• 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

The only boat where there was violance is on the big one...On all other boats no one was beat or anything, they cooperated and everything went smooth and their cargo is already in Gaza :_)

Peace activist == Passive resistance

Stupid Activist == ZOMGKNIFE STAB STAB STAB :lol:

That may be what you have been hearing and there was indeed no violence against Israelis on any of the other boats. However as I said, yesterday an elderly American on one of the 'non violent' boats reported that when people sat down in passive resistance they were subject to beatings. He believed the Israelis were trying to keep this hidden. We will need to wait to hear what more people say happened on their boats.

How do you think Israel will respond to the further Turkish boats and to the Irish boat?
 
That article is from the 1st of June, from yesterday.
My assumption that your sources are not dated was correct.
As to current time, the 2nd of June, it is a fact that 9 people have died as the BBC states it clearly, "Nine activists died" -BBC.
Not immidately after as the word "triggered" implied.
I don't have time to look for the direct source, but here's one of the sources from a quick googling:
Israel begins freeing foreigners held after Gaza flotilla raid - CNN.com

Every merchant vessel on the World's oceans must carry at least one firearm, usually one handgun and one assault rifle, for the protection of the vessel from acts of piracy, terrorism and mutiny. That's quite a simple answer, isn't it? The use of such weapons when the vessel is being stormed by helicopter-borne commandoes would be entirely legitimate. Clearly whatever firearms the vessels possessed may have been used, but clearly not with lethal effect as none of the storming commandoes were killed. Of course, Netanyahu's fanclub will not accept any criticism either of his government's policy, nor of the IDF actions, so this thread is doomed to remain a "yes they did, no they didn't" exchange.
 
The same way they did with this one but hopefully if it came down to having to take over the boat legally like this time, it would be done with a brain behind the operation to limit the casualties on both sides to zero.

they will prob send warships next time to cause a stalemate untill the crew agrees to have their cargo checked..
 
I think is more like how much the world has become to hate Isael, kind of like it was in the 1930's leading up to the 1940's. The difference today is that the people of Israel won't lay down and take it this time. The enemy is niether the Palistinians or Israelies but those who are ruling the Palitinian people, using them as pawns and have been for some time now.
 
indeed it is, but Bibi is an idiot and he has no idea what he is doing...its sad he is PM again..we used to have such good governments here who did beatfull millatery operations which had limited casualties and were amazingly done. But now days the IDF is starting to look like an old grandpa trying to throw a baseball its a hit and miss...at lest untill they replace the defense minister cause I think his time has gone already..
 
The same way they did with this one but hopefully if it came down to having to take over the boat legally like this time, it would be done with a brain behind the operation to limit the casualties on both sides to zero.

they will prob send warships next time to cause a stalemate untill the crew agrees to have their cargo checked..

Yes, I agree, this is more a battle of wits than bullets - or should be;)
 
Every merchant vessel on the World's oceans must carry at least one firearm, usually one handgun and one assault rifle, for the protection of the vessel from acts of piracy, terrorism and mutiny. That's quite a simple answer, isn't it? The use of such weapons when the vessel is being stormed by helicopter-borne commandoes would be entirely legitimate. Clearly whatever firearms the vessels possessed may have been used, but clearly not with lethal effect as none of the storming commandoes were killed. Of course, Netanyahu's fanclub will not accept any criticism either of his government's policy, nor of the IDF actions, so this thread is doomed to remain a "yes they did, no they didn't" exchange.

The use of live fire against those who board your ship after you refuse to comply with them and do not turn back/stop the ship is obviously not legitimate if you aren't under attack.
Once the soldiers were under live fire they've had the right to self-defense and have used it.
 
So when do we hold the nation of Isreal to the same standard as we hold everyone else? Does the fact that the Holocaust happened give them some kind of free pass?
 
So when do we hold the nation of Isreal to the same standard as we hold everyone else? Does the fact that the Holocaust happened give them some kind of free pass?

