Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
UN finds Israeli raid on Flotilla unlawful
Options
Comments
-
BlaasForRafa wrote: »The people of Gaza are not Israeli citizens so theres no way it could be "starve its own citizens to death". Also Gaza may not be happyhappyfunland but the people are not starving. If you want to keep making that claim produce evidence of death by malnutrition due to the blockade.
It should also be noted that the people of Gaza were not made Egyptian citizens during its occupation by Egypt from 1948-1967
Israel does not recognise the Palestinian state, who do they belong to legally if they are not Israeli citizens? Part of being a state is having a duty to all the people who live within your borders, which Israel clearly wants to deny. And if you think having a million and a half people in an area the size of Gaza with hyper restricted imports isn't causing people to die you're mad. But that wouldn't be uncommon with the apologists in this thread.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Israel does not recognise the Palestinian state, who do they belong to legally if they are not Israeli citizens? Part of being a state is having a duty to all the people who live within your borders, which Israel clearly wants to deny. And if you think having a million and a half people in an area the size of Gaza with hyper restricted imports isn't causing people to die you're mad. But that wouldn't be uncommon with the apologists in this thread.
So you have no evidence I take it.0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »So you have no evidence I take it.
Your right how silly of me, Israel love to release official figures about Gaza don't they, its just wrong of me not to provide figures.0 -
Settled then, no evidence.0
-
Indeed.
There's a castle named after my Family in Sligo. Actually there are 6 around there and Mayo. I don't think I'd stand a chance of claiming land once owned by my ancestors.
So you propose the Israelis should clear off then and have no right to their own homeland?
You are obviously an expert, what is the answer?0 -
Advertisement
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »So you propose the Israelis should clear off then and have no right to their own homeland?
You are obviously an expert, what is the answer?
They should all come here, we'll be quids in after they've paid the entrance fee.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »So you propose the Israelis should clear off then and have no right to their own homeland?
If you truly believe that they have that right, why aren't you out trying to get back you piece of angle and/or saxon homeland?0 -
brianthebard wrote: »If you truly believe that they have that right, why aren't you out trying to get back you piece of angle and/or saxon homeland?
because the Angles have a homeland, its called England.
A bit like the Scots have Scotland and the Ires have Ireland:D0 -
Interesting report, so far the best factual timeline I've seen in the public domain thus far. Devote at least half an hour to reading it, it's not particularly short.
The people arguing away on here would probably do well to read it, on both sides, as there are some interesting conclusions.
Interestingly, the first group the Mission slaps down is the Security Council, for having come to a conclusion before bothering to review the evidence, and in doing so confirms Israel's claims of bias at the UN.
Primarily, it concludes that the primary grounds for declaring many of the Israeli actions unlawful was not so much the method, as the fact that it believed the blockade to be unlawful to begin with on the grounds that in its opinion, it was causing disproportionate suffering to the people of Gaza. It remains silent on its opinion on the blockade now that the Israelis have relaxed the prohibition list and proportions have changed and if such a boarding could be carried out again, though it does note that the easing has taken place. It is also to be noted that the Mission gives the flotilla a bit of a slap by concluding that it was not their primary objective to land the aid but instead to make a political scene. Doesn't affect the legality of the blockade per se, but does muddy the waters a little bit when it comes to the purpose of the blockade.
With regards to the International Waters bit, the report points out that the location affords no protection. It was purely a matter of 'was the blockade legitimate', not 'where was the ship'.
Initial attempts to board Mavi were made using solely less-lethal means, that attempt was repelled. Only then did the helicopter assault take place. It is to be noted that the report concludes that in the circumstances surrounding the fighting, the use of lethal force in the initial stages may have been justified. Only during the subsequent securing of the ship does the report state concerns over the levels of force used. Of note, the Report concludes that the correct course of action after the initial repelling for the Israelis to have taken would have been, in effect, to give up. This seems an unreasonable conclusion given the belief the Israelis would have had that they had a legitimate grounds for going on board.
