Ships to Gaza incident

[Ellestar]

I don't think that the Russians are a very good source for moral explanation of international laws. (I never understand why sane rational western people want to be in the same camp as China and Russia, but ok.) (btw. if Russia is such a good moral source, then I do not understand either why you guys are not protesting a lot more against Russian actions in past and present.)

Maybe because i do live in Russia? Then again, who is a better moral source? Clearly not USA or Israel, and i also don't understand why "sane rational western people" (c) are letting themselves being brainwashed by them. I mean, ok, Russia isn't exactly a bastion of democracy. But other countries claim to be the ones, yet they act even worse, and somehow self-proclaimed "sane rational western people" (c) support it. Makes one wonder if they really are sane and rational.

Bottom line is that the Russian response is a political response. It's as worthless as a source for legal information as the American response is.

I'm not sure why do you think it's political. Russian Federation is not allied with either side.

But fine, let's say all countries of arab league are also biased. What else do we have?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_clash

The President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek called it "an unjustified attack" and "a clear and unacceptable breach of international law, especially the fourth Geneva Convention". Other members of the European Parliament described Israel's actions using words such as "terrorism," "kidnapping," "revulsion," and even "obscene".

rish Taoiseach Brian Cowen described the attacks as "very serious" and stated that he feels the blockade action was a violation of international law.

The Foreign Minister of Iceland, Össur Skarphéðinsson, condemned the attack saying that "Gaza is in fact a giant prison where international law is violated"

Indonesian foreign minister Marty Natalegawa condemned Israeli action and said that Israeli blockade in Gaza is a violation of international law.

Bolivia Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement calling the attack "atrocious," adding that the actions were a flagrant violation of international law and called for an investigation.

The Nicaraguan government called the Israeli actions "a clear violation of humanitarian and international law,"

but anyway, as a matter of fact the IDF was not seizing the ship, it was entering the ship to search it.
Only after the crowd started to lynch the marines, they had to use violence to seize the ship.

Yeah, that's how you do it. That ship has 1800 tons of supplies (1000 / 6) and you send, say, 20 marines in full combat gear to "search it"? How do you imagine that process? Besides, i always thought you send a professional customs officials to look for a contraband.

And I think that self defense is a proper response.
Self defense was clearly the case here. (like the entire blockade is self defense)

I'll not write it better than a professional writer, especially in a non-native language. So i'll not even try to do it. Better read this

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-of-course-they-were-asking-for-it-1988684.html

[OneFootInTheGrave]

And I'll stick with Plomp. It feels right.

In that case it's mr. Plomp

you should switch back to CyberShy

[rah]

There was a better decision.
Make a public statement that the ship has been warned not to enter their water.
Make a public statement that the ship has stated that they are ignoring the warning.
Wait for ship to enter their waters.
Make a public statement that the ship will be boarded to search for weapons.
Attempt to board ship during the day under the scrutiny of the press.

[C0ckney]

some of the doublespeak on show here from the supporters of israel is incredible.

the people on the ship delivering aid were 'extremists' (extreme priests, noble peace prize laureates and green MPs), who used 'extreme violence' (which of course resulted in zero israeli deaths) against the peaceful israelis (who killed 9 people). israel acted 'legally' (not legally as in they followed written laws, but, you know, that other kind of legally).

the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of these people is clear for all to see.

[Ellestar]

The war is started by the provocator who is going to breach the blockade.
This counted for the cuba crisis and it counts here as well.

Blockade is an act of war. RTFM

[BeBMan]

Thanks for taking away the 'most braindead comment in this thread' award from me

I just concluded that from your points

[Imran Siddiqui]

There was a better decision.
Make a public statement that the ship has been warned not to enter their water.
Make a public statement that the ship has stated that they are ignoring the warning.
Wait for ship to enter their waters.
Make a public statement that the ship will be boarded to search for weapons.
Attempt to board ship during the day under the scrutiny of the press.

some of the doublespeak on show here from the supporters of israel is incredible.

the people on the ship delivering aid were 'extremists' (extreme priests, noble peace prize laureates and green MPs), who used 'extreme violence' (which of course resulted in zero israeli deaths) against the peaceful israelis (who killed 9 people). israel acted 'legally' (not legally as in they followed written laws, but, you know, that other kind of legally).

the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of these people is clear for all to see.

+1 on both posts.

[Robert]

There was a better decision.
Make a public statement that the ship has been warned not to enter their water.
Make a public statement that the ship has stated that they are ignoring the warning.
Wait for ship to enter their waters.
Make a public statement that the ship will be boarded to search for weapons.
Attempt to board ship during the day under the scrutiny of the press.

