3
2010
The IDF and the Freedom Flotilla – What Happened?
An article by 
The information war is being employed to its fullest at the moment due to the tragic incident that took place this week where a flotilla of ships tried to break the naval blockade off the coast of Gaza and were boarded by Israeli Defense Force (IDF) commandos, resulting in multiple deaths and injuries.
Predictably, all involved parties are painting themselves as victims and pointing to the ‘other’ side as the provocateurs and perpetrators of crime and those watching the story unfold are, of course, seeing what they want to see and taking sides based on their biases. None of us are free from that.
It is hard to sort through all the murky information to try and paint a clear picture of what took place, but it is worth trying as this is a tragedy that needs some answers.
So what happened?
The event that saw the flotilla of ships that had been dubbed the ‘Freedom Flotilla’ head towards Gaza had been in the making since 2008. It is an event that took a lot of planning, co-ordination, finance and involvement from a breadth of different organizations. They all came together under the umbrella of the Free Gaza Movement.
There were six ships in the flotilla, all flagged as representing three countries. Others had been organized but either could not make the trip or decided to travel later. The main ship was the Mavi Marmara – a passenger ship flying the Turkish flag. There were two other ships flying the Turkish flag, they were the Gazza 1 cargo ship and the Gazza 2 cargo ship. The Sofia cargo ship and the Spendoni passenger ship were flying the flag of Greece and Challenger 1 was flying the flag of the U.S.A.
Reports state that the numbers of people present on the ships was between 600 and 700 with most of them being on the Mavi Marmara. The passengers included well known peace activists, politicians and journalists, alongside workers connected to various aid and development organizations.
Statements from the flotilla organizers claimed that the ships carried a total of 10,000 tons of humanitarian and development supplies, including construction material that the Israeli blockade of Gaza restricts.
Whilst part of the aim was to get supplies through to Gaza, organizers openly stated that the supplies were not enough to meet the needs of Gaza and that one of the aims was to break the blockade, which they view as unjust and creating a humanitarian situation that is untenable. Reports coming out before they reached the place of the incident stated that they had two months worth of supplies and were clearly prepared to play a waiting game in which pressure would be put on the Israeli government to allow them through.
It was a provocative but non-violent act in nature and an act employed often around the world to protest blockades. It was an act the Free Gaza Movement has employed regularly, just not at this scale. The Jewish Haganah had also employed the tactic to great effect against British blockades of Palestine in the lead up to the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 and even New Zealand protesters were known to use it regularly to protest nuclear testing in the pacific. Though provocative, it was not an unusual activity and one would imagine that any navy enforcing a blockade would have good measures to deal with it.
A major factor that is not being widely publicized is the intelligence the IDF had gathered about the flotilla and in particular, one participating organization prior to the flotilla even leaving to head to Gaza.
One of the major organizations involved in the flotilla was an Islamic aid and development organization known as the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (Insani Yardim Vakfi) or IHH. The Israeli government and other entities, including both French and Turkish intelligence consider the IHH to be a ‘terrorist’ organization and have documented their connections to Hamas and various militant Jihadist movements around the world. They are accused of funding militant activities alongside their legitimate aid and development pursuits. The Turkish history with the IHH over the last couple of decades paints a picture of a problematic organization.
Many of the claims are refuted by the IHH, but for this article, we will assume them to be true.
It is no surprise that the IHH would be heavily involved in a measure aimed at breaking the Israeli blockade of Gaza and getting supplies in. The IDF knew of their involvement. The IDF also had information prior to the flotilla leaving Turkey that stated that the largest passenger ship, the Mavi Marmara, had been purchased and equipped by the IHH.
With all this in mind, the situation the IDF were dealing with was not only a group of well meaning activists, they also knew that amongst those non-violent peace activists were representatives of an organization they believed to be completely hostile to Israel and they knew the ship that organization had purchased, equipped and manned, the Mavi Marmara. If there was any ship that was going to give them serious problems, it was the Mavi Marmara. It would then make sense that if you are going to approach the ships, this would be the one you would approach with extreme caution.
While still in international waters the flotilla ignored the warnings to turn away or to enter an Israeli port. This response was predictable and a normal part of such a protest – the response from the IDF was not. Knowing which boat was equipped and manned by the IHH and would therefore be the most hostile against Israeli action, according to official reports the IDF sent commandos aboard the Mavi Marmara from a helicopter that had been circling above. They were to take control of the ship. The IDF claims that the commandos were sent into this predictably hostile situation with paint-ball guns for riot dispersal and back-up pistols ‘just in case.’ They claim that they were not prepared for the hostile response they received – all their intelligence in the public sphere says otherwise.
As the commandos boarded the ship they were met with a predictable IHH response while all other passengers went below deck. Video from the IDF and clips from the footage taken by cameras with journalists on board verify this. The commandos were set upon with pipes. Understandably, the commandos who had been sent into the situation poorly equipped, responded with force and the result is the tragedy we now know of.
The problem with the unfolding story now is that both sides are focusing on what took place as the commandos boarded the ship, not events prior to that – nobody seems to be asking why the commandos boarded the Mavi Marmara and the other ships in international waters in the first place – the blockade had not been broken. Let’s make it very clear that had the commandos not boarded the ship they would not have been attacked.
That latter fact would seem simple, but they did board the ship so we need to continue working this through. What none of the video evidence gives us is the sequence of events leading up to the commandos trying to get aboard the ship. The videos from the IDF only give us the events once commandos were being lowered onto the Mavi Marmara from a helicopter. The videos from the other side give us a glimpse of this and only verbal commentary of what was taking place before the first commandos came on board.
Audio from the Captain (that was being broadcast by the BBC World Service) painted a picture of an attack with live fire, but we don’t know where in the sequence of events that occurred. Passengers on all the ships who have been able to talk so far have spoken about tear gas and stun grenades, then commandos coming on board and using rubber bullets (non-lethal but extremely painful and designed to deter aggressors). Reports from all other ships say they were met with non-aggressive resistance with people forming human shields to stop the commandos from getting to the bridge of the boats to take control.
The use of tear gas and stun grenades before boarding and then the use of rubber bullets would seem consistent with the procedure of such an engagement, though still extremely aggressive considering the circumstances. It is a struggle to believe that this tactic was not employed for the Mavi Marmara, the ship identified as belonging to the IHH and if this tactic was employed, it clearly incited a response.
Did the commandos need to board and were these aggressive, provocative tactics necessary? No. The IDF has previously rammed boats to stop them from breaking the blockade- understandably they chose not to do that with a large passenger ship. They have been asked why they simply did not disable the engines of the Mavi Marmara. They state that they thought it would take too long to tow the ship to an Israeli port and that the ships did not have the food supplies for this.
The ships were only up to a maximum of 100km from shore (I believe the blockade extends 40km from shore) – the tow would not have taken very long and the information prior to the engagement made public that the flotilla had two months worth of food supplies. It is hard to believe that someone such as I would know that and the IDF would not.
It is clear the latter option would have been the most viable and sensible and with the evidence, the best option given all possible scenarios. The retort would be that it is easy to draw that conclusion in hindsight, but the job of a military when dealing with something like this is to plan for all possible scenarios and thus, work with hindsight before an event occurs. Instead of taking the best course of action and disabling the ships engines they chose the most aggressive tactic possible and were unsurprisingly met with resistance on one of the ships. Now their media machine needs to paint them as the victim. It is worth noting that the weapons they claim were aboard and have shown pictures of have not been shown to any media.
What they faced was not an unusual form of protest. It included a plethora of organizations and activists all united in their view that the blockade on Gaza is ineffective and creating more problems than it solves. I have no doubt that some of those groups would be diametrically opposed in some of their understandings about valid activism, thus we must concede that yes, there were probably agitators aboard the Mavi Marmara willing to act aggressively in the face of the engagement the IDF employed and many others would have been completely unaware of the response that took place. We must also conclude that the IDF knew that and so the question must be asked, why were commandos sent aboard the ships? Why did the IDF choose the most aggressive engagement possible, an engagement that has resulted in multiple deaths, injuries, protests in cities around the world and such large diplomatic fallout?
