Israel attacked in international waters today a flotilla of six boats carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza. The flotilla was attempting to help bring some relief to Gazans in the face of Israel’s illegal and immoral ongoing blockade of Gaza. On board the flotilla were the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mairead Corrigan-Maguire of Northern Ireland, and Col. Ann Wright, who resigned her post in protest of the Iraq invasion by Bush, among the 600 humanitarians.
Haaretz headlined its story “Israel Navy commandos: Gaza flotilla activists tried to lynch us” and then went on to say:
“An Israeli military spokesman said some of the commandos were equipped with paintball guns but the non-lethal weapons were not enough against activists who charged in with batons.
"’They had pistols with live ammunition as back-up, to defend themselves,’ he said. The IDF said it had confiscated two pistols from the boat.
“One of the commandos told reporters he descended by rope from a helicopter onto one of the six ships in the convoy and was immediately attacked by a group of people waiting for them.
"’They beat us with metal sticks and knives,’ he said. ‘There was live fire at some point against us.’"
In other words, to mask their murders, the IDF created a cover story claiming ludicrously that humanitarians came prepared to mix it up with the IDF with live fire, while the IDF had only PAINTBALL guns. Moreover, while they were being boarded, the humanitarians tried to lynch them. Can you even imagine such a situation? The IDF is descending from helicopters bearing PAINTBALL guns while the people on the flotilla then spend their time trying to hang the commandos.
In this morning’s New York Times, the story was initially headlined “10 Deaths Reported as Israel Attacks Aid Flotilla.” Sometime during the day the Times’ web edition changed the headline to read: “Deadly Israeli Raid on Aid Flotilla Draws Condemnation.” The second headline is more accurate but I immediately thought as I read the initial headline: the Times is stating 10 dead but without any direct attribution of the deaths to the IDF.
This crime by Israel is monstrous and must be condemned by everyone who has a conscience.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall
Watching Frogs Boil
Karen McKim
Erica K
Jennifer Prestholdt
Julie Morse
Salon.com
Comments
The irony of this story is just too much for me.
Who would have thunk these idiots would be singing praises of glory and killing with the other hand?
These boats did not come ashore and ask for Israelis to kill, instead the Israelis went hunting for them.
Mission: This is the problem with religions. When people think that they have god on their side, they will do anything, including committing atrocities, that they would otherwise stop and think about.
It had also better be treated with every bit as much importance as N. Korea torpedoing that S. Korean ship.
This was cold blooded murder on the high seas, nothing less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_1947
Jane: I do think that Israel has its own agenda even as they are a puppet of the US.
Thank you Amy, Progressive, and Marc.
I think the scariest part of this is yet to come. 2 Turks were killed. Israel has just lost their only ally in the region, which also happens to be the country with the biggest army.
No, no report has claimed that high and the last report was 9.
Instead of "peace activists and humanitarians" some of those on boats hit the soldiers with poles, chairs. When they stole Israel side arms and fired at the soldiers, live-fire was authorized.
>>This crime was Israel is monstrous and must be condemned by everyone who has a conscience.
No, the crime was that of the leaders and the followers on the boats. They were contacted and alerted that they would not be allowed to enter. They were instructed to go to an Israeli port where the cargo would be inspected for arms and non-arms would be shipped onto Gaza. They chose not to follow those instructions.
Please look up "15,000 tons of aid to Gaza each week". The flotilla had by contrast 10,000 tons.
The biggest problem is that you "fan the flames" of hate, without any serious search for information. And 4 other people responding to your post are willing to be led without checking facts.
Don Rich comments about maybe "paintballs" is actually true. Whereby you agree, and yet your post title still refers to "19"
Your professional title is "Professor of Sociology" at Cal Poly, so you have theoretically studied people and groups. And yet you still use your blog in this way. Is the research you are doing in this blog funded from a grant ?
more info:
It would be nice if you lived up to your nom de guerre. The 9 killed figure you cite as authoritative is not authoritative. It is Israel's low ball estimate of those they killed.
