Israel butchers civilians in international waters

[Nemo0071]

What I don't get is how Israel's planning to get away with it this time. I hope they won't, but I fear they will...

Maybe Hamas should fire some more rockets into Israeli schoolyards.

 

Oh wait... they do that every day.

Uhh... I meant diplomatically "get away with it".

 

Bad joke man, bad joke.

[Walsingham]

Since I keep tabs on these things I knew this was coming up, although I am surprised by the precise turn of events.

 

What is interesting is that none of you have mentioned a couple of key points:

 

1. Israel did not object to the delivery of the supplies. They had offerred to unload the supplies on land, check them, and pass them on.

2. This compromise solution was rejected by the Turkish group organising the event.

 

Now, I don't know the specifics. It is possible that crossloading would have been too time consuming and detrimental to the cargoes.

 

_OR_ it is possible that

 

1. The specific intention of the operation was to force a confrontation or a capitulation - either being detrimental to Israel.

2. The cargo contained materiel which would not pass inspection.

 

I say this purely for the point of intellectual rigour. I don't have a side in this conflict because I don't believe either side can win.

[Wrath of Dagon]

What I don't get is this, the ship posed no military threat, and an action like this was obviously going to be high risk.

 

Why did they bother ?

Because Israel has a blockade on Gaza, since you know, Hamas is sworn to destroy Israel.

 

And of course the whole thing was meant to be a provocation Wals, there's no problem getting humanitarian supplies through relief organizations.

[Walsingham]

What I don't get is this, the ship posed no military threat, and an action like this was obviously going to be high risk.

 

Why did they bother ?

Because Israel has a blockade on Gaza, since you know, Hamas is sworn to destroy Israel.

 

And of course the whole thing was meant to be a provocation Wals, there's no problem getting humanitarian supplies through relief organizations.

 

I don't wish to turn away a kind word. But actually I've heard there are significant problems with getting supplies through as a regular thing. I have extended family who went on one of the bloody silly land convoys. The problem is that you've got such a wide array of people mixed up in these things. You have genuine kind hearted folk who just want to hand over a few shoes and some colouring crayons, alongside people smuggling weapon components. the Israeli govt. looks at these convoys and sees the latter. The gentle creatures in the convoy think the hostility is towards their innocuous gifts.

 

ON a broader note I think it's interesting that information is so confused on this issue. I'm not saying I'm definitely right mind you. But essentially you've got this multi-player 'game' going on and the players can't even agree on what is actually happening, let alone formulate and deliver a meaningful resolution. Do you think it would help if there was some kind of permanent 'information referee'?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Not so long as information is used to try to achieve a political goal. Sooner or later the truth will come out though, not many may be paying attention by then.

[heathen]

Heh, I like how people in this thread (Wrath Of Dagon) are stating these obviously made up conspiracy theories as fact. There was no weapons of mass destruction on board the ship. Here's my educated guess of what happened, based on the facts we know: Israel boarded the flotilla on international waters and either started the fight or at least tried to bully the crew to back down. They wouldn't, a scuffle ensues and then the soldiers open fire. 20 civilians dead, I repeat on international waters so Israel had no "right" to do anything. Then again all rules go out the window once it's matter of national security I guess.

 

Why they wouldn't let Israel to take the goods, inspect them and pass them on? Well that would kind of defeat the point of the convoy now would it? The ships are loaded with aid Israel has banned from Gaza. If they would have let Israel to inspect and pass on the cargo, half or more would not have reached the people in need. The whole point of this is to give humanitarian aid as well as resist Israels apartheid politics. Whether you agree with the activists or not, it doesn't seem likely that there would be some kind of an islamist plot here. Just a bunch of activists testing how far Israel will go to protect their interests, and obviously they're ready to go as far as it takes.

Edited May 31, 2010 by heathen

[Monte Carlo]

What is interesting is that none of you have mentioned a couple of key points:

 

1. Israel did not object to the delivery of the supplies. They had offerred to unload the supplies on land, check them, and pass them on.

2. This compromise solution was rejected by the Turkish group organising the event.

 

Er, I did in my first post on the subject.

[heathen]

And I addressed it on my post. The activists wanted to challenge Israels right to embargo Gaza, not play along with them. It doesn't mean that there'd have to be weapons on board.

[Nemo0071]

ON a broader note I think it's interesting that information is so confused on this issue. I'm not saying I'm definitely right mind you. But essentially you've got this multi-player 'game' going on and the players can't even agree on what is actually happening, let alone formulate and deliver a meaningful resolution. Do you think it would help if there was some kind of permanent 'information referee'?

Isn't most of the information surrounding this incident controlled by Israel? That could be the reason for the confusion.

 

Not so long as information is used to try to achieve a political goal. Sooner or later the truth will come out though, not many may be paying attention by then.

Sadly, true.

[Gorgon]

I mean a boarding action with just one helicopter. I doesn't seem like the right tactical choice. Neither did attacking the convoy before it entered Israeli territory. They may have gotten a hold of the ships and deported the activists but the PR battle was a sound thrashing, and this time the cost may be more tangible than usual. Lost military contracts with turkey, a huge PR win for Iran, just for starters-

[Volourn]

How is this a PR win for Iran? That's illogic.

[Altered Idol]

Absolutely disgusted with the events that occured last night/this morning. Regardless of blame, civilians have lost their lives and that has been put on the backburner whilst the political ramifications continue unabated.

 

Israel had no jurisdiction raiding an aid convoy in international waters. As mentioned by someone else earlier, that is akin to piracy. Its funny, when a group like the Somali prates do something like this, they are labelled pirates and outlaws. When its a state that does it, well its national security. Different motives I'll grant you, but the same tactics. Same goes for the Israeli Secret Service, their tactics are no better than what terrorists conduct but again, national security is used as a get out once again.

 

That being said, I am no supporter of Hamas. Any organisation whose pledge is to eradicate another from the face of the earth is at the best, misguided, at worst, pyschopathic. But there are many civilians living in Gaza, in draconian conditions and closed off from the rest of their people and the world. They do not deserve to be treated as they are being treated. If this blockade by Israel wasnt in place, this whole tragedy could have been avoided. In the end, all this blockade will do is drive desperate people into desperate measures, which is counter-productive to their agenda.

 

Both sides need to realise that following this path will only lead to one outcome; mutual annihilation. And no-one wants that.

[I want teh kotor 3]

The way I read that article, the dudes on the boats attacked the commandos. If you attack a set of commandos, you better well expect to be blown to whatever hell you believe in. If the commandos were defending themselves, they really did nothing wrong. That doesn't explain the commandos being in the boats, but the so-called "massacre" doesn't seem like much of one.

 

Interesting note: North Korea blows up a merchant ship, killing almost 50 people; nobody cares. Israeli commandos shoot a bunch of dudes who attack them; international bat**** craziness ensues.

[mkreku]

Israeli commandos shoot a bunch of dudes who attack them; international bat**** craziness ensues.

So if a burglar enters your home, you attack the burglar and he kills you, the burglar only acted in self defence since you were the one attacking him?

 

These ships were on international waters. The Israeli soldiers boarded the convoy on international waters. What is so hard to understand here? If a ship is in international waters, that ship is to be seen as a continuation of the nation under which flag it sails. If the ship had a Swedish flag, this means the Israeli soldiers entered Swedish territory uninvited and the Swedish crew would be entitled to expel the intruders from their ship.

 

I don't understand how the Israelis can claim they were attacked first.. they were obviously standing on the deck of a foreign nation's ship on international waters, holding firearms in their hands. So who attacked who?

[Gromnir]

Israeli commandos shoot a bunch of dudes who attack them; international bat**** craziness ensues.

So if a burglar enters your home, you attack the burglar and he kills you, the burglar only acted in self defence since you were the one attacking him?

 

These ships were on international waters. The Israeli soldiers boarded the convoy on international waters. What is so hard to understand here? If a ship is in international waters, that ship is to be seen as a continuation of the nation under which flag it sails. If the ship had a Swedish flag, this means the Israeli soldiers entered Swedish territory uninvited and the Swedish crew would be entitled to expel the intruders from their ship.

