UN report on Gaza Flottila is Released

[Ser Reptitious]

Samalander,

Actually Flotilla 13 special forces are trained to sink ships, not riot control. Do we rather they did what they were trained for?

Umm, so why wouldn't you send forces in that are trained for riot control?

Unless they were seriously considering sinking the ship, what was the purpose of sending in Flotilla 13?

[Lightning Lord]

Take a good long look at this list of country members of the UNHRC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Members

I can count the friends of Israel on the fingers of a blind butcher.

On the other hand I count numerous countries on that list who commit horrible human rights violations on a regural basis. Orwell is laughing like crazy in his grave.

Are you implying that in order to be an impartial member of UNHRC, one must be a friend of Israel? If you're not, I don't see the relevance of your statement.

Additionally, when it comes to reviewing human rights violations, shouldn't uninterested parties of an impartial standing conduct the review? Most of the listed countries are Israel-neutral, with several nations very obviously on one or the other side of the line.

[Horza]

Can I just say the typo in the thread title is pissing me off more and more each time I look at it?

[mormont]

Sorry, but I disagree with your burden of proof here.

That's fine, but it changes nothing. Putting our own proxy disagreement aside for a moment, the burden of proof is most certainly on those who authorised live fire to show that it was a necessary and proportionate use of force under international law. Even if we accept or put aside for the sake of argument the legality of the blockade itself, it is for the IDF to show that there was no alternative.

[Samalander]

I think you mean "once the real UN report comes out I'll claim the UN is a suspect organization when I don't agree with its findings"

I can't wait to see what tunes salamander will sing when the "real" un report comes out. Bear in mind that this is the same guy who decried any previous un report on israeli war crimes as biased, lol.

This tune:

Samalander: There ARE no Israeli war crimes! ... A story made up by the Human Rights liars.

Yeah, keep barking.

1) Umm, so why wouldn't you send forces in that are trained for riot control?

2) Unless they were seriously considering sinking the ship, what was the purpose of sending in Flotilla 13?

1) Use national police forces outside the borders of the nation? Isn't that a violation of international law? (everyone says "sure, Israel has every right to defend itself", but whenever we do something in our defense they have some bone to pick with what we actually did).

2) This is the best marine infantry force the country has.

Are you implying that in order to be an impartial member of UNHRC, one must be a friend of Israel? If you're not, I don't see the relevance of your statement.

Additionally, when it comes to reviewing human rights violations, shouldn't uninterested parties of an impartial standing conduct the review? Most of the listed countries are Israel-neutral, with several nations very obviously on one or the other side of the line.

Look, the UHNRC is a very problematic body. This has been discussed at length in previous threads and I have no wish to go over all of it again. Note, that a vast majority of it's resolutions are against Israel. Given that I'm sure not even Shryke thinks that Israel is the no.1 Human Rights Violator in the world, I think it's pretty clear something is rotten in the kingdom of UHNRC.

[Lightning Lord]

Look, the UHNRC is a very problematic body. This has been discussed at length in previous threads and I have no wish to go over all of it again. Note, that a vast majority of it's resolutions are against Israel. Given that I'm sure not even Shryke thinks that Israel is the no.1 Human Rights Violator in the world, I think it's pretty clear something is rotten in the kingdom of UHNRC.

Fair point. I've tried to (quickly) read up on it, I can see your concern. But I still don't understand how "friend of Israel" is at all a qualifier for review of Israeli actions. I know I'd rather have only my friends judge me were I to be accused of a crime, but it would hardly be balanced.

[Spastic Plastic]

Look, the UHNRC is a very problematic body. This has been discussed at length in previous threads and I have no wish to go over all of it again. Note, that a vast majority of it's resolutions are against Israel. Given that I'm sure not even Shryke thinks that Israel is the no.1 Human Rights Violator in the world, I think it's pretty clear something is rotten in the kingdom of UHNRC.

Nope, Israel isn't the worst human right violator in the world (that would be North Korea or Sudan), but that doesn't mean you have to be "a friend of Israel" (like USA) to judge their actions.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That's fine, but it changes nothing. Putting our own proxy disagreement aside for a moment, the burden of proof is most certainly on those who authorised live fire to show that it was a necessary and proportionate use of force under international law. Even if we accept or put aside for the sake of argument the legality of the blockade itself, it is for the IDF to show that there was no alternative.

I'm not sure what more you'd expect them to show given that proving a negative is generally impossible. They made other attempts to take control of this ship that failed. They also explained why other common alternatives wouldn't work in this situation. So I'd say they met that burden to the extent it is possible to do so.

Do you believe that that the Israelis intentionally botched this operation, and deliberately chose an option likely to cause deaths rather than something that wouldn't? If not, then why didn't they chose one of the options that are so obvious a random yahoo on the internet is certain of their existence?

[Samalander]

Everyone? I certainly don't.

