Expel Israeli ambassador

Written By: - Date published: 8:08 am, June 1st, 2010 - 257 comments
Categories: crime, human rights, International - Tags:

Heavily-armed Israeli commandos have murdered at least 19 civilians in an unprovoked attack in international waters on a flotilla of ships trying to get aid to occupied Gaza. Reports indicate several times that many civilians are wounded. Details are sketchy because Israel has taken control of the ships, detained surviving the passengers and crew, and taken the civilians’ communication equipment.

Israel is claiming its heavily-armed commandos were forced to kill 19 people because some of them may have attempted to defend themselves. Not acceptable. Clearly a post hoc attempt to justify murder, and not a good one at that.

And, of course, this latest outrage is simply one more atrocity in half a century of brutal occupation.

New Zealand must expel the Israeli ambassador. There’s no place for this criminal regime in our country.

257 comments on “Expel Israeli ambassador ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    1 June 2010 at 8:23 am

    Latest reports are that 10 were killed by the Israelis. The Israelis claim that they had to kill in self defence.

    The killings had the air of inevitability because of the heavily armed nature of the Israeli commandos. When the protesters tried to resist the illegal invasion of their ship in international waters, the Israeli commandos only had two choices, shoot their way out or surrender to the protesters and leave the ship.

    No doubt the Israeli military leaders who ordered this illegal assault will try to blame A. the protesters and B. the commandos.

    Reports are coming in that Israeli embassies around the world have faced spontaneous demonstrations.

  2. r0b 2
    1 June 2010 at 8:25 am

    If ever there was a lesson on the foolishness of human nature, it is Israel. Centuries of oppression and the holocaust, and they would claim (I think) that it made their resolve so much stronger. Then what does Israel do as a nation? Begins its own programme of oppression. Do they really think that Palestinians will not react just as they did? That Palestinian resolve does not deepen with each new attack? It’s the ultimate stupid bloody irony that the oppressed have become the oppressor.

    • nzfp 2.1
      1 June 2010 at 12:33 pm

      Which begs the question, why is “[c]enturies of oppression and the [Nazi] holocaust” blamed on Palestinian Christians and Palestinian Muslims? Last time I looked into WW2 history, the Palestinians were pawns between the British Empire, France and Hitlers Reich. I have never found any evidence of Palestinian involvement in Nazi slave labour or concentration camps.

      It would be the same as New Zealand Maori being given a homeland in Palestine and then blaming Palestinians for the actions of Great Britain during it’s colonization and ethnic cleansing of New Zealand. The Palestinians are not responsible for the New Zealand wars just as they are not responsible for Nazi concentration camps and slave labour.

      • Lew 2.1.1
        1 June 2010 at 12:37 pm

        It would be the same as New Zealand Maori being given a homeland in Palestine

        Err, don’t you mean “Western Polynesia”?

        L

        • nzfp 2.1.1.1
          1 June 2010 at 12:45 pm

          No I mean Palestine – its to emphasise a point. Palestinians are not responsible for Britains actions against Maori or Nazi Germany’s actions against European Jews (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Gay’s, Political dissenters, disabled, Ethnic Poles, POW’s or anyone else who ended up in the concentration camps).

          • Lew 2.1.1.1.1
            1 June 2010 at 12:48 pm

            But you realise Palestine wasn’t just arbitrarily chosen as a Jewish homeland, right?

            L

            • nzfp 2.1.1.1.1.1
              1 June 2010 at 1:29 pm

              Be careful Lew or I will ask you to define Jew. You do realise that genetic science has shown that modern Palestinians are the most likely descendents of Biblical Hebrews. European historian Professor Shlomo Sands book “The Invention of the Jewish People” asserts that modern Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine and that they are the most likely descendents of Biblical Hebrews and that they never left the Levant. Sands assertions are supported by Israeli archeologist Professor Israel Finklestein in a book authored with Neil Asher Silberman, titled “The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts”.

              • Lew …
                1 June 2010 at 1:34 pm

                … and it’s 9/11 and AGW tar-babies all over again. *sigh*

                L

                • nzfp …
                  1 June 2010 at 1:39 pm

                  Oh wow Lew, and your highly intellectual cop out of a response is to resort to the logical fallacies guilt by association and ad hominem. Way to go for originality when you don’t know your subject matter.

                  • Lew …
                    1 June 2010 at 1:52 pm

                    An awareness of crank magnetism is a very handy conceptual tool enabling me to elide the most pointless engagements without requiring much investment in them.

                    Honestly, I’ve wasted plenty of my life on those arguments already, and I have better things to do. You’re welcome to them, though. Good on you for sticking to your guns.

                    L

                • travellerev …
                  1 June 2010 at 2:32 pm

                  Lew,

                  This what a Jews themselves are thinking about “Zionism” and about what happened to the free Gaza flotilla.

                  Neturei Karta is orthodox Jewish and vehemently against Zionism.
                  Jews sans frontiers have this to say.
                  Another orthodox group called true Torah Jews says this

                  And don’t get me started on the Israeli’s arrested while highfiving after the planes impacted on 9/11 and who were interviewed on Israeli TV after they were exported.

              • SPC …
                1 June 2010 at 9:19 pm

                nzfp

                Modern DNA genetics (male line Y chromosome trail) show that most northern Semites – those of Lebanon, Syria and Palestine – Arab and Jew both have common ancestry about 2000BCE (coincidently circa the earliest Abraham date). Most Jews have this ancestry DNA.

                This DNA distinguishes northern and semite (Arabia semite) DNA back to 5000BCE.

                The Palestinian Arabs and the Israeli Jews are more closely related than Arabs of Arabia and northern Semites who speak Arabic and call themselves Arabs.

                The DNA evidence makes a monkey of both yourself and those who dismiss Palestinians as part of the Arab people (as if from another area of the ME because they speak Arabic the southern semite language).

              • Spike …
                2 June 2010 at 7:13 pm

                Thanx Nzfp for bringing that up….its great to see the Zionest lies exposed at their source…

            • nzfp 2.1.1.1.1.2
              1 June 2010 at 1:57 pm

              “But you realise Palestine wasn’t just arbitrarily chosen as a Jewish homeland, right? ”

              But it was picked arbitrarily – because Palestine had nothing to do with WW2. Not only that but David Ben-gurion in his book “The Jews and their land” page 292 wrote:

              […] “in 1914 there were 85,000 Jews in the land (12% of the population) […] Once Turkey joined the war on Germany’s side, the majority of Palestinian Jews, being of Russian origin, were regarded as enemy aliens […]”

              Now last time I looked Lew, Russia was in Europe not in the Middle East. 12% of the population being of Russian origin means that the overwhelming 88% of the population was Palestinian Muslim and Christian. Do the math Lew or do you have a logical fallacy for that too?

              Birobidjan is in Russia though.

              • Ari …
                1 June 2010 at 6:25 pm

                Are you saying you don’t think that historical significance to their people played a role in the selection, or are you saying that historical significance is arbitrary? Because I’m not sure you could reasonably argue that there isn’t any historical significance (jeez, I feel like a parrot saying that three times in one paragraph) to the selection.

                • Lew …
                  1 June 2010 at 6:34 pm

                  C’mon, Ari, if he can argue AGW is a scientific conspiracy and 9/11 was a setup, arguing Israel has no significance to Jews isn’t too much of a stretch.

                  L

              • SPC …
                1 June 2010 at 9:07 pm

                nzfp

                Palestine was chosen as a Jewish homeland by the Jewish Zionists in the 19thC (in response to European nationalism – national independence/democratic self-government), the League of Nations awarded a Palestine mandate to the British – on the basis that it would become a Jewish homeland.

                WW2 had nothing to do with it.

            • Daveosaurus 2.1.1.1.1.3
              1 June 2010 at 6:09 pm

              If that’s the angle you’re aiming for, Taiwan would probably be a better analogy than anywhere in Polynesia.

          • RobertM 2.1.1.1.2
            2 June 2010 at 3:12 pm

            Why do people like nzfp always list the disabled and mentally handicapped victims of Hitlers holocaust and war against future and never acknowledge the far more numerous mentally ill who were victims of the gas vans and lethal injections.An entirely different an unacknowledged category-worthy of acknowledgement given the anti mentally ill legislation of the the pro palestine Bradford, Cullen and Clark in 2002

  3. mickysavage 3
    1 June 2010 at 8:30 am

    Agreed.

    The boarding of a civilian ship on the High Seas carrying humanitarian supplies and the killing of civilians is wrong on so many counts.

    I expect this post will attract a number of contributors.

  4. vto 4
    1 June 2010 at 8:40 am

    true r0b.

    While its a topic perhaps someone can explain why the Israelis are allowed nuclear weapons but nobody else in that part of the world is… Obama? Bush? US embassy? Maybe even a passionate American? Somebody have an answer?? ha ha what a sorry state of affairs the whole israeli-usa hypocrisy murderous arsenal thing is. No cred. Just more murders.

    • nzfp 4.1
      1 June 2010 at 12:41 pm

      Could someone also explain why Israelis are allowed to “SELL” nuclear warheads to Apartheid South Africa, even though they are not signatories to the NNPT? The same Apartheid South Africa which “EXCLUDED” Maori “CHEEKY DARKY” rugby players from All Black teams because of Apartheid?

      • Pat 4.1.1
        1 June 2010 at 6:32 pm

        What is the World doing about three Israeli submarines armed with nuclear cruise missiles in the Persian Gulf pointed at Iran? Will this mean that if Ahmadinejad sneezes they will fire under self defense saying he was spreading a biological weapon? US hypocrisy over nuclear disarmament excuses Israel every time. Should such a trigger happy nation have nuclear weapons?

      • KINTO 4.1.2
        1 June 2010 at 7:03 pm

        More to the point, the neuclear deterant we hear all about only works when both sides are armed, why are outsiders preventing Iran from getting neuclear weapons in light of this?

    • RobertM 4.2
      2 June 2010 at 3:19 pm

      Almost anybody is allowed nuclear weapons given the Non poliferation treaty gives anybody the right to develop nuclear power which means they will have nuclear fuel and in reality will be able to make bombs. Look Pakistan and India got the bomb with a blind eye from West Germany and Britain. South Africa simply gave it up, Australia would have been welcome to it and Canada and Holland were nuclear armed during the cold war. Yes, nuclear proliferation and possibly nuclear power are wrong, but with present policies anybody but North korea and Iran are pretty much welcome in the nuclear club.

  5. Pascal's bookie 5
    1 June 2010 at 8:51 am

    Lot’s of links in this roundup…

    http://zeitgeistpolitics.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/updates-aftermath-of-flotilla-attack/

    Be interesting to see how the LibDems fare in the Brit coalition govt’s response.

    Also, article five of the NATO agreement would make this, if true, interesting

    Ankara warned that further supply vessels will be sent to Gaza, escorted by the Turkish Navy, a development with unpredictable consequences.

    http://ibnlive.in.com/news/turkey-threatens-action-israel-on-alert/116743-2.html

    The other thing is the escalation. I’m reminded of when Sharon made his grandstanding march on to the Temple mount which ended up being the proximate casue of the second intifada. A win for extremists on all sides. Hamas could well use this to try and marginalise Fatah as moderates and get control of the West Bank.

    Also, this:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7140282.ece

    Three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.

    The first has been sent in response to Israeli fears that ballistic missiles developed by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, a political and military organisation in Lebanon, could hit sites in Israel, including air bases and missile launchers…

    …Israel’s urgent need to deter the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance was demonstrated last month. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, was said to have shown President Barack Obama classified satellite images of a convoy of ballistic missiles leaving Syria on the way to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

    • Bunji 5.1
      1 June 2010 at 10:47 am

      UK response will be interesting. Serious split in Lib-Con coalition views on Palestine… Their agreement seemed to be hoping nothing would happen, but they’ll have to respond clearly to this.

  6. tc 6
    1 June 2010 at 9:32 am

    vto, Israel is effectively an outpost of the US military, sure they’re sizeable and well armed in their own right but Uncle Sam helped to create and arm it and backs it whenever called upon.

    Don’t underestimate the enormous clout in the US the Jewish factions can hold and ensure Israel gets what Israel wants…..also the US tend to veto any security council measure that may impact Israel also like an independant UN Inquiry into this.

    • jimmy 6.1
      1 June 2010 at 10:22 am

      If you havnt seen this I would highly reccomend it

      http://www.freedocumentaries.org/int.php?filmID=173

      Its about the Israeli Lobby in america and the controversy surrounding an article written by Mearsheimer and Walt who are the two top (realist) dogs in International Relations.

      With Israel being a big trading partner of NZ we cant expect much from our government on the flotilla

      • Ari 6.1.1
        1 June 2010 at 6:31 pm

        Well, we can’t given that National’s stance on foreign relations appears to be political realism. (ie. the view that we should look out for New Zealand and only New Zealand) If we had a government that actually engaged in some responsibility for peaceful conduct the world over, that might be different.

  7. the sprout 7
    1 June 2010 at 9:38 am

    Somehow i get the feeling we will hear very little in the way on condemnation from our gutless Minister of Foreign Affairs or from our PM.

    • vto 7.1
      1 June 2010 at 9:47 am

      Quite.

      Do you think the reaction would be different if the aid boats had been Israeli and the commandos Palestinian?

      Forget Andy Haden’s waffle – here is where the true racism and oppression is occurring.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 7.1.1
        1 June 2010 at 12:08 pm

        There has been a comment from a mouthpiece, Mcully is ‘framing’ an answer. ie hes too gutless to even be on one side or the other

  8. mach1 8
    1 June 2010 at 9:50 am

    Peace activists, really, just more of the same I reckon.

    Also, pro Israeli blog posts a timeline with regular updates.

    capcha: supporting, me, with regard to this FUBAR, neither.

    • ianmac 8.1
      1 June 2010 at 11:13 am

      Unconvincing mach 1. Sticks and stones are hardly weaponary against automatic weapons! And excited protesters? Surprise. Surprise. Fancy the threat of protest groups armed with sticks and stones. So lets kill a few in the dark. Unconvincing.

      • mach1 8.1.1
        1 June 2010 at 12:49 pm

        Agreed ianmac, unconvincing, both sides:

        capcha: supporting, me, with regard to this FUBAR, neither

        The flotilla people would have known that the Israeli response would be disproportionate and yet they continued, publicity, yep, lots of publicity, 19 lives worth of publicity. And that’s what makes me angry ianmac, 19 lives lost, for what, another round of outrage, tut tutting and picking sides but the ugly sore will still be suppurating and oozing pus this time next year…and the next… FFS!.

        • Ari 8.1.1.1
          1 June 2010 at 6:35 pm

          Knowing that there might be a disproportionate response and continuing to protest may put you at risk, sure, but saying that both sides are equally at fault because of it is the height of victim-blaming. You don’t have to kill protestors because they have sticks and they’re excited. That’s just ridiculous, and doesn’t deserve any sort of defense.

  9. Maggie 9
    1 June 2010 at 10:13 am

    I gather the Israelis objection to the Palestinian convoy is that it is a publicity stunt.

    You can just envisage an Israeli MP rushing intio Netanyahu’s office declaring: “Boss, I’ve just had a brilliant idea on how we can keep this off the front pages……”

  10. HitchensFan 10
    1 June 2010 at 10:16 am

    go over to the sewer to see how (predictably) those *compassionate* righties are supporting Israel….

    • the sprout 10.1
      1 June 2010 at 10:20 am

      consistent with the right’s non-recognition of any indigenous peoples.
      perhaps, like McCully on Bethune, they think people doing something on the basis of principle ‘deserve whatever happens to them’?

      • PK 10.1.1
        1 June 2010 at 11:17 am

        ***consistent with the right’s non-recognition of any indigenous peoples.***

        Like the left recognise indigenous europeans?

        ***HitchensFan 10
        1 June 2010 at 10:16 am

        go over to the sewer to see how (predictably) those *compassionate* righties are supporting Israel .***

        HitchensFan, do you see the irony in your title? Hitchens is a neo-con on foreign policy.

        • HitchensFan 10.1.1.1
          1 June 2010 at 11:28 am

          umm unlike you lot just because I agree with someone’s view on some things, doesn’t mean I agree with that person on everything.
          I can think for myself….

        • Lew 10.1.1.2
          1 June 2010 at 11:53 am

          Hitchens would lecture you for hours at being termed a neo-con. he argues (and I see his point, even if I think he does much too far) that the left and liberalism needs to be more proactive in defence of its values. That’s not neoconservatism, even if it does bear a cosmetic resemblance. He declared himself to be “on the same side as” neo-cons (I think on the question of Iraq), not that he was one of them.

          L

          • The Voice of Reason 10.1.1.2.1
            1 June 2010 at 12:31 pm

            Heard a replay of Hitchens being interviewed on Nat Rad a couple of days ago and he was adamant that he simply wanted Saddam gone, because he was obviously a class A shit and the Iraquis would be better off without him. Fair enough, too. Hitchens said (I’m paraphrasing) that it was more a matter of conservative leaders proposing a course of action that would lead to an outcome he was happy with, rather than him applauding the people proposing the action or accepting the justification for the action the neo cons used.

            Now this might be self serving and a rewriting of history to make himself look good, but it rings true to me.

            • HitchensFan 10.1.1.2.1.1
              1 June 2010 at 1:19 pm

              VoR, it rang true to me too. I haven’t read his memoirs yet (what sort of fan am I?) but interesting to see what he says in there.

        • felix 10.1.1.3
          1 June 2010 at 12:09 pm

          “Like the left recognise indigenous europeans?”

          Do go on.

          • HitchensFan 10.1.1.3.1
            1 June 2010 at 12:21 pm

            yeah felix that was an intriguing comment, I’m curious too….we’re clearly dealing with a stunning intellect here in PK….

            • Cnr Joe 10.1.1.3.1.1
              1 June 2010 at 12:33 pm

              threadjack?
              So how many generations did it take for immigrant pacific islanders (800+ years ago) to become Maori – indigenous New Zealanders? As someone with a maori mother and an english dad I’ve wondered.
              Ie/ as I understand it – generations on now the possum we have is quite unique in its habits – can it now be considered an indigenous species?
              No abuse please.

  11. coolas 11
    1 June 2010 at 10:20 am

    Has Israel announced the discovery of weapons hidden among the building materials yet? Maybe need a few more hours to organise.

    • ianmac 11.1
      1 June 2010 at 11:15 am

      How about a few Weapons of mass destruction or even a few hundred land mines? Israel does have a good supply, made in the USA. Agreed coolas

    • Bunji 12.1
      1 June 2010 at 10:27 am

      A lot of those weapons look like kitchen knives, possibly needed for preparing food in the galley. Oo, a switch blade, that wouldn’t come in handy for cutting rope or anything else you wanted to do at sea… and a screw-driver – blatantly all very offensive weapons brought along purely to attack a highly-advanced well-armed Defence Force.

  13. Bunji 13
    1 June 2010 at 10:23 am

    Israeli attack happened yesterday, generally slow-moving UN Security Council had managed to organise having an emergency meeting by the early hours (NZ-time) this morning, on a US public holiday.

    8.30: McCully’s office has a spokesperson saying they’re looking into the evidence and preparing a response.

    Not good enough McCully, take your job seriously. Being Foreign Minister sometimes means working on a Sunday, and sometimes means not getting to sleep through the night; not everything happens in NZ working hours.

  14. TightyRighty 14
    1 June 2010 at 10:23 am

    Israel were more than stupid with this action. it defies belief really. I have always supported Israel’s right as a nation to defend it’s borders. however, this is way outside it’s jurisdiction and is a slap in the face for middle east peace efforts. How can Israel be expected to be taken seriously on the world stage if they don’t have respect for international rules and conventions?

    Funy parallel betweeen your condemnation of this action and your support of peter bethune and the sea sheperd crowd though.

    • Bright Red 14.1
      1 June 2010 at 11:01 am

      yeah, remember when Pete Bethune boarded that Japanese aid vessel trying to deliver help to starving people with a squad of heavily arm commandos and murdered 19 of the people aboard, injured dozens more and took everyone captive?

      f*ckwit.

      • TightyRighty 14.1.1
        1 June 2010 at 11:09 am

        oh BR, trust you to not see the underlying issues through your shit fog of ideaology. Israel did wrong, in fact it’s pretty much tantamount to piracy given the information available at this stage. yet to condemn the armed storming of a peaceful boat going about it’s lawful business while you support the same action in another part of the world is rank hypocrisy. at least be consistent in your condemnation. I pity you. I really do. your stupidness is not your fault.

        • Lew 14.1.1.1
          1 June 2010 at 11:16 am

          I think the problem is your characterising a lone chap’s boarding of a fully-crewed boat, with only the tools necessary to effect such a boarding, and not putting up a fight but goingpeacefully into custody all the way back to the other side of the world as “armed storming”.

          Even the Japanese aren’t arguing that in any seriousness. They’re going to have trouble making a single technical assault charge stick.

          Don’t get me wrong: I think Peter Bethune did overreach and is now getting what you get for doing so. But there’s no equivalence to this, and it’s you who’s swimming in a miasma of ideological bullshit if you think there is.

          L

          • TightyRighty 14.1.1.1.1
            1 June 2010 at 11:28 am

            International Law, as far as I know, is pretty clear on the fact that Boarding a boat, univited, while armed, is piracy. regardless of the consequences of such actions. feel free to prove me wrong on this though. The israeli commandoes are guilty of it, and so is peter bethune. while pete has been bad, the over the top violent actions of israel make pete’s actions seem childishly tame on any scale. But I still fail to see how it can not be hypocritical if you support pete’s actions and condemn those of israel.

            • Lew 14.1.1.1.1.1
              1 June 2010 at 11:36 am

              That being so, why are the Japanese not charging Bethune with anythign even remotely related to piracy? The way you put it, should be a slam dunk for them. Gods know they have one of the most strict and efficient legal systems in the world. If they can’t make it stick, who could?

              I think what you’re talking about is not guilt in a legal sense, but in a moral sense, which is a shorthand for “what you reckon ought to be so even if it isn’t actually so”. That’s where the false equivalence comes in. It’s like the howls from authoritarians on both the left and the right after the Urewera 18: ok, sure, legally there was no ground for terrorism charges, but they were morally equivalent to terrorists. Well, bullshit. If we’re going to have a rule of law, then let’s have a rule of law, and let’s have those systems decide what transgressions a group are or are not guilty of.

              L

              • TightyRighty …
                1 June 2010 at 11:42 am

                I can’t answer why the japanese haven’t charged him with piracy. maybe because it was a media stunt and they saw it as such, and charging him with piracy would please his childish sense of self-importance, and help pete achieve his aims. doesn’t change the fact he could have been charged. Were the urewera 18 terrorists? i’m not sure on that with hindsight. they hadn’t commited any overt acts against the nation. so conspiracy maybe, but really? conspiracy is like beauty, it’s in the eye of the beholder.

                • Lew …
                  1 June 2010 at 11:49 am

                  There you go again. “What I reckon ought to be so even if it isn’t actually so’.

                  I can’t draw you a picture on the internets, but here goes:

                  No piracy charge –> no piracy
                  No terrorism charge –> no terrorism

                  On a distinct, but related matter (not that you’re arguing this line, TR): if Israel wants to claim a defence of its actions under international law (as the KBR claim they have) then let them test that defence at the ICC. What’s that you say? They don’t agree to be bound by the international criminal courts? And they’re not signatories to any of the international laws the KBR are claiming legitimise their actions? Well, I guess that officially makes them outlaws then, doesn’t it?

                  L

                  • TightyRighty …
                    1 June 2010 at 11:53 am

                    Oh Noes!!!! Lew just laid it down how the world works. I’m glad we’ve got you here Lew. the world is now safe from ambiguity.

                    No charges doesn’t mean it never happened as it happened. it means no charges. for pete at least. lucky bugger.

                    • Lew …
                      1 June 2010 at 11:59 am

                      It means that if you want to allege that there was an offence, it’s on you to substantiate it (in the face of the established evidence to the contrary).

                      If you want to do so, go right ahead. Maybe the Japanese prosecutors, or the NZ Police who got a black eye from the S-G, could hire you as a special legal expert.

                      L

            • Name 14.1.1.1.1.2
              1 June 2010 at 1:19 pm

              “International Law, as far as I know, is pretty clear on the fact that Boarding a boat, univited, while armed, is piracy. regardless of the consequences of such actions.”

              Wrong.

              International Law (the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982″ defines maritime piracy as:

              “any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

              (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
              (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;”

              In the case of the Israeli attack the requirement of “committed for private ends” falls as it was a State sanctioned act. In the case of Peter Bethune there seems to be little evidence that his action was an illegal act of violence or detention, or an act of depredation.

              However a flagged ship is sovereign territory while in international waters, hence the attack on a Turkish flagged ship by the Israeli military is tantamount to an invasion of Turkey by Israel.

    • mickysavage 14.2
      1 June 2010 at 10:44 pm

      I think that we should cut TR some slack.

      Many issues are announced and then left and right line up and argue it out. Occasionally there is an issue that is so clear that thinking members of the other side will concede it.

      This is one of those issues. Well done TR. I promise to do the same when I strike an issue where the left are being idiots.

  15. Tiger Mountain 15
    1 June 2010 at 10:31 am

    By all means send the head Israeli diplomat packing. Don’t buy their bloody dolmas or olives either. Be rude to their tourists too until they get the message. The majority of Israelis have served in the army or on farms on stolen land, they are complicit.

    There is a small union and left movement in Israel but it’s members are treated as “unpatriotic’ at best and commonly imprisoned. So it is basically ok to heap as much opprobrium as you can spare for this artificial state founded on a violent zionist landgrab in 1948.

    Since the the mid 60s Israel has defied hundreds of UN resolutions, they are renegades in the international community. The Warsaw ghetto of WWII was appalling, what has bought these people to inflict similar treatment on the Palestinians?

    Yes more Arab world help is needed, yes hamas and fatah should be united, but what about the US and Europe pulling the rug out? that would be a game changer, but I guess many are very worried about Israel going nuts with the nukes if they feel they have “nothing left to loose’.

    • coolas 15.1
      1 June 2010 at 11:19 am

      “Be rude to their tourists”

      In Thailand last year I passed a guest house with a sign ‘No Israelis’ then another, so intrigued, I stopped and asked why, ‘Don’t pay, very rude, complain all the time’ was the theme.

      Then in Laos I joined a crowd yelling at some people swimming in the Mekong. I thought they were in danger of drowning. But it turned out to be 4 Israel lads swimming naked. They were diving off a jetty and performing to the crowd laughing their heads off. Finally Police arrived and ordered them out of the water.

      That night I saw the guys drinking at a bar, so stopped and asked about the swimming episode earlier. ‘We swim naked all the time in Israel’ was their answer, ‘Why shouldn’t we do it here?’

      There is something amiss with some Israeli’s. Heard it explained as persecution complex but still perplexed that their attitude should provoke such dislike in countries like Thailand and Laos.

      • Lew 15.1.1
        1 June 2010 at 11:31 am

        Yeah. I wouldn’t judge Israelis by the actions of their tourists in Southeast Asia. I’ve spent a lot of time there as well, and found them to generally be pricks, but after extensive conversations with them, it seemed to come down to the fact that they come to Southeast Asia (and elsewhere) to unwind after their mandated spell in the IDF. So they’re blowing off several years’ worth of steam, recalibrating jumpy nerves, getting to actually be 20somethings for the first time, and doing so in a comparatively unrestricted environment, often for the first time away from family and other social constraints, and with a shitload of money.

        Not that this excuses them, but there is some context to their misbehaviour. And to be honest, many Brits and Aussies and Kiwis aren’t much better in similar circumstances.

        One other thing: if you get into a disagreement, there’s no better bunch of people to have on your side. ‘Course, better not to get into such situations in the frist place …

        L

      • HitchensFan 15.1.2
        1 June 2010 at 11:34 am

        coolas – I encountered the same thing (for the same stated reasons) in Nepal

        • Crashcart 15.1.2.1
          1 June 2010 at 8:41 pm

          Do you honestly not see how racist you are being. “I saw 4 Isralies doing this ” and then judginf them all upon that example. It’s no better than seeing a couple of accidents with Asian drivers and using that as your proof that all Asian drivers are terrible.

          As Lew says I have seen many Kiwi’s acting complete asses over seas (I travel a lot) but thankfully I don’t get lumpped in with them by a bunch of racists.

  16. Tiger Mountain 16
    1 June 2010 at 10:43 am

    one more thing…
    link below to one of the sponsor sites involved in the $20 million aid flotilla which the people of Gaza will not now receive.
    http://www.vivapalestina.org/

    • uroskin 17.1
      1 June 2010 at 11:09 am

      So the Mediterranean is a “Jewish” sea and all its waters territorial to Israel? Good move.
      A parallel with the Warsaw Ghetto is apt. Just imagine what the Nazis would have done when a Jewish aid agency organised a delivery of goods and kitchen knives. But it looks like the IDF could still learn a thing or two from the SS. The Kriegsmarine wouldn’t have left one boat afloat.

  18. insider 18
    1 June 2010 at 11:03 am

    There’s no reason to expel the Israeli ambassador over this. We didn’t kick the Chinese out over Tiananmen Square or Tibet, we haven’t kicked the US out over Guantanamo, or the Thai one over the recent killings there. We wouldn’t have many ambassadors left if we went on in that vein. The Aussies didn’t kick out their israeli ambassador over the recent passport issues.

    It’s a silly call for an action that is inappropriate to usual standards of diplomacy – sounds more like the kind of stuff you get in student union resolutions than a supposedly serious political discussion.

    Israel has acted despicably but anything we do is going to have no effect so let’s be a bit more measured rather than petulant in our response, preferably working with Like minded countries.

    • Bright Red 18.1
      1 June 2010 at 11:29 am

      we should have kicked the chinese out of tiananmen. The US, yeah, I’m afraid there has to be some realpolitick some times.

  19. Pascal's bookie 19
    1 June 2010 at 11:05 am

    NZ Govt response. Not bad.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1006/S00001.htm

    The New Zealand Government condemns the violence and especially the loss of life in the incident in international waters off the coast of Gaza, Foreign Minister Murray McCully said today.
    “I am taking immediate steps to communicate the Government’s concerns over this incident to the Government of Israel,” Mr McCully said…

    …”This violent event serves to underline the fact that the situation in Gaza is not sustainable. We urge an intensification of the efforts to find a solution to that, and the wider challenges in the region.
    “A New Zealand citizen was on board the flotilla. We understand she is now in Israeli custody but is safe and well. We are pursuing all the usual lines of consular activity to make contact with her,’ Mr McCully said

    • Lew 19.1
      1 June 2010 at 12:26 pm

      Real test will be in Parliament: whether McCully moves a motion commenting on these events or not, Keith Locke is sure to do so.

      L

    • BLiP 19.2
      1 June 2010 at 3:34 pm

      “I am taking immediate steps to communicate the Government’s concerns over this incident to the Government of Israel,’ Mr McCully said

      i.e., popping over to the newly opened diplomatic post for another round of drinkies, no doubt.

  20. Santi 20
    1 June 2010 at 11:29 am

    Israel has the right to self-defense. “Peaceful” flotilla with armed people on board? I doubt it.

    • Bright Red 20.1
      1 June 2010 at 11:31 am

      there weren’t any armed people on board until the came down the ropes from the helicopters armed with machine guns.

      what would you do when armed people start shooting indiscriminately? Stand like a sheep waiting to be next or grab whatever you can and fight for your life?

      • insider 20.1.1
        1 June 2010 at 11:35 am

        Well, ask yourself, was dropping heavily armed troops in at midnight likely to lead to a clean resolution or panic and uncertainty? Frankly I think the result was entirely predictable.

        Why not do what most countries in the Persian gulf are doing shadowing and stopping with clear warnings and controlled boardings and searches in daylight so everyone knows what’s going on. Do you really think these ships could have berthed if the Israelis didn’t want them to?

      • Andrew 20.1.2
        1 June 2010 at 11:44 am

        apparently the IDF had paint guns used for riot control, with pistols as backup. Looking at the videos i have seen, the people on the ship started attacking the IDF troops one by one as soon as they landed on the ship. After being hit by metal bars and stabbed repeatedly, the troops then opened fire. The IDF did not shoot first.

        Very screwed up and should not have happened, but i don’t think the piece activists are totally innocent in all of this, screams more of a set up than anything else. More will come out on this in the next few days. Will be interesting.

        • Pascal's bookie 20.1.2.1
          1 June 2010 at 11:54 am

          Propaganda is flying around, as to be expected. Those videos. IDF edited by any chance?

          And why didn’t the non lethal riot control measures work? Nope, nothing for it but to start shooting live rounds, afterall, those civilians can be pretty tricksy for elite commando forces.

          All I’m saying there is, it’s way too early to be taking IDF video at face value and declaring that After being hit by metal bars and stabbed repeatedly, the troops then opened fire. The IDF did not shoot first.

          • Andrew 20.1.2.1.1
            1 June 2010 at 12:02 pm

            Agreed. Although hard to stay calm and objective, I will be awaiting some evidence before making up my mind. Tho initially disgusted by what the IDF had done, I am now prepared to wait until all the cards are on the table.

        • Bright Red 20.1.2.2
          1 June 2010 at 12:16 pm

          yeah, i saw a paint gun in that IDF video too but that video clearly doesn’t start with the first soldier landing and it might not be the first ship.

    • Pascal's bookie 20.2
      1 June 2010 at 11:45 am

      You think they planning to invade Israel with some knives and sticks?

      • Andrew 20.2.1
        1 June 2010 at 11:52 am

        no i think they were trying to provoke exactly what happened.

        The following is the transcript from Al-Jazeera TV:
        Reporter: “Despite the Israeli threats and several unexpected delays, the arrival of the ships at the meeting point before sailing to the Gaza Strip inflamed the emotions and the enthusiasm of the participants.” Visuals from Gaza flotilla ship of young Muslims shouting Islamic battle chant invoking the killing and defeat of Jews in battle:

        “[Remember] Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!”
        [Khaibar is the name of last Jewish village defeated by Muhammad’s army and it marked the end of Jewish presence in Arabia in 628.]

        Reporter: “While singing songs reminiscent of the Palestinian Intifada (Palestinian terror war against Israel, 2000 – 2005), participants expressed their longing to reach Gaza.”
        A participant: “Right now we face one of two happy endings: either Martyrdom or reaching Gaza.” [Based on Islamic call before battle: “Either victory or Martyrdom”.]

        [Al-Jazeera TV, May 29, 2010]

        • Pascal's bookie 20.2.1.1
          1 June 2010 at 12:00 pm

          And that made the Israelis board the ship at night and start shooting people did it?

          • Andrew 20.2.1.1.1
            1 June 2010 at 12:08 pm

            No, but they would have known that by trying to breach the blockade they would have been boarded. I think it was a set up with clear intention to try and kill Israeli soldiers, while breaching the blockade to enter Gaza.

            I’m not saying that what the IDF did was right, i think the whole situation in the middle east is f*cked up and everyone needs to chill out a little bit. what I am saying though, is that this was a deliberate attempt to provoke the IDF into what has happened.

            • jnd 20.2.1.1.1.1
              1 June 2010 at 2:12 pm

              many of the people aboard were over the age of 60.
              they were peace activists, not people intent on goading the IDF into shooting them with machine guns.
              you are not half as calm and objective as you’d like people to think you are Andrew.
              you sound like IDF to me

        • Bright Red 20.2.1.2
          1 June 2010 at 12:18 pm

          “no i think they were trying to provoke exactly what happened.”

          you think they wanted to get themselves massacred in international waters by engaging in hand to hand combat against armed commandos?

          if their aim was to kill israeli soldiers they would have thought to bring an AK or two, eh?

          • Andrew 20.2.1.2.1
            1 June 2010 at 12:30 pm

            “you think they wanted to get themselves massacred in international waters by engaging in hand to hand combat against armed commandos?”

            yes, “Either victory or Martyrdom”, that’s a pretty strong case i would have thought. Maybe they had the odd gun, maybe they didn’t. But the headline “IDF shoots unarmed activists”, sounds a lot worse than “IDF shoots armed activists in self defence” doesn’t it?

            Going by what i have seen and read at the moment i think it was deliberate. If evidence comes out to the contrary i will be changing my mind.

            • The Voice of Reason 20.2.1.2.1.1
              1 June 2010 at 12:44 pm

              So you won’t be changing your mind, will you, Andrew? All that’s going to happen from here is a lot of self serving, patronising bollocks from the Israelis and a lot more misery in Gaza.

              Mind you if it will help, I can tell you that the Intifada was not a ‘terror war against Israel’ it was a poorly armed defence against a fascist army of occupation.

            • The Voice of Reason 20.2.1.2.1.2
              1 June 2010 at 12:54 pm

              And while I’m on the subject, how does one shoot someone ‘in self defence’ if one is illegally boarding a registered vessel in international waters?

              • Pascal's bookie …
                1 June 2010 at 1:00 pm

                It’s like if someone busts into your house and you grab a baseball bat to see him off, and he pulls a gun and shoots you dead. You’re equally to blame, self defence, you shouldn’t have provoked him etc.

              • Andrew …
                1 June 2010 at 1:07 pm

                “So you won’t be changing your mind, will you, Andrew? All that’s going to happen from here is a lot of self serving, patronising bollocks from the Israelis and a lot more misery in Gaza.”

                Well that’s very patronising of you. Thanks for telling me what i wont be doing. not all news comes out of Israel you know. I tend to make up my own mind based on all evidence i have seen, not just from one side.

                But please, carry on and tell me what i wont be doing next.

                • The Voice of Reason …
                  1 June 2010 at 1:16 pm

                  “(Palestinian terror war against Israel, 2000 2005)”

                  That’s your quote, right? It’s pretty clear where you stand so don’t try and pretend you are floating on this and could be convinced to head in another direction. If the facts that we do know (armed attack on a vessel in international waters) aren’t enough to make you waver, what facts do you need?

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    1 June 2010 at 1:25 pm

                    TVoR, Andy is quite clearly a sleeper agent for the perfidious Persians…

                    Okay, let’s look at this from an unusual angle and see what we get out of it. Let’s say you were a cartoonish, Ahmadinejadesque lunatic fixated on destroying Israel. How would you go about achieving your goal?

                    Well, priority number one would be to isolate the Israelis from their allies, so they have no diplomatic or military cover. A good start would be to take actions that infuriate military partners like the Turks by killing a load of Turkish civvies, then telling them to fuck off by pretending that the civvies you killed deserved it. You’d definitely want to sabotage relations with allies like Greece, so that they’d withdraw from joint military operations and bar your military leaders from the country.

                    more here

                  • Andrew …
                    1 June 2010 at 1:27 pm

                    no, please stop with this annoying habit of telling me what i think. your summary of “facts” are: “armed attack on a vessel in international waters”

                    a) i don’t think the vessel was in international waters, it was being stopped from entering the blockade into Gaza after repeated attempts to stop it, and
                    b) it has not been proven that it was a blatant attack on the vessel, rather a boarding searching for weapons that went wrong when the troops were attacked by the people on the boat.

                    • Irascible …
                      2 June 2010 at 12:45 am

                      All visual evidence that could contradict the IDF videos has been confiscated by the IDF. All reports about the invasion of the aid vessels are being controlled by the PR industry around the IDF.
                      The few bits of non IDF evidence available and screened on BBC and Al Jazeera along with the IDF clips show an unarmed vessel being boarded by heavily armed soldiers / commandos who were then, on one vessel, met with justifiable opposition as crew members attempted to stop an act of piracy on the high seas.
                      The Israeli Government has been shown to be involved in the assassination of a Hamas leader in Dubai (another act of terrorism on another country’s soil). This action is merely another act in Israel’s arrogant and belligerent international policies.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  1 June 2010 at 1:18 pm

                  What would convince you that the activists didn’t have the death wish plan to make the IDF look bad?

                  To me, that looks like unprovable nonsense and doesn’t really make much sense. If they planned to kill IDF members, why did they just have sticks and basic knives when a gun would be a much easier way of provoking things and be harder to see on the video footage?

                  Also, the ‘plan’ (attack IDF commandos with sticks when they board, get shot dead) relies on the IDF acting like a bunch of ill disciplined thugs. In which case why is it the activists fault in any way? The IDF had the power not to act like thugs, and that would have foiled their dastardly plan.

                  That’s why it looks like a really bs argument. You’ve accepted a damning interpretation of activists actions, based on what you think is in their heads, and are demanding eveidence that it isn’t true. So what would that evidence look like?

                  • Andrew …
                    1 June 2010 at 1:29 pm

                    no, i am going by what i have read and seen on al jezera. nothing more.

                  • jnd …
                    1 June 2010 at 2:17 pm

                    any bets Andrew is IDF?

                    • Lew …
                      1 June 2010 at 2:18 pm

                      I’ll take that bet. $1,000 to Amnesty International if he’s not, my grand to a charity of your choice upon presentation of proof that he is.

                      L

                    • jnd …
                      1 June 2010 at 2:23 pm

                      I suppose checking his passport wouldn’t help – probably belongs to a tetraplegic in the Wairarapa.

                    • Andrew …
                      1 June 2010 at 2:37 pm

                      ha ha, nutter! Yes, I’m IDF and know where you live … (insert evil laughter here)

                      All i was saying is that i think that particular vessel had the intention of causing this international indecent. 5 of the other vessels were boarded without indecent. I am in complete agreement, however, that Israel were wrong to board the vessel that far out at sea.

                      If that makes me IDF in your eyes then so be it.

                    • Lew …
                      1 June 2010 at 2:38 pm

                      What? JND, are you saying that your outrageous assertion is unfalsifiable?

                      Well, I’m shocked. Just shocked.

                      L

                    • jnd …
                      1 June 2010 at 2:46 pm

                      Andrew, in English the word is “incident”, not “indecent”.

                      Lew, yes you can learn a lot by studying your enemies – just look at how much the Israelis have learned from the Nazis.

                    • Andrew …
                      1 June 2010 at 3:07 pm

                      jnd – In English, it’s a typo … pedant

                    • felix …
                      1 June 2010 at 4:21 pm

                      Well technically it’s not a typo, you just typed the wrong word.

                      Ahem: “The term includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger,[1] but usually excludes errors of ignorance, such as spelling errors.”

                      I suspect that it may, in fact, have been a Freudian slip.

                      How’s that for pedantic?

                    • Andrew …
                      1 June 2010 at 4:30 pm

                      yep, that’s right up there 🙂 please excuse the double post, mucked up spam word and it got posted at the bottom.

              • Andrew …
                1 June 2010 at 1:12 pm

                Oh and while im on the subject. I don’t think the boats were in international waters. Both Egypt and Israel are enforcing a blockade on Gaza to minimise the number of rockets that the Gazans can shoot at Israel.

                Israel gave the vessel every opportunity to dock and be searched for weapons.

                • The Voice of Reason …
                  1 June 2010 at 1:33 pm

                  Well, CNN and the BBC disagree with you. Both say the piracy took place in international waters (60 miles and 70 miles out respectively). I could look at the other news agencies, but they are going to say the same. Hell, even the IDF haven’t claimed it was inside Israeli territory as far as I can tell, so you’re on your own there

                  Whether or not the flotilla should have taken the option of docking in an Israeli port and trusting the Israelis to pass the aid on to the Palastinians, there is no justification for this appalling attack. No justification at all.

                  • Andrew …
                    1 June 2010 at 1:47 pm

                    ok, see this is what i mean by confusion in a situation like this. I first read reports that the ships were trying to breach the blockade to get into Gaza. The Gaza blockade is only 3 miles off shore. But now i see (thanks to you) that the ships were boarded 60 kms off shore, So clearly they were miles away from the blockade.

                    Yes, this makes it a lot worse for Israel.

                    • The Voice of Reason …
                      1 June 2010 at 1:55 pm

                      Cheers, Andrew. Whew, time for a cuppa and a lie down for me …

                  • Crashcart …
                    1 June 2010 at 9:01 pm

                    Check the definition of piracy provided above. As this was an action that was sanctioned by a government it is by law not piracy. Not matter how many times you say it.

                • insider …
                  1 June 2010 at 1:50 pm

                  The Israelis seem to accept it was in international waters when they responded to critics and said It is not against international law to board a vessel in such a position when enforcing a blockade, so they had not done anything wrong

  21. Sanctuary 21
    1 June 2010 at 11:33 am

    Ah, the delicious irony of history: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/echoes-of-raid-on-exodus-ship-in-1947/

    “…On July 18, as the ship neared the coast of Palestine, the British Navy intercepted it. Captain Ahronovitch tried to break through, but two British destroyers rammed the ship. Several hours of fighting followed, with the ship’s passengers spraying fuel oil (which, according to the Royal Navy, they then attempted to ignite in order to incinerate HM sailors) and throwing smoke bombs, life rafts and whatever else came to hand, down on the British sailors trying to board, The Times reported at the time. Soon the British opened fire. Two immigrants and a crewman on the Exodus were killed; scores more were wounded, many seriously. The ship was towed to Haifa, and from there its passengers were deported, first to France and eventually to Germany, where they were placed in camps near Lübeck…”

    One suspects the Royal Navy showed a higher degree of restraint and disipline in 1947 than the IDF can manage in 2010. One can only speculate on the death toll at the hands of the Israeli Navy had these ships been as well prepared and defended as the Exodus.

  22. Maggie 22
    1 June 2010 at 11:48 am

    Israel had good relations with Turkey. Surely it would have been possible to arrange for the ships to be searched for weapons before they sailed?

    Israel’s response can only be seen as a gross over reaction by a military state against foreign civilians. At a time when Hamas have done a pretty good job of limiting rocket attacks from Palestine it is a PR disaster. What was Netanyahu think\ing?

  23. john 23
    1 June 2010 at 12:03 pm

    Israel increasingly takes its behaviour cues from American action in the Middle East. First, the cruel siege of Iraq in the 90s where vital medical and other supplies were blocked as dangerous from reaching the Iraqi people leading to the preventable deaths of 500,000 children: a slow strangulation prior to the invasion of 2003. This is what Israel is doing to Gaza: its determined not to let Gaza recover. The ruthless cruel assault on Gaza commiting war crimes, killing mostly civilians and using phosphorus mirrors the cruel war crime invasion of Iraq using the weapon of mass destruction depleted uranium which poisons the environment for thousands of years . The assault on Fallujah was a direct precursor to the Gaza assault. The carefree regrettable loss of civilian life(Collateral damage} mirrors the loss of civilian life in Iraq and Afghanistan when bombs kill innocents rather than combatants. The drone attacks in Pakistan almost certainly kill more innocents than Taliban.Iran is under threat.The Middle east from Gaza to Pakistan is and potentially is a War Zone and the US and others are there because of oil.So we should be calling in not only the Israeli Ambassador for a ticking off but the American one as well which has provided the new aggressive road map for its client state Israel.

  24. prism 24
    1 June 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Israel is the North Korea of the west. It is a major destabilising force in relations between Muslims, Christians, and the rest of the world. It is armed from USA money and equipment, and the Jewish people who like to live in the USA in peace bribe that country’s politicians so that it will support an Israeli regime of old generals who have become politicians.

    These old men and their followers practice an aggressive military control over Palestine and foment situations which inflame the Palestinians so keeping the hostilities going. They do not desire peace for Israelis because that will undermine their own power, their comments explanations and justifications are lies or half-lies, they run a vicious secret service which assassinates and kidnaps people.

    The end of WW2 saw Jews in ships searching for a haven, often denied. Now they themselves turn on small ships providing a range of necessities to Gaza including armaments to defend themselves against this warrior nation. They have locked up Palestinians in an enclave and erected huge fences rather than make positive and honest agreements beyond small exceptions.

    Israelis have a country but will not acquire the skills to achieve peaceful relations with their neighbours. They do not defuse the hurt they have caused Palestinians only justify repeating what they suffered 50 years ago.

  25. prism 25
    1 June 2010 at 12:59 pm

    captcha individually
    As usual the bulk of the comments rage around the individual incident and opinions about it instead of seeing as part of a larger picture. Like not seeing the forest for the trees.

  26. Bored 26
    1 June 2010 at 1:22 pm

    I dont care much about arguments from Isreal, or pro Isreali….I have heard them for too long and they are still vacuous. I am totally disgusted by their actions, and the support they recieve fom the USA. Comparisons with the Nazis, SS, Soviets and the NKVD are in order for their actions. As Jews they demean the memory of their people at the hands of similarly unfeeling homicidal regimes. It is no excuse, in fact it is the singular reason not to act in this manner.

  27. nzfp 27
    1 June 2010 at 1:22 pm

    @john
    “Israel increasingly takes its behaviour cues from American action in the Middle East”

    Or is it the other way around, the 1999 “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” policy document was perpared by study group which included (amongst others) Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser for then Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and advocated:

    1. Rather than pursuing a “comprehensive peace” with the entire Arab world, Israel should work jointly with Jordan and Turkey to “contain, destabilize, and roll-back” those entities that are threats to all three.
    2. Changing the nature of relations with the Palestinians, specifically reserving the right of “hot pursuit” anywhere within Palestinian territory as well as attempting to promote alternatives to Arafat’s leadership.
    3. Changing relations with the United States stressing self reliance and strategic cooperation.
    “This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform

    Then in 2000 the policy document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century” was authored by the neo-con think tank “Project for a New American Century”. The neo-conservative which includes members such as (amongst others) Richard Perle – who prepared the “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” policy document for Netanyahu. The PNAC policy advocated that the US “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”.

  28. RedFred 28
    1 June 2010 at 1:57 pm

    Second an NZ Frigate to escort the next convoy….worked in the 70s.

    Although we then run the risk of ships being sunk in Auckland habour again; I wonder whos passports they would steal to get into NZ.

  29. coolas 29
    1 June 2010 at 2:36 pm

    Just watched Fox News.

    This is a Turkish plot to further their Islamist designs on a new Ottoman Empire. So there you go. Knew I must be missing something.

  30. Bomber 30
    1 June 2010 at 2:43 pm

    What is Labour’s position on the Gaza flotilla incident? Do we have an official statement yet?

  31. Bored 31
    1 June 2010 at 2:49 pm

    In 1945 my father, having just been at sea for the duration fighting Nazis had the great pleasure of being stationed in Gaza and shot at by the Stern gang. The Isreali state began life as a gangster terrorist action, and has stayed that way. They are the gangsters that once assisted and now direct US policy in the Middle East. Things have not changed in 65 years.

  32. Killinginthenameof 32
    1 June 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Haven’t been onto kiwiblog yet, any guesses how many posts it takes for them to switch Israelis for Jews?

    • Killinginthenameof 32.1
      1 June 2010 at 3:36 pm

      Manolo Pedreschi, Moron of Wilton tries his hardest and gets in early after only 57 minutes, defending the indefensible, a Jewish State. But first prize goes to Mr Christopher Thomson, in a staggeringly quick 1 hour and 1 minute, accusing those of criticizing Israel of being anti Semites. Well done!

    • PK 32.2
      1 June 2010 at 3:42 pm

      ***accusing those of criticizing Israel of being anti Semites***

      That kind of smearing usually comes up when Israel/Palestine is debated. Stephen Walt who co-authored ‘The Israel Lobby’ discusses handling smear campaigns.

      http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/22/on_grabbing_the_third_rail

  33. nzfp 33
    1 June 2010 at 4:19 pm

    Why is David Farrar so pro Israel?

    • felix 33.1
      1 June 2010 at 4:40 pm

      He claims it’s because he has Jewish heritage but really it’s just because he tends to side with the powerful, the aggressors, and the authoritarians in most situations.

      • coolas 33.1.1
        1 June 2010 at 5:09 pm

        If that be so felix, my memory of Psychology studies would deem DPF a fascist. ie enamored by power. aggression and authority. Makes sense.

        • snoozer 33.1.1.1
          1 June 2010 at 5:36 pm

          he was supporting the Chinese justice system the other day, which is all about power, control, and brutality. authoritarian of the fascist ilk

      • the sprout 33.1.2
        1 June 2010 at 5:50 pm

        he’s of Austrian extraction, perhaps it’s a guilt thing

  34. Brett Dale 34
    1 June 2010 at 4:37 pm

    Has anyone here actaully seen the footage? The so called peace acitivists were pretty violent.

    • The Voice of Reason 34.1
      1 June 2010 at 4:48 pm

      Yeah, they seemed unreasonably upset with the people attacking them. I notice that most of them refused to give the bullets back as well. Ungrateful bastards. Being dead is no excuse for bad manners.

    • snoozer 34.2
      1 June 2010 at 4:48 pm

      I’d be pretty violent if armed men attacked me and my friends.

      What you you do? Kneel down and pray for a painless death?

      How many Israelis dead? Zero, with a few injuries..

      How many aid workers? 19+ shot to death and dozens more injured

      That’s all we need to know about the levels of violence employed and who was employing it.

      • Brett Dale 34.2.1
        1 June 2010 at 5:06 pm

        So you saw the footage then?

        • felix 34.2.1.1
          1 June 2010 at 5:23 pm

          You mean the footage of those fuckers with the guns dropping out of the chopper to attack that boat? And the ensuing melee as the people on the boat tried (and failed) to defend themselves?

          Yeah I saw it. What of it?

          • Brett Dale 34.2.1.1.1
            1 June 2010 at 7:03 pm

            I mean the warnings that they gave the uhm acitivists before they boarded. Instead of showing their hands to surrender peacefully, they grab weapons, and got violent, throwing people over board.

            • Quoth the Raven 34.2.1.1.1.1
              1 June 2010 at 7:26 pm

              As has already been said Brett if I came to your house with a gun should I not expect you to defend yourself? Or do you believe, as so many here do, that the robes of state give these men some mystical power to rise above the ordinary morality that applies to individuals?

              • Brett Dale …
                1 June 2010 at 10:55 pm

                If a police officer came to my house or the arm defenders squad, I would put my hands up, i would not attack them.

                • felix …
                  1 June 2010 at 11:08 pm

                  How is that relevant?

                  It’s a foreign country’s army, Brett, not the local coppers.

                  p.s. “arm defenders”. You’re taking the piss aren’t you?

                • Marty G …
                  1 June 2010 at 11:24 pm

                  if soldiers from another country invaded your house in the middle of the night and started attacking people. what would you do then, brett? die on your knees or on your feet?

                • Quoth the Raven …
                  2 June 2010 at 3:24 pm

                  Obviously Brett you would answer in the affirmative to my question regarding mystical power and the robes of state. The fact of the matter is it doesn’t matter if it’s Israeli commandos, a New Zealand police officer or the arm defenders squad (whatever that maybe) an act of aggression is an act of aggression. The people aboard that boat were stopped not because they had done anything wrong, but the Israelis were enforcing an inhumane embargo against Gaza thus the Israelis are the aggressors. If the police had come to your house with guns because you were for instance growing cannabis they are the aggressors because you have committed no offense against another, you did not infringe upon the rights of another, and neither did those trying to deliver aid to Gaza, you’ve only transgressed against some edict on a piece of paper, you have a right to defend yourself against the aggressors (the police in this instance) just as those aboard those ships did.

            • Jenny 34.2.1.1.1.2
              1 June 2010 at 8:30 pm

              The footage taken by the protesters was cut short by IDF jamming technology.

              Why would they do that, if they were not going to do something they wanted to hide?

              No doubt the cameras kept recording even when their transmissions were jammed.

              Will the IDF ever allow the data stored in the protesters camcorders to be released?

              More likely the cameras data will be erased, or the cameras either held onto or destroyed by the IDF.

              Confirming for all the world the Israeli’s guilt.

              Again as in the reason for the electronic jamming, if the IDF have nothing to hide why don’t they release all the footage from both sides?

              Being right wing and typically shallow, you won’t be demanding that level of disclosure, will you Brett?

              • Crashcart …
                1 June 2010 at 9:10 pm

                Being in the military I can tell you that jamming when carrying out a boarding is standard practice. As to the camera’s on board the ship I agree it probably has the most important footage on it. Hopefully it won’t take long for it to reach the light of day.

        • snoozer 34.2.1.2
          1 June 2010 at 5:34 pm

          yup. if you want to defend murder simply because it’s Israel doing the murdering, have the courage to do it, Brett. Stop pussyfooting around.

      • Brett Dale 34.2.2
        1 June 2010 at 7:17 pm

        Snoozer:

        Write any posts like this, when sucidie bombers starp bombs to themself and kill inoccent civilains?

        I guess violence is only bad when its Israel.

    • Pascal's bookie 34.3
      1 June 2010 at 5:04 pm

      No mention of article 5 yet (which designates an attack on 1 member an attack on all), but this puts pressure on the US in a new way…

      NATO has agreed to a request by the Turkish premier to hold an emergency meeting over the fatal Israeli raid on the Gaza-bound Freedom Flotilla.
      “Planning is underway for a meeting at the request of the Turkish authorities tomorrow afternoon,” James Appathurai, a spokesman for the alliance, said in a Monday statement.

      • nzfp 34.3.1
        1 June 2010 at 5:09 pm

        Oh yeah that’s right Turkey is a member of NATO. Didn’t the USA use article 5 of the NATO charter to attack Afghanistan? How does this play out? USA+NATO vs Israel?

        By the way:
        “Turkish Sources – Israeli Advance Target Assassination List Found on Flotilla”

        Turkish sources and media revealed a document which shows that a death list had been prepared in advance by the Israelis, showing names and pictures of people on board of the ships to be murdered, who, according to Israel, were “involved in the International humanitarian aid for Gaza’. According to the Turkish sources, hundreds of Israeli soldiers stormed the blue Turkish ship “Marmara’ flotilla and they had copies of the death list. The list included the names of civilians on the fleet who should be killed’. The document was apparently recovered after one of the Israeli soldiers lost it during the piracy act.

        Maybe Israel should be ejected from the OECD?

        • infused 34.3.1.1
          1 June 2010 at 5:27 pm

          If that’s true, it’s pretty damming indeed.

        • snoozer 34.3.1.2
          1 June 2010 at 5:33 pm

          the OECD is just an economic club and Israel’s not a member

        • Crashcart 34.3.1.3
          1 June 2010 at 9:13 pm

          Those IDF troops are impressive. Not only did they manage to compare faces to photo’s while dropping down lines and being beaten by sticks they then managed to pick them out of the crowd and shoot them. Can’t wait to see these list because I am sure this sort of release is no more inflamatory and stupid than a lot of the rubbish coming out of Israel.

          • lprent 34.3.1.3.1
            2 June 2010 at 6:28 am

            Crashcart: My thoughts precisely on both sets of claims. The ‘hit-list’ looks like utter crap to me. The usual Israeli PR bullshit looks like providing the convenient fig leaf for those who prefer not to look too closely at Israels policies and actions.

            What puzzles me is why in the hell the Israelis did all of this in the middle of the night? A normal blockade operation would be done during the day precisely to prevent this type of casualty list. Freighters are not exactly well equipped to deal with armed frigates or even patrol boats.

            The only explanation that I can come up with is that the Israelis were hoping for a quiet fiat accompli – which they monumentally failed in. In international law their blockade of Gaza is pretty damn shaky, especially in international waters. They probably thought that this would avoid most of the legal questions around their actions.

  35. prism 35
    1 June 2010 at 5:09 pm

    Just a NB about a book that could be pertinent. Might shine a light on this unlovely murky conflict.
    My Israel Question
    by Antony Loewenstein
    (Melbourne University Press, ISBN: 978-0-522-85706-1)
    Reviewed Kim Hill 22/May I think.

  36. jcuknz 36
    1 June 2010 at 8:03 pm

    Of course the ships had to be stopped becuase they were carrying weapons …. bits of 4×2 and steel bars. Sadly this is just another example of IDF/Israeli thuggery. The blocade is illegal so any action enforcing it is illegal too. As for an Israeli investigation sure! Get the Fox to investigate the attack on the hen house. Yeah Right!
    This thread, and the one over at Kiwiblog, just goes to show how insidious is the jewish penetration of propaganda is in promoting their false ideas of right and wrong, with their justification for the concentration camp called Gaza.
    As the Israeli spokesman said this morning, it might have been their Prime Minister, “protecting us from thousands of rockets fired at us from Gaza” actually I gather last year Hamas have restrained most and only around twenty were fired. We also have the knowledge dating from around the time of the Napoleonic Wars that Congrieves rockets were very ineffective as killing machines …. so obviously they are a nuisence but no way a real danger. Crossing the road or driving a car under the influence a far bigger danger to the people in Israel. Just one person killed by a rocket last year I understand. now the IDF have killed nine in retaliation in just one short event.

  37. vto 37
    1 June 2010 at 8:26 pm

    is it religion that drives these mad people? I mean, that is the only difference between them isn’t it.

    As such perhaps the UN should ban religion.

    imagine

    • Lew 37.1
      1 June 2010 at 8:31 pm

      Because prohibition works so well.

      L

    • NickS 37.2
      1 June 2010 at 9:55 pm

      Better idea, educate people and provide better wages, which over time result in a down-swing in strong religious associations for the majority of people. However, given the outlier of the US, sort of having a state religion seems to help and increases in inequality and/or political and economic instability drives up religion. There’s also the no-hope crowd, who seem to have a strong dependency when it comes to the more hard-core sects, but even in the USA they lack the power to impact on an d reverse human rights reforms when it comes to groups they don’t like.

      It just takes time unfortunately.

    • stargazer 37.3
      2 June 2010 at 11:16 am

      “I mean, that is the only difference between them isn’t it.”

      you’re kidding right? the continuing theft of land and water is not a significant difference to you? the ongoing expansion of settlements? the continued and constant denial of building permits for palestinians to build homes on their own land? the marriage act that stops someone from the occupied territories marrying an israeli citizen? the detention without trial, or access to lawyers? the closed military courts, and trials where defendants aren’t allowed to see the evidence against them? none of this (and so much more i haven’t got time to mention) would be a cause for “difference between them”, as you so eloquently put it?

      well, i guess it must be just religion then.

  38. illuminatedtiger 38
    1 June 2010 at 8:48 pm

    If Iran had done it there would be bombs dropping over Tehran by now.

    • Brett Dale 38.1
      1 June 2010 at 9:53 pm

      Illuminatedtiger:

      If Iran had of done it no one on the left would be blogging about it, or complaining.

      • Pascal's bookie 38.1.1
        1 June 2010 at 10:13 pm

        So whaddya reckon Brett? You’ve not said yet AFAICT.

        Anything Israel done lately you’d like to say was pretty shit, stupid, illegal, counterproductive, and immoral?

        Or are you just outraged at the outrage? Because obviously, the important lesson from all of this is about the left in NZ.

      • felix 38.1.2
        1 June 2010 at 10:16 pm

        Yes Brett.

        Those on the left – especially those who frequent this site – are well known for turning a blind eye to violent acts by military forces against civilians.

        In fact I bet without any effort at all you could find a few examples to prove it. Whaddayareckon Brett?

        edit: Snap Pb

        • Brett Dale 38.1.2.1
          1 June 2010 at 10:58 pm

          felix:

          Actually felix, those here do turn a blind eye to violent acts committed by certain groups or they try to make excuses for why someone did a violent act.

          If your really for peace, then you would always be for peace and make no excuse for whos doing the violence, and I dont see that here.

          • the sprout 38.1.2.1.1
            1 June 2010 at 11:01 pm

            ah that would require you to open your eyes Bretty

            • Brett Dale 38.1.2.1.1.1
              1 June 2010 at 11:08 pm

              sprout:

              Why do I need to open my eyes, Im merly pointing out that some people here have in the past have made excuses for violent acts.

              If you were for peace, people wouldnt do that.

              • felix …
                1 June 2010 at 11:38 pm

                I asked if you could show any examples.

                I’ll take it that’s a “no” then.

                • Brett Dale …
                  1 June 2010 at 11:43 pm

                  When people here talk about 9/11, they said it happened because of american policies. They even thought it was fair enough when a memorial got vandalise.

                  It was quite sad, that people can have so much hate in them.

                  • Marty G …
                    1 June 2010 at 11:47 pm

                    When people here talk about 9/11, they said it happened because of american policies.”

                    that’s not the same as saying it was morally justified – it’s talking about cause and effect. You are saying the Israelis were right to kill those people.

                    • Brett Dale …
                      1 June 2010 at 11:50 pm

                      Im saying if someone attacked them with a weapon, they have the right to defend themselves.

                    • felix …
                      1 June 2010 at 11:56 pm

                      “Im saying if someone attacked them with a weapon, they have the right to defend themselves.”

                      Yes, the people who were attacked had the right to defend themselves.

                  • felix …
                    1 June 2010 at 11:53 pm

                    “Brett.

                    Here’s what you said less than an hour ago:

                    “those here do turn a blind eye to violent acts”

                    Hurry up and find an example.

      • the sprout 38.1.3
        1 June 2010 at 10:41 pm

        jeez you’re a drongo Bretty.
        stay in the bog where you have a chance of looking clever.

      • lprent 38.1.4
        2 June 2010 at 6:17 am

        If Iran had of done it no one on the left would be blogging about it, or complaining.

        Brett: That is the weird thing.

        With the exception of the US embassy stuff in the late 70’s, Iran pretty much abides by international laws and even has a pretty good record in the UN. Israel on the other hand, ignores both international law and the UN most of the time.

        I don’t particularly like the political system in Iran. But I don’t like it in Israel with their apartheid system both towards their residual Arab citizens and their Arab citizens they did earlier ethnic cleansings on.

        Which do you think needs to be looked at with more concern? A state that generally abides by international conventions, or one that flouts them?

  39. vto 39
    1 June 2010 at 8:53 pm

    Well Lew you would have to ask Sue Bradford about that. (lew’s 8.31 comment. silly technology and reply buttons)

    But back to subject.. upon reflection (very short due to irrelevant subject matter) it seems there are in fact not one but two differences between jews and palestinians, religion and head dressings. Otherwise same. Which shouldn’t be surprising. They live in the same land and have no doubt mixed genes all over the small and insignificant place.

    I just dunno what all the fuss is about. Haven’t ever.

    It’s just religion and head dressage. And culture and history, but we all know how subjective and confusing that is. Call me an ignorant kiwi. Or call me someone calling it from the furthest and most objective place on the planet.

    • Lew 39.1
      1 June 2010 at 8:57 pm

      You’re an ignorant kiwi, vto.

      L

      • vto 39.1.1
        1 June 2010 at 9:08 pm

        Well that was a sitter wasn’t it.

        I would suggest you have an ignorance about the musings and life machinations of the largest portion of any population Lew. Which makes it anything other than ignorant.

        And apart from that, what else is it? if its not religion, headwear, culture and history… in short

        • Lew 39.1.1.1
          1 June 2010 at 9:33 pm

          Oh, no, “history and culture” largely covers it. After all, those comprise virtually everything which distinguishes one genetically-similar population from another.

          It’s appending them as an afterthought is what makes you seem ignorant.

          L

          • vto 39.1.1.1.1
            1 June 2010 at 9:42 pm

            Yes that’s right (first paragraph not second). History and culture is like some never-full cauldron that is always on the simmer. It will just hold whatever is thrown into it – worthy or not….. and there it starteth and endeth. imo.

  40. Jameel Rasheed 40
    1 June 2010 at 9:11 pm

    I love it. How many lies can you count in the first sentence here, alone?

    Heavily-armed Israeli commandos have murdered at least 19 civilians in an unprovoked attack in international waters on a flotilla of ships trying to get aid to occupied Gaza

    heavily armed; with paintball guns
    murdered: self sefense
    19 civilians: 9 flotilla terrorists
    unprovoked: the entire flotilla was an intentional provocation. Israel warned them not to come, and offered to bring all the aid to Gaza.
    occupied Gaza: occupied, by whom exactly?

    Not bad for an opening sentence.

    • Marty G 40.1
      1 June 2010 at 10:02 pm

      Gee, they shot people to death with paintball guns?

      If I board your boat and try to arrest you and you resist and I kill you, how is that self-defence on my part?

      What exact act of terror were these people carrying out?

      unprovoked. the flotilla represented no threat to Israel

      Gaza is occupied by Israel. Israel doesn’t permanently base troops there, except around settlements, but it regularly mounts incursions and maintains complete control over entry and exit. It’s an occupation.

      • Jameel Rasheed 40.1.1
        2 June 2010 at 12:11 am

        Tell me, have you ever heard of the \”Disengagement\” in 2005 — when Israel LEFT GAZA, destroyed all the settlements, removed all IDF bases, and positioned itself OUTSIDE of Gaza?

        Why not look up some news sites from the summer of 2005 before you continue your slanderous lie-fest.

        • Luxated 40.1.1.1
          2 June 2010 at 12:34 am

          Jameel, occupation is about possession and possession is about control. If you cannot control something then you cannot possess it and therefore cannot occupy it.

          So a simple question for you Jameel, who controls Gaza?

        • Marty G 40.1.1.2
          2 June 2010 at 12:39 am

          Israel blockades Gaza and regularly mounts inclusions where and when it likes. That’s occupation.

      • jcuknz 40.1.2
        2 June 2010 at 7:23 am

        I would query the word occupation but I seek other words like encirclement, contained, imprisoned and there must be more. Sure it was ‘nice’ of Israel to withdraw from Gaza but it didn’t really alter the fact that the inhabitants are in effectively a concentration camp.

    • The Voice of Reason 40.2
      1 June 2010 at 10:13 pm

      Let me help you out, Jameel:

      The IDF didn’t kill people with paintball guns. They used real guns.
      It’s not self defence if you are killing people in an illegal action.
      Nobody knows who is dead, as that info has not been released yet. None will be terrorists though, just Turks.
      Unprovoked because the fleet was not threatening anyone and was still in international waters, heading toward Palestinian waters.
      Israel doesn’t formally occupy Gaza, they’re starving it instead. Bit like the Warsaw ghetto, that last one.

      Feel better, now?

    • vto 40.3
      1 June 2010 at 10:16 pm

      heavily armed with paintball guns; Is that how Israeli terrorists arm themselves Jameel?

      Murdered in self-defence; but they went onto another persons boat in the middle of the ocean at some ungodly hour of the day with machine guns and lordy knows what other fandangled military killing machinery. So what do you mean???

      19 or 9 ….. show the evidence.

      Israel warned them? Bring the aid themselves?.. ha ha.

      Occupied Gaza? ha ha again. Are you suggesting that Gaza is not occupied? Just like a prisoners cell at night.

      piss off

    • Killinginthenameof 40.4
      2 June 2010 at 12:17 pm

      Why did they need to defend themselves, why didn’t they realise they had no fucking right to do any of what they did, and get back in their stupid fucking helicopters and fuck the fuck off back to Israel?

  41. North 41
    1 June 2010 at 9:54 pm

    Defenders of Israel out there……have you ever thought about the following letters……”n”, “a”, “z”, “i”, “o”, “n”, “i”, “s”, “m”…… ?

    By all means come back with some witty John Cleese rearrangement if you must……but for God’s Sake, have think about them and no facile resort to calling me anti-semite !

    Nazionism is what it is !

  42. Jameel Rasheed 42
    1 June 2010 at 10:06 pm

    Oh No. “North” has invoked his magic scrabble set of letters, and we must all fall to the ground and prostrate ourselves in homage to the alphabet soup of truth.

    That’s it, you’ve definitely convinced me.

    • Marty G 42.1
      1 June 2010 at 10:12 pm

      you’re the one making excuses for people who boarded an unarmed boat in international waters that was carrying aid to a starving population and killed 19 people (oh, 9 in your count, because that makes it ok, eh?)

      • Croc 42.1.1
        1 June 2010 at 10:57 pm

        Unarmed?

        • Marty G 42.1.1.1
          1 June 2010 at 11:26 pm

          oh noes, they’ve grabbed poles and they’ve a box cutter!

          What did the Israelis have that killed 19 people?

        • lprent 42.1.1.2
          2 June 2010 at 6:02 am

          Unarmed?

          Yes. Those are weapons of opportunity. The first part of that film seems to show that initially the defenders were using bare hands.

          The question is why the Israelis were boarding these ships, especially skulking in the middle of the night. Typically blockade operations are done in daylight precisely to prevent this type of problem.

          This looks more like the Israelis had other objectives in mind – probably related to diminishing the PR/legal issues with their questionable blockade of Gaza. In which case you’d have to say that the Israeli military monumentally screwed up.

      • Jameel Rasheed 42.1.2
        2 June 2010 at 12:03 am

        If they truly cared about carrying aid to a “starving” population, why did they refuse Israel’s offer of going to the Ashdod port peacefully for inspection and then Israel would have transferred all the aid to Gaza?

        Why are you making excuses for flotilla thugs? If they were really “humanitarian”, it wouldn’t have mattered to them how the aid got there, right?

        And do you have any evidence that 19 people were killed? Or is repeating the same lies over and over the easiest way to convince people?

        • Marty G 42.1.2.1
          2 June 2010 at 12:05 am

          If 9 people were murdered, is that OK?

          Why shouldn’t a peaceful ship be allowed to enter a port in a territory that you claim isn’t occupied? Why should they have to turn over aid to the people imposing hardship and occupation on the people that they are trying to help?

          Would you be a thug if you hit me after I invaded your home and shot your friends?

          • Jameel Rasheed 42.1.2.1.1
            2 June 2010 at 12:26 am

            Marty; Why isn’t anyone answering the real question?

            If they truly cared about carrying aid to a “starving’ population, why did they refuse Israel’s offer of going to the Ashdod port peacefully for inspection and then Israel would have transferred all the aid to Gaza?

            Why are you making excuses for flotilla thugs? If they were really “humanitarian’, it wouldn’t have mattered to them how the aid got there, right?

            If this was truly an aid mission, why would they have any problem letting their cargo be inspected?

            Unless they had something to hide OR they wanted an international provocation.

            Why shouldn’t a peaceful ship be allowed to enter a port in a territory that you claim isn’t occupied?

            Well, for one, since so many weapons ships try to arm Gaza, its Israel’s LEGAL right to determine if there are weapons on board.

            That’s maritime law. Israel tried numerous times to peacefully get the flotilla to divert its course so that its contents can be inspected. IDF soldiers boarded the ship expecting no resistance, because everyone said it was on a “humanitarian” mission. And Humanitarians wouldn’t try to kill you, right?

            Oh, and by the way, did you know that Egypt and Gaza share a border?

            • Marty G 42.1.2.1.1.1
              2 June 2010 at 12:36 am

              So, your logic is:
              a) they should have given the aid over to the people who weren’t letting them give it to those who need it
              b) because they didn’t they were obviously terrorists
              c) therefore killing them is cool

              • felix …
                2 June 2010 at 1:57 am

                Actually after a look around his openly expansionist, racist blog I’d say his logic is far simpler than that – more like “they’re Islamic so therefore killing them is cool”.

                • Jameel Rasheed …
                  2 June 2010 at 2:54 am

                  Wow: your analysis is stunning.

                  a) they should have given the aid over to the people who weren’t letting them give it to those who need it

                  Could you rephrase that in English?

                  Israel allows into Gaza hundreds of tons of humanitarian aid a month. They offered the flotilla the option of letting it go into Gaza the same way as the rest of it. This way, it would allow for Israel to ensure that military equipment wasn’t smuggled into Gaza, like the routine attempts.

                  b) because they didn’t they were obviously terrorists

                  Because they didn’t, it made them suspect..

                  c) therefore killing them is cool

                  And therefore, Israel boarded the ship. Had their been no violence, no one would have gotten hurt.

                  And calling ME a Racist…nice.

                  And whats wrong with Islamists?

                  –jameel rashid
                  جميل في المقاطعة

            • lprent 42.1.2.1.1.2
              2 June 2010 at 5:50 am

              If they truly cared about carrying aid to a “starving’ population, why did they refuse Israel’s offer of going to the Ashdod port peacefully for inspection and then Israel would have transferred all the aid to Gaza?

              In my opinion, because no-one in their right mind would trust Israel to do much that is civilized when Palestinians are involved. They have a 60 year track record of stuffing them in large concentration camps and destroying any ability of them to lift their society economically.

              It would be like giving humanitarian aid to the guards at Buchenwald and asking them to disperse it amongst the inmates for the inmates betterment.

              This is merely the latest incident in the saga of Israel – currently the worlds oldest terrorist state.

            • jcuknz 42.1.2.1.1.3
              2 June 2010 at 8:07 pm

              Either earlier in this thread, or maybe elsewhere I visit, somebody listed a whole lot of aid that Israel has passed on to the people of Gaza. Then earlier today I heard a commentator on radio saying that the aid the Israel let through was just a quarter of what is needed by Gaza. With such restriction I am not suprised that the convoy wished to go directly to Gaza and not pass through jail. It is great news that Egypt has openned its border to permit aid to enter though with stupid restrictions on what is and what is not permited through that has its drawbacks for Aid authorities. It is really sad that the Israelis have this persecution complex which prevents them from behaving like reasonably normal people and getting on with other countries. They have been pariahs for some time now as a result of this mental affliction they suffer from. I expect only ‘tough love’ by America is going to solve their problem and Hillary Clinton’s comments on the subject came as a welcome suprise.

        • jcuknz 42.1.2.2
          2 June 2010 at 7:33 am

          As I see it the trouble with sending aid through Israel is that while some have quoted quite large amounts getting through there is no indication of the time frame and I remember, on which I base my opinion, the situation following the last agression by Israeli into Gaza when aid got to the frontier, Egypt’s, and sat and sat an only very restricted amounts were let through. So I would expect to get a dead matchstick via Israel. The current good news is that Egypt has openned its border crossing, though for how long there is no indication.

  43. SPC 43
    1 June 2010 at 10:21 pm

    Palestine/Israel has apparently become some replay of the Spanish civil war – with the international left and right picking sides.

    I blame the Soviet Union …. for supporting the establishment of the state of Israel, then becoming an ally of Arab nation states which wanted to destroy Israel … which brought the left and right divide to the issue …

    Here we had a beat the blockade supply run under Turkish flag (resonance to the Warsaw ghetto siege and the post WW2 Jewish refugees ship runs) – but without any arrangement for the ship to berth to be searched later. It was obviously a PR exercise to push moderates to take sides – thus involving the Turks and then via “successfull martyrdom” when the blockade was enforced diplomatically isolate Israel – associate the blockade with acts of violence while Hamas (now successfully empowered and unchallenged across Gaza).

    Next time there will be pressure for Turkey to supply a naval guard to the recognised sea border of “Israeli” (which changes what exactly in terms of a blockade being enforced?) or will the Turkish navy refuse to recognise Israeli jurisdiction off the Gaza coast (Egypt also enforces the blockade, such as it agreed between them and Israel, and Egypt occupied Gaza from 1948-1967).

    Turkey (a NATO member) is in an interesting position – one wonders if they can find a way out of their predicament.

    • vto 43.1
      1 June 2010 at 10:59 pm

      bah. its all predicaments laid upon a foundation of self-laid blocks.

      It is about as useless as Andy Haden.

  44. Croc 44
    1 June 2010 at 10:56 pm

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

    Pretty brutal attack on the Israeli soldiers. Whether or not it was justified is another question.

    • The Voice of Reason 44.1
      1 June 2010 at 11:14 pm

      I’d be interested to know how many were dead before this video was taken. Context is important and if the crew felt they were going to die, it would hardly be a surprise they fought back. Last night’s initial reports claimed that the attackers were shooting as they came down from the helicopters, so I suppose you defend yourself with whatever is to hand.

      The IDF media response is brutally similar to when they kill kids on land and then say it was their fault for throwing rocks. It’s a pathetic over-reaction from a country that really, really should know better.

  45. Jenny 45
    2 June 2010 at 12:06 am

    I find the claim from the IDF that their commandos were armed with only paintball guns and side arms (for personal defence) far fetched.

    From stuff.co.nz

    A soldier, identified only as a sergeant, told reporters at a military briefing that the activists on board “were armed with knives, scissors, pepper spray and guns.” He said he was armed only with a paintball rifle. “It was a civilian paintball gun that any 12-year-old can play with,” he said. “I saw my friends on the deck spitting blood.”

    I would need to see a lot more evidence for this claim from the IDF than the informal testimony of an anonymous IDF sergeant.

    For these reasons;

    1. Though I personally wouldn’t give one to a 12 year old boy, Paintball guns are toys.

    2. Paintball guns usually come with accessories particularly goggles to protect the eyes of the users from paint splatter, I didn’t see any of the commandos wearing paintgun goggles in the (admittedly limited) photos and video so far released.

    2. I didn’t see any video photos of paint scattered about anywhere, the only stains I saw looked like blood.
    As I understand it Paint Ball pellets come in a range of colours not just red.

    3. The long rifle like weapons that the video clearly show the commandos pointing and carrying had the webbed metal heat shielding around the barrels typical of fully automatic weapons.

    The claims that IDF commandos stormed a ship with Paint Ball Guns in my opinion is frankly ludicrous.

    In fact I feel like an idiot even trying to treat this claim objectively.

    As the saying goes “Extraordinary Claims Need Extraordinary Proof”

    Of course for ordinary morons like Brett no proof at all will do.

    • Luxated 45.1
      2 June 2010 at 3:56 pm

      To be fair Jenny, paintball guns are used in riot suppression usually using what is known as a pepperball (as the name suggests a paintball full of mace). However having said this the footage doesn’t indicate the usage of such weapons, although I wouldn’t categorically rule it out as the video I’ve seen isn’t clear enough to determine the model or make of any weapons in use.

      Of course regardless of the ammunition a paintball gun will typically not kill anyone.

  46. Jameel Rasheed 46
    2 June 2010 at 12:15 am

    Voice of Reason: Do you have any clue about maritime law?

    Here’s something for your spare time.

    According to the San Remo Manual it is permissible under rule 67(a) to attack neutral vessels on the high seas when the vessels “are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture.

    http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce

    • Luxated 46.1
      2 June 2010 at 1:00 am

      SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE

      Blockade

      …

      102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

      (a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
      (b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

      103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

      (a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
      (b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

      104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.

      Yeah about that, try harder next time?

      There is more in the rules which could probably be applied and not in the favour of Israel, but I think this is sufficient for now.

      One more thing, just how big is this blockade? Genuine question here. I wouldn’t imagine it would stretch beyond Gaza’s littoral waters would you?

    • Pete 46.2
      2 June 2010 at 6:11 am

      And here’s some reading material to back up Luxated’s points:

      UNICEF: At a glance: Occupied Palestinian Territory
      http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/oPt.html

      ICRC (Red Cross) report on Gaza (2009):
      http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine-report-260609

      UNHRC Fact Finding Mission on Gaza reports (Goldstone)/media:
      http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/FactFindingMission.htm

      And an oldie, well before the 2008/2009 siege (2003) [PDF] Nutritional Assessment of the West Bank and Gaza Strip:
      http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADA826.pdf

      Do you have any humanity, or simply blind antipathy/ideology? – bearing in mind that many here would sympathise with Israelis who may be under threat of rocket fire from Gaza if it were proportional to the ‘terror’ imposed within the blockade. It seem that the Israeli state is, by all outward accounts, politically self-defeating. How is any of this going to better position Israel in an already fragile region, when this sort of activity empowers extremists to react?

      (Cue ‘left-wing conspiracy’, and ‘propaganda’ talk c/o ‘Rasheed’.)

      • jcuknz 46.2.1
        2 June 2010 at 7:46 am

        It is sad, a tragedy, that Israeli suffer from their persecution complex and cannot say “Yes what happened in the past was dreadful [ a mild word which doesn’t decribe it], but we are now in the 21st century” and appreciate there is no future in their current position. They could be such a force for good and progress in the area as a modern sophisticated nation.

    • Tiger Mountain 46.3
      2 June 2010 at 9:02 am

      Since when has any law anywhere mattered to your zionist friends JR. It is a little late to seriously expect technicalities to play any useful role in the aftermath of this latest murderous incident, apart from symbolically supporting the right of the flotilla to go about their task.

  47. Bored 47
    2 June 2010 at 11:53 am

    JR, your justification of the unjustifiable by legal small print and other spurious arguments shows you to be what you are: an apologist for a state that murders people in a way reminiscent of European states that once persecuted and murdered defenceless Jews. They too had “legal codes” to justify their outrages. Your support of a country that has turned a whole of Gaza into a concentration camp expresses a degee of moral bankruptcy that is not worth arguing with.

    Please be my guest, go to Isreal and take that other apologist for murder (the Isreali ambassador) with you.

  48. RedLogix 48
    2 June 2010 at 8:19 pm

    “The awful thing about life is: everyone has their reasons.” —Jean Renoir

  49. jcuknz 49
    3 June 2010 at 9:41 am

    a) they should have given the aid over to the people who weren’t letting them give it to those who need it
    If you cannot understand that sentence Jameel then you need to go back to school and learn some comprehension …. it sums up the situation very well.

    One bad report though … Hamas Police turned back Gaza citizens trying to cross the border into Egypt … don’t like the sound of that.