Israelis board aid ship

[Public'sTwin]

I think there's more to the story that hasn't come out yet.

I am a huge supporter of Israel since they're one of your biggest allies in the Middle East and they know what they're doing. The one reason I support them is the fact that it's a blockade and the aid ships kept going, knowing fully what is going on. I'm guessing that it was the goal to get boarded so that the news would get a hold of it and the whole word would freak out and go anti-Israel. Which I still don't understand why most the world is, I mean it seems like they're always in a war with someone, which they usually win, but they always get negative views thrown against them.

I seem to be that only person who fully backs them, but I just have a feeling that there's a lot more going on then what the new and public knows. If I'm wrong and there are no hidden stories then I'm wrong, but it should be intersting.

Help us delineate: you fully back them politically, or fully back them morally?

I support them - to some degree - politically, because as you said, they're a vital ally to Canada (and USA) as a link to Middle Eastern affairs. That said, much of the middle east does not view Israel as a 'member' of the middle east, and thus renders them as an "in" moot.

However, I find their frequent treachery and flippant disregard for international law and treaty to morally support them. I, of course, "acknowledge the existence" of Israel as a state - they've made their "existence" very well known - but it was founded upon the false pretense that it was somehow a Jewish homeland in the first place. A place devoid of Jewish people for 2000 years, only to be filled up with them in the face of a holocaust, does not make the land a "right", or preordained, or justified as claiming it [theirs].

I must quote you thus:

The one reason I support them is the fact that it's a blockade and the aid ships kept going, knowing fully what is going on.

. . . this of courses presumes their blockade was lawful and just in the first place ; given that many do not support Israel's assertion of ownership since the UN partition, one must question what it is exactly that you are supporting.

 

[senamic]

Okay, I rarely venture in here, but I have had enough of Israel's conduct on the Gaza Strip. From memory, and correct me if I am wrong, many of Israel's territorial gains were made through conquest in the Six Day War. Therefor they can hardly claim true legitimacy, as the lands were obtained through direct conquest and not as a result of defence.

On their blockade of Gaza, in the Fourth Geneva Convention we find the following:
Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

From my standpoint, a blockade that is leading to the deaths of hundreds, possibly thousands of civilians simply because there are dissidents in that region that do not choose to accept occupation following the seizure of the Gaza Strip would fall under the classification of collective punishment. Unless all people on the Gaza Strip are classified as militants (which it is clear that such is not the case) the Gaza Strip contains protected persons, and as such Israels conduct is in direct violation of Article 33.

Mind you, Israel has a history of blatantly ignoring the same conventions that were made to protect, amongst others, the religiously and culturally oppressed, as well as making war as humane as possible on both military personal, and civilians caught in the crossfire. Need we remind folks of the use of Flechette Munitions and White Phosphorus within densely populated areas?

In conclusion, all that I will ask is that people can stand back and think, "What if it was Turkey, or Armenia, or Jordan, or Iran using such weapons right in front of the eyes of the world? Would such a large group of us jump to defend their claims to the right to enact collective punishment, kill indiscriminately, and spit in the face of humanitarian conventions?"

If your answer is yes, you believe that all nations possess the right to punish a region for the sake of eliminating one group, or to breach the same humanitarian conventions that their allies, and often themselves, preach than by all means support Israels blockade, call me a hater and anti-zionist (which, for the record, I am not. In fact, I view Israel's government the same way I view the Vatican, perverting religion to justify their actions. However, that doesn't affect my views on the majority of practicing jews, christians, or any religious group that happens to have such figures at the top of their heirarchy. Apologies for long aside, simply trying to get in before people ask that question.), and go on supporting this blockade, the boarding of humanitarian aid ships (which, while they did carry armaments onboard, I find it highly unlikely that they were intended for antagonistic purposes, but more likely self defence), and live a happy life knowing that at the end of the day I am simply someone sitting at another computer that does not share your view.

 

[a6m5]

I don't think they sunk the ship, dude. Several, out of few hundered, were killed when they allegedly attacked the Israeli troops who boarded.

 

[senamic]

My apologies, that was a legitimate cockup of typing on my part, will ammend. Thanks for pointing that out. Also, those who want a bit of a listing of the salient points of some of the crimes committed by both Israeli's and Palestinians, this may serve of interest. Thanks again a6m5 for pointing that out, I will retype that sentence how I intended to write it (with boarding instead of sinking).

