Israel kills to Maintain Blockade

[Vladimir]

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]

You really do have a fascination with this, don't you?

You know it's the truth.

[gaelic cowboy]

Hmm in all the confusion this Irish boat is still steaming for Gaza the MV Rachel Corrie.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

....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?

---------------------------------------------------------

[edit]

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...........

[/edit]

[LeftEyeNine]

So-called "weapons" captured on the head ship, Mavi Marmara, released by IDF:

http://video.ntvmsnbc.com/mavi-marma...-silahlar.html

[Furunculus]

So-called "weapons" captured on the head ship, Mavi Marmara, released by IDF:

http://video.ntvmsnbc.com/mavi-marma...-silahlar.html

they resisted a boarding with violent attack, using firebombs, clubs, knives, tools, and slingshots. i am still failing to sympathise.

[HoreTore]

tone of righteous indignation

Then the interwebs failed to properly represent my mood.

[Furunculus]

Then the interwebs failed to properly represent my mood.

in that case you have my apologies. :)

[Ser Clegane]

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

[Furunculus]

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

my pleasure.

[LeftEyeNine]

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.

[Sigurd]

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/385ec082...25641f002d49ce

[Andres]

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]

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]

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.

[Andres]

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]

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]

Egypt lifts blockade: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=177146

Ouch. Looks like Israel shot itself in the foot.

[Lemur]

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 ...

'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."

[Husar]

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.

[Lemur]

A very hard-headed perspective:

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]

@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]

So-called "weapons" captured on the head ship, Mavi Marmara, released by IDF:

http://video.ntvmsnbc.com/mavi-marma...-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.

[Brenus]

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…

[Lemur]

This makes a good bit of sense 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?