If the UN cannot be regarded as impartial, then who can? If, and I don't think this would be accepted by anyone other than the most partisan pro-Israeli, the UN is not the impartial body to adjudicate and investigate the incident, who would you suggest should do so? Perhaps you believe that no investigation of the raids and the deaths is necessary.
The UN is in no way, shape or form impartial. Take a look at some of the GA condemnations of Israel that have come out in the past few years and try to tell me that it's impartial.
Then who do suggest would be more impartial than the UN? Whilst the UN may have passed many, many resolutions that the Israelis have failed to adhere to (perceived as Israel-critical bias?) they have failed repeatedly to enforce them (pro-Israeli bias?). There is no such thing as an objective party, just one that attempts to behave in an impartial manner.
Who said there has to be an impartial body? I doubt there is such a thing in any areas of international law, particularly in the IP conflict. I've got no problem with the UN conducting its own investigation, in addition to the other investigations that will go forward. What I take issue with is the faulty conclusion that because it's the UN, it must be impartial.
I think the Israeli government has gone too far. There were many other incidents which shook me considerably, but this one is very troubling. Attacking humanitarian aid people and calling them people trying to "delegitimate" Israel. Calling an aid ship an "enemy ship, intruding into Israeli waters"....My, my, what arrogance.
Also, the US just watched the incident without batting an eye, while it roared in anger when NK tested nukes which killed nobody (I'm not pro-North Korean)......
Perhaps because the testing of nuclear weapons is marginally more dangerous than a raid on a ship?
Well we clearly have a different view on this. I do not know your age but many changes happened because people were willing to put in a stand against what was. You will find this in the suffragette movement, civil rights movement, CND and so on. Civil disobedience is where people are willing to make a stand despite risk because they believe that what they are working for is worth that. A green peace boat got shot at and possibly destroyed by France when involved in such action. What is, is not always, what is right. Civil disobedience has gone out of fashion but it is a powerful force for change. Note how everyone is talking about how the situation in Gaza must change now and that includes in Israel, certainly by the news reports I have heard.
Civil disobedience is the decision to break the law because you think that the law is unjust. Part and parcel with that decision is the fact that you will be subjected to the harms attendant to breaking the law. I don't care whether you or anyone else sympathizes with the underlying goal of these protesters, because that's not the point. When they were boarded after declaring their intent to violate Israeli law, they decided to fight back. That's not civil disobedience, that's a ****ing fight.
If they had done what
actual civil rights protesters did and sat there peacefully while the troops boarded their boat, they would be ****ing heroes today. Instead, they started a fight and some of them ended up dead. That's what you get when you attack a military officer, regardless of whether you think you're doing the right thing.
For everything apart from the violence including as I hear people choosing detention rather than deportation, it is appropriate for their objective. For the violence, I need to find out more. The best strategy is always complete pacifism in such situations. We know one Brit is among the injured. Like all the killed and injured, this is not good.
And again, had they done this in the first place, this would have played out very differently.
The link below asks an interesting question. Israel forcefully boarded a ship of another nation Turkey in International Waters. What will happen if Turkey decides to send another ship but next time with a military escort. Interesting question.
YouTube - Inside Story: A look into the aid flotilla attack by Israel
Israel will wait until it's within its territorial waters and then do the same exact thing.
I expect comments like that from many Americans on the forum who misunderstand the nature and workings of the UN - didn't expect that from you Don.
Do you have a unique insight into how the UN operates? The fact that you think it's not biased doesn't make that the sole reasonable position.
Indeed some are international sympathisers including a couple of German MPs. Why are they locked up?
They were given the option of detention or deportation. They chose detention. That's why they're locked up.
Why are they all saying that it is illegal then?
Because most "experts" in international law are overwhelmingly opposed to individual state action? The average international law "expert" is convinced that the UN is the ultimate body that should have complete and total control over all international isses. They cringe at the idea of the use of force outside of SC authorization, and become filled with rage every time someone reminds them that Art. 2(4) is little more than a fantasy.
Is it ****ing stupid to run an illegal blockade, or just ****ing brave when the only weapons you have are a couple of hunting knives and a slingshot? That David, when he took on Goliath, he was just ****ing stupid, eh?
And here your real position is laid out for all to see. You think it's "bravery" to declare your intention to violate the law of a sovereign nation and then to attack those who try to enforce that law.
Knives? I think I was the one who mentioned them. There were knives, we saw knives, please don't raise red herrings. My point here is that the only "evidence" you are using is the "evidence" of what the Israelis are saying. Up until now we haven't known the extent of injuries or the evidence of the activists testimonies because Israel has kidnapped them.
:rofl You're kidding right? The activists who are currently being held were given the option of being deported or detained. They chose to be detained. In what alternate universe does that constitute kidnapping?
Reporters that are returning are know saying that IDF fired first at
people on the ship.
Witness have spoken out
Did you actually read your own article? It says nothing about being fired on. It reports the claims of an Al-Jazeera reporter who says that the IDF is throwing flash-bangs onto the deck. That's a little different than firing bullets.
Killing 10 to 20 people and wounding 36 more while a single one is said to have stolen a pistol to an IDF soldier is very disproportionate.
Nuking a ship in response to attacks on soldiers and reports of live fire = disproportionate
Using limited physical force and live ammunition in response to attacks on soldiers and reports of live fire = perfectly proportionate