Israel butchers civilians in international waters

[heathen]

Just because you disagree with the Law does not give you the right to disobey the Law. Disobey an unjust Law all you want, but be prepared to accept the consequences.

 

This is wrong on so many levels I'm not even going to bother.

[Wrath of Dagon]

If a party is supplying one of the parties engaged in hostilities, it itself becomes a party to the hostilities, and thus action can be taken against it. Thus Israel had the right to board and confiscate the ship. Furthemore, Israeli soldiers have the right to defend themselves when attacked. Also if two countries are at war, the combatants don't have to supply any aid to the enemy, Israel should be given credit for allowing any humanitarian aid at all. Anyone who refuses to see this is simply blinded by their hatred for Israel.

[lord of flies]

If a party is supplying one of the parties engaged in hostilities, it itself becomes a party to the hostilities, and thus action can be taken against it. Thus Israel had the right to board and confiscate the ship. Furthemore, Israeli soldiers have the right to defend themselves when attacked. Also if two countries are at war, the combatants don't have to supply any aid to the enemy, Israel should be given credit for allowing any humanitarian aid at all. Anyone who refuses to see this is simply blinded by their hatred for Israel.

Ah, I see. Food aid for the people of Palestine is an act of war and gives Israel the right to board a humanitarian vessel in international waters and then shoot its occupants.

[Gorgon]

Several years ago Israel all but levelled the place to the ground, no doubt they are of the opinion that Gaza would be easier to manage and terrorism more preventable if the people all lived in tents. The threat of terrorism can't be used to justify anything, a lot, sure, not everything.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Just because you disagree with the Law does not give you the right to disobey the Law. Disobey an unjust Law all you want, but be prepared to accept the consequences.

 

 

In a democracy, you have every right to disobey and protest against an unreasonable law, and you should never have to suffer violent treatment or persecution because of it. The law is not some holy commandment that you have to accept no matter how ridicilous or unethical it may be. (obviously, this doesnt apply to self-evident stuff like murder being illegal and so on.) I believe your founding fathers were quite down with this idea, and they also added that the people should always be able to overthrow a goverment that is no longer acting in the best interest of the people.

[Meshugger]

If a party is supplying one of the parties engaged in hostilities, it itself becomes a party to the hostilities, and thus action can be taken against it. Thus Israel had the right to board and confiscate the ship. Furthemore, Israeli soldiers have the right to defend themselves when attacked. Also if two countries are at war, the combatants don't have to supply any aid to the enemy, Israel should be given credit for allowing any humanitarian aid at all. Anyone who refuses to see this is simply blinded by their hatred for Israel.

Ah, I see. Food aid for the people of Palestine is an act of war and gives Israel the right to board a humanitarian vessel in international waters and then shoot its occupants.

 

- Their motive was a direct political action against the embargo. Otherwise they would've docked in Achdod, gotten the cargo inspected, gotten a clearance and delivered their goods.

- They weren't suddenly attacked. Apparantly, the IDF sent them several messages to turn back or to the port of Ashdod. They refused.

- Their goal is to have allow the free flow of capital and people to the Gaza strip, without giving any guarantee to Israel that weapons will be shipped now and in the future.

- Egypt also has a naval blockade to Gaza, why didn't they go there?

 

Can someone answer me this: is it forbidden for nations to cease and desist vessels at sea(international waters) that are under suspicious activity that would threaten national soverignity? For example, a french boat going to britain. The british deem the vessel to be suspicious of carring illegal stuff such as weapons and whatnot. The crew makes it known that it will soon enter british territorial waters and will refuse to cooperate with the british. The british will therefore attempt to hijack the boat at international waters before it enters britain. Fights ensue and people die.

 

Is britain to blame here?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Several years ago Israel all but levelled the place to the ground, no doubt they are of the opinion that Gaza would be easier to manage and terrorism more preventable if the people all lived in tents. The threat of terrorism can't be used to justify anything, a lot, sure, not everything.

You're greatly exaggerating. And the reason for the operation in Gaza was to stop Hamas from constantly firing missiles into Israel, which worked, at least temporarily. Edited June 2, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[lord of flies]

- Their motive was a direct political action against the embargo. Otherwise they would've docked in Achdod, gotten the cargo inspected, gotten a clearance and delivered their goods.

lmao assuming that the cargo would have gotten through. Israel routinely stops humanitarian aid, the only reason this aid got through at all is damage control on Israel's part. What is considered "contraband" is something Israel does not even publicize, and includes things like concrete, cilantro, and fresh meat.

"Fair and Balanced"

With small exceptions for international aid projects, raw goods vital for trade and construction are banned. A biscuit factory cannot import margarine, and a tomato paste factory cannot bring in empty cans. While fruits, vegetables and frozen meats are let in, fresh meat, vinegar and jam, are not, said Sari Bashi of the Israeli rights group Gisha.

Edited June 2, 2010 by lord of flies

[Meshugger]

You didn't answer my question.

[Gfted1]

- Egypt also has a naval blockade to Gaza, why didn't they go there?

 

 

Actually, Egypt has lifted their blockade but strangely the second floatilla is still heading toward Isreal. Weird huh? I wonder what could possibly be their motivation.

[lord of flies]

You didn't answer my question.

Yes, Britain would be in the wrong. IIRC the only legal reason to board a ship in international waters is if it is believed to be a pirate ship.

[lord of flies]

- Egypt also has a naval blockade to Gaza, why didn't they go there?

 

 

Actually, Egypt has lifted their blockade but strangely the second floatilla is still heading toward Isreal. Weird huh? I wonder what could possibly be their motivation.

Gaza is not part of Israel.

[Gfted1]

Yes, that is correct.

[Monte Carlo]

Wow, just read that recently the Turkish premier gave a warm welcome to the benevolent and wise ruler of Sudan. That's right. Sudan. Every Hollywood liberal is up in arms about the borderline genocide there, but good old peace-flotilla sponsoring Turkey ain't that bothered for some strange reason.

 

The double standards here are so outrageous it's hilarious.

[HoonDing]

^Me thinks the Turkish Army will have to do a little cleaning business in a few years.

[Monte Carlo]

Agreed. Turkey is a fine nation with plenty to be proud about - the AK party are threatening that and seem to me to fly in the face of everything Ataturk stood for. Erdogan has tried to neuter the generals but I daresay a few of them might have 'gone fishing' and has a bit of a chat about how to preserve the secular tradition.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Just because you disagree with the Law does not give you the right to disobey the Law. Disobey an unjust Law all you want, but be prepared to accept the consequences.

 

 

In a democracy, you have every right to disobey and protest against an unreasonable law, and you should never have to suffer violent treatment or persecution because of it. The law is not some holy commandment that you have to accept no matter how ridicilous or unethical it may be. (obviously, this doesnt apply to self-evident stuff like murder being illegal and so on.) I believe your founding fathers were quite down with this idea, and they also added that the people should always be able to overthrow a goverment that is no longer acting in the best interest of the people.

 

To be perfectly honest I am willing to break an unjust law, I would encourage others to do so, but I will not be blind to the consequences of such actions, even if those consequences would mean my death. You do not have to accept the Law, but the consequences of breaking it.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Wow, just read that recently the Turkish premier gave a warm welcome to the benevolent and wise ruler of Sudan. That's right. Sudan. Every Hollywood liberal is up in arms about the borderline genocide there, but good old peace-flotilla sponsoring Turkey ain't that bothered for some strange reason.

 

The double standards here are so outrageous it's hilarious.

The Muslims can do no wrong by definition. Yes, it's a shame what's happened to Turkey. First Iran, and now this.

[Cycloneman]

Wow, just read that recently the Turkish premier gave a warm welcome to the benevolent and wise ruler of Sudan. That's right. Sudan. Every Hollywood liberal is up in arms about the borderline genocide there, but good old peace-flotilla sponsoring Turkey ain't that bothered for some strange reason.

 

The double standards here are so outrageous it's hilarious.

What is the double standard here, anyway? "Hollywood liberals" decry Israel shooting political activists on a boat in international waters, but do not decry Turkey having decent relations with Sudan. My god, the hypocrisy! Edited June 2, 2010 by Cycloneman

[~Di]

Then we find out that all the ships were invited to dock in Israel, off-load their supplies for inspection, then carry them into Gaza overland. The flotilla refused this. Did the world media report this?

Yes, they did. But unlike the Fox News (or wherever you get your news from) they also happened to mention that Israel sets their own rules as to what constitutes humanitarian aid. Rules that seemingly override what the rest of the world (and the UN) sees as humanitarian aid. This means that only a fraction of what the boats were carrying would ever reach the civilians in Gaza and the rest would be stolen by Israel. This happens all the time (read what other help organizations have been put through by the Israeli government) and this is the very reason they are trying to send boats directly to Gaza!

 

If you stop to think for a moment: if Israel were so kind-hearted and willing to help and just wanted to inspect the goods, why on earth do you think Ship to Gaza chose to try to circumvent this? Why go through all that trouble if they were free to help the people in Gaza?

 

The rest of the post is typical Di nonsense. Yeah, sure, the rest of the world is biased against Israel for no reason whatsoever.. And the video released by Israeli forces clearly shows the entire picture and is not a propaganda piece.. And Gaza is not starving, which is why the entire world is currently engaged in trying to bring food/aid to the civilian population.. And please forget that they boarded these ships on international waters.. Or the fact that nine people were killed by soldiers bearing firearms (and no soldiers were killed, despite the video showing how they were brutally attacked)..

 

The bolded area is a personal attack that I don't appreciate. You may disagree with me if you wish, but do so with civility. I won't tolerate being dismissed as an imbecile.

 

That said, Hamas apparently isn't as worried about their starving populace as you think. http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/02/....aid/index.html

 

Jerusalem (CNN) -- Israel has attempted to deliver humanitarian aid from an international flotilla to Gaza, but Hamas -- which controls the territory -- has refused to accept the cargo, the Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday.

 

Palestinian sources confirmed that trucks that arrived from Israel at the Rafah terminal at the Israel-Gaza border were barred from delivering the aid.

 

Ra'ed Fatooh, in charge of the crossings, and Jamal Khudari, head of a committee against the Gaza blockade, said Israel must release all flotilla detainees and that it will be accepted in the territory only by the Free Gaza Movement people who organized the flotilla.

 

Israel said it had 20 trucks of aid found on the ships, such as expired medications, clothing, blankets, some medical equipment and toys.

 

Each of these boats were informed that they would be boarded and escorted to the Israeli port for inspection. Five of the boardings went smoothly. The sixth one didn't, and we've seen why. At that point, Israeli soldiers, who were being beaten and having their weapons taken, were acting in self-defense although clearly you don't care about the facts, only the hyperbole.

 

I've already said that Israel mucked this operation up badly, but confrontation and blockade-busting was the primary goal of this flotilla. And they got exactly what they'd hoped to get... confrontation and international condemnation of Israel.

 

As for your comment that there were no terrorists on the flotilla, that is still a matter of suspicion. http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=177328

 

"WASHINGTON

[~Di]

Egypt has opened their section of the blockade to these ships, so it's curious that Israel claims they will continue their current path of blocking these aid ships.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/02/2915852.htm

 

Supposedly Egypt took 2 days off to allow aid to pass over land to make a good faith effort, but now they are back as part of the blockade.

 

This is interesting video, shot by someone on that sixth ship. This is apparently Israel's first attempt at boarding, and why they had to go the chopper route eventually. Note the use of a stun grenade thrown into the Israeli boarding craft.

 

 

 

There's plenty of blame to go around here.

 

Edit: Apparently I don't know how to properly embed. I'm sorry, you'll have to cut and paste... or enlighten me.

Edited June 3, 2010 by ~Di

[Calax]

Egypt has opened their section of the blockade to these ships, so it's curious that Israel claims they will continue their current path of blocking these aid ships.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/02/2915852.htm

 

Supposedly Egypt took 2 days off to allow aid to pass over land to make a good faith effort, but now they are back as part of the blockade.

 

This is interesting video, shot by someone on that sixth ship. This is apparently Israel's first attempt at boarding, and why they had to go the chopper route eventually. Note the use of a stun grenade thrown into the Israeli boarding craft.

 

 

 

There's plenty of blame to go around here.

 

Edit: Apparently I don't know how to properly embed. I'm sorry, you'll have to cut and paste... or enlighten me.

The video is certainly short, and it does show the Israeli's being attacked, but it also shows them armed with paintball guns and returning fire with said paintball guns (at least one of them is, little guy at the far side of the boat, you can see it buck in his hands with at least one shot).

 

The question becomes why did they switch from paintball guns (like they demonstrated that they have) to lethal equipment.

[Aram]

Israel is basically a country with Short Man Syndrome.

[mkreku]

<snip>

 

That said, Hamas apparently isn't as worried about their starving populace as you think.

Who claimed Hamas were the good guys? They're not. They are the other extreme. The civilians caught between Israel and Hamas are the ones the convoy was for.

 

Israel said it had 20 trucks of aid found on the ships, such as expired medications, clothing, blankets, some medical equipment and toys.

The CNN quote you provided is funny though because that's not what's being reported in Swedish newspapers. And in this case I choose to believe my local sources. Yes, they're refusing to accept the aid. That much is clear. But why? Israel says they have 20 trucks of aid.. well, each one of those boats held more than 20 trucks of aid originally! Again, they have stolen 90% of the goods and are delivering the scraps to the people of Gaza. Great job of reporting it as them delivering everything they found as the good Samaritans they are and are being stopped by the evil, evil Hamas. It's not that easy. Great job of ignoring the other side you keep preaching about.

 

At that point, Israeli soldiers, who were being beaten and having their weapons taken, were acting in self-defense although clearly you don't care about the facts, only the hyperbole.

If they were being beaten.. and had their weapons taken from them.. how did they manage to escape this horrible, life-threatening situation without casualties and with NINE HELP WORKERS SHOT AND KILLED? Are those nine dead people hyperbole? Feel free to explain how you're thinking here. Nine people are DEAD, none of them soldiers. How's that for facts?

 

<snip>

Edited June 3, 2010 by Gorth
Why ruin a good post?

[Meshugger]

You didn't answer my question.

Yes, Britain would be in the wrong. IIRC the only legal reason to board a ship in international waters is if it is believed to be a pirate ship.

 

Ok, and i take it that you mean morally and politically. But there is the tricky part that i am still searching for. Israel claims to be at war with Hamas, and this is were things get difficult, since the rules of conduct change when you have warring states.

 

Btw, does anyone know if the turkish ship was waving a white flag or not? I have only seen videos of with the turkish flag raised, but not the white flag.