Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Israel Attacks Humanitarian Aid Flotilla

May 31, 2010#1

JONJONAUG

Israel has attacked unarmed civilian ships carrying humanitarian aid for the Gaza strip in international waters. Reports for number dead range from 10 to 24 and at least 30 are wounded. There are many different nations that had people on board the flotilla, including the United States.

http://www9.gazetevatan.com/israil-turk-bayrakli-yardim-gemisinde-olum-kustu/308396/1/Gundem - Here's some video of Israeli soldiers shooting passengers before they had boarded the ship.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37423584/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01flotilla.html?hp

MSNBC said:
HAIFA, Israel - Israeli warships attacked at least one of the six ships carrying pro-Palestinian activists and aid for blockaded Gaza, killing 10 and wounding several dozen on board, according to a lawyer for the activists' group.

Responding to accusations that Israeli commandos assaulted the ships guns blazing, Israel's Army Radio later said that passengers had tried to grab weapons away from soldiers boarding the Gaza protest flotilla.
The al-Jazeera satellite channel reported by telephone from the Turkish ship leading the flotilla that Israeli Navy forces fired at the ship and boarded it, wounding the captain.

The Turkish NTV network also reported an Israeli takeover with gunfire, and that at least 30 activists were wounded.

The al-Jazeera broadcast ended with a voice shouting in Hebrew, "Everybody shut up!"

The reports came just after daybreak, with the flotilla still well away from the Gaza shore. Israel had declared it would not allow the ships to reach Gaza.

The six-ship flotilla began the journey from international waters off the coast of Cyprus on Sunday afternoon after two days of delays. It had expected to reach Gaza, about 250 miles away, on Monday afternoon.

Earlier, Huwaida Arraf, one of the organizers, had said two more ships would follow in "a second wave."

The flotilla was "fully prepared for the different scenarios" that might arise, and organizers were hopeful that Israeli authorities would "do what's right" and not stop the convoy, she said.

"We fully intend to go to Gaza regardless of any intimidation or threats of violence against us," she said. "They are going to have to forcefully stop us."

After nightfall Sunday, three Israeli navy missile boats left their base in Haifa, steaming out to sea to confront the activists' ships.

Two hours later, Israel Radio broadcast a recording of one of the missile boats warning the flotilla not to approach Gaza.

"If you ignore this order and enter the blockaded area, the Israeli navy will be forced to take all the necessary measures in order to enforce this blockade," the radio message continued.

Ships had changed course
Al-Jazeera earlier reported that the ships initially changed course to try to avoid a nighttime confrontation, preferring a daylight showdown for better publicity.

The flotilla, which includes three cargo ships and three passenger ships, is trying to draw attention to Israel's three-year blockade of the Gaza Strip. The boats are carrying items that Israel bars from reaching Gaza, like cement and other building materials. The activists said they also were carrying hundreds of electric-powered wheelchairs, prefabricated homes and water purifiers.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said that after a security check, permitted humanitarian aid confiscated from the boats will be transferred to Gaza through authorized channels. However, Israel would not transfer items it has banned from Gaza under its blockade rules. Palmor said that for example, cement would be allowed only if it is tied to a specific project.

This is the ninth time that the Free Gaza movement has tried to ship in humanitarian aid to Gaza since August 2008.

Israel has let ships through five times, but has blocked them from entering Gaza waters since a three-week military offensive against Gaza's Hamas rulers in January 2009. The flotilla bound for Gaza is the largest to date.

Some 700 pro-Palestinian activists are on the boats, including 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire of Northern Ireland, European legislators and an elderly Holocaust survivor.

Israeli Navy sailors embark on a warship from Haifa on Sunday in order to stop a flotilla of activists attempting to deliver aid to Gaza.
The mission has experienced repeated delays, both due to mechanical problems and a decision by Cyprus to bar any boat from sailing from its shore to Gaza. The ban forced a group of European lawmakers to depart from the breakaway Turkish Cypriot northern part of the island late Saturday.

Israel and Egypt imposed the blockade on Gaza after Hamas militants violently seized control of the seaside territory in June 2007.

Israel says the measures are needed to prevent Hamas, which has fired thousands of rockets at Israel, from building up its arsenal. But U.N. officials and international aid groups say the blockade has been counterproductive, failing to weaken the Islamic militant group while devastating the local economy.

In particular, the ban on building materials has prevented Gazans from repairing thousands of homes that were damaged or destroyed in an Israeli military offensive, meant to stop Hamas rocket attacks, early last year.

Israel rejects claims of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, saying it allows more than enough food and medicine into the territory. The Israelis also point to the bustling smuggling industry along Gaza's southern border with Egypt, which has managed to bring consumer goods, gasoline and livestock into the seaside strip.

Commandos training to take ships?
Israel has condemned the flotilla as a provocation and vowed to block it from reaching Gaza.

Israeli military officials said they hope to resolve the situation peacefully but are prepared for all scenarios. Naval commandos have been training for days in anticipation of the standoff. Military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity under official guidelines, said the forces would likely take over the boats under the cover of darkness.

Palmor said foreigners on the ships would be "sent back to their countries." Activists who did not willingly agree to be deported would be detained. A special detention facility has been set up in the southern Israeli city of Ashdod.

