Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

BlaasForRafa

Selkies wrote: »

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.

Looking at it from a logical point of view, if the ships were allowed get nearer to Gaza they could have transferred things to smaller fast boats to smuggle into Gaza.

partyguinness

prinz wrote: »

Nobody has wes, that's the problem!



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



Which in terms of the protective principle is irrelevant.

"rulers".......mmmmmm...very interesting you should use that word.

orourkeda

Has any firm information been obtained as to what actually happened? So much of it is conflicting at the moment.

prinz

Deep Easterly wrote: »

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

:rolleyes: I'll remember to tell that to the judge.

Fuhrer

Selkies wrote: »

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

My theory is that if they killed them in Isreali waters or territory they would be obligated to have some sort of show trial.


But as its out in International waters then the commandos should be free from legal problems.

Eliot Rosewater

dlofnep wrote: »

The condemnation of Israel is justified.

Of course. Refusing to see where they are coming from and refusing to engage with them is not.

dlofnep wrote: »

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).

Na, the discussion here has revolved around repeated attempts to ignore any kind of explanation for the Israeli actions, with those giving such explanations labeled "apologists". For example, the legality or otherwise of the blockade is quite shadowed by the fact that Israel is attempting to prevent arms smuggling, so as to put stop to the indiscriminate attacks by Hamas. I mentioned that before, and it was dismissed out of hand. Palestinian supporters are as keen (currently 3 threads here) to emphasize the Israeli element of the conflict as they are reluctant to emphasize the Palestinian element. One can argue that the former is more of a cause than the latter, but the point still stands.

Nijmegen

2kool4skool wrote: »

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?

As I said, I'd like to see all the footage in order it was shot.

Firing warning shots, or flares, for example is normal in boarding operations.

As for soldiers, I also note in the same video that the soldier has his hand on the top of his barrel, keeping it down. Not a firing position. Even as he's being beaten.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdXr1XL2-ZU

BlaasForRafa

partyguinness wrote: »

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.

Wrong, the russian navy detained a pirate mother ship in international waters off the east coast of africa recently. http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=6632&print=Y So there most definitely is precendent for what the Israelis have done.

2kool4skool

For any of the Israeli soldiers stated to have been injured and who will be produced to advance the Israeli argument of blood thirsty peaceniks, Will there be any video showing how they sustained their injuries and when. This entire operation will have been filmed by the IDF. If any of the injuries to their members are genuine, there should be a video of same. Perhaps the IDF would be so kind as to release the entire video coverage and explain why they blocked communications with the ship during the attack. Presume Prinz and Nij will suggest terrible cynicism if I suggest that there might have been a request for volunteers to take a flesh wound amongst the IDF.

Deep Easterly

prinz wrote: »

:rolleyes: I'll remember to tell that to the judge.

And what judge would that be now?

Fuhrer

2kool4skool wrote: »

Will there be any video showing how they sustained their injuries and when.

There was a video on the BBC site earlier on today of some commando getting smacked around with what looks like a pipe

P. Breathnach

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

... I think we're all in agreement here that the deaths of so many people is a tragedy...

I'm not even sure about that, when people are suggesting "suicide by cop" equivalence.

alastair

prinz wrote: »

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

Which in terms of the protective principle is irrelevant.

There's no state of war existant between Israel and Gaza. And even if there were, the law is quite clear as to the obligations regarding third party shipping in international waters.

So, you'll just ignore the law as presented? As I've already stated, the protective principle is a nonsense unless framed by credible motivation. There's no-one believes the aid in the flotilla posed any threat to the national security of Israel. The Protective Principle isn't a handy opt out of all other obligations of law.

Fuhrer

alastair wrote: »

There's no state of war existant between Israel and Gaza. And even if there were, the law is quite clear as to the obligations regarding third party shipping in international waters.

Can Gaza be at War with Isreal?


Its not even a state.

2kool4skool

Nijmegen wrote: »

As I said, I'd like to see all the footage in order it was shot.

Firing warning shots, or flares, for example is normal in boarding operations.

Not normal to fire a warning shot into a civilian passenger's head. Get real.

As for the Russian and other navies' actions off the horn of Africa, please note the specific authorisation for boarding ships engaged in piracy. That has simply no application in the present case.

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.

Do you beleive it to be morally wrong to attack an aid vessal killing twenty of its crew.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Nobody has wes, that's the problem!

They have several times. If you choose to ignore them, then that is no problem of mine.

prinz

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm not even sure about that, when people are suggesting "suicide by cop" equivalence.

Why are people exempt from calling a suicide a tragedy?

alastair wrote: »

There's no-one believes the aid in the flotilla posed any threat to the national security of Israel..

If that's the case then they should have docked at an Israeli port and unloaded cargo as requested.

alastair wrote: »

The Protective Principle isn't a handy opt out of all other obligations of law.

It's not, but it is one that has worked in the past for boardings at sea, outside of territorial waters.

Selected

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Palestinian supporters are as keen (currently 3 threads here) to emphasize the Israeli element of the conflict as they are reluctant to emphasize the Palestinian element.

This is a humanitarian relief effort and not legitimate conflict scenario, Mr. Rosenwasser.

Nody

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Na, the discussion here has revolved around repeated attempts to ignore any kind of explanation for the Israeli actions, with those giving such explanations labeled "apologists". For example, the legality or otherwise of the blockade is quite shadowed by the fact that Israel is attempting to prevent arms smuggling, so as to put stop to the indiscriminate attacks by Hamas. I mentioned that before, and it was dismissed out of hand.

All ships where inspected several times over before they left; no weapons where found at any time; how about YOU link a claim to back up this for a change? I mean not even the Israeli are claiming this yet you know it; I'm impressed.

Palestinian supporters are as keen (currently 3 threads here) to emphasize the Israeli element of the conflict as they are reluctant to emphasize the Palestinian element. One can argue that the former is more of a cause than the latter, but the point still stands.

Lets see; who killed aid workers, palestinian army or Israeli army? Hmm, Israel, ok...

Who jumped a aid convoy outside their own borders, the palestinian army or the Israeli army? Hmm, Israel, ok...

Who where the once who intentionally had their PM go out and piss on the peace treaty by doing a known inflammable political gesture after being warned about it? Hmm, Israel, ok...

You are right; there can't be any reason to blame Israel for this.

partyguinness

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Wrong, the russian navy detained a pirate mother ship in international waters off the east coast of africa recently. http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=6632&print=Y So there most definitely is precendent for what the Israelis have done.

Mmmmmm......I have read that and I still dont see any "precedent" for State forces storming a civilian humanitarian (even if misguided) boat and murdering unarmed civilians trying to bring aid to Gaza.

Deep Easterly

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

And attacking a commando with iron bars?, how stupid is that?

Killing innocent people, how utterly disgusting is that? The Commando who was allegidly attacked with an iron bar is still alive to tell the tale. Nothing can justify what happened last night, but don't let that stop you from trying.

prinz

Ben Hadad wrote: »

Do you beleive it to be morally wrong to attack an aid vessal killing twenty of its crew.

Depends on the situation obviously. Do I think it morally wrong that Israel should want to inspect them - No. Do I think it morally wrong that the leaders of this convoy when faced with two alternatives chose the one which put lives in danger - Yes. Do I think any unneccessary force used is morally wrong - Yes of course. Do I think both sides could have handled this better - YES

wes wrote: »

They have several times. If you choose to ignore them, then that is no problem of mine.

No, many have made vague claims about the UNCLOS etc

P. Breathnach

PeakOutput wrote: »

to dock in gaza they have to pass threw israeli waters

Does Israel own all the water off the Gaza coastline?

Nijmegen

Fuhrer wrote: »

Can Gaza be at War with Isreal?


Its not even a state.

No, but I suppose those rockets that land in Israel materialise out of thin air?

alastair

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Wrong, the russian navy detained a pirate mother ship in international waters off the east coast of africa recently. http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=6632&print=Y So there most definitely is precendent for what the Israelis have done.

The international law allows for boarding of ships engaged in piracy. No precedent there.

Fuhrer

Nijmegen wrote: »

No, but I suppose those rockets that land in Israel materialise out of thin air?

Well done on completly misunderstanding the question!


*Slow Claps*

Queen-Mise

Shame on israel.

Thats all I have to say. Everything else is being debated thoroughly here already.

wes

prinz wrote: »

No, many have made vague claims about the UNCLOS etc

The claims were very clear actually.

Nijmegen

Fuhrer wrote: »

Well done on completly misunderstanding the question!


*Slow Claps*

The question purports that Israel has nobody to defend itself against because it is at war with no state.

I would counter by saying that you don't argue with a rocket that lands on your house, much as it is foolish to argue with an armed soldier who lands on your deck.