View Full Version : Israel kills to Maintain Blockade
Israel Kills to Maintain Blockade (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10195838.stm)
Israel of course claims that it was fired on - but of course they will retract this 3 months down the line in a muttering aside by some minister. Just like the white phosphorous attacks in Gaza, etc.
They want to starve out the Palestinians, and they won't tolerate any interference in this plan.
meh the Palestinians aren't starving they are the fattest people of the planet second only to Qatar. Of course they want to see what's in these ships, and they were warned in advance. Israel is at war with Hamas what did they expect. Sink them next time for all I care boohoohoo.
Furunculus
05-31-2010, 11:15
Israel of course claims that it was fired on - but of course they will retract this 3 months down the line in a muttering aside by some minister. Just like the white phosphorous attacks in Gaza, etc.
They want to starve out the Palestinians, and they won't tolerate any interference in this plan.
hmmm, like the massacre in the Jenin camp too i presume?
starve them out where? where to?
Ser Clegane
05-31-2010, 11:52
Please note:
This particular incident is likely to lead to a heated discussion
Please focus on arguments and avoid ad hominem attacks directed at other patrons as well as sweeping condescending statements about e.g., specific nationalities, religeous/ethnic groups
Staff will keep a keen eye on this one and apply forum rules rigorously
Thanks
:bow:
tibilicus
05-31-2010, 12:07
And so the Israeli sympathisers are in, let the debate begin!
I'm sorry but even if you are sympathetic to Israel's aims (what ever that is, because I'm a bit lost) this isn't really justifiable. For a start, I don't even know what they hoped to find on board seeming the ship is an aid ship. The chances of there being weapons, or at least a serious armament are seriously low seeming the ship left from Cyprus, a place where I imagine it isn't particularly easy to smuggle weapons from due to the presence of both UN and British forces. I guess they could of been shipped from Turkey but again, that's unlikely. It probably comes down to ill-discipline and poor intelligence on the Israelis part again.
Israel is showing an increasingly hostile attitude to the Palestinians and seems to be moving further and faster to a form of apartheid. Some of you may try and deny this, but don't bother. Arabs within Israel and those in Palestine can't freely walk in certain areas without receiving a hail of abuse, most Israelis despise them. As an Arab you can also look forward to having your house knocked down to make way for a nice new Israeli house. Any one want to justify that? You can't deny it isn't a form of apartheid. Arabs are discriminated against economically and socially.
Perhaps most worrying though is the fact that Israel have shown a profound ability to show a complete disregard for its western allies. The actions of recent years show they don't consult their allies, not even the USA any more, before making key decisions. We talk about Iran as the rouge state but is Israel not the same? If they refuse to show restraint despite international condemnation for their actions time, and time, and time again, how can any one here defend them?
LeftEyeNine
05-31-2010, 12:14
19, by the Israeli press, or 10, by the Israeli army, civilians are claimed to be murdered of whom 9 are Turks.
The civilian aid ships destined to Gaza were attacked by Israeli army with troopers offloaded from helicopters in international waters.
While, at the same time there has been a terrorist attack in Iskenderun, town of the Hatay county, closest city to Syria and Israel, killing 6 Turkish soldiers on duty, presumably committed by Israeli-educated and supplied PKK.
Israel, as a state, is no less sicker than North Korea -definitely violent at all terms considering nothing when it comes to anything related to Palestine.
One can not imagine they represent the sufferers of the Holocaust. Offensive phrase removed by moderator.
A ruling of the International Cour of Justice in the Hague from July 9, 2004, stated that their famous wall was a violation of international law.
I think it is safe to assume that this attack to ensure that their blockade is maintained, is also a violation of international law. Of course, the UN will do nothing, since Israels' migthy ally has veto power.
Interesting to note that Israel is also among the states that is not a member of International Criminal Court.
:thumbsdown:
pffffffffffffffft of course they can't just allow direct shipment to Ghaza. Clear case of gambled and lost.
LeftEyeNine
05-31-2010, 12:25
So it's rightful to open-fire at a civilian ship and kill in order to prevent the shipment while there is no armed resistance occuring ?
So it's rightful to open-fire at a civilian ship and kill in order to prevent the shipment while there is no armed resistance occuring ?
No resistance? Says who? Not what I heard.
LeftEyeNine
05-31-2010, 12:34
Sorry but what kind of an armed resistance could you expect out of ships checked in Cyprus ? Now what did you hear and from whom please ?
Louis VI the Fat
05-31-2010, 12:36
19, by the Israeli press, or 10, by the Israeli army, civilians are claimed to be murdered of whom 9 are Turks.
The civilian aid ships destined to Gaza were attacked by Israeli army with troopers offloaded from helicopters in international waters.
While, at the same time there has been a terrorist attack in Iskenderun, town of the Hatay county, closest city to Syria and Israel, killing 6 Turkish soldiers on duty, presumably committed by Israeli-educated and supplied PKK.
Israel, as a state, is no less sicker than North Korea -definitely violent at all terms considering nothing when it comes to anything related to Palestine.
One can not imagine they represent the sufferers of the Holocaust. removedMeh, I'm not a fan of Israel's gung-ho attitude, but this armada got precisely what it was looking for.
The whole point of the exercise was to provoke Israel, to pit 'unarmed' activists against the Israeli army, by trying to break the blockade with an armada of ships.
Well done to the activists, Israeli-Turkish relations are strained beyond repair.
pffffffffffffffft of course they can't just allow direct shipment to Ghaza. Clear case of gambled and lost.
I think you're missing the point. The blockade violates international law, a fortiori, attacking ships to enforce and maintain the illegal blockade violates international law.
Interesting read for you. (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=32967&Cr=palestin&Cr1)
tibilicus
05-31-2010, 12:38
No resistance? Says who? Not what I heard.
They were attacked with knives and clubs. The reports of being attacked with live ammunition was added sometime after the incident, making such claims dubious. Point being that still doesn't justify a gross breach of international law and the heavy handedness of the Israeli forces. Troops are trained for such situations if they meet resistance, you don't just open fire.
This event actually reminds of a similar event in 1972, where 14 people were shot dead on a civil rights march. I guess at least "Bloody Sunday" is justifiable from a British view point. This event isn't, seeming Israel were the ones who provoked the situation.
It is the international waters part that makes this a bad case for Israel.
They don't have jurisdiction in international waters and this can be treated as pure piracy by international courts.
Meh, I'm not a fan of Israel's gung-ho attitude, but this armada got precisely what it was looking for.
The whole point of the exercise was to provoke Israel, to pit 'unarmed' activists against the Israeli army, by trying to break the blockade with an armada of ships.
Well done to the activists, Israeli-Turkish relations are strained beyond repair.
Sometimes, a provocation is needed to get attention. This blockade must stop.
They don't have jurisdiction in international waters and this can be treated as pure piracy by international courts.
If only big countries would recognise the ICC, then that court could be made competent to handle this case of piracy... It would help if Israel would also recognise it.
Sorry but what kind of an armed resistance could you expect out of ships checked in Cyprus ? Now what did you hear and from whom please ?
Gunshots that type, we will see. A boat packed with pro-Palestnian activists being boarded by the Israeli's getting out of hand, not that odd a thought no?
Gunshots that type, we will see. A boat packed with pro-Palestnian activists being boarded by the Israeli's getting out of hand, not that odd a thought no?
Tell me, according to you, on what basis is Israel allowed to send armed troops to board a foreign ship in international waters?
Please, tell me how is this different from Somalian pirates boarding a, let's say, English or Russian, vessel in international waters?
Don't tell me you're going to use double standards because in this case the perpetrator is Israel and not some Somalian starved, poor and desperate guys.
Gunshots that type, we will see. A boat packed with pro-Palestnian activists being boarded by the Israeli's getting out of hand, not that odd a thought no?
I wonder how would the soldiers feel if they saw through a live feed seeing a boat of pro-Jewish people be boarded and more than a dozen people be killed by Nazi soldiers. They would all cry "OUTRAGE! ANTI-SEMITISM!", now they have no problem in doing that to other peoples.
I fully agree with LEN. It is nothing short of absolutely outrageous and a crime against the peace that unarmed civilians are gunned down in international waters by the Israeli official military forces while carrying international aid. The Israeli ambassador in Turkey should have been kicked out immediately.
Tell me, according to you, on what basis is Israel allowed to send armed troops to board a foreign ship in international waters?
Survival, rules be damned. Maybe these boats are packed with weapons, of course they boarded. They gotten the offer to unload at an Israeli harbour but decided differently.
Survival, rules be damned.
Oh well, if you think international law is complete rubbish, then there's no point discussing this topic with you :shrug:
LeftEyeNine
05-31-2010, 13:01
Oh and that brings up another face of the diamond, Louis.
We've got a Islamist government run dominantly by the single party, AKP for 8 years now since 2002.
These guys are "fans of Palestinians" and it's Turkey where since 2007, 134 workers have died - and been dying on a nearly monthly basis- in Tuzla shipyard and there is nothing fixed ever since. It's Turkey where 19 mining workers have died in a mine 2 weeks ago of whom our prime minister spoke "this is not the first time a mining accident happening".
Considering this "fandom" along with the bitter situation of which caring for your very own citizens is "less favorable", this could have been avoided. But it's all politics right now and things get stuck when we presume "what if the government alignment had nothing to do with Palestinians ?".
It still is another murder show demonstrated by Israel, other than building up that wall, knocking down homes, committing genocide by trying to starve out Palestinians and not letting the patients to be treated and whole world will be watching it with "official disapproval of the incidents" flying around thanks to the Big "Uncle Sam" Israel's sickening power.
Change the sides and let Israel be Iran instead. I'd love to see that nuclear-sized hypocrisy. Same people, let alone gov'ts, would be saying "oh such a shame, this is a direct assault on humanity and should not go unpunished ! Long live Israel and the dead free people of Iran !".
Bleh.
I wonder how would the soldiers feel if they saw through a live feed seeing a boat of pro-Jewish people be boarded and more than a dozen people be killed by Nazi soldiers. They would all cry "OUTRAGE! ANTI-SEMITISM!", now they have no problem in doing that to other peoples.
Hamas wants to destroy Israel, I wouldn't like that either. So they should just look the other way when a fleet heads directly to Ghaza? Where is all that outrage when Egypt fills smuggling tunnels with poisenous gas, yeah they do that. They also build walls. Nobody cares.
Hamas wants to destroy Israel, I wouldn't like that either. So they should just look the other way when a fleet heads directly to Ghaza? Where is all that outrage when Egypt fills smuggling tunnels with poisenous gas, yeah they do that. They also build walls. Nobody cares.
We all learned in elementary school that two wrongs don't make a right.
Feel free to open a thread about Egypt and their horrendous acts and I'll be as outraged as I am here.
However, that doesn't make this recent action of Israel any less a violation of international law nor does it make the blockade of Gaza any less a violation of international law.
But go ahead, if you must, with the argument "but they're doing it too, and worse!" It's not very compelling, though.
LeftEyeNine
05-31-2010, 13:09
LEN's first Tweet ever:
"Advocation of civilians getting killed by a state army on a civilian ship in international waters by bringing in "Hamas wants to destroy Israel" statement."
So, you do think they should look away when a fleet heads directly to Hamas-country? Who have vowed to destroy Israel? Kidding me? I would also justify it if they sank them all.
Louis VI the Fat
05-31-2010, 13:14
Oh and that brings up another face of the diamond, Louis.
We've got a Islamist government run dominantly by the single party, AKP for 8 years now since 2002.
These guys are "fans of Palestinians" and it's Turkey where since 2007, 134 workers have died - and been dying on a nearly monthly basis- in Tuzla shipyard and there is nothing fixed ever since. It's Turkey where 19 mining workers have died in a mine 2 weeks ago of whom our prime minister spoke "this is not the first time a mining accident happening".
Considering this "fandom" along with the bitter situation of which caring for your very own citizens is "less favorable", this could have been avoided. But it's all politics right now and things get stuck when we presume "what if the government alignment had nothing to do with Palestinians ?".
It still is another murder show demonstrated by IsraelAll of this, yes. I think I agree. Murderous show by Israel, but let's not forget who sought to have these activists killed -at least pitted in direct confrontation with Israel - and to what political intent.
LeftEyeNine
05-31-2010, 13:24
So, you do think they should look away when a fleet heads directly to Hamas-country? Who have vowed to destroy Israel? Kidding me? I would also justify it if they sank them all.
Why do you want to miss the point, I wonder.
An UNARMED CIVILIAN ship with ALL CIVILIANS ON BOARD can be captured by the army WITHOUT OPENING FIRE AT ANYONE as soon as the ship penetrates YOUR COUNTRY'S WATERS. It's all problem-free and legitimate.
A Norwegian Org member, (Spartakus in IRC) told me that there were Norwegian activists on board as well. So you must have vowed to destroy Israel if you're on that ship.
Sorry but how different is that from falling into the same pit as the antisemitists ?
All of this, yes. I think I agree. Murderous show by Israel, but let's not forget who sought to have these activists killed -at least pitted in direct confrontation with Israel - and to what political intent.
That's what can be debated on -I'd agree with you as well, as I implied in my previous post addressing you. However the common sense tells me that there is a priority to be considered right now. What could be more important than human life ?
let's not forget who sought to have these activists killed -at least pitted in direct confrontation with Israel - and to what political intent.
That as well. If they would have unloaded in Israel so the goods could be inspected none of this would have happened.
edit not missing the point, they left them no other choice. This is a war.
That as well. If they would have unloaded in Israel so the goods could be inspected none of this would have happened.
If they had done that, they would not have been guilty of piracy, indeed. Alas, they did something else.
Would Israel have allowed the supplies to reach their intended destination (assuming it were not weapons, but indeed humanitarian aid, like food and medicines)?
LeftEyeNine
05-31-2010, 13:46
That as well. If they would have unloaded in Israel so the goods could be inspected none of this would have happened.
edit not missing the point, they left them no other choice. This is a war.
Israeli army was left with no other choice than killing unarmed civilians on a civilian ship that is loaded with supplies, in international waters.
This transmission is over for me. Have it your way.
Hamas wants to destroy Israel
And what the :daisy: does that have to do with attacking a convoy in international waters? Was the convoy going to supply Hamas or the Palestinian people? Or you don't really care enough to make the distinction?
I wouldn't like that either. So they should just look the other way when a fleet heads directly to Ghaza?
A humanitarian aid fleet? Yes. They should definitely look the other way. They can inspect shipment for weaponry or other internationally Palestinian embargo'd items. They can inspect it on the Israeli-Palestinian EEZ. Never on international waters. On international waters, Israeli can't do :daisy: to anyone.
Where is all that outrage when Egypt fills smuggling tunnels with poisenous gas, yeah they do that. They also build walls. Nobody cares.
My extreme outrage lies with the fact that while Egypt has the sovereignty and jurisdiction to protect its territory as it so pleases, Israel simply doesn't give a fig about International Law. A violation of a State in International Law against another State cannot simply be construed as a bilateral matter, but by as a universal matter, as by violating universally accorded principals, Israel is attacking each and every nation that is bound by those agreements, in short, every single nation represented on the United Nations. Moreso, it inclusively took the lives of foreign citizens in an area it has absolutely no jurisdiction on.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-31-2010, 13:52
It is the international waters part that makes this a bad case for Israel.
They don't have jurisdiction in international waters and this can be treated as pure piracy by international courts.
For me this is the defining element in this case, the fact that Israel repeatedly stretches beyond its borders illegally, and harms in the citizens of its allies in doing so.
Had it my way, sorry don't feel bad about this at all. You don't play nice with friends of your enemy. And you most certainly don't trust them. Could have been loaded with terminators.
Had it my way, sorry don't feel bad about this at all. You don't play nice with friends of your enemy. And you most certainly don't trust them. Could have been loaded with terminators.
...Why not nuke Gaza and West Bank? And then Amman, Damascus Beirut and Cairo?
A suggestion to Israel. If you think there are weapons being smuggled with the aid why not redirect the ship to Tel Aviv and then search it? When you find no weapons send it on it's way. Everyone would understand, and your point would be made. Attacking an aid ship is not exactly smart now is it?
Israel is the bratty kid at the party smacking all the other kids and stealing their candy. One of the parents needs to come along and smack it's behind and put it back in it's place.
LeftEyeNine
05-31-2010, 14:00
Had it my way, sorry don't feel bad about this at all. You don't play nice with friends of your enemy. And you most certainly don't trust them. Could have been loaded with terminators.
Post 9-11/Cold-war era USA needs you. *points finger*
Rhyfelwyr
05-31-2010, 14:06
While I support Israel's claims to the land from a historical perspective (lets not forget the concept of the Palestinian people we have today is really a collection of Arab immigrants that came for work as a result of Israeli economic development, the original Palestinian identity was for both Jews and Muslims in a sparsely populated backwater), such actions are pretty dispicable.
Sure there most likely was an agenda with these activists but talk about playing into their hands.
...Why not nuke Gaza and West Bank? And then Amman, Damascus Beirut and Cairo?
No need there is a wall. Doesn't stop the daily rockets but at least bring suicide attacks to a minimum. Beautiful isn't? Two peoples wailling at walls instead of killing each other.
