• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

B S Israel is defending it's borders something the ASSCLOWN obama refuses to do

Moderator's Warning:
Go find a thread about it then. I'm sure there are plenty. Stop trolling this thread.
 
The authority to do this is given on the basis that the ships boarded are committing illegal activities. A ship carrying humanitarian aid in international waters is not illegal.
And Israel has the right to inspect those ships to make sure it is only carrying humanitarian aid and not weapons for Muslim Terrorist Pigs
 
.

Just another facet to add to all the opinions from the "flotilla event" this morning. Believe the Israeli commanders deserve at least a little credit for tempering their response from what it could have been. If those had been my troops that dropped down the ropes and were getting somewhat savagely beaten, my inclination would have been to unleash a fury that would have left many more of the flotilla team injured or dead.

Not trying to sound melodramatic. Just offering some kudos to the Israeli military not reacting more so than they did.....


.
I completely agree.
Seeing your own soldiers getting lynched with knives and crowbars, and thrown onto the ship's deck(10 meters height) while they can do nothing about it is a tough sight, and the force commander deserves a lot of respect for wating until live ammunition was used against his soldiers before ordering to open fire.(to the legs of the protesters btw)
 
Bow before the might of objective inquiry:

On August 23 the ships arrived in Gaza. The Israeli navy did not stop them but both boats had great difficulty with their communications, a problem they blamed on jamming by Israel in an attempt to prevent the human rights watchers from getting to Gaza.

The second sailing occurred in late October. The movement's 66-foot yacht, named Dignity, arrived at a Gaza port on October 29. The ship carried 26 activists and medical supplies. Although Israeli officials initially announced that they would stop the ship, a last minute decision was reportedly made to allow the ship to enter Gaza. Among the passengers were 1976 Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Corrigan and Palestinian Legislative Council member Mustafa Barghouti.

Source: Wikipedia

So Israel had allowed such ships to run the blockade before without incident. This changed after the Gaza War, but is there any real reason why it should have changed? Israel certainly has a right to inspect the cargo to insure there are no weapons or other materials, but then that is not what Israel said it was going to do (they indicated the people onboard would be taken to Israel and detained) and it is not what they have done in the past:

On December 29, 2008, Dignity set sail from Cyprus, headed for Gaza, attempting to deliver 3.5 tonnes (3.9 short tons) of medical supplies to its residents. The boat, which was boarded by Caoimhe Butterly, Cynthia McKinney, journalists from Al Jazeera and CNN, three surgeons including Dr. Elena Theoharous, was forced to turn back after being intercepted by Israeli naval vessels off of Gaza. According to The Free Gaza Movement, Israeli warships rammed their vessel then fired machine guns in the water. Israel claims that the boat had failed to respond to Israeli naval radio contact and was attempting to out maneuver the warships when the vessels collided. Not having enough fuel to return to Cyprus, the boat docked in Lebanon severely damaged.

On June 30, the Israeli Navy commandeered the vessel off the coast of Gaza. The Israeli military later issued a statement saying the boat had attempted to break a blockade of Gaza and was forced to sail to an Israeli port after ignoring a radio message to stay out of Gaza waters. The Spirit of Humanity was towed to Ashdod and the crew was detained pending deportation proceedings. After a security check of the humanitarian supplies, Israel officials promised to deliver them to Gaza by ground. Greta Berlin, a representative of the Free Gaza Movement in Cyprus, said: "We are outraged, they just stole our boat and kidnapped our people." Israeli officials blame the group for the controversy, saying they were looking for confrontation to attract publicity.

Also Hedy Epstein was not on board any of the ships. I doubt any of the notables were on the Turkish ship either. Keep in mind there two U.S. ships, two Greek ships, and one Irish ship and it is likely most of the notables were on board those ships.

The videos getting thrown about should also be seriously questioned. They come from the IDF and ultimately only seem to show part of it, the very beginning. Nothing is shown to actually justify the use of lethal force. Also, we do not know if the IDF acted differently concerning the Turkish ship than the others. Given that the others flew flags from the U.S. or from EU Member States it is quite possible they were much more measured in their treatment of those ships and more aggressive concerning the Turkish ship.

