[eskachig]

Wow, this thread moves fast.

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Repelling boarders does not make them valid targets. Especially in international waters. Also opening fire from the helos means they can claim defense.

There is zero real evidence for anybody opening fire from helos, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by Israelis starting out the operation like that, and indeed the videos show a story incompatible with that claim. As CaptainHaplo pointed out - there would not be a dense armed mob on deck if fire was incoming. Civilians just don't roll like that, we're not talking about a square formation from the Napoleonic times here. NOBODY was taking cover when soldiers started fast-roping.

Originally Posted by heartc

Yes. But this impact is artificially magnified.
In reality, there should be no question on the issue itself. The fronts should be clear: You have a democracy in the midst of totalitarian regimes that are surpressing their own peoples and filling them with hatred nothing short of what Goebbels did, instead of educating them on things that could actually further their lifes. The course as of where the support should go, ought to be clear.

First of all, being a democracy alone shouldn't guarantee support, second - Israel isn't exactly a model democracy, and the Apartheid parallels aren't completely off-base. The occupation is a problem, and people are pissed off for real reasons. Neither side seems to be interested in searching for a lasting solution. I'm for supporting Israel for geo-political reasons - because of its situation it is far and away the most reliable ally in the region. But I don't think anyone should hold any illusions that Israelis are angels or anything - though they are probably the least nasty regime in the region.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

There comes a time in any armed conflict, when people make choices...

They can remain civilians, or participate in the conflict by using violence.

Those that chose violence become - under the rules of war, combatants, and as such are treated like combatants.

Agreed - engaging military in action makes you fair game as far as I'm concerned. Civilians have certain protections, but extending them to people actively participating in combat is just dumb.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Hey heartc you deleted your comment about people not having their lives impacted all around the world. I take it you realised just about every adult in the western world and just about every industry globally has been massively impacted by events over there.

How??? I suppose maybe you mean emotionally affected.

Originally Posted by msxyz

Over the years I've seeny mobs burning cars along the streets, breaking windows and attacking policemen with molotov cocktails, maces and other improvised weapons.

...

Modern society has its rules. You may argue that we've grown overcomplacent to mass hysteria phenomena like violent protesting but you cannot simply choose to ignore said rules. One of these rules is that "law" is supposed to lead by example, not to trade an eye for an eye.

Strange viewpoint. Yeah, riot cops will not usually fire on protestors who only have hand weapons. Provided they have their footing, and are lined up in formation with shields and gear. They are in a dominant position and are in no extreme danger in that situation. If they are isolated and overwhelmed, then individual policemen are suddenly in extreme danger, and you bet your ass that service weapons would come out. There is no rule that says that policemen have to allow themselves to be killed, and as soon as there is a real danger to their lives, they are not just mandated, but required to respond with deadly force.

How many cops do you personally know? Have you talked about the situation with them, and asked what their department guidelines say about this situation? The cops I talked to said that the soldiers waited too long to shoot and are lucky none of them died.

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Israel has completely ruined its PR with this move. Today even BBC and other major news outlets are talking about viewpoints from the passengers who say not only were white flags up but commandoes opened fire from the helos themselves. With the military already caught in lies about this it makes their "defense only" talk sound as true as those who say we diddnt land on the moon.

What lies? What do white flags have to do with anything? If anything, white flags are usually a signal for "we're ready to talk peacefully". In warfare, using white flags to create an ambush usually means summary execution. For reasons previously stated, I find the "firing from helicopters" story highly suspect.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

And the issue is that the limits on the amount of trucks it permits and the amount of crossings it will allow to be used means that Israel is not allowing even the stated minimum aid requirements to be shipped through.
Which means what Sky describes as the only alternative is in no way a viable alternative.

This... is not really true. There are indeed a lot of strange procedural weirdnesses with Gaza supplies, but for the most part the important stuff gets through.

From the BBC:

Aid agencies operating in Gaza say they have largely been able to continue to transport basic supplies such as flour and cooking oil into the territory.
...
Israel generally allows medicines into Gaza. The WHO says that shortages of drugs are a problem, with 15-30% of essential drugs out of stock over 2009. But it blames problems in the supply chain, including the rift between Fatah and Hamas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7545636.stm

Not that living in Gaza is a picnic by any means, but in general Israel lets all food and medicine through.

Oh, and here is the offer Israel's navy made to the activists before boarding:

The Israeli government supports delivery of humanitarian supplies to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip, and invites you to enter the Ashdod port. Delivery of the supplies in accordance with the authorities' regulations will be through the formal land crossings and under your observation, after which you can return to your home ports aboard the vessels on which you arrived.

Right of supervision of delivery was explicitly promised.

Yes, chocolate is a very handy weapon for a terrorist
Hamas is the only entity in Gaza that benefits from the blockade and now they have also benefited from the fallout from Israels fiasco of sheer idiocy.

I'm actually with you on this, I don't think this blockade will accomplish Israel's goals. The Palestinians don't seem to respond well to this kind of pressure, and are used to hardship anyhow.

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Apparently a good deal of the Israelis decided they'd celebrate the attack in front of the Turkish embassy in Tel Aviv.

I see them protesting Turkish government statements, not celebrating deaths of the activists.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

That's an interesting point. If your ship is attacked in international waters and is boarded by say cops or commandoes, you tater would make an estimation of whether or not you could take them in a battle. You would see the commandoes, they don't look so tough. You would see the're armed but notice that hey, they only have paintball guns. WTF, you'd think, are they kidding? As they'd board your ship you'd take anything you could reach, a piece of wood maybe and start beating on their silly butts.

However, at this point the commandoes would deduce that you're being a lethal threat to them and produce a lethal handgun from the ankle holster you missed on your initial estimation.

Yeah, that's a hell of a miscalculation right there, and you'd earn that bullet. What's your point exactly?

In general, as a civilian interacting with military personnel, one should probably assume that a whole lot of pain can and will be brought on you if you misbehave. Also, soldiers usually have backup.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

And btw, why are you, the freedom-lovin' Ah-mu-ri-cans all of a sudden in favour of commissars coming and taking away your precious freedom? Can I send cops take away your freedom?

You don't have freedom to ignore authorities, so there is no freedom to take away. You have all kinds of rights and options, but when a cop tells you to do something cooperation is probably in your best interest. And if you come at a cop with a club you will probably eat a bullet for your trouble.

You do have the right to defend yourself against police if they are breaking the law, but not unless you are in danger of physical harm - if a cop is illegally searching your car you can sue him for it, but you don't get to throw a punch.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

are you aware that the attack took place in international waters? And that it's legal to defend yourself, especially with non-lethal force?

Pipes and knives are lethal force, I can't believe you keep bringing it up. Being boarded could be an act of war (though blockade runners are explicitly allowed to be captured, or in case of resistance, sunk), but armed resistance means that one loses protection of civilian status. As for international waters - every blockade is international waters, and maritime laws explicitly allow for it.

Originally Posted by pipin

It still does not seem legitimate to me...
Israel has no rights to extend it's blockade at will to 69 miles into int waters. It was at 48 miles before this event.

What does it matter? 69 miles, 200 miles, it's all the same really. There are specific conditions that make a blockade illegal, and that's not part of it.

the NATO demand for immediate restituition of ships passengers and cargo reported two posts above speaks for itself about the legitimacy of this boarding...

Or it speaks of a desire to placate Turkey. This is a non-binding statement by the NATO Secretary General with no conditions attached - it has no meaning other than a soundbite for the press.

Originally Posted by Foxtrot

I think your question is a bit incomplete. The said police is following what rules of engagement? local laws or international laws? Shall we consider the said police as United Nations?

International laws are fairly vague on what happens in neutral waters, as this debate should show. But Israeli military forces have their own laws which they are obliged to follow, just as US military has the UCMJ. Among other things, they spell out requirements that soldiers have to follow in treatment of civilians, and they ostensibly reflect any international agreements that a nation may be part of.

Of course I have to know. I am in neutral territory, and then only police can stop me is UN with a defined set of laws. I won't stop if Naval Police of Antarctica is trying to stop me near North Pole. They simply have no jurisdiction there.

Well, not really. You can be detained in international waters for a lot of reasons, some of which have been rehashed in this very thread. UN doesn't have a law enforcement arm - it's a forum for sovereign nations, not a super-government.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Oh I know how to use a puukko in a way it won't kill you. And by hiring 'Johnny Cochrane' I'd get my view heard in the court.

It really doesn't matter what you know, or whether you meant to kill someone or merely wound. Attacking someone with a knife is assault with a deadly weapon (btw, merely threatening someone with a knife is assault), and in general not just cops, but civilians, would usually have a legal right to apply lethal force in self defense.

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

I hate to tell you this, but just because someone might only be wounded in an attack doesn't make it NOT deadly force. If you're using a weapon that can kill someone... whether it's a gun, knife, even a bludgeon, it's deadly force even if the effect or intent was only to wound.

Indeed. This is silly to even talk about. When someone is beating you with a baseball bat, you should assume they are trying to kill you and act accordingly, it's just common sense.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

You mean illegal like having building material etc.? Err...duh.

I'm not really sure I buy Israel's line for preventing bunker-building either. Though... there were bunkers built.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Are you saying that Israelis have knowledge of all cargo that is approaching their harbors? Well why didn't they ask the Turkish to inspect the ships then, shouldn't have been too difficult. I mean, if they managed to sabotage some ships, a simple phone call shouldn't be too difficult.

Huh? What would asking Turkey to inspect ships accomplish? And besides, whether ships were inspected or not, Isreal would still be enforcing the blockade. Because otherwise it's not a blockade!

If the commandoes didn't want to put themselves on harms way they should've stayed out of a ship sailing in international waters. They were lucky they were only attacked with non-lethal force and not lethal which would have been ok too.

They were indeed attacked with lethal force, you just seem to refuse to understand the concept of lethal force. And I think that's ok, they are soldiers after all. But it's ok that they killed some of their attackers as well.

Originally Posted by Foxtrot

Medicine,Cement blocks,and wheelchairs should be classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction. Anyone who manufactures them, carries them, transports them and uses them should be considered as a terrorist from now on. Israeli government has to defend itself from wheelchair-bound Palestinians who would wield cement blocks while high on medicine!

Do you believe that Israel has no right to enforce a blockade at all, or are you taking issues with some aspects of its implementation?

Originally Posted by Merchant Raider

AH !, the big soldiers got hit with sticks !!

What is your point? Clubs are deadly weapons you know. In the course of human history, millions have been clubbed to death. A human skull is sort of a fragile thing.