• 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

It should be noted that the video should be used in combination with other evidence. By itself, it offers just a slice of evidence. The full body of evidence will provide the facts as to what happened. Several quick things:

1) The video shows some of what was taking place.
2) Hospital records related to the treatment of the injured soldiers will provide evidence as to how the soldiers were injured i.e., beaten, stabbed, shot.
3) Interviews with some of those detained may shed additional light on what happened.
4) The results of the examination of the cargo of the ship in question e.g., if the ship was carrying illicit weapons, the resistance of ship's crew might have been expected as such individuals could be subject to prosecution.
 
alexa said:
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.
Click to expand...

The passengers on the ship knew exactly who was boarding and why they were boarding. They had been warned it would happen. Accessing from a "ship to ship" avenue would have been much more exposed/dangerous for the Israeli soldiers. The helicopter decision should have been an easy one to make.


This is speculation.
Click to expand...

Second part of my statement can be considered speculation. First part is pretty well documented.


.
 
Cole said:
The passengers on the ship knew exactly who was boarding and why they were boarding. They had been warned it would happen.
Click to expand...

They had indeed. I read some pretty scary warnings myself

Cole said:
Accessing from a "ship to ship" avenue would have been much more exposed/dangerous for the Israeli soldiers.
Click to expand...

: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.
Cole said:
The helicopter decision should have been an easy one to make.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
IMHO this is akin to aiding and abetting terrorism in that it alleviates pressure on Hamas while simultaneously putting pressure on Israel. I just can't find any sympathy for a people who voted for an organization which calls for the extermination of world Jewry. I would no more cry for the poor "Palestinians" as I would for the poor Germans during WW2 suffering under the allied Air Campaign.
 
alexa said:
:shock: What exactly did you think these people were carrying?
Click to expand...

If you mean the "relief ships"...... like, maybe weapons? It's not like the people in Gaza have ever attacked Israel is it?... and beings the ships came from Turkey, that should be a dead give away that no weapons could ever be suspected aboard..... Right?
 
As for all this talk of international waters, so I wonder is it illegal to stop and board smugglers in international waters? I don't think so, and on these peoples own admission that is exactly what they were.
 
donsutherland1 said:
It should be noted that the video should be used in combination with other evidence. By itself, it offers just a slice of evidence. The full body of evidence will provide the facts as to what happened. Several quick things:

1) The video shows some of what was taking place.
2) Hospital records related to the treatment of the injured soldiers will provide evidence as to how the soldiers were injured i.e., beaten, stabbed, shot.
3) Interviews with some of those detained may shed additional light on what happened.
4) The results of the examination of the cargo of the ship in question e.g., if the ship was carrying illicit weapons, the resistance of ship's crew might have been expected as such individuals could be subject to prosecution.
Click to expand...

We can rely on the IDF to make a neutral inquiry and show us the truth.
 
Agent Ferris said:
As for all this talk of international waters, so I wonder is it illegal to stop and board smugglers in international waters? I don't think so, and on these peoples own admission that is exactly what they were.
Click to expand...

Of course you are correct, but the Israel haters will never agree with you here...... I wonder if they feel the same about the US efforts against smugglers in The Gulf of Mexico?
 
Crunch said:
If you mean the "relief ships"...... like, maybe weapons? It's not like the people in Gaza have ever attacked Israel is it?... and beings the ships came from Turkey, that should be a dead give away that no weapons could ever be suspected aboard..... Right?
Click to expand...

I understand that these ships had been checked already for weapons. Piecies of metal sound like the kind of thing a ship may well need and marbles could easily be toys. Catapults, not exactly what your prime terrorist uses. This was a relief ship. Aid can no longer be brought through Egypt as Galloway found out...... and Israel has not attacked Gaza?...... and Israel has not had Gaza under blockade for years for political reasons?...... and the children of Gaza are not increasingly suffering from malnutrition and stunted growth because of this?

60 percent of Gaza children suffer malnutrition and anemia

Aid is needed.
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
As for all this talk of international waters, so I wonder is it illegal to stop and board smugglers in international waters? I don't think so, and on these peoples own admission that is exactly what they were.
Click to expand...

Since Israel isn't a signatory on the treaties that conjured into being the international law in question.

Ergo, they can't invoke it legitimately or legally.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect.

International Humanitarian Law - San Remo Manual 1994
SECTION III : DECEPTION, RUSES OF WAR AND PERFIDY

109. Military and auxiliary aircraft are prohibited at all times from feigning exempt, civilian or neutral status.

110. Ruses of war are permitted. Warships and auxiliary vessels, however, are prohibited from launching an attack whilst flying a false flag, and at all times from actively simulating the status of:

(a) hospital ships, small coastal rescue craft or medical transports;
(b) vessels on humanitarian missions;
(c) passenger vessels carrying civilian passengers;
(d) vessels protected by the United Nations flag;
(e) vessels guaranteed safe conduct by prior agreement between the parties, including cartel vessels;
(f) vessels entitled to be identified by the emblem of the red cross or red crescent; or
(g) vessels engaged in transporting cultural property under special protection.
Click to expand...
 
alexa said:
I understand that these ships had been checked already for weapons. Piecies of metal sound like the kind of thing a ship may well need and marbles could easily be toys. Catapults, not exactly what your prime terrorist uses. This was a relief ship. Aid can no longer be brought through Egypt as Galloway found out...... and Israel has not attacked Gaza?...... and Israel has not had Gaza under blockade for years for political reasons?...... and the children of Gaza are not increasingly suffering from malnutrition and stunted growth because of this?

60 percent of Gaza children suffer malnutrition and anemia



Aid is needed.
Click to expand...
Doesn't make a bit of difference...... that ship was trying to run the blockade, and by international law, Israel was within their rights to stop it and search it. Case closed.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

could you please provide us with the source which documents israel's rights to assault this ship in international waters. i look forward to seeing what you offer by way of documentation
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Since Israel isn't a signatory on the treaties that conjured into being the international law in question.

Ergo, they can't invoke it legitimately or legally.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't change the fact that they acted under said laws. :2wave:
 
Crunch said:
Which doesn't change the fact that they acted under said laws. :2wave:
Click to expand...

They can't act under said laws because they are not bound by said laws.

Until they sign the appropriate treaty documents, they can't invoke international law, and there's nothing they can do or say to get around that fact.
 
justabubba said:
could you please provide us with the source which documents israel's rights to assault this ship in international waters. i look forward to seeing what you offer by way of documentation
Click to expand...


You've been given that a half dozen times.... San Remo Manual 1994.

If you refuse to accept international law there is no hope for you.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
They can't act under said laws because they are not bound by said laws.

Until they sign the appropriate treaty documents, they can't invoke international law, and there's nothing they can do or say to get around that fact.
Click to expand...



So by that arguement they did nothing wrong...... thanx for playing.
 
Sucks when parties don't abide to international law doesn't it. Could be an eye-opener for Hamas and other terrorist groups.
 
Last edited:
Crunch said:
Was there a point to this?
Click to expand...

Seriously...?
SECTION V : DEFINITIONS

13. For the purposes of this document:

(a) international humanitarian law means international rules, established by treaties or custom, which limit the right of parties to a conflict to use the methods or means of warfare of their choice, or which protect States not party to the conflict or persons and objects that are, or may be, affected by the conflict;
(b) attack means an act of violence, whether in offence or in defence;
Click to expand...
SECTION III : ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT EXEMPT FROM ATTACK

Classes of vessels exempt from attack

47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:

(a) hospital ships;
(b) small craft used for coastal rescue operations and other medical transports;
(c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:
(i) cartel vessels, e.g., vessels designated for and engaged in the transport of prisoners of war;
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;
(d) vessels engaged in transporting cultural property under special protection;
(e) passenger vessels when engaged only in carrying civilian passengers;
(f) vessels charged with religious, non-military scientifc or philanthropic missions, vessels collecting scientific data of likely military applications are not protected;
(g) small coastal fishing vessels and small boats engaged in local coastal trade, but they are subject to the regulations of a belligerent naval commander operating in the area and to inspection;
(h) vessels designated or adapted exclusively for responding to pollution incidents in the marine environment;
(i) vessels which have surrendered;
(j) life rafts and life boats.
Click to expand...
SECTION III : DECEPTION, RUSES OF WAR AND PERFIDY

109. Military and auxiliary aircraft are prohibited at all times from feigning exempt, civilian or neutral status.

110. Ruses of war are permitted. Warships and auxiliary vessels, however, are prohibited from launching an attack whilst flying a false flag, and at all times from actively simulating the status of:

(a) hospital ships, small coastal rescue craft or medical transports;
(b) vessels on humanitarian missions;
Click to expand...

Come back when you have a point.
 
Crunch said:
So by that arguement they did nothing wrong...... thanx for playing.
Click to expand...

No, by that argument they had just as much authority to do what they did as the Somali pirates have to do what they do. As I've said elsewhere.


Thanks for playing. As I've said elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
TacticalEvilDan said:
So . . . there's no hope for Israel? :lol:
Click to expand...

Israel is fine, they stopped a ship that may or may not have been carrying weapons to Gaza but was for a fact going to run their blockade.... all within international law.

Actually, I think they showed great restraint by not sinking that ship after they were attacked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom