• 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!

Witness account to the beatings of Israeli soldiers

Israel is having an inquiry of this nature
An independent nature, and is led by a former Israeli supreme court judge, an institution with great credibility.
The public has a right to know - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

The inquiry goes with the 'truth' already being known and so no need for an inquiry.
Actually what your quotation box has to say is that the inquiry is not going to probe the politicians' decision-making before the actual boarding of the flotilla.
It doesn't say that it already knows the truth about what has happened on board of the flotilla during the boarding.

The inquiry was set up because of the claims by some that the act was illegal, it's going to find if international law was really violated.
In addition one of the two 'independent' observors has been found to have a bias having joined an organisation called 'Friends of Israel' which it appears was set up in response to the very thing the inquiry is looking into plus things I have mentioned in post 11 and 13.
It simply means he's a friend of the Israeli nation.
Are you saying that if an inquiry into British government actions is being observed by a person who is part of an organization known as "friends of Britain", it means that they would manipulate the facts were they against the British government?

Besides that the man himself has a rich past of credibility in Europe and in the world itself.
He was also part of the Good Friday agreements if I'm not mistaken.
These are the reasons people do not have trust or expect much from the Israel inquiry.
Then those specific people have no case.
It's not like the Goldstone inquiry when the body behind it has had a past of incredibility concerning Israel, and has declared Israel guilty of war crimes before its investigation has even started.
In this case we have an independent, credible committee of people, including a 93 years old professor in international law, looking into the case and seeking the truth.
 
Her account of the beatings of Israeli soldiers does I think minimise those beatings. However if the rest of what she said is true this is understandable.

A lot of what she says is much the same as other witnesses including witnesses on other boats have said they saw.

The account given by Fatima Mohammadi in the video paints such an "angelic portrait" of those on the flotilla ship that it is genuinely comical. Other videos directly contradict what the Chicago attorney is spewing. And am guessing that most of those that view the clip realize that fact.

That said, there is little doubt in my mind that many if not most of the volunteers on the Gaza bound ship probably did have noble and peaceful intentions. But it does seem somewhat clear that there were others aboard who were absolutely focused/determined to create a violent incident in the effort to advance their cause.


Now back to Fatima Mohammadi....believe she was to a degree very successful with the video.

What she accomplished in her little speech was to "put on record" a "quote from an eyewitness" that can be used by any reporter or columnist who wishes to admonish the Israelis and convey the purity/innocence of all those passengers on the ship. Whenever actions by the flotilla attackers are cited, there is now "eye witness account" (regardless of how bogus) that can be used to counter the claim and defend "pipe swingers"...



.
 
IMO, Ms. Mohammadi is the kind of witness who would ordinarily be subjected to an intense cross-examination were she called before a court. It would be critical to determine whether she is recounting events that she witnessed as they unfolded or painting a scenario that fits a larger objective associated with her activism. In addition, sometimes the trauma of events can blur memories. It will be interesting to see if she is willing to go to Israel to cooperate with the investigation into the matter. My guess is that she will not be willing to cooperate with the investigation.

I wouldn't go to Israel if I had seen their soldiers beat members of a protest and then they had turned around and labeled me a terrorist. Not saying they definitively did beat anyone, but if that was my account of what I had witnessed, hell no I would not set foot in their country. Hell, we see what they do to huge swaths of Palestine when someone there gets out of line. I'm sure they have no qualms about silencing a single person on their home turf. :shrug:
 
I'd prefer you to trust the Israeli government on this just as you trust the British government on Iraq/Afghanistan.

Where do you get that I trust the British government? Plus, why would I care about the British government?

But above all, we must trust the evidence.

The only evidence we have is one grainy video of about a minute of activity and an audio recording that does nothing to represent the flotilla fairly, but does serve as a good representation of Israel's threats that could have easily provoked the incident on the Turkish ship.
 
This Iranian "lawyer" knew her boat was going to be boarded by one of the baddest armies in the world and she thought they could toss sharp metal grappling hooks down onto men in rubber rafts and that wouldn't cause the Israeli soldiers to get more violent? Huh? :roll: And just how is she so sure that none of those hooks landed on anyone's head in those boats?

She surely got her message out and it will be believed by those who already side with her and Hamas and Iran. But, I'm pretty sure her video won't change anyone's mind who may have wanted to give the folks on the MM the benefit of the doubt.
 
