a given right that you can search any vessel approaching any unilaterally declared blockade.
The Gaza blockade is illegal under international law. Therefore your attempt to justify Israel's boarding of the aid ship in international waters is not applicable.
Security Council Resolution 1860... "calls for the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment."
Yosi, the attack having been in international waters IS a significant point. Not just for us plebs, but you will find the UN, heads of states, etc. making the point.
Also, the ships' contents had been inspected before departure. Nothing but aid was carried. I'm sure Israel knew... after all, don't they boast having the best intelligence network?
Again, you are just trying to get 'one up' by being seemingly learned.
One more thing: you need reasonable grounds for suspecting the ships carry contraband, which is defined quite narrowly as military equipment and some dual-use material such as fuel. It's noteworthy that the actual excuses being made by the Israeli Government - the flotilla is a "provocation", the activists are really supporters of Hamas/Al Qaeda etc - have no bearing on whether the flotilla was carrying contraband.
Secondly, you're supposed to obtain permission from the neutral country for the inspection: in this case Turkey. No such permission was sought.
Thirdly, there's no basic right to ignore these rules just because compliance would jeopardise the integrity of the blockade. The blockade is illegal, but for arguments sake even if it was legal, that would still not give Israel an automatic right to maintain it at all costs.
Finally, Israel has declared a 20km "exclusion zone" for its blockade, not a 65km zone. That is not a territorial claim (which would be smaller) but a statement about the limits of the blockade. Having set an exclusion zone, it's surely wrong in principle to then invent a further exclusion zone to "protect" the original one.
The bottom line is, if you cannot enforce a blockade by legal means, you are not entitled to ignore the inconvenient parts of the law to make life easier for yourself.
Comments
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ju ... ship-blood
Gaza flotilla raid: 'We heard gunfire – then our ship turned into lake of blood'
Activists aboard Mavi Marmara speak of shock at rapid attacks and deny assaults on Israeli commandos
Robert Booth, Kate Connolly in Berlin, Tom Philips in Rio de Janeiro and Helena Smith
The Guardian, Wednesday 2 June 2010
'Some formed human shields, others fought back with makeshift weapons, while a few of the most vulnerable hid below deck and prayed for the violence and killing to stop.
But what united every survivor who spoke out today about yesterday's pre-dawn assault by Israeli commandos on the pro-Palestinian aid flotilla to Gaza, was a sense of deep shock at the speed, aggression and lethal force of the Israeli response to what they reiterated was nothing more than a humanitarian aid effort.
Speaking on arrival back in Berlin, wrapped in an airline blanket from the Israeli national airline El Al, Norman Paech, a 72-year-old German pro-Palestinian activist described waking up to hear "striking explosions" as the assault began on the Mavi Marmara, the flotilla's informal flagship.
"I hurried up and dressed myself and colleagues said to me 'we're under attack, the Israelis are here'," he said. "The aggression came from the sky, from helicopters from which soldiers came down by ropes. We waited in the fore room and saw them carrying an Israeli soldier who looked to me like he'd had a breakdown. Then the second and third came, but after these three injured soldiers then I saw a lot – maybe 10 – passengers who were severely hurt, injured, covered in blood. They were treated in the salon next to me. One was so badly injured I am sure he must have died soon after. I didn't even consider going upstairs as it was just too dangerous."
One of the strongest condemnations of Israel's actions came from the Swedish novelist Henning Mankell who had been aboard the Swedish aid ship Sofia. Mankell, the author of the Wallander series called for global sanctions against Israel to put pressure on it to lift the blockade of Gaza. "I think we should use the experience of South Africa, where we know that the sanctions had a great impact. It took time, but they had an impact," Mankell said. He also denied there had been any weapons aboard the aid ships. "I can promise there was not a single weapon aboard the ships," he told a reporter who was returning to Sweden with him after the writer had been deported by Israel.
Nilufer Cetin, a Turkish activist, and her baby boy hid in a bathroom below deck as stun grenades, live ammunition and teargas exploded above them. Speaking on her return to Istanbul, she described how "the ship turned into a lake of blood".
"We stayed in our cabin and played games amid the sound of gunfire," she said. "I protected him by staying in my cabin, then went to the bathroom. I put a gas mask and lifejacket on my son. They used smoke bombs followed by gas canisters. They started to descend on to the ship with helicopters." She added the clashes were "extremely bad and brutal".
