UN finds Israeli raid on Flotilla unlawful

Johro · 23-09-2010 11:37pm

Terry wrote: »

Here's something you may not have been taught in school. The British empire was a travesty. It was a brutally oppressive regime which treated its subjects like scum. It was responsible for more slaughter than the nazis, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French and Italians combined.

Your empire is gone. You need to learn to live with that fact. England, Scotland, Wales and NI are just four EU countries. They no longer control the world (apart from a few barely inhabited islands in insignificant parst of the world).

Would you like a hug?

Again, I would agree, for the most part, with the first part of your post. I see no sense though in attacking a British person for the actions of his government and previous governments. If we all did that, we would just keep hating everyone forever.

Fratton Fred · 23-09-2010 11:41pm

Johro wrote: »

Again, I would agree, for the most part, with the first part of your post. I see no sense though in attacking a British person for the actions of his government and previous governments. If we all did that, we would just keep hating everyone forever.

yes, but if you blame everything on someone else, it makes you feel less conscious of your own short comings.

Whilst plenty of people disagree with my opinions, Terry is the only person who likes to keep bringing my nationality into the debate.

Johro · 23-09-2010 11:45pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yes, but if you blame everything on someone else, it makes you feel less conscious of your own short comings.

Whilst plenty of people disagree with my opinions, Terry is the only person who likes to keep bringing my nationality into the debate.

Sure looks like it.

Micky Dolenz · 23-09-2010 11:50pm

Terry, Fred, less of it please.

Kiss and make up or play elsewhere.

Back on topic please.

Star Bingo · 23-09-2010 11:53pm

cheeky monkey!

but sometimes frederick, i get the impression yer a jewish zionist! in judea!!

Johro · 23-09-2010 11:57pm

Star Bingo wrote: »

cheeky monkey!

but sometimes frederick, i get the impression yer a jewish zionist! in judea!!

There is that:D

Terry · 24-09-2010 12:01am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So you agree that israel has a right to exist, yes? good. Why are you arguing then, or are you just doing it for the sake of it.

I don't like that it exists, but to displace 5 millon people now would not be a good thing.
I accept that it exists. It should not have been put there in the first place, but it's there now and there is nothing that we can do about that.
Yes, we could exterminate the Jews, but that wouldn't really be nice. Mass slaughter is never a good thing. The children born into the state of Israel do not deserve to be punished for the sins of their fathers', or for the sins of the British government responsible for the displacement of the Palestinian people.

no you don't, you see them exactly how you want to see them, that is all.

No. I look at the facts
British politicians are responsible for the creation of the state of Israel. There is no denying of that fact.

anyone who doesn't agree no doubt is written off as a West Brit, imperialist sympathyser.

No. You are actually British.
I have never referred to anyone as a "West Brit".

Again, that is a very simplistic way of putting it. Is james Connolly responsible for the Irish civil war?

No. British imperialism is once again responsible for invading a country, taking land from people, and turning the people of a country against oneanother.

Well Terry, you really do love having a dig at the British don't you? but why are you raising it on this thread. you see, this is where you make yourself look a bit silly.That has nothing to do with the thread and is just a direct dig at myself. it is not responding to anything I have said and is just you venting your own personal prejudices.

Nope. Once again, I'm just pointing out facts.
The British empire was a brutal regime. You have shown time and again that you support the actions of your ancestors.
That's fair enough. You are entitled to your own opinion I disagree with it, but I would never deny you your chance to voice it.

Were I to make a direct dig at you, I'd call you a name. I have not done that, nor will I do that. As I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

What I will say is that I believe that your opinion has been skewed by your schooling. I may be wrong, but this is my belief.
You, like most British people, have been brought up to believe that the British empire was a good thing. The truth is that the British empire was just a brutal murderous regime operating under the guise of bringing civilisation to the world. It's similar to Dubya's plan for the middle East. Similar propaganda too.

Basically, I'm right and you are wrong.

I would hug you, but you would probably think it is a deliberate act of violence from a nasty British imperialist.

No, I wouldn't.
I know British people who can see past the propaganda and acknowledge the atrocities committed by their ancestors. I regularly hug them, but not for any political reasons.

Terry · 24-09-2010 12:07am

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Terry, Fred, less of it please.

Kiss and make up or play elsewhere.

Back on topic please.

Sorry. Just scrolled up and saw that.
I'd delete my post, but FF may have subscribed to the thread and received an e-mail of my post.
I'm done.

