10 die in Israeli raid on aid flotilla

troubleshooter

Morphéus wrote: »

ok ultimate ...

Do you believe that if the Israelis had waited until they were NOT in international waters and THEN boarded the ship that these activists would have willingly sat idly by?

Thats a moot point, if they had borded the ship in their own waters it would have been legal. That had to be the basis for any operation, as it is they have now pished off Turkey a moderate Muslim country, as well as it being a political PR disaster.

Manic Moran

troubleshooter wrote: »

Thats a moot point, if they had borded the ship in their own waters it would have been legal. That had to be the basis for any operation, as it is they have now pished off Turkey a moderate Muslim country, as well as it being a political PR disaster.

The international waters thing is not necessarily an indicator that it was illegal. Just makes it more controversial.

NTM

Avgas

Well I see its going sideways....and yes I'm (as usual) partly to blame a bit with my references to ARW......but look.... seriously... I checked out O'Kims as suggested by Manic...and I think its really really worth defending.....:)

Regarding UltimateMale's political arguments you're totally missing that a great number of posters here are much more even-minded that you obviously seem to be and as a result take the various propaganda and spin from all sides with a large side serving of NaCl. If you read Morpheus post again rather than react to it, most of it is a quite balanced attempt to guess what went wrong.....allowing for imperfect info.

Regarding the legal aspects of your claim the issue of the legality of this action by the IDF is certainly questionable..but that does not mean it is proven as illegal..and moreover the proportionality of the violence used by some of the activists would seem prime facie to be at best 'questionable' as well... or are you denying that the activists engaged in any serious violence whatsoever?

The bottom line is this:

You seem to be suggesting that where any people in any international waters are approached by another vessel, of whatever type, and an attempt to board them is made, then they have an automatic right to assume this is an act of piracy, and to use force to resist such a boarding.

This is utter nonsense.

While piracy might be a good political adjective to describe the IDF actions...most legal experts are in agreement that the laws on piracy do not apply here...whatever laws do.....

The IDF flotilla for what it is worth "claim" they communicated with the ships and clearly identified themselves as IDF (i.e. not pirates from Somalia and they had no parrot AFAIK). The IDF then claim they "invited" the flotilla to go the Israeli port.... and when the flotilla refused to co-operate (which was their right BTW)..... they later informed the ships they would be boarded, possibly without proper legal authority-this is disputed and rightly so) and then it all went wrong.....

Perhaps your argument might be of some use the next time a drug running boat, or a perfectly innocent day tripper a bit lost in his 21fter,...off the Cork coast..... is boarded by the Naval Service....who perhaps feel there is an urgency to board the ship in international waters to prevent a shipping problem:)..according to your argument the crew could legitimately beat the daylights out of the hapless sailors with iron bars because ...its the high seas right?...They must obviously be pirates right?...and if the Irish naval service use their service firearms in response...they must be Zionist murderers, no?

Your argument is about as sensible as my silly example.

Cheers!

iceage

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994

www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/3...1f002d49ce

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) 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;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions

Found this else where. Sub section 67 (a) seems to cover it really. International maritime Law isn't one of my strong points and my opinion on this whole cock up really stands for even less considering some of the posts here but I am amazed that there wasn't more fatalities guys, and considering the beatings being handed out by our bar weilding "Aid" workers that the Israelis didn't lose one or two as well.

Lets hope that things go much smoother with the Irish aid vessel Rachel Corrie because She will be stopped.

Poccington

iceage wrote: »

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994

www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/3...1f002d49ce

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) 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;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions

Found this else where. Sub section 67 (a) seems to cover it really. International maritime Law isn't one of my strong points and my opinion on this whole cock up really stands for even less considering some of the posts here but I am amazed that there wasn't more fatalities guys, and considering the beatings being handed out by our bar weilding "Aid" workers that the Israelis didn't lose one or two as well.

Lets hope that things go much smoother with the Irish aid vessel Rachel Corrie because She will be stopped.

You left out the piece where it states in Para 68. "Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46."

Have a read of Para 38-46 and it certainly becomes far from clear cut.

iceage

Yip. Dead on. I 've added a new link, the one in my post was broken.

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMSU#6

Interpret it how you will but it reads plain as day really. Law baby..its a bitch.

Thanks poccington.

Local-womanizer

Autopsy reports on those killed out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results

Interesting reading.

BlaasForRafa

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Autopsy reports on those killed out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results

Interesting reading.

Theres nothing there that directly contradicts what the commandos have said though. If the commandos were using Glocks, they can put out a lot of rounds pretty quickly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDd94iJRaiI

Theres some more after coming out from the commandos involved, http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-navy-3-commandos-nearly-taken-hostage-in-gaza-flotilla-raid-1.294114

During Israel's takeover of a Turkish ship in the Gaza-bound aid flotilla this week, some passengers tried to take captive three commandos who lost consciousness as a result of the activists' blows, according to early findings of a navy investigation. The three were dragged into one of the passenger halls below deck and were held there for several minutes.

