UN Report on Gaza Flotilla: Israel Shot First

[Iaculus]

Remember that business with the Israeli attack on that aid flotilla to Gaza a while back? We had a thread on it, if you forget.

Anyway, the UN has published its report, and, well... it looks like the 'they gunned down unarmed civilians' crowd had it right. Here's some choice quotes:

114. Just minutes after soldiers from the zodiac boats had made initial unsuccessful attempts to board, the first helicopter approached the ship at approximately 0430 hours, hovering above the top deck. At this point between 10 and 20 passengers were located in the central area of the top deck, although this number increased as other passengers learned of events on the top deck. The Israeli forces used smoke and stun grenades in an attempt to clear an area for the landing of soldiers. The first rope that was let down from the helicopter was taken by passengers and tied it to a part of the top deck and thereby rendered ineffective for the purpose of soldiers’ descent. A second rope was then let down from the helicopter and the first group of soldiers descended. The Mission does not find it plausible that soldiers were holding their weapons and firing as they descended on the rope. However, it has concluded that live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers.

116. A number of the passengers on the top deck fought with the soldiers using their fists, sticks, metal rods and knives.69 At least one of the soldiers was stabbed with a knife or other sharp object. Witnesses informed the Mission that their objective was to subdue and disarm the soldiers so that they could not harm anyone. The Mission is satisfied on the evidence that at least two passengers on the bridge deck also used handheld catapults to propel small projectiles at the helicopters. The Mission has found no evidence to suggest that any of the passengers used firearms or that any firearms were taken on board the ship. Despite requests, the Mission has not received any medical records or other substantiated information from the Israeli authorities regarding any firearm injuries sustained by soldiers participating in the raid. Doctors examined the three soldiers taken below decks and no firearm injuries were noted. Further, the Mission finds that the Israeli accounts so inconsistent and contradictory with regard to evidence of alleged firearms injuries to Israeli soldiers that it has to reject it.

118. Israeli soldiers continued shooting at passengers who had already been wounded, with live ammunition, soft baton charges (beanbags) and plastic bullets. Forensic analysis demonstrates that two of the passengers killed on the top deck received wounds compatible with being shot at close range while lying on the ground: Furkan Doðan received a bullet in the face and Ýbrahim Bilgen received a fatal wound from a soft baton round (beanbag) fired at such close proximity to his head that parts such as wadding penetrated his skull entered his brain. Furthermore, some of the wounded were subjected to further violence including being hit with the butt of a weapon, being kicked in the head, chest and back and being verbally abused. A number of the wounded passengers were handcuffed and then left unattended for some time before being dragged to the front of the deck by their arms or legs.

123. During the shootings on the bridge deck and as it became apparent that a large number of passengers had become injured, Bulent Yildirim, the President of IHH and one of principal organisers of the flotilla, removed his white shirt which was then used as a white flag to indicate a surrender. This does not appear to have had any effect and live firing continued on the ship.

Bets on whether there'll be any repercussions for this?

 

[SpecialKO]

Turkey is going to go ballistic.

 

[Krisken]

Turkey is going to go ballistic.

Literally?

 

[SpecialKO]

Hyperbole aside, I can't imagine them going that far.

That said, they're almost certainly going to go with the saber rattling, probably by sending part of their navy into the blockade zone.

 

[AshburnerX]

There's going to be a lot of posturing on Turkey's part, but the UN won't do anything because they CAN'T do anything.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Turkey will likely not do anything because they are pretty close allies with Israel. But, with Saddam Hussein out of the way, all bets are off.

 

[SpecialKO]

There's going to be a lot of posturing on Turkey's part, but the UN won't do anything because they CAN'T do anything.

While they may prefer it, Turkey doesn't actually need the UN to do anything; they're part of NATO, and they have a rather substantial military of their own.

Turkey will likely not do anything because they are pretty close allies with Israel. But, with Saddam Hussein out of the way, all bets are off.

They're not really close allies at the moment. It was in the aftermath of the 2008 Gaza War that Turkey began normalizing relations with Iran and Syria, and the flotilla incident prompted them to remove their ambassador from Israel. Their heads of state has a pisser of a public argument at the WEF last year.

 

[Eriol]

Do you have any links or information on who was on this commission (what countries they are from, credentials, etc), and a news story about such?

Also, being attacked with "metal rods and knives" (it's in your quote, though you didn't bold it) also seems not exactly like peaceful resistance.

 

[AshburnerX]

Also, being attacked with "metal rods and knives" (it's in your quote, though you didn't bold it) also seems not exactly like peaceful resistance.

They were being illegally boarded by people with guns. They'd have been lawfully allowed to shoot them, if they felt the need. Calling them out on self-defense is in poor taste too, especially since some of them were killed.

 

[SpecialKO]

Do you have any links or information on who was on this commission (what countries they are from, credentials, etc), and a news story about such?

The people heading the Mission were listed in the intro in the doc he linked.

Seven weeks later, on 23 July 2010, the President of the Human Rights Council appointed Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., retired Judge of the International Criminal Court and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, to be Chairman and to head the Mission. The other appointed members were Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone and Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

Also, being attacked with "metal rods and knives" (it's in your quote, though you didn't bold it) also seems not exactly like peaceful resistance.

What's your point? Going by the Mission statements, they were defending themselves against what they believed was an illegal boarding, which had already shot at them.

 

[Necronic]

Hm.

Take a moment and replace the concept of 'illegal boarding' with the concept of 'illegal blockade runner'. Which one it was is pretty much indefinitely in the air, and consider that Israel was working with the latter assumption. Going with that definition the story changes somewhat (but not entirely.) Seriously, remove yourself from your personal opinions and put yourself in the perspective of a military commander, in an armed conflict, with an illegal supply train going to 'the enemy'. You may not agree with that mindset, but for the thought experiment do it.

Shooting from the Helicopter onto the deck? They resisted boarding. There were an unknown quantity of them with unknown defensive capabilities. Live ammunition should not have been used in this case, but considering the situation I understand the use of force (just not live ammo)

Live fire on the ship? Not the best idea, but I can understand it. Yet again, you are dealing with an unkown quantity here, and there was a forcible resistance. They may not have had guns, but the possibility of an armed defensive force was real, and in the chaos on the boat during the opening moments using live fire when people are attacking you and may be bringing stronger weapons makes sense from a conservative military mindset.

People being shot at close range, while lying down? Very little excuse for this. With the live ammo it could have been that it was a stray bullet. With the beanbag there is no excuse.

Inconsistent reports? Inexcusable. The military should have given a single report and had it come out as honest as possible. This clearly was not the case.

Ignoring a surrender? One guy waves a white flag. Does that mean anything to the rest of the people resisting? Did he speak for all of them?


-----------

I'm playing devils advocate here, because, while I don't agree with what Israel did, I do see the sense behind some of it. Remember, this wasn't a police action, this was a military matter. If you've ever seen a policeman take down someone resisisting arrest it may seem like excessive force even when it isn't. When it comes to the military, this may have been an appropriate response to the resistance. People that run military road blockades in their cars don't get spikes put down and pulled out of their car, they are shot.

 

[Iaculus]

Bear in mind, though, that this was in international waters. Nothing the convoy had done at that point was illegal. It's like stabbing someone in the face in the middle of the street because you thought he was going to rob a bank in a couple of hours. Sure, maybe he was, but that's not going to help much with your murder charges.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Bear in mind, though, that this was in international waters. Nothing the convoy had done at that point was illegal. It's like stabbing someone in the face in the middle of the street because you thought he was going to rob a bank in a couple of hours. Sure, maybe he was, but that's not going to help much with your murder charges.

It would be more like, Batman punching the Riddler in the face after Batman solved the clue/riddle that the Riddler announced to the world, before the Riddler could commit his crime.

 

[Iaculus]

I think you underestimate how sacrosanct international waters are. No country has jurisdiction within them, meaning that an attack on a country's vessels within international waters is essentially an act of war or piracy.

 

[Norris]

Bear in mind, though, that this was in international waters. Nothing the convoy had done at that point was illegal. It's like stabbing someone in the face in the middle of the street because you thought he was going to rob a bank in a couple of hours. Sure, maybe he was, but that's not going to help much with your murder charges.

It would be more like, Batman punching the Riddler in the face after Batman solved the clue/riddle that the Riddler announced to the world, before the Riddler could commit his crime.[/QUOTE]

Nah, it is more like a woman macing a guy because she is worried he might rape her (its dark, he seems to be be following her, his hood is up, etc). It is entirely possible that the person is about to break the law, it might be proven later that the person was intending to break the law, but at the moment the "defender' acted, no crime had been committed. Likewise, the victim has every right to be wary but they are still out on a public street. You can't just go around proactively macing people because you have reason to suspect they try something. You either alert proper authorities, wait until they will try something, or a combo of the two.

I think I stumbled ass backwards into a decent analogy there.

 

[sixpackshaker]

The flotilla told the world that they would run the blockade, so it would be a macing when the man says "I am going to rape you long time."

 

[Iaculus]

Mind you, the blockade (which was denying humanitarian aid to Palestine) was itself of questionable legality, soo...

 

[SpecialKO]

The flotilla told the world that they would run the blockade, so it would be a macing when the man says "I am going to rape you long time."

Comparing the desire of people to run a blockade to deliver what they believe are needed goods for survival with a man threatening rape is a ridiculous comparison.

EDIT: I could just as easily take your sentence and say:

The flotilla told the world that they would run the blockade, so it would be a macing when the man says "I am going to use this public restroom even though the sign says, 'no coloreds'."

It's inaccurate and inflammatory either way.

 

[Espy]

This is all going to change when George Lucas puts out the special edition.

 

[SpecialKO]

There is no possible way that adding Jar Jar Binks to the background is going to make things better.

 

[Espy]

Well sure, but see, when he adds 8 death stars and 4 imperial cruisers and a billion storm troopers, well, you just wait.

 

[Iaculus]

Can't wait to see the new CGI tentacles on that Israeli representative, for sure.

 

[blotsfan]

Mind you, the blockade (which was denying humanitarian aid to Palestine) was itself of questionable legality, soo...

Just like the questionable legality of having people strap bombs to themselves, go into public areas, and blow themselves up.

 

[Iaculus]

This was a humanitarian aid flotilla, not a suicide bombers' convention. What's your point here?

 

[sixpackshaker]

The flotilla told the world that they would run the blockade, so it would be a macing when the man says "I am going to rape you long time."

Comparing the desire of people to run a blockade to deliver what they believe are needed goods for survival with a man threatening rape is a ridiculous comparison.

EDIT: I could just as easily take your sentence and say:

The flotilla told the world that they would run the blockade, so it would be a macing when the man says "I am going to use this public restroom even though the sign says, 'no coloreds'."

It's inaccurate and inflammatory either way.[/QUOTE]

The comparison is not mine, just setting out a more clear analogy.

They said they were bringing contraband to a war-zone. The guys with the bigger guns said, dock here and we will pay to bring the humanitarian aid to the civilians. The guys with the boats said no, we are going to run your blockade and there is nothing you can do to stop it...

inflammatory actions all around...

---------- Post added at 08:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 PM ----------

This was a humanitarian aid flotilla, not a suicide bombers' convention. What's your point here?

The flotilla was going to a suicide bomber's convention.

 

[AshburnerX]

[/COLOR]

This was a humanitarian aid flotilla, not a suicide bombers' convention. What's your point here?

The flotilla was going to a suicide bomber's convention.

No, they were going to the refugee camp next door to the Suicide Bomber's Convention. There's a distinct difference.

 

[blotsfan]

This was a humanitarian aid flotilla, not a suicide bombers' convention. What's your point here?

My point is that when you have to deal with people like that right next to your country, sometimes you can't take so many chances.

 

[SpecialKO]

This was a humanitarian aid flotilla, not a suicide bombers' convention. What's your point here?

My point is that when you have to deal with people like that right next to your country, sometimes you can't take so many chances.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, there's a reason why it's called international law.

 

[strawman]

If, for whatever reason, a country decides to do a blockade, then they will not let a ship pass without boarding it and inspecting it. If the ship doesn't allow the boarding peacefully, it will go down messily.

We can all sit here and argue armchair wars, but honestly there's no way any of us can truly comprehend all the issues swirling around this one incident, nevermind the war, nevermind the history of the Middle East.

It's fruitless to pretend to debate what's humane, whats appropriate force, what's ethical.

 

[@Li3n]

This is all going to change when George Lucas puts out the special edition.

This is the special edition... in the next edition they'll both fire at the same time, but the boat will miss.

---------- Post added at 09:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 AM ----------

It's fruitless to pretend to debate what's humane, whats appropriate force, what's ethical.

I'm sorry, but without that we might as well stop playing pretend at civilization and just murder each other over everything...

 

[strawman]

It's fruitless to pretend to debate what's humane, whats appropriate force, what's ethical.

I'm sorry, but without that we might as well stop playing pretend at civilization and just murder each other over everything...[/QUOTE]

I'm busy tonight. How's tomorrow looking for you?

 

[Iaculus]

(puts down knife).

Sorry, Stein, he's not going to be able to answer that.

Shall I get back to you?

 

[Necronic]

Well, like I said, the legallity of the issue will be up in the air perpetually, since it is based on the legallity of the occupation as a whole. No real point arguing that. But it is worth looking at the mindset each side would have. Israel would believe the blockade was legal, and its actions were based on that. The flotilla would believe the blockade was illegal, and act on that.

The only difference is that just thinking that the blockade is illegal is not enough reason to do what they did. They also had to have either thought that Israel would not respond with extreme force to someone trying to run their blockade, or they were attempting to bait this show of extreme force to make Israel look bad. The latter is simply too sinister to believe, so I'll assume that wasn't the case. The former, which seems to be the case, is simply stupid. Way I see it, Israel is definitely responsible for excessive force, but the people in charge of the flotilla made some incredibly poor choices about how to respond to the boarding attempts.

Warzone journalists understand this kind of reality very well. They may be non-combatants, they may not be supporting one side or another, and they may just be trying to improve the situation in a warzone by telling the full story, but they know better than to unnecessarily expose themselves wearing only the knowledge that what they are doing is noble.

The Flotilla Wears No Clothes.

-------------------

Anyways. A Suicide Bomber Convention? Does anyone else find that concept hilarious? Like, there's a bunch of booths set up of the different cells with all sorts of swag on it, like a pen with Bin Laden's head as the clicker. Or a USB Drive shaped like a bomb vest. There would seminars on stuff like "how to tell if your 72 virgins reall are virgins?" and there would be this dude going through a powerpoint up front, and the guys in the audience would be taking notes. One guy would look at his watch and sigh and walk out, saying 'I have a plane to catch'

Edit: For the main event there would be this motivational speaker run out on the stage, and start getting everyone excited and pumped up. He would use phrases like 'self-actualizing' and 'this is your life, sieze it!'. One of the booths would have a clown that would make balloon animals. The puppies were particularly cute.

 

[strawman]

Anyways. A Suicide Bomber Convention?

The trick to holding a good convention is getting people to come back for next year's...

 

[SpecialKO]

There would definitely have to be some organizational discounts. Not everyone has Osama's deep pockets.