The wide disparity of actions on the different ships is mentioned but unaddressed. On some, the Israelis came aboard firing less-lethal weapons from the get-go, and were generally unpleasant. On others, the Israelis quietly boarded, left the passengers un-handcuffed, and brought them food from the galley. There are several possible explanations for this, generally related to the mindset of both individual groups upon meeting, the report makes no attempt to analyse them. It would have been interesting for them to have done so.
The item of most concern to me isn't the boarding itself, it's the treatment of passengers after the ships had been secured, and particularly within Israel itself. Arguments over 'Was the boarding legal' are beyond the immediate concerns of the troops and passengers. Once the detention has been made, there are few legitimate excuses for the treatment apparently carried out. I would be most interested to see the results of the Turkel report to see what recommendations are made by the Israelis on such a thing.
NTM0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »because the Angles have a homeland, its called England.
A bit like the Scots have Scotland and the Ires have Ireland:D
Scots came from Ireland, are they entitled to take back the north?0 -
Advertisement
-
Can the Viking desendents take back Ireland? The Scandavanians seem to do a better job running their countries compared to our lot.:D0
-
brianthebard wrote: »Scots came from Ireland, are they entitled to take back the north?
I thought they already had it, at least it looked like it last time I was there.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »I thought they already had it, at least it looked like it last time I was there.
You're very flippant once your seemingly outraged pro-Israeli stance is challenged in any way aren't you?0 -
brianthebard wrote: »You're very flippant once your seemingly outraged pro-Israeli stance is challenged in any way aren't you?
woah, hang on there a second.
Pro Israeli because I believe they have a right to a homeland yes, but in no way pro how they are treating the people of Gaza. I'm pro Israel in that i believe they have a right to defend themselves, but very much anti the way they go about it in many cases.
I personally think they have a right to board these ships, but they should do it in proportion and from Manic's summary above it seems that in some cases this is the way it went.
It is a very very complex situation and quite often on these boards it is seen as simply Israel wrong, Hamas right.0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »So you have no evidence I take it.
There have been a number of reports by the UN clearly stating that those living (if that's the right word) in Gaza struggle in worse poverty than those in sub-Saharan Africa.
Enough said. :mad:0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »woah, hang on there a second.
Pro Israeli because I believe they have a right to a homeland yes
But when I put your homeland principle to the tiniest bit of scrutiny you fold, because you realise that of course Scots would have no right to take over Ireland simply because an old book said they were from Ireland. So in turn you realise just how poor an argument it is, and resort to being flippant.
Some questions;
Why do they have a right to a 'homeland', as opposed to the homes they had prior to 1917? Try not to godwin yourself here.
Why do they have a right to a country which did not exist 3000 years ago?
Why does that right come at a cost to the people who originally lived in that 'homeland' when the zionists arrived there?0 -
I am astounded at the hypocrisy from some posters here when I compare their posts here to those they make in threads about our own country and ulster in particular.0
-
brianthebard wrote: »But when I put your homeland principle to the tiniest bit of scrutiny you fold, because you realise that of course Scots would have no right to take over Ireland simply because an old book said they were from Ireland. So in turn you realise just how poor an argument it is, and resort to being flippant.
Some questions;
Why do they have a right to a 'homeland', as opposed to the homes they had prior to 1917? Try not to godwin yourself here.
Why do they have a right to a country which did not exist 3000 years ago?
Why does that right come at a cost to the people who originally lived in that 'homeland' when the zionists arrived there?
No, I was being flippant before that actually.
Are you suggesting that all the Israelis bugger off then? or just hand control of the country over to Hamas? are you saying that Zionism is wrong?
Why does it come at the expense of the locals who were already there? it shouldn't, the two should co-exist and when I went there before the second intifada it looked to me as though they were.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »
Why do they have a right to a 'homeland', as opposed to the homes they had prior to 1917? Try not to godwin yourself here.
Why do they have a right to a country which did not exist 3000 years ago?
Why does that right come at a cost to the people who originally lived in that 'homeland' when the zionists arrived there?
