What were the consequences of Israel's attack on the Gaza Aid Flotilla?

[TubbaBlubba]

Even if that were true, so what?

"So what"? Does every country have the right to load heavily armed commandoes on convoys on international waters?


Also, I'll repost my edit since you might've missed it...

And once again, this was outside Gaza's shores, yes? You seem to act as if Israel is some sort of supreme justice in this. I don't see why I should have to comply to their standards when boarding Palestinian territory. But then again I find war to be a rather absurd matter. In my opinion, ASSUMING Israel has to check through everything, they should've done it while onloading it on the docks. Bording at sea with heavily armed commandoes is an obvious act of aggression.

 

[magpies]

I don't see what's going to come of this as I highly doubt israel will be punished for this especially with the video recordings they have of the event. As I understand it the boats got a warning to turn back and they didn't so to me it seems like israel was just doing what they thought was best considering they didn't want weapons being shipped over. It would be like someone flying a jet over the captial of course if it doesn't respond to requests from the military to turn away it will be either escorted away or shot down.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I don't see what's going to come of this as I highly doubt israel will be punished for this especially with the video recordings they have of the event. As I understand it the boats got a warning to turn back and they didn't so to me it seems like israel was just doing what they thought was best considering they didn't want weapons being shipped over. It would be like someone flying a jet over the captial of course if it doesn't respond to requests from the military to turn away it will be either escorted away or shot down.

Well, if Israel told them to turn away first, that eliminates the idea that the commandoes were "welcoming" them and just inspecting their ships. Seems more like they were trying to seize them.Yeah, according to the most recent news report I heard, they boarded the ship on international water without permission. That is an act of war. Israel were clearly the aggressors here.

 

[magpies]

Ok so I just watched a video of the attempted ship take over. It looks like all kinds of stupid on both sides. The israeli guys plop down one at a time from helicopter onto the large ship with like 30 people standing around on the top deck. As soon as they land it looks like they are attacked mob style... Anyhow it was stupid for the israeli forces to try and take it over that way and extra stupid that they did it in international waters when they could have just waited for it to get 3 miles from coast and do it then. However it was clearly not an aid ship so they probably would have had to use lots of fire power to take it over even then. Idk what to make of it really I see why israel would try to stop the ship cause if they let this one thru then they would end up having to let any after it thru. They showed footage of like 5 buckets of marbels and sling shots and some pipes lol... Do boats in that region carry weapons like these normally?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The boat wasn't armed, they just used improvised weaponry which kind of makes sense when you're attacked. Regardless of how they reacted to the Israelis, the idea was to move supplies to Gaza and/or show how absurdly Israel acts.

 

[magpies]

I'm still not sure the boat didn't have weapons on it. I'll wait till it gets searched... But you it does seem likely that they did understand that israeli forces would try to take control of it after it didn't listen to requests from them. I think the people on the boat had to be on drugs or something to openly attack armed forces like that. I mean if a commando unit drops down infront of you is your first reaction to bum rush them? I read on one israel news site that the commandos who droped down only had paintball guns I suppose they were the ones that got killed...

Great news everybody! More boats!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100601/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians_77

 

[tiny-tim]

Israeli rights in international waters

Uh, yes. They boarded their ships with heavily armed soldiers.

No, they were very lightly armed. They carried "anti-riot" paintball guns, suitable for dispersing unarmed crowds. They also wore pistols, which they "never expected to use".

They clearly went in with minimal arms … that was the problem.

They had absolutely no right to do that. I'm not saying that violent resistance was a good idea, but Israel pretty much made an act of warfare by boarding their ships.

As far as I understand, this was done on international waters. And once again, this was outside Gaza's shores, yes? You seem to act as if Israel is some sort of supreme justice in this.… Bording at sea with heavily armed commandoes is an obvious act of aggression.

No, boarding at sea in international waters is perfectly lawful, whether heavily armed or (as in this case ) not.

The law is laid down in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, "Convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law. Adopted in June 1994", and published on the Red Cross website at http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMSU"​

Under international law, a blockade is enforceable in international waters, including by searching neutral ships, and attacking and capturing them if they try to break the blockade.

