Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Foxtrol

doncarlos wrote: »

Yes, it was filled with people fighting for their right to survive.

Well we have different ideas of trying to survive then. So far most, if not all, eye witness' have come out saying that the IDF were using non-lethal weapons (stun guns, batons, handles of guns) while the IDF video show them using paint ball/bean bag guns. The flotilla aim was to run the blockade and they all knew that there was a high likelihood that the IDF would try to stop them. In that situtation I wouldnt attack armed commandos with knives or bars I'd surrender. Thats how id try to survive.

alastair

Foxtrol wrote: »

And I'm pretty sure the injured commando's show the boat was not filled with "peacemakers" either.

Quite where humanitarian aid activists are supposed to be 'peacemakers' escapes me. They had a right of self defence if they felt their safety was threatened by an illegal ship invasion (which would be understandable).

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The raid obviously wasn't a surprise, otherwise there wouldn't have been people there waiting for the commandos and they wouldn't have been hit during and after the descent.

Unless the IDF has discovered a way to make silent choppers, an assault dropped from helicopters is never a surprise.

Are you claiming that the actions of the people on board were a planned and premeditated attack on armed soldiers?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa

Zulu wrote: »

Have you been on a ferry that has just been warned my a military vessal that it'll be sunk? Have you been on a ferry that was being assaulted by commandos?

Have you evidence that the Marmara was warned that it would be sunk?

And think about it, the Marmara is a large vessel, it would take torpedoes or anti-ship missiles to sink it and I haven't seen even the most virulent anti-israeli posit that argument yet.

bambooze

Comments?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24

alastair

doncarlos wrote: »

Would they have attacked the soldiers if they were not attacked first? Also it has been claimed by the soldier that was thrown overboard that 75% of the ship attacked them and they ALL were carrying knives. This is reported as fact in the the Israeli media.

He wasn't thown overboard - he was thrown from one deck to another (an implausible 30 foot if the initial claims are to be believed). he claimed that the 75% of the 700 passengers involved were 'terrorists', so maybe he did knock his head a tad.

Scofflaw

Foxtrol wrote: »

Well we have different ideas of trying to survive then. So far most, if not all, eye witness' have come out saying that the IDF were using non-lethal weapons (stun guns, batons, handles of guns) while the IDF video show them using paint ball/bean bag guns. The flotilla aim was to run the blockade and they all knew that there was a high likelihood that the IDF would try to stop them. In that situtation I wouldnt attack armed commandos with knives or bars I'd surrender. Thats how id try to survive.

Yes, but then you probably wouldn't have been on board in the first place.

cordially,
Scofflaw

prinz

Scofflaw wrote: »

1. what right did Israel have to board the vessel in international waters?

They have every right to enforce a blockade, even against a neutral vessel in international waters, where that vessel is intent on breaching the blockade. The only legal question is the legality of the blockade in the first place.

Scofflaw wrote: »

2. why did they choose to do it in a fashion that most strongly resembled an assault rather than an official boarding?

Would an "official boarding" have been received any differently? Trying to board vessel to vessel may have put more lives in danger.

Scofflaw wrote: »

3. did they in any way - apart, that is, from being armed soldiers dropping onto decks from helicopters - provoke the protesters on board the ship?

That's a good question.

Scofflaw wrote: »

4. were they deployed in such a way as to minimise the chance of a cock-up like this?

No.

Scofflaw wrote: »

5. once things had gone wrong, did they respond with minimum force, or did they over-react?..

Another crucial question.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Personally, I see this as an illegal but predictable action..

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7142055.ece
on the legality of the boarding.

BlaasForRafa

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unless the IDF has discovered a way to make silent choppers, an assault dropped from helicopters is never a surprise.

Are you claiming that the actions of the people on board were a planned and premeditated attack on armed soldiers?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm claiming that it looks like at the very least some of it was premeditated. And footage of activists tooled up and waiting in the stairwell below deck from Newsnight would seem to back that up.

Scofflaw

bambooze wrote: »

Comments?

The comment is obvious - the ship is about to be boarded in the middle of the night by soldiers. If the soldiers are put off by a box of plates being thrown into their boat, then your ship doesn't get taken over.

At what point did everyone but Israel lose the right to resist aggression?

regards,
Scofflaw

alastair

bambooze wrote: »

Comments?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24

Throwing plates?

a firework (not a stun grenade)

and swinging a chain around, nowhere near any of the soldiers?

Terrible stuff alrogether. Trying to stop an illegal boarding.

Zulu

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Have you evidence that the Marmara was warned that it would be sunk?

And think about it, the Marmara is a large vessel, it would take torpedoes or anti-ship missiles to sink it and I haven't seen even the most virulent anti-israeli posit that argument yet.

It's all irrelevant, it was an illegal military operation in international waters that ultimately lead to the execution of unarmed, innocent civilians. Illegally.

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I'm claiming that it looks like at the very least some of it was premeditated. And footage of activists tooled up and waiting in the stairwell below deck from Newsnight would seem to back that up.

You mean that some people had decided they would resist their ship being taken over? Or that the ship set off on its voyage as a planned trap for the IDF?

At what point do you believe that people on board decided to resist the Israeli soldiers attempt to board their vessel in international waters - and why do you believe they had no right to do so?

regards,
Scofflaw

karma_

prinz wrote: »

They have every right to enforce a blockade.

The law is a joke if it determines it is Legal to enforce something which is Illegal. There is some form of disconnect here.

philologos

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So their Turkish allies and the Red Cross are involved in a weapons smuggling operation?

Israel cannot give the benefit of the doubt to other organisations and nations at all times. It must be able to search the vessels if they are going to allow them to enter Gaza. They weren't willing in this case, but I am saying that even in the event that they did allow these vessels to enter Gaza they would have to search the ships beforehand.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Lets accept for a second that the IDF are 'entitled' to search the cargo, why did they chose to do this at night, in international waters, using a surprise raid and killing up to 19 humnaitarian workers.

This isn't factual.

The IDF warned the ship that it would be entering restricted waters, and that the IDF supports the shipping of humanitarian aid into Gaza, but that the IDF requested the flotilla to dock in Ashdod, a mere few kilometres away from Gaza, and that the relevant individuals would be able to go with the IDF to the border crossing with Gaza and observe their aid being sent across.

The ships refused to accept Israel's order and continued none-the-less.
Israel made 6 interceptions on numerous vessels, on one (The Mavi Marmara) it became violent.

I think that the IDF could have restrained the people on board in a better fashion without fatalities, but I do think that it is reasonable for Israel to be able to determine what exactly was on those vessels for themselves before allowing them to proceed into Gaza.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

This was about brute force to put out a message, not stopping non existant weapons.

This doesn't represent the full story.

alastair

prinz wrote: »

They have every right to enforce a blockade, even against a neutral vessel in international waters, where that vessel is intent on breaching the blockade. The only legal question is the legality of the blockade in the first place.

Absolute rubbish - how many times do you need to be corrected on this?

bambooze

Scofflaw wrote: »

The comment is obvious - the ship is about to be boarded in the middle of the night by soldiers. If the soldiers are put off by a box of plates being thrown into their boat, then your ship doesn't get taken over.

At what point did everyone but Israel lose the right to resist aggression?

regards,
Scofflaw

Umm.. and a stun grenade and clearly the people on board are armed with bars and chains and prepared for battle (or do people usually carry stun grenades and clubs?) and they don't appear to be too worried about being shot and this vid was clearly filmed from the ship, not by the idf.

prinz

karma_ wrote: »

The law is a joke if it determines it is Legal to enforce something which is Illegal. There is some form of disconnect here.

The legality of the blockade hasn't been decided upon. You might not like it (and I don't either) but it's not illegal as of yet.

IrishTonyO

Here is a list of Prohibited Items, that Israel currently will not allow into Gaza. Read the list and see some of the most ridiculous things on it, things like A4 sized paper, writing implements, crisps, chocolate, toys, fishing rods etc etc etc.....

sage
cardamom
cumin
coriander
ginger
jam
halva
vinegar
nutmeg
chocolate
fruit preserves
seeds and nuts
biscuits and sweets
potato chips
gas for soft drinks
dried fruit
fresh meat
plaster
tar
wood for construction
cement
iron
glucose
industrial salt
plastic/glass/metal containers
industrial margarine
tarpaulin sheets for huts
fabric (for clothing)
flavor and smell enhancers
fishing rods
various fishing nets
buoys
ropes for fishing
nylon nets for greenhouses
hatcheries and spare parts for hatcheries
spare parts for tractors
dairies for cowsheds
irrigation pipe systems
ropes to tie greenhouses
planters for saplings
heaters for chicken farms
musical instruments
size A4 paper
writing implements
notebooks
newspapers
toys
razors
sewing machines and spare parts
heaters
horses
donkeys
goats
cattle
chicks
matches
candles
brooms

http://www.fastforgaza.net/sites/default/files/List_of_permitted_and_prohibited_items_for_Gaza__0.pdf

alastair

karma_ wrote: »

The law is a joke if it determines it is Legal to enforce something which is Illegal. There is some form of disconnect here.

The disconnect is the false claim to any legal basis for the boarding.

prinz

alastair wrote: »

Absolute rubbish - how many times do you need to be corrected on this?

During an armed conflict, however, a belligerent state is entitled to blockade enemy ports as a measure of economic warfare.
Historically, such a blockade had to be conducted close to shore. In modern law, however, a blockade may be enforced against neutral vessels on the high seas, where the events on the Marvi Marmara took place.
A belligerent may stop, inspect and divert any vessel it suspects of intending to breach its blockade, which is what Israel says it intended to do.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7142055.ece

Let's put that one to bed shall we? Now as I said it all comes back to the legality of the blockade itself.

alastair

prinz wrote: »

The legality of the blockade hasn't been decided upon. You might not like it (and I don't either) but it's not illegal as of yet.

The blockade has no bearing on the legality of boarding in international waters - it's illegal regardless of the status of the blockade.

IrishTonyO

bambooze wrote: »

Umm.. and a stun grenade and clearly the people on board are armed with bars and chains and prepared for battle (or do people usually carry stun grenades and clubs?) and they don't appear to be too worried about being shot and this vid was clearly filmed from the ship, not by the idf.

Think you will find as reported yesterday even the Israelis, the stun grenade was one of their own that was thrown back at them.

Foxtrol

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, but then you probably wouldn't have been on board in the first place.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes but thats because I don't agree that trying to run an Israeli blockade of Gaza using the guise of humanitarian aid convoy and then attacking commando's when they attempt to stop the journey is going to help the plight of the people who I claim to want to help. If anything I would have thought that those sort of actions would get people killed.

But I believe in peaceful protest so what do I know??

gandalf

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Here is a list of Prohibited Items, that Israel currently will not allow into Gaza.

Jaysus some nasty stuff on that list. Its a good thing the IDF can break International Law and execute those who attempt to smuggle such dangerous item through the illegal blockade to Gaza eh

alastair

prinz wrote: »

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7142055.ece

There is no armed conflict! And even if there were, the laws pertaining to neutral waters and merchant ships are clear as day - you've seen it yourself - more than once.

prinz

alastair wrote: »

There is no armed conflict!

:rolleyes:

alastair wrote: »

And even if there were, the laws pertaining to neutral waters and merchant ships are clear as day - you've seen it yourself - more than once.

Yes there are, which Dr Guilfoyle above clarified. It's all in the San Remo Manual on warfare at sea. I highlighted the important part for you above.

IrishTonyO

prinz wrote: »

The legality of the blockade hasn't been decided upon. You might not like it (and I don't either) but it's not illegal as of yet.

Israel is the only country that says it is legal, we have been over this many times before with you on this thread

Byron85

prinz wrote: »

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7142055.ece

Let's put that one to bed shall we? Now as I said it all comes back to the legality of the blockade itself.

Time to quote an earlier post from myself in response to your nonsensical post.

Well then the Israelis need to respect the Geneva Conventions and numerous U.N resolutions. However, since it does none of the above, it can't be at war with Hamas and therefore has no right to occupy Gaza or lay any claim to the territory surrounding it including its waters.

It cannot have its cake and eat it too yet it seems rather intent on doing so.

Selkies

Zulu wrote: »

...well, so long as we're clear that thats just pure speculation.

Meanwhile the facts are, unarmed aid workers were murdered in international waters by Israeli commandos.

Facts? I was sure that the theory of them all be unarmed was in dispute.