Report: Israel attacks flotilla, 10 die

They were 70 miles off the coast, that is not international waters that is within Israel's EEZ (Economic Exclusion Zone) in which they have the right to conduct fishing, mining etc. So the ship was in the EEZ with the intention of entering the Contiguous Zone, running the blockade and thus did not have the right of innocent passage.

Nice try, but epic fail.
You are trying to mix different parts of the law which don't mix, you have many seperate issues there.
You are jumping from territorial right through contiguous and out to EEZ and trying to drag things from territorial and contiguous with you even though they are firmly tied to their own zone.

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

go to their profile and under the "user list" tab

select "add to ignore list"

Nah, whatever. Can't be arsed.

But, think about it. Israel is being funded with US tax payer money. Israel gets more money from the US then any developing nation, plus private donations. Are they that badly off? Wouldn't you like to have that tax money in your own pocket?

[HunterICX]

Well done, Israel

Stupid activists, got what they deserved.

I hate thos leftish bastards that think they are above the rules.
funny that they are too the violent ones in most of their stupid actions.

Left and Right are pretty much the same, it's just that theire reasons differ for their stupidity.

they ignored the request to dock elswere and the good be checked and send further from there, they simply didn't cooperate and just resisted with violence sailing on the waves of Human Rights

they acted stupid and got their ass handed to them and I don't feel any bit sorry for that scum.

HunterICX

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Well done, Israel

Stupid activists, got what they deserved.

I hate thos leftish bastards that think they are above the rules.
funny that they are too the violent ones in most of their stupid actions.

Left and Right are pretty much the same, it's just that theire reasons differ for their stupidity.

they ignored the request to dock elswere and the good be checked and send further from there, they simply didn't cooperate and just resisted with violence sailing on the waves of Human Rights

they acted stupid and got their ass handed to them and I don't feel any bit sorry for that scum.

HunterICX

Yes, you just oversee that the PR victory that this provocation was designed for, has been scored by those leftists and hamasophile philantropists. Refusing to land in Ashdod and let the goods being controlled and then transported on land was part of that intention, because if they would have done that, there could not have been any showdown at sea that they wanted, and that now delivers Israel - although it seems to me that in principle Israel is right here - a major diplomatic disaster. You laugh about these people getting their ass handed to them. But in fact, they won this round by right getting their asses handed to them. more and more information gets leaked that indicates that the Israelis are right when they claim that aboard the ship the use of violence and weapons was prepared long in advance. The outcome of this operation is exactly what the Palestinians wanted!

It's a shooting and a media war going on. In the latter, the Palestinians excel (although the Mossad also is not shy in playing dirty). That also is a part of a wider concept of asymmetric warfare.

[Wamiduku]

Originally Posted by Weiss Pinguin

Last I checked racism was a thing looked down on around here at subsim,

Just want to get things clarified: Does this mean that it's not OK to hate someone because he/she was born in a black family, while it's perfectly OK to hate someone because he/she is born in a muslim family? I fail to see why one type of bigot should be better than the other.

[Weiss Pinguin]

Originally Posted by Wamiduku

Just want to get things clarified: Does this mean that it's not OK to hate someone because he/she was born in a black family, while it's perfectly OK to hate someone because he/she is born in a muslim family? I fail to see why one type of bigot should be better than the other.

No. (But I don't recall makings comments like this? Unless you were just asking) One kind bigot is just as bad as the next.

[Wamiduku]

Originally Posted by Weiss Pinguin

No. (But I don't recall makings comments like this? Unless you were just asking) One kind bigot is just as bad as the next.

I haven't seen you making comments like that either, so please don't take offense. I had Skybird's posts in mind. I've seen films from the south in the 1960s, where clan people make the most despicable speaches about blacks, but none of them were able to express their hatred with such intensity, such fervour as the white hot hate that's expressed in Skybird's posts about muslims.

[Skybird]

Hating people for their skin colour, their hair or the form of their eyes, is racism.

Being worried and/or finding disgusting the way people behave, the content of the ideologies they believe and that they put to life in the world you share with them, is no racism.

People really should stop to mistak the one with the other.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Nice try, but epic fail.
You are trying to mix different parts of the law which don't mix, you have many seperate issues there.
You are jumping from territorial right through contiguous and out to EEZ and trying to drag things from territorial and contiguous with you even though they are firmly tied to their own zone.

I don't think boardings in the EEZ are legal. I think it has to be territorial waters.

Maybe the rules are a little bit different in a blockade zone...but, I'm guessing for such a blockade to officially exist in international waters there would have to be a UNSCR resolution under Chapter VII, and without such a resolution a state would be best to keep the blockade in territorial waters.

EDIT: at least under UNCLOS, boardings in the EEZ can be legal if done "in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone," but that obviously is not applicable here.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Hating people for their skin colour, their hair or the form of their eyes, is racism.

Being worried and/or finding disgusting the way people behave, the content of the ideologies they believe and that they put to life in the world you share with them, is no racism.

People really should stop to mistak the one with the other.

He's right you know.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

I don't think boardings in the EEZ are legal. I think it has to be territorial waters.

Maybe the rules are a little bit different in a blockade zone...but, I'm guessing for such a blockade to officially exist in international waters there would have to be a UNSCR resolution under Chapter VII, and without such a resolution a state would be best to keep the blockade in territorial waters.

actually the law of the sea has never been that clear:

http://www.slate.com/id/1007689

[Wamiduku]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Being worried and/or finding disgusting the way people behave, the content of the ideologies they believe and that they put to life in the world you share with them, is no racism.

That would make things complicated in the case of the antisemites; Hating jews because of their race - bad thing. Hating them because of their religion - sure, why not? Sounds like hogwash to me.

[Weiss Pinguin]

Originally Posted by Wamiduku

That would make things complicated in the case of the antisemites; Hating jews because of their race - bad thing. Hating them because of their religion - sure, why not? Sounds like hogwash to me.

There's a difference between hating people who believe something and hating what they believe. I think for Skybird it's the latter, but I can't speak for him.

[Oberon]

I'm sitting here and I'm pondering the range of options open to Israel in dealing with the convoy. The category of using force against it is spread into different sections and methods of approach.
I personally, at first glance, would have allowed the ships to approach Israeli waters, and then halted them with a warship and fired a few shots across their bow...but then what? If the ships call the bluff and keep on steaming, what do you do? Any action other than backing down will result in casualties, particularly if, and it seems so, there were weapons on board the convoy (and that's got to be a big no-no against the convoys moral high ground) and if you back down then what precedent does that set? That any Tom, Dick or Mohammad with a boat can sail into Gaza and deliver whatever they want to people who will potentially attack you?
Whatever their choice in this matter, Israel would have lost, it was a no win situation.
Come to think of it...in this political climate, Israel is in an unsustainable position, eventually it will completely alienate itself and may find itself under heavy sanctions and perhaps a blockade of its own. Then what does it do?
Get invaded and overrun by Syria probably, and that's an epic victory for the anti-western factions of the Middle East who view Israel as being an extension of the West into the Middle East.

Not good for Israel, either way.

[Bilge_Rat]

The ship refused an order to turn back and the passenger and crew attacked the boarding party. Israel has nothing to apologize for, the boarding party of any other navy would have reacted the same way.

The left-wing activists on board a flotilla carrying aid to the Gaza Strip tried to lynch the Israel Navy commandos who stormed their Turkish-flagged ship early Monday, Israel Defense Forces sources told Haaretz.
The commandos, who intercepted the Turkish ferry Mavi Marmara after it ignored orders to turn back, said they encountered violent resistance from activists armed with sticks and knives. According to the soldiers, the activists threw one of their comrades from the upper deck to the lower after they boarded.


An Israeli military spokesman said some of the commandos were equipped with paintball guns but the non-lethal weapons were not enough against activists who charged in with batons.

"They had pistols with live ammunition as back-up, to defend themselves," he said.

One of the commandos told reporters he descended by rope from a helicopter onto one of the six ships in the convoy and was immediately attacked by a group of people waiting for them.

"They beat us with metal sticks and knives," he said. "There was live fire at some point against us."

A Reuters cameraman on the Israeli navy ship Kidon close to the six-vessel aid convoy said commanders monitoring the operation were surprised by the strong resistance put up by the pro-Palestinian activists.
One of the commandos said some of the soldiers were stripped of their helmets and equipment and a number were tossed from the top deck to a lower deck and then leapt into the sea to save themselves.

"They jumped me, hit me with clubs and bottles and stole my rifle," one of the commandos said. "I pulled out my pistol and had no choice but to shoot."
The soldiers said they were forced to open fire after the activists struck one of their comrades in the head and trampled on him. A senior field commander ordered the soldiers then to respond with fire, a decision which the commandos said received full backing the military echelon

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...ch-us-1.293089

of course, the international news media will once again portray Israel as the only villain.