• 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

RyrineaHaruno said:
And the ones who are facing court will not be jailed, if the other Nations are calling for everyone too be realsed
Click to expand...

A bit of a strange one. I heard they still wanted to go to Gaza. Must be very strange.
 
RightinNYC said:
I strongly disagree. First, there were some casualties. Second, you're saying that despite the fact that those riots caused millions of euros in damage, injured hundreds of police officers (and many more rioters), and are repeated almost every year, the government policy is a success simply because there are only a small handful of people who are actually killed? If I were someone whose car got torched and father got put into a coma, I'm pretty sure I'd be kind of pissed despite the fact that nobody I knew was actually killed.
Click to expand...

The police killed no one, that's why it is a success. Of course there were a lot of damages, many cars burnt, but that's nothing compared to human lives. If I was someone whose brother got killed, I'm pretty sure I'd be more than pissed off.






Yes you can, but I'm still not sure how that's relevant. Police officers are always trained to shoot for the chest rather than the extremities because shooting for an extremity is incredibly risky and unlikely to serve the actual purpose, which is to stop the attack.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it takes some level of violence to kill 10 to 20 people and wound 36 others, more than what is likely to be needed to stop an attack of people armed with clubs and one guy with a pistol. Compare with the casualty rates of the riots in the French suburbs, 128 policemen wounded and no rioter killed.


I think that our views on what's reasonable are too far apart to be reconciled. I can't imagine anyone looking at their colleague getting stomped by a crowd and saying "well, I better not go down there and help. They can probably just make it to the edge and jump in the ocean and we'll all go on our merry way."
Click to expand...

I have no idea of how it precizely happened or how it has started, but it is difficult to me to conceive that they would have killed the first 2 or 3 commandos if the boarding had been aborted, since they apparently did not have firearms. If their goal had been to kill, they'd have taken guns with them!



And a lot less than there would have been had the military not used restraint.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they could have boarded with flamethrowers, or sunk the boat directly!



The soldiers were equipped with paintball guns, which they were told to use if necessary. They also had sidearms, but were instructed not to use them unless fired upon. According to reports, they were not used until an activist stole one away from a soldier in a pile and started firing at the soldiers.
Click to expand...

I know
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
And the ones who are facing court will not be jailed, if the other Nations are calling for everyone too be realsed
Click to expand...

I guess, but who knows this is Israel we are talking about lol
Also we got Bibi, and he is the biggest Idiot to be PM in a long LONG time...How did he get to be PM again after his first reign of Idiocracy I will never understand..( I do but I dont get why!?!?!?!?!?! :roll: )
 
Zyphlin said:
You don't need to go "Israel is lying" and "the humanatarians are telling the truth" in specific, literal words to basically be saying those exact same things.
Click to expand...

Well in fact it is not true at all.

In none of my posts I've said that the guys on the ships had not started using violence.

But that is the Israeli version, the version of the people who organized the convoy is that the Israeli soldiers started shooting for no reason.
 
bub said:
...then still call it a "blockade" but let the food enter, at least.
Click to expand...

You little propagandists seriously need to get freaking educated on this whole matter, because Israel offered to allow the ship to enter an Israeli port where the food and medical supplies would then be transferred to Gaza, that deal was rejected because this was never about humanitarian aid it was about a PR stunt led by proven terrorist supporters with links to global jihadists.
 
bub said:
Of course they wanted to create an incident, and they succeeded.

As for Israel offering to deliver the food...then why don't they simply end the blockade? Why do they still prevent things like pasta, shampoo, coffee or chocolate to enter Gaza? That's what they should have done: check what enters Gaza but let everything enter Gaza, except weapons.
Click to expand...

Because that alleviates pressure on Hamas. Israel as they are in a state of armed conflict with Hamas have no obligation to the "Palestinians" save to allow through things; such as, food and medicine. Why would they allow a people who voted for their extermination to have such creature comforts as coffee and chocolate?
 
alexa said:
But people have complained about being 'roughed up' on them when they tried passive resistence.
Click to expand...

Link? Even if true, that's part of civil disobedience, and can do nothing but help the cause. If MLK was "roughed up" by the police, did he respond by attacking them with bats and knives, or try to take their guns?

bub said:
The police killed no one, that's why it is a success. Of course there were a lot of damages, many cars burnt, but that's nothing compared to human lives. If I was someone whose brother got killed, I'm pretty sure I'd be more than pissed off.
Click to expand...

Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Yeah but it takes some level of violence to kill 10 to 20 people and wound 36 others, more than what is likely to be needed to stop an attack of people armed with clubs and one guy with a pistol. Compare with the casualty rates of the riots in the French suburbs, 128 policemen wounded and no rioter killed.
Click to expand...

And if this had happened on a street during the daytime in a planned protest with the proper equipment, I'm sure nobody would have been killed. However, it happened at night, on a boat, with activists attacking out of nowhere as soldiers dropped from a helicoptor one by one. It's not really analogous.

I have no idea of how it precizely happened or how it has started, but it is difficult to me to conceive that they would have killed the first 2 or 3 commandos if the boarding had been aborted, since they apparently did not have firearms. If their goal had been to kill, they'd have taken guns with them!
Click to expand...

No, they absolutely wouldn't. Had they brought guns, it would have been clear that they were trying to start violence and there would be little sympathy for them. That's why they made sure to bring a whole bunch of things that could be used as weapons, but could also be held out as having a peaceful purpose. They knew exactly what they were doing, both in having those weapons at hand and in trying to take the soldiers guns.
 
About the legality of the boardings:

Turkey had earlier accused Israel of violating the international laws that prohibits countries from interfering in the navigation of ships on international waters. Some experts, however, argue, citing examples from the past, that not every instance of interference on international waters would necessarily mean a breach of the law.

“Countries could stop vessels at a reasonable distance in international waters if they believe that they could pose a security threat,” Hakan Hanlı, a senior attorney-at-law and an expert on international law, told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review on Tuesday. The lawyer, however, also criticized the way Israeli security forces handled the situation.

“The first thing Israel had to do, according to law, was to show themselves to the boats and inform them that they’re ready to interfere. Next, according to the same laws, they should have fired at the front of the boats to slow them down or change their course,” he said. “If the boat doesn’t stop, they are not to fire, but to come abreast of the boat with their own boat in order to change its course.”

In addition, Hanlı said, “the Israeli government should have contacted other countries, especially Turkey, to ensure that the country whose flag is flown on the boat contacts the captain and orders a change of course.” Israel, he added, did none of these things.
Click to expand...

Turkey launches long-term diplomatic war against Israel - Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review
 
RightinNYC said:
That's why they made sure to bring a whole bunch of things that could be used as weapons, but could also be held out as having a peaceful purpose. They knew exactly what they were doing, both in having those weapons at hand and in trying to take the soldiers guns.
Click to expand...

Well you can hurt someone with every object. You can throw books, laptops, bottles...you could kill someone with a civil code if you threw it at his face.
 
donsutherland1 said:
"except in accordance with this convention..." is the key qualifier. For that, one has to go to Articles 95 and 96. The ships that are immune from inspection are spelled out. The flotilla would not qualify.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bub said:
Well you can hurt someone with every object. You can throw books, laptops, bottles...you could kill someone with a civil code if you threw it at his face.
Click to expand...

And yet we didn't see many people fighting with civil codes, but there were plenty who had bats, knives, and other weapons at hand within moments of the Israeli's coming down from the helicoptor. Why do you think those things were all up on deck as opposed to being down in the holds?
 
RightinNYC said:
And yet we didn't see many people fighting with civil codes, but there were plenty who had bats, knives, and other weapons at hand within moments of the Israeli's coming down from the helicoptor. Why do you think those things were all up on deck as opposed to being down in the holds?
Click to expand...
Probably because they heard the helicopters? When they are less than 200 yards away they are quite easy to hear. And in some news reports it was stated that the commandos set of a non lethal explosion to distract attention from their boarding. That right there is cause for anyone to think they are under attack.
 
RightinNYC said:
And yet we didn't see many people fighting with civil codes, but there were plenty who had bats, knives, and other weapons at hand within moments of the Israeli's coming down from the helicoptor. Why do you think those things were all up on deck as opposed to being down in the holds?
Click to expand...

In big ships like that there are always kitchens, and in kitchens there are alwyas knives.

As for the rods, I don't often go on board of ships but I think it's not very difficult to find one, you just need to find a small pipe, which you can find everywhere in ships
 
Degreez said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see any evidence that customary international law would require Israel not to act here. I've also not seen any evidence that it did not have inherent authority to do what it did. I don't think that it's don who needs the better grasp on international law.
 
Degreez said:
Probably because they heard the helicopters? When they are less than 200 yards away they are quite easy to hear. And in some news reports it was stated that the commandos set of a non lethal explosion to distract attention from their boarding. That right there is cause for anyone to think they are under attack.
Click to expand...

"Non-lethal explosion," or in non-spin mode, flashbangs.

bub said:
In big ships like that there are always kitchens, and in kitchens there are alwyas knives.

As for the rods, I don't often go on board of ships but I think it's not very difficult to find one, you just need to find a small pipe, which you can find everywhere in ships
Click to expand...

