interview with Kenneth O'Keefe - Gaza flotilla Activist

Pepe Silvia

the interviewer is pretty much a hack but he holds his own and does very good

part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSLhKnt-jVI

part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H5ohOX2fQA

part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV7yE9AMt74

yosi

:roll:

fuck

yosi wrote:

:roll:

an eye roll?

pathetic, but atleast it's a bit more dignified than defending the murder of 9 civilians

yosi

I especially liked the part where he goes on an extended rant about Israel's nefarious motivations, but as soon as he's asked about Hamas he turns on a dime and is suddenly reticent to speak for others. Classic, and so very familiar in style and tone.

Pepe Silvia

i especially liked the part where you pretend you actually watched the videos because O'Keefe denounces Hamas a few times over the 3 parts....classic and so very familiar to a group that claims a report saying BOTH sides committed war crimes and should be tried for them is one sided

yosi

I watched all three sections in their entirety. Another great part was when he started screaming wild-eyed about Israeli lies when the interviewer pointed out that contrary to his claims that no knives or guns were used against the soldiers there are soldiers in hospital being treated for gun-shot and stab wounds sustained on the ship (there is also video from the ship of an Israeli soldier being stabbed). I actually hope as many people as possible see this, if only because it makes pretty clear how irrational and radical the people on that ship were.

Pepe Silvia

yosi wrote:

I especially liked the part where he goes on an extended rant about Israel's nefarious motivations, but as soon as he's asked about Hamas he turns on a dime and is suddenly reticent to speak for others. Classic, and so very familiar in style and tone.

could you be any more full of shit???

from part 2
around 4:50 she says the difference between Palestine and Ireland is people were critical of the IRA's actions and all the things Hamas has done and he replies:
"I do not stand by anyone or any institution that violates human rights...."
at this point she cuts him off to ask if he thinks Hamas does this and his reply?
"yes, i do"

about a minute later she asks if he accepts israel has the right to defend itself, his reply?
"absolutely, every country does." but then when he asks what about their right to self defense she ignores it and changes the subject to hamas doesn't accept israel's right to exist.

what you are being dishonest about above is she asks in part 2 around 7:50 if hamas wants peace and he says
"i can't speak for hamas, what i do know about hamas is they've actually done something to help their people and they have also helped to give ammunition to their enemies by violating human rights and not doing everything they should do to respect the rule of law. i'm not going to sit here and defend hamas any more than anyone who violates human rights."

yosi wrote:

I watched all three sections in their entirety. Another great part was when he started screaming wild-eyed about Israeli lies when the interviewer pointed out that contrary to his claims that no knives or guns were used against the soldiers there are soldiers in hospital being treated for gun-shot and stab wounds sustained on the ship (there is also video from the ship of an Israeli soldier being stabbed). I actually hope as many people as possible see this, if only because it makes pretty clear how irrational and radical the people on that ship were.

screaming wild-eyed?? please cite the part and time

i like how she never addresses the things he says but just moves on. like when he brings up ehud barak said they would stop the flotilla "at any price" and she just ignores it. or when he brings up israel claimed he was really going to gaza to train "elite commando units for Hamas" and her response? "let's forget about israel" and moves on to the IHH and a lie linking them to terrorist plots and fund terrorist groups then when he asks her for evidence of this she accuses him of changing the ground rules :roll: or when she brings up all the rockets (fired at mostly illegal settlements) and he asks her how many people have those rockets killed she doesn't bother to reply but instead again changes the subject saying "let's go back to what was on your ship, israel says there was no humanitarian aid on the ship" or when he brings up how israel won't let gaza export anything and mentions all the carnations israel won't allow exported and asks her if carnations are a security threat to israel and she ignores him (surprise, surprise :roll: ) and asks if he will sail with another floitlla

i wish people would watch this, including you because you obviously haven't

yosi

Dude, I watched the video. Why do you keep insisting that I haven't? Because if my response to the video is different than yours then I must not have watched it?

Yeah, the interviewer ignored a lot of what he brought up, but that was because she was trying to get him to actually address her questions rather than changing the topic to discuss Israel's misdeeds.

I will grant you that "screaming wild-eyed" is subjective. I perceived him that way.

When he says "I can't speak for Hamas..." as to her question of whether they want peace, he has just finished speaking at length as to how Israel DOES NOT WANT PEACE. How exactly is it that he can know Israel's mind but not Hamas'?