The humanitarian mission was attacked by Israel, with commandos rappelling down upon their ship in international waters. Do you understand what international waters means? It is a war crime to initiate hostilities against ships in those waters. The fact that Israel attempted to send the flotilla elsewhere first - which they had no right to do, by the way - does not change the fact that Israel is committing a crime by 1) stopping them and boarding them in international waters, 2) initiating hostile actions against them in international waters, including committing murder, 3) the humanitarians were justified in engaging in self-defense as they were being boarded and attacked without provocation and justification. You know what self-defense is, don't you? Or is it only self-defense if Israel does it? Since everything Israel's done here is, according to you, self-defense and justified, then how come the people in this flotilla don't have that right? How come Gazans don't have that right?
Even the IDF's account doesn't claim that those they murdered and injured had guns. They claim that two of the pistols brought onto the ship were taken from the IDF. I should like you to imagine the scenario here: the IDF initially brings with them, perhaps for some of them, paint guns. They find that this isn't sufficient to intimidate - why would they be? - they then start live firing with their real weapons. In the course of this, naturally, the guns are wrested from two of them? Do you buy this explanation? If so, you are incredibly credulous.
Excuses made are excuses made. You and those who defend these murderous acts by Israel against those bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza are apologists for cold blooded murder.
As for whether I'm being funded by a grant for this blog - are you serious? I don't have any grant money and haven't for a long time. What a silly charge.
The NY Times today writes that who started hostilities is unclear from the videos so far released. But who started hostilities isn't the main question. Israel started the embargo and they attacked the ship in the first place.
I'm trying, but you seem to be able to make up things "out of whole cloth" faster than I can find useful information.
>>The 9 killed figure you cite as authoritative is not authoritative. It is Israel's low ball estimate of those they killed.
You started your blog posting refering to a NYT article that stated 10 dead. I read an article that stated 9. Maybe you read both articles?
Perhaps you added the numbers from the articles to make your blog post "more accurate" ?
>>Why is Israel not releasing the names of the dead, "more info".
I have not seen any reports why or why not. But, it appears that some agencies have access to that information: "Nine activists were killed, most of them Turkish nationals. Dozens were wounded." They also have a lengthy interview with a man from another boat in the flotilla.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Flotilla-Raid-Survivor-Returns-Home-to-Maryland-95375074.html
>>The humanitarian mission was attacked by Israel, with commandos rappelling down upon their ship in international waters. Do you understand what international waters means? It is a war crime to initiate hostilities against ships in those waters.
It it really a war crime? Are you a former diplomat? Or did you play a diplomat in a drama? What would be nice to know, is "what is _YOUR authority_ to make that definitive statement?
>>Israel is committing a crime by 1) stopping them and boarding them in international waters, 2) initiating hostile actions against them in international waters, including committing murder, 3) the humanitarians were justified in engaging in self-defense as they were being boarded and attacked without provocation and justification.
Have you every heard of "International Committee of the Red Cross" ?
Have you every heard of "International Humanitarian Law" ?
Or the San Remo Manual ? I hadn't before this incident.
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2010/05/ny_times_flotilla_coverage_mis.html
>>Excuses made are excuses made. You and those who defend these murderous acts by Israel against those bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza are apologists for cold blooded murder.
You don't know the definition of "cold blooded murder" but you throw it out to stir the pot.
You have expressed opinion prior to any evidence. A new article is not evidence.
You have an opinion that is not supported by the evidence as sketchy as it is.
You seem to have begun with the opinion "Israel bad" and carved pieces of news information to fit that opinion.
You will probably question my motives as well. I have read news reports of somewhere near 10,000 missles sent from Gaza into Israeli territory. Bearing that in mind, it would see seem that a state of war exists between Israel and Gaza. Isn't a blockade a war tactic ?
But my motive isn't to 'excuse' Israel, but rather to show that your rhetoric is twisting the news reports.
Let me repeat my prior question:
Your professional title is "Professor of Sociology" at Cal Poly, so you have theoretically studied people and groups. And yet you still use your blog in this way. Is the research you are doing in this blog funded from a grant ?
Let's begin with the most egregious question at issue here:
You are defending the murder by IDF forces of at least 9 (since you prefer the lower estimate, most foreign news sources are reporting 19, but the US media prefers what Israel tells it) humanitarians on a humanitarian mission to Gaza with supplies such as medicine and building materials while in international waters.
Whether there were 9 killed or 19 killed, does it matter to you? If it is what Israel claims and it is 9, for the sake of argument, does that make it better or excusable in any way? Apparently, for you, it is excusable, no matter what the number, 9, 19, 1900, 19,000... 190,000...
You say: "I have read news reports of somewhere near 10,000 missles sent from Gaza into Israeli territory. Bearing that in mind, it would see seem that a state of war exists between Israel and Gaza. Isn't a blockade a war tactic?"
Yes, a blockade is a war tactic, being used by Israel against an entire population of women, men, children. It is impossible to argue reasonably with people such as yourself since proportionality, law, reason, and morality don't enter into the picture. You will defend anything and everything that Israel does. If the day comes when Israel uses one of its atomic weapons on its "enemies," you will no doubt consider that justifiable too. How do you sleep at night knowing that innocents are being systematically destroyed by Israel's day to day policies?
Your citation of this as coming from me "Why is Israel not releasing the names of the dead, "more info'" is from someone else, not from me. Read more carefully.
You ask if I have ever been a diplomat, as if only diplomats can understand something as esoteric as attacking a ship that is in international waters.
You repeat your earlier "question" about a grant but fail to notice that I already responded to your silly accusatory question in my last comment. Read what you're responding to please. And really, if you're going to continue to defend cold-blooded murder, then please don't post it here anymore. It's a waste of time responding to you. How does one engage in a sensible, fruitful dialogue with someone who openly defends murder of innocents?
>>Apparently, for you, it is excusable, no matter what the number, 9, 19, 1900, 19,000...
I specifically wrote I was not defending Israel's actions, for you that is IDF.
Were their deaths avoidable? Possibly, but I wasn't there and neither were you.
Were their deaths a result of murder? Unknown, neither of us was there.
>>Do you understand what international waters means?
>>It is a war crime to initiate hostilities against ships in those waters.
>>You ask if I have ever been a diplomat, as if only diplomats can understand something as esoteric as attacking a ship that is in international waters.
Did you read the "http://blog.camera.org" link ? It attempts to explain why your assertions may be incorrect. Hmm, the link was cut off in my last post, I wonder why since I checked it. Here it is again.
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2010/05/ny_times_flotilla_coverage_mis.html
>>It is impossible to argue reasonably with people such as yourself since proportionality, law, reason, and morality don't enter into the picture.
The reports are that:
IDF took paintball guns and sidearms. But were only authorized to use the paintball guns.
After the humanitarians took some sidearms and fired on IDF, IDF received permission to return fire.
>>You will defend anything and everything that Israel does.
That is a lie. I debate you to show that you are twisting reports to suit your agenda.
You had decided that IDF having/using "paintball guns" was a cover story. Another person posting a comment suggested that it actually might be true. And your response:
>>Don: Yes, perhaps they really did paint ball guns.
But you still accuse them of "cold-blooded murder".
I transposed Stellaa's post asking about names of dead.
I missed the portion of your post answering my grant question.
On these two points I erred.
You really need to get some fundamental facts straight in your head so that you can see clearly what has happened and what is going on now in the wake of these killings:
You don't understand that I was being sarcastic in my title of this post. I was mocking their cover story for the murders they committed. Whether some of them did in fact bring paint ball guns onto the ship isn't the point. Even if they did, the rest of the story doesn't add up. The paint ball guns aspect of their story only reveals how absurd their cover story is.
You say that you don't know what happened and I don't know what happened because neither of us were there. Well, I wasn't there when they landed on the moon, but I know that they did and I am not doubting what happened because I "wasn't there." In life we determine what has happened or what is happening based primarily on indirect evidence and judgment from that indirect evidence since most of what we need to know we don't have direct knowledge of. Do you think that even those individuals who WERE there on the ship know everything about what happened? No, they don't. Their knowledge is partial. If we find some people have been killed and we know that they have been killed by gunfire, and we know that IDF forces rappelled down onto their ship in a hostile act of boarding, and the only guns on the scene were those being used by the IDF, and the IDF itself admits opening fire on the activists/humanitarians on the ship, is it not reasonable to conclude that they were killed by the IDF? The IDF doesn't deny this fact. They confirm this themselves. They also don't deny that they boarded the ship in international waters. This makes their actions a crime. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the IDF's policies are what they are and have been towards anyone supporting the Palestinians, reinforced daily and hourly by what Israel routinely does to the Palestinians in Gaza, on the West Bank, and so on. This is their POLICY.
Actually, I did understand that you were being sarcastic in your title. I understand it hurts quite a bit but not likely fatal on a teen or adult.
>>Whether some of them did in fact bring paint ball guns onto the ship isn't the point. Even if they did, the rest of the story doesn't add up. The paint ball guns aspect of their story only reveals how absurd their cover story is.
Various groups have used children, women, innocent non-Israeli settlements and even U.N. peace keeper observation posts as missle launch sites. Any place or person will do to reduce retalliation from IDF.
Gaza is a blockaded area, the humanitarians knew that. IDF contacted "Mavi Marmara" by radio. The details
are in the link http://blog.camera.org/archives/2010/05/ny_times_flotilla_coverage_mis.html
That same link gives the short version of why it is permissable to intercept (my words) the flotilla in international waters.
>>In life we determine what has happened or what is happening based primarily on indirect evidence ...
>>Do you think that even those individuals who WERE there on the ship know everything about what happened? No, they don't. Their knowledge is partial.
You are absolutely right, I learned that a car crash can kill you based on written reports, not first hand.
And you are right on the "partial knowledge" line of thought.
>>If we find some people have been killed and we know that they have been killed by gunfire, and we know that IDF forces rappelled down onto their ship in a hostile act of boarding, and the only guns on the scene were those being used by the IDF, and the IDF itself admits opening fire on the activists/humanitarians on the ship, is it not reasonable to conclude that they were killed by the IDF? The IDF doesn't deny this fact. They confirm this themselves.
>>and the only guns on the scene were those being used by the IDF
This is where the "partial knowledge" comes into play, at least one IDF soldier was shot. This is known. The news has reported that IDF admits that weapons were taken from the IDF soldiers. Who shot the soldier is not known by you or I. Perhaps it was someone from the boat or maybe another IDF. The point is we don't know.
>>...is it not reasonable to conclude that they were killed by the IDF?
I would consider that a reasonable conclusion, but not the only possible answer. I am not trying to equivocate, I am expressing the opinion that I don't know the answer.
>>They also don't deny that they boarded the ship in international waters. This makes their actions a crime.
Before learning about "San Remo Manual" all I knew about actions in international waters was via drama or history channel, not even enough to be considered "indirect evidence". And I would have agreed with you.
With the increased knowledge I can see the alternative.
>>...This makes their actions a crime. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the IDF's policies are what they are and have been towards anyone supporting the Palestinians, reinforced daily and hourly by what Israel routinely does to the Palestinians in Gaza, on the West Bank, and so on. This is their POLICY.
>> ...reinforced daily and hourly by what Israel routinely does to the Palestinians...
What direct or indirect knowledge do you have of Israel's actions. Please provide links.