|
On June 05 2010 14:13 Xeris wrote: Sorry, ship wasn't destroyed (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053133047995359.html).
I just think it's pretty indefensible, and silly to use the analogy you did to justify Israel's actions. I would understand if the situation was less clear, the ship was clearly for humanitarian aid and peaceful. There was absolutely no provocation.
Xeris I don't understand why you aren't seeing the bigger issue here. Israel cannot allow "peace activists" to barge through their blockade which has been put into place for Israel's national security. The point is that the difference between 6 year old children or turkish warships attempting to break the blockade does not matter here. Israel cannot risk appearing weak or revealing holes in their security or they risk getting ganked from all sides again... and besides that, what if these "peace activists" decided to smuggle real weapons into gaza to fuel a resistance? Israel cannot risk that. What Israel could have done better is contain the situation with less casualties, but that's the same classic dilemma police officers face -- a man rushes at you with a knife -- should you attempt to contain him without shooting him and risk your own life?
It seems like you are emotionally involved in this matter and unable to see the logical reasons for Israel's behavior and the fact that this event was really an attack on Israel rather than an attack on the peace activists.
|
You're missing something.
Israel attacked a vessel, detained a vessel, stopped a vessel, whatever you want to call it... in international waters. Not in their territory, not when it was nearing Gaza or a port, but in international waters. Any moral justification for Israel's actions go out the window into that wonderful void of it-doesn't-fucking-matter when such an egregious breach of international law occurs here. Whether the embargo is justified or not is irrelevant when you've got a state such as Israel operating so loosely with international law and protocol and when it has been engaging in such questionable activities for decades now.
On a more abstract note, Israel's entire legitimate basis for existence is founded upon international law in a broad sense, so when a state with such an origin has such a clear disregard for international rules, it certainly does not...bode well..
|
Pursuant to the Law of the Sea Convention, if a civilian ship is stopped by a Warship in international waters for boarding, the civilian ship is to submit to the boarding and later file a complaint for restitution if they believe the stop was unjust. (The law exists to prevent undue carnage.)
If a civilian ship is engaged by another civilian ship for boarding, the former is allowed to defend itself pursuant to the laws of its home country.
In this case, neither party is a signatory to the convention, therefore the strongest caveman then the strongest diplomats win. (Since the Turks have not ratified the convention, they lack standing to file a complaint under international law.)
Ireland has signed the Convention, so the next test for Israel could be more difficult to justify.
|
On June 05 2010 15:13 Elegy wrote: You're missing something.
Israel attacked a vessel, detained a vessel, stopped a vessel, whatever you want to call it... in international waters. Not in their territory, not when it was nearing Gaza or a port, but in international waters. Any moral justification for Israel's actions go out the window into that wonderful void of it-doesn't-fucking-matter when such an egregious breach of international law occurs here. Whether the embargo is justified or not is irrelevant when you've got a state such as Israel operating so loosely with international law and protocol and when it has been engaging in such questionable activities for decades now.
On a more abstract note, Israel's entire legitimate basis for existence is founded upon international law in a broad sense, so when a state with such an origin has such a clear disregard for international rules, it certainly does not...bode well.. Becuase we all know international law is heavily enforced and punished.
Let's face it we have a double standard for Israel, we don't give enough crap to china becuase their GDP is big enough for us to reconsider.
Yes this is a side track but it's important if one aligns them selves in calling one side in the wrong or right they must be in a position to back it up, i for the most part have been weary of both sides with a slight favoritism to Israel. But i never said what they did on that boat was wrong or right, i only said it could have been done better. (not sure if it always came across like that though)
States aren't made by international communities,
They are made by the peoples wiliness to give power to a governing body in their region.
So just becuase the Zionist movement was partly helped out by the international community doesn't mean jack shit.
|
On June 05 2010 15:13 Elegy wrote: You're missing something.
Israel attacked a vessel, detained a vessel, stopped a vessel, whatever you want to call it... in international waters. Not in their territory, not when it was nearing Gaza or a port, but in international waters. Any moral justification for Israel's actions go out the window into that wonderful void of it-doesn't-fucking-matter when such an egregious breach of international law occurs here. Whether the embargo is justified or not is irrelevant when you've got a state such as Israel operating so loosely with international law and protocol and when it has been engaging in such questionable activities for decades now.
On a more abstract note, Israel's entire legitimate basis for existence is founded upon international law in a broad sense, so when a state with such an origin has such a clear disregard for international rules, it certainly does not...bode well..
They didn't neccessarily break international law. Only if you assume there is a state of peace can you defend Turkeys actions. However if you accept that there is a defacto state of war between Gaza and Israel then there are articles which justify their actions (especially if they had a blockade that is deemed legal which is another question).
The FACT is that Hamas has stated they want to eradicate the Jewish state. Even then Israel has STILL allowed thousands of tons of humanitarian aide into the country every fucking week. Could these "peaceful" activists of gone through the same channels to give aide? Of course they could of. However that wouldn't be provacative and inflammatory. Instead they do this knowing it would create violence, fly jihadist flags, and have cameras waiting so they can take advantage of the situation.
Basically Israel was justified morally (and potentially legally) in doing what they did. However they were clearly stupid for doing it since they clearly walked into a trap which was set up just to make them look bad politically.
Edit: After reading a little on those who died, pretty much every single one was a radical Islamist. This was hardly peaceful and it was hardly unintended.
|
You could say the exact same thing, about Israels "official" agenda with the blockade if your gonna focus on statements;
Israel's policy was summed up by Dov Weisglass, an adviser to Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, earlier this year. 'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,' he said. The hunger pangs are supposed to encourage the Palestinians to force Hamas to change its attitude towards Israel or force Hamas out of government.
Also; Robert fisk's take:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-truth-behind-the-israeli-propaganda-1991803.html
+ Show Spoiler +I have, of course, been outraged at armed men boarding ships in international waters, killing passengers on board who attempt to resist and then forcing their ship to the hijackers' home port. I am, of course, talking about the Somali pirates who are preying on Western ships in the Indian Ocean. How dare those terrorists dare to touch our unarmed vessels on the high seas? And how right we are to have our warships there to prevent such terrorist acts.
But whoops! At least the Israelis have not demanded ransom. They just want to get journalists to win the propaganda war for them. Scarcely had the week begun when Israel's warrior "commandos" stormed a Turkish boat bringing aid to Gaza and shot nine of the passengers dead. Yet by week's end, the protesters had become "armed peace activists", vicious anti-Semites "professing pacifism, seething with hate, pounding away at another human being with a metal pole". I liked the last bit. The fact that the person being beaten was apparently shooting another human being with a rifle didn't quite get into this weird version of reality.
Turkish family protests that their sons wanted to be martyrs – something which most Turkish family members might say if their relatives had been shot by the Israelis – had been transformed into confirmation that they had been jihadis. "On that aid ship," a Sri Lankan texted me this week, "I had my niece, nephew and his wife on board. Unfortunately Ahmed (20-year-old nephew) got shot in the leg and now treated (sic) under military custody. I will keep you posted." He did indeed. Within hours, the press was at his family's home in Australia, demanding to know if Ahmed was a jihadi – or even a potential suicide bomber. Propaganda works, you see. We haven't seen a frame of film from the protesters because the Israelis have stolen the lot. No one has told us – if the Turkish ship was carrying such ruthless men – how their terrible plots to help the "terrorists" of Gaza were not uncovered in the long voyage from Turkey, even when it called at other ports. But Professor Gil Troy of McGill University in Montreal – in the rabid Canadian National Post, of course – was able to spout all that gunk about "armed peace activists" on Thursday.
I wasn't personally at all surprised at the killings on the Turkish ship. In Lebanon, I've seen this indisciplined rabble of an army – as "elite" as the average rabble of Arab armies – shooting at civilians. I saw them watching the Sabra and Shatila massacre of Palestinians on the morning of 18 September (the last day of the slaughter) by their vicious Lebanese militia allies. I was present at the Qana massacre by Israeli gunners in 1996 – "Arabushim" (the equivalent of the abusive term "Ayrab" in English), one of the gunners called the 106 dead civilians, more than half of them children, in the Israeli press. Then the Israeli government of Nobel laureate Shimon Peres said there were terrorists among the dead civilians – totally untrue, but who cares? – and then came the second Qana massacre in 2006 and then the 2008-09 Gaza slaughter of 1,300 Palestinians, most of them children, and then...
Well, then came the Goldstone report, which found that Israeli troops (as well as Hamas) committed war crimes in Gaza, but this was condemned as anti-Semitic – poor old honourable Goldstone, himself a prominent Jewish jurist from South Africa, slandered as "an evil man" by the raving Al Dershowitz of Harvard – and was called "controversial" by the brave Obama administration. "Controversial", by the way, basically means "fuck you".
There's doubts about it, you see. It's dodgy stuff.
But back to our chronology. Then we had the Mossad murder of a Hamas official in Dubai with the Israelis using at least 19 forged passports from Britain and other countries. And the pathetic response of our then foreign secretary, David Miliband? He called it "an incident" – not the murder of the guy in Dubai, mind you, just the forgery of UK passports, a highly "controversial" matter – and then... Well, now we've had the shooting down of nine passengers at sea by more Israeli heroes.
The amazing thing in all this is that so many Western journalists – and I'm including the BBC's pusillanimous coverage of the Gaza aid ships – are writing like Israeli journalists, while many Israeli journalists are writing about the killings with the courage that Western journalists should demonstrate. And about the Israeli army itself. Take Amos Harel's devastating report in Haaretz which analyses the make-up of the Israeli army's officer corps. In the past, many of them came from the leftist kibbutzim tradition, from greater Tel Aviv or from the coastal plain of Sharon. In 1990, only 2 per cent of army cadets were religious Orthodox Jews. Today the figure is 30 per cent. Six of the seven lieutenant-colonels in the Golani Brigade are religious. More than 50 per cent of local commanders are "national" religious in some infantry brigades.
There's nothing wrong with being religious. But – although Harel does not make this point quite so strongly – many of the Orthodox are supporters of the colonisation of the West Bank and thus oppose a Palestinian state.
And the Orthodox colonists are the Israelis who most hate the Palestinians, who want to erase the chances of a Palestinian state as surely as some Hamas officials would like to erase Israel. Ironically, it was senior officers of the "old" Israeli army who first encouraged the "terrorist" Hamas to build mosques in Gaza – as a counterbalance to the "terrorist" Yasser Arafat up in Beirut – and I was a witness to one of their meetings. But it will stay the same old story before the world wakes up. "I have never known an army as democratic as Israel's," the hapless French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy said a few hours before the slaughter.
Yes, the Israeli army is second to none, elite, humanitarian, heroic. Just don't tell the Somali pirates.
|
On June 05 2010 15:26 Number41 wrote: Ireland has signed the Convention, so the next test for Israel could be more difficult to justify. I was mistaken, The ship is not from Ireland. It is carrying an Irish Nobel laureate. The ship is Cambodian flagged. Cambodia has signed the Law of the Sea but not ratified it.
Edit: The Israeli's seized it: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/05/israeli-forces-board-gaza-bound-aid-vessel/
|
the ship was under the cambodia flag but it was sent by "Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign"..
the ship got name by Rachel Corrie, american activist that was brutally killed by war criminals (someone knows them as IDF)
who don't know about this poor girl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie
israel has no common sense, just like politicians, but power is in the people. Every attempt to stop illegal blockade of Gaza and illegal state (Israel) must be praised among honest people. Israel shouldn't exist at Palestinian ground and world must stop illegal blockade of Gaza.
You can help with money, words or acts in fight against nazi germany's little pet (=Israel)
|
On June 05 2010 22:28 purgerinho wrote:the ship was under the cambodia flag but it was sent by "Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign".. the ship got name by Rachel Corrie, american activist that was brutally killed by war criminals (someone knows them as IDF) who don't know about this poor girl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrieisrael has no common sense, just like politicians, but power is in the people. Every attempt to stop illegal blockade of Gaza and illegal state (Israel) must be praised among honest people. Israel shouldn't exist at Palestinian ground and world must stop illegal blockade of Gaza. You can help with money, words or acts in fight against nazi germany's little pet (=Israel) ohh denouncing Israel's right to exist, which rather or not would exist now, governments are formed by the people in the region.
Yeah denouncing the right for something to exist is a great way to make it act more understanding and peaceful.
|
On June 06 2010 00:17 semantics wrote: Yeah denouncing the right for something to exist is a great way to make it act more understanding and peaceful.
I believe there is a difference between saying something shouldn't exist, and something shouldn't exist on "palestinian" land, which in the context of modern dialogue would suggest the parts of the West Bank and Gaza that we're agreed to as Palestinian land in the 1967 UN accord by Israel that have since been appropriated by building settlements. Of course it is easier to simply missunderstand the expressed view arising probably from a lack of proficiency in English as being far more extreme than it actually purports to be.
|
The idea that mainstream western media outlets are biased against Israel is an interesting viewpoint. An argument could probably be made for the reverse, pointing out that outlets such as the BBC and CNN have played video supplied by the IDF ad nauseum, without supplying the context that the videos are heavily edited and missing crucial information that might help to determine the right or wrong, as it were, of the matter. The omission when showing these videos by same media outlets that Israel continues to withhold and control all objective photographic evidence is also not insignificant. Lastly, those not enamoured with Israel's actions might point out the much larger amount of air time(in their opinion) given to Israeli representatives to explain their position and view point without a balancing amount of time to those who disagree with what Israel has to say.