At Gaza's tiny port, meant for small fishing boats, Hamas officials, activists and foreign nationals prepared to welcome the flotilla, sitting in some 40 small boats that were bobbing in the sea and decorated with the flags of the countries of the pro-Palestinian activists, including Turkey and Algeria.

In other boats, Gaza boy scouts played music, while on shore, other activists released balloons with the faces of Palestinian civilians and militants killed in battles with Israeli forces.

In Syria, eight Damascus-based Palestinian groups urged Arab and Muslim states to work to support the flotilla and warned Israel against committing any "foolishness to impede the vessels"

"This could create more tension and trigger unpredictable reactions," said the groups, which included Hamas and the militant Islamic Jihad.

May 31, 2010#2

Espy

So the ship tried to run a blockade? Sounds like Israel really overreacted here but what did they expect them to do? It will be interesting to find out who fired first. If the Israeli's did then someone's head will and probably should roll.
Edit: According to your NY Times article:

Mr. Netanyahu defended the Israeli military’s actions, saying the commandos were set upon by passengers on the ship and fired only in self-defense. The military released a video http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Israel_Navy_warns_flotilla_31-May-2010.htm of the early moments of the raid to support that claim.

The Israeli Defense Forces said the naval personnel boarding the largest of the six ships in the aid convoy met with “live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs.” The naval forces then “employed riot dispersal means, including live fire,” the military said in a statement.

This is probably going to get really ugly...

May 31, 2010#3

JONJONAUG

Espy said:
So the ship tried to run a blockade? Sounds like Israel really overreacted here but what did they expect them to do? It will be interesting to find out who fired first. If the Israeli's did then someone's head will and probably should roll.

1. They were in international waters, the attack has no legal standing (and would be dubious even if they weren't)

2. They were unarmed on a mission of peaceful protest and were shot at before commandos had even left the helicopter

May 31, 2010#4

Officer_Charon

They stated their intentions to violate a blockade. Israel was enforcing said blockade.

Being in international waters does hurt the credibility here, though.

May 31, 2010#5

tegid

International waters. They had no right to invade the ships.

May 31, 2010#6

Espy

Well Israel told the UN they boarded the ship according to international rules and took on the idea of "peaceful" protestors (and the video they released does show the soldiers being attacked):

Under pressure from even its allies over the incident that killed at least nine people, Israel’s Deputy U.N. Ambassador Daniel Carmon took to the floor of the international body to fire back against the idea that the ships were peaceful, unarmed and humanitarian.

“What kind of peace activists use knives, clubs and fire from weapons stolen from soldiers...to attack soldiers to attack soldiers who board a ship in accordance with international law?,” he asked.

I know there is always a rabid group who wants to defend Israel and a equally rabid group who wants to attack Israel. I think I'm gonna go with Obama on this one though: "Obama tells Netanyahu on phone: We need raid 'facts' ASAP" http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=177041

May 31, 2010#7

SpecialKO

Yes, I think we really need more info here. The international waters thing is highly disturbing, but given the flotilla's stated intention of running the blockade, Israel might have the legal standing to block and inspect the vessel.

On the other hand, the IDF videos do not show anything before the commandoes dropped down, such as whether the ship was fired on or not.

I have to say, though, and if the military folks in the board could she some light, it seems like a horrible tactical blunder to try and board a ship of 600 scared/confrontational people with 7 guys and apparently no back up.

Jun 1, 2010#8

AshburnerX

This is entirely on Israel's head... and the sad thing is, they'll get away with it because good ol' Uncle Sam loves to have a friend in the region.

Jun 1, 2010#9

Iaculus

Officer_Charon said:
They stated their intentions to violate a blockade. Israel was enforcing said blockade.

Being in international waters does hurt the credibility here, though.

Hurt? More like destroy. You want to stop a blockade-run? Fine. Just do it outside international waters.

Their screw-up.

Jun 1, 2010#10

Espy

Iaculus;392368][QUOTE=Officer_Charon said:
They stated their intentions to violate a blockade. Israel was enforcing said blockade.

Being in international waters does hurt the credibility here, though.

Hurt? More like destroy. You want to stop a blockade-run? Fine. Just do it outside international waters.

Their screw-up.[/QUOTE]

Does anyone know much about the international waters things, etc? I don't, I see people hear saying what they did was illegal, but the Un Ambassador for Israel says they were in complete compliance with international law. Not that I don't believe he could be lying, but I don't know anything about this sort of law...

Jun 1, 2010#11

Chazwozel

Espy said:
So the ship tried to run a blockade? Sounds like Israel really overreacted here but what did they expect them to do? It will be interesting to find out who fired first. If the Israeli's did then someone's head will and probably should roll.
Edit: According to your NY Times article:

Mr. Netanyahu defended the Israeli military’s actions, saying the commandos were set upon by passengers on the ship and fired only in self-defense. The military released a video http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Israel_Navy_warns_flotilla_31-May-2010.htm of the early moments of the raid to support that claim.

The Israeli Defense Forces said the naval personnel boarding the largest of the six ships in the aid convoy met with “live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs.” The naval forces then “employed riot dispersal means, including live fire,” the military said in a statement.

Click to expand...

This is probably going to get really ugly...