After dozens of other commandos began searching the ship, the Mavi Marmara, the three soldiers regained consciousness and managed to join their comrades.

Conversations with senior navy officers in the chain of command during the operation present a different view of the events on Monday. In Israel, the raid has been perceived as a failure, while abroad it has been derided as piracy or worse.

The navy rejects the claims that it was poorly prepared. Officials have been commending the commandos' performance in a situation in which they were confronted by dozens of activists who attacked them as they rappelled from helicopters. "They were terrorists - hired killers who came to murder soldiers, not to assist the residents of the Gaza Strip," said a navy officer.

The operation on the Mavi Marmara began at about 4:30 A.M. on Monday. Because of the presence of hard-core activists including members of the IHH, the Turkish group organizing the aid convoy, most attention went to that ship. Navy chief Eliezer Merom and the head of the naval commandos, Lt. Col. A., were on vessels next to the ship. Lt. Col. A. climbed on the Mavi Marmara during the takeover.

As seen on a video documenting the takeover, the first four commandos to rappel onto the deck were attacked by activists with bars, axes and knives. The fourth commando, K., saw his team leader on the deck, with a Turkish activist holding the pistol he had grabbed from him and pointing it to his head. K. jumped from the rope and managed to shoot the activist holding the gun. This happened 20 seconds after the first soldier landed on the deck.

The commanders of the first unit were hit by the mob as they landed. One of the soldiers managed to fix another rope, after there were problems with the original one, for 10 more soldiers to land. The commandos cared for the wounded and took over part of the upper deck of the ship.

At this stage, six minutes into the operation, another force landed from a second helicopter, led by a major. At that point they realized that three commandos were missing and they began looking for them. A short while later the naval commando chief landed along with dozens more soldiers, some of whom climbed from boats. Others landed from a third helicopter.

The search involved limited shooting, in the bridge and on the lower deck, until the three men were recovered. The head of the naval commandos gave orders by radio to use live fire, two minutes after the incident had begun.

Shots had been fired earlier, but Lt. Col. A. later explained that in his orders he wanted to make sure that the troops realized that "the mood of the incident had changed."

The soldiers reported that the activists had fired on them during the confrontation and that at least two commandos suffered gunshot wounds. After the incident, 9mm bullet casings were found - a kind not used by the naval commandos.

concussion

MV Rachel Corrie has been boarded without incident and is being escorted to Ashdod.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0605/breaking1.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ba0iXUzxu0&feature=channel

blubloblu

Has this been posted yet?

globemaster1986

UltimateMale wrote: »

You have been propagating that the IDF landed and behaved like perfect gentlemen only to be violently attacked by violent thugs on board :rolleyes: -when the exact opposite is totally the case.

According to one of the Irish humanitarian's on board Dr. Fintan Lane " When they boarded our boat, we resisted entirely peacefully. I sat on the floor and tried to reason with them, but the Israeli commandos physically attacked us. Fiachra was dragged around the ground and I had a gun pointed in my face by a screaming commando. His mania was so intense that I genuinely feared for my life. Others received beatings.”

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/i-tried-to-reason-with-them-but-they-attacked-us-2207317.html

If you ask any reasonable decent person who would they believe I'm sure it would be Dr. Lane and not the ridiculous liars the IDF or their apologists the hasbara.

Hii Fintan!:D

All jokes aside though, you are taking the word of an activist but dismiss the video evidence etc to the contrary? Look at the videos, the soldiers were attacked! One of them was throw off the bridge to the deck 30 feet below. These activists are publicity whores and I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw them. They are all about their own agenda, and will say/do whatever they need to promote that. And this "flotilla" was clearly a publicity event. Look at all the press and high profile "activists" involved. One of the boats turned and sped from the Israelis so they could get a satellite link and get their "story" out. The Mavi Marmara was crewed by members of IHH, an organisation a french judge has said have terror links and are Islamic extremists themselves. How can you trust these people? If they were really concerned about delivering the aid they would have gone to Ashdod or El Arish. They knew well in advance they would be stopped and were repeatedly told by the Israelis they would be boarded if they did not divert their course. It was simply about causing an incident and making the worl rail against Israel, and with people who just belive "activists" accounts in the face of video evidence to the contrary they hav got what they want. Clowns:rolleyes:

xflyer

Irish humanitarians

Sorry this whole even had nothing to do with humanitarism, it was pure political activism. If anyone really thinks this was done to relieve the suffering of the ordinary people of Gaza then you are a victim of propaganda. This was a deliberate provocation to Israel. As for Dr Fintan's account, well they didn't shoot him but then he didn't attack them with an axe either.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Israel's blockade, the real agenda is not the suffering of the ordinary people of Gaza largely brought on, it must be said by Hamas who are proxies of Iran and their attitude to Israel.

Their is some incredible naivety out there about the whole situation in the middle east. The term 'Free Palestine' is absurd as it's clear the the last thing they would actually achieve is freedom certainly based on the track record of other Arab countries.

Wibbs

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The soldiers reported that the activists had fired on them during the confrontation and that at least two commandos suffered gunshot wounds. After the incident, 9mm bullet casings were found - a kind not used by the naval commandos.

