Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

alastair

Macros42 wrote: »

Only if you recognise their legal right to maintain a blockade. They have no right to police Gazan waters.

Yes they do - I've posted the legal treaty between Israel and the PA in this thread. An internationally binding legal document. What they don't have the right to do is maintain a blockade of the flavour they're currently employing. They can stop missiles/weapons etc going in quite legally.

Macros42 wrote: »

It's owned and operated by the Irish arm of an organisation and its home port is Dundalk. Where the boat is registered is irrelevant.

Not really:

This is very important. While the Israeli attack remains illegal, it means that the injured party - and the party with legal jurisdiction over the event - is the incapable Comoros Islands rather than the highly capable Turkey. It also greatly reduces the NATO angle, unless other attacked ships were flying the Turkish flag.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/06/whay_was_the_ma.html

same rules apply here - any illegal act on the ship would have been directed at Cambodia rather than Ireland, but Martin was referencing the Irish citizens, not the ship itself.

dlofnep

Grumpypants wrote: »

Wow unarmed civilians don't attack soldiers terrorists coming to check illegally hijack their boat and don't get shot. What a surprise

Fixed it for you.

Grumpypants wrote: »

Now all the people in Gaza who are starving can get their life saving concrete and footballs.

What an utterly absurd comment. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is real and is very serious. People are short of food, and housing. It isn't a myth, and has been internationally accepted. The fact that you would make light of their suffering, does little to give substance to your POV.

sceptre

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The ship is registered in Cambodia, not Ireland, so you're not only naive but ill-informed.

Cambodia-registered and Irish-owned and operated. It's perfectly reasonable to call it an "Irish ship", arguably more accurate. Ships are registered in the oddest places all the time. As more than half of ships worldwide are registered under flags of convenience, principally in the Bahamas, Liberia and Panama (as well as Cambodia, where 79% of ships registered there are foreign-owned), calling it a "Cambodian ship" would be rather inaccurate. Technically, one should refer to it as a "Cambodia(n)-registered ship" or an "Irish owned and operated" ship (or the two together if you're feeling frisky) or a Free Gaza Movement ship but for a short version as people do, if anyone's going to call it a <countryname> ship, it'd be an Irish ship. That's why the BBC refer to it as an "Irish aid ship" for example. Knowledge is power. Cheap pointscoring is counterproductive.

carrot_flowers

Searching some ships is different than murdering dozens of people, and imprisoning about 100 more. Israel is way out of line. I am a US citizen and my mother was an Orthodox Jew. That doesn't sway me. I wrote multiple letters directly to president Obama, signed sealed and registered, pleading that he cease US tax aid to Israel until they stop their undiplomatic, barbaric behaviour towards...everyone. They killed Irish, they killed Pakistanis, they killed the ever-friendly Swedish, they killed Turkish, they killed UNITED STATES AMERICANS! Their sworn allies! I'm sure there are more I am leaving out, but this is just...a farce!

I have never been a supporter of Israel. The Jewish people have long needed a land to be safe but there is land larger than Israel throughout Iowa, Kansas, ect of nothing but empty fields where USA could have aided these people-and, this way they would be interacting with and therefore contributing to the US economy instead of being a tax drain. Sounds like a simple solution doesn't it? Israelis have grown more and more paranoid throughout time and the killing just gets more and more brutal.

Grumpypants

karma_ wrote: »

Would you have said the same about someone trying to deliver aid to the Warsaw ghetto?

No, what a strange question.

Ive no problem with them delivering Aid in fact i think its great.

My problem with this whole thing is the way they went about delivering the Aid.

Instead of delivering aid in the correct way that meant the aid got to the people as quickly as possible they decided it was better to break a blockade and attack soldiers.

Now maybe because im not a peace worker i don't understand the intricacy of delivering aid and perhaps making a big international incident out of it getting 9 people shot and hundreds more arrested and deported is the quickest way to get that Aid delivered.

Personally if it was me id say "hey Israel i have a boat here full of food that i want to deliver, What's that? you want to check what's on the boat ? Why, its just food? Oh people have used these aid boats to smuggle weapons into Gaza that are then used to fire at you killing innocent children. Oh that's awful in that case sure come aboard i dont want anything to endanger innocent children and ive nothing to hide because im a peaceful aid delivery man".


But thats just me.

Grumpypants

alastair wrote: »

Yeah. Well done Israel. :rolleyes:

I sincerely hope for Israel's security that they check to see if there's any 'sophisticated weapons' in the ship's galley.

Or hidden below in with all the aid like on previous boats.

alastair

Grumpypants wrote: »

Instead of delivering aid in the correct way ...
Now maybe because im not a peace worker i don't understand the intricacy of delivering aid and perhaps making a big international incident out of it getting 9 people shot and hundreds more arrested and deported is the quickest way to get that Aid delivered.

Delivering aid the 'correct way' ensures that the aid doesn't get through. Much of the aid is banned by the party controlling the 'correct' access points.

