News What were the consequences of Israel's attack on the Gaza Aid Flotilla?

[TubbaBlubba]

I'm sure you've all heard about it - a substantial group of people, most of them being peace advocates and the like - have been attempting to ship some food, tents, concrete and other supplies to gaza via a completely peacefull convoy.

Of course, Israel's military doesn't like this, and attacked the vessels, I believe 6, on international waters. So far I've heard numbers of around 20 seriously injured people, some of them possibly being among the top muslim peace advocates.

I haven't heard very much specifics, and the Israeli military is very strict with letting any information out regarding injured, dead, etc.

To me, this basically constitutes an essential form of state terrorism. I don't know how much longer the west will condone Israel's actions, but I don't hope it's much longer. And I dread to see how Iran and the like will react to this.

It's just such a pity that they couldn't just get there and help people, instead the Israeli military has to turn this into some weaponized conflict...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10195838.stm - BBC says "more than ten" dead.

 

[Geigerclick]

They had a blockade, and a group which knew this, had protesters ready before the ship ever "sailed" decided to do this. The IDF acted in typical fashion, which is to say, with jack-boots. The issue of who reacts here, is going to be Turkey, not Iran. Turkey is PISSED.

That said, these people who organized this "relief vessel" (read: propaganda tool) knew that the Israeli government couldn't afford to let this slide. They are getting exactly what they want, attention for their "cause", and the fact that they took this terrible risk to get it didn't stop them. The IDF used overkill, but the people who chose to set this into motion are ultimately to blame in this.

This is a political stunt at the expense of lives on the part of several pro-palestinian groups, who stood to win if Israel backed off their existing blockade, or win in the case of the use of force. Israel should learn that this is not an effective way to conduct business, but when a country has a military blockade and you sail into it... you're taking your life into your own hands.

This is a stunt by The Free Gaza Movement, and IHH, and I find it disgusting.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I see your point. Obviously they were hoping for Israel to react this way, but that in no way condones Israel's actions.

 

[Geigerclick]

I see your point. Obviously they were hoping for Israel to react this way, but that in no way condones Israel's actions.

Agreed, it takes a degree of stupidity to play into the hands of groups such as this, and unless some proof of violence started by the ship's passengers is shown, this would seem to be a case of grotesque overkill. I don't understand why the IDF chose to board the ship, instead of using naval assets to keep it offshore.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The problem in all of this is that the west tends to be RIDICULOUSLY apologetic to Israel to a point of sheer absurdity, in particular the US.

Whether this has to do with religion, holocaust guilt or just general hate of muslims, I don't know.Though it seems to have gotten to a point - Even our (Sweden's) foreign minister, Carl Bildt, in my opinion a rather egotistical and conservative man who's mostly interested in his own business in oil and weapon dealing, has been somewhat critical of Israel, and he supported the invasion of Iraq.

 

[OmCheeto]

I've been following the story for about a week on http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2010/05/22/israels-navy-will-have-its-work-cut-out". I'd seen no mention of it on any other news media until today. Here's what I know:

Both Israel and Egypt offered to allow the ships to land outside of Gaza, have the cargo inspected by UN officials, and allow non-weapons to enter.

The flotilla organizers refused the offers.

[Judgement]I'll let god decide who gets to go to hell over this mess.[/Judgement]

 

[signerror]

Complete lies. The "peace advocates" instigated the conflict with vicious assaults.

Israeli commandos: Gaza flotilla crew tried to lynch us

The commandos, who intercepted the Turkish ferry Mavi Marmara after it ignored orders to turn back, said they encountered violent resistance from activists armed with sticks and knives. According to the soldiers, the activists threw one of their comrades from the upper deck to the lower after they boarded.

Activists attacked a commando with iron bars as he descended onto the ship from a helicopter, the army said. The IDF said its rules of engagement allowed troops to open fire in what it called a "life-threatening situation".

The soldiers said they were forced to open fire after the activists struck one of their comrades in the head and trampled on him. A senior field commander ordered the soldiers then to respond with fire, a decision which the commandos said received full backing the military echelon.

...