A suggestion to Israel. If you think there are weapons being smuggled with the aid why not redirect the ship to Tel Aviv and then search it? When you find no weapons send it on it's way. Everyone would understand, and your point would be made. Attacking an aid ship is not exactly smart now is it?
That is exactly what Isreal wanted in the first place and she communicated that with the activist, before they even left (other harbour). Everybody apparently doesnt understand after all.
gaelic cowboy
05-31-2010, 14:20
I have being reading a thread for last few days on this on the Politics.ie (http://www.politics.ie/foreign-affairs/129904-ship-rachel-corrie-sets-sail-gaza.html) website one of those ships was bought in Ireland with Irish citizens on board. To be honest I have little time for the Irish activists in this flotilla but that does not mean I would support there open murder in international waters Israel has really overstepped the mark here.
The activists were offered the chance to unload the cargo in Eygpt for further transport to Gaza but as Louis already pointed out the plan was to provoke an international incident by there capture, they have achieved there aim but at a very high cost.
Louis VI the Fat
05-31-2010, 14:20
A suggestion to Israel. If you think there are weapons being smuggled with the aid why not redirect the ship to Tel Aviv and then search it? When you find no weapons send it on it's way. Everyone would understand, and your point would be made. This has been Israel's policy indeed.
It was unacceptable to the flotilla, whose goal was not to comply with the blockade, but to either break it or to go down in a showdown.
LeftEyeNine
05-31-2010, 14:22
The Kurds got you ;)
*concerning levels of irrelevancy and indifferency detected*
Okay. Sorry, I got some button to push right now. :skull:
Louis VI the Fat
05-31-2010, 14:27
These Turks are insani (http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e105.htm)!
Islamists, terrorists or a charity organisation? You decide.
This has been Israel's policy indeed.
It was unacceptable to the flotilla, whose goal was not to comply with the blockade, but to either break it or to go down in a showdown.
Aren't you allowed to be in international waters, then? Couldn't Israel have waited until the ships entered their jurisdiction? Was it that hard to wait?
Who has been the most provocative? The people on those ships or Israel boarding them in international waters, knowing damn well that that is an act of piracy, an international crime, no more no less, but also knowing that nobody will ever do something against them, because somebody else protects them, no matter what they do?
It shouldn't come as a surprise that the international community is outraged (and rightly so!).
Now, how to deal with this mess? To the international court of justice? If there are sanctions against Israel needed, will the UN apply them or will the US veto?
Or will this end very badly?
My guess: a lot of outrage, many condemnations, a lot of blahblahblah from "shocked" politicians and within a week or two, nobody talks about it anymore and nothing will happen. At best some lawsuit at the ICJ which Israel will lose inevitably, followed by nothing.
LeftEyeNine
05-31-2010, 14:31
Oh, that IHH. I decide: No better than Danish government not moving a finger about pro-PKK Roj TV.
Same :daisy:, different complexion.
Edit: Actually these guys are more of a threat to Turkey itself, regarding their dreams of a shariya regime, rather than Israel or anyone else. But as I said the current government and these guys and the NGOs alike are all highly dominant and mutually existent.
Louis VI the Fat
05-31-2010, 14:51
Now, how to deal with this mess? To the international court of justice? If there are sanctions against Israel needed, will the UN apply them or will the US veto?It will take much more for Israel's lapdog to turn on its master.
Hey, I've got little sympathy for Israel's methods. Both sides are dragged down in a vicious circle of violence. Israeli society itself has become infected with violence and aggression. A thoroughly unpleasant place.
Actually these guys are more of a threat to Turkey itself, regarding their dreams of a shariya regime, rather than Israel or anyone else. But as I said the current government and these guys and the NGOs alike are all highly dominant and mutually existent. :balloon2:
These Islamists have no business in secular Turkey, whose overthrow is their goal.
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
Starving Palestinians can always go for fine dining at this chain of expensive restaurants in the Gaza strip. The food, apparantly, is exquisite and abundant:
http://www.rootsclub.ps/index.php :beam: :balloon2:
Furunculus
05-31-2010, 14:56
And so the Israeli sympathisers are in, let the debate begin!
I'm sorry but even if you are sympathetic to Israel's aims (what ever that is, because I'm a bit lost) this isn't really justifiable. For a start, I don't even know what they hoped to find on board seeming the ship is an aid ship. The chances of there being weapons, or at least a serious armament are seriously low seeming the ship left from Cyprus, a place where I imagine it isn't particularly easy to smuggle weapons from due to the presence of both UN and British forces. I guess they could of been shipped from Turkey but again, that's unlikely. It probably comes down to ill-discipline and poor intelligence on the Israelis part again.
Israel is showing an increasingly hostile attitude to the Palestinians and seems to be moving further and faster to a form of apartheid. Some of you may try and deny this, but don't bother. Arabs within Israel and those in Palestine can't freely walk in certain areas without receiving a hail of abuse, most Israelis despise them. As an Arab you can also look forward to having your house knocked down to make way for a nice new Israeli house. Any one want to justify that? You can't deny it isn't a form of apartheid. Arabs are discriminated against economically and socially.
Perhaps most worrying though is the fact that Israel have shown a profound ability to show a complete disregard for its western allies. The actions of recent years show they don't consult their allies, not even the USA any more, before making key decisions. We talk about Iran as the rouge state but is Israel not the same? If they refuse to show restraint despite international condemnation for their actions time, and time, and time again, how can any one here defend them?
what have i learned in this thread so far:
1. that it is israel's policy to bring ships in for inspection, why was this not done this time?
2. that this aid convoy was running a baton charge against a sovereign nation state, who the hell do they think they are?
3. that the aid group are a bunch of crazy nutters who support hamas, why are we surprised that israel demands to inspect the ship?
4. fourteen people died during the boarding, what the hell were they doing that they could not be peaceably detained?
was israel heavy handed? yes, it rather looks that way.
do i care very much given the character and actions of the convoy? no, not very much.
what have i learned in this thread so far:
1. that it is israel's policy to bring ships in for inspection, why was this not done this time?
2. that this aid convoy was running a baton charge against a sovereign nation state, who the hell do they think they are?
3. that the aid group are a bunch of crazy nutters who support hamas, why are we surprised that israel demands to inspect the ship?
4. fourteen people died during the boarding, what the hell were they doing that they could not be peaceably detained?
was israel heavy handed? yes it rather looks that way.
do i care very much given the character and actions of the convoy? not very much.
You missed the part about boarding a ship in international waters, using force. No, you didnt miss it. Must learn to read entire post first before replying. Shame on me :whip:
When that happens near Somalia, people call it piracy, are outraged and some even cheer when the pirates are being shot at or left alone in a rowing boat in the middle of the ocean :balloon2:
You can ignore it as much as you want, but Israel committed an international crime here, no more, no less.
Not so long ago (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?128088-Pirates-Russia-Somalia...Politics..../page3) you said "pirate=dead... good". Do you want to see these Israeli soldiers dead? Or did you change your mind about piracy and do you know think it should be allowed. Or do I smell hypocrisy and double standards?
Furunculus
05-31-2010, 15:09
You missed the part about boarding a ship in international waters, using force. No, you didnt miss it. Must learn to read entire post first before replying. Shame on me :whip:
When that happens near Somalia, people call it piracy, are outraged and some even cheer when the pirates are being shot at or left alone in a rowing boat in the middle of the ocean :balloon2:
You can ignore it as much as you want, but Israel committed an international crime here, no more, no less.
when it is piracy, i get all outraged, when it is a blockade runner to a hostile power from a organisation known to support that hostile power, and when they immediately put up a fight that results in the use of deadly force, i tend to be a bit more sanguine about the use of international waters.
i don't get much of a hard-on about international law.
tibilicus
05-31-2010, 15:09
So, you do think they should look away when a fleet heads directly to Hamas-country? Who have vowed to destroy Israel? Kidding me? I would also justify it if they sank them all.
:laugh4:
I'm sorry but your blinded by your own biased attitudes to anything Muslim related again. It was carrying basic supplies. Not weapons of mass destruction. Many on board were western citizens looking to their bit, it's no different from any other civil rights movement. well, arguably a bit, but I think those on board had good intentions, many wern't "EVIL MUZLIMZ" as you try and portray such aid convoys as.
Once again Fragony's ridiculous anti-Muslim views lead him to state that he would justify the death of all those aboard the ships. You really don't know where the line is, do you?
what have i learned in this thread so far:
1. that it is israel's policy to bring ships in for inspection, why was this not done this time?
2. that this aid convoy was running a baton charge against a sovereign nation state, who the hell do they think they are?
3. that the aid group are a bunch of crazy nutters who support hamas, why are we surprised that israel demands to inspect the ship?
4. fourteen people died during the boarding, what the hell were they doing that they could not be peaceably detained?
was israel heavy handed? yes, it rather looks that way.
do i care very much given the character and actions of the convoy? no, not very much.
God allmighty on a :daisy: plane at least someone gets it.
Centurion1
05-31-2010, 15:12
Contrary to popular belief the us is not in fact israels lap dog. How many wars have we entered on their side?
tibilicus
05-31-2010, 15:14
what have i learned in this thread so far:
1. that it is israel's policy to bring ships in for inspection, why was this not done this time?
2. that this aid convoy was running a baton charge against a sovereign nation state, who the hell do they think they are?
3. that the aid group are a bunch of crazy nutters who support hamas, why are we surprised that israel demands to inspect the ship?
4. fourteen people died during the boarding, what the hell were they doing that they could not be peaceably detained?
was israel heavy handed? yes, it rather looks that way.
do i care very much given the character and actions of the convoy? no, not very much.
Don't get me wrong, it would be completely justifiable if the Israelis were checking the ships within their own territorial waters, the point is, they didn't. Seeming your only seeing this from one side, imagine this. Your on a boat late at night and all of a sudden you see helicopters above and armed men rappelling down onto your ship. How would you react in said situation Furunculus?
There's a right way and a wrong way to check ships, this was most certainly wrong. Just to clarify, my position is against the way this deplorable operation was carried out. I have absolutely no problem with Israel checking incoming ships within their own water and doing so in a way which doesn't alarm those on board.
Preditions for the next steps.
1- Turkey invokes Nato's mutual assistance clause...
2- This means Germany has a legal cover to attack Israel.
3- see where this is going?...did I just blow your mind?
4- I've got my popcorn ready....do you? :P
Contrary to popular belief the us is not in fact israels lap dog.
:inquisitive:
Really? (http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0393/9303040.htm)
A History of U.S. Vetoes
There is another major area, largely ignored, that at some point must be faced. It involves the serious distortion of the official Security Council record by the profligate use by the United States of its veto power. In 29 separate cases between 1972 and 1991, the United States has vetoed resolutions critical of Israel. Except for the U.S. veto, these resolutions would have passed and the total number of resolutions against Israel would now equal 95 instead of 66.
These resolutions would have broadened the record by affirming the right of Palestinian self-determination, by calling on Israel to abandon its repressive measures against the Palestinian intifada, by sending U.N. Observers into the occupied territories to monitor Israel's behavior and, most serious, by imposing sanctions against Israel if it did not abide by the Council's resolutions.
Such a list of resolutions passed and resolutions vetoed is unparalleled in United Nations history. The list in itself forms a stunning indictment of Israel's unlawful and uncivilized actions over a period of 45 years and of America's complicity in them.
Yet references to this damning record are totally absent from the vocabularies of American leaders as they go about saying they are seeking peace. If they are really serious about peace, then at some point they must act with the same firmness they displayed toward Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. Had they approached Iraq with the same timorous tactics they are applying to Israel, Iraqi soldiers still would be in Kuwait. The point is that aggressors have always answered the question of whether they want peace by their actions. If the United States really wants peace in the Middle East, it must insist that Israel abide by the judgment of the world community as expressed in resolutions by the United Nations. The U.S. can do this at any time simply by forsaking the use of the veto and joining the world consensus. Anything less makes a sham of the peace process, and is demeaning to leaders of a democratic country.
But that's '93 you say?
Here you go (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=79727):
The US, a staunch ally to Israel, has so far vetoed over 40 anti-Israeli resolutions sought by the council since 1972.
Since 2004, Washington has prevented the adoption of four other resolutions that called for Tel Aviv to halt its operations in the Gaza Strip.
I am abstaining from this thread, because I will be in Palestine and Israel (along with Jordan) in a couple of months, and I don't want to recieve bodily harm or kidnapped by either Palestinian insurgants or Israeli special forces.
LeftEyeNine
05-31-2010, 15:30
Contrary to popular belief the us is not in fact israels lap dog. How many wars have we entered on their side?
I wonder how Israel was founded, maintained and defended up to now ? Is it really such a far country from here ?
PanzerJaeger
05-31-2010, 15:33
removed by mod.
Absolutely disgusting. Your green font will shield you from getting the slap from the mods that you deserve, but it shouldn't.
As for the topic, you reap what you sow. These agitators were looking for a fight and they found one.
And rather than reporting it to the moderators, you decided to publicly lambast him and potentially worsen things. Poor choice sir.
:laugh4:
I'm sorry but your blinded by your own biased attitudes to anything Muslim related again. It was carrying basic supplies. Not weapons of mass destruction. Many on board were western citizens looking to their bit, it's no different from any other civil rights movement. well, arguably a bit, but I think those on board had good intentions, many wern't "EVIL MUZLIMZ" as you try and portray such aid convoys as.
Once again Fragony's ridiculous anti-Muslim views lead him to state that he would justify the death of all those aboard the ships. You really don't know where the line is, do you?
I know that you know how I think, I know you think that you know that.
but no
HoreTore
05-31-2010, 15:53
Absolutely disgusting. Your green font will shield you from getting the slap from the mods that you deserve, but it shouldn't.
As for the topic, you reap what you sow. These agitators were looking for a fight and they found one.
Yeah..... Agitators like Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein, or famous novelist Henning Mankel?
LeftEyeNine
05-31-2010, 16:08
Unarmed civilians on a civilized ship get attacked by Israeli army and end up dead, therefore my expressions are disgusting ?
I can't really compete with neo-connazism when it comes to being disgusting. Your even-worse attempt crowned with "ooooh mods got shieldz" argument had expired in some warez forum long ago. Please renew.
Screw the holocaust, the one who did it are dead or barely alive. The ones who would gladly give it another try aren't. Lefties believe every word Hamas says except when they say they want to whipe Israel from the face of the earth. You got it all wrong. Phrase removed. Sweeping characterizations of religions are not permitted, as Ser Clegane noted above. Keep it clean folks.
tibilicus
05-31-2010, 16:28
I know that you know how I think, I know you think that you know that.
but no
I'm sorry Fragony but you've never offered anything to suggest that your thought pattern is anything but hate related when it comes to the middle east. Just a couple of pages back you stated you would be happy if all the ships were sunk, and all those on board died.
Maybe if you actually explain your thought process instead of offering your musings in a form which advocates the death of civilians, I might be prepared to listen to you. You seem to paint most Muslims/Arabs with the same brush, did it ever occur to you those on board the convoy might be doing what they're doing because they think it is right? Contrary to your opinion, most on board were there to do what they saw as helping those in need, they didn't see themselves as part of some Muslim plot to shatter the very foundations of Israel and western society, despite your claims.
Even if you do hate them, how can you justify wanting all those on board to die?
KukriKhan
05-31-2010, 17:34
Q: Is it locked in concrete, dead certain, everyone agrees, that this action took place in "International Waters", and not Israeli Territorial Waters, or its (Israel's) Contiguous Zone, or Exclusive Economic Zone?
All those zones, defined by international Maritime Law, represent various levels (and distances from the shoreline) of rights of sea control to sovereign nations. We should take care in throwing around the term "International Waters", and therefore asserting International judgment rights, when those jurisdictions are not clear in this case.
All that said: my condolences to the dead and their relatives. That better, less-violent methods of enforcing blockades couldn't be found is a shame. I had come to think that the Israeli military had come closer to conducting this kind of action casualty-free. Wishful thinking, I guess - not reality. If they were fired upon as they report, why do we not see Israeli wounded among the injured?
Hosakawa Tito
05-31-2010, 17:40
Q: Is it locked in concrete, dead certain, everyone agrees, that this action took place in "International Waters", and not Israeli Territorial Waters, or its (Israel's) Contiguous Zone, or Exclusive Economic Zone?
All those zones, defined by international Maritime Law, represent various levels (and distances from the shoreline) of rights of sea control to sovereign nations. We should take care in throwing around the term "International Waters", and therefore asserting International judgment rights, when those jurisdictions are not clear in this case.
All that said: my condolences to the dead and their relatives. That better, less-violent methods of enforcing blockades couldn't be found is a shame. I had come to think that the Israeli military had come closer to conducting this kind of action casualty-free. Wishful thinking, I guess - not reality. If they were fired upon as they report, why do we not see Israeli wounded among the injured?
I extend my condolences as well. Kukri, according to what I have read there are 10 Israeli personnel injured (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703703704575277632709673018.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_world).
Israel defended its actions, saying armed activists attacked Israeli soldiers as they were being lowered onto the deck by helicopter. The Israeli army said early Monday that one soldier's weapon was taken and turned against Israeli forces. It said earlier that more than 10 people had been killed but later lowered the number of dead to nine people, the Associated Press reported. At least a dozen activists had been injured, as well as 10 Israeli military personnel.
Whether the flotilla was justified is debatable (I personally think it was, due to the fact that it's purpose was an attempt to break the blockade, rather than just deliver stuff), but Israel's actions are certainly not. Was it impossible for the Israelis to snare the propellers of the ships, and then tow them to shore once the protesters had surrendered? Or was it really necessary to for the helpless, vulnerable commandos to blow away anything that moved, as a few sticks and knives were used by the fearsome civilians?
Ser Clegane
05-31-2010, 17:54
A commentary - of course still with the caveat that the information that is available is rather limited.
Israel Falls into the Trap (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,697834,00.html)
KukriKhan
05-31-2010, 17:58
I extend my condolences as well. Kukri, according to what I have read there are 10 Israeli personnel injured (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703703704575277632709673018.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_world).
I see. The same article continues:
Israeli officials have for days warned that they wouldn't let the flotilla reach port in Gaza. Last week, Israel said that if the ships docked at an Israeli port first, it would allow the full shipment of humanitarian cargo to reach Gaza, after undergoing security checks.
Sensitive to the possible public-relations fallout of any confrontation, Israeli officials had debated the appropriate response to the flotilla, with many worried about a heavy-handed approach that could deepen Israel's current diplomatic woes.
Obviously, those worries have come to pass.
Louis VI the Fat
05-31-2010, 18:02
A commentary - of course still with the caveat that the information that is available is rather limited.
Israel Falls into the Trap (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,697834,00.html)'Israel fell into the trap', yes, that I think is my overriding sentiment. How could they be so unprofessional? I think everybody could've seen this coming. Israel was way too eager to respond to the provocation.
People have died, they've got the martyrs they sought, Israel has been lured into bullying again, it's a pr disaster, Israeli - Turkish relations have been undermined. All the goals of Israel's enemies have been achieved, I'd say.
KukriKhan
05-31-2010, 18:10
'Israel fell into the trap', yes, that I think is my overriding sentiment. How could they be so unprofessional? I think everybody could've seen this coming. Israel was way too eager to respond to the provocation.
People have died, they've got the martyrs they sought, Israel has been lured into bullying again, it's a pr disaster, Israeli - Turkish relations have been undermined. All the goals of Israel's enemies have been achieved, I'd say.
That's how it looks from here, as well. With the tiny exception that the supplies were diverted to Israel first, as was their insistence.
-edit-
So Israel wins the logistics and tactics games, but loses the strategy and public-relations games.
Crazed Rabbit
05-31-2010, 18:27
The people in that convoy got exactly what they wanted. They deliberately provoked Israel into acting stupidly.
CR
HoreTore
05-31-2010, 18:37
The people in that convoy got exactly what they wanted. They deliberately provoked Israel into acting stupidly.
CR
Normal police officers have zero problems with quelling rioters and hooligans throwing stones, firebombs, etc etc without a single casaulty here in Europe.
Israeli special forces are incapable of the same, with 5-10 years of training and experience? I don't buy that.
Azathoth
05-31-2010, 18:37
The people in that convoy got exactly what they wanted.
Forget doctor-assisted suicide, just go to Israel.
Crazed Rabbit
05-31-2010, 18:43
Normal police officers have zero problems with quelling rioters and hooligans throwing stones, firebombs, etc etc without a single casaulty here in Europe.
Israeli special forces are incapable of the same, with 5-10 years of training and experience? I don't buy that.
Normal police officers don't rappel one by one onto boats full of hostiles attacking with crowbars and the like. Of course, sometimes American officers have problems raiding non-resisting, non-violent alleged criminals without killing small children.
CR
A simple question here: Why did the Israeli's wait until the ships were in their territorial waters and surround them with a naval blockade? They could have demanded (rightly) that the ships be boarded and inspected, or face hostile action.
This was just plain stupid and sloppy.
Furunculus
05-31-2010, 19:02
Q: Is it locked in concrete, dead certain, everyone agrees, that this action took place in "International Waters", and not Israeli Territorial Waters, or its (Israel's) Contiguous Zone, or Exclusive Economic Zone?
All those zones, defined by international Maritime Law, represent various levels (and distances from the shoreline) of rights of sea control to sovereign nations. We should take care in throwing around the term "International Waters", and therefore asserting International judgment rights, when those jurisdictions are not clear in this case.
* is curious too *
A contrary example (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/noko-and-gaza.html#more):
For years, IRA terrorists bombed Britain's pubs and shops and eventually nearly killed the entire cabinet in the Brighton hotel bombing. Those terrorists lived among the population in both the republic and Ulster? Did Britain bomb Ireland in response? Were republican areas in the north sealed off and pulverized as happened in Gaza? Were British casualties one hundredth of Irish casualties in response?
None of this happened. Margaret Thatcher no less accepted what became known as an "acceptable level of violence" because the alternative would a) have caused domestic outrage and b) made the situation far, far worse and recruited a new army of terror. Again, one has to ask: why is Israel different?
HoreTore
05-31-2010, 19:26
Normal police officers don't rappel one by one onto boats full of hostiles attacking with crowbars and the like.
Lolz. No, they're not normally attacked by crowbars; they're usually attacked by firebombs and molotovs - both of which are drastically more dangerous than a mechanical tool. Yet somehow, they manage not to kill a single person.... I wonder why.
Rhyfelwyr
05-31-2010, 20:06
Normal police officers have zero problems with quelling rioters and hooligans throwing stones, firebombs, etc etc without a single casaulty here in Europe.
Israeli special forces are incapable of the same, with 5-10 years of training and experience? I don't buy that.
You kidding? British police will beat an old guy to death just for standing near the parade...
HoreTore
05-31-2010, 20:09
You kidding? British police will beat an old guy to death just for standing near the parade...
Okay? Could you please show me some proof that british cops kill around 10 people per demonstration...?
Hosakawa Tito
05-31-2010, 20:09
'Israel fell into the trap', yes, that I think is my overriding sentiment. How could they be so unprofessional? I think everybody could've seen this coming. Israel was way too eager to respond to the provocation.
People have died, they've got the martyrs they sought, Israel has been lured into bullying again, it's a pr disaster, Israeli - Turkish relations have been undermined. All the goals of Israel's enemies have been achieved, I'd say.
That's how it looks from here, as well. With the tiny exception that the supplies were diverted to Israel first, as was their insistence.
-edit-
So Israel wins the logistics and tactics games, but loses the strategy and public-relations games.
This isn't Israel's first rodeo so it's hard to believe they could have miscalculated the pr implications that badly; maybe they just don't care or feel they can win the pr game no matter what.:shrug:
gaelic cowboy
05-31-2010, 20:10
You kidding? British police will beat an old guy to death just for standing near the parade...
And shoot brazilians rushing to catch the tube
gaelic cowboy
05-31-2010, 20:13
This isn't Israel's first rodeo so it's hard to believe they could have miscalculated the pr implications that badly; maybe they just don't care or feel they can win the pr game no matter what.:shrug:
I imagine they were confident of finding terrorist material and all sorts of dual use stuff that kind of thing. The fact the Israeli ambassodor was on the six o clock news here tells me they might have only realised how far up that proverbial sewage filled creek they are.
This isn't Israel's first rodeo so it's hard to believe they could have miscalculated the pr implications that badly; maybe they just don't care or feel they can win the pr game no matter what.:shrug:
Maybe Israel would think more about pr implications, if a certain superpower would stop vetoing UN resolutions taken against them.
Maybe there is something to say to get rid of the veto power for the permanent members of the security council. That is, if the intention is to have a UN that is to be taken serious.
Crazed Rabbit
05-31-2010, 20:19
Lolz. No, they're not normally attacked by crowbars; they're usually attacked by firebombs and molotovs - both of which are drastically more dangerous than a mechanical tool. Yet somehow, they manage not to kill a single person.... I wonder why.
Way to miss the point; the Israelis were vastly outnumbered by people with deadly weapons.
Oh, and US (Boston) police manage to kill rioters, or rather bystanders, who aren't even attacking police, just rioting and causing some property damage.
CR
Rhyfelwyr
05-31-2010, 20:29
Okay? Could you please show me some proof that british cops kill around 10 people per demonstration...?
Well the British aren't having to blockade foreign assisstance to a terrorist/paramilitary/resistance/whatever movement on thein own soil. When that was happening, and the stakes were higher, they killed 14 on Bloody Sunday...
And shoot brazilians rushing to catch the tube
Don't mess with the bobbies, we might let people think they are these quaint old people that occasionaly shout "oi oi" and chase people with their batons... they are hardcore.
Tellos Athenaios
05-31-2010, 20:31
"The people in that convoy got exactly what they wanted. They deliberately provoked Israel into acting stupidly." Ehm? Israel's forces are supposed to show some professionalism; not be a gun-ho militia that likes to shoot people to assert their presence, just because this the Wild, Wild Mid East you know. Or in other words: Israel is supposed to display military force proportionate to the threat (which it spectacularly failed to do), and Israel is supposed to abide by international law (as it is, they committed an act of piracy: where are the Russians when you need 'em?).
So provocation is not an argument; and I don't think it can be used to excuse blatant stupidity brutality on Israel's part. Of any kind. Comparisons to police officers from the police brutality thread only serves to underline that this behaviour is exactly the same and every bit as outrageous for it.
Ja'chyra
05-31-2010, 20:46
They should've waited till they were in national waters and then done exactly what they did.
Kralizec
05-31-2010, 21:05
Regardless of how stupid and provacative the activists may have been, the way Israel has handled this is outrageous - if it turns out that the activists really were carrying guns I'll retract that, but I'd be really surprised if that's the case.
One smallish thing that surprised me is that most of the involved activists were Turks, but that the boats left harbour from (Greek) Cyprus.
HoreTore
05-31-2010, 21:07
One smallish thing that surprised me is that most of the involved activists were Turks, but that the boats left harbour from (Greek) Cyprus.
I believe it left port from northern(turkish) Cyprus, not southern(greek) Cyprus.
http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/verden/1.7147093
Not the most peaceful "aid flotilla" apparently.
Kralizec
05-31-2010, 21:13
I believe it left port from northern(turkish) Cyprus, not southern(greek) Cyprus.
Hmmm....
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE64R19P.htm
Seems you're right.
Hosakawa Tito
05-31-2010, 21:16
'Israel fell into the trap', yes, that I think is my overriding sentiment. How could they be so unprofessional? I think everybody could've seen this coming. Israel was way too eager to respond to the provocation.
People have died, they've got the martyrs they sought, Israel has been lured into bullying again, it's a pr disaster, Israeli - Turkish relations have been undermined. All the goals of Israel's enemies have been achieved, I'd say.
That's how it looks from here, as well. With the tiny exception that the supplies were diverted to Israel first, as was their insistence.
-edit-
So Israel wins the logistics and tactics games, but loses the strategy and public-relations games.
Maybe Israel would think more about pr implications, if a certain superpower would stop vetoing UN resolutions taken against them.
Maybe there is something to say to get rid of the veto power for the permanent members of the security council. That is, if the intention is to have a UN that is to be taken serious.
Yes Andres, the Security Council veto game is played by all sides. It's how the superpowers play their proxie wars and global political games. If by some miracle the permanent members agreed to do as you suggest do you feel these type of conflicts can be resolved?
What do you suggest to take the council's place?
HoreTore
05-31-2010, 21:17
http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/verden/1.7147093
Not the most peaceful "aid flotilla" apparently.
Bah, the Gaza demonstrators last winter did worse, and none of them were killed in response.
gaelic cowboy
05-31-2010, 21:20
Interstingly if you check the registery of all the vessels you will find two American, two Greek an one Irish boat and a Turkish one too, obviously Israel could not risk boarding any boat but the Turkish one
Interstingly if you check the registery of all the vessels you will find two American, two Greek an one Irish boat and a Turkish one too, obviously Israel could not risk boarding any boat but the Turkish one
All boats were boarded. Only the Turkish one offered stiff resistence.
gaelic cowboy
05-31-2010, 22:00
All boats were boarded. Only the Turkish one offered stiff resistence.
There it is then seems to me like a group of genuine humanitarians were codded by this Turkish group who were only interested in causing an international incident
No one appreciated the clever wit from my response. I am going to sulk. Later.
LeftEyeNine
05-31-2010, 22:33
Lâ.
The turkish ship "Mavi Marmara" (Blue Marmara) was the head ship of the fleet. Boarding it would mean taking control of the whole fleet, so Israeli army prioritized her, with some killings here and there you know. Israeli demonstrated a bunch o' slingshots and marbles as means of brutal resistance.
Moreover, there are obviously reasonal comments such as "Israel fell into the trap". Sorry but what will happen ?
WHAT HAS HAPPENED UNTIL TODAY, HOW DIFFERENT IS THIS ONE AND WHAT CAN BE THE SUFFERING OF THEM SO THAT WE COULD CALL THIS A TRAP ?
Israel, the bully boy of the mafioso father Sam, will be terrorizing the area just as he wishes to. Thoroughly emotionallY and impulsively. 'Cause they resemble the controlling outpost for USA to mess with whole Middle East until oil runs out.
Bleh. Israel fell into the trap my arse.
Incongruous
05-31-2010, 23:09
Here we have it, yet again another act of state-terrorism and murder, Israe; has really shot itself in the head this time. I hope this leads to the expulsion of Israeli diplomate from all across Europe and Asia and a strong demand from the EU that Israel cease its illegal and murderous siege on Gaza.
Israel is now a complete international pariah, what is so shameful is that it took so long for this to be the case, at the cost of too many lives.
Rhyfelwyr
05-31-2010, 23:15
Here we have it, yet again another act of state-terrorism and murder, Israe; has really shot itself in the head this time. I hope this leads to the expulsion of Israeli diplomate from all across Europe and Asia and a strong demand from the EU that Israel cease its illegal and murderous siege on Gaza.
Israel is now a complete international pariah, what is so shameful is that it took so long for this to be the case, at the cost of too many lives.
Oh come on Israel isn't really the bad guy in the bigger perspective. They've had the blockade since 2007 because that's when Hamas took control and refused to say that they would not continue their conflict with Israel. Well guess what if you say you are going to kill people then they are not going to let aid get to you are they?
Of course, Israel was out of line here, they really don't do PR. They should never have boarded a ship in international waters (although I'll be cautious on that point as Kukri recommended), and they could have dealt with this without the excessive force and killing.
But on the wider scale there's no need for such anti-Israel raging.
LeftEyeNine
05-31-2010, 23:25
What benefit did non-anti-Israelism bring up to now, sire ?
Are we expecting USA to give up on Israel, UN to act as it is supposed to ? Mushrooms, anyone ?
Not advocating the bashing of another country here but isn't it obvious that this international inertia feeds anti-semitism ?
Incongruous
05-31-2010, 23:30
Oh come on Israel isn't really the bad guy in the bigger perspective. They've had the blockade since 2007 because that's when Hamas took control and refused to say that they would not continue their conflict with Israel. Well guess what if you say you are going to kill people then they are not going to let aid get to you are they?
Of course, Israel was out of line here, they really don't do PR. They should never have boarded a ship in international waters (although I'll be cautious on that point as Kukri recommended), and they could have dealt with this without the excessive force and killing.
But on the wider scale there's no need for such anti-Israel raging.
Bollocks. Hamas "took control", ha! Hamas one the lections, it is Fatah that took control because the West is too pathetic to accept that democracy does not mean a load of ass-kissing prats all the time. Israel is the bad guy in the bigger perspective, Israel continues to steal land from the Palestinians and continues it's illegal "blockade" of Gaza, no sir, Israel is what one may term, evil.
Tellos Athenaios
05-31-2010, 23:41
At any rate Israel is still considered the occupying force of the Gaza strip...
Rhyfelwyr
05-31-2010, 23:43
Bollocks. Hamas "took control", ha! Hamas one the lections, it is Fatah that took control because the West is too pathetic to accept that democracy does not mean a load of ass-kissing prats all the time. Israel is the bad guy in the bigger perspective, Israel continues to steal land from the Palestinians and continues it's illegal "blockade" of Gaza, no sir, Israel is what one may term, evil.
Their democratic election isn't relevant here, not so long as they officially state that they want to wipe a country of the face of the earth, then bitch when that same country refuses to let supplies get to them!
As for the bigger picture, it is complicated, far from black and white. As I said earlier, Palestine was a backwater long before either the Zionists or the 'Palestinians' as we call the various Arab economic migrants today arrived. These people in Gaza aren't the original Palestinian people you know, they weren't kicked off their land during the initial creation of the Israeli state. As I said earlier, Palestine was a backwater before the Jews and the Arabs which we call 'Palestianians' today arrived, and both the native Jews/Muslims actually identified as Palestianian.
The idea of Zionists v the purely Muslim Palestinians is a quite modern concept, a hostility which exploded over time and had not been there initially. In many ways it is similar to the situation with Scots settlers in Ireland, people forget how much they integrated with the native population for several decades, and then suddenly ethnic violence came out of nowhere.
Furunculus
05-31-2010, 23:48
hmmm, six hours later, and nothing substantive to change my opinion.
still a blockade run that violently resisted a boarding party from a nation that feared the convoy offered succour to a hostile power.
*fails to care*
tibilicus
06-01-2010, 00:13
Way to miss the point; the Israelis were vastly outnumbered by people with deadly weapons.
Oh, and US (Boston) police manage to kill rioters, or rather bystanders, who aren't even attacking police, just rioting and causing some property damage.
CR
Deadly weapons?
lol..
I also find it funny how the official US response and the response from certain US posters here has been "they deserved it". Tell me, your country was quick to condemn us (the UK) on Bloody Sunday and yet here your quite content to keep your mouths shut. Do successive US administrations and evidently some posters here find themselves excusing some actions but condemning others when it suits them?
I guess the way it works in the USA is you look out for your own, that means certain groups which wiled influence in politics, the Israeli lobby in this case and the Irish lobby in the case of Bloody Sunday. And you wonder why many from outside the US look down on such double standards. I guess the USA and Israel really are a match made in heaven. Although it has to be said, we really have enjoyed being your lapdog for the past couple of years.
Crazed Rabbit
06-01-2010, 00:14
Seeing the video at the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10199480.stm
I can say with good confidence that if a US police officer found himself in a similar situation on land (surrounded and being attacked by people with weapons) they would have opened fire as well.
And seeing the way the 'humanitarian activists' reacted, I can't say I'm overwhelmed with grief. What do you expect when you attack soldiers with guns?
CR
tibilicus
06-01-2010, 00:22
You lefties and your simple minds..
Me the one with a simple mind? I'm afraid your the one who must suffer some form of mental retardation if you think I'm a leftie. Evidently I used to be more left-wing than I am now but ask any of the UK posters here, Furunculus, PCV, Beskar ect or read some of my posts and you will find I'm actually centre-right on the political spectrum.
Oh no Frag, there's a clear difference between my idea of centre-right thinking and yours. I try and base mine on rational and logic, although evidently I will be the first to admit that I'm not a model poster, I don't claim to be either. The difference is that I try and reason when coming to a conclusion, indeed I've tried to reason on this and as I stated previously, my position still stands, I have no problem with Israel checking ships, as long as they do it properly. My views are based on the evidence before me, yours are based on a hate for anything Arab/Muslim.
By the way, it's good to see you say you support the people of Iran in your signature. I wonder what they would make of your views about their religion. I imagine you wouldn't last to long in central Tehran, after you denounce their religion as wacky.
Louis VI the Fat
06-01-2010, 00:35
You lefties and your simple minds..Me the one with a simple mind? I'm afraid your the one who must suffer some form of mental retardation if you think I'm a leftie. I'm fairly certain Fragony was referring to leftwing fondness of songs about displaced, oppressed peoples by the Simple Minds. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFIMJxV2tjI)
:nice: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFIMJxV2tjI)
tibilicus
06-01-2010, 00:43
I'm fairly certain Fragony was referring to leftwing fondness of songs about displaced, oppressed peoples by the Simple Minds. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFIMJxV2tjI)
:nice: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFIMJxV2tjI)
Going of his previous comments about "lefties", I highly doubt it..
Which is still besides the point, seeming my political views certainly aren't "lefty".
PanzerJaeger
06-01-2010, 00:47
Unarmed civilians on a civilized ship get attacked by Israeli army and end up dead, therefore my expressions are disgusting ?
As usual, Seamus is infinitely wiser than myself, so I'll just say that your comment, and doubling back to defend it, speaks volumes towards your character and let it go. :shame:
http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/verden/1.7147093
Not the most peaceful "aid flotilla" apparently.
This should put to rest any claims of these being "peaceful, humanitarian civilians". This should also serve as a lesson to other Turks looking in the future to meddle in, err, "peacefully protest" other nation's affairs. When you attack and beat people viciously with iron pipes who happen to be holding guns, you're going to get shot.
Fragony has a tendency to place "Left" as equal to "Muslim Lovers".
I think it was in another recent thread.. the one done by Menedil is where he says this.
As you are supporting "Muslims" (Palestine), it means you must be a lefty in that equation.
Meneldil
06-01-2010, 00:56
Thanks god they were peaceful humanitarian protesters. Imagine what would have happened with a bunch of suicidal morons trying to do a PR push.
gaelic cowboy
06-01-2010, 01:16
In many ways it is similar to the situation with Scots settlers in Ireland, people forget how much they integrated with the native population for several decades, and then suddenly ethnic violence came out of nowhere.
Much of that violence was attributable to the earlier Stuart and Tudor policies, the economic and property imperative on both sides was unfortunately a major plus in both sides calculations for violence. There is indeed a disheartening level of history having the exact same pattern here too in a generic sense
gaelic cowboy
06-01-2010, 01:22
Deadly weapons?
lol..
I also find it funny how the official US response and the response from certain US posters here has been "they deserved it". Tell me, your country was quick to condemn us (the UK) on Bloody Sunday and yet here your quite content to keep your mouths shut. Do successive US administrations and evidently some posters here find themselves excusing some actions but condemning others when it suits them?
I guess the way it works in the USA is you look out for your own, that means certain groups which wiled influence in politics, the Israeli lobby in this case and the Irish lobby in the case of Bloody Sunday. And you wonder why many from outside the US look down on such double standards. I guess the USA and Israel really are a match made in heaven. Although it has to be said, we really have enjoyed being your lapdog for the past couple of years.
While it is tempting to draw parallels with the Northern Conflict I would advise against it the world was a different place then it is now, I would prefer not to derail the thread with nuggets of info on Bloody Sunday etc so I will leave it there.
tibilicus
06-01-2010, 01:47
While it is tempting to draw parallels with the Northern Conflict I would advise against it the world was a different place then it is now, I would prefer not to derail the thread with nuggets of info on Bloody Sunday etc so I will leave it there.
Agreed, completely different in many ways. I simply wanted to draw attention to what is often the case of the USA being two faced on foreign affairs when it comes to pleasing certain sections of the US electorate.
Crazed Rabbit
06-01-2010, 02:42
Deadly weapons?
lol..
I also find it funny how the official US response and the response from certain US posters here has been "they deserved it". Tell me, your country was quick to condemn us (the UK) on Bloody Sunday and yet here your quite content to keep your mouths shut. Do successive US administrations and evidently some posters here find themselves excusing some actions but condemning others when it suits them?
Yes, deadly weapons. Go look at the videos. As for the violent activists who attacked soldiers with guns; that's what happens. I find it hard to be overcome with grief when the activists brought this on themselves by attacking, violently and en masse, soldiers with guns.
As for people accusing the US of being a puppet of Israel; guess which nation not only didn't veto but supported a UN resolution aimed at making the Middle East nuke free, aimed squarely at Israel (and ignoring Iran)?
CR
Incongruous
06-01-2010, 02:42
Their democratic election isn't relevant here, not so long as they officially state that they want to wipe a country of the face of the earth, then bitch when that same country refuses to let supplies get to them!
As for the bigger picture, it is complicated, far from black and white. As I said earlier, Palestine was a backwater long before either the Zionists or the 'Palestinians' as we call the various Arab economic migrants today arrived. These people in Gaza aren't the original Palestinian people you know, they weren't kicked off their land during the initial creation of the Israeli state. As I said earlier, Palestine was a backwater before the Jews and the Arabs which we call 'Palestianians' today arrived, and both the native Jews/Muslims actually identified as Palestianian.
The idea of Zionists v the purely Muslim Palestinians is a quite modern concept, a hostility which exploded over time and had not been there initially. In many ways it is similar to the situation with Scots settlers in Ireland, people forget how much they integrated with the native population for several decades, and then suddenly ethnic violence came out of nowhere.
Having spent the greater part of the year in reasearching for my thesis, upon the history of Palestine in the modern era, I can say that you are talking complete bollocks. A backwater... right, so try and explain away the ardent romantic nationalism of what may be termed the elite of Palestinian society in the early 20th century and why the felaheen were such ardent supporters of their rights as the inhabiatants of Palestine. Religion, it may surprise you was not such a divisive factor in these early years of what one may term Palestinian identity, many of the leading figures of the movement were not Muslim, or even religious.
Seamus Fermanagh
06-01-2010, 03:28
Always a thorny subject.
Did Israel fall into the same old trap -- almost certainly. Any of you who think that there are no parties with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo -- constant low grade warfare -- are being far too positive in your outlook. This group wanted to get aid to Gaza or an international incident. They did. In addition, there are elements in Israel who want things to continue as they are. I am fairly certain that a majority of both the Palestinians and Israelis (you know, the bog standard types who'd like to see their kids grow up, make a few dollars, and play with the grand kids) would love to see a reasonable compromise deal brokered -- but those are not the voices that can be heard when violence such as this occurs.
The USA has always worked to further what it perceives to be in its best interests, though we sometimes have trouble defining those. Are these interests likely to be informed by realpolitik as well as (or sometimes in place of) principles and higher moral goals? The unshocking answer is: of course.
For years I have suspected that this state of low grade war will continue and worsen until Israel is brought, at last, to the real choice. A pogromatic removal of the Palestinians or the assimiliation of Israel into a Palestine dominated by Palestinian arabs. A beautiful lose-lose scenario for Israel.
KukriKhan
06-01-2010, 03:50
For years I have suspected that this state of low grade war will continue and worsen until Israel is brought, at last, to the real choice. A pogromatic removal of the Palestinians or the assimiliation of Israel into a Palestine dominated by Palestinian arabs. A beautiful lose-lose scenario for Israel.
Dear Seamus: In the deepest, darkest corner of what once passed for my "military mind", I have held the same predictive thought. Let's hope that brighter guys than you or I figure out some better way, because with alliances and national interests being what they are, and are likely to be in future, it's actually lose-lose for the Palestinians as well.
Why not simply merge both nations?There are many incidents of Israeli cities working together in harmony with arabic population. The solution is simple. remove the imaginary lines between the countries, and the solution will begin to solve itself.
To quote Will Smith, "This **** just got real." (http://www.ianwelsh.net/holy-sweet-lord-turkey-has-announced-they-will-send-another-flotilla-to-gaza%E2%80%94escorted-by-the-turkish-navy/)
Holy Sweet Lord, Turkey has announced they will send another flotilla to Gaza—escorted by the Turkish Navy!
If they actually do this, it is the very definition of throwing down.
(http://ibnlive.in.com/news/turkey-threatens-action-israel-on-alert/116743-2.html)
Wow.
Does Israel want a war with Turkey? They can’t win it, short of using nukes, and Turkey is a NATO member, if Israel attacks NATO ships, Turkey can invoke Article V (in fact, they can invoke it already, since the ships were attacked by a non NATO power on the high seas.) If Turkey does so, of course NATO nations will refuse, but doing so will break NATO.
This is high stakes.
Update: I might add that in the case of a war between Turkey and Israel, if Turkey is serious, unless Israel uses nukes, my money is on the Turks. They have a huge armored corp, and the nations between Israel and Turkey aren’t going to say no if Turkey asks for access (because if they do, Turkey will just roll right through them.) Also if Turkey and Israel goes to war, it’s at least 50/50 the Egypt jumps in as well.
Israel is really playing with fire on this one.
Seamus Fermanagh
06-01-2010, 04:43
That pressure/huminatarian groups will be doing cartwheels of joy if this actually comes to pass. They'll establish the precedent that breaks the blockade AND leaves Israel will almost all of the mud from the mud-slinging portion. Wow.
Lemur, I don't think any of your worst case musings are likely to come to pass -- but they're not impossible either. High stakes indeed.
Lemur, I don't think any of your worst case musings are likely to come to pass -- but they're not impossible either. High stakes indeed.
Oh, don't give me credit where none is due; I'm just reposting from a blog I read, which I tried to make clear with the link and the identation. Here's the original. (http://ibnlive.in.com/news/turkey-threatens-action-israel-on-alert/116743-2.html)
PanzerJaeger
06-01-2010, 05:07
Update: I might add that in the case of a war between Turkey and Israel, if Turkey is serious, unless Israel uses nukes, my money is on the Turks. They have a huge armored corp, and the nations between Israel and Turkey aren’t going to say no if Turkey asks for access (because if they do, Turkey will just roll right through them.)
Oh boy. I hope the Turkish leadership is more aware of the limitations of their military than this blogger is. :dizzy2:
The NATO aspect is very interesting, though.
Yes, obviously the notion of Turkey "rolling through" several of its neighbors on its way to spank the Israelis is purely fictive. More ruminations here (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100531_flotillas_and_wars_public_opinion):
The incident also wrecks Israeli relations with Turkey, historically an Israeli ally in the Muslim world with longstanding military cooperation with Israel. The Turkish government undoubtedly has wanted to move away from this relationship, but it faced resistance within the Turkish military and among secularists. The new Israeli action makes a break with Israel easy, and indeed almost necessary for Ankara. [...]
This maneuver was far more effective than suicide bombings or the Intifada in challenging Israel’s public perception and therefore its geopolitical position (though if the Palestinians return to some of their more distasteful tactics like suicide bombing, the Turkish strategy of portraying Israel as the instigator of violence will be undermined).
Israel is now in uncharted waters. It does not know how to respond. It is not clear that the Palestinians know how to take full advantage of the situation, either. But even so, this places the battle on a new field, far more fluid and uncontrollable than what went before. The next steps will involve calls for sanctions against Israel. The Israeli threats against Iran will be seen in a different context, and Israeli portrayal of Iran will hold less sway over the world.
And this will cause a political crisis in Israel. If this government survives, then Israel is locked into a course that gives it freedom of action but international isolation. If the government falls, then Israel enters a period of domestic uncertainty. In either case, the flotilla achieved its strategic mission. It got Israel to take violent action against it. In doing so, Israel ran into its own fist.
Why not simply merge both nations?There are many incidents of Israeli cities working together in harmony with arabic population. The solution is simple. remove the imaginary lines between the countries, and the solution will begin to solve itself.
What makes you think the Palestinians want their own state.
And was it all really a mistake or a big 'screw you'. International law is a place where Iran gets to lecture us on human rights.
edit well well well, hi ISS what are you doing on that other humanitarian ship. And what's on board.
Also, what happened on board http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/970641/f3fb82fe/filmpje_van_idf_tijdens_aanval_hulpboot.html
Tellos Athenaios
06-01-2010, 07:28
Or an act of war: you see even if Lemur's tidbits from various blogs may not be quite to Panzer's standards there's still the odd nugget of a link. In casu a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan who offers his opinion on what the actual consequences are under international law/law of the sea: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/05/the_legal_posit.html
Basically: it is either murder on Turkish soil falling under Turkish jurisdiction, or an act of warfare on Turkey... Incidentally: if it was an act of warfare on Turkey, it follows it also was an act of warfare on the USA for some of the assaulted ships are flagged under the USA (thus USA soil when on the high seas), not to mention the other countries whose ships were boarded...
Not that it will be taken as such in all likelihood; but hearty food for thought nonetheless.
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 08:30
Having just watched the video of the boarding i have revised my previous conclusion that israel had probably responded disproportionately:
I now have zero issue with the israeli response to what was extreme resistance to the boarding party.
My sympathies lie almost exclusively with the injured israeli soldiers, with perhaps some tiny spark of sympathy for the useful idiots who may have been caught in the crossfire between the soldiers and the nutcases wielding iron-bars and fire-bombs.
Having just watched the video of the boarding i have revised my previous conclusion that israel had probably responded disproportionately:
I now have zero issue with the israeli response to what was extreme resistance to the boarding party.
My sympathies lie almost exclusively with the injured israeli soldiers, with perhaps some tiny spark of sympathy for the useful idiots who may have been caught in the crossfire between the soldiers and the nutcases wielding iron-bars and fire-bombs.
There's still the small matter of boarding ships in international waters, where Israel has no authority whatsoever.
So, if victims of pirates use a crowbar and a screwdriver against their attackers, then you say the victims had it coming, asked for their ships being boarded by pirates and shouldn't complain about being killed? Funny how you try to turn the world upside down in a fruitless attempt to justify this act.
Piracy in international waters, armed thugs board a ship, heroic crew tries to resist, 9 heroes die, pirates get away.
Guess it's time to send the Russians so they can shoot a hole into these pirate ships and let the vermin try to swim back to the coast, right? :rolleyes:
On a more serious note, I think the Israelis completely overreacted, no matter what the crew did, 9 people died because Israel didn't want them to get into Gaza.
I agree with my government that there should be an independent investigation, but I still think this looks very much like Israel playing Middle Eastern macho again to get what they want.
Ship carrying civilians attempts to run past blockade on the Palestinian coast; thugs board ship and kill innocent people, sparking worldwide sympathy for the civilian cause. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Exodus#Voyage_history)
Ironside
06-01-2010, 09:25
Seeing the video at the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10199480.stm
I can say with good confidence that if a US police officer found himself in a similar situation on land (surrounded and being attacked by people with weapons) they would have opened fire as well.
And seeing the way the 'humanitarian activists' reacted, I can't say I'm overwhelmed with grief. What do you expect when you attack soldiers with guns?
CR
So next time there's a riot with less than a hundred people in the US we're expecting to see casualities?
I'm really curious who it was that thought that sending down troops one and one into an aggressive crowd was a good idea. And should be interesting if pictures of the actual shooting gets released, since it's obvious that the Israeli forces got them.
About the location. Judging from the newpaper picture, the last known location before the attack was about 70 km from the coast. The territorial water is 22 km wide.
PanzerJaeger
06-01-2010, 09:45
There's still the small matter of boarding ships in international waters, where Israel has no authority whatsoever.
So, if victims of pirates use a crowbar and a screwdriver against their attackers, then you say the victims had it coming, asked for their ships being boarded by pirates and shouldn't complain about being killed? Funny how you try to turn the world upside down in a fruitless attempt to justify this act.
So your theory is that these ships weren't headed for Gaza at all? Maybe they were on their way to Hawaii and got turned around? Because that is the only way your pirate analogy works.
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 09:49
Q: Is it locked in concrete, dead certain, everyone agrees, that this action took place in "International Waters", and not Israeli Territorial Waters, or its (Israel's) Contiguous Zone, or Exclusive Economic Zone?
All those zones, defined by international Maritime Law, represent various levels (and distances from the shoreline) of rights of sea control to sovereign nations. We should take care in throwing around the term "International Waters", and therefore asserting International judgment rights, when those jurisdictions are not clear in this case.
All that said: my condolences to the dead and their relatives. That better, less-violent methods of enforcing blockades couldn't be found is a shame. I had come to think that the Israeli military had come closer to conducting this kind of action casualty-free. Wishful thinking, I guess - not reality. If they were fired upon as they report, why do we not see Israeli wounded among the injured?
your question is looking remarkably prescient, it would appear that the boarding happened inside Israel's EEZ:
http://www.paltelegraph.com/columnists/peter-eyre/6236-current-israeli--turkish-stand-off
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread577130/pg85
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone
which may make the whole international-waters argument less clear cut.
to be honest, i would be surprised if israel made a mistake that elementary...........
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 10:04
There's still the small matter of boarding ships in international waters, where Israel has no authority whatsoever.
So, if victims of pirates use a crowbar and a screwdriver against their attackers, then you say the victims had it coming, asked for their ships being boarded by pirates and shouldn't complain about being killed? Funny how you try to turn the world upside down in a fruitless attempt to justify this act.
no, i just decided to wait out the facts before i decided to get my knickers in a twist:
Q: Is it locked in concrete, dead certain, everyone agrees, that this action took place in "International Waters", and not Israeli Territorial Waters, or its (Israel's) Contiguous Zone, or Exclusive Economic Zone?
All those zones, defined by international Maritime Law, represent various levels (and distances from the shoreline) of rights of sea control to sovereign nations. We should take care in throwing around the term "International Waters", and therefore asserting International judgment rights, when those jurisdictions are not clear in this case.
* is curious too *
So your theory is that these ships weren't headed for Gaza at all? Maybe they were on their way to Hawaii and got turned around? Because that is the only way your pirate analogy works.
What I'm saying is that Israel handled this as clumsy as possible. They should have boarded the ships in their territorial waters, not in international waters. You may not like it, but by boarding those ships in international waters, using force, they violated international law.
Of course the fact remains that Israel as alienated its only Muslim ally, all be it one which is becoming increasingly islamist (Ataturk must be spinning in his grave). All for nothing.
rory_20_uk
06-01-2010, 10:54
What I'm saying is that Israel handled this as clumsy as possible. They should have boarded the ships in their territorial waters, not in international waters. You may not like it, but by boarding those ships in international waters, using force, they violated international law.
I think that was intentional.
Israel is just showing everyone what it thinks of the International community. It pays no more than lip service and basically does whatever it wants.
To prevent another Holocaust of Jews and price of Gentile life or suffering is permitted.
~:smoking:
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 11:57
What I'm saying is that Israel handled this as clumsy as possible. They should have boarded the ships in their territorial waters, not in international waters. You may not like it, but by boarding those ships in international waters, using force, they violated international law.
Exclusive. Economic. Zone.
Article58
3. In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.
Article73
1. The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention.
rory_20_uk
06-01-2010, 12:02
The waters are not those of Israel - they're Gazan waters.
~:smoking:
your question is looking remarkably prescient, it would appear that the boarding happened inside Israel's EEZ:
http://www.paltelegraph.com/columnists/peter-eyre/6236-current-israeli--turkish-stand-off
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread577130/pg85
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone
which may make the whole international-waters argument less clear cut.
to be honest, i would be surprised if israel made a mistake that elementary...........
Just to make things perfectly clear. the Economic Zone is not the same as territorial waters.
The EEZ can be a 200 miles zone where Israel has exclusive economic interests. The territorial barrier is only 12 miles from shore.
The ships were at least 65 miles from the shore when attacked and therefore in international waters.
(The Israeli has declared a 68 mile security zone, but this is an illegal act according to maritime laws)
The international convention of the seas state that you can't attack flag bearing ships unless you carry the same flag - i.e. Israeli ships can only attack other Israeli ships outside the 12 mile territorial water zone (war between nations is exempted).
And this is not an act of war as there were only civilian ships in the flotilla. So NATO is not invoked in this. Turkey can however act on itself.
They are claiming an act of self defense, but the location of the ships indicates an act of aggression.
IMO a very amateurish display of such. These are supposed to be commandos. I doubt it.
Its as if the Israeli wanted to be beat up on camera. I am very confused at the decision of dropping soldiers one by one onto a deck full of people. I mean... this was a ship with how many passengers?
rory_20_uk
06-01-2010, 12:12
Ship carrying civilians attempts to run past blockade on the Palestinian coast; thugs board ship and kill innocent people, sparking worldwide sympathy for the civilian cause. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Exodus#Voyage_history)
It is "find a borderline related story and then write an inaccurate title about it" day?
Having read the article, it talks about a fight breaking out where people were injured. A british officer said it could have been worse - teargas might have been required! Isralis went in with stun grenades, teargas and live ammo...
~:smoking:
LeftEyeNine
06-01-2010, 12:42
Another detail we come to see thanks to the thread:
Warmonging before your gaming consoles is the new hobby of the gym-pumped rifle-poser softie.
Teach Turks a lesson ! AIIEEEEEEEYAY ! :antlers:
First of all, such a scenario ends up a war of worldwide scale since the "starring" actors are the flag carriers of the silent polarization that inherits cold-war era stances as well as the newly developed religiously-devoted yet actually political-oriented anti-american and anti-zionist movement.
It's no wonder how our luvley unkle gets himself trapped in mud over and over 'cause apparently it somehow maintains an endless stream of warmongers. Intellectuality has nothing to do with level of welfare over there across this continent. Somebody out there is still wishing for his very own citizens to get choked in Middle East just as they did in Vietnam and Iraq.
Sorry to disappoint you but the people this surrounding has raised are so hard-skinned -ridiculously, thanks to G8 meddlings here- that they may be failing at everything else but they fight well. If they can't do it, they can blow themselves up. Bitter fact about ones that ain't got much to lose.
Anyway, even the "I'm-so-neutral"ists were looking for an excuse to turn their pro-in-advance faces on. As soon as we got shots of Israeli troops landing on the civilian ship in international waters, "oh look how they deserve to die" monging popped up.
Is this how your lovely democracies were rubbed in face of us in the very first chance ? Is this the first time on earth some professional and organized security force encounters an angry mob ? Have we re-furnished your understanding of humanism with "go for the kill if they're angry" kind of handling ? If professionals act so, and out of their national waters, what can you expect out of ones in the streets ? Looking out of your window (ref: "what did you expect Israel to do ?"): Seriously, what kind of reaction did you expect to see when those people saw Israeli troopers being offloaded onto their ships ?
Keep it honest please. If you're pro-Israel, you don't have to hide behind the curtain, 'cause your Israel flag slippers can still be seen.
You've lost your sense for value of human life. But I say, screw it, you got your God of War 4 on PS3 coming anyway. We will keep on suffering your neo-connazi-run governments' policies. Bonus: A lot of your citizens included in the suffering.
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 12:59
Just to make things perfectly clear. the Economic Zone is not the same as territorial waters.
The EEZ can be a 200 miles zone where Israel has exclusive economic interests. The territorial barrier is only 12 miles from shore.
The ships were at least 65 miles from the shore when attacked and therefore in international waters.
(The Israeli has declared a 68 mile security zone, but this is an illegal act according to maritime laws)
The international convention of the seas state that you can't attack flag bearing ships unless you carry the same flag - i.e. Israeli ships can only attack other Israeli ships outside the 12 mile territorial water zone (war between nations is exempted).
And this is not an act of war as there were only civilian ships in the flotilla. So NATO is not invoked in this. Turkey can however act on itself.
They are claiming an act of self defense, but the location of the ships indicates an act of aggression.
IMO a very amateurish display of such. These are supposed to be commandos. I doubt it.
Its as if the Israeli wanted to be beat up on camera. I am very confused at the decision of dropping soldiers one by one onto a deck full of people. I mean... this was a ship with how many passengers?
just so we are really, really, clear:
Article58
3. In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.
Article73
1. The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention.
if it turns out that this didn't happen in the Israeli EEZ, then fair enough.
if it turns out that the above stipulations don't cover this particular situation, then fair enough.
but until the above questions are addressed I am merely getting bored with flappy-hand blustery accusations of piracy and acts of war.
Exclusive. Economic. Zone.
The point being?
Your quote:
The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, take such measures, including boarding,
Pray, tell me, which sovereign rights to "explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources" in the EEZ were being exercised by Israel when they boarded the ship? Are ships carrying humanitarian aid a danger for the species living in Israels (some might argue that it's not Israels EEZ, but Gaza's...) EEZ? Were the humanitarian ships buildling an oil platform? Where the Israeli commando's entering the ships armed an all geared up because they saw the activists fishing?
:inquisitive:
If you're going to quote, then make sure you read the entire text, not just the part you want to read. Contrary to what you seem to imply, "may take such measures, including boarding" is not what is written there.
Seamus Fermanagh
06-01-2010, 13:03
...to be honest, i would be surprised if israel made a mistake that elementary...........
The crew of the U.S.S. Liberty might beg to disagree....
if it turns out that the above stipulations don't cover this particular situation, then fair enough.
I think it's very obvious they don't.
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 13:10
The point being?
Your quote:
Pray, tell me, which sovereign rights to "explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources" in the EEZ were being exercised by Israel when they boarded the ship? Are ships carrying humanitarian aid a danger for the species living in Israels (some might argue that it's not Israels EEZ, but Gaza's...) EEZ? Were the humanitarian ships buildling an oil platform? Where the Israeli commando's entering the ships armed an all geared up because they saw the activists fishing?
:inquisitive:
If you're going to quote, then make sure you read the entire text, not just the part you want to read. Contrary to what you seem to imply, "may take such measures, including boarding" is not what is written there.
my point; the situation is not clear cut, as Saemus rightly questioned this is not a cut-n-dried case of international waters.
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 13:12
Another detail we come to see thanks to the thread:
Warmonging before your gaming consoles is the new hobby of the gym-pumped rifle-poser softie.
Teach Turks a lesson ! AIIEEEEEEEYAY ! :antlers:
First of all, such a scenario ends up a war of worldwide scale since the "starring" actors are the flag carriers of the silent polarization that inherits cold-war era stances as well as the newly developed religiously-devoted yet actually political-oriented anti-american and anti-zionist movement.
It's no wonder how our luvley unkle gets himself trapped in mud over and over 'cause apparently it somehow maintains an endless stream of warmongers. Intellectuality has nothing to do with level of welfare over there across this continent. Somebody out there is still wishing for his very own citizens to get choked in Middle East just as they did in Vietnam and Iraq.
Sorry to disappoint you but the people this surrounding has raised are so hard-skinned -ridiculously, thanks to G8 meddlings here- that they may be failing at everything else but they fight well. If they can't do it, they can blow themselves up. Bitter fact about ones that ain't got much to lose.
Anyway, even the "I'm-so-neutral"ists were looking for an excuse to turn their pro-in-advance faces on. As soon as we got shots of Israeli troops landing on the civilian ship in international waters, "oh look how they deserve to die" monging popped up.
Is this how your lovely democracies were rubbed in face of us in the very first chance ? Is this the first time on earth some professional and organized security force encounters an angry mob ? Have we re-furnished your understanding of humanism with "go for the kill if they're angry" kind of handling ? If professionals act so, and out of their national waters, what can you expect out of ones in the streets ? Looking out of your window (ref: "what did you expect Israel to do ?"): Seriously, what kind of reaction did you expect to see when those people saw Israeli troopers being offloaded onto their ships ?
Keep it honest please. If you're pro-Israel, you don't have to hide behind the curtain, 'cause your Israel flag slippers can still be seen.
You've lost your sense for value of human life. But I say, screw it, you got your God of War 4 on PS3 coming anyway. We will keep on suffering your neo-connazi-run governments' policies. Bonus: A lot of your citizens included in the suffering.
i am very much pro-turkey, so be careful where you swing your blunt and cumbersome accusations.
my point; the situation is not clear cut, as Saemus rightly questioned this is not a cut-n-dried case of international waters.
But it is.
The problem is that if they admit it, Israel (and its' allies) will also have to admit that Israel breached international law. So now, they wringle and twist simple enough facts, claiming that "it needs to be investigated and examined first", to buy time, in the hope the press and the international community gets bored with the story after a week or so and everything can be wiped quickly under the carpet; in the meanwhile doing nothing and giving Israel a free pass.
Meh.
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 13:23
But it is.
your opinion, not mine.
It is "find a borderline related story and then write an inaccurate title about it" day?
Having read the article, it talks about a fight breaking out where people were injured. A british officer said it could have been worse - teargas might have been required! Isralis went in with stun grenades, teargas and live ammo...
~:smoking:
Seeing how important a symbol the Exodus remains to this day, you would have thought the Israelis would have thought twice about reprising the role of the British, especially a more violent one.
LeftEyeNine
06-01-2010, 13:30
i am very much pro-turkey, so be careful where you swing your blunt and cumbersome accusations.
This is about being pro-Israel, not pro-Turkey, for which I don't care actually. Respect is earnt, not demanded, if that's your point.
Also whole paragraph was not only about you. But I'm glad the message got delivered, live with it. :bow:
Kralizec
06-01-2010, 13:33
my point; the situation is not clear cut, as Saemus rightly questioned this is not a cut-n-dried case of international waters.
Pretty much every news source I've seen has reported that the boarding took place outside Israel's territorial waters. Kukri's original question was, I thought, not unreasonable. But you immediately expected that it would turn out Israel hadn't done anything wrong, as evidenced by your statement that you'd be "surprised if israel made a mistake that elementary".
Personally I don't see how it would be surprising to anyone. It just shows that Israel will disregard international law when dealing with anyone that they consider hostile, wether they're Palestinians or citizens of (formerly) friendly countries :juggle:
rory_20_uk
06-01-2010, 13:33
The only similarity is that then Jews were thwarted and here they were triumphant.
One might have thought making a large concentration camp would have unsettled the Israeli state, but it appears to be unphased.
Now Israel is saying it was provoked. The cry of the wife-batterer through the ages.
~:smoking:
Enforcement of laws and regulations of the coastal State
Article 73
1. The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention.
2. Arrested vessels and their crews shall be promptly released upon the posting of reasonable bond or other security.
3. Coastal State penalties for violations of fisheries laws and regulations in the exclusive economic zone may not include imprisonment, in the absence of agreements to the contrary by the States concerned, or any other form of corporal punishment.
4. In cases of arrest or detention of foreign vessels the coastal State shall promptly notify the flag State, through appropriate channels, of the action taken and of any penalties subsequently imposed.These rights apply only to fishing vessels, and if Israel suspects these for fishing illegally in the EEZ.
What the Israeli employed in this case can be found under Article 19 and applicable in the territorial waters which is within 12 nautical miles.
Meaning of innocent passage (territorial waters =< 12 nautical miles)
Article 19
1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.
2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:
(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;
(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;
(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;
(h) any act of willful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;
(i) any fishing activities;
(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;
(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;
(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.
HoreTore
06-01-2010, 13:39
The only similarity is that then Jews were thwarted and here they were triumphant.
One might have thought making a large concentration camp would have unsettled the Israeli state, but it appears to be unphased.
Now Israel is saying it was provoked. The cry of the wife-batterer through the ages.
~:smoking:
So, if Gaza had the dinner ready when Israel came home from work, none of this would've happened?
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 13:40
i remain to be convinced that it is that simple.
But it is.
The problem is that if they admit it, Israel (and its' allies) will also have to admit that Israel breached international law. So now, they wringle and twist simple enough facts, claiming that "it needs to be investigated and examined first", to buy time, in the hope the press and the international community gets bored with the story after a week or so and everything can be wiped quickly under the carpet; in the meanwhile doing nothing and giving Israel a free pass.
Meh.
This is where the Russians can be credited. At least when they do something, they don't squirm and twist it, trying to find loopholes and opt-out clauses. They just go ahead and do it, and it is a case of "oh, they did it". No need for pointless debates.
Having said international waters which is commonly understood to include the 200 mile zone, there is also the issue of Israel not having signed the convention of the law of the sea.
This indicates that they do not adhere to the convention and International courts can't do anythingand about it. Israel will claim immunity if a court case should appear in Turkey. Which leaves a court case in Israel...
Ser Clegane
06-01-2010, 13:44
i remain to be convinced that it is that simple.
Perhaps you could explain why you think that the articles on the EEZ might justify Israel's actions? (or what would convince you that they do not)
rory_20_uk
06-01-2010, 13:46
So, if Gaza had the dinner ready when Israel came home from work, none of this would've happened?
I think you're stretching the metaphor here but I'll try:
If Palestinians would just pack up their bags and depart to somewhere else (Egypt, Syria, Mediterranean ocean) there wouldn't be the need for this problem, would there? If Palestine would just cease to exist there would be no need to throttle it to death.
And now there are these people provoking Israel by providing aid. Very unreasonable behaviour.
~:smoking:
HoreTore
06-01-2010, 13:48
I think you're stretching the metaphor here but I'll try:
I tried to make a funny, not build on your metaphor~:mecry:
rory_20_uk
06-01-2010, 13:52
Apologies. So bored. 2.5 hour commute to work. Nothing to do. Vitae being sapped from me...
~:smoking:
gaelic cowboy
06-01-2010, 13:56
I generally tend to be Pro-Israeli but it's very hard to be pro anything when the Deputy Ambassodor come's on Irish telly last night claiming that the people on the boat had sophisticated weapons ie knives iron bars etc, the guns apparently were wrestled from the commandoes.
i remain to be convinced that it is that simple. I refuse to admit that I'm wrong
That's ok. This is the BR after all :wink:
~;p
All this talk about international law reminds me of what a Roman general once said:
"Stop quoting laws to us, we carry swords!"
rory_20_uk
06-01-2010, 14:06
Vae Victis.
~:smoking:
HoreTore
06-01-2010, 14:09
All this talk about international law reminds me of what a Roman general once said:
"Stop quoting laws to us, we carry swords!"
Pompey was assassinated in egypt in the end though....
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 14:15
Perhaps you could explain why you think that the articles on the EEZ might justify Israel's actions? (or what would convince you that they do not)
because not only is the coastal state authorised to uphold laws and regulations with its EEZ (perhaps only fisheries related), but the intervening state is also obligated to uphold the laws and regulations of the coastal state within their EEZ (perhaps only fisheries related).
combined with the fact that a state can detain civilian craft if they engage in unlawful activity such as blockade-running:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/560-24?OpenDocument
could easily mean that Israel is able to use its EEZ to initate action against unlawful activities, deemed unlawful because they do not respect the laws and regulations of the coastal state.
it ain't cut-n-dried yet.
Louis VI the Fat
06-01-2010, 14:18
I thought that was utterly hilarious, HoreTore. Cruel, cynical, but hilarious. Et tu, Beskar - even if I thought you were completely serious.
The legality of the action seems to be a matter for experts of international law. The EEZ is not a point of consideration, but many other legal arguments are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#Legality_of_action
Legal arguments for Israel's action
San Remo Memorandum Main article: International Institute of Humanitarian Law#San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Institute_of_Humanitarian_Law#San_Remo_Manual_on_International_Law_Applicable_to_Armed _Conflicts_at_Sea_.281994.29)
Mark Regev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Regev), spokesman for the Prime Minister of Israel, said:
"The San Remo memorandum states, specifically 67A, that if you have a boat that is charging a blockaded area you are allowed to intercept even prior to it reaching the blockaded area if you've warned them in advance, and that we did a number of times and they had a stated goal which they openly expressed, of breaking the blockade. That blockade is in place to protect our people."[80] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#cite_note-ABC-Lateline-79)[81] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#cite_note-sanremoicrc-80)
According to the non-binding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binding) decleration by International Institute of Humanitarian Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Institute_of_Humanitarian_Law), paragraph 60 chapter (e) states: "refusing an order to stop or actively resisting visit, search or capture" may render merchant vessels military objectives. However paragraph 47 chapter (c) states: vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including: (ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations are classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack. [81] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#cite_note-sanremoicrc-80)[82] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#cite_note-San_Remo_Manual-81)
Gaza Jericho Agreement According to Abbas Al Lawati, Dubai-based Gulf News journalist on board the flotilla, Israel is likely[83] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#cite_note-82) to cite the Gaza-Jericho Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza-Jericho_Agreement) (Annex I, Article XI) which vests Israel with the responsibility for security along the coastline and the Sea of Gaza. The agreement stipulates that Israel may take any measures necessary against vessels suspected of being used for terrorist activities or for smuggling arms, ammunition, drugs, goods, or for any other illegal activity. [84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#cite_note-Gaza-Jericho-83)
Legality of action
Senior political analyst Marwan Bishara of the Arabic news network Al Jazeera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera) has stated that "Attacking other nations' citizens in international waters because they resisted arrest is not only illegal, but serves to demean international legal norms".[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#cite_note-AJaz-indefensible-84)
A group of Israeli lawyers, including Avigdor Feldman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Feldman), petitioned the Israeli High Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_High_Court) charging that Israel had violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea) by capturing the boats in international waters. Robbie Sabel, the former legal adviser to the Israeli foreign ministry, told The Jerusalem Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jerusalem_Post) that the state would almost certainly argue that the seizure of the vessels was an executive act with which the court was not authorized to intervene.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#cite_note-85)
The Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recep_Tayyip_Erdo%C4%9Fan) declared that "this attack is state terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism), violating international law."[87] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#cite_note-rcw-86)[88] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#cite_note-huffpost-87) Prominent Turkish jurists have characterized Israel's actions as a violation of international law and a "war crime." Dr. Turgut Tarhanlı of the University of Istanbul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Istanbul) cited the concept of innocent passage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_passage), under which vessels are granted safe passage through territorial waters in a manner which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the state.[89] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#cite_note-88)
Robin Churchill, a professor of international law at the University of Dundee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Dundee) in Scotland, said the Israeli commandos boarded the ship outside of Israel's territorial waters. "As far as I can see, there is no legal basis for boarding these ships," Churchill said.[90] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#cite_note-89) Ove Bring, Swedish expert on public international law, said that Israel had no right to take military action.[91] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#cite_note-90) That is also supported by Mark Klamberg at Stockholm University.[92] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#cite_note-91) Hugo Tiberg, professor in maritime law, states that Israel had no right to attack the ships.[93] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#cite_note-92) Canadian scholar Michael Byers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Byers_(Canadian_author)) notes that the event would only be legal if the Israeli boarding were necessary and proportionate for the country's self defence. Byers believes that "the action does not appear to have been necessary in that the threat was not imminent."[94] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#cite_note-93)
The UK Times's defence editor wrote that "Israel may face problems justifying the legality of its decision", not least because "[U]nder the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea), the high seas are regarded as not belonging to any nation". While boarding a vessel is acceptable in some circumstances, Israel still needed to seek permission from Turkey.[95] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#cite_note-94) Jason Alderwick, a maritime analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Institute_for_Strategic_Studies) of London, is quoted as saying that the Israeli raid did not appear to have been conducted lawfully under the convention.
Vladimir
06-01-2010, 14:27
Sorry, I've skipped a few pages. Has anyone mentioned that the blockade of Gaza is a joint Egyptian/Israeli effort? Something to chew on.
Or has anyone speculated on how this represents a shift away from Israel by the Turkish government? Or placed it in context of the recent Turkey/Iran nuclear deal? Or that this tactic was used by Jews against the British in 1947? Or...I don't know; something that doesn't require the use of a lot of green script?
All I thought about when I heard the news this morning was the trouble the moderators were going to have with this one. :laugh4:
Ser Clegane
06-01-2010, 14:31
combined with the fact that a state can detain civilian craft if they engage in unlawful activity such as blockade-running:
could easily mean that Israel is able to use its EEZ to initate action against unlawful activities, deemed unlawful because they do not respect the laws and regulations of the coastal state.
From Article 73:
The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention
I did not see blockades mentioned anywhere in the Convention. What I did see mentioned is the right of free passage through the EEZ.
Leaving the Convention aside (and not directed at any particular contributor to this thread) - this topic reminds me of another one from three years ago and it is interesting (and has a nostalgic value) to compare views brought forward in this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?81898-Iran-Seizes-15-British-Marines)
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 14:36
From Article 73:
The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention
I did not see blockades mentioned anywhere in the Convention. What I did see mentioned is the right of free passage through the EEZ.
Leaving the Convention aside (and not directed at any particular contributor to this thread) - this topic reminds me of another one from three years ago and it is interesting (and has a nostalgic value) to compare views brought forward in this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?81898-Iran-Seizes-15-British-Marines)
your focussing on the wrong one:
Article58
3. In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.
The San Remo declaration i already mentioned above, does make mention of blockade-running.
KukriKhan
06-01-2010, 14:41
The legality of the action seems to be a matter for experts of international law. The EEZ is not a point of consideration, but many other legal arguments are:
Indeed, I expect international lawyers to have job security over this incident for the next 20 years (that is: if war isn't declared first).
I was just trying to determine "What were they (Israel) thinking?" in sending black-clad armed men in black helicopters in the middle of the night to a highly=publicized 'relief' ship. I mean: what could go wrong? Is that method of operation the best way to insure compliance with the blockade-inspection of supplies? Or, is it better to do this thing in broad daylight, fully announced in advance, cameras rolling.
"This is the Israeli Navy. Your have crossed over into Israeli waters. Cut your engines Heave to. Prepare for the boarding of inspection teams."
Protesters would protest, the ships would be boarded and inspected, then diverted to Israeli ports. No need for anyone to misunderstand the procedure. Authorized supplies would eventually make way to Gaza overland. Contraband would be identified, publicized, and returned or destroyed in situ. Lawyers could argue at the UN and ICC about borders and zones.
Why could it not have been thus? Was there intel saying there was bad stuff or bad people on-board? Who released the infrared overflight video's (had to be military intel) less than 24 hours after the incident?
We just don't know enough.
Yet people are dead. So we have to find out quickly.
HoreTore
06-01-2010, 14:46
Indeed, I expect international lawyers to have job security over this incident for the next 20 years (that is: if war isn't declared first).
I was just trying to determine "What were they (Israel) thinking?" in sending black-clad armed men in black helicopters in the middle of the night to a highly=publicized 'relief' ship. I mean: what could go wrong? Is that method of operation the best way to insure compliance with the blockade-inspection of supplies? Or, is it better to do this thing in broad daylight, fully announced in advance, cameras rolling.
"This is the Israeli Navy. Your have crossed over into Israeli waters. Cut your engines Heave to. Prepare for the boarding of inspection teams."
Protesters would protest, the ships would be boarded and inspected, then diverted to Israeli ports. No need for anyone to misunderstand the procedure. Authorized supplies would eventually make way to Gaza overland. Contraband would be identified, publicized, and returned or destroyed in situ. Lawyers could argue at the UN and ICC about borders and zones.
Why could it not have been thus? Was there intel saying there was bad stuff or bad people on-board? Who released the infrared overflight video's (had to be military intel) less than 24 hours after the incident?
We just don't know enough.
Yet people are dead. So we have to find out quickly.
Because macho-men with small penises thinks doing stuff like they have done will make their penises grow.
Yes, that really is the reason for all the worlds troubles. You know it is.
The San Remo declaration i already mentioned above, does make mention of blockade-running.
It says "Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters", ie. not in international waters. Sorry mate, Israel is still in the wrong with this one.
Vladimir
06-01-2010, 14:51
Because macho-men with small penises thinks doing stuff like they have done will make their penises grow.
You really do have a fascination with this, don't you?
HoreTore
06-01-2010, 14:55
You really do have a fascination with this, don't you?
You know it's the truth.
gaelic cowboy
06-01-2010, 15:12
Hmm in all the confusion this Irish boat is still steaming for Gaza the MV Rachel Corrie (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0601/breaking33.html).
The MV Rachel Corrie is ploughing ahead with its attempt to deliver aid to Gaza despite yesterday’s attack by the Israeli navy on Gaza-bound ship the Mavi Marmara.
The cargo ship, which has five Irish nationals and five Malaysians aboard, is due to arrive in Gazan waters tomorrow, a spokeswoman for the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign said.
The vessel became separated from the main aid flotilla after being delayed for 48 hours in Cyprus due to logistical reasons.
Nobel laureate Maireád Corrigan-Maguire, former UN assistant secretary general Denis Halliday, film maker Fiona Thompson and husband and wife Derek and Jenny Graham are the Irish nationals on board.
Speaking from the ship today, Mr Graham said the vessel was carrying educational materials, construction materials, medical equipment and some toys. “Everything aboard has been inspected in Ireland,” he said. “We would hope to have safe passage through.”
Speaking on RTÉ’s Today with Pat Kenny , Ms Maguire said none of the aid ships carry arms and are "purely humanitarian". She said it was necessary for the vessel to complete its mission to assure the people of Gaza the world does care.
“Their port has been closed for over 40 years . . . 1.5 million people, it’s like the population of Northern Ireland, totally cut off from the world by this inhumane illegal siege of Gaza . . . their borders are closed . . . there is a shortage of medicines,” she said.
“Could you imagine if that happened to the 1.5 million people in Northern Ireland, the world would be absolutely crying out that this stop immediately."
Free Gaza Movement activist Greta Berlin, based in Cyprus, said: "We are an initiative to break Israel's blockade of 1.5 million people in Gaza. Our mission has not changed and this is not going to be the last flotilla."
However, an Israeli marine lieutenant, who was not identified, told Israel's Army Radio his unit was prepared to block the MV Rachel Corrie .
"We as a unit are studying, and we will carry out professional investigations to reach conclusions," the lieutenant said, referring to Monday's confrontation in which his unit shot activists aboard a Turkish ferry. "And we will also be ready for the Rachel Corrie ," he added.
Army radio reported the vessel would reach Gazan waters by tomorrow but Ms Berlin said it might not attempt to reach Gaza until early next week.
Senator Mark Daly, who had been due to join the convoy but was refused permission to leave Cyprus, said the ship had fallen behind the rest of the convoy because it was slower. Passengers aboard it had heard about the attacks but decided not to turn back, he said.
"After having a discussion among themselves about what to do, they decided to keep going and the last contact . . . was at yesterday evening," Mr Daly said.
Labour foreign affairs spokesman Michael D Higgins today called on the Government to demand safe passage for the MV Rachel Corrie .
In a statement, he said some of those on the vessel had contacted him earlier today and had stressed they wanted to avoid conflict and to be allowed unload their cargo to help the residents of the Gaza Strip.
"The Minister for Foreign Affairs . . . must make it clear that any assault on the Rachel Corrie would be regarded as a hostile act against Ireland and a clear breach of international law that could not be ignored by this country," Mr Higgins said.
Fine Gael foreign affairs spokesman Billy Timmins also called for the safe passage of the vessel. "The Rachel Corrie should also be granted access to Gaza so much needed aid can get through," he said.
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 15:16
It says "Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters", ie. not in international waters. Sorry mate, Israel is still in the wrong with this one.
section V makes no such stipulation, mate:
Section V : Neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
gaelic cowboy
06-01-2010, 15:23
Section V : Neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
Uh oh if thats true then we will be waking up to another commando raid on the MV Rachel Corrie tomorrow so. Relations between Ireland and Israel are bad enough as it is what with the passport fiasco and they also have two of our citizens from raid as well.
HoreTore
06-01-2010, 15:31
section V makes no such stipulation, mate:
and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture
How did you miss that one?
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 15:39
and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture
How did you miss that one?
i didn't, they were told not to go, and they certainly resisted visit, search and capture, and seeing as they had searched the other six vessels i find it hard to believe there was not prior warning which must have been followed by a stop.
where do you want to take this one now chuckles?
HoreTore
06-01-2010, 15:44
i didn't, they were told not to go, and they certainly resisted visit, search and capture, and seeing as they had searched the other six vessels i find it hard to believe there was not prior warning which must have been followed by a stop.
where do you want to take this one now chuckles?
....According to the Israeli army, perhaps. I intend to hear the other side of the story before I make claims like that.
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 15:57
....According to the Israeli army, perhaps. I intend to hear the other side of the story before I make claims like that.
hmmm, that's not the same tone of righteous indignation you used in your previous post:
and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture
How did you miss that one?
realigning your position much?
---------------------------------------------------------
hmmm, after a rash of demands for an explanation on why i believed the EEZ significant in the hour preceding my response, it is interesting to note the silence in the hour and a half since that response...........
LeftEyeNine
06-01-2010, 16:01
So-called "weapons" captured on the head ship, Mavi Marmara, released by IDF:
http://video.ntvmsnbc.com/mavi-marmarada-ele-gecirilen-silahlar.html
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 16:06
So-called "weapons" captured on the head ship, Mavi Marmara, released by IDF:
http://video.ntvmsnbc.com/mavi-marmarada-ele-gecirilen-silahlar.html
they resisted a boarding with violent attack, using firebombs, clubs, knives, tools, and slingshots. i am still failing to sympathise.
HoreTore
06-01-2010, 16:06
tone of righteous indignation
Then the interwebs failed to properly represent my mood.
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 16:08
Then the interwebs failed to properly represent my mood.
in that case you have my apologies. :)
Ser Clegane
06-01-2010, 16:09
hmmm, after a rash of demands for an explanation on why i believed the EEZ significant in the hour preceding my response, it is interesting to note the silence in the hour and a half since that response...........
Oh, I highly appreciate your backing up and clarifying your point with references to specific articles in conventions and treaties
~:)
I will try to take the time a check these references on my end (might take some time though) and will be happy to take your point should the situation indeed be at least unclear
:bow:
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 16:15
Oh, I highly appreciate your backing up and clarifying your point with references to specific articles in conventions and treaties
~:)
I will try to take the time a check these references on my end (might take some time though) and will be happy to take your point should the situation indeed be at least unclear
:bow:
my pleasure.
LeftEyeNine
06-01-2010, 16:19
they resisted a boarding with violent attack, using firebombs, clubs, knives, tools, and slingshots. i am still failing to sympathise.
That's a failure indeed then. Whatever.
I might have overseen this:
SECTION VI : CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS
146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:
(a) are carrying contraband;
(b) are on a voyage especially undertaken with a view to the transport of individual passengers who are embodied in the armed forces of the enemy;
(c) are operating directly under enemy control, orders, charter, employment or direction;
(d) present irregular or fraudulent documents, lack necessary documents, or destroy, deface or conceal documents;
(e) are violating regulations established by a belligerent within the immediate area of naval operations; or
(f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.
Neutral waters being:
SECTION I : INTERNAL WATERS, TERRITORIAL SEA AND ACHIPELAGIC WATERS
14. Neutral waters consist of the internal waters, territorial sea, and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of neutral States.
It could indicate that this is an allowance for attacking neutral ships attempting to breach a blockade of a nation at war outside neutral waters. Not specific enough for my taste though and a loophole for Israel.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce
The San Remo Manual is applicable on international armed conflicts. If Israel deems itself to be engaged in an international armed conflict with Gaza, then does that mean they recognize the State of Palestine? Because, if the State of Palestine is not another country, but just part of Israel, then I fail to see how the blockade is part of an international armed conflict.
Also, form the manual, of which I'm not sure it is applicable in this case:
47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
(a) hospital ships;
(b) small craft used for coastal rescue operations and other medical transports;
(c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:
(i) cartel vessels, e.g., vessels designated for and engaged in the transport of prisoners of war;
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;
If enemy vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations are exempt from attack, then clearly, a fortiori, neutral vessels are as well.
If a blockade doesn't allow humanitarian aid to be sent, then the blockade in itself is also a violation of international law.
Above the fact that boarding the ships was not permitted, there's also the issue of the disproportionate use of force. Even if boarding the ships was permitted (which it wasn't), the use of violence was excessive and completely disproportionate.
There's no way Israels' actions can be justified under international law. They screwed up. And now there are calls for "investigations" to buy time and think of an elegant solution (or buy time until people forget and the accident can be swept under the carpet).
Seamus Fermanagh
06-01-2010, 16:40
Israel has declared a 100km zone as her defense security zone. The ships boarded were clearly within that zone. According to Israel, this means they were acting within the letter of the law since they had established the security zone (see 146(e) above) and that the continued voyage thus constituted a breach of 146(f). So, if you agree they have the right to establish such a security zone, then you believe they were within their rights to stop the convoy where they did. If you do not agree that they had the right to establish this security zone, then you must conclude that the Israelis committed an act of war against the nations whose ships comprised the convoy.
As a separate issue, it needs to be assessed whether or not the Israelis used an appropriate level of force response when their boarding operation met with resistance.
I strongly suspect that most posters in this thread will believe that Israel had no right to establish such a security zone, that it is not therefore a valid basis for the search and seizure conducted, and that excessive force was used.
Does this constitute a reasonable summary thus far?
Vladimir
06-01-2010, 16:44
The San Remo Manual is applicable on international armed conflicts. If Israel deems itself to be engaged in an international armed conflict with Gaza, then does that mean they recognize the State of Palestine? Because, if the State of Palestine is not another country, but just part of Israel, then I fail to see how the blockade is part of an international armed conflict.
Are we saying that Palestine is confined to the Gaza strip?
Welcome to the end of history. Was Al Qaeda's declaration of war against the United States legitimate? Hamas considers itself at war with Israel. So, does a state of war exist?
The niceties of international law are poorly equipped to deal with the details of unconventional conflicts such as these.
The niceties of international law are poorly equipped to deal with the details of unconventional conflicts such as these.
That's true. It's also what makes it interesting.
Rhyfelwyr
06-01-2010, 16:51
Having spent the greater part of the year in reasearching for my thesis, upon the history of Palestine in the modern era, I can say that you are talking complete bollocks. A backwater... right, so try and explain away the ardent romantic nationalism of what may be termed the elite of Palestinian society in the early 20th century and why the felaheen were such ardent supporters of their rights as the inhabiatants of Palestine.
Well maybe you need a bit of context to your early 20th century studies, since Palestine was indeed a backwater before the Jewish settlers arrived. 19th century Palestine had a population of something like a quarter of a million, and its population had been in gradual decline over the past century. There was no 'Palestianian people', just some Arabs living in an Ottoman province and then a British colony. There was no evil zionist invasion like you want there to have been, most foreign Jews were only allowed to settle in towns with native Jewish populations, while the rest were sold the poorest land at extortionate prices by the Ottoman landlords. But when they actually redeveloped the land for farming and what not, then all the Arabs from Syria/Egypt/Jordan etc flooded in. And its these non-native Arabs that got pissed off at the economic situation they found themselves in with having the poorer jobs (which was not due to evil zionist oppression, just the fact that Jews brought the technology to develop the land), and its these guys that kicked off the first major pogroms in 1920. Hey, at what date did the first Jewish militant groups emerge eg Haganah? That's right!
Religion, it may surprise you was not such a divisive factor in these early years of what one may term Palestinian identity, many of the leading figures of the movement were not Muslim, or even religious.
Did you even bother to read what I said? I made it clear that both the native Jews and Muslims had a shared identity regardless of their religion, the whole ethnic conflict comes from non-native Jews and non-native Arabs.
Vladimir
06-01-2010, 17:01
Egypt lifts blockade: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=177146
Ouch. Looks like Israel shot itself in the foot.
I strongly suspect that most posters in this thread will believe that Israel had no right to establish such a security zone, that it is not therefore a valid basis for the search and seizure conducted, and that excessive force was used.
Does this constitute a reasonable summary thus far?
Not really, there seems to be a pretty broad spectrum of thought and opinion in this thread. And I am impressed that nobody has managed to get it locked just yet, which speaks to the maturity and honor of Orgahs in general. Hard to think of a more divisive, emotional topic than this, unless there were some gun rights and abortions involved.
Meanwhile ... (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177134)
'Next time we'll use more force'
Israel will use more aggressive force in the future to prevent ships from breaking the sea blockade on the Gaza Strip, a top Navy commander told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.
"We boarded the ship and were attacked as if it was a war," the officer said. "That will mean that we will have to come prepared in the future as if it was a war."
It's kinda funny to watch these soldiers board the ship one after the other with the angry mob already waiting below.
That wasn't a boarding operation, that was a big failure, and they topped it off by making it bloody and killing people.
A very hard-headed perspective (http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2010/05/31/11174):
Israel not only no longer faces any enemies who pose an existential threat, it doesn’t even have enemies who can thwart any strongly held Israeli policy aim. No state is going to go to war to “destroy Israel.” I doubt any state particularly wants to. Certainly no state that might want to can do so. But beyond that, no state is going to go to war on behalf of the Palestinians and the Palestinians lack the power to launch an effective war on their own behalf.
Every time Israel takes major, disproportionate action, the “counterproductivity corps” tells us that very soon now Israel’s high-handedness will cost it essential allies, alienate the United States and set the country on the road to ruin. Every time, the furor passes. In particular, the United States has attempted no material rebuke of Israel since the administration of Bush the Elder, and these days barely bothers with rhetorical rebukes [...]
This is not Israel “shooting itself in the foot.” This is Israel winning. Be for that or against it, but at least recognize it.
gaelic cowboy
06-01-2010, 18:08
@Lemur it might seem like winning today but when the Eygptian border with Gaza opens tomorrow then it will be a serious own goal
Meneldil
06-01-2010, 18:38
So-called "weapons" captured on the head ship, Mavi Marmara, released by IDF:
http://video.ntvmsnbc.com/mavi-marmarada-ele-gecirilen-silahlar.html
Though I think Israel handled this story rather poorly (actually, they could only have made it worse by sinking the ship), I'm kind of baffled that people go around, show this video and say "See, they didn't have any weapon!" when said video clearly shows the 'peaceful' protesters actually carried weapons.
Last I know, slings are weapons. Ridiculous ones when you're fighting a modern army, but still. A weapon. Now the real question is "why did these peaceful protesters have so many weapons in their ship?". My answer is because from the get-go, this attempt to overcome the blockade was a suicide mission meant to make Israel look bad. The crew probably is of the kind that yells "Death to Israel" every once in a while. They clearly don't get my sympathies.
That being said, Israel clearly breached international laws, as usual, and caused the death of innocents - though dumb - civilians. It's about time the world says something about it.
So, the Israelis soldiers had to defend themselves in killing people who wanted to throw them in the water because they (the Israeli soldiers) boarded some boats in international waters to arrested and put in jail the crew members that refused to be jailed without protest.
These terrorists have no manners…
This makes a good bit of sense (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/06/israel-scores-an-own-goal/57490/)to me:
This morning a bunch of people are trying to defend Israel by saying that the protesters attacked first. No, they didn't. Boarding someone's ship in international waters is an attack. To put it another way, how many of the people mounting this defense would criticize Israeli sailors if they attacked a bunch of armed Palestinians who were airdropping, one by one, onto their ship, after firing tear gas grenades in to soften them up?
LeftEyeNine
06-01-2010, 20:20
Though I think Israel handled this story rather poorly (actually, they could only have made it worse by sinking the ship), I'm kind of baffled that people go around, show this video and say "See, they didn't have any weapon!" when said video clearly shows the 'peaceful' protesters actually carried weapons.
Last I know, slings are weapons. Ridiculous ones when you're fighting a modern army, but still. A weapon. Now the real question is "why did these peaceful protesters have so many weapons in their ship?". My answer is because from the get-go, this attempt to overcome the blockade was a suicide mission meant to make Israel look bad. The crew probably is of the kind that yells "Death to Israel" every once in a while. They clearly don't get my sympathies.
That being said, Israel clearly breached international laws, as usual, and caused the death of innocents - though dumb - civilians. It's about time the world says something about it.
Mugs, forks, chairs, bottles are of the same category if slings are counted as weapons against army with modern weaponry. Come on. Everybody in this conflict who their "enemies" were and what they possessed.
Moreover, having seen the boarding of the ship, I'm getting increasingly concerned over the method Israeli army used. Doesn't it look utterly amateurish ?
Furunculus
06-01-2010, 21:00
Mugs, forks, chairs, bottles are of the same category if slings are counted as weapons against army with modern weaponry. Come on. Everybody in this conflict who their "enemies" were and what they possessed.
Moreover, having seen the boarding of the ship, I'm getting increasingly concerned over the method Israeli army used. Doesn't it look utterly amateurish ?
yes, wasn't it ameteurish to go in with paintball guns and sidearms with strict instructions not to use the latter unless they faced mortal threat, in fact they got what was coming to them for being such a bunch of pussies.
it doesn't matter if they had sharpened spoons, they offered armed violence to the boarding party of a sovereign nation state that had already informed them them destination was not permitted, and that the alternative was to unload at an israeli port whereupon humanitarian goods would be transported onward to Gaza.
LeftEyeNine
06-01-2010, 21:08
I find being dropped one by one on some ground that getting surrounded and outnumbered is inevitable, especially without using any distractive means.
I guess there are some military-experienced fellows among us. Would any of them please comment on what you can see in the video that claims brutal resistance had taken place ?
Edit: Sorry, it's a fruitless discussion about righteousness of Civilians vs. Israeli.
Kralizec
06-01-2010, 21:11
These aren't the first humanitarian ships Israel has intercepted. Is there any proof that Israel actually does transport (all) the goods to Gaza after interception?
Louis VI the Fat
06-01-2010, 21:17
Israel should lead investigation into attack on Gaza flotilla, says US
Turkey's demands for international inquiry blocked at meeting of United Nations security council
The United States has blocked demands at the UN security council for an international inquiry into Israel's assault on the Turkish ship carrying aid to Gaza that left nine pro-Palestinian activists dead. A compromise statement instead calls for an impartial investigation which Washington indicated could be carried out by Israel.
That's one giant lapdog... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/israel-investigation-attack-gaza-flotilla-us)
https://img526.imageshack.us/img526/1424/lap20dog.gif
Meneldil
06-01-2010, 23:19
Mugs, forks, chairs, bottles are of the same category if slings are counted as weapons against army with modern weaponry. Come on. Everybody in this conflict who their "enemies" were and what they possessed.
Moreover, having seen the boarding of the ship, I'm getting increasingly concerned over the method Israeli army used. Doesn't it look utterly amateurish ?
Slings are meant to hurt people. Mugs, forks and chairs aren't. That's about all there is too it. Slings are weapons, iron bars are weapons. You can beat a man to death with one, and that's precisely what these peaceful protesters were trying to do.
Now, I agree that the Israeli intervention looked more than amateurish. Soldiers dropped on the boat one by one, surrounded by hostile people? That's retard, and could only have led to a bloodshed, or at the very least to serious injuries, on one side or the other. I'm not trying to excuse them, or Israel or anything, because they screwed up badly. But it is obvious this was a PR stunt. Whoever planned this trip planned that the ship crew would fight. Peaceful protesters my eye.
Vladimir
06-02-2010, 00:12
Though I think Israel handled this story rather poorly (actually, they could only have made it worse by sinking the ship), I'm kind of baffled that people go around, show this video and say "See, they didn't have any weapon!" when said video clearly shows the 'peaceful' protesters actually carried weapons.
Last I know, slings are weapons. Ridiculous ones when you're fighting a modern army, but still. A weapon. Now the real question is "why did these peaceful protesters have so many weapons in their ship?". My answer is because from the get-go, this attempt to overcome the blockade was a suicide mission meant to make Israel look bad. The crew probably is of the kind that yells "Death to Israel" every once in a while. They clearly don't get my sympathies.
That being said, Israel clearly breached international laws, as usual, and caused the death of innocents - though dumb - civilians. It's about time the world says something about it.
You were doing so good until the last sentence. I thought we settled the issue about international law.
Louis VI the Fat
06-02-2010, 00:30
I thought we settled the issue about international law.The legality of the action remains very much in dispute:
International law experts differ over the legality of the Israel action, with some asserting that the raid constituted a clear cut violation of the Law of the Sea, while others maintain that Israel can board foreign vessels in international waters as part of a naval blockade in a time of armed conflict. But scholars on both sides of the debate agree that Israel is required by law to respond with the proportional use of force in the face of violent resistance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060102934.html
The legality of the action remains very much in dispute:
I think the major issue is this: Without legitimizing the Gaza blockade, the Israeli navy has absolutely no legal ground upon which to argue. That means if the Gaza Blockade is in itself a violation of the International Law, then Israel cannot use an illegal blockade as any base of argument for an intervention or apprehension of anything either off the International waters or in the Gaza EEZ/Territorial Waters.
Since I'm not aware of anything legitimizing the blockade in International Law, I'm afraid that the case is unarguable. The fleet is by all means allowed to break a blockade which is illegal from the get go.
As the blockade is illegal, it is not bound by the same rules as legally sanctioned blockades. Therefore, Israel cannot use its blockade as a valid argument for action.
Ibn-Khaldun
06-02-2010, 01:15
Having said international waters which is commonly understood to include the 200 mile zone, there is also the issue of Israel not having signed the convention of the law of the sea.
This indicates that they do not adhere to the convention and International courts can't do anythingand about it. Israel will claim immunity if a court case should appear in Turkey. Which leaves a court case in Israel...
There is always Netherlands.
Also, since Israel can declare 100 km security zones from their coast then I think Estonia should do it also. Perhaps, we should go even further. 200 km?
There is always Netherlands.
Also, since Israel can declare 100 km security zones from their coast then I think Estonia should do it also. Perhaps, we should go even further. 200 km?
I declare the entire world waters a Portuguese security zone. Further, Portugal reserves the right to aprehend any ship it desires and kill it's occupants. Thank you.
Ibn-Khaldun
06-02-2010, 01:30
I declare the entire world waters a Portuguese security zone. Further, Portugal reserves the right to aprehend any ship it desires and kill it's occupants. Thank you.
Hey!! Don't get greedy! :whip:
Incongruous
06-02-2010, 01:37
Why is anyone seriuosly discussing legal niceties when we are discussing Israel, a nation so outside the law I fail to understand how one could expect them to understand it, Israel has given up its right to be judged legally time and again. As far as I am concerned that nation does not desrve and should not recieve any legal considerations from its enemies, a dangerous situation for the most despised country on earth.
If the premier of Israel was assasinated, I believe it would simply be the removal of a criminal, when the IDF is attacked it is merely a response to a criminal gang.
Why should anyone treat Israel within the legal code if that nation refuses to abide by it?
Seamus Fermanagh
06-02-2010, 01:46
Why is anyone seriuosly discussing legal niceties when we are discussing Israel, a nation so outside the law I fail to understand how one could expect them to understand it, Israel has given up its right to be judged legally time and again. As far as I am concerned that nation does not desrve and should not recieve any legal considerations from its enemies, a dangerous situation for the most despised country on earth.
If the premier of Israel was assasinated, I believe it would simply be the removal of a criminal, when the IDF is attacked it is merely a response to a criminal gang.
Why should anyone treat Israel within the legal code if that nation refuses to abide by it?
Magyar, stop sugar-coating things and tell me what you really think..... just kidding.
You do realize that if we take this standard as the operative standard, a large majority of nation-states would have to be considered criminal. Most of international law has been "honored in the breach" for a goodly number of annual orbits. You may have a particular animus toward Israel, but the number of states breaking, bending, or twisting international law to suit their own interests is not small. I daresay there are those who might view the USA as having transgressed the spirit of an international law or three....from time to time.
Doesn't it become impractical to treat everyone as criminals?
By the way, you implicitly are advocating a stance akin to old-style outlawry -- anybody can kill the outlaw at anytime without penalty -- which England itself moved away from beginning with Magna Carta. Do you really want international law and relations to revert there?
Tellos Athenaios
06-02-2010, 01:47
The legality of the action remains very much in dispute:
Well, what Jolt said. Furthermore there is a small but significant difference between interception and attack/assault/raid: it is a matter of proportionate military force. The former implies minimum of military force and a certain ritual*; the latter is the unceremonious inconsiderate rush to get what you want. Or to use the analogy once more: it is the difference between a police unit arresting an aggressive suspect and a day for the police brutality thread.
* A ritual which was only partially observed; for instance it is usually a repeated warning (as in: repeated when interception vessels meet their targets) followed by warning shots (before the bow) followed only then by more immediate action.
Louis VI the Fat
06-02-2010, 01:51
I think the major issue is this: Without legitimizing the Naboo blockade, the Trade Federation fleet has absolutely no legal ground upon which to argue. That means if the Naboo Blockade is in itself a violation of the International Law, then the Republic can not use an illegal blockade as any base of argument for an intervention or apprehension of anything either off the International space or in Naboo / Inner Rim.
Since I'm not aware of anything legitimizing the blockade in International Law, I'm afraid that the case is unarguable. The fleet is by all means allowed to break a blockade which is illegal from the get go.
As the blockade is illegal, it is not bound by the same rules as legally sanctioned blockades. Therefore, the Trade Federation can not use its blockade as a valid argument for action.See now this is why I got such a headache from the Phantom Menace.
I don't understand that stuff man.
Just tell me who the bad guys are and then let Han run that blockade.
Seamus Fermanagh
06-02-2010, 01:52
Hey!! Don't get greedy! :whip:
Aren't they still holding the Azores in abject subjugation?
:clown:
PanzerJaeger
06-02-2010, 02:27
Another detail we come to see thanks to the thread:
Warmonging before your gaming consoles is the new hobby of the gym-pumped rifle-poser softie.
Teach Turks a lesson ! AIIEEEEEEEYAY ! :antlers:
First of all, such a scenario ends up a war of worldwide scale since the "starring" actors are the flag carriers of the silent polarization that inherits cold-war era stances as well as the newly developed religiously-devoted yet actually political-oriented anti-american and anti-zionist movement.
It's no wonder how our luvley unkle gets himself trapped in mud over and over 'cause apparently it somehow maintains an endless stream of warmongers. Intellectuality has nothing to do with level of welfare over there across this continent. Somebody out there is still wishing for his very own citizens to get choked in Middle East just as they did in Vietnam and Iraq.
Sorry to disappoint you but the people this surrounding has raised are so hard-skinned -ridiculously, thanks to G8 meddlings here- that they may be failing at everything else but they fight well. If they can't do it, they can blow themselves up. Bitter fact about ones that ain't got much to lose.
Anyway, even the "I'm-so-neutral"ists were looking for an excuse to turn their pro-in-advance faces on. As soon as we got shots of Israeli troops landing on the civilian ship in international waters, "oh look how they deserve to die" monging popped up.
Is this how your lovely democracies were rubbed in face of us in the very first chance ? Is this the first time on earth some professional and organized security force encounters an angry mob ? Have we re-furnished your understanding of humanism with "go for the kill if they're angry" kind of handling ? If professionals act so, and out of their national waters, what can you expect out of ones in the streets ? Looking out of your window (ref: "what did you expect Israel to do ?"): Seriously, what kind of reaction did you expect to see when those people saw Israeli troopers being offloaded onto their ships ?
Keep it honest please. If you're pro-Israel, you don't have to hide behind the curtain, 'cause your Israel flag slippers can still be seen.
You've lost your sense for value of human life. But I say, screw it, you got your God of War 4 on PS3 coming anyway. We will keep on suffering your neo-connazi-run governments' policies. Bonus: A lot of your citizens included in the suffering.
Is there any way you can write a longer post that makes less sense?
I mean, seriously, as someone who is pro-Israel, I feel like maybe I should be insulted. It appears that post is laced with personal attacks and insults, especially considering your other posts in this thread. However, it is so nonsensical and so poorly written, I'm just not sure.
Can you explain what you meant more clearly?
KukriKhan
06-02-2010, 02:42
I find being dropped one by one on some ground that getting surrounded and outnumbered is inevitable, especially without using any distractive means.
I guess there are some military-experienced fellows among us. Would any of them please comment on what you can see in the video that claims brutal resistance had taken place ?
Edit: Sorry, it's a fruitless discussion about righteousness of Civilians vs. Israeli.
They performed a modified Airmobile Assault. Typically up to 6 (3 from each side) soldiers would rappel simultaneously off the chopper, as quickly as possible. Having seen some of the infrared video, I (totally) speculate that the IDF wanted the operation to look as peaceful and nonthreatening as possible, hence the one-at-a-time procedure used vs. a six-man fire team in full-assault mode. Again: I'm only guessing, but it looks to me like hostile resistance was the last thing IDF expected or planned for (paintball guns were mentioned, which would have been handy in "marking" 'trouble-makers' for processing later, in port). By some reports, the IDF boarders' lethal arms consisted of sidearms; other reports identify assault rifles.
My complaint, for which I have no standing since I was not there, is: it appears the boarding party was unprepared for the level of resistance encountered, then, without a Plan B or Plan C to ratchet up response incrementally, jumped to Plan D: open fire. Again, I was not on-board, and recognize just how quickly situations and perceptions change - especially when in amongst unruly crowds. But: somebody was overhead watching and filming this event - presumably someone in a leadership position. THAT's the guy I wanna hear talking. He and the the ship's Captain. Because what should have been a routine by now (they've been doing this for 2 years or so) board-search-inspect-divert action went wrong and people died.
Seamus Fermanagh
06-02-2010, 03:11
Is there any way you can write a longer post that makes less sense?
I mean, seriously, as someone who is pro-Israel, I feel like maybe I should be insulted. It appears that post is laced with personal attacks and insults, especially considering your other posts in this thread. However, it is so nonsensical and so poorly written, I'm just not sure.
Can you explain what you meant more clearly?
It rambled a bit, PJ, but the basic thrust was pretty clear. He's suggesting that a lot of the posturings and platitudes are blatantly hypocritical, and goes on to suggest that he'd prefer the comments of out-and-out "I want the Israelis to win" types over people who he believes WANT to say that but are veiling their commentary in nit-picky assessments of international law. LEN's not necessarily correct, but it's not an entirely unfounded critique.
I'd complain more about his use of English if I myself had half as good a command of a second language. Until I do, I'll just read with a discerning eye and look at the spirit of it more than the particulars of parsiflage.
Incongruous
06-02-2010, 03:23
Magyar, stop sugar-coating things and tell me what you really think..... just kidding.
You do realize that if we take this standard as the operative standard, a large majority of nation-states would have to be considered criminal. Most of international law has been "honored in the breach" for a goodly number of annual orbits. You may have a particular animus toward Israel, but the number of states breaking, bending, or twisting international law to suit their own interests is not small. I daresay there are those who might view the USA as having transgressed the spirit of an international law or three....from time to time.
Doesn't it become impractical to treat everyone as criminals?
By the way, you implicitly are advocating a stance akin to old-style outlawry -- anybody can kill the outlaw at anytime without penalty -- which England itself moved away from beginning with Magna Carta. Do you really want international law and relations to revert there?
You speak sense of course, my own is only just coming back after I almost choked on my cake when I read the lastest chapter in Israel's sordid military history. It is just that I get so annoyed by Israel's flagrant disregard for decency let alone the law, and how we all just nod quietly when Israel sticks up the middle finger. It has got to the point where the West (esp. the U.SA) has started to look weak and vacilating when dealing with a country which relies on it for it's exsitence, while playing tough guys with Iran, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and N. Korea. It is counter-productive to "Western" aims as a whole. To dispense with ethics and morality, through the simple lens of Realpolitik it is clear that Israel is now a hinderence to Western might and Western goals, it should be dispensed with or lobotomised.
If only the IDF had read their handy guide to fast roping (http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2010/06/fast-roping-101.html)...
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/aDbBc0.png
Meneldil
06-02-2010, 08:47
You were doing so good until the last sentence. I thought we settled the issue about international law.
Settled by who may I ask? Louis offered a dozen of arguments according to which Israel breached the law. The biggest of all being that Israel takes Gazaen waters for hers...
Meneldil
06-02-2010, 09:00
Delete
Furunculus
06-02-2010, 09:16
It rambled a bit, PJ, but the basic thrust was pretty clear. He's suggesting that a lot of the posturings and platitudes are blatantly hypocritical, and goes on to suggest that he'd prefer the comments of out-and-out "I want the Israelis to win" types over people who he believes WANT to say that but are veiling their commentary in nit-picky assessments of international law. LEN's not necessarily correct, but it's not an entirely unfounded critique.
and i pointed out, politely, that what he was saying was utter bovine excrement from my own point of view, as the charge that israeli bias is causing me to hide behind legal technicalities is utterly ridiculous given that i am equally pro-turkey as I am pro-israel.
al Roumi
06-02-2010, 10:18
These aren't the first humanitarian ships Israel has intercepted. Is there any proof that Israel actually does transport (all) the goods to Gaza after interception?
Absolutely none. The whole point of the blockade is to restrict Hamas' supply as severely as possible, with the secondary aim of turning the citizens of Gaza against Hamas. That last is based on the incredibly tenuous assumption that Israel can convince the Gazans that it's Hamas' fault that they don't have concrete to rebuild their homes...
For a list what does/doesn't get in, see here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7545636.stm)
aimlesswanderer
06-02-2010, 10:32
Absolutely none. The whole point of the blockade is to restrict Hamas' supply as severely as possible, with the secondary aim of turning the citizens of Gaza against Hamas. That last is based on the incredibly tenuous assumption that Israel can convince the Gazans that it's Hamas' fault that they don't have concrete to rebuild their homes...
For a list what does/doesn't get in, see here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7545636.stm)
That list, which looks like they flipped a coin to determine what is "approved", is another really bad look. I mean really, tea ok, but chocolate not? And perhaps they shouldn't have closed half of the 6 border crossings.
Ibn-Khaldun
06-02-2010, 10:33
You speak sense of course, my own is only just coming back after I almost choked on my cake when I read the lastest chapter in Israel's sordid military history. It is just that I get so annoyed by Israel's flagrant disregard for decency let alone the law, and how we all just nod quietly when Israel sticks up the middle finger. It has got to the point where the West (esp. the U.SA) has started to look weak and vacilating when dealing with a country which relies on it for it's exsitence, while playing tough guys with Iran, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and N. Korea. It is counter-productive to "Western" aims as a whole. To dispense with ethics and morality, through the simple lens of Realpolitik it is clear that Israel is now a hinderence to Western might and Western goals, it should be dispensed with or lobotomised.
What else can we do? If we say something we are being called anti-Jew nazi supporter who is planning another holocaust. Israel is above the law because no one wants to be called that.
That list, which looks like they flipped a coin to determine what is "approved", is another really bad look. I mean really, tea ok, but chocolate not? And perhaps they shouldn't have closed half of the 6 border crossings.
After reading that list, I simply cannot understand how anyone in their sane mind could defend this blockade. It's not just a breach of international law, it's scandalous and a disgrace.
What explanation is there to deny people blankets, light bulbs, sheets, clothing, pasta, shoes? What justification is there? What has that got to do with protecting yourself against terrorists. What has starving children have to do with fighting terrorism? This is just abusing power to humiliate other people for the sake of humiliating them.
:thumbsdown:
Seamus Fermanagh
06-02-2010, 12:23
After reading that list, I simply cannot understand how anyone in their sane mind could defend this blockade. It's not just a breach of international law, it's scandalous and a disgrace.
What explanation is there to deny people blankets, light bulbs, sheets, clothing, pasta, shoes? What justification is there? What has that got to do with protecting yourself against terrorists. What has starving children have to do with fighting terrorism? This is just abusing power to humiliate other people for the sake of humiliating them.
:thumbsdown:
I think I agree with you. The blockade as constituted is somewhat petty and inconsistent and the "make the people hurt and they'll turn on their bad leaders and remove them" approach hasn't worked much historically -- people always blame the external force more. Israel should either stop the blockade or make it a complete and true blockade -- the current ramshackle arrangement is illogical and doomed to being ineffective. It's probably the result of some kind of compromise among the Israeli leadership, indicating that they really don't have the support to pursue a full-on war strategy against the Palestinians.
gaelic cowboy
06-02-2010, 13:37
The blockade is worthless Egypt will be opening it's border with Gaza.
Egypt opens border with Gaza to let aid through
(http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/egypt-opens-border-with-gaza-to-let-aid-through-2203344.html)
Wednesday June 02 2010
Egypt has opened its border with the Gaza Strip to let Palestinians cross, writes Nidal al-Mughrabi.
The decision, announced yesterday, prompted hundreds of people to race to the crossing point in the southern Gaza town of Rafah, although the gates remained closed.
Officials in Egypt and Gaza said the crossing would open today until further notice -- a step seen as an attempt by Cairo to deflect criticism of its role in imposing the blockade against Gaza.
Rafah is the only point on Gaza's borders not controlled by Israel.
Irish Independent
al Roumi
06-02-2010, 14:22
The blockade is worthless Egypt will be opening it's border with Gaza.
That's not made it onto the BBC or AlJazeera (English) yet...
gaelic cowboy
06-02-2010, 14:37
I just did a simple google Eygpt Gaza and got two links
Associated Press (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hitISYixOv_DC0ABZeYzc6dg2BDAD9G32RE00)
Reuters (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hitISYixOv_DC0ABZeYzc6dg2BDAD9G32RE00)
KukriKhan
06-02-2010, 14:55
BBC Analysis/Report of What went Tactically Wrong (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10203333.stm)
More details:
...The soldiers, who had started to use stun grenades, then asked for permission to use their firearms. They were given the go-ahead.
By whom?
gaelic cowboy
06-02-2010, 15:15
Have you seen the list of banned items or partially banned on case by case basis :dizzy2: wtf found the link on economist website
http://gisha.org/UserFiles/File/HiddenMessages/ItemsGazaStrip060510.pdf
gaelic cowboy
06-02-2010, 15:19
delete
al Roumi
06-02-2010, 15:25
I just did a simple google Eygpt Gaza and got two links
Associated Press (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hitISYixOv_DC0ABZeYzc6dg2BDAD9G32RE00)
Reuters (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hitISYixOv_DC0ABZeYzc6dg2BDAD9G32RE00)
Thanks :bow:
Have you seen the list of banned items or partially banned on case by case basis :dizzy2: wtf found the link on economist website
http://gisha.org/UserFiles/File/HiddenMessages/ItemsGazaStrip060510.pdf
fishing rods?
dried fruit?
musical instruments?
size A4 paper?
It would be hilarious if this were some script of an absurd movie, but it's real :inquisitive:
Were they on drugs while writing that list?
Why is size A3 paper not prohibited? Cleary, size A3 paper is also a dangerous weapon that can be used to kill, so why are such dangerous devices allowed?
:wall:
So, this blockade is defended by some of you because it is entirely justified to ban dangerous weapons like dried fruit, fresh meat, size A4 paper and fishing rods?
Rocket launchers are not on the list of prohibited items :laugh4:
Does Israel fear an invasion of a Palestine army, armed to the teeth with size A4 paper and dried fruit?
al Roumi
06-02-2010, 15:41
Why is size A3 paper not prohibited? Cleary, size A3 paper is also a dangerous weapon that can be used to kill, so why are such dangerous devices allowed?
:wall:
So, this blockade is defended by some of you because it is entirely justified to ban dangerous weapons like dried fruit, fresh meat, size A4 paper and fishing rods?
Well... Have you considered the danger of Hamas creating glider borne spice bombs out of A4 paper, Cardamom, cumin, sage, coriander and ginger?
Honestly, the "Middle east question" fills me with such profound sadness. Israels' skill and apptitude for doing whatever the hell it likes is as upsetting as the idea of Jews being "pushed into the sea".
Does Israel fear an invasion of a Palestine army, armed to the teeth with size A4 paper and dried fruit?
Hey, paper cuts hurt!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.