 

[a6m5]

My apologies, that was a legitimate cockup of typing on my part, will ammend. Thanks for pointing that out. Also, those who want a bit of a listing of the salient points of some of the crimes committed by both Israeli's and Palestinians, this may serve of interest. Thanks again a6m5 for pointing that out, I will retype that sentence how I intended to write it (with boarding instead of sinking).

OK, I'm sorry, too. I thought that you thought the ship was sunk by the Israeli.

 

[senamic]

OK, I'm sorry, too. I thought that you thought the ship was sunk by the Israeli.

Yeah, sorry mate, that wasn't my intention. Like I said, wasn't trying to flame, just presenting the facts as I have seen them from observing all (we can all agree that to say both would be stupid in this case, as their are more than two sides to this) arguments. And also, just remembering another question that could be floored to me, I in no way condone the actions of the militant palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and believe that if this whole incident were to go to a War Crimes trial, they should be charged beside the Israeli Government and Military for disturbing the peace of civilians inside Israel and Gaza.

 

[NLxAROSA]

I don't know, but on the boats were Mairead Corrigan Maguire (nobel peace prize) Henning Mankell (swedish writer), Betty Williams (northern irish activist) and several european parliamentarians from Germany, Norway, Sweden, Bulgaria and Ireland.

Yes, and I am 100% sure that 90% of the people on board those ships came with good intent. 👍 Like that nice Dutch woman (Anne de Jong) that got arrested, she was obviously really going to Gaza to help the Palestinian people. And I'm sure that is the same for the majority of the people on board those boats.

But I am feeling that these people were (ab)used by a small group of radicalists. Here's a clip from Al-Jazeera (hardly a Zionist propaganda network ). Look especially at the statement of one of the activists: 'we want to achieve one of two things: martyrdom or reach Gaza'. Doesn't sound like a typical humanitarian worker to me.

Again, let there be no mistake that I think Israel did something horrible here, but IMO there were other forces involved here as well. Some of the radicalists on board were out to fight, and got what they wanted. I just hope none of the real humanitarian workers got injured or killed in the process.

I simply meant it is easier to block ships by surrounding them with other ships and slowing down gradually, than boarding them with guns bristling!

Well, we all agree that the way Israel handled this situation was horrible. There are plenty of non-lethal weapons available to use against rioters. Then again, I don't know how I would have responded to getting stabbed in the face.

 

[bullie77]

People do a common mistake in my opinion which is analysing whatever particular situation in different parts of the world through their euro/american eyes and the notions we at the western world have of democracy, equality, in sum our definition of right-wrong.

In politics, rarely something is either black or white. And no matter how much it might eventual shock us and our conception of right-wrong, we must learn that every situation has a precise context and that actions taken under that same context, while shocking to us in the outside, are sometimes the right ones in that situation.

There are no victims in the Israeli-Arab conflict apart from those children who live in sub-human conditions in the Gaza strip and those children in Tel-Aviv who cannot got to a shopping center toy store without the risk of being killed in a bombing.

One must have to understand before judging any actions from each part that it cannot ever be a solution to this conflict without:

1) A Palestinian independent country;
2) A decision about Jerusalem;
3) The end of Hamas/Hezzbollah and similar terrorist groups.

Palestinians were defrauded by the Western world after world war II in failing their compromise of giving them a free, independent state. As if that wasn't enough, the place were supposedly such country would've been created was (part of it) given to the Jewish people for the foundation of the state of Israel. The problem lies that not only the palestinians and sorrounding arab countries were outraged by the brake of the promises made by the westerners, but also by the ultimate provokation which was to have a jewish state in their backyard. It's a fact the a big portion of Israel's territory was occupied in the Six Day war, but one must remind that right as soon as the country was declared independent, it was simultaneously attacked by Egypt, Jordan Lebanon and Siria, the occuppied areas of Gaza Strip/Mount Sinai (Egypt), Trans-Jordan (Jordan) and Golan Mountains (Lebanon) are the outcome of it.

One must remind that it is no wa possible to begin any serious peace talk when the doutrines of the ones Israel have to talk is the destruction of the Jewish state. Both Hezzbollah and Hamas don't defend solely the Palestinian state - they clearly state that besides that Israel must be destroyed.

