UN report on Gaza Flottila is Released

[Galactus]

I can see eight countries that you could argue are hostile to Israel, a small minority of the total number of countries.

[Eurytus]

I can see eight countries that you could argue are hostile to Israel, a small minority of the total number of countries.

Exactly. A small minority, so not enough to sway the voting of which countries were selected to actually run the report. And none of the countries selected are hostile to Israel.

So Salamander's point is, as expected, merely a smokescreen.

[shadowbinding shoe]

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.

You've got strange standards. The shooting ducks in a barrel scenario is preferable to you? People that are face to face are facing danger to themselves, people on circling helicopters... aren't. Don't you know that? I think you also ignore the conditions on that ship. People were densely packed and rioting. Police officers that face danger are usually instructed to shoot in the air and at the ground as a warning. I could easily see such shots accidentally hitting people on the ground under those conditions. Also, hitting someone in the back of the head (and other parts of the body) is execution style? I think that's pretty far from execution style. That would be between the eyes or in the heart, no?

As for why the shooting started I believe Israel claimed that some of the soldiers from the first attack were taken (or an attempt was made to take them) hostage.

[The Progressive]

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

Lol, what kind of bullshit is that?

The attackers were the IDF, yet one could hardly see what the hell they're defending here, right?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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

I'm not exactly sure where the line is between resisting to make a point, and resisting to prevail. But if the resisters grab and overpower troops rappelling onto the ship, I don't think the distinction matters.

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

Yes, and trying motor launches, etc..

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.

Such as...? It's pretty common for people to say "there must have been something else..." in the abstract, but that's not always true in the real world. Kind of like "if we can put a man on the moon, we should be able to find an affordable replacement for petroleum." Well, no. One has nothing to do with the other, and sometimes, easy solutions to problems just don't exist.

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.

So? What relevance does that have to stopping the ship?

There was absolutely no need for people to die in this incident.

Right. Other ships were commandeered without anyone being hurt.

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.

I think there were some cooler heads on that ship who wanted to make a token show of resistance and then surrender. But unfortunately, there were some hotheads who decided to fight for real, and this was the result. If Israel had a right to stop that ship, which was a political decision not left to the military people on the scene, then I'm not sure what else they could have done. If people armed with knives and clubs decide to attack armed soldiers in close quarters, the result is going to be nasty.

[Shryke]

You've got strange standards. The shooting ducks in a barrel scenario is preferable to you? People that are face to face are facing danger to themselves, people on circling helicopters... aren't. Don't you know that? I think you also ignore the conditions on that ship. People were densely packed and rioting. Police officers that face danger are usually instructed to shoot in the air and at the ground as a warning. I could easily see such shots accidentally hitting people on the ground under those conditions. Also, hitting someone in the back of the head (and other parts of the body) is execution style? I think that's pretty far from execution style. That would be between the eyes or in the heart, no?

As for why the shooting started I believe Israel claimed that some of the soldiers from the first attack were taken (or an attempt was made to take them) hostage.

Shooting from the helicopter could at least be justified as "trying to disperse the crowd". It's terrible and stupid and all that, but there's at least a reason behind it.

Shooting a guy who you've already shot in the legs, in the face while he's lying on the ground isn't justifiable at all. There's no way to spin this.

Also, you should read the report, because the forensic evidence is pretty clear on it not being "shot in the side of the head" but "shot in the face at point blank range while lying on the ground after having already been shot".

[mormont]

Such as...? It's pretty common for people to say "there must have been something else..." in the abstract, but that's not always true in the real world. Kind of like "if we can put a man on the moon, we should be able to find an affordable replacement for petroleum." Well, no. One has nothing to do with the other, and sometimes, easy solutions to problems just don't exist.

So, to be clear: your position is that there was no alternative to rappelling onto the ship? That this had to be done to save lives?

Let's make no mistake - if we're talking about justifying live fire, the burden of proof is to show that there was no alternative, not for me to suggest a list of alternatives and you to shoot them down one at a time. Because ultimately, even if the entire might of the IDF was unable to stop a single ship from going where it liked without causing fatalities, which is a pretty absurd thing to suggest, in this case that's what should have happened.

(Oh, and if you really can't imagine a single alternative, check out some of the discussions we've already had on this, some of the discussions on the internet at large, and for that matter, check out what the US armed forces or the French or the Brits would do in similar circumstances.)

So? What relevance does that have to stopping the ship?

The point is that the ship presented no threat. Stopping it was a political choice, and so cannot justify live fire on civilians armed with nothing more lethal than knives and catapults. Or indeed, a decision to place IDF soldiers in a circumstance where that was the likely result. You can talk about the hotheads on the ship, but this was - even if you accept the legitimacy of the blockade - a crowd control problem. It's the job of professional soldiers to handle such situations, hotheads and all.

[Galactus]

You know, couldn't the Israelis just have, y'know, disabled the engines of the ship?

[TerraPrime]

Provocations and the justified reactions that happen as a consequence, FLoW edition:

1. Failure to wear appropriately decent clothing to do an interview with an athlete in the locker room -> verbal slurs and physical intimidation against a female sports reporter.

2. Resisting the boarding of your vessel with non-lethal weapons -> being killed

3. ?

Frankly, I do agree with FLoW that if one chooses to violently resist the actions of the IDF, one should expect to be killed.

By the same logic, if the IDF chooses to use lethal responses against anti-Israel protestors, and ends up killing some of them, they should expect to be held accountable.

[Shryke]

You know, couldn't the Israelis just have, y'know, disabled the engines of the ship?

I remember reading articles at the time saying someone had said they tried this. I'm looking through the report to see if I can find anything on it.

Meanwhile:

© Events aboard the Challenger 1

137. The boat was intercepted by two Israeli boats and a helicopter. Passengers on the board said that at least one stun grenade was launched at the boat by the Israelis before they attempted to board. Passengers on the decks had decided in advance to employ passive resistance techniques to resist symbolically the Israeli soldiers boarding the boat. The passengers stood unarmed side-by-side blocking the path of the soldiers. Soldiers opened fire with paintballs and rubber bullets as they boarded, hitting and injuring one woman in the face with either a plastic bullet or a paintball. Another woman was bruised on her back by from rubber bullets.

138. Once on board, the soldiers moved to take control of the fly bridge. Passengers obstructing access were forcibly removed. On entering the fly bridge, the soldiers were met with no resistance, but a female journalist sustained burns on her arms from an electroshock weapon fired by an Israeli soldier. Witnesses said that the primary concern of the soldiers seemed to be the confiscation of photographic equipment and media.

139. The passive resistance offered by the passengers was met with force. One woman’s head was hit against the deck of the boat and then stepped on by an Israeli soldier. Passengers were handcuffed very tightly with plastic ties behind their backs, while the woman injured in the face was left unattended.

140. Several passengers said that it was clear that the Israeli soldiers knew who was onboard as they referred to some passengers by name. A plasticised booklet recovered from a soldier on the Mavi Marmara and filmed identified specific passengers on several boats with names and photographs including the Challenger 1.

141. One crew member observed that the soldiers were very young, seemed frightened and that were initially poorly organized. Soldiers behaved aggressively from the outset towards the passengers. Passengers were handcuffed with plastic ties and denied access to the toilet. One elderly man was obliged to urinate in his clothes because he was refused access to the toilet. There was an attempt to forcibly eject one woman from the boat into one of the zodiacs. Two women had hemp bags placed over their heads for an extended period. The woman injured in the face in the initial stage of boarding was left unattended for an extended period, even though there was an army medic on board. The physical violence was described as “unwarranted and excessive”. No distinction was made between activists and journalists, despite the presence of several well-respected international journalists on board.

142. The boat arrived in Ashdod at around 1100 hours on 31 May. Several passengers joined arms to resist disembarkation, protesting that they had been brought to Israel against their will from international waters. Two female passengers were handcuffed and forcibly removed while a male passenger was threatened with an electroshock weapon at point blank range. Passengers were led off the boat one-by-one accompanied by two Israeli officers.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So, to be clear: your position is that there was no alternative to rappelling onto the ship?

Well, there was the alternative of doing nothing and just letting the ship go through. As for other options, I can't think of any. What do you think they should have done instead, and what makes you believe that alternative was practical?

Let's make no mistake - if we're talking about justifying live fire, the burden of proof is to show that there was no alternative, not for me to suggest a list of alternatives and you to shoot them down one at a time.

I already pointed out that alternatives such as intercepting with another ship wouldn't work. They tried boarding other ways, and also determined that disabling the rudder or propeller wouldnt' work on a ship that large and fast. I can't think of any other alternatives.