[Attack and capture of neutral ships are dealt with by paragraphs 67 and 146 respectively, and lawful blockade is defined by paragraphs 93 to 104 …]​

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:
… (f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.

[N.B. "Neutral waters" are not international waters, they are only the waters of neutral states, see …
14. Neutral waters consist of the internal waters, territorial sea, and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of neutral States.]

A ship is "attempting to breach a blockade" even before it reaches the declared blockade area … see for example paragraph 7.7.4 of the U.S.A.'s "[URL
Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations[/URL] …​

7.7.4. … Attempted breach of blockade occurs from the time a vessel or
aircraft leaves a port or airfield with the intention of evading the blockade …

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

[Paragraphs 95 and 100 mean that if Israel had let the flotilla through, it could then be claimed that the blockade was not effective, and therefore the whole blockade was illegal … this is the main legal purpose for attempting to breach the blockade ]​

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

Israel went through all the necessary procedures, and was perfectly entitled to use lightly armed troops to capture a vessel attempting to breach the blockade. ​

 

[TubbaBlubba]

EDIT: Hold on, reading through tiny-tim's post. Also doing some further research before commenting.Interesting. Would "Breaching a blockade" constitute any vessel reaching harbor?

By the way, exerpt from UN statement:

The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The Council, in this context, condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least ten civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families.

[...]

The Security Council stresses that the situation in Gaza is not sustainable. The Council re-emphasizes the importance of the full implementation of Resolutions 1850 and 1860. In that context, it reiterates its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stresses the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.

Even IF their actions were legal within the bounds of warfare (legality and war, absurd in itself, is it not?), the blockade in itself is condemnable in every way possible. They allow far too little supplies to reach them (According to the UN, only a fourth of what would be neccesary), and the strip is EXTREMELY small. Guess what happens when you squeeze people together on a small spot? Yeah, they react.

This would have been an excellent time for Israel to think "Hey, maybe this blockade isn't such a nice idea. Let's let them through!"
But no. They have to show that they're BIGGER and STRONGER than those vile terrorists who would wish for the freedom of Gaza.

It sickens me. It really does.

 

[magpies]

Why does it sicken you? If mexico started to launch rockets into the US we probably would blockade them... just saying..

 

[madness]

These people wanted a publicity stunt, and they were willing to pay a cost in blood. Done.

They had already sent in 5 aid ships through the blockade without any repercussions and had no reason to suspect this one to be any different. How could it be a publicity stunt?

Funny, I remember a Kuwaiti friend of mine, a Sheik, who told me just how unwelcome Palestinians are in Kuwait, and most Arab countries. They are considered useful political tools, but no one wants them and they are perceived as having become savage and insane. This is probably not helped by their election of Hamas.

Every arab I have met was in support of Palestine and were exceptionally supportive and welcoming of any Palestinians they met. Many Arab nations officially support Hamas too - they provide more social work and aid than many governments.

By the way, who are these Palestinians, when there is no Palestine? Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah brother.

There is a Palestine. How can you simultaneouly claim that Palestinians elected Hamas and that Palestine doesn't exist? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Why does it sicken you? If mexico started to launch rockets into the US we probably would blockade them... just saying..

That is an utterly absurd comparison. Israel shoved them together, occupied them and then harassed them, escalating in a blockade. Palestine has been wanting a two-state solution for, I don't know, 25 years? Yet Israel keeps harassing them with superior firepower.

 

[magpies]

Well in all honesty there wasn't hardly anyone living in that area until the state of israel was created after the world wars and only after the country was built up into a mostly substainable environment did tons of arabs flock to it to get the... "freebies" the area israel is in has almost no natural clean water it's all pumped in sea water that gets treated and turned into clean water ect for drinking and other uses. Of course nobody really cares about what happens in history or why people in the past did things.

Really of course it seems obvious that one of the reasons for creating the state was to make an allied base of power in the middle east.

 

[tiny-tim]

Israeli rights in international waters

… there wasn't hardly anyone living in that area until the state of israel was created after the world wars and only after the country was built up into a mostly substainable environment did tons of arabs flock to it …

sorry, but that's rubbish … arab immigration into the west bank and gaza since 1948 has been almost nil …

the population explosion is due to high birth-rates

perhaps you're thinking of the high arab immigration rate into palestine in the nineteenth century, roughly doubling the population in a short period, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...the_late_Ottoman_and_British_Mandate_periods" … "According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy,[26] the population of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000, in 1860 it was 411,000 and in 1900 about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs."​

Interesting. Would "Breaching a blockade" constitute any vessel reaching harbor?