I don't think that this is the issue. I think it has more to do with the spiral of self-denial in which the Israeli state (and increasingly people) are engaged in. They believe that whatever actions are taken are legitimate because of the hostile environment in which they undoubtedly exist. It's understandable but self-defeating. This article is well written and thoughtful...

Patrick Cockburn: PR dangerously distorts the Israeli sense of reality - Commentators, Opinion - The Independent
 
I think is more like how much the world has become to hate Isael.

Are you serious? It's perfectly justified to blame Israel for the blockade, and it's perfectly justified to blame Israel for the disproportionate use of force during a boarding whose legality is disputed, to say the least.

If you use the WWII analogy, I think you should think again about who is the oppressor and who are the oppresed.
 
I think people in Israel are not in self denial, maybe our older than earth government is...I mean ffs we had the same people in office since the 40's wtf 0-0
 
Are you serious? It's perfectly justified to blame Israel for the blockade, and it's perfectly justified to blame Israel for the disproportionate use of force during a boarding whose legality is disputed, to say the least.

If you use the WWII analogy, I think you should think again about who is the oppressor and who are the oppresed.


Actually when you got CHINA condeming you just after they supported NK sinking the SK boat killing 43 people...Thats just hatred 0-0
 
since the six-day war in 1967 Israel has been fixated on military force. The mantra is: what can't be done by force can be done with even greater force.

Israel's siege of the Gaza Strip is one of the rank products of this view. It originates in the mistaken assumption that Hamas can be defeated by force of arms; or, in more general terms, that the Palestinian problem can be crushed instead of solved.

But Hamas is not just a terror organisation. Hamas is an idea. A desperate and fanatical idea that grew out of the desolation and frustration of many Palestinians. No idea has ever been defeated by force – not by siege, not by bombardment, not by being flattened with tank treads, and not by marine commandos. To defeat an idea you have to offer a better idea, a more attractive and acceptable one. The only way for Israel to edge out Hamas is for it to quickly reach an agreement with the Palestinians on the establishment of an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as defined by the 1967 borders, with its capital in East Jerusalem.

(...)

But we cannot allow ourselves to forget for even a moment that force is effective only as a preventative – to prevent the destruction and conquest of Israel, to protect our lives and freedom. Every attempt to use force not as a preventative, not in self-defence, but instead as a means of smashing problems and squashing ideas, will lead to more disasters – just like the one we brought on ourselves in international waters, on the high seas, opposite Gaza's shores.

Against ideas, Israel's force is impotent | Amos Oz | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
 
Actually when you got CHINA condeming you just after they supported NK sinking the SK boat killing 43 people...Thats just hatred 0-0

China...and the rest of the world, including the whole European continent
 
China...and the rest of the world, including the whole European continent

Europe has a lot to say with little to act or base it on. they are founded on the most dystructive and hateful roots in history ( no offense)
And they they are uniting under EU ( somthing stinks in here) with no expirance in any modern warfar/politics of this matter.

They assume they know something, when in reality they are just assuming their asses off..Just my 2 cents I like europe, but I think they talk alot out of their ass ^^
 
Europe has a lot to say with little to act or base it on. they are founded on the most dystructive and hateful roots in history ( no offense)
And they they are uniting under EU ( somthing stinks in here) with no expirance in any modern warfar/politics of this matter.

They assume they know something, when in reality they are just assuming their asses off..Just my 2 cents I like europe, but I think they talk alot out of their ass ^^

You sound just like Chinese people I have heard of forums. They say Britain was colonialist in their past, now China wants it's turn. They say the US stole the Native American land and they want Tibet.

Deal with how people are acting now.

Whatever way, let's see how long any country can survive without friends.
 
For those who care about international law:

Will the rule of law be applied to Israel this time? In principle, it is unlawful for a state to enforce a blockade against ships that are flying the flag of another state on the high seas. The only exceptions to this would be if the blockade were mandated by the UN security council acting under chapter VII of the UN charter.

(...)

