Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Foxtrol

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

Are you saying that all those on the boat knew for certain that the captain hadn't strayed into Israeli waters? The flotilla's set goal was to get a reaction from Israel. Whatever the situation some on board would be looking for a fight.

Its pervasive throughout activist circles. Look at the protests a few weeks ago in Dublin which couldn't be run without people with chips on their shoulders attacking Gardai. Unfortunately Commandos show a lot less restraint than Gardai do when they're attacked.

IrishTonyO

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

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.

And you know this how?

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.

Some the aid was cement etc which is not allowed by the Israelis so of course this delivery would have made a difference

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.

Again you know this how?

Selkies

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

It was a complete **** up, their intelligence said these were simply aid workers and the fact that their primary weapons were paintball guns show that they didn't imagine there would be any resistance.

According to one report live ammunition was only used once a soldier was tossed some 30 feet down onto a lower deck. Another soldier was stabbed etc. I can't guarantee the validity of this report, here is the link for it: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896796,00.html

and here is another article, an opinion piece on what went wrong http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896841,00.html

I don't know what exactly happened, we won't until/unless a formal independent investigation is performed.
However I'm not simply going to assume that the idf commados decided it would be fun to start shooting people with live fire.

gandalf

Jakkass wrote: »

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

And I am sure they could of boarded in a standard fashion during daylight hours in the territorial waters that they are allowed do this.

As someone already suggested earlier on this thread they wanted to do this at night to minimise publicity and used assault troops. Instead they have handed their enemies a PR coup they could have only dreamed of, they have destroyed relations with their only major Muslim ally in that region and turned public opinion worldwide against their actions and the illegal blockade of Gaza.

TBH I cannot see how they could have messed this situation up any more.

Selkies

eamo12 wrote: »

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.

I was sure if you stabbed someone in the appropriate place or hit someone hard enough with an iron bar they died...

Byron85

And it keeps coming.

Peres: Soldiers were beaten for being humane

President expresses support for IDF actions during takeover of Gaza-bound ship, commends 'troops who preferred getting hurt over hurting someone else' Ahiya Raved Published: 06.01.10, 23:11 / Israel News

President Shimon Peres said Tuesday that he was proud of operation and conduct of the Israel Navy Commandoes who participated in the raid of the aid flotilla heading to Gaza Strip, Monday.

Speaking at a Haifa University ceremony Tuesday, where he was given the Haifa University Board of Trustees Leadership Award Ceremony, Peres said that "the soldiers were beaten just because they did not want to kill anyone.
"Any other army would have immediately used their guns. What we saw was an exemplar of troops who preferred getting hurt over hurting someone else.
"If there is one humane thing, it is this kind of trial by fire – to stand there, being shot at, and do nothing. I do not wish that on anyone."

Peres with the Leadership Award (Photo: Avishag Shear-Yeshuv)

Peres laid blame for the bloody maritime incident with Hamas, saying the militant group was solely to blame: "In stead of sailing and demonstrating, these people should have been talking to Hamas.

"Gazans are not burdened by us, but by Hamas. They should convince Hamas to stop its terrorism and resume negotiations, in stead of resisting peace. If that happens Gaza would thrive."

Commenting on recent rocket fire from Gaza on Israel, Peres wondered, "Why are they firing? Gaza is not occupied. We gave it back freely, there are no Israelis there, nor will there be.
"I hope those who aspire for peace and are not trigger-happy, would be the ones to prevail."

Israeli contradictions are flying left, right and center. Look at that last paragraph. "Gaza is not occupied". This means that the Israelis have no legal right whatsoever to patrol and control Gazan waters, yet they still do as they claim to have the legal right to do so.

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

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.

Yes, breathing equipment is standard as part of firefighting equipment on board ships, oil rigs, etc. And every ship has any number of metal bars, chains, poles, spiky objects and heavy things - fire axes, even. After all, if your ship catches fire in the middle of the sea, the fire brigade won't be along any time soon.