These questions must be answered which is why an investigation is needed – not just an impartial investigation, but an independent one. Israel cannot be relied upon to give a proper analysis of the situation as they are one party in the problem.
Expect to see more ships heading for Gaza to break that blockade – the pressure is on and the world is watching.
Important Update: The following is an interview with Jamal Elshayyal of Al Jazeera who was aboard the Mavi Marmara as the events unfolded. His account is the first I have found that is consistent with methods the Israeli Defense Force used to board other ships, consistent with video evidence from both sides and provides an eye witness account.
He talks of tear-gas, stun (sound) grenades and rubber coated bullets being fired upon the Mavi Marmara prior to the commandos boarding. This lines up with reports from all the other ships. The extremely disturbing aspect that needs an answer is his account of the use of live fire before anyone boarded the ship – both from the commandos that were in a boat alongside the ship who were being hosed down to prevent their boarding but also from the helicopter over head whose shooting, by Jamal’s account, lead to one of the fatalities. According to his account this happened prior to the commandos boarding the ship.
Since his account is that of an eye witness and is consistent with all evidence released by both sides, it seems to be the most credible and believable account of events to date.
Update 2: Some relevant quotes from an article about the autopsies of the nine dead activists.
Autopsy results showed the men were hit mostly with 9mm bullets (this would be consistent with the stated use of pistols but could also be attributed to the UZI or the Micro-Tavor used by the IDF), many fired at close range… The autopsy results showed that a 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back… A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has US citizenship, was shot five times from less than 45 centimetres away, in the face, the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back… Two other men were shot four times. Five of those killed were shot either in the back of the head or in the back… In addition to those killed, 48 others suffered gunshot wounds and six activists were still missing…
Israel said the multiple gunshot wounds did not mean the shots were fired other than in self defence.
“The only situation when a soldier shot was when it was a clearly a life-threatening situation,” the Guardian quoted a spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London as saying.
“Pulling the trigger quickly can result in a few bullets being in the same body, but does not change the fact they were in a life-threatening situation,” the spokesman said.
all but one of the bullets retrieved from the bodies came from 9mm rounds. Of the other round, Ince said: “It was the first time we have seen this kind of material used in firearms. It was just a container including many types of pellets usually used in shotguns. It penetrated the head region in the temple and we found it intact in the brain.”
30 shots in the dead activists and 48 others wounded from live fire – that’s a lot of shooting.
The IHH has also released pictures that shows IDF soldiers after they had been beaten – consistent with all accounts that they were attacked once they boarded the ship. The images in the link are the unedited ones – not the cropped ones Reuters is accused of using.
Note: It is worth pointing out that I have been following this since before the flotilla left the relevant ports to head for Gaza. I have followed scores of news sites from around the world, official press releases both from Israel and the relevant organizations involved and was following live news feeds, twitter and video footage coming from sources such as Al Jazeera as the tragic event unfolded. If nothing else we must all agree that this is a wide reaching tragedy and we must mourn the loss of life no matter who was to blame.
Related Posts
- TEAR Fund Podcast: Flotilla Attacked
- The Freedom Flotilla and the Exodus – Revolving History
Israel: Rogue State or Peacekeepers?- Press Release: TEAR Fund Opposed to Israel’s Control on NGOs
About the Author: Frank Ritchie
Frank is the Education and Advocacy Manager for TEAR Fund NZ. Frank is a licensed Minister in the Wesleyan Methodist Church of New Zealand and has a keen interest in biblical perspectives of Justice and how this connects to service to, with and for the poor, disadvantaged and marginalized people of the world.
47 Comments + Add Comment
Leave a comment
TEAR Fund New Zealand
Get Blog Updates Via Email
Recent Comments
- Hướng dẫn Đăng kí vào Diễn đàn bằng hình ảnh thật dễ dàng...^^ on Cyclone Aila in Bangladesh – Diary of a Humanitarian
- BuffCrIsoff on World’s Poorest Prove to be a Good Credit Risk
- hébergement de site internet on NZ Prostitution Law Review Committee: Report
- hoagsardell on Cyclone Aila in Bangladesh – Diary of a Humanitarian
- Twin Bed Frame on The Controversy of Easter. The Crucifixion & Freedom.
