May 31 2010

We Are Just Peace Activists Carrying Humanitarian Aid for Gaza

“But if you try to stop us, we will descend upon you like rage-infected zombies. We will beat, kidnap and murder as many of your people as we can.”

That pretty much sums up the message from the passengers of the Gaza-bound flotilla to the Israelis who sent commandos to prevent an end-run around the blockade.

So much for peaceful acts of civil disobedience. See the peaceniks of the world beat, club and shoot at the Israeli navy personnel with everything they can get their hands on:

For the record, the flotilla had far easier options if their sole purpose was to get humanitarian aid in to Gaza. This has been the consistent line of the Israeli government for weeks:

The Israeli government supports delivery of humanitarian supplies to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip and invites you to enter the Ashdod port. Delivery of supplies in accordance with the authorities’ regulations will be through the formal land crossings and under your observation, after which you can return to your home ports on the vessels on which you have arrived.”

Israel is already getting hit with a ton of bad press over the casualties on the boat, despite the lethal force being employed against the commandos.

But let’s remember that it if an iron pipe is coming at your head, it doesn’t matter if it’s being swung by a “peace protester” or a member of the Iranian Republican Guard. The only logical response is to fight for your life. If the other guy ends up dead… well, them’s the breaks.

UPDATE: New video evidence that the commandos were acting in self-defense against murderous thugs on this boat.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

11 responses so far

11 Responses to “We Are Just Peace Activists Carrying Humanitarian Aid for Gaza”

  1. Nicola Timmermanon 31 May 2010 at 3:04 pm

    Including at least one Canadian “peaceful” demonstrator.

  2. Nicon 31 May 2010 at 3:23 pm

    That “Canadian” was on a different boat.

  3. Bubba Brownon 31 May 2010 at 3:29 pm

    Well their predictable outrage, dare I say disproportionate outrage, is spewing out like oil from a ruptured B.P. well head. All the usual suspects, funny we never hear a word when South Korean sailors get killed, when suicide bombers or I.E.D’s kill our troops. Those people chose to fight they as usual got their sorry “peace lovin'” asses kicked.
    I say good for Israel they offered a clear alternative to these useful idiots, next time they should just go in hard. The U.N. sucks big time, they want our money while they spend all their time sucking up to dictators and despots. Stop giving money to the U.N.!

  4. Powell Lucason 31 May 2010 at 5:31 pm

    Yeah, these ships of fools are just innocent little peace loving folks who only want what’s best for the Middle East Riiight, and five pound robins ain’t fat.

  5. Nicolas Demerson 01 Jun 2010 at 9:31 am

    Honestly, from those videos I’m having a hard time determining who’s attacking who (except, obviously, for the soldiers dropping down from above). There are a couple of edit cuts which don’t help matters either.

    My understanding is that it’s the “murderous thugs” who were acting in self-defense, from masked commandos dropping down on them in the dead of night, while they were still out in international waters. Arguing that the commandos were acting in self-defense isn’t too convincing when they shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

  6. d3soon 01 Jun 2010 at 9:56 am

    I suppose that peace is that hard to attain huh? Hopefully, the issues will resolve in time.

  7. jnarveyon 01 Jun 2010 at 11:41 am

    Nicolas: Here’s a case of someone not being able to believe the evidence of their own eyes.

    The protesters claimed to be acting in a spirit of peaceful civil disobedience. Yet even before the soldiers boarded the ship, the passengers were massing to murder them.

    This is the equivalent of gathering at a public square in the heart of Vancouver for a “peace protest”, then attacking the cops with iron pipes and molotov cocktails as soon as they appear on the scene.

    You suggest that the commandos were “attacking” the ship. If so, why did the soldiers wait until 40 minutes after first dropping in, after fighting hand-to-hand against overwhelming numbers, before opening fire? For that matter, if the Israelis wanted to attack the passengers, a far more efficient method would be to torpedo the boat, along with the rest of the flotilla. It’s not like the Israelis didn’t have the firepower to do so.

  8. Nicolas Demerson 01 Jun 2010 at 3:12 pm

    This is the equivalent of gathering at a public square in the heart of Vancouver for a “peace protest”, then attacking the cops with iron pipes and molotov cocktails as soon as they appear on the scene.

    Not really. Because I’m sure that on a ship such weapons could be quickly improvised. There’d be no need to stockpile them, as the Vancouverite protesters would have to do, in your analogy.

    why did the soldiers wait until 40 minutes after first dropping in, after fighting hand-to-hand against overwhelming numbers, before opening fire?

    Did they? I’ve read accounts that the soldiers opened fire with tear gas and possibly bullets, killing at least one person before even setting foot on the ship.

    For that matter, if the Israelis wanted to attack the passengers, a far more efficient method would be to torpedo the boat, along with the rest of the flotilla. It’s not like the Israelis didn’t have the firepower to do so.

    Maybe because the Israelis knew that’d be too much to get away with in the court of international relations? Maybe they just wanted to board and seize the ships, and later claim they were carrying weapons, but right at the moment didn’t care much about casualties?

  9. Williamon 01 Jun 2010 at 4:12 pm

    Nicolas, please consult article 67a of the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea-

    It is ABSOLUTELY legal to attack neutral vessels in international water if they “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,” provided that they are not attempting to reach the port of another sovereign country with the consent of that country.

    They had every right to be there and even more right to self-defense upon being attacked.

  10. Hassan Arshadon 01 Jun 2010 at 9:35 pm

    There is no way to know what exactly happen. If the protestors hit the Israeli first, then that is bad, but there is no way to know who was the first to do what. Also, it does depend on what International Law says about the issue, although we all know that doesn’t matter when someone doesn’t want it to…

    There is no way to see bullets on the video, and you also have to wonder about its cuts and editing, since the video is distributed by the Israeli government. Any government will put out information it wants the world to see while trying to suppress the information from the boats, which they did.

    This seems like a clever trap by Turkey and it seem Israel fell for it. I guess all is fair in love and war.

    The blockade seems to have been ineffective in its purpose, but it also seems to be “collective punishment” for all Palestinians. Israel is now going to be fighting an information war, and I don’t think they will be as effective as they are in other types of warfare.

  11. Nicolas Demerson 02 Jun 2010 at 9:07 am

    William,

    “If they are believed on reasonable ground”. Did the IDF have reasonable ground to board the ship?

    And as long as we’re quoting the San Remo manual, article 47(f) exempts from attack

    “vessels charged with religious, non-military scientifc or philanthropic missions, vessels collecting scientific data of likely military applications are not protected;”

    (emphasis mine)

    Also, article 102 states:

    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.

    Does that apply to the Gaza blockade? I’m no military strategist, but I do know the blockade’s been repeatedly condemned by the UN, the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and many other international humanitarian groups.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply