It is truly amazing that you are so good at what you do that you would actually clarify the sentence about unemployment. Sir, you are too good for your own good. In a place like Gaza, statistical accuracy is impossible. What was said first in your video may well have been the truth and you would not have been irresponsible to simply leave it there uncorrected. But again, applause. My request is for you to do a piece about who possibly runs the BBC. Please, sir, give us a name.
I agree with you about statistical accuracy being impossible. The problem was that I had misread an e-mail from the indefatigable Ken O'Keefe, who lived in Gaza, at the time and was on the Mavi Marmara, so I felt obliged to make the correction, because the error was mine not his.
As to who actually controls the BBC, it would be almost impossible to discover or to verify that. It certainly doesn't have a lot to do with how it is funded, by license fees.
What a joke, this so called documentary mentions Najd without expressing the fact that the Arabs from Najd aided the Egyptian army massacring the Jewish Kibbutz Yad Mordechai in 1948. Also no mention of Arabs ethnically cleansing Jews in Hebron, Jerusalem, Bet Haarava, and Gush Etzion. No mention of Arabs in Israel's army, and claiming that Kassams and Katyushas have no explosives! WOW, talking about dishonesty. No reason to waste time on this piece of propaganda. (and no mention khybar chants?
An extremely accurate report of what really happened, it is clearly biased in favour of the israeli army.
Both the parties views have not been considered and placed in front of the viewers so that they may make their own mind up who was responsible for the outcome of that day. Politicians do not listen so these ppl took it upon themselves to break the siege and take aid for the much needy Palestinian people. 9 deaths occurred and this lady has no respect for them.
Excellent video. I missed this prog. when it was 1st. broadcast & would definitely have complained had I seen it go out.
It's another sad example of the BBC surrendering to Zionist pressure. Remember Tony Benn berating them for refusing to put up the address for the Gaza Appeal? That to me spoke volumes about their risk-averse cringing attitude.
Given her husband's affiliations Corbin should never have been let anywhere near this topic - regardless of the political bias of her script.
Jane Corbin who presented the program is married to Baron John Maples a Conservative MP and Friend of Israel. Always remember the BBC is nothing more than Zionist News Broadcasting.
What a joke. Editorial Standards Board ESC = ESCape, on computers. Get yourself out of trouble. And not a word about Jane Corbin's husbands role as former chairman of Conservatives Friends of Israel. A disgrace.
The San Remo Manual is the standard for international maritine law. Was Israels blockade in international waters legal? Absolutely yes... Look it up.
Will international courts put Israel on trial for any crimes? No, in reality, you have to committ a crime first.
The flotilla could deliver their cargo to Gaza through the port at Ashdod - but instead chose to illegally charge a legal military blockade (an act of war in itself) and they were stupid a second time by bringing a knife to a gun fight
"The parties to an armed conflict at sea are bound by the principles and rules of international humanitarian law from the moment armed force is used."
The Israelis murdered nine unarmed men. That was not a humanitarian action, it was murder, and murder is illegal. You can argue that the Israelis had a right to board the Mavi Marmara in international waters, which I do not think that they did, but the murders were definitely illegal.
@alawson911 Hey, I don't make up international law - but I am a mariner who abides by it - if I am sailing into a blockade zone. I don't even have to do that. If I broadcast my intent to breach the blockade, a ship can legally leave the blockade and intercept me on the high seas.
I, personally, would avoid a naval blockade or pirate waters. The waters to avoid are, Mediteranian Sea (Gaza coastal) Indian Ocean (Horn of Africa and Andaman Islands) Gulf of Mexico (Belieze region)... Common Sense.
The reason why there are so many lawyers in the world is because laws are formulated for general situations, and cannot cover every contingency. One lawyer can plead, quite rationally for one interpretation, and be rationally opposed, both in the process earning a lot of money. One of your earlier posts shows your bias: "This video is soo opinionated, biased and untrue - at nearly every turn." Clearly you think Israel is in the right, and I think you are a moral degenerate.
@alawson911 The San Remo Conventions are about 100 years old, short, and simple. Because I know maritime law, is no reason to sling personal insults. If Israel torpedoed the Mavi Marmara I would say you are right and Israel would be guilty of a war crime.
If the German navy were to allow the passengers of the Lucitamia to disembark, before sinking her, Germany would have been innocent of all crimes - because they would have abided the law in wartime.
And if people like you had one ounce of compassion for the way that the Palestinians have been marginalised in a land their ancestors have had more continuity with than 95% of the current Jewish populations, maybe the Mavi Marmara would not have had to sail and nine decent human beings wouldn't be dead. Stop telling me about out-of-date and unfair laws and how to think.
I have researched what happened, so please explain why you have called my video propaganda? Did not Israel board an unarmed ship in international waters and kill nine people? Did not Jane Corbin lie about the usefulness of the pharmaceuticals that were intended to alleviate the shortage in Gaza? Did not Israel break the ceasefire, before Hamas resumed rocket attacks? Is not Israel still building settlements on Palestinian land? When did telling the truth become propaganda?
@alawson911 your questions are about as disingenuous as the commentary in your propaganda video...but I digress. Yes, Israel boarded a ship in intl waters...was it unarmed? No. Have you seen the footage in your video of Israeli troops being immediately attacked upon boarding the ship? (as an aside, I thought your insinuation that the BBC's mention (factually proven) of IHH's ties to radical Islamic groups was "pure mud-slinging" as ridiculous...those are the questions journalists should be askng
The Mavi Mamara was unarmed, until it was threatened by the Israeli gunboats and helicopters. Then, with knowledge of the IDF's past record, those on board decided to find a way of protecting themselves. What would you have done? Laid down to have you tummy tickled by a UZI sub-machine gun?
Having ties to radical groups does not mean that a radical group was participating in this operation, which is the implication the BBC gave to the situation. That was pure mud-slinging.
@alawson911 lol at your comments. Having ties to a terror organization is cause enough for concern...can you see why?
With "knowledge of the IDF's past record"--hilarious comment. The IDF is Israel's military...they have engaged in military combat. Most people are aware of this. If commandos from the IDF descended on my boat, I would not have resisted (and thus died). If you can't see why Israel would NOT want to kill civilians in international water, I'm afraid you can't see past your own bias
Dropping white phosphorus on civilians was not military combat, it was a war crime. Herding members of the Samouni family into a house and then shelling it, killing half of those inside, was not military combat, it was murder. Digging out the Star of David in Palestinian agricultural land, using tank tracks, was not military combat, it was vicious vandalism. Shall I go on, or have you got an answer to excuse Israel for anything that its leaders tell its military to do? I'm biased?
@alawson911 White Phosphorus (Whooly Pete) is a brutal weapon - but it has it's purposes. A macine gun in a hardedned bunker (pill box) is an example of a fortification where high explosives and incindiary would not be able to penetrate - or a big enough explosive (1000 lb bomb) would cause catastrophic collateral damage. I would use wooly pete on such a target to avoid losing 75% of my men by ordering them to cross a street (danger zone) and engage them with small arms. War is cruel isn't it?
@alawson911 (cont) the medicine was out-of-date, though maybe not useless...this is a petty complaint. Sure, Israel "technically" broke the cease-fire but the 6-month truce between Israel and Hamas had been repeatedly broken. Look up "Operation Cast Lead" for more information. I ask that you shy away from any moral equivalency between Israel and Hamas. One is a democracy the other, a terrorist organization. Since the video is about the flotilla I won't start a new thread about settlements.
It is not a petty complaint, it was the BBC looking for another issue like "ties to radical groups". Where do you get off being so forgiving of such inaccuracies? Israel is a terrorist organization, it is stealing people's land, in fact its very existence is based on land theft. It is walling and fencing people in and has no intention of making peace with the Palestinians. Israel wants them to go away. As you sow, so shall you reap, Israel created the climate for Hamas to exit.
@alawson911 If you can see that delivering medicine was not the true intent of the flotilla (and I believe you're intelligent enough to see that) then the quality of the medicine is unimportant.
All of your credibility just went out the window. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that Israel, not the Palestinians, have initiated all peace accords. Read about Camp David 2000 and realize Arafat is largely to blame for the Palestinian's ongoing struggles. Open your mind.
Delivering medicines and other items was part of the true intent. Also showing the world that decent people are willing to take risks for a caged population that the United Nations, despite ruling that the blockade is illegal, is not willing to do anything about. As for peace initiatives. Any Jew from anywhere can settle on stolen Palestinian land, but those from whom it was stolen are not allowed back to claim it. Who's to blame for that pre-condition? Arafat? Grow up.
@student1776 So Israel's land grabbing and expanding it's border's(which is illegal under international law) is really just about there push for peace and of course removing someone from there home illegally, is how you come to a peaceful solution. "Open your mind," you are clearly not educated and buy into the crap that is fed to you on a daily basis on fox news. You are just another dumb neo-con yank.
@doire7 if you really believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be so one-sided, you don't have the intellect to merit discussion. You're probably just a soccer hooligan.
@student1776 Ahhh, a typical response from a neo-con. Yes, don't address my points of illegal land grabbing and the illegal removal of palestinains from there home and the fact that Israel's land mass has expanded immensely since 1948 and again this is illegal under international law, just bring in some subject that has nothing to do with it because you don't have an answer for me.
@student1776 Again you ignore my points and now have the gall to call me a supporter of terrorism and you do this based on no evidence at all. I am against all violence no matter what quarter it comes from, so what terrorism would you like to talk about, how about the irgun or the stern gang. Zvipi livni's father was a member of the irgun gang that bombed the king david hotel or we could talk about the stern gang who rahm emmanuel's father was apart of, both terrorist organisations.
@student1776 There was never a 'generous offer' by Barak at Camp David. Israel was envisaging a Palestinian territory geographically dismembered into bantustans , with annexations of large settlement blocs (illegal under international law) and no sovereignty over East Jerusalem, only administrative control, while Israeli neigbourhoods constructed there would remain under Israeli sovereignty. In fact all the concessions came from the Palestinians with the refugee and territory issues.
@alien1tau9 the allegation of "bantustans" was completely unfounded and Arafat propaganda to justify the 2nd intifada. Many arab countries (not Israeli allies) denounced Arafat for rejecting a deal in which Israel agreed to over 97% of the Palestinian's land demands. Know your facts. Out
@student1776 1 - Sorry, but you have substantiated your vacuousness about Camp David II here. The thesis regarding bantustans was not 'unfounded' as you claim, it is a fact. Israel was proposing the dismemberment of the West Bank into geographically non-contiguous territories with a network of extraterritorial Israeli roads criss crossing into West Bank territory. With such dismemberment Israel would control freedom of movement for goods and people in the West Bank.
@alien1tau9 I won't need 10 comments to dismember your unintelligent ramblings. Check out this site (go to section 5)...you'll see why the Bantustans allegation is baseless. 1 I'll send you an email with sources...youtube won't allow me to post URLs
Chief Negotiator, Dennis Ross, wholly blamed the peace process failure on Yasser Arafat. Here are his words 2
@alien1tau9 While the Mitchell Report holds that the Intifada was not predetermined (nor was Israeli lethal response) it also holds that "The Sharon visit did not cause the "Al-Aqsa Intifada."
@alien1tau9 It's funny you conclude with "Sharon's Rejectionism." I recommend getting your head out of the sand and open to the possibility that the Camp David Accords largely failed because Yasser Arafat lived and died (with AIDS?) a terrorist. The Palestinian people are the ones who have suffered---and continue to do so--from despicable leadership more concerned with unattainable political & religious ideology rather than a serious commitment to peace.
