Gaza aid flotilla to set sail

[aidanjt]

I have to agree with Kata, it is a reoccurring motif:

1) Have 'civilians' create a confrontation with Israeli military.
2) Watch Israeli soldiers intercept objective.
3) Have 'civilians' attack Israeli military.
4) Record 'civilians' getting shot at by Israeli military.
5a) Optional: shoot up a few civilians yourself, preferably children.
5b) Record 'civilians' being stretchered away all shot up, focus on any children wounded in any way.
6) Record 'interviews' of the surviving 'civilians' talk about how awful it is and how they're being persecuted.
7) Edit video to make it appear that the 'innocent' 'civilians' were suddenly and unexpectedly attacked by Israeli military.
8) Release video and muster up moral panic.
9) Proclaim Israel to be Satan and call for Jihad.

[Kata]

Another interesting viewpoint from a journalist on the ship (sorry if the English is imperfect, it's a translation):

"Around 4:30am, I was sitting at the nose of the ship. Most of us were awake because we had an alarm around 12:00 that the Israeli ships were nearby. Around 4:30, we noticed a shadow at the right side of the ship. We held projectors to the shadow and we have seen a boat full of Israeli soldiers, at least 10-15 of them. Only few minutes after that, we heard the voice of a helicopter. I immediately went up to the upper deck with a videocam in my hand. The helicopter couldn't land fully on the deck but landed askew on the central station. This threw the balance of the soldeirs trying to land on the ship. One of them fell on the upper deck. They immediately neutralized the soldier and forced him into the central station by head and shoulders. They did the same to the second soldier that tried to land on the ship. Afterwards, the helicopter took off, aborting the landing of the remaining soldiers. I have seen a few of the activists running around on the deck with the guns they got from the two soldiers.

Two-three minutes later, another helicopter approached the ship, but this time the helicopter came shooting towards the deck. Hundreds of bullets flied to the all sides of the deck, especially to the upper deck. I have seen one of my friends got shot in the head, but couldnt go near him because of the raining bullets. I threw myself into the stairs between the upper and the lower deck. There were dozens of injured and a few deads. Meanwhile, the boats around the ship opened fire as well. After I heard 10 minutes of gunfire coming from the deck, they took control of the upper deck. We let them know from the inside that we wont fight and will give them the two soldiers and surrender one by one on the condition that they dont come into the rooms of the ship. So, we started surrendering one by one."

So, the "Peace Activists" apparently grabbed two soldiers and held them hostage, and then paraded around waving their guns.

In this situation, I'd say that the Israelis were remarkably restrained in rescuing their colleagues from these armed thugs.

[format]

It's amazing the difference in opinion that people can have when they are both given the same evidence eh?

[Michael]

I still can't understand why the people who are defending Israel are talking about the activists like they are terriorists... At least that's the impression I get every time I read the word 'peaceful' and 'civillians' surrounded by apostrophes.

These are people who are passionate about a cause and wish to take aid and medical supplies to people who need them. If they just wanted to make a scene they could have arrived on empty boats, but they didn't, they loaded up the gear and set out to take it to somewhere which is being crippled on purpose by a government with conflicting interests who then boarded the ship, killed people, and have succeeded in their mission of keeping the people of Gaza in need.

I mean come on, I have no interest in either side personally, and I see this for what it is. People trying to take aid to those that need it, and a military stopping them from doing so for their own reasons.

Wether or not the activists attacked the military is irrelvant, the military shouldn't have boarded that ship, they knew there was no threat. Under those circumstances i'd have probably grabbed myself a weapon too... A country with a record like Israel is going to send commandos onto the ship in the night armed and i'm supposed to take it in good faith that I will be ok?

[TooNice]

One of the problems (not the only) is that save the most basic facts, details are incomplete or even contradictory. Kata might argue that the quoted event shows 'remarkable restraint' on the part of the IDF, but it contradict reports that the IDF only fired in direct self-defence under attack, or the autopsy which suggests that many shots were at close range.

Rather than judge the whole event on the little that we have, I would like to see the material that was recorded and confiscated by the IDF. I reckon that at each step of the event, both sides have made less than ideal judgements which resulted in unnecessary deaths, and rather than go "The IDF are at a fault for boarding in the first place", or "The convoy are at fault for attacking the boarding troops in the first place", I'd like as much information as possible regarding when each volley were fired, why, and who were they aimed at.

A country with a record like Israel is going to send commandos onto the ship in the night armed and i'm supposed to take it in good faith that I will be ok?

If armed commandos want you dead, do you think that brandishing a weapon at them is going to help? Unless you think that you WILL die in which case you might as well take one down with you (or die trying). I do agree that Israel has a poor reputation for over-reacting (and rightly so). But that hardly means they don't have any lines. They -could- have sunk the ship if they couldn't cared less. They could have summarily executed people aboard, in which case we would not have 9 to <20 dead, but far, far more. If I was on that ship, I would've thought that the Nobel prize winner (et al.) would buy me enough safety for them not to randomly execute people on board but I would not be so naive to think that they wouldn't shoot if their lives were put at risk.

[aidanjt]

I still can't understand why the people who are defending Israel are talking about the activists like they are terriorists..