Which "illegal settlements" have been targeted by rockets from Gaza? There are no longer any settlements in Gaza, and the rockets from the Strip can't reach the settlements in the West Bank, so what exactly are you talking about? The "settlements" being fired on are Israeli towns and cities in sovereign Israel. These are in no way "illegal settlements."

Pepe Silvia

yosi wrote:

Dude, I watched the video. Why do you keep insisting that I haven't? Because if my response to the video is different than yours then I must not have watched it?

no, because you seemed to be making claims that are untrue like saying he was "screaming wild-eyed" now you backtrack saying maybe wild-eyed is subjective, was your claim of him 'screaming' subjective, too?

your second response (the 1st being nothing but an eye roll) you said
"I especially liked the part where he goes on an extended rant about Israel's nefarious motivations, but as soon as he's asked about Hamas he turns on a dime and is suddenly reticent to speak for others. Classic, and so very familiar in style and tone."

which just isn't true. he said israel's actions show they do not want peace, she asked if hamas wants peace and he said he can't speak for them and then proceeded to denounce them. your 2nd response was very misleading and had someone read that and not seen the video it would seem he refused to say anything negative about hamas

look up rocket attacks, you will see the overwhelming majority are fired at sderot, which isn't an illegal settlement but there used to be an arab village there....until it was destroyed, the arabs forced out and sderot built on top of the ashes and was founded in 1953, a few years AFTER the UN partition plan and Israel's declaration of independence.

the other rocket attacks happened in:

Ganei Tal - which was an illegal settlement in the Gaza Stip until israel pulled out in 2005.

Netiv Ha'asara - which was founded in 1982 after the camp david accords forced them out of their previous illegal settlement and AFTER the UN partition plan and israeli declaration of independence..

Bror Hayil - which was founded BEFORE the israeli declaration of independence and AFTER the UN partition plan.

Hod Hasharon - which became a city in 1990 AFTER the UN partition plan and israeli declaration of independence..

Bitha - again, created AFTER the UN partition plan and israeli declaration of independence.

Ashdod - founded in 1956 AFTER the UN partition plan and israeli declaration of independence..

Netivot - founded in 1956 AFTER the UN partition plan and israeli declaration of independence..

Jason P

Unfortunately, this guy was below deck and can't offer first hand account to what happened initially. But he did make it clear that they knew Israel would use any means and methods necessary to ensure the blockade wasn't broken before they set out.

Much like the three U.S. hikers that decided to go on vacation near the Iraq / Iran border, they ignored a known hazard and paid a price. In both cases, there is not enough evidence to know what exactly happened. And no matter which side you sympathize with, both situations could have been avoided with better judgement.

Pepe Silvia

it's funny....the US claimed Britain's blockade of the US violated international law and was one of the major reasons for the war of 1812 and yet the blockade of giving children toys and fruit juice or allowing them to export carnations is perfectly rational to many, even if it means killing people to keep the collective punishment going, which is illegal according to the geneva conventions among other international laws and UN resolutions

yosi

All of the settlements you listed in Gaza no longer exist, and all the towns and cities you listed that are to be found within Israel proper are not illegal. So will you just drop the whole bit about the rockets only being fired at "illegal settlements"? This is simply a lie. Since the evacuation of the settlers from Gaza in 2005 all the rocket attacks have been aimed at communities in territory that is indisputably part of sovereign Israel.

yosi

Ok, again, please explain how it makes sense for this guy to look at Israel's actions and claim based on what he sees that Israel objectively does not want peace, but then when asked about Hamas he says that he can't speak for Hamas? Why is he able to interpret Israel's intentions and motivations but not those of Hamas? Yes, he conceded when pushed the most blatantly obvious points about Hamas, but in general he was entirely evasive throughout the interview.

yosi

Pepe, let me ask you, do you support Hamas?

fuck

yosi wrote:

When he says "I can't speak for Hamas..." as to her question of whether they want peace, he has just finished speaking at length as to how Israel DOES NOT WANT PEACE. How exactly is it that he can know Israel's mind but not Hamas'?

