israeli soldiers kill 9 in international waters

[Romy]

I can cite sources claiming the opposite. There's obviously a big problem of credibility here.

 

My own logic says that the unit "Flottila 13", or really, any person in their right mind, wouldn't resort to these things without a good reason. And there cannot be a good reason to shoot before boarding the ships, and neither a good reason to harm those who do not resist.

 

Really? Because rubber bullets and electric shocks are fairly standard crowd control techniques and I can see why they'd use them early on as a way to stem any resistance straight away. I'm not saying the Israeli's descended the ropes guns blazing Rambo-style shooting at children, I'm saying they boarded the ships in a hostile way used non-lethal but maiming weapons to control the activists without direct provocation and then treated the activists (who as you said, put up little resistance on the other ships) in such a way that violated their human rights.

 

But anyway, your logic and my logic are both fairly irrelevant because we weren't on that ship and neither of us have a working knowledge of IDF naval boarding procedures. What might not seem logical to you (firing rubber bullets before being attacked) might be standard procedure to them, and I can see why it might be so. Of course there's an issue of source credibility, but are your sources IDF? And can you cite the sources? I'm interested in reading the wording from their end, they might well claim there was no resistance but that may have been because they brutally prevented it.

 

Well, my sources were mostly news in Hebrew, but I'm sure you can find those in English if you genuinely want to find out.

 

And no, I cannot know whether they did or didn't use these things, I'm not aware to the procedures, and I could be wrong. But in reality, I find it hard to believe they'd shoot anything without resistance.

 

But again, the ships were unsupervised, clearly claimed they ignore Israel's requests not to enter territorial waters, and Israel had no idea what was going on on the ships. So again, a search was definitely obligatory..

 

Yes, but you're wrong. Israel knew the ship's intentions,

To reach Gaza, not knowing what cargo the ships were loaded with.

where they were heading,

To Gaza.

what they were carrying

They did not. If they knew for sure and beyond doubt what was on the ships, they wouldn't even want to search those.

and who was on them.

They again did not. Atleast not exactly who.

They didn't have an explicit ship's manifest but they were searched in port by a NATO member.

Security is a delicate issue. Israel had to search the ships.

This was a publicised event that's happened in the past (with no arms smuggling), Israel even let them through five times before the war last year but subsequently they've always been redirected to a different port.

I highly doubt Israel would've insisted so badly to search the ships if it didn't have a good reason to suspect.

So actually Israel had a pretty good idea what was going on, this wasn't some big black box that was floating towards Gaza and no one had a clue what was on it.

Israel never had any data or clear information on who or what was on the ships.

You need to stop using the word obligatory because it can mean binding in law or conscience, when this clearly wasn't the case. You've admitted yourself that it would have been better to search the ships in port, that means there was another course of action, hence the action was not obligatory.

The action itself, as in the search, was obligatory, or necessariy if you have a problem with that word. And I never suggested it should've waited till it ported, I suggested it should've waited till it reached Israel's territoriial waters.

[Satenza]

Agreed, everything I will write will be over simplified because of the fact the issue is complex and I don't necessarily have the time to write long posts either.

 

To respond to your last comment - no. It isn't simply the occupation of illegal territory that justifies the rockets. It is the consequences of what occupation does. Hundreds of thousands of refugee's scattered across the neighbouring countries with deeds and titles in their hands to houses now occupied by Israeli's or else demolished and who now live in camps because the countries won't accept them properly. The thousands upon thousands killed by one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world, or the ones orphaned by similar disasters and the many more crippled. Maybe all the people in Gaza suffering a slow death by starvation have reason to attack. Any resistance encountered is understandable and the bombs that fall on Gaza and destroy its hospitals and civil buildings only make that resistance stronger.

 

 

I completely agree the illegal settlements are horrible, and condemn those myself. I hate that to it's very core, and am ashamed for those who take place.

 

But killing is an inevitable part of war. Israel has lost it's fair share of lives, I can gurantee that. It isn't one sided, and that's what war brings, I'm afraid.

 

Oversimplifying anything in the favor of one side is pointless, and grants nothing.

 

It isn't a war it is a resistance. Israel has of course lost lives, but not even one tenth of the lives lost by the palestinians. Despite the complexities the Israeli's are the aggressors and like the UN said, their actions are akin to war crimes.

 

You call rocket launches at a city of innocent Israeli citizens a resistance? Not war crimes, and terrorism? You call suicide bombers a resistance? Not idiocy and cruelty?

 

Of course it is! What else would it be? It is cruel but it is understandable. Why do you not consider it cruel and idiotic when artillery fire rains down on Gaza and phosphorus is unleashed against a population who is blockaded and forced to withstand it!?

 

You may want to know, incase you don't already. Each and every war but the Six Days War (which was a result of the Israeli intelligence finding out a war was to be initiated the very same day) wasn't initiated by Israel. You call that resistance?

 

What about when Israel invaded Egypt during the Suez Crisis in 1956?

Or South Lebanon in 1978?

Or Lebanon in 1982?

Or the other war with Egypt in 1967?

Then the Six Day War.

Or what is now called the War in Gaza only in 2008?

 

What about the constant assassinations from Mossad.

[Romy]

Why would Israel even evacuate the Gaza strip, forcebly removing it's own citizens from their homes, if it's goal is leadership over the area? That makes absolutely no sense. Israel doesn't want to occupy Gaza, but has to enforce a blockade, otherwise.... history explains that better than I ever could.

 

Did you read the quote that I provided from Olmert's advisor from 2006? The goal is regime change, not to prevent weapons smuggling. To "put them on a diet" so that the Palestinians will elect someone else. Why haven't they had a blockade prior to Hamas' election? There was plenty of members in the organization threatening violence to Israeli civilians before. The answer is because it's not about weapons, but about Israel not liking the results of a democratic election. That's not to say I approve of Hamas' election, but as Greenwald pointed out, they are the elected government. The more you try to do this the more incidents like this will blow up in your face. The Arab world will simply not allow you to ignore Gaza or Hamas. And if you ultimately want peace you will have to face Hamas. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away.

 

Great article in the NY Times today by an Israeli writer who supported the Israeli attacks on both Lebanon and Gaza (though he changed his mind about the former):

 

But Hamas is not just a terrorist organization. Hamas is an idea, a desperate and fanatical idea that grew out of the desolation and frustration of many Palestinians. No idea has ever been defeated by force — not by siege, not by bombardment, not by being flattened with tank treads and not by marine commandos. To defeat an idea, you have to offer a better idea, a more attractive and acceptable one.

 

Thus, the only way for Israel to edge out Hamas would be to quickly reach an agreement with the Palestinians on the establishment of an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as defined by the 1967 borders, with its capital in East Jerusalem. Israel has to sign a peace agreement with President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah government in the West Bank — and by doing so, reduce the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip. That latter conflict, in turn, can be resolved only by negotiating with Hamas or, more reasonably, by the integration of Fatah with Hamas.

 

Even if Israel seizes 100 more ships on their way to Gaza, even if Israel sends in troops to occupy the Gaza Strip 100 more times, no matter how often Israel deploys its military, police and covert power, force cannot solve the problem that we are not alone in this land, and the Palestinians are not alone in this land. We are not alone in Jerusalem and the Palestinians are not alone in Jerusalem. Until Israelis and Palestinians recognize the logical consequences of this simple fact, we will all live in a permanent state of siege — Gaza under an Israeli siege, Israel under an international and Arab siege.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/opinion/02oz.html?hp

 

This means ending the blockade, my friend.

 

 

And ofcourse my sources are the IDF, there are two sides to this story- the passangers and the soldiers. Where else could I take my sources from?

One side claims that, the other claims this.

