Freedom Flotilla hijacked

Remove all ads!

I read one of the vessels was sailing under US flag. One of the persons killed was a US-Turkish national by the name of Furkan Dogan. A forensic report said he was shot at close range, with four bullets in his head and one in his chest, according to the Anatolian news agency. In self-defence, no doubt.

​

I don't expect the US response to be any less mute than when that bulldozer killed Rachel Corrie.

I think that the venerable Helen Thomas hit the nail on the head when she said: If ANY Other Nation Had Done This We'd Be Up In Arms! So true.

​

 

dmc,
the article presents the Israeli government line and all the talking points you'd expect. I think that the author isn't correct in his narrative of the events and I don't share his advocacy position, err, opinion.

Scathing opinion piece from the Independent: Of course, they were asking for it ...

Passengers on a ship might try to defend themselves from attackers using whatever makeshift weapons come to hand. That should not be regarded as a provocation.

What was the Israeli Navy doing, attacking a Turkish vessel in the middle of the night in international waters in the first place? Israel and Turkey are at peace, and the ship is Turkish territory where Turkish law applies. The Israelis violated Turkish sovereignty i.e. Turkish law applies. It's safe to say that the violent boarding and seizure are criminal acts under Turkish law. Turkish subjects were harmed. And the Turks are pissed? Surprise!

And it's not even the results that justify the act - the ships, beyond the dreaded arsenal of kitchen knives and wooden sticks and tools, didn't carry any weapons. Had the ships cargo included explosives, rifles, RPGs, mortars, rockets or whatnot, the Israelis would have gleefully presented them. Alas, they didn't. Draw your conclusions.

If there was a threat to Israel, it was purely psychological.

 

LOL! That line made me laugh...

 

I read the article dmc linked where they claimed Israel was losing the war of ideas because they were are not fast enough to come out with the "truth". First, I find it weird as in this case and in most other instances where Israel is catching flak most of the information the world get is from Israel as they have tight control of the infromation in the area. Secondly, couldn't it be possible that they are losing the war of ideas because they have, well, bad ideas? That is usually the reason why you lose such wars. Whatever people say the average "jew-hating" European does not support Hamas, does not like them and has a very suspicious attitude towards muslims in general and islamism in particular. Just because you criticise Israel doesn't mean you support Hamas or Iran, it is possible to criticise both sides in a conflict although criticising a fanatic but feeble side seems a bit pointless. They might want to destroy Israel but it will be a while until that is a realistic goal. That is one of the absolute main problems in this conflict though, any criticism towards Israel is being shouted down as support for "terrorist" and when that doesn't work it is just pure anti-semitism and this is the rhethoric that has led Israel to where they are today, more and more isolated and countries who were once staunch allies are now more or less open enemies. Heck, the real enemies of Israel doesn't even have to do anything anymore, Israel is doing more to damage their own cause than Hamas, Iran, Jordan or Syria could ever do.

Oh, missed this:

So, Israel puts themselves into the same position as North Korea and wants to be judged by the same standards? Which is, we know they are crazy, they are already completely isolated and blockaded, we are not really interested in going to war with them now despite provocation but that is pretty much the only weapon left if we really get tired of them.

 

from "International Humanitarian Law"

Israels Foreign ministry

 

Hey now. That would have been enough for Dick Cheney. Let's "drain the swamp" while we can: Kitchen knives today -- "mushroom clouds" tomorrow...Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

@Shoshino

What exactly you don't understand? All of these apply (assuming of course that the blockade is legal) only if the flotilla was in the blockade area which according to you extends 20 miles beyond Gaza territorial waters. Since the incident didn't take place inside the blockade zone, you can't base your legal argument upon these.

 

Shoshino,
BOC's point is well taken. According to the convention's paragraphs 93 and 94:

i.e. if the interception occurs outside the declared blockade zone the rules for blockades no longer entitle them to interdict traffic at sea.

Also, had you read that convention in full you might have found interesting paragraph 102:

For context, again, the comment by Dov Weisglass, adviser to Ehud Olmert, then Israeli Prime Minister: 'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger ... and that is apparently working: The Red Cross reports chronic malnutrition in Gaza ever since 2008, and they put the blame on Israel's blockade.

Just saying ...

 

So the sole purpose of the blockade is to starve the Palestinians? It can be proved that the Israelis have never intercepted war materials and that they have no intention to intercept any war materials? I doubt it.

 

It does. That's the point of it. It's also legal for it to do so. That's it's purpose.

Actually, yes, they would. As long as Israel could reasonably claim their intent was to violate the blockade (and considering the activists themselves broadcast that intent, I see no problem with this), Israel could legally intercept them as soon as they left 'port' (or more likely national waters) anywhere in the world. The same is true with the US's blockade of Cuba in the Cuban Missle Crisis. They could have stopped the USSR ships anywhere in the world and it would have been legal.

Ah, but that's not the latest. From the Red Cross's San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994

I'm sorry, Ragusa, but Helen Thomas is wrong. Dead wrong. If any other nation in the world had done this, it would barely even make the news. There would be one story on the initial incident, and then one that one of the victoms had been identified as a US national, and that would be it.

I'm sorry, but this is just plain delusional. The Turkish ship in question entered a war zone with the declared intent of running a military blockade. Turkish law does not apply, international law does. And by international law this was legal.

Actually, no. Looking here may explain a few things.

Coupled with the fact that every legal expert I've seen but one concludes this was legal. And that one is directly responded to here:

Interestingly, I found this.

In it you can clearly see the activists readying metal poles as weapons in a calm and pre-meditated fashion. Only later do they spot the Israeli commandos coming to board their ship. So, yes, the activists were waiting for them, preparing an armed conflict.

The biggest issue at the moment seems to be whether or not the conflict is an International Armed Conflict (IAC) or a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) (i.e. whether Gaza counts as a state). Funnily enough, it seems there are fewer restrictions on actions in NIACs than in IACs, meaning if this is NIAC, there's even less reason to object.

 

LKD,
the quote by Weisglass and the malnutrition as a result of the blockade are indisputable facts.

Now I don't know what the Israelis think, but I can see what they do. I presume the 'keeping on a diet' is one purpose, as indicated by them arbitrarily restricting the influx of food into Gaza, by land or by boat. Remember ... canned meat and tuna, but not canned fruit, no pasta and no coriander, mineral water, but not fruit juice, tahini but not jam, tea and coffee, but not chocolate ...

This deliberate blockade of food into Gaza has nothing to do with curbing the inflow of arms by smuggling - i.e. since you cannot block things that are smuggled through under your nose, the arbitrary blockade of certain food stuff is something that Israelis does to things which influx they fully control. In that sense it is unconvincing to treat the whole blockade - from food imported through Israeli controlled channels to smuggled goods - as a general security measure.

Israel’s strategy towards the Palestinians is to defeat them and chase them off their land, either by force, or by making their lives miserable so they leave by themselves. Explain to me why else settlements since 1967 have ever more deeply extended into Palestinian territories. Security reasons? The longing for a Greater Israel is more widely shared in Israel today than at any time since the creation of the state. It can only be realised at the expense of the Palestinians.

Because of its position of strength and its expansionist ambitions, Israel has always sought to avoid serious negotiations with the Palestinians because, if negotiations were to succeed, they would inevitably mean ceding territory. That's why Netanyahu and Lieberman detest Mitchell - because he is scrupulously neutral and an honest broker they see him as not being on their side i.e. as an enemy. An enemy, because it means that he will suggest Israel to make territorial concessions.

Thus, the more radical the Palestinians the better for Liebermann and Netanyahu, after all: ‘How can you negotiate with someone who wants to kill you?’ The attack on the flotilla is IMO an Israeli attempt to radicalise the Palestinians, and to so torpedo Obama's and Mitchell's ‘proximity’ talks before they even start (i.e. an act very much in bad faith). Both Liebermann and Netanyahu never wanted these talks anyway. They might well succeed.

It's just that their policy condemns Israel to eventual extinction.

NOG,
you rely on the Israeli government to give you an impartial assessment? The facts? You, the media-bias guy? Who carefully filters articles for ... slant? Just as if the Israelis are ... impartial and objective disinterested observers in this affair? Hilarious.

Your take on the international law aspects is, to make it short, wrong. BOC and I put it out clearly. If you prefer to not believe it for whatever reason, suit yourself.

 

You mean like Iran? I think it depends upon who is involved in such an "encounter."

 

BOC: point 8 from what I posted above

 

Metal poles? Calm and pre-meditated pole attackers. Got to watch those pole wielders - They certainly came "armed" for a real fight.

 

you get smashed over the head with a metal pole and youll hit the deck just as surely as you would from a bullet

 

Somehow I'd rather be the one armed with the guns and bullets than the metal poles.

 

I've seen preparations like that before. We were pulling into a port where protests were expected, so we prepared poles to push ladders away in case someone tried to bring a boat alongside and use a ladder to get up. We also layed out fire hoses and donned life jackets. IMO they were preparing to repel boarders with non-lethal force. Everything the Israeli's have put out has simply solidified that opinion.

I have no problems with the blockade but this particular event was extreme. The Israeli's were caught off-guard and responded in a very stupid way. The protesters were trying to cause a scene and slow the boarding process. IMO they wanted to capture the Israeli's using excessive force on video to embarrass Israel -- they go far more than they bargained for. The Israeli's overreacted. Period. They should 'fess us and take responsibility for a poorly planned and executed boarding that ended in needless tragedy.

 

Umm, Ragusa, those settlements were all evacuated and surrendered in 2005.

Since then, the Israelis have only tried to establish peace with Gaza, not conquest and not driving them out.

No, Ragusa, I take the word of the experts in international law.

Well, Iran jailed three US citizens for trespassing in their territory about a year ago or so (not entirely sure). It was in the news recently simply because the mothers got to see the kids in jail. The kids are still in jail, by the way. There was no major international uproar over that.

Oh, I'll admit they were poorly equipped and worse trained, but then I don't think they ever expected to fight off the Israeli navy, just cause an incident. Regardless, it clearly shows they were preparing for a fight before the Israelis were even in sight. So much for 'peace' activists.

Oh, and apparently the IDF informed the flotilla of the blockade's expansion hours before the incident.

 

If they had shot down Americans in cold blood, in international waters, you would see a reaction. BTW, there are Americans in jail all over the world, in all kinds of countries. I hope that's not a news flash.