While international law does allow for exceptions to the above rule, entitling warships to interfere with ships flying the flag of another state while in international waters in limited circumstances, those exceptions do not apply to the events of 31 May. Indeed, a 1988 treaty (to which Israel is a party) criminalises the unlawful and intentional seizure or exercise of control over a ship by force, and all connected injuries or deaths.

If the Israeli boarding of the ship was illegal, then arguably the passengers were entitled to act in self-defence against the invading commandos. If so, they could use reasonable force to defend themselves, the amount of force permitted being determined by Turkish law.

Who will bring Israel to book over flotilla attack? | Daniel Machover | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
 
Europe has a lot to say with little to act or base it on. they are founded on the most dystructive and hateful roots in history ( no offense)
And they they are uniting under EU ( somthing stinks in here) with no expirance in any modern warfar/politics of this matter.

They assume they know something, when in reality they are just assuming their asses off..Just my 2 cents I like europe, but I think they talk alot out of their ass ^^

Let's see...

Israel has a lot to say with little to act or base it on. they are founded on the most dystructive and hateful roots in history ( no offense)
And they they are uniting under Netanyahu ( somthing stinks in here) with no expirance in any modern warfar/politics of this matter.

They assume they know something, when in reality they are just assuming their asses off.


Does that sound just a bit anti-semitic to you? Is a rancid bunch of knee-jerk prejudice acceptable, or not, depending on the target?
 
You sound just like Chinese people I have heard of forums. They say Britain was colonialist in their past, now China wants it's turn. They say the US stole the Native American land and they want Tibet.

Deal with how people are acting now.



Whatever way, let's see how long any country can survive without friends.

Yeah you are right sorry if my post came off like that.. I have a bad habbit of phailing to get ideas from me head onto paper/forums D:

What I ment is that Europe has no expirance with whats happening in Israel right now, ( all the rest was me being an idiot i appoligize) they never had to deal with these kinds of events, and Israel is the only nation on earth to have this expirance with it.
I propose if any other europian nations were to be in Israel's shoes they would also be like that, the world just sees us as we are cause we are diff, cause we are the only ones in this situation :)

Again sorry for any disprespectful things I posted ^^
 
China...and the rest of the world, including the whole European continent

And the fact that they've all quickly and immidately condemned Israel without knowing the facts or waiting for any kind of investigation speaks more about their hatred towards the Jewish state than anything else.
The entire world sees Israeli soldiers being assaulted, and they expect them not to strike back.
It's the traditional inhuman and demonic hatred towards anything that has the letters of the word Israel in it, it's the claims for disproportionality when 9 people out of more than one 100 lynchers die after they attempt to kill the soldiers that they outnumber, because the soldiers are Israeli, it's the claims for illegitimized boarding after the constant attempts to end this peacefully before the interceptions are being refused, because the soldiers are Israeli, it's those kind of claims that speak out of nothing but pure hatred towards the Jewish state.
 
Let's see...

Israel has a lot to say with little to act or base it on. they are founded on the most dystructive and hateful roots in history ( no offense)
And they they are uniting under Netanyahu ( somthing stinks in here) with no expirance in any modern warfar/politics of this matter.

They assume they know something, when in reality they are just assuming their asses off.


Does that sound just a bit anti-semitic to you? Is one bunch of knee-jerk prejudice acceptable, or not, depending on the target?

Not to me its 100% true, there is basicly no modern nation that is not like that

And Bibi ( Netanyahu) is the biggest cancer to happen to Israel in its history tbh not only did he support the killing ot Yitzchat rabbin ( which is a huge anti democratic value to support) he also did stupid mistakes on his first term and his second is as much as a phail...Why is he PM..Cause our governemnt is run by old people older than time itself..
 
For those who want to know the motives of the guys on the humanitarian convoy:

Since the military attack on a fleet of civilian ships in international waters, Israel's well oiled spin machine has imposed a total news blackout about the survivors, taking their phones and denying them access to consular representation. The void has instead been filled with disinformation about the passengers on board the Mavi Marmara ferry. For those of us with colleagues and loved ones of whom we still have no clear news, such lies only exacerbate our anxiety and fury. So, before I have to read another weasel word from politicians about inquiries into the motives of the flotilla, let me shed some light on the kind of people either hospitalised or being illegally held in prisons in the south of the country.