I lol at this stuff. How many white jewish europeans were there in the region 3,000 years ago?0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: ».............. or just hand control of the country over to Hamas? ...........It is a very very complex situation and quite often on these boards it is seen as simply Israel wrong, Hamas right.
I was unaware that (a) opposition to Israels policies equated to support of Hamas and (b) that Hamas was the sole, only and all-encompassing entity that represented the Palestinian people.Fratton Fred wrote: »because the Angles have a homeland, its called England.
No, the Angles made a home in England. Their place of origin was in Angeln, Germany, after which they were named.0 -
Advertisement
-
Manic Moran wrote: »Interesting report, so far the best factual timeline I've seen in the public domain thus far. Devote at least half an hour to reading it, it's not particularly short.
The people arguing away on here would probably do well to read it, on both sides, as there are some interesting conclusions.
Interestingly, the first group the Mission slaps down is the Security Council, for having come to a conclusion before bothering to review the evidence, and in doing so confirms Israel's claims of bias at the UN.
Primarily, it concludes that the primary grounds for declaring many of the Israeli actions unlawful was not so much the method, as the fact that it believed the blockade to be unlawful to begin with on the grounds that in its opinion, it was causing disproportionate suffering to the people of Gaza. It remains silent on its opinion on the blockade now that the Israelis have relaxed the prohibition list and proportions have changed and if such a boarding could be carried out again, though it does note that the easing has taken place. It is also to be noted that the Mission gives the flotilla a bit of a slap by concluding that it was not their primary objective to land the aid but instead to make a political scene. Doesn't affect the legality of the blockade per se, but does muddy the waters a little bit when it comes to the purpose of the blockade.
With regards to the International Waters bit, the report points out that the location affords no protection. It was purely a matter of 'was the blockade legitimate', not 'where was the ship'.
Initial attempts to board Mavi were made using solely less-lethal means, that attempt was repelled. Only then did the helicopter assault take place. It is to be noted that the report concludes that in the circumstances surrounding the fighting, the use of lethal force in the initial stages may have been justified. Only during the subsequent securing of the ship does the report state concerns over the levels of force used. Of note, the Report concludes that the correct course of action after the initial repelling for the Israelis to have taken would have been, in effect, to give up. This seems an unreasonable conclusion given the belief the Israelis would have had that they had a legitimate grounds for going on board.
The wide disparity of actions on the different ships is mentioned but unaddressed. On some, the Israelis came aboard firing less-lethal weapons from the get-go, and were generally unpleasant. On others, the Israelis quietly boarded, left the passengers un-handcuffed, and brought them food from the galley. There are several possible explanations for this, generally related to the mindset of both individual groups upon meeting, the report makes no attempt to analyse them. It would have been interesting for them to have done so.
The item of most concern to me isn't the boarding itself, it's the treatment of passengers after the ships had been secured, and particularly within Israel itself. Arguments over 'Was the boarding legal' are beyond the immediate concerns of the troops and passengers. Once the detention has been made, there are few legitimate excuses for the treatment apparently carried out. I would be most interested to see the results of the Turkel report to see what recommendations are made by the Israelis on such a thing.
NTM
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.0 -
I was unaware that (a) opposition to Israels policies equated to support of Hamas and (b) that Hamas was the sole, only and all-encompassing entity that represented the Palestinian people.
Me being flippant again I'm afraid.No, the Angles made a home in England. Their place of origin was in Angeln, Germany, after which they were named.
Dear god, you'll be telling me Saxons came from Saxony next.;)0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »So you propose the Israelis should clear off then and have no right to their own homeland?
You are obviously an expert, what is the answer?
Ahh, Fred. I'm sorry for pointing out the obvious. I know how much you dislike it when the actions of your beloved homeland are shown as the atrocities that they are. I'd pat you on the head, but I can't reach you from here.
Despite your condescending question, I will offer up a solution. It's not perfect, but I'm not really an expert. I tend to see things as they are, and work from that perspective.
We can criticise Israel and Palestine untl we are blue in the face, but nothing will change.
What needs to be done is for Israel to stop encroaching on Palestinian land, for Israel to stop prosecuting Palestinians for realy ridiculous things (remember the Palestinian imprisoned for rape because he pretended to be a Jew in order to score?), for Israel to stop saying that the land is their own because of the writings of a 5,000 year old book, for Israeli employers to stop discriminating against Palestinians just because of their religion.
Then you have the Palestinian hard-liners. They need to realise that the state of Israel is not going anywhere. They need to accept it because things are not going to change. They also need to stop discriminating on the basis of religion.
Basically both sides need a good kick in the bollix. Maybe two. Apparently it's less sensitive when you are circumcised.
Finally, British people need to understand that their predecessors are responsible for the situation here, and that they can't blame nazi Germany on everything. They need to see that the massive propaganda against nazi Germany only came about in the late 1930's, and that before that happened the French were their enemy and Germany was their ally (what with Betty II being of German descent and all).
You see, Fred, in spite of what you may have been indoctrinated to believe, your ancestors are responsible for most of the strife in Africa, Asia and the middle East.
The sun has set on the British empire and the chickens are coming home to roost.
You reap what you sow.
My English lodger can see this. Unfortunately most other British people can not.
You can try to excuse Israeli actions all you want, but all you are doing is excusing past British atrocities against innocent people. The IDF may be complete ****, but they were backed by past British governments in order to usurp land that is not their own.
I'm off now to reclaim O'Dowd castles in the North West. Wish me luck.
While the Irish government may be comepletely incompetent at times, at least they know that fables do not entitle someone to another person's land.
Balls. A leprechaun just bit me in the ankle. I'll have to wait until this heals before I go and claim the lands of my ancestors.0 -
There have been a number of reports by the UN clearly stating that those living (if that's the right word) in Gaza struggle in worse poverty than those in sub-Saharan Africa.
Enough said. :mad:
so STILL no evidence of deaths in Gaza from malnutrition due to the blockade.
Enough said indeed.0 -
Ahh, Fred. I'm sorry for pointing out the obvious. I know how much you dislike it when the actions of your beloved homeland are shown as the atrocities that they are. I'd pat you on the head, but I can't reach you from here.
Despite your condescending question, I will offer up a solution. It's not perfect, but I'm not really an expert. I tend to see things as they are, and work from that perspective.
We can criticise Israel and Palestine untl we are blue in the face, but nothing will change.
What needs to be done is for Israel to stop encroaching on Palestinian land, for Israel to stop prosecuting Palestinians for realy ridiculous things (remember the Palestinian imprisoned for rape because he pretended to be a Jew in order to score?), for Israel to stop saying that the land is their own because of the writings of a 5,000 year old book, for Israeli employers to stop discriminating against Palestinians just because of their religion.
Then you have the Palestinian hard-liners. They need to realise that the state of Israel is not going anywhere. They need to accept it because things are not going to change. They also need to stop discriminating on the basis of religion.
Basically both sides need a good kick in the bollix. Maybe two. Apparently it's less sensitive when you are circumcised.
when you write stuff like this, you make sense.Finally, British people need to understand that their predecessors are responsible for the situation here, and that they can't blame nazi Germany on everything. They need to see that the massive propaganda against nazi Germany only came about in the late 1930's, and that before that happened the French were their enemy and Germany was their ally (what with Betty II being of German descent and all).
You see, Fred, in spite of what you may have been indoctrinated to believe, your ancestors are responsible for most of the strife in Africa, Asia and the middle East.
The sun has set on the British empire and the chickens are coming home to roost.
You reap what you sow.
My English lodger can see this. Unfortunately most other British people can not.
You can try to excuse Israeli actions all you want, but all you are doing is excusing past British atrocities against innocent people. The IDF may be complete ****, but they were backed by past British governments in order to usurp land that is not their own.
I'm off now to reclaim O'Dowd castles in the North West. Wish me luck.
While the Irish government may be comepletely incompetent at times, at least they know that fables do not entitle someone to another person's land.
Balls. A leprechaun just bit me in the ankle. I'll have to wait until this heals before I go and claim the lands of my ancestors.
When you write stuff like this, you just come across as having a massive anti British chip on your shoulder.
Out of curiosity, why do you insist on bringing my nationality into pretty much every response you make to me, or is it that when you go off on one of your rants you start showing your true colours?
and wtf are you on about Germany for? the Balfour Declaration was in 1917, when Britain took what is now Syria, Jordan and Israel from the collapsing Ottoman Empire. Britain had decided then that they would support the Zionist cause, but it wasn't until 1947 that the UN resolution was put through, the same year Israel was formed.
that's the first world war by the way, the Nazis came along 15 years later.0 -
Yup, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's a shame that people have to resort to violence to get noticed but let's face it, Israel's government and most, but not all, of it's people aren't willing to give an inch. Yet they keep taking. Anyone here see the film 'Defamation'? It's by Jewish filmmaker Yoav Shamir. In it he explains how the Jewish organisation called the 'anti-defamation league' or ADL keep their people paranoid and afraid and refutes any criticism as 'anti-semitism'. It also shows a group of Israeli schoolkids on a trip to Europe, accompanied by 'bodyguards', and in particular their visit to Poland, where they are told to 'Keep your heads down' on the bus because 'Poles hate us Jews and they will throw stones and attack the bus if they see you'. This is followed by a visit to Auschwitz. Later in the hotel they are told to stay in their rooms for their own safety. They are constantly being reminded how people hate the Jews and not to talk to anyone. Watch the film. It will open your eyes to the tactics used not just by the Israeli's, but also the Jewish people in America.Hamas was born out of a situation similiar to how the IRA came into being over here, both terrorist organisations but both were made to do what little they could to protect their people.
I condone none of their actions but their original intent was to protect their people. The palistinian people have gone through what can only be likened to a holocaust or mass ethnic extermination, at the hands of holocaust survivors. If this were to happen to any group of people I'd imagine a similiar terrorist group would form, what has happened to the palistian people over the last 60 years has been horrendous. I've always been amazed that people subjected to a similiar situation would be so callous about doing it to someone else.
Don't forget, these are the kids that will later be conscripted into the Israeli Defense Force.0 -
-
I can see both sides.Fratton Fred wrote: »when you write stuff like this, you make sense.
I can see both sides.When you write stuff like this, you just come across as having a massive anti British chip on your shoulder.
You might not agree with my perspective here, but I'm just stating historical facts.
While I may not post in the History and Politics forums, I do read the posts there.Out of curiosity, why do you insist on bringing my nationality into pretty much every response you make to me, or is it that when you go off on one of your rants you start showing your true colours?
Your posts there are truly astounding in a really ignorant manner.
Once again, I see things as they are. You can spin history in your favour, but it never changes the facts.and wtf are you on about Germany for? the Balfour Declaration was in 1917, when Britain took what is now Syria, Jordan and Israel from the collapsing Ottoman Empire. Britain had decided then that they would support the Zionist cause, but it wasn't until 1947 that the UN resolution was put through, the same year Israel was formed.
that's the first world war by the way, the Nazis came along 15 years later.
Balfour was British. Balfour made headway for the creation of the state of Israel. Britain is responsible for the creation of the state of Israel, and by default, the current situation there.
1+1=2
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?0 -
I can see both sides.
I can see both sides.
You might not agree with my perspective here, but I'm just stating historical facts.
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.
no you don't, you see them exactly how you want to see them, that is all.While I may not post in the History and Politics forums, I do read the posts there.
Your posts there are truly astounding in a really ignorant manner.
Once again, I see things as they are. You can spin history in your favour, but it never changes the facts.
anyone who doesn't agree no doubt is written off as a West Brit, imperialist sympathyser.Balfour was British. Balfour made headway for the creation of the state of Israel. Britain is responsible for the creation of the state of Israel, and by default, the current situation there.
1+1=2
Again, that is a very simplistic way of putting it. Is james Connolly responsible for the Irish civil war?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?
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.
I would hug you, but you would probably think it is a deliberate act of violence from a nasty British imperialist.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement