Eugene's retro flotilla attack defense

Eugene has put up the challenge that his debating ability in regards to the flotilla attack is second to none. any takers?

choice eugene quotes to set the stage

  Quote

you don't perform civil disobedience by dropping soldiers down the deck and bashing them with metal poles and knives.

  Quote

you can even see actual videos of those people attacking soldiers with metal sticks and knives and dropping one on his head to a lower deck. if the lives of soldiers are endangered they can use deadly force

best of luck with this (non sarcastic)

should've just derailed imo.

i don't know nearly enough about the incident to say either way. However I do think there should have been more U.S. media coverage on the dead U.S. citizen. Whether he was attacking an Israeli soldier or not is irrelevant...would be nice to be kept in the loop about things like this.

All you need to know is this took place on international waters, not within the Israeli blockade.

  On 12/31/2011 at 12:42 AM, Gocab said:

All you need to know is this took place on international waters, not within the Israeli blockade.

Yep. Israeli piracy.

  On 12/31/2011 at 12:42 AM, Gocab said:

All you need to know is this took place on international waters, not within the Israeli blockade.

the flotilla clearly stated their goal was to break the israeli blockade, so why does it really matter where it was intercepted ? those kind of formalities are meaningless, as if the reaction would be different if idf boarded the ship near gaza.

also this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_assessments_of_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid#Arguments_opposing_legality_of_high_seas_enforcement

couldn't they have waited for it to cross into israeli waters and then blow it the fuck up? completely justified legally in their actions?

i think the main reason for boarding the ship in international waters was the night-time, but this whole international waters thing is really a non-issue, it's just legal wankery.

if having international waters is a non-issue, then why do we have international waters?

The blockade is also illegal.

But i don't want to argue with poor old eugene. He must have an hard enough time internally trying to justify everything that his country does. Without us also pointing out all the obvious evils, insensitivities and inconsistencies.

well first things first for me (flotilla argument n00b), why are international waters a non-issue?

  On 12/31/2011 at 1:49 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

well first things first for me (flotilla argument n00b), why are international waters a non-issue?

Because if it were an issue, eugene would have to concede that his country did something wrong. This is how israel negotiates as well. They never give ground on any point, big or small. Well actually they do give ground sometimes, on fantasy points that they've invented to pretend that they are actually negotiating fairly.

shit, i'm still in the thread sorry eugene.

/peace ;-]

  On 12/31/2011 at 1:47 AM, delet... said:

The blockade is also illegal.

 

But i don't want to argue with poor old eugene. He must have an hard enough time internally trying to justify everything that his country does. Without us also pointing out all the obvious evils, insensitivities and inconsistencies.

if the u.n is any authority for you, then the latest report on this incident claimed that the gaza blockade IS legal, see palmer report., p. 44

http://www.un.org/Ne...anel_Report.pdf

then, according to some lawmen quoted in that wiki page that i brought earlier makes the boarding legal.

  On 12/31/2011 at 1:34 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

if having international waters is a non-issue, then why do we have international waters?

im not meaning in general sense, but in this particular incident all this occupation with international waters, when the flotilla ships clearly stated that they are going to try to break the blockade, is meaningless.

  On 12/31/2011 at 1:47 AM, delet... said:

The blockade is also illegal.

 

But i don't want to argue with poor old eugene. He must have an hard enough time internally trying to justify everything that his country does. Without us also pointing out all the obvious evils, insensitivities and inconsistencies.

you don't have the capacity to argue something against israel, when you bring something up it's usually completely delusional or irrelevant or just plain factually wrong, you will disappear from this thread shortly for those very reasons.

and who the hell is "us", why do you always address some nonexistent entities like "they" or now "us" ?

The world has become indoctrinated with the "Toys R Us" mindset, apparently. And it usually begins at a young age. For "them" being indoctrinated with said mindset, that is.

Also, "always" and "every time" even though it might be the case that "sometimes" it isn't. For "us", "them" and "everything inbetween".

Eugene - Ignoring the matter of international waters for a bit (as per your request) you should actually read the wiki link that you posted upthread.

  Quote

Positions that use of force was illegal

 

A UNHRC fact-finding mission headed by several prominent international law specialists was charged by the UN to undertake an investigation of the IDF raid.^[46] In its September 2010 report the UN panel found that the IDF broke international law, and that there was evidence sufficient to initiate prosecutions for breaches of the Geneva Convention. In particular, the panel, after interviewing more than 100 witnesses, found clear evidence for prosecution for the war crimes of "wilful killing; torture or inhuman treatment; wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health" under Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.^[47] The report stated that: "The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence.”^[47]

The UNHRC fact-finding mission also determined based on both "forensic and firearm evidence" that Furkan Dogan, a 19 year old American citizen of Turkish descent, and five Turkish citizens were murdered execution-style on May 31 on the Mavi Marmari by the Israeli raiders. The report of the fact-finding mission stated that the killing of Dogan and the five Turks by the Israeli commandos "can be characterized as extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions."^[48]

  Quote

Arguments opposing legality of blockade

 

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, has condemned Israel's blockade of Gaza on numerous occasions, calling it "a direct contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law. It must end now”.^[12][13]

The "United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" in its Goldstone Report said:

1733. The Mission ... considers that the series of acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed.

^[14]

The International Committee of the Red Cross said that Israel's blockade violated the Geneva Conventions and stated that it constituted a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law.^[15][16]

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea provides that:

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.

^[17]

Article 54 (1) and (2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibit the starvation of a civilian community regardless of the motive involved. The "Explanation" that accompanies the text of the San Remo Manual clarifies that some parties argued that, as starvation of a civilian population is already prohibited under existing law the word ‘sole' should be deleted. The word 'sole' was retained because if a blockade has both the unlawful purpose of starvation together with a lawful military purpose, the provision in (b) would still render the blockade unlawful if the effect on the civilian population is excessive in relation to the lawful military purpose. Subparagraph (b) therefore reflects the impact of the rules of proportionality and precautions.^[18]

And did they find weapons on board?

Sure, they found some slingshots and clubs

Look at the responses to those positions - they are primarily taken up by the government of Israel, staunch supporters of Israel (such as Alan Dershowitz) or they are vague non-condemnations.

As to the Palmer report - here's Norman Finkelstein's well reasoned objection

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Insight_Turkey_Vol_13_4_2011_Finkelstein.pdf

Some highlights for the tl;dr crowd

  Quote

The POI [Panel of Inquiry] alleges that Israel had a right to impose a naval blockade on Gaza in order to defend itself against Hamas rocket and mortar attacks. “Israel has faced and continues to face a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza,” the POI observes. “Rockets, missiles and mortar bombs have been launched from Gaza towards Israel....Since 2001 such attacks have caused more than 25 deaths and hundreds of injuries.”3 Strangely, the POI devotes not a single syllable to Israe- li attacks on Gaza. Since 2001, Israeli assaults have killed some four thousand five hundred Gazans, overwhelmingly civilians.4 According to the POI, “the purpose of these [Hamas] acts of violence, which have been repeatedly condemned by the international community, has been to do damage to the population of Israel.”5 Yet, a comprehensive National Academy of Sciences study found that Palestinian vio- lence directed at Israel “reveals a pattern of retaliation.”6

  Quote

The POI finds that the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza constituted a “legitimate security measure...and its implementation complied with the requirements of in- ternational law.”10 The oddity of this conclusion will immediately be noticed in light of the POI’s repeatedly stated caveat that it was “not asked to make deter- minations of the legal issues,” “not asked to determine the legality or otherwise of the events.”

  Quote

the POI did additionally find that Israel’s killing of the nine passengers could not be justified.

UNHRC has a history of obsession with israel and a very strong bias, even its original founder have talked about this problem.

for this reason israel haven't collaborated with them and therefore their investigation only covers one side of the story, the side of the provocateurs. what they called execution style murder is only based on the turkish forensic report (again, a very nonobjective side in this incident). besides, it is understandable that all of the shooting would commence in a very close range as the IHH terrorists used mostly cold weapons besides a few incidents of shooting. the unhrc had absolutely no way to prove or to reenact the situation on board of marmara accurately and objectively, it also conveniently puts all the witnesses together

without differentiating between IHH and others, while only the IHH member participated in the attack on the soldiers, and they obviously had their own agenda. that's the typical failing, to assume that the witnesses when inbterviewed by the un will tell "truth and only truth", despite their obvious agenda

the palmer report is the most recent and considering of both sides, it states clearly that given the circumstances israeli blockade is legal, israel is technically at war with gaza, and it's been so for quite a while.

there was absolutely no instance ever where gaza population was anywhere close to starvation, i dare you to find any proof of starvation in gaza.

the non existence of weapons on the particular board of that flotilla is irrelevant, the breach of the blockade would form a dangerous precedent. there were not a few instances were israel intercepted ships to gaza loaded with weapons before.

the number of casualties in confrontations with gaza is irrelevant to this incident, israel is at state of war with it, the blocakde is legal and that's it. there's absolutely no way to determine the pattern of palestinian attacks, i just don't want to get into it right now. some are sporadic, some are meant to ignite the situation for political reasons, some are retaliatory and some are planned in advance like the recent shooting of the bus.

it was necessarily for the palmer commission to determine the legality of blockade as the legality of the interception in international waters depended on it, according to some lawmen at least.

also the palmer report had no way of reenacting the situation on board and determine whether the deaths were justified or not, they had no access to soldiers who participated in the incident.

i want to notice that i also don't know how the situation on the ship unfolded exactly, but given the visual evidence it is not unreasonable to assume that the soldiers acted in self defense.

btw, do your bring finkelstein as someone who's willing to analyze the situation objectively or was that just me ?

  On 12/31/2011 at 10:16 AM, eugene said:

 

and who the hell is "us", why do you always address some nonexistent entities like "they" or now "us" ?

i think he just means the people on the board who disagree with you, chill out bro

I have a god intention for Eugene 2012:

calm the fuck down

edit:

and to AePittance:

calm the fuck up

eugene, i'm curious about how you can justify dismissing serious research into this incident as being "biased" while at the same time utilizing extraordinarily biased arguments provided by the israeli gov and media. this is a real failing in your discussions on this issue and quite frankly this alone would prevent me from taking you seriously. just dismissing all the extremely serious conclusions on this issue as "biased" is irresponsible. even if you managed to articulate how and why they are biased and provide factual support for this claim this would still be a distraction from the serious findings chen brought up. one wonders as well why you don't waste all our time whenever a bias for israel is at issue...you know, like when you talk about the military's excuses and justifications.

another thing i'd like to add is that it is truly remarkable to claim that the israeli military was "defending" itself on that fucking flotilla. i mean, that's an almost humorous level of truth-mangling if the consequences were not so grim. how did they get in that situation? from what were they defending themselves? was the use of force even remotely appropriate to the situation? and if you don't have the answer because "absolutely no way to prove or to reenact the situation on board" then you have to answer for why you side with the military against what most of the world clearly perceives to be its execution of innocent civilians.

finally, your jingoist attitude regarding the death of palestinian civilians and the "legality" of the oppressive blockade is really quite alarming to be frank. one wonders how you don't realize that by the very terms of your own argument israeli civilian lives count for just as little as the palestinian -- for after all, it's a state of war and all's fair. so what of innocent civilians are killed. oh wait, unless they're israeli citizens...since after all isn't that exactly the reason for israel's countless destruction of the palestinians? you recognize the right of israel to defend itself against the murder of innocent civilians and the unjust use of force to manipulate the political situation in the region. so why the fuck don't you recognize the same right for the palestinians? your comment about the "irrelevance" of palestinian deaths is quite disgusting. would you ever say the same thing about 4,500 israelis?

"humorous level of truth-mangling" is a pretty good five word description of eugene

well said all around, alcofribas.

  On 12/31/2011 at 11:26 PM, Alcofribas said:

eugene, i'm curious about how you can justify dismissing serious research into this incident as being "biased" while at the same time utilizing extraordinarily biased arguments provided by the israeli gov and media.

why do you consider the UNHRC research serious ? let's begin with that

i did go through all of it when it was originally published and it's full of methodological holes, one of the most noticeable is coming up with a report full of condemnation and almost accusations of murder without seriously considering the israeli side.

  Quote

this is a real failing in your discussions on this issue and quite frankly this alone would prevent me from taking you seriously. just dismissing all the extremely serious conclusions on this issue as "biased" is irresponsible. even if you managed to articulate how and why they are biased and provide factual support for this claim this would still be a distraction from the serious findings chen brought up. one wonders as well why you don't waste all our time whenever a bias for israel is at issue...you know, like when you talk about the military's excuses and justifications.

 

chen hasn't brought serious findings, the unhrc is traditionally and consistently biased against israel, it is very obvious, you'll get more than enough info just googling "unhrc israel" or something like that. if you won't manage i'll help you later.

  Quote

another thing i'd like to add is that it is truly remarkable to claim that the israeli military was "defending" itself on that fucking flotilla. i mean, that's an almost humorous level of truth-mangling if the consequences were not so grim. how did they get in that situation? from what were they defending themselves? was the use of force even remotely appropriate to the situation? and if you don't have the answer because "absolutely no way to prove or to reenact the situation on board" then you have to answer for why you side with the military against what most of the world clearly perceives to be its execution of innocent civilians.

mostly because of this and a couple of other videos, your asking such questions shows you're very unfamiliar with the incident

for example the soldiers who were being beaten by the poles had the right to use deadly force according to the IDF rules of engagement, but as far as i understand they didn't at this stage.

  Quote

finally, your jingoist attitude regarding the death of palestinian civilians and the "legality" of the oppressive blockade is really quite alarming to be frank. one wonders how you don't realize that by the very terms of your own argument israeli civilian lives count for just as little as the palestinian -- for after all, it's a state of war and all's fair. so what of innocent civilians are killed. oh wait, unless they're israeli citizens...since after all isn't that exactly the reason for israel's countless destruction of the palestinians? you recognize the right of israel to defend itself against the murder of innocent civilians and the unjust use of force to manipulate the political situation in the region. so why the fuck don't you recognize the same right for the palestinians? your comment about the "irrelevance" of palestinian deaths is quite disgusting. would you ever say the same thing about 4,500 israelis?

i was insisting on "state of war" with gaza just to get rid of the argument that goes "gaza isn't technically a state, so you can't be at war with it so your blockade is illegal" that's quite popular, not to justify the death of civilians, i said irrelevant as irrelevant to the thread, not to to the whole israli-palestinian conflict. i don't really want to get into the whole conflict with gaza in this thread as it's too time consuming.

  On 12/31/2011 at 11:45 PM, disparaissant said:

"humorous level of truth-mangling" is a pretty good five word description of eugene

 

well said all around, alcofribas.

i like you disp, but i can't stand that sort of yapping of yours to back up someone who's arguing against me, it's not the first time. post something tangible or piss off.

why? he just made every point i'd make. also lol how about YOU post something tangible? nothing you've posted so far is a legitimate argument at all. alcofribas summed that up quite well.