In 2008 I was a passenger on the first ever effort to break the Gaza blockade in a peaceful, non-violent, but very direct way. Tired of the international community's refusal to act while 1.8 million Palestinians were being systematically denied their human rights on a daily basis, 46 people from all walks of life prepared to sail from Cyprus to Gaza. Kathy Sheetz, a nurse from the US, Therese McDonald, a Scottish postal worker. and Osama Qashoo, a Palestinian film-maker now resident in the UK, were on board then as now. And we too were called "provocateurs" by the Israeli media, "leftwing radicals" and "terrorist sympathisers".

Our mission was simply to show the population of Gaza that normal people cared about their plight; that we saw their hunger, their fear, their imprisonment, their struggle; and that we – everyday folk with good hearts – would do what we could to bring their plight to the eyes of the world.


Then, as now, our intention was never to go anywhere near Israel's shores, nor its waters, nor its military. Then, as now, the cargo on our ships was rigorously checked by European port authorities and stamped as free from any weapons whatsoever. We believed, back in those innocent days, that this would not furnish Israel with even the most vapid excuse to board or attack us on the pretext that we were a security threat. Then, they did not. This week, they did.

Let me ask you one final question that's been troubling me, as sympathy for those apparently fragile Israeli commandos continues to pour in. If you were on a boat in the Mediterranean and hundreds of the world's most notoriously violent soldiers started falling from the sky, wouldn't you defend yourself? The brave human beings on the Mavi Marmara were acting in self-defence. And because of this many died. Something of the hopeful child in me died with them.

Why we sailed to Gaza | Lauren Booth | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
 

Here is even more on that:

Gaza flotilla raid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
International law experts differ over the legality of the Israel action, with some saying that the raid is a violation of the Law of the Sea, while others maintain that Israel may legally board foreign vessels in international waters as part of a naval blockade. Both sides agree that Israel is required by law to respond with the proportional use of force in the face of violent resistance.[134]
Legal opinions supporting the action

Mark Regev, spokesman for the Prime Minister of Israel, referring to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, said:
“ 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.[135][136] ”

The non-binding[137] San Remo memorandum (paragraph 60, chapter e) states that refusing an order to stop or actively resisting visit, search, or capture may render merchant vessels military objectives. Paragraph 47, chapter c, states that vessels engaged in humanitarian missions and carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of civilian population are exempt from attack, on condition they were operating based on "agreement between the belligerent parties", but the government of Israel has indicated that it had not agreed to the vessels breaking the blockade.[136][138]

"The Israeli blockade itself against Gaza itself is not illegal, and it's okay for Israeli ships to operate in international waters to enforce it," said Allen Weiner, former U.S. State Department attorney and legal counselor at the American Embassy in The Hague, and now a Stanford Law School professor.[139]

According to Abbas Al Lawati, a Dubai-based Gulf News journalist on board the flotilla, Israel is likely[140] to cite the Gaza–Jericho Agreement (Annex I, Article XI) which vests Israel with the responsibility for security along the coastline and the Sea of Gaza. The agreement stipulates that Israel may take any measures necessary against vessels suspected of being used for terrorist activities or for smuggling arms, ammunition, drugs, goods, or for any other illegal activity.[141]

Tel Aviv University law professor Yoram Dinstein has written that "there are several instances of contemporary (post-UN Charter of the Law of the Seas) practices of blockades, e.g., in the Vietnam and in the Gulf War."[142]
Legal opinions opposing the action

Richard Falk, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory said that the “ships were situated in the high seas where freedom of navigation exists, according to the law of the seas” and called for those responsible to "be held criminally accountable for their wrongful acts".