 

I repeat, my own logic says there's no reason for the soldiers, or any other person, to shoot the ships from afar, or hurt those who do not resist.

 

With all due respect, the IDF has lost nearly all of its credibility long ago.

 

Olmert is a corrupted, immoral and unreliable person that is currently going through investigations over the very long political career he's had.

 

That person claiming the Hamas is not a terror organization should really take into account it's actions over the years, it's purpose, and it's ideology.

 

Anyone has a right for opinion, the fact that one person has changed their mind for whatever reason doesn't make anything less of a truth, or more of a truth.

[assassin_696]

Okay romy, I think we're going to have to agree to differ on this. We seem to be largely arguing about semantics now and I don't think I'm going to change your mind on what Israel is "obligated" to do.

[qeltar]

It's impossible to argue reasonably with someone who thinks her security is the only thing that matters.

 

Someone who honestly believes that even the *slightest* chance of arms being on a boat justifies throwing international law in the toilet and murdering civilians is simply not rational. She admits that there were other ways this could have been handled, but still thinks the action was justified, even though people were killed for no reason. That's immoral.

 

If romy ever wonders why her nation is despised, she need look no further than her own posts. When you publicly declare your needs, wants and concerns to be more important than everyone else's, you get hated. Simple as that.

 

It has taken a lo t to get me to be very negative towards Israel but the country and its people have managed to accomplish that over the last decade or so.

 

The reason the people who defend Israel in this case are called "Israeli apologists" is because there is no reasonable, logical justification for what Israel did. Not one single valid argument has been made so far as to why Israel could not have handled this in a way that prevented bloodshed.

 

What the IDF did here is the equivalent of seeing a guy walking up to your doorstep that you don't know, and when you call out to him to stop and he refuses, putting a bullet between his eyes while not even trying to find any reasonable, decent way of handling the situation. No, it's worse -- it's like shooting him on a public sidewalk because he *might* walk up to your doorstep.

 

There was no justification for what happened here.

 

Willingness to sacrifice one's own rights for the sake of "security" is the sign of a coward.

Willingness to sacrifice others' rights for the sake of "security" is the sign of a tyrant.

 

Unfortunately, it appears the Israelis are becoming both.

[obfuscator]

Qeltar, why don't you sum up in a quick post the way you think Israel should handle this situation? I'm curious to see what miraculous perfect solution you can come up with.

[Romy]

Agreed, everything I will write will be over simplified because of the fact the issue is complex and I don't necessarily have the time to write long posts either.

 

To respond to your last comment - no. It isn't simply the occupation of illegal territory that justifies the rockets. It is the consequences of what occupation does. Hundreds of thousands of refugee's scattered across the neighbouring countries with deeds and titles in their hands to houses now occupied by Israeli's or else demolished and who now live in camps because the countries won't accept them properly. The thousands upon thousands killed by one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world, or the ones orphaned by similar disasters and the many more crippled. Maybe all the people in Gaza suffering a slow death by starvation have reason to attack. Any resistance encountered is understandable and the bombs that fall on Gaza and destroy its hospitals and civil buildings only make that resistance stronger.

 

 

I completely agree the illegal settlements are horrible, and condemn those myself. I hate that to it's very core, and am ashamed for those who take place.

 

But killing is an inevitable part of war. Israel has lost it's fair share of lives, I can gurantee that. It isn't one sided, and that's what war brings, I'm afraid.

 

Oversimplifying anything in the favor of one side is pointless, and grants nothing.

 

It isn't a war it is a resistance. Israel has of course lost lives, but not even one tenth of the lives lost by the palestinians. Despite the complexities the Israeli's are the aggressors and like the UN said, their actions are akin to war crimes.

 

You call rocket launches at a city of innocent Israeli citizens a resistance? Not war crimes, and terrorism? You call suicide bombers a resistance? Not idiocy and cruelty?

 

Of course it is! What else would it be?