We as western can questions Israeli methods. But I must also given all the facts understand why they act the way they do. No one can be expected to negotiate when the other party as the main objective of destroying you.

Just a clarification: there were a total of 6 ships that were broaded by Israeli commandos. In 5 of them there were no shots, injuries or deaths. Only on this one there were problems. The method of approach to all the 6 ships was the same.

 

[Sureboss]

I think there's more to the story that hasn't come out yet.

I am a huge supporter of Israel since they're one of your biggest allies in the Middle East and they know what they're doing. The one reason I support them is the fact that it's a blockade and the aid ships kept going, knowing fully what is going on. I'm guessing that it was the goal to get boarded so that the news would get a hold of it and the whole word would freak out and go anti-Israel. Which I still don't understand why most the world is, I mean it seems like they're always in a war with someone, which they usually win, but they always get negative views thrown against them.

I seem to be that only person who fully backs them, but I just have a feeling that there's a lot more going on then what the new and public knows. If I'm wrong and there are no hidden stories then I'm wrong, but it should be intersting.

There was me thinking that stealing land from the poor was a good thing. They are a bunch of greedy assholes who are completely up themselves, that's why no one likes them. Then again, whoever thought that the partition of Palestine was a good idea in 1947 should have been shot.

Despicable situation and I hope Israel are fully punished by the international community.

 

[TheCracker]

I think there's more to the story that hasn't come out yet.

I am a huge supporter of Israel since they're one of your biggest allies in the Middle East and they know what they're doing. The one reason I support them is the fact that it's a blockade and the aid ships kept going, knowing fully what is going on. I'm guessing that it was the goal to get boarded so that the news would get a hold of it and the whole word would freak out and go anti-Israel. Which I still don't understand why most the world is, I mean it seems like they're always in a war with someone, which they usually win, but they always get negative views thrown against them.

We probably wouldn't require 'allies in the Middle East' if it wasn't for the fact that the Israeli state exists in the first place. Many of the tensions and distrust of the west that exist it that part of the world comes down to Israel being there and the support it (mostly) receives from the US.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

There's one thing I'm wondering in all of this: what the hell were the aid ships thinking? What did they think would happen?

The blockade has been in place since 2007, and insofar as I can tell, no-one has ever tried to breach it. Israel isn't big on aid reaching Gaza, and this is Israel we're talking about: they're more than a little bit jumpy about this sort of thing. No other country has faced a constant threat of attack from all sides the way Israel does, so when a ship decides to run the blockade and make for Gaza, Israel's natural reaction would have been that those ships were carrying suicide bombers or terrorists or munitions. And given the history of the region, they don't have long to make these decisions.

There's also easier ways to get aid into Gaza. By land, for one. No doubt the Israelis have closed the borders, but I can't help thinking that the aid ships never actually set out to deliver their cargo - their aim was to hold Israel and its policies up for scrutiny under an international spotlight. If they landed and distributed the aid and got a few photos with smiling HAMAS leaders, it would have embarrassed Israel. If they had attempted to run th blockade and were intercepted by the Israeli Navy, it would have caused an international incident and embarrassed Israel. They were no doubt hoping that Tel Aviv would back down in the face of the controversy, relaxing their grip on the border and allowing the flow of more aid into Gaza.

But maybe it's just me. When I think of humanitarians, I tend to group them in the same category as animal activists and environmentalists. While they're certainly noble, my perception of them is of young people who are super-idealistic, have no idea of the context they're working in and always get upset when they don't get priority. I'm not saying the aid workers had it coming, but I have a mental picture of them rushing in and expecting Israel to move out of the way in the face of their mission without any thought for the consequences of their actions (other than the ones they want).

 

[Touring Mars]

There's one thing I'm wondering in all of this: what the hell were the aid ships thinking? What did they think would happen?

Good question - and the truth is probably quite hard to swallow for critics of Israel who believe their actions to be akin to a "massacre". While I respect the good intentions of the flotilla - to deliver much needed aid to the imprisoned population of Gaza and bring relief from the tyranny being imposed on them by both the Israelis and their own government (such as it is) - there is no doubt in my mind that atleast part of their motivation was to indeed to provoke Israel and highlight their cause in any way they could. Sadly, they failed to fulfil their worthy intentions, while they clearly succeeded in their arguably less worthy ones.

For as long as Israel pursue a policy of collective punishment of the Gazan people and remain unswayed by the suffering their policies inflict on them, Israel are likely to put themselves in this position over and over again. That said, for as long as Hamas and opponents of Israel pursue a policy of intolerance towards Israel and advocate the use of indiscriminate violence against civilians (via rockets or suicide bombers), the Palestinian people are doomed to remain at the mercy of an understandably edgy Israeli military. It is totally understandable that 'neutrals' or outsiders can see that the Gazans need help, and need the filter of Israel to be removed as much as possible, but at the same time, anyone who thinks that Israel's very real security concerns can simply be ignored are kidding themselves.

Sometimes in a dispute, both parties are in the wrong - such is the case here I reckon.

 

[LizMcQueen]

There's one thing I'm wondering in all of this: what the hell were the aid ships thinking? What did they think would happen?

Maybe they thought the israeli army didn't behave like terrorists against a humanitarian aid ship who had announced their intentions.

United Nations and United States didn't condemn the slaughter of Israel (they only mourn the loss of lives), once more, it seems Israel can do whatever it wants.
Now, the idea of Israel to attack Iran to provoke a war with United States is not so preposterous.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Good question - and the truth is probably quite hard to swallow for critics of Israel who believe their actions to be akin to a "massacre". While I respect the good intentions of the flotilla - to deliver much needed aid to the imprisoned population of Gaza and bring relief from the tyranny being imposed on them by both the Israelis and their own government (such as it is) - there is no doubt in my mind that atleast part of their motivation was to indeed to provoke Israel and highlight their cause in any way they could. Sadly, they failed to fulfil their worthy intentions, while they clearly succeeded in their arguably less worthy ones.

With a rather grim irony, those humanitarians are no better than the terrorists the Israelis most likely were looking for. No cause is worth lives, and I cannot imagine that everyone on those ships knew what they were getting into when they signed up for it. Nor can I imagine that everyone on those ships was willing to die to see that aid get to Gaza. Someone made the call to ignore the blockade. Someone made the call to ignore the Israelis calls. Someone on those aid ships led the victims to their deaths.

As for those critics of Israel ... well, I have some bad expeirences with them. I was a member of another forum back when the Israelis crossed the Lebanese border (or was it an incursion into Syria?) back in 2006. A lot of people used the anonymity of the internet to post some very anti-Semetic comments. I'm no longer a member of that forum, but I cannot help but think that some people hide their anti-Semetic sentiments behind political criticisms of Tel Aviv's policies (I'm not accusing anyone here, of course). I'm willing to bet that you'll find more than a few hidden in the rallies. And speaking of those rallies, I've seen coverage on the news where they've got kids leading rallies. I think that's just wrong - there's no way those kids fully understand the situation.

Maybe they thought the israeli army didn't behave like terrorists against a humanitarian aid ship who had announced their intentions.

Yeah, because terrorists are always totally honest about their intentions when asked.

Declaring your intentions does not give you permission to run a blockade, however illegal it may be, because the guy with all the war ships generally gets to say what happens on that little patch of ocean. It's not difficult to imagine that a group of terrorists would claim to be an aid ship. Israel most likely wanted to search the vessel to make sure it was what it claimed to be. When the aid ship didn't heave to and obey the command, Israel boraded it, suspecting terrorism. They had to control the ship before it could jeopardise Gaza. But - based on the videos that have been released - before they could carry out a search, the occupants of the vessel attacked. Israel had no choice but to retaliate. What were the supposed to do? We're not talking about an unprovoked attack on a ship in international waters the way elements of the media would like us to believe. The aid ship ignored the Israeli calls to back off. They ignored calls to prepare to be boarded. And from the looks of things, the passengers on the aid ship attacked first. I'm also willing to bet that was the first ship the Israelis boarded, and given the reception they got from it, they probably went straight to Defcon 1 for the other boats.

But it doesn't help that a new armada of aid ships is on the way. I can't imagine what they think they're going to do, because Israel has a history of not backing down during a crisis.

 

[Touring Mars]

Maybe they thought the israeli army didn't behave like terrorists against a humanitarian aid ship who had announced their intentions.

You mean like "They are going to have to forcefully stop us"? This may also explain why these so-called "peace activists" attacked the Israeli commandos the second they boarded the ship with pretty much anything they could get their hands on, putting Israeli lives at risk, and hence handing the Israelis all the justification they required to respond with lethal force.

While there is no doubt the main aim of the flotilla was indeed humanitarian, we cannot ignore the fact that they were spoiling for a fight - and got one.

With a rather grim irony, those humanitarians are no better than the terrorists the Israelis most likely were looking for. No cause is worth lives, and I cannot imagine that everyone on those ships knew what they were getting into when they signed up for it. Nor can I imagine that everyone on those ships was willing to die to see that aid get to Gaza. Someone made the call to ignore the blockade. Someone made the call to ignore the Israelis calls. Someone on those aid ships led the victims to their deaths.

I agree. While the Israelis have certainly overstated the case in their favour (by describing the activists as having links to jihadists, Al Qaeda and Hamas - terrorists, basically), I can't see that the term "peace activist" is any more appropriate, given their behaviour.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

the Israelis have certainly overstated the case in their favour

Both sides of any conflict - from an international war down to a schoolyard fight (arguably, there is sometimes little difference) - will always recall events in such a way that they were the ones defending themselves. I remember I got into a fight at school once where I was trying to stop a very aggressive bully from attacking one of my acquaintances. I remember placing my hand on his chest to stop hm; he claimed that placed my hand around his throat, and that prompted the attack. Given that there was no-one to witness the events immediately before the fight, there was to way to tell whether my hand was on his chest or around his throat.

 

[LizMcQueen]

One question, if North Korea attacks an american ship in international waters like Israel did (I remind you, in international waters exists the freedom of navigation and freedom of overflight) you would support North Korea right? because: (exchange "Israel" by "North Korea")

Israel most likely wanted to search the vessel to make sure it was what it claimed to be. When the aid ship didn't heave to and obey the command, Israel boraded it, suspecting terrorism. They had to control the ship before it could jeopardise Gaza. But - based on the videos that have been released - before they could carry out a search, the occupants of the vessel attacked. Israel had no choice but to retaliate. What were the supposed to do? We're not talking about an unprovoked attack on a ship in international waters the way elements of the media would like us to believe. The aid ship ignored the Israeli calls to back off. They ignored calls to prepare to be boarded. And from the looks of things, the passengers on the aid ship attacked first. I'm also willing to bet that was the first ship the Israelis boarded, and given the reception they got from it, they probably went straight to Defcon 1 for the other boats.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

One question, if North Korea attacks an american ship in international waters like Israel did (I remind you, in international waters exists the freedom of navigation and freedom of overflight) you would support North Korea right? because: (exchange "Israel" by "North Korea")

It depends on the situation. Three things stand out:

1) How did the American ship come to be in those waters, and what was its purpose there?
Are we talking about an American war ship, a cargo ship or passenger ship? Is it delivering aid to North Korea, goods to Vladivostok or a port on the Yellow Sea, or is it on a reconnasiance mission?

2) What are the North Koreans claiming that the Americans are doing and what claim do they have to the waters?
Is the dispute taking place in a section of the ocean that North Korea claims as its own, but which is not recognised by anyone else (or only a handful)? Are the North Koreans claiming it is an American spy ship when it's a passenger vessel?

3) What did the North Koreans actually do before they attacked?
Did they demand the Americans declare their intentions? Did they order the Americans to heave to and prepare to be boarded? Or did they just open fire?

There is more to this situation than Israel simply attacking a humanitarian aid ship. ISRAEL ATTACKS AID SHIPS is a headline designed for maximum impact, one designed to sell newspapers. But this is not an issue that exists in simple black and white - there are circumstances surrounding it that paint an entirely different picture altogether. The blockade has existed since 2007, so it's not like the aid ships weren't expecting the navy to be out there. The Israelis asked them to declare their intentions and prepare for boarding, so it's not like it was unprovoked. And the footage that has been released shows the people on the vessel attacking the Israelis as soon as they were on-board, so it's not like the Israelis were just gunning down unarmed sailors. I did some work experience with a newspaper, and the first thing they taught me was that you never let the facts get in the way of a good story. ISRAEL ATTACKS AID SHIPS sells more papers than ISRAEL BOARDS VESSEL SUSPECTED OF HARBOURING TERRORISTS, LIVES LOST.

It's pretty clear that the entire point of this exercise by the aid groups was to run the blockade to draw attention to conditions in Gaza.

 

[Touring Mars]

I remind you, in international waters exists the freedom of navigation and freedom of overflight

Many people are saying that the Israeli raid was illegal because it occured in international waters. However, The UN Charter on the Law of the Sea states that if a vessel is suspected of transporting weapons, it can be boarded in international waters. In addition, it also allows for naval blockades, so long as the effect on civilians is minimised.

While I oppose the blockade and believe that the effect on the civilian population of Gaza is disproportionate and unacceptable, I also accept that the Israelis have the right to protect themselves from an enemy with a proven track record of extreme violence against their civilians... we're not talking about some loose affiliation of extremists based in the region, either, but the government itself i.e. Hamas. Unfortunately, the organisers of this flotilla chose to ignore abundantly clear warnings that they would not be allowed to reach Gaza without submitting to checks for contraband, and refused Israel's offers to allow the convoy to dock in Israel for the purposes of such checks. The flotilla's organisers clearly shunned these opportunities, and as such, the Israelis can hardly be blamed for suspecting that the materials onboard probably included items that are considered contraband, and that would ultimately end up in the hands of their military enemy.

 

[bullie77]

One question, if North Korea attacks an american ship in international waters like Israel did (I remind you, in international waters exists the freedom of navigation and freedom of overflight) you would support North Korea right? because: (exchange "Israel" by "North Korea")

You are missing a fulcral point in your argument which is the objective and intention of the vessel convoy was well known and Israel had clearly stated that they wouldn't be allowed to achieve their goal due to (Israel's) security reasons.

Another thing different from the countries you use in your example is the unique situation here Israel lies: all their neighbour do support directly or indirectly the main objective which is the erradication of the Israeli state.

This is what sometimes it's difficult for many to understand. What at stake isn't (solely) the autodetermination of people (palestinian) by claiming a free state. What's at stake is that besides that intention the objective is to erase the Jewish state out-of-the-map!

This is the reason why (or one of the main reasons) this situation seems impossible to solve. At this point, the co-existence of the two states as neighbours is out-of-the-question, because palestinians present government (Hamas) does not recognize the right of existance of Israel.

Can you point out any other country in the world that all their neighbours want to wipe out of the face of the earth? Under this circumstances surely the preventing actions from Israel state cannot "conventional", and eventually might be considered as outrageous and shocking to the rest of us. My point is that there are very solid reasons to it.

 

[Danoff]

I think there is a lot of missing of the point in this thread. The question is whether Israel had a legitimate right to the blockade. If so, then attempting to run a legitimate blockade has consequences (potentially far worse consequences than happened here). If not, then Israel is in the wrong to harm people attempting to run an illegitimate blockade.

Someone feel free to point it out to me, I have not read this thread in great detail, but I don't think I've seen one person ask whether the blockade was legitimate - and that's all that matters in this discussion.

 

[NLxAROSA]

Sometimes in a dispute, both parties are in the wrong - such is the case here I reckon.

Exactly my point. Unfortunately, most people seem to lose their heads in emotions as a result of the killings, and they will label your words as 'Zionist propaganda' or 'blinded' if you try to put things into perspective.

Maybe they thought the israeli army didn't behave like terrorists against a humanitarian aid ship who had announced their intentions.

Did you even bother to read previous posts? It's a documented fact (by an Arab TV-station no less) that several people on board of the Mavi Marmara had a different agenda from the rest of the flottilla. They themselves stated their goal was to die or get to Gaza (in that particular order).

One question, if North Korea attacks an american ship in international waters like Israel did (I remind you, in international waters exists the freedom of navigation and freedom of overflight) you would support North Korea right? because: (exchange "Israel" by "North Korea")

You mean when a US vessel would try to reach Pyongyang, which is officially in a warzone? Ignoring warnings of the NK navy? They're committing suicide, just like the people aboard the Mavi Marmara.

And since you're mentioning international law: the Mavi Marmara was bound to trespass a blockade and go into a warzone. International laws says that in the case of an armed conflict, the Isrealis had the right to board the ship in search for weapons, even in international waters. Which does not say anything about the legality of the amount of violence that was used, and that can certainly be questioned.

Someone feel free to point it out to me, I have not read this thread in great detail, but I don't think I've seen one person ask whether the blockade was legitimate - and that's all that matters in this discussion.

Well, both the Egyptians and the Israelis feel it's legitimate (though for different reasons). Also, the US supports it and the UN does not. So it's unclear (at least to me) what the official status is. And I think it could use some explanation as to why you feel it is the single thing that matters (though I agree it plays a large part).

EDIT: Actually, don't explain, I believe you are correct. If the blockade were not legal, the Israelis had no right to board the vessel in international waters, and the people aboard the ship would have the right to defend themselves. There's still the warzone issue though. In case of an armed conflict, international marine war-laws may be in place, which may still allow the Israelis to conduct searches in international waters.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

Can you point out any other country in the world that all their neighbours want to wipe out of the face of the earth? Under this circumstances surely the preventing actions from Israel state cannot "conventional", and eventually might be considered as outrageous and shocking to the rest of us. My point is that there are very solid reasons to it.

If Israel was in Africa instead of the Middle East would the 'neighbors' still want to wipe them off the face of the earth?

I sometimes see the Palestinians as prisoners in a 21st century version of a concentration camp! Or Prawns in a concentration camp!

John Lennon

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

 

[RacecarBMW]

We probably wouldn't require 'allies in the Middle East' if it wasn't for the fact that the Israeli state exists in the first place. Many of the tensions and distrust of the west that exist it that part of the world comes down to Israel being there and the support it (mostly) receives from the US.

That is very true

Osama bin laden said that he planned 9/11 because of the Americans in palestine. Before Israeli was put in palestine there wasn't much of this terrorist stuff.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

Most religions want the same sand box to themselves, and will kill each other to do so!

 

[Touring Mars]

I think there is a lot of missing of the point in this thread. The question is whether Israel had a legitimate right to the blockade.

It is obvious that the legitimacy of the blockade is of key importance in this issue, but it is an issue where there is clearly a difference of opinion - and I don't believe that it is as simple as you are suggesting. There is clear support of the blockade from those sympathetic to Israel's plight, and clear condemnation of it from those sympathetic to the plight of the Gazan people. The law does make provision for such blockades and for blockades to be enforced etc., but only in certain circumstances and with caveats.

Either way, I think you are being a bit unfair to tell us that we're "missing the point" when I think you'll find that most of us are perfectly aware of this point, but just not clear about what the answer to the question is. It is clearly not a simple question to answer, so you may want to do us the courtesy of acknowledging that before implying that we're "missing the point".

 

[Danoff]

Ok, I'm happy to acknowledge that it is a difficult issue upon which rational people will disagree. Note that I didn't weigh in on whether the blockade was, in fact, legitimate. Only that I feel the need to point out that when considering whether Israel was justified - the blockade is where the focus needs to be. One need go no farther than the first few posts to see why I felt that the crux of the issue was being missed:

Honestly, I don't know what was going through the Israeli armed forces' minds here. These were unarmed ships carrying aid.

This attack can't be justified, armed soldiers against unarmed civilians in humanitarian mission, Israel has gone too far,

Humanitarian missions always deserve respect and protection, no matter which flag they carry.

By most accounts, this was a massacre, inexcusable in international waters.

This is the thrust of my point. That whether this was a humanitarian mission, whether the people on the boat were armed, ready for a fight, looking for a fight, shot first, etc. etc. None of it matters if the blockade was legitimate, and none of it matters if it wasn't (ie: it doesn't matter). Again, feel free to point it out to me, but I hadn't seen one person address the central question in this conflict.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

And I suggest the 'blockade' is wrong and is a tool used to 'maintain' the pseudo concentration camp within the sandbox called Palestine, as the 'interested' religions/states fight over the rest of the sandbox!

Imagine if Israel was blockaded, and humanitarian aid was trying to reach them................

 

[Danoff]

Please explain why you feel the blockade is not justified.

 

[NLxAROSA]

None of it matters if the blockade was legitimate, and none of it matters if it wasn't (ie: it doesn't matter). Again, feel free to point it out to me, but I hadn't seen one person address the central question in this conflict.

Even without a blockade (or an illegal one), the Israeli action may still be legal according to international sealaws, which dictate that searches may be conducted in international waters in case of an armed conflict.

Whether those laws apply here, I dare not say. There is an armed conflict going on between Hamas and Israel, but does that even extend to sea?