@student1776 2 - Unless you would characterise a demilitiarised state with settlements within it remaining under Israeli sovereignty and mobility within sections of the West Bank itself being contingent upon the prior approval of Israeli government officials, and with curtailing of accessibility to international borders under prior Israeli approval as a sovereign state, Barak's offer was indeed pathetically unacceptable. There is actually no evidence for your claim of Barak's concessions.
@student1776 3 - The sources for the claim that Barak offered over 90% of the West Bank to the Palestinians all stemmed from the Israeli press. However, what Barak actually offered at Camp David is difficult to assess given the deficiency in documentation presented to prove his claim of such territorial concessions. In fact there were no maps presented at Camp David, only vague abstractions and ideas that would serve the basis for a permanent agreement - admitted by Haaretz reporter Akiva Eldar.
@student1776 4 - About 1 year after Camp David the US diplomat and participant in the negotiations Robert Malley published a series of articles in the New York Times enunciating the actual events at Camp David. He argued that the Palestinians had offered considerable concessions and compromises in accepting the June 4 1967 borders as the boundaries for their state and recognised the illegal Jewish constructions in East Jerusalem after 1967, and Israeli annexation of large settlement blocks.
@student1776 5 - These settlement blocks were of course illegitimate entities and would directly infringe upon Palestinian sovereignty in that they would be incorporated into Israel despite being located across the Green Line. As for the refugees issue, international law recognises the inalienable right of return for all refugees. Despite Israel's ethnic cleansing campaigns in 1948 undisputed by the historical record with the exception of imbeciles divorced from reality, the Palestinians...
@student1776 6 - recognised Israeli demographic and security concerns over the implementation of the right of return, and offered to guarantee that its implementation would not compromise on such concerns. They proposed the realisation of the right of return through a mutually agreed upon mechanism involving the PA convincing the bulk of Palestinian refugees to avoid the option of returning to Israel while the refugees would still retain such a right. They were also willing to discuss a limit...
@student1776 7 - on the number of Palestinian refugees that could enter Israel. Madeline Albright conceded this fact. This was despite the immensely unjust renunciation of the Palestinian right of return supported by the UN and international law. Barak, however, refused to even acknowledge Israeli responsibility for creating the refugee problem and insisted on waiving their claims of return to Israel - a provocative demand. Barak only went as far as to vaguely recognise Palestinian suffering.
@student1776 8 - Now, proceeding to your ridiculous regurgitation of Zionist mythology that the Al Aqsa Intifada was planned by the PA and Arafat after the breakdown of Camp David on July 25 2000. An international independent commission of inquiry was actually established to examine the validity of the respective Israeli and PA claims regarding responsibility for the outbreak of the intifada. It was the Mitchell Commission, led by George J Mitchell, later in 2009 the US envoy to the Middle East.
@student1776 The Commission published its findings on May 21 2002. What were its conclusions? It explicitly stated that there was no evidence to suggest that the PA had deliberately planned the Intifada as a consistent effort aimed at turning public opinion against Israel or using it as a means of regaining the diplomatic initiative. It also noted that a serious factor that escalated the violence was the deployment of a provocative Israeli security presence on September 29 at Al Aqsa Mosque.
@student1776 10 - The Commission also stated that while there was no basis on which to conclude that Israel had deliberately conceived of a plan to use excessively lethal force against the protesters, it also noted that Israel had made no consistent effort in the prevention of lethal force initiated by the security forces. Ironically Israel would reject the Saudi Peace Initiative agreed upon by the very same Arab states you mention on March 28 2002, another example of Sharon's rejectionism. Out.
@alawson911 Most people easily come to the same conclusion as Jane Corbin--that the flotilla's intent was not to deliver aid but weaken Israel's international standing and protest alleged "apartheid" (IQ's below 80 is a prerequisite for this organization). There are many channels of delivering aid to Gaza, the Mavi Marmara just used this as a guise to disguise their political goals. If people can't recognize that, then perhaps they are also the ones who cannot see the blatant bias in your video
@student1776 Agree! Turkey's call to have Israel admonished before an international tribunal is all for naught... You have to be guilty of a crime first. Israel clearly acted within the scope of San Remo (International Maritime Law) and is innocent.
The Mavi Marmara broke international law, after announcing it's intent to run a legal naval blockade, It failed to stop it's engines and allow it's cargo to be inspected. Further, it's passengers resisted with lethal weaponry, (knives and pipes).
I delete messages from people who resort to insults and dirty language. Repost, if you like, without the abuse. This is not censorship, your abuse-free posts will remain.
This video itself is incredibly biased, the blockade is in accord with inteenational law as referred by the UN. Forcibly breaching a naval blockade entails much more severe results than 9 dead, israelis showed extreme restraint compared to their training. They should have sunk the entire flotilla and be done with it.
Rubbish, The United Nations has condemned the blockade of Gaza on humanitarian and other grounds, and you must know that, unless you have turned away from hearing the truth. How would you have felt if people had written what you have written, if the Soviet Union had blockaded Finland, and the rest of the world had stood by and done nothing? People like you who seem to think that the lives of other people mean nothing make me sick.
@alawson911 Condemned yes, it is not however illegal as you can check quite readily from the united nations website yourself. You seem to have forgotten why the 49 and 60's wars started, arab muslims attempted a fullscale genocide to wipe the israelis off the face of the planet. Your analogue is fallacious, finland was not aggressing against the USSR, initiator was the soviets not us. It is you who do not care about peoples lives, seeing israel wiped off doesnt annoy you obviously. (continued)..
You have forgotten the Stern and Irgun gangs that terrorised the Arab population of what was to become Israel. Your ideas on history and cause and effect are abysmal. Israel was established on stolen land by United Nations decree, and the Arabs and others who opposed this theft and destruction had every right to do so. Also, many of the conflicts that Israel claims were begun by the Arabs were, in fact, instigated as false-flag actions. The 1967 war is a prime example.
@alawson911 May I ask you for some sort of proof on that last statement you made? Not that I think you're a liar, I just think that it's too important to just accept without checking.
Mossad's famous, but now former motto: “By way of deception, thou shall do war.” should also give you a strong clue as to Israeli thinking and methodology. Deception lies at the very heart of every false-flag operation. It can be typified by the planting of documents and other forms of intelligence, as well as the actions of people dressed up in an opponent's military uniforms and, apparently, using their weaponry, so that it appears that one's enemy "cast the first stone". cont...
Please do some research on The Six Day war. I think that it is more than likely that Israel falsified much of its "intelligence", particularly about Egypt's intentions and capabilities, and Israel's blatant attack on the USS Liberty, which was monitoring radio traffic on both sides, was an attempt to make sure that no blame could be laid at Israel's doorstep for its pre-emptive strikes. To my way of thinking, falsifying intelligence and intentions typifies a false-flag action.
And the israelis even provided for the possibility of landing the flotilla to be delivered by land route, with the flotilla members declined. Matter of fact is that the whole flotilla is nothing but a PR campaign it has nothing to do with aid. If the palestinians want peace and freedom they should start building it, first by forcing their own from aggressing against a superior occupier, stupidity is no defence against artillery and they'll keep dying until they get smarter. Life and peace to all
What would you know about a food crisis in Palestine? Even if your remark is now accurate (the video was uploaded nine months ago), why are you overlooking the fact that nine people were murdered or the fact that Jane Corbin was lying about the usefulness of the drugs and other aid being brought to Gaza? Gaza is not just about food shortages, there are other important issues to consider. Perhaps you are the one who is stupid.
@alawson911 Are you for real?! Even 9 months ago there was no food shortage! Wow! You people are so lost. What about Somalia there are children starving to death there, in Gaza they are building 5 star hotels and shopping centers. Please let me know when they people will be shipping out to Somalia, or is it not a 'Cool Cause'.
@alawson911 Are you for real?! Even 9 months ago there was no food shortage! Wow! You people are so lost. What about Somalia there are children starving to death there, in Gaza they are building 5 star hotels and shopping centers. Please let me know when they people will be shipping out to Somalia, or is it not a 'Cool Cause'.
I'm just wondering why peaceful activists would feel the need to violently resist against virtually unarmed soldiers climbing down to their ship. If their intentions where to kill all of the passengers on board - they would die as heroic martures. And if the soldiers came down peacefully, like they obviously intended - then the "peace activists" could show some good will and greet them or something. But instead they beat them down with metal rods... Is there more to say?!
Well that's a new one: "Virtually unarmed soldiers". They claimed to be carrying paint ball rifles, but also conventional pistols; you know, the ones that kill people, and they did so that morning. Nine human beings.
It seems that apologists for Israel will go to any lengths to place the blame for its murderous approach to the Freedom Flotilla on the people bringing humanitarian aid and moral support. It is NEVER Israel's fault.
There is no more to say, except: You make me sick.
@alawson911 Again - since international law supports Israel's right to enforce a naval blockade, even to the point of stopping (gy force, if necessary), boarding and taking over, in international waters, any vessel attempting to break the blockade, your argument regarding Israel's illegal actions are unfounded.
Please provide supporting reference as to why Israel is acting illegally, or beyond the boundaries of law.
Why don't you stick to the issue of what "Virtually unarmed means"? When people like you can't make your case in one area, you immediately move to another issue, in this case, one that is just as spurious:
Check this out: "22 Jun 2011 – Israel's blockade of Gaza is illegal: expert legal opinion on international maritime law from Ambassador Craig Murray ..."
Now prove your claim that: "international law supports Israel's right to enforce a naval blockade..."
@alawson911 No opinions: the definition in international law as described by the 1956 Congress of Paris.
In 1945, the UN Security Council defined the legal status of blockades and in the UN Charter, article 42, they even ratified its right to apply blockades.[
The 1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea declares that a neutral ship must obey a request to stop for inspection, and if those aboard the ship resist, they can be attacked. .
There is no way to rationally discuss anything with someone like you; you are totally bereft of any moral standards. You invoke generalised laws going back to 1945, 1956 and 1994 but fail to address the specific issue of what has been declared, time and again by the, usually, Israel-biased United Nations, as the illegal blockade of Gaza.
@alawson911 It is only by rational discussion that you may be able to convince me that there is some truth in your arguments. But by calling me names, you resort to the weakest of tactics.
Laws are laws, whenever they may have been enacted - please provide some legal basis for why Israel's blockade is not legal - and please, no biased opinions or quotes.
Funny you claim the UN is Israel-biased, for it is the UN that has most condemned Israel.
What name did I call you? The blockade has been declared illegal by the United Nations, but this declaration has been ignored by Israel. The UN's declaration supersedes general law guidelines, such as you were quoting, because it has been directed at a specific action that has been taken by a sovereign nation which is a member of the body which has declared that specific action illegal. Can you understand that? The blockade is illegal, so any attempt to enforce it was also illegal.
@alawson911 In legel terms, you are wrong. A declaration from the UN has no legal bearing - it is an opinion, a recommendation, with no legal power. It has the legal standing equal to what any politician might declare as his/her opinion.
Israel, and many members of the UN have ignored declarations such as this, knowing full well that they are without credence - what does count is an international agreement, even if older than your years.
@vbkpartners It has also been said that the law is an ass. Also, you have been rather light with you quotation about international agreements supporting Israel's right to blockade Gaza, so can you expand on that? Are there not conditions that have to be met to make a blockade legal? Could England legally board French ships on the high seas, or block them from its ports, at a whim? Then there is the moral issue, or do laws always come first with you? And give me the name I called you.
