Merged Israel Attacks Palestinian Aid Flotilla, According To Reports

[bit_pattern]

Israel used stun gun on Fairfax photographer

As the eye-witness reports start filtering out it seems they tell a very different story to that being perpetuated by the IDF propaganda machine

 

[Safe-Keeper]

If there is signficant global controversy over whether use of force in a particular situation is legal, and the UN has explicitly told a country not to enforce its blockade, then enforcing it with force is at best reckless as to the legality of that act and at worse tantamount to declaring indifference to international law.

No. As has been stated numerous times already in this thread, you are allowed to board a ship when it steams towards a naval blockade with the open intent to break through. Likewise, servicemen are allowed to fight back when activists try to lynch them. The legality of the blockade, or the fact that the country the commandos belong to is one that is unpopular in the world, has no bearing on the situation. The same rules apply to Sweden and Sri Lanka, to Iceland and Israel. There is no clause that says "unless the UN does not like the nation in question".

 

[bit_pattern]

No. As has been stated numerous times already in this thread, you are allowed to board a ship when it steams towards a naval blockade with the open intent to break through. Likewise, servicemen are allowed to fight back when activists try to lynch them. The legality of the blockade, or the fact that the country the commandos belong to is one that is unpopular in the world, has no bearing on the situation. The same rules apply to Sweden and Sri Lanka, to Iceland and Israel. There is no clause that says "unless the UN does not like the nation in question".

No, a considerable body of legal opinion vehemently disagrees with your amateurish interpretation.

 

[Tricky]

Several posts moved to the AAH thread. Cut out the bickering and insults or infractions will be forthcoming.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Safe-Keeper]

No, a considerable body of legal opinion vehemently disagrees with your amateurish interpretation.

Source, please.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I see no one has answered this yet:

But now imagine this: you're a commando armed with a paint ball rifle, rappelling down to the deck of a boat. You're met with tangos armed with axes and knives, trying to kill you. You are badly outnumbered, and your comrades are already getting beaten up. Do you

a) Allow them to lynch you, or

b) Fight back?

No "On the Constitutional Bizzarro Kingdom of Hopping Lamas on Planet X, we dodge the question by babbling about how the blockade was illegal" option. Pick either A or B. Do you fight back or allow them to have their way with you, possibly resulting in your death?

 

[bit_pattern]

Source, please.

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

 

[Lallante]

No. As has been stated numerous times already in this thread, you are allowed to board a ship when it steams towards a naval blockade with the open intent to break through. Likewise, servicemen are allowed to fight back when activists try to lynch them. The legality of the blockade, or the fact that the country the commandos belong to is one that is unpopular in the world, has no bearing on the situation. The same rules apply to Sweden and Sri Lanka, to Iceland and Israel. There is no clause that says "unless the UN does not like the nation in question".

This statement is absurd. The way international law works is that if a blockade is illegal, then it isnt a 'blockade' for the purposes of the international law relating to blockades. Thus the legality or otherwise of the blockade is absolutely CRUCIAL for determining whether boarding a ship to stop it passing is legal.

If the blockade was illegal, then the actions of the IDF in international waters were illegal too.
If the blockade was legal, the actions MAY still be illegal due to proportionality.

 

[Skeptic]

If Israel would just withdraw to the 1967 borders then they wouldn't have to fear Iranian missiles.

Not really. Iran made it perfectly clear, just like Hamas and the PLO, that it will not accept Israel under any borders, in any circumstances.

The "moderate" PLO is willing to have a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders as a first step in the "Staged Plan" for Israel's utter destruction -- as it re-emphasized in the Fatah conference in 2009.

The other two aren't willing to do even that.

 

[bit_pattern]

I see no one has answered this yet:

I think you'll find those points have been addressed dozens of times in this thread

 

[Thunder]

The "moderate" PLO is willing to have a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders as a first step in the "Staged Plan" for Israel's utter destruction -- as it re-emphasized in the Fatah conference in 2009.

you know, if you keep repeating this lie, enough bigots and morons in Israel might believe it. and that way, Israel will never leave the illegal settlements in the West Bank, and The Land of Israel will forever be controlled by the Chosen People.

