Report: Israel attacks flotilla, 10 die

[GoldenRivet]

so based on that... until the UN rules otherwise, its legal?

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

so based on that... until the UN rules otherwise, its legal?

The default rule is that you're not allowed to board a ship in international waters aside from a few narrow exceptions. The UNSC can, under its Article VII powers, authorize the use of armed force, including a blockade and the boarding operations that come with it.

[Bubblehead1980]

First of all, there is a blockade and the idiots aboard the ships had to know there was a chance and if they did not, well Israel just took out a few morons.I highly doubt the commandos just boarded and opened fire, they were most likely provoked once they boarded and defended themselves against the activists etc.

Israel has the right to defend itself and one way they are trying to do that is by a blockade to deny materials etc to their enemies.The convoy violated the blockade and suffered the consequences of it's actions.Israel did nothing wrong most likely.People should be worrying about Iran, China , Russia, and North Korea , the real "bad guys" in this world instead of trying to get on Israel about defending itself.
Israel like any country is not perfect and while the US Israel are Allies, Israel has done some things not so friendly to the US in the past but we are Allies, despite the embarassing way obama treats them, but he will be voted out soon enough.The End.

[Castout]

The number of people killed is reported to have reached 19.

Fastroping 101, funny picture.

But even from a kind of pro-Israel point of view, if they go in and bunch of guys start wielding batongs to defend against attackers, the decision to use lethal force is a big step to take. The commandos could have jumped overboard once the trouble started, I don't think one ship is worth dying/killing for. Or even worth using non-lethal force.

So they could've jumped into the sea, I'm sure they had some kind of flotation devices to keep them on the surface until they were picked up, right? Just bad judgement to use lethal force on such a scale.

[L.T]

No one like terrorists, and the Israeli soldiers actualy did hold back. They initialy only used paintball guns, but was forced to use there sidearm cause of fear of there lives.

The above sounds ok and no one can point any fingers on that. BUT Israel did this in international waters. There blocade are not acceptet by the UN and therefore it is against international law concerning international waters.

If you are ok with it, you have to be ok with the somali pirates, you have to be ok about any ship being boarded anywhere....

If you think its ok and they were just terrorists, you then have to accept that that you have no rights in international waters, NO ONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW!

You cant say that its ok what Israel did and then stil demand to be protectet by the law.

All they had to do was to wait so they could intercept in national waters...

If you think its ok and the activists did something wrong by attacking the commandos you have shot down any right to deffend your self...

They were wrong attacking the soldiers, but they had the right to do it BECAUSE THE SHIP WAS IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS!!

Was the convoy a stupid thing? YES
Was the attack on the soldiers a stupid thing? YES

Was the convoy an article 33 convoy? YES
Was the convoy in international waters? YES

Do ANYONE on this planet have the right to deffend there ship in international waters? YES

Is an i-legal boarding in international waters considered piracy? YES

You cant disagree with the Israelis on what they did, they just did it the wrong place...

BTW.
Some talks about it was a leagal action, could those then tell me why the UN are launching an investigation concerning the E-LEAGAL actions by Israel in international waters?? turn on the TV and watch the news...



L.T

[eskachig]

Originally Posted by VonHesse

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37423584...deastn_africa/

Had a feeling it was going to end this way. It's always the way it ends when people without guns try to stand up against people with guns.

Well, yes. When a group of people without guns attacks a group of people with guns usually some people get shot. Pretty sure that if you had a gun, you would not allow someone to beat you to death over principle. Double so if you have a mission to follow through and your mates in trouble.

Oh, and the contraband worth killing over...?

Nobody was trying to kill anyone over contraband. Contraband is worth boarding over, not killing. Unconscious comrades bleeding on the ground and a mob with weapons is worth killing over.

Originally Posted by msxyz

I mean, even if nobody thought that a merry band of pacifists and activists would have triggered such a hostile response, the least any country would do is to stop the ships in their NATIONAL waters and have them searched.

It's not practical to enforce a blockade within national waters, as international waters are within speedboat range. If you let ships park twelve miles off-shore, it becomes virtually impossible to interdict the cargo.

Which is why pretty much every other blockade ever has been carried out in international waters.

And if it's true that the ships were boarded in international waters, resistance by the ship crew and occupants is justified.

Look, regardless of the legality of the situation - armed resistance against a military unit will probably result in your death, and that's true everywhere. Soldiers aren't lawyers. What's more, armed resistance against a military force means you're not a civilian. Yes, if a nation is invading yours without UN sanction, that is possibly illegal. But their soldiers shooting you when you come at them with a hunting rifle is not.

Originally Posted by msxyz

Not smart on the Isreali part to send battle hardened commandos. These guys are like watchdogs trained to shot first and ask question later. When you're mentally conditioned to survive by sheer brute force in a hostile envirnment you don't mix well with any stress situation that requires thinking BEFORE acting. They just act like dumb, albeit very efficient, biological robots.

You don't understand the realities of either police work or modern military operations. Both are trained to overcome the adrenalin dump of combat and retain judgement and rationality - but soldiers even more so as they face those situations more and the stakes are higher. They have different set of tactical skills, and police work puts a stronger emphasis on people skills and conflict prevention - but in this case nobody got a chance to talk anyway.

They should have used policemen who are better trained to deal with protesters, riots, etc...

What would the cops do, take a longer beating? I think the soldiers should've shot sooner. It's not their job to debate why they are being sent into that situation, and once an angry mob is beating you and your buddies to a pulp and giving every indication of murderous intent, it's time for a lethal response.

Say what you want about the Israelis, but had they not been met with violence this would've been a non-incident, like the five boardings before it.

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Then it all was pointless for Israel to begin with. And they're in a heap of trouble. From what I've heard and been reading, the Israelis opened fire with the paintball guns they had on the humanitarian aid workers and injured a few of them, then were stormed by the rest. The Turks on board were screaming at them not to shoot because they were "raising the white flag!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10199480.stm

Well that must excuse it. After all, if I break into your house and shoot you with a beanbag gun before racking up the buckshot after you hit me with a chair, it's you that's in the wrong...

I think the videos of the incident put that little theory to rest. The first soldier, and a few after him never got a chance to draw any weapons.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

But even from a kind of pro-Israel point of view, if they go in and bunch of guys start wielding batongs to defend against attackers, the decision to use lethal force is a big step to take. The commandos could have jumped overboard once the trouble started, I don't think one ship is worth dying/killing for. Or even worth using non-lethal force.

Non-lethal options are usually better at preventing violence, or as a preemptive action. In close combat with hand weapons they are generally ineffective. Oh, and jumping off means leaving your people behind to the tender mercies of a rampaging mob.

Interesting first message.

Originally Posted by eskachig

Well, yes. When a group of people without guns attacks a group of people with guns usually some people get shot. Pretty sure that if you had a gun, you would not allow someone to beat you to death over principle. Double so if you have a mission to follow through and your mates in trouble.

Does this only apply to the Israeli commandos or also the people in the aid convoy?

Nobody was trying to kill anyone over contraband. Contraband is worth boarding over, not killing. Unconscious comrades bleeding on the ground and a mob with weapons is worth killing over.

What about people legally defending their ship being shot to death by invaders?

It's not practical to enforce a blockade within national waters, as international waters are within speedboat range. If you let ships park twelve miles off-shore, it becomes virtually impossible to interdict the cargo.

So Israel can do anything, other countries (including North Korea) can't do anything. I get it now.

Look, regardless of the legality of the situation - armed resistance against a military unit will probably result in your death, and that's true everywhere. Soldiers aren't lawyers. What's more, armed resistance against a military force means you're not a civilian. Yes, if a nation is invading yours without UN sanction, that is possibly illegal. But their soldiers shooting you when you come at them with a hunting rifle is not.

If I were to commit armed resistance I'd be wielding a little bit more then just a piece of pipe. The outcome would be very different too I can guarantee that.

You don't understand the realities of either police work or modern military operations. Both are trained to overcome the adrenalin dump of combat and retain judgement and rationality - but soldiers even more so as they face those situations more and the stakes are higher. They have different set of tactical skills, and police work puts a stronger emphasis on people skills and conflict prevention - but in this case nobody got a chance to talk anyway.

That's right, the Israelis messed up. Good to see you agreeing on that.

What would the cops do, take a longer beating? I think the soldiers should've shot sooner. It's not their job to debate why they are being sent into that situation, and once an angry mob is beating you and your buddies to a pulp and giving every indication of murderous intent, it's time for a lethal response.

Say what you want about the Israelis, but had they not been met with violence this would've been a non-incident, like the five boardings before it.

I think the videos of the incident put that little theory to rest. The first soldier, and a few after him never got a chance to draw any weapons.

When was the last time cops killed people in your country for non-lethal resistance? Lets say people protest on the street and refuse to leave, you'd say it's ok for the cops to open up on them with lethal force?

Non-lethal options are usually better at preventing violence, or as a preemptive action. In close combat with hand weapons they are generally ineffective. Oh, and jumping off means leaving your people behind to the tender mercies of a rampaging mob.

I guess the Israelis should stop conducting illegal murder operations on international waters then, eh?

[msxyz]

Originally Posted by eskachig

You don't understand the realities of either police work or modern military operations. Both are trained to overcome the adrenalin dump of combat and retain judgement and rationality - but soldiers even more so as they face those situations more and the stakes are higher. They have different set of tactical skills, and police work puts a stronger emphasis on people skills and conflict prevention - but in this case nobody got a chance to talk anyway.

What would the cops do, take a longer beating? I think the soldiers should've shot sooner. It's not their job to debate why they are being sent into that situation, and once an angry mob is beating you and your buddies to a pulp and giving every indication of murderous intent, it's time for a lethal response.

