I realize that given the previous 1800 plus posts in the thread. The report by the BBC, which extensively interviewed both sides and obtained previously unaired footage from both sides, suggests that the Israeli approach to the boat was one of interdiction, which suddenly turned lethal when they were attacked - which of course is in stark contrast to all of the posts in this thread which suggest the Israelis were the aggressors.
IDF attacking the activists' boats
- Thread starter Neutral
- Start date
My point is the antagonistic act can quite easily be deemed the Israelis boarding ships in international waters, the violent response from the IHH being inevitable. Or the aggression could be deemed the attempt by the flotilla to break the blockade in the first place. In truth the BBC documentary clarifies none of these issues, nor seeks to, but does show that the IHH were far more peaceful humanitarians. The Israeli reports were certainly correct in that regard. This doesn't absolve them of performing an aggressive act though, which is what I mean when I say it can be argued either way who initiated it.
Paintball guns or Iron Bars?
I found the evidence regarding the content of the cargo (2/3 of the medicines were out of date) and its fate (mobility scooters and hospital beds still dumped in a Gaza warhouse) quite compelling (11:38 into the second part).
That was the most revealing part, assuming it is true.
Looking back, this was such a senseless loss of life.
We are not talking chickens or eggs here
Boarding a boat without permision is an attack
Just as deliberately sailing a boat into a restricted area as a political stunt is inviting it.
Israel has no right to restrict access to Gaza
Yeah we are. You could trace all of this back to the WWI if you really wanted to. As the report suggests, the ship was out to make a political statement by initiating conflict with the Israelis. The so called supplies that were intended to help Gazans were largely expired.
Another pointless chicken/egg argument.
The ships were delivering aid and making a political statement, they can do both
Given that there was no way they would be allowed to ever reach port, but sailed anyway, I'd say it was the latter.
Other ships had reached the port, it was Israel that suddenly decided that it wasn't okay for this flotila
Yes, it was only this flotilla the Israelis objected to.
Did you watch the BBC piece ? What did you think of it ?
Which emphasises the point that this was a political move on Israels sideYes, it was only this flotilla the Israelis objected to.
Did you watch the BBC piece ? What did you think of it ?
No
Its well worth a view. Well done in its impartiality (unless of course you're biased towards one of the two sides).
I don't have a dog in the fight. Neither side can claim complete innocence for what happened.
You're in love with military and are very quick to defend it's actions
I agree, that doesn't mean blame is equal
I see the broader geopolitical angle of all of this - not the strictly "humanitarian" angle of the Palestinians or the "interdiction" angle of the Israeli position. This was admittedly first and foremost a political move by the organizers, designed to draw attention to Gaza - by initiating a confrontation with the Israeli military to gain international sympathy. Unfortunately, it backfired and resulted in the needless deaths of 9 people.
I'm going to watch it shortly, but the BBC are not known for their impartiality where Israel are concerned, I used to think that Orla Girvin's (or however you spell the miserable bitch's surname) reports were bordering on the deliberate bias/racist side IMHO, I was glad when she was shipped out to Afganistan.
I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it.
Was she the one weeping when Arafat was flown to die in Paris?
I get the impression you're in love with radical Palestinian elements and very quick to defend their actions.
If the aim was to bring attention to Gaza it succeded, more so becuase of Israels actions in stopping the fleet
Probably, most her reports were on the lines of what those nasty Israeli's have done to the poor defenceless Palestinians who, if they happened to lob a few missiles back and murder the odd Israeli citizen, well it dam well serves them right.
Not my favourite BBC reporter as you can tell...ugly too...
Thats what makes this so compelling...seems the BBC are behaving themselves on this one.
What's 'innocence' got to do with it?.
A sovereign state is doing what it can to defend itself against Islamic nutters bent on jihad.
It really is that simple.
Just finished watching it and it does seem that the BBC are finally being impartial, in fact if anything its more pro Israel than anything. Having said that, assuming this is the 'truth' it would appear that certain elements of the IHH were looking for trouble.
I guess the majority genuinely thought they were delivering aid and assistance whereas there were 40 odd prepared for a fight.
BBC finally being impartial...BBC are probably the most impartial news corporation in the world, unless your idea of impartial is Fox News or MSNBC.
The world over, BBC is held in very high esteem.
Just because it doesn't read out what the Israeli State Department issues, doesn't mean it is biased.
Oh and Cuntastine, CE is never quite the same without you making an appearance
Screw the goyim and the moslems.
The world over, BBC is held in very high esteem.
Just because it doesn't read out what the Israeli State Department issues, doesn't mean it is biased.
Oh and Cuntastine, CE is never quite the same without you making an appearance
Screw the goyim and the moslems.
There talking about that bitch Guervin aren't they?
Wasn't her, but apparently one from the same school of impartiality.Probably, most her reports were on the lines of what those nasty Israeli's have done to the poor defenceless Palestinians who, if they happened to lob a few missiles back and murder the odd Israeli citizen, well it dam well serves them right.
Not my favourite BBC reporter as you can tell...ugly too...
BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own Correspondent | Yasser Arafat's unrelenting journey
" Yet when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry... without warning.
In quieter moments since I have asked myself, why the sudden surge of emotion? "
Funny, I asked myself the same question...Why did the Beeb's ME correspondent cry when this arch-terrorist died?
You saying that no one else in history has ever sued the BBC, really?
Damn those human rights activists and their jihad.
Defending themselves from what? What threat was this boat to the Israeli people delivering goods to the people of Gaza? Does it jeopardize their sanctions on Gaza?
Having the cargo checked by Israel wouldn't jeopardize the delivery of the goods to Gaza.
It does seeing as there is a restircited list of items
And you think Israel is to be trusted? Well of course you will, but those in the Flotilla had every right to doubt Israel's fair cooperation, heck the Israelis proved it by confiscating all recording equipment following the seizing of the ship.
But it seems as if the whole thing wasnt that much about delivering help anyway (outdated medicine, seriously), more a political statement, in which case the IHH wouldnt need to fear the Jews stealing their precious cargo after docking in Ashkelon.
On the other hand how do you make a strong political statement without an incident?
Ok how about a 'what-if' scenario?
What if the Israelis had decided not to size the ship in Gazan waters? Do you think those involved in the Flotilla would have then gone out of their to ensure Israeli confrontation, risking their lives in the process? Chances are it would have just docked, delivered a few goods, outdated or otherwise, and a few speeches would have been made about oppression, global action etc. Chances are no one would have been hurt and the whole thing would have eventually been over and best of all...the Israelis wouldnt come any worst and would still be buddies with the Turks.
And even if it was just merely a political statement - whats wrong with that? Such non-violent statements seemed pretty successful in the Civil Rights movement in the 60s.