Blogroll
- Aid Watch
- Change.org
- Empire Remixed
- From Poverty to Power
- God's Politics
- Good Intentions are not Enough
- Just Comment
- Just.
- New Internationalist
- Restorative Justice
- Tax Justice Network
- The Distributist Review
- The Green New Deal Group
- The Thoughtful Campaigner
- Truth Dealer
- Wronging Rights
- ZNet – the spirit of resistance lives
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Frank Ritchie, SuperBadger NZ. SuperBadger NZ said: The IDF and the Freedom Flotilla – What Happened? http://bit.ly/aLVTDV [...]
The blockade is already off I think.
I have no sympathy for Gaza as long as Hamas refuses to sign peace agreement and keep firing rockets to civilians.
Also you missed two points:
- The blockade was put in place by both Israel and Egypt
- Aid was allowed into Gaza, Israel only tighten up the blockade while attacking Hamas in the last few weeks.
You didn’t say what option IDF should have been employed.
And do you think Israel should allow any ship to supply Gaza without checking it every now and then?
Sid,
The blockade is not off.
1) In ten years, rockets coming out of Gaza have killed 20 Israelis. The Palestinian death toll during Operation Cast Lead alone was over 1000. I can understand you not having sympathy for Hamas, but what about the civilians suffering in Gaza who are simply caught in the middle.
The is the problem with the blockade – it does not limit Hamas (the tunnels between Egypt and Gaza supply the militants) but it severely punishes civilians.
2) The blockade was put in place by Israel and is enforced by Egypt along the southern border of Gaza as part of their political alliance.
You might be interested to know that the Egyptians have temporarily lifted the blockade on the southern border of Gaza:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioi_0jtO9RjMwPNRoXNCndRPRq3gD9G31JJG0
3) The Israeli government has argued that it regularly sends in aid. All NGO’s working in Gaza state that only amounts to one fifth of what is needed – but there’s an information war currently raging around that.
4)The Free Gaza Movement has sent boats in before – between the beginning of 2008 and December 2009 they were allowed through. Since Operation Cast Lead they have not let them through – it has not only been the last few weeks.
5) The article makes it clear that they could have used the option of disabling the ships engines and towing them to an Israeli port. I have not argued at all that they should have been allowed through the blockade – I have reserved my opinion on that.
6) If a blockade is in place I would expect them to check ships. This was not the intent of the commandos boarding the ships. The IDF has stated that the intent of the commandos was to take command of the ships and take them to an Israeli port. My argument is that this was an unnecessarily aggressive action given the circumstances and not very wise considering the intelligence they had on the lead ship – the Mavi Marmara.
The IDF’s response in this situation seems entirely consistent with the history of Israeli belligerence toward Palestinians and anyone who supports the continued existence of Palestine. What this tells me is that the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 was a mistake, because the Middle East was not (and still is not) ready for it. Today’s state of Israel is a creation of men, not God, and the sooner the Judæo-Christian world understands that the better off the region will be. Establishing the state of Israel in the 20th century, with an imperialist America as its chief ally and defence, is not what I understand to be the will of God for the Middle East or for the world as a whole. We may have to wait several more centuries before the time is right for Israel to be established in a way that fulfils its original divine mandate, to be a priesthood to the nations of the earth (Exodus 19:6), if this is to happen at all. I know that’s not mainstream Christian opinion, but I see it as the only answer to the situation in the Middle East.
Paul,
Thanks for your comment. That’s an interesting perspective – but the reality we’re dealing with is that the modern state of Israel does exist (however it came about) and therefore we must address the situation with the best for the two peoples (Israeli and Palestinian) in mind.
“Many of the claims are refuted by the IHH, but for this article, we will assume them to be true.”
Why? That kind of undermines the whole article.
It does not undermine it at all as the article is then based on the assumption that there were aggressors aboard.
With French, Danish and Turkish intelligence painting a damning picture of the IHH, one has to assume there was a group of agitators aboard the Mavi Marmara since it was the ship controlled by the IHH. Video evidence from both sides of the argument shows commandos boarding the ships and being beaten with poles.