@alawson911 IT had veen saiss is a rather general statement -were they refering perhaps to you?
You ask for specifics when you in fact provide nothing to support your argument, other, that is, than UN resolutions which have no legal basis, and are not enforceable.
Rather than ask me the questions, why not bone up on the subject before proving you no nothing about it?
As for morals, they are relative, and arguably meaningless when it comes to politics or war.
Of course I ask for specifics. None of the agreements you've cited can possibly baldly state: "It is not unlawful for one national entity to block access to the ports or entry points of another national entity". There must be conditions laid down to make such an action acceptable. You have cherry-picked only part of an international agreement, or whatever, you have not given the provisos which it must include, and it is up to you, not me, to present them in support of your stance.
Also, you accused me of name calling, but you have yet to tell me what name I called you. The extremely garbled opening to you last comment suggests that you are implying that I am an ass, but clarity does not seem to be your strong point, so I could be wrong.
@alawson911 The agreements I cited provide specific terms regarding the legality of blockades, They spell out conditions, which if you care to read them, cite the terms by which Israel has imposed the blockade and continues to enforce it.
If you believe Israel's actions are illegal, it is your obligation to explain why, not with opinions, but with facts. You may cherry pick if you wish - but don't choke on the pits.
The agreements could not possibly spell out the current conditions under which Israel has imposed the blockade, unless those who formulated them were able to look into the future. You must reveal the conditions cited in these agreements under which Israel feels justified in imposing the blockade, not me. UN Human Rights chief, Navi Pillay, who would understand these things rather better than you or I, has called the blockade illegal, and that is good enough for me. Over and out.
@alawson911 The agreements are recognized legal agreements that define blockades - I am not obliged to do any more than provide the legal references, it is you who should read them to discover the parameters.
The UNHRA is not a reliable source for any opinion, especially Navanethem Pillay, even if she served as a judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Look what the UN did in Rwanda!
UNHRA and the ICC are only too ready to condemn and hold trials.
@alawson911 Re your name calling - "There is no way to rationally discuss anything with someone like you" - shows that you hold me in disdain, for simply not falling for your unproven opinions, which you cannot back by facts - rather than maintain a logical argument, you insinuate, hoping others will take your side in your unsupportable argument.
I see no derogatory name in there, just a statement as to how I regard your approach to this issue. Even holding someone in disdain does not constitute name-calling. Further: I am not merely citing my own opinions I have cited the opinions of others which tend to confirm that it is reasonably justifiable to hold the opinion that Israel is acting illegally, with regard to the way they are treating the people of Gaza. And morally, I hardly need confirmation of the obvious.
@alawson911 Again, citing opinions, but not substantiating your opinion with legal agreements and/or documents.
Who should be held in disdain? Yet, all I ask is that you provide relevent support for your logic,
Little is obvious, especially when one relies on propaganda to support their views. Gaza, and I was there, was poor because the Egyptians cut them off, and provided little resources, and UNRRA kept them under their financial wing - living on handouts. - this was not the because of the IDF
@alawson911 You seem to forget that the guys coming down the rope where human beings too, and if you are being beaten to death with rods and sticks, then it doesn't seem so strange to me that you would pull out your gun. Of course there's nothing wrong with showing your support for something you consider an important cause, and I understand that the majority of the people involved in this event were peaceful activists, but it just can't be alright to attack people like that.
You've done it again. You've moved back to voicing your opinion, rather than responding to my request to prove the claim you made that "international law supports Israel's right to enforce a naval blockade..."
Why do you seem to excuse Israeli aggression and call those who were being illegally invaded the aggressors?
What would you do if you were, quite legally, at a camp site, for example, with your family, and you were attacked by thugs at 3:00 am? Lie still and do nothing?
@alawson911 You seem to have me confused with vbkpartners. I have not claimed that "international law supports Israel's right to enforce a naval blockade...".
Regarding "Israeli aggression", I think that if you sail strait at a blockade, regardless the legitimacy of it, you could see it coming (i.e. you will be asked to turn back or stopped by force).
And if your quite legal camp site was sailing towards a place where you must not go, then it's not that surprising if you get in trouble.
You are right, I did mistakenly attribute your comment to vbkpartners, for which I apologise, but you do seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet, and you are an apologist for Israel's aggressive actions against peaceful protests. What you have written means that an aggressor has every right to be aggressive, and that those who get in their way have no rights whatsoever. What you are saying is "Might is Right!" and the law means nothing.
@alawson911 By definition, a blockade must ensure the immediate interception of any ship entering or leaving, the strength of the blockading force must be equal to or greater in strength than the opposition., and the success of a blockade is based almost entirely on the will of those who maintain it.
Use of force is part and parcel of this act of war - therefore aggressive actions a deemed to be part of the blackading, and any blockade runner must understand the consequences of his/her actions.
@alawson911 I think that sailing into the blockade was an unnecessary provocation from the beginning, and that they could just as well have been supplying the people of Gaza in a more sensible way, through land transport, or at least the final distance in to Gaza through ports in Israel or Egypt. What happened on board the Mavi Marmara, is in my mind the unfortunate result of the violence against the IDF soldiers boarding the ship from a small number of people that only sought violence
The blockade has been declared illegal but the U.N. has done nothing to back up its resolutions against Israel's inhuman behaviour. We will see a lot more of this kind of thing happening, as ordinary people realise that the only way wrongs are going to be put right is to try to do something independently of the corrupt organizations which are ruining our world. Israel was wrong to attack the flotilla, but you are supporting their actions, so you are wrong too.
@MegaMrDanne A move forward in understanding the unprincipled modes of the so called Freedom Flotilla protesters.
The key to the issue is understanding the heroism of the Shahid - life is worthless, and should be sacrificed for the cause, even if a more rational solution is available,
The Flotilla was meant to provoke violence - there was no place for non-violence; and relief for Gaza was a tag line not the purpose of the endeavor. This was all conceived to discredit Israel - if not nor the BBC.
@TexasAaron99 now, there, can't we be somewhat more civilized - perhaps, if you can control your racist outbursts, someone might even believe that you rate a minute of our time to listen to what you contend is an opinion, allbeit derived from sheer ignorance.
Bravo for using the multi-syllabic word 'antithetical', but the word best describes your retort as compared to the comments of someone who actually has the capacity to read, digest and form an opinion. regarding the subject.
@vbkpartners Rabbi Yosef Has issued astatement that it is permissible to kill Palestinian Babies in name ofselfdefence It was Israel who crushed Richel a Peace activist under bulldozer It was IDF that bombarded USS Liberty It was Israel who did King David Hotel Bombing It is a sick Terroriststate
Once you begin using sobriquets like the Apartheid Israel, you show how biased you really are. You claim that the BBC does not set a balanced tone because it does not provide explanations from both sides - well that is exactly what you are doing - again, proven by your claim thatthis was Israel's worst atrocity since Operation Caste Lead.
You are juat another anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian bleeding heart liberal, trying to convey your better them them lies.
The wall separating Palestinian communities from Israeli ones was built by the Israelis. This defines an Apartheid state. Do you think it should be ignored, or do you just hope it well be? And if there was another Israeli atrocity, since Cast Lead, that I've overlooked, then please let me know about it.
@alawson911 So, are you saying that the wall separating East Berlin from West Berlin proved that Berliners were Apartheid?
A border between territories may be open, or closed, fenced, or not fenced. Erecting a fence is not proof of Apartheid.
IT is unfortunate that both sides cannot live side by side peacefully, but it is one nation's absolute right to protect borders, if need be, by erecting fences (which make good neighbors).
Placement of the fence is a different matter, confirmed by the court
How people vent their feelings, face-to-face with their friends, in a pub, say, should be quite different from commenting on what has to be seen as a fairly serious channel. You are not the first and will not be the last who fails to make this distinction, so I am obliged, from time to time, to make it for those who don't.
@alawson911 According to international law, killing is not necessarily murder - and in this case, there is sufficient proof to doubt that it wasn't self defence - something that happens during military actions.
These soldiers did their duty in protecting their country, as opposed to provoking physical aggression, which was the modus of the IHH members on board Mavi Marmara.
Jane Corbin AKA Lady Maples married to John Maples who according to wikipedia was "While an MP, Maples was president of the Conservative Friends of Israel"
The report, written by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, indicates that Israel is discriminating against Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christians, women, Bedouins, and even Reform Jews, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported on Sunday.
Israel does not treat ethnic groups on equal terms and also does not show any respect toward certain holy sites and other historic sites, the document added.
@shadowofears The incidents cited are ever so mild compared to the persecution of Bahai in Iran, Copts in Egypt, and dhimmies across the Muslim Uma, that it makes the BHRL's claims almost comical.
Muslims claim the Holy site, which had been the site of a Jewish Temple and a Christian church, on Haram es-Sharif as theirs, because a horse flewfrom Mecca to Jerusalem, and has built a mosque in Hebron were Abraham was supposedly entombed, casts doubt on which acts are more egregrious.
@vbkpartners There are 25000 Iranian Jews living Peacefully under Iranian regime Watch jews Iran jew By Journeyman Pictures when asked they said that their identity is not for sale.Even Torah Jews Hate Israel They burn Israeli flag in Protest
@shadowofears There are many more Jews who fled Iran, and they, at least those I have met in North America and Europe, say they were treated as dhimmies in Iran. They were forced from their jobs, and fled because of persecution by the Shia regime.
I doubt whether your number regarding the remaining Jews in Iran is correct, but they are less than those who were forced to flee.
And if they believe and act as you claim, I don't deny their right to disagree with me, or those Jews who fled.
@shadowofears So, if I understand your claqim, you are saying that Hamas and Fatah are the worst of the bunch, because they kill babies and innocent civilians on purpose, while the IDF may, in battle, take action that results in 'collateral damage'.
There is a huge gap in your logic, between Mohamed Al-Dura and bombing a teen club in Tel Aviv, or a public bus in Jerusalem.
I am not sure why you are LOLing, is it because you find the loss of life so funny?
@vbkpartners HamasandFateh dont kill Babies ItsIDF Killing them with White Phosphorous Bombs.They did Carpet Bombing in Gaza It wasthe worst type of genocide ever seen Israel killed more than 460 Babies of Gaza burned by White Phosphorous Bombs Israel is a Nazi State or even Far worse
@shadowofears Please be truthful: Israel did not carpet bomb Gaza - they did use white phosphorus, which is not outlawed by international law. White phosphorus, if exposed to skin does burn, but nowhere were 460 babies killed by phosphorus bombs - so please, either state facts, rather than discrediting your respnse entirely.
And using descriptives like Nazi State just prejudices your unfounded argument.
And yes, Hamas shahids have killed babies - suicide bombers do not select their victims.
@shadowofears Surprising you don't bring out more faked Israeli atrocities, like Mohamed Al Dura - or have you reconciled the fake reporting from Gaza with plausibility?
Continue pointing fingers and making false accusations and over stating your case with words like genocide, perhaps there are others out there who buy into your half truths.
@FreedomFlotillaTwo Yeah Your zionist media lies are far worse than Nazi Propaganda Even USS Liberty was Hoax it was done by Hamas Look at ur claims Laughable Palestinian Watch Media propaganda is unbeariable
@shadowofears You provide numbers, inflated as they may be - but they did not all die from white phosphorus - how many were human shileds for Hamas fighters, or unfortunate collateral damage?