Johro · 24-09-2010 12:08am

Terry wrote: »

I don't like that it exists, but to displace 5 millon people now would not be a good thing.
I accept that it exists. It should not have been put there in the first place, but it's there now and there is nothing that we can do about that.

Now there's something we should all agree with.

Fratton Fred · 24-09-2010 12:20am

Terry wrote: »

I don't like that it exists, but to displace 5 millon people now would not be a good thing.
I accept that it exists. It should not have been put there in the first place, but it's there now and there is nothing that we can do about that.
Yes, we could exterminate the Jews, but that wouldn't really be nice. Mass slaughter is never a good thing. The children born into the state of Israel do not deserve to be punished for the sins of their fathers', or for the sins of the British government responsible for the displacement of the Palestinian people.

you should read up on the Mandate for Palestine and the Zionist movement. As has already been said, Jews were flooding into the region from the 19th century onwards. The Balfour declaration and the LoN mandate for palestine confirmed what was going on, but it wasn't a straight forward, there you go Mr Goldstein here's two hundred acres of land, you can **** off Mr Hussain.

there are Zionist organisations that are highly critical of the British management of the region because they tried to impose quotas to try and stem the flood of Jews coming into the region, they even interned thousands in Cyprus for a while.

To be honest, Israel probably would have happened if the British weren't there, if the ottoman Empire was still in existence or even if the French were given the Mandate for Palestine, not Britain.

Terry wrote: »

Nope. Once again, I'm just pointing out facts.
The British empire was a brutal regime. You have shown time and again that you support the actions of your ancestors.
That's fair enough. You are entitled to your own opinion I disagree with it, but I would never deny you your chance to voice it.

Were I to make a direct dig at you, I'd call you a name. I have not done that, nor will I do that. As I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

What I will say is that I believe that your opinion has been skewed by your schooling. I may be wrong, but this is my belief.
You, like most British people, have been brought up to believe that the British empire was a good thing. The truth is that the British empire was just a brutal murderous regime operating under the guise of bringing civilisation to the world. It's similar to Dubya's plan for the middle East. Similar propaganda too.

Basically, I'm right and you are wrong.

No, I wouldn't.
I know British people who can see past the propaganda and acknowledge the atrocities committed by their ancestors. I regularly hug them, but not for any political reasons.

And you are telling me this because??

I'm biased because my education was in England, whereas your Irish Catholic education was totally fair and balanced??

I have never once defended any atrocities carried out in the name of the empire, but I don't believe in over exaggerating them or politicising them.

i also think you need to get things into context of the times as well.

As you kow the numbers, maybe you could tell us how many people Britain killed globally compared to say the Portugese (By far the largest slave traders), or the Spanish (where did all the south Americans go?) or the French (1,500,000 people killed in the Algerian war of independence alone).

I guess you can't because the brothers probably only ever talked about nasty protestant England.

Maybe the truth is somewhere in between what we both think.

Maybe we are both right.

That is a hug by the way;)

Manic Moran · 24-09-2010 12:28am

ascanbe wrote: »

Really? What i've highlighted is of the 'most concern' to you?
That's awfully thoughtful of you and would almost make one believe you weren't completely biased about the whole thing; that's if one hadn't read the one-eyed nonsense in the previous paragraphs, regarding the reasons for the attack on the ship and the passengers detention.

Yes.

There are two issues at play, separate from each other. First is the political/strategic issue of 'should the convoy have been stopped', the second is the tactical/performance issue of 'how was it stopped'.

Once the troops were given the order to stop the convoy, be it in hindsight a legal one or not, accusations of misconduct must be viewed in their own context. As the situation escalated over time, the troops' actions need to be taken in account of the escalation. I disagree with the report's conclusion that a situation can de-escalate from 'Lethal force may have been justifiable' to 'Less than lethal force should be used' as quickly as they say it can.

Once the situation is secure, however, that de-escalation has happened. There are few extenuating circumstances which can apply. It goes from dynamic situation to pure unprofessionalism.

That's why it concerns me the most. Arging that 'They were too violent during the seizure' doesn't hold much weight with me: They're soldiers, in a hostile situation. Violence is what one would expect. I may engage an enemy in combat, I'll try to shoot him, stab him, blow him up, or burn him to a crisp, but as soon as the fighting has stopped, it is my job to treat him within certain parameters. That is also what is expected. One expectation was met. One expectation was not met. I am concerned by the 'not met'.

NTM

Terry · 24-09-2010 12:28am

See the warning above from the AH mod, Mickey Dolenz.
I'll see you in the next Israel thread.
Not really up for a ban from AH at the moment.

