israeli soldiers kill 9 in international waters

[fakeitormakeit2]

If I were an Arab living in Gaza I'd attack Israelis too after all the injustices of the past years.

See except most Arabs, believe it or not, are peaceful and decide to starve and die instead, or like my friends flee the country while the Isareli Military forcefully acquired their village.

 

There we go over simplifying things again.

 

 

You're right, no rockets were ever launched at Israeli citizens. No innocent lives were taken on Israel's side. Israel did not discharge a rocket launcher just yesterday.

I said most Arabs. Why, are you a bigot and think 51% of Arabs are terrorists?

[SeanyTheSailor]

Here's an interesting aspect of this that the Israeli toadies will never give a rational answer to.

 

We're being asked to believe that the Israelis are the good guys and the ship was filled with evil! EVIL! Hamas-affiliated terrorists who want all Jews to die.

 

Funny thing, though.

 

While some of the Israeli soldiers were indeed attacked (which was wrong), they were not killed. The soldiers were in fact taken into custody on the ships, and could have easily been killed if the protesters had wanted to.

 

But they weren't killed.

 

So.. both sides had an opportunity to kill some on the other. The "good guy" Israelis took that opportunity and killed 9 civilians. The "bad guy" EVIL! protestors *didn't*.

 

Explain?

You're talking in extremes. It's not fair to say we think they are all terrorists nor is it true. Again I say would you let a bunch of strangers come into your home with boxes full of who knows what? No. Israel did what they should have done, I agree they were probably trying to make a statement so they went about doing it the wrong way, things went wrong and now everything is [cabbage]. Also lets assume they did capture these soldiers, how do you know they had the opportunity to kill them? They cant just do it in plain sight that's an instant admission of guilt.

One big mistake. Too bad Palestine isn't the home of Israelis.

I agree with you here, but the they are the one's in charge I don't think you're missing the point I think you're just upset. TBH I think EVERYONE in this thread needs to take just one minute to chill the [bleep] out and talk like adults about an issue that isnt black and white. I'm really trying to be reasonable here but I don't think many other people are.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Well, to be fair, Israel did take land that Arabs had been living on for a few hundred years at least and then claim it was theirs.

"Arabs" have been living on it longer than the Israelites. The Bible states this itself. There are a people in the Bible, Filistinians. In Arabic and Aramaic, a Palestinian is a Filistini. Coincidence? I think not.

[The_Gabe]

If I were an Arab living in Gaza I'd attack Israelis too after all the injustices of the past years.

See except most Arabs, believe it or not, are peaceful and decide to starve and die instead, or like my friends flee the country while the Isareli Military forcefully acquired their village.

 

There we go over simplifying things again.

 

 

You're right, no rockets were ever launched at Israeli citizens. No innocent lives were taken on Israel's side. Israel did not discharge a rocket launcher just yesterday.

I said most Arabs. Why, are you a bigot and think 51% of Arabs are terrorists?

 

You seem to be the bigot. Rony in no where said 51% of Arabs are terrorists, and the argument isn't aimed at that. Yet, many Arabs are not peaceful. Israel had no choice, again, to invade. It was either that or just sit there and let them shoot at us.

[Romy]

Again, the illegality of the issue is being questioned, since the Marmara clearly decided to ignore Israel's requests not to enter it's territorial waters.

This is completely illogical.

 

Actually *entering* Israel's territorial waters *might* have made this legal. Attacking the ship because you think they *might* enter your waters is not.

 

I don't understand why you are incapable of understanding this.

 

They never attacked anyone that did not attack them. You're the one who keeps judging over simplistic comments, you should point your judgement at yourself.

Israel attacked a ship that did not attack them, and they did it in international waters, so the ships refusal to give in to Israel's requests does not make Israel's actions legal.

 

It possibly is when the requests are not to enter Israel's territorial waters, and claiming to ignore it.

 

Post #110 of this very thread: "I can again point out what I pointed out up this post, and in the past, just so you could again say they had other choices. Technically speaking, they did."

 

You didn't understand it properly.

I understood it perfectly. You're backpedalling.

 

I never, ever thought a search was not necessary. That would make no sense. You did not understand it properly.

 

No, these people were killed after lynching the soldiers.