Have none of you worked at sea, or spent any working time on ships?

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

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.

It's not a question of whether they came out of it well, or could expect to do so - it is a question of whether they had the right to do so.

What we have here is not some kind of attack on Israel - it's a botched illegal boarding in international waters, with subsequent civilian deaths caused by the armed forces of Israel. Israel wishes to take no blame, but is entirely in the wrong - Israel's supporters wish her to take no blame, and are left having to muddy the waters with quibbling details and attempts to blame the victims.

cordially,
Scofflaw

IrishTonyO

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

And it keeps coming.

I cannot believe he said is the proud of the actions taken!!!!

OhNoYouDidn't

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

Must it?

The rules of the sea are clear. You cannot simply raid cargo ships that have passed customs in international waters without permission of the vessels flagged country, in this case Turkey.

If Isreal does not trust an ally of long standing and NATO member to obey the laws of the sea, that says more about their paranoia than anything.

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't factual.

Yes it is.

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

Would be is the key word. It hadn't entered the disputed waters and any police action should have waited till then.

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

As is there legal right under the law of the sea.

The interceptions were illegal.

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

They have no legal or moral basis to 'restrain' anyone in international waters, let alone aid workers.

Jakkass wrote: »

This doesn't represent the full story.

It does though. If the strategic object of the excercise was to search the ships, they abjectly failed.

alastair

prinz wrote: »

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.

Mt Guilfoyle seems to have missed Israels contention that no state of conflict exists, and the relevant sections of the San Remo agreement that do apply where a state of conflict does exist. And if you want to trade legal experts:

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/05/the_legal_posit.html


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060102934.html

Anthony D'Amato, a professor of international law at Northwestern University School of Law is among those who believes the raid was illegal. "That's what freedom of the seas are all about. This is very clear, for a change. I know a lot of prominent Israeli attorneys and I'd be flabbergasted if any of them disagreed with me on this," he said.

...

"We were acting totally within our legal rights. The international law is very clear on this issue," said Mark Regev, spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. "If you have a declared blockade, publicly declared, legally declared, publicized as international law requires, and someone is trying to break that blockade and though you have warned them . . . you are entitled to intercept even on the high seas, even in international waters."

Regev cited a provision in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea, which states that merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral states outside neutral waters can be intercepted if they "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."

But D'Amato said the document applies to a situation in which the laws of war between states are in force. He said the laws of war do not apply in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, which isn't even a state. He said the law of the Geneva Conventions would apply.

Scofflaw

Selkies wrote: »

It was a complete **** up, their intelligence said these were simply aid workers and the fact that their primary weapons were paintball guns show that they didn't imagine there would be any resistance.

According to one report live ammunition was only used once a soldier was tossed some 30 feet down onto a lower deck. Another soldier was stabbed etc. I can't guarantee the validity of this report, here is the link for it: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896796,00.html

and here is another article, an opinion piece on what went wrong http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896841,00.html

I don't know what exactly happened, we won't until/unless a formal independent investigation is performed.
However I'm not simply going to assume that the idf commados decided it would be fun to start shooting people with live fire.

I'm sure it wasn't for fun - I'm sure it was because they saw their mates being attacked with metal bars and the like. When your friends are on the ground being hit and kicked, you tend to react - and soldiers tend to react by shooting. That's why we don't use armed soldiers in tense civilian situations, and if we're going to we make sure they're present in such immediately overwhelming force that there's no risk of soldiers seeing their mates in trouble to the point where they start shooting civilians.

