A lot of people seem to not know what the "Ship to gaza" initiative is. It wasn't started by Turkish pro Hamas activists. It wasn't started with any religious grounds at all.
It's a scandinavian initiative started by Religionscientists, writers, academics who want's to take solidarity action for the people suffering in Gaza. The goal was to load up ships with clothes, food etc and go through europe and throw up events in cities they stayed at on their way. This was organized by non political organizations, also non political organizations In Gaza. The ship that was boarded was a Turkish one which joined in on the initiative.
Israel had a blockade and had decided that all help material from other countries were to go through land, not through their water blockade. This violates international law since it's only legal to do so in times of war according to the geneve convention.
The Ships that were coming this time had as I mentioned a Turkish ship with them. If it makes any difference from the other ships or not is up to Israel but asking for permission to search the ship(s) for weapons would be understandable.
But they didn't. They warned the ships and said they'd attack on international water. People on the ships didn't retreat since an attack on international water perhaps was unthinkable/ they knew the effects of it would be better for their cause.
Israel board a ship with their military on international water and their soldiers get attacked. Who made the decision to board the ship on international water istead of on Israels water where it would have been a legal action?
I could mention my thoughts on to why Israel took this course of action. But what's the point if they're breaking international law? They're killing people on international water. What could legitimize this? It's not Italy sending troops and resources to the germans in north africa in ww2 where the Brits stopped the ships from coming in. It's not war. It's not a Swedish or Turkish nations official action of supporting one side of two. It's civilians wanting to help people suffering.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone caught on to who actually sent the flotilla to Gaza? It looks like the organization that financed the flotilla is part of a larger Saudi organization that has financed terrorist operations and has been placed on the US terrorist group list. You can bet that Israel knew who was behind the flotilla, which would force it to inspect to the ships. Now, the same group is looking to send another ship into the blockade.
I don't really know what to think about all of this right now, but maybe this is a setup?
On June 02 2010 00:39 SirGlinG wrote: I'd like to clarify some things.
A lot of people seem to not know what the "Ship to gaza" initiative is. It wasn't started by Turkish pro Hamas activists. It wasn't started with any religious grounds at all.
It's a scandinavian initiative started by Religionscientists, writers, academics who want's to take solidarity action for the people suffering in Gaza. The goal was to load up ships with clothes, food etc and go through europe and throw up events in cities they stayed at on their way. This was organized by non political organizations, also non political organizations In Gaza. The ship that was boarded was a Turkish one which joined in on the initiative.
Israel had a blockade and had decided that all help material from other countries were to go through land, not through their water blockade. This violates international law since it's only legal to do so in times of war according to the geneve convention.
The Ships that were coming this time had as I mentioned a Turkish ship with them. If it makes any difference from the other ships or not is up to Israel but asking for permission to search the ship(s) for weapons would be understandable.
But they didn't. They warned the ships and said they'd attack on international water. People on the ships didn't retreat since an attack on international water perhaps was unthinkable/ they knew the effects of it would be better for their cause.
Israel board a ship with their military on international water and their soldiers get attacked. Who made the decision to board the ship on international water istead of on Israels water where it would have been a legal action?
I could mention my thoughts on to why Israel took this course of action. But what's the point if they're breaking international law? They're killing people on international water. What could legitimize this? It's not Italy sending troops and resources to the germans in north africa in ww2 where the Brits stopped the ships from coming in. It's not war. It's not a Swedish or Turkish nations official action of supporting one side of two. It's civilians wanting to help people suffering.
I agree with all of this but want to address this part of what you said that is bolded. {CC}StealthBlue quotes UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Richard Falk here:
GENEVA (31 May 2010) – The UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Richard Falk, urged Monday the international community to bring to justice those responsible for the killing of some 16 unarmed peace activist, when Israeli armed commandos stormed a convoy of ships carrying aid to Gaza.
“Israel is guilty of shocking behavior by using deadly weapons against unarmed civilians on ships that were situated in the high seas where freedom of navigation exists, according to the law of the seas,” Mr. Falk said. “It is essential that those Israelis responsible for this lawless and murderous behavior, including political leaders who issued the orders, be held criminally accountable for their wrongful acts.”
There are confirmed reports of lethal interference by Israeli military units on the high seas with the Freedom Flotilla of six ships carrying some 10,000 tons of medicine, food, and building materials to the civilian population of Gaza. Preliminary reports suggest as many as 16 unarmed activists were killed, and dozens more wounded.
“This peaceful humanitarian initiative by citizens from 50 countries is an urgent response to the continuation of an unlawful blockade that has been maintained for almost three years causing great physical and mental harm to the whole of the 1.5 million people entrapped within Gaza,” the UN independent expert said. “Such a massive form of collective punishment is a crime against humanity, as well as a gross violation of the prohibition on collective punishment in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”
“As Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, familiar with the suffering of the people of Gaza, I find this latest instance of Israeli military lawlessness to create a situation of regional and global emergency. Unless prompt and decisive action is taken to challenge the Israeli approach to Gaza all of us will be complicit in criminal policies that are challenging the survival of an entire beleaguered community.”
Mr. Falk urged the world community “to take urgent action in response to this flagrant flouting of international law. It is time to insist on the end of the blockade of Gaza. The worldwide campaign of boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel is now a moral and political imperative, and needs to be supported and strengthened everywhere.”
On June 01 2010 23:39 Subversive wrote: I feel sorry for the soldiers involved. They were ordered to board the ships. And after 5 ships are successfully boarded I'm pretty sure you're thinking you've got the situation under control.
But it's not good enough to say "Oh well, mistakes happen. This is war".
No, when you board ships that are part of a humanitarian flotilla and have citizens from numerious countries including 2 German politicians then you don't get to say "casualties of war". Don't attack civilians with deadly force.
Why wasn't tear gas used? One Sergent said he was holding a paint-ball rifle. Why do you board a ship with a paint-ball gun? Can anyone say they wouldn't have pulled their pistol and considered firing into a group holding (allegedly) metal and wooden bats, knives as long as short swords and various other make-shift weapons? What if you were struck or stabbed? What a mess.
The soldiers were following orders. The people who should be investigated are the civilian Government who instructed the Navy to block any attempt for the fleet to enter Gaza and the military commanders who planned this operation.
Please go back to page 24 and read my post. It wouldnt make it legal even if they used cotton candies when they landed on the ship illegally.
The legality of boarding the ship has not been resolved.
Stop with this foolishness. The ONU said it was illegal, do you want jesus to come and say it was illegal or what?
On June 02 2010 00:54 GGruss wrote: Obviously if Israel respected human lives they would destroy the propellers or something similar. There is no possible defense for their actions.
The head of the Navy suggested they were worried it would cause a "humanitarian crisis" if they sabotaged the Mari Marmarat.
They could of just sunk the ship in the middle of the ocean with a torpedo or some shit and let everyone die... People who say that they are killing civilians for fun really don't get it. If they were just trying to kill them why bother sending soldiers down one by one from a helicopter armed with non-lethal guns(paintball) and instructed only to use their pistols in life threatening situations?
It's obvious the IDF screwed up and didn't expect such retaliation from humanitarians... they were wrong. About the whole international waters thing, drug ships were seized in international waters before, that means there are situations when it is legal. Seeing as none here are experts on the matter and since the legality of the boarding hasn't been decided as illegal people should stop using that as an excuse.
If Israel really just wanted to annihilate Palestine it probably could, I mean it is a small area of a land with pretty much the highest population density in the world (open for correction on this, might not be the highest but it is up there). People who compare Israel to the Nazi's really don't get it. If it was the Nazi's all the Palestinians would be dead already... This conflict has been going on longer than the holocaust, the land to cover is much smaller and weapons are much stronger than back then.
Several posters bring up that Israel should/could have, to avoid legal issues, waited until the ships entered Israeli waters. However Israel does not have any claims over Gaza, therefore the ships would never have entered their territorial waters.
On June 02 2010 01:07 Doix wrote: They could of just sunk the ship in the middle of the ocean with a torpedo or some shit and let everyone die... People who say that they are killing civilians for fun really don't get it. If they were just trying to kill them why bother sending soldiers down one by one from a helicopter armed with non-lethal guns(paintball) and instructed only to use their pistols in life threatening situations?
It's obvious the IDF screwed up and didn't expect such retaliation from humanitarians... they were wrong. About the whole international waters thing, drug ships were seized in international waters before, that means there are situations when it is legal. Seeing as none here are experts on the matter and since the legality of the boarding hasn't been decided as illegal people should stop
If Israel really just wanted to annihilate Palestine it probably could, I mean it is a small area of a land with pretty much the highest population density in the world (open for correction on this, might not be the highest but it is up there). People who compare Israel to the Nazi's really don't get it. If it was the Nazi's all the Palestinians would be dead already... This conflict has been going on longer than the holocaust, the land to cover is much smaller and weapons are much stronger than back then.
