• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BBC Flotilla Documentary: Attack on IDF Was Premeditated

D

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From today's edition of The Jerusalem Post:


BBC

Although the BBC documentary does not represent an investigation into the affair, it does represent perhaps the first independent look at the incident. Its conclusions hint that a dispassionate examination of the available information reveals that the flotilla's aim was not solely humanitarian in nature and that the violence had been pre-planned.
 

If this was the Panorama program which I believe it was, it was indeed biased which was to be expected when she was apparently the only person allowed on board working alongside Israeli soldiers.

She was not honest about the recordings sent out by the IDF claiming to be from the MM and being antisemetic and threatening. She completely failed to say that the IDF had admitted that it did not know who had said things and had altered the recording. That recording was fake. She in no way told this. Quite the opposite. She suggested it was real. Very biased.

Impossible to know whether the end bit about medicines being out of date were real and nothing being used.

The reality was that the convoy was both humanitarian aid and political. It was probably more political than humanitarian aid because Gaza needs so much this would just be like a lucky dip bag to them.

I don't think I saw anything new. All I thought was what an awful report and biased. I am not a reporter and I know more.

(I am off to sleep now! )
 
I'm amazed that from all networks the BBC is the one that is not hiding the truth.
 

I have skimmed to post 24 and unless the criticisms saying it is anti Israeli are all behind that your snide criticism of me is not genuine. Certainly up to post 24 the criticisms are overwhelmingly that people are shocked at the bias of the BBC. There are one or two satisfied pro Israelis but that is not criticism.

I am surprised at you.
 
Well of course the Israelis were provoked, the flotilla organizers aren't stupid. Now if Israel was justified in responding the way it did to that provocation is another question entirely. But before anyone jumps the gun and acts as if being provoked is justification for any kind of response think again. No country has domestic laws nor are there international laws which provide for limitless response to any provocation. Believe it or not the same philosophy that got you into trouble for hitting that kid in grade school for calling you an ugly name works at the international level too. Simply being provoked doesn't justify any action.
 

No one has said that the provokation was the justification for the use of lethal weapons by the soldiers.
The use of lethal weapons against the soldiers was the justification.
 
Apocalypse said:
No one has said that the provokation was the justification for the use of lethal weapons by the soldiers.
The use of lethal weapons against the soldiers was the justification.
Click to expand...

O I agree entirely I was just throwing out a question for those who may think the issue is extremely clear cut. For the soldier on the ship when confronted with lethal force is justified to return to protect himself and his fellow soldiers. But if Israel had the intention of using lethal force before they themselves were threatened or had knowledge that one ship had plans to threaten them, I wouldnt see that as justified. Its a very complex issue and the question of justification can't be answered one way or another for the entire event at every level. For example the soldier's self-defense was justified but perhaps his order to board to begin with was not, in that case part of what Israel did would have been justified and some wouldnt have been. The soldier, although just one man, still represents his state and his government is responsible for his actions so I can say Israel may not be entirely justified in every action and decision they made even if all those actions and decisions were made by different people perhaps wholly unaware of what others involved were deciding and doing.

Thats why there needs to be an investigation in my opinion, if not to make a ruling or a decision on what was and what was not justified on both sides, but at the very least to educate the public and answer those questions.
 

If Israel has had the intention to use lethal weapons on the activists to begin with, the soldiers won't be armed with paintball guns and you'd see casualties on other ships except of only one of the six ships in the flotilla.
Besides that, you won't get injured soldiers (and definetly not seriously injured), you will see way more deads than 9 people out of over a hundred violent activists, and you won't get sights like this:


I think the issue is 100% clear, and the 'need for investigation' is merely due to the involvement of the state of Israel.
If the soldiers have came with the intention to kill people (and just thinking how absurd such accusation is amazes me), the outcome would have been completely different.
 
The presenter Jane Corbin, has been doing her job for over twenty years and is highly respected. She now suddenly becomes biased and incompetent according to some. The BBC itself has always strayed on the Palestinian side of the fence in both documentaries and reporting for years. One thirty minute documentary that is sympathetic to the Israeli government and there is a rush to claim propaganda on the BBC message board. I remember having coffee with people the morning after this happened and I refused to pass judgment until evidence came out of what had actually occured since the story seemed so bizarre on its face at that time. It seemed people were willing to accept at that time that the IDF wanted to kill activists for giggles. People are extraordinarily unwilling to do a 180 on their initial impressions of an event and will go to ridiculous lengths to defend those initial views in the face of new evidence, and this is just another example of that.
 
