Freedom Flotilla hijacked

Remove all ads!

Snook - As a supporter of Israel, I have to say that website is a joke. Did you see that pile of tools and kitchen knives piled up on the deck as "weapons?" What a joke. Do you have kitchen knives in your kithcen? Do you think they might actually cook on a boat? Or need tools to repair something? And then, to caption that the REAL weapons were "not pictured?" Yeah. Right....

 

I wouldn't. Armed commandos dropping onto your boat, firing their weapons would constitute an attack. Every single person on those boats knew they would be boarded by the Israeli armed forces. So, it's not like they were "surprised" or were reacting to a sudden attack. They knew the stoppage and boarding was coming. Coming out swinging was a very bad idea. I won't say that the Israeli's have a 100% right to the blockade, though I understand the reasoning. But with knowing that they would definitely stop the boats, what were they thinking, coming out swinging makeshift weapons at armed commandos? That was pretty stupid. If they wanted to be martyrs, then they got their wishes. Hopefully, something good will come out of it, though I don't see it happening. That sitiuation over yonder in the Mid-East won't change until one side "Completely" wins. It will be messy and many will be caught in the middle, to their demise.

 

Blades, I never intended to imply that attacking the Israelis was smart, but the people on the boats were certainly within their right to do so.

 

Ah, I see that the lines are drawn pretty much where they always are, or maybe not. Snook's response was quite expected, was even more vehement than the Israeli guy I spoke with.

I can agree with one thing though, this entire thing was a set up, a set up to provoke pretty much what happened except for the loss of life. The flotilla was a lose lose situation for Israel, don't think anyone doubt that. Either they stop the flotilla and suffer the PR loss for stopping an aid convoy or they let it through and suffer the loss of face of breaching a blockade they claim to be vital. Do not think anyone thought that Israel would be this reckless and aggressive but except for the dead and the injured it is Israel who will suffer the consequences. They are losing Turkey who has been a very close ally and turning it into an enemy, they are losing most of Europe and even the US are starting become tired of them. No one likes Hamas but I think Israel has shown time and time again that their leadership is no less fanatic or ruthless combined with access to bigger guns. As I see it they are slowly painting themselves into a corner where they will have to fight for their lives yet again and either exterminate a few million people or be wiped out from the pages of history.

Had a collegue who said something wise yesterday, why the hell did we give the jews Palestine? It wasn't the Palestinians or anyone there who wronged them, we should have given them an occupation zone in Germany. Carved out a piece of Germany and proclaim it a haven for jews and maybe other persecuted people who were wary of their neighbours where they could create a state of their own, much more valuable real estate as well which I guess is the reason they didn't. If any people needed to move to make room for a Jewish state it should be Germans, not Arabs. As things stand now it is a bunch of Arabs who are paying the price for the sins of Europe.

 

Nope. It's a bunch of Arabs who are paying the price for the sins of Israel. The sins of Europe have nothing to do with it - Israel chose of its own free will to persecute its neighbours due to a misplaced perception that it is constantly threatened (Well it is now due to its own actions but it certainly hasn't always been)

 

Well of course, that goes without saying. Israel are responsible for their own actions but if the Jewish state was proclaimed elsewhere, somewhere the people might be a bit more amicable and it was done "right" (if it now is possible to grab a piece of land and give it tosomeone else in a right way) Isreal hopefully wouldnt be in this state of fullblown rabid paranoia and lashing out at everyone and everything.

 

"Their right to do so". And what governing body gave them this right?

 

I would say international law, which I believe says that if your ship is invaded while you are on international waters, you have the right to defend your ship.

 

And by international law, Israel also had the right to board. There lies the problem. Both parties were within their "Rights". But, who is to enforce the international law in this case????? What body will make judgement? What body can make judgement?

Me, I wouldn't of attacked a commando. I like my life and like to think that I am smarter than that. But of course, I would of never been aboard one of those boats either. I understand we all have to pick and choose our battles and I won't deny anyone who was on the boats that choice. I just think it was a very stupid choice.

 

Not when the boat is on international waters, they didn't.

On that we agree.

 

Comparing the forces enforcing a blockade to police is not very appropriate. They are more like the forces guarding a contested border (North and South Korea for example) or police/military operating under Marshal law. While a person may not agree with what the forces are doing, being openly aggressive to the force is not wise.

Splunge, in a blockade where should they board if not in open (international) waters? By definition the blockade prevents vessels from entering territorial waters off the Gaza strip ... it's not very affective if they are only patrolling Israeli waters.

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the circumstances here, but when there is a blockade, doesn't the country enforcing the blockade basically say "if you come within this area, you are violating the blockade"? And weren't the boats outside of this area?

If the answer to the second question is "no", I would still question the legality of setting up and enforcing a blockade in intenational (vs. territorial) waters.

In any event, I again concur with everyone who says that resisting the Israelis was pretty stupid, but restiance was the whole point. They expected a beating; they just didn't expect to be shot.

 

Well, Splunge, when you poke the bear, don't be surprised when he rips off your head.

I am gonna do some research tonight, but it would seem to me that if you are gonna set up a blockade of another country*, you are gonna be either in their territorial waters or in international waters outside that country. Either way, someone could argue that you are not within your rights in stopping any boats (as I am assuming the blockaded country is not agreeing to your presence in their territorial waters) and so no matter where you stop the boats you're in hack.

This tells me that blockades probably can be enforced in international waters, and I would hazard that in the past other naval countries have boarded vessels in international waters.

So how close was the flotilla to the Palestinian port when they got boarded? To me, that's the $64,000 question.

 

Well, yes. But that is the larger question. After years of claiming that they would "destroy Israel," constant terrorist attacks and mayhem, people still ask why Israel is so "paranoid." Go figure. Like I say, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that someone isn't out to get you.

A country full of poor people, with little more than nothing? That has little in the way of real human rights? I'm sure that's the question.

That there are factions in Israel that want to starve the Pals into submission and to get them to give up their land, is without question. Also, that there are some Arab groups and nations who profit from this is also without question. But that does not mean that eveyone in Israel supports this. In any country you could find those who would use almost any tactic to get what they want (even here). You just hope they don't get the upper hand.

 

Territorial waters are three to four miles out (sometimes as much as 12 miles). Once you get that close there are serious logistical problems with pursuing vessels and detaining them (such as it's only ten minutes to the shore at most, and the draft of the Naval ships in the blockade) -- most blockades are set up so the blockading Navy has a long time to engage and search incoming vessels. The blockade around Cuba was hundreds of miles wide all around the country. Blockades against Iran and Iraq began outside the Gulf before ships even entered the Strait of Hormuz (first contact was usually in the Sea of Oman). Blockades of North Vietnam did not extend to the territorial waters of North Vietnam, but rather covered the international waters around the main ports.

 

Admittedly, that is why I only posted the videos that I watched. I took a lot of the commentary and links with more than a grain of salt.

I think Shoshino's post put it best. This was a well financed smear campaign against Israel. I'm sure that it probably has nothing to do with "suffering in Gaza" and is entirely about Israel. I'd love to see someone figure out where the money is coming from. Anyone want to take guesses or place bets?

 

This map at CNN shows the last known position, according to the Free Gaza Movement:


Where can I pick up the money?

 

Your not as confused as you pretend to be

 

Look, it is true that the flotilla project clearly aimed to provoke a crisis and kick off a process that might put an end to the blockade of Gaza. Does that political intent validate Israel's action? I don't think so, and neither do the Turks.

What is Israel fighting for? The perpetuation of the (arbitrary) blockade of Gaza? What is the purpose of the siege? Is it just an automatic extension of the previous government's policy, or does it have some practical aim? What aim? How much has the usefulness of the policy been discussed during the current government's year in office?

 

The first question I see is the legality of the blockade. I see the arguement the opposition makes, but I don't think it's strong, considering section 103 of BOC's post. Remember, Israel and Hamas are at war (and a sustained war on Hamas's side by numerous RPG attacks and armed insurgents). The blockade is a well-recognized tactic of wars. That civilian populations are also hurt by them (and all actions of war, really) is unfortunate, but a fact of the world we live in. There's no such thing as a 'clean' war.

The second question is the legality of the interdiction in international waters. As several posters have pointed out, this is standard procedure. Essentially all blockades are conducted in international waters, and interception of ships in international waters without a blockade is also well established, under certain circumstances. For example, the US regularly interdicts ships as much as 200 miles out for drug searches. Here, the Israelis were definitely within their rights (conditional on question #1) and the activistst that attacked them had no right to attack without direct provocation (i.e. the Israelis shooting first).

The third question is the order of attacks, basically who 'shot' first. It seems to me almost certain that the activists attacked first, and for two reasons:
1.) There were no deaths on the other ships. If the Israelis were coming in guns blazing (as they're accused of), you'd expect them to do it for all ships, and thus there would be deaths, or at least serious injuries, on all ships. Instead, only one ship saw injuries.
2.) Civilians with knives and clubs caught unawares against trained commandos with automatic assault rifles and flash bang grenades generally don't gain ground. If the Israelis had opened fire first, they would have gained a sizable beach-head before any resistance had been mounted, much less one good enough to gain ground and essentially overrun the Israelis, taking weapons from several of them.
Given the videos posted of the attack, the only options I see are:
1.) The Israeli commandos were completely and absolutely crap, with no significant training of any kind. Given their reputation and history, I find this unlikely.
2.) The Israeli commandos were attacked as soon as they started boarding, without provocation.


All in all, the only defense any of the activists seem to have is that the blockade is illegal because it violates sections 102 and 103 (has to be collective, it seems). If so, then this whole operation was illegal from the Israeli side. If not, then everything they did was justified.