By the sound of the radio transmission, do you have any idea how dangerous it could have been to let the ship go freely?

 

By go freely, do you mean another 28 or so miles before Israel could legally board and search the ship? Since they'd still be miles away from anything, I'm going to go with not very dangerous at all.

The pertinent issue is a ship in international waters being asked for permission to be boarded by a country it considers an enemy or opponent, denying such permission, and then being boarded against their will. So I ask again: if Israel had a ship in international waters near an Arab country, that country's navy demanded the right to board, was told no and tried to board anyway, would you expect the Israelis to not respond, and then claim they were at fault if they did?

 

What would Israeli ships be carrying there exactly?

Doesn't matter what they would be carrying.

 

Your reluctance to answer the question is answer in and of itself.

 

 

A great opinion piece on the recent events off the Gaza Coast:

I didn't see any compelling arguments in that article. It's the same "they were bad guys!" whining we've heard a million times.

 

The people being bad guys didn't give the Israelis any more right to commandeer their ship in international waters and kill 9 of them, than it gives the cops the right to do shoot people because *they* are bad guys.

 

(Psst: Terrorist groups use the *exact* same justifications. You're in poor company.)

 

What would you like to hear from the article? How attacking the soldiers was justified? Or how discrediting Israel, plus making Egypt back down from the blockade and opening Cairo's borders (which would allow smuggling of weapons) was their main goal? I don't see what you're arguing about. For the international waters part, the legality of this is being investigated.

You still haven't answered my question, nor admitted that you cannot answer it.

 

Everyone here knows that if the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be rabidly defending the right of the people on the boat to use whatever means necessary to repel the commandos. And so do you. That's why I say that this isn't just a difference of opinion -- your side is being intellectually dishonest.

I didn't see any compelling arguments in that article. It's the same "they were bad guys!" whining we've heard a million times.

 

 

It's not about trying to convince you. Your closed-minded, thread-long display of pedantry speaks for itself.

I didn't see any compelling arguments in that article. It's the same "they were bad guys!" whining we've heard a million times.

 

It's not about trying to convince you. Your closed-minded, thread-long display of pedantry speaks for itself.

Thank you -- given the ignorance, propagandizing and blatant intellectual dishonesty on display by those who support Israel's right to break international law and kill civilians unnecessarily, I'll take a label implying "excessive concern with learning and precision" as a compliment.

 

A very pertinent article:

Imagine, for a moment, that a US ally that is not Israel - say, Turkey - killed an unarmed American civilian on an unarmed ship in international waters by four bullets to the head at close range. And imagine that president Obama decided that we shouldn't rush to judgment and that Turkey was in an understandable bind, because it was enforcing an embargo on a tiny strip of (say, Kurdish) land it had recently strafed with missiles and bullets, killing over a thousand. The land was home to an elected Kurdish government that was viciously terroristic - even totalitarian in some respects - and wanted to destroy Turkey, even though it had few means to accomplish this. The Kurds, like the Palestinians, had no homeland at all, and were now suffering greatly under the blockade and embargo.

 

Can you imagine how the Republican right would explode at this example of classic Obama "weakness" and "appeasement"? Can you even conceive that the American right would actually champion and celebrate Turkey's attack - and be far more solicitous of Turkey's actions than any of America's allies? Can you imagine that the conservative British prime minister would be more outraged at this attack on a defenseless ship and the murder of an American citizen than the president of the United States?

I don't get that quote one bit. It would be exactly the same situation with exactly the same response?

 

I really dislike how people label these guys as defenceless, they were wrestling guns from the military and hitting them with metal bats! They were idiots and brought it upon themselves.

I forget where I read it, so whether or not you believe me is your choice but an Israeli high up reportedly said that they were hoping (and this obviously is not and exact quote) "Hunger pangs would make residents of Gaza rethink their support for Hamas." Now I think we Americans are the Kings of political correctness and if he isn't saying, "We are starving them until they do what we want" I don't know what it would take.

 

I'll try to find the source again so it's more believable.

 

Edit: Apparently an Irish ship is planning to challenge the blockade on Sunday, We'll see what happens then.

They were idiots and brought it upon themselves.

Yes, they were. They never should have tried to board that ship.

Imagine, for a moment, that a US ally that is not Israel - say, Turkey - killed an unarmed American civilian on an unarmed ship in international waters by four bullets to the head at close range. And imagine that president Obama decided that we shouldn't rush to judgment and that Turkey was in an understandable bind, because it was enforcing an embargo on a tiny strip of (say, Kurdish) land it had recently strafed with missiles and bullets, killing over a thousand. The land was home to an elected Kurdish government that was viciously terroristic - even totalitarian in some respects - and wanted to destroy Turkey, even though it had few means to accomplish this. The Kurds, like the Palestinians, had no homeland at all, and were now suffering greatly under the blockade and embargo.

