Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

paulaa

bambooze wrote: »

Maybe, just maybe they should stop firing rockets over the border then.. any time they do, israel WILL hit back.

I agree that the rockets are counterproductive but Israel's response is too. It's just tit for tat with no outcome except more dead bodies

Israel's policy on Gaza hasn't worked and is turning the world against them. Maybe it's time they tried something new

Manic Moran

Nothing in the passage of time has changed?

From the perspective of there having been a legitimate war, Israel occupied the land as part of that war, and it remained an occupying power at least up until the Court's opinion in 2004 (I initially said 2005, in error) correct.

These guys get paid a lot more than I do to analyse legal status. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf?PHPSESSID=ec6df328eb4e3d356acd313357fc0dc0
Far too long for me to post here, start at page 171, go on to page 181.

Well Israel changed it's status in Gaza from one of an occupying force, to one of an ex-occupier.

I'm not actually sure how accurate that is. You can certainly make the argument that as long as the country maintains such control over the place, they are still in effect the occupying power. You can control something without sitting on it. Even if you do decide that there was a break in the conflict, the conflict did very obviously start up again, and has been continuing ever since.

There's a pretty comprehensive discussion as to the legal status of Israel's conflict relationship with Gaza/Hamas, and whether a legal state of conflict applies here: http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/wh...of-gaza-legal

Things do start getting a little difficult when equating Hamas to Gaza. Hamas is not Gaza, it just happens to be in charge of Gaza for the last couple of years. If Israel is still considered to be an occupying power, then it is also responsible for ensuring the functioning of internal security. As such, it can declare persons to be criminal and take criminal actions against them as long as they do not trigger the legal combatant categories. (things like carry arms openly, wear uniforms/identifying insignia etc).

NTM

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

Proof? I did no such thing, I linked to an interesting opinion, not in any way can that be said to be proof of anything one way or the other.

You linked to an opinion with no input of your own on it what so ever except "interesting".

gandalf

Foxtrol wrote: »

And after reading a few pages back people here were jumping down posters throats for suggesting that it could be in the best interest for some "eye witnesses" on the boats to lie. Both sides have reasons to put slants on stories which back up their positions whether it be by leaving out key points, misdirection or blatant lies. Its blinkered to believe that doing so is only to the Israelis benefit.

I never said as such but if you post something here as proof (sorry opinion) and it turns out the person is doing the lecture circuit in front of Zionist organisations then it is fair to assume they are getting paid for same therefore it is fair to assume they aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them now isn't it?

So it is only correct to question their impartiality.

Macha

bambooze wrote: »

Maybe, just maybe they should stop firing rockets over the border then.. any time they do, israel WILL hit back.

Might is right, should become the official Israeli motto.

Nodin

...though having "I'm with the USA" should be the t-shirt and bumper sticker.

alastair

Manic Moran wrote: »

From the perspective of there having been a legitimate war, Israel occupied the land as part of that war, and it remained an occupying power at least up until the Court's opinion in 2004 (I initially said 2005, in error) correct.

These guys get paid a lot more than I do to analyse legal status. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf?PHPSESSID=ec6df328eb4e3d356acd313357fc0dc0
Far too long for me to post here, start at page 171, go on to page 181.



I'm not actually sure how accurate that is. You can certainly make the argument that as long as the country maintains such control over the place, they are still in effect the occupying power. You can control something without sitting on it. Even if you do decide that there was a break in the conflict, the conflict did very obviously start up again, and has been continuing ever since.



Things do start getting a little difficult when equating Hamas to Gaza. Hamas is not Gaza, it just happens to be in charge of Gaza for the last couple of years. If Israel is still considered to be an occupying power, then it is also responsible for ensuring the functioning of internal security. As such, it can declare persons to be criminal and take criminal actions against them as long as they do not trigger the legal combatant categories. (things like carry arms openly, wear uniforms/identifying insignia etc).

NTM

The point is that Israel isn't occupying Gaza since 2005 (thus bypassing much of your 2004 legal opinion link) - it's controlling many aspects of it for sure, and the blockade is clearly defined as an illegal act, but they don't actually occupy the place anymore - their airspace and waters access is all above board on the back of the Interim Agreement treaty, and they are certainly still an occupying force in the West Bank - but for Gaza - not really.