Iara Lee, a Brazilian filmmaker who was also on the Mavi Marmara, claimed the Israeli troops had invaded the ship after cutting all communications and "started shooting at people". She spoke to Brazil's TV Globo from the prison in southern Israel where an estimated 600 foreign activists, including around 40 Britons, were being held. Israeli officials said tonight that they would all be freed immediately.
Lee said: "[The attack] was a surprise, because it happened in the middle of the night, in the darkness, in international waters, because we knew there would be a confrontation but not in international waters. Their first tactic was to cut all of our satellite communications and then they attacked. All I witnessed first hand was the shooting. They came on board and started shooting at people."
She said the commandos then sent the women to a lower level of the ship.
"They said we were terrorists – it was absurd. They came into the part where the women were, lots and lots of them, dressed in black and with gigantic weapons as if they were in a war. They confiscated all of our telephones and all of our luggage and took everything out of the bags and put it on the floor."
"We expected them to shoot people in the legs, to shoot in the air, just to scare people, but they were direct," she said, in a separate interview with the Folha de São Paulo newspaper. "Some of them shot in the passengers' heads. Many people were murdered – it was unimaginable."
The released activists gave varying accounts of the level of resistance mounted by the passengers.
Annette Groth, a German politician, described at a press conference how she had seen Israeli soldiers outside her cabin, after they had stormed the ship.
"They were shooting without warning," she said. "It was like war … They had guns, Taser weapons, some type of teargas and other weaponry, compared to two-and-a-half wooden sticks we had between us. To talk of self-defence is ridiculous."
Footage of the assault shown on Turkish TV and images released by the Israeli military clearly showed some commandos being beaten with sticks by passengers.
However, Paech said he saw no arms being used by the activists. "There were only two men with short sticks but no knives, iron rods, pistols or any real weapons," he said. "Throughout our planning of the mission we said: 'no arms, no explosives', we said we'd only resist politically, with normal means."
An Arab member of the Israeli Knesset, Hanin Zoabi, who was on board the Mavi Marmara, said "not a single passenger …raised a club".
At a press conference in Nazareth, she said: "A clear message was being sent to us, for us to know that our lives were in danger. We were not interested in a confrontation. What we saw was five bodies. There were only civilians and there were no weapons … Israel spoke of a provocation, but there was no provocation."
According to a spokeswoman for the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), Avital Leibovich, its warships gave the activists several warnings before commandos were dropped from helicopters on to the deck of the Mavi Marmara.
"We found ourselves in the middle of a lynching," she told reporters in the Israeli port of Ashdod. About 10 activists had attacked commandos, taking their pistols, she said. "It was a massive attack. What happened was a last resort."
The violence was not confined to the Mavi Marmara. Speaking at Athens airport, Mihalis Grigoropoulos, crew on one of the other five vessels, said the Israelis came down from helicopters and threw ropes from inflatable boats, climbing aboard using teargas and live ammunition.
"We did not resist at all, we couldn't even if we had wanted to," he said. "What could we have done against the commandos who climbed aboard? The only thing some people tried was to delay them from getting to the bridge, forming a human shield. They were fired on with plastic bullets and stunned with electric devices."
Greek activist Dimitris Gielalis, aboard a third vessel, the Sfendoni, gave a similar account. "Suddenly from everywhere we saw inflatables coming at us, and within seconds fully equipped commandos came up on the boat. They came up and used plastic bullets, we had beatings, we had electric shocks, any method we can think of, they used," he said.
The tough treatment did not end after they were taken into custody in Israel, others said.
"During their interrogation, many of them were badly beaten in front of us," said Aris Papadokostopoulos.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
yes i know that yosi. but youll have to excuse me(and many others) if i feel a bit sceptical about the israelis allowing the much needed aid to flow unaccosted.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'd like to see a peaceful settlement to the I/P conflict, but this won't happen as long as the U.S encourages Israels rogue behaviour by defending everything it does, and bankrolling it's military to the tune of $4 Billion of U.S tax-payers money every year. Nobody is benefiting from this current impasse, including the Israeli's. As things stand they are on a one-way road to disaster. It's a type of insanity. As Norman Finkelstein says - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB_CKL5h2_8 - it isn't just rhetoric to accuse Israel of being a lunatic state. A lunatic state is precisely what it has become. And what do you do with a dangerous lunatic? Do you give it money and weapons and defend it when it acts violently? Or do you punish it and try to re-condition it's behaviour?