If it is a resistance, it's a very illegitimate one that involes war crimes and terrorism.

 

Why do you not consider it cruel and idiotic when artillery fire rains down on Gaza and phosphorus is unleashed against a population who is blockaded and forced to withstand it!?

 

Because of the aim. The intention. The condition.

 

From wikipedia:

At 11:30am on December 27, 2008, Israel launched the campaign titled Operation Cast Lead. It began with an opening wave of airstrikes in which F-16 fighter jets and AH-64 Apache attack helicopters[137] simultaneously struck 100 preplanned targets within a span of 220 seconds. The Israel Air Force claimed a 95% success rate with zero misses in the opening attack.[138] Thirty minutes later, a second wave of 60 jets and helicopters struck at an additional 60 targets. The air strikes hit Hamas headquarters, government offices and 24 police stations.

 

You may want to know, incase you don't already. Each and every war but the Six Days War (which was a result of the Israeli intelligence finding out a war was to be initiated the very same day) wasn't initiated by Israel. You call that resistance?

 

What about when Israel invaded Egypt during the Suez Crisis in 1956?

Or South Lebanon in 1978?

Or Lebanon in 1982?

Or the other war with Egypt in 1967?

Then the Six Day War.

Or what is now called the War in Gaza only in 2008?

 

What about the constant assassinations from Mossad.

 

67' was the Six Days war. 78' and 2008 were operations. 82' was also an opertaion at first, and a response:

The Government of Israel decided to launch the military operation after the assassination attempt against Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Shlomo Argov, by the Abu Nidal Organization, a mercenary organization opposed to the PLO.[4]

 

The Mossad is clearly not war.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: @Qeltar, you and I both know your goal is now to belittle my posts, and not reason. Especially after you compared it to an inncoent doctor being shot while approaching my doorstep, and not a doctor that hit me with clubs and knives, and werestled out my own weapons.

[magekillr]

Qeltar, why don't you sum up in a quick post the way you think Israel should handle this situation? I'm curious to see what miraculous perfect solution you can come up with.

 

Not aimed at me, but from an Israeli citizen:

 

As an Israeli citizen (although I no longer live there) I am appalled at Israel's tactics with the ships bound for Gaza. They could have easily used non-lethal means to accomplish their objective. For example, they could have moved a gunboat in front of the large ship forcing it to stop or slow down. They could have dropped a frogman into the water to disable the propeller and/or rudder with a small explosive. The immobilized ship could then be towed anywhere Israel wanted.

 

Knowing the Israeli psyche like I do, they took the approach of confrontation to teach "them" a lesson and show "them" who is boss. I see the same thing every time I'm in the West bank, which is twice a year for the Holidays visiting my settler relatives.

 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/badass-israel.html

 

The real enemy, though, is the blockade itself:

 

Far from a well-crafted policy, the Gaza embargo has become something you might find in a University of Chicago seminar about the perversions inherent in interfering with free trade. As Haaretz detailed in a remarkable investigative report last summer, the embargo is not merely arbitrary (Gazans can import cinnamon, but not chocolate), it is corrupt. When Israeli farmers have surplus supply, they seek loopholes for the goods they wish to sell. Israeli officials allow Gazans to import Israeli products, but not the materials necessary to make those products themselves, since that would threaten Israel’s hold on the Gazan market. As the Israeli human-rights group Gisha has noted, Gazans can buy Israeli-made tomato paste, but cannot buy the empty cans necessary to preserve and market their own, which would compete with Israeli suppliers.

 

If all this were actually turning the people of Gaza against Hamas, perhaps—perhaps—it might have a cold-blooded justification. But if there is anything that the U.S. has learned from its half-century long embargo of Cuba, it is that policies of collective punishment don’t turn people against their regimes. To the contrary, they usually offer those regimes an excuse for their inability to govern.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-01/israel-flotilla-disaster-gaza-embargo-us-supporters-to-blame/?cid=hp:exc

[Nero]

Mage quit positing opinion based articles as if they were your supporting sources. Not just in this thread either, it's very grating.

