Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

joseph brand

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cys2T5FgJdo/TAVg9pG7ZEI/AAAAAAAAHiw/7psJurRLAFs/s1600/duh.png

20Cent

IrishTonyO wrote: »

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

Thats some list. (No Chicks.... the monsters!!)
Seriously though thats what I was thinking about these "offers" to pass the aid on made by various Israeli spokespeople. We search and then forward the aid.
After taking out all the banned stuff of course which would leave very little.

Archie D Bunker

alastair wrote: »

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.

So, the Israeli Palestinian conflict is not an armed one? Good to know...:rolleyes:

Scofflaw

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.

The people on board are throughout the whole business clearly armed with the sort of things you find on board a ship and can grab up to repel boarders. What was dropped into the boat seems to have been a firework and a box of plates.

A box of plates is not a weapon of first choice - although I suppose it could be considered sophisticated, depending on the design of the plates. Chances are those were cheap ones, though.

regards,
Scofflaw

Foxtrol

alastair wrote: »

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.

It wasn't a random merchant ship. Their stated aim was to run the blockade. These weren't people out on a cruise. They were activists attempting to antagonise Israel into doing something stupid. They got their wish, with deadly consequences.

alastair

prinz wrote: »

:rolleyes:.

no need for that - just ask Israel if there's a state of conflict at play. They say not.

prinz wrote: »

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.

I've posted the relevent sections of the San Remo laws more than once, but if you insist - here it is one more time:

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.

karma_

IrishTonyO wrote: »

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

It really is a shame that none of those trying to justify the Israeli action will even bother to comment or probably even read this list.

Israel are just creating a larger version of the Warsaw ghetto.

alastair

Foxtrol wrote: »

It wasn't a random merchant ship. Their stated aim was to run the blockade. These weren't people out on a cruise. They were activists attempting to antagonise Israel into doing something stupid. They got their wish, with deadly consequences.

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.

jank

prinz wrote: »

As many people did.



The paintball guns can clearly be seen from the video footage. Of the eyewitness accounts that have come out so far only non-lethal force has been desribed, electric stun guns, physical restraint etc.

Gee whiz..those dead people must have died from too much baked beans!

alastair

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

So, the Israeli Palestinian conflict is not an armed one? Good to know...:rolleyes:

There's a legal definition of an armed conflict - and Israel are clear as a bell on the fact that it doesn't currently exist. That's the basis for condeming the hamas rockets etc as terrorism.

Scofflaw

Selkies wrote: »

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

It's beyond dispute that the people on board weren't armed in the conventional sense of carrying weaponry other than the most makeshift - no guns, in particular.

Or are you asking us to believe that the IDF, who seem to have very good intel on this convoy all the way along, were prepared to drop lightly armed soldiers onto a boat they knew contained armed men? Or even thought might contain armed men?

Pull the other one - it has bells on. If everything had gone according to plan, there would be no need for the Israelis to claim the people on board were armed. Unfortunately, it didn't go according to plan, and now Israel needs to claim people it clearly knew weren't armed were armed - they're just having a little difficulty doing so.

regards,
Scofflaw

jank

prinz wrote: »

Having watched the videos, yes I do. Pretty clear they were waiting for a fight tbh.

What you mean life jackets and you find on boats and planes are really used in combat situations, quick someone ring the pentagon before Al-Qaeda finds out.

KyussBishop

bambooze wrote: »

Comments?

The comment on the video is inaccurate (and look at its source too), that video didn't take place before IDF soldiers got onto the ship.
The IDF carry stun grenades, and if what was thrown at the soldiers was a stun grenade (which as others have said, looks a lot more like a firework), where do you think it came from?

prinz

alastair wrote: »

I've posted the relevent sections of the San Remo laws more than once, but if you insist - here it is one more time:.

Could I ask what your legal credentials are?