While the Turkish charity that helped sponsor the expedition is known to occasionally be involved with terrorist groups this in no way means their intentions were anything but humanitarian in this case and certainly doesn't equate to the expedition being sponsored by a terrorist group.

Let us consider the circumstances of this event. While the videos shown indicate there was violence from people on the ship it is the kind one often finds in any large protest action, which is what this was. They were launching a protest action against the Israeli blockade of Gaza and had success in the past as Israel did not even stop some past expeditions. So while there was violence it is what one might expect. None of the videos show what sparked the use of live ammunition and the number of casualties causes me to doubt that they merely targeted those who posed a serious threat. Even according to the IDF only three pistols were taken from soldiers and the small number of injured on the IDF side does not seem to warrant the current figures for how many died. To be clear the IDF were not helpless or outnumbered. Undoubtedly they could have restrained most of these people without the use of lethal force.

While I think they had a legitimate claim to some self-defense the soldiers probably overreacted resulting in an unnecessary loss of life. Labeling these protesters as "thugs" and various other accusations to portray them as violent instigators is just the typical apologetics in these cases of overzealous restraint of violent protest.

The probable results are the condemnations of Israel that were already made, a UN security council meeting and the further increase in damage to the already destroyed Turkish-Israeli relations.
It is important to say that it is only the Turkish controlling party that is hostile towards Israel, and that the Turkish people do not support it as they did anymore.
Erdogan is not bound to be the prime minister after the next elections.
I do fear however that if an Israeli inquiry would find that the Turkish government was involved, it would take harsh steps against it on the international stage, and I'm against any of that kind of actions.

You are quite wrong to assume the Republican People's Party will show any favor to Israel:

Main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) Bursa deputy Onur Öymen, himself a former diplomat, says Turkey should have deployed war ships to accompany the aid convoy.

“There were statements that Israel was going to resort to violence to stop the flotilla. What did Turkey in light of these statements? Did Turkey take an initiative considering the possibility of such an attack?” Öymen asked in an interview with Today's Zaman. Stating that the current situation shows that Turkey did not take necessary steps to protect these ships, he added that what is upsetting is that the government neither deterred Israel from an intervention nor properly protected the convoy.

Source: Today's Zaman

So if the opposition had its way this could have been a far more serious incident and much more damaging to Turkish-Israeli relations. You really need to educate yourself on Turkish politics. The CHP's roots go back to Ataturk who built Turkey as it is today by ethnically cleansing and massacring the Greeks who weren't exterminated by the Ottoman genocide. Secularists in Turkey are actually even more likely to align themselves against Israel and the West. Erdogan may be hostile to Israel, but that is something which has developed over time as a combination of Israel's actions and Turkey's improving relations with Iran. The AKP is more pro-Western than the secularists and that just shows the seriousness of their geopolitical shift away from the West. Israel should begin counting Turkey among its enemies.
 
so, you would have us believe the armed IDF soldiers did not air assault the vessel in international waters? whose helicopters, with dangling ropes, were hovering above the ship?

You just don't seem to get it...... Israel was justified by international law to stop and search those ships. Haven't you read all of the citations to that effect in this thread?.... why do you ignore the facts and continue spewing your crap?
 
so, you would have us believe the armed IDF soldiers did not air assault the vessel in international waters? whose helicopters, with dangling ropes, were hovering above the ship?

The soldiers boarded a ship that they had every right to board, since the flotilla had announced to the world they were going to attempt to run the blockade.
 
You just don't seem to get it...... Israel was justified by international law to stop and search those ships. Haven't you read all of the citations to that effect in this thread?.... why do you ignore the facts and continue spewing your crap?

I've read the whole thread, maybe skimmed a few pages, but read all the thread.

No, I don'd read that under International Law she had the right to enter a ship in International waters. I read the opposite.
 
Yeah, he must have fallen off, lmao. I still like to know exactly how 10 peope died but that could well have been the first.

Sink the Belgrano!
 