 

[Pardalis]

Strange how none of the activist witnesses seem to remember seeing anyone clubbing and stabbing IDF soldiers... even though the videos show otherwise.

Is it collective amnesia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buzOWKxN2co&feature=player_embedded

 

[Skeptic]

That's a flagrant lie.

About the PLO? Not really. See in particular Wildcat's link (post #12). By the way, according to the Oslo "peace" accords, they were supposed to revise that part of their charter 17 years ago.

They've just been too busy making peace to strike out the part of their constitution calling for the liquidation of their peace partner. What an unfortunate oversight! Perfectly innocent, I'm sure.

And these are the "moderates" of the PLO, mind you. Hamas and Iran are worse.

 

[Pardalis]

Like all things, it depends on context. If that soldier is in the process of forcibly boarding the vessel the civilians are on in international waters, in my opinion* the soldiers are the ones using deadly force, and the civilians are responding in self-defense.

In the videos, you can see the soldiers are being assaulted before they even touch the ground.

 

[Robin]

I see no one has answered this yet:

But now imagine this: you're a commando armed with a paint ball rifle, rappelling down to the deck of a boat. You're met with tangos armed with axes and knives, trying to kill you. You are badly outnumbered, and your comrades are already getting beaten up. Do you

a) Allow them to lynch you, or

b) Fight back?

Fight back with my paint ball gun?

If I am a commando rappelling down onto the deck of a boat armed only with a paint ball gun into a mob of people armed with axes and knives intent on killing me, then, unless I can rappell right back up again and get a real gun, I am dead already.

And my comrades would be dead already.

Because a mob of people armed with knives and axes intent on killing a much smaller group of unarmed people would achieve their aim in seconds. Seconds.

But as there are no dead Israeli soldiers then I can only conclude that what you describe did not happen.

 

[Lallante]

I see no one has answered this yet:

You realise what you are saying makes Israel even more culpable - they created that situation and if, as you said, lethal force was inevitably necessary they should have forseen that and acted to avoid it.

 

[Lallante]

I only need to read you, how you dismiss anything the IDF says as "propaganda", and you uncritically take the activist testimonies as it was the gospel truth.

Both are suspect but a military organisation is more able to fabricate a story and have everyone stick to it - something that is almost impossible for the rag tag group of different nationalities and agendas that make up the activists (not to mention that they havent had the opportunity to collude to invent a story). Quite simply - if enough activist eye-witness accounts say the same series of events happened, it probably did.

 

[Mycroft]

bringing food and supplies to Gaza= supporting terrorism against Israel.

It can be. Why not?

If the goal were to just bring in supplies, Israel offered methods to do that that didn't involve running the blockade. Instead they chose the method they did for its propaganda value and many reports indicate the violence (by the activists) was planned ahead of time.

So the effect is to diminish the status of Israel while strengthening the status of Hamas.

How does that not support terrorism?

 

[bit_pattern]

About the PLO? Not really. See in particular Wildcat's link (post #12). By the way, according to the Oslo "peace" accords, they were supposed to revise that part of their charter 17 years ago.

They've just been too busy making peace to strike out the part of their constitution calling for the liquidation of their peace partner. What an unfortunate oversight! Perfectly innocent, I'm sure.

And these are the "moderates" of the PLO, mind you. Hamas and Iran are worse.

Oh, you mean that thread without sources? Nice standards of evidence you go by there!

And, no, the moderates got railroaded in the original peace talks, when Israel legitimised Arafat by doing a back door deal with the PLO because Israel disn't WANT a true peace, they wanted the Palestinian leadership to be delegitimised in the eyes of public opinion, which was also the goal when they neutered the PLO, killed Arafat and drove the people to Hamas. When you can cast your enemies terrorists it makes it oh so much the easier to take the land that you already insist is your own.

 

[Mycroft]

there are also claims that the IDF shot first.

Well of course there are.

Do you find them credible?

Seriously?