Laminations

I find it amazing that people can argue for the Israelis in this flotilla attack. What they did quite obviously broke international law and ended in death, whether that be self defense or murder. But 7 threads (this one over 130 pages long and hard to follow) all discussing how evil Israel is dilutes the two sided nature of this conflict. In this attack Israel can only be condemned, but from this condemnation we need to see the intervention of the UN and international mediation. Completely demonising Israel here will not move the situation towards peace, there are demons on both sides.

karma_

prinz wrote: »

Could I ask what your legal credentials are?

What are yours?

Foxtrol

karma_ wrote: »

It really is a shame that none of those trying to justify the Israeli action will even bother to comment or probably even read this list.

Israel are just creating a larger version of the Warsaw ghetto.

I'll only speak for myself here but I think some others who are attempting to "justify the Israeli action" may agree with me. I personally disagree with a lot of what Israel have/are doing in the Middle East just as I disagree with the actions of Hamas terrorists who attack Israel. This thread is however in relation to the flotilla incident where I'm trying to show a balanced view unlike the simple and popular idea that "Israel is a monster". I disagree with the boarding but I put the escalation down to the actions of the activists who's mission in the first place had the aim to insight Israel into some sort of over the top reaction.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Could I ask what your legal credentials are?

What are yours?!?

**EDIT**
Just saw that I was beaten to it above .

prinz

karma_ wrote: »

What are yours?

LLB as it happens, but I was referring to Dr Guilfoyle, Professor of Law from the Times Article.

Run_to_da_hills

Foxtrol wrote: »

It wasn't a random merchant ship. Their stated aim was to run the blockade. These weren't people out on a cruise. They were activists attempting to antagonise Israel into doing something stupid. They got their wish, with deadly consequences.

What Israel did to this mercy mission is comparable to what the British Army did on Bloody Sunday, it was in effect an own goal and a stupid PR move and it deserves all the consequences. The outgoing tide must return

Scofflaw

jank wrote: »

Having watched the videos, yes I do. Pretty clear they were waiting for a fight tbh.

What you mean life jackets and you find on boats and planes are really used in combat situations, quick someone ring the pentagon before Al-Qaeda finds out.

To be fair, those two things aren't incompatible at all. The people on board - or some of the people on board - clearly did decide that there was a chance they could prevent the soldiers taking over the vessel. They did so armed with what came to hand, which argues that it was a spur of the moment decision by people under tension. Maybe not the best decision in the world, but one they were even entitled to make, unless one believes that on-one has the right to resist aggression apart form Israel.

cordially,
Scofflaw

alastair

prinz wrote: »

Could I ask what your legal credentials are?

My credentials extend to an ability to read clear and unambigious sentences directly from the source law. How about yours?

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'll only speak for myself here but I think some others who are attempting to "justify the Israeli action" may agree with me. I personally disagree with a lot of what Israel have/are doing in the Middle East just as I disagree with the actions of Hamas terrorists who attack Israel. This thread is however in relation to the flotilla incident where I'm trying to show a balanced view unlike the simple and popular idea that "Israel is a monster". I disagree with the boarding but I put the escalation down to the actions of the activists who's mission in the first place had the aim to insight Israel into some sort of over the top reaction.

Yes, damn those activists. How dare they try to bring much needed humanitarian aid to a severely suffering population and force the Israelis to kill them.

Personally, the Israeli's acted with remarkable restraint, I mean an over the top reaction would have been to summarily execute all 600 aid workers, journalists and politicians. They only shot a few of them dead in international waters. If only the Irish police force could learn from their example when dealing with protesters of Nama etc in the future.

IrishTonyO

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'll only speak for myself here but I think some others who are attempting to "justify the Israeli action" may agree with me. I personally disagree with a lot of what Israel have/are doing in the Middle East just as I disagree with the actions of Hamas terrorists who attack Israel. This thread is however in relation to the flotilla incident where I'm trying to show a balanced view unlike the simple and popular idea that "Israel is a monster". I disagree with the boarding but I put the escalation down to the actions of the activists who's mission in the first place had the aim to insight Israel into some sort of over the top reaction.