"Breaching or attempting to breach a blockade" includes heading towards the blockade area with the declared intention of entering it …

which certainly includes these ships.

But no. They have to show that they're BIGGER and STRONGER than those vile terrorists who would wish for the freedom of Gaza.

No, they have prevent the terrorists from receiving rockets, other weapons, and materials for storing and manufacturing weapons.

They have to prevent the terrorists from resuming their 8-year record of crimes against humanity by firing rockets daily at purely civilian targets.

 

[zomgwtf]

The boat wasn't armed, they just used improvised weaponry which kind of makes sense when you're attacked. Regardless of how they reacted to the Israelis, the idea was to move supplies to Gaza and/or show how absurdly Israel acts.

'They weren't aremed but they used weaponry!' lol... interesting. They sure looked armed to me when they were beating the soldiers. As well it's come out now that the soldiers were using paintball guns, .

No the point was to undermine the complete blockade Israel had put up, they hadn't actually intended on being able to breach the blockade. As tiny-tim has pointed out they were completely in their rights to board the ship and in their request to have it land and be inspected.

I really do not think you know the entire situation of what's going on in Gaza. As well stop claiming this is an 'act of war' by Israel. According to casus belli the ship would be classified as the aggressors... besides they are at war, so it makes you sick when states act like they are at war when they are at war? That's awesome... I bet you also felt bad and sickened when NATO bombed Bosnia and Herzegovina for the Markale massacres and genocides?

I think you should do a bit more research on the topic of Israeli and Palestinian relations before commenting about how sickening it is that Israel boarded a ship with paintball guns. What about how the Palestinians send children and women into Israel with bombs strapped under the clothes? Or the thousands of bombings done on Israeli citizens? I mean, seriously, come on now... They indoctrinate their children with their political motives of wiping Israel off the map.

Do you think that if such bombings had occurred on American cities from Mexico that America would stand for such an act? I am almost willing to bet a large amount of money that if that ever happened America would rape Mexico, then set up a blockade. Israel has the support in the blockade by the most of the major powers of the world, including USA. Although most countries (including the USA) agree that Israel should 'calm down' with the blockade and allow more aid to get through. However this is entirely Israel and Egypts choice. Just as an aside why are you citing UN sources etc.? Do you think that they actually mean anything?? Not really. The only part of the UN that matters is the Security Council... the big players from there support Israel, sooooorrrry. And even that America has proven to be useless .

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Well in all honesty there wasn't hardly anyone living in that area until the state of israel was created after the world wars and only after the country was built up into a mostly substainable environment did tons of arabs flock to it to get the... "freebies" the area israel is in has almost no natural clean water it's all pumped in sea water that gets treated and turned into clean water ect for drinking and other uses.

I'd like a source on this statement, it strikes me as somewhat dubious.

 

[Passionflower]

So I'm guessing you aren't impressed by the physical evidence in the form of the exploded North Korean torpedo?

I am happy to share my opinions, but of course not in this thread, however I suspect that some other moderator does not want this discussed.

 

[magpies]

tiny-tim I find that hard to believe but who knows... I am looking for a good stats on the net right now not finding much that says your wrong. The reason I find it hard to believe is simply because of the fact that the area in question is pretty much desert so I don't see how more and more people could be able to live in that area without help from outside at least until things are built up enough.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

No, they have prevent the terrorists from receiving rockets, other weapons, and materials for storing and manufacturing weapons.

They have to prevent the terrorists from resuming their 8-year record of crimes against humanity by firing rockets daily at purely civilian targets.

Yes, these boats were clearly filled with TERRORISTS intending to deliver ROCKETS. That's why they boarded the boat like that. Not. If they had actually believed there were terrorists on the boats, they would have completely immobilized the boat, sprayed it with oil and then boarded it.


zomg: WHY do you think they fire rockets? WHY do you think they elect Hamas? Because the conditions in Gaza are MISERABLE. It's what happens when you squeeze people together on a small strip, give them nowhere near enough resources, and intentionally cut off all resource paths.