Thing is the ship was still in international waters when the Israeli military raided the boats.

---------- Post added at 10:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 AM ----------

Espy;392378][QUOTE=Iaculus;392368][QUOTE=Officer_Charon said:
They stated their intentions to violate a blockade. Israel was enforcing said blockade.

Being in international waters does hurt the credibility here, though.

.large_body p, .large_body span { font-size: 18px; } .small_body p, .small_body span { font-size: 12px; }

Photo by: Ariel Jerozolimski 3 terrorists killed in Gaza airstrike

By ASSOCIATED PRESS AND JPOST.COM STAFF
06/01/2010 17:17

Islamic Jihad says fighters shot down after firing Kassam rocket.

An Islamic militant group in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday said three of its members had been killed in an Israeli airstrike in northern Gaza.

The Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad group said its fighters were killed shortly after firing two rockets into southern Israel. Israeli authorities said the rockets landed in open areas and caused no injuries.

The IDF confirmed it had carried out an airstrike Tuesday, and Gaza's chief medical examiner said there were three deaths.</table></div><br /><br />Tensions have been high since Israeli naval commandos <a target="_blank" href="http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=176970">boarded a flotilla carrying hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists</a> to <span id="IL_AD3" class="IL_AD">Gaza</span> on Monday, causing a violent clash. Nine activists were said to have been killed in the incident, and several IDF commandos were wounded.<br /> <br /> Earlier on Tuesday, two would-be Palestinian terrorists were <a target="_blank" href="http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177098">killed on the Gaza border</a> as the IDF foiled an infiltration attempt. No casualties were reported among the troops.<br /> <br /> "Two Palestinian terrorists were identified infiltrating into Israel from the southern Gaza Strip earlier this morning. The soldiers on the scene exchanged fire with the terrorists, killing them both," the IDF Spokesperson said of the event in a statement released later in the day. </span></div>

Crafty Israelis trying to take the heat off themselves...

Yeah we broke international law and killed innocent protesters on a humanitarian mission, but LOOK OVER HERE, LOOK LOOK LOOK we killed 3 terrorists in Gaza! ARE YOU LOOKING YET?!?!? PLEASE KEEP LOOKING HERE!

Jun 1, 2010#12

Espy

But is it? Thats what I don't know. One country says it was, one says they were within international law. It sounds like they weren't though but I don't want to just condemn them without knowing. If they were outside international law I hope someone gets the book thrown at them.

Jun 1, 2010#13

Chazwozel

Espy said:
But is it? Thats what I don't know. One country says it was, one says they were within international law. It sounds like they weren't though but I don't want to just condemn them without knowing. If they were outside international law I hope someone gets the book thrown at them.

All I know is that in most instances, attacking another country's ship in international waters is how wars get started.

Jun 1, 2010#14

Iaculus

Just looked it up on Wikipedia (not the most reliable source, I know), and it seems that an attack on a ship operating in international waters is equivelant to an attack on that ship's country of origin, unless the vessel in question is engaged in acts of piracy.

Doesn't seem that Israel has much of a leg to stand on here.

Jun 1, 2010#15

SpecialKO

Under international law, ships in international waters are outside any national jurisdiction, unless they are in engaged in piracy. Furthermore, ships in international waters identified by the flag of any nation are considered the sovereign territory of that nation.

So basically, Israel is saying that it was legal because they were attacking a vessel under criminal suspicion, and Turkey is saying that they attacked sovereign Turkish soil. It's, at best, extremely shakey grounds for Israel, and sounds a lot more like a flagrant violation of international law.

Jun 1, 2010#16

Chazwozel

TeKeo said:
Under international law, ships in international waters are outside any national jurisdiction, unless they are in engaged in piracy. Furthermore, ships in international waters identified by the flag of any nation are considered the sovereign territory of that nation.

So basically, Israel is saying that it was legal because they were attacking a vessel under criminal suspicion, and Turkey is saying that they attacked sovereign Turkish soil. It's, at best, extremely shakey grounds for Israel, and sounds a lot more like a flagrant violation of international law.

Yeah they should have done this AFTER the ship crossed through their blockade. This is akin to if JFK would have ordered an attack on soviet freighters for nearing the Cuban quarantine zone instead of crossing it during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Jun 1, 2010#17

sixpackshaker

The issue is more the distance the ships were in international waters, 250 miles. Territorial Waters will only average 12 miles. Yet the Gulf of Mexico is treated like territorial water of the US.

Once you let a ship to with in 12 miles it is too late to enforce the blockade. If this happened with in 50-100 miles Israel would be able to withstand the criticism better.

What I read earlier is that the UN wants to limit the investigation to the shooting, not the boarding.

Jun 1, 2010#18

Chazwozel

sixpackshaker said:
The issue is more the distance the ships were in international waters, 250 miles. Territorial Waters will only average 12 miles. Yet the Gulf of Mexico is treated like territorial water of the US.

Once you let a ship to with in 12 miles it is too late to enforce the blockade. If this happened with in 50-100 miles Israel would be able to withstand the criticism better.

What I read earlier is that the UN wants to limit the investigation to the shooting, not the boarding.

Really? You can't follow a small group of boats for 200 some miles to the blockade border and have your military right there to board the ship?