In this case, though, Israel seems to have preferred to use a commando assault style attempt to take over the ships by force at night rather than using overwhelming force to prevent the possibility of trouble. The reasons they did so are almost certainly PR reasons - to minimise the appearance of conflict and the press opportunities to make Israel look like a bully - so the victims have, essentially, died for Israeli PR. Unfortunately, that's the wrong kind of PR, so now we're into the blame game and muddying the waters.

regards,
Scofflaw

Foxtrol

@Scofflaw
@IrishTonyO
@Memnoch

I'm going to revert you to BlaasForRafa's post (if he doesnt mind) as it covers a lot of what my response would be as well as saying it much more eloquently than I would.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

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.



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.

I dont know how many times I'm going to have to say it but I don't agree with Israels actions I just believe the escalation was due to some on board.

Its like if you choose to walk down a dangerous road on your way home from a night out rather the road next to it which is known for being safe and you end up being mugged. You then decide to pull a knife on and stabs the mugger to protect yourself who then in turn shoots you. It obviously wouldn't be your fault but if you had made other choices it would be much more likely that you wouldnt be dead right now.

OhNoYouDidn't

Scofflaw,

A couple of posters have used the 'might is right' line here, saying Israel can arbitraily use their superior power as it sees fit. Just for the craic you should ban them all for a week, simply because you can and, well 'might is right' isn't it? That will teach 'em!

karma_

Foxtrol wrote: »

@Scofflaw
@IrishTonyO
@Memnoch

I'm going to revert you to BlaasForRafa's post (if he doesnt mind) as it covers a lot of what my response would be as well as saying it much more eloquently than I would.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I dont know how many times I'm going to have to say it but I don't agree with Israels actions I just believe the escalation was due to some on board.

Its like if you choose to walk down a dangerous road on your way home from a night out rather the road next to it which is known for being safe and you end up being mugged. You then decide to pull a knife on and stabs the mugger to protect yourself who then in turn shoots you. It obviously wouldn't be your fault but if you had made other choices it would be much more likely that you wouldnt be dead right now.

The fault would still be the muggers, as he is breaking teh law, and he instigated teh problem.

alastair

Foxtrol wrote: »

Are you saying that all those on the boat knew for certain that the captain hadn't strayed into Israeli waters? The flotilla's set goal was to get a reaction from Israel. Whatever the situation some on board would be looking for a fight.

Ther flotillas goal was to break the blockade. Getting a reaction from Israel isn't the point.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Its pervasive throughout activist circles. Look at the protests a few weeks ago in Dublin which couldn't be run without people with chips on their shoulders attacking Gardai. Unfortunately Commandos show a lot less restraint than Gardai do when they're attacked.

The difference between the two scenarios is that the protesters in Dublin broke into a place thay had no right to enter and the legal response was for the gardai to expell them. The Commados were the illegal players in this scenario and the passengers those with the legal right to self defence.

Scofflaw

Foxtrol wrote: »

@Scofflaw
@IrishTonyO
@Memnoch

I'm going to revert you to BlaasForRafa's post (if he doesnt mind) as it covers a lot of what my response would be as well as saying it much more eloquently than I would.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I dont know how many times I'm going to have to say it but I don't agree with Israels actions I just believe the escalation was due to some on board.

Its like if you choose to walk down a dangerous road on your way home from a night out rather the road next to it which is known for being safe and you end up being mugged. You then decide to pull a knife on and stabs the mugger to protect yourself who then in turn shoots you. It obviously wouldn't be your fault but if you had made other choices it would be much more likely that you wouldnt be dead right now.

And there would be people who said you deserved it - just like you. And my view of them would be exactly the same dim one.

regards,
Scofflaw

BluePlanet

Its like if you choose to walk down a dangerous road on your way home from a night out rather the road next to it which is known for being safe and you end up being mugged. You then decide to pull a knife on and stabs the mugger to protect yourself who then in turn shoots you. It obviously wouldn't be your fault but if you had made other choices it would be much more likely that you wouldnt be dead right now.

Yeah, but it's victim-blaming.
If she didn't wear such a revealing skirt, she probably wouldn't have gotten raped.

doncarlos

Foxtrol wrote: »

Its like if you choose to walk down a dangerous road on your way home from a night out rather the road next to it which is known for being safe and you end up being mugged. You then decide to pull a knife on and stabs the mugger to protect yourself who then in turn shoots you. It obviously wouldn't be your fault but if you had made other choices it would be much more likely that you wouldnt be dead right now.

It's like girls that wear short skirts out and are raped. If they didn't wear short skirts they wouldn't be raped would they Foxtrol?

edit: Beaten to it by Blueplanet

BlaasForRafa

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Scofflaw,

A couple of posters have used the 'might is right' line here, saying Israel can arbitraily use their superior power as it sees fit. Just for the craic you should ban them all for a week, simply because you can and, well 'might is right' isn't it? That will teach 'em!

Who has said "might is right"?

Foxtrol

alastair wrote: »

Ther flotillas goal was to break the blockade. Getting a reaction from Israel isn't the point.

The Flotilla knew this was a win win situation for them. They either break the blockade and then set a precedent or Israel does something stupid to stop them and its amazing "Israel is a monster" PR. Anyone who thinks this was solely about aid is naive at best.

The difference between the two scenarios is that the protesters in Dublin broke into a place thay had no right to enter and the legal response was for the gardai to expell them. The Commados were the illegal players in this scenario and the passengers those with the legal right to self defence.

Did those on deck know for certain that they hadnt strayed into Israeli waters? Those who fought would have fought anyway just like the element who protest in Ireland always happen to be the ones who the Gardai "pick on"

philologos

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Must it?

Yes, it must.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The rules of the sea are clear. You cannot simply raid cargo ships that have passed customs in international waters without permission of the vessels flagged country, in this case Turkey.

This isn't entirely true, basing my views on the Newsnight episode last night. If a country is attempting to breach a blockade, it does have this entitlement under international law. There is an argument over the legality of it, and it certainly isn't black and white. There is another argument over whether or not the Gaza blockade itself is legal.

IMO, I think Israel should have waited until the flotilla reached the 65 mile exclusion zone and then warned the ship, and intercepted. Certainly it would have been much better for Israel's PR.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

If Isreal does not trust an ally of long standing and NATO member to obey the laws of the sea, that says more about their paranoia than anything.

I call nonsense on this one.

In a conflict situation Israel needs assurances that inappropriate goods are not being brought into Gaza. It isn't enough to trust Turkey or any other organisation.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Yes it is.

You've been severely dishonest concerning the circumstances of the interceptions at least in the post that I quoted.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Would be is the key word. It hadn't entered the disputed waters and any police action should have waited till then.

I agree, it would have been better advice to wait until the 65 mile exclusion zone around Gaza.

I don't see how "would be" is problematic. Israel allowing the flotilla to dock in Ashdod, is certainly a lot better than Israel turning the vessels back home without the aid being delivered.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

As is there legal right under the law of the sea.

So, the IDF should have just let themselves be beaten? - They intercepted 5 other boats without excessive hassle. If the activists had merely obeyed the IDF orders and accepted to dock in Ashdod, this would have never happened bear in mind.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The interceptions were illegal.

This is a grey area actually.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

They have no legal or moral basis to 'restrain' anyone in international waters, let alone aid workers.

The IDF brought down excessively armed troops, but arguably, at least based on last nights Newsnight they should have dropped far more down on the ship in order to maintain order.

It was due to the lack of control on board that the IDF opened fire, and if they had dropped more down, it might not have gotten to that point.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

It does though. If the strategic object of the excercise was to search the ships, they abjectly failed.

It wasn't. The strategic object of the exercise was to take control of the ships so that they could dock in Ashdod, or at least thoroughly warn those on board that their previous warning was serious, and they were going to take action.

Euroland

Selkies wrote: »

It was a complete **** up, their intelligence said these were simply aid workers and the fact that their primary weapons were paintball guns show that they didn't imagine there would be any resistance.