No, a police force would have come equipped with a different set of body armor (like that used by riot control units which is designed to minimize bash damage), gas grenades, stun batoons, etc...

Giving paintball guns or rubber bullets to soldiers is a pretty stupid thing. The moment they realize an angry mob is not stopping to the threat of being hit with some rubber balls they will switch to standard 'man stopper' bullets.

Besides, knowing the usual environment in which these commanods operate it was clear it would end this way. They are trained to fight in close quarters against guerilla units and irregulars disguised as innocent civilians or hiding behind them. They're trained to expect a booby trap right around every corner. In this cases, a split second could make the difference between life and death. That's why they're trained to shoot first and ask later.

It was the wrong military unit to send searching those ships.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Does this only apply to the Israeli commandos or also the people in the aid convoy? What about people legally defending their ship being shot to death by invaders?

So Israel can do anything, other countries (including North Korea) can't do anything. I get it now.

You're disturbing a hornet nest. Israel didn't sign any nuclear weapon act, despite its nuclear arsenal is the worst kept secret in the world. Despite this, it's not considered a 'rogue state'. Talk about double standards...

[Zachstar]

They had raised the white flag video shows it happening before most of the violence happened. Now Israel is in a heap of trouble and its operation in Gaza is under more scrutiny then ever. Quick PR defence and the usual "Support Israel or we label you something bad" statements arent going to work here.

Now turkey says its going to send the navy with them next time? What is Israel going to do? Land a commando unit on a combat navy vessel and it will be wiped out within moments. Followed likely by a vampire US is not going to help Israel fight againt a war it starts in international waters. That would leave them open to attack from its neighbors. Its defensive situation just went from crap to utter ****

TLAM Strike FTW!

Not in the slightest, read the document not just the line he highlighted as it doesn't even apply.
You need to answer the question of the legal status of the State and the territory in question and the international legal status that israel has given to what it deems prohibited humanitarian aid.

So far, based on this threads posts, it would appear that the UN has ruled the blockade legal

Yes and no, but mainly no and in the incident in question definately no. Customs control (which in effect is what this blockade is) is legal as Israel is the occupying power and as an agreement between parties has border control, but actions under that are only legal in territorial and contiguous waters, not in the EEZ.
The other legal issue on the blockade is the question of the ever changing designation Israel has of what goods constitute humanitarian aid as it not only has no right to block humanitarian aid, it is obliged to ensure it is all allowed to be delivered unimpeded and that the amount delivered is sufficient to meet the needs of the populace.
Since it fails its legal obligations on delivery, access and supply due to its blockade it is by default an illegal blockade (it has even failed to fulfill its legal obligations on supply as ruled in its own courts under its own laws let alone its international obligations under international law)
None of which is really relevant in this instance anyway since it happened in an area where even if it fulfilled all its other obligations it still cannot have done what it did in the EEZ which under those terms count as international waters which is why the UN and just about every government is condemning the action as ilegal

[L.T]

this is a small joke...nothing more





L.T

[Merchant Raider]

It SURE IS GOING FROM BAD TO WORSE OUTTHERE AND HARD TO KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN, BUT YOU CAN BE SURE AMRECIAN TROOPS WILL SADLY END UP ON THE FRONT LINE THERE DEFENDING SOMETHING THAT IS HARD TO DEFEND AND HOPEFULLY NOT DYING FOR IT, AS AMERICA USALLY VOTES WITH ISREAL IN THE UN, IT SEEMS THAT THERE COULD BE A PRICE TO PAY FOR THIS BLUNDER AND I DONT THINK ISRAEL HAS ANY FRIENDS LEFT IN THE REGION OR EUROPE, TURKEY USE TO BE A GREAT SUPPORTER OF ISRAEL BUT THATS OVER NOW.

[L.T]

Originally Posted by Merchant Raider

It SURE IS GOING FROM BAD TO WORSE OUTTHERE AND HARD TO KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN, BUT YOU CAN BE SURE AMRECIAN TROOPS WILL SADLY END UP ON THE FRONT LINE THERE DEFENDING SOMETHING THAT IS HARD TO DEFEND AND HOPEFULLY NOT DYING FOR IT, AS AMERICA USALLY VOTES WITH ISREAL IN THE UN, IT SEEMS THAT THERE COULD BE A PRICE TO PAY FOR THIS BLUNDER AND I DONT THINK ISRAEL HAS ANY FRIENDS LEFT IN THE REGION OR EUROPE, TURKEY USE TO BE A GREAT SUPPORTER OF ISRAEL BUT THATS OVER NOW.

No reson to shout

L.T

[Merchant Raider]

Sorry
No offence meant, was not shouting , just sad to see all this getting out of control, we in Ireland have had our own troubles in the north and we seemed to have sorted it so there can be a way out without the whole region going up in flames again