Much of the problem is the Hamas/Fatah split - otherwise the notion that Israel is a 'partial' occupying force with a single contracting party - the PA, would change matters quite a bit.

Byron85

IDF supporters are at it again.

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

Maybe, just maybe they should stop firing rockets over the border then

I agree with you 100%, no people should be attacked in that way. No attacks should occur at all.

.. any time they do, israel WILL hit back.

And I agree with Israels right to hit back but not a collective punishment which is totally counter productive and only create more support for the very people that Israel are trying to defeat.

Maybe a change of tactics is needed. After all collective punishment never really works. Its the type of tactic that should be left behind in the previous century if you catch my meaning.

droidus

If the previous 40 years are anything to go by, this is the exposure of the first of many IDF lies regarding this incident.

Under Scrutiny, IDF Retracts Claims About Flotilla’s Al Qaeda Links
On 06.03.10, By Max

When placed under journalistic scrutiny, the IDF is being forced to admit that its claims about the flotilla’s links to international terror are based on innuendo, not facts. On June 2, the IDF blasted out a press release to reporters and bloggers with the shocking headline: “Attackers of the IDF soldiers found to be Al Qaeda mercenaries.” The only supporting evidence offered in the release was a claim that the passengers “were equipped with bullet proof vests, night vision goggles, and weapons.” A screen capture of the press release is below:

Not content to believe that night vision goggles signal membership in Al Qaeda, Israel-based freelance reporter Lia Tarachansky and I called the IDF press office to ask for more conclusive evidence. Tarachansky reached the IDF’s Israel desk, interviewing a spokesperson in Hebrew; I spoke with the North America desk, using English. We both received the same reply from Army spokespeople: “We don’t have any evidence. The press release was based on information from the [Israeli] National Security Council.” (The Israeli National Security Council is Netanyahu’s kitchen cabinet of advisors).

Today, the Israeli Army’s press office changed the headline of its press release (see below), basically retracting its claim about the flotilla’s Al Qaeda links. The new headline reads: “Attackers of the IDF Soldiers Found Without Identification Papers” (the top of the browser screen still contains the original headline about Al Qaeda). The more Israel’s claims about the flotilla’s terrorist links are challenged, the more they fall apart.
After admitting "there is no evidence" to back up its claim about the flotilla's Qaeda links, the IDF quietly changed the headline of its press release.

http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/under-scrutiny-idf-retracts-claims-about-flotillas-al-qaeda-links/

bambooze

gandalf wrote: »

I agree with you 100%, no people should be attacked in that way. No attacks should occur at all.

And I agree with Israels right to hit back but not a collective punishment which is totally counter productive and only create more support for the very people that Israel are trying to defeat.

Maybe a change of tactics is needed. After all collective punishment never really works. Its the type of tactic that should be left behind in the previous century if you catch my meaning.

Yes collective punishment is not good. However israel has few options while gaza is ruled by hamas. The people elected them and hamas doesn't recognize israels right to exist and its stated aim is to destroy all of israel.

Opening the borders would allow hamas to acquire advanced weapons (missiles) from iran just as hezbollah did making things very tricky for israel stuck in the middle.

Easing the blockade to ensure the people get all they need would certainly be better for all as long as hamas cannot get weapons or the things they want. Which is easier said than done.

But still there is the gilad shalit issue to complicate matters further.

Hamas is just bad for everyone.

karma_

bambooze wrote: »

Yes collective punishment is not good. However israel has few options while gaza is ruled by hamas. The people elected them and hamas doesn't recognize israels right to exist and its stated aim is to destroy all of israel.

Opening the borders would allow hamas to acquire advanced weapons (missiles) from iran just as hezbollah did making things very tricky for israel stuck in the middle.

Easing the blockade to ensure the people get all they need would certainly be better for all as long as hamas cannot get weapons or the things they want. Which is easier said than done.

But still there is the gilad shalit issue to complicate matters further.

Hamas is just bad for everyone.

Yes Hamas are bad.

Do you not stop to think though that by treating all Gazans as if they were in Hamas only drives more of them into the their arms at what they see as a complete injustice?

Tit for tat will never solve the problem over there, only an olive branch if one side is brave enough to offer it, and honestly at this stage that has to be Israel.

Scofflaw

Manic Moran wrote: »

From the perspective of there having been a legitimate war, Israel occupied the land as part of that war, and it remained an occupying power at least up until the Court's opinion in 2004 (I initially said 2005, in error) correct.

These guys get paid a lot more than I do to analyse legal status. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf?PHPSESSID=ec6df328eb4e3d356acd313357fc0dc0
Far too long for me to post here, start at page 171, go on to page 181.



I'm not actually sure how accurate that is. You can certainly make the argument that as long as the country maintains such control over the place, they are still in effect the occupying power. You can control something without sitting on it. Even if you do decide that there was a break in the conflict, the conflict did very obviously start up again, and has been continuing ever since.



Things do start getting a little difficult when equating Hamas to Gaza. Hamas is not Gaza, it just happens to be in charge of Gaza for the last couple of years. If Israel is still considered to be an occupying power, then it is also responsible for ensuring the functioning of internal security. As such, it can declare persons to be criminal and take criminal actions against them as long as they do not trigger the legal combatant categories. (things like carry arms openly, wear uniforms/identifying insignia etc).

NTM

I'm not sure this actually constitutes a judgement that Israel is in a state of armed conflict with Hamas, though - for one thing, it's not a judgement, it's an opinion. For a second, I don't think it ever says that there's a state of armed conflict between Israel and Hamas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

bambooze wrote: »

Yes collective punishment is not good. However israel has few options while gaza is ruled by hamas. The people elected them and hamas doesn't recognize israels right to exist and its stated aim is to destroy all of israel.

Opening the borders would allow hamas to acquire advanced weapons (missiles) from iran just as hezbollah did making things very tricky for israel stuck in the middle.

Easing the blockade to ensure the people get all they need would certainly be better for all as long as hamas cannot get weapons or the things they want. Which is easier said than done.

But still there is the gilad shalit issue to complicate matters further.

Hamas is just bad for everyone.

And before Hamas it was a different organisation, but the same excuses and the same actions - and before that, and before that...

regards,
Scofflaw

IrishTonyO

heard that the Rachel Corrie has turned about to be fitted with cameras and a satellite dish, before heading back to Gaza

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

Yes collective punishment is not good.

No collective punishment and actions that punish everyone for a minorities actions are wrong and counter productive. We know that here because we have seen what have happened only a few miles to our North.

Collective punishment and heavy handed re-action by the British in Northern Ireland in the 1970's drove supporters to the Provisional IRA. So instead of weakening them as they thought they would do they made them stronger.

However israel has few options while gaza is ruled by hamas. The people elected them and hamas doesn't recognize israels right to exist and its stated aim is to destroy all of israel.

Yes but then the people there need another choice and as long as you push people towards the extreme by dehumanising them you hand them to extremist organisations.

Opening the borders would allow hamas to acquire advanced weapons (missiles) from iran just as hezbollah did making things very tricky for israel stuck in the middle.

And turning your allies into enemies doesn't help in getting sanctions against Iran now does it.

Easing the blockade to ensure the people get all they need would certainly be better for all as long as hamas cannot get weapons or the things they want. Which is easier said than done.

Well why aren't the politicians in Israel working with moderate Palestinians towards this goal.

But still there is the gilad shalit issue to complicate matters further.

It doesn't complicate it. The poor guy should be released end of story. But people should not be collectively punished because extremists are holding him.

Hamas is just bad for everyone.

Agreed with you on that 100% but acting like them and grinding people under the jackboot of collective punishment is also bad for everyone (the Palestinians, the Israelis, the IDF, the rest of the world).

The best form of defense is to make organisations like them meaningless to all but the most extreme members of society who are a very small minority.

Macha

Prime Time programme on it at the moment.

Clawdeeus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo saw a smidge of this on the Daily Show (which once again depressingly did some of the best reporting on an international incident) Does anyone know if any heads rolled high in the Israeli government or military? It dosent take a genius to see that putting people with guns in this situation is a disaster waiting to happen. Or have they just completly closed ranks on the subject?

gandalf

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Or have they just completly closed ranks on the subject?

Thats a bingo!

digme

gandalf wrote: »

Thats a bingo!

lol no just bingo

Clawdeeus

gandalf wrote: »

Thats a bingo!

Typical. Would have been nice to see at least an effort in damage limitation, maybe some high level argument on the rights and wrongs of the assualt.

Also, seems one of those killed was a US citizen. Probablly dosent change the dynamics much unless there is a video lying around of IDF troops tying him/her up and throwing him/her overboard though.

There has been some stirrings towards a backing away of the US from its relationship with Israel recently, notably General Petreaus specifically stating that it was damaging to national security. Anyone dare hope this will be the time for the US to slap down the cub? There is an interesting scenario that hasnt been brought up yet, if this forces a confrontation between Turkey and Israel (probablly wont become military but rhetoric has certainly been heating up recently), what side will the US/EU take?

It may not be as clear cut as it first seems, with Turkey being a powerfu NATO member, and geographically far more important that Israel.

weepee

Israel is simply enforcing its Foreign Policy. The stopping of the Flotilla highlights this. The way it was stopped highlights how far Israel will go to punish the people of Gaza for electing the Hamas.

gandalf

weepee wrote: »

Israel is simply enforcing its Foreign Policy. The stopping of the Flotilla highlights this. The way it was stopped highlights how far Israel will go to punish the people of Gaza for electing the Hamas.

Yes it highlights the fact that Israel will ignore and breach International Law, will attack vessels that are carrying the flags of their allies.

They are behaving like a Rogue State and if it was any one else the US would be leading calls for sanctions.

weepee

gandalf wrote: »

Yes it highlights the fact that Israel will ignore and breach International Law, will attack vessels that are carrying the flags of their allies.

They are behaving like a Rogue State and if it was any one else the US would be leading calls for sanctions.

Israel has always ignored The United Nations, laughed at International Law, and will continue to do so, as long as Washington refuses to either condemn them, or take a non aligned stance on the situation there.

And who suffers for all this-The Palestinians.

Manic Moran

for one thing, it's not a judgement, it's an opinion.

When judges issue their ruling, it's called an opinion. Just a terminology thing. See, for example, the way the US Supreme Court deals with it (This from Heller vs DC).
"SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a
dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,
joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined."

NTM

weepee

Jerusalem Post is stating that PM Netanyahu will 'loosen' blockade and allow ships in, after search by International inspectors.

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=177430

Clawdeeus

gandalf wrote: »

Yes it highlights the fact that Israel will ignore and breach International Law, will attack vessels that are carrying the flags of their allies.

They are behaving like a Rogue State and if it was any one else the US would be leading calls for sanctions.

I agree, however the US has few reasons to act in the Palesinian's interest, they dont have much power in any sense, and basically no friends with pull (or willing to use their pull) internationally.

Didnt Osama Bin Laden release mutliple statements stating US support for Israel was one of the main reasons for the Jihad (and bases in Saudi Arabia). Probablly didnt help the calls for more impartiallity on the US's part in the region; quite the opposite.

Irlandese

taconnol wrote: »

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.

I said the "hard core" organisers, friend. I stand over the comment.
If you have been as involved as I and too many others were in too-pro as in too un-critical Pro-Palestinian politics over the past thirty odd years, you would have seen a lot of the "pretty disgusting " reality where the suffering palestinian cannon-fodder in the camps have always been used as PR material by the "hard-core" manipulators. They have clearly been deliberately kept in misery, as with the countless opportunities lost by Arafat and his cronies, while the Arafats and their families lived in obscene luxury.
Do not start me with that kant !

Aidric

Debate currently on Vincent Browne on this issue for anyone interested.

Irlandese

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

Exactly. As I said, I referred to the "hard-core" and not to the altruistic "cannon-fodder"
who may very well have been used as I described.