Do either of you honestly believe that it was happenstance that these people had all these things handy? The knives, the bats, the pipes, the catapults, the slingshots with marbles, etc.?

There's exactly one explanation for why they had all those things at hand that they used as weapons - they planned on using them as weapons, but wanted to be able to make the exact argument you're making right now.
 
RightinNYC said:
Link? Even if true, that's part of civil disobedience, and can do nothing but help the cause. If MLK was "roughed up" by the police, did he respond by attacking them with bats and knives, or try to take their guns?
Click to expand...

who is MLK?

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.

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

To me, assuming what this man says is true, it indicates to me that the army were heavy handed for the situation

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.
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
You little propagandists seriously need to get freaking educated on this whole matter, because Israel offered to allow the ship to enter an Israeli port where the food and medical supplies would then be transferred to Gaza, that deal was rejected because this was never about humanitarian aid it was about a PR stunt led by proven terrorist supporters with links to global jihadists.
Click to expand...

i keep seeing this argument to justify the israeli assault on a vessel carrying humanitarian supplies to a gaza under seige

why would one expect israel, which has imposed a seige and denies the gazans access to the supplies the ship carried, to now enable the transport of those goods to the gazans
it defies logic
one can only conclude that the supplies would have been pilfered with only those not subject to embargo from reaching the gaza destination
otherwise, the israelis would be found to have effectively discontinued their own embargo
 
RightinNYC said:
Do either of you honestly believe that it was happenstance that these people had all these things handy? The knives, the bats, the pipes, the catapults, the slingshots with marbles, etc.?
Click to expand...

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?!?
 
RightinNYC said:
I have yet to see any evidence that customary international law would require Israel not to act here. I've also not seen any evidence that it did not have inherent authority to do what it did. I don't think that it's don who needs the better grasp on international law.
Click to expand...
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm
SECTION 3. INNOCENT PASSAGE IN THE TERRITORIAL SEA

SUBSECTION A. RULES APPLICABLE TO ALL SHIPS

Article17

Right of innocent passage

Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.

Article18

Meaning of passage

1. Passage means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of:

(a) traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility outside internal waters; or

(b) proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such roadstead or port facility.

2. Passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only in so far as the same are incidental to ordinary navigation or are rendered necessary by force majeure or distress or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in danger or distress.
Click to expand...
SUBSECTION B. RULES APPLICABLE TO

MERCHANT SHIPS AND GOVERNMENT SHIPS

OPERATED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES

Article27

Criminal jurisdiction on board a foreign ship

1. The criminal jurisdiction of the coastal State should not be exercised 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 on board the ship during its passage, save only in the following cases:

(a) if the consequences of the crime extend to the coastal State;

(b) if the crime is of a kind to disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the territorial sea;

(c) if the assistance of the local authorities has been requested by the master of the ship or by a diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag State; or

(d) if such measures are necessary for the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.

2. The above provisions do not affect the right of the coastal State to take any steps authorized by its laws for the purpose of an arrest or investigation on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea after leaving internal waters.

3. In the cases provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2, the coastal State shall, if the master so requests, notify a diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag State before taking any steps, and shall facilitate contact between such agent or officer and the ship's crew. In cases of emergency this notification may be communicated while the measures are being taken.

4. In considering whether or in what manner an arrest should be made, the local authorities shall have due regard to the interests of navigation.

5. Except as provided in Part XII or with respect to violations of laws and regulations adopted in accordance with Part V, 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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
"Non-lethal explosion," or in non-spin mode, flashbangs.
Click to expand...
A flash bang or a stun grenade is military equipment. What was the first action from the forceful boarding? The commandos blinding the passengers. Any reasonable person would be under the assumption that they were under attack.
RightinNYC said:
Do either of you honestly believe that it was happenstance that these people had all these things handy? The knives, the bats, the pipes, the catapults, the slingshots with marbles, etc.?
Click to expand...
No. I think they saw the swarm of helicopters from a distance and realized what could happen. Usually if you saw a helicopter in Gaza, it meant you were gonna be blown up by Hellfire missiles. At this point in time, the passengers had done nothing wrong. Israel already broke protocol call by not alerting Turkey (it was the Turkish flag that was flying on the lead ship) and requesting them to contact the captain.
RightinNYC said:
There's exactly one explanation for why they had all those things at hand that they used as weapons - they planned on using them as weapons, but wanted to be able to make the exact argument you're making right now.
Click to expand...
More loose speculation. It's more likely they were alarmed from what was actually happening. They have all the right to defense in this situation because they were in international waters. You think human rights activists don't know their own rights while traversing international waters (towards a country that has no respect for international law nonetheless)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom