EPTYou just seem keen on having your own lines and mixing them round and round and posting them again. Then you simply throw the towel and say "you didn't look at this objectively" when his post is one of the most rational and objective posts around. And for your information, objectively does not mean coinciding with your point of view.
News: Israel Attacks Gazan Aid Flotilla - Page 37
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
You just seem keen on having your own lines and mixing them round and round and posting them again. Then you simply throw the towel and say "you didn't look at this objectively" when his post is one of the most rational and objective posts around. And for your information, objectively does not mean coinciding with your point of view. | ||
|
Klimpen
New Zealand100 Posts
On June 03 2010 01:35 Squeegy wrote:A) Israel is in war or in conflict with Hamas. But Hamas is not a state and that is what makes this a complex situation. This is indeed a keypoint. B) Even if they didn't have weapons (although from what I understand, such aid ships have attempted to smuggle weapons in the past), you state soon after that they had banned materials. Therefore, an inspection was justified. C) I don't really think you've taken a look at this objectively. Notice the stun grenade. Or maybe you guys consider it normal equipment on a ship too? A) Currently there's no official recognition from an international governing body of a war taking place between Israel and Palestine. Armed conflict does and is occuring, however it is not a war. And yes, I'm talking purely in the legal sense. B) The ships were certified by the Turkish government as to only having humanitarian aid on board. Israel currently prohibits certain types of aid being let through - this is against humanitarian law. C) The source of the flashbang is unclear, I think it is reasonable to think that it was thrown by the soldiers, missed and simply fell back down. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On June 02 2010 19:57 Subversive wrote: Well when it happened within living memory maybe compensation is in order. There are thousands of refugees all around the world from Palestine. And yet not only aren't they treated as victims of an illegal war more refugees continue to be created as Palestinian homes are demolished and Israeli settlers move into Palestinian areas. So yes, it is more artificial than say, the conquest of Normandy or England almost 1000 years ago. This happened in our life-time. It is unacceptable. Edit: One more point concerning history. Most people today who live in the US, the UK, Australia or New Zealand would have no idea if they were descended from Saxon, Angle, Norman, Pict, Gaelic or any of half a dozen other peoples that are traditionally lumped together under the title Anglo-Saxon. On the other hand, if you were born to Palestinian parents who lost their home and livelihood when they were forcibly ejected from their town then it might be said to be different. My point is, is compensation in order for the people of modern day northern France for what the Normans did 1000 years ago? Or for the inhabitants of England who are descended from the Saxons who were killed, dispossessed and raped by victorious Norman soldiers in 1066? I think the answer clearly is yes in the first instance and no in the second. So Russia did the right thing, stopping the evil opression of Georgia trying to conquer the small states South Ossetia and Abkhazia even though both of those would rather be with Russia. Really, most in the west are such tards. They go by one set of rules for one thing and another for the other. The people in these areas never wanted to be a part of Georgia but the lines were drawn like that so tough luck! Evil Russia for trying to protect those lands, Georgia clearly had the right since they own these lands according to the map!! But oh no, what is Israel doing? They are taking the lands that we gave them according to this map! Travesty!!! And then they defend themselves when they are attacked and tries to survive, fucking fuckers trying to fuck the arabs over!!!! All of you are just bound by political agendas and only see your side, any situation where the roles are reversed the masses would be on the other parts side. | ||
|
Squeegy
Finland1166 Posts
On June 03 2010 01:57 Pika Chu wrote: Squeegy, you have gone from posting to being absurd. You're like a stubborn kid that's going to keep repeating himself over and over again with no interest of what others say. You just seem keen on having your own lines and mixing them round and round and posting them again. Then you simply throw the towel and say "you didn't look at this objectively" when his post is one of the most rational and objective posts around. And for your information, objectively does not mean coinciding with your point of view. A) He stated Israel's actions were illegal, although this is by no means clear. All information isn't known, therefore it is too early to make such claims. This is also why UN statements don't mean much, not that I have actually seen them state that what Israel did was illegal. B) He says the only explanation he can think of for IDF's tactics is provoking. How about an intel failure? Poor risk-assesment? These things happen. But no, it must be that Israel wanted to provoke an action, although handling this without any confortation would have probably worked best in Israel's favour. C) He claims the contracts were dubious, although he has no proof about this. Then he claims very rough treatment of the prisoners. These didn't come from an objective source. These are clearly the opinions of the people who were arrested. Now, mentioning all this is fine, that is, if he would also mention the nasty things heard from the other side. IDF says they found cash, bulletproof vests and weapons on the ships and that some of the people who attacked the soldiers are Al-Qaeda members. I am not convinced that there were bulletproof vests or Al-Qaeda members on board. I am also not saying that what the activists said is wrong. But an objective person would've mentioned both sides of the story. Ps. The video I edited in my last message was not meant to be in response to the guy I quoted. I just didn't want to create a new post just for that video. | ||
|
Squeegy
Finland1166 Posts
On June 03 2010 02:14 Klimpen wrote: A) Currently there's no official recognition from an international governing body of a war taking place between Israel and Palestine. Armed conflict does and is occuring, however it is not a war. And yes, I'm talking purely in the legal sense. B) The ships were certified by the Turkish government as to only having humanitarian aid on board. Israel currently prohibits certain types of aid being let through - this is against humanitarian law. C) The source of the flashbang is unclear, I think it is reasonable to think that it was thrown by the soldiers, missed and simply fell back down. However, Israel is at war with Hamas to my knowledge. And that is what makes things very complex. I have absolutely no knowledge about the legality of this. Right. Very reasonable indeed. | ||
|
pvzvt
Israel2097 Posts
On June 03 2010 02:14 Klimpen wrote: A) Currently there's no official recognition from an international governing body of a war taking place between Israel and Palestine. Armed conflict does and is occuring, however it is not a war. And yes, I'm talking purely in the legal sense. B) The ships were certified by the Turkish government as to only having humanitarian aid on board. Israel currently prohibits certain types of aid being let through - this is against humanitarian law. C) The source of the flashbang is unclear, I think it is reasonable to think that it was thrown by the soldiers, missed and simply fell back down. i'd like to hear the explantions of how all this is not just a provocation do u know whats the amount of supply that was found in all of those big 6 ships enough to fill about 25 trucks just for the record gazza is getting supplied from israel 4 times that amount per day !!! plz i dont pretend to know you but scan u really claim those guys were helping their cause a side giving israel a bad image (which may and possibly be the only reason for this all shit ) the only thing that is more obious is israel having a very bad way of solving problems and for that someone should be fired up there but for the reason it happen i feel no guilt at all | ||
|
Klimpen
New Zealand100 Posts
On June 03 2010 02:31 pvzvt wrote: i'd like to hear the explantions of how all this is not just a provocation do u know whats the amount of supply that was found in all of those big 6 ships enough to fill about 25 trucks just for the record gazza is getting supplied from israel 4 times that amount per day !!! plz i dont pretend to know you but scan u really claim those guys were helping their cause a side giving israel a bad image (which may and possibly be the only reason for this all shit ) the only thing that is more obious is israel having a very bad way of solving problems and for that someone should be fired up there but for the reason it happen i feel no guilt at all You're not even reading what I'm writing. Try again. | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
On June 03 2010 02:21 Squeegy wrote: A) He stated Israel's actions were illegal, although this is by no means clear. All information isn't known, therefore it is too early to make such claims. This is also why UN statements don't mean much, not that I have actually seen them state that what Israel did was illegal. B) He says the only explanation he can think of for IDF's tactics is provoking. How about an intel failure? Poor risk-assesment? These things happen. But no, it must be that Israel wanted to provoke an action, although handling this without any confortation would have probably worked best in Israel's favour. C) He claims the contracts were dubious, although he has no proof about this. Then he claims very rough treatment of the prisoners. These didn't come from an objective source. These are clearly the opinions of the people who were arrested. Now, mentioning all this is fine, that is, if he would also mention the nasty things heard from the other side. IDF says they found cash, bulletproof vests and weapons on the ships and that some of the people who attacked the soldiers are Al-Qaeda members. I am not convinced that there were bulletproof vests or Al-Qaeda members on board. I am also not saying that what the activists said is wrong. But an objective person would've mentioned both sides of the story. Ps. The video I edited in my last message was not meant to be in response to the guy I quoted. I just didn't want to create a new post just for that video. A) ONU was very clear on it. Please try reading a few pages back, me and some others provided links to the Security Council's declaration condemning Israel's actions being illegal. To even bother arguing about this is a silly waste of time, if you're not taking ONU (which is like the whole world... 15 members including USA Israel's ally) as proof, then not even jesus coming down and telling you wouldn't make a point in the case. B) I don't know here. But either way Israel screwed up, they killed turkish people on turkish territory. Please stop posting videos with comments. These are clearly so biased they must not even be mentioned in any decent discussion. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
JERUSALEM — In an attempt to limit the diplomatic damage from its deadly raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla, Israel dropped plans Wednesday to prosecute dozens of pro-Palestinian activists, opting instead to deport them all immediately. The stunning reversal came as Israel faced increasingly sharp international condemnation for Monday's high-seas raid that ended when Israeli commandos killed nine activists. The outcry included accusations of war crimes and a decision by Nicaragua to break diplomatic relations with Israel over the raid. But Israeli officials said the decision not to prosecute any of the activists – despite suspicions that they were sent to attack Israeli forces on the ship – was primarily an attempt to control the damage to Israel's relations with Turkey, an unofficial sponsor of the flotilla. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing sensitive diplomatic issues. Source | ||
|
Squeegy
Finland1166 Posts
Nobody's denying they didn't screw up. Yeah, because the comments make the video itself biased. Even if it was filmed by the activists. | ||
|
purgerinho
Croatia919 Posts
i mean, it's not even their land, it is palestinan land.. they should be grateful coz they have land for free but nooo.. why wouldn't we kill ppl for 60 yrs just coz they don't want to abandon their own homes.. countries should gather now and go all togehter with aid.. fascism should be stopped.. yes, it is fascism | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On June 03 2010 04:50 purgerinho wrote: gaza shouldn't be blocked... israel made ghetto from it and world should react and punish israel already.. i mean, it's not even their land, it is palestinan land.. they should be grateful coz they have land for free but nooo.. why wouldn't we kill ppl for 60 yrs just coz they don't want to abandon their own homes.. countries should gather now and go all togehter with aid.. fascism should be stopped.. yes, it is fascism My mind. It was just blown. | ||
|
Squeegy
Finland1166 Posts
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602 | ||
|
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
How so? He didn't say anything that a bunch of other uninformed Palestinian sympathizers haven't said with better grammar already. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 03 2010 04:50 purgerinho wrote: gaza shouldn't be blocked... israel made ghetto from it and world should react and punish israel already.. i mean, it's not even their land, it is palestinan land.. they should be grateful coz they have land for free but nooo.. why wouldn't we kill ppl for 60 yrs just coz they don't want to abandon their own homes.. countries should gather now and go all togehter with aid.. fascism should be stopped.. yes, it is fascism If Bosnians shelled Croatian cities daily with rockets, I think you might feel a little bit different about the idea of blockades. The fundamental problem with regards to peace between Israel and the Middle East is that there are too many people and groups that will accept nothing less than the utter destruction of Israel. There is no treaty that can be written or made that will satisfy those people unless it wipes Israel off of the map. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
If, on the other hand, you think the blockade is not legitimate, then your position amounts to saying that Israel has no right to defend itself. In this case I simply have nothing to say to you. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On June 03 2010 06:39 xDaunt wrote: If Bosnians shelled Croatian cities daily with rockets, I think you might feel a little bit different about the idea of blockades. The fundamental problem with regards to peace between Israel and the Middle East is that there are too many people and groups that will accept nothing less than the utter destruction of Israel. There is no treaty that can be written or made that will satisfy those people unless it wipes Israel off of the map. Right. According to polls 80% of Arabs, including "Palestinians" and those in the surrounding countries, would not permanently accept the existence of Israel under any circumstances. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
This is basically a rule of stubbornness, Israel the immovable object keep coming in contact with Arabs the unstoppable force, Israel isn't in the business of long term peace they don't believe it's possible they just look for short term solutions. And Arabs don't want short term peace because they just want Israel not there anymore. | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
On June 03 2010 06:23 Squeegy wrote: About the legality: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602 On June 03 2010 01:02 Biochemist wrote: One of the comments on that page was pretty good. I haven't read every page of the other thread so maybe it has already been posted and discussed, but if not I was hoping to see what others thought of this: I bolded part of Biochemist's quote because it is particularly strange. Some background information: first of all, Bren Carlill is not an unbiased observer, nor is he acting completely in the role of a reporter for the 'Age' (assuming that it is a valid news organization). This is because Bren Carlill is an analyst at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council. In fact the same article can be found at said organization's webpage: http://www.aijac.org.au/?id=articles&_action=showArticleDetails&articleID=6837 That said, here is the important part of Carlill's article: Israel's maritime blockade of Gaza is legal according to articles 93-104 of the 1994 San Remo treaty on maritime warfare. Israel told the flotilla it was about to enter conflict waters and was not permitted to do so. The ships informed Israel of their intent to enter these waters. Israel commandeered the ships, according to Article 98 of the above-mentioned treaty. 1) The "San Remo treaty" is not a treaty. It is a manual which was compiled in 1994 by a group of experts in maritime law, collectively working under the International Institute of Humanitarian Law. This is not a UN agency, nor is it associated with any governing body. It is "an independent, non-profit humanitarian organisation...to promote the development of international humanitarian law, human rights, refugee law, immigration law and related issues" [Wiki]. The purpose of the San Remo manual was to clarify certain points of maritime law, to provide a unified front of agreement. The full document can be found here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument In Reuters article linked by Squeegy, the San Remo manual is referred to by its proper name, but in addition is claimed to be legally binding. According to Wikipedia it is not legally binding [Wiki]. Also, according 2) Ignoring the fact that the San Remo manual is no treaty and is not legally binding, we must first determine whether the manual is applicable before applying it. Section 1, Articles 1 and 2 state SECTION I : SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE LAW 1. The parties to an armed conflict at sea are bound by the principles and rules of international humanitarian law from the moment armed force is used. 2. In cases not covered by this document or by international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of the public conscience. Israel is not currently at war with Hamas, the ruling body of Gaza, having supposedly ended the war in 2009. As such, Article 1 does not apply. Therefore we must go to Article 2, which clearly states that recourse must be had to documents and/or principles outside of those delineated in the San Remo manual. 3) Ignoring points (1) and (2), let's take a look at Section II, Articles 93-104 which are supposed to support the Israeli actions. SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE Blockade 93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States. 94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline. 95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact. 96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements. 97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document. 98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked. 99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States. 100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States. 101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94. 102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if: (a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or (b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade. 103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to: (a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and (b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. 104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted. There is possible conflict with Article 102 section (b), as the damage to the civilian population is often considered excessive in relation to the military advantage gained, as presumably bombs are made anyways, but the humanitarian aid sent to Gaza does not meet the minimum requirements laid out by the UN [lacking source, going off memory for that statement]. However, it is almost certainly not so bad as to the extent mentioned in Article 103, as survival conditions are met. Therefore the applicability of Article 102(b) will rely on various arguments that require more detailed and perhaps confidential information than I have available to me. Nevertheless Article 102(b) is a possible refutation of the blockade, if we pretend for a moment that the San Remo manual is legally binding. If we do not assume that Article 102(b) applies, then indeed everything the IDF did during the recent incident is legal, if we assume that the San Remo manual is a treaty and therefore legally binding, and furthermore assume that Israel is at war with Hamas in the sense of being at war with Gaza due to Hamas' governing of that region. There is another possible interpretation in that while the document is recognized as non legally binding by the Israelis, it is being used as a convenient delineation of maritime law, as was the intended purpose of the document. In fact the official Israeli position uses article 67 of the manual. However it seems strange that they either cannot or will not refer to a legally binding document which they are signatories to. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 03 2010 06:57 semantics wrote: Maybe that's something the UN should have thought about before backing the creation of Israel :D Yes, the UN definitely screwed the pooch by creating Israel. However, that was more than 60 years ago at this point, so it's fairly irrelevant to how or whether there will be peace in the Middle East. Either the Israelis or their neighbors are going to have to be wiped out for there to be peace at this point. Given the demographics, I think that the Israelis eventually will be on the losing end. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://www.israel-stop.com/carte-israel-palestine.jpg)