This is hardly a realistic comparative quote. Let's rephrase it, shall we, to make it actually the same.

 

Imagine, for a moment, that a US ally that is not Israel - say, Turkey, killed an armed and violent American civilian on a possibly armed ship .

 

I don't condone Israel's actions here. They broke international law, tried to bully their way into public opinion by appearing tough, and are partially spouting propaganda designed to hide their guilt.

 

But this is no one way street. The activists wanted to illegally break a legal blockade put in place for a very good reason (although specifics are questionable). They were looking for a fight, and they got one.

 

As I've always maintained, Israel has the opportunity to be the better man in this situation. They didn't have to board. But they have decided strong arming is their best course of action, and will reap the consequences now and in the future.

They were idiots and brought it upon themselves.

Yes, they were. They never should have tried to board that ship.

 

Misrepresentation quote of the day.

Imagine, for a moment, that a US ally that is not Israel - say, Turkey - killed an unarmed American civilian on an unarmed ship in international waters by four bullets to the head at close range. And imagine that president Obama decided that we shouldn't rush to judgment and that Turkey was in an understandable bind, because it was enforcing an embargo on a tiny strip of (say, Kurdish) land it had recently strafed with missiles and bullets, killing over a thousand. The land was home to an elected Kurdish government that was viciously terroristic - even totalitarian in some respects - and wanted to destroy Turkey, even though it had few means to accomplish this. The Kurds, like the Palestinians, had no homeland at all, and were now suffering greatly under the blockade and embargo.

This is hardly a realistic comparative quote. Let's rephrase it, shall we, to make it actually the same.

 

Imagine, for a moment, that a US ally that is not Israel - say, Turkey, killed an armed and violent American civilian on a possibly armed ship .

 

I don't condone Israel's actions here. They broke international law, tried to bully their way into public opinion by appearing tough, and are partially spouting propaganda designed to hide their guilt.

 

But this is no one way street. The activists wanted to illegally break a legal blockade put in place for a very good reason (although specifics are questionable). They were looking for a fight, and they got one.

 

As I've always maintained, Israel has the opportunity to be the better man in this situation. They didn't have to board. But they have decided strong arming is their best course of action, and will reap the consequences now and in the future.

realistically, they had to check the ship. they could have done so in a legal manner (i.e. wait about 2 hours). then if the anti-blockaders resort to violence, they'd have the legitimacy to protect their "customs officers". That is what morality is about: doing everything in ways that are predictable, repeatable and in tune with the official laws and policies you agree to, internationally.

 

then this would not have been an issue.

The Irish ship Rachel Corrie should reach Hamas controlled territory at 6am BST, let's see how Israel deals with this, if the ship even reaches its destination.

The Irish ship should reach Hamas controlled territory at 6am BST, let's see how Israel deals with this, if the ship even reaches its destination.

If Israel has the balls to do the same thing I'm not sure they will ever recover in the public eye. Even if no one gets hurt, because it would show they learned nothing.

 

Edit: Not saying they shouldn't search it, but they should probably do it in a drastically different way...

The Irish ship should reach Hamas controlled territory at 6am BST, let's see how Israel deals with this, if the ship even reaches its destination.

If Israel has the balls to do the same thing I'm not sure they will ever recover in the public eye. Even if no one gets hurt, because it would show they learned nothing.

 

 

If they do it in Israeli waters this time I want to see how the media covers it, if they cover it at all.

The Irish ship should reach Hamas controlled territory at 6am BST, let's see how Israel deals with this, if the ship even reaches its destination.

If Israel has the balls to do the same thing I'm not sure they will ever recover in the public eye. Even if no one gets hurt, because it would show they learned nothing.

 

 

If they do it in Israeli waters this time I want to see how the media covers it, if they cover it at all.

That's something I was thinking about if they do it legally will it even be covered? While I disagree with a lot of what Israel does I hate when the media does that to people/things? I think the media only reports half of a story a lot more than we know and in my opinion its an injustice. Though I think boarding at all was/is foolhardy since you can just search it when they get there and you can be completely in control of the situation.

They were idiots and brought it upon themselves.

Yes, they were. They never should have tried to board that ship.

 

Just as Rony said, there you are changing the statements around again.

They were idiots and brought it upon themselves.

Yes, they were. They never should have tried to board that ship.

 

Just as Rony said, there you are changing the statements around again.