It could well be that 'making a big international incident out of it' is indeed the quickest way to get that aid delivered. If the change in shipping checks policy suggested by Benjamin Netanyahu is to be taken at face value (something of a stretch tbh) then the flotilla is certainly working to change the blockade gameplan.

alastair

Grumpypants wrote: »

Or hidden below in with all the aid like on previous boats.

Care to provide a link that supports this claim?

Macha

Grumpypants wrote: »

Instead of delivering aid in the correct way that meant the aid got to the people as quickly as possible they decided it was better to break a blockade and attack soldiers.

Who gets to decide that?

Grumpypants wrote: »

Now maybe because im not a peace worker i don't understand the intricacy of delivering aid and perhaps making a big international incident out of it getting 9 people shot and hundreds more arrested and deported is the quickest way to get that Aid delivered.

Something similar to "getting raped"?

Of course there is a PR element to their actions. Why do you not appreciate the positive impacts that greater international attention can have on the Gazan blocade?

karma_

Grumpypants wrote: »

No, what a strange question.

Ive no problem with them delivering Aid in fact i think its great.

My problem with this whole thing is the way they went about delivering the Aid.

Instead of delivering aid in the correct way that meant the aid got to the people as quickly as possible they decided it was better to break a blockade and attack soldiers.

Now maybe because im not a peace worker i don't understand the intricacy of delivering aid and perhaps making a big international incident out of it getting 9 people shot and hundreds more arrested and deported is the quickest way to get that Aid delivered.

Personally if it was me id say "hey Israel i have a boat here full of food that i want to deliver, What's that? you want to check what's on the boat ? Why, its just food? Oh people have used these aid boats to smuggle weapons into Gaza that are then used to fire at you killing innocent children. Oh that's awful in that case sure come aboard i dont want anything to endanger innocent children and ive nothing to hide because im a peaceful aid delivery man".


But thats just me.

Well at least we agree on something.

However, when certain essential items are banned from aid it becomes an issue, I wont mention any items that are banned but some of them are enough to raise an eyebrow at.

No one doubts that this flotilla was always destined to be stopped by Israel, everyone expected that to happen, and everyone would have been happy because some of the aid would have been transferred through and the organisers of the flotilla would have made their point to an international audience highlighting the suffering caused by this blockade.

What no one expected was for the Israeli military to attack the ship in the dead of night, in waters they had no jurisdiction in and end up killing 9 and wounding many more. That behaviour is unacceptable for any country, not just Israel.

When was anyone shouting for the 1.5 million Gazans before this? sure it's been mentioned in passing but now there is real political pressure on Israel to life this inhumane blockade and that was really the point all along.

Zulu

Grumpypants wrote: »

Or hidden below in with all the aid like on previous boats.

Strawman argument.

marius

Rumour that the turkish PM is going to sail on a flotilla to Gaza protected by Turkish Navy!!!

alastair

marius wrote: »

Rumour that the turkish PM is going to sail on a flotilla to Gaza protected by Turkish Navy!!!

The Turkish navy can't enter Gazan waters without permission, so it would be fairly pointless to involve them (unless Israel is stupid enough to try and repeat the international waters debacle).

dlofnep

marius wrote: »

Rumour that the turkish PM is going to sail on a flotilla to Gaza protected by Turkish Navy!!!

Link?

glaston

Grumpypants wrote: »

No, what a strange question.

Instead of delivering aid in the correct way that meant the aid got to the people as quickly as possible they decided it was better to break a blockade and attack soldiers.

Now maybe because im not a peace worker i don't understand the intricacy of delivering aid and perhaps making a big international incident out of it getting 9 people shot and hundreds more arrested and deported is the quickest way to get that Aid delivered.

Its fairly obvious that many of the flotilla mob were more interested in making this into a big news story that actually delivering aid.

The Israeli government would be irresponsible if it allowed random ships to dock in Gaza ports and unload their cargo without checking them. It wouldnt be too long until Mahmoud Ahmadinejad started delivering the Katyushas.

alastair

glaston wrote: »

Its fairly obvious that many of the flotilla mob were more interested in making this into a big news story that actually delivering aid.

The Israeli government would be irresponsible if it allowed random ships to dock in Gaza ports and unload their cargo without checking them. It wouldnt be too long until Mahmoud Ahmadinejad started delivering the Katyushas.

Once again (how often does it need saying?) - The end of the aid blockade has nothing to do with stopping missiles entering Gaza. Israel can (and will) knock themselves out checking for weapons - they just can't block aid.

sceptre

Grumpypants wrote: »

Or hidden below in with all the aid like on previous boats.

The Francopop and Karine A incidents aren't particularly relevant (especially not the Francopop given where and how it was boarded and its destination). The issue is still the blockade itself as well as the banned list and its implications. Whether you agree with the blockade and banned list or not, these are still the issues. It's a side-swipe and not a particularly useful one.

glaston

alastair wrote: »

Once again (how often does it need saying?) - The end of the aid blockade has nothing to do with stopping missiles entering Gaza. Israel can (and will) knock themselves out checking for weapons - they just can't block aid.

So how do you search for rockets on a ship that refuses to stop/be searched?

alastair

glaston wrote: »

So how do you search for rockets on a ship that refuses to stop/be searched?

The ship has every right to refuse in international waters. It doesn't have that right in Gazan waters. You search the ships within Gazan waters and allow through any aid. Not too difficult a concept. Given that Israel has control of Gazan waters, they could even insist that cargo gets landed in Israel - they just can't block aid as a consequence.

Grumpypants

taconnol wrote: »

Who gets to decide that?


Something similar to "getting raped"?

Of course there is a PR element to their actions. Why do you not appreciate the positive impacts that greater international attention can have on the Gazan blocade?

Who ever controls to borders decides that, its not for an aid workers to make up there own rules when entering some ones else's country. Especially one in a war zone.



Because i don't think it was worth 9 lives to "make a point". If they stopped all the rockets coming from Gaza and then made their points about suffering there would be no comeback from the other side but as long as rockets kill innocent civilians these blockades will stay in place and people will back Israel's right to defend itself. Take away the need to defend these rights and you create serious justified international pressure to remove it.

glaston

Right so you have a ship with lots of Turkish fundamentalists potentially carrying long range missiles. This ship refuses to stop, be searched, wtf would you let it get any closer to civillians?

Anyway its a no win situation. Israel cant do anything in international waters and same bleeding heart crowd would complain if they boarded a ship in Gaza waters, probably say it was out of their jurisdiction.

alastair

Grumpypants wrote: »

Who ever controls to borders decides that, its not for an aid workers to make up there own rules when entering some ones else's country. Especially one in a war zone.

It's not a war zone. And no ship except the Rachael Corrie entered national territorial waters. Rules that are unjust can and should be tested by those who are prepared to take the reasonable consequences - which don't include getting shot on the high seas.

Grumpypants wrote: »

Because i don't think it was worth 9 lives to "make a point". If they stopped all the rockets coming from Gaza and then made their points about suffering there would be no comeback from the other side but as long as rockets kill innocent civilians these blockades will stay in place and people will back Israel's right to defend itself. Take away the need to defend these rights and you create serious justified international pressure to remove it.

The blockades aren't going to remain in place - it's clear as day that Israel can't maintain the status quo - where the blockade has very little to do with a right to defend the state. Whether the cost of nine lives is too much is debatable, but that was down to Israeli decisions - not the activists.

karma_

Grumpypants wrote: »

Who ever controls to borders decides that, its not for an aid workers to make up there own rules when entering some ones else's country. Especially one in a war zone.



Because i don't think it was worth 9 lives to "make a point". If they stopped all the rockets coming from Gaza and then made their points about suffering there would be no comeback from the other side but as long as rockets kill innocent civilians these blockades will stay in place and people will back Israel's right to defend itself. Take away the need to defend these rights and you create serious justified international pressure to remove it.

So basically your stance that collective punishment is justified.I would hope that, in all but the most ardent hardline attitudes is considered morally bankrupt.

dlofnep

glaston wrote: »

Right so you have a ship with lots of Turkish fundamentalists potentially carrying long range missiles. This ship refuses to stop, be searched, wtf would you let it get any closer to civillians?

It was not potentially carrying long range missiles. There was no evidence to suggest so. Moreover - the welcomed inspections by the UN to confirm their cargo.

glaston wrote: »

Anyway its a no win situation. Israel cant do anything in international waters and same bleeding heart crowd would complain if they boarded a ship in Gaza waters, probably say it was out of their juristiction.

It's a no win situation for Israel because they are blocking legitimate aid from reaching Gaza.

alastair

glaston wrote: »

Right so you have a ship with lots of Turkish fundamentalists potentially carrying long range missiles. This ship refuses to stop, be searched, wtf would you let it get any closer to civillians?

Anyway its a no win situation. Israel cant do anything in international waters and same bleeding heart crowd would complain if they boarded a ship in Gaza waters, probably say it was out of their juristiction.

Care to drag the discussion back into the realms of reality?

karma_

glaston wrote: »

Right so you have a ship with lots of Turkish fundamentalists potentially carrying long range missiles. This ship refuses to stop, be searched, wtf would you let it get any closer to civillians?

Anyway its a no win situation. Israel cant do anything in international waters and same bleeding heart crowd would complain if they boarded a ship in Gaza waters, probably say it was out of their juristiction.

Firstly, Turkey is a secular state and has been a long time ally of Israel.

Secondly, no nation has the right to board a ship in international waters.

Thirdly, Israel would have a right to stop the ships in Gazan waters.

Grumpypants

I find it hard to believe that people are upset about international law. Getting shot 24 miles from shore or 150 makes little difference to the people who are dead.

karma_

Grumpypants wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that people are upset about international law. Getting shot 24 miles from shore or 150 makes little difference to the people who are dead.

Have you been following this thread at all?

A Dub in Glasgo

Grumpypants wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that people are upset about international law. Getting shot 24 miles from shore or 150 makes little difference to the people who are dead.

So what is your point?

dlofnep

Grumpypants wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that people are upset about international law. Getting shot 24 miles from shore or 150 makes little difference to the people who are dead.

They are two different issues. Stop conflating them.