Jun 1, 2010#19

sixpackshaker

Just with in 12 miles it is pretty easy to smuggle. Just offload to fishing and sports boats, and it would be a total nightmare to quarantine. But, you are right about waiting, I would disagree with the distance.

Jun 1, 2010#20

Seraphyn

All in all, you're one hell of a moron if you try to plow through a blockade unarmed that you know will be enforced with lethal force. Then proceed to attack the boarding party while heavily outgunned instead of simply surrendering. They shouldn't have tried to be honest, what the hell did they expect that would happen?

On the other side, it's a clear violation on the Israeli's part. But as usual they'll get a stern letter from the UN that gets tossed in the shredder the second it's received. Then we return to business as usual in the Middle East, which is exactly stuff like this, but then it won't reach the headlines.

Jun 1, 2010#21

Eriol

This section in the wiki article is interesting:

Legal arguments justifying the action

San Remo MemorandumMain article: International Institute of Humanitarian Law#San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994)
Mark Regev, spokesman for the Prime Minister of Israel, 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."[87][88]

The 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. It also states (Paragraph 47, chapter c) 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".[88][89]
Gaza Jericho AgreementAccording to Abbas Al Lawati, Dubai-based Gulf News journalist on board the flotilla, Israel is likely[90] 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.[91]

So basically it's saying (to my interpretation) "when you declare you are GOING to break through a blockade, you can stop them, even in international waters."

Also the video that's up a few places that shows the people on the vessel beating the soldiers with pipes and such as soon as they land definitely lends credibility to the Israeli account of the events, along with the fact that 5 of the vessels had NO incidents, but one did. If they were going to shoot first when taking the vessels, wouldn't that make more sense that it was a standing order to ALL teams, rather than "OK guys, on 5 of them we'll be peaceful, and everybody will be, but on ONE, we'll go in shooting!" Isn't it a lot more plausible that one of the vessels HAD banned materials (weapons) and they wanted to make sure they made it through, and thus attacked back?

Heck, the Israelis went in with PAINTBALL guns. They had sidearms too (that they only used after getting beat up as soon as boarding), but they didn't go in for a full armed assault. This was reaction once on board that caused deaths. If you want to argue that the boarding was illegal, OK, do so (I think Israel has a point about enforcing a blockade), but once that decision had been made, I give Israel credit for wanting to go so low-key with PAINTBALLS.

Jun 1, 2010#22

Iaculus

Then again, the fact that they were employing improvised weaponry like pipes and chairs suggests that the resistance wasn't exactly premeditated. Besides, the paintball guns (assuming that those were in fact used) are pretty irrelevant, given that ten civilians died anyway.

Wasn't there also video footage of helicopters deploying tear gas and the like before the soldiers boarded? I doubt that put anyone in a good mood.

Jun 1, 2010#23

SpecialKO

Eriol said:
So basically it's saying (to my interpretation) "when you declare you are GOING to break through a blockade, you can stop them, even in international waters."

Jun 1, 2010#24

drawn_inward

Why should Israel believe that this flotilla was full of humanitarian aid and not weapons?

Jun 1, 2010#25

SpecialKO

dr_awkward said:
Why should Israel believe that this flotilla was full of humanitarian aid and not weapons?

They don't have to, but in international waters they're not allowed to just act on it, especially when they have no evidence.

Same principle behind a cop not being able to search your house just because you have a record.

Jun 1, 2010#26

Eriol

TeKeo;392458][QUOTE=Eriol said:
So basically it's saying (to my interpretation) "when you declare you are GOING to break through a blockade, you can stop them, even in international waters."

The paragraphs he quotes don't say that at all. The document itself even prohibits it in 14-22.

Plus, which I didn't know, apparently for any of that documentation to apply, the UN must declare the blockade to be legal, which it apparently has not.[/QUOTE]
It is kinda weird, because read the document you linked (good link btw) the OTHER way, they do. And by the other way, read "belligerent" as the vessels trying to break through the blockade. Then the section there that states "17. Belligerent forces may not use neutral waters as a sanctuary." comes into play.

Basically Israel has every reason to believe they are hostile forces, as they don't want to dock at an Israeli port where they were promised (upon even the people on the boats' own surveillance) that the humanitarian supplies they had WOULD be transferred (but any contraband blocked of course), and they said NO. Basically, the only reason to continue is INTENDING to break the blockade.

So if you go from that train of thought of 1. The "humanitarian" flotilla has established itself as being hostile and you accept 2. Hostile forces are not allowed to use international waters as sanctuary, then Israel DID have the right to intercept them, even if they didn't wait for the 12-mile limit on territorial waters.

And one more fact to remember about this. If you think it's only Israel filtering everything into Gaza, remember that Egypt controls a border with Gaza too (the full turnover to COMPLETE Egyptian control (no Israel troops there at all) happened a while back), and they're not exactly funneling aid in there either.

Jun 1, 2010#27

Chazwozel

Eriol;392475][QUOTE=TeKeo;392458][QUOTE=Eriol said:
So basically it's saying (to my interpretation) "when you declare you are GOING to break through a blockade, you can stop them, even in international waters."

The paragraphs he quotes don't say that at all. The document itself even prohibits it in 14-22.