The IDF confirmed that at least eight navy commandos had been wounded, at least two of them seriously, in a fight which apparently broke out after activists tried to seize their weapons.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...gaza-flotilla-crew-tried-to-lynch-us-1.293089

But you don't need to rely on their word alone: here's two separate video recordings. (WARNING: real violence)[/color]. This is one is from an IDF helicopter at short range (excellent bird's-eye view):



(YouTube channel is official IDF representatives)

And here's a Turkish camera on the ship:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10195838.stm

See e.g. 0:10 and 0:22 to see IDF soldiers getting beaten with crowbars by "unarmed peace activists".

 

[waht]

9 people were killed

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

and also another site reported that on that ship was a retired US army colonel, an 80 year old holocaust survivor, and a Nobel laureate. But we don't know whether or not they were killed.

 

[signerror]

By the way, none of this was unexpected. Here's a series of articles in Haaretz (Israeli newspaper), all of which predate the incident:

The IDF on Thursday completed its preparations for countering the international aid flotilla that is heading for the Gaza Strip. Israel announced Thursday that it will prevent the ships from reaching their destination, and warned that it will not hesitate to make use of limited force if it becomes necessary.

Israel considers the effort by international left-wing elements and Islamic organizations as intentional provocation under the guise of humanitarian aid.

...

The basic assumption is that the activists are looking for a clash, and perhaps even a little bloodshed, which will be captured in the media. As far as is known, there are no arms on board the ships.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/mess-report-aid-flotilla-won-t-alter-the-humanitarian-situation-in-gaza-1.292672"

(Prescient!)

...Flotilla organizers arranged the timing so that a potential encounter with the Israeli Navy would occur during the daytime hours, and not during the darkness of night.

...

The organizers had ignored Israeli offers for the flotilla to dock in its southern port of Ashdod, just north of Gaza, and to transport the 10,000 tons of aid to the coastal enclave from there, it said.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-flotilla-shows-whole-world-opposes-gaza-siege-1.292789"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-vows-to-block-freedom-flotilla-aid-convoy-to-gaza-1.292424"

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-will-try-to-block-flotilla-from-reaching-gaza-but-will-let-aid-through-1.292440"

 

[Count Iblis]

A stupid action by Israel. It is true that Israel was provoked, but then that's the whole point of all demonstrations/potests. Unless Israel can prove that this was a weapon shipment that would have posed a significant threat to Israeli security had it been allowed to go ahead, Israel has violated international law.

Compare what Israel has done to the actions we see off the coast of Somalia, where force is only used if it is really necessary and very often the Somali pirates are free to go after the are disarmed. I would then say that the Israeli action looks far more like the action of the Somali pirates than that of the NATO forces.

 

[waht]

Israel controls Gaza's coastline (legally or illegally) and so how does one reconcile the fact that a ship is heading to Gaza (legally or illegally)?

 

[Flat]

I'm sure you've all heard about it - a substantial group of people, most of them being peace advocates and the like - have been attempting to ship some food, tents, concrete and other supplies to gaza via a completely peacefull convoy.

Of course, Israel's military doesn't like this, and attacked the vessels, I believe 6, on international waters. So far I've heard numbers of around 20 seriously injured people, some of them possibly being among the top muslim peace advocates.

...

It's just such a pity that they couldn't just get there and help people, instead the Israeli military has to turn this into some weaponized conflict...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10195838.stm - BBC says "more than ten" dead.

Here is the story from yesterday about the convy: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/05/30/gaza.protest/index.html

Contacted by CNN, the IDF reiterated the Israeli government's offer for the flotilla to dock at Israel's Ashdod port, where supplies would be unloaded and transferred to Gaza.
...
The Israeli government said Thursday it would stop the convoy, and that the IDF has been given instructions to reroute the flotilla to Ashdod. The activists remain adamant that they are headed to Gaza.

Both sides insisted on Sunday they do not want a confrontation.

"We are determined. We are going to bust through the Israeli navy," Qashoo said. But "we are not seeking any confrontation ... we are simply a humanitarian mission."

He said the participants will defend themselves if they must.

So in other words this was more of a publicity to try to provoke Isreal (success).

 

[shoehorn]

So in other words this was more of a publicity to try to provoke Isreal (success).

I suppose that makes the murder of perhaps nineteen people okay then.

 

[tiny-tim]

I suppose that makes the murder of perhaps nineteen people okay then.

(nineteen or nine?)

Seems to have been self-defence …

the BBC has been running a video showing quite clearly, amongst other things, these "peace activists" beating one fallen israeli soldier with iron bars.

 

[pallidin]

Sometimes, cutting-off "humanitarian" supplies cut's-off a relief to terrorists.
I have no problem with that.
It's a bastard situation, after all.

 

[OmCheeto]

I suppose that makes the murder of perhaps nineteen people okay then.

Perhaps if the "Peace" activist's had not assaulted with steel pipes, stabbed, and shot the Israeli soldiers, there would have been no repercussive "murders".

Perhaps these "Peace" activist's should have taken some hints from American "Peace Activist's".

[PLAIN]http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/wolimages/flowerpower.jpg

 

[OmCheeto]

Sometimes, cutting-off "humanitarian" supplies cut's-off a relief to terrorists.
I have no problem with that.
It's a bastard situation, after all.

There never was a cut off of "humanitarian" supplies.
The United Arab Emirates routinely sends in truckloads of supplies to Gaza.

But I agree with your assessment, that this is a bastard of a situation.

 

[shoehorn]

Perhaps these "Peace" activist's should have taken some hints from American "Peace Activist's".

Indeed, because that clearly worked out so well for the Americans, didn't it?

 

[OmCheeto]

Indeed, because that clearly worked out so well for the Americans, didn't it?

I wasn't there, nor as an 11 year old at the time would I have been able to make much sense of the incident. So I found the mention of the preceding 3 days of violence leading up to the shootings in your wiki article interesting.

Hmmm... I wonder if the incident was burned into my brain...

the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that authorities did indeed have the right to disperse the crowd.

The dispersal process began late in the morning with campus patrolman Harold Rice, riding in a National Guard Jeep, approaching the students to read them an order to disperse or face arrest. The protesters responded by throwing rocks, striking one campus Patrolman and forcing the Jeep to retreat.

It was just 5 days ago that I posted the following in the Al Jazeera-Facebook page regarding the lead up to today's Gaza incident:

Really Saad? For the last 20 years, the only videos "we've" seen were of Palestinian children throwing rocks at the Israelis. I saw the article you mentioned also. I thought to myself, hmmmm... Finally, the Israelis are throwing rocks back now. Or perhaps it is because of Al Jazeera that I now get the other side of the story.

But the story reminded me a bit of my 10 year old school mates. They were always throwing rocks at each other. I found it to be a very painful game, and didn't much care for it.

Perhaps everyone should put down the rocks. Eh?

 

[shoehorn]

I'm sure that the Palestinian civilians would be more than willing to put down their rocks if the Israeli military would put down their tanks, aircraft, and phosphorous munitions.

Just a thought.

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm sure that the Palestinian civilians would be more than willing to put down their rocks if the Israeli military would put down their tanks, aircraft, and phosphorous munitions.

Just a thought.

And I'm sure the Israeli military would not have had a reason to do so if the Gazan's had not lobbed nearly 9000 mortars and rockets at Israel over the last 10 years.

Awaiting obligatory lockdown...

Salam everyone.

 

[madness]

And I'm sure the Israeli military would not have had a reason to do so if the Gazan's had not lobbed nearly 9000 mortars and rockets at Israel over the last 10 years.

Awaiting obligatory lockdown...

Salam everyone.

This is just ridiculous. In the last major altercation there were around 25 times more Palestinian casualties than Israeli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Casualties), most of whom were civilians and many of whom were women and children. They attacked hospitals and schools and used white phosphorous gas which is illegal by international law (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7831424.stm).

 

[Count Iblis]

The same pro-Israel lobby in the US called the Russian attack on Georgia "brutal aggression", even though Georgia had fired real missiles into civilian areas in South Ossetia, killing hundreds of civilians and peacekeepers in a matter of hours.

 

[Geigerclick]

This is just ridiculous. In the last major altercation there were around 25 times more Palestinian casualties than Israeli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Casualties), most of whom were civilians and many of whom were women and children. They attacked hospitals and schools and used white phosphorous gas which is illegal by international law (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7831424.stm).

It's always women and children.

This is asymmetric warfare, get used to it; this is the way of the world for quite a while to come I would suspect. These people wanted a publicity stunt, and they were willing to pay a cost in blood. Done. Israel should have taken a more measured response for PR if nothing else, but then, when you get rocketed and bombed and peace seems to be a dream... maybe restraint isn't worth it?

Funny, I remember a Kuwaiti friend of mine, a Sheik, who told me just how unwelcome Palestinians are in Kuwait, and most Arab countries. They are considered useful political tools, but no one wants them and they are perceived as having become savage and insane. This is probably not helped by their election of Hamas.

By the way, who are these Palestinians, when there is no Palestine? Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah brother.

*waits for lockdown with OmCheeto*

 

[Geigerclick]

The same pro-Israel lobby in the US called the Russian attack on Georgia "brutal aggression", even though Georgia had fired real missiles into civilian areas in South Ossetia, killing hundreds of civilians and peacekeepers in a matter of hours.

I'm pro-Israel, and I have no problem with Russia slamming Georgia. That said, as with Israel their response is often grossly out of proportion with the provocation. The situation with Russia and its former satellites, is not simply analogues to the issues in the Middle East. It is intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise. Georgia wants to defend what they have, and Russia wants Georgia. That is a very different situation from a longstanding nation vs. a diaspora.

 

[Passionflower]

I'm pro-Israel

I am not.
The creation of that state was a big mistake and causes a lot of pain and suffering in the world.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Complete lies. The "peace advocates" instigated the conflict with vicious assaults.http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...gaza-flotilla-crew-tried-to-lynch-us-1.293089

But you don't need to rely on their word alone: here's two separate video recordings. (WARNING: real violence)[/color]. This is one is from an IDF helicopter at short range (excellent bird's-eye view):



(YouTube channel is official IDF representatives)

And here's a Turkish camera on the ship:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10195838.stm

See e.g. 0:10 and 0:22 to see IDF soldiers getting beaten with crowbars by "unarmed peace activists".

Uh, yes. They boarded their ships with heavily armed soldiers. They had absolutely no right to do that. I'm not saying that violent resistance was a good idea, but Israel pretty much made an act of warfare by boarding their ships.

 

[Passionflower]

you also think that the USA staged the sinking of an SK vessel to keep a base in Okinawa

I indeed think that.
But perhaps the thought police will do something about that.

 

[russ_watters]

Uh, yes. They boarded their ships with heavily armed soldiers. They had absolutely no right to do that. I'm not saying that violent resistance was a good idea, but Israel pretty much made an act of warfare by boarding their ships.[emphasis added]

That's debateable at best and is for all practical purposes wrong, but at least your tune is changing since the OP!

I find these threads instructive in their predictability. I'm thankful that the Israelis were smart enough to videotape the incident, and I'm just as completely unsurprised that some people assumed the Israelis instigated the violence, as I am unsurprised by the fact that they didn't.

Of course the biggest irony in this issue is that Egypt's blockade of Gaza isn't criticized but Israel's is.

 

[russ_watters]

I indeed think that.
But perhaps the thought police will do something about that.

So I'm guessing you aren't impressed by the physical evidence in the form of the exploded North Korean torpedo?

 

[zomgwtf]

Uh, yes. They boarded their ships with heavily armed soldiers. They had absolutely no right to do that. I'm not saying that violent resistance was a good idea, but Israel pretty much made an act of warfare by boarding their ships.

Hm, I thought that the ship was welcomed to bring the aid to Gaza provided they landed first and had UN inspectors go through everything and remove all weapons. They refused to comply and in wartimes in a highly tense area of the war this is definitely seen as an act of aggression. Israeli soldiers were well within their rights to board the ship and the only way they would ever do that is with heavily armed commandoes.

