UN report on Gaza Flottila is Released

[Samalander]

Shryke, let me make something absolutely clear (as you seem to have neglected to do, for whatever reason):

This is NOT, I repeat NOT, the UN report on the Gaza flotilla. The UN is still working on their official report, with which the state of Israel has cooperated. This is a bullshit so called "Human Rights Council" report. Why the UN is built in such a way that two entities within it can commission reports on the same subject, I don't know. But anyone who knows anything about the "Human Rights Council" of the UN, should know it is anything but, and should be renamed the "Israel Bashing Council".

That the UN report has faulty sources?

That and more. It's pretty much like letting the criminals put out a report on police brutality.

1) I would agree that shooting someone who is wounded on the ground and not resisting is inexcusable.

2)But to be honest, I've watched that video and can't determine exactly what happened. There's an arrow pointing and a narrator, but it is just not visually clear to me.

1) Right...and if you thought his hand was going for a gun or a dead man's switch?

2)I also couldn't tell.

1) So, we shouldn't trust the UN report because Israel didn't cooperate?

2) Please enlighten us on why Israel shouldn't participate in an investigation of something that wasn't necessarily wrong.

1) Just one of many many reasons you shouldn't trust this "Human Rights Council" report. This is not the official UN report the Secretary General commissioned.

2) We do. Just in the impartial, fair and professional investigation of the UN, not this kangaroo court.

1) Uh no. This is the thing in LEAST dispute. The forensic evidence has been fairly clear on this for awhile now. Several people (at least 2 afaik) were shot from point blank range while they were on the ground.

2) So yes then, you think it was ok to disperse a crowd of civilians with live ammunition. You're a peach. We should employ you in riot control.

1) whose forensic evidence? Who conducted the autopsy? Might it have been an interested party (say, Turkey?)

2) Under no circumstance do I consider armed, violent, blockade runners as a "crowd of civilians".

[Dark Knight]

So, I've read this thread. I admit I didn't really follow what was going on with the investigation of the Flotilla events since the recent weeks following the events. But if my memory doesn't fail me there are a few points I'd like to put forward:

1. The other vessels in the Flotilla were taken without incident. It's quite obvious that something was very different with the Marmara and the reaction of IDF soldiers may have been too extreme, but again - it was not without provocation or unjustified(again - I mean the reaction, not the severity of it).

2. With all the amounts of contradicting reports that were brought forward, I really find that amusing that people deliberately choose to believer certain reports and denounce others as 'fake' or 'unreliable' without really checking into them more thoroughly.

3. Execution style? seriously?? As I said previously, with all the contradicting reports, there are bound to be some false and some true. I can hardly believe this one, simply because of the chaos that went on board the ship, no body had the time and space to start execution. More likely is that the soldier who shot and killed felt that their life were threatened. I mean - it's also obvious that the shooting didn't start immediately upon boarding.

And one major point that people here ignore - the IDF, prepering to this operation didn't anticipate violent resistence and hence the teams that went out on the operation had no means of dispersing a violent mob. So, the commanders on the site had to make a decision, and they made one. Arguably a very bad one. But there were reasons behind that, mainly the need to complete the operation. and there lies the true cause of this chaos.

And regarding the authority, credibility, and pursuit of justice of the UN I have only one word: Darfour.

It's best said in ASOIAF: "When the lords play thier game of thrones, it's the smallfolk that are suffering".

It's exactly what's going on - there are and will be investigations, reports, conclusions and a big nice show of pursuing justice, but in the end it will change nothing. The same as it changed nothing after the Gaza War, and basically it's still dragging on.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No doubt Jeff thinks that Kent State was justified as well. Sad really.

I've been there a number of times, walked the ground, and talked to people who were there. I think the blame at Kent State should be shared between the Guardsmen and the rabble-rousers who got violent. The shooting itself is inexcusable. But so is the burning down of the ROTC building, throwing rocks and bottles at the Guardsmen, etc. There were agitators who went there precisely to provoke a violent response. The real tragedy there is that the folks who were shot were not the agitators. So to be clear, if you decide to riot, burn down a building, and throw rocks and bottles at guardsmen, I really don't mind if you get shot. But the people who were shot were essentially innocent kids walking to class because the guardsmen did what most green troops do and fired high. And even if they hadn't, I don't think lowering barrels and firing straight into a crowd was justified.

This is NOT, I repeat NOT, the UN report on the Gaza flotilla. The UN is still working on their official report, with which the state of Israel has cooperated. This is a bullshit so called "Human Rights Council" report. Why the UN is built in such a way that two entities within it can commission reports on the same subject, I don't know. But anyone who knows anything about the "Human Rights Council" of the UN, should know it is anything but, and should be renamed the "Israel Bashing Council".

I wasn't aware that this wasn't the official U.N. report. Great point, because the Human Rights Council has been bullshit for a long time.

[mormont]

And one major point that people here ignore - the IDF, prepering to this operation didn't anticipate violent resistence and hence the teams that went out on the operation had no means of dispersing a violent mob.

Apart from tear gas, baton rounds, beanbag rounds, and tasers, you mean?

(Admittedly the tear gas didn't work, but let's at least get the undisputed facts right.)

[MinDonner]

And one major point that people here ignore - the IDF, prepering to this operation didn't anticipate violent resistence and hence the teams that went out on the operation had no means of dispersing a violent mob. So, the commanders on the site had to make a decision, and they made one. Arguably a very bad one. But there were reasons behind that, mainly the need to complete the operation. and there lies the true cause of this chaos.

Good gracious. I'm certainly no military commander, but if I was planning on sending a bunch of soldiers to board someone else's ship, why would I NOT be expecting violent resistance? That's pretty much the definition of a fucking moron.

[Dark Knight]

MinDonner: Weren't they called a "Peace Flotilla"? right...

Anyhow, facts are that the other ships offered no resistance to boarding. And the IDF intelligence determined that there will be no weapons, cold or hot, upon the ships. The fact the IDF intelligence screws up a lot is a different and painfully known matter.

mormont: I'll say again that I didn't follow the investigation in recent months, so I don't know about these findings. As I remember at the time, each soldier going down the grapple line had his personal gun under orders not to use unless found themselves in a life threatening situation, and paint guns. Regarding anything that was used from the Helicopter(apart from live ammunition) - it's ineffective at that distance and with the winds at the open sea. Anyhow, I guess I need to do some more reading, as all my knowlegde is from the weeks following the incident.

[mormont]

mormont: I'll say again that I didn't follow the investigation in recent months, so I don't know about these findings.

The report is linked in this thread, and I already pointed out how odd it was that non-lethal crowd control weapons were used alongside lethal live fire rather than being tried first. I think you probably should do some more reading, because making comments that are based on assumptions rather than information is pointless.

The whole decision to continue to attempt to rappel onto the ship after encountering resistance was ill-advised at best: reckless, foolish, over-zealous, and unnecessary would be some other terms I'd personally apply. If it could not be accomplished without live fire, it should not have been attempted at all. Live fire is a last resort. Even applying a sceptical view to the evidence on the report above, it's hard to see the IDF's use in this case as fitting that description.

[Shryke]

Shryke, let me make something absolutely clear (as you seem to have neglected to do, for whatever reason):

This is NOT, I repeat NOT, the UN report on the Gaza flotilla. The UN is still working on their official report, with which the state of Israel has cooperated. This is a bullshit so called "Human Rights Council" report. Why the UN is built in such a way that two entities within it can commission reports on the same subject, I don't know. But anyone who knows anything about the "Human Rights Council" of the UN, should know it is anything but, and should be renamed the "Israel Bashing Council".

:lol: I knew I could count on you Salamander. The subtitle was just for you.

But yes, you are right, we all know if there's 3 people in all the world who truly have it out for Israel it's a Trinidadian Judge, a Malaysian Judge and a British Judge. Those countries are always wanting to push Israel back into the sea! :rofl:

whose forensic evidence? Who conducted the autopsy? Might it have been an interested party (say, Turkey?)

Ahh yes, of course. The coroner was in on it to!!! : :rofl:

Under no circumstance do I consider armed, violent, blockade runners as a "crowd of civilians".

But still, firing live ammunition at unarmed civilians is cool with you. Good to know.

[Shryke]

MinDonner: Weren't they called a "Peace Flotilla"? right...

Anyhow, facts are that the other ships offered no resistance to boarding. And the IDF intelligence determined that there will be no weapons, cold or hot, upon the ships. The fact the IDF intelligence screws up a lot is a different and painfully known matter.

