Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

halkar

Israeli's are now after the last ship Rachel Corrie

From a Turkish paper translated via google

Tigerbaby

Article VI(1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America… on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories… or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm






sounds like just what happened. if Turkey invokes article 5, will we see the USA involved against Israel? - - yeah , thought so too !

gandalf

And the Israeli Government continues to break International Agreements.

Mr Martin also said he was dissatisfied with the Israeli government’s failure to allow Ireland's Ambassador and Embassy in Tel Aviv have full consular access to the Irish citizens detained.

He said: "This failure to provide such access represents a clear breach of the Vienna Conventions. I have now been informed that our Ambassador and officers from the Embassy in Tel Aviv will be allowed carry out visits to the Irish citizens detained during the course of the day. I will continue to press for full consular access being allowed, as is provided for under international law.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/martin-calls-on-israel-to-release-irish-citizens-immediately-459913.html#ixzz0pahCAawr

At this stage coupled with the illegal forging of passports by agents of the Israeli Government we need to cut all diplomatic ties with this Rogue Regime.

Memnoch

Some first hand reports starting to come through now from deported people. NOTHING so far (from what I can tell) from anyone who was on the main ship that was attacked as far as I can tell.

My guess is the Israelis will hold on to them as long as possible while drip releasing from the other ships. Since it's only the people on the attacked ship that can really talk about what the Israelis did.

http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6500JT.htm

Rev Hellfire

wes wrote: »

When, that military activity is againist international law, then those engaged in it are at fault.

Weather or not the operation is against international law is open to debate.
But regardless of that fact, fault doesn't come into it. The question is can/should you expect a military response if you directly seek to interfere with a military operation. I'd suggest that to not expect one would be foolish.

alastair

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Weather or not the operation is against international law is open to debate.

No it's not. It was patently illegal.

gandalf

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Weather or not the operation is against international law is open to debate.

From everything I have seen in this thread and read elsewhere it is clear the assault was against international law.

Rev Hellfire

alastair wrote: »

No it's not. It was patently illegal.

Clearly its not. See I can do that as well.

wes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Weather or not the operation is against international law is open to debate.

It was clearly against International law, and an act of piracy, no different than the nutters in Somalia. The laws have been posted several times already, btw.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But regardless of that fact, fault doesn't come into it. The question is can/should you expect a military response if you directly seek to interfere with a military operation. I'd suggest that to not expect one would be foolish.

I would suggest boarding a boat, and then murdering a bunch of people, is a foolish act of piracy, that is completely indefensible, and will result in wide spread condemnation, due there murderous military mis-adventure.

Its very simple, Israel murdered a bunch of people, and now they are reaping what they have sown.

alastair

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Clearly its not. See I can do that as well.

Nope - the relevant laws have been posted here for you to read at your leisure. See the difference?

Scuba Ste

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Weather or not the operation is against international law is open to debate.
But regardless of that fact, fault doesn't come into it. The question is can/should you expect a military response if you directly seek to interfere with a military operation. I'd suggest that to not expect one would be foolish.

The people on the flotilla do not believe the blockade is legal, that's partly the reason for the flotilla in first place. It would very reasonable for those people to believe that they would not be attacked by armed soldiers in the middle of the night in international waters while travelling towards Israel/Gaza.

And yes attacked is the right word to use when you consider they were stormed by soldiers dropping from helicopters.

Rev Hellfire

Scuba Ste wrote: »

And yes attacked is the right word to use when you consider they were stormed by soldiers dropping from helicopters.

Yes and if they had not sought to over power said soldiers and clobber them they would have maintained the moral high-ground.

wes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Pro-Israelis celebrating the massacre outside the Turkish embassy in Tel-Aviv.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMzc1N1Cx3s

Wow, some Israeli's really want there country to look bad.

wes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Yes and if they had not sought to over power said soldiers and clobber them they would have maintained the moral high-ground.

The floatilla people maintain that the IDF fired on them, and the IDF say otherwise.

Either way, the IDF had no business on the boat, and as such are at fault. A bunch of armed nutters landing on the boat, is still an attack, no matter what you claim, in both sides the IDF attacked first, its just the severity of the initial attack that is in question between the 2 versions.

Fuhrer

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Yes and if they had not sought to over power said soldiers and clobber them they would have maintained the moral high-ground.

And if they had just stayed at home and not bothered than none of this would have happened...


But thats not the point, is it?

Macha

wes wrote: »

The floatilla people maintain that the IDF fired on them, and the IDF say otherwise.

Well now actually they are saying that they were shot at when their own guns were turned on them.

It's quite fantastic, in the original sense of the word, that the passengers of the flotilla managed to be the first to shoot at the IDF soliders, despite not being in possession of any guns at the time.

The mental gymnastics going on here to defend Israeli actions are a wonder to behold.

Byron85

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Pro-Israelis celebrating the massacre outside the Turkish embassy in Tel-Aviv.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMzc1N1Cx3s

In relation to the above video I found the following information.

But there was also a protest in Israel, outside the Turkish embassy, where several hundred Israeli citizens defended the flotilla attack. At least one demonstrator carried a sign calling Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan a "fascist."Danny Danon, a senior member of Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu's Likud party, attended the rally.


These people are coming across as heartless animals yet they still want to be counted as a Western styled democracy which is protecting itself against savages. I'm afraid the only people that appear to be savages are the ones in the above video.

digme

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

In relation to the above video I found the following information.

But there was also a protest in Israel, outside the Turkish embassy, where several hundred Israeli citizens defended the flotilla attack. At least one demonstrator carried a sign calling Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan a "fascist."Danny Danon, a senior member of Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu's Likud party, attended the rally.


These people are coming across as heartless animals yet they still want to be counted as a Western styled democracy which is protecting itself against savages. I'm afraid the only people that appear to be savages are the ones in the above video.

While growing up they are brain washed,sad state of affairs,they're idiots.

gandalf

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

These people are coming across as heartless animals yet they still want to be counted as a Western styled democracy which is protecting itself against savages. I'm afraid the only people that appear to be savages are the ones in the above video.

I am sure these people are extremists, every country has them but I wouldn't draw conclusions about the whole of Israeli society based on a few idiots with flags baying for blood.

I am sure an awful lot of Israeli citizens despaired at the actions of their so-called leaders in authorising an illegal piracy and murder operation on the high seas in their name.

Rev Hellfire

alastair wrote: »

Nope - the relevant laws have been posted here for you to read at your leisure. See the difference?

Then I suggest you examine the section on "METHODS AND MEANS OF WARFARE AT SEA" which detail blockades.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

Additionally

"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;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;<
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

There where reasonable grounds to believe that they were seeking to breaching the blockade. See its not as clear cut as people make it out to be.


But unlike you I don't believe myself or the posters here qualifier to make pronouncements on international law.

Rev Hellfire

Fuhrer wrote: »

And if they had just stayed at home and not bothered than none of this would have happened...


But thats not the point, is it?

Thats exactly the point.

B0jangles

deadtiger wrote: »

I am sure these people are extremists, every country has them but I wouldn't draw conclusions about the whole of Israeli society based on a few idiots with flags baying for blood.

I am sure an awful lot of Israeli citizens despaired at the actions of their so-called leaders in authorising an illegal piracy and murder operation on the high seas in their name.

I don't know, that looks like a pretty big crowd and the car horns indicate that most passers-by are supportive.

I'd like to hear from the Israeli citizens who condemn the piracy and murder - I know they exist but they need to make their voices heard.

wes

taconnol wrote: »

Well now actually they are saying that they were shot at when their own guns were turned on them.

It's quite fantastic, in the original sense of the word, that the passengers of the flotilla managed to be the first to shoot at the IDF soliders, despite not being in possession of any guns at the time.

The mental gymnastics going on here to defend Israeli actions are a wonder to behold.

You are of course completely right, and then there is the IDF's constantly changing story, which makes there version of events look even worse.

wes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

There where reasonable grounds to believe that they were seeking to breaching the blockade. See its not as clear cut as people make it out to be.
But unlike you I don't believe myself or the posters here qualifier to make pronouncements on international law.

Yes, it is actually clear cut, as the blockade is illegal under International law in the first place. Hence, what Israel did on the boat also illegal.

alastair

deadtiger wrote: »

I am sure an awful lot of Israeli citizens despaired at the actions of their so-called leaders in authorising an illegal piracy and murder operation on the high seas in their name.

Without a doubt. Today's Haaretz editorial:

When a regular, well-armed, well-trained army goes to war against a "freedom flotilla" of civilian vessels laden with civilians, food and medication, the outcome is foretold - and it doesn't matter whether the confrontation achieved its goal and prevented the flotilla from reaching Gaza. The violent confrontation, whether caused by poor military planning or poor execution, resulted from flawed policy, wars of prestige, and from a profound misunderstanding of the confrontation's meanings and repercussions.