Plus, which I didn't know, apparently for any of that documentation to apply, the UN must declare the blockade to be legal, which it apparently has not.[/QUOTE]
It is kinda weird, because read the document you linked (good link btw) the OTHER way, they do. And by the other way, read "belligerent" as the vessels trying to break through the blockade. Then the section there that states "17. Belligerent forces may not use neutral waters as a sanctuary." comes into play.

Basically Israel has every reason to believe they are hostile forces, as they don't want to dock at an Israeli port where they were promised (upon even the people on the boats' own surveillance) that the humanitarian supplies they had WOULD be transferred (but any contraband blocked of course), and they said NO. Basically, the only reason to continue is INTENDING to break the blockade.

So if you go from that train of thought of 1. The "humanitarian" flotilla has established itself as being hostile and you accept 2. Hostile forces are not allowed to use international waters as sanctuary, then Israel DID have the right to intercept them, even if they didn't wait for the 12-mile limit on territorial waters.

And one more fact to remember about this. If you think it's only Israel filtering everything into Gaza, remember that Egypt controls a border with Gaza too (the full turnover to COMPLETE Egyptian control (no Israel troops there at all) happened a while back), and they're not exactly funneling aid in there either.[/QUOTE]

They actually opened the border in response to this whole event. I'm sorry, no matter how much the U.S./Israeli media is going to spin this, Israel is 100% the in wrong right now and they have been for a long time.

Jun 1, 2010#28

SpecialKO

Eriol said:
And by the other way, read "belligerent" as the vessels trying to break through the blockade.

That's clearly how the Israelis are choosing to read it, but historical international law may be against them, because "belligerent", while always loosely defined as far as I have seen, is supposed to refer to forces of nations involved in a conflict. The only way for the flotilla to be considered "belligerent" is if Israel declares war on Turkey (and Turkey is claiming this attack is an act of war). Being designated a legal target for belligerent forces does not make the target a belligerent.

As was mentioned previously, this might be different if it was within 10-20 miles of the blockade zone, but at 250 miles-ish offshore, it was way, way, way, outside territorial waters (12 miles).

Also, who said only Israel was filtering everything? Egypt closed the border in 2007 and has been frequently criticized for it. We're talking about Israel's interpretation of what they're allowed to do in international waters.

EDIT: My mistake on the distance. It was 72 nautical miles, not 250. This is still well outside the territorial boundary, by 60 miles. But it was not 250, like some places are saying.

Jun 1, 2010#29

Chazwozel

TeKeo;392509][QUOTE=Eriol said:
And by the other way, read "belligerent" as the vessels trying to break through the blockade.

That's clearly how the Israelis are choosing to read it, but historical international law may be against them, because "belligerent", while always loosely defined as far as I have seen, is supposed to refer to forces of nations involved in a conflict. The only way for the flotilla to be considered "belligerent" is if Israel declares war on Turkey (and Turkey is claiming this attack is an act of war). Being designated a legal target for belligerent forces does not make the target a belligerent.

As was mentioned previously, this might be different if it was within 10-20 miles of the blockade zone, but at 250 miles-ish offshore, it was way, way, way, outside territorial waters (12 miles).

Also, who said only Israel was filtering everything? Egypt closed the border in 2007 and has been frequently criticized for it. We're talking about Israel's interpretation of what they're allowed to do in international waters.[/QUOTE]

They reopened it.

Jun 1, 2010#30

sixpackshaker

Israel needs to make a flotilla and tell Turkey that they will be sending unspecified "Humanitarian Aid" to the Kurds. All the people on the boat needs to be from the Kurdistan Workers' Party.

Jun 1, 2010#31

SpecialKO

sixpackshaker said:
Israel needs to make a flotilla and tell Turkey that they will be sending unspecified "Humanitarian Aid" to the Kurds. All the people on the boat needs to be from the Kurdistan Workers' Party.

Well, if they really want to go to war with Turkey, that would be a step in the right direction.

Also, bit disingenous to compare Free Gaza with the PKK. For one thing, the PKK is an armed, organized, and internationally-described terrorist organization. Free Gaza, at the most, are American and British humanitarian activists who may have taken funding from bad people (which should be investigated, regardless).

Jun 1, 2010#32

sixpackshaker

TeKeo;392578][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:
Israel needs to make a flotilla and tell Turkey that they will be sending unspecified "Humanitarian Aid" to the Kurds. All the people on the boat needs to be from the Kurdistan Workers' Party.

Jun 1, 2010#33

SpecialKO

sixpackshaker;392586][QUOTE=TeKeo said:
Also, bit disingenous to compare Free Gaza with the PKK. For one thing, the PKK is an armed, organized, and internationally-described terrorist organization. Free Gaza, at the most, are American and British humanitarian activists who may have taken funding from bad people (which should be investigated, regardless).

Jun 1, 2010#34

sixpackshaker

TeKeo;392614][QUOTE=sixpackshaker;392586][QUOTE=TeKeo said:
Also, bit disingenous to compare Free Gaza with the PKK. For one thing, the PKK is an armed, organized, and internationally-described terrorist organization. Free Gaza, at the most, are American and British humanitarian activists who may have taken funding from bad people (which should be investigated, regardless).

