UN report: Gaza blockade legal, Israel used excessive force

BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) -- A UN report on Israel's deadly raid against a Turkish aid ship bound for Gaza has found that the naval blockade was legal but commandos used excessive force in the May 2010 incident.

The New York Times, citing a leaked copy of the document to be released Friday, reported that it found Israel used "excessive and unreasonable force" after meeting "violent resistance" from some of the passengers.

Israel and Turkey have been in dispute over an apology for the May 31, 2010 raid in which nine Turkish activists were killed.

Former New Zealand prime minister Geoffrey Palmer led the UN-mandated investigation into the raid on the flotilla that was attempting to take aid to the Gaza Strip through an Israeli blockade.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=417172

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR and ETHAN BRONNER

Published: September 1, 2011





UNITED NATIONS — A long-awaited United Nations review of Israel’s raid on a Turkish-based flotilla in which nine passengers were killed has found that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is both legal and appropriate. But it said that the way Israeli forces boarded the vessels trying to break that blockade 15 months ago was excessive and unreasonable.


The report, expected to be released Friday, also found that when Israeli commandos boarded the main ship, they faced “organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers” and were therefore required to use force for their own protection. But the report called the force “excessive and unreasonable,” saying that the loss of life was unacceptable and that the Israeli military’s later treatment of passengers was abusive.

The 105-page report, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, was completed months ago. But its publication was delayed several times as Turkey and Israel sought to reconcile their deteriorating relationship and perhaps avoid making the report public. In reactions from both governments included in the report, as well as in interviews, each objected to its conclusions. Both said they believed that the report, which was intended to help mend relations, would instead make reconciliation harder.

Turkey is particularly upset by the conclusion that Israel’s naval blockade is in keeping with international law and that its forces have the right to stop Gaza-bound ships in international waters, which is what happened in the 2010 episode. That conclusion oversteps the mandate of the four-member panel appointed by the United Nations secretary general and is at odds with other United Nations decisions, Turkey argued.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html?_r=1&hp

''Israel, however, expressed some satisfaction.

“The bottom line is that the Israeli actions were legal,” a senior Israeli official told Reuters on condition of anonymity. “It says the naval blockade was legal under international law.”

It is also significant that the report confirmed Israel’s right to search ships in international waters, the official said. He said he hoped Israel and Turkey could put the flotilla incident behind them and rebuild their once-strong ties.''



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/un-panel-says-gaza-blockade-was-legal/article2150640/

Could it be because I'm old enought to remember what happened to the USS Liberty?

'Ten years after 9/11, anti-Semitic conspiracies 'still going strong'



http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/ten-years-after-9-11-anti-semitic-conspiracies-still-going-strong-1.381749

who maritime expertise is in the area of whaling

The IDF plans to take legal precautions to protect commandos from the navy’s Flotilla 13 and other senior officers from criminal lawsuits that could be filed against them following the publication of the Palmer Report.

While the report justified Israel’s decision to impose a sea blockade on the Gaza Strip, it harshly criticized the navy’s operation to stop the Gaza-bound flotilla, saying “the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the takeover of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable.”

A senior IDF officer said the report could potentially serve as the basis for criminal lawsuits against the commandos who boarded the ship as well as additional senior IDF officers, including commander of the navy V.-Adm. Eliezer Marom and the chief of General Staff at the time, Lt.- Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, for their role in the operation.

Both officers are already vulnerable to legal action due to their involvement in Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip two years ago.

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=236414

ha ha indeed

Is beyond me .

;)

but my post dealt with your haha

It's the party that elects the leader, which is different than the US, where the President is directly elected by the people. Palmer was the Deputy PM when David Lange resigned, so he became PM. It's a very similar situation to how Julia Gillard became PM here, and just like her, Palmer was seen as not being able to connect with the people and he was replaced to try to get Labour across the line in the next election. Thanks to him, NZ has a Bill of Rights, something we don't have...

That makes no sense at all.

We have this thing called the electoral college...it is not a direct vote for president or vice president. You can lose the popular vote and still be president/vice.

It should be an interesting read...

Turkey has decided to downgrade its diplomatic ties with Israel to the lowest possible level, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said on Friday, following Israel's continued refusal to apologize for a 2010 raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla.

The findings of a UN probe into Israel's deadly raid on a 2010 flotilla to Gaza known as the Palmer Commission Report, which were leaked to The New York Times Thursday, have further raised tensions between Israel and Turkey, and senior Foreign Ministry officials warned that Turkey could respond to the report's publication by expelling the Israeli ambassador and scaling back diplomatic relations.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Davutoglu announced the downscale of diplomatic relations with Jerusalem, saying the move was a direct response to Israel's refusal to apologize for the deaths of nine Turkish nationals in the May 2010 raid.

The implications of the downgrade are that the level of diplomatic representation in both countries will be scaled back from ambassador to first secretary. This means Israel's ambassador to Turkey, Gabby Levy, and his deputy, Ella Afek, will be expelled.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/turkey-expels-israel-envoy-after-gaza-flotilla-report-freezes-military-ties-1.382181

Relations with Arab nations isn't hot, and Turkey was an important military partner. Greece is the only other significant partner in the region and they are on the ropes.

The nation is going backwards, into religious extremism.

If Israel apologized for this, Turkey would continue with the provocations.

but I don't consider both nations heading backwards because of it. Not all Democracies in the world can try to be secular like the United States.

for at least a year, probably more.

And frankly, given that the Turks (Erdogan in particular) have been steadily conducting diplomatic attacks against Israel since early 2009 (albeit aided by a couple of subsequent major Israeli missteps), I doubt an apology would have done more than delay the inevitable while letting Erdogan crow on how he forced Israel to yield.

Tayyip Erdogan has been Turkey's PM since 2003 didn't seem a problem prior to OCL

that the trouble started when Israel didn't notify Turkey (which was mediating between Israel and the Palestinians at the time) of OCL in advance.

And I should note their behaviour went well beyond "criticism" - see, for example, Erdogan's very public snubbing of Peres (at Dabos, IIRC)

and Turkey had good reason to be angry with Israel for starting OCL while it was mediating between Israel and the Palestinians a move that could be seen as using Turkey as a Trojan Horse of sorts

Frankly, I wasn't peaying much attention to Erdogan's attitude v-s-a-vis Israel prior to OCL - and after that, he seemed to personally go out of his way to sabotage the Israel-Turkey relationship.

however my point was that Erdogan was 'all good' for 6 years until Turkey criticized Israel over OCL then we started him being referred to as an Islamist ect, guess Muslim allies better not criticize Israel

happened in January 2009, over a year before the flotilla incident. It was hardly the sole such incident prior to the flotilla either.

And frankly, there are customary ways that allies or even non-enemies criticise each other; Erdogan well exceeded those limits (as a satirical column put it, his speeches on the subject at that time could be characterized as "we wish nothing more than good relations with the babykilling Zionist pigs").

Also, regarding an earlier comment of yours, I fail to see how Turkey could be seen as a Trojan Horse in the matter of OCL. A Trojan Horse is soemthing you use as a carrier to senak an attack past an enemy's defenses; possibly what you meant was a distraction? But even then, it doesn't gell; Turkey was facilitating negotiations with the PA in the West Bank, while OCL was directed against Hamas in Gaza. I suppose there are those who would accuse the Turks nonetheless, but it strikes me that those who would do so are likely to be the ones who would accuse the Turks of collusion merely for being allies of Israel.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul has rejected claims that he refused to meet with his Israeli counterpart Shimon Peres in New York.

Ties have been strained since Israel attacked a Turkish aid flotilla trying to enter Gaza in May.

Gul insists a meeting was never discussed.

“As long as Israel fails to reflect on what happened and act on it, then it will not be possible for us to have such relations,” Gul said.

http://www.euronews.net/2010/09/21/turkish-president-rejects-peres-snub-claims/

what happened with Erdogan was a public verbal disagreement, and nothing more

as to my Trojan horse comment it was in answer to your comment which I will re-post

piResponse to Reply #24
31. Most analysts seem to agree

that the trouble started when Israel didn't notify Turkey (which was mediating between Israel and the Palestinians at the time) of OCL in advance.

And I should note their behaviour went well beyond "criticism" - see, for example, Erdogan's very public snubbing of Peres (at Dabos, IIRC)

you said Palestinians not Hamas however it makes little difference it could appear that Turkey kept up negotiations while Israel made attack plans, the question would be did Turkey know this was the case, the response from Turkey indicates Turkey did not this and quite possibly 'negotiations' were being used by Israel as a means of masking Israel's true intent, Turkey was correct in speaking out about this

that Davos wsn't a snub - I'd misremembered the details - but while I'm no diplomat, I suspect that publically calling a head of state a "killer" to his face is actually worse.

And as for the argument that ISrael was using negotiations to mask an intent to attack, may I remind you that OCL was triggered by an intensification of fire into Israel? You might as well argue that the Palestinians were using negotiations as a mask (and if you're going to reply that it was Hamas rather than the PA which made those attacks, I'll opint out you can't have it both ways.

. “Peres, you are older than me," Erdogan said. "Your voice comes out in a very high tone. And the high tone of your voice has to do with a guilty conscience. My voice, however, will not come out in the same tone.” He went on, “When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill."

http://davos2010.theatlantic.com/2010/01/showdown_at_davos_revisiting_the_turkey-israel_drama.php

now this sentence has been spun to Erdogan accusing Peres of being a killer or even a baby killer IMO Erdigan did neither, but it does suit the ProIsrael and/or anti-Muslim political set to play hurt victim here

as to Israels use of Turkey while it was playing a deadly assault on Gaza both Turkey and the PA have very good reason to be angry as they could appear to be complicit in Israels plans as to Israels reasons IDF generals had been planning an assault on Gaza even prior to the in increase in cross border fighting

"knows how to kill" and has a guilty concsience isn't kalling him a killer?

And of course the IDF had been planning how to conduct an attack - but actually carrying out those plans was contingent on an increase in Palestinian attacks.

I've only got through the first few pages so far...

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Palmer-Committee-Final-report.pdf

I don't know much about the use of deadly force in international law but in the US if you come at someone with a metal bar or knife the defender has a right to use deadly force.

Weighing in at a massive 105 pages, I'm sure it's explained in there...

The news media reported something different than this UN report!

Now Turkey is to blame? The people who were in those videos were IHH thugs supported by the Turkish government? Israel was right to board the ship in international waters?

