A Question About Israel
Posted by: dave brubeck on 31 May 2010
Are they allowed to do whatever they like?
Posted on: 04 June 2010 by fama
Its difficult to be accurate about goods allowed and those not the BBC has compiled a list
here are some of the items
Canned meat and tuna, but not canned fruit Mineral water, but not fruit juice Sesame paste (tahini) but not jam Tea and coffee but not chocolate
Why no jam or chocolate?
here are some of the items
Canned meat and tuna, but not canned fruit Mineral water, but not fruit juice Sesame paste (tahini) but not jam Tea and coffee but not chocolate
Why no jam or chocolate?
Posted on: 04 June 2010 by Peter Dinh
Boarding a civilian ship on international waters! Is there any law? I think the Israeli government has gone too too far.
Posted on: 04 June 2010 by Eloise
quote:Originally posted by Peter Dinh:
Boarding a civilian ship on international waters! Is there any law? I think the Israeli government has gone too too far.
According to BBC News website the international laws are as follows.
- The UN Charter on the Law of the Sea says only if a vessel is suspected to be transporting weapons, or weapons of mass destruction, can it be boarded in international waters. Otherwise the permission of the ship's flag carrying nation must be sought.
- The charter allows for naval blockades, but the effect of the blockade on civilians must be proportionate to the effect on the military element for the blockade to be legally enforceable.
- A ship trying to breach a blockade can be boarded and force may be used to stop it as long as it is "necessary and proportionate".
- The Israeli Defense Forces say soldiers acted in self-defence.
- An investigation, either by the UN or by the ship's flag-carrier Turkey, is required to find if the use of force was proportionate to a claim of self defence.
Make of it what you will...
Eloise
Posted on: 04 June 2010 by Sniper
Israel as ever practising a total disproportionate response then whingeing about 'anti-semitism' when it is criticised.
Posted on: 04 June 2010 by JAB
quote:Upon reflection; if I'd posted something intended to deflate the point of another only to find that in fact, my quoted source actually strongly supported his point of view, I'd try to weasel out in such a similar manner.
I see you are happy to dish out epithets but are sensitive at the possibility of receipt of the same.
The reason I will not engage further in debate with you is that you appear impervious to reason. Life is too short to waste time talking to fools.
Posted on: 04 June 2010 by David Scott
There seem to be such powerful, destructive forces at work in the Israeli/Palestinian confrontation that discussing it on an internet forum seems more than usually pointless.
I sympathise with Israelis in their passionate commitment to their homeland - particularly given the extraordinary and very recent history which gave rise to their being there. I can understand what a precarious situation they must feel themselves to be in and I can imagine that it must be very frightening. But I think that fear drives them to do terrible, unjustifiable things and to treat others in ways that do - whether they like to hear it or not - echo the ways that Jewish people have been treated during a long and shameful history of anti-semitism. And I'm afraid that this latest incident is yet another example.
It doesn't seem to matter whether or not these people set out to challenge the blockade, when the blockade is clearly illegal. The Israeli troops should not have been there in the first place, but having gone they misjudged the situation and responded excessively, killing several foreign nationals. I can completely understand people's loyalty, but you cant make excuses for this sort of thing. If you do you just come across as unhinged and a little bit scary.
I sympathise with Israelis in their passionate commitment to their homeland - particularly given the extraordinary and very recent history which gave rise to their being there. I can understand what a precarious situation they must feel themselves to be in and I can imagine that it must be very frightening. But I think that fear drives them to do terrible, unjustifiable things and to treat others in ways that do - whether they like to hear it or not - echo the ways that Jewish people have been treated during a long and shameful history of anti-semitism. And I'm afraid that this latest incident is yet another example.
It doesn't seem to matter whether or not these people set out to challenge the blockade, when the blockade is clearly illegal. The Israeli troops should not have been there in the first place, but having gone they misjudged the situation and responded excessively, killing several foreign nationals. I can completely understand people's loyalty, but you cant make excuses for this sort of thing. If you do you just come across as unhinged and a little bit scary.
Posted on: 04 June 2010 by Skip
I am no expert on the facts or the law, but I agree with this guy Charles Krauthammer. He is a leading commentator in the US. He is for Israel and so am I:
The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.
But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.
In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.
Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.
Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.
Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?
But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense.
(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.
Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to fight them here.
But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.
Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.
(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense -- military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.
The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli -- the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war -- effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.
(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.
But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?
Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.
What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence.
The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.
letters@ charleskrauthammer.com
The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.
But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.
In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.
Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.
Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.
Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?
But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense.
(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.
Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to fight them here.
But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.
Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.
(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense -- military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.
The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli -- the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war -- effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.
(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.
But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?
Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.
What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence.
The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.
letters@ charleskrauthammer.com
Posted on: 04 June 2010 by u5227470736789439
quote:In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.
The worst that was on these ships was cement! To rebuild what Israel has bulldozed!
Israel is in danger of so over-stepping the mark that even the phlegmatic British are starting to wake up to the way Israel is behaving.
The excuse of the anti-Jewish catastrophe in Europe, almost three quarters of a century ago, cannot continue to be used to justify failing to condemn what Israel is engaged in as a terrible State crime for fear of being called anti-Semite. In reality all those engaged in the Palestinian struggle are by definition Semites. Perhaps the conclusion might be that Semites should start talking to Semites. Like the Irish finally spoke to the Irish ...
ATB from George
Posted on: 04 June 2010 by Haim Ronen
quote:Originally posted by Sniper:
Israel as ever practising a total disproportionate response then whingeing about 'anti-semitism' when it is criticised.
Sniper,
I read the Israeli papers every day but somehow I missed the news of Israel accusing other nations of being anti-Semitic because of their criticism of the IDF's conduct in dealing with the recent aid convoy to Gaza. Perhaps you could be more specific and to the point?
The only two recent items which I came across that had an anti-Semitic flavor were the response of the Turkish ship when they were notified by the Israeli navy on its intention to board their ship ("Go back to Auschwitz"):
http://www.haaretz.com/news/di...o-auschwitz-1.294249
and an article about Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan who dared to praise the IDF's conduct. I guess that people assumed that since he is praising Israel he must also be Jewish:
http://www.haaretz.com/magazin...te-backlash-1.294143
As for defining what a disproportionate use of force is, I assumed that you discovered the magic formula while I am still wandering in the dark. I just took a quick glance at some recent Nato wars and perhaps you can help me apply your magic formula there.
Let's examine the 1999 Kosovo War. Nato's bombing campaign involved close to a 1,000 aircrafts flying over 38,000 combat missions in ten weeks. Yugoslavia claimed that Nato attacks caused between 1,200 and 5,700 casualties. Nato acknowledged killing at most 1,500 civilians (close to the combined amount of deaths in the recent Israeli campaigns in Lebanon and Gaza). Human Rights Watch counted a minimum of 488 civilian deaths (90 to 150 of them killed from cluster bomb use!!!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K..._War#Civilian_losses
I don't see much restrain, perhaps a war crime here and there. Remember we are talking about a Serb population which did no harm to any Nato member nation. I am just trying to imagine what Nato's response would have been if the darn Serbs would have launched 4000 rockets into London...
The civilian casualties in Afghanistan just for the year 2009 were 2400 deaths. How did you manage to kill so many innocent civilians?. Those guys do not even live in crowded refugee camps like the Palestinians do.
I will not even mention Iraq. The numbers of civilian casualties were so ugly and embarrassing that they were not counted.
So, Sniper, I do not think that I have to hide behind anti-Semitism or the Holocaust to explain IDF's actions. Like any other military, it is not perfect but it tries its best to defend its country.
Posted on: 04 June 2010 by fred simon
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
In reality all those engaged in the Palestinian struggle are by definition Semites. Perhaps the conclusion might be that Semites should start talking to Semites. Like the Irish finally spoke to the Irish ...
Quite right.
You say falafel, I say falafel
You say shalom, I say salaam
Falafel, falafel
Shalom, salaam
Let's blow the whole thing up!
Posted on: 04 June 2010 by Onthlam
quote:Originally posted by Haim Ronen:quote:Originally posted by Sniper:
Israel as ever practising a total disproportionate response then whingeing about 'anti-semitism' when it is criticised.
Sniper,
I read the Israeli papers every day but somehow I missed the news of Israel accusing other nations of being anti-Semitic because of their criticism of the IDF's conduct in dealing with the recent aid convoy to Gaza. Perhaps you could be more specific and to the point?
The only two recent items which I came across that had an anti-Semitic flavor were the response of the Turkish ship when they were notified by the Israeli navy on its intention to board their ship ("Go back to Auschwitz"):
http://www.haaretz.com/news/di...o-auschwitz-1.294249
and an article about Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan who dared to praise the IDF's conduct. I guess that people assumed that since he is praising Israel he must also be Jewish:
http://www.haaretz.com/magazin...te-backlash-1.294143
As for defining what a disproportionate use of force is, I assumed that you discovered the magic formula while I am still wandering in the dark. I just took a quick glance at some recent Nato wars and perhaps you can help me apply your magic formula there.
Let's examine the 1999 Kosovo War. Nato's bombing campaign involved close to a 1,000 aircrafts flying over 38,000 combat missions in ten weeks. Yugoslavia claimed that Nato attacks caused between 1,200 and 5,700 casualties. Nato acknowledged killing at most 1,500 civilians (close to the combined amount of deaths in the recent Israeli campaigns in Lebanon and Gaza). Human Rights Watch counted a minimum of 488 civilian deaths (90 to 150 of them killed from cluster bomb use!!!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K..._War#Civilian_losses
I don't see much restrain, perhaps a war crime here and there. Remember we are talking about a Serb population which did no harm to any Nato member nation. I am just trying to imagine what Nato's response would have been if the darn Serbs would have launched 4000 rockets into London...
The civilian casualties in Afghanistan just for the year 2009 were 2400 deaths. How did you manage to kill so many innocent civilians?. Those guys do not even live in crowded refugee camps like the Palestinians do.
I will not even mention Iraq. The numbers of civilian casualties were so ugly and embarrassing that they were not counted.
So, Sniper, I do not think that I have to hide behind anti-Semitism or the Holocaust to explain IDF's actions. Like any other military, it is not perfect but it tries its best to defend its country.
Haim-
It appears comments (from some) to be in the camp of, "I would rather be right than correct".
Way to much "non sequitur".
The USA is not going to turn on Israel.
The U.K. is not going to turn on Israel.
No matter what the armchair Generals speculate or wish.
I enjoyed your "Magic Formula"....
MN
Posted on: 05 June 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by Haim Ronen:
I wonder, Mike, what would have happened if a member of the crowd allowed to beat up the brave British commander would have instead slit his throat. Would you consider then the soldiers performance to be exceptional or negligent? If I told you that two people had to die at the scene, two British soldiers who had refused to use their arms or two attacking locals because the British soldiers used their arms to defend themselves, what would be your choice? I think that it is a no-brainer. I believe that the primary duty of any soldier (regardless of his mission) is to protect his own life and the lives of his team members.
That is exactly what happened on the Turkish vessel. Two Israeli soldiers were shot, three lost consciousness from severe beating and were being dragged away by passengers and one was thrown 30 feet onto a lower deck. The commandos had no choice but open fire to defend themselves and rescue their wounded team members.
Haim
Your example is the wrong way round, Israelies voluntarily boarded the ship, and crew members defended themselves. The boarding party then killed 9 or so.
The Warrior crew was static, became surrounded by a mob of some thousands and took a real pasting.
When petrol ran into the crew compartment it set fire to Sergeant George Long ( pictured below) the driver and the gunner.
Like I said, any other Army in the world would have just hosed the crowd with 7.62.
Posted on: 05 June 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by JAB:quote:Upon reflection; if I'd posted something intended to deflate the point of another only to find that in fact, my quoted source actually strongly supported his point of view, I'd try to weasel out in such a similar manner.
I see you are happy to dish out epithets but are sensitive at the possibility of receipt of the same.
The reason I will not engage further in debate with you is that you appear impervious to reason.
Wrong, and I would also appear to have a greater grasp of logic than someone who posts facts supposedly in support of their own argument when they are actually destroying it.
quote:Life is too short to waste time talking to fools.
Indeed.
Posted on: 05 June 2010 by Haim Ronen
quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Haim
Your example is the wrong way round, Israelies voluntarily boarded the ship, and crew members defended themselves. The boarding party then killed 9 or so.
The Warrior crew was static, became surrounded by a mob of some thousands and took a real pasting.
When petrol ran into the crew compartment it set fire to Sergeant George Long ( pictured below) the driver and the gunner.
Like I said, any other Army in the world would have just hosed the crowd with 7.62.
Mike,
Soldiers are given missions, they do not choose them. There is no difference if you are sent to be parked somewhere statically with your vehicle or dropped onto a ship's deck to inspect its cargo. The question is the judgement and the reaction of the soldiers when the unexpected happens.
I am glad to see you being so proud of the British military but you still did not answer my question: What would you think of these British soldiers if they would have let their commander be slaughtered by the mob?
Posted on: 06 June 2010 by Mike-B
It seems to me the people on "ship #6" were anti-Semitic activists. The "Go back to Auschwitz" retort proves that point. Judging by the preparations they went thru as seen in the released news video they were just looking for some form of confrontation just for the publicity - a legitimate weapon. I wonder what the aims of the other ships were ??? peaceful capitulation does not grab headlines in the eastern Med.
It has turned out to be a PR disaster for Israel in the wider world. Seems they went into this very unprepared.
I question the decision to board the ship while so far out in international waters & the suitability of the helicopters used, they were too small & not able to get numbers on the ship quick enough.
Gaza is a serious problem, it can be argued that both sides are as bad as each other, but the stated aim of the Hamas to obliterate Israel, the constant firing of missiles & the refusal to negotiate does make the Israeli position almost inevitable.
It has turned out to be a PR disaster for Israel in the wider world. Seems they went into this very unprepared.
I question the decision to board the ship while so far out in international waters & the suitability of the helicopters used, they were too small & not able to get numbers on the ship quick enough.
Gaza is a serious problem, it can be argued that both sides are as bad as each other, but the stated aim of the Hamas to obliterate Israel, the constant firing of missiles & the refusal to negotiate does make the Israeli position almost inevitable.
Posted on: 06 June 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by Haim Ronen:
I am glad to see you being so proud of the British military but you still did not answer my question: What would you think of these British soldiers if they would have let their commander be slaughtered by the mob?
Sorry, Haim; I missed the question.
During Offensive Operations there is always a risk of death. The IDF undertook an Offensive Op, civilians reacted to a boarding and the IDF killed a number. The Warrior was static, it was not taking part in Offensive - or what is now referred to as Kinetic - Ops. The *only* reason the mob did not actually kill the crew of the Warrior is that the lacked the means to do so. They came close, as you can see from the photo I attached above. AIUI the IDF shoot petrol bombers on sight ( and rightly so IMO.)
Commanders do get killed on Ops; the first casualty from 1st Battalion the Royal Gurkha Rifles when they deployed to Afghanistan a couple of years ago was actually a Major.
If the Warrior crew had allowed their commander to be slaughtered - by which I take it you mean killed by beating or stabbing, rather than gunshot, IED or petrol bomb then I'd view the section as probably failing in their duty. There is an inherent right of self defence - which is what you are aiming, I suspect - but the response *has* to be proportionate.
British Forces will call off an Operation if the risk of civilian deaths is too great.
Regards
Mike
Posted on: 06 June 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by Haim Ronen:
Mike,
There is no difference if you are sent to be parked somewhere statically with your vehicle or dropped onto a ship's deck to inspect its cargo. The question is the judgement and the reaction of the soldiers when the unexpected happens.
There is a very great difference, Haim.
Posted on: 06 June 2010 by Onthlam
Posted on: 06 June 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Reality via YouTube?
Like many, I don't click on such links; what do they purport to show, Marc?
I expect one shows the guys from 2 LI beating up an Iraqi. If it is this video, it usually fails to show that guy throwing hand grenades at the troops seconds before.
M
Like many, I don't click on such links; what do they purport to show, Marc?
I expect one shows the guys from 2 LI beating up an Iraqi. If it is this video, it usually fails to show that guy throwing hand grenades at the troops seconds before.
M
Posted on: 06 June 2010 by Paper Plane
What astounds me about Israeli governments is their arrogance in thinking they can do what the hell they like in the name of 'security' and to hell with anyone else. The impression they give is that their country is more important than anyone else in the world.
Nobody with any humanity would deny Israel's right to exist as a state/country but not at the expense of any other country.
Nonation is more important than any other, to think otherwise is not only delusional but also insanely egotistical.
steve
Nobody with any humanity would deny Israel's right to exist as a state/country but not at the expense of any other country.
Nonation is more important than any other, to think otherwise is not only delusional but also insanely egotistical.
steve
Posted on: 06 June 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
OK, I peeked...
IDF clips, it seems. One might suggest they might not be totally impartial.
IDF clips, it seems. One might suggest they might not be totally impartial.
Posted on: 06 June 2010 by JMB
The only pictures shown of what took place on the ships are those provided by the IDF. The IDF confiscated the cameras and phones of the people on the ships. If they had nothing to hide why do that?
Israel has said it will conduct an internal enquiry into the seizure of the ships and will not contribute to an international enquiry. I wonder why?
Israel has said it will conduct an internal enquiry into the seizure of the ships and will not contribute to an international enquiry. I wonder why?
Posted on: 06 June 2010 by fatcat
The nine victims
Cengiz Alquyz, 42
Four gunshot wounds: back of head, right side of face, back, left leg
Ibrahim Bilgen, 60
Four gunshot wounds: right chest, back, right hip, right temple
Cegdet Kiliclar, 38
One gunshot wound: middle of forehead
Furkan Dogan, 19
Five gunshot wounds: nose, back, back of head, left leg, left ankle
Sahri Yaldiz
Four gunshot wounds: left chest, left leg, right leg twice
Aliheyder Bengi, 39
Six gunshot wounds: left chest, belly, right arm, right leg, left hand twice
Cetin Topcuoglu, 54
Three gunshot wounds: back of head, left side, right belly
Cengiz Songur, 47
One gunshot wound: front of neck
Necdet Yildirim, 32
Two gunshot wounds: right shoulder, left back
Cengiz Alquyz, 42
Four gunshot wounds: back of head, right side of face, back, left leg
Ibrahim Bilgen, 60
Four gunshot wounds: right chest, back, right hip, right temple
Cegdet Kiliclar, 38
One gunshot wound: middle of forehead
Furkan Dogan, 19
Five gunshot wounds: nose, back, back of head, left leg, left ankle
Sahri Yaldiz
Four gunshot wounds: left chest, left leg, right leg twice
Aliheyder Bengi, 39
Six gunshot wounds: left chest, belly, right arm, right leg, left hand twice
Cetin Topcuoglu, 54
Three gunshot wounds: back of head, left side, right belly
Cengiz Songur, 47
One gunshot wound: front of neck
Necdet Yildirim, 32
Two gunshot wounds: right shoulder, left back
Posted on: 06 June 2010 by fama
Interesting item in HAARETZ
http://www.haaretz.com/news/di...tilla-probe-1.294536.
Israel Navy reserves officers: Allow external Gaza flotilla probe.
Officers denounce operation as 'military and diplomatic failure', slam government for placing blame on the activists.
"First and foremost, we protest the fact that responsibility for the
tragic results was immediately thrust onto the organizers of the flotilla," wrote the officers. "This demonstrates contempt for the responsibility that belongs principally to the hierarchy of commanders and those who approved the mission. This shows contempt for the values of professionalism, the purity of weapons and for human lives."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/di...tilla-probe-1.294536.
Israel Navy reserves officers: Allow external Gaza flotilla probe.
Officers denounce operation as 'military and diplomatic failure', slam government for placing blame on the activists.
"First and foremost, we protest the fact that responsibility for the
tragic results was immediately thrust onto the organizers of the flotilla," wrote the officers. "This demonstrates contempt for the responsibility that belongs principally to the hierarchy of commanders and those who approved the mission. This shows contempt for the values of professionalism, the purity of weapons and for human lives."
Posted on: 06 June 2010 by Peter Dinh
quote:Originally posted by fama:
Interesting item in HAARETZ
http://www.haaretz.com/news/di...tilla-probe-1.294536.
Israel Navy reserves officers: Allow external Gaza flotilla probe.
Officers denounce operation as 'military and diplomatic failure', slam government for placing blame on the activists.
"First and foremost, we protest the fact that responsibility for the
tragic results was immediately thrust onto the organizers of the flotilla," wrote the officers. "This demonstrates contempt for the responsibility that belongs principally to the hierarchy of commanders and those who approved the mission. This shows contempt for the values of professionalism, the purity of weapons and for human lives."
Yes, I totally and whole-heartedly agree with this view, this guy Benjamin Netanyahu and his administration is a disgrace to the Israeli people.