Well, if you don't think Israel has a right to defend itself, then you want to see it destroyed. There are no other options. If a country is constantly under attack (in one form or another) since the day it was formed and you disallow it the right to defend itself then it will be destroyed. Simple cause and effect.

[mormont]

[mod] No name-calling, please. [/mod]

FLOW: no, of course I don't think the Israelis intentionally botched the operation. As I've said, I think the failures here were because of an institutional culture in the IDF that resorts to live fire much too readily.

As for what the Israelis have done to justify live fire in this situation, so far as I know there has been no complete, official account of this incident given by Israel as yet.

[Lord O' Bones]

We all would expect no less.

Please do not include me in "all"

Thanks.

[Samalander]

As for what the Israelis have done to justify live fire in this situation, so far as I know there has been no complete, official account of this incident given by Israel as yet.

They only went in with personal pistols for self defense. You want to kill people, you go in with assault rifles. Again, once the official UN report comes out, we'll see.

1) Typical reasoning for someone advocating your ludicrous position. You said "Everyone thinks Israel has every right to defend itself", which not only isn't true, but according to everyone else in the world, Israel has limited rights to defend itself.

2) But apparently, saying that Israel doesn't have every right (including their recent blockade strategy: starving children [oops, almost forgot - the red cross is biased!]) means that I want it destroyed, wiped off the face of the map, pushed into the ocean.

1) Yeah, well, sometimes (only sometimes, mind you) limited rights to defend yourself means the same thing (from a practical standpoint) as no rights to defend yourself.

2) And yet I have not seen ONE Palestinian who died of starvation! Not one! And you know if they had one they would parade him for the world press to see. You want to see real food problems? Go to Africa. How is this the greatest food humaniterian crisis in the world? Not even close. Why is it no.1 on everyone's radar? Crazy world...

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

[mod] No name-calling, please. [/mod]

FLOW: no, of course I don't think the Israelis intentionally botched the operation. As I've said, I think the failures here were because of an institutional culture in the IDF that resorts to live fire much too readily.

Except in this case, they didn't. They first tried two other methods for seizing this ship that didn't require live fire, and neither worked. This same trigger-happy IDF has also disabled ships by going for the rudder with frogmen, etc. In fact, regardless of what may happen in other circumstance, they've got a pretty good track record of not using deadly force when stopping blockade runners. Did they just forget all that stuff, or was it maybe that this ship was large enough and fast enough that it couldn't be disabled safely, and that the people on board resisted much harder?

I found this account from an Al Jazeera cameraman that I think sheds some light on this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6521UG

Now apparently, either 3 or 4 Israeli soldiers who rappelled onto the ship were overpowered, captured, and taken below decks, obviously out of sight of the Israelis. In the meantime, about 20 or so men on the ship were manning the rails and beating on them with metal rods to repel any additional boarding attempts.

Now personally, I think the Israelis were free to use deadly force as soon as their men were overpowered and taken below decks, because they had no idea of the condition of those men and were entitled to attempt a rescue as quickly as possible, including use of live ammo is necessary. I assume we disagree on that.

As for what the Israelis have done to justify live fire in this situation, so far as I know there has been no complete, official account of this incident given by Israel as yet.

I'm not sure what you define as "complete" or "official", but here's an article quoting an IDF spokeman and some soldiers:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=3092125

From this account, it may be that the first Israeli to open fire was one who saw his team leader on the ground after being overpowered and stripped of his weapon, and seeing one of the attackers holding the weapon and pointing it at the team leader's head. Oddly, there's a sense in which this may be completely consistent with the story told by people on the boat, who claim there was shooting from the helicopter and that they didn't shoot first. The Israelis also claim they received some fire from below decks, out windows, before they shot. But even leaving that aside, there's the question of whether the soldier seeing his team leader disarmed with a weapon pointed at him was justified in shooting live ammo.

[ljkeane]

Except in this case, they didn't. They first tried two other methods for seizing this ship that didn't require live fire, and neither worked. This same trigger-happy IDF has also disabled ships by going for the rudder with frogmen, etc. In fact, regardless of what may happen in other circumstance, they've got a pretty good track record of not using deadly force when stopping blockade runners. Did they just forget all that stuff, or was it maybe that this ship was large enough and fast enough that it couldn't be disabled safely, and that the people on board resisted much harder?

Of course they've also got a track record of choosing not to stop blockade runners at all and if the choice was between having to shoot civilians they were well aware weren't transporting weapons and allowing them to pass the blockade then I know which I think they should have chosen.

In fact I seem to remember that in the previous thread you were of the opinion that if Israel had failed to enforce the blockade then it wasn't legal so presumably you don't think that the IDF had any right to seize the ship at all?

[Samalander]

1) No, you're wrong, because it never means that, ever. Even the corrupt, biased, anti-Semitic UN has engagement protocols in peacekeeping missions that say they can defend themselves if fired at.

2) Been there. Seen food problems. Your continuum of evil acts is extremely lopsided.

3) Please cite a source saying this is "#1 on everyone's radar" and "the greatest food humanitarian crisis in the world".

1) :bang: Somehow I always end up using this emicron on these threads. It's almost like...some people refuse to get it on principle.

To continue with the example you provided: Look, if you tell people "You can defend yourself only if fired upon", the enemy will adjust, and stop firing on you. They will however start planting roadside bombs and blowing your troops up. They have nobody firing on them and nobody to fire back on. If they want to live they will have to expand their mandate for self defense. The right to self-defense is absolute. What the world does with Israel is go over everything the country does with a fine toothed comb: "Are you sure you need this for self-defense? How about this? I really think that thing you did is not needed for your self defense, ect."

Now, this makes us rightly upset, because:

a. Nobody else in the world is subjected to such scrutiny.

b. It's our lives on the line. Who are you to judge? Put your life on the line, then we'll talk.

c. Some of things we do really are vital to our survival. If they get vetoed due to international pressure, people will die.

2) Really? Nobody's starving to death in Africa anymore? I would say my "continuum of evil" is spot on.

People starving to death in hordes>Some isolated malnurishment problems

3) Well, we are talking about it. Where is the "Famine in Africa" thread on this board, again?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Of course they've also got a track record of choosing not to stop blockade runners at all and if the choice was between having to shoot civilians they were well aware weren't transporting weapons and allowing them to pass the blockade then I know which I think they should have chosen.

I've already said I think there is legitimate disagreement on that point. I understand and respect the argument that they shouldn't have seized the ship at all if it meant using deadly force. I don't understand or respect the argument that there was "something else" (other than calling the whole thing off) that they could/should have done. To me, that's just wishful thinking by non-experts who weren't on the scene and don't have all the relevant facts about what was militarily possible.

In fact I seem to remember that in the previous thread you were of the opinion that if Israel had failed to enforce the blockade then it wasn't legal so presumably you don't think that the IDF had any right to seize the ship at all?

If you remember that in a previous thread, then you can just cut and paste our discussion there here if you wish. I don't have any desire to rehash an argument that was already played out, which frankly is why I'm leaving aside the question of whether the raid should have been cancelled as a separate topic.

[Shryke]

Please do not include me in "all"

Thanks.

:rolleyes:

Fine. Nobody, except for special snowlflake Lord O' Bones who refuses to draw a pattern from previous behavior, would expect any less.

[Spastic Plastic]

a. Nobody else in the world is subjected to such scrutiny.

b. It's our lives on the line. Who are you to judge? Put your life on the line, then we'll talk.

c. Some of things we do really are vital to our survival. If they get vetoed due to international pressure, people will die.

2) Really? Nobody's starving to death in Africa anymore? I would say my "continuum of evil" is spot on.

People starving to death in hordes>Some isolated malnurishment problems

3) Well, we are talking about it. Where is the "Famine in Africa" thread on this board, again?

Since your reading skills seem to be on a middle-school level and you have an extraordinary ability to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore other opinions, I'll take this with you point for point.

a. You're right on this one, but Israel wouldn't be subjected to so much scrutiny if not for the unconditional support they get from the US. It's more taboo to criticize Israel in the US than to do so in Israel, which I find disgusting.

b. The Palestinians' lives are on the line rather more than yours are. Just try to see things from their point-of-view. The Israelis have a history of using extremely disproportionate force against the Palestinians, such as bombing school buses and shelling houses. In a few cases it did save (Israeli) lives, but overall it's inexcusable.

c. No lives were saved when the IDF shot the unarmed man point-blank. This kind of disproportionate violence isn't vital to anyone's survival. It only results in Israel becoming less popular internationally.

2) Nobody said that the Palestinian starvation is worse than the African one. You're not "spot on", you're fighting against a strawman.

3) There is no recent "Famine in Africa" thread, because everyone agrees that it's a bad thing. You might want to look up the word "controversial" in a dictionary before you come back here.

[Yoadm]

I would advise all of you to look at the source of this report before giving it a "stamp of approval" simply because it originated from a UN body. It came from an internationally recognized biased source (the notorious HRC), and is not considered the official UN investigation (which will take months more to produce its final findings and has both Turkish and Israeli representatives in it).

The current report you are all squabbling over is little more than a politicised HRC report. This is why it is generally ignored.

[Shryke]

I would advise all of you to look at the source of this report before giving it a "stamp of approval" simply because it originated from a UN body. It came from an internationally recognized biased source (the notorious HRC), and is not considered the official UN investigation (which will take months more to produce its final findings and has both Turkish and Israeli representatives in it).

The current report you are all squabbling over is little more than a politicised HRC report. This is why it is generally ignored.

And yet none of the people saying this can come up with any evidence to back this assertion up.

Where is the evidence of prior anti-Israeli bias on the part of Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips from Trinidad and Tobago, Sir Desmond de Silva of the UK or Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia?

One might almost think you were attempting to smear the writers of the report because it came to findings you don't like....