But, but....

What's going on?

:sarcasm:

I'm probably wasting my breath asking, but have you even bothered reading the report?

And no, I didn't read the report. I just know of its main conclusions.

Seeing as how you haven't even read the report, there seems little point in referring to the report in this case...

Anyway, it's cutting into valuable time that could be used portraying Palestinians as raving antisemites!

and deflect my ignorance of the material.

You didn't want to answer it, that's fine with me, as no exchange involving you goes anywhere...

FWIW, if you misrepresent Palmer's main conclusions in your response then I'll let you know.

:)

no intellectual ground on which to stand without reading the report for yourself.

One does not need read the report to know what the conclusions were.

I'm kicking myself now for wasting my time reading it!

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=417172

This article sums up the conclusions to the report nicely. (the headline alone goes a far way)

The nice thing about reading articles in newspapers,is they tend to summarize reports and conclusions for average readers ,who do not want to read whole reports themselves.

Best though to read multiple articles from multiple sources.

I posted quite a few different articles in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x361898

I wanted to know what you think the conclusions are, and I'm glad to see you can handle reading simple articles now.

I've been waiting for you to say whether or not you agree with what was said in another article, so now you've mastered the art, maybe you could go back and try to read the other article?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x361776#361865

I think he makes a mistake blaming a whole society .

(some very evil bad eggs within a society, is not reflective of that society as a whole )

be way off base with his conclusion.

Not a difficult question for anyone who's interested in genuine discussion. Though I see actually reading the report isn't seen by you as a requirement to act as though yr knowledgeable about it...

btw, unlike you, I'm not in the habit of misrepresenting what's written in reports like this one.

And as I've already discussed that particular conclusion further downthread, I'm not repeating it for you.

Instead of lying about what I say or think, give answering that simple question you were asked many posts ago a try...

some people are just waiting around for some semantic gotcha moment.(that is the thrill)

Not being a mind-reader like some seem to think they are, I don't know what drives her...

Thanks for that substantial answer.

But the question was to Shira (that is why I adressed it to her)

That 'question' makes no sense if you'd put it to that other poster, and since you do tend to post things responding to other people by mistake, and seeing as it makes sense addressed to me, I'm glad you found my answer substantial and could comprehend what was written!

in of itself.

main conclusions are?

...and if it's helpful, if you misrepresent those main conclusions then I'll let you know.

:)

outside of reading a reporters article and parroting what they say. I would also point out, that by not reading the report, you have no intellectual grounds on which to let anyone know if they are misrepresenting the conclusions.

In my opinion, the main conclusion is lack of actual proof. Israel stated that they were met with physically hostile resistance, but the investigation concluded that although the resistance might have been hostile, it was not deadly. No weapons were found on the boat where the eight people were shot dead, some in the back. By stating that no weapons were found and no harm had come to the Israeli military, the UN none-the-less gave a free pass to Israel stating that the facts were inconclusive about who was and was not on board the ship - meaning that if those people posed a real threat.

;)

I said that here quite some time ago, glad to see it is being vindicated.

the current source, though there are older ones.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/02/us-israel-flotilla-gaza-idUSTRE65133D20100602 is a good layman's discussion.

Israel has done things by the book and carefully so. For example, once a vessel declares its intent to a run a blockade, they can indeed be intercepted in international waters.

the exact law, not some cover article that supports your belief.

158.
From a practical point of view, therefore, if difficulties arising from blockades are to be prevented in the future it is necessary to accept that international law does in certain limited circumstances allow for blockades to be imposed and enforced including by the use of force. It is important, however, that all relevant States act with prudence and caution with respect to the imposition and enforcement of a blockade. A blockade by definition has serious implications for the fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation and for those vessels that seek to enter the blockade zone. The consequences of breaching a blockade are clearly set out in international law, as reflected, for example, in paragraphs 10, 67, and 146 of the San Remo Manual. Once a blockade has been lawfully established, it needs to be understood that the blockading power can attack any vessel breaching the blockade if after prior warning the vessel intentionally and clearly refuses to stop or intentionally and clearly resists visit, search or capture. There is no right within those rules to breach a lawful blockade as a right of protest. Breaching a blockade is therefore a serious step involving the risk of death or injury.

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 Section II : Methods of Warfare (Section 93-108) has the details of blockades, though it was first recognized in the The 1909 Declaration Concerning the Laws of Naval War (the London Declaration).

Israel claims their actions do not fall under 102 others say it does. As long as their are rockets and shelling coming from Gaza, Israel has a strong case.

they don't.

from ships and then move them into areas where they can be used. As it is, Gaza has no port from which to move weapons to land.

Crates floated to shore as well. Been a while since it made the media. IDF naval patrols stopped a lot of that kind of thing

RHIBs would also work. As you know, military cargo does not have to be that large to be useful

systems would be kind of hard.

Grads purportedly were carted down the Ho Chi Minh trail at one point. They weigh between 130-150 lbs. 3m in length and there are man portable launchers for them.