The questions are, what happened before the commandos boarded the ships and why were the commandos sent on the ship considering the intelligence the IDF had and their identification of the IHH as aggressive? Why did they send commandos aboard that ship? Also, if their claim is true and they sent the commandos aboard with paint-ball guns then considering their intelligence, they deliberately sent their men into a hostile situation with inadequate equipment and created a situation that would necessitate the use of their pistols.
It doesn’t stack up.
I have added an important update to the end of this article.
Aljazera is anti-israel, no matter what they claim. Just watch their coverage on this issue.
Also about the suffering civilians, I don’t see anyone blaming the neighboring countries for refusing to give refugee status to Palestinians who wish to flee the problem area.
Sidharta – the response to the accusation about Al Jazeera warrants the same response about the IDF and any government statement from Israel – they’re completely pro Israel – you won’t hear a critique of their action.
My approach has been and always will be to take information from all sides with a critical mindset – I do that with statements from the IDF and Al Jazeera. From there I have been trying to piece together the most credible and understandable picture I can from all the information.
So far, the most consistent information I have heard that lines up with all the evidence currently available from all sources, including the IDF, is the interview from Jamal Elshayyal who has not seen any of the video evidence.
“The suffering civilians” – no place in this article do I elaborate on the situation of those in Gaza – that’s a whole other discussion and yes, historically the surrounding nations play a part in that situation.
“The questions are, what happened before the commandos boarded the ships and why were the commandos sent on the ship considering the intelligence the IDF had and their identification of the IHH as aggressive? Why did they send commandos aboard that ship? ”
Simple. They want to show you and me who these ‘peace activists’ really are, they’re not humanitarian, they are Hamas supporters.
Simple. They want to show you and me who these ‘peace activists’ really are, they’re not humanitarian, they are Hamas supporters.
So in your mind they sent their soldiers like lambs to the slaughter? That would be very inconsistent with the military approach of any nation in the world and certainly inconsistent with Israel’s usual approach.
Israel is highly dependent upon the USA. Without USA support, Israel would have been gone by now.
In Yom Kippur war for example, they did not launch a pre-emptive attack because they did not want to risk the USA perceiving them as the initiator of the war, even though they had information that war was imminent. As a result, Israel suffered significant damage due to not launching pre-emptive attack even when they knew the enemies were approaching and started to attack them.
But setting aside USA, in this day and age, media plays a big role. They had to have victims on their side in order to minimize media backlash.
Purely Military approach? Easy, just shoot the ship or mined the blockade area.
Sorry – that makes no sense. Israel (or any other military) never approaches any situation with the intent to have casualties on their own side.
They didn’t have death casualty right? And they had videos showing the brutality of those ‘peace activists’.
If they just towed the ship, the headline will stop at “Israel stops aid to Palestinians”. But now, it’s a whole different discussion.
I wish they had just disabled the ships engine and towed it.
Read my comment again, I think it’s you who keep arguing in circle.
If they just towed the ship, the headline will stop at “Israel stops humanitarian aid for needy Palestinians”
But instead, now we have videos that show the true color of flotilla, e.g.: they are not peace activists and they are not humanitarian.
Look at my article – that’s my entire argument. With the circumstances and the information they had, they should have just disabled the ships engines and towed the ship… that’s my whole point. Thank you for agreeing.
Hi Frank,
> We must also conclude that the IDF knew that and so the question must be asked, why were commandos sent aboard the ships?
I have no military knowledge at all, but I would like to put forward a suggestion. They wanted to have control of the unpredictable situation and people as quickly as possible. My analogies are never that great but hopefully you will follow. Imagine a person in possession of a vehicle and in violation of law, whether it be speeding, driving onto a runway or driving around a village shooting people. The authorities are required to bring the situation quickly to an end. Disabling the vehicle and towing it to the nearest police station with the perpetrator inside doesn’t provide enough control. The perpetrator may have a gun in his glove box, he may set fire to his vehicle, he may jump from his vehicle when towing it to the police station. The perpetrator must be physically restrained for there to be a satisfactory level of control and eliminate risk. When they are taken to the police station it can then be attained whether it was perhaps just a case of misunderstanding.