Last edited:
I'm not suggesting they did come with that intention, I just meant it as an example of how Israel could be both justified and unjustified. That's why I used the world "if" and not "since." And in my experience these kind of things are never perfectly clear cut and there are many, and much more important things, which aren't as clear as what happened on a single ship.

And I can't speak for every party concerned but my desire for an investigation comes from my experience and knowledge of analysis which tells me I need more information, it has nothing to do with the fact that this incident involved Israel. Now from all the information out there its my opinion that Israel was probably justified in its actions and its decision to seize the flotilla and that it made reasonable attempts to distinguish from the violent and non-violent members of the Flotilla. However I like to have as much information as possible and my opinion is simply that, an opinion. My original point was to point out that even if two people agree on all the facts they still may draw different opinions from them regarding justification.
 
A highly respected journalist from the BBC (no friend of Israel) is dismissed simply because she reports the ugly truth.

Simply amazing.
 

:shock:

whaaaaaaaaaat? Un uh!!! I am STUNNED!!! literally stunned!
 
VanceMack said:
:shock:

whaaaaaaaaaat? Un uh!!! I am STUNNED!!! literally stunned!
Click to expand...

I wonder if Israel will now insist that Turkey apologize for sending this ship with terrorists which caused so much trouble.
 
Manc Skipper said:
That speaks more to your bias than theirs.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not, if anything this speaks at how obvious was the fact that the flotilla raid was completely justified on all of its aspects.
 
I'm trying to understand the attitude. When the BBC is anti-Israel, the BBC is biased and not a credible source and now the BBC becomes credible all of a sudden ?

The same goes for the U.N.
 
Mira said:
I'm trying to understand the attitude. When the BBC is anti-Israel, the BBC is biased and not a credible source and now the BBC becomes credible all of a sudden ?

The same goes for the U.N.
Click to expand...

No, the BBC is still biased against Israel, I don't think anyone who thinks so has suddenly changed his opinion.

It is funny however that the moment the BBC has made a remark that presents the truth as it is and Israel as righteous in its actions, you can suddenly see people calling it biased for Israel like the 2nd post in this thread.
 

This is a discussion forum and the article was not posted as an announcement but as an invitation to debate. alexa posted her argument
 
Mira said:
This is a discussion forum and the article was not posted as an announcement but as an invitation to debate. alexa posted her argument
Click to expand...

I never said that her belief that it is biased for Israel is not her opinion, it is her opinion, and my words remain as they are.
 

I have a question about this video. At some point we see soldiers being beat up with sticks and in yellow it says "soldiers being beaten up with metal rods" how can one know from a blurry film what material are the sticks made of ?
 
Mira said:
I have a question about this video. At some point we see soldiers being beat up with sticks and in yellow it says "soldiers being beaten up with metal rods" how can one know from a blurry film what material are the sticks made of ?
Click to expand...

There were many other films to approve that it was metal rods, some even in color.
There is this film where they get ready for a fight and there is another where they attack the soldiers while they are on the speed boats with metal rods and chains.
The captain of the Mavi Marmara has also stated in his interview that they got those metal rods by dismantling them from the ship.
 

thanks for the clarification
so they had to improvise weapons (dismantle rods from the ship)
That contradicts the BBC documentary saying that the violence was premeditated
 
Last edited:
Mira said:
thanks for the clarification
so they had to improvise weapons (dismantle rods from the ship)
That contradicts the BBC documentary saying that the violence was premeditated
Click to expand...

Actually no it doesn't, they came with boxes filled with knives and other weapons, so the BBC claim is a no-brainer, of course it was premeditated.

They were also dismantling the metal rods from the ship before the soldiers have boarded the ship.
 
Apocalypse said:
Actually no it doesn't, they came with boxes filled with knives and other weapons, so the BBC claim is a no-brainer, of course it was premeditated.

They were also dismantling the metal rods from the ship before the soldiers have boarded the ship.
Click to expand...
They had boxes full of knives and weapons and they still needed metal rods ? that's very strange
what proof can you provide to your claim that they were dismantling metal rods before the soldiers boarded the ship ? why didn't they just include metal rods in their so called boxes of "knives and other weapons"

I can just see the scene "Eshek Oglu eshek Ferit !!! , you forgot the metal rods in Turkey" !!!!!! :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…