Israeli commandos stormed a flotilla of relief ships in international waters this weekend killing at least 9 passengers, wounding dozens more and stirring up protests in capitols around the world. Netanyahu is claiming his soldiers were attacked first and thus had the right to use deadly force to defend themselves, but Israeli soldiers are always under attack and scared for their lives so they have a license to murder or so it seems. The Turkish President is calling the incident a war crime. The French President is calling the response disproportionate. No drama Obama is afraid to act, at least not without the facts, but those are being withheld by the Israelis. The names of the dead have not been released. If there was any doubt about it before now, it is becoming more difficult to argue against branding Israel as a rogue nation.

Storm of protest over 9 deaths in Israeli raid on Gaza flotilla

Israeli Raid Complicates U.S. Ties and Push for Peace

UN Security Council members urge Israel to lift Gaza siege

Obama withholds condemnation of Gaza flotilla clashes, calls for clarification of 'facts'

What do you think about the incident? Will the US shield Israel from the consequences of this rogue behavior? Will the incident distract the public from the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico?

Does the title I gave this thread make you angry? That's too bad. I'm angry. I'm biased. Deal with it. I'm not that angry. I'm rather bored actually. It's the predictable same old behavior from the IDF.

10 dead or 9 dead. The BBC World News America reported 10 dead.

I hope the US and International community take this with the same seriousness and resolve as they would take with any nation or organization, friendly or unfriendly. To do any less is a double standard. This should be taken with as much seriousness as 9/11 or the recent sinking of the South Korean warship by North Korea, as all of these attacks have happened well outside the bounds of basic consideration for human life.

Isreal, IMO, grew much too accustomed to do whatever the hell they felt like when GWB was in charge.


On that note, does anyone actually know why/how the location for Isreal was decided upon? I don't think Palistine had anything to do with WW2, and it seems the Jewish people were essentially awarded Isreal for all the trouble Hitler and the Nazis caused them (by the way, I realize this is coming off very un-PC, and perhaps insensitive, so I hope no one becomes incensed by my tone.)

from my understanding most(if not all) of the night video capture and several videos from news cameras have been released/leaked/whatever. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say there are quite a few logs of all communications as well.

People were quite literally waiting with "blunt implements" where the commandos were going to land. and starting attacking and separating the commandos as they came down from the helicopter.

It's worth noting that 7 of the dead were the troops. when they're saying a range of 9 to 16 dead, and with all those troops with military gear it sounds like a pretty brutal affair(I'm assuming 9+7 is 16).

What do I think of it? Hard to say.

My initial response was the same response I've had to all news regarding Israel and Palestine:
"Fuck Israel. And fuck Hamas too. Both are backward little cultures tied to their ridiculous stone age beliefs, engaged in a puerile pissing match over who has the best way of sucking up to their imaginary friend. They deserve each other and hopefully they'll wipe each other out for the good of the rest of humanity."

But that's not right. There are real normal people on the ground, who are being manipulated by their religious and political leaders to further their own agenda. Israel is without doubt a rogue nation. It tramples roughshod over law and convention. The flip side is that they live with a group whose stated intention is their genocide.

So mostly I feel bad for the ordinary schmucks on the ground.

As for what will happen? Nothing. The U.S. is beholden to Israel. I sincerely hope that this won't detract from the oil spill, which at the end of the day, is a far bigger deal than yet another incident in a sad history of same.

Oh, and your thread title is borderline trolling, and frankly, beneath you.

Quote: Original post by Ravyne
On that note, does anyone actually know why/how the location for Isreal was decided upon? I don't think Palistine had anything to do with WW2, and it seems the Jewish people were essentially awarded Isreal for all the trouble Hitler and the Nazis caused them (by the way, I realize this is coming off very un-PC, and perhaps insensitive, so I hope no one becomes incensed by my tone.)

It was chosen because it's where the Jews wanted to go, due to historical and religious reasons. The British had held that area (taken from Ottoman Empire) since the end of the first world war, and it was kind of up for grabs what new states were going to be created. After ww2 ended, something needed to be done for the Jews; Arabs had come out of the war with sympathies for the wrong side--and they didn't own their oil. So the British got the US to go along, and they made Israel.

Quote: Original post by lithosPeople were quite literally waiting with "blunt implements" where the commandos were going to land. and starting attacking and separating the commandos as they came down from the helicopter.

The armed commandos boarded a ship without permission on international waters. If they wanted to talk, they could have sent an unarmed negotiator, after receiving permission for such a negotiator to board the ship. Or they could have waited for the ship to enter Israeli waters, in which case they would have had the right to board the ship.

But don't tell me there's a problem with trying to repel armed invaders boarding your ship without permission on international waters. That's akin to saying you're not allowed to try to repel an armed burglar who's broken into your house.

Quote: It's worth noting that 7 of the dead were the troops.

No, they're not. I'm following several major (and minor) media outlets, and not one of them says there were any dead troops. 7 injured troops, up to 19 dead civilians and up to 50 individuals injured total is the tally reported by the most reputable sites.


As for what I think, well; this is just another one of Israels bully tantrums. That they've imprisoned the people on the ship and threaten to drag them to court if they don't sign an agreement (the contents of which is yet undisclosed) is also upsetting; they've kidnapped these people on international waters! What crime could the civilians possibly be accused of? They weren't even inside Israels borders! IMHO, it's time to break diplomatic and economic ties with Israel until they release all the civilians who were on the ship and pay restitution for the ones who died.