Why do you call the people on the ship idiots? There is a saying that is very relevant in Arabic, fear can make a donkey attack a lion. The people of the ship were in all right to be where they were as it was international water. Since Israel was conducting an illegal boarding, I don't care if it was Satan himself, they had all rights to be there and they had all right to defend themselves from breakers of the law, and worse, breakers of the word they agreed to [i.e. the UN laws governing the sea which they signed]. Israel, the lion, stuck themselves in a position to pounce and the IHH, the donkey, decided to respond to an unwanted threat. Israel signed an international agreement to adhere to the laws of the sea which they break and yet they validate the existence of their country by a UN resolution? It is convenient to pick and choose what agreements to follow. Israel has also had the "it is illegal to settle occupied territory" resolution passed on them and reiterated many times which they have ignored and such but I won't get into that.

They were idiots and brought it upon themselves.

Yes, they were. They never should have tried to board that ship.

 

Just as Rony said, there you are changing the statements around again.

Why do you call the people on the ship idiots? There is a saying that is very relevant in Arabic, fear can make a donkey attack a lion. The people of the ship were in all right to be where they were as it was international water. Since Israel was conducting an illegal boarding, I don't care if it was Satan himself, they had all rights to be there and they had all right to defend themselves from breakers of the law, and worse, breakers of the word they agreed to [i.e. the UN laws governing the sea which they signed]. Israel, the lion, stuck themselves in a position to pounce and the IHH, the donkey, decided to respond to an unwanted threat. Israel signed an international agreement to adhere to the laws of the sea which they break and yet they validate the existence of their country by a UN resolution? It is convenient to pick and choose what agreements to follow. Israel has also had the "it is illegal to settle occupied territory" resolution passed on them and reiterated many times which they have ignored and such but I won't get into that.

 

Simple, because they knew who was boarding, and they attacked first. There wouldn't have been any casualties if they didn't start attacking. As I said before, they were warned before, and did you even see the radio transmission video?

They were idiots and brought it upon themselves.

Yes, they were. They never should have tried to board that ship.

 

Just as Rony said, there you are changing the statements around again.

Why do you call the people on the ship idiots? There is a saying that is very relevant in Arabic, fear can make a donkey attack a lion. The people of the ship were in all right to be where they were as it was international water. Since Israel was conducting an illegal boarding, I don't care if it was Satan himself, they had all rights to be there and they had all right to defend themselves from breakers of the law, and worse, breakers of the word they agreed to [i.e. the UN laws governing the sea which they signed]. Israel, the lion, stuck themselves in a position to pounce and the IHH, the donkey, decided to respond to an unwanted threat. Israel signed an international agreement to adhere to the laws of the sea which they break and yet they validate the existence of their country by a UN resolution? It is convenient to pick and choose what agreements to follow. Israel has also had the "it is illegal to settle occupied territory" resolution passed on them and reiterated many times which they have ignored and such but I won't get into that.

 

Simple, because they knew who was boarding, and they attacked first. There wouldn't have been any casualties if they didn't start attacking. As I said before, they were warned before, and did you even see the radio transmission video?

Thank you for the slightly irrelevant response to my post. And yes I did hear the radio transmission. As I said I don't care if Satan was on the ship, Israel broke international agreement from the same organization they claim justifies their existence therefore they are hypocrites and their agreements are worth less than the paper they are written on.

They were idiots and brought it upon themselves.

Yes, they were. They never should have tried to board that ship.

 

Just as Rony said, there you are changing the statements around again.

Why do you call the people on the ship idiots? There is a saying that is very relevant in Arabic, fear can make a donkey attack a lion. The people of the ship were in all right to be where they were as it was international water. Since Israel was conducting an illegal boarding, I don't care if it was Satan himself, they had all rights to be there and they had all right to defend themselves from breakers of the law, and worse, breakers of the word they agreed to [i.e. the UN laws governing the sea which they signed]. Israel, the lion, stuck themselves in a position to pounce and the IHH, the donkey, decided to respond to an unwanted threat. Israel signed an international agreement to adhere to the laws of the sea which they break and yet they validate the existence of their country by a UN resolution? It is convenient to pick and choose what agreements to follow. Israel has also had the "it is illegal to settle occupied territory" resolution passed on them and reiterated many times which they have ignored and such but I won't get into that.

 

Simple, because they knew who was boarding, and they attacked first. There wouldn't have been any casualties if they didn't start attacking. As I said before, they were warned before, and did you even see the radio transmission video?

 

sorry, a simple fact seems to be evading a lot of people, so i'll post it in a big, colored font:

The boarding was illegal. No legal mumbo-jumbo can get you around that. Israel had no right to board the ships in international waters. The definition by law, is one of an Israeli attack.

 

as tonnes of posts to that effect on this thread have not seem to penetrated the minds of the posters here, or at least not changed the language they use in claiming "aggression, or attacks" by the protesters, someone had to do it.

Even though the law is not as clear cut as that, I agree the boarding initially was illegal. However, what annoys me is that people seem to defend the actions of those on board the ship after the boarding and disregard the morality of the boarding itself. Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because I get pulled over by the police if I have done nothing wrong does not give me the right to grab a crowbar and whack the officer, grab a knife and stab him in the stomach and then try to grab his gun does it?

 

Both parties handled the situation horribly, but giving sympathy to the 'peacekeepers' is pathetic as they were just as much in the wrong as the Israeli's.

Both parties handled the situation horribly, but giving sympathy to the 'peacekeepers' is pathetic as they were just as much in the wrong as the Israeli's.

This, more or less. Israel dropped the ball on this one, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is innocent.

Even though the law is not as clear cut as that, I agree the boarding initially was illegal. However, what annoys me is that people seem to defend the actions of those on board the ship after the boarding and disregard the morality of the boarding itself. Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because I get pulled over by the police if I have done nothing wrong does not give me the right to grab a crowbar and whack the officer, grab a knife and stab him in the stomach and then try to grab his gun does it?

 

Both parties handled the situation horribly, but giving sympathy to the 'peacekeepers' is pathetic as they were just as much in the wrong as the Israeli's.

 

if you get illegally pulled over by a swedish cop outside of mexico, I would certainly be pissed if I had done nothing wrong, and were faced with what seems to be a gun (paintball).

 

please, when the policeman, isn't in his jurisdiction, he's nothing but a regular guy, with what looks like a gun.

 

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, but one wrong is astronomically more wrong than the other, a wrong isn't any wrong. That's a simplification a lot of the pro-Israelis seem to be taking on this thread.

 

It is actually as clear cut as that. either it's illegal, or it's not. It was illegal, so there isn't really much you can say. These same international laws are used on a weekly basis on the northern Norwegian-russian border when it comes to fishing vessels, and the right to search them to see that their methods are legal or not.

 

Had the Israelis done this legally in their territorial matters it would be equally as clear-cut that the anti-blockaders attacked legal customs officers, and were 100% in the wrong to do so.

Even though the law is not as clear cut as that, I agree the boarding initially was illegal. However, what annoys me is that people seem to defend the actions of those on board the ship after the boarding and disregard the morality of the boarding itself. Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because I get pulled over by the police if I have done nothing wrong does not give me the right to grab a crowbar and whack the officer, grab a knife and stab him in the stomach and then try to grab his gun does it?

 

Both parties handled the situation horribly, but giving sympathy to the 'peacekeepers' is pathetic as they were just as much in the wrong as the Israeli's.

 

if you get illegally pulled over by a swedish cop outside of mexico, I would certainly be pissed if I had done nothing wrong, and were faced with what seems to be a gun (paintball).

 

please, when the policeman, isn't in his jurisdiction, he's nothing but a regular guy, with what looks like a gun.

 

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, but one wrong is astronomically more wrong than the other, a wrong isn't any wrong. That's a simplification a lot of the pro-Israelis seem to be taking on this thread.

 

It is actually as clear cut as that. either it's illegal, or it's not. It was illegal, so there isn't really much you can say. These same international laws are used on a weekly basis on the northern Norwegian-russian border when it comes to fishing vessels, and the right to search them to see that their methods are legal or not.

 

Had the Israelis done this legally in their territorial matters it would be equally as clear-cut that the anti-blockaders attacked legal customs officers, and were 100% in the wrong to do so.

It bugs me that they used commandos and NOT customs officers. I understand if your expecting trouble you'd send them with live weapons as a deterrent, but the fact that they used commandos (assuming this isn't a media exaggeration) kinda tells me that they went in looking for trouble.

The Irish ship should reach Hamas controlled territory at 6am BST, let's see how Israel deals with this, if the ship even reaches its destination.

If Israel has the balls to do the same thing I'm not sure they will ever recover in the public eye. Even if no one gets hurt, because it would show they learned nothing.

 

Edit: Not saying they shouldn't search it, but they should probably do it in a drastically different way...

 

To the best of my knowledge, Ireland has no grievances with Israel, while Turkey does. Its about the same situation as if the United States tried to send a boatload of aid to North Korea, or if China tried to send a boatload of aid to North Korea. United States is the enemy, China is a neutral party. With one party, North Korea would have to worry about their intent (i.e. smuggling weapons or any other sort of malice versus actual aid.)

 

 

Also - as much as I disagree with how the blockade is implemented, I believe that Israel has the right and the sovereignty as a nation to do whatever the heck they want off their coast. If a ship is in their territorial waters and they tell it to get the heck out,and the ship refuses to comply, they have every right as a nation to do however they see fit.

To those of you that said Israel should have let the boat dock before searching... I completely disagree. Once the boat docks, its a thousand times easier to smuggle items into the country than it is when the water is deep and you're contained on board.

 

 

Israel, I believe that you were in the wrong by two hours. I believe that the Marama was in the wrong as soon as they thumbed their nose at Israel.