According to one report live ammunition was only used once a soldier was tossed some 30 feet down onto a lower deck. Another soldier was stabbed etc. I can't guarantee the validity of this report, here is the link for it: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896796,00.html

and here is another article, an opinion piece on what went wrong http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896841,00.html

I don't know what exactly happened, we won't until/unless a formal independent investigation is performed.
However I'm not simply going to assume that the idf commados decided it would be fun to start shooting people with live fire.

Never ever trust the Israeli propaganda machine, the Israeli Special Forces were planned to kill and they did what was planned.

IrishTonyO

Foxtrol wrote: »

The Flotilla knew this was a win win situation for them. They either break the blockade and then set a precedent or Israel does something stupid to stop them and its amazing "Israel is a monster" PR. Anyone who thinks this was solely about aid is naive at best.

Previous flotillas got through

Foxtrol wrote: »

Did those on deck know for certain that they hadnt strayed into Israeli waters? Those who fought would have fought anyway just like the element who protest in Ireland always happen to be the ones who the Gardai "pick on"

and you know that they would have fought anyway, how?

BluePlanet

Foxtrol wrote: »

Did those on deck know for certain that they hadnt strayed into Israeli waters? Those who fought would have fought anyway just like the element who protest in Ireland always happen to be the ones who the Gardai "pick on"

Oops you've strayed into fantasy land now.
You're commenting and judging people on events that didn't happen.

prinz

alastair wrote: »

But D'Amato said the document applies to a situation in which the laws of war between states are in force. He said the laws of war do not apply in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, which isn't even a state. He said the law of the Geneva Conventions would apply.

The conflict isn't just between Israel and Hamas though.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091901156.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7002576.stm

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3451149,00.html

Gaza desginated a hostile political entity in it's own right, divided from Hamas.

karma_

prinz wrote: »

The conflict isn't just between Israel and Hamas though.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091901156.html

Israeli Panel Declares Gaza a 'Hostile Entity'

Says it all really.

alastair

Foxtrol wrote: »

The Flotilla knew this was a win win situation for them. They either break the blockade and then set a precedent or Israel does something stupid to stop them and its amazing "Israel is a monster" PR. Anyone who thinks this was solely about aid is naive at best.

It's solely about breaking the blockade. Are you suggesting that it's about something else? How about the Irish state's position on the blockade -that about something else too?

Foxtrol wrote: »

Did those on deck know for certain that they hadnt strayed into Israeli waters? Those who fought would have fought anyway just like the element who protest in Ireland always happen to be the ones who the Gardai "pick on"

What if's? Neither of us know - what's certain is you don't know the people involved, and the legal context is nothing like your analogy.

Foxtrol

BluePlanet wrote: »

Yeah, but it's victim-blaming.
If she didn't wear such a revealing skirt, she probably wouldn't have gotten raped.

Sorry its not victim blaming. I dont run out in front of a car who I can see is speeding if I plan to see my next birthday.

So do you all believe that there would have been more or less casualties if those on board hadn't attacked the commandos? (And please dont say that the commandos shouldnt have been there as I already agree with you)

alastair

karma_ wrote: »

Israeli Panel Declares Gaza a 'Hostile Entity'

Says it all really.

Yes it does. It's not a state of conflict. 'Hostile Entity' has no legal meaning - and it's intended to avoid any legal meaning.

prinz

alastair wrote: »

Yes it does. It's not a state of conflict. 'Hostile Entity' has no legal meaning - and it's intended to avoid any legal meaning.

It certainly undermines any claim that Israel and Hamas cannot be at war. They made clear that Israel was at fact at war with Gaza itself.

Israel's security cabinet today declared Gaza an "enemy entity", paving the way for possible cuts in fuel and water to the Hamas-controlled territory.
The decision, described by Hamas as a "declaration of war", follows almost daily rocket attacks from Gaza at southern Israel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/19/usa.israel1