Edit:
The poster below makes a good point...
.
So far only Israel has said it wasn't illegal. I'd like to hear a good argument for how it is legal to both blockade a region without declaring war on them and then to tell other countries that they cannot enter said region. Also, it is not legal to board a ship on the high seas because you wish to effectively hijack them and tow them to your own port and then deport their citizens back to their home countries. Lastly, you are entitled to act in self-defence to an aggressive and unprovoked attack on your vessel on the high seas ie. international waters. Tossing someone overboard does not justify shooting civilians.
Israel claims they were attacked first, including a naval commander being stabbed. The civilians on the mavi marmara claim they were shot at first. So far no conclusive evidence has been shown for either case.
Edit: Perhaps you would care to read this post on page 24 by {CC}StealthBlue which is also repeated earlier on this page by myself: link
On June 02 2010 01:07 Doix wrote: They could of just sunk the ship in the middle of the ocean with a torpedo or some shit and let everyone die... People who say that they are killing civilians for fun really don't get it. If they were just trying to kill them why bother sending soldiers down one by one from a helicopter armed with non-lethal guns(paintball) and instructed only to use their pistols in life threatening situations?
It's obvious the IDF screwed up and didn't expect such retaliation from humanitarians... they were wrong. About the whole international waters thing, drug ships were seized in international waters before, that means there are situations when it is legal. Seeing as none here are experts on the matter and since the legality of the boarding hasn't been decided as illegal people should stop
If Israel really just wanted to annihilate Palestine it probably could, I mean it is a small area of a land with pretty much the highest population density in the world (open for correction on this, might not be the highest but it is up there). People who compare Israel to the Nazi's really don't get it. If it was the Nazi's all the Palestinians would be dead already... This conflict has been going on longer than the holocaust, the land to cover is much smaller and weapons are much stronger than back then.
Edit:
The poster below makes a good point...
.
So far only Israel has said it wasn't illegal. I'd like to hear a good argument for how it is legal to both blockade a region without declaring war on them and then to tell other countries that they cannot enter said region. Also, it is not legal to board a ship on the high seas because you wish to effectively hijack them and tow them to your own port and then deport their citizens back to their home countries. Lastly, you are entitled to act in self-defence to an aggressive and unprovoked attack on your vessel on the high seas ie. international waters. Tossing someone overboard does not justify shooting civilians.
Israel claims they were attacked first, including a naval commander being stabbed. The civilians on the mavi marmara claim they were shot at first. So far no conclusive evidence has been shown for either case.
Edit: Perhaps you would care to read this post on page 24 by {CC}StealthBlue which is also repeated earlier on this page by myself: link
Regarding the link, I've read it. It's just one guy (which if you read about on Wikipedia is one of the people who compares Israel to Nazi Germany, while using word such as genocide), no investigation has been conducted yet (afiak). Anyway, why the hell would Israel shoot first and then send troops armed with paintball guns onto the ship? That would be fucking retarded. If they were aiming to kill, there would be a lot more deaths.
(3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion..
I think someone may of quoted that in this thread before. So it's not as clear cut as you say. I think you are right though, people will decide it was illegal because people got killed.
Not long we had a kind of similar situation if you remeber. During the Russia - Georgia conflict, the russian army let US military ships go through their blockade on the Black Sea to deliver humanitarian aid to the georgian people. And the russians let this happend without any problems at all and it was during an active military conflict.
Let's break down the philosophical question. Let's start at the begining. A long time ago there was a farm. No one knows exactly who owned the farm originally but they agree that at some point paul and jacob fought over it. At one time, jacob had built a huge mansion in the middle of the city and a lot of little shacks all over the farm. Paul then took the farm later and began using it, eventually they died and paul's son paul jr and jacob's son jacob jr lived in the mansion together and things were ok until someone kicked out jacob jr because they didn't like him. Now jacob jr left that place to look for other places to live and was welcome places but could never find a home. Eventually Paul III and jacob the III were in a great battle. At the end of the battle, jacob III was badly beaten and his wife was killed and his sons maimed. Bob thought that this would be an opportunity to find a home for jacob the III and his family. They told bob about a place that used to be their home. So bob, since they had conquered that farm during the battle, gave that mansion to jacob III and said if anyone bothers you i'll help you out. later jacob IV was living in his mansion (although it was pretty beaten up at this point and hardly considered a mansion anymore) with his family when he noticed that someone had started living in one of the shacks on the outskirts of the farm. He didn't think much of it until that person brought their family and started moving closer. Eventually that family set up a tent right next to the mansion. Jacob IV then found out that it was someone named Paul IV who's father had been the previous owner of the house. Jacob didn't really have a problem until they tried actually living in the mansion. At first it was subtle, they took a bedroom, then one of the living areas, eventually most of the people left those outside shacks and began living in the mansion bedrooms. At this point jacob V and paul V were angry with each other. Jacob said, this house belongs to me, they gave it to my father. Paul says, no this belongs to me, it used to belong to my grandfather. So they fight over the mansion and they eventually set firm boundaries within the house. But Paul V is still angry. He is angry because jacob only lets him use a small part of the kitchen. Jacob insists that the kitchen is the most important part and that he needs to use it all day in order to feed his enormous family and that the kitchen also serves as a memory of his ancestors. Paul says, no I need this kitchen to feed my family and also it serves as a memory to my ancestors.
