Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

alastair

prinz wrote: »

Oh it exists all right where did I deny it existed? It just doesn't apply in this situation.:)

The law applies all right. The UNCLOS statutes that deal with international waters and right of passage date back to the previous Convention of the High Seas, which Israel is a signatory to.

Fuhrer

Selkies wrote: »

If they had already opened fire how on earth did they manage to get anywhere near elite commando unit?

They dropped in from helicopters. Right into the middle of them.

Nijmegen

eoin5 wrote: »

They might not have been peaceful but if foreign armed military land on your boat in international waters when you haven't done anything wrong then I'd say you've every right to defend yourself aggressively. If it wasn't in international waters things might have been less clear.

Then don't cry when you get killed doing it.

dlofnep

And what will solve it Eliot - Allowing Israel to get away with every murder, without condemning it? The condemnation of Israel is justified. It doesn't matter if the ship was warned beforehand - Israel did not have the right to stop the ship, or board it in international waters.

I think you'll find that the discussion revolves more around the loss of innocent life, rather than the semantics of whether or not Israel has the right to intercept a humanitarian mission in international waters (which they don't).

wes

prinz wrote: »

Like who? Which laws applicable to Israel have been broken by Israel?

Numerous UN resolutions etc have been broken by Israel, and various laws of the sea have been broken etc. Also, killing people tends to be against the law too.

Nijmegen

Deep Easterly wrote: »

No, it is not. The law is mearly a concept. Human dignity and the right to live and help others who cannot help themselves is what matters, regardless of what any law says. There is more to life than the law.

Yes, actually! Exactly the argument that Israel uses to defend its actions!

That is, its actions to prevent terrorists from attacking its people.

It is up to the Israeli's to defend their people and the Palestinians to defend theirs. The Palestinians choose to fire rockets into Israel, rather than to sit at the table. The best end to a war is a peace treaty. Israel has proven it will go to that table with moderates.

Hamas murdered the moderates in Gaza when they took over.

Nody

prinz wrote: »

How is that whataboutery? Me thinks you don't understand that concept just yet. Anywho, anyone with a real interest in getting aid into Gaza would embrace that, since that is the only way any aid is actually going to get there rightly or wrongly. These ships were never going to be docking in Gaza.

You are aware that the same organization has shipped, and docked, several times before in Gaza using ships, right? If memory serves they have done so 5 times out of 9 (the other 4 they where turned back).

wes

Selkies wrote: »

Again I ask, what were they expecting.

They expected not be murdered by the IDF. Now, what did the IDF expect when they decided to murdered all those people?

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes, they did. They illegally boarded the ship.
Israel had no right to force the ships to dock. Civilians are dead because Israeli soldiers killed them. Now stop with your vomit-inducing apologies.

What law was broken?

dlofnep wrote: »

Right - So if a ship destined for France tomorrow is pulled over by the Irish navy, outside of Irish Waters, is told go to an Irish port where they will be detained in a detention camp - and when they refused, 19 were killed by the Irish navy, it would be justified?

They were going to be deported in keeping with the travel restrictions on Gaza, not "detained in detention camps". If Ireland and France were effectively in a state of war then yeah the Irish navy would be able to board the vessel to conduct a search, or detain the vessel pending search and any casualties caused by resisting that lawful action would also, while regretful, be justified.

partyguinness

prinz wrote: »

I am just not going to jump on a bandwagon and repeat false claims. Israel does a lot wrong. I have been boycotting Israeli goods for a long time. I always suspected that they'd pull a stunt like this, why expect any more tbh, they have always shown themselves to do whatever suits themselves.



I thanked it, because it's true.

It's true...really...would a source be too much to aske for to verify this truth?....

You have just saved millions on the need for a international tribunal of inquiry with your insight and indepth knowledge....LOL

prinz

Nody wrote: »

You are aware that the same organization has shipped, and docked, several times before in Gaza using ships, right? If memory serves they have done so 5 times out of 9 (the other 4 they where turned back).

This convoy in particular were repeatedly informed explicitly that they would not be getting to Gaza.

Ben Hadad

prinz wrote: »

As is mine. I believe it to be morally wrong not to take a balanced appraoch to the whole Israel situation.

Taking a balanced approach to the Isreali situation is very commendable and is something I always strive for.

However we are discussing this one event and it is nigh impossible to view this is moderate terms.

What happened was wrong, and there has been no evidence presented that can make the bulk of the blame for this bloody incident fall on the lap of the Israeli forces and government.

Scofflaw

CabbageThing wrote: »

Bring back Hitler

Banned for idiocy.

moderately,
Scofflaw

2kool4skool

The limited video that has been released shows the following:

1 The Israeli boats opened fire before boarding the ship.

2 One of the commandos who absailed from a helicopter was in a fight with one of the people on board the ship. I see no signn of him being disarmed or being in any way overpowered. Other commandos were also descending and presumably within a very short period of time Israel had more men in that part of the ship.

The Israeli vice admiral Merom in charge of the operation declared, in his briefing to the soldiers and navy officers on the 27th of May that they were going to stop the convoy and that they would not harm the people on board and not respond to spitting, cigarette throwing or cursing. Why then did they start shooting and kill at least one passenger, before they even stepped onto the ship?

j1974

I dunno, im reading a book at the moment all about the history of the middle east and isreal v palestine. It seems to me that, it started with the Zionist jewish movement after the war. They practically invaded palestine and displaced all the indigenous arabs. The disregarded the arabs who had lived there in peace for ages. they were aided by the USA and UK funnilly enough, spurred on in earnest by post holocaust sympathy and, oh yeah a need for middle east passage through the suez to get all that lovely oil!!!

The jews wanted to move all the arabs out of the area they call isreal and created an independent state as "promised by god", whose son they killed by the way!! odd!! "people for a land, for a land without people" they cheered. totally disregarding the local arabs.

Im just going by this book, I'm not an antisemite jew hater, but if yu read any books on it, they isreali jews seem very arrogant and greedy in the quest for Zion, they're god state. now everyones lost in the years of violence, and they dont even know why theyre killing or who for that matter. No wonder Mel gibson hates jews!

wes

Nijmegen wrote: »

Hamas murdered the moderates in Gaza when they took over.

After, Fatah tried to over thrown Hamas, who were democratically elected. You forgot that part, but either way it is irrelevant.


US plotted to overthrow Hamas after election victory

prinz

alastair wrote: »

The law applies all right. The UNCLOS statutes that deal with international waters and right of passage date back to the previous Convention of the High Seas, which Israel is a signatory to.

So you'll be able to point out what law has been broken then? Please do, article, section, subsection...

wes wrote: »

Numerous UN resolutions etc have been broken by Israel, and various laws of the sea have been broken etc. Also, killing people tends to be against the law too.

UN resolutions have been broken. But what's the relevance to this case? What law of the sea has been broken?

Fuhrer

Nijmegen wrote: »

They opened fire after being attacked.

Any military unit on the high seas boarding a ship for any police actionr easons is armed. The Irish navy is when it boards vessels.

The difference is, the Irish navy rarely has to open fire because the people on these boats are a lot smarter than to attack armed military or police personnel doing their job.

When you're under arrest, you're under arrest, no matter if you disagree with the reasons for it. If he's got a gun and I've got a metal bar, his law is all that matters.

They opened fire before boarding, I believe.

Deep Easterly

Nijmegen wrote: »

Yes, actually! Exactly the argument that Israel uses to defend its actions!

.

I will say it again, the law is not what matters, as you claim. Why do you put such absolute faith in something that doesn't actually exist, except in your head?

Fuhrer

prinz wrote: »

But what's the relevance to this case? What law of the sea has been broken?

The Pirate code?

wes

prinz wrote: »

UN resolutions have been broken. But what's the relevance to this case? What law of the sea has been broken?

Been pointed out several times, by several posters. I see no reason to do so again.

RasTa

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

So, exactly how many Israeli soldiers died in this fight?

Not enough and I mean that.

alastair

prinz wrote: »

What law was broken?



They were going to be deported in keeping with the travel restrictions on Gaza, not "detained in detention camps". If Ireland and France were effectively in a state of war then yeah the Irish navy would be able to board the vessel to conduct a search, or detain the vessel pending search and any casualties caused by resisting that lawful action would also, while regretful, be justified.

Last I heard Israel and Turkey were not at war.

as to the law being broken:

Article 22

1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by
treaty, a warship which encounters a foreign merchant ship on the high seas
is not justified in boarding her unless there is reasonable ground for
suspecting:

(a) That the ship is engaged in piracy; or
(b) That the ship is engaged in the slave trade; or
(c) That though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the
ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.

prinz

Ben Hadad wrote: »

What happened was wrong, and there has been no evidence presented that can make the bulk of the blame for this bloody incident fall on the lap of the Israeli forces and government.

The bulk of the blame does lie with the Israelis. But a portion of it also lies with the "humanitarians".

Deep Easterly

prinz wrote: »

UN resolutions have been broken. But what's the relevance to this case? What law of the sea has been broken?

The law of human morality and justice has been broken. This is what matters.

Selkies

eoin5 wrote: »

They might not have been peaceful but if foreign armed military land on your boat in international waters when you haven't done anything wrong then I'd say you've every right to defend yourself aggressively. If it wasn't in international waters things might have been less clear.

It's much of a muchness whether the boarding happened in international waters or not morally speaking. They were headed toward Gaza, I don't know why the Israelis didn't wait until they had crossed into Gaza but it makes very little difference to those who died or to those who are now attempting to wash off the blood, just those very far away from the entire thing.

2kool4skool

Nijmegen wrote: »

They opened fire after being attacked.

Nijmegan, I have to say that I find your comments awesomely uninformed, wrong and totally biased. Look at the video and hear the gunshots from the boats before any Israeli lands on the ship. Listen to the commentators on board. Are you being given the basis for your version from the IDF or from where?

BlaasForRafa

dlofnep wrote: »

Right - So if a ship destined for France tomorrow is pulled over by the Irish navy, outside of Irish Waters, is told go to an Irish port where they will be detained in a detention camp - and when they refused, 19 were killed by the Irish navy, it would be justified?

France is ruled by Islamic terrorists now?

The hypocritical outrage on this board seems to be in full swing today, if Hamas fired a grad rocket into an Israeli school I'd say you'd be lucky to get 3 pages of condemnation.

This convoy wasn't about sending aid to Gaza, if so why were 600 passengers aboard the marmara? And why was it full of Iranian "journalists". This was a purely political and propoganda move to support the Hamas regime supported by "useful idiots" as Lenin put it from the west who know no better.

They were told to stay away from Gaza, they were told to go to Ashdod, what did they think would happen when they refused? Of course they knew that the Israelis would stop them.

And attacking a commando with iron bars?, just how stupid is that? The deaths are a huge bonus for the Iranian/Hamas propogandists, as can be seen if the frenzied ranting on this board is any indication.

partyguinness

Nijmegen wrote: »

They opened fire after being attacked.

Any military unit on the high seas boarding a ship for any police actionr easons is armed. The Irish navy is when it boards vessels.

The difference is, the Irish navy rarely has to open fire because the people on these boats are a lot smarter than to attack armed military or police personnel doing their job.

When you're under arrest, you're under arrest, no matter if you disagree with the reasons for it. If he's got a gun and I've got a metal bar, his law is all that matters.

The Irish navy operates and patrols Irish waters. There is such thing as lawful arrest and detention. This did not happen here. Israel had no legal basis or authority (expect their own ad hoc "rules") to board this boat and certainly no right to kill people. The boat was not arrested. It was stormed.

If an unarmed burglar breaks into my house and I shoot him dead...I have used disproportionate force and will be convicted.

You are trying to defend the indefensible (and not doing a very good job IMO)

prinz

wes wrote: »

Been pointed out several times, by several posters. I see no reason to do so again.

Nobody has wes, that's the problem!

alastair wrote: »

Last I heard Israel and Turkey were not at war.

Irrelevant. Heading to Gaza, the rulers of which are at war.

alastair wrote: »

as to the law being broken:
Article 22

Which in terms of the protective principle is irrelevant.