Terrorists cross Egyptian border; kill 6, wound 25 Israeli civilians

[Al B. Sure!]

I don't get why Egypt is responsible for what some crazed citizens do whereas Israel is not responsible for what its own military does.

I didn't know that if an American citizen goes abroad and kills some people that the US government is liable.

[Dinner]

States are responsible for controlling their own territory and making sure laws are enforced.

[Al B. Sure!]

States are responsible for controlling their own territory and making sure laws are enforced.

To keep with the Middle East theme, what about this?

Salim al-Ayyash , also known as “Abu Salim,” is one of the four suspects named by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in its indictment of Hezbollah members in the murder of Lebanon’s former PM Rafik Hariri who was assassinated on Feb 14, 2005 in Beirut.

Ayyash 48, is reportedly a dual citizen . He was born in south Lebanon but also acquired a U.S. passport. Confirmed details of how he acquired US citizenship were not available .

Does that mean the US is responsible for the assassination of Hariri?

[Az]

A) what part of territory don't you understand.
B) It was already established that at least 2 of the soldiers, and an officer were killed by a roadside bomb, as well as that the terrorist were wearing uniforms highly similar to the soldiers, and that the attack started from the environs of an Egyptian outpost, with possible complicity by some Egyptian soldiers. Videos from Israeli gunships with the General Russo's voice commanding them specifically not to target the Egyptian outpost have been transferred, and generally the Egyptian govt. realizes that it needs to clean house in Sinai. There has been a huge de-escalation in the relationship.

No huge wars and "best MBT" threads. Keep your cocks in your pants, gents.

[Dinner]

A slightly different topic but rather then look up the old thread I will put it in the current Israel thread. A while back there was a huge debate over whither the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza was legal or not; as I recall I said the blockade was legal as was the boarding of the Turkish ship attempting to run the blockade. It turns out I was, as usual, completely right despite all the retarded whining by the usual suspects here at poly.

U.N. Panel Finds Israel's Naval Blockade Legal, But Flotilla Raid 'Excessive'

A United Nations panel has found that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is legal. But the panel also stated that a May 2010 armed raid on a flotilla, which was carrying activists trying to break the blockade, was "excessive and unreasonable." Eight Turks and an American of Turkish descent died in the raid.
The New York Times obtained an early copy of the report, which is expected to be released tomorrow.
The Washington Post reports:

The 105-page report — written by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a former New Zealand prime minister, and Alvaro Uribe, Colombia's former president — concluded that Israel has a legal right to maintain a naval blockade of Gaza. But it called on the Israeli government to offer a public expression of "regret" for the loss of life on the Mavi Marmara, where the most violent clashes occurred, and to pay compensation to the families of the dead.
The Israeli raid on the flotilla, which was organized in Turkey, threatened to torpedo one of the most important diplomatic alliances to emerge in the Middle East: the rapprochement between Israel and Turkey, one of the region's most important Islamic governments and a U.S. ally.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon established the panel, with the approval of Israel and Turkey, in an effort to help to reconcile differing accounts of events on the flotilla from Israel and Turkey, and to help patch up strained diplomatic relationships between the two countries.

The Times reports that the publication of the report was delayed several times in hopes that Israel and Turkey would mend relations. But both countries, reports the Times, object to the conclusions reached by the panel.
Turkey doesn't agree that Israel's blockade is illegal. The country doesn't believe that Israel has the right to stop ships in international waters to enforce a blockade, which is what happened in this case.
Israel did not want to apologize, reports the Times. "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel believes that apologizing would demoralize his citizens and broadcast a message of weakness. Aides say he might reconsider at a later date if the Turks soften their position," writes the Times.

So the UN panel found Israeli's actions completely legal and said no legal action would be taken against soldiers who fired in self defense against an armed mob of violent thugs bent on physically attacking them. As a fig leaf the UN panel asked Israel to express regret about the lose of life but that's it. Once again I was right and the anti-Israeli posters here were wrong. If I sound smug it is because I am.

[Asher]

How do you get "completely right" from something that says the raid was "excessive and unreasonable"?

[Dinner]

Because it was found to be legal. Just as I said it was.

[Asher]

I just skimmed the article but it plainly says the blockade was legal, but it seems to be saying the raid was not quite legal...

[Dinner]

concluded that Israel has a legal right to maintain a naval blockade of Gaza. But it called on the Israeli government to offer a public expression of "regret" for the loss of life on the Mavi Marmara

It found the blockade legal and the actions taken to enforce the blockade legal but asked Israel to make a public statement of regret for the lose of life and to offer compensation; note it didn't require that. In other words it was nothing more then a fig leaf and the claims made here at poly that the actions were both illegal and criminal were completely unfounded. I haven't read the whole 100+ page report (and honestly don't intend to waste my time doing so) but I imagine they whined about the lack of warning shots while the mob of violent armed thugs attempted to beat the soldier with metal batons. There isn't an Army in the world which wouldn't have found soldiers have a right to fire in self defense while being attacked and I dare say virtually all militaries, including the US military, allow soldiers to skip warning shots (if they're part of the Rules of Engagement) when a soldier feels his life is in danger. Do you honestly think it was unreasonable for that soldier and his comrades to feel in danger when they're outnumbered ten to one by an armed mob screaming for their blood?

It's hard to see this as anything other then Israel being completely vindicated though I'm sure some haters will attempt to spin it. Rather unconvincingly IMHO.

[Asher]

It's hard to see this as anything other then Israel being completely vindicated

You really must be a ****ing tool if you think calling their actions "excessive and unreasonable" "completely vindicates" them.

You are overcompensating again, Oerdin. Israel was a brutish tool here, as they seem to always be lately. The legality of non-binding naval gentlemen's agreements really means **** all. They were aggressive *******s, they murdered many people.

Defend that at your own moral peril.

[C0ckney]

oerdin, you're being stupid. the UN report that you quoted clearly states that the israeli raid was "excessive and unreasonable". it's not a vindication of your position.

[Zevico]

Remember: everyone you disagree with is immoral, stupid, a hypocrite, or all three in one.

[Dinner]

oerdin, you're being stupid. the UN report that you quoted clearly states that the israeli raid was "excessive and unreasonable". it's not a vindication of your position.

The other posters here said it was illegal (I'm specifically thinking of Mobius and Asher). The panel clearly ruled it was not illegal so I win.

Yes, they said they would have liked it to be handled differently, fair enough, but it was legal which was my whole point. That was my position and that's why I say I was correct.

[Hauldren Collider]

In practice the UN vindicated Israel. Their token condemnation of Israel is just what Oerdin said it was, a fig leaf.

[Dinner]

It was also obviously political just like repeatedly delaying the release of the panel's ruling was obviously political. The bottom line is the U.N. Panel found Israel did nothing illegal but they tried to add a few soft words to sooth feelings among the anti-Israel crowd. The end result was them saying we wish they'd done a few minor things differently but they aren't legally obligated to do so and they broke no laws. In other words complete legal vindication with a bit of political double talk which legally means absolutely nothing.