Report: Israel attacks flotilla, 10 die

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Iran? What the hell are you talking about?

He might be referring to the Iranian IRGC forces that were in Lebanon during the recent conflict there. Remember those "Noor" C-802 missiles that hit that Israeli Corvette. The IRGC was part of that.

Or he could be talking about the recent Iranian Navy and Army operations around the Horn of Africa. IRIN ships have deployed to the Gulf of Aden about 8 times in the past year. IRIA forces that are training and equipping the Eritrean Army. Plus several Iranian chartered ships have been stopped for inspection in the Red Sea and were discovered to have arms aboard.

Or he could be talking about Iran arming Syria with "Flogger" fighters, rockets, rifles, assorted armor, and some Tir class missile boats.

[MH]

Total withdrawal from all territories will mean that any major city in Israel will be in range of simple Katusha missiles and prone to all kinds of other attacks.(Israel is small country)
Considering our past experience with Palestinian leadership this is more than risky to execute, since organizations like hammas or hizballa want us out of here anyway.
So even if we compromise with some reasonable Palestinian leadership they will try to overthrow its authority by continuing terrorist attacks from Palestinian territories thus forcing Israel to response. This will eventually undermine any agreement.That is what happen in Gaza and with Oslo agreements.

What we will end up with is benign at even bigger disadvantage,enemy harder to control fighting the same war and all world whining that we use excessive force agains women and children.
What the point of all that anyway?.

When im talking about Iranian bases in talking about hammas backed with Iranian weapons and money.
What Israel need is whole world to stop backing up those terrorists and start fighting them...or at least stop backing them up(we will do the job) then maybe we will be able to make peace here.

[August]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

MH, So, you're saying no negotiations and I say: negotiate. Who is for death and who is for life?

Obviously you didn't read the Krauthammer article. You just can't have peace with an enemy that deliberately targets civilians. Not because you don't want peace, it's because they don't want peace.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Angus, my comments were not limited to this thread alone - but to the history the two people mentioned have established over time. Both have exhibited distinct slants as described. Whether you like it or not, it is what it is. Its why those two are probably the most "ignored" (list wise) on Subsim. Neither is willing to discuss or debate, but instead twist and accuse. Perhaps you haven't seen it here - but I have seen enough of it over the years to know their pattern and - when I do see it because someone quotes them - then I point out the error in the post and call it like it is. Sorry you have a problem with that - but you will have to understand I won't be losing any sleep over that fact. Have a nice day.

Sorry for the brusque post, but I take the accusation of anti-semitism as an insult, and the "etc." (who else does that include?) in your list, as well as the to my eyes baseless inclusion of Tribesman, pissed me off.

It's also a transparently BS tactic that manages to combine several fallacies into one. "You criticize Israeli foreign policy? Then you must hate Jewish people, and thus can be ignored" - non sequitor, strawman, ad hom, poisoning the well. Yet it gets trotted out again and again as a cheap attempt to deflect genuine criticism.

And if the "certain members," as you put it, were in general more concerned with expressing prejudice than rational argument, why did only 1 do so in a thread 41 PAGES long?

Anyway, I await your response to Tribesman's challenge.

[VonHesse]

After reading all the links links provided in this thread reagarding high seas laws and treaties, and much searching of the internet, I'm still uncertain of the legality of the boarding in this incident, and here's why:

From all the information I've been able to dig up, reading all the fine print, it seems that the San Remo Manual, and the UN Law of the Seas, and every other international treaty out there only apply to recognized soverign nations... if a region isn't recognized as a soverign nation, then inter-national laws can't apply, right?

Gaza (from what I can find) has never been recognized as a soverign nation by any country or international organization on the planet. At best, it can be refered to as a "semi-autonommous zone" - of Israel. In fact, Israel refers to Gaza as part of "the territories". If this is true (and that is a question I hope can be clarified with links), then how can Israel impose an internationaly recognized "blockade" on it's own territory?

If a nation wants to restrict the flow of goods to a portion of it's own territory, that's fine - China, England, America, Malaysia, etc, etc, do it all the time. Aren't they, though, limited to acting within their own territories? Doesn't a domestic dispute, by definition, have to be carried out inside of one's domestic areas of control?

If Gaza isn't a soverign nation, but still tecnically part of Israel, then shouldn't any restricton that Israel places on Gaza be enforced only within the territorial borders of Israel? How can they impose an internal blockade on part of their own territory, and enforce it against a foriegn flagged ship sailing in international waters? Wouldn't they, by definition, have to wait untill the ship was within their borders?

I understand that the San Remo Manual allows the boarding of any vessel that is known to be intent on running a blockade (though there's an exception for "humanitarian releif providing necessary aid" and that debate's still raging) , but that document seems to only apply between soverign nations - not internal disputes.

Wouldn't this incident be like the US declaring a blockade against California and then boarding a Chinese flagged ship, bound for Long Beach, in international waters? International treatis like the San Remo Manual wouldn't apply to an internal domestic dispute, would they? In that situation, wouldn't the US have to wait until after, and only after, the ship entered US territorial waters to board and inspect the cargo?

I guess what I'm asking is:

1. Isn't Gaza still officially recognized as part of Israel?

and if so:

2. Aren't domestic policies restricted in enforcement to the contiguous national territories of the state that imposes them?

Look forward to getting some clarification on this. Either way, I bet Israel will wait untill this next ship is fully inside their territorial waters before they board them. At that point, there's not alot the international community will be able to say about an internal policing action taking place within the borders of a soverign nation.

Well done Von Hesse, you are attempting get to the core of the issue.
You can find lots of things that were wrong with this action in international law, any single one of which makes the action illegal, but the real thing is that the legal status of the territory is what affects everything and makes it (unless its using either a bi-lateral or the UN arms embargo) a simple matter of customs enforcement which means its restricted to the two areas where Israel has jurisdiction.

Humanitarian ships that want to cross the blockade are exempt from capture and legitimate aid has to be allowed to reach its target. But to qualify for legal protection a ship must follow certain rules, including obeying traffic directions from Navy vessels.

That depends on the location and the nature of the directions, in this case either of them or a combination of both scupper your arguement.

A ship that purports to carry aid but refuses orders to stop can be captured or sunk.

That depends on the legal standing of those orders.

The land status of Gaza strip is irrelevant to this issue.

The legal status of the territory is central to the issue as all the other laws have to come from their relation to that, which is why most of the examples people are using cannot be used.
Tell you what though , you really need to get your politicians onto Egypt about the crossing as they are breaking your customs agreement regarding the territory

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by VonHesse

After reading all the links links provided in this thread reagarding high seas laws and treaties, and much searching of the internet, I'm still uncertain of the legality of the boarding in this incident, and here's why:

From all the information I've been able to dig up, reading all the fine print, it seems that the San Remo Manual, and the UN Law of the Seas, and every other international treaty out there only apply to recognized soverign nations... if a region isn't recognized as a soverign nation, then inter-national laws can't apply, right?

Gaza (from what I can find) has never been recognized as a soverign nation by any country or international organization on the planet. At best, it can be refered to as a "semi-autonommous zone" - of Israel. In fact, Israel refers to Gaza as part of "the territories". If this is true (and that is a question I hope can be clarified with links), then how can Israel impose an internationaly recognized "blockade" on it's own territory?

If a nation wants to restrict the flow of goods to a portion of it's own territory, that's fine - China, England, America, Malaysia, etc, etc, do it all the time. Aren't they, though, limited to acting within their own territories? Doesn't a domestic dispute, by definition, have to be carried out inside of one's domestic areas of control?

If Gaza isn't a soverign nation, but still tecnically part of Israel, then shouldn't any restricton that Israel places on Gaza be enforced only within the territorial borders of Israel? How can they impose an internal blockade on part of their own territory, and enforce it against a foriegn flagged ship sailing in international waters? Wouldn't they, by definition, have to wait untill the ship was within their borders?

I understand that the San Remo Manual allows the boarding of any vessel that is known to be intent on running a blockade (though there's an exception for "humanitarian releif providing necessary aid" and that debate's still raging) , but that document seems to only apply between soverign nations - not internal disputes.

Wouldn't this incident be like the US declaring a blockade against California and then boarding a Chinese flagged ship, bound for Long Beach, in international waters? International treatis like the San Remo Manual wouldn't apply to an internal domestic dispute, would they? In that situation, wouldn't the US have to wait until after, and only after, the ship entered US territorial waters to board and inspect the cargo?

I guess what I'm asking is:

1. Isn't Gaza still officially recognized as part of Israel?

and if so:

2. Aren't domestic policies restricted in enforcement to the contiguous national territories of the state that imposes them?

Look forward to getting some clarification on this. Either way, I bet Israel will wait untill this next ship is fully inside their territorial waters before they board them. At that point, there's not alot the international community will be able to say about an internal policing action taking place within the borders of a soverign nation.

All nice and well - and of theoretic, abstract value only. The simple question I have asked two days ago on another page of this monster thread, remains:

when Hamas is at war with Israel with the intention to destroy it, and when Hamas has shot around 10,000 (! thats true, not just 4,000 as somebody has claimed)) rockets and missiles at Israeli civilians in an explicit hope to kill not only military targets but civilians (I insist on the intention of your target selection being important in making a moral differerence),

and when on the other hand Israel is not allowed to defend against them, is not allowed to individually target them, is not allowed to destroy their infrastructure they make military use of, is not allowed to block supplies that are of military use for Hamas (that is weapons, that is cement for bunkers, that is items Hamas does not allow to be distributed by foreign helpers but distributes itself to boost it's own popularity), and when Israel is not allowed to answer wirth reactive or preventive war to its lethal enbemy who says he is at war with Israel for the mere reason of Israel being there -

if Israel simply is not allowed to do anything for it's own defence and has learned that the "land-for-peace" trades have been used twice in the past 8 years to take that new land they have withdrawn from and turn it into new missile bases from which missiles are being shot into Israel even more intense than before, if all these methods to protect Israeli citizens from being terrorised and murdered are prevented, claimed illegal, inhumane and what else there is claimed in order to render any resistance to Palestinian terror as verboten -

what is Israel left with then to defend itself and protect its citizens from terror?


will somebody give a realistic answer to that, please, that does not depend on wishful thinking, intentional ignorrance of the murderous nature of terrorists, and idealistic illusions that can only live by explicit denial of harsh realities, or a basic anti-Israeli/anti-semitic mindset. Show a realistic alternative in order to guarantee that Hamas does not get supplied, and that does not legitimise Hamas in any form. I'm sure the Israelis would listen.

that they are trying to block anything that does support Hamas directly or indirectly, is a valid, moral, realistic, reasonable way of trying to defend themselves in a very hostile environment of global opinion that sees Hamas (and Islam in general which has been radically antisemitic from Muhammad on!!) having won total dominance over. and western useful idiots do not wish to have any more balance in that envrionment,. they are completely happy with the massive pro-Islamic bias there is - the history of antisemitism (and expecting the Israelis to silently accept getting killed and not defending is antisemitism, no matter how you try to turn and twist it) last but not least is almost as old as the history of the Christian culture in general - just that it is not based on christian sentiments exclusively anmyore, but on leftist global ideologies and a strange fascination for Islamic totalitarianism because it is so strange, so exotic, so fascinating due to it's foreigness. Many people are deeply bored and have been left without orientation in the materialistic world - every identity and every culture seems to promise to be better than just one's own (which better should be understood as a hint at the deficits our materialistic culture chnage in the West has created indeed, than to assume that other people necvessarily must be the better part of mankind just because they are oh so alien).

[Zachstar]

Rumors are flying about that the ship has been captured with not a peep of resistance. Israel is going to do this perfectly this time. They likely boarded unarmed and with cameras rolling everywhere. They will be taken in.. Supplies sent to Gaza (If they will take it) and the people deported with word back from Israel inviting them to keep trying it until they get bored enough to stop.

This is going to get boring very fast Israel just might survive this PR nightmare after all.

[VonHesse]

@Skybird

I'm not arguing the morality of Israel's blockade, in fact, i personally agree with Israel attempting to restrict the flow of weapons into Gaza - weapons that are, as you say, intended and targeted at civilians. I'm not getting involved in the broader issue of the Israeli/Palestinian divide. There's enough bloodshead and conflict throughout history in that region for both sides to be wrong, but that's not what my question pertains to.

I'm not questioning or curious about the who, or the what, or the how , or even the why... I'm asking about the where.

if Israel simply is not allowed to do anything for it's own defence

Nice strawman Sky, where has anyone said Israel is not allowed to defend itself?
The issue is that from the outset of this incident they have made claims which are simply untrue and are continuing to make an attempt of justification by lying.

that is cement for bunkers,

Yeah right, like the UN and red cross says Hamas are the only people in Gaza with cement, and plenty of it. but keep up to date, now Israel is saying its for building tunnels , perhaps someone had better send an engineer to slap the PR people for talking rubbish again

[Respenus]

Originally Posted by Spiegel International

The aid shipment that the Palestinian activists' flotilla was hoping to bring to Gaza before they were halted by Israeli commandos is now awaiting delivery. But Hamas will only let the badly needed goods into the territory under certain conditions. In the Gaza Strip, aid is not always greeted with enthusiasm.

You can read the whole article here.

Originally Posted by Dowly

Resorting into judging someone's grammar is the first sign that you don't have anything else to contribute.

I just thought it was very funny with hops being used in beer making.

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Hopeless MH, yes I know, but he is good for sharpening up our debating skills.

Tell me, are you an Israeli? What is your rank in the IDF?

Originally Posted by eskachig

I think what he said was that the goal of the activists is destruction of Israel. I don't necessarily think it's false, there is a lot of anti-semitism going on on the pro-Palestinian side, down to the activists on the flotilla singing songs about killing Jews and telling the IDF to "go back to Auswitz" over the radio.

And there is absolutely zero anti-Muslim / anti-Arab feelings in Israel, IDF, USA, etc.? And not just songs but also a military that is actively used against mainly civilian and other similar targets in a very careless manner.

Which is not to say that Israel isn't creating and compounding some of the problems here, or that their actions don't result in suffering for the average Palestinian. For the most part, I find both sides to be equally to blame.

Well good. Although the body count isn't 50 - 50, Israel is responsible for much more bloodshed.

I'm not trying to say that anyone helping the Palestinians is anti-semitic or anything, but a large part of the movement sort of is, and it makes it difficult for Israelis to work with them.
Your friend sounds strangely pessimistic. Arafat or not Palestinians have zero chance of any sort of successful military action, whether other nations in the region help them or not. Any sort of serious incursion into Israel proper is unfathomable. If I was him I'd be worried about instability and casualties in Palestinian communities, which sort of did happen.

Are you saying the Israelis should care about what happens in the refugee camps? Go tell them that. Palestinians fighting other Palestinians? This could only be in Israel's favour.

It's interesting. On one hand, Israel doesn't intentionally target civilians (while Palestinians target civilians exclusively), and their actions are mostly reactive. But the nature of Palestinian targets and tactics, combined with Israeli weaponry guarantees collateral damage. What's worse, there is no incentive on the Palestian side to limit civilian casualties as they feed the liberation movement. Israel is almost always acting defensively, but they do kill a lot more Palestinians, while Palestinians launch a lot of attacks at civilians, but usually fail.

However, Israel is responsible for the occupation, so in a larger sense it probably is the aggressor.

I think a case could be made that the Palestinians acts are reactive stemming from being driven by force from the areas where they lived. But it is a kind of vendetta with acts being avenged on both sides. Now it seems that the Palestinians have become a little smarter media-wise, remains to be seen what the future brings.

Humanitarian ships that want to cross the blockade are exempt from capture and legitimate aid has to be allowed to reach its target. But to qualify for legal protection a ship must follow certain rules, including obeying traffic directions from Navy vessels. A ship that purports to carry aid but refuses orders to stop can be captured or sunk. The land status of Gaza strip is irrelevant to this issue.

The legality side will be decided later in courts. Like you said earlier somebody is about to get fired, maybe at least Ehud Barak.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Rumors are flying about that the ship has been captured with not a peep of resistance. Israel is going to do this perfectly this time. They likely boarded unarmed and with cameras rolling everywhere. They will be taken in.. Supplies sent to Gaza (If they will take it) and the people deported with word back from Israel inviting them to keep trying it until they get bored enough to stop.

This is going to get boring very fast Israel just might survive this PR nightmare after all.

I hope that is the case....and nobody was injured.

It would also lead me to believe the troublemakers were only aboard one ship.

Edit: This was 1 hour old at time of posting:

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world...za-541749.html

[Dowly]

It indeed looks like everything went smoothly.