Wolfe Tone · 24-09-2010 12:31am

,

I'll try to shoot him, stab him, blow him up, or burn him to a crisp, but as soon as the fighting has stopped, it is my job to treat him within certain parameters. That is also what is expected. One expectation was met. One expectation was not met. I am concerned by the 'not met'.

Wow, how nice of you.

Ever think it might be better not to do that in the first place?

Oh wait, I forgot soldiers are sheep.

Wolfe Tone · 24-09-2010 12:31am

Terry wrote: »

See the warning above from the AH mod, Mickey Dolenz.
I'll see you in the next Israel thread.
Not really up for a ban from AH at the moment.

Same bat time same bat channel?

Johro · 24-09-2010 12:36am

Also, when you write 'Basically, I'm right and you're wrong.' , you're bound to piss people off.;)

Star Bingo · 24-09-2010 12:38am

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Same bat time same bat channel?

same batty caped caper crusade! ion lion zion

Rabidlamb · 24-09-2010 12:41am

Them damn Israelis, nasty buggers by all accounts.
Sailing through life as they do.

This is another one of these issues where you only have an opinion cause the media are there to report.
Good that we can feel abhorrent to all the injustice.

Good thing there's no eyes & ears in central Africa.
Lovely place that.

Johro · 24-09-2010 12:42am

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

,

Wow, how nice of you.

Ever think it might be better not to do that in the first place?

Oh wait, I forgot soldiers are sheep.

Jeez no. They're trained sheep.

Scram · 24-09-2010 12:54am

Shocking news the U.N makes a statement years* later when everyone knew the answer at the time.

****ing U.N is a joke..

*yeah yeah months

Doc · 24-09-2010 1:03am

I would like to point out that during the IDF's boarding of the ship at least two of the solders were captured and their weapons were confiscated. They were taken below and despite people from the ship already having been shot and killed they were protected from the angry friends of these people and eventually released back up on deck where they jumped overboard. The guns that had been taken from the Israelis which would have been far more effective wepons then the iron bars which were used were not used against the IDF.

The offer that the Isralies made was not that they would inspect the ship for controband goods and then allow it to enter Gaza it was that it would take the goods and diliver the aid itself.

My personal opinion is that they had no right to board the ship at all and that people on board had every right to try and repel what was essentially an illegal boarding and an act of piracy.

Untense · 24-09-2010 2:11am

Avaaz.org petitioned back in June for the UN to investigate the matter, got 500,000 signatures and the UN investigated.

Avaaz accept suggestions for new campaigns.
If you are outraged by the Flotilla attack, I suggest you request Avaaz organise a new petition. Maybe if they get multiple proposals for the same issue, they would be more likely to consider it.

I sent this:

Hi,

As you know, yesterday the UN Human Rights Council published their findings on the Flotilla raid, deeming the attack an illegal act, and re-iterating that the blockade is also illegal.

Israeli press is spouting their usual lies and distortions, claiming the UN Human rights report is biased, accusing the report of holding 'extremist' views, etc.

The UN report is not enough on its own. With public pressure, we could for once see breaches of international law being punished. I urge you to start a new petition to demand action is taken based on the findings of the UN report.

Regards,

Manic Moran · 24-09-2010 5:16am

Doc wrote: »

The offer that the Isralies made was not that they would inspect the ship for controband goods and then allow it to enter Gaza it was that it would take the goods and diliver the aid itself.

The report's view on that situation is as follows:

The Mission notes a certain tension between the political objectives of the flotilla and its humanitarian objectives. This comes to light the moment that the Israeli Government made offers to allow the humanitarian aid to be delivered via Israeli ports but under the supervision of a neutral organization. The Mission also notes that the Gaza Strip does not possess a deep sea port designed to receive the kind of cargo vessels included in the flotilla, raising practical logistical questions about the plan to deliver large quantities of aid by the route chosen.

Out of interest, what happened the cargo in the end anyway?

NTM

Zebra3 · 24-09-2010 9:42am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SbjAanvUqs

--Kaiser-- · 24-09-2010 9:43am

Doc wrote: »

My personal opinion is that they had no right to board the ship at all and that people on board had every right to try and repel what was essentially an illegal boarding and an act of piracy.

It's been established that the blockade is 'illegal' or 'unlawful' or whatever legal terms you want to use, but think about it this way, Hamas is a terrorist organisation (as recognised by UN and just about everyone else) who are in conflict with Israel. Israel have a blockade on Gaza for the express purpose of preventing weapons/bombs/etc reaching Gaza, and by extension Hamas. Illegal or not, I agree with it. (I am not pro-Israeli or pro-Palestine normally, just in this case).