Now the question is, who does the house belong to? Can the kitchen problem be resolved? If angry people show up at jacob's door with some stuff they want to give to paul, but jacob has frequently told them that they won't let them in through this door, can those people camp outside the door waiting for an opportunity to rush through the house when the door is unlocked? Is there a way that jacob V and paul V live together in the house with no more conflict?
I'll answer what I think are the answers in another post.
Looks like the "peaceful" activists weren't so peaceful after all. And yes, I'm fully aware that this video was put up by official Israeli sources.
wow some sticks, working tools and a few knives. Good thing they got killed. Hamas would have started ww3 with these.
First off, I can assure you that all of these weapons can inflict potentially lethal injuries. But you entirely missed my point. If those activists truely were as peaceful as the vast majority of the posters here claim they were, why would they bring those weapons with them to begin with?
They are not weapons they are knives from the ship put on a flag by Israel offircers if they wanted weapons they would bring rifles with them and even then Israel still had now right to jump on someone's ship in international waters.
Oh, slingshots like that definitely aren't weapons... And again, you haven't understood my point. It's not about the amount of weapons they brought with them but rather the fact THAT they brought any weapons at all. It clearly shows that they aren't the innocent victims a lot of people here make them out to be.
Could it be because you have no point? People eat on those ships, and you need to chop things, you can't do that with spoons now, can you? Have you ever lived on a ship? Do you know what kind of tools you might require to do certain stuff? Have you ever gone fishing? Do you know how to skin the fish skin? I cut watermelons with larger knives for crying out loud...
Look they've found weapons of mass destruction... It just shows that how pathetic Israel is by presenting these knives and wood as weapons...
Have you noticed how those knives are either kitchen utensils or decorative?
EDIT: Considering NATO treaty of which Turkey is a signatory, this is an unauthorized attack on a turkish private vessel. As such it should be treated as an attack on all NATO countries. If there was justice in the world we the civilized world should be quick to bring harsh judgement on Israel with military action and dissolve the worst thing to ever happen to the world.
EDIT2: It's also worth noting that if NATO doesn't respond unilaterally with military force or strong economic embargo that the whole alliance is worth less than the paper the treaties are written on.
On June 02 2010 03:31 ComusLoM wrote: Have you noticed how those knives are either kitchen utensils or decorative?
EDIT: Considering NATO treaty of which Turkey is a signatory, this is an unauthorized attack on a turkish private vessel. As such it should be treated as an attack on all NATO countries. If there was justice in the world we the civilized world should be quick to bring harsh judgement on Israel with military action and dissolve the worst thing to ever happen to the world.
EDIT2: It's also worth noting that if NATO doesn't respond unilaterally with military force or strong economic embargo that the whole alliance is worth less than the paper the treaties are written on.
like what? war on israel? LMAO are you crazy?
israel is not the evil.it seems many people don't understand that fact. antisemites?
Just out of curiosity, do any of you care that the ships that Israel boarded were funded by a group with known terrorist ties? Specifically, does that fact give Israel enough cause to board the ships in the first place? Does it affect how Israel should have approached the situation in the first place?
On June 02 2010 04:08 xDaunt wrote: Just out of curiosity, do any of you care that the ships that Israel boarded were funded by a group with known terrorist ties? Specifically, does that fact give Israel enough cause to board the ships in the first place? Does it affect how Israel should have approached the situation in the first place?
I still haven't seen any solid proof of significant backing from groups with true known terrorist ties. Especially considering if it was true it would be significantly spouted by the Israeli government as part of their supposed justification. I'm sure they're spouting this all over Faux news but I don't have the heart to read their take on this.
EPT