[magekillr]

Mage quit positing opinion based articles as if they were your supporting sources. Not just in this thread either, it's very grating.

 

What are you talking about, Dusty? Are you inferring that I go read StormFront and Hamas' twitter feed for my regular sources?

 

I post opinion pieces that resonate my opinions in articulate manners. I post news pages for actual news. Are you upset that I am well sourced? Are you saying that I'm spamming? Where else is this being done?

[obfuscator]

Qeltar, why don't you sum up in a quick post the way you think Israel should handle this situation? I'm curious to see what miraculous perfect solution you can come up with.

 

Not aimed at me, but from an Israeli citizen:

 

 

I was referring to the situation as a whole, I'm well aware that this incident was handled quite poorly on Israel's part.

[qeltar]

Qeltar, why don't you sum up in a quick post the way you think Israel should handle this situation? I'm curious to see what miraculous perfect solution you can come up with.

Already have, several times. All they had to do was stop the ship from docking, or insist that they supervise and inspect all items.

 

Problem solved.

 

EDIT: @Qeltar, you and I both know your goal is now to belittle my posts, and not reason. Especially after you compared it to an inncoent doctor being shot while approaching my doorstep, and not a doctor that hit me with clubs and knives, and werestled out my own weapons.

I'm sorry, but your posts belittle themselves. They are a sad combination of self-serving elitism ("We're Israel and our security is more important than anything else!") and flat out dishonesty (continuing to maintain that assaulting the ship was "obligatory" when everyone knows it wasn't).

 

Sorry that you didn't understand my analogy. I never said the person was a doctor, nor that they were innocent. The point is that you do not shoot someone based on what they *might* have or what they *might* do, when they pose no imminent threat to you. This ship posed no imminent threat to anyone. Period.

 

I post opinion pieces that resonate my opinions in articulate manners. I post news pages for actual news. Are you upset that I am well sourced? Are you saying that I'm spamming? Where else is this being done?

I think the point he's trying to make is that posting cherry-picked anecdotes is not convincing. Does it really matter that you found one anonymous Israeli who feels one way or another? Who cares?

[obfuscator]

Qeltar, why don't you sum up in a quick post the way you think Israel should handle this situation? I'm curious to see what miraculous perfect solution you can come up with.

Already have, several times. All they had to do was stop the ship from docking, or insist that they supervise and inspect all items.

 

Problem solved.

 

 

I'm referring to the situation as a whole. I'm well aware of the far better alternatives to the illegal search and ensuing gun battle.

[Romy]

EDIT: @Qeltar, you and I both know your goal is now to belittle my posts, and not reason. Especially after you compared it to an inncoent doctor being shot while approaching my doorstep, and not a doctor that hit me with clubs and knives, and werestled out my own weapons.

I'm sorry, but your posts belittle themselves. They are a sad combination of self-serving elitism ("We're Israel and our security is more important than anything else!")

It isn't more important than anything else, but it is more important than international laws, with all due respect. That's where I'm coming from- I know Israel made a poor decision, I know it definitely shouldn't have done that on international waters, and I also believe the Israeli citiznes' securty is more important than political issues, or even the law.

 

and flat out dishonesty (continuing to maintain that assaulting the ship was "obligatory" when everyone knows it wasn't).

So, do you think Israel could let the ships arrive at Gaza without knowing what those are carrying?

 

Sorry that you didn't understand my analogy. I never said the person was a doctor, nor that they were innocent. The point is that you do not shoot someone based on what they *might* have or what they *might* do, when they pose no imminent threat to you. This ship posed no imminent threat to anyone. Period.

 

They posed threat to whoever boarded the ships. I again understand Israel's actions were illegal, and again repeat the same course of action would've taken place inside Israel's territorial waters aswell, and for that reason, other than breaking the law (not that it's a minor thing to do), nothing in reality would've changed.

