Merged Israel Attacks Palestinian Aid Flotilla, According To Reports

[bit_pattern]

I give up. A serious suggestion that the pathetic Hamas could blockade anyone. They couldn't blockade the Vatican. Or even Switzerland.

Yet somehow they represent an existential threat to Israel

 

[PhantomWolf]

why ? its legal, Hamas is at war with Israel, they are not allowed to defend them self?

You seem to miss the point, it's perfectly legal for Hamas to blockade Israel, or Al Qaeda to Blockade the UK or US, however it is also perfectly legal for the blockaded to attack the blockadersm and if either of those groups came out of their hidely holes long enough to try and effect a blockade, they'd learn what massacre really meant.

 

[DC]

You seem to miss the point, it's perfectly legal for Hamas to blockade Israel, or Al Qaeda to Blockade the UK or US, however it is also perfectly legal for the blockaded to attack the blockadersm and if either of those groups came out of their hidely holes long enough to try and effect a blockade, they'd learn what massacre really meant.

i didnt miss any point, but im happy you see the same right Israel has on Hamas side.

 

[DC]

You seem to miss the point, it's perfectly legal for Hamas to blockade Israel, or Al Qaeda to Blockade the UK or US, however it is also perfectly legal for the blockaded to attack the blockadersm and if either of those groups came out of their hidely holes long enough to try and effect a blockade, they'd learn what massacre really meant.

also interesting is that you would think Hamas would not be confronted peacefully when they enter an Israeli ship. very telling.

 

[PhantomWolf]

If the policeman is well outside his jurisdiction and imposing an act of violence against you illegally then you'd probably be within your rights rsist that violence by fighting back.

Except they weren't out of their jurisdiction. The whole "International Waters" bollocks is a total smoke screen, as is the "illegal Blockade". Under International Law, a blockader can stop and board any vessel believed to be attempting to run the blockade anywhere other than in a Neutral country's territorial waters, with the exception of that country giving permission for such boarding. Not only that, but the blockader must attempt to turn about or stop all vessels without exception, if they don't, then they are considered to have dropped the blockade. There is no distinction made for who is being blockaded or why.

As a result. Israel was not only allowed to border the vessels after they refused to turn about or dock elsewhere to avoid the blockade, but in order to keep the blockade, they were legally REQUIRED to board the ships. It was that, or drop the blockade altogether, and I can't see that happening.

A final note, my offsider at work is ex-British Army, retiring at the rank of Major. He has been involved in campaigns in Northern Ireland, both West and East Germany, the Falklands, Bosnia, and Kosov. He only avoided Iraq both times and Afghanistan due to the fact he was training the guys that actually did go. He has been trained in boarding ships, and has had to do it during conflict. When we talked about the Israeli operation he was genuinely surprised that they went onboard carrying paintball rifles, his squad would have carried assault rifles. When asked how he would have reacted to the treatment the Israelis faced on that boat he was straight to the point. "I'd have shot and killed someone."

I'd be interested in knowing how many of those claiming the Israelis were in the wrong and should have done better have actually served in the armed forces, and have been trained and actually taken part in such operations, and how many are just Monday morning Quarterbacks.

 

[PhantomWolf]

also interesting is that you would think Hamas would not be confronted peacefully when they enter an Israeli ship. very telling.

You are really trying to compare Hamas militants trying to board an Israeli warship attacking their blockade, with Israeli Commandos boarding a "peaceful humanitarian" ship trying to run a blockade?

 

[bigjelmapro]

This:

"We don't have anything against Israel. Our only aim was to carry aid to the people of Gaza. But for Israel, regardless of your religion or your nationality, if you help the people of Gaza you will be declared a terrorist."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64U4SO20100601

And this:

Speaking to Today’s Zaman, Serkan Nergis from the İHH’s crisis management desk reiterated that the ships were only carrying humanitarian aid and committed volunteers who were touched by the ongoing tragedy in the Gaza Strip. “These ships are not going to an Egyptian or an Israeli port. The target here is Gaza, which is Palestinian soil. There is not even a single penknife onboard, let alone weaponry, and it is more than apparent because customs procedures were applied to all of the eight ships in Greece and in Turkey,” he added.

Weapons were recovered and their stated intention was to break the blockade. Humanitarian aid enters Gaza via the land entry points on a bi-weekly basis on a number much higher than the amount of aid carried on this flotilla. In addition the aid confiscated from this flotilla was diverted to Gaza within the day.

Make note of the statement that no weapons were on board when the contrary was true.

 

[bit_pattern]

Except they weren't out of their jurisdiction. The whole "International Waters" bollocks is a total smoke screen, as is the "illegal Blockade". Under International Law, a blockader can stop and board any vessel believed to be attempting to run the blockade anywhere other than in a Neutral country's territorial waters, with the exception of that country giving permission for such boarding. Not only that, but the blockader must attempt to turn about or stop all vessels without exception, if they don't, then they are considered to have dropped the blockade. There is no distinction made for who is being blockaded or why.

As a result. Israel was not only allowed to border the vessels after they refused to turn about or dock elsewhere to avoid the blockade, but in order to keep the blockade, they were legally REQUIRED to board the ships. It was that, or drop the blockade altogether, and I can't see that happening.

A final note, my offsider at work is ex-British Army, retiring at the rank of Major. He has been involved in campaigns in Northern Ireland, both West and East Germany, the Falklands, Bosnia, and Kosov. He only avoided Iraq both times and Afghanistan due to the fact he was training the guys that actually did go. He has been trained in boarding ships, and has had to do it during conflict. When we talked about the Israeli operation he was genuinely surprised that they went onboard carrying paintball rifles, his squad would have carried assault rifles. When asked how he would have reacted to the treatment the Israelis faced on that boat he was straight to the point. "I'd have shot and killed someone."