 

[magpies]

I read that 2 of the israeli soldiers got killed...

 

[zomgwtf]

Of course the biggest irony in this issue is that Egypt's blockade of Gaza isn't criticized but Israel's is.

As well as the fact that the United States, European Union, and Russia are a huge part of this and supported sanctions against Palestinian territories after Hamas was elected into power.

Instead people just focus on Israeli sanctions and Israeli blockades. I think the majority of the world does not like the idea of Hamas having control. It sucks for Israel most because of previous tensions and proximity.

I agree though, russ, that these types of conversations normally go along the same tune. Especially when anti-Israel people begin to get involved.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Hm, I thought that the ship was welcomed to bring the aid to Gaza provided they landed first and had UN inspectors go through everything and remove all weapons. They refused to comply and in wartimes in a highly tense area of the war this is definitely seen as an act of aggression. Israeli soldiers were well within their rights to board the ship and the only way they would ever do that is with heavily armed commandoes.

As far as I understand, this was done on international waters. And once again, this was outside Gaza's shores, yes? You seem to act as if Israel is some sort of supreme justice in this. I don't see why I should have to comply to their standards when boarding Palestinian territory. But then again I find war to be a rather absurd matter. In my opinion, ASSUMING Israel has to check through everything, they should've done it while onloading it on the docks. Bording at sea with heavily armed commandoes is an obvious act of aggression.

 

[zomgwtf]

As far as I understand, this was done on international waters.

Even if that were true, so what?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Even if that were true, so what?

"So what"? Does every country have the right to load heavily armed commandoes on convoys on international waters?


Also, I'll repost my edit since you might've missed it...

And once again, this was outside Gaza's shores, yes? You seem to act as if Israel is some sort of supreme justice in this. I don't see why I should have to comply to their standards when boarding Palestinian territory. But then again I find war to be a rather absurd matter. In my opinion, ASSUMING Israel has to check through everything, they should've done it while onloading it on the docks. Bording at sea with heavily armed commandoes is an obvious act of aggression.

 

[magpies]

I don't see what's going to come of this as I highly doubt israel will be punished for this especially with the video recordings they have of the event. As I understand it the boats got a warning to turn back and they didn't so to me it seems like israel was just doing what they thought was best considering they didn't want weapons being shipped over. It would be like someone flying a jet over the captial of course if it doesn't respond to requests from the military to turn away it will be either escorted away or shot down.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I don't see what's going to come of this as I highly doubt israel will be punished for this especially with the video recordings they have of the event. As I understand it the boats got a warning to turn back and they didn't so to me it seems like israel was just doing what they thought was best considering they didn't want weapons being shipped over. It would be like someone flying a jet over the captial of course if it doesn't respond to requests from the military to turn away it will be either escorted away or shot down.

Well, if Israel told them to turn away first, that eliminates the idea that the commandoes were "welcoming" them and just inspecting their ships. Seems more like they were trying to seize them.Yeah, according to the most recent news report I heard, they boarded the ship on international water without permission. That is an act of war. Israel were clearly the aggressors here.

 

[magpies]

Ok so I just watched a video of the attempted ship take over. It looks like all kinds of stupid on both sides. The israeli guys plop down one at a time from helicopter onto the large ship with like 30 people standing around on the top deck. As soon as they land it looks like they are attacked mob style... Anyhow it was stupid for the israeli forces to try and take it over that way and extra stupid that they did it in international waters when they could have just waited for it to get 3 miles from coast and do it then. However it was clearly not an aid ship so they probably would have had to use lots of fire power to take it over even then. Idk what to make of it really I see why israel would try to stop the ship cause if they let this one thru then they would end up having to let any after it thru. They showed footage of like 5 buckets of marbels and sling shots and some pipes lol... Do boats in that region carry weapons like these normally?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The boat wasn't armed, they just used improvised weaponry which kind of makes sense when you're attacked. Regardless of how they reacted to the Israelis, the idea was to move supplies to Gaza and/or show how absurdly Israel acts.