In a legal analysis published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a staff expert on international law explained that countries are not allowed to extend their sovereignty on areas outside of their coastal waters. In a zone extending 24 nautical miles from the coast, countries have the right to inspect ships in order to enforce immigration and public health laws and regulations. In international waters, if there is reasonable suspicion of piracy or human trafficking, a country has the right to access foreign ships. If the suspicion remains, it can search the ship. Israeli soldiers have the right to defend themselves. If Israel has used force against the ships without legal justification, the crew members had the right to defend themselves.[143]

Robin Churchill, international law professor at the University of Dundee in Scotland, said there was no legal basis for boarding the ships as they were in international waters. [144] Ove Bring, Swedish international law professor, said that Israel had no right to take military action.[145] That was supported by Mark Klamberg at Stockholm University.[146] Hugo Tiberg, maritime law professor[147] and Geir Ulfstein, professor at maritime law at University of Oslo[148] while Jan Egeland, director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs said that only North Korea behaved in international waters in the same manner as Israel.[149] Canadian scholar Michael Byers notes that the event would only be legal if the Israeli boarding were necessary and proportionate for the country's self defence. Byers believes that "the action does not appear to have been necessary in that the threat was not imminent."[150] Jason Alderwick, a maritime analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies of London, was quoted as saying that the Israeli raid did not appear to have been conducted lawfully under the convention.[151] Anthony D'Amato, international law professor at Northwestern University School of Law, argued that the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea applies to a situation in which the laws of war between states are in force. He said the laws of war do not apply in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, which isn't even a state. He said the law of the Geneva Conventions would apply.[134] Said Mahmoudi, expert on international law, said that boarding a ship on international waters, kill and capture civilians is not in line with the law.[152]

A group of Israeli lawyers, including Avigdor Feldman, 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. [153] In response to the petition, Israel's legal team wrote that "the petition suffers from a fundamental distortion in the description of the events as they actually transpired in reality, to such a degree that it is unclear what relationship there is between it and the possibility of doing justice, as the petitioners claim to seek in their action."[142]

Turkey's foreign minister called the raid "a grave breach of international law and constituted banditry and piracy—it was “murder” conducted by a State, without justification".[16] Prominent Turkish jurists have characterized Israel's actions as a violation of international law and a "war crime." Dr. Turgut Tarhanlı of the University of Istanbul cited the concept of innocent passage, under which vessels are granted safe passage through territorial waters in a manner which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the state.[154]

Dr. Turgut Tarhanlı, from the law department of İstanbul Bilgi University, said

the Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that a coastal state may consider intervention if a ship is engaged in arms and drug smuggling, the slave trade or terrorist activities. However, the case with the aid boats is totally different. They set sail in accordance with the Customs Act and are known to be carrying humanitarian aid, not weapons or ammunition. According to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, Israel was not entitled to launch a military operation against the boats and activists.[155]

According to the charges that they had weapons/nvg/etc both the governments of Turkey and Norway have already commentated on that:
Turkish officials denied that weapons were on board, stating that every passenger had been searched with X-ray machines and metal detectors before boarding. Senior officials in the Customs Undersecretariat called the Israeli allegations tantamount to "complete nonsense".[105] A senior Norwegian officer stated after watching the released pictures that "This is not military equipment", and that the pictures showed mostly kitchen-knives and equipment which were normal onboard a ship.
 
And the fact that they've all quickly and immidately condemned Israel without knowing the facts or waiting for any kind of investigation speaks more about their hatred towards the Jewish state than anything else.
The entire world sees Israeli soldiers being assaulted, and they expect them not to strike back.
It's the traditional inhuman and demonic hatred towards anything that has the letters of the word Israel in it, it's the claims for disproportionality when 9 people out of more than one 100 lynchers die after they attempt to kill the soldiers that they outnumber, because the soldiers are Israeli, it's the claims for illegitimized boarding after the constant attempts to end this peacefully before the interceptions are being refused, because the soldiers are Israeli, it's those kind of claims that speak out of nothing but pure hatred towards the Jewish state.

So as usual those who dare to point out that Israel does not care about international law are "anti-Israeli". And in this case it's the entire world. Gosh!

calimero.1239543982.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom