Israel kills to Maintain Blockade

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

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...


https://img526.imageshack.us/img526/1424/lap20dog.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I thought we settled the issue about international law.

---

The legality of the action remains very much in dispute:

Quote:

---

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...060102934.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

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:

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun

Hey!! Don't get greedy! :whip:

---

Aren't they still holding the Azores in abject subjugation?

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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 ...

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...nia/aDbBc0.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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...

Delete

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aimlesswanderer

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.