They should have done that, but I doubt that it would have had resulted in a different outcome and a different international reaction. (and opinion on this board)

[MOBIUS]

There was a better decision.
Make a public statement that the ship has been warned not to enter their water.
Make a public statement that the ship has stated that they are ignoring the warning.
Wait for ship to enter their waters.
Make a public statement that the ship will be boarded to search for weapons.
Attempt to board ship during the day under the scrutiny of the press.

I don't think there is a single person who has been branded a terrorist supporting anti-semite on this thread by the pro-Israel camp who would have had a problem with that. But then they'd have to admit Israel was wrong to carry out the attack in the first place.

The problem is that Israel would then have had to allow the ships to continue on to Gaza - which they were determined not to let happen.

[Wezil]

It does bother me. If Israel can do it, so can someone else.

And in this case everybody should.
If a bunch of idiots, singing about killing a lot of your people, approach your coast, please send some marines to them to at least search their ship for weapons.

That's fine so long as you agree with the cause. Put the shoe on the other foot.

It's not a surprise they would do what they can to break it.

Even use violence, while not at war?

The violence came from the Israeli side when they illegally boarded the ship. Illegal search and detention = right to resist.

Btw, apparently there is an Irish ship currently on the way. It'sd not just Turkey.

It most probably contains not 500 wannabe martyrs singing about genocide.

I'll look for a link.

Yes. What nations choose to do inside their own territory is a different matter.

Gaza blockade?

Okay, good example. My argument is against what happened in INTERNATIONAL WATERS. As much as I think the blockade is punitive you haven't seen me arguing about the land version carried out on Israeli territory. When they extend that blockade to the high seas I have a problem with it.

An illegal search and detention that anyone has the right to resist. The marines should not have been there.

Even with extreme violence?

If that is what it takes, then yes. The illegality came from the Israeli's.

Yeah, Israel was pretty stupid in this case in that they walked right into it.

There was, once again, no right decision for Israel to make here.
And as always, Israel decided to defend it's civilians.

From a murderous bunch of peace activists on a boat full of building supplies? Pull the other one, it has bells on it.

[Robert]

some of the doublespeak on show here from the supporters of israel is incredible.

the people on the ship delivering aid were 'extremists' (extreme priests, noble peace prize laureates and green MPs), who used 'extreme violence' (which of course resulted in zero israeli deaths) against the peaceful israelis (who killed 9 people). israel acted 'legally' (not legally as in they followed written laws, but, you know, that other kind of legally).

the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of these people is clear for all to see.

We are talking about those who wanted to become martyrs, prefered death above arriving at Gaza and hand out the goods, while singing about the genocide on the Jews. And yes, they used extreme violence.

Not about those couple of people on the ship who actually were idealists.

Did you see the videos?

[rah]

I usually support Israel, but in this instance they screwed the pooch. I can understand where they're coming from, but they get outplayed in these types of PR actions routinely.
I sometimes wonder how this happens so regularly. It's not like it that tricky.

[MOBIUS]

They should have done that, but I doubt that it would have had resulted in a different outcome and a different international reaction. (and opinion on this board)

So you're saying that lives would still have been lost!? You are seriously deranged!

The flotilla would have had no choice but to peacefully allow their ships to be searched. No one would have died.

[C0ckney]

They should have done that, but I doubt that it would have had resulted in a different outcome and a different international reaction. (and opinion on this board)

so you think an operation in the day, with it being made clear what was going to happen and with the press being able to see what was happening, would've had the same outcome as dropping the commandos in at night?

if you genuinely believe that, then you are a fool.

[Robert]

That's fine so long as you agree with the cause. Put the shoe on the other foot.

I'm a pretty pragmatic person who doesn't have much faith in international law.

The violence came from the Israeli side when they illegally boarded the ship. Illegal search and detention = right to resist.

Boarding a ship does defenitely not equal violence.
I do not see why you can not simply admit that the people on the ships were (mostly) idiots who used extreme violence in the hope to die as a martyr?

And resistance can be done without slamming with huge tools on people who are already on the floor. This was not resistance, it was an attempt to become a martyr.

When they extend that blockade to the high seas I have a problem with it.

A respectable position.
Though I also considered it to be a position of someone who picks theory above reality.

If that is what it takes, then yes. The illegality came from the Israeli's.

So your position is, in all cases, that a wrong can be countered with a wrong that's 100 times as worse?
If Hamas sends a rocket to Israel, Israel can send 20 rockets back?

From a murderous bunch of peace activists on a boat full of building supplies?

Yes, if you let one ship pass, more will pass, all will pass.
It also has to do everything with making your point clear.
the only maintainable position in these situations is: either search all ships or search none of them.