• 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


I actually like the name of the boat the MV Rachael Corrie that will piss off the Israelis a little, since it's the name of an American that was killed by bulldozers.
Rachel Corrie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh I do love irony that the new ship is named after someone they killed while protesting them tearing down houses, and now the ship is going to tear down a blockade. :lol:


Here is a old interview that she had done during her stay in the middle east.




She was murdered on March 16th, 2003 while protesting Israel who was tearing down houses that didn't belong to them.
 
Last edited:
Why? I am sure they do not. The Irish are a stubborn bunch once they have decided on something.

Heh. Don't I know it. :)

Maybe there are just going to be boat after boat after boat.

I do not think there will be any more killings.

I certainly hope not. As long as they don't violently resist, they should be okay. My comment was more a figure of speech than anything else.

I actually like the name of the boat the MV Rachael Corrie that will piss off the Israelis a little, since it the name of an American that was killed by bulldozers.
Rachel Corrie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh I do love irony that the new ship is named after someone they killed while protesting them tearing down houses, and now the ship is going to tear down a blockade. :lol:

Yeah, that is ironic indeed.
 
Latest development:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu decided Tuesday that Israel will not prosecute or continue to hold the participants it captured from the Gaza protest flotilla, despite earlier indications from Israel that some of those who attacked the Israeli soldiers boarding the ships will be prosecuted.

All flotilla activists to be deported
 
The person on the news said that on one of the 'non violent' ships which he was on, people decided to sit in passive resistance. He said they were beaten. This was an elderly American man. He said his friend was beaten black and blue and was in hospital but the Israeli's were letting no one see him because they did not want people to see the state he was in.

Now I watched this man on tonight's BBC news and I am sure he was being completely honest as to what he knows.

Then there's no point in me trying to debate with you any more. If you've made your mind up based on nothing but the bare allegations of one of the involved parties, then I can't expect you to be open-minded about anything else.

I know you do not believe in civil disobedience and passive resistance and I do. Violence against non violence is violence.

How is attacking a group of soldiers "passive resistance"?

Again, I don't have a problem with the actions of the other boats. I have a problem with the people who attacked the soldiers and then cried when they lost.

The boat where there was violence was the first boat and the largest. Yes, people fought the Israelis but the Israelis were also detonating things to get people's attention away from the people parachuting in. Likely they felt under attack. If reports of attempted lynchings are accurate then there is no excuse for that. That is criminal activity, no excuses available. We will need to wait and see.

The situation is still far from clear.

And yet you've made up your mind that these soldiers beat an unarmed elderly man who was offering no resistance.

About the knives: yes of course, as I've explained kitchen usually contain knives

About the bats & pipes: I don't know what they've used exactly but if it is just pipes, then yes too

About catapults: what kind of catapult? Can you show me a picture/video where I could see one?

About slingshots: are you considering that as a weapon?!?

Israeli Gaza aid flotilla raid: British families face anxious wait for news | Mail Online

If you believe that it was chance that they happened to have these things handy to fight back, then we'll again have to agree to disagree.
 
You are grasping at straws don. I have provided evidence that humanitarian vessel are exempt from attack. I have provided evidence that it is customary international law for Israel to abide by the rules of innocent passage in international waters.

You are repeatedly stating Israel had the right to inspect a ship in international waters, well outside its jurisdiction. You provide no cite for this. No piece of international law that grants power for Israel to exercise authority outside its jurisdiction. I am sorry, but you need a better grasp on international law.

You have not. Instead, the context you have selectively excluded e.g., the language I cited, demonstrates otherwise. Moreover, precedents established by UK and U.S. boarding of ships suspected of carrying narcotics in international waters--precedents that have not been overturned--demonstrates the reality that visits/inspections of ships except in a very limited number of circumstances is perimissible under international law. Furthermore, Japan's move to grant authority to its Coast Guard to board North Korean vessels in international waters illustrates that Japan also understands international law to permit such inspections. If the position you argue for were correct, none of those precedents would stand, as they would have been challenged and reversed, and Japan would almost certainly not be working to grant its Coast Guard authority to board North Korean ships in international waters.
 

You're either misreading your own links or are being deliberately disingenuous.

You quote Art. 17, which covers the right of "innocent passage" and Art. 18 which defines passage, and leave it at that as if you've proven your case. Yet you leave out Art. 19, which actually defines "innocent passage":

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State,
or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;

(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

It's obvious that these ships are not covered under the rights of innocent passage, meaning that your inclusion of Art. 17 and 18 and exclusion of Art. 19 either stems from ignorance of the law or a deliberate attempt to hide the truth.

Next, you quote a section that deals with Merchant and Government ships entering waters for an economic purpose. That's inapplicable here, but even if it were, you're still wrong for several reasons. First, that language explicitly allows for arrest and investigation where there is an alleged crime that would affect the state, as is the case here. Second, the text you bolded is entirely irrelevant.

the coastal State may not take any steps on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation in connection with any crime committed before the ship entered the territorial sea, if the ship, proceeding from a foreign port, is only passing through the territorial sea without entering internal waters.

First, the ship was not boarded in the territorial sea, so this is not applicable. Even if we pretended it were, this only applies where the crime being investigated occurred before the ship entered the place where it was boarded. Since the crime in question was a violation of Israeli rules on shipments to Gaza, that's not applicable.

In short, nothing you've said here offers any support for your claims, even if Israel were a signatory to this convention.

(Fun fact: Guess who else isn't a signatory? Turkey!)
 
You have not. Instead, the context you have selectively excluded e.g., the language I cited, demonstrates otherwise. Moreover, precedents established by UK and U.S. boarding of ships suspected of carrying narcotics in international waters--precedents that have not been overturned--demonstrates the reality that visits/inspections of ships except in a very limited number of circumstances is perimissible under international law. Furthermore, Japan's move to grant authority to its Coast Guard to board North Korean vessels in international waters illustrates that Japan also understands international law to permit such inspections. If the position you argue for were correct, none of those precedents would stand, as they would have been challenged and reversed, and Japan would almost certainly not be working to grant its Coast Guard authority to board North Korean ships in international waters.

Those are not precedents because they are not analagous. The US and UK board ships because they have reasonable suspicion they are carrying illicit narcotics, which is permissible under under the Laws of Sea. Israel boarded a humanitarian ship on a relief mission where no reasonable suspicion of narcotics is plausible. For it to be precedent, the flotilla would have to have been carrying drugs instead of humanitarian aid.

Nice try though. You have still yet to provide any evidence that a State is permitted to exercise authority outside its territorial jurisdiction.
 
Those are not precedents because they are not analagous. The US and UK board ships because they have reasonable suspicion they are carrying illicit narcotics, which is permissible under under the Laws of Sea. Israel boarded a humanitarian ship on a relief mission where no reasonable suspicion of narcotics is plausible. For it to be precedent, the flotilla would have to have been carrying drugs instead of humanitarian aid.

Nice try though. You have still yet to provide any evidence that a State is permitted to exercise authority outside its territorial jurisdiction.

I provided two specific examples where states exercised authority outside of their own territorial waters, examples that have not been challenged in the International Court of Justice, much less overturned. You have yet to provide any evidence that states cannot inspect vessels in international waters. That is not surprising, because the San Remo Memorandum, Law of the Sea Convention, and customary international law do not prohibit such inspections.
 
Sending in commandos with painball guns and flash grenades doesn't demonstrate deadly intent either.

So what exactly did the Israeli commandos hope to accomplish with paintball guns? Some owies?

If they had no "deadly intent," why board the humanitarian ships at all? If their intent was just to "dissuade" those on a humanitarian mission by driving them into retreat with paintballs or the like, they coulda just, y'know, lobbed water balloons at them from afar. Why initiate a forceful attempt to board?

:roll:

I think the bottom line here is, we're still not entirely clear on the chain of events. Still, given the long-term attempts by Israel to punish/marginalize/ discriminate against those along the Gaza strip, I'm not particularly inclined to give Israel a pass.

In fact, far from it.
 
Last edited:
If we assume (as newspapers report) that it has happened in international waters, do you think that the israeli commando had the right to board these ships?

And, second question, let's also assume that the deads are not Israeli (that's also very likely, but newspapers have to confirm that), don't you think that the use of force (10 killed apparently) is totally out of proportion with the danger caused by these ships (humanitarian ships loaded with wheelchairs and food, with several European MEP and apparently some guys who had knives)?
If this was the case then why did the flotilla resist, this would be a act of aggression. Any country would have done the same thing, to have a naval blockade against a country which it is currently under a state of war with. This flotilla was lucky that all ships weren't sunk, then the survivors plucked from the water. A Naval blockade is to insure that weapons weren't being smuggled through under the guise of humanitarian aide. Lets not forget the wolf packs of WW2 in the North Atlantic and the Cuban crisis to cite recent examples of Naval Blockades.
 
You're either misreading your own links or are being deliberately disingenuous.

You quote Art. 17, which covers the right of "innocent passage" and Art. 18 which defines passage, and leave it at that as if you've proven your case. Yet you leave out Art. 19, which actually defines "innocent passage":



It's obvious that these ships are not covered under the rights of innocent passage, meaning that your inclusion of Art. 17 and 18 and exclusion of Art. 19 either stems from ignorance of the law or a deliberate attempt to hide the truth.
First let me address the parts you made bold:

-2a: The aid ships made no threat or use of force against Israel's sovereignty. International waters are not part of Israel's sovereignty. Neither is Gaza's coast. They just control it. While rejecting the notion that they are still the Occupying Power in Gaza.
-2d: The ships intent was to bring humanitarian aid to a place where a humanitarian crisis exists. Obviously this upsets you, which is why you would even consider such a relief mission as propaganda. It didn't become propaganda until Israel broke international law and boarding a ship it had no authority to board.
-2g: The ship was headed to Gaza's coast, not Israel's. Humanitarian aid to Gaza does not break any of Gaza's customs. Just Israel's illegal blockade on Gaza. You'll notice the law is clear when it refers to the coastal State, and not the other coastal State that happens to occupy it.

Next, you quote a section that deals with Merchant and Government ships entering waters for an economic purpose. That's inapplicable here, but even if it were, you're still wrong for several reasons. First, that language explicitly allows for arrest and investigation where there is an alleged crime that would affect the state, as is the case here. Second, the text you bolded is entirely irrelevant.



First, the ship was not boarded in the territorial sea, so this is not applicable. Even if we pretended it were, this only applies where the crime being investigated occurred before the ship entered the place where it was boarded. Since the crime in question was a violation of Israeli rules on shipments to Gaza, that's not applicable.

In short, nothing you've said here offers any support for your claims, even if Israel were a signatory to this convention.

(Fun fact: Guess who else isn't a signatory? Turkey!)
Israel and Turkey do not have to be signatories to a convention to be binded by that convention. I'm sure you have heard of customary international law well before this incident.
 
So what exactly did the Israeli commandos hope to accomplish with paintball guns? Some owies?

If they had no "deadly intent," why board the humanitarian ships at all? If their intent was just to "dissuade" those on a humanitarian mission by driving them into retreat with paintballs or the like, they coulda just, y'know, lobbed water balloons at them from afar. Why initiate a forceful attempt to board?

:roll:

...to prevent the ship from continuing forward. I'm not sure why that's so implausible.

I think the bottom line here is, we're still not entirely clear on the chain of events. Still, given the long-term attempts by Israel to punish/marginalize/ discriminate against those along the Gaza strip, I'm not particularly inclined to give Israel a pass.

In fact, far from it.

Which might be contributing to your refusal to recognize a perfectly rational reason for boarding the ship.
 
I provided two specific examples where states exercised authority outside of their own territorial waters, examples that have not been challenged in the International Court of Justice, much less overturned. You have yet to provide any evidence that states cannot inspect vessels in international waters. That is not surprising, because the San Remo Memorandum, Law of the Sea Convention, and customary international law do not prohibit such inspections.

You provided two examples that are not analogous with the incident we are discussing in this thread. Had the US and UK boarded humanitarian vessels on a relief effort, then you may have a point. The US and UK boarded boats that were smuggling narcotics (permissible according to article 108). Come back when you have an appropriate analogy.
 
First let me address the parts you made bold:

-2a: The aid ships made no threat or use of force against Israel's sovereignty. International waters are not part of Israel's sovereignty. Neither is Gaza's coast. They just control it. While rejecting the notion that they are still the Occupying Power in Gaza.
-2d: The ships intent was to bring humanitarian aid to a place where a humanitarian crisis exists. Obviously this upsets you, which is why you would even consider such a relief mission as propaganda. It didn't become propaganda until Israel broke international law and boarding a ship it had no authority to board.
-2g: The ship was headed to Gaza's coast, not Israel's. Humanitarian aid to Gaza does not break any of Gaza's customs. Just Israel's illegal blockade on Gaza. You'll notice the law is clear when it refers to the coastal State, and not the other coastal State that happens to occupy it.


Israel and Turkey do not have to be signatories to a convention to be binded by that convention. I'm sure you have heard of customary international law well before this incident.
Isreal is currently in a state of war with Hamas who currently rules Gaza and what sense would be to blockade Israels own coast, weapons are known to be smuggled through Gaza's ports. The purpose of this naval blockade is to stop arms being shipped to Isreals enemies, and Isreal I am sure is not going to take the word of this Flotilla's organizers who have links to Hamas and Al Queda that no arms are being shipped, this would be foolish.
 
Isreal is currently in a state of war with Hamas who currently rules Gaza and what sense would be to blockade Israels own coast, weapons are known to be smuggled through Gaza's ports. The purpose of this naval blockade is to stop arms being shipped to Isreals enemies, and Isreal I am sure is not going to take the word of this Flotilla's organizers who have links to Hamas and Al Queda that no arms are being shipped, this would be foolish.
here is that same assertion, never supported by evidence
how about a link to the evidence showing the close ties to al qaeda and the "flotilla's organizers"
 
Israel wasn't going to board these ships if this flotilla didn't attempt to run the blockade but, considering that the flotilla didn't head the orders of the Isaelie navy, then this would be a act of aggression and Israel being in a state of war, had every right to board or sink the flotilla.
 
You provided two examples that are not analogous with the incident we are discussing in this thread. Had the US and UK boarded humanitarian vessels on a relief effort, then you may have a point. The US and UK boarded boats that were smuggling narcotics (permissible according to article 108). Come back when you have an appropriate analogy.

There is nothing in international law that precludes inspections of such vessels in international waters. The absence of such provisions in international law is sufficient to negate the spurious claims earlier in this thread that ships cannot be boarded and inspected in international waters. Israel's seeking to board and inspect the flotilla's ships to ensure that weapons were not being smuggled into the Gaza Strip is compatible with international law. Circumstances of other boardings do not have to be identical. The basis for doing so has to be reasonable. Illicit weapons smuggling is a reasonable basis. The Proliferation Security Initiative, a 17-nation effort, authorizes the boarding of ships suspected of carrying WMD, their delivery systems, or related materials. Furthermore, the PSI may be expanded to include other trafficking activities.

As Israel has repeatedly been victimized by rockets fired from the Gaza Strip, Israel has a critical interest in stopping the smuggling of such weapons into the Gaza Strip and, under international law, can proceed to board vessels suspected of carrying such weapons or their components, even if such vessels are in international waters.
 
here is that same assertion, never supported by evidence
how about a link to the evidence showing the close ties to al qaeda and the "flotilla's organizers"
I never stated anything about CLOSE ties, I said links therefor google it not hard to find, that way you can judge for yourself and we won't get into a debate about who links are valid or not valid.
 
You provided two examples that are not analogous with the incident we are discussing in this thread. Had the US and UK boarded humanitarian vessels on a relief effort, then you may have a point. The US and UK boarded boats that were smuggling narcotics (permissible according to article 108). Come back when you have an appropriate analogy.

Apparently these "humanitarian" vessels were carrying a cache of bulletproof vests, night-vision goggles as well as gas masks. A group of 50 passengers with possible terror connections have refused to identify themselves and were not carrying passports. Many of them were however carrying envelopes packed with thousands of dollars in cash.

Link

Seems that the idea of "humanitarian flotilla" is quickly falling apart.
 
...to prevent the ship from continuing forward. I'm not sure why that's so implausible.

:confused: Because the ships going forward were not even remotely a threat to Israel, its people, nor its ability to continue being an autonomous nation. The ships were carrying freakin' food, medicine, protective gear, and supplies to put roofs over the heads of a people surrounded by rabid paranoiacs who would attempt to divert and/or attack those who wish to assist others in dire need. Duh.

Which might be contributing to your refusal to recognize a perfectly rational reason for boarding the ship.

Well, you might think that a rag-tag collection of humanitarian workers/aid is some kind of massive threat to the autonomy of a powerful nation-state (WITH FREAKIN' NUKES I might add), but as far as I'm concerned you'd be entirely incorrect in that nutty assumption.

And before anyone saddles up for the YOU HATE J00Z!~! posse, it's important to know that for decades I've been squarely behind Israel in its attempts to create a safe haven for its people. I'm a Polack. My grandparents were dragged out of their beds and massacred just like the Jews were. My aunts and uncles ended up in Nazi concentration camps just like the Jews did. I'm no Jew hater.

I am, however, able to recognize when the oppressed become oppressors. And I will condemn that forever, regardless of religious, ethnic, or social ideology.
 
:confused: Because the ships going forward were not even remotely a threat to Israel, its people, nor its ability to continue being an autonomous nation. The ships were carrying freakin' food, medicine, protective gear, and supplies to put roofs over the heads of a people surrounded by rabid paranoiacs who would attempt to divert and/or attack those who wish to assist others in dire need. Duh.



Well, you might think that a rag-tag collection of humanitarian workers/aid is some kind of massive threat to the autonomy of a powerful nation-state (WITH FREAKIN' NUKES I might add), but as far as I'm concerned you'd be entirely incorrect in that nutty assumption.

And before anyone saddles up for the YOU HATE J00Z!~! posse, it's important to know that for decades I've been squarely behind Israel in its attempts to create a safe haven for its people. I'm a Polack. My grandparents were dragged out of their beds and massacred just like the Jews were. My aunts and uncles ended up in Nazi concentration camps just like the Jews did. I'm no Jew hater.

I am, however, able to recognize when the oppressed become oppressors. And I will condemn that forever, regardless of religious, ethnic, or social ideology.
You have to remember that Israel endured 7000 rocket attacks, which were smuggled thru this route, Israel by right should visually verify what is being shipped, that's all it wanted to do. Running a Naval Blockade isn't a good idea regardless what century we are in or what country is doing the Naval Blockade.
 
They had indeed. I read some pretty scary warnings myself



:shock: What exactly did you think these people were carrying? This makes it sound like you believe that Israel believed it was in for a fight. Such beliefs frequently create the situation, one way or another.


Then why have I seen pictures of Israeli approaching boats by boat? I stay by what I said. Descending from the sky would have scared the hell out of me. I think they had every reason to believe they were under attack particularly when this was done in International waters - no not particularly because it was in International waters, it would have been extremely scary anyway, but it is worse because it was.
Usually when there is a ship to ship boarding party, it is usually agreed to before hand by both parties. Bringing two ships into close proximity of each other not knowing what is on board is very risky, and leaves the inspecting ship at great risk. The helo insertion and how it approached the ship is up to speculation, was the helo's exchaust pointed in a upward position as to reduce noise or was it in the normal position which would have given the passsengers plenty of warning. Not to mention the Israelie navy gave plenty of warning what it's intentions were.
 
You have to remember that Israel endured 7000 rocket attacks, which were smuggled thru this route

And why do you suppose those rocket attacks happened? Because the Palestinians weren't being fenced in by Israelis, weren't denied basic human necessities by Israelis such as food and water, weren't forced out of their homes by Israelis so Israelis could "reclaim" their so-called lands? You think Palestinians picked a fight with a sovereign nation because they didn't have anything else to do that day?

Sorry, but I don't buy it, and the rest of the world is rapidly waking up to the reality that Israeli has become an unrepentant bully in its neighborhood. I can no longer support their antagonistic, aggressively Zionist view of the world. They're simply wrong, IMO.
 
Back
Top Bottom