Here's why:

1) Because the organisers have been linked to terrorist organisations, and have been involved in terrorist activities in the past.
2) Because the organisers sought a confrontation with the IDF naval forces.
3) Because the activists were armed.
4) Because the acitivsts assaulted the IDF troops.

[Disturbedguy]

Here's why:

4) Because the acitivsts assaulted the IDF troops.

After they decided to board the ship at 4:30am.

[aidanjt]

After they decided to board the ship at 4:30am.

Irrelevant.

[Michael]

2) Because the organisers sought a confrontation with the IDF naval forces.

No, no they did not. If they wanted a fight they would have taken more suitable weapons than the odd bits of pipe and wood lying around.

3) Because the activists were armed..

See above. A far cry from automatic weapons, no?

4) Because the acitivsts assaulted the IDF troops.

How dare they.

Let me ask you this... your enemy breaks into your house in the night with a gun. What do you do?

2) Because the organisers sought a confrontation with the IDF naval forces.

Just coming back to this.... this is your problem I think. You truely beileve that the purpose of these aid ships were to provoke a response and cause a scene. It's just not the case. Some people care to help others in the world, and some people care to prevent that by whatever means.

[Disturbedguy]

Irrelevant.

According to you, the person with the "non-biased" view. If someone were to board my ship or enter my house at 4:30 you can bet your life that I will be fighting back the best I can.

[aidanjt]

No, no they did not. If they wanted a fight they would have taken more suitable weapons than the odd bits of pipe and wood lying around.

Yes, yes they did. If they didn't want confrontation, then why didn't they plan a shipping route to Israel or Eygpt? And when confronted by the IDF naval forces, why didn't they divert their route? Why did they come armed? Why do they have a history of terrorism? Why did they swarm the IDF when they hit the deck?

See above. A far cry from automatic weapons, no?

The Turkish authorities (supposedly) did a (lousy) weapons check before allowing the passengers board. That didn't stop them concealing knives or brandishing pipes before the IDF hit the deck.

How dare they.

Let me ask you this... your enemy breaks into your house in the night with a gun. What do you do?

So you're admitting that the IDF was 'the enemy'? And you were intent in circumventing measures stopping their enemy from killing them, and when they stop you, you savagely club them over the head, and stab another in the back, that's cool, is it?

[aidanjt]

According to you, the person with the "non-biased" view. If someone were to board my ship or enter my house at 4:30 you can bet your life that I will be fighting back the best I can.

Except neither the ship nor the sea was 'their house', and they weren't just 'tucked up peacefully in bed'. They were committing a hostile act.

[Michael]

They were committing a hostile act.

Again... No, they weren't. They really weren't. They were trying to help people. Perhaps I should slap the next person I see donating to charity.

Israel saw it as a 'hostile' act because of it's own interests. This is clear.

Words like terrorist and threat get thrown around so much they have no real meaning other than to discredit people. These activists are people who simply wish to help people in need and make the world a better place. They are not a threat to anybody. They are not terrorists in any sense of the word. They were simply trying to provide citizens of Gaza with items which Isreal have decided they shouldn't be allowed. Wheelchairs for example.

[Disturbedguy]

But the ship is the companies/ countries property, therefore the IDF should NOT have boarded the ships until absolutely necessary and as the ships were still a fair distance from Gaza, boarding the ships wasnt absolutely necessary.

So first of all, they tried landing on the ship using the helicopter, this failed, two troops were captured, they then came back guns blazing, landed on the ship and expected people to go quietly?

[aidanjt]

Again... No, they weren't. They really weren't. They were trying to help people. Perhaps I should slap the next person I see donating to charity.

Israel saw it as a 'hostile' act because of it's own interests. This is clear.

Trying to run through a blockade is a militarily hostile act. No question or doubt.

Words like terrorist and threat get thrown around so much they have no real meaning other than to discredit people. These activists are people who simply wish to help people in need and make the world a better place. They are not a threat to anybody. They are not terrorists in any sense of the word. They were simply trying to provide citizens of Gaza with items which Isreal have decided they shouldn't be allowed. Wheelchairs for example.

Words like 'terrorist' are being tossed around because the organiser have been caught red handed building IEDs and buying assault rifles in the past.

[aidanjt]

But the ship is the companies/ countries property, therefore the IDF should NOT have boarded the ships until absolutely necessary and as the ships were still a fair distance from Gaza, boarding the ships wasnt absolutely necessary.

I already dismissed this argument earlier. 5 of the 6 ships were boarded and diverted without incident, only 1 was filled with IHH members looking for martyrdom so they could have their 70 virgins. 9 people died as a result. The relief ship Rachael Corrie also sailed towards Gaza, nobody took up arms, nobody was harmed.

So first of all, they tried landing on the ship using the helicopter, this failed, two troops were captured, they then came back guns blazing, landed on the ship and expected people to go quietly?

No, the troopers repelled, didn't you see the video? And yes, sane people yield when force is applied to them and they have no means of matching that force. And frankly, if you take soldiers as hostages, you are a terrorist, and you're begging to make an acquaintance with Mr. Darwin.