 

[magpies]

Ya I agree israel should just put them on welfare give them basically free *crappy* housing and food ect. It does actually seem like the best way to fix things.

 

[Count Iblis]

If I follow the pro-Israel logic here correctly, can Turkey can now blockade Israel, board ships and when encountering hostility while boarding ships, be in their right to use deadly force? If people are killed, it is the fault of "illegal resistance" against the boarding of ships, right?

 

[tiny-tim]

If I follow the pro-Israel logic here correctly, can Turkey can now blockade Israel, board ships …

Yes, of course.

Any country can blockade any other country with which it is in a war situation.

… and when encountering hostility while boarding ships, be in their right to use deadly force?

No, they would only be in their right to use deadly force in self-defence.

If people are killed, it is the fault of "illegal resistance" against the boarding of ships, right?

If with overwhelming numbers you attack people with iron bars and knives, someone is going to get killed.

If the Israeli soldiers had only had their paintball guns (and no pistols), then the Israeli soldiers would have been killed.

 

[jreelawg]

I am not pro blockade, it seams kind of cruel to me. But this is what is going on, and these solders have orders, and these activists probably expected some kind of major confrontation.

I just think it is a bastard situation to borrow a phrase. I think Israel should show their good will, by towing the aid to Gaza now that they have seized the ship, and gone through it.

 

[mheslep]

Ok so I just watched a video of the attempted ship take over. It looks like all kinds of stupid on both sides. The israeli guys plop down one at a time from helicopter onto the large ship with like 30 people standing around on the top deck. As soon as they land it looks like they are attacked mob style... Anyhow it was stupid for the israeli forces to try and take it over that way

Ok, what was the smart way?

 

[mheslep]

I find these threads instructive in their predictability.

I also find them predictable, but I've not yet picked up the instruction. Why are these 'OMG the IDF did blah, blah' threads so predictable, and the absence of 'OMG, Israelis are hiding from rocket attacks in their basements' equally as predictable? Do we credit media pile ons? Anti-semitism? The trend towards conspiracy theories? I don't get it.

 

[jreelawg]

Almost every thread is predictable when you've been at PF for long enough.

 

[Office_Shredder]

If I follow the pro-Israel logic here correctly, can Turkey can now blockade Israel, board ships and when encountering hostility while boarding ships, be in their right to use deadly force? If people are killed, it is the fault of "illegal resistance" against the boarding of ships, right?

The last time someone tried to blockade Israel we got the Six Day war. A Turkish blockade would certainly trigger total war between the two countries. A country would have to be insane to invite that kind of violence because of an incident like this

 

[mheslep]

I'd like a source on this statement, it strikes me as somewhat dubious.

This is also predictable in this kind of thread: some dozen posts by TubbaBlubba, most loaded with some assertion of fact or other with no reference, ending with a call for sources from others.

 

[Jack21222]

I also find them predictable, but I've not yet picked up the instruction. Why are these 'OMG the IDF did blah, blah' threads so predictable, and the absence of 'OMG, Israelis are hiding from rocket attacks in their basements' equally as predictable? Do we credit media pile ons? Anti-semitism? The trend towards conspiracy theories? I don't get it.

To my knowledge, Israelis aren't hiding in their basements from rocket attacks. Israelis are, for the most part, living the good life. A good friend of mine is Jewish and a self-proclaimed Zionist, and she LOVES vacationing in Israel. She tries to go ever year.

When you put a wealthy nation right next to a third world hellhole, bad things will happen, especially when the wealthy nation goes out of its way to make the third world hellhole even worse by encroaching on its land and cutting off resources.

 

[arildno]

To my knowledge, Israelis aren't hiding in their basements from rocket attacks. Israelis are, for the most part, living the good life. A good friend of mine is Jewish and a self-proclaimed Zionist, and she LOVES vacationing in Israel. She tries to go ever year.

When you put a wealthy nation right next to a third world hellhole, bad things will happen, especially when the wealthy nation goes out of its way to make the third world hellhole even worse by encroaching on its land and cutting off resources.

Israelis made what Israel is today.

Palestinians have made "Palestine" into what it is today.

 

[mheslep]

To my knowledge, Israelis aren't hiding in their basements from rocket attacks...