Quote: Original post by Hnefi
The armed commandos boarded a ship without permission on international waters. If they wanted to talk, they could have sent an unarmed negotiator, after receiving permission for such a negotiator to board the ship. Or they could have waited for the ship to enter Israeli waters, in which case they would have had the right to board the ship.

To be clear, the ship had repeatedly attempted to go through a blockade. It refused repeatedly to dock at an Israeli port and have the goods taken by land to gaza. Israel was well within their rights to board the vessel according to maritime law.

"Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion."

Quote: But don't tell me there's a problem with trying to repel armed invaders boarding your ship without permission on international waters. That's akin to saying you're not allowed to try to repel an armed burglar who's broken into your house.

To be clear, the first wave of soldiers were armed with paintball guns (I'm assuming filled with pepper or some crowd deterent). The intention was to go to the bridge and convince the captain to take the ship into an Israeli port. Within seconds, those troops were attacked with metal poles, chairs, and knives and one soldier was thrown overboard and some soldiers were taken hostage. That is when the troops with lethal weapons were called in.

I blame the captain of the ship for being so bullheaded resulting in all of the deaths and injuries that happened. It could have all been avoided if the ships would have gone to an Israeli port and had the goods transported by land.

It should be noted that there were other ships that were boarded, and none of them resulted in injury as far as I know.

Quote: What crime could the civilians possibly be accused of?

If Israel is in the right, the prisoners could be charged with any number of crimes. They attacked uniformed soldiers.

Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care
To be clear, the ship had repeatedly attempted to go through a blockade. It refused repeatedly to dock at an Israeli port and have the goods taken by land to gaza. Israel was well within their rights to board the vessel according to maritime law.

No, they were not within their rights to do so, because they have no authority whatsoever to enforce any sort of blockade on international waters. They do not have any legal right to arbitrarily declare "safety zones" outside their own territorial waters, they do not have the authority to reroute ships outside their territorial waters and they most certainly do not have the right to board a ship outside their territorial waters.

Quote:
"Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion."

Source? I'm willing to bet the above applies only in territorial waters or waters outside occupied nations - and unless I'm mistaken (though I might be on this point), Israel keeps claiming that they do not occupy Gaza.

Quote:
To be clear, the first wave of soldiers were armed with paintball guns (I'm assuming filled with pepper or some crowd deterent).

They were also armed with real weapons with live ammo as "backup", which they used after they boarded. Had they only been armed with paintball guns, there would have been no deaths.

Quote: The intention was to go to the bridge and convince the captain to take the ship into an Israeli port. Within seconds, those troops were attacked with metal poles, chairs, and knives and one soldier was thrown overboard and some soldiers were taken hostage. That is when the troops with lethal weapons were called in.

There was no way for the people on the ship to know the intentions of the soldiers, nor was there any way for them to know that some of the weapons the soldiers carried were paintball guns. And frankly, it doesn't matter; they got boarded, they have the right to repel the invaders. They did not use lethal force to do so, but the soldiers used lethal force to board the ship.

Quote: I blame the captain of the ship for being so bullheaded resulting in all of the deaths and injuries that happened. It could have all been avoided if the ships would have gone to an Israeli port and had the goods transported by land.

And why would they agree to go to an Israeli port, where their goods most likely would have been confiscated and never reached Palestinian territories, when they were not in Israeli waters to begin with?

Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care

Quote: Original post by Hnefi
The armed commandos boarded a ship without permission on international waters. If they wanted to talk, they could have sent an unarmed negotiator, after receiving permission for such a negotiator to board the ship. Or they could have waited for the ship to enter Israeli waters, in which case they would have had the right to board the ship.

To be clear, the ship had repeatedly attempted to go through a blockade. It refused repeatedly to dock at an Israeli port and have the goods taken by land to gaza. Israel was well within their rights to board the vessel according to maritime law.

"Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion."

So does this rule apply to "Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State" that are in neutral international waters as well?

Quote: Original post by Hnefi
Source? I'm willing to bet the above applies only in territorial waters or waters outside occupied nations - and unless I'm mistaken (though I might be on this point), Israel keeps claiming that they do not occupy Gaza.

http://www.vilp.de/Enpdf/e025.pdf
Helsinki principles of the law of maritime nuetrality.

Quote:
They were also armed with real weapons with live ammo as "backup", which they used after they boarded. Had they only been armed with paintball guns, there would have been no deaths.

They were armed with paintball guns and of the whole force there was a single handgun to be used in situations of life or death. The majority of the deaths didn't happen till after the second armed force arrived.

Quote:
There was no way for the people on the ship to know the intentions of the soldiers, nor was there any way for them to know that some of the weapons the soldiers carried were paintball guns. And frankly, it doesn't matter; they got boarded, they have the right to repel the invaders. They did not use lethal force to do so, but the soldiers used lethal force to board the ship.

There were plenty of ways. They announced their intentions over loudspeaker as well as maintaining radio contact with the ship's captain. And while you might think they didn't use lethal force, it was more by good luck than by choice.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10199480.stm

see the videos of the attacks.

Quote: And why would they agree to go to an Israeli port, where their goods most likely would have been confiscated and never reached Palestinian territories, when they were not in Israeli waters to begin with?

Because they would get boarded otherwise resulting in possible injuries and death. Whether or not it was right does not excuse that the captain could have avoided all of this by docking in an Israeli port. Now there are dead civilians and they still can't dock in Gaza.

If a police officer pulls you over for something you clearly didn't do, is your first instinct to attack him with a knife? Of course it's not, because you would get shot.