Israel Navy Opens Fire on Gaza Aid Flotilla

[GinandTonic]

and I was thinking the following was enough for any non-jihadist human..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24

Also, 4 rockets fell on Israel today, 3 on Ashkelon, 1 on Sderot, both Israeli cities (NOT in the west bank).
but that's normal, eh? no UN intervention?

=========

Personal notes:
I feel like Israel will be forced into war with Syria, Iran and Turkey. (now who's the stronger guy?)
Turkey has some of NATO's nukes, and has just today spoke that the end of Israel is near.
So, pretty please, does anyone think (like my poor humble self) that Turkey should be put out of NATO for this or at least move away the NATO nukes from it??
No? Bummer. Nukes war it is.. I'll stay here because my mom won't ever leave. I'm 6KM from Tel-Aviv's Azrieli Towers, so I might get a chance to live.
Got that 1939 feeling. I wasn't born then, but I guess it's not so different.

And Israel killed how many palistinians yesterday? Five? Air strikes of their own IIRC.

 

[Rumilus]

yeah. They have been completely accomodating to proving all the humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. Haven't they?

Pretty much. Population in Gaza is growing and Israel is one of their biggest sources of humanitarian aid. That their conditions arent ideal due to the ongoing armed conflict is hardly Israeli fault alone.

I doubt any of them called themselves "peace activists". They intentionally set Israel up to look stupid in front of the entire world, and they suceeded far beyond their likely expectations. It is a real shame that so many people had to die to once again prove that Israel doesn't have any sense whatsoever when it comes to international relations. But given how many countless thousands of Palenstinians have had to do die so far, it seems to be a small price to pay for the future liberation of people who have been absurdly mistreated for so long.

Sacrificing people to die is okay as long as it makes someone look bad?

Because they have little or no "terrorism links"? Because it is obviously propaganda deliberately generated by Israel to try to rationalize their complete incompetence?

The information about their links to terrorism originates from Turkish sources, information which was compiled in a paper for Danish Institution. None of that information comes from Israeli sources. Nice try tho.

http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/WP2006/DIIS WP 2006-7.web.pdf

 

[Ayn Rand]

I'ld have thought your name sake would be 100% against the individual standing up against criminal property invasion.

The property was not stolen or damaged. It was taken over with forewarning by the lawful military forces of a democratic government. Said property was removed from a declared war zone and returned to its owner, intact.

If you do not recognise that the people on the boats, indeed the overwhelming majority of the people in the world, do not recognise the legal basis for the use of force then the world must be a terribly confusing place. When that American Captain stood against the Somali pirates did you question where he dreamt up his kind of reasoning? You may not agree, but to find other people using exactly the same logic that had the US waving flags on that occasion utterly incomprehensible seems myopic.

Look, if you are against the Israeli action then fair enough, but just call it what it is and stop all this nonsense about pirates, invasion of property etc. Granted, perhaps you don't think the formation of Israel was valid and you don't like the Palestine situation, most people are unhappy about the situation.

You guys change your argument every 5 minutes - try arguing from facts and consistent principles, instead of running away with innappropriate analogies, claims about world opinion and changing versions of the story.

Have you noticed that all the people supporting Israel have not changed their version of the story once - that is because we have consistent principles and are openly stating them.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Got that 1939 feeling. I wasn't born then, but I guess it's not so different.

Not so different. I'm lost for words at that comment.

 

[Rumilus]

Sure, it's just the UN, Amnesty, the EU's lawyers and the UK gov's lawyers that have either questioned the legality or outright stated it was illegal.

So on the one hand is every reputable organisation I know, and on the other is some random law firm I've never heard of who doesnt address any of the pertinent issues but reiterates the basis of the Israeli claim that not a single one of the other institutions questions in the first place.

Then there is ofcourse the US Vice President Joe Biden.

But truth is, no matter how you try to pull it around, there is no clear binding decision anywhere in a court or international body whether the blockade is illegal or not.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

there is no clear binding decision anywhere in a court or international body whether the blockade is illegal or not.

Is that an "if" I hear?

 

[Verbose]

I think you make a very large assumption here, and could very well be quite incorrect in your assumption.

I'm not.

Prior to the 2006 elections all parties signed a common declaration to abide by a number of principles, those of democracy among them, and Hamas was no exception. You can claim they probably weren't sincere, but not that a Hamas vote at the time amounted to a rejection of democracy.

