Merged Israel Attacks Palestinian Aid Flotilla, According To Reports

[DC]

Does the US do the same when they shoot hellfire missiles to kill 1 known terrorist?

You should become a terrorist defense lawyer, although you'll be a poor one at that.

Deflect and swiss....should change the nick to DS for good measure.

why do you bring up my nationality?.........

just because others do the same, make it things right?
do i get away with murder when i can show my neighbor is doing it also?

 

[PhantomWolf]

do you grant rights to an organisation that clones passports of its allies and use them to kill someone they dislike without a trial or so?

Well if you really want to get into that, what punishment should be metred out to a country that blows up a ship in the habour of a friendly nation, killing a person in the process, then forces the release of those responsible with threats of sanctions against the agrieved nation if they refuse to do so?

 

[DC]

Well if you really want to get into that, what punishment should be metred out to a country that blows up a ship in the habour of a friendly nation, killing a person in the process, then forces the release of those responsible with threats of sanctions against the agrieved nation if they refuse to do so?

what incident are you talking about?

 

[bigjelmapro]

why do you bring up my nationality?.........

just because others do the same, make it things right?
do i get away with murder when i can show my neighbor is doing it also?

Lol. Because you're trying to refer to Israel as an 'organization'.

So now the argument has boiled down to 'two wrongs don't make a right'? Desperation at its worst. So you've given up the legal aspect of a naval blockade against an 'entity' in a state of armed conflict with Israel, defending the right of terrorist organizations without an iota of peaceful intentions to bear arms (or nukes!), the right for terrorist organizations to get free-passage of weaponry into Gaza, and that there's no humanitarian aid coming into Gaza (including building materials)?

Good to know we've established something....

 

[Lallante]

I wrote a protracted legal analysis of the law of the sea but, given the nature of this forum, think it rather wasted here so will save it for elsewhere.

Suffice it to say that:
the UN resolutions condemning the blockade render it illegal under international law.
even if this were not the case, for a blockade to be legal under the San Remo memorandum of armed conflict at sea, both sides in the conflict must be states subject to the laws of war (and in this case Gaza is not).
even if this were not the case, there is a carve out for humanitarian aid
even if this were not the case, any use of force must be proportionate to the threat posed to the state using it and 6 humanitarian ships pose no threat to Israel.
even if this were not the case, any use of force must also be proportionate to the threat posed to the soldiers using it and a few kitchen knives and wooden sticks are NOT a proportionate threat to justify 9+ gunshot deaths.
even if this were not the case, imprisoning civilians and taking them to Israel is illegal.

Given all of these points, claiming that IDF acted lawfully is fundamentally impossible.

It should also be noted that pretty much every principle of international law gives the activists on the ships the right to resist an illegal boarding in self-defence. There is certainly no law that requires them to surrender peacefully.

 

[DC]

Lol. Because you're trying to refer to Israel as an 'organization'.

So now the argument has boiled down to 'two wrongs don't make a right'? Desperation at its worst. So you've given up the legal aspect of a naval blockade against an 'entity' in a state of armed conflict with Israel, defending the right of terrorist organizations without an iota of peaceful intentions to bear arms (or nukes!), the right for terrorist organizations to get free-passage of weaponry into Gaza, and that there's no humanitarian aid coming into Gaza (including building materials)?

Good to know we've established something....

you was the one claiming mossads murder is fine, the USA is also doing it, i ask is my murdering fine if my neighbor is also killing others?

and with organisation i ment Mossad, not Israel.

i asked if Hamas has the same rights as Israel, if they are legal to blockade goods from entering Israel.

if not, why not? and where exactly does it say you have to have peacefull intentions to have a blockade?

 

[DC]

how many people have been killed with Hamas's rockets? that led to the blockade?
how many people have been killed by Israeli missiles fired from helicopters only?

shouldnt hamas block those missiles going into Israel? ( i ment those shipped to Israel in a non explosive way)

 

[PhantomWolf]

what incident are you talking about?

Not to thread jack, but obviously you haven't heard of Operation Satanic, otherwise known as state sponsered terrorism and blackmail by your neighbour.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Suffice it to say that:
the UN resolutions condemning the blockade render it illegal under international law.

No resolution stating that its illegal that I know of. Only states the easing of restriction of humanitarian channels.

Human rights council, sure, but they're one of the worst departments that have a selective OCD only to Israel. Read the bit about the head commending actions against the Tamil Tigers.

even if this were not the case, for a blockade to be legal under the San Remo memorandum of armed conflict at sea, both sides in the conflict must be states subject to the laws of war (and in this case Gaza is not).

State of armed conflict, which is applicable even to a non-state entity like Hamas. Trying to apply laws of war to asymetrical war practices of groups like Hamas as been a hot debate topic.

even if this were not the case, there is a carve out for humanitarian aid

Humanitarian corridors are open, have been since the blockade was put into place, and will continue to do so. This circumvents the San Remo clauses regarding the humanitarian corridors.

even if this were not the case, any use of force must be proportionate to the threat posed to the state using it and 6 humanitarian ships pose no threat to Israel.

Only 1 ship posed any sort of 'resistence', the rest were quietly and orderly detained using the same methods that was initially applied to the ship that had the mob of 'peace activists' on it. This answers proportionality.

Neutral ships, according to the San Remo clauses already posted, can be detained and their goods confiscated (which were diverted to Gaza yesterday). This answers the question that a neutral ship does not have to pose a threat if it threatens to enter the evasion zone of a naval blockade.

even if this were not the case, any use of force must also be proportionate to the threat posed to the soldiers using it and a few kitchen knives and wooden sticks are NOT a proportionate threat to justify 9+ gunshot deaths.

Death ratio has nothing to do with the proportionality clause. You continue to make the use of deadly weaponry, from metal pipe, knives (didn't even see any of the kitchen type), pistols and improvised explosive devices against the IDF as innocuous.

even if this were not the case, imprisoning civilians and taking them to Israel is illegal.

No it isn't. Detaining those aboard the neutral vessel are released once they are brought to port. There's no imprisoning.

Given all of these points, claiming that IDF acted lawfully is fundamentally impossible.

These points don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[yairhol]

I wrote a protracted legal analysis of the law of the sea but, given the nature of this forum, think it rather wasted here so will save it for elsewhere.

Suffice it to say that:
the UN resolutions condemning the blockade render it illegal under international law.
even if this were not the case, for a blockade to be legal under the San Remo memorandum of armed conflict at sea, both sides in the conflict must be states subject to the laws of war (and in this case Gaza is not).
even if this were not the case, there is a carve out for humanitarian aid
even if this were not the case, any use of force must be proportionate to the threat posed to the state using it and 6 humanitarian ships pose no threat to Israel.
even if this were not the case, any use of force must also be proportionate to the threat posed to the soldiers using it and a few kitchen knives and wooden sticks are NOT a proportionate threat to justify 9+ gunshot deaths.
even if this were not the case, imprisoning civilians and taking them to Israel is illegal.

Given all of these points, claiming that IDF acted lawfully is fundamentally impossible.

It should also be noted that pretty much every principle of international law gives the activists on the ships the right to resist an illegal boarding in self-defence. There is certainly no law that requires them to surrender peacefully.

your analysis is pathetic at best.

both sides in the conflict must be states subject to the laws of war (and in this case Gaza is not).

So a terrorist organization can do whatever it pleases without anyone's power to put a blockade on it because that organization is not a state?

there is a carve out for humanitarian aid

Israel, over and over again, said that the humanitarian aid will be passed, after inspection, to the Palestinians. The ships must harbor in Ashdod sea port and then goods will be delivered.

any use of force must be proportionate to the threat posed to the state using it and 6 humanitarian ships pose no threat to Israel.

You know what? Even 100 ships are not a threat to Israel. Hell, even 500 are not a threat if all they have on them are only 'peace' activists. Too bad this was not the situation here and IDF soldiers' lives were at immediate risk and they had to fight for their lives.

even if this were not the case, any use of force must also be proportionate to the threat posed to the soldiers using it and a few kitchen knives and wooden sticks are NOT a proportionate threat to justify 9+ gunshot deaths.

Have you ever been stabbed by a knife? Didn't think so. Knives kill did you know that? Also metal bats and wooden sticks kill. Right, that argument again like I posed before. How dare those soldiers defend their lives with firearms when being attacked from zero range with knives. They should retaliate back with knives only or maximum wooden sticks. Fair's fair right?

claiming that IDF acted lawfully is fundamentally true.

 

[DC]

Not to thread jack, but obviously you haven't heard of Operation Satanic, otherwise known as state sponsered terrorism and blackmail by your neighbour.

i dont really get your point, but an incident from 25 years ago? isnt that leading a bit far OT?

 

[bigjelmapro]

you was the one claiming mossads murder is fine, the USA is also doing it, i ask is my murdering fine if my neighbor is also killing others?

If your neighbor is a proven terrorist, then he should be tried. If he fails to be detained, then he should be killed. I don't have an issue with killing known terrorist head honchos. I think you do though.

and with organisation i ment Mossad, not Israel.

Mossad is an intelligence agency in Israel. Same as CIA would be.

i asked if Hamas has the same rights as Israel, if they are legal to blockade goods from entering Israel.

And I asked you if you would afford a terrorist organization with rights to blockade. You're really stuck on defending terrorist organizations here, do you not?

if not, why not? and where exactly does it say you have to have peacefull intentions to have a blockade?

Intentions were in respect to Hamas's intentions. You can stop peddling now. I think you're getting a bit tired...

 

[DC]

If your neighbor is a proven terrorist, then he should be tried. If he fails to be detained, then he should be killed. I don't have an issue with killing known terrorist head honchos. I think you do though.


Mossad is an intelligence agency in Israel. Same as CIA would be.


And I asked you if you would afford a terrorist organization with rights to blockade. You're really stuck on defending terrorist organizations here, do you not?


Intentions were in respect to Hamas's intentions. You can stop peddling now. I think you're getting a bit tired...

he had a fair trial? and was convicted for terrorism?

i know what the Mossad is, does that give them a right to clone passports and kill people in other countries?

so you have rights that others dont have, interesting.

Israels intentions dont alawys look very peacefull.

and even if my neighbor was a convicted murderer, it goves me no right to self justice.

and what i ment, is, is it OK for me to murder people and as excuse i say, hey others do the same, do you think the judge will say, mmmh yep thats true, you are free to go.

 

[Lallante]

So a terrorist organization can do whatever it pleases without anyone's power to put a blockade on it because that organization is not a state?

Gaza isn't a terrorist organisation. Its also well established that in any case "terrorist" means whatever you want it to mean (identical actions by western parties would not be described as "terrorist").

Israel, over and over again, said that the humanitarian aid will be passed, after inspection, to the Palestinians. The ships must harbor in Ashdod sea port and then goods will be delivered.

Concrete isnt permitted, nor are the pre-fab homes and a LOT of the other stuff. The UN has repeatedly found that Gaza receives less than 1/4 of the humanitarian aid it needs.

You know what? Even 100 ships are not a threat to Israel. Hell, even 500 are not a threat if all they have on them are only 'peace' activists. Too bad this was not the situation here and IDF soldiers' lives were at immediate risk and they had to fight for their lives.

Yes kitchen knives and wooden poles prove that the activists are terrorists.

Have you ever been stabbed by a knife? Didn't think so. Knives kill did you know that? Also metal bats and wooden sticks kill. Right, that argument again like I posed before. How dare those soldiers defend their lives with firearms when being attacked from zero range with knives. They should retaliate back with knives only or maximum wooden sticks. Fair's fair right?

Actually I have been stabbed during a failed mugging. Although irrelevant to this discussion, I obviously survived. A friend of mine at university was killed when a drunken guy hit him in the head with a coffee mug. Does this make coffee mugs illegal weapons worthy of death by gunshot? Proportionality here requires that the soldiers dont land on the boat if they think that doing so will cause deaths. Simple.

claiming that IDF acted lawfully is fundamentally true.

except that pretty much every non-US/Israeli legal scholar thinks the opposite.


If the UN passes a resolution calling for the blockade to end, the blockade is illegal from that point on (if it wasnt already, which it was). UN resolutions have the force of international law.

 

[Kotatsu]

No it isn't. Detaining those aboard the neutral vessel are released once they are brought to port. There's no imprisoning.

That's a very curious statement. I've heard the exact opposite on Swedish radio, read it in Metro (http://www.metro.se/se/article/tt/2010/06/02/israelgazawebb/ ; Swedish only, it seems), and from friends who have read about people being imprisoned elsewhere.

How dare those soldiers defend their lives with firearms when being attacked from zero range with knives. They should retaliate back with knives only or maximum wooden sticks. Fair's fair right?

Yes, it is unfortunate that the soldiers had no other choice than to lower themselves voluntarily from a helicopter onto a ship in the middle of the night dressed in full combat gear and start bossing people over which they have no authority around. I hate it whenever that happens to me, but I realise that sometimes there's just no choice. You either expose yourself to certain death by knife, bat, crescent wrench or scarf, or you get a stern telling off by your commanding officer -- and that might go on your record!

 

[applecorped]

I nominate the flotilla for the next Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[DC]

I nominate the flotilla for the next Nobel Peace Prize.

why not?
Arafat also got one.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Gaza isn't a terrorist organisation. Its also well established that in any case "terrorist" means whatever you want it to mean (identical actions by western parties would not be described as "terrorist").

This is the defense? The blockade isn't against Gaza, its against Hamas.

Concrete isnt permitted, nor are the pre-fab homes and a LOT of the other stuff. The UN has repeatedly found that Gaza receives less than 1/4 of the humanitarian aid it needs.

Cement and other building materials are transported into Gaza, provided a link supporting this. Israel isn't under any obligation to transport dual-purpose materials, but it does do so nonetheless.

How can Gaza receive only 1/4 of the humanitarian aid when Gazans are the largest recipients of humanitarian aid per capita worldwide. Either the UN is failing everywhere in its humanitarian efforts or this finding (source?) is unsubstantiated.

Yes kitchen knives and wooden poles prove that the activists are terrorists.

Keep repeating this. You make it seem innocuous in addition to the pistols, knives (not of the kitchen type) and improvised explosives found. Keep pedaling.

Actually I have been stabbed during a failed mugging. Although irrelevant to this discussion, I obviously survived. A friend of mine at university was killed when a drunken guy hit him in the head with a coffee mug. Does this make coffee mugs illegal weapons worthy of death by gunshot? Proportionality here requires that the soldiers dont land on the boat if they think that doing so will cause deaths. Simple.

What kind of argument is this? A failed attempt to present as if knives aren't a deadly instrument if one stabs someone repeatedly?

Present this definition of proportionality, I'm astonished you think that this is the running definition of it.

except that pretty much every non-US/Israeli legal scholar thinks the opposite.

Source? Perhaps that wiki page again. Answered some of the allegations there, care to comment?

If the UN passes a resolution calling for the blockade to end, the blockade is illegal from that point on (if it wasnt already, which it was). UN resolutions have the force of international law.

There's no such resolution. If they wish to make a resolution stating that its illegal, as in the naval blockade and the act of retorsion, then so be it. Up to this point that only resolutions mentioning the blockade are the requests to keep humanitarian aid corridors open.

 

[DC]

The blockade isn't against Gaza, its against Hamas

why was the aid convoy blocked then? it was for Gaza, not Hamas.

 

[DC]

it is said only 1/4 of the goods go into gaza since the blockade, compared to the ammount went in before the blockade.