Israel needs to be punished. It needs to suffer a defeat, either militarily or diplomatically. Personally, I'd prefer to see it suffer a huge diplomatic defeat. I'd like to see U.N 242 implemented and supported by the U.S, and failing that I'd like to see strict international sanctions imposed.
The onus is on the U.S government, but in light of it's latest support of Israels most recent atrocity I see nothing changing anytime soon.
Gaza: investigate the raid, end the blockade
http://www.avaaz.org/en/gaza_flotilla_3/?rc=fbp&pv=1
@michelle - sure those tunnels bring in goods. But all that Israel is doing by forcing the use of these smuggling tunnels is enriching Hamas. Hamas controls them & the goods that pass through them, selling goods at inflated prices (law of supply and demand) and stuffing the money in their pockets. So much for Israel trying to crush Hamas! You will also find that the majority of the people of Gaza do not have access to those goods. If people could find all they needed/wanted, there would not be malnutrition, their homes would be rebuilt, etc. Again, Israeli propaganda and spin.
The world sees through this spin, it's no longer effective - really didn't work this time with the aid ship attacks. They may have blocked all communications and held the activist incommunicado to be able to flood the media with their side of the story, forgetting that some members of the aid ships did get messages out. But now that these activists are getting out of Israeli custody, they are talking. So much for damage control. Not that Israel really cares.
Adam Shapiro, Richard Falk, Amira Hass, and Ali Abunimah on Democracy Now
Add to the list ALL construction materials so people can rebuilt their homes, hospitals, schools, factories, core materials to get industry going again, tractors, etc. to get farming back on track. And not just living staples, get the sewing machines, toys, spices, kitchenware, white goods, etc. Why should these people have to live on 'basics' because Israel says so? Why can the children not have toys, crayons, paper to write and draw on? Does that seem fair to you? Would you like to be told you can only have what a bully neighbour says you can have? No.
The palestinians have the same right to have a life of 'luxury' as the Israelis. Israel has no right to take this away from the Palestinians.
an israeli tourism advertisement
and then there's this video, israel: always worth it for the falafel by the youtube account israeltourism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbuTzd0V ... r_embedded
here's a commercial called think israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr2hxMjO ... re=related
here are some commercials from the israeli ministry of tourism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On108AP8 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de7pCdWI ... re=related
they don't look like they are living in fear to me
i wonder what the official line from israel is?
from the israeli ministry of tourism:
http://www.goisrael.com/Tourism_Eng/Tou ... .%20SAFETY
2. SAFETY
Is it safe to travel to Israel?
Israel is an extremely safe country to visit and to tour. In 2008, three million tourists came to Israel, an all-time record, and all three million went back home safe and sound. We would not encourage tourists to come if we felt they would be in the slightest danger.
so, who is getting wiped off the map again??
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
One of the group deported to Jordan today, Walid al-Tabtabai, a Kuwaiti politician who was on board one of the ships with other activists from Muslim countries, said: "The Israelis roughed up and humiliated all of us, women, men and children.
"They were brutal and arrogant, but our message reached every corner of the world that the blockade on Gaza is unfair and should be lifted immediately."
Like many passengers on the flotilla he insisted there were no weapons on any of the ships.
Algerian Izzeddine Zahrour said Israeli authorities "deprived us of food, water and sleep and we weren't allowed to use the toilet".
"It was an ugly kidnapping and subsequently bad treatment in Israeli jail," he said. "They handcuffed us, pushed us around and humiliated us."
Mauritanian Mohammed Gholam said Israel "wanted us to sign documents saying that we entered Israel illegally".
An Algerian activist, who only gave her first name as Sabrina, accused Israeli commandos of taking a one-year-old child hostage.
"They point a gun to his head in front of his Turkish parents to force the captain of our ship to stop sailing," she said.
the floatilla was political because up until this week - international coverage and focus was nominal at best ... the organizers were sure to know israel would not allow the goods to enter and that they would have to commit crimes to prevent it ...
as for the second part - what good is accepting the offer to dock in Ashdod!? ... it makes absolutely no sense ... the goal IS to Free Gaza ... only through international pressure will this happen ...
Exactly, they poked them in the eye instead of just docking in Israe which, to me, makes the captain of the boat responsible for the deaths. The people on that ship provoked this. But most of the people on this forum believe that just because someone is called a peace activists or a humanitarian aid worker they can not do anything wrong. They simply should have listened to the orders that they were given.
Well.......9 people would still be going home to their families.
Why should they listen to orders from high sea pirates? OK.. maybe because they were pointing guns at people but apart that? This ship was in international waters, well within their rights. These people did not believe that they would be shot at and they did believe/hope that their ship would be able to deliver the goods. Other ships have managed to do so in the past. Docking in Israel would mean most of the aid would have been confiscated and would not have reached those that needed it. We all know that (except a couple of people here, it seems).
Israel and the IDF are responsible for the deaths.
First of all - do you even know why this floatilla was organized to begin with!??? It is because Israel is not allowing many items into GAZA (go look at the list of forbidden items) - so, what good is it to dock the ship in Ashdod - so, they can have it confiscated!??
Secondly, the boat is in INTERNATIONAL waters. Attacking a registered ship in international waters and killing civilians is an ACT OF WAR. It is a crime.
These activists are heroes. The people who have died - have died for people who are suffering. I betcha you are one to honour the troops of the US armed forces. If one of them goes over to Iraq and dies - do you make flippant comments like the one above? edit: like the one in the previous page
Sure, it was the fault of the aid workers that they were mown down and killed. Just as it was the fault of the 1000 Palestinian civilians in Gaza last year that they were slaughtered by the IDF.
Israel apologists love trying to turn reality on it's head, probably because this is all they have. The truth is not in them.
In all honesty, maybe I should stay out of this topic. I'm not all that educated on Israel. But from what i've gathered on this topic:
A boat tried going through a BLOCKADE.
Soldiers boarded the boat.
And from the footage I have seen, before the soldiers feet even touch the floor the activists were already throwing stuff at him.
And........people on this forum claim to know more about Israel then people that actually live there or have lived there.
Israel imposed a media blackout immediately after the attack so only a handful of reports from the aid workers have so far gotten out. I'm sure we'll be hearing more over the coming days. Here's one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/20 ... e-coverage
Huwaida Arraf, one of the Free Gaza Movement organisers, claimed she was beaten when Israeli troops boarded her ship.
She told CNN:
Live blog: quote
"They started coming after our ship so we took off and they charged us also. Eventually, they overtook our ship and they used concussion grenades, sound bombs and pellets."
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."
I wonder if the Israeli's will confiscate all of the video footage of the attack taken by those on board the ships, or if we'll get to see that footage soon?
Maybe try educating yourself a bit then.
Boats were in international waters
Soldiers illegally boarded said boats armed to the teeth and threatening
Some activist trying to stopped armed pirates illegally boarding their boat from all sides in the middle of the night (would you not try to stop someone breaking into your house?)
No one claims to know more about anything. Some are more educated on certain matters than others. Some have blinkers, some don't. Some are brainwashed by propaganda, some aren't. A mix of people, really.
I read that people had to leave the boats without being able to get their stuff. Mobile phones, cameras, etc. were confiscated on the boat as soon as the IDF got control. The blackout then started.
don't believe everything the Israeli propoganda machine spins.
see this picture? This is an Israeli propaganda photo and caption that appeared on the website of Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... s-1.293089
let's see if you can spot what's wrong with it. no cookies for guessing. it's too easy.
There's a number of things not credible about this:
The Israeli assault took place in darkness. There is bright daylight coming through the window.
Who took the picture? The Israeli commandos supposedly being threatened with stabbing? It's a great picture!
Everyone behind the man with the knife looks quite calm and not as if they are under attack by the Israeli army.
People on the ship were ordered to wear life jackets before the Israeli attack and most were on the video feed. No one is in this picture.
How do they know he's a "left-wing activist"? He doesn't fit my stereotype of a left-wing activist. Did they take the time to interview him while he was supposedly trying to stab them?
Reality check: If this photo even comes from the ship it shows a man carrying a ceremonial dagger, perhaps in a demonstration of bravado in front of cameras and journalists. What it certainly wouldn't do is justify a military assault on the high seas and the murder and wounding of dozens of civilians on a humanitarian aid ship. After all, suppose they had lots of daggers on the ship, what were they going to do, sail to Gaza and "stab" Israel?
-Ali Abunimah
Surely an inspection in broad daylight with the co-operation of those on board would have made more sense?
good grief ... it's STILL on the website! ... that's ridiculous! ...
Unbelievable. Even a child could decipher this bullshit!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ju ... lotilla-us
'...The United States has blocked demands at the UN security council for an international inquiry into Israel's assault on the Turkish ship carrying aid to Gaza that left nine pro-Palestinian activists dead.
A compromise statement instead calls for an impartial investigation which Washington indicated could be carried out by Israel.
...The Americans also blocked criticism of Israel for violating international law by assaulting a ship in international waters...'
The U.S stands alone in the world in preventing a peaceful settlement to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Every year at the U.N the following resolution - based on 242 - is vetoed by the U.S in defiance of the whole of the international community.
We have Israel and the U.S on one side and the whole world - barring a few South Pacific Islands - on the other side. This is why Israel will continue to run amok in the world, in breach of international law, and why further atrocities will be committed and go unpunished:
Peaceful Settlement of The Question of Palestine
November 26, 2008, the United Nations General Assembly, as it does every year, voted on a resolution to end the Israel Palestine conflict. The GA/ 10791 (documents A/63/L.35; A/63/L.36) called for a two state settlement on the 1967 borders, East Jerusalem for the Palestinian State (west for Israel), and a “just” resolution to the refugee problem
The draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/63/L.35) was adopted by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:
In favour:Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.
There were several smart pieces yesterday about the flotilla fallout. One was written by Michael Sean Winters in the lefty National Catholic Reporter. It is called “Judging Israel.” And it judges the Jewish state fairly. But perhaps the most important take on the episode appeared in The Daily Beast. The piece (“Israel Was Right”) was written by Leslie H. Gelb, a senior ideas man in the American foreign policy establishment, a former New York Times columnist, and the longtime president (now president emeritus) of the Council on Foreign Relations. Writes Gelb:
Israel had every right under international law to stop and board ships bound for the Gaza war zone late Sunday. Only knee-jerk left-wingers and the usual legion of poseurs around the world would dispute this. And it is pretty clear that this "humanitarian" flotilla headed for Gaza aimed to provoke a confrontation with Israel. Various representatives of the Free Gaza Movement, one of the main organizers of this deadly extravaganza, have let it slip throughout Monday that their intention was every bit as much "to break" Israel's blockade of Gaza as to deliver the relief goods.
[…]
Regarding international law, blockades are quite legal. The United States and Britain were at war with Germany and Japan and blockaded them. I can't remember international lawyers saying those blockades were illegal—even though they took place on the high seas in international waters.
On that note, here are the relevant passages from the Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality:
5.1.2 (3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if 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, capture or diversion.
5.1.2 (4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they (a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy; (b) act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces; (c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system; (d) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or (e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
5.2.1 As an exception to Principle 5.1.2. paragraph 1 and in accordance with Principle 1.3 (2nd sentence), belligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.
5.2.10 Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.
I would recommend that before you guys start ranting and raving about the illegality of something under international law that you actually bother to know the law first. You will even notice that the last sentence of the last paragraph (5.2.10) suggests that even had the soldiers not been attacked by the activists, since the ships had already been warned not to try to breach the blockade and were nevertheless attempting to do so that the Israelis were within their rights under international law to attack them. This loss of life was tragic, and I truly mean that, but if you have to blame someone Israel really doesn't seem to be a good target in this case.
If the blockade is legally constituted, then provided there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that the vessel is carrying weapons beyond those normally carried by a vessel (and yes, almost all merchant vessels of any size have some perfectly legal weapons in the captain's safe) / weapons of mass destruction AND a whole host of other conditions are fulfilled, then you MAY be able to legally board a vessel to search it without out first referring to the flag nation for permission to execute the search.
It isn't a given right that you can search any vessel approaching any unilaterally declared blockade.
The Gaza blockade is illegal under international law. Therefore your attempt to justify Israel's boarding of the aid ship in international waters is not applicable.
Security Council Resolution 1860... "calls for the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment."
Also, the ships' contents had been inspected before departure. Nothing but aid was carried. I'm sure Israel knew... after all, don't they boast having the best intelligence network?
Again, you are just trying to get 'one up' by being seemingly learned.
Secondly, you're supposed to obtain permission from the neutral country for the inspection: in this case Turkey. No such permission was sought.
Thirdly, there's no basic right to ignore these rules just because compliance would jeopardise the integrity of the blockade. The blockade is illegal, but for arguments sake even if it was legal, that would still not give Israel an automatic right to maintain it at all costs.
Finally, Israel has declared a 20km "exclusion zone" for its blockade, not a 65km zone. That is not a territorial claim (which would be smaller) but a statement about the limits of the blockade. Having set an exclusion zone, it's surely wrong in principle to then invent a further exclusion zone to "protect" the original one.
The bottom line is, if you cannot enforce a blockade by legal means, you are not entitled to ignore the inconvenient parts of the law to make life easier for yourself.