or it could be that they are not as persecuted as people like to assert, and that maybe just maybe it is propaganda? the problem here is that all the 'bad' is highlighted and not the good. eg - a hardline paper Yalesarat, published two photographs of synagogues on its front page full of people waving Israeli flags celebrating Israeli independence day. The paper falsely said the synagogues were in Iran - even describing one as the Yusufabad synagogue in Tehran and locating another in Shiraz. The incident was defused by the Iranian security forces, who explained to people that the news was not true. - Despite the alleged offence Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has caused to Jews around the world, his office recently donated money for Tehran's Jewish hospital. - senior jews in iran such as Ciamak Morsathegh say "Anti-Semitism is not an eastern phenomenon, it's not an Islamic or Iranian phenomenon - anti-Semitism is a European phenomenon," he says, arguing that Jews in Iran even in their worst days never suffered as much as they did in Europe. - there are kosher shops etc in iran catering for jewish needs - today many Iranian Jews travel to and from Iran's enemy Israel.
funnily enough, yes i did, and i was actually speaking to someone about it a few days ago. The topic was about things we dont know I did not know however that new cases of HIV/AIDS is still mostly amongst gay men. giving some truth to it being the 'gay disease'? a lot of people dont know for example that tzipi livni didnt come to england as she was planning to due to fear of arrest under war crimes law in this country i wonder if ahmedinajad would be susceptible to the same?
It's a ****ing lie, I have read the UN report (100 odd pages) and it does not mention war crimes. John Pilger? ****ing liberal anti west prick, I would not trust a single word he utters.
doesnt really matter what you 'choose' to believe. It was a DIRECT quote from the report from the UNHRC as for pilger, he may be a prick, but at least he isnt cowed by the USA, unlike the UN as a whole I suppose you disagree with the reports findings as in the report made significant criticisms of the operation. The use of force is described as excessive. “Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel.” The later treatment of captured protestors was also found to be unreasonable you will also deny that the report was postponed due to israels request and that the summary is 1. The use of force by Israeli defense forces during the raid was unnecessary and disproportionate. This could have been avoided, but Israeli forces chose not to. 2. It would be appropriate for Israel to pay some sort of compensation to the families of those who were killed during the raid. 3. Israel should also issue a statement of regret over the incident.
However, the Panel seriously questions the true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, a coalition of non-governmental organizations. The leading group involved in the planning of the flotilla was the Turkish NGO âİnsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri Vakfıâ (IHH), a humanitarian organization. It owned two of the ships; the Mavi Marmara and the Gazze I. There is some suggestion that it has provided support to Hamas, although the Panel does not have sufficient information to assess that allegation. IHH has special consultative status with ECOSOC, a status which in the Panelâs view raises a certain expectation with respect to the way in which it should conduct its activities. On the basis of public statements by the flotilla organizers and their own internal documentation, the Panel is satisfied that as much as their expressed purpose of providing humanitarian aid, one of the primary objectives of the flotilla organizers was to generate publicity about the situation in Gaza by attempting to breach Israelâs naval blockade. The purposes of the flotilla were clearly expressed in a document prepared by IHH and signed by all flotilla participants as follows: Purpose: Purposes of this journey are to create an awareness amongst world public and international organizations on the inhumane and unjust embargo on Palestine and to contribute to end this embargo which clearly violates human rights and delivering humanitarian relief to the Palestinians. In that regard, flotilla passengers committed that they would ânot obey by the decisions, warnings or demands of the governments of countries in the region regarding this ship.â Further, the organizers recognized that the flotillaâs actions could have âlegal and punitive consequences,â and all flotilla participants were required to accept individual responsibility for those potential outcomes.However, there was no warning of the physical risk entailed. Other elements also raise questions concerning the objectives of the flotilla organizers. If the flotilla had been a purely humanitarian mission it is hard to see why so many passengers were embarked and with what purpose. Furthermore, the quality and value of many of the humanitarian goods on board the vessels is questionable. There were large quantities of humanitarian and construction supplies on board the Gazze 1, Eleftheri Mesogeio and Defne-Y. There were some foodstuffs and medical goods on board the Mavi Marmara, although it seems that these were intended for the voyage itself. Any âhumanitarian suppliesâ were limited to foodstuffs and toys carried in passengersâ personal baggage. The same situation appears to be the case for two other of the vessels: the Sfendoni,and the Challenger I.There was little need to organize a flotilla of six ships to deliver humanitarian assistance if only three were required to carry the available humanitarian supplies. The number of journalists embarked on the ships gives further power to the conclusion that the flotillaâs primary purpose was to generate publicity. There is a further issue. No adequate port facilities exist in Gaza capable of receiving vessels of the size of the Mavi Marmara. It appears that arrangements had been made to offload the cargo onto smaller vessels at sea, which no doubt would be awkward and inefficient. Yet the flotilla rejected offers to unload any essential humanitarian supplies at other ports and have them delivered to Gaza by land. These offers were made even during the voyage. The conclusion that the primary objective of the flotilla organizers was to generate publicity by attempting to breach the blockade is further reinforced by material before the Panel that suggests that a reception for the flotilla had been arranged by Hamas.
It should be noted that flotilla passengers specifically committed not to bring weapons on the journey.Neverthless, it is alleged that the IHH participants on board the Mavi Marmara included a âhardcore groupâ of approximately 40 activists, who had effective control over the vessel during the journey and were not subjected to security screening when they boarded the Mavi Marmara in Istanbul. The Turkish report refers to 42 volunteers who acted as âcleaning and maintenance personnelâ who boarded the Mavi Marmara in Istanbul and asserts that these individuals were subject to security screening. The Panel notes in this regard that all participants agreed to follow the decisions of the IHH organizers during the voyage and that at least one witness described himself as working for IHH âlike a security guard.â People may, of course, freely express their views by peaceful protest. But to deliberately seek to breach a blockade in a convoy with a large number of passengers is in the view of the Panel a dangerous and reckless act. It involves exposing a large number of individuals to the risk that force will be used to stop the blockade and people will be hurt. And the raid itself The reports in front of the Panel from both Israel and Turkey are broadly consistent as to the general nature of the boarding operation. Boarding commenced with an attempt to board from speedboats, followed by the fast-roping of armed commandoes from helicopters, use of stun and smoke grenades, paintballs, bean-bag rounds and (in the case of the Mavi Marmara) live fire. In that sense, the overall nature of the enforcement operation is not in dispute. The key differences between the reports are as to when live fire was first employed and the nature of resistance encountered on the Mavi Marmara. We will return to these points later. In this segment of the chapter we explore what conclusions and findings are possible concerning the violent confrontation that occurred when Israel boarded the Mari Marmara. In the Panelâs view, having reviewed the two national reports there is conflicting material on many of the key points. It unfortunately may never be possible to fully establish precisely what occurred. The general outline of events that emerges from the two investigations is as follows. The take-over began with an attempt to board from two speedboats. These withdrew when faced with resistance from Mavi Marmara passengers. IDF naval commandoes were then landed on the vessel by fast-roping from three helicopters. Starting at 4.29 a.m. 15 IDF personnel began to fast-rope onto the roof of the vessel from the first helicopter365 and met with violent resistance from a group of passengers. At 4.36 a.m., a further 12 IDF personnel began to land on the roof from the second helicopter, and at 4.46 a.m., 14 began to land from the third. The bridge was secured and at 5.07 a.m. further personnel were landed from the speedboats. The take-over was completed at approximately 5.17 a.m. Significant difference lies as to when live fire was first used and why. The Turkish report asserts that live fire was used from both the speedboats and helicopters before any IDF personnel had landed on the vessel, and that this prompted passengers to panic and to defend themselves.The Israeli report alleges in contrast that the IDF personnel were attacked as they began to land from the first helicopter, and three of the first to land were taken captive, requiring the resort to the use of live fire in self-defence in order to secure the vessel. It is clear from both reports that stun and smoke grenades were fired onto the deck from the speed boats and helicopters before boarding had commenced in order to dispel resistance by the passengers.The Israeli report also confirms that beanbags and paintball rounds were fired from the speedboats during the initial boarding attempt. This is consistent with passengersâ witness accounts which describe firing from the speed boats prior to the IDF personnel boarding the vessel. But we are unable to conclude whether this included live fire during the initial stages of the boarding attempt. However, live fire was used from speedboats once the boarding operation was underway. The two investigations reached opposite conclusions as to whether live rounds were fired from the helicopters. Several witness statements refer to live fire from the helicopters, although these vary as to whether the rounds were fired before or after boarding or by soldiers during their descent from the helicopters. Available limited video footage shows soldiers descending by fast-rope but not with weapons drawn and there is no audible sound of gunfire at that point. Photographs show bullet marks on the funnel of the vessel, which appear consistent with firing from above. The wounds of several of the deceased were also consistent with bullets being fired from above. The explanation given in the Israeli report that these shots were fired from the roof or as victims were bending over is not dispositive on this point. The Panel considers it unlikely that the soldiers fired as they descended, but does not rule out the possibility that live fire was directed from the helicopters once the altercation on board the vessel had begun. It is clear to the Panel that preparations were made by some of the passengers on the Mavi Marmara well in advance to violently resist any boarding attempt.The description given in the Israeli report is consistent with passenger testimonies to the Turkish investigation that describe cutting iron bars from the guard rails of the ship, opening fire hoses, donning life or bullet proof vests and gas masks, and assuming pre-agreed positions in anticipation of an attack. Witness reports also describe doctors and medical personnel coordinating before the boarding in anticipation of casualties.Furthermore, video footage shows passengers wearing gas masks, life or bullet proof vests, and carrying metal bars, slingshots, chains and staves. That information supports the accounts of violence given by IDF personnel to the Israeli investigation. The Panel accepts, therefore, that soldiers landing from the first helicopter faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they descended onto the Mavi Marmara. Material before the Panel confirms that this group was armed with iron bars, staves, chains, and slingshots, and there is some indication that they also used knives. Firearms were taken from IDF personnel and passengers disabled at least one by removing the ammunition from it. Two soldiers received gunshot wounds. There is some reason to believe that they may have been shot by passengers, although the Panel is not able to conclusively establish how the gunshot wounds were caused. Nevertheless, seven other soldiers were wounded by passengers, some seriously.
really? for some one who has read the whole report, 100 pages you said, you must either have missed chunks in youre 'speed reading' or your reading levels are not good points re use of force being disproportianate and the multiple shootings in the back and mistreatment of prisoners etc are in the summary on pages 4 and 5. point viii and ix. israels regret and compensation to the families of those killed are on page 6, still the summary, points x and xi this is from the 'Report of the secretary generals panel of enquiry on the 31 may flotilla incident' september 2011
The UN report was 2011. The UNHCR report was in 2010 What has escaped most people is the fact that 30 of the 47 countries endorsed the 2010 report. the United States voted against, and 15 countries, including EU members, abstaining. so 30 endorsed, 15 abstained and 2 voted against. as a result the palmer report, the 2011 one, was initiated. democracy in action there wouldnt you say?
september 2010 In a 56-page report, the UN panel of three international lawyers said: "There is clear evidence to support prosecutions of the following crimes within the terms of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: wilful killing; torture or inhuman treatment; wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health". The Convention is an international treaty governing the protection of civilians in times of war. The UN fact-finding mission also said the Israeli blockade of the Palestinian territory was "unlawful" because of a humanitarian crisis there. The panel had interviewed more than 100 witnesses. The Israeli government has begun its own independent inquiry into the flotilla raid
133.Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded.
So who are these guys then?? Would be blood donors, perhaps. Your argument is bigoted and homophobic.
errr and your point??? you said i was 'lying' about what i had said, i gave you evidence/sources. and i am sure 9 dead people, with multiple shot wounds, in the back etc are a little worse than 3 soldiers captured, or mistreated for boarding a ship, illegaly (depending on your point of view) and according to the report without sufficient warning etc
wtf you on about? or are you trying 'deflection strategy'? how does british law make me bigotted and homophobic? you posted a picture of some men being hung, alleging they were homosexuals in iran. I pointed out that homosexuals are discriminated against even in the UK, and that they were banned from giving blood, a lifetime ban. But it was now being discussed to see if it should be lifted. you are a strange person
the following is not proportionate from the analysis of the bullet distance on one of the bodies, the gun was fired between 2 and 14 centimeters' distance from the victim's head.Doğan was shot five times from less than 45 cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back 9 people were killed.Five had gunshot wounds to the head and at least four were shot from both back and front.According to the UNHRC report, six were the victims of "summary executions", including two shot after they were severely injured.
You said the UNHCR said Israel should be tried for "war Crimes", that is simply untrue so either you are lying or John Pilger is.