There were no weapons. In fact, if you read the report, some of the passengers actually tried to make their own crude weapons when they heard the IDF was coming but the crew of the ship confiscated them all and locked them away.

That's why their defense against the initial boarding attempt consisted of hoses and whatever was at hand and wasn't nailed down.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Good gracious. I'm certainly no military commander, but if I was planning on sending a bunch of soldiers to board someone else's ship, why would I NOT be expecting violent resistance? That's pretty much the definition of a fucking moron.

Actually, I think the definition of a fucking moron is violently resisting heavily armed soldiers when you have no chance of prevailing. The other ships were taken without incident precisely because the people on board were not fucking morons.

The report is linked in this thread, and I already pointed out how odd it was that non-lethal crowd control weapons were used alongside lethal live fire rather than being tried first. I think you probably should do some more reading, because making comments that are based on assumptions rather than information is pointless.

Non-lethal means were used first. The helicopter insert was, I think, the third attempts to board.

The whole decision to continue to attempt to rappel onto the ship after encountering resistance was ill-advised at best: reckless, foolish, over-zealous, and unnecessary would be some other terms I'd personally apply. If it could not be accomplished without live fire, it should not have been attempted at all.

That's really the legitimate area of debate as far as I'm concerned. I disagree with you on that, but I do think that's the argument you have to make if you're really going to blast the Israelis over this. Because if you agree they should have continued boarding, but just been "nicer" about it, I don't think that works in the real world.

Live fire is a last resort.

But you're really saying it's no resort at all, because you said they should have cancelled the operations if live fire was required.

However, I should say that I do have significant doubt that the helicopter fired live ammunition before those guys came down the rope. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If a helicopter is hovering, and blasting live ammunition into a crowd on the deck, then those folks are going to scatter. Or the helicopter will keep firing until they do. Yet, we know that the first couple of guys who came down were overpowered. That, to me, just doesn't make any sense, which is why that's one part of the report I doubt in particular.

[Lord O' Bones]

That, to me, just doesn't make any sense, which is why that's one part of the report I doubt in particular.

Same. We were trained to not board until we were as sure as possible shit like this couldn't happen. But we took guns when we did board just in case. This involved a successful boarding by boat with a circling helo. Again just in case. Under no circumstance, in this situation, had they had commandos(Marines) on board, would the USN allow this to happen.

[Samalander]

1) But yes, you are right, we all know if there's 3 people in all the world who truly have it out for Israel it's a Trinidadian Judge, a Malaysian Judge and a British Judge. Those countries are always wanting to push Israel back into the sea! :rofl:

2) But still, firing live ammunition at unarmed civilians is cool with you. Good to know.

1) Take a closer look at the countries that appointed them. Such staunch defenders of human rights world-wide. If only they could be prevailed upon, to, I don't know...stop commiting horrible crimes against their own population I would be more inclined to listen.

2) Next time, try actually reading before you hit the reply button. I wrote "armed".

There were no weapons. In fact, if you read the report, some of the passengers actually tried to make their own crude weapons when they heard the IDF was coming but the crew of the ship confiscated them all and locked them away.

That's why their defense against the initial boarding attempt consisted of hoses and whatever was at hand and wasn't nailed down.

My turn to :lmao:.

Let us consider a philosophical question: What makes lies shameless? Is it the shame we expect the party lying to feel? Is it the shame we ourselves feel when we hear those lies? Or, since liars are by definition immoral and we, the passive listeners have nothing to feel ashamed for, maybe it is meant for those people who hear the lies and spread them. It is the knowing of the untruth in the statement and still repeating that makes it shameless.

[Shryke]

1) Take a closer look at the countries that appointed them. Such staunch defenders of human rights world-wide. If only they could be prevailed upon, to, I don't know...stop commiting horrible crimes against their own population I would be more inclined to listen.

So are you talking about Malaysia, Trinidad and Tobago or the UK here?

Seriously, which of these 3 people who actually ran this thing are suspect? By what evidence?

[mormont]

Actually, I think the definition of a fucking moron is violently resisting heavily armed soldiers when you have no chance of prevailing.

Depends on your intention. If it is to prevail, then yes. If it is to make a point of resisting, then no.

Non-lethal means were used first. The helicopter insert was, I think, the third attempts to board.

You're referring to the attempt to use tear gas?

But you're really saying it's no resort at all, because you said they should have cancelled the operations if live fire was required.

ETA - sorry, misread there. So actually, yeah.

I've said rappelling should have been reconsidered. That should still have left any halfway competent armed force - and the IDF are certainly that - with a range of other options. After all, whatever your view on the question of the presence of weapons on board, nobody's ever suggested the passengers had anything capable of threatening helicopters or ships.

Ultimately, the decision to continue with the attempt to rappel seems to me to have been a very bad one, and one that looks like it was motivated by a simple unwillingness to back down. Which I find worrying. If there's one thing that, to me, comes through no matter what report you read of this incident - and seems to come through from other incidents, too - it is the impression that there's a pervasive and dangerous mentality in the IDF, one that's macho even by the standards of armed forces in the rest of the world. There's always the feeling that they're spoiling for the chance to prove something. I imagine that's true for lower-level grunts in most armies, but it's not the institutional culture. Now I can sympathise with some of the reasons why it may be the prevailing culture in the IDF, but the fact remains, it does lead to serious damage to the international reputation of Israel. And, of course, it costs lives. There was absolutely no need for people to die in this incident. But nine people did die, primarily because the IDF made a mess of something they should have been able to handle. That's my bottom line. Whether you're sceptical of the evidence or the independence of the panel or not, I think it's hard to disagree with that. In fact, I think it takes more than mere scepticism to do so - it takes a highly partisan interpretation of the facts.

[alguien]

What's with the bashing of the UN Human Rights Council?

I ask because we (Great Books) have had to work with them (a little bit) on an expanded edition of our human rights anthology Citizens of the World.

Honestly curious.

[Shryke]

Depends on your intention. If it is to prevail, then yes. If it is to make a point of resisting, then no.

You're referring to the attempt to use tear gas?

ETA - sorry, misread there. So actually, yeah.

I've said rappelling should have been reconsidered. That should still have left any halfway competent armed force - and the IDF are certainly that - with a range of other options. After all, whatever your view on the question of the presence of weapons on board, nobody's ever suggested the passengers had anything capable of threatening helicopters or ships.

Ultimately, the decision to continue with the attempt to rappel seems to me to have been a very bad one, and one that looks like it was motivated by a simple unwillingness to back down. Which I find worrying. If there's one thing that, to me, comes through no matter what report you read of this incident - and seems to come through from other incidents, too - it is the impression that there's a pervasive and dangerous mentality in the IDF, one that's macho even by the standards of armed forces in the rest of the world. There's always the feeling that they're spoiling for the chance to prove something. I imagine that's true for lower-level grunts in most armies, but it's not the institutional culture. Now I can sympathise with some of the reasons why it may be the prevailing culture in the IDF, but the fact remains, it does lead to serious damage to the international reputation of Israel. And, of course, it costs lives. There was absolutely no need for people to die in this incident. But nine people did die, primarily because the IDF made a mess of something they should have been able to handle. That's my bottom line. Whether you're sceptical of the evidence or the independence of the panel or not, I think it's hard to disagree with that. In fact, I think it takes more than mere scepticism to do so - it takes a highly partisan interpretation of the facts.

The more worrying thing is that it wasn't like an initial burst of fire from the helicopter is what killed people as far as we know. That might have been at least more understandable.

But it was AFTER they got down to the boat that they started killing people.

Including at point blank range while the victim was on the ground and already shot.

[Samalander]

So are you talking about Malaysia, Trinidad and Tobago or the UK here?

Seriously, which of these 3 people who actually ran this thing are suspect? By what evidence?

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.

[awesome possum]

Sometimes I think FLoW looks at the opinion of some lefties in a thread and then purposely trolls for the opposite opinion. Sheesh.

[Eurytus]

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

http://en.wikipedia....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.

Actually what you'll find is a pretty random cross section of the world's countries.

If you believe that Israel has few if any friends amongst them perhaps you should look internally as to why that might be.

Of course what would also be interesting is to learn exactly what countries you would choose to be on the council.

Israel + USA + erm.......

[Shryke]

Actually what you'll find is a pretty random cross section of the world's countries.

If you believe that Israel has few if any friends amongst them perhaps you should look internally as to why that might be.

Indeed.

It's also interesting, Salamander, that you are still avoiding the point:

What members of the Mission are suspect?

They were the people who did all the work. The UNHRC just appointed them and then voted on their results. They didn't run the thing.