How is saying "the mission was to insight Israel into some sort of over the top reaction" unbiased?
They have been 9 previous flotillas 5 which got through 4 which were sent away, no ships stormed before in the dead of night, no one killed before? Would it not be logical to assume the people on the ships assumed either one of those things would happen again, not killings?

Scofflaw

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'll only speak for myself here but I think some others who are attempting to "justify the Israeli action" may agree with me. I personally disagree with a lot of what Israel have/are doing in the Middle East just as I disagree with the actions of Hamas terrorists who attack Israel. This thread is however in relation to the flotilla incident where I'm trying to show a balanced view unlike the simple and popular idea that "Israel is a monster". I disagree with the boarding but I put the escalation down to the actions of the activists who's mission in the first place had the aim to insight Israel into some sort of over the top reaction.

That is, in short - "the victim was to blame for resisting - clearly he was asking for it".

Doesn't look any better here than any courtroom.

regards,
Scofflaw

wes

Laminations wrote: »

I find it amazing that people can argue for the Israelis in this flotilla attack. What they did quite obviously broke international law and ended in death, whether that be self defense or murder. But 7 threads (this one over 130 pages long and hard to follow) all discussing how evil Israel is dilutes the two sided nature of this conflict. In this attack Israel can only be condemned, but from this condemnation we need to see the intervention of the UN and international mediation. Completely demonising Israel here will not move the situation towards peace, there are demons on both sides.

The US always protects Israel, and hence why people focus more on Israel. The Palestinian are punished every single time they do something wrong, and Israel gets away with it again and again. So I think it more than fair, that Israel is in the spotlight like this, as long as they get away with this crap, they will recieve the lions share of condemnation.

prinz

alastair wrote: »

My credentials extend to an ability to read clear and unambigious sentences directly from the source law. How about yours?

Likewise. There is also the small matter of Dr Douglas Guilfoyle, a lecturer at Faculty of Laws, University College London who seems to have read the same clear and unambiguous sentences I did.

BlaasForRafa

Scofflaw wrote: »

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?

There were over 600 people on board that ship, some were concerned for the Gazan people but a smaller proportion were there more concerned with being anti-israeli than being pro-Gazan. I think that the ship had set off with the point of making a political point against Israel. The whole convoy had 10k tons of aid, this is less than a weeks supplies, the actual aid wouldn't have made a huge material difference to the needs of the Gazan people. So no, I don't think the organisers planned this as a trap for the idf, at least certainly not in the way things turned out, but I do think that some of the people on the voyage were there with the view of putting the active into activism.

I think a proportion of the people on board probably had decided earlier on in the voyage that if something happened that they would resist. For example where did the gasmasks come from, were they part of the ships firefighting equipment or were they brought on board by the activists. When and where were the clubs and iron bars sourced?, I can't see where they would just pick them up out of nowhere in the heat of the moment.

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

As I said, I think some of the people on board (and note probably no more than 40/50 out of the 600 plus took part in this "resistance", most people just stayed below) made provision for an attack earlier on in the trip and some joined in when they saw everything kick off.

I don't recall ever saying they had no right to do so, I am saying though that if you take on commandos that you have to consider that you may not come out of it well.

eamo12

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

Keffiyeh scarves are in there too. I never realised they were so lethal. I better throw mine away.

Iron bars and knives aren't lethal either, unless your stupid enough to attack an Israeli commando with them. Keffiyeh scarves? What a load of BS.

philologos

karma_ wrote: »

Don't Israel control the ports in Gaza, so they could have checked the cargo as it was being unloaded anyway. Didn't the cargo get checked as it was loaded by it's ally and assurances given by Turkey there were no arms on board?

Assurances from Turkey aren't enough. The Israelis need to be able to determine what is on the boats for themselves.