What were the ties to Hamas? [/QUOTE]

Alleged, for one thing. Until Free Gaza starts training militia and launching paramilitary operations against Israeli and Egyptian troops, it's just not equivalent, and to pretend that it is is dishonest.

EDIT: Also, made an edit above, but just in case, the distance of the ship to shore was 72 nautical miles, not 250. This is still 60 miles beyond territorial waters.[/QUOTE]

But I am saying they are bringing contraband into a blockade. To a place controlled by a know terrorist organization, and by most reports there were Hamas members on the boat where the violence happened.

Jun 1, 2010#35

SpecialKO

sixpackshaker said:
But I am saying they are bringing contraband into a blockade.

Saying is one thing, proving is another. The reason why we have international waters in the first place is so one nation can't just say something as an excuse to attack another.

by most reports there were Hamas members on the boat where the violence happened.

Jun 1, 2010#36

sixpackshaker

TeKeo;392724][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:
But I am saying they are bringing contraband into a blockade.

Saying is one thing, proving is another. The reason why we have international waters in the first place is so one nation can't just say something as an excuse to attack another.

by most reports there were Hamas members on the boat where the violence happened.

Can you provide those reports? The only places I've seen saying that just link to IDF/Israeli government press releases, most of which seem to claim that because trained IDF special forces teams were attacked with pipes and chairs, it must be a terrorist organization.[/QUOTE]

By their own reports in the media they were carrying contraband to a blockade.

Hamas is a lot more than just a terrorist organization. There are educators, politicians, doctors, journalists, etc... These other fields that Hamas represents for the Palestinians are not manned by terrorists, but the sympathies are there with them.

And Al Capone gave away food during the depression.

Jun 1, 2010#37

SpecialKO

sixpackshaker said:
By their own reports in the media they were carrying contraband to a blockade.

That's not what I asked, I asked for reports that there were actual Hamas members on board, which you claim to have read.

As to whether its contraband or not, the same document that we keep coming back to points out that foodstuffs and other objects essential for survival cannot be blockaded if the target area requires them. Israel says it doesn't, Free Gaza says it does. I'd be interested to know what the Red Cross, under whose jurisdiction the interpretation of that document seems to have been placed, would say. There's a great deal of evidence that the blockade, regardless of whether it is being enforced by Israelis or Egyptians, does not meet the internationally-recognized requirements for a legal blockade.

Hamas is a lot more than just a terrorist organization. There are educators, politicians, doctors, journalists, etc... These other fields that Hamas represents for the Palestinians are not manned by terrorists, but the sympathies are there with them.

For the third time, where are those "most reports" about Hamas members? All I'm seeing are reports from the IDF that the passengers fighting their troops was a pre-meditated attack, and that those passengers who did are (according to the IDF, again) "Islamists with ties to Hamas and Al-Quaeda".

And Al Capone gave away food during the depression.

Good for him?

Jun 1, 2010#38

Matt²

What "humanitarian" activists plan on using night vision goggles, and bullet proof vests?

During its searches of the Mavi Marmara on Tuesday, the military also discovered a cache of bulletproof vests and night-vision goggles, as well as gas masks.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177169

Jun 1, 2010#39

SpecialKO

Matt² said:
What "humanitarian" activists plan on using night vision goggles, and bullet proof vests?

During its searches of the Mavi Marmara on Tuesday, the military also discovered a cache of bulletproof vests and night-vision goggles, as well as gas masks.

Click to expand...

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177169

Maybe they were concerned about getting shot at.

I'm inclined to think this is true, simply because if the IDF were going to pull a fast one, they would have said it was a cache of guns. Then again, maybe that would have been too implausible, since you would have expected the passengers to have used them if they were dangerous terrorists who, according to that article, premeditated a violent assault against the IDF. Then again, you'd think they would have used the vests and NVGs as well. Hmmm.

Honestly, I have a hard time taking anything the IDF claims at face value, at this point, without independent verification.

Side note: is there a Hebrew word that translates to "lynch" somehow? Because the IDF spokeperson is constantly using it, and at least in English, incorrectly.

Jun 1, 2010#40

Matt²

not sure, but maybe it was meant to be "attack" ? Anyhoo, I only see it once in the article.

Jun 1, 2010#41

SpecialKO

Matt² said:
not sure, but maybe it was meant to be "attack" ? Anyhoo, I only see it once in the article.

No, I mean, in general. Almost every article I've read that includes an IDF statement is using it. It just seems like an odd choice of words. It's not like a "premeditated attack" is any better, for this purpose.

Jun 2, 2010#42

tegid

sixpackshaker said:
And Al Capone gave away food during the depression.

So? Should he have been stopped because he was Al Capone?

Jun 2, 2010#43

Troll

tegid;393022][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:
And Al Capone gave away food during the depression.

So? Should he have been stopped because he was Al Capone?[/QUOTE]

Of course not. But it doesn't erase his various crimes and make him a good guy either, and I think that's the point sixpack was trying to make.

Jun 2, 2010#44

JONJONAUG

Isreal fails propaganda forever

My friend Ibn Kafka has a wonderful post catching Israel in a propaganda f**k-up. The Israeli Ministry Foreign Affairs posted on its Flickr account pictures of the terrifying weapons they found on the IHH ship. You know, things like bulletproof vests for emergency services, pepper spray, kitchen knives, bits of wood and other weapons of mass destruction. Except that they did not realize that Flickr displays EXIF data, which is the information that cameras record when they take pictures: aperture, shutter speed, flash status... and the time the picture was taken.

Which, as Flickr commenters quickly pointed out, was sometime in 2006.

So the Israeli MFA quickly changed the EXIF date, but not before I was able to take snapshots of before and after

In particular, there were two different cameras and I think six different photos. Half of them had a 2006 date with one model of camera, and half had 2003 with another.

See article for pictures. In addition, all of the "weapons" in Isreal's photos are nothing more than the kind of stuff you would find at a Home Depot or other home goods department store.

Jun 2, 2010#45

Chazwozel

JONJONAUG said:
Isreal fails propaganda forever

My friend Ibn Kafka has a wonderful post catching Israel in a propaganda f**k-up. The Israeli Ministry Foreign Affairs posted on its Flickr account pictures of the terrifying weapons they found on the IHH ship. You know, things like bulletproof vests for emergency services, pepper spray, kitchen knives, bits of wood and other weapons of mass destruction. Except that they did not realize that Flickr displays EXIF data, which is the information that cameras record when they take pictures: aperture, shutter speed, flash status... and the time the picture was taken.

Which, as Flickr commenters quickly pointed out, was sometime in 2006.

So the Israeli MFA quickly changed the EXIF date, but not before I was able to take snapshots of before and after

Click to expand...

In particular, there were two different cameras and I think six different photos. Half of them had a 2006 date with one model of camera, and half had 2003 with another.

See article for pictures. In addition, all of the "weapons" in Isreal's photos are nothing more than the kind of stuff you would find at a Home Depot or other home goods department store.

oh those wacky Jews...

Jun 2, 2010#46

Dei

Well, I'm certainly not defending Israel, because I think they pulled a stupid move, but they could also be too stupid to set the correct dates on their cameras. (I mean, 2003 and 2006? Those cameras are ancient in "electronic time")

Jun 3, 2010#47

SpecialKO

Dei said:
Well, I'm certainly not defending Israel, because I think they pulled a stupid move, but they could also be too stupid to set the correct dates on their cameras. (I mean, 2003 and 2006? Those cameras are ancient in "electronic time")

Yes, it seems far more likely that they just never set the date properly.

Jun 3, 2010#48

Espy

NO ITS A CONSPIRACY AND JEWS RIULE THE WORLD AND ALWAYS SET CAMERAS RIGHT.

Jun 3, 2010#49

Chazwozel

Espy said:
NO ITS A CONSPIRACY AND JEWS RIULE THE WORLD AND ALWAYS SET CAMERAS RIGHT.

Set correct or not, bulletproof vests and a couple of kitchen knives are hardly weapons of mass destruction...

Jun 3, 2010#50

SpecialKO

Chazwozel;393802][QUOTE=Espy said:
NO ITS A CONSPIRACY AND JEWS RIULE THE WORLD AND ALWAYS SET CAMERAS RIGHT.

Set correct or not, bulletproof vests and a couple of kitchen knives are hardly weapons of mass destruction...[/QUOTE]

Well, to be fair, it probably hurts a lot if someone hits you in the face with a bulletproof vest while you're trying to shoot them.

Jun 3, 2010#51

Espy

I don't think anyone would or has disagreed with or asserted that. I tend to agree with Veep Biden's views on the incident the more that comes out about it:

Vice President Joe Biden backed Israel's right to board ships bound for Gaza to prevent weapons smuggling on Wednesday, but said Washington remained concerned about the plight of Palestinians there.
"Israel has an absolute right to deal with its security interest," Biden said in an interview on PBS's "Charlie Rose" show, while reiterating the Obama administration's support for a transparent, impartial investigation of what happened.

The aim of the Israeli commando operation had been to seize control of the ships and escort them to Israel's Ashdod port. From there, Israeli authorities had promised to transfer the seized cargo to Hamas-controlled Gaza.

"They (Israel) have said, 'Here you go. You're in the Mediterranean. This ship -- if you divert slightly north you can unload it and we'll get the stuff into Gaza." So what's the big deal here?" Biden said.

"What's the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza?" he asked.

"Well, it's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping eight -- 3,000 rockets on my people,"' he said, referring to Hamas, the Islamist movement which rejects interim peace terms with Israel and has regularly fired rockets into the Jewish state.

But Biden said the U.S. also needed to "put as much pressure and as much cajoling on Israel as we can" to allow in aid shipments such as building materials.

Jun 3, 2010#52

SpecialKO

"What's the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza?" he asked.

Because under international law, humanitarian ships can do so? Whether they wanted to indulge in public civil disobedience is immaterial (and legal).

"Well, it's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship.

By that stirring argument, any ship of practically any major power on Earth can attack any ship they want anywhere on Earth. What's the point of even having international maritime agreements then?

Also, I wonder how VP Biden feels about them killing Americans in international waters?

Here's the other thing. Why is everyone all of a sudden assuming that the only way to stop and search a ship is by night-time supercommando raid? Not even counting other countries, Israel has stopped and searched ships with their Navy for decades.

Jun 3, 2010#53

Espy

I should clarify: I'm not saying I think they did this "right" or "well". It sounds like they tried to enforce their blockade and did a really, really bad job of it. Heads should roll.

Jun 3, 2010#54

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Espy said:
I should clarify: I'm not saying I think they did this "right" or "well". It sounds like they tried to enforce their blockade and did a really, really bad job of it. Heads should roll.

Heh. In many of your posts on politics, you usually take the middle ground, only to have someone misinterpret your intent then attack you for it.

It's not really relevant to this topic, just a sad and somewhat humorous observation on my part.

Jun 4, 2010#55

@Li3n

I guess Israel was bored with having Turkey as the only muslim country not officially wanting to destroy them...

Jun 4, 2010#56

Eriol

@Li3n said:
I guess Israel was bored with having Turkey as the only muslim country not officially wanting to destroy them...

Not that you're wrong in general, but Egypt is also formally at peace with Israel and has been for a long time.

Jun 4, 2010#57

Krisken

I was watching Democracy Now and the interview with a member from another boat states the boat was fired upon before they came down from the helicopter and saw flashbangs go off before as well. Hopefully an investigation reveals what really happened.

Jun 4, 2010#58

AshburnerX

Krisken said:
I was watching Democracy Now and the interview with a member from another boat states the boat was fired upon before they came down from the helicopter and saw flashbangs go off before as well. Hopefully an investigation reveals what really happened.

What investigation? It's going to be a special ops team accountable to no one (who are protected by the security of their country AND the US) versus a bunch of civilians that are on tape attacking them. I'm not saying the Israelis didn't fire first, as I'm almost certain they did, but I am pointing out how ludicrous it is to believe that ANYTHING will come of this.

Jun 4, 2010#59

Necronic

Krisken said:
I was watching Democracy Now and the interview with a member from another boat states the boat was fired upon before they came down from the helicopter and saw flashbangs go off before as well. Hopefully an investigation reveals what really happened.

Please don't quote Democracy Now. I'm sorry but that show is about as legitimate a news source as Glenn Beck is.

I think both sides in this really screwed up. I don't care what flag you wave, any country under seige has a right and a duty to board and search a vessel that large. But they should have been more careful as to how they did it. I don't think American's would have been half that careful, but we're America, I mean, hell, we just killed what? 30 civilians with a predator drone? Which is wholy inexcusable. And it gets like a 10 second blip.

Anyways, back to it. The use of the word "cache" with regards to the vests and goggles makes me wonder if we are talking about multiple packed crates or a handful of them. Either way, bullet proof vests....meh, that is a defensive tool (mostly), but night vision goggles? That's totally offensive tech.

Jun 4, 2010#60

AshburnerX

Necronic said:
Either way, bullet proof vests....meh, that is a defensive tool (mostly), but night vision goggles? That's totally offensive tech.

That's like claiming a flashlight is offensive tech. It's a device that lights up the surrounding terrain much better than a flashlight ever could. There are countless legitimate reasons you could want Night Vision Goggles other than to arm assault teams.

Jun 4, 2010#61

Krisken

Please don't tell me what I can or can't quote. You don't like the show and that's fine, but I wasn't quoting the show, I was quoting the person being interviewed. If you don't like what the witness had to say, I'm afraid you have greater issues at hand.

It's not the first time Israel has attacked a boat unprovoked and lied about it.

Jun 5, 2010#62

JONJONAUG

Israel has admitted to firing upon the flotilla and throwing flashbangs at one of the boats first.

Here's an interview from a guy who was with the commandos

T. said he realized the group they were facing was well-trained and likely ex-military after the commandos threw a number of stun grenades and fired warning shots before rappelling down onto the deck. “They didn’t even flinch,” he said. “Regular people would move.”

Jun 5, 2010#63

Espy

JONJONAUG said:
Israel has admitted to firing upon the flotilla and throwing flashbangs at one of the boats first.

Here's an interview from a guy who was with the commandos

T. said he realized the group they were facing was well-trained and likely ex-militaryafter the commandos threw a number of stun grenades and fired warning shots before rappelling down onto the deck. “They didn’t even flinch,” he said. “Regular people would move.”

Click to expand...

Wait a minute... are you equating firing warning shots to attacking?

Jun 5, 2010#64

Vrii

In fairness, it looks like they admitted to warning shots, not 'firing upon the flotilla'. There's a pretty different connotation there that you're adding in.

edit:...and Espy beat me.

Jun 5, 2010#65

Krisken

He said across their nose, not up it!

Jun 5, 2010#66

JONJONAUG

Espy;395348][QUOTE=JONJONAUG said:
Israel has admitted to firing upon the flotilla and throwing flashbangs at one of the boats first.

Here's an interview from a guy who was with the commandos

T. said he realized the group they were facing was well-trained and likely ex-militaryafter the commandos threw a number of stun grenades and fired warning shots before rappelling down onto the deck. “They didn’t even flinch,” he said. “Regular people would move.”

Click to expand...

Wait a minute... are you equating firing warning shots to attacking?[/QUOTE]

When eyewitness reports say that said warning shots hit two people, yes.

Jun 5, 2010#67

Vrii

But you're saying that somebody involved admitted to shooting at them...which by the quote you provided, isn't true.

Forums