@vbkpartners I can show videos of Childrens burned by White Phosphorous Human Sheild Propaganda doesnt work on me If suppose they were using Jewish Kids as human shield would IDF blow the shit out of them ??I highly doubt that Now shut Up
@shadowofears You can cite all the propaganda you want, but you still don't provide a convincing, substantiated argument - and telling me to shut up doesn't really provide a logical basis for believing your claims.
Your twisted argument about using Jewish Kids as human shields only shows how unsupportable your claims are.
And where did you come up with the idea that the IDF blew the shit out of the kids - you mentionned white phosphorus which causes skin burns, and does not blow people up.
@vbkpartners Who bombarded UN Schools?Who Bulldozered Peace Activist Richeal?Who Bombarded USS Liberty?Who Bombarded Church of Nativity?Who Bombarded King David Hotel Should i continue?
@shadowofears For each who you cited, there are many more who's who committed similar acts against the Israelis.
From who kidnapped, to who bombed, to who attacked, to who did not accept, and now demands that the offer of 60 years ago be put back on the table.
If you want me to list the acts committed against Israel and ISraelis, we will need to allow more space in these Reply boxes, as the list is far to long.
I just LOVE watching leftists (who are supposedly pro gay, pro women's rights, anti violence, etc) cosying up to Arabs....who regularly execute gays, stone women to deadh, and send naive young boys and "disgraced" (i.e. raped) young women out to die as suicide bombers.
The Palestinians (and the rest of the Arabs) have tried many many times (1948, 1967, 1973, etc) to destroy Israel but the Israelis have beaten them every single time. This flotilla was yet another EPIC FAIL :-)
@richard20bris In truth, it seems to me, when people make these sorts of criticisms, it is not done as a constructive criticism, it is more like an outright dismissal. We can dismiss them as human beings because we treat women better than they do, and therefore we should just kill them all, men, women, and children, in order to rectify this situation. When you actually spell it out, it doesn't sound so good after all.
Zionists (BBC) are disgusting liars! The IDF shot them in the back as they were running away, and shot at least one boy who was lying on the deck, armed only with a video camera, when he was killed.
@alawson911 You have convicted Israel, and denied the BBC report provides a partial clue to the confrontation that led to the deaths; you dismiss evidence that this was self-defence: Would you release a criminal who killed a policeman in the course of his duty, would you automatically convict the policeman who shot a suspect during the course of an arrest?
You do render your verdict unilaterally, and deny the BBC the right to present facts other than those you will support.
The BBC shows Israeli troops boarding a ship in international waters. Who cast the first stone? Are you suggesting that those on board the ship should have laid down to have their tummies tickled? People like you are totally blind to the "Who started it?" issue. The Israelis started it, and they then killed people who were attempting to protect themselves.
The BBC had their say, and I can't deny them any right to do anything. They do what their handlers tell them to do. Get real!
@alawson911 Like the British blockade of Palestine, Israel's blockade is a legal action, and according to law, such a blockade requires Israel to take action against any party attempting to run the blockade, if need be, using force.
I am not advising any protesters what to do, but passive resistence means no fighting - so resistence, by definition, was not passive, and incited the IDF to use force. The instant the protesters resorted to violent resistence, they nolonger could claim to be victims
@rubiconski2008 Now the BBC is Zionist - and simply for televising a report that does not match your liberal sensibilities.
Like the British blockade of Palestine in the 1940s, international law supports the legality of a naval blockade, whether it seems fair or not.
Why is it that no one mentions the option of delivering the goods via El Arish or Ashdod - the Israelis and the Egyptians have both opened there ports.
Citing instances of a blockade that occurred 60 years ago suggests that the U.N. and international diplomacy have not advanced one iota, since then. And you would be right, as far as the latitude shown towards Israel's continued disparagement for any UN resolution which attempts to curb its aggression towards its neighbours and its own citizens. And your last sentence is pathetic. Would you accept someone telling you how the goods and services you require should be delivered?
@alawson911 Well, we have to accept the means by which goods and services are delivered - when we order them, we chose between post, UPS, FedEx, or we can pick up the goods ourselves.
These are the same options given to the recipients in Gaza - just as they have been accepting, for 60 years, their monthly stipend from UNRAA.
And why do you not condemn Egypt for imposing the same delivery restrictions? Why did no one in Britain cried foul when Egypt closed Rafah?
I've listened to the BBC my whole life. It's only in the last few months the penny has dropped - the BBc are running scared form the politicians. Their reporting is biased - from the Bristol 'tesco riot' , the run up to the financial crash, Israel/Palestine - you name it, the BBC doesn't report objectively - it gives the establishment view. Like the fact that the police in the UK are corrupt - it's difficult for us Brits to admit to ourselves.
I once had respect for the BBC, but it was probably ill founded, because, no matter what, such an organization can never be fully independent. But, over the last 15 years, it has become more and more apparent that they are running scared of the stablishment, witch is fully owned and contolled by Zionists. There can be no doubt about it. "Friends of Israel -- Enemies Inside the Gates" is another of my videos that you might find interesting.
@alawson911 Thanks for the reply - very interested in the issues raised on your channel, too. Such a shame that Zionist politics can't be discussed without the 'Nazi' taint.
@alawson911 So, let's play the 'Zionists/Jews control the media' card.
Perhaps you would like to have your audience reread 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'?
After the supporters of the Flotilla spread their version of events across the internet, why is another view of the episode so frightening to you? Are you afraid that the BBC expose is more truthful than the initial propaganda?
It certainly gives the establishment view, but not the old noblesse oblige establishment, but the new socialist, left wing establishment. It lies about supposed Tory cuts, climate change, Israel/Palestine. It is simply the broadcasting arm of the trade union movement, tasked with massing the army of social workers and lesbian outreach officers to man the barricades of the class war movement. As Orwell said 'As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for socialism is its adherents
@Hamilcar275 Have you ever heard/seen a BBC interview of any leader of any union proposing strike action? I don't think you'd have heard any support there. The lesbian outreach thing comes from the pages of the Sun from 20 years ago. Your whole comment is absurd - 'socialism' is dead and buried in this country. You might be thinking of 'liberalism' in the non-political sense.
They interview Serwotka and Crow all the time, threatening and proposing strikes. Most of the BBC's political hierarchy are leftist, e.g. Marr, Crick, Paxman. The former controller of Newsnight admitted that the BBC studios were awash with champagne bottles at the 97' election.
Actually, there are advertisements for lesbian outreach workers, more commonly called Diversity Outreach Workers. Non jobs, parasitic on the private economy.
@Hamilcar275 They do interview unions - but not in a supportive way. The tone is always critical - to the extent that no comment is made on source of the dispute. Anyone expecting a 'left-wing' government in 97 was certainly disappointed. True, the public sector has had it easy for many years and they are wasting stacks of money - not on lesbians, but on what can only be described as corporate welfare - pay back for political donations. The corporations are draining the economy, not lesbians.
Do you know how much tax revenue these corporations contribute? The Square Mile in London contributes 7% of GDP, and pays around 25% of corporation tax, and 13.9% of the total tax take of the Treasury. If you want your public services, you want these corporations to keep paying that much tax. New Labour was incredibly left wing, especially on moral and cultural matters, with its dogmatic relativism, appeasement of minority extremists and its gay rights militancy
This is why if the mainstream media won't report honestly, we need videos like this.
SolarFireflies 1 week ago
It is truly amazing that you are so good at what you do that you would actually clarify the sentence about unemployment. Sir, you are too good for your own good. In a place like Gaza, statistical accuracy is impossible. What was said first in your video may well have been the truth and you would not have been irresponsible to simply leave it there uncorrected. But again, applause. My request is for you to do a piece about who possibly runs the BBC. Please, sir, give us a name.
worldphilosopher101 2 months ago
@worldphilosopher101
I agree with you about statistical accuracy being impossible. The problem was that I had misread an e-mail from the indefatigable Ken O'Keefe, who lived in Gaza, at the time and was on the Mavi Marmara, so I felt obliged to make the correction, because the error was mine not his.
As to who actually controls the BBC, it would be almost impossible to discover or to verify that. It certainly doesn't have a lot to do with how it is funded, by license fees.
alawson911 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@worldphilosopher101 i will tell you who runs the bbc - its mi5/mi6's propaganda ministery.
steveetienne 2 weeks ago
What a joke, this so called documentary mentions Najd without expressing the fact that the Arabs from Najd aided the Egyptian army massacring the Jewish Kibbutz Yad Mordechai in 1948. Also no mention of Arabs ethnically cleansing Jews in Hebron, Jerusalem, Bet Haarava, and Gush Etzion. No mention of Arabs in Israel's army, and claiming that Kassams and Katyushas have no explosives! WOW, talking about dishonesty. No reason to waste time on this piece of propaganda. (and no mention khybar chants?
1czechit1 2 months ago
"We found ourselves alone and we jumped off the bow into the water" - how very odd for people being imprisoned,
They were then "Rescued" from being released?!? Thank you for exposing the glaring holes and Zionist slant in the BBC so-called 'documentary'
IdaSputum 2 months ago
@IdaSputum , @truthlogic1, @mslim4life, @Cabronosidad
Thank you for your positive comments.
alawson911 2 months ago
great analysis of the Bias BBC reporting
truthlogic1 3 months ago
An extremely accurate report of what really happened, it is clearly biased in favour of the israeli army.
Both the parties views have not been considered and placed in front of the viewers so that they may make their own mind up who was responsible for the outcome of that day. Politicians do not listen so these ppl took it upon themselves to break the siege and take aid for the much needy Palestinian people. 9 deaths occurred and this lady has no respect for them.
No one anywhere in the world
mslim4life 3 months ago
Excellent video. I missed this prog. when it was 1st. broadcast & would definitely have complained had I seen it go out.
It's another sad example of the BBC surrendering to Zionist pressure. Remember Tony Benn berating them for refusing to put up the address for the Gaza Appeal? That to me spoke volumes about their risk-averse cringing attitude.
Given her husband's affiliations Corbin should never have been let anywhere near this topic - regardless of the political bias of her script.
Cabronosidad 3 months ago
Jane Corbin who presented the program is married to Baron John Maples a Conservative MP and Friend of Israel. Always remember the BBC is nothing more than Zionist News Broadcasting.
kromed01 5 months ago
pwned
Shame on Panorama and the BBC for presenting this crap propaganda as a documentary/ Thank you for your wonderful videos
-oops, I hit the vote down thumb by mistake ! so this excellent video has one more positive vote than reflected.
winston2015 5 months ago
I just read the BBC's joke of a report on complaints about the Panorama programme - Internal audit of such complaints is clearly not satisfactory!
datapolo 6 months ago
@datapolo
What a joke. Editorial Standards Board ESC = ESCape, on computers. Get yourself out of trouble. And not a word about Jane Corbin's husbands role as former chairman of Conservatives Friends of Israel. A disgrace.
The BBC, effect, condones Israel's barbarity.
alawson911 6 months ago
The San Remo Manual is the standard for international maritine law. Was Israels blockade in international waters legal? Absolutely yes... Look it up.
Will international courts put Israel on trial for any crimes? No, in reality, you have to committ a crime first.