The grave political damage caused by the confrontation is all too clear. Relations with Turkey will probably deteriorate further, and there may even be serious damage on the official level. The proximity talks with the Palestinians, which started lamely and with low expectations, will have trouble proceeding, now that Israel has attacked a ship intended to aid Gazans languishing under a four-year siege. Hamas claimed an outstanding victory without firing a single rocket, Egypt is under redoubled pressure to undermine the siege by opening the Rafah crossing, and it's reasonable to assume Europe and the United States will not be able to let Israel get away with a mere reprimand.

All these developments are little surprise to anyone, and shouldn't have surprised the policy makers in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, it seemed no one could resist the temptation to show the Israel Defense Forces' strength in a place the IDF should not have been in the first place. Because the question was not who would win the confrontation, but who would win more public opinion points. In this test, Benjamin Netanyahu's government failed completely. Israel let its policy of maintaining the siege on Gaza become an existential matter. This policy boomeranged and cost Israel its international legitimacy.

The decision makers' negligence is threatening the security of Israelis, and Israel's global status. Someone must be held responsible for this disgraceful failure. There is no way to convince Israel's citizens and its friends around the world that Israel regrets the confrontation and its results, and is learning from its errors, other than setting up a state inquiry committee to investigate the decision-making process, and to decide who should pay for this dangerous policy.

wes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Thats exactly the point.

Yeah, the IDF should have stayed at home, but decided that piracy was a good idea, and now they look pretty damn bad to the whole world.

sensibleken

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Thats exactly the point.

im sorry but some people arent as apathetic as you are. the people on those ships decided they couldnt stand by and watch the crimes going on against gaza continue.

like passing someone who had been beaten up on the street. some people would stop and give them assistance. would you say it wasnt your problem and keep walking

Byron85

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Then I suggest you examine the section on "METHODS AND MEANS OF WARFARE AT SEA" which detail blockades.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

Additionally

"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;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;<
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

There where reasonable grounds to believe that they were seeking to breaching the blockade. See its not as clear cut as people make it out to be.


But unlike you I don't believe myself or the posters here qualifier to make pronouncements on international law.

Everything you are saying is seemingly negated by the following:

Senior ministers have noted that, in contrast to the handling of similar incidents in the past, the inner cabinet did not discuss issues related to the flotilla, receive operational briefings or approve the operation. The forum of seven, which did consider and approve the plan, is a consultative body only and does not have the legal authority to pass resolutions.

It seems that the entire operation was illegitimate from the very start, right down to the Parliamentary level. It was illegal from the start so please tell all of us how it could be legal later on once the operation got under way?

alastair

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Then I suggest you examine the section on "METHODS AND MEANS OF WARFARE AT SEA" which detail blockades.

Where to begin? (although this has been dealt with already)

1. There isn't any armed conflict at sea at play here.
2. There wasn't any blockade in force in international waters
3. The same (inapplicable law, given that there's no armed conflict) states the following:

15. Within and over neutral waters, including neutral waters comprising an international strait and waters in which the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage may be exercised, hostile actions by belligerent forces are forbidden. A neutral State must take such measures as are consistent with Section II of this Part, including the exercise of surveillance, as the means at its disposal allow, to prevent the violation of its neutrality by belligerent forces.

16. Hostile actions within the meaning of paragraph 15 include, inter alia:

(a) attack on or capture of persons or objects located in, on or over neutral waters or territory;
(b) use as a base of operations, including attack on or capture of persons or objects located outside neutral waters, if the attack or seizure is conducted by belligerent forces located in, on or over neutral waters;
(c) laying of mines; or
(d) visit, search, diversion or capture.

39. Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians or other protected persons and combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and military objectives.

40. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

41. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document.

42. In addition to any specific prohibitions binding upon the parties to a conflict, it is forbidden to employ methods or means of warfare which:

(a) are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; or
(b) are indiscriminate, in that:
(i) they are not, or cannot be, directed against a specific military objective; or
(ii) their effects cannot be limited as required by international law as reflected in this document.

Rev Hellfire

wes wrote: »

Yes, it is actually clear cut, as the blockade is illegal under International law in the first place. Hence, what Israel did on the boat also illegal.

Remind me who declared the blockade illegal ? Has the EU for example?