This Iranian "lawyer" knew her boat was going to be boarded by one of the baddest armies in the world and she thought they could toss sharp metal grappling hooks down onto men in rubber rafts and that wouldn't cause the Israeli soldiers to get more violent? Huh? :roll: And just how is she so sure that none of those hooks landed on anyone's head in those boats?

I lold, sharp metal!! :mrgreen:
 
Chief Officer Gokkiran Gokhan of the Mavi Marmara, an officer of the ship with the violent activists, describes his experience of a not so peaceful flotilla.

 
Chief Officer Gokkiran Gokhan of the Mavi Marmara, an officer of the ship with the violent activists, describes his experience of a not so peaceful flotilla.

This goes against what other witnesses have said. Not in the cutting of metal. The Captain said that was done, and I am pretty sure some preparation was done for the Israeli boarding but in the supposed take over by IHH of the ship. 6 people have disappeared. Suggestions are that they may have been killed, injured or thrown overboard or may have been Mossad. Like the Captain he is being prompted to say what he says.

I made a mistake in not posting the account of the attack on Challenger 1 in a new thread. (post 32) Hope people do not miss it.
 
Don, just as in the case where Israel is saying things and they are being taken at face value, certainly it cannot be taken that what she says is correct. You are also correct that trauma and eye witness accounts are not always that trustworthy. It is however a great pity that Israel confiscated all the Journalist's equipment and footage as that might have shown what happened.

What she says, apart from minimisng the force of the attack on the soldiers does sound plausible given what I have managed to read see and put together.

My guess is that this was a ghastly mistake and that possibly the fault was in the planning. As that is not going to be looked into.....

Alexa,

In the end, it will the evidence that drives the findings. I was talking about process, namely that she is the kind of witness who would be grilled in order to assess the credibility of her account.
 
Alexa,

In the end, it will the evidence that drives the findings. I was talking about process, namely that she is the kind of witness who would be grilled in order to assess the credibility of her account.

The problem I have with that is that Israel announced what it was all about as soon as it happened and has taken all the videos apart from one smuggled out. I cannot see her going back to Israel as they have declared her a terrorist so to do that would presumbably be dangerous for her.

Also the whole court as it apparently will be is being done by one side who is also accused of crimes. I just can't see anything coming of it.
 
The problem I have with that is that Israel announced what it was all about as soon as it happened and has taken all the videos apart from one smuggled out.
Who said that the videos taken would not be presented to the committee?
I've never seen such a claim.

Besides that Don has made an excellent key point; in the end it won't be what people claim that happened that would decide the findings, but the evidence and the facts themselves.
 
Who said that the videos taken would not be presented to the committee?
I've never seen such a claim.

The videos should be returned to their owners. Israel has already given an account of what happened which goes against what most of the people on the flotilla including journalists say. Israel can choose to not show material which is not in her interest.

Besides that Don has made an excellent key point; in the end it won't be what people claim that happened that would decide the findings, but the evidence and the facts themselves.

Evidence which is in the hands of one of the parties which is becing accused of acting wrongly.

If you listen to the account of the reported attack on Challenger 1 you will hear him say that the thing that seemed to be of prime importance to Israel was to seize all recording material and equipment.
 
Last edited:
The videos should be returned to their owners. Israel has already given an account of what happened which goes against what most of the people on the flotilla including journalists say. Israel can choose to not show material which is not in her interest.
The initial account that Israel has given, prior to the release of the evidence, is the account that is supported by the evidence, while the initial account of the activists (soldiers weren't attacked at all, etc) was actually clearly contradicted by the evidence.
This implies that those 'activists' have lied to the media, most likely with the aim of framing the soldiers from political motivation.
If this is the case, which is something that the inquiry would probably find, then by all means they should be handled to the hands of the Israeli law or judged for their crimes at their lands.

Now the videos should all be presented in their whole to the committee. The videos and pictures taken by the 'activists' cannot be handed to them, since it might hold incriminating evidence against the same 'activists', and must therefore be examined by the committee.
Evidence which is in the hands of one of the parties which is becing accused of acting wrongly.
That's why there is an independent inquiry, and that's why the evidence should be handed to that inquiry, which is a transparent inquiry I remind you, and justice must be sought.
If you listen to the account of the reported attack on Challenger 1 you will hear him say that the thing that seemed to be of prime importance to Israel was to seize all recording material and equipment.
If you'll listen to the account by the IDF soldiers you'd hear them saying that the activists were beating them up with crowbars, stabbing them with knives, and even opened fire on them with live ammunition all that before they soldiers have reacted with live ammunition in self-defense.
That testimony is partially backed by evidence, the footage released by the IDF showing the activists beating the soldiers and the soldiers not reacting with live ammunition for quite some minutes.
 