> Why did the IDF choose the most aggressive engagement possible, an engagement that has resulted in multiple deaths, injuries, protests in cities around the world and such large diplomatic fallout?
It clearly wasn’t the most aggressive engagement possible (inadequate equipment). It was however an engagement that resulted in multiple deaths, injuries, protests in cities around the world and large diplomatic fallout.
Here is a link to Netanyahu’s complete statement from the 2nd June, you have probably already heard snip-its on tv. By posting it I’m not suggesting that you have to agree with him, but as the Prime Minister of Israel it should be at the very least taken into consideration. Then you can go through it and disregard the information piece by piece if you prefer.
Thanks,
http://www.theisraelproject.org/atf/cf/%7B84dc5887-741e-4056-8d91-a389164bc94e%7D/NETANYAHU_NOLOVEBOAT_STATEMENT.PDF
David,
Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your thoughts. I have seen the full statement from Prime Minister Netanyahu and it still shows the inconsistencies I believe exist in the IDF account of events and information.
That said – I understand why the blockade is in place, though I don’t think it is the best answer, which is why I have not and won’t argue that they should have let the boats through. I hear and understand the concern that it would lead to ships coming in and arming militants. I have no doubt that countries like Iran and organizations like Hezbollah would take full advantage of that.
The idea that the soldiers went in poorly equipped is not consistent with all the information or the normal Israeli response to such matters. Short of bombing the flotilla, all the information points to this being the most aggressive action possible.
In an interview on the Diane Rehm Show on 2 June, a nationally-broadcast radio program in the United States, Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, stated that in planning their assault the Marmara, the Israeli government had concluded that the ship was “too large to stop with nonviolent means.”
All statements from Israel prior to the engagement were that force would be used and they were willing to use all means to stop those ships. All accounts other than the IDF one (and rabid supporters of the flotilla who try to make out that is was purely about the aid and no aggression from those on board the ship took place) are consistent with all information – the use of tear gas, stun grenades and rubber coated bullets before boarding and the use of live ammunition once aboard.
If IDF intelligence pointed to the Mavi Marmara being problematic and identified aggressors aboard the ship before placing the commandos aboard, it is also consistent that they would use live fire from a helicopter above specifically for that ship and no other.
Do I think there would have some angry media reports had they simply disabled the ships engines and towed it back to an Israeli port? Yes – because I agree that in the eyes of some, Israel can’t do anything right or good – but the story would have blown over and I personally would have had no issue with that approach – thus for your analogy – I think they were within their ‘rights’ to find a way to stop the ships from breaking that blockade – but since no act of aggression was occurring, I think what they did was completely misguided and totally the wrong form of engagement. They are now reaping the results.
IDF would have thrown stunt grenades and fired rubber bullets from the helicopters prior to landing their soldiers to make the violent activists from obstructing the boarding area. It is the procedure of such action, secure the target for landing the soldiers.
Reporters around the world clearly had made fool of themselves after Israel released those videos (it’s a surprise because Israel doesn’t usually do that kind of video release). There’re also hints of premeditated press release.
Sid – I think you’re just trying to argue with me now.
But clearly you are happy to admit now (though it doesn’t appear in the IDF account of events… or at least it didn’t in their early accounts and still doesn’t when talking about the situation leading up to the commandos boarding) that they used tear gas, stun grenades and rubber bullets – so the only discussion then is whether they used live fire before boarding the ship.
Just out of interest, if you were in a situation and you were faced with tear-gas, stun grenades and rubber bullets, would you consider that aggressive and consider you have a right to defend yourself?
Also, what if the Israelis in this situation had been Iranian, or what if that had been a New Zealand flotilla and this had been a historic situation of New Zealand protesters trying to break a blockade to protest nuclear testing?
My argument was never about who provoked who.
The ship had ill intention, to compromise Israel security by supporting Hamas, camouflaging in delivering humanitarian aid. Israel had the right to board that ship to inspect and/or redirect it.