Funny thing is, the Palestinians have learnt what a proper democracy looks like by watching Israel, and for the most part want one for themselves according to polling. Which otoh is why Hamas is a double blight on the Palestinians. Heck, polling in 2006 showed that 77% of Hamas voters wanted a peace treaty with Israel (81% Palestinian average). Hamas got a slew of votes for dropping the most hard-line statements about the destruction of Israel. It won almost purely on their positively stellar performance as the non-corrupt option compared to Fatah back then.

 

[Rumilus]

Is that an "if" I hear?

Pretty much, I have absolutely no idea if the original boarding is within the rule of law or not. I tend to agree with San Remo Manual tho.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Pretty much, I have absolutely no idea if the original boarding is within the rule of law or not. I tend to agree with San Remo Manual tho.

Fair enough.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Pretty much.

If you really think that, I suggest you do some googling! You can start by looking at the countless UN Security Council resolutions which the US has specifically vetoed in the past 10 years dealing with these ongoing atrocities.

Sacrificing people to die is okay as long as it makes someone look bad?

Unfortunately, "sacrificing people to die" is the price of freedom and liberty.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. Ronald Reagan

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. Abraham Lincoln

The information about their links to terrorism originates from Turkish sources, information which was compiled in a paper for Danish Institution. None of that information comes from Israeli sources. Nice try tho.

Just because other Israeli apologists claim it to be true? And it's certainly not confined to others as you insinuate:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/have+nothing+sorry+Israel+tells+Turkey/3108078/story.html

Israel has linked IHH to al-Qaida. Avigdor Lieberman, the foreign minister, said that Turkey was "simply of no interest" and that Turkey may once have been a friend of Israel but "internal changes in Turkish society" had caused the split, as they had between Israel and Iran in 1979.

Izzet Sahin, 40, the IHH's co-ordinator for Western countries, was deported from Israel while trying to set up an office in the West Bank. He said the IHH had no links with terrorist or militant groups.


"We only have a humanitarian relief agenda and unfortunately they couldn't complete their mission," he told The Daily Telegraph. He said photographs of its leader, Bulent Yildirim, with Khaled Meshaal, leader of Hamas, did not prove the two groups were aligned.


He said: "If you want to help people in Gaza you have to have permission from political authorities. In Gaza, Hamas is the ruling party."


Zeynep Erul, an official with AKP, denied it had a direction relationship with IHH. "As far as I am concerned there isn't any organic link," he said.

Do you really think Israel would have gotten far without playing their proverbial terrorist card, which has been their entire rationalization for their apartheid policies towards Palestine, and their condemnation of any other Muslim nation which is not friendly? (Not that there will soon be any of those left anymore...)

 

[MobBoss]

Cum now lawyer-man you know you're better than that.

You know it doesnt have to be their property. You know that if the attack was not legal anyone on earth, let alone the ship, was entitled to intervene. Hostis humani generis and all that.

Actually, this is incorrect. Passengers on a ship by default have protected citizen status per the law of war. In order to claim some 'property invasion' right to those on the boat, then you need to argue who's property it actually was, and the rights involved by those owners....not that of simply the passengers on the boat. They have no right to act under the law of war and if they choose to do so, lose their protected status and automatically become belligerants/combatants and as a result, legitmate targets.

 

[GinandTonic]

The property was not stolen or damaged. It was taken over with forewarning by the lawful military forces of a democratic government. Said property was removed from a declared war zone and returned to its owner, intact.

But with no authority to do so. The warning "stand and deliver" has the same legal relevance as the getaway driven pointing out to the court he put his hazard lights on.

Look, if you are against the Israeli action then fair enough, but just call it what it is and stop all this nonsense about pirates, invasion of property etc. Granted, perhaps you don't think the formation of Israel was valid and you don't like the Palestine situation, most people are unhappy about the situation.

Dont you dare try to claim I'm against the right of Israel to exist. That is a contemptible assertion, and shame on you for dropping to the lowest possible level.

So you're idea of debate is "It's cos I is black ennit?" It's the godwin of debate about Israeli politics.

In your head debating the issue of the legality of the blockade means I object to the formation of the Israel? What on earth is wrong with you?

You guys change your argument every 5 minutes - try arguing from facts and consistent principles, instead of running away with innappropriate analogies, claims about world opinion and changing versions of the story.

Have you noticed that all the people supporting Israel have not changed their version of the story once - that is because we have consistent principles and are openly stating them.

Have you noticed I havnt changed my position? What on earth are you referring to? Does anything you have posted actually have any relevance to anything I've posted? Probably not since you clearly think I'm some kind of holocaust denyer rather than someone who grew up in North London.

 

[Zarn]

US vice president Joe Biden defends Israel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/jun/02/joe-biden-israel-gaza-flotilla-raid

...which is a huge blow to the pro-tyranny side. Any endorsement from the Obama Administration is the kiss of death. Just ask Corzine, Coakley, and Specter.

 

[MobBoss]

...which is a huge blow to the pro-tyranny side. Any endorsement from the Obama Administration is the kiss of death. Just ask Corzine, Coakley, and Specter.

I fail to see your point on this. Explain.

Dont you dare try to claim I'm against the right of Israel to exist. That is a contemptible assertion, and shame on you for dropping to the lowest possible level.

But by your comments it would appear that you are against Israels right to defend itself. How is Israel supposed to exist if it isnt allowed to defend itself?

 

[GinandTonic]

Actually, this is incorrect. Passengers on a ship by default have protected citizen status per the law of war. In order to claim some 'property invasion' right to those on the boat, then you need to argue who's property it actually was, and the rights involved by those owners....not that of simply the passengers on the boat. They have no right to act under the law of war and if they choose to do so, lose their protected status and automatically become belligerants/combatants and as a result, legitmate targets.

Not true and you know it perfectly well.

Property invasion at sea is piracy. When piracy happens the pirates are the enemies of all mankind simply by the fact of being pirates, and thus everyone is not only allowed but IIRC obliged to the best of the powers to obstruct them.

 

[Rumilus]

if you really think that, I suggest you do some googling! You can start by looking at the countless UN Security Council recimmendations which the US has specifically vetoed in the past year dealing with these ongoing atrocities.

Ive read reports from HRW and Amnesty over the place. And I really think that.

"Sacrificing people to die" is the price of freedom and liberty.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. Ronald Reagan

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. Abraham Lincoln

Knowingly seeking a confortation with a flotilla that carries humanitarian aid and willingness to sacrifice people on board of them. Yep, how can I not see the evilness of Israelis.

Just because other Israeli apologists claim it to be true? And it's certainly not confined to others as you insinuate:

Attack the messenger. The article was written 4 years ago in 2006 and it lists pretty extensively its sources, including the Turkish ones.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Not true and you know it perfectly well.

Property invasion at sea is piracy. When piracy happens the pirates are the enemies of all mankind simply by the fact of being pirates, and thus everyone is not only allowed but IIRC obliged to the best of the powers to obstruct them.

You make me want to facepalm myself

48 pages. I've had as much stupidity as I can take in one discussion.

 

[Zarn]

Not true and you know it perfectly well.

Property invasion at sea is piracy. When piracy happens the pirates are the enemies of all mankind simply by the fact of being pirates, and thus everyone is not only allowed but IIRC obliged to the best of the powers to obstruct them.

unless you are Johnny Depp...

Don't you know international law?

 

[MobBoss]

Not true and you know it perfectly well.

I stand by my comments. There was also a link (from Formaldehyde of all people) that also included a comment in regards to ships crew and passengers at sea. I will go find that and copy/paste it here since it supports my comment.

EDIT: From the other Flotilla thread:

Under international maritime law and aviation law a distinction is made between crew and passengers that is similar to that of combatants and civilians under the laws of war.

What I said is indeed true.

Property invasion at sea is piracy.

So all the nations of the earth that board vessels in international waters are guilty of piracy?

Please.

When piracy happens the pirates are the enemies of all mankind simply by the fact of being pirates, and thus everyone is not only allowed but IIRC obliged to the best of the powers to obstruct them.

No. Maybe in Long John Silvers day. But not today.

 

[GinandTonic]

Then there is ofcourse the US Vice President Joe Biden.

But truth is, no matter how you try to pull it around, there is no clear binding decision anywhere in a court or international body whether the blockade is illegal or not.

Completely agree

My point was that those claiming it being legal as an established fact were overreaching. It's not an established fact, and those on the ships believed the other side. When people dont recognise that the people on the ships believed they had every right under the law to defend themselves they miss the whole bloody point.