The initial account that Israel has given, prior to the release of the evidence, is the account that is supported by the evidence, while the initial account of the activists (soldiers weren't attacked at all, etc) was actually clearly contradicted by the evidence.
This implies that those 'activists' have lied to the media, most likely with the aim of framing the soldiers from political motivation.
If this is the case, which is something that the inquiry would probably find, then by all means they should be handled to the hands of the Israeli law or judged for their crimes at their lands.

Now the videos should all be presented in their whole to the committee. The videos and pictures taken by the 'activists' cannot be handed to them, since it might hold incriminating evidence against the same 'activists', and must therefore be examined by the committee.
That's why there is an independent inquiry, and that's why the evidence should be handed to that inquiry, which is a transparent inquiry I remind you, and justice must be sought.
If you'll listen to the account by the IDF soldiers you'd hear them saying that the activists were beating them up with crowbars, stabbing them with knives, and even opened fire on them with live ammunition all that before they soldiers have reacted with live ammunition in self-defense.
That testimony is partially backed by evidence, the footage released by the IDF showing the activists beating the soldiers and the soldiers not reacting with live ammunition for quite some minutes.

The inquiry is not independent. The Chairman does not even believe in it. It is not going to look at the whole situation and one of the 'independent' observors is anything but.

The video which was released blamed the activists but it was an untimed video which was released before all the video could possibly have been looked at and obviously had been edited. That along with the basically lie that people on the MM were giving antisemetic insults is the evidence against the Flotilla.

That the flotilla participants including journalists and a retired US Ambassador give different descriptions of what has happened matters not one bit.

For myself it is the handling of the affair and the fact that the inquiry will not go into all areas which makes it so suspect that unless something really surprising comes up like Haaretz I will believe it is a whitewash.

The Lara Lee footage already gives a different interpretation.

I don't think Israel meant to kill people. I think she meant to scare the hell out of them like when she was playing chicken with Challenger 1 and was going to ram her and like she has apparently rammed similar boats.

Having told them there was going to be lethal consequences and approaching the MM in an extremely fierce way, with stun grenades, tear gas, rubber bullets and within a minute or two live bullets by just about every account from the flotilla, she was surprised that the people there believing they were about to die, did not just sit their and wait for it but did what little they could to fight back.

As far as I have been able to gather the by the time Israelis were trying to make the descent from the helicopters flotilla passengers were already dead or dying. Do not be surprised in such circumstances if people are not too friendly.

That is what it looks like from my study. It is my hunch from my study, it is only my hunch but it certainly is at least as valid a hunch as yours has been blaming it all on Turkish terrorists since the beginning.

Israel's to be frank less than honest dealing with this has not helped.
 
Last edited:
.

Notable recent news. Not to sound dramatic, but think defcon may have just gone to "x+1".....


"Egypt allowed at least one Israeli and 11 American warships to pass through the Suez Canal as an Iranian flotilla approaches Gaza. Egypt closed the canal to protect the ships with thousands of soldiers, according to the British-based Arabic language newspaper Al Quds al-Arabi.

One day prior to the report on Saturday, Voice of Israel government radio reported that the Egyptian government denied an Israeli request not to allow the Iranian flotilla to use the Suez Canal to reach Gaza, in violation of the Israeli sea embargo on the Hamas-controlled area."

US, Israel Warships in Suez May Be Prelude to Faceoff with Iran - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News



.
 