In the meantime, I'm about 3/4 of the way through the report and I'm finding it's wording very cautious, and some of it a bit contradictory. There's so much repeated stressing of the fact that the report isn't making any sort of call when it comes to legalities, then jumps straight in and says that it thinks the blockade is legal under international law. And says that Gaza doesn't have significant port facilities for goods to reach Gaza, so the naval blockade is justified because goods for the population go by land. But the supposed reason for the blockade is to stop weapons from reaching Gaza, and seeing goods aren't shipped there anyway, that's not the way weapons would get in...

20. In ascertaining the facts surrounding the Israeli interception of the Gaza-bound
flotilla, the Mission gave particular weight to the direct evidence received from interviews
with eyewitnesses and crew, as well as the forensic evidence and interviews with
government officials. In light of the seizure of cameras, CCTV footage and digital media
storage devices and the subsequent disclosure of only a selected and minute quantity of it,
the Mission was obliged to treat with extreme caution the versions released by the Israeli
authorities where those versions did not coincide with the evidence of eyewitnesses who
appeared before it.


Why not turn over all the CCTV footage? Something in there that Israel didn't want the UN to see?

What seems very clear is that Israel wanted to keep a lid on the flow of information and make sure that their version was what the public ended up seeing...

Maybe you need to re-read the report a little.

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

Page 32:
Activists over of the Mavi Marmara began at 4.26 a.m. with an attempt to board from two speedboats.172 This failed because of violent resistance on the part of some of the flotilla participants.173 At 4.29 a.m. soldiers descended onto the roof of the vessel from a helicopter.174 Three “flash bang” stun grenades were thrown from the helicopter before and during the descent,175 but no shots were fired.176 The soldiers from the first helicopter were met with an extreme level of violence from a group of passengers on the vessel. They were shot at 177 and attacked with clubs, iron rods, slingshots and knives.178 Three soldiers were wounded and taken to the hold of the ship.179 At 4.36 a.m. soldiers began to descend from a second helicopter,180 and at 4.46 a.m. from a third helicopter.181 They partially secured the roof and lower decks restrained and handcuffed the passengers, and completed a take-over of the bridge.182 At 5.07 a.m. further soldiers boarded the vessel183

The violence against the soldiers was carried out in an organized manner by a group of passengers armed with weapons, including firearms.184 Suggestions that the passengers were acting in legitimate self-defence were not supported by the evidence.185 In response to the violent resistance faced, the soldiers resorted to shooting with less-lethal and lethal weapons.186 Nine soldiers were wounded in the course of the operation,187 including two who received bullet wounds.188 Nine passengers were killed,189 and approximately 55 were wounded.190 The Israeli Commission describes four of the deceased as “IHH activists or volunteers,” and four as “activists in other Turkish Islamic organizations.”191 The findings of external examinations carried out the bodies of the deceased were summarized as follows:1

snip

Page 57
124.
The Panel accepts, therefore, that soldiers landing from the first helicopter faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they descended onto the Mavi Marmara. Material before the Panel confirms that this group was armed with iron bars, staves, chains, and slingshots,388 and there is some indication that they also used knives.389 Firearms were taken from IDF personnel and passengers disabled at least one by removing the ammunition from it.390 Two soldiers received gunshot wounds.391 There is some reason to believe that they may have been shot by passengers,392 although the Panel is not able to conclusively establish how the gunshot wounds were caused. Nevertheless, seven other soldiers were wounded by passengers, some seriously.393

By US legal standards, there was more than enough to justify deadly force...on both sides.



Yes I have read the entire thing...

medical records to prove that soldiers were shot, or anything else that justifies the claim.

You could say that I hit you in the leg with a baseball bat and broke your leg, but without a sign of physical evidence proving so, you would have no case and be laughed at.

70 In his testimony to the Turkel Committee, held in Israel on 11 August 2010, Chief of General Staff
Ashkenazi refers to one soldier being “shot in his abdomen by one of the activists” and that “in the
course of the battle, five soldiers wounded by stabbings, blows and shooting”. However, at the
urgent debate of the Human Rights Council held during its fourteenth session, on 1 June 2010, the
Permanent Representative of Israel stated that passengers “shot two Israeli soldiers”. In contrast, in
the State’s response at the habeas corpus hearing, held on 2 June 2010 (petition HCJ 4913/10 before
the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, sitting as the High Court of Justice; unofficial translation), no
specific reference was made to any Israeli soldiers being shot.

124.
The Panel accepts, therefore, that soldiers landing from the first helicopter faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they descended onto the Mavi Marmara. Material before the Panel confirms that this group was armed with iron bars, staves, chains, and slingshots,388 and there is some indication that they also used knives.389 Firearms were taken from IDF personnel and passengers disabled at least one by removing the ammunition from it.390 Two soldiers received gunshot wounds.391 There is some reason to believe that they may have been shot by passengers,392 although the Panel is not able to conclusively establish how the gunshot wounds were caused. Nevertheless, seven other soldiers were wounded by passengers, some seriously.393

The 3 digit numbers are footnotes/references

Inconclusive as to by whom. Also acknowledges that passengers did attack and would IDF troops.

That is not what you asserted up thread

by Israel, and the authors of the report took them at face value. I have grave doubts that any IDF were shot, or if they were, then it was stray friendly fire. Hence the reason why Israel refused to release ALL the video and medical records.

The summation on page 57 seems about right for the situation.