The flotilla could deliver their cargo to Gaza through the port at Ashdod - but instead chose to illegally charge a legal military blockade (an act of war in itself) and they were stupid a second time by bringing a knife to a gun fight
fuzzywuzy 7 months ago 2
@fuzzywuzy
And the first paragraph of this manual reads:
"The parties to an armed conflict at sea are bound by the principles and rules of international humanitarian law from the moment armed force is used."
The Israelis murdered nine unarmed men. That was not a humanitarian action, it was murder, and murder is illegal. You can argue that the Israelis had a right to board the Mavi Marmara in international waters, which I do not think that they did, but the murders were definitely illegal.
alawson911 6 months ago
@alawson911 Yes, that is the first paragraph but I was thinking a few, more specific questions:
1 Is it legal for Israel to hold a naval blockade? Yes
2 Is it legal in international and commercial territorial waters? Yes
3 Is a Turkish commercial vessel neutral? Yes
4 Does a neutral vessel have to submit to board and search in a blockade? Yes
5 Did the ship stop to be boarded? No
Video: The Turkish vessel was in violation of international law and, when boarded, resisted with lethal weaponry.
fuzzywuzy 6 months ago
@fuzzywuzy
Rubbish.
alawson911 6 months ago
@alawson911 Hey, I don't make up international law - but I am a mariner who abides by it - if I am sailing into a blockade zone. I don't even have to do that. If I broadcast my intent to breach the blockade, a ship can legally leave the blockade and intercept me on the high seas.
I, personally, would avoid a naval blockade or pirate waters. The waters to avoid are, Mediteranian Sea (Gaza coastal) Indian Ocean (Horn of Africa and Andaman Islands) Gulf of Mexico (Belieze region)... Common Sense.
fuzzywuzy 6 months ago
@fuzzywuzy
The reason why there are so many lawyers in the world is because laws are formulated for general situations, and cannot cover every contingency. One lawyer can plead, quite rationally for one interpretation, and be rationally opposed, both in the process earning a lot of money. One of your earlier posts shows your bias: "This video is soo opinionated, biased and untrue - at nearly every turn." Clearly you think Israel is in the right, and I think you are a moral degenerate.
alawson911 6 months ago
@alawson911 The San Remo Conventions are about 100 years old, short, and simple. Because I know maritime law, is no reason to sling personal insults. If Israel torpedoed the Mavi Marmara I would say you are right and Israel would be guilty of a war crime.
If the German navy were to allow the passengers of the Lucitamia to disembark, before sinking her, Germany would have been innocent of all crimes - because they would have abided the law in wartime.
fuzzywuzy 6 months ago
@alawson911 ...and I would avoid North Korean waters.
fuzzywuzy 6 months ago
@fuzzywuzy
And if people like you had one ounce of compassion for the way that the Palestinians have been marginalised in a land their ancestors have had more continuity with than 95% of the current Jewish populations, maybe the Mavi Marmara would not have had to sail and nine decent human beings wouldn't be dead. Stop telling me about out-of-date and unfair laws and how to think.
alawson911 6 months ago
This video is soo opinionated, biased and untrue - at nearly every turn.
fuzzywuzy 7 months ago
You do realize the UN created Israel, right?
If you believe what you're saying, you're delusional. Get an education.
student1776 7 months ago
Comment removed
student1776 7 months ago
Anyone who watches this propaganda should research what actually happened before making an opinion
student1776 7 months ago
@student1776
I have researched what happened, so please explain why you have called my video propaganda? Did not Israel board an unarmed ship in international waters and kill nine people? Did not Jane Corbin lie about the usefulness of the pharmaceuticals that were intended to alleviate the shortage in Gaza? Did not Israel break the ceasefire, before Hamas resumed rocket attacks? Is not Israel still building settlements on Palestinian land? When did telling the truth become propaganda?
alawson911 7 months ago
@alawson911 your questions are about as disingenuous as the commentary in your propaganda video...but I digress. Yes, Israel boarded a ship in intl waters...was it unarmed? No. Have you seen the footage in your video of Israeli troops being immediately attacked upon boarding the ship? (as an aside, I thought your insinuation that the BBC's mention (factually proven) of IHH's ties to radical Islamic groups was "pure mud-slinging" as ridiculous...those are the questions journalists should be askng
student1776 7 months ago
@student1776
The Mavi Mamara was unarmed, until it was threatened by the Israeli gunboats and helicopters. Then, with knowledge of the IDF's past record, those on board decided to find a way of protecting themselves. What would you have done? Laid down to have you tummy tickled by a UZI sub-machine gun?
Having ties to radical groups does not mean that a radical group was participating in this operation, which is the implication the BBC gave to the situation. That was pure mud-slinging.
alawson911 7 months ago
@alawson911 lol at your comments. Having ties to a terror organization is cause enough for concern...can you see why?
With "knowledge of the IDF's past record"--hilarious comment. The IDF is Israel's military...they have engaged in military combat. Most people are aware of this. If commandos from the IDF descended on my boat, I would not have resisted (and thus died). If you can't see why Israel would NOT want to kill civilians in international water, I'm afraid you can't see past your own bias
student1776 7 months ago
@student1776
Dropping white phosphorus on civilians was not military combat, it was a war crime. Herding members of the Samouni family into a house and then shelling it, killing half of those inside, was not military combat, it was murder. Digging out the Star of David in Palestinian agricultural land, using tank tracks, was not military combat, it was vicious vandalism. Shall I go on, or have you got an answer to excuse Israel for anything that its leaders tell its military to do? I'm biased?
alawson911 7 months ago
@alawson911 White Phosphorus (Whooly Pete) is a brutal weapon - but it has it's purposes. A macine gun in a hardedned bunker (pill box) is an example of a fortification where high explosives and incindiary would not be able to penetrate - or a big enough explosive (1000 lb bomb) would cause catastrophic collateral damage. I would use wooly pete on such a target to avoid losing 75% of my men by ordering them to cross a street (danger zone) and engage them with small arms. War is cruel isn't it?
fuzzywuzy 6 months ago
@alawson911 (cont) the medicine was out-of-date, though maybe not useless...this is a petty complaint. Sure, Israel "technically" broke the cease-fire but the 6-month truce between Israel and Hamas had been repeatedly broken. Look up "Operation Cast Lead" for more information. I ask that you shy away from any moral equivalency between Israel and Hamas. One is a democracy the other, a terrorist organization. Since the video is about the flotilla I won't start a new thread about settlements.
student1776 7 months ago
@student1776
It is not a petty complaint, it was the BBC looking for another issue like "ties to radical groups". Where do you get off being so forgiving of such inaccuracies? Israel is a terrorist organization, it is stealing people's land, in fact its very existence is based on land theft. It is walling and fencing people in and has no intention of making peace with the Palestinians. Israel wants them to go away. As you sow, so shall you reap, Israel created the climate for Hamas to exit.
alawson911 7 months ago
@alawson911 If you can see that delivering medicine was not the true intent of the flotilla (and I believe you're intelligent enough to see that) then the quality of the medicine is unimportant.
All of your credibility just went out the window. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that Israel, not the Palestinians, have initiated all peace accords. Read about Camp David 2000 and realize Arafat is largely to blame for the Palestinian's ongoing struggles. Open your mind.
student1776 7 months ago
@student1776
Delivering medicines and other items was part of the true intent. Also showing the world that decent people are willing to take risks for a caged population that the United Nations, despite ruling that the blockade is illegal, is not willing to do anything about. As for peace initiatives. Any Jew from anywhere can settle on stolen Palestinian land, but those from whom it was stolen are not allowed back to claim it. Who's to blame for that pre-condition? Arafat? Grow up.
alawson911 7 months ago
@student1776 So Israel's land grabbing and expanding it's border's(which is illegal under international law) is really just about there push for peace and of course removing someone from there home illegally, is how you come to a peaceful solution. "Open your mind," you are clearly not educated and buy into the crap that is fed to you on a daily basis on fox news. You are just another dumb neo-con yank.
doire7 7 months ago
@doire7 if you really believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be so one-sided, you don't have the intellect to merit discussion. You're probably just a soccer hooligan.
student1776 7 months ago
@student1776 Ahhh, a typical response from a neo-con. Yes, don't address my points of illegal land grabbing and the illegal removal of palestinains from there home and the fact that Israel's land mass has expanded immensely since 1948 and again this is illegal under international law, just bring in some subject that has nothing to do with it because you don't have an answer for me.
doire7 7 months ago
@doire7 Terrorism is illegal under intl law which you so fervently espouse. Like I said, get an education.
student1776 7 months ago
@student1776 Again you ignore my points and now have the gall to call me a supporter of terrorism and you do this based on no evidence at all. I am against all violence no matter what quarter it comes from, so what terrorism would you like to talk about, how about the irgun or the stern gang. Zvipi livni's father was a member of the irgun gang that bombed the king david hotel or we could talk about the stern gang who rahm emmanuel's father was apart of, both terrorist organisations.
doire7 7 months ago
@student1776 There was never a 'generous offer' by Barak at Camp David. Israel was envisaging a Palestinian territory geographically dismembered into bantustans , with annexations of large settlement blocs (illegal under international law) and no sovereignty over East Jerusalem, only administrative control, while Israeli neigbourhoods constructed there would remain under Israeli sovereignty. In fact all the concessions came from the Palestinians with the refugee and territory issues.
alien1tau9 7 months ago
@alien1tau9 the allegation of "bantustans" was completely unfounded and Arafat propaganda to justify the 2nd intifada. Many arab countries (not Israeli allies) denounced Arafat for rejecting a deal in which Israel agreed to over 97% of the Palestinian's land demands. Know your facts. Out
student1776 7 months ago
@student1776 1 - Sorry, but you have substantiated your vacuousness about Camp David II here. The thesis regarding bantustans was not 'unfounded' as you claim, it is a fact. Israel was proposing the dismemberment of the West Bank into geographically non-contiguous territories with a network of extraterritorial Israeli roads criss crossing into West Bank territory. With such dismemberment Israel would control freedom of movement for goods and people in the West Bank.
alien1tau9 7 months ago
@alien1tau9 I won't need 10 comments to dismember your unintelligent ramblings. Check out this site (go to section 5)...you'll see why the Bantustans allegation is baseless. 1 I'll send you an email with sources...youtube won't allow me to post URLs
Chief Negotiator, Dennis Ross, wholly blamed the peace process failure on Yasser Arafat. Here are his words 2
student1776 7 months ago
@alien1tau9 While the Mitchell Report holds that the Intifada was not predetermined (nor was Israeli lethal response) it also holds that "The Sharon visit did not cause the "Al-Aqsa Intifada."
student1776 7 months ago
@alien1tau9 It's funny you conclude with "Sharon's Rejectionism." I recommend getting your head out of the sand and open to the possibility that the Camp David Accords largely failed because Yasser Arafat lived and died (with AIDS?) a terrorist. The Palestinian people are the ones who have suffered---and continue to do so--from despicable leadership more concerned with unattainable political & religious ideology rather than a serious commitment to peace.
student1776 7 months ago
@student1776 2 - Unless you would characterise a demilitiarised state with settlements within it remaining under Israeli sovereignty and mobility within sections of the West Bank itself being contingent upon the prior approval of Israeli government officials, and with curtailing of accessibility to international borders under prior Israeli approval as a sovereign state, Barak's offer was indeed pathetically unacceptable. There is actually no evidence for your claim of Barak's concessions.
alien1tau9 7 months ago
@student1776 3 - The sources for the claim that Barak offered over 90% of the West Bank to the Palestinians all stemmed from the Israeli press. However, what Barak actually offered at Camp David is difficult to assess given the deficiency in documentation presented to prove his claim of such territorial concessions. In fact there were no maps presented at Camp David, only vague abstractions and ideas that would serve the basis for a permanent agreement - admitted by Haaretz reporter Akiva Eldar.
alien1tau9 7 months ago
@student1776 4 - About 1 year after Camp David the US diplomat and participant in the negotiations Robert Malley published a series of articles in the New York Times enunciating the actual events at Camp David. He argued that the Palestinians had offered considerable concessions and compromises in accepting the June 4 1967 borders as the boundaries for their state and recognised the illegal Jewish constructions in East Jerusalem after 1967, and Israeli annexation of large settlement blocks.
alien1tau9 7 months ago
@student1776 5 - These settlement blocks were of course illegitimate entities and would directly infringe upon Palestinian sovereignty in that they would be incorporated into Israel despite being located across the Green Line. As for the refugees issue, international law recognises the inalienable right of return for all refugees. Despite Israel's ethnic cleansing campaigns in 1948 undisputed by the historical record with the exception of imbeciles divorced from reality, the Palestinians...
alien1tau9 7 months ago
@student1776 6 - recognised Israeli demographic and security concerns over the implementation of the right of return, and offered to guarantee that its implementation would not compromise on such concerns. They proposed the realisation of the right of return through a mutually agreed upon mechanism involving the PA convincing the bulk of Palestinian refugees to avoid the option of returning to Israel while the refugees would still retain such a right. They were also willing to discuss a limit...
alien1tau9 7 months ago
@student1776 7 - on the number of Palestinian refugees that could enter Israel. Madeline Albright conceded this fact. This was despite the immensely unjust renunciation of the Palestinian right of return supported by the UN and international law. Barak, however, refused to even acknowledge Israeli responsibility for creating the refugee problem and insisted on waiving their claims of return to Israel - a provocative demand. Barak only went as far as to vaguely recognise Palestinian suffering.
alien1tau9 7 months ago
@student1776 8 - Now, proceeding to your ridiculous regurgitation of Zionist mythology that the Al Aqsa Intifada was planned by the PA and Arafat after the breakdown of Camp David on July 25 2000. An international independent commission of inquiry was actually established to examine the validity of the respective Israeli and PA claims regarding responsibility for the outbreak of the intifada. It was the Mitchell Commission, led by George J Mitchell, later in 2009 the US envoy to the Middle East.
alien1tau9 7 months ago
@student1776 The Commission published its findings on May 21 2002. What were its conclusions? It explicitly stated that there was no evidence to suggest that the PA had deliberately planned the Intifada as a consistent effort aimed at turning public opinion against Israel or using it as a means of regaining the diplomatic initiative. It also noted that a serious factor that escalated the violence was the deployment of a provocative Israeli security presence on September 29 at Al Aqsa Mosque.
alien1tau9 7 months ago
@alien1tau9 Correction: The Commission published its findings on May 21 2001.
alien1tau9 7 months ago
@student1776 10 - The Commission also stated that while there was no basis on which to conclude that Israel had deliberately conceived of a plan to use excessively lethal force against the protesters, it also noted that Israel had made no consistent effort in the prevention of lethal force initiated by the security forces. Ironically Israel would reject the Saudi Peace Initiative agreed upon by the very same Arab states you mention on March 28 2002, another example of Sharon's rejectionism. Out.
alien1tau9 7 months ago
@alawson911 Most people easily come to the same conclusion as Jane Corbin--that the flotilla's intent was not to deliver aid but weaken Israel's international standing and protest alleged "apartheid" (IQ's below 80 is a prerequisite for this organization). There are many channels of delivering aid to Gaza, the Mavi Marmara just used this as a guise to disguise their political goals. If people can't recognize that, then perhaps they are also the ones who cannot see the blatant bias in your video
student1776 7 months ago
@student1776 Agree! Turkey's call to have Israel admonished before an international tribunal is all for naught... You have to be guilty of a crime first. Israel clearly acted within the scope of San Remo (International Maritime Law) and is innocent.
The Mavi Marmara broke international law, after announcing it's intent to run a legal naval blockade, It failed to stop it's engines and allow it's cargo to be inspected. Further, it's passengers resisted with lethal weaponry, (knives and pipes).
fuzzywuzy 6 months ago
@EvitoCruor
I delete messages from people who resort to insults and dirty language. Repost, if you like, without the abuse. This is not censorship, your abuse-free posts will remain.
alawson911 8 months ago
@EvitoCruor
alawson911 8 months ago
This video itself is incredibly biased, the blockade is in accord with inteenational law as referred by the UN. Forcibly breaching a naval blockade entails much more severe results than 9 dead, israelis showed extreme restraint compared to their training. They should have sunk the entire flotilla and be done with it.
EvitoCruor 8 months ago
@EvitoCruor
Rubbish, The United Nations has condemned the blockade of Gaza on humanitarian and other grounds, and you must know that, unless you have turned away from hearing the truth. How would you have felt if people had written what you have written, if the Soviet Union had blockaded Finland, and the rest of the world had stood by and done nothing? People like you who seem to think that the lives of other people mean nothing make me sick.
alawson911 8 months ago
@alawson911 Condemned yes, it is not however illegal as you can check quite readily from the united nations website yourself. You seem to have forgotten why the 49 and 60's wars started, arab muslims attempted a fullscale genocide to wipe the israelis off the face of the planet. Your analogue is fallacious, finland was not aggressing against the USSR, initiator was the soviets not us. It is you who do not care about peoples lives, seeing israel wiped off doesnt annoy you obviously. (continued)..
EvitoCruor 8 months ago
@EvitoCruor
You have forgotten the Stern and Irgun gangs that terrorised the Arab population of what was to become Israel. Your ideas on history and cause and effect are abysmal. Israel was established on stolen land by United Nations decree, and the Arabs and others who opposed this theft and destruction had every right to do so. Also, many of the conflicts that Israel claims were begun by the Arabs were, in fact, instigated as false-flag actions. The 1967 war is a prime example.
alawson911 8 months ago
@alawson911 May I ask you for some sort of proof on that last statement you made? Not that I think you're a liar, I just think that it's too important to just accept without checking.
MegaMrDanne 8 months ago
@MegaMrDanne
Mossad's famous, but now former motto: “By way of deception, thou shall do war.” should also give you a strong clue as to Israeli thinking and methodology. Deception lies at the very heart of every false-flag operation. It can be typified by the planting of documents and other forms of intelligence, as well as the actions of people dressed up in an opponent's military uniforms and, apparently, using their weaponry, so that it appears that one's enemy "cast the first stone". cont...
alawson911 8 months ago
@MegaMrDanne
Please do some research on The Six Day war. I think that it is more than likely that Israel falsified much of its "intelligence", particularly about Egypt's intentions and capabilities, and Israel's blatant attack on the USS Liberty, which was monitoring radio traffic on both sides, was an attempt to make sure that no blame could be laid at Israel's doorstep for its pre-emptive strikes. To my way of thinking, falsifying intelligence and intentions typifies a false-flag action.
alawson911 8 months ago
And the israelis even provided for the possibility of landing the flotilla to be delivered by land route, with the flotilla members declined. Matter of fact is that the whole flotilla is nothing but a PR campaign it has nothing to do with aid. If the palestinians want peace and freedom they should start building it, first by forcing their own from aggressing against a superior occupier, stupidity is no defence against artillery and they'll keep dying until they get smarter. Life and peace to all
EvitoCruor 8 months ago
this video is stupid, there is no food crisis in Palestine, there are shops full of food... i don't understand why people keep saying this.
DJFearRoss1 8 months ago
@DJFearRoss1
What would you know about a food crisis in Palestine? Even if your remark is now accurate (the video was uploaded nine months ago), why are you overlooking the fact that nine people were murdered or the fact that Jane Corbin was lying about the usefulness of the drugs and other aid being brought to Gaza? Gaza is not just about food shortages, there are other important issues to consider. Perhaps you are the one who is stupid.
alawson911 8 months ago
@alawson911 Are you for real?! Even 9 months ago there was no food shortage! Wow! You people are so lost. What about Somalia there are children starving to death there, in Gaza they are building 5 star hotels and shopping centers. Please let me know when they people will be shipping out to Somalia, or is it not a 'Cool Cause'.
DJFearRoss1 7 months ago
@alawson911 Are you for real?! Even 9 months ago there was no food shortage! Wow! You people are so lost. What about Somalia there are children starving to death there, in Gaza they are building 5 star hotels and shopping centers. Please let me know when they people will be shipping out to Somalia, or is it not a 'Cool Cause'.
DJFearRoss1 7 months ago
I hope this time Israel shoots those provokers this time to the bottem of the sea .
koertje 8 months ago
Israel spreading evil all over the world.
OyPeople 8 months ago
I'm just wondering why peaceful activists would feel the need to violently resist against virtually unarmed soldiers climbing down to their ship. If their intentions where to kill all of the passengers on board - they would die as heroic martures. And if the soldiers came down peacefully, like they obviously intended - then the "peace activists" could show some good will and greet them or something. But instead they beat them down with metal rods... Is there more to say?!
MegaMrDanne 8 months ago
@MegaMrDanne
Well that's a new one: "Virtually unarmed soldiers". They claimed to be carrying paint ball rifles, but also conventional pistols; you know, the ones that kill people, and they did so that morning. Nine human beings.
It seems that apologists for Israel will go to any lengths to place the blame for its murderous approach to the Freedom Flotilla on the people bringing humanitarian aid and moral support. It is NEVER Israel's fault.
There is no more to say, except: You make me sick.
alawson911 8 months ago
@alawson911 Again - since international law supports Israel's right to enforce a naval blockade, even to the point of stopping (gy force, if necessary), boarding and taking over, in international waters, any vessel attempting to break the blockade, your argument regarding Israel's illegal actions are unfounded.
Please provide supporting reference as to why Israel is acting illegally, or beyond the boundaries of law.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners
Why don't you stick to the issue of what "Virtually unarmed means"? When people like you can't make your case in one area, you immediately move to another issue, in this case, one that is just as spurious:
Check this out: "22 Jun 2011 – Israel's blockade of Gaza is illegal: expert legal opinion on international maritime law from Ambassador Craig Murray ..."
Now prove your claim that: "international law supports Israel's right to enforce a naval blockade..."
alawson911 8 months ago
@alawson911 No opinions: the definition in international law as described by the 1956 Congress of Paris.
In 1945, the UN Security Council defined the legal status of blockades and in the UN Charter, article 42, they even ratified its right to apply blockades.[
The 1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea declares that a neutral ship must obey a request to stop for inspection, and if those aboard the ship resist, they can be attacked. .
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners
There is no way to rationally discuss anything with someone like you; you are totally bereft of any moral standards. You invoke generalised laws going back to 1945, 1956 and 1994 but fail to address the specific issue of what has been declared, time and again by the, usually, Israel-biased United Nations, as the illegal blockade of Gaza.
alawson911 8 months ago 2
@alawson911 It is only by rational discussion that you may be able to convince me that there is some truth in your arguments. But by calling me names, you resort to the weakest of tactics.
Laws are laws, whenever they may have been enacted - please provide some legal basis for why Israel's blockade is not legal - and please, no biased opinions or quotes.
Funny you claim the UN is Israel-biased, for it is the UN that has most condemned Israel.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners
What name did I call you? The blockade has been declared illegal by the United Nations, but this declaration has been ignored by Israel. The UN's declaration supersedes general law guidelines, such as you were quoting, because it has been directed at a specific action that has been taken by a sovereign nation which is a member of the body which has declared that specific action illegal. Can you understand that? The blockade is illegal, so any attempt to enforce it was also illegal.
alawson911 8 months ago
@alawson911 In legel terms, you are wrong. A declaration from the UN has no legal bearing - it is an opinion, a recommendation, with no legal power. It has the legal standing equal to what any politician might declare as his/her opinion.
Israel, and many members of the UN have ignored declarations such as this, knowing full well that they are without credence - what does count is an international agreement, even if older than your years.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners It has also been said that the law is an ass. Also, you have been rather light with you quotation about international agreements supporting Israel's right to blockade Gaza, so can you expand on that? Are there not conditions that have to be met to make a blockade legal? Could England legally board French ships on the high seas, or block them from its ports, at a whim? Then there is the moral issue, or do laws always come first with you? And give me the name I called you.
alawson911 8 months ago
@alawson911 IT had veen saiss is a rather general statement -were they refering perhaps to you?
You ask for specifics when you in fact provide nothing to support your argument, other, that is, than UN resolutions which have no legal basis, and are not enforceable.
Rather than ask me the questions, why not bone up on the subject before proving you no nothing about it?
As for morals, they are relative, and arguably meaningless when it comes to politics or war.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners
Of course I ask for specifics. None of the agreements you've cited can possibly baldly state: "It is not unlawful for one national entity to block access to the ports or entry points of another national entity". There must be conditions laid down to make such an action acceptable. You have cherry-picked only part of an international agreement, or whatever, you have not given the provisos which it must include, and it is up to you, not me, to present them in support of your stance.
alawson911 8 months ago
@alawson911
Also, you accused me of name calling, but you have yet to tell me what name I called you. The extremely garbled opening to you last comment suggests that you are implying that I am an ass, but clarity does not seem to be your strong point, so I could be wrong.
alawson911 8 months ago
@alawson911 The agreements I cited provide specific terms regarding the legality of blockades, They spell out conditions, which if you care to read them, cite the terms by which Israel has imposed the blockade and continues to enforce it.
If you believe Israel's actions are illegal, it is your obligation to explain why, not with opinions, but with facts. You may cherry pick if you wish - but don't choke on the pits.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners
The agreements could not possibly spell out the current conditions under which Israel has imposed the blockade, unless those who formulated them were able to look into the future. You must reveal the conditions cited in these agreements under which Israel feels justified in imposing the blockade, not me. UN Human Rights chief, Navi Pillay, who would understand these things rather better than you or I, has called the blockade illegal, and that is good enough for me. Over and out.
alawson911 8 months ago
@alawson911 The agreements are recognized legal agreements that define blockades - I am not obliged to do any more than provide the legal references, it is you who should read them to discover the parameters.
The UNHRA is not a reliable source for any opinion, especially Navanethem Pillay, even if she served as a judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Look what the UN did in Rwanda!
UNHRA and the ICC are only too ready to condemn and hold trials.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@alawson911 Re your name calling - "There is no way to rationally discuss anything with someone like you" - shows that you hold me in disdain, for simply not falling for your unproven opinions, which you cannot back by facts - rather than maintain a logical argument, you insinuate, hoping others will take your side in your unsupportable argument.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners
I see no derogatory name in there, just a statement as to how I regard your approach to this issue. Even holding someone in disdain does not constitute name-calling. Further: I am not merely citing my own opinions I have cited the opinions of others which tend to confirm that it is reasonably justifiable to hold the opinion that Israel is acting illegally, with regard to the way they are treating the people of Gaza. And morally, I hardly need confirmation of the obvious.
alawson911 8 months ago
@alawson911 Again, citing opinions, but not substantiating your opinion with legal agreements and/or documents.
Who should be held in disdain? Yet, all I ask is that you provide relevent support for your logic,
Little is obvious, especially when one relies on propaganda to support their views. Gaza, and I was there, was poor because the Egyptians cut them off, and provided little resources, and UNRRA kept them under their financial wing - living on handouts. - this was not the because of the IDF
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@alawson911 How do you cite UN resolutions to support your argument, and then condemn them for being Israel-biased? You can't have it both ways.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@alawson911 You seem to forget that the guys coming down the rope where human beings too, and if you are being beaten to death with rods and sticks, then it doesn't seem so strange to me that you would pull out your gun. Of course there's nothing wrong with showing your support for something you consider an important cause, and I understand that the majority of the people involved in this event were peaceful activists, but it just can't be alright to attack people like that.
MegaMrDanne 8 months ago
@MegaMrDanne
You've done it again. You've moved back to voicing your opinion, rather than responding to my request to prove the claim you made that "international law supports Israel's right to enforce a naval blockade..."
Why do you seem to excuse Israeli aggression and call those who were being illegally invaded the aggressors?
What would you do if you were, quite legally, at a camp site, for example, with your family, and you were attacked by thugs at 3:00 am? Lie still and do nothing?
alawson911 8 months ago
@alawson911 You seem to have me confused with vbkpartners. I have not claimed that "international law supports Israel's right to enforce a naval blockade...".
Regarding "Israeli aggression", I think that if you sail strait at a blockade, regardless the legitimacy of it, you could see it coming (i.e. you will be asked to turn back or stopped by force).
And if your quite legal camp site was sailing towards a place where you must not go, then it's not that surprising if you get in trouble.
MegaMrDanne 8 months ago
@MegaMrDanne
You are right, I did mistakenly attribute your comment to vbkpartners, for which I apologise, but you do seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet, and you are an apologist for Israel's aggressive actions against peaceful protests. What you have written means that an aggressor has every right to be aggressive, and that those who get in their way have no rights whatsoever. What you are saying is "Might is Right!" and the law means nothing.
alawson911 8 months ago
@alawson911 By definition, a blockade must ensure the immediate interception of any ship entering or leaving, the strength of the blockading force must be equal to or greater in strength than the opposition., and the success of a blockade is based almost entirely on the will of those who maintain it.
Use of force is part and parcel of this act of war - therefore aggressive actions a deemed to be part of the blackading, and any blockade runner must understand the consequences of his/her actions.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@alawson911 I think that sailing into the blockade was an unnecessary provocation from the beginning, and that they could just as well have been supplying the people of Gaza in a more sensible way, through land transport, or at least the final distance in to Gaza through ports in Israel or Egypt. What happened on board the Mavi Marmara, is in my mind the unfortunate result of the violence against the IDF soldiers boarding the ship from a small number of people that only sought violence
MegaMrDanne 8 months ago
@MegaMrDanne
The blockade has been declared illegal but the U.N. has done nothing to back up its resolutions against Israel's inhuman behaviour. We will see a lot more of this kind of thing happening, as ordinary people realise that the only way wrongs are going to be put right is to try to do something independently of the corrupt organizations which are ruining our world. Israel was wrong to attack the flotilla, but you are supporting their actions, so you are wrong too.
alawson911 8 months ago
@MegaMrDanne A move forward in understanding the unprincipled modes of the so called Freedom Flotilla protesters.
The key to the issue is understanding the heroism of the Shahid - life is worthless, and should be sacrificed for the cause, even if a more rational solution is available,
The Flotilla was meant to provoke violence - there was no place for non-violence; and relief for Gaza was a tag line not the purpose of the endeavor. This was all conceived to discredit Israel - if not nor the BBC.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@TexasAaron99 now, there, can't we be somewhat more civilized - perhaps, if you can control your racist outbursts, someone might even believe that you rate a minute of our time to listen to what you contend is an opinion, allbeit derived from sheer ignorance.
Bravo for using the multi-syllabic word 'antithetical', but the word best describes your retort as compared to the comments of someone who actually has the capacity to read, digest and form an opinion. regarding the subject.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners Rabbi Yosef Has issued astatement that it is permissible to kill Palestinian Babies in name ofselfdefence It was Israel who crushed Richel a Peace activist under bulldozer It was IDF that bombarded USS Liberty It was Israel who did King David Hotel Bombing It is a sick Terroriststate
shadowofears 8 months ago
@shadowofears Do we quote a single rabbi, or multiple Mullahs and Imams? When crazies declare their hate, no one listens to them.
It was Rachel Corey who recklessly put herself in the path of a bulldozer - if you stand in front of a moving car, expect to be a casualty.
The USS Liberty, an undeclared vessel in the middle of a war zone was a regrettable loss, but not in any way an example of terrorism.
ETZL was a resistance group, who bombed the British headquarters - this was not the state.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
Once you begin using sobriquets like the Apartheid Israel, you show how biased you really are. You claim that the BBC does not set a balanced tone because it does not provide explanations from both sides - well that is exactly what you are doing - again, proven by your claim thatthis was Israel's worst atrocity since Operation Caste Lead.
You are juat another anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian bleeding heart liberal, trying to convey your better them them lies.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners
The wall separating Palestinian communities from Israeli ones was built by the Israelis. This defines an Apartheid state. Do you think it should be ignored, or do you just hope it well be? And if there was another Israeli atrocity, since Cast Lead, that I've overlooked, then please let me know about it.
alawson911 8 months ago
@alawson911 So, are you saying that the wall separating East Berlin from West Berlin proved that Berliners were Apartheid?
A border between territories may be open, or closed, fenced, or not fenced. Erecting a fence is not proof of Apartheid.
IT is unfortunate that both sides cannot live side by side peacefully, but it is one nation's absolute right to protect borders, if need be, by erecting fences (which make good neighbors).
Placement of the fence is a different matter, confirmed by the court
vbkpartners 8 months ago
BoycotDivestSanction: Re your comment:
How people vent their feelings, face-to-face with their friends, in a pub, say, should be quite different from commenting on what has to be seen as a fairly serious channel. You are not the first and will not be the last who fails to make this distinction, so I am obliged, from time to time, to make it for those who don't.
I've deleted it.
alawson911 8 months ago
What an excellent and informative video.
macunfraidh 8 months ago
@BoycotDivestSanction Your boys took a hell of a beating.Take on the IDF at your peril.Want some more do you?
regvarney 8 months ago
@regvarney
It's always difficult to take on state-sponsored murderers, but taking pride in them is another thing altogether. You should be ashamed of yourself.
alawson911 8 months ago
@alawson911 According to international law, killing is not necessarily murder - and in this case, there is sufficient proof to doubt that it wasn't self defence - something that happens during military actions.
These soldiers did their duty in protecting their country, as opposed to provoking physical aggression, which was the modus of the IHH members on board Mavi Marmara.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
Jane Corbin AKA Lady Maples married to John Maples who according to wikipedia was "While an MP, Maples was president of the Conservative Friends of Israel"
Nuff Said.
JohnsaWozHere 8 months ago
The report, written by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, indicates that Israel is discriminating against Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christians, women, Bedouins, and even Reform Jews, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported on Sunday.
Israel does not treat ethnic groups on equal terms and also does not show any respect toward certain holy sites and other historic sites, the document added.
shadowofears 8 months ago
@shadowofears The incidents cited are ever so mild compared to the persecution of Bahai in Iran, Copts in Egypt, and dhimmies across the Muslim Uma, that it makes the BHRL's claims almost comical.