Yeah, he must have fallen off, lmao. I still like to know exactly how 10 peope died but that could well have been the first.
It isn't clear at all. That is what I said. The video had writing to tell you what was happening because it knew it was unlcear. Such a thing is not evidence.

Sink the Belgrano!

You must have missed the thread in the European section where I gave my opinion on the Falklands.
 
I've read the whole thread, maybe skimmed a few pages, but read all the thread.

No, I don'd read that under International Law she had the right to enter a ship in International waters. I read the opposite.

I know it's easy to miss things.....

Mark Regev, spokesman for the Prime Minister of Israel, has stated that "the San Remo memorandum states, specifically 67A, that if you have a boat that is charging a blockaded area you are allowed to intercept even prior to it reaching the blockaded area if you've warned them in advance, and that we did a number of times and they had a stated goal which they openly expressed, of breaking the blockade. That blockade is in place to protect our people."[55] The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea was adopted in June 1994 after a series of round tables of naval and legal experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law. In paragraph 67 it permits belligerents to attack merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States if they "are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture". Paragraph 146 permits the capture of neutral merchant vessels outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67.[56]

Gaza flotilla clash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's 1/2 way down the page under "Legality of raid"
 
Well it certainly looks as if the soldier falls off for some reason but I certainly cannot make out the other things. It is not clear at all. Do you not think that people have reason to fear they are under attack when people start coming down from a helicopter onto their ship?

Answer to your question, no. All those involved in this long planned, carefully scripted, flotilla operation should have had a fair idea of exactly what was going to happen when they tried to run the blockade. And would also suspect that many of the passengers on the ship had their roles/actions pre-determined based on specifically how or what the Israeli response(s) were.....


.
 
The Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) is based on customary international law, including the Hague Conventions. It does not "create" authority for visiting/inspecting ships. It only defines what is permissible. Whether one is or is not a signatory of the Convention does not mean that one lacks authority to visit/inspect ships. Such authority existed prior too the LOSC.

You only get authority under international law if you are bound by the treaties that created that international law.

It's that simple.
 
So by this argument, and International law, Israel was fully justified in their actions...... thanx for playing. ;)

No -- by my argument, Israel is as justified in their actions as the Somali pirates, because their argument is might makes right.

Thanks for playing.
 

very disputed according to your link. While Israel may think it is legal, others do not

Mark Regev, spokesman for the Prime Minister of Israel, has stated that "the San Remo memorandum[66] states, specifically 67A, that if you have a boat that is charging a blockaded area you are allowed to intercept even prior to it reaching the blockaded area if you've warned them in advance, and that we did a number of times and they had a stated goal which they openly expressed, of breaking the blockade. That blockade is in place to protect our people."[67]

Senior political analyst Marwan Bishara of Al Jazeera has stated that "Attacking other nations' citizens in international waters because they resisted arrest is not only illegal, but serves to demean international legal norms."[68] Turkey, the unofficial sponsor of the mission has said through its Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, "this attack is state terrorism, violating international law." The Turkish government has requested NATO convene in an emergency session to discuss the incident.[69][70]

Robin Churchill, a professor of international law at the University of Dundee in Scotland, said the Israeli commandos boarded the ship outside of Israel's territorial waters. "As far as I can see, there is no legal basis for boarding these ships," Churchill said.[71]

Dr. Robbie Sabel of Hebrew University, an international law expert, has stated that "a state, in a time of conflict, can impose an embargo, and while it cannot carry out embargo activities in the territorial waters of a third party, it can carry out embargo activities in international waters. Within this framework it is legal to detain a civilian vessel trying to break an embargo and if in the course of detaining the vessel, force is used against the forces carrying out the detention then that force has every right to act in self defense."[72]

On Monday, a group of lawyers including Avigdor Feldman, Yiftah Cohen, Itamar Mann and Omer Shatz petitioned the Israeli High Court, charging that Israel had violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by capturing the boats in international waters. Robbie Sabel, the former legal adviser to the Israeli foreign ministry, told The Jerusalem Post that the state would almost certainly argue that the seizure of the vessels was an executive act with which the court was not authorized to intervene.[73]

Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said she was registering shock "at reports that humanitarian aid was met with violence early this morning, reportedly causing death and injury as the convoy approached the Gaza coast"[74] and that "nothing can justify the appalling outcome of this operation, which reportedly took place in international waters."[75] Voice of Russia reported that "Russia calls attention to the fact that the Israeli interception of a Gaza-bound international aid flotilla took place in international waters, which represents a gross violation of international law".[76] The Organization of the Islamic Conference, an association of 57 Islamic states promoting Muslim solidarity, described the flotilla incident as "a serious escalation and a flagrant violation of the international law and human values." The organization further said it would initiate action at the level of the Security Council and the Human Rights Commission to examine the fallout of the attack.[77][78]

Ove Bring, expert on public international law, said that Israel had no right to take military action.
[79]

Like I said, Israel may say it is legal but others do not.
 
It isn't clear at all. That is what I said. The video had writing to tell you what was happening because it knew it was unlcear. Such a thing is not evidence.
If 'such is not evidence' then maybe the whole thing has not happened, you may wonder where Al-Jahzeera based its death toll on. Reasonability, without it, everything's unclear. Sometimes things are just what they seem to be. Let's assume, for now, that the writing describes what happens in the video shall we?

You must have missed the thread in the European section where I gave my opinion on the Falklands.
I did, you were in favor of that decission?
 
Answer to your question, no.

So you are boarded in the high seas and not just by people from other boats which would require some time, but by people coming down from helicopters and you do not believe you are under attack? :shock:

I would be thinking SAS, guns are going to start firing. SAS for me because I am British but I can see no reason to board a ship from a helicopter if there is not a sense of urgency. Army and sense of urgency means bullets flying.


All those involved in this long planned, carefully scripted, flotilla operation should have had a fair idea of exactly what was going to happen when they tried to run the blockade. And would also suspect that many of the passengers on the ship had their roles/actions pre-determined based on specifically how or what the Israeli response(s) were......

This is speculation.
 
The soldiers boarded a ship that they had every right to board, since the flotilla had announced to the world they were going to attempt to run the blockade.

the illegal and illegitimate blockade. And only a few Israeli contest the illegality of the boardings.
 
If 'such is not evidence' then maybe the whole thing has not happened, you may wonder where Al-Jahzeera based its death toll on. Reasonability, without it, everything's unclear. Sometimes things are just what they seem to be. Let's assume, for now, that the writing describes what happens in the video shall we?
Footage which is so unclear that it needs writing to say what it apparently is and is produced on Youtube is certainly not sufficient evidence. It is unclear footage that someone has attached words to. I could not even make out if what was written was true. On top of that you would need to see what was really happening, but hey if for you one and a half minutes on youtube which is so unclear is sufficient for you to make a decision on something, I will take note.
I did, you were in favor of that decission?

As I didn't even support the Falklands what makes you think I would support probably the most controversial thing that happened. However this thread is not on the Falklands. You seemed to be wanting to have a go at me, my country, with the Falklands. This is not personal, just like the Falklands were not personal to me and given I did not support them, even less so.

(Edit. Sorry, miss read that you had missed it)
 
Last edited:
the illegal and illegitimate blockade. And only a few Israeli contest the illegality of the boardings.

The legality of the Gaza blockade itself is only matched by the audacity of an assault on aid ships in International waters by a nation that refuses to sign international agreements it calls on when it suits. There's a horrible situation here on this forum whereby Israeli commandos are the "victims" and not the citizens of Gaza who are on the end of "collective punishment" - a process outlawed under Geneva Conventions. (International Law)
 
The legality of the Gaza blockade itself is only matched by the audacity of an assault on aid ships in International waters by a nation that refuses to sign international agreements it calls on when it suits. There's a horrible situation here on this forum whereby Israeli commandos are the "victims" and not the citizens of Gaza who are on the end of "collective punishment" - a process outlawed under Geneva Conventions. (International Law)

Pretty much.
 
Seriously what's the point of arguing about it? The truth shall never be the truth now because you're all going to politicize this til the cows come home and neither side will give in to the truth, because they'll believe the truth was fabricated to support one side or the other.
 
Back
Top Bottom