Since the subject of rocket attacks on Israel stemming from Gaza can be readily found, has been discussed at length in other threads and brought to your attention in this one, the more accurate description is 'due to your wilful disinterest, you are unaware that ...'

“If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that,” Mr. Obama said in July. “And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/27/AR2008122700962.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/world/middleeast/28diplo.html

 

[tiny-tim]

Sderot

To my knowledge, Israelis aren't hiding in their basements from rocket attacks.

For 8 years they were, in the city of Sderot. Just google "Sderot" to find out what was happening for 8 years until the Gaza war … every resident had to be within 15 seconds of a "safe room", night and day.

Many "safe rooms" are in basements, though (I think) the majority of houses do not have basements, and so they have to be on the ground floor.

A 15 seconds rule makes bedrooms and bathrooms on upper floors totally unusable.

Many families slept crowded together in their "safe room" every night.

(whether you call this "cowering" is a matter of opinion … that they were there every night isn't ).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/world/middle_east/article2347909.ece" (too long to quote from) … if you don't trust The Times, do a site-specific google search for "Sderot" on your favourite independent news site.

And here's a quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sderot" …

Sderot, less than a mile from Gaza, has been the target of Palestinian rocket attacks that have killed 13 residents, wounded hundreds, caused millions of dollars in damage, disrupted daily life and wreaked havoc on the local economy.
According to MSNBC, "nearly everyone [has been] traumatized by the frequent sound of air-raid sirens and explosions of incoming projectiles". All local schools have been fortified.
From mid-June 2007 to mid-February 2008, 771 rockets and 857 mortar bombs were fired at Sderot and the western Negev, an average of three or four each a day.
…
Citizens only have 15 seconds to reach shelter after the sounding of the alarm.​

 

[TubbaBlubba]

This is also predictable in this kind of thread: some dozen posts by TubbaBlubba, most loaded with some assertion of fact or other with no reference, ending with a call for sources from others.

I found a specific statement highly dubious. If someone was discussing World War Two and someone suddenly said that the jews came to the concentration camps out of free will, then of course people would be skeptical towards that and ask where the hell he got that from. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say. Most of the things I've said in this thread are obviously opinionated views of the facts (and you're free to think what you want of them), but I don't think any of them are quite that outrageous.

 

[mheslep]

Most of the things I've said in this thread are obviously opinionated views of the facts (and you're free to think what you want of them), but I don't think any of them are quite that outrageous.

I disagree. Most all of these are assertions of fact, many of them absolute, with no reference in sight.

have been attempting to ship some food, tents, concrete and other supplies to gaza via a completely peaceful convoy.

The problem in all of this is that the west tends to be RIDICULOUSLY apologetic to Israel to a point of sheer absurdity, in particular the US.

Granted this one is opinion, but Europe constantly attacks Israel, and the last bit about the US given the recent stream of US condemnations of Israel - is way off (sources if you like).

They boarded their ships with heavily armed soldiers. They had absolutely no right to do that.

Yeah, according to the most recent news report I heard, they boarded the ship on international water without permission. That is an act of war. Israel were clearly the aggressors here.

The boat wasn't armed, they just used improvised weaponry which kind of makes sense when you're attacked. Regardless of how they reacted to the Israelis, the idea was to move supplies to Gaza and/or show how absurdly Israel acts.

... you squeeze people together on a small strip, give them nowhere near enough resources, and intentionally cut off all resource paths.

etc

 

[TubbaBlubba]

How do you want me to respond? I could take each point, elaborate and reflect, or I could just appreciate that you've made your point. Preferences either way? I don't mind going back, but we've kind of moved past most of those points, and I suspect you'd just counter-post, ending it all in a drawn-out semantics showdown.

 

[mheslep]

How do you want me to respond? I could take each point, elaborate and reflect, or I could just appreciate that you've made your point. Preferences either way?

Well forget about the past (if you like). All I would suggest, to the extent that you agree with the above points, is that in the future consider providing some specific references for the phrases that appear as assertions/absolute statements. As an example, Tiny Tim above raised the level of discussion of the entire thread with the blockade references, even if we disagree with the implications and compliance in this event with blockade rules.

As to opinions, have at it.