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

It is not a particularly good piece of writing.

the concept of overpowering a group is overwhelming force-it creates a short violent period as opposed to a drawn out one, which usually has more casualties.....meaning if they have pipes and bats...one brings guns, if they have guns, then you bring machine guns and grenades...etc etc etc.

one does not overpower a group when there is a balance of power.

they had metal pipes and knives...so the commandos then have to bring in guns...it would be simply stupid and irresponsible of the IDF not to (the paint guns they carried was nothing more than a pc joke)

a real threat to IDF?

in your previous post your quoted the report:
A number of the passengers on the top deck fought with the soldiers using their fists,sticks, metal rods and knives

do I really have to point out that knives, metal rods in fact have the ability to kill, wound and other wise hurt people?... seriously is that what you are now claiming?

on second thought, yes if you believe that knives and metal rods cannot really hurt people, then i would agree with you, the weapons the IDF used was excessive..oh and the world really isn't flat, and in the middle east, knives can and do kill people.

should know better. I spent 8 years in the Army, six of which were on a SF team, and one thing you prepare for is taking out lightly armed individuals, which includes guns, without causing death.

What group were you in?

Did you complete Q?

Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course. And yes, I did complete it, but it did take me two attempts to pass. No one can be tabbed without passing SFAS.

They are not home much...

to meet its commitments.

there is a very large difference being the attacker in a relativly closed environment, then from starting from a very exposed position, while a mob awaits you, with the limitations of limited lighting, while you see the first commando under attack as he lands.....

i can only assume you'r training did not involve "violent crowd control".
____

btw you spent 8 yrs in the army and 6 on an SF team why then would you even make such a foolish claim that "knives" are not threatening?....perhaps start with that?

(and from one solider to another...i don't appreciate the BS..i get that enough from those who don't know and only think/believe they know)

non-lethal weapons that would have been much more effective.

sorry..you've never faced a crowd at zero feet, your "commando training isn't worth a whole lot at that point....and when the first commando 'goes down" is attacked as while still on the rope.....your "number 2" is going start shooting paint balls?

so lets hear some of the non lethal tools that could have been used to stop the knives and metal pipes from the crowd.....

or maybe the israeli commandos simply are't that well trained...always a possibility

tear gas on an open moving boat in an ocean...the gas wouldn't last more than 1 second before it was gone....clearly your training did not include attacks from crowds, that is obvious. (i said don't try bullshitting me)

i don't know if the IDF has RGES. The navy did receive sharp criticism in israel for poor planning, poor intelligence that would relate to the way the ship was boarded and with what equipment was used, however once they did board and were attacked, the use of overwhelming force is justified.

is that not lesson no 1 in commando school?
lesson no 2, when commando one goes down, you do what you can to save his ass

do you really need lesson 3 and 4?

spray it like a barn stormer spraying a field crop. If you spray enough of it, it seeps into your clothes and causes irritation.

IDF could of sent wave after wave of helicopters and planes loaded with the stuff and sprayed the whole flotilla.

CS gas is a real mother and capable of being made in several strengths. Spray it long enough and people would be jumping overboard trying to wash it out of their skin.

in the first place. But that would let the dog-and-pony show go on, and that might explain what the hurry to "take it over" was about.

so explain how that exactly works?

we've got 500,000 protestors all around israel pressuring the govt. The protestors include arabs, druze, religious and non , farmers, hi tech nerds, all sitting under the same tents talking to each other, working out realistic agendas, devising ways of keeping to the economic agenda.

The govt thought they would go away...but they didn't, nor are they expecting immediate change, but are expecting real change.....its something to be proud of.

There was some news about that here for a while, but I have not seen much for a while, so I am glad to hear they are hanging in there.

perimeter where the flotilla would have been forced to ram the Israelis.

Even the US at its prime did not have enough tonnage to do that.

kennedy threatened nuclear war..plus it was USSR navy vs US navy

are we getting back to the flat earth arguments?

.....more drowning people, perhaps trapped in the damaged boats while they sink

These were not warcraft, not fast, not professional, you would wait, and talk, and put something larger in the way, lots of games can be played. You can hole the boats and send somebody around to pick the castaways up. Meantime nobody is dead yet and you look like the adults in charge.

at night in the middle in the med......how many would die by drowning? by allergies?. (or just put on raincoats? )

more so it was just one boat that resisted, none of the others did....at any rate you have now strayed from your original point, that the commandos who did land on the boat basically had nothing to fear from those knives and metal pipes from the crowds that surrounded them as they landed and shot people needlessly

that i believe is your original claim...still stand by it?

that they couldn't have attempted a tear gas cloud in broad daylight with boats and medics standing by to take on people who might have jumped. And to be honest, I was using the jumped overboard thing as a drastic step as to how different mixtures of CS can be set to strength.

the same tactics were used on 6 boats...only on one were the commandos attacked

why? (I'm assuming you know since you seem to have knowledge that i don't)

that commandos weren't attacked on the other boats, maybe they just had a better way of dealing with it.

Justify it all you want, but there is no reason for 8 dead civilians on a humanitarian effort.

to determine that they was indeed just humanitarian cargo. That would have placed the IDF behind the 8-ball under the LOS.

Now we have Turkey saber rattling...and they may be dumb enough to go through with it.

basically you have 8 dead people that were the result of attacking commandos. They attacked with knives and pipes as per the report and as a result some were killed. Your argument started that knives and pipes aren't lethal (at least not to commandos) a rather silly argument.

you then moved on to "well they should have used different tactics"...something that was not relevant to being attacked and defending themselves using standard tactics

then you went for the: they really didnt mean to attack, it was something the commandos did that caused it. ...except that on the other boats they also boarded and were not attacked.

____

so your back to the: 8 people are dead and since they were humanitarians, it must be the commandos fault.

i think thats a good summary.

guns to face humanitarian relief workers that had at best a knife and pipes to defend themselves with.

Again, there are many non-lethal weapons that could have been deployed. ATM, RGES and tear gas could have worked just fine. IDF overplayed their hand shot 8 crew members, some of them they shot in the back. Not sure how someone with their back turned to you is a real threat.

The argument has been made that disproportionate force was used to stop the flotilla, but the members also resisted. Given that the UN has upheld the legality of the blockade, the onus for the violence also falls on the organizers and passengers.

from IDF members. The report holds the right to still prosecute IDF commandos who may have acted by using disproportionate force. At worst, someone could still go to jail, at best it makes the IDF look incompetent.

The IDF afterward clearly did not do what it should have either.

and that - because of the poor tactics used - they were most successful.

that is what they had as their primary weapon....which they quickly discovered doesnt work very well against humanitarian workers welding knives (its plural) and pipes (also plural).

the lesson here, is that its really really a bad idea to attack commandos, no matter how much of a humanitarian your supposed to be.......it will end badly for the attackers and its a stupid idea.

non-lethal weapons that could have, and should have, been deployed. Whoever chose paintball guns as a primary weapon should be fired right after the guy who told them they should take small arms with them.

so now your complaining that the IDF didn't choose the right non -lethal weapons? Seems to me, the IDF actually met your criteria of non lethal weapons (and what kind of stupidity/ irresponsibility would it be to send in commandos on to a potentially hostile ship with just non lethal weapons with a real possibility of them being over powered with people holding knives and metal poles?

just as the paint ball non lethal weapons were useless its equally possible that your suggestion of tear gas on a moving boat in the middle of the sea would have been useless.

face it, the idf started off with non lethal, got themselves clubbed and stabbed, pulled out their secondary weapons after their initial beatings (from non lethal knives and metal poles) and saved their own lives (having mistaken getting stabbed and beaten as being life threatening) by killing them and getting control of the situation.
____

you just don't like the outcome as your "knife welding humanitarians" made the stupid mistake of resisting. Guess you forgot your training, when your life and the guys in your units lives are threatened, the rules change......perhaps remind them next time they try the same stunt, it too will end badly for them again and again and again......

It's just that it says:

117. Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great
distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the
boarding was excessive and unreasonable:
a. Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance. In
particular, clear prior warning that the vessels were to be boarded and a
demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the type
of confrontation that occurred;
b. The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to the
initial boarding attempt became apparent so as to minimize casualties.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Palmer-Committee-Final-report.pdf

and this:

'At least one of those killed, Furkan Doğan, was shot at extremely close
range. Mr. Doğan sustained wounds to the face, back of the skull, back and
left leg. That suggests he may already have been lying wounded when the
fatal shot was delivered, as suggested by witness accounts to that effect.'

I've seen how the Australian Navy intercepts and boards vessels that are illegally fishing in our waters, and don't for a moment think that there's little likelihood of violent resistance in those cases, as the crew are facing imprisonment, loss of their livelihood, massive fines, and the destruction of their vessels. What the Navy does is give clear instructions (Israel did, but didn't attempt to communicate prior to the boarding), if it doesn't comply, then they do things like fire warning shots directly in the path of the vessel. Israel didn't do that, and that's why the report criticises it for going straight from zero to the use of deadly force.

i find the politics involved a bit too much for my tastes to believe in anything they write. I'm not disowning them out out of principle, I believe societies require such bodies to give us a framework of rules to live by. Its also easy enough to run to a different "body" to find the exact opposite findings (in this example as turkey is doing), hence their findings are too political for my tastes.

As far as second guessing the commandos in the middle of violent confrontation with many people where they believe their lives were at stake, where they have to make split second decisions on a rolling boat at night, where at least one has already been hurt.....no way am i going to go there and judge their reactions, and there is no way i would even bother reading a non military assessment of their actions, let alone from some political body.

and this sentence could only have been written by a lawyer/politician with an agenda.
The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to the initial boarding attempt became apparent so as to minimize casualties.

to explain: when a group of soldiers encounter a threatening crowd and one of their members goes down (as did the first commando upon landing), the situation is immediately reassessed, priorities change to getting back that soldier (s). The lawyer/politician is hinting that it would have been better for the idf to back off......and to have the soldier (s) become potentially hostages, perhaps handed over to hamas etc..the various scenarios would not be good for us, nor the soldiers (most israeli soldiers captured by the various groups do not come home alive). The situation was in fact, reassessed, as the guns came out, minimizing casualties was no longer top priority, getting the soldiers back alive was and that meant taking over the ship quickly to find them. This in fact is a very standard "reassessment procedure" for that type of operation.

As far as comparing to the Australian Navy, you can do that if you believe this was no more than humanitarians who just wanted to help the Palestinians. Whereas on all of the other boats that were boarded, it was probably true, and no harm came to anyone..... And the simple "daylight capture" was used by the IDF when a single boat the Dignite came afterward. However, since military intelligence is not always correct, hamas was involved in the boats, it was reasonable to assume that violence my in fact be waiting for any boarding party, as per the hamas method (suicide boat?)...that rules out walking on a boat in the middle of the day (being a sitting duck for an ambush is not a smart thing to do), hence the surprise assult. (a firefight aboard a vessel in the middle of the day with plenty of civilians would have caused many many many more deaths.....i don't think the Australian navy has to worry about that scenario...but we do, hence the different method.

i realize you have a great amount of confidence in what the intl bodies put out....I don't. The goldstone report is a good example of how political they are, he puts out a report and then has some sort of political recant of his own report (or part of it, i don't really bother reading between the lines).

I just stick to what i know about, from my own limited experiences and extrapolate from there, it is limited, but at least i feel comfortable and confident in what i write.

I'm guessing that's happened because it's brief wasn't to assign blame, but to make recommendations so nothing like that would happen again. I found it useful because it laid out events in a clear way and pointed out the areas where there was conflicting versions of events coming from Israel and Turkey.

The point is that a situation where one or three soldiers boarding a ship like that should never have happened. If Israel was expecting hostile resistance, they should have prepared for that. They didn't, and in doing so put the soldiers and the passengers at risk. Instead they killed a 19 year old while he was lying wounded and shot another man holding a fire hose between the eyes. That's totally unacceptable. And how would a firefight happen seeing as how we're not looking at a situation where there's two heavily armed sides? The IDF were the ones doing the firing.

"Instead they killed a 19 year old while he was lying wounded and shot another man holding a fire hose between the eyes. That's totally unacceptable. "

You don't have any proof that happened other than alleged eyewitness accounts that are in no way credible. Those same eyewitnesses claimed the IDF was shooting before they dropped men down on the ship. Those same "peace activists" have never once condemned the IHH pro-Hamas rightwing warmongering antisemitic thugs who deliberately set out to attack the IDF well before the raid.

You may hate everything the IDF and Israel stands for but don't make up bullshit you have no proof of and try to slip it in as if it's actual fact.

Maybe if you bothered reading the report, you'd be armed with a bit more than knee-jerk outrage and personal opinion presented as *fact*

Here's what the report had to say:

The Turkish Commission described the killing as: 'Furkan Doğan received five gunshot wounds in the back of his head, nose, left leg, left ankle and in the back, all from close range. A citizen of the United States, Mr. Doğan was a 19-year-old high school student with ambitions of becoming a medical doctor. Mr. Doğan’s motionless, wounded body was kicked and shot upon, execution-style by two Israeli soldiers.'

The Israeli Commission described his wounds as (and note that as they didn't name the victims, but called them 'Victim 1' etc, I'm guessing this was Furkan Dogan given the wounds he received: 'Bullet wounds in the area of the right temple/back of neck, bullet wound in the left nipple, bullet wound in the area of the scalp-forehead on the left side, bullet wound on the face (nose), bullet wound on the left torso, bullet wound on the right side of the back, two bullet wounds in the left thigh, two bullet wounds as a result of the bullet passing through toes four and five on the left foot.'

And here's what the Panel say: 'At least one of those killed, Furkan Doğan, was shot at extremely close range.427 Mr. Doğan sustained wounds to the face, back of the skull, back and left leg. That suggests he may already have been lying wounded when the fatal shot was delivered, as suggested by witness accounts to that effect.428

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Palmer-Committee-Final-report.pdf

Y'know, when someone tells me eyewitnesses to an event aren't credible, I tend to reconsider when the person telling me that has some credibility. In this case, there's no need to reconsider for even a split second, and I'll stand by what I'm reading in the report...

You may hate everything the IDF and Israel stands for but don't make up bullshit you have no proof of and try to slip it in as if it's actual fact.

I wish you'd stop making false accusations about my views. I don't hate everything the IDF and Israel stand for, know the difference between facts and opinions, and wish you'd leave the abusiveness at the door when you check in. It gets very irksome to see you constantly misrepresent my views...

You believe that too?

Obviously not, so here it is again.

Y'know, when someone tells me eyewitnesses to an event aren't credible, I tend to reconsider when the person telling me that has some credibility. In this case, there's no need to reconsider for even a split second, and I'll stand by what I'm reading in the report...

I'm not sure how that was read as an invitation to fire off questions about eyewitnesses.

...before sending special forces down on ropes armed with paintguns. The Palmer commission lends no credence to those idiotic reports, only stating it's likely the IDF started firing from choppers AFTER its special forces were attacked.



It's not surprising you believe that crap considering your acceptance of the PA's conspiracy theory WRT recognizing Jews as a people. You'll go along with just about anything anti-Israel.

How'd those eyewitness accounts work out WRT the Jenin massacre, Goldstone, etc.?

What I said to you, as well as not being an invitation to fire off a question that you promptly answer on my 'behalf' in yr next reply, wasn't an invitation to make up utter bullshit about my views...

I do NOT think Israel is evil, and am sick and tired of you telling me I think it is.

on edit: for anyone reading, Shira edited out the last line of her post where she accused me of thinking Israel is evil...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How many times do I have to tell you that I don't think Israel is evil and I don't hate it before you'll stop misrepresenting my views?

I've made it abundantly clear that I've got zero interest in what you think about eyewitness credibility, so instead of ignoring what I say and continuing to hold a one-way conversation with yrself, how about you take notice and go annoy someone else?

...for singing songs invoking the killing of Jews, like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk

Why are these eyewitnesses people you trust without reservation?

Same goes for the PA and all their vile hatred of Jews throughout their media, but you accept their insanely batshit explanation for not recognizing a Jewish people. As someone who is anti-racist, why doesn't the PA's outrageous Jew hatred greatly bother you?

Or the BDS movement's antisemitism, why doesn't that bother you?

===================

What's the deal with ignoring all this hatred and making common cause with extremely bigoted political movements?

Y'know, it looks kind of stupid sitting there firing off 'questions' at me the way you are while totally ignoring anything that I've said. Here's an idea. Why don't you start yr own thread where you can sit and talk to yrself, lie to yr heart's content about what other DUers believe, and let the rest of us who are here for genuine discussion get on with it?

by the the military itself...but that is in the planning aspect, not the operational aspect.

in any an all "post action reports one of them most interesting aspects of all, is the contrasting reports...people do not see the same things even though it is the very same event. So again i have no idea if a person holding a fire hose at night, looks like a fire hose or looks like RPG at night...with limited lighting. We once did an experiment, had a soldier go out in the field with an anti tank weapon and a camera with a photo lense. Guess what? we couldn't tell the difference. Hence who they shot and why...i have no idea, nor does anyone else other than the actual soldiers.

Its simply foolish to attack commandos during an operation and somehow expect perfect results from them, whatever your version of "perfect results are." People under attack no matter how well trained are making judgement calls in less then seconds under very stressful circumstances, your simply not going to get 100% perfection.


As far as hostile resistance, the commandos were not expecting it, that is why they boarded with paint guns....they carried handguns as a precaution in case the Intelligence was wrong, which it was on one boat, and given the initial attacks upon them, they were right to pull them out.

As far as a potential firefight....was the potential there for smuggle weapons? of course, just as they had knives (a pistol is not much bigger than a knife). Military Intelligence could have been wrong here again...its not a matter of "two heavily armed sides" it a matter of the people on the boat attacking the commandos even with a single gun...thats a game changer as soon as that happens the tactics change as no one know how many additional guns were smuggled on (if any)....the unknowns start piling up as do the potential scenarios.

The point is: the concept of non violence western humanitarians was simply destroyed here. Having "humanitarians" attack security forces is not just a stupid and suicidal thing to do, but it destroys the concept of "humanitarians. as being non violent...and that is far worse than the actual incident.

especially without armor...BTDT

let me get this straight, your first claim is that the IDF should have started with non lethal means... and when i point out that they landed with their primary weapon being a paint ball gun, which shoots paintballs. (i.e. it is a weapon and non lethal), in order to back up your claim, you've decided that a paintball gun is not a gun and therefore doesn't count.

do you really expect any intelligent, thinking human being to take that seriously?
_________

i think you started backward: 8 dead by the IDF means they are guilty, irreguardless of the circumstances, then you start walking backwards attempting to find the reasons why they must be guilty. (and your not doing a very good job, especially with this last claim....)

Perhaps you might start with the question of why would humanitarians attack, as they landed on the ship, the commandos in the first place?

They were on an open deck.

Tear gas was used, but the wind blew it away almost as fast as it was applied.

they actually tried using tear gas on an open deck on the ocean?......(did they miss intifada I when tear gas was blown back in the faces of many foolish IDF units when the wind was blowing the "wrong way?)

that they used it before the soldiers were deployed from the helicopters; I assume someone thought it was at least worth a try.

so they can counter the claim, that they should have used tear gas first......as per the posts here. I assume there was a few smirks in the helicopter as the gas "blew away"

knife to a gunfight because I will pop some caps in his ass.

Metal rods and knives are life threatening to anyone. Maybe if it were just one guy with a knife against you and others in an outside open area on land you can chance it to use non lethal weapons, but boarding a ship at sea with a bunch of hostiles around you wielding metal rods and knives, a firearm is safest and most effective. Add the fact that they originally tried to board using paintball guns but were overpowered, beaten, stabbed and had their sidearms taken why would you try that again. Also since sidearms were taken you must asume that they are now armed with firearms.


I guarantee you that if you go after a cop with a rod or knife he is not going to pull out his billy club or taser you, he will pull his firearm and shoot you without hesitation.

Only stupid politicians and antisemites would call that excessive and expect you to allow your mates to be held hostage or worse, while you stand around picking your ass thinking of a humane way to confront such thugs.

one-on-one training or against a crowd? They're very different situations. (shield walls exist for a reason).

So you feel that you could have rappelled down a rope to a group of 7 or 8 adult males armed with clubs and knives, who were waiting for you in a mass on the deck... and SUBDUED them all ONLY with non-lethal force?

AWESOME!

I have 3 serious questions.

1) Are you Batman?
2) Would you prefer to use Kung Fu, Ninjuitsu, or some kind of new martial art that you've developed yourself and is unstoppable, (except for its one super-secret weakness, to be used ONLY in emergencies as a plot device when the main story line seems thin?)
3) Do you like boats?