This comment is not only factually wrong, it is insulting to people who really have been lynched. Very offensive, and shows just how completely lacking you are in even a shred of objectivity.

 

Other than calling it wrong, do you have anything to support that claim? Because I have what supports the opposite.

If you actually knew what lynching meant, you wouldn't be making such embarrassing comments.

 

Hint: It involves rope and premeditated murder of complete innocents. Nothing to do with this situation.

 

Over the years lynch has gotten sub definitions in the form of slang. Today, lynching does not always mean murder, etc.

[obfuscator]

Here's an interesting aspect of this that the Israeli toadies will never give a rational answer to.

 

We're being asked to believe that the Israelis are the good guys and the ship was filled with evil! EVIL! Hamas-affiliated terrorists who want all Jews to die.

 

Funny thing, though.

 

While some of the Israeli soldiers were indeed attacked (which was wrong), they were not killed. The soldiers were in fact taken into custody on the ships, and could have easily been killed if the protesters had wanted to.

 

But they weren't killed.

 

So.. both sides had an opportunity to kill some on the other. The "good guy" Israelis took that opportunity and killed 9 civilians. The "bad guy" EVIL! protestors *didn't*.

 

Explain?

 

Oh ok, so you'd see nothing wrong with the whole situation if the Israeli soldiers merely stabbed them repeatedly and beat them over the head with wrenches and bats.

[fakeitormakeit2]

If I were an Arab living in Gaza I'd attack Israelis too after all the injustices of the past years.

See except most Arabs, believe it or not, are peaceful and decide to starve and die instead, or like my friends flee the country while the Isareli Military forcefully acquired their village.

 

There we go over simplifying things again.

 

 

You're right, no rockets were ever launched at Israeli citizens. No innocent lives were taken on Israel's side. Israel did not discharge a rocket launcher just yesterday.

I said most Arabs. Why, are you a bigot and think 51% of Arabs are terrorists?

 

You seem to be the bigot. Rony in no where said 51% of Arabs are terrorists, and the argument isn't aimed at that. Yet, many Arabs are not peaceful. Israel had no choice, again, to invade. It was either that or just sit there and let them shoot at us.

Well she did say saying most Arabs was over simplifying. Please inform how I'm being a bigot by saying Arabs are peaceful? That's horrible right? And the Arabs that do attack they shoot missiles from the backs of camels[/comedy], quite threatening seeing as how they never hit their target. You can report that Joe fires a gun 200 times a day in New Jersey, making for a total of 40000 shots a year. What I didn't tell you is Joe has never shot someone because he fires his gun on a firing range for rifle practice. I'm not saying Hamas is having fun practicing rocket practice and Israel is being the man, but the fundamental parallel is there.

[SeanyTheSailor]

If I were an Arab living in Gaza I'd attack Israelis too after all the injustices of the past years.

See except most Arabs, believe it or not, are peaceful and decide to starve and die instead, or like my friends flee the country while the Isareli Military forcefully acquired their village.

 

There we go over simplifying things again.

 

 

You're right, no rockets were ever launched at Israeli citizens. No innocent lives were taken on Israel's side. Israel did not discharge a rocket launcher just yesterday.

I said most Arabs. Why, are you a bigot and think 51% of Arabs are terrorists?

 

You seem to be the bigot. Rony in no where said 51% of Arabs are terrorists, and the argument isn't aimed at that. Yet, many Arabs are not peaceful. Israel had no choice, again, to invade. It was either that or just sit there and let them shoot at us.

Ok lets all agree on something. Terrorists are [bleep]s. They fire rockets and kill innocents from areas where women and children are bound to get killed. Israel responds and they look like the bad guy. It's happened loads of times. What we are discussing here is wether Israel [bleep]ed up big time or whether maybe they were justified IN THIS INCIDENT.

[Romy]

If I were an Arab living in Gaza I'd attack Israelis too after all the injustices of the past years.

See except most Arabs, believe it or not, are peaceful and decide to starve and die instead, or like my friends flee the country while the Isareli Military forcefully acquired their village.

 

There we go over simplifying things again.

 

 

You're right, no rockets were ever launched at Israeli citizens. No innocent lives were taken on Israel's side. Israel did not discharge a rocket launcher just yesterday.

I said most Arabs. Why, are you a bigot and think 51% of Arabs are terrorists?

 

You seem to be the bigot. Rony in no where said 51% of Arabs are terrorists, and the argument isn't aimed at that. Yet, many Arabs are not peaceful. Israel had no choice, again, to invade. It was either that or just sit there and let them shoot at us.

Well she did say saying most Arabs was over simplifying. Please inform how I'm being a bigot by saying Arabs are peaceful? That's horrible right? And the Arabs that do attack they shoot missiles from the backs of camels[/comedy], quite threatening seeing as how they never hit their target. You can report that Joe fires a gun 200 times a day in New Jersey, making for a total of 40000 shots a year. What I didn't tell you is Joe has never shot someone.

 

I meant that saying most Arabs want peace in this context is over simplifying because it points at some evil sub-conspiracy of once side being innocent, and the other a pure aggressor.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Bottom line.

 

Israel requested to board and search a Turkish ship in international waters.

Ship refused.

Israeli forces boarded anyway.

 

Regardless of what happens from that point on, Israel is not justified because it boarded a ship in international waters.

Agreed. It clearly isn't their jurisdiction. This goes for any country, but seeing as how Israel is the country in question they are at fault. The people on boat were acting in rightful defense as Israel was acting illegally by violating international boundaries. The same reason [or supposedly] the US didn't just go around blasting pirates in Somalia.

[Romy]

Bottom line.

 

Israel requested to board and search a Turkish ship in international waters.

Ship refused.

Israeli forces boarded anyway.

 

Regardless of what happens from that point on, Israel is not justified because it boarded a ship in international waters.

 

That's if you ignore the fact that Israel also requests the ships not to enter it's territorial waters. And the reponse was that this request will be ignored.

[assassin_696]

You're the one who judged magekillr for being one sided. It wasn't cut and dry. As I had mentioned, the illegality of Israel's actions is questioned because of the Marmara clearly saying it will ignore the IDF's instructions not to enter Israel's territorial waters. That means Israel could legally use proportional force.

 

No it doesn't, please don't think that. Furthermore, if the crew of the Marmara believed that force was being used against them without legal justification (and in this case force could be defined as armed soldiers descending via helicopter) then legally they're entitled to defend themselves.

 

What do you base that on?

 

The Convention of the Law of the Sea, and basic laws of self defence (i.e. defending yourself against a burglar with proportionate force, note the burglar doesn't always have to attack you for you to have the right to physically defend your property)

 

From what I understand, a spokesman for the Israeli PM invoked the San Remo Memorandum:

 

MARK REGEV: Do you know, according to international law that question is irrelevant, because if you know your international humanitarian law, the San Remo memorandum states, specifically 67A, that if you have a boat that is charging a blockaded area you are allowed to intercept even prior to it reaching the blockaded area if you've warned them in advance, and that we did a number of times and they had a stated goal which they openly expressed, of breaking the blockade. That blockade is in place to protect our people.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2914517.htm

 

Unfortunately he's wrong, the San Remo Memo only applies to states under the laws of war, and Israel isn't such. The concept of blockade only applies to war situations. The clue's in the title: The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea. There are some legal nuances that they throw up with these things, but the Convention of the Law of the Sea trumps them and this memo doesn't apply. The Convention on the Law of the Sea does stipulate that a coastal state may consider intervention if a ship is engaged in arms and drug smuggling, the slave trade or terrorist activities. But Israel could not justify that because the ships set sail after passing through customs checks in Turkey.

[Romy]

Bottom line.

 

Israel requested to board and search a Turkish ship in international waters.

Ship refused.

Israeli forces boarded anyway.

 

Regardless of what happens from that point on, Israel is not justified because it boarded a ship in international waters.

Agreed. It clearly isn't their jurisdiction. This goes for any country, but seeing as how Israel is the country in question they are at fault. The people on boat were acting in rightful defense as Israel was acting illegally.

 

The illegality is not certain though.

[SeanyTheSailor]

Alright we seem to have calmed down some. Where is this said to be illegal? Like what does it say EXACTLY. Obviously it sounds illegal but I just wanna see for myself. Someone post a link and we'll see.

[The_Gabe]

If I were an Arab living in Gaza I'd attack Israelis too after all the injustices of the past years.

See except most Arabs, believe it or not, are peaceful and decide to starve and die instead, or like my friends flee the country while the Isareli Military forcefully acquired their village.

 

There we go over simplifying things again.

 

 

You're right, no rockets were ever launched at Israeli citizens. No innocent lives were taken on Israel's side. Israel did not discharge a rocket launcher just yesterday.

I said most Arabs. Why, are you a bigot and think 51% of Arabs are terrorists?

 

You seem to be the bigot. Rony in no where said 51% of Arabs are terrorists, and the argument isn't aimed at that. Yet, many Arabs are not peaceful. Israel had no choice, again, to invade. It was either that or just sit there and let them shoot at us.

Well she did say saying most Arabs was over simplifying. Please inform how I'm being a bigot by saying Arabs are peaceful? That's horrible right? And the Arabs that do attack they shoot missiles from the backs of camels[/comedy], quite threatening seeing as how they never hit their target. You can report that Joe fires a gun 200 times a day in New Jersey, making for a total of 40000 shots a year. What I didn't tell you is Joe has never shot someone because he fires his gun on a firing range for rifle practice. I'm not saying Hamas is having fun practicing rocket practice and Israel is being the man, but the fundamental parallel is there.

 

That's complete bull [cabbage]. I'm talking about the Arabs shooting rockets OVER the border at Israeli citizens. 2 years ago I was in Israel and my sister was going to take me to a city to see a museum, and we couldn't go because the city was being shot at with rockets frequently that month. Your analogy is complete bull [cabbage].

[SeanyTheSailor]

STOP WITH THE GODDAMN TALK ABOUT THE ROCKETS! WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INCIDENT ON THE SHIP!

 

Unless someone fired a rocket on that ship its irrelevant to this specific argument. Again someone show me the law where it says what they did was illegal. I'm not saying I don't believe it was i just want to see for myself.

[The_Gabe]

STOP WITH THE GODDAMN TALK ABOUT THE ROCKETS! WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INCIDENT ON THE SHIP!

 

Unless someone fired a rocket on that ship its irrelevant to this specific argument. Again someone show me the law where it says what they did was illegal. I'm not saying I don't believe it was i just want to see for myself.

 

Actually, it's relevant to the background of the topic.

[SeanyTheSailor]

Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not “prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security” of the coastal state.

From the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Ok. If someone has a legal background correct me, but nowhere does that say, you may not board the ship of another country in international waters. From what I got it says If you're not fighting the people the ship belongs too you can't deny them, passage.

 

@kinggabe Who did or did not launch missiles is not relevant to the background. Because #1 it wasn't technically in Israel and #2 Unless they accused Turkey of launching said missiles its not even the same people.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Alright we seem to have calmed down some. Where is this said to be illegal? Like what does it say EXACTLY. Obviously it sounds illegal but I just wanna see for myself.

Interestingly I looked for the Law of the Sea Convention and just read through 25pages. i couldn't find anything on jurisdiction as I could have very well been looking at the wrong meeting as there were four but the one I did read does contain a resolution that Israel is breaking. When there is territorial dispute or they are not completely self-governing, someone who blockades them must provide full resources to insure the well being of the people, which is a violation if there are the supposed starving in Gaza from the blockade.

 

I'll keep looking for jurisdiction though.

 

Edit: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea' under Article 87(1) which states: "the high seas are open to all states, whether coastal or land-locked." From there you can infer you cannot board as that would be violating the freedom of seas agreement. [high seas refer to non-territorial water]

[SeanyTheSailor]

Alright we seem to have calmed down some. Where is this said to be illegal? Like what does it say EXACTLY. Obviously it sounds illegal but I just wanna see for myself.

Interestingly I looked for the Law of the Sea Convention and just read through 25pages. i couldn't find anything on jurisdiction as I could have very well been looking at the wrong meeting as there were four but the one I did read does contain a resolution that Israel is breaking. When there is territorial dispute or they are not completely self-governing, someone who blockades them must provide full resources to insure the well being of the people, which is a violation if there are the supposed starving in Gaza from the blockade.

 

I'll keep looking for jurisdiction though.

Ok we are making progress here. I don't think it is disputed by many people that the "blockadees" are suffering. So there they are in the wrong. Still I'd like to see about jurisdiction. Thank you.

 

Edit: Meh I don't like to infer. I think that maybe have just been more of a measure to prevent a sort of naval "Treaty of Versailles" type deal, where someone says, you're not allowed to trade via boat. It could also be argued they were not really obstructing their right to be one the seas, just kinda hopping on board with them... for whatever reason... dumber things have held up in courts before.

[The_Gabe]

Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security of the coastal state.

From the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Ok. If someone has a legal background correct me, but nowhere does that say, you may not board the ship of another country in international waters. From what I got it says If you're not fighting the people the ship belongs too you can't deny them, passage.

 

@kinggabe Who did or did not launch missiles is not relevant to the background. Because #1 it wasn't technically in Israel and #2 Unless they accused Turkey of launching said missiles its not even the same people.

 

It might be a bit off topic, however, the discussion was on how Israel was starving people in the gaza strip, peaceful Arabs, etc. Just proving how he's wrong.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not “prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security” of the coastal state.

From the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Ok. If someone has a legal background correct me, but nowhere does that say, you may not board the ship of another country in international waters. From what I got it says If you're not fighting the people the ship belongs too you can't deny them, passage.

 

@kinggabe Who did or did not launch missiles is not relevant to the background. Because #1 it wasn't technically in Israel and #2 Unless they accused Turkey of launching said missiles its not even the same people.

 

It might be a bit off topic, however, the discussion was on how Israel was starving people in the gaza strip, peaceful Arabs, etc. Just proving how he's wrong.

You didn't prove me wrong, all you're doing is disagreeing. This is the last I'm saying on this topic as 312Ownage is right and I did stray off-topic.

 

@312Ownage These international laws are extremely tedious and hard to look through, they include all the procedure for how the laws were written and there must be something definite whether boarding is allowed or not, I cannot find it though.

[The_Gabe]

Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security of the coastal state.

From the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Ok. If someone has a legal background correct me, but nowhere does that say, you may not board the ship of another country in international waters. From what I got it says If you're not fighting the people the ship belongs too you can't deny them, passage.

 

@kinggabe Who did or did not launch missiles is not relevant to the background. Because #1 it wasn't technically in Israel and #2 Unless they accused Turkey of launching said missiles its not even the same people.

 

It might be a bit off topic, however, the discussion was on how Israel was starving people in the gaza strip, peaceful Arabs, etc. Just proving how he's wrong.

You didn't prove me wrong, all you're doing is disagreeing. This is the last I'm saying on this topic as 312Ownage is right and I did stray off-topic.

 

You're actually right, I was disagreeing, my bad.

[SeanyTheSailor]

Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not “prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security” of the coastal state.

From the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Ok. If someone has a legal background correct me, but nowhere does that say, you may not board the ship of another country in international waters. From what I got it says If you're not fighting the people the ship belongs too you can't deny them, passage.

 

@kinggabe Who did or did not launch missiles is not relevant to the background. Because #1 it wasn't technically in Israel and #2 Unless they accused Turkey of launching said missiles its not even the same people.

 

It might be a bit off topic, however, the discussion was on how Israel was starving people in the gaza strip, peaceful Arabs, etc. Just proving how he's wrong.

You didn't prove me wrong, all you're doing is disagreeing. This is the last I'm saying on this topic as 312Ownage is right and I did stray off-topic.

 

@312Ownage These international laws are extremely tedious and hard to look through, they include all the procedure for how the laws were written and there must be something definite whether boarding is allowed or not, I cannot find it though.

I appreciate your help, I have read some laws an I've seen how tedious they can be lol. I think you're a champ for reading as much as you did. Also i think you should keep posting as you seem well informed on the matter of whats going on over there.

[fakeitormakeit2]

[hide=Rules on Contiguous Zones]1. In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to:

 

(a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea;

 

(b.) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.

 

2. The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.[/hide]

If one would wish to argue it, technically Israel was acting within International law if they suspected arms being transported by the ship, unless it was farther then the listed distance from shore.

 

Edit: @312Ownage Thank you and I meant not posting on Arabs, rocket, etc. as it was off topic to this topic.