The inquiry is not independent.
Actually yes it is, it is fully an independent inquiry, the government is not involved in its management nor in its research and result.
The video which was released blamed the activists
Videos don't 'blame' people. They present evidence, they present what was going on there. It is we who are forced to make the right conclusion, and in this case, the way too obvious one, and blame the activists for their crimes.
but it was an untimed video which was released before all the video could possibly have been looked at and obviously had been edited.
It was cut out, not edited.
Edited would mean it was messed with, and it obviously wasn't, they've just presented a very specific duration of time. It's a footage after all.
=
That along with the basically lie that people on the MM were giving antisemetic insults is the evidence against the Flotilla.
A lie? Says who?
IIRC the video tape was released, then there were the usual claims for propaganda, so the unedited tape was released, and it was found out that there was no relevancy at all in the full audio tape, and that the editing didn't change a thing.
That the flotilla participants including journalists and a retired US Ambassador give different descriptions of what has happened matters not one bit.
It's irrelevant what they say, they were already caught lying with their initial account of "we didn't attack any soldiers, no soldiers were harmed".
The Lara Lee footage already gives a different interpretation.
Like it or not it's merely one of the evidence that supports the Israeli version.
I don't think Israel meant to kill people. I think she meant to scare the hell out of them like when she was playing chicken with Challenger 1 and was going to ram her and like she has apparently rammed similar boats.
I think that's a very surreal and bizarre 'analysis'.
Having told them there was going to be lethal consequences and approaching the MM in an extremely fierce way
In other words, following international procedure.
It's only hateful propaganda to single Israel out on such procedure, as if it's not known to be the procedure of every freaking nation under the sun to say "stop immediately or we'll open fire".
Even police officers say that and point a gun at the suspects when they arrest them, does that mean the suspects are threatened? Not at all, not if they react appropriately.
with stun grenades, tear gas, rubber bullets and within a minute or two live bullets
Axes, knives, crowbars, slingshots, live bullets. From the 'peaceful activists'.
by just about every account from the flotilla, she was surprised that the people there believing they were about to die, did not just sit their and wait for it but did what little they could to fight back.
The same people who were preparing to become martyrs for Allah, who have chanted 'Allah hu'Akbar' during their assault on the Israeli soldiers, who have got themselves ready for an incoming fight even before the soldiers have got near their ship.
Yes, those are the people who were believing their going to die, not the soldiers who would have been murdered on that ship were they not reacting and defending themselves.
[quoet]As far as I have been able to gather the by the time Israelis were trying to make the descent from the helicopters flotilla passengers were already dead or dying.[/quote]According to the activists. Irrelevant.
Do not be surprised in such circumstances if people are not too friendly.
Do not be surprised when you shoot at a soldier and he shoots back at you.
That is what it looks like from my study. It is my hunch from my study, it is only my hunch but it certainly is at least as valid a hunch as yours has been blaming it all on Turkish terrorists since the beginning.
You can't call it a study really, not while placing agenda above the truth.
Israel's to be frank less than honest dealing with this has not helped.
Israel was absolutely honest in its statements, it is the 'peaceful activists' who were caught lying countless of times, and are obviously attempting to fool people into believing that they have not just tried to murder soldiers, and that it just happened that the Mavi Marmara was the only ship with casualties on it, and that the only casualties were Turkish.
Those are all part of one big coincident, don't you know?
 
Last edited:
I have long been waiting for this. Someone from the flotilla who properly details what was the build up to the beatings we all saw of Israel soldiers. Here is one witness's account.

YouTube - Witness to State Terror: Aboard the Mavi Marmara ( Fatima Mohammadi )

I heard first hand the testimony of a commando who was there, either he or she is lying, I tend to believe him. The only thing that was thrown to the ship before a soldier landed on the deck was a flashbang (or shock granade, whatever you wanna call it) to create a gap on the deck that the soldiers could land into, as soon as the first touched ground the gap was closed with people jumping on him and beating the hell out of him, we can also see this in the footage the IDF released.

All the footage and witness of IDF soldiers wasn't good enough for you and you repeatedly said "there should be an invastigation" now we see this story and it seems that you've made up your mind and we don't need an investigation anymore.
 
Last edited:
I heard first hand the testimony of a commando who was there, either he or she is lying, I tend to believe him. The only thing that was thrown to the ship before a soldier landed on the deck was a flashbang (or shock granade, whatever you wanna call it) to create a gap on the deck that the soldiers could land into, as soon as the first touched ground the gap was closed with people jumping on him and beating the hell out of him, we can also see this in the footage the IDF released.

All the footage and witness of IDF soldiers wasn't good enough for you and you repeatedly said "there should be an invastigation" now we see this story and it seems that you've made up your mind and we don't need an investigation anymore.

It was quite obvious from the beginning really.
Here's a post of mine made at the day of the interception, a few hours before any kind of evidence was even released from the incident:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...aza-flotilla-says-hamas-7.html#post1058778805
 
I heard first hand the testimony of a commando who was there, either he or she is lying, I tend to believe him. The only thing that was thrown to the ship before a soldier landed on the deck was a flashbang (or shock granade, whatever you wanna call it) to create a gap on the deck that the soldiers could land into, as soon as the first touched ground the gap was closed with people jumping on him and beating the hell out of him, we can also see this in the footage the IDF released.

As far as firing before boarding is concerned I was going primarily by what I saw on the Lara Lees video but also by what witnesses both on that boat and on the one nearby have said.

All the footage and witness of IDF soldiers wasn't good enough for you and you repeatedly said "there should be an invastigation" now we see this story and it seems that you've made up your mind and we don't need an investigation anymore.

I refer you to this aricle by Uri Avery. He has colated well most of the different aspects and even raises issues concerning the problem with this inquiry.

Uri Avnery's weekly english article
 
Last edited:
As far as firing before boarding is concerned I was going primarily by what I saw on the Lara Lees video but also by what witnesses both on that boat and on the one nearby have said.

I rely on a person I talked to and told me the story, I also saw the video of Lara Lees which doesn't show anything about shooting, we hear poping sounds, we don't know when it is, before the boarding started, after, hell it can even be someone banging on a metal door behind the camera. What I did saw in the IDF movie is a soldier who slides down to the same gap the soldier I talked to told me about and get beat up, I know there were 8 Israeli soldiers wounded 2 seriously wounded and I know there were 9 activists dead even though the IDF footage shows dozens who jump on the soldiers.



I refer you to this aricle by Uri Avery. He has colated well most of the different aspects and even raises issues concerning the problem with this inquiry.

Uri Avnery's weekly english article

you either gave me a wrong link or I have problems with my reading comprehansion, I don't see how this article has anything to do with an inquary.
 
I rely on a person I talked to and told me the story, I also saw the video of Lara Lees which doesn't show anything about shooting, we hear poping sounds, we don't know when it is, before the boarding started, after, hell it can even be someone banging on a metal door behind the camera. What I did saw in the IDF movie is a soldier who slides down to the same gap the soldier I talked to told me about and get beat up, I know there were 8 Israeli soldiers wounded 2 seriously wounded and I know there were 9 activists dead even though the IDF footage shows dozens who jump on the soldiers.

Well I went back and watched it once more after Apoc said that there was no firing before hand. There clearly is paintball firing which I understand can itself be lethal, there clearing also is people being targeted, you can see the red spots and there clearly is explosions as well as what sounds like bullets.

It appears all the assaults on the boats were violent. Listen to challenger activist Dr Clinton Lane link in post 32 above. Someone has attempted to show things in more detail on the net as well. Like I said, I went by what I saw which went in accord with what witnesses are saying. I am sorry you are making it personal with your friend. The Lara Lee footage is not the footage of the people coming down from helicopters. I am quite sure they were met with the beatings we have all seen.

Of course as regards the killings one of the things I know our journalists were asking for early on were where are the films for these. Unlike people beating up Israel soldiers, Israel has kept quiet on that. It is indeed a pity that Lara Lee's photographer did not get these.


you either gave me a wrong link or I have problems with my reading comprehansion, I don't see how this article has anything to do with an inquary.

No, I gave the link from the page but he obviously has something in place which just takes you to the latest article. You will find it in the right side list. Who is afraid of a real inquiry?

Uri Avnery's weekly english article
 
Last edited:
Well I went back and watched it once more after Apoc said that there was no firing before hand. There clearly is paintball firing which I understand can itself be lethal, there clearing also is people being targeted, you can see the red spots and there clearly is explosions as well as what sounds like bullets.

It appears all the assaults on the boats were violent. Listen to challenger activist Dr Clinton Lane link in post 32 above. Someone has attempted to show things in more detail on the net as well. Like I said, I went by what I saw which went in accord with what witnesses are saying. I am sorry you are making it personal with your friend. The Lara Lee footage is not the footage of the people coming down from helicopters. I am quite sure they were met with the beatings we have all seen.

Of course as regards the killings one of the things I know our journalists were asking for early on were where are the films for these. Unlike people beating up Israel soldiers, Israel has kept quiet on that. It is indeed a pity that Lara Lee's photographer did not get these.

Assault boats came AFTER the helicopter, meaning they already joined a violent situation where their commrads on deck are being beaten up

No, I gave the link from the page but he obviously has something in place which just takes you to the latest article. You will find it in the right side list. Who is afraid of a real inquiry?

Uri Avnery's weekly english article

ok thanks, I'll look into it and comment later on.
 
Assault boats came AFTER the helicopter, meaning they already joined a violent situation where their commrads on deck are being beaten up

That is disputed.
 
Back
Top Bottom