 

I don't understand how the Israelis can claim they were attacked first.. they were obviously standing on the deck of a foreign nation's ship on international waters, holding firearms in their hands. So who attacked who?

 

is a bit more complex than mkreku suggests. a foreign warship may board and inspect on high seas pursuant to "right of visit" and treaty. the U.S., for instance, has a treaty with sweden that allows for reciprocity o' searches on high seas to combat narcotics trafficking, weapons smuggling and a host o' other such stuff. is anybody current on israeli treaties with foreign powers? Gromnir ain't. furthermore, the "right of visit" allows warships to board and inspect foreign vessels on the high seas if they gots a suspicion of piracy, slavery and a few other things. what this typical means is that if representatives from a foreign warship wanna board and search your vessel, you let 'em do so... and then complain 'bout it later. mkreku's burglar metaphor would be more accurate if it were the police who were attempting to barge into your home at night. perhaps the police do not have reasonable cause to do so, but that does not give you the right to attack the cops with knives and metal bars, does it? rules is different for warships on the high seas... as odd as it may sound.

 

change the facts: a swedish coast guard vessel stops and boards an israeli merchant ship six miles off shore, in international waters. the israelis is heading towards stockholm, but has repeatedly ignored hails from swedish authorities. as swedish sailors board the vessel, they is attacked by israeli's wielding broken bottles and baseball bats. the swedish sailors defend themselves, killing numerous israelis.

 

*shrug*

 

am suspecting that the public outcry over spilled israeli blood would be minimal.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorgon]

How is this a PR win for Iran? That's illogic.

Because Iran is the real enemy for Israel and has, like every one else, been using the conflict to galvanize popular opinion. If Israel is seen to reject humanitarian convoys, actively supporting Hamas and Hezbollah gains in legitimacy.

 

It doesn't make sense, but if you only consider appearances, it kinda does.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I mean a boarding action with just one helicopter. I doesn't seem like the right tactical choice. Neither did attacking the convoy before it entered Israeli territory. They may have gotten a hold of the ships and deported the activists but the PR battle was a sound thrashing, and this time the cost may be more tangible than usual. Lost military contracts with turkey, a huge PR win for Iran, just for starters-

That's the misunderstanding here, the convoy wasn't going to enter Israeli territory, it was going to Gaza. And a naval blockade means you stop ships in international waters, otherwise you'd have to enter the territorial waters of the country being blockaded. Of course this situation is a bit different as Gaza is not a country. And Turkey is the one who set the whole thing up, if Israelis still think Turkey is their friend, they're being delusional.

[Zoraptor]

2. The cargo contained materiel which would not pass inspection.

It definitely did, as it contained pre fab buildings and construction materials, both of which Israel embargoes, not deeming shelter and such to be "humanitarian essentials".

 

change the facts: a swedish coast guard vessel stops and boards an israeli merchant ship six miles off shore, in international waters. the israelis is heading towards stockholm, but has repeatedly ignored hails from swedish authorities. as swedish sailors board the vessel, they is attacked by israeli's wielding broken bottles and baseball bats. the swedish sailors defend themselves, killing numerous israelis.

 

The boats were not heading to an Israeli port, Israel has not annexed Gaza (as they would then have to give 1 million+ Palestinians the vote) so your comparison fails at the first hurdle. In point of fact the boat woulds never pass through Israeli waters, just Gazan. The only legal defence is that it was action in maintenance of blockade, which still has some rather significant flaws.

 

Hoho, ninja'd by WoD, of all people.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Zoraptor

[~Di]

Y'all are aware, are you not, that Israel is not the only country enforcing that blockade. It's actually a joint blockade created and enforced by both Israel and Egypt.

 

And BTW, there are several Israelis in critical condition because of this incident, not to mention that Reuters got much of the clash on film, including a couple of Israelis that literally threw themselves overboard to save their lives after they were beaten and their weapons taken.

 

This flotilla, which refused Israel's offer to unload aid items for inspection, has been proudly announcing its one and only purpose: To force confrontation. Well, mission accomplished. I'm sure they are very proud.

[Gromnir]

2. The cargo contained materiel which would not pass inspection.

It definitely did, as it contained pre fab buildings and construction materials, both of which Israel embargoes, not deeming shelter and such to be "humanitarian essentials".

 

change the facts: a swedish coast guard vessel stops and boards an israeli merchant ship six miles off shore, in international waters. the israelis is heading towards stockholm, but has repeatedly ignored hails from swedish authorities. as swedish sailors board the vessel, they is attacked by israeli's wielding broken bottles and baseball bats. the swedish sailors defend themselves, killing numerous israelis.

 

The boats were not heading to an Israeli port, Israel has not annexed Gaza (as they would then have to give 1 million+ Palestinians the vote) so your comparison fails at the first hurdle. In point of fact the boat woulds never pass through Israeli waters, just Gazan. The only legal defence is that it was action in maintenance of blockade, which still has some rather significant flaws.

 

Hoho, ninja'd by WoD, of all people.

 

*sigh*

 

fine... israelis is headed to denmark (not near the same as heading to gaza, but we give you the benefit o' the doubt.) swedes stop the israeli ship bound for denmark and swede sailors is then attacked.

 

big difference?

 

wanna debate the validity o' the israeli blockade? fine, be our guest... am not even gonna touch that subject, 'cause we do not have to.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorgon]

That's the misunderstanding here, the convoy wasn't going to enter Israeli territory, it was going to Gaza. And a naval blockade means you stop ships in international waters, otherwise you'd have to enter the territorial waters of the country being blockaded. Of course this situation is a bit different as Gaza is not a country. And Turkey is the one who set the whole thing up, if Israelis still think Turkey is their friend, they're being delusional.

 

 

 

 

Israel has the right to police the naval approaches to the port of Gaza following the Oslo accord. In addition Israel has a 20 km buffer zone along its coastline I believe instigated to stop rocket boat attacks. All this means that Israel does indeed have a defined naval border, which was not breached.

 

There may be legal precedent for a search, but a midnight commando raid. That's not how you go about challenging an incursion you believe is about to take place. This is what they should have done : challenged the vessels the minute they entered Israeli territory and explained that their convoy was subject to search. Then sent in police and customs agents. If these agents were attacked, Israel would have had the moral high ground.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Gorgon

[Wrath of Dagon]

And that's what they were doing, policing the naval approaches, and they did order the ships to stop first. I don't see what difference it makes whether it was 20 km or 80 miles from Gaza. Hamas doesn't recognize the Oslo accords btw.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Gorgon]

The psychology of the situation was simply all wrong, you send in a about a dozen men to the several hundred on the boat, mix in fear and animosity, the absence of any sense of legitimacy for the boarding, and perhaps a belief on the part of those determined to defend the vessel that they could succeed and you have a recipe for disaster.

[Gorgon]

And that's what they were doing, policing the naval approaches, and they did order the ships to stop first. I don't see what difference it makes whether it was 20 km or 80 miles from Gaza. Hamas doesn't recognize the Oslo accords btw.

It's not about what Hamas does or doesn't recognize. Finesse was needed, the situation demanded it. Israel screwed the pooch big time.

[Humodour]

The way I read that article, the dudes on the boats attacked the commandos. If you attack a set of commandos, you better well expect to be blown to whatever hell you believe in. If the commandos were defending themselves, they really did nothing wrong. That doesn't explain the commandos being in the boats, but the so-called "massacre" doesn't seem like much of one.

 

So it'd be OK if the police in America opened live fire on, say, tea party protesters who hurled rocks or tried to take their guns right? An eye for an eye is neoconservative policy these days, right mate?

 

Interesting note: North Korea blows up a merchant ship, killing almost 50 people; nobody cares. Israeli commandos shoot a bunch of dudes who attack them; international bat**** craziness ensues.

 

Um, a) it was a warship not a merchant ship, and b) you're blind as a bat (no surprise) because it was ALL over international news and this forum, and has become a major international incident at least as big as Israel attacking an aid ship.