Muslims claim the Holy site, which had been the site of a Jewish Temple and a Christian church, on Haram es-Sharif as theirs, because a horse flewfrom Mecca to Jerusalem, and has built a mosque in Hebron were Abraham was supposedly entombed, casts doubt on which acts are more egregrious.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners There are 25000 Iranian Jews living Peacefully under Iranian regime Watch jews Iran jew By Journeyman Pictures when asked they said that their identity is not for sale.Even Torah Jews Hate Israel They burn Israeli flag in Protest
shadowofears 8 months ago
@shadowofears There are many more Jews who fled Iran, and they, at least those I have met in North America and Europe, say they were treated as dhimmies in Iran. They were forced from their jobs, and fled because of persecution by the Shia regime.
I doubt whether your number regarding the remaining Jews in Iran is correct, but they are less than those who were forced to flee.
And if they believe and act as you claim, I don't deny their right to disagree with me, or those Jews who fled.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners Watch that video Jews Iran Jews By Journeyman Pictures Atleast they dont kill their Babies unlike Israel lol
shadowofears 8 months ago
@shadowofears So, if I understand your claqim, you are saying that Hamas and Fatah are the worst of the bunch, because they kill babies and innocent civilians on purpose, while the IDF may, in battle, take action that results in 'collateral damage'.
There is a huge gap in your logic, between Mohamed Al-Dura and bombing a teen club in Tel Aviv, or a public bus in Jerusalem.
I am not sure why you are LOLing, is it because you find the loss of life so funny?
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners HamasandFateh dont kill Babies ItsIDF Killing them with White Phosphorous Bombs.They did Carpet Bombing in Gaza It wasthe worst type of genocide ever seen Israel killed more than 460 Babies of Gaza burned by White Phosphorous Bombs Israel is a Nazi State or even Far worse
shadowofears 8 months ago
@shadowofears Please be truthful: Israel did not carpet bomb Gaza - they did use white phosphorus, which is not outlawed by international law. White phosphorus, if exposed to skin does burn, but nowhere were 460 babies killed by phosphorus bombs - so please, either state facts, rather than discrediting your respnse entirely.
And using descriptives like Nazi State just prejudices your unfounded argument.
And yes, Hamas shahids have killed babies - suicide bombers do not select their victims.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@shadowofears Surprising you don't bring out more faked Israeli atrocities, like Mohamed Al Dura - or have you reconciled the fake reporting from Gaza with plausibility?
Continue pointing fingers and making false accusations and over stating your case with words like genocide, perhaps there are others out there who buy into your half truths.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners yeah, i remember the crazy al-Dura incident. it was later proven a hoax.
FreedomFlotillaTwo 8 months ago
@FreedomFlotillaTwo Yeah Your zionist media lies are far worse than Nazi Propaganda Even USS Liberty was Hoax it was done by Hamas Look at ur claims Laughable Palestinian Watch Media propaganda is unbeariable
shadowofears 8 months ago
@FreedomFlotillaTwo Like the claims of all the children killed by white phosphorus 'carpet bombing'
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners Actually more than 460 Kids died in Gaza You are exposed
shadowofears 8 months ago
@shadowofears You provide numbers, inflated as they may be - but they did not all die from white phosphorus - how many were human shileds for Hamas fighters, or unfortunate collateral damage?
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners I can show videos of Childrens burned by White Phosphorous Human Sheild Propaganda doesnt work on me If suppose they were using Jewish Kids as human shield would IDF blow the shit out of them ??I highly doubt that Now shut Up
shadowofears 8 months ago
@shadowofears You can cite all the propaganda you want, but you still don't provide a convincing, substantiated argument - and telling me to shut up doesn't really provide a logical basis for believing your claims.
Your twisted argument about using Jewish Kids as human shields only shows how unsupportable your claims are.
And where did you come up with the idea that the IDF blew the shit out of the kids - you mentionned white phosphorus which causes skin burns, and does not blow people up.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners Who bombarded UN Schools?Who Bulldozered Peace Activist Richeal?Who Bombarded USS Liberty?Who Bombarded Church of Nativity?Who Bombarded King David Hotel Should i continue?
shadowofears 8 months ago
@shadowofears For each who you cited, there are many more who's who committed similar acts against the Israelis.
From who kidnapped, to who bombed, to who attacked, to who did not accept, and now demands that the offer of 60 years ago be put back on the table.
If you want me to list the acts committed against Israel and ISraelis, we will need to allow more space in these Reply boxes, as the list is far to long.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
I just LOVE watching leftists (who are supposedly pro gay, pro women's rights, anti violence, etc) cosying up to Arabs....who regularly execute gays, stone women to deadh, and send naive young boys and "disgraced" (i.e. raped) young women out to die as suicide bombers.
The Palestinians (and the rest of the Arabs) have tried many many times (1948, 1967, 1973, etc) to destroy Israel but the Israelis have beaten them every single time. This flotilla was yet another EPIC FAIL :-)
richard20bris 9 months ago
@richard20bris In truth, it seems to me, when people make these sorts of criticisms, it is not done as a constructive criticism, it is more like an outright dismissal. We can dismiss them as human beings because we treat women better than they do, and therefore we should just kill them all, men, women, and children, in order to rectify this situation. When you actually spell it out, it doesn't sound so good after all.
shadowofears 8 months ago
Pure crap read by a professional British actor. Excellent diction. Pure shit as to contents. Your right of free speech makes you an idiot.
Yitzhakhazak 9 months ago
Zionists (BBC) are disgusting liars! The IDF shot them in the back as they were running away, and shot at least one boy who was lying on the deck, armed only with a video camera, when he was killed.
Deck is "floor" in Navy talk.
rubiconski2008 9 months ago
@rubiconski2008
It was murder, there can be no doubt, and there can be no excuses.
alawson911 9 months ago
@alawson911 You have convicted Israel, and denied the BBC report provides a partial clue to the confrontation that led to the deaths; you dismiss evidence that this was self-defence: Would you release a criminal who killed a policeman in the course of his duty, would you automatically convict the policeman who shot a suspect during the course of an arrest?
You do render your verdict unilaterally, and deny the BBC the right to present facts other than those you will support.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners
The BBC shows Israeli troops boarding a ship in international waters. Who cast the first stone? Are you suggesting that those on board the ship should have laid down to have their tummies tickled? People like you are totally blind to the "Who started it?" issue. The Israelis started it, and they then killed people who were attempting to protect themselves.
The BBC had their say, and I can't deny them any right to do anything. They do what their handlers tell them to do. Get real!
alawson911 8 months ago
@alawson911 Like the British blockade of Palestine, Israel's blockade is a legal action, and according to law, such a blockade requires Israel to take action against any party attempting to run the blockade, if need be, using force.
I am not advising any protesters what to do, but passive resistence means no fighting - so resistence, by definition, was not passive, and incited the IDF to use force. The instant the protesters resorted to violent resistence, they nolonger could claim to be victims
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@rubiconski2008 Now the BBC is Zionist - and simply for televising a report that does not match your liberal sensibilities.
Like the British blockade of Palestine in the 1940s, international law supports the legality of a naval blockade, whether it seems fair or not.
Why is it that no one mentions the option of delivering the goods via El Arish or Ashdod - the Israelis and the Egyptians have both opened there ports.
vbkpartners 8 months ago
@vbkpartners
Citing instances of a blockade that occurred 60 years ago suggests that the U.N. and international diplomacy have not advanced one iota, since then. And you would be right, as far as the latitude shown towards Israel's continued disparagement for any UN resolution which attempts to curb its aggression towards its neighbours and its own citizens. And your last sentence is pathetic. Would you accept someone telling you how the goods and services you require should be delivered?
alawson911 8 months ago
@alawson911 Well, we have to accept the means by which goods and services are delivered - when we order them, we chose between post, UPS, FedEx, or we can pick up the goods ourselves.
These are the same options given to the recipients in Gaza - just as they have been accepting, for 60 years, their monthly stipend from UNRAA.
And why do you not condemn Egypt for imposing the same delivery restrictions? Why did no one in Britain cried foul when Egypt closed Rafah?
vbkpartners 8 months ago
Comment removed
whereismybailouttv 9 months ago
Comment removed
whereismybailouttv 9 months ago
Comment removed
whereismybailouttv 10 months ago
Comment removed
whereismybailouttv 10 months ago
I've listened to the BBC my whole life. It's only in the last few months the penny has dropped - the BBc are running scared form the politicians. Their reporting is biased - from the Bristol 'tesco riot' , the run up to the financial crash, Israel/Palestine - you name it, the BBC doesn't report objectively - it gives the establishment view. Like the fact that the police in the UK are corrupt - it's difficult for us Brits to admit to ourselves.
nowthatsinteresting1 10 months ago 9
@nowthatsinteresting1
I once had respect for the BBC, but it was probably ill founded, because, no matter what, such an organization can never be fully independent. But, over the last 15 years, it has become more and more apparent that they are running scared of the stablishment, witch is fully owned and contolled by Zionists. There can be no doubt about it. "Friends of Israel -- Enemies Inside the Gates" is another of my videos that you might find interesting.
alawson911 10 months ago
@alawson911 Thanks for the reply - very interested in the issues raised on your channel, too. Such a shame that Zionist politics can't be discussed without the 'Nazi' taint.
nowthatsinteresting1 10 months ago
@alawson911 So, let's play the 'Zionists/Jews control the media' card.
Perhaps you would like to have your audience reread 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'?
After the supporters of the Flotilla spread their version of events across the internet, why is another view of the episode so frightening to you? Are you afraid that the BBC expose is more truthful than the initial propaganda?
vbkpartners 8 months ago
It certainly gives the establishment view, but not the old noblesse oblige establishment, but the new socialist, left wing establishment. It lies about supposed Tory cuts, climate change, Israel/Palestine. It is simply the broadcasting arm of the trade union movement, tasked with massing the army of social workers and lesbian outreach officers to man the barricades of the class war movement. As Orwell said 'As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for socialism is its adherents
Hamilcar275 8 months ago
@Hamilcar275 Have you ever heard/seen a BBC interview of any leader of any union proposing strike action? I don't think you'd have heard any support there. The lesbian outreach thing comes from the pages of the Sun from 20 years ago. Your whole comment is absurd - 'socialism' is dead and buried in this country. You might be thinking of 'liberalism' in the non-political sense.
nowthatsinteresting1 8 months ago
They interview Serwotka and Crow all the time, threatening and proposing strikes. Most of the BBC's political hierarchy are leftist, e.g. Marr, Crick, Paxman. The former controller of Newsnight admitted that the BBC studios were awash with champagne bottles at the 97' election.
Actually, there are advertisements for lesbian outreach workers, more commonly called Diversity Outreach Workers. Non jobs, parasitic on the private economy.
Hamilcar275 8 months ago
@Hamilcar275 They do interview unions - but not in a supportive way. The tone is always critical - to the extent that no comment is made on source of the dispute. Anyone expecting a 'left-wing' government in 97 was certainly disappointed. True, the public sector has had it easy for many years and they are wasting stacks of money - not on lesbians, but on what can only be described as corporate welfare - pay back for political donations. The corporations are draining the economy, not lesbians.
nowthatsinteresting1 8 months ago
Do you know how much tax revenue these corporations contribute? The Square Mile in London contributes 7% of GDP, and pays around 25% of corporation tax, and 13.9% of the total tax take of the Treasury. If you want your public services, you want these corporations to keep paying that much tax. New Labour was incredibly left wing, especially on moral and cultural matters, with its dogmatic relativism, appeasement of minority extremists and its gay rights militancy
Hamilcar275 8 months ago