Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

mrboswell

ardmacha wrote: »

Why. Does Isreal own Gaza? Does Turkey recognise this?

I don't condemn war at all but I hope Turkey aint a chicken because someone needs to stand up to these monsters.

mrboswell

alastair wrote: »

Israel has military control of Gazan airspace and waters. As agreed with the PA in the '95 treaty. It's a legal arrangement that Turkey, like everyone else has to respect.

Just like israel respects legal arrangements?

nacho libre

mrboswell wrote: »

I don't condemn war at all but I hope Turkey aint a chicken because someone needs to stand up to these monsters.

and that only leads to more civilians suffering on both sides. what would be more constructive is if America threatened to cut Israel's military aid budget in half.

alastair

mrboswell wrote: »

Just like israel respects legal arrangements?

two wrongs...

mrboswell

nacho libre wrote: »

and that only leads to more civilians suffering on both sides. what would be more constructive is if America threatened to cut Israel's military aid budget in half.

I know - I did say that reluctantly - if a fraction of US citizens knew where the money was being wasted....

Ultimately the best situation is for israel to destruct itself from the inside out.

For a country that breeds hatred among its civilians and military its not unrealistic. Unfortunately my only encounters with israelis showed them to be extremely aggressive (I speak for my own experience as I obviously haven't met them all)

mrboswell

alastair wrote: »

two wrongs...

2 wrongs? - How was israel created? For a population that was persecuted and murdered you would think they might think...2 wrongs don;t make a right...but since they turned out to be the abuser how can you say that?


You are clutching at straws! You haven't got a clue.

I can't read any more of your trash - I'm off to bed

alastair

mrboswell wrote: »

2 wrongs? - How was israel created? For a population that was persecuted and murdered you would think they might think...2 wrongs don;t make a right...but since they turned out to be the abuser how can you say that?


You are clutching at straws! You haven't got a clue.

I can't read any more of your trash - I'm off to bed

Nighty night. Watch out for those photo fabricators.

mrboswell

alastair wrote: »

Nighty night. Watch out for those photo fabricators.

And before I go what of the 2 wrongs?

alastair

mrboswell wrote: »

And before I go what of the 2 wrongs?

Had you an actual point in that outburst?

Scofflaw

Ahem...

moderately,
Scofflaw

mrboswell

alastair wrote: »

Had you an actual point in that outburst?

In case you have a very short memory:

You said re the 95 treaty "It's a legal arrangement that Turkey, like everyone else has to respect"

I said "just like israel resects legal arrangements"

You said "2 wrongs"

Obviously israel think 2 wrongs make a right or we wouldn't be discussing this.

You obviously think that Turkey would break legal arrangements on the "2 wrongs" basis but its really israel that has no respect for any other nation inc the US, and blatantly ignores the UN. israel and you seem to use the "2 wrongs" when its is convenient.

That was the point to my rant - you jump the fence when it suits you to do so.

Nighty nite.

alastair

mrboswell wrote: »

Obviously israel think 2 wrongs make a right or we wouldn't be discussing this.

You obviously think that Turkey would break legal arrangements on the "2 wrongs" basis but its really israel that has no respect for any other nation inc the US, and blatantly ignores the UN. israel and seem to use the "2 wrongs" when its is convenient.

You've lost me I'm afraid.

For simplicity's sake:

1. Israel boarding merchant ships in international waters - illegal - shouldn't happen.

2. Turkey sending gunships into Gazan waters without Israeli permission - illegal - shouldn't happen (and won't tbh).

The second wrong doesn't balance out the first. It's just another illegal act.

I'm not sure why you reckon Israel thinks two wrongs make a right - that could mean anything tbh.

Manic Moran

That is a pretty disgusting accusation to make against the organisers and one for which I would hope you have at least a modicum of evidence

In fairness, it is a possibility that one has to consider. Though one would assume that the main flotilla organisers may not have wanted such an outcome, you're talking about 600 personnel aboard a single ship, any of whom may have their own agenda. (Is there a plural of agenda, since an agenda is itself a plural?). Attacking military personnel without hope of success is a pretty irrational act. There are only two possibilities: The people who fought on the ship were acting irrationally, or they acted rationally with the idea that 'success' was larger than the outcome of the tactical fight on the ship.

Next time I suggest they just sail with the ship's crew, not the ship's crew and everybody who fancies tagging along for the ride despite serving no practical purpose to the ship's operation or the delivery of aid. Far fewer variables for the organisers to worry about, be they rational or irratonal.

NTM

eoin5

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7142977.ece

Jeez, Fox news much lads? Of course many of the protesters had questionable motives for doing what they did, but because of the israeli invasion of their ship in international waters it hardly matters atall.

snow ghost

ardmacha wrote: »

Why. Does Isreal own Gaza? Does Turkey recognise this?

No Israel doesn't own GAZA and they claim they are no longer occupying the territory and as such have no legitimate claim over GAZA's territorial waters.

Ships have every right to sail into GAZA... Israel's blockade of the GAZA ports has been deemed illegal by the UN amongst others.

Israel does not have any rights over the territorial waters of GAZA.

wes

eoin5 wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7142977.ece

Jeez, Fox news much lads? Of course many of the protesters had questionable motives for doing what they did, but because of the israeli invasion of their ship in international waters it hardly matters atall.

IHH aren't on any terrorist grouping list in either the EU or the US. Also, most of the allegations are coming from Israel and some random think tanks. Israel is doing its best to try and smear the people they murdered as terrorists, but at this point Israel has 0 credibility. Israel accusations just seem desperate to me, as they know they messed up really really badly. Instead of trying to smear people with accusations of terrorism, maybe they need to take a look at who ordered this mess in the first place, and fire them.

Also, as you say above, even if there right, it doesn't change the fact, that they invaded the ship.

Scofflaw

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness, it is a possibility that one has to consider. Though one would assume that the main flotilla organisers may not have wanted such an outcome, you're talking about 600 personnel aboard a single ship, any of whom may have their own agenda. (Is there a plural of agenda, since an agenda is itself a plural?). Attacking military personnel without hope of success is a pretty irrational act. There are only two possibilities: The people who fought on the ship were acting irrationally, or they acted rationally with the idea that 'success' was larger than the outcome of the tactical fight on the ship.

Next time I suggest they just sail with the ship's crew, not the ship's crew and everybody who fancies tagging along for the ride despite serving no practical purpose to the ship's operation or the delivery of aid. Far fewer variables for the organisers to worry about, be they rational or irratonal.

NTM

Again, though, that defeats the purpose of the flotilla, which is to put moral pressure on Israel in the full light of world publicity - and to ensure that if anything bad does happen to the flotilla, everybody knows about it.

Both of those things are elementary tactics in a moral challenge. They don't make sense in a military situation, but this wasn't a military situation, because those were slow unarmed civilian ships with no armed personnel. They posed no military threat to Israel's naval, air, or ground forces, and the only "breaking" of blockades they could possibly do is by force of publicity and moral pressure.

Israel reacted with a commando raid - and when it went wrong and their commandos shot people, they began making claims about being attacked with makeshift weapons by the people they were illegally boarding, as if this were something that either justified their actions or was utterly beyond expectation. They've gone on to try to pretend that the fighting on board was the result of an organised and premeditated ambush, that the people involved were terrorists or had terrorist links - but it's all post hoc after a badly botched illegal assault.

People on board the flotilla may have had any motive for coming along, but that's irrelevant, because they all stuck to the rules of the flotilla, and they didn't direct the flotilla, or the actions of Israel.

By and large, though, I wouldn't expect Turkish men to react to any other way to aggression than with aggression, and I'm surprised the Israelis didn't factor that into their operation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa

Scofflaw wrote: »

By and large, though, I wouldn't expect Turkish men to react to any other way to aggression than with aggression, and I'm surprised the Israelis didn't factor that into their operation.

Thats a bit of an odd statement, I've never heard that the Turks are an especially angry and irrational people.

alastair

snow ghost wrote: »

No Israel doesn't own GAZA and they claim they are no longer occupying the territory and as such have no legitimate claim over GAZA's territorial waters.

Ships have every right to sail into GAZA... Israel's blockade of the GAZA ports has been deemed illegal by the UN amongst others.

Israel does not have any rights over the territorial waters of GAZA.

The '95 Israeli/Palestinian treaty begs to differ:

ARTICLE XII
Arrangements for Security and Public Order

1. In order to guarantee public order and internal security for the Palestinians of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Council shall establish a strong police force as set out in Article XIV below. Israel shall continue to carry the responsibility for defense against external threats, including the responsibility for protecting the Egyptian and Jordanian borders, and for defense against external threats from the sea and from the air, as well as the responsibility for overall security of Israelis and Settlements, for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order, and will have all the powers to take the steps necessary to meet this responsibility.

Note - the blockade is illegal, but Israel's right to restrict access to Gazan waters is not.

Manic Moran

but because of the israeli invasion of their ship in international waters it hardly matters atall.

The finer points of maritime law seem to be still under some dispute. According to Reuters, you are correct in that it hardly matters at all, but possibly not in the way you intended your statement to come across.

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-48994620100602

Now, of course it's always possible that the Reuters analysis is wrong, but that's for a court to decide. Suffice to say that the issue is not cut and dry.

NTM

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Thats a bit of an odd statement, I've never heard that the Turks are an especially angry and irrational people.

I'm not sure why you would think that I meant that. They're just macho.

regards,
Scofflaw

alastair

Manic Moran wrote: »

Now, of course it's always possible that the Reuters analysis is wrong, but that's for a court to decide. Suffice to say that the issue is not cut and dry.

The Reuters analysis misses one pretty important point. Hamas don't have belligerent status as far as Israel is concerned. They've designated Gaza a "Hostile Zone" which is something quite distinct from an enemy in a state of conflict. Israel have pretty self-serving reasons for doing so - if they did then they couldn't condemn Hamas rockets as criminal/terrorist acts, any more than they would accept that their own missile attacks into Gaza, when a state of conflict did exist, were criminal. They would also have to treat Hamas detainees as fully-fledged POW's with all the Geneva Fourth obligations that would bring. So the current Hamas/Israel stand-off isn't claimed as an international armed conflict by Israel - and therefore the San Remo rules aren't applicable. The only other route (and it's much shakier) to apply the San Remo Manual is where you have a non-international armed conflict - typically a civil war or domestic insurgency - but that would require Israel to accept the status as an occupying force - which it does not want to do.

Which leaves no legal avenue open to apply the San Remo Manual - there isn't an armed conflict, nor a belligerent to apply the rules to.

alastair

Another legal expert weighs in on the legality of the blockade and boarding:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2915343.htm

Associate Professor Ben Saul is Co-Director of the Sydney Centre for International Law at The University of Sydney, a barrister, and a leading international authority on terrorism in international law. Dr Saul teaches the law of armed conflict and has been involved in such cases in The Hague, the Israeli Supreme Court, and in the Balibo coronial inquest.

Manic Moran

The Reuters analysis misses one pretty important point. Hamas don't have belligerent status as far as Israel is concerned

So you would advocate that the international community as a whole then follows Israel's somewhat flexible status, then? After all, there have been no shortage of people claiming over the last few years that regardless of what Israel's point of view is, the situation in Gaza is a state of armed conflict and that the laws of war should apply. Regardless of what Israel claims, if that is the point of view of the rest of the world, then it's just as disingenuous to say 'well, on this particular issue, maybe we'll change our minds'

What we have right now being displayed is a bizarre situation where on this occasion, positions on both sides are inverted. At least the gentleman quoted by Alastair above is consistent, in that he's saying 'Armed conflict, but excessive'

NTM

bambooze

alastair wrote: »

So you don't trust them because you don't understand the language and they have a 'suspect' religion. You do know al Jazeera is available in English?

Can you really say with a straight face that al jazeera is entirely impartial in matters concerning israel? That turkish media reporting on a turkish flotilla manned by many turks (some of who were killed) is going to be impartial?

Anyone here who can say such a thing while at the same time claiming israeli media is biased shows their own bias..

I said bbc, or someone like that.. generally a trusted news source around the world and not directly connected to either side in this conflict.


Speaking of turkish media..

"Turkey came 122nd out of 175 countries on the Reporters Without Borders (RWB) press freedom index."
http://www.ejc.net/magazine/article/press_freedom_in_turkey_signs_of_hope_for_2010/

"Turkey warned over media freedom"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5173576.stm

Also just for kicks..
Reporters Without Borders 2007 report on Israel states: "The country's journalists enjoy a freedom not found elsewhere in the region"

In fairness israel dropped on the ranking a lot last year for some reason.

Eibhin70

Having read 172 pages and counting, I'm none the wiser really...however, it seems to me that the majority of the peace activists had good, honest genuine intentions and another shower of hooligans tagged along for the ride. You know like, when you go to support your football team and then you come across these bunch of gurriers in the stand, who have no interest in football...they're only there for one agenda, i.e. to cause trouble. Police come out in force to stop these hooligans and then all hell breaks lose! The public is outraged, the police is condemned for use of excessive force and the hooligans got what they wanted in the first place...conflict!

old_aussie

Hi,

The analysys in the Irish Independant sums up the predicament that the Israeli government has got itself into.

Israel has walked into a well-laid ambush and its government shows every sign of being insane

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/israel-has-walked-into-a-welllaid-ambush-and-its-government-shows-every-sign-of-being-insane-2205268.html

It's brings out points from both sides.

Could it be considered that Hamas and Israel are "at war"? or

What is the official status between Israel and Gaza

And why bring women and kids on a convoy that's going into an area that the convoy has been warned not to proceed through.

bambooze

Interesting article on bias in this case..

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardspencer/100041870/gaza-flotilla-raid-and-press-bias-who-to-disbelieve/

bonkey

I know that this (having been posted last night) is well out of date in turns of the running discussion, but....

Irlandese wrote: »

a measured if clumsy attempt at an intervention before the boats got within firing range of the Gaza strip.

Firing Range?

FIRING RANGE???

I assume you're suggesting that something might have been fired at them from within Gaza...not that the aid ships were going to fire on the strip.

International Waters extend 11 miles from the coast, which is well over the visible horizon.

You seem to be suggesting that there is a-greater-then-an-11-mile-zone, surrounding Gaza, into which the Israeli navy habitually do not go, for fear of attack from attack from some unspecified land-to-sea weaponry from Gaza.

Is that really the case?

bambooze

The Turkish Islamic charity behind a flotilla of aid ships that was raided by Israeli forces on its way to Gaza had ties to terrorism networks, including a 1999 al-Qa'ida plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport, France's former top anti-terrorism judge said last night.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/turkish-group-had-ties-to-alqaida-bomb-plot-2205345.html