The ship had been warned that the area was war zone and blockade was imposed.
The casualty were the guerrilla’s own fault.
Now we’re going to go around in circles here. Trying to break that blockade on the water is not an unusual form of civil disobedience. This takes our discussion right back to the beginning so it’s where I thank you for it and humbly bow out
It’s not unusual, true. That does not mean Israel didn’t have right to board the ship and redirect/stop it.
And they won’t get my sympathy for supporting Hamas.
I didn’t see your lastest addition. But since there are so many questions, I’ll add one of my own. Why would the IDF use live fire before anyone boarded the ship and then board with paint-ball guns?
David, I think the question goes back further – why send your commandos aboard a ship with only paint-ball guns when you have identified that ship as being commanded by a hostile organisation and with visibility of hostiles on board with steel bars? That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever and it certainly is not with Israel (or any military’s) approach to such a situation.
It makes more sense that if you are going to board the ship to take control of it, you would use tear-gas and stun (sound) grenades along with rubber bullets first and in this instance, live fire is not beyond comprehension and then send your commandos aboard properly equipped. I believe that is what occurred – if I am to be straight up, I don’t believe those were paintball guns.
Yonatan Shapira, former pilot in the IDF for the very squadron that conducted the assault on the Mavi Marmara stated: “No Israeli pilot would drop commandos on a ship in the middle of the sea, in the middle of the night, during such an operation without the soldiers carrying live ammunition. Paint ball canisters may have been attached to the automatic weapons that they had, but there is no doubt that the soldiers had and were prepared to use live ammunition”
They had live ammunitions, they carried pistols.
Sid, I’m afraid you hold no credibility in this argument for me. All you’re doing is repeating the IDF narrative with no critical analysis whatsoever. I cannot go any further in discussion with that approach.
I have approached this the same as I approach any situation, with an understanding that all sides have an agenda to protect and that they will do their utmost to paint the story in the way that best protects their agenda – it is clearly visible in the IDF approach and those on the other side who wish to deny any aggression from a group of activists aboard the Mavi Marmara.
A reasonable analysis will take that into account – yours does not do that.
You’re quoting a former pilot who was not there.
You can call that pilot and talk to him if you want – I believe this is his number, though I haven’t checked it:
Yonatan Shapira, former IDF pilot
+1 443 465 7610
He’ll have a better grasp of the situation than you or I as he’s actually had experience in such things in the wider conflict this relates to.
Let me know how you get on.
Have a great weekend.
Better than the commandos and pilots that were there in the scene? And better than Netanyahu? Right
Feel free to call him. He’s closer to the situation than you or I.
The reporter from Al Jazeera was on the scene as well. It all comes down to who you choose to believe.
Netanyahu’s job is to vindicate his soldiers and protect Israeli interests. All of his statements and comments will do nothing else – I wouldn’t expect anything less.
…and do you really think the commandos and Netanyahu are going to give any information that is critical of what they did or paints an incriminating story for their side? No. It’s their job to do otherwise.
Both sides will paint a picture that fits their agenda – that’s why my aim is to always critically analyse both. Which is why this discussion with you no longer interests me – you’re just repeating the IDF narrative – I can get that by reading the statements from their Ministry of Foreign Affairs – which I have been.
Hi,
Jamal mentions that he was on a ‘pool camera’ where reporters were taking turns to file reports. Presumably this means he was intermittently observing and reporting.
It is doubtful he was able to determine if the first commandos had landed by the time he said “you could almost see” (could or could not?) soldiers pointing their guns etc… “and firing almost indiscriminately” (were they or weren’t they?)… “without even looking” (what were they looking at?) “and those bullets were definitely live bullets” (at least he is 100% certain about what type of bullets someone else was firing).
The Mavi Marmara is a medium size cruise ship, way too large I think for one person who was multitasking to know with certainty the definite sequence of events. I’m not denying what he saw, or “could almost see”.
So another question: Was possible for him to know the definite sequence of events happening on all areas of such a large vessel… bow, stern, port, starboard, not to mention 4 (?) upper decks? I can’t imagine so.
That’s a fair call, David. I won’t dispute that.