[qeltar]

It isn't more important than anything else, but it is more important than international laws, with all due respect. That's where I'm coming from- I know Israel made a poor decision, I know it definitely shouldn't have done that on international waters, and I also believe the Israeli citiznes' securty is more important than political issues, or even the law.

Sigh. You seem to think that international law is like an ordnance prohibiting jaywalking.

 

The suggestion that Israel's security trumps international law reflects a lack of understanding of why those laws exist. This is not about politics. Those laws are in place, among other things, to *prevent wars*. Because if Israel can choose to ignore them for her own self-interest, so can everyone else, and that's how wars get started.

 

So, do you think Israel could let the ships arrive at Gaza without knowing what those are carrying?

I've already answered this multiple times.

 

They could have stopped the ship from landing, or inspected the cargo upon its arrival.

 

Please stop pretending that the only options here were "let the ships land without seeing the cargo" or "send in armed stormtroopers". There were many other alternatives.

 

They posed threat to whoever boarded the ships.

Gee, then that's another good reason why they should not have boarded the ships.

 

Are you seriously going to try to tell us that the Israelis had *no idea* of the reaction they would get? They couldn't see the people swarming around the deck as they were coming down off the helicopters?

 

Come on.

 

And all of this really underscores the true problem, which is how Israel is handling Gaza in general. I have to say that my eyes have been opened for certain: I never realized just how bad things were over there.

 

This has backfired for Israel in every way imagineable.

[obfuscator]

And all of this really underscores the true problem, which is how Israel is handling Gaza in general. I have to say that my eyes have been opened for certain: I never realized just how bad things were over there.

 

This has backfired for Israel in every way imagineable.

 

Yet you ignore my post asking you to come up with a better strategy for Israel.

[qeltar]

And all of this really underscores the true problem, which is how Israel is handling Gaza in general. I have to say that my eyes have been opened for certain: I never realized just how bad things were over there.

 

This has backfired for Israel in every way imagineable.

 

Yet you ignore my post asking you to come up with a better strategy for Israel.

 

You expect me to lay out a comprehensive Middle East peace plan in a forum posting? :rolleyes:

[sees_all1]

Qeltar, why don't you sum up in a quick post the way you think Israel should handle this situation? I'm curious to see what miraculous perfect solution you can come up with.

Already have, several times. All they had to do was stop the ship from docking, or insist that they supervise and inspect all items.

 

Problem solved.

Do you recognize that what you've said is exactly what Israel tried to do? The difference between your suggestion and what Israel did is about, idk, 60 kilometers?

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but your posts belittle themselves. They are a sad combination of self-serving elitism ("We're Israel and our security is more important than anything else!") and flat out dishonesty (continuing to maintain that assaulting the ship was "obligatory" when everyone knows it wasn't).

Its very easy to stand on the sideline and criticize a country's decisions. I'd like to point out that more important than international "law" is self preservation. Who cares what a bureaucrat a thousand miles away thinks when you've got an issue of your own sovereignty and of life and death inside and around your territory?

 

 

From what I understand, the facts of this situation are pretty straight forward:

-Israel had a well established blockade of Gaza, and while controversial, is legal.

-Israel sent a clear and repeated message to the flotilla that it was to stop before reaching territorial waters.

-All of the ships in the flotilla except one followed Israel's instructions, and were searched without incident.

-The largest ship, the Mavi Marmara, had no intention of following instructions.

-Israel had no intention of violence when boarding the ship, and was ill equipped to deal with the mob they encountered.

-The only crime that was committed was where they boarded the ship.

 

 

To put this in context with everything that is going on right now: unless this triggers a war, this incident will have no historical significance in as little as a year. How many people would remember the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand had it not ignited World War I?

Everyone who had their stance on Israel before this incident won't have changed their minds as a result of it. People that hated Israel before will still hate them, people that liked Israel before will still like them. The few people without an opinion of Israel will probably see them in a negative light, but that number is very very few.

[obfuscator]

And all of this really underscores the true problem, which is how Israel is handling Gaza in general. I have to say that my eyes have been opened for certain: I never realized just how bad things were over there.

 

This has backfired for Israel in every way imagineable.

 

Yet you ignore my post asking you to come up with a better strategy for Israel.

 

You expect me to lay out a comprehensive Middle East peace plan in a forum posting? :rolleyes:

I expect you to do that in a few sentences. You seem perfectly content to criticize from an armchair while fully ignoring the complexities and realities of the situation.

[qeltar]

Qeltar, why don't you sum up in a quick post the way you think Israel should handle this situation? I'm curious to see what miraculous perfect solution you can come up with.

Already have, several times. All they had to do was stop the ship from docking, or insist that they supervise and inspect all items.

 

Problem solved.

Do you recognize that what you've said is exactly what Israel tried to do? The difference between your suggestion and what Israel did is about, idk, 60 kilometers?

The difference between what I said and what Israel did isn't about 60 kilometers.

 

It's about 60 bullets.

 

Stopping the ship from docking is not equivalent to, nor did it require, storming it with special forces commandos. :rolleyes:

 

Its very easy to stand on the sideline and criticize a country's decisions.

Damned right it is. Someone has to.

 

I'd like to point out that more important than international "law" is self preservation.

Spare me the dishonest bullcrap -- we've had enough of it already on this thread.

 

This action was not necessary for Israel's "self preservation". A ship that far out to sea is no threat to anyone, and they knew about it weeks in advance.

 

To put this in context with everything that is going on right now: unless this triggers a war, this incident will have no historical significance in as little as a year.

Don't bet on it. And even if it doesn't, that doesn't make it right or excusable.

 

You know what would really have made this have no historical significance? If the morons running the IDF hadn't stormed the ship.

 

Everyone who had their stance on Israel before this incident won't have changed their minds as a result of it. People that hated Israel before will still hate them, people that liked Israel before will still like them. The few people without an opinion of Israel will probably see them in a negative light, but that number is very very few.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

Israel is being roundly -- and rightly -- criticized by many, MANY people who never had much of anything bad to say about the country before.

 

That includes me.

 

Anyone who supports a country no matter what it does is a sheep. It is the responsibility of informed, intelligent people to criticize bad policy and inappropriate acts to reduce the chances of them happening again.

[Romy]

The illegality of Israel's actions is now questioned.

 

 

After the Marmara clearly showed that it's going to ignore Israel's requests not to enter it's territorial waters, Israel had the right to begin proportional use of force. The only problem with that definition, is "proportional", some take it this way, some that way.

[sees_all1]

Already have, several times. All they had to do was stop the ship from docking, or insist that they supervise and inspect all items.

Problem solved.

Do you recognize that what you've said is exactly what Israel tried to do? The difference between your suggestion and what Israel did is about, idk, 60 kilometers?

The difference between what I said and what Israel did isn't about 60 kilometers.

It's about 60 bullets.

Stopping the ship from docking is not equivalent to, nor did it require, storming it with special forces commandos. :rolleyes:

"All they had to do was stop the ship from docking"

How do you stop a ship? Disable it? Kill everyone on board? Blow it out of the water? Wrest control of the ship's helm? You can do any of those, and the only difference between being fully justified and being chastised is the location, which was about 60 km away from their national waters. Had they "stopped" the ship in their "national" waters, they would've be completely justified in whatever manner they chose, including blowing the damn thing out of the water.

 

If an unauthorized plane flies within 10 miles of the US capital, you'd better believe there will be jets scrambled into the air, and if the thing refuses to acknowledge communications it will be shot down. If that happens, its justified. If it happened 5 miles further than that, its scrutinized. Its the exact same thing.