Because ultimately, even if the entire might of the IDF was unable to stop a single ship from going where it liked without causing fatalities, which is a pretty absurd thing to suggest, in this case that's what should have happened.

Again, that's a completely different issue.

(Oh, and if you really can't imagine a single alternative, check out some of the discussions we've already had on this, some of the discussions on the internet at large, and for that matter, check out what the US armed forces or the French or the Brits would do in similar circumstances.)

Sorry, but I disagree with your burden of proof here. One alternative is to throw a bunch of walnuts and hope they blind the pilots/helmsmen, rendering them incapable of steering a straight cource. The number of alternatives is limitless. If you think there are particular reasonable alternatives, name them.

[TrueMetis]

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.

Which if true would make the IDF or at least the people in charge of this operation amongst the most incompetent idiots in any military.

[MinDonner]

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.

So

is a fucking moron now? Maybe he is (was). Yay freedom?

I don't know about you, but I tend to hold higher non-moron expectations of those who a) are supposed to be trained to handle a particular situation, and b ) are in possession of lethal weaponry.

[Samalander]

1) What members of the Mission are suspect?

They were the people who did all the work.

2) The UNHRC just appointed them and then voted on their results.

They didn't run the thing.

1) I never said any one individual is suspect (I'm not thrilled about Malaysia, though). I don't really care if you are mother Theresa. If you were appointed by the "Human Rights Council" of the UN, you are suspect.

2) Right...and you never appoint the kind of people who are going have the mindset you want for any particular result...that never happens.

I can see eight countries that you could argue are hostile to Israel, a small minority of the total number of countries.

I don't see it that way. But I'm kinda biased. Maybe we should look to somebody who's unbiased on this issue. How about...the Secretary General of the UN? Do you trust that guy? He seems trustworthy to me. And he decided he didn't want this issue investigated by these guys appointed by these nations. He set up his own investigation. Why ever for? If you can't get the Secretary General to trust this here hangin' committee, why should we trust them?

The point is that the ship presented no threat. Stopping it was a political choice, and so cannot justify live fire on civilians armed with nothing more lethal than knives and catapults. Or indeed, a decision to place IDF soldiers in a circumstance where that was the likely result. You can talk about the hotheads on the ship, but this was - even if you accept the legitimacy of the blockade - a crowd control problem. It's the job of professional soldiers to handle such situations, hotheads and all.

Yeah...a blockade that isn't enforced is not in fact a valid legal blockade. So...in order to maintain a legal blockade one has to do things some people will cry are illegal...I'm getting a headache. Where is Yoadm for all the legal stuff?

You know, couldn't the Israelis just have, y'know, disabled the engines of the ship?

Only way to do that is to start blasting. Then, you really don't know how many dead people you are going to end up with.

I don't know about you, but I tend to hold higher non-moron expectations of those who a) are supposed to be trained to handle a particular situation, and b ) are in possession of lethal weaponry.

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

[Samalander]

By the same logic, if the IDF chooses to use lethal responses against anti-Israel protestors, and ends up killing some of them, they should expect to be held accountable.

These were not "anti-Israel protestors". Out of 9 dead, 8 belonged to the IHH or were affiliated directly to it. Is this a coincidence, perhaps? Do we think they were wearing big T-shirts with IHH written on them and that's why they were targeted?

I'm getting sick and tired of explaining the same thing over and over. Once the real UN report comes out, we'll talk. I refuse, however, to debate the dubious facts of this sham "report".

[Eurytus]

Once the real UN report comes out, we'll talk. I refuse, however, to debate the dubious facts of this sham "report".

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"

[Shryke]

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"

We all would expect no less.

[Dark Knight]

I don't know about 'suspect', but the UN is definately an incompetent organization...

[The Progressive]

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.

[Spastic Plastic]

This tune:

Samalander: There ARE no Israeli war crimes! Those Palestinian kids whose school buses were bombed were clearly terrorists, so why are their parents whining?! And that family in Gaza who were shelled in their house until thirty people died - that was Hamas. No phosphorus bombs were ever used by the IDF, whatever people say. And there's no evidence at all that Furkan Dogan was unarmed and killed by IDF soldiers, how does that nonsense make its way into the news? Oh, and the Israelis forbidding humanitarian aid workers in Gaza is just fiction. A story made up by the Human Rights liars.

Ah, how horrible it feels to be defenseless and at the mercy of Malaysia and Trinidad....

Former Lord of Winterfell: He's right, you guys. Here's a bunch of links to support it.