For me, the bit of his statement that has the most impact is around the fire from the helicopter which caused a fatality that he witnessed… to do what it did, it had to be live ammunition. He seems adamant that this was before commandos had boarded the ship.
The video from Al Jazeera and the video from the IDF line up at one point – the point where the commandos board the ship – both show the commandos being attacked, so I think the Al Jazeera crew had an awareness of when that first boarding took place. From there I think it’s fairly simple – the commandos are attacked and use live ammunition to understandably protect themselves. The difficult part is determining what happened up to that point… those facts are not clear which is why I think the call for an independent investigation is such an important one.
We can throw all this around as much as we like – but we’re all speculating (me included) based on limited and biased information from all sides – for that reason a thorough, independent investigation is needed for some real answers to be found.
“We can throw all this around as much as we like – but we’re all speculating (me included) based on limited and biased information from all sides – for that reason a thorough, independent investigation is needed for some real answers to be found.”
Agreed, but who is going to conduct the independent investigation? David Bain?
It’s a premeditated press coverage! It was their intention all along.
Wow – you’re right and I’m clearly very very wrong. How could I not see that Al Jazeera are just a bunch of anti-semitic terrorist supporters in league with Al-Qaeda who planned this as part of Israel’s downfall from the start and that the IDF and Israeli government would not premeditate their own press coverage. They’re clearly completely innocent and telling us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is clear those people deserved to die. How dare I question any actions that lead to such deaths. Sorry, I should have been agreeing with you all along… what was I thinking
I’m off for the weekend. Have a good one
“Was possible for him to know the definite sequence of events happening on all areas of such a large vessel… bow, stern, port, starboard, not to mention 4 (?) upper decks? I can’t imagine so.”
It’s impossible. Just look at that Youtube video where you see the ship from above (helicopter). It’s a bird eye view with night vision that enable you to see people’s movements from top, but you still can’t see what’s going on without some captions.
Remember it’s night time. How could the reporter see? Was he using night vision goggle?
The ship was lit up like a Christmas tree both from it’s own lights and the spotlights from the Navy (including the helicopters)… but I digress since I’ve already admitted you’re completely right, Sid and I was clearly misguided in my approach.
Have a great weekend.
Oh and how could the reporter know that live fire were used instead of rubber bullets from the helicopters? Rubber bullet is bullet coated with rubber!
If you’ve seen a bullet go through someone’s head (as he reported) I reckon he would probably be open to taking an educated guess that it was live… it wouldn’t take a genius to draw that conclusion
OK but listen again to what he said.
He didn’t say that he saw someone got shot on the head therefore the helicopter shot live fire. He said Israeli must have shot live bullets from helicopter because one of the victims died from shot on top of his head. It’s a conclusion he made afterward.
No – I think you’re hearing what you want to hear.
In the video he starts talking about live fire at 1:55. He talks at that point about live fire from a helicopter above before commandos board the ship.
At 2:36 he talks about the person being shot from above – something he says he witnessed (any normal person at this point would agree that it must be live fire… live fire and rubber coated steel bullets act very differently). If you saw someone get shot in the head and assumed it was anything but live fire you’d be an idiot.
At 2:49 he mentions fire from the sea and states a progression into live fire where he witnessed someone being shot in the arm.
At 4:08 he describes the fire coming from the helicopter above.
At 4:23 he states they were definitely live bullets – he could see the shooter and was witnessing the effect the bullets were having.
At 4:32 after being asked if he saw the man shot through the top of the head by the helicopter fire go down, he states that he did and then moments later saw someone else killed by the same fire. He then states that some wounded were taken below.
His testimony (truthful or not) talks of witnessing live fire and people being killed and injured by it… rubber coated bullets do not have that effect.
If you’re going to argue this with me please do so with something a little more substantial that your own wishful listening
Note: I have updated the article with information from the autopsies of the nine dead activists.
Hey, no need to be that sarcastic with me! (Although your sarcasm is probably not far from the truth)
I get it, it’s long weekend break (lucky for some! no rest for wicked capitalists like me).
Have a great long weekend
Cheers mate. Aside from the weather it was a good one.