 

I'd like to point out that more important than international "law" is self preservation.

Spare me the dishonest bullcrap -- we've had enough of it already on this thread.

This action was not necessary for Israel's "self preservation". A ship that far out to sea is no threat to anyone, and they knew about it weeks in advance.

You're not seeing the forest for the trees. The blockade is absolutely necessary for Israel's self preservation, and anyone is obtuse to think otherwise. We've already acknowledged that Israel muffed this up, but I sincerely doubt they'll apologize for it. Their only fault was the location of boarding. If you can't acknowledge that, there's no point discussing it anymore.

 

 

Everyone who had their stance on Israel before this incident won't have changed their minds as a result of it. People that hated Israel before will still hate them, people that liked Israel before will still like them. The few people without an opinion of Israel will probably see them in a negative light, but that number is very very few.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Israel is being roundly -- and rightly -- criticized by many, MANY people who never had much of anything bad to say about the country before.

That includes me.

 

Anyone who supports a country no matter what it does is a sheep. It is the responsibility of informed, intelligent people to criticize bad policy and inappropriate acts to reduce the chances of them happening again.

Do you think the United States will change their position towards Israel solely for this incident? No, long term they won't. They might give them a slap on the wrist, but that's it. Do you think Hamas will change their position towards Isreal solely for this incident? Of course not. They'll use the incident as fodder for their indignation, but in reality they don't care.

If you truly had no opinion of Israel before, you were in the minority.

[assassin_696]

The illegality of Israel's actions is now questioned.

 

 

After the Marmara clearly showed that it's going to ignore Israel's requests not to enter it's territorial waters, Israel had the right to begin proportional use of force. The only problem with that definition, is "proportional", some take it this way, some that way.

 

Okay, I don't really want to be dragged back into this, but questioned by whom and on what legal basis? Because if they're invoking the San Remo Manual then that only applies to two states at war, Israel may have declared itself at war with Hamas but Hamas isn't a state and the ship was flying the flag of Turkey (and the other ships were flying different flags). Besides ships expressly for the purpose of delivering humanitarian aid are still exempt from the memorandum, and it only really applies to warships charging a blockade.

 

In fact, they breached a UN act that they actually signed in 2009 that says the jurisdiction for any offences potentially committed by a ship lies with the state of the flag the ship is flying.

 

"All they had to do was stop the ship from docking"

How do you stop a ship? Disable it? Kill everyone on board? Blow it out of the water? Wrest control of the ship's helm? You can do any of those, and the only difference between being fully justified and being chastised is the location, which was about 60 km away from their national waters. Had they "stopped" the ship in their "national" waters, they would've be completely justified in whatever manner they chose, including blowing the damn thing out of the water.

 

If an unauthorized plane flies within 10 miles of the US capital, you'd better believe there will be jets scrambled into the air, and if the thing refuses to acknowledge communications it will be shot down. If that happens, its justified. If it happened 5 miles further than that, its scrutinized. Its the exact same thing.

 

Um, no, that would effectively be a war crime. A plane is different because it poses a more obvious clear and present danger and there aren't many ways of stopping one other than shooting it down. Stopping a slow moving ship is an entirely different matter, especially when the ship had been checked in Turkey under the Customs Act and was known to be delivering humanitarian aid.

[Romy]

I don't quite recall, lol. I watched it on the news a few hours ago, but the weather is frying my head.

 

 

Anyway, it had something to do with article 51 of the UNC. Either way, the Marmara's clear inacceptance of the Israeli requests not to enter it's territorial waters puts doubt to the illegality of Israel's actions.

[Romy]

As far as I'm concerned, murdering people trying to deliver humanitarian aid is illegal regardless.

 

That's over simplistic.

 

 

What about using a weapon for self defence after you were attacked with a knife? Is that illegal?

 

It's not that cut and dry. Over simplifying things isn't usually a good thing when it comes to legality.