One begins to get the feeling that the only way those that constantly raise the clamour of western media bias against Israel would be satisfied would be if said outlets regurgitated the official stance of the Israeli government sans question or critique and did not allow challenging or contradictory views to be expressed at all.
Amused, Klazart.
|
On June 05 2010 14:13 Xeris wrote: Sorry, ship wasn't destroyed (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053133047995359.html).
I just think it's pretty indefensible, and silly to use the analogy you did to justify Israel's actions. I would understand if the situation was less clear, the ship was clearly for humanitarian aid and peaceful. There was absolutely no provocation.
Clearly. No other routes for the humanitarian aid existed. No soldiers were beaten bloody. No Auschwitz or 9/11 references were made.
|
On June 06 2010 18:42 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 14:13 Xeris wrote: Sorry, ship wasn't destroyed (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053133047995359.html).
I just think it's pretty indefensible, and silly to use the analogy you did to justify Israel's actions. I would understand if the situation was less clear, the ship was clearly for humanitarian aid and peaceful. There was absolutely no provocation.
Clearly. No other routes for the humanitarian aid existed. No soldiers were beaten bloody. No Auschwitz or 9/11 references were made. There was a holocaust survivor who was onboard a ship that was part of the flotilla. Your attempt to make this about anti-semiticism is profoundly wrong.
|
|
|
On June 06 2010 19:17 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2010 18:42 Squeegy wrote:On June 05 2010 14:13 Xeris wrote: Sorry, ship wasn't destroyed (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053133047995359.html).
I just think it's pretty indefensible, and silly to use the analogy you did to justify Israel's actions. I would understand if the situation was less clear, the ship was clearly for humanitarian aid and peaceful. There was absolutely no provocation.
Clearly. No other routes for the humanitarian aid existed. No soldiers were beaten bloody. No Auschwitz or 9/11 references were made. There was a holocaust survivor who was onboard a ship that was part of the flotilla. Your attempt to make this about anti-semiticism is profoundly wrong.
How about anti-Israel instead of anti-semitism?
|
On June 06 2010 20:13 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2010 19:17 Subversive wrote:On June 06 2010 18:42 Squeegy wrote:On June 05 2010 14:13 Xeris wrote: Sorry, ship wasn't destroyed (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053133047995359.html).
I just think it's pretty indefensible, and silly to use the analogy you did to justify Israel's actions. I would understand if the situation was less clear, the ship was clearly for humanitarian aid and peaceful. There was absolutely no provocation.
Clearly. No other routes for the humanitarian aid existed. No soldiers were beaten bloody. No Auschwitz or 9/11 references were made. There was a holocaust survivor who was onboard a ship that was part of the flotilla. Your attempt to make this about anti-semiticism is profoundly wrong. How about anti-Israel instead of anti-semitism?
Bad bump before and bad dodge of the original question. The Nazi's killed 6 million jews, not a bunch of activists and humanitarians who were on board the flotilla. And it happened in Germany not in Israel. Mentioning Auschwitz or 9/11 is deliberately emotional and histrionic.
The issue is about the convoy that Israel attacked. Stop trying to derail this into pro or anti Israel sentiments. That's not what anyone but you is trying to discuss. I almost think you're deliberately trying to obfuscate the actual situation or start flame-wars.
|
Or maybe I was talking about the sound clip where the peaceful activists were trying to have a friendly, non-provocative discussion with the IDF by saying things like "go back to Auschwitz".
Oh, but that must have been forged too. No provoking happened. Why? Because the activists said so.
|
You're right. You definitely get to shoot someone if they make a racist remark. Gods...
|
Just to contemplate the fact about how many tapes/photos they've confiscated contrasted to the amount released says about enough.
How many journalists were on that boat? 60?
|
On June 06 2010 18:42 Squeegy wrote: Clearly. No other routes for the humanitarian aid existed. No soldiers were beaten bloody. No Auschwitz or 9/11 references were made.
Correct. No other routes existed that weren't policed arbitrarily to prevent aid that was really needed from reaching the people of gaza. Soldiers were definitely beaten, but 45 acitivists were shot out of which (at least ) 9 were killed and countless others were violently brutalised. As for the last point, again, out of context without a full release of evidence.
It's actually incredibly disingenuous in my opinion to try and use any video/photographic/media evidence presented by the Israelis while knowing full well that they are hanging on to the majority of it and only putting out edited stuff. It's almost like you intentionally want to ignore the big red question mark every time that kind of stuff is brought up. (What are they NOT showing and why?)
I believe such selective presentation of information is casually referred to as PR spin or propaganda.
|
|
|
|
|
|