I'd be interested in knowing how many of those claiming the Israelis were in the wrong and should have done better have actually served in the armed forces, and have been trained and actually taken part in such operations, and how many are just Monday morning Quarterbacks.

Thanks for that considered legal opinion. Unfortunately though most other legal minds disagree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid#Legal_opinions_opposing_the_action

 

[DC]

You are really trying to compare Hamas militants trying to board an Israeli warship attacking their blockade, with Israeli Commandos boarding a "peaceful humanitarian" ship trying to run a blockade?

when it is legal for Israel to block the Palestinian ports, because they are at war with Hamas. then it is legal for Hamas to do the same with Israel, as they are at war with them.

When ISraelis board an aid convoy, and the people on the ship ressist that. there is outrage how they dare to resist the legal blockade.

but when Hamas would do the same with an Israeli aidconvoy it is sems you belive they have a right to resist Hamas.

 

[bigjelmapro]

also interesting is that you would think Hamas would not be confronted peacefully when they enter an Israeli ship. very telling.

This is a laughable comparison. You claiming that Hamas has peaceful intentions towards those they have stated should be killed and have done so in the past and continue to do so in the future? Very strange.

 

[bit_pattern]

And this:


Weapons were recovered and their stated intention was to break the blockade. Humanitarian aid enters Gaza via the land entry points on a bi-weekly basis on a number much higher than the amount of aid carried on this flotilla.

Yes, except that they were trying to bring in things that Israel won't allow - like cement... And coriander. And their stated intention was to challenge the blockade, not break it.

In addition the aid confiscated from this flotilla was diverted to Gaza within the day.

Source?

Make note of the statement that no weapons were on board when the contrary was true.

Yes, they had deadly plastic chairs and wooden sticks.

 

[DC]

This is a laughable comparison. You claiming that Hamas has peaceful intentions towards those they have stated should be killed and have done so in the past and continue to do so in the future? Very strange.

has Israel peacefull intentions, arent they killing Hamas terrorists?

 

[DC]

when Israel is doing it, its legal, when Hamas does the same its not legal?

 

[DC]

where does it say that the laws only apply to those we see as the good guys?

 

[bigjelmapro]

Thanks for that considered legal opinion. Unfortunately though most other legal minds disagree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid#Legal_opinions_opposing_the_action

Most legal minds on a wiki page controled by those who disagree.

These legal minds disregard the circumvention of the humanitarian aid angle violation in the San Remo Manual by having had and continuing to have aid corridors open for the transport of humanitarian aid.

Also is the omission of the exclusion zone and the flotilla's intention to break a naval blockade which gives the IDF just cause to board and divert the vessel. There's no 'extension of sovereignty' as stated in that link.

I find this statement a bit awkward as well:

Anthony D'Amato, international law professor at Northwestern University School of Law, argued that the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea applies to a situation in which the laws of war between states are in force. He said the laws of war do not apply in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, which isn't even a state. He said the law of the Geneva Conventions would apply.

So because an entity, ie Hamas, which controls and has been voted into power in Gaza doesn't rule over a de facto state, it cannot be in a state of armed conflict with said entity.

Logic is astounding.

 

[bigjelmapro]

has Israel peacefull intentions, arent they killing Hamas terrorists?

So one needs to have peaceful intentions towards terrorists now?

 

[DC]

So one needs to have peaceful intentions towards terrorists now?

no but against the Palestinain people.
and with a blockade that doesnt really look like it.

 

[yairhol]

Yet somehow they represent an existential threat to Israel

Nobody (as far as I know) is saying that Hamas represents an existential threat to Israel. They do murder Israeli civilians by blowing themselves up in busses, malls, stabing people on the street and firing endless rockets at Israel, but an existential threat - no.

Yes, they had deadly plastic chairs and wooden sticks.

First of all they had much more than that like knives and metal bats but even if we imagine that they only had plastic chairs and wooden sticks, how much beating from that do you think is necessary in order to kill someonw?
It's the same crap I hear about how dare the Israelis use deadly weapons against Palestinians who throw rocks at the IDF. Have you ever been hit by a rock thrown at you by someone who wants to kill you? It takes exactly one good throw in order to kill or badly injur a person. The world expects the IDF to throw rocks back at the Palestinians so that the fighting would be fair. Rediculous.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Yes, except that they were trying to bring in things that Israel won't allow - like cement... And coriander. And their stated intention was to challenge the blockade, not break it.

Right. Coriander. Source?

How do you suggest the logic behind making one's way through the naval blockade to the Gaza ports is 'challenging' and not 'breaking'? Explain.

Source?

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Humanitar..._aid_flotilla_transferred_Gaza_1-Jun-2010.htm

There's even a video.

Yes, they had deadly plastic chairs and wooden sticks.

You can continue making false statements and making weaponry, including pistols, seem innocuous, but who are you trying to convince here?
Weapons Found on the Flotilla Ship Mavi Marmara Used by Activists Against IDF Soldiers

Flotilla Passengers Fire Live Ammunition at IDF Soldiers

 

[bit_pattern]

Most legal minds on a wiki page controled by those who disagree.

These legal minds disregard the circumvention of the humanitarian aid angle violation in the San Remo Manual by having had and continuing to have aid corridors open for the transport of humanitarian aid.

Also is the omission of the exclusion zone and the flotilla's intention to break a naval blockade which gives the IDF just cause to board and divert the vessel. There's no 'extension of sovereignty' as stated in that link.

I find this statement a bit awkward as well:

So because an entity, ie Hamas, which controls and has been voted into power in Gaza doesn't rule over a de facto state, it cannot be in a state of armed conflict with said entity.

Logic is astounding.

No more astounding than the logic that says Israel can't be guilty of war crimes because it's not at war