The UN report states that the purpose of the flotilla was not to deliver aid (which Israel were happy to do, providing the could inspect the ships) but to cause a political scene. If they had co-operated with the Israeli soldiers in their piracy then they would still be alive this day.

Whether you agree with Israel and it's policies or not can anyone expect Israel to let ships transport God-knows-what to state run by a known terrorist organisation?

squod · 24-09-2010 9:46am

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

It's been established that the blockade is 'illegal' or 'unlawful' or whatever legal terms you want to use, but think about it this way, Hamas is a terrorist organisation (as recognised by UN and just about everyone else) who are in conflict with Israel. Israel have a blockade on Gaza for the express purpose of preventing weapons/bombs/etc reaching Gaza, and by extension Hamas. Illegal or not, I agree with it. (I am not pro-Israeli or pro-Palestine normally, just in this case).

The UN report states that the purpose of the flotilla was not to deliver aid (which Israel were happy to do, providing the could inspect the ships) but to cause a political scene. If they had co-operated with the Israeli soldiers in their piracy then they would still be alive this day.

Whether you agree with Israel and it's policies or not can anyone expect Israel to let ships transport God-knows-what to state run by a known terrorist organisation?

Jaysus. That's the worst defence of piracy, murder and kidnap I've read so far. Never become a barrister.

--Kaiser-- · 24-09-2010 9:53am

squod wrote: »

Jaysus. That's the worst defence of piracy, murder and kidnap I've read so far. Never become a barrister.

So you are quite happy to let ships freely supply a terrorist organisation with weapons?

irishconvert · 24-09-2010 9:55am

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

So you are quite happy to let ships freely supply a terrorist organisation with weapons?

If you are going to call Hamas are a terrorist organisation then please be fair and call Israel a terrorist state.

Gigiwagga · 24-09-2010 10:08am

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

So you are quite happy to let ships freely supply a terrorist organisation with weapons?

Just who's being terrorised over there exactly?, who's had their land and property stolen from them?, who's being forced to live in an ever decreasing area of land? by enormous military forces (US supported Israeli Forces) who kill with impunity.
Just because the US and their allies describe hamas and Palestinians in general as terrorists, doesn't make them terrorists, unless of course you agree with US/Israeli Foreign Policy, which is an other matter entirely.

I saw Michael McDowell on RTE the other night describing Michael Collins as the Greatest Irishman ever, a man who ordered the killing of plenty of people in his time, many of whom were civilians with different views to his own, yet McDowell would be quick to describe Palestinian or Iraqi insurgents as terrorists in a heartbeat, hypocrites are sad bastards.

KyussBishop · 24-09-2010 10:09am

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

It's been established that the blockade is 'illegal' or 'unlawful' or whatever legal terms you want to use, but think about it this way, Hamas is a terrorist organisation (as recognised by UN and just about everyone else) who are in conflict with Israel. Israel have a blockade on Gaza for the express purpose of preventing weapons/bombs/etc reaching Gaza, and by extension Hamas. Illegal or not, I agree with it. (I am not pro-Israeli or pro-Palestine normally, just in this case).

The UN report states that the purpose of the flotilla was not to deliver aid (which Israel were happy to do, providing the could inspect the ships) but to cause a political scene. If they had co-operated with the Israeli soldiers in their piracy then they would still be alive this day.

Whether you agree with Israel and it's policies or not can anyone expect Israel to let ships transport God-knows-what to state run by a known terrorist organisation?

Have you read up on the effects of the blockade? You should, it's quite inhumane, it's not as simple as there being a blockade against 'terrorists', it's against an entire population.

Here are some of the effects of the blockade:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Israeli_blockade#Effects_of_land_blockade_on_Gaza

Do you support collective punishment on the people of Gaza? If you support the blockade, you support that as well by extension.

squod · 24-09-2010 10:26am

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

So you are quite happy to let ships freely supply a terrorist organisation with weapons?

The pirates were trained soldiers who had weeks to prepare for this well publicised flotilla. If the non-lethal boarding didn't work they had options.

A stop what they're doing
B disable the boats navigation/rudder
C disable the boats propellor
D murder innocent civillians

These well trained and highly organised commandos went straight for option D. kaiser no ammount of reasoning will convince you I'm sure. Piracy, murder and kidnap are OK with you. Not OK with me.

UN finds Israeli raid on Flotilla unlawful

Comments