Eh doesnt compute. The commandos were using Glocks. They fire 9mm rounds. If the round manufacturers were not the usual supplier why have they not given details on that? Photos of the casings in question. Why were no small arms chambered for 9mm rounds found on the vessel? If this had been any way planned surely those holding the first 3 IDF hostages would have been the ones most likely armed? If the hostage takers were in deadly earnest and we have seen Islamists in the past being not exactly the most hospitable of hosts, why did the 3 hostages not get killed? Nope something doesnt quite add up. IMHO if any of the IDF guys were hit by smallarms fire, it seems to me at least more likely friendly fire. Understandable too, given the confusion and close quarter stuff going on.

Interloper(and lurker)
WibbsAlways wanted to say that on one of MM's forums

Manic Moran

The commandos were using Glocks. They fire 9mm rounds.

Glocks come in a variety of calibres, from .38ACP through 10mm and .45ACP. Oftentimes high-speed units will use non-standard calibre rounds, 357SIG is a relatively popular one for example.
I have no idea what the Israeli commando pistol calibre is.

However, I have no quarrel with your other questions, which seem appropriate.

NTM

BrianD

I was listening to a radio discussion about this topic at the weekend. One of the interesting points raised is that apparently Israel has not signed up to the international laws or treaties that cover naval blockades in international waters. They claim they are legally right by a law that they have not yet signed up to. Having said that most countries will only abide by international treaties as long as it suits them.

Manic Moran

I don't recall any claims by Israel to the extent of 'we have not signed the X Convention so we feel free not to follow it'. Indeed, though they are not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, they have both stated and acted that they will abide by them.

About the only convention that I am fairly sure they have no intention of following is that on cluster munitions, but there are enough notable countries refusing to follow it that there is little moral obligation on them to do so.

NTM

BrianD

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't recall any claims by Israel to the extent of 'we have not signed the X Convention so we feel free not to follow it'. Indeed, though they are not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, they have both stated and acted that they will abide by them.

About the only convention that I am fairly sure they have no intention of following is that on cluster munitions, but there are enough notable countries refusing to follow it that there is little moral obligation on them to do so.

NTM

No it's the opposite. The Israelis are claiming that international conventions that they have not signed up to make their actions legal. They are claiming refuge in standards that they don't abide by.

Manic Moran

You miss my point. They are in the habit of following the international conventions, whether they have formally signed on to them or not.

NTM

BrianD

You miss mine. It's very difficult to maintain the moral authority in a situation like this (especially if you have made a mess of it at every level) where you have negated to sign up to the treaty that underpins that authority. A "habit of following" them isn't sufficient in the case.

Doctor14

BrianD wrote: »

You miss mine. It's very difficult to maintain the moral authority in a situation like this (especially if you have made a mess of it at every level) where you have negated to sign up to the treaty that underpins that authority. A "habit of following" them isn't sufficient in the case.

But which Treaty are you referring to? And are you sure Israel hasn't signed it. To that end, have Hamas signed it?

Manic Moran

Doctor14 wrote: »

But which Treaty are you referring to? And are you sure Israel hasn't signed it. To that end, have Hamas signed it?

WRT San Remo, I don't think any country has signed it. It's sortof a 'quick reference guide to currently accepted practise'

NTM

Doctor14

Manic Moran wrote: »

WRT San Remo, I don't think any country has signed it. It's sortof a 'quick reference guide to currently accepted practise'

NTM

I wasn't referring to San Remo - I was asking which one BrianD was referring to. GCII?

BrianD

Doctor14 wrote: »

But which Treaty are you referring to? And are you sure Israel hasn't signed it. To that end, have Hamas signed it?

They don't have to have signed it.

A blockade is normally an act of war but as i understand it the treaties that Israel is claiming moral authority but has not signed allow circumstances where such a blockade would be justified.

Having said that Turkey and Syria haven't signed it either. Don't know is the Palestinian Territories technically has the capacity to sign up to it.

Doctor14

BrianD wrote: »

They don't have to have signed it.....Having said that Turkey and Syria haven't signed it either. Don't know is the Palestinian Territories technically has the capacity to sign up to it.

Haven't signed what - which treaty are you referring to? GCs? ICC? CWC? CCW? UNCLOS? It kind of goes to the crux of your argument - by referring to the fact that Israel hasn't sign X treaty especially since Israel has signed up to a lot of International treaties.

The Palestinian Authority (Fatah side) has signed up to the GCs - however the ICRC, while acknowledging the letter of accession to the GCs, cannot rule on the legality of the letter of accession due to the Palestinian Authority not being legal state.

BrianD wrote: »

A blockade is normally an act of war but as i understand it the treaties that Israel is claiming moral authority but has not signed allow circumstances where such a blockade would be justified.

There are all sorts of legal issues here - could it be said that a De Facto state of war exists (both sides firing on one another regularly etc.) in which case it opens up a whole new can of worms and laws. In the case of war existing, then a blockade is legal. Or does a state of war exist - treaties and laws contradict themselves.