Israel Navy Opens Fire on Gaza Aid Flotilla II

[JollyRoger]

So basically the situation is according to you, if Israel doesn't accept that its civilians are killed without impunity, they are the bad guys?

If they kill even more civilians with impunity, then yes, yes they are the bad guys.

 

[dirtyparrot]

Ed Morgan, Professor of International law at U of T(oronto).

Israel and Hamas are in a state of armed conflict. That much is clear to everyone who has looked at the situation, from the General Assembly to the Human Rights Council in its Goldstone Report, which has stressed the need to conform to the laws of war. Accordingly, the accusation of piracy is inapt, since under both customary law and Article 101 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that applies only to acts done for private gain. Israel’s acts must be analyzed in terms of the law of naval warfare.

This is as much of a war as the War on Terrorism, which is to say not an actually war. I don't see how people can call it as such.

A naval blockade is defined in Article 7.71 of the U.S. Naval Handbook as “a belligerent operation to prevent vessels and/or aircraft of all nations, enemy as well as neutral, from entering or exiting specified ports, airfields, or coastal areas belonging to, occupied by, or under the control of an enemy nation.” It is designed to stop ships from crossing a cordon separating the enemy’s coast from the high seas. It is therefore often enforced in what would otherwise be international waters approaching, but not necessarily inside, the territorial sea of the blockaded party.

So, from my understanding you can only blockade NATIONS. At last check, Gaza is not a nation nor have the Palestinians been given their proper nation. Sure, it might be for all intents and purposes act like a separate nation, but until they get their independence, they are not nations. Thus, it would seem that the blockade would be null and void. Can France blockade Britanny, can Canada blockade Quebec, can the US blockade Alaska, can Japan blockade Hokkaido, can Spain blockade the Basque region?

That's not to mention that the main purpose of this blockade is to punish the people of Gaza for democratically electing Hamas.

 

[cardgame]

The US certainly can blockade Alaska. The US has sovereignty in its own nation, yes?

 

[Rumilus]

This is as much of a war as the War on Terrorism, which is to say not an actually war. I don't see how people can call it as such.

Something that I'm wondering, if there isn't a war, how can the Geneva Conventions be in effect?

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are international treaties that contain the most important rules limiting the barbarity of war. They protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war).

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/genevaconventions

So, from my understanding you can only blockade NATIONS. At last check, Gaza is not a nation nor have the Palestinians been given their proper nation. Sure, it might be for all intents and purposes act like a separate nation, but until they get their independence, they are not nations. Thus, it would seem that the blockade would be null and void. Can France blockade Britanny, can Canada blockade Quebec, can the US blockade Alaska, can Japan blockade Hokkaido, can Spain blockade the Basque region?

That's not to mention that the main purpose of this blockade is to punish the people of Gaza for democratically electing Hamas.

In which case I think the legality of the blockade is largely irrelevant. Is there some other international law which prevents collective punishment besides Geneva Conventions?

 

[Takhisis]

The guys on the Corrie actually extended a ladder to Israeli troops boarding the ship, helping them.

Can you honestly state that you have missed the videos of the Marmara boarding and that the two cases are comparable?

You surrender peacefully - all ends well, no one is hurt and the aid reaches it's destination. 5 ships have proven that.
You fight against Israel - you lose and die. The Marmara has shown that.

It's that simple.

'fight against Israel, lose and die'. Doesn't that translate as 'might makes right'?

 

[FeelGood]

Fixed your post for you.

Thank you for fixing my post. Really, who cares to be anti-semitic! I used all sort of products that support Israel whether I like or not. It's their barbaric actions that I strongly feel disgusted. They have proved, they're worse than Nazi. I got first person view from those affected on Mavi Marmara and I don't think it will be worth my time to describe due to the reason I mentioned earlier.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Thank you for fixing my post. Really, who cares to be anti-semitic! I used all sort of products that support Israel whether I like or not. It's their barbaric actions that I strongly feel disgusted. They have proved, they're worse than Nazi. I got first person view from those affected on Mavi Marmara and I don't think it will be worth my time to describe due to the reason I mentioned earlier.

Godwin's Law.

 

[MobBoss]

Quite. The Marmara didn't attack the Israeli forces.

The passengers and crew assuredly did.

Now, if you want to argue that "real humanitarians" don't defend themselves...?

I stand by the comment. The people on the Marvi Marmara werent humanitarians......well, some may have been (I understand some tried to actually help the IDF soldiers being beaten), but not the ones that attacked the boarders.

 

[lovett]

So what exactly is the status of Gaza? It's certainly not a recognized self-governing state, and Israel contends it is not an occupied area. That means it doesn't feel bound by the Geneva conventions. The only other plausible position I can see is that it is a "Non-Self Governing Territory" in which case Chapter XI of the UN charter would apply:

Article 73

Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

1. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
2. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;
3. to further international peace and security;
4. to promote constructive measures of development, to encourage research, and to co-operate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with specialized international bodies with a view to the practical achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes set forth in this Article; and
5. to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply.

Article 74

Members of the United Nations also agree that their policy in respect of the territories to which this Chapter applies, no less than in respect of their metropolitan areas, must be based on the general principle of good-neighbourliness, due account being taken of the interests and well-being of the rest of the world, in social, economic, and commercial matters.

Although it seems bleedin' obvious that it doesn't. So what is the legal status of Gaza according to Israel?

 

[Verbose]

I stand by the comment. The people on the Marvi Marmara werent humanitarians......well, some may have been (I understand some tried to actually help the IDF soldiers being beaten), but not the ones that attacked the boarders.

You know, in large parts of the world, being prepared to lay down your life for an adopted cause is still regarded as admirable.
The IHH (aid work in 100 nations globally) people weren't wrong in opposing the blockade. They weren't wrong simply by being Muslim either. They weren't even wrong in the eyes of the majority of the world in resisting the boarding, up to including beating up Israelis commandos to subdue them, even if in the process they might have been prepared to accept the consequences of "suicide-by-Israeli-commando". In fact, in Turkey, and a great many places in the world besides, the Israelis have committed the equivalent of blowing away the Oxfam ladies.

Now, Israel is going to at least "modify" the blockade, and whatever face-saving is implemented, it will be recognised in most of the world as Israel caving, and that it was the IHH people on the Mavi Marmara and their "ultimate sacrifice" who made all the difference, and not the milksop western Europeans.

It's part of why this is a very bad situation.

 

[MobBoss]

You know, in large parts of the world, being prepared to lay down your life for an adopted cause is still regarded as admirable.

And in some parts its just recognized as being stupid.

The IHH (aid work in 100 nations globally) people weren't wrong in opposing the blockade.

The IHH also has proven terrorist ties...lets not forget that too.

They weren't wrong simply by being Muslim either.

No one said they were.

They weren't even wrong in the eyes of the majority of the world in resisting the boarding, up to including beating up Israelis commandos to subdue them, even if in the process they might have been prepared to accept the consequences of "suicide-by-Israeli-commando".

And thats where you are wrong and make pretty large assumptions.

Initially, the world was told that the IDF opening fired first and indiscriminately. Of course the world would decry that act.

However, that was a false account of what happened on the ship.

In fact, in Turkey, and a great many places in the world besides, the Israelis have committed the equivalent of blowing away the Oxfam ladies.

Except thats just not the truth of the situation at all. All you are admitting to is the waging of a propaganda war...i.e. take a situation, lie about it, and make the IDF look bad because bias will allow many to see exactly what you want them to see.

However, SOME people, like me, will actually look at the facts of the situation, and be honest about what occurred.

Now, Israel is going to at least "modify" the blockade, and whatever face-saving is implemented, it will be recognised in most of the world as Israel caving, and that it was the IHH people on the Mavi Marmara and their "ultimate sacrifice" who made all the difference, and not the milksop western Europeans.

Ships are still going to be re-routed and/or boarded per the blockade. That hasnt, and wont, change.

It's part of why this is a very bad situation.

I agree that it is, but trying to run blockades isnt going to help anything, and will simply get people hurt or killed. If the IDF blockade is so illegal and terrible, then why isnt a nation like Syria, Iran or whoever, attacking it militarily to relieve the blockade? If they care so much about the poor palistinians, why arent they doing something about it militarily?

Answer: because they dont really care about Palistine except for it being a thorn in Israels side.

 

[Verbose]

I agree that it is, but trying to run blockades isnt going to help anything, and will simply get people hurt or killed. If the IDF blockade is so illegal and terrible, then why isnt a nation like Syria, Iran or whoever, attacking it militarily to relieve the blockade? If they care so much about the poor palistinians, why arent they doing something about it militarily?

Answer: because they dont really care about Palistine except for it being a thorn in Israels side.

As a young Palestinian hard-rocker in Gaza, who was prior to the incident openly dismissive of the whole convoy thing (as "Great, more meaningless humanitarian prattle which will accomplish nothing"), interviewed on Swedish public radio put it:
"Who would have thought it? The Turks turned out to be the best Arabs!"

Somehow you're either trying to short-circuit the quite logical implications of the IHH activists choices and actions here, by bringing in the Arab nations, who are already known to have repeatedly sold the Palestinians up-river, and twice on Sunday, with the Egyptian dictature in cahoots with Israel in Gaza, over the Muslim Brotherhood-angle anyway, or you're just being daft. Which is it?

The situation is bad because we really don't want to up the ante in this conflict. The people on the Mavi Marmara are seen as dedicated, determined, brave, and selfless to the extent of putting their lives on the line for people under oppression they didn't personally know. Which is precisely why the Israelis, from an apparent combination of over-confidence, under-preparedness and general callousness, should have known better than to hand them what amounts to a victory here. As an unnecessary, unforced own error on their part even.

 

[JollyRoger]

And in some parts its just recognized as being stupid.

Are you stupid enough to be willing to lay down your life for the subject of the second line of your sig?

 

[MobBoss]

As a young Palestinian hard-rocker in Gaza

About as far as I got in that paragraph...

The people on the Mavi Marmara are seen as dedicated, determined, brave, and selfless to the extent of putting their lives on the line for people under oppression they didn't personally know.

I dont see them that way at all. I guess I got this thing about viewing terrorist supporters in a positive light. Tell me, was it all that money they were carrying that convinced you they were all that?

Which is precisely why the Israelis, from an apparent combination of over-confidence, under-preparedness and general callousness, should have known better than to hand them what amounts to a victory here. As an unnecessary, unforced own error on their part even.

I never argued that the Israelis didnt make errors of their own. They assuredly did, in assuming that humanitarians were going to be peaceful. I dont think they will make that mistake again anytime soon when boarding other ships.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You know, in large parts of the world, being prepared to lay down your life for an adopted cause is still regarded as admirable.

And in some parts its just recognized as being stupid.

Are you stupid enough to be willing to lay down your life for the subject of the second line of your sig?

Moderator Action: Use of the word "stupid" should not applied to posters here and is infractable, but I see that it has been part of the discussion already in a more or less acceptable manner. Please keep this discussion civil.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Tani Coyote]

I think Steph was onto something when he said that if Germany and France - once bitter enemies - could get over their differences and become partners in crime, so can the Jews and Arabs, who have been formally fighting for decades and informally for millennia. The list goes on of nations that have put aside historical rivalries out of mutual interest.

Now the time has come for Israel and Palestine to grow up and do the same.

As another proposal: why don't the Palestinians allow Israel to supervise their development? If the Israelis are the ones controlling it, they'll be more willing to let more goods in, as they will be able to make sure they are used solely for peaceful purposes.

Oh right. That'd violate Palestinian sovereignty. Back to square one, said square is a town square soaked in the blood of idiots from both sides.

Move out of range

Why does Israel have to move? Why doesn't Palestine just stop firing rockets?

If someone was going to blow up your home, would you just "move out of range," and concede defeat, or would you at least try to find some way to prevent it from happening? Why should you have to abandon your home because some asses don't like it?

Property does not exist at the convenience of others. It is yours, and if they don't like it, tough cookies.

The solution is for both sides to stop firing, not for one to pack up and leave.

Stop provoking them every chance you have by allowing them to live their lives in peace as you claim to want?

Perhaps if Palestine stopped firing weapons, there would be peace. Peace requires commitment from both sides.

The sad fact is it doesn't matter who started it; if Israel is peaceful, Palestine attacks, and if Palestine is peaceful, Israel attacks. It's a vicious cycle of death and destruction; the Palestinians just get the most of it due to being vastly more vulnerable.

And most of all, giving them their own country as well as the right to defend themselves from ongoing Israeli atrocities and brutal apartheid policies?

In case you hadnt noticed, they gave them their own country. All it got Israel was more violence.

Appeasement has never worked; you would've thought that the Jews, being victims of a constantly-appeased regime, would know this.

Until both sides are willing to share, instead of being gluttonous and demanding the whole pie, there can be no peace.

If Israelis want their Jewish state so badly they'll have to grin and bear it.

So when you go through a poor neighborhood in a nice car and it gets stolen, you should just "bear it"? Hell no! You go to the cops and hope they bring whoever stole it to justice. Granted, it was pretty dumb to do it, but it doesn't change the fact the person who stole it is still a criminal. Just as you are responsible for it being stolen, they are responsible for stealing it; however, only the latter gets punished.

Therefore, Palestine can't use the "Israeli aggression!" excuse. Palestine is just as responsible for their actions as Israel is for their own; it doesn't matter who started it.

 

[Verbose]

I dont see them that way at all. I guess I got this thing about viewing terrorist supporters in a positive light. Tell me, was it all that money they were carrying that convinced you they were all that?

You're confusing me with my take on how this will look to the large parts of the world in general.

But I'm not sure I'm too surprised you might have trouble getting your head around how people you strongly disagree with might be perceived as having any kind of admirable qualities, no matter how much your views differ. It's a bit a failing with the US, not to cultivate that kind of necessary imagination. The US doesn't have worthy adversaries largely because it refuses to notice worth in people upholding causes it considers perverse in some form. The courtesy is of course returned by the other side.

But it is telling you actually find it provocative someone might engage in that kind of attempt at looking at these people from some other pov.

 

[Glassfan]

Are you stupid enough to be willing to lay down your life for the subject of the second line of your sig?

When I was in the service, I was willing to lay my life down for my country and the people in it. Today, as a civilian, I look at the aid flotilla people as naive, willing dupes of terrorist strategists. There are legitimate ways to get humanitarian aid to the people in Gaza. The aid flotilla eschewed those methods and attempted to break the blockade - so that in the future, weapons-laden ships can reach Hamas.

 

[Patroklos]

Israel supporters: You do know that it's illegal to board a ship, humanitarian nonetheless, in international waters, right?

False.

 

[YonatanBlum]

Here are two articles that help in showing that the reality of the "siege" of Gaza and of aid to Gaza are not as simple as some paint them to be:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7806209/Dispatch-Just-how-hungry-is-Gaza.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,698766,00.html

The bloackade has not been effective in ousting Hamas, and yet it cannot be completely abandoned, especially at sea. A different strategy must be found in order to get rid of Hamas, though.