I can't speak for Kenneth but if I were to try to guess I would assume that he means Israel's actions show they don't want peace - which you can't argue against. i mean seriously, how can anyone argue otherwise? they've had two major massacres (no less than 1000 civilians killed each time) in the past 4 years, they have been increasing settlements at an exponential rate, home demolitions and evictions are always happening. if anyone actually tries to argue that any of these things are done in the name of peace then that person is clearly delusional.

as for hamas, they have atleast committed to the one ceasefire between them and israel. and perhaps if israel had committed to it as well, there would not have been an attack on gaza that killed 1400 people, and there would still not be a state of hostilities to this level between them and israel. perhaps if israel were to end the occupation like everyone in the world calls for, peace could be possible.

so if someone were to ask me that question, i would probably say the same thing, i can't speak for hamas, their human rights violations are certainly condemnable, but at the same time they have called for a two-state solution whereas israel has been violating and ending any possibility of a two-state solution every single day that passes so I can atleast say I'm certain that Israel doesn't want peace.

can you argue otherwise? what are you going to say, "rocket attacks" for the millionth time? has anyone even examined what these rockets are like? israelis like to say that thousands of rockets have been coming into israel from gaza but has anyone ever even cared to examine them?

you know that on average, every rocket carries the charge of about 2 pounds of TNT or explosives made from fertilizer. so if every of the 3000 rockets that the interviewer in the video brings up were to have even landed in israel, and keep in mind many if not most don't even make it that far, that's about what... 6 tons?

ok, well according to the israeli military, "Military officials said aircraft released more than 100 tons of bombs in the first nine hours of fighting, focusing initially on militant training camps, rocket-manufacturing facilities and weapons warehouses that had been identified in advance." of course it's a lie that they focused on military camps and all that, we know that they actually killed hundreds of police officers, which is illegal under international law, and that by the end of this campaign 1000 civilians atleast were killed, including over 300 children. not to mention that these 100 tons of explosives are not made out of fertilizer. this means that in just those 9 hours, israel dropped over 16 times the amount of explosives they claim hamas has done in a number of years.

does anyone see now why people refer to hamas rockets as fireworks? and it's funny how in the video, the interviewer, just like most israel apologists, says that "it doesn't matter how many people these rockets kill, theyre sent with the intention of killing people." tell me, what about the blockade that restricts building supplies, medicine, food, etc? is that not done with the intention of killing people? who are we to judge people's intentions all of a sudden? and why is it that with hamas, we don't consider how many people they kill, just how many they "intend" to kill, whereas with Israel we only consider how many they kill? and even with that, Israel still comes out on top with thousands of civilians murdered just over a 4 year period (since the 1000 they killed in Lebanon in July 2006). and when I say this, don't think I'm just comparing deaths as if some matter more than others, but when 1400 Palestinians are killed in the same time period that 3 Israelis are killed, it's a fucking difference worth noting.

so tell me again, what makes you think israel wants peace? now you might actually be a little smarter and try to say "i'm not saying israel wants peace, i'm asking why he's willing to speak out for israel and not hamas". he's not speaking for israel, he's analyzing israel's actions and saying that its actions show it is not interested in peace. on the other hand, what kind of interviewer asks someone from a humanitarian convoy if hamas wants peace? what a dumb fucking question!

fuck

Jason P wrote:

Unfortunately, this guy was below deck and can't offer first hand account to what happened initially. But he did make it clear that they knew Israel would use any means and methods necessary to ensure the blockade wasn't broken before they set out.

I wasn't even on the fucking boat but I can tell you what happened initially: Israel boarded a shit that was on INTERNATIONAL WATERS. this is ILLEGAL. why don't people realize this? Israel had no right to be on the boats in the first place! it's considered an act of war for Israel to board a shit flying Turkish flags in international waters, the people on the boat had every right to defend themselves. on the other hand, the psycho Israeli commandos shot people at point blank range in the head, back, some people were shot many times. how is this even a debate?

Much like the three U.S. hikers that decided to go on vacation near the Iraq / Iran border, they ignored a known hazard and paid a price. In both cases, there is not enough evidence to know what exactly happened. And no matter which side you sympathize with, both situations could have been avoided with better judgement.

what the ass? it's nothing like that. how are you comparing three kids going on vacation near a war zone to a ship that was trying to deliver humanitarian aid to one of the most densely populated, yet cut off areas in the world? do you even know how analogies work?

and yeah this situation could have been avoided - if Israel were to end its illegal blockade against the Palestinians of Gaza, these aid ships would not have to be going there in the first place.

Jason P

Pepe Silvia wrote:

it's funny....the US claimed Britain's blockade of the US violated international law and was one of the major reasons for the war of 1812 and yet the blockade of giving children toys and fruit juice or allowing them to export carnations is perfectly rational to many, even if it means killing people to keep the collective punishment going, which is illegal according to the geneva conventions among other international laws and UN resolutions

I don't think much of what goes on between Jewish / Mideast relations is rational. But I think that the leaders of the flotilla knew going in that Israel wasn't going to let them make it past the blockage.

I also understand they were trying to bring world attention to this situation (mission accomplished). But they did so at an unnecessary risk of their lives. Here are several suggestions for future flotillas:

1) Have the deck and boat well lit several miles before hitting the blockade line

2) Actually, scratch suggestion #1 . . . Don't try it under the cover of darkness. The Israelis have sophisticated tracking methods and are able to track you. Darkness significantly increases confusion and chaos.

3) Web cameras that broadcast live should be set up around the boat along all major corridors and rooms.

4) No weapons. No guns. No knives. No spoons. Nothing.

5) Stage a sit in / chain yourself to the boat in protest

I feel the leaders of this ship put lives at risk with their actions. Intentional or not, they share responsibility along with the commandos.

yosi

Ok, Outlaw, I'll put the same question to you. Do you support Hamas?

Pepe Silvia

yosi wrote:

All of the settlements you listed in Gaza no longer exist, and all the towns and cities you listed that are to be found within Israel proper are not illegal. So will you just drop the whole bit about the rockets only being fired at "illegal settlements"? This is simply a lie. Since the evacuation of the settlers from Gaza in 2005 all the rocket attacks have been aimed at communities in territory that is indisputably part of sovereign Israel.

you are one of the most dishonest posters i have ever seen here, i have no fucking clue how you equate "mostly" with "only"

and which ones don't exist, other than the one i already mentioned was abandoned?

Netiv Ha'asara still exists, at least as of the end of march 2010

Bror Hayil still exists, at least according to this site
http://kibbutzimofisrael.netzah.org/bror-hayil.php
and their hospitality club:
http://secure.hospitalityclub.org/hc/hc ... city=63185

Hod Hasharon still exists, at least up until 6 days ago

Bitha still exists, at least according to this site
http://moshavimofisrael.netzah.org/bitha.php

we all know Ashdod still exists

Netivot still exists
http://citiesofisrael.netzah.org/netivot.php


so there is only 1 place i mentioned that no longer exists and i already said it no longer exists. all the places rocket attacks happen are on land taken AFTER the UN partition plan and all but 1, Bror Hayil , were founded AFTER the Israeli declaration of independence, some, like Sderot, founded on top of the ashes of former arab villages.

and i don't think he tried to change the subject, SHE brought up the thousands of rockets fired at Israel, so him asking how many have they killed is a very valid question, one she refused to even address and like you often do, just changed the subject and asked him something unrelated.

Pepe Silvia

_outlaw wrote:

yosi wrote:

When he says "I can't speak for Hamas..." as to her question of whether they want peace, he has just finished speaking at length as to how Israel DOES NOT WANT PEACE. How exactly is it that he can know Israel's mind but not Hamas'?

I can't speak for Kenneth but if I were to try to guess I would assume that he means Israel's actions show they don't want peace - which you can't argue against. i mean seriously, how can anyone argue otherwise? they've had two major massacres (no less than 1000 civilians killed each time) in the past 4 years, they have been increasing settlements at an exponential rate, home demolitions and evictions are always happening. if anyone actually tries to argue that any of these things are done in the name of peace then that person is clearly delusional.

you don't need to even bother guessing, he flat out says Israel's actions show they don't want peace.

and let's not forget recently 22 Palestinian homes were approved for destruction in order to build....a tourist center. so much for their lie that they only do those things for security purposes :roll:

yosi

Ok, this is very simple, any community that is inside sovereign Israeli territory and not either in Gaza (there used to be settlements in Gaza, but there are none there any longer) or in the West Bank, are not illegal. What exactly is wrong with Israel establishing communities within its own borders? Again, Sderot, Ashdod, etc are not illegal under any definition of the term.