 

[magpies]

I'm still not sure the boat didn't have weapons on it. I'll wait till it gets searched... But you it does seem likely that they did understand that israeli forces would try to take control of it after it didn't listen to requests from them. I think the people on the boat had to be on drugs or something to openly attack armed forces like that. I mean if a commando unit drops down infront of you is your first reaction to bum rush them? I read on one israel news site that the commandos who droped down only had paintball guns I suppose they were the ones that got killed...

Great news everybody! More boats!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100601/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians_77

 

[tiny-tim]

Israeli rights in international waters

Uh, yes. They boarded their ships with heavily armed soldiers.

No, they were very lightly armed. They carried "anti-riot" paintball guns, suitable for dispersing unarmed crowds. They also wore pistols, which they "never expected to use".

They clearly went in with minimal arms … that was the problem.

They had absolutely no right to do that. I'm not saying that violent resistance was a good idea, but Israel pretty much made an act of warfare by boarding their ships.

As far as I understand, this was done on international waters. And once again, this was outside Gaza's shores, yes? You seem to act as if Israel is some sort of supreme justice in this.… Bording at sea with heavily armed commandoes is an obvious act of aggression.

No, boarding at sea in international waters is perfectly lawful, whether heavily armed or (as in this case ) not.

The law is laid down in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, "Convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law. Adopted in June 1994", and published on the Red Cross website at http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMSU"​

Under international law, a blockade is enforceable in international waters, including by searching neutral ships, and attacking and capturing them if they try to break the blockade.

[Attack and capture of neutral ships are dealt with by paragraphs 67 and 146 respectively, and lawful blockade is defined by paragraphs 93 to 104 …]​

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) 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 or capture;

146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:
… (f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.

[N.B. "Neutral waters" are not international waters, they are only the waters of neutral states, see …
14. Neutral waters consist of the internal waters, territorial sea, and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of neutral States.]

A ship is "attempting to breach a blockade" even before it reaches the declared blockade area … see for example paragraph 7.7.4 of the U.S.A.'s "[URL
Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations[/URL] …​

7.7.4. … Attempted breach of blockade occurs from the time a vessel or
aircraft leaves a port or airfield with the intention of evading the blockade …

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

[Paragraphs 95 and 100 mean that if Israel had let the flotilla through, it could then be claimed that the blockade was not effective, and therefore the whole blockade was illegal … this is the main legal purpose for attempting to breach the blockade ]​

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

Israel went through all the necessary procedures, and was perfectly entitled to use lightly armed troops to capture a vessel attempting to breach the blockade. ​

 

[TubbaBlubba]

EDIT: Hold on, reading through tiny-tim's post. Also doing some further research before commenting.Interesting. Would "Breaching a blockade" constitute any vessel reaching harbor?

By the way, exerpt from UN statement:

The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The Council, in this context, condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least ten civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families.

[...]

The Security Council stresses that the situation in Gaza is not sustainable. The Council re-emphasizes the importance of the full implementation of Resolutions 1850 and 1860. In that context, it reiterates its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stresses the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.

Even IF their actions were legal within the bounds of warfare (legality and war, absurd in itself, is it not?), the blockade in itself is condemnable in every way possible. They allow far too little supplies to reach them (According to the UN, only a fourth of what would be neccesary), and the strip is EXTREMELY small. Guess what happens when you squeeze people together on a small spot? Yeah, they react.

This would have been an excellent time for Israel to think "Hey, maybe this blockade isn't such a nice idea. Let's let them through!"
But no. They have to show that they're BIGGER and STRONGER than those vile terrorists who would wish for the freedom of Gaza.

It sickens me. It really does.

 

[magpies]

Why does it sicken you? If mexico started to launch rockets into the US we probably would blockade them... just saying..

 

[madness]

These people wanted a publicity stunt, and they were willing to pay a cost in blood. Done.

They had already sent in 5 aid ships through the blockade without any repercussions and had no reason to suspect this one to be any different. How could it be a publicity stunt?

Funny, I remember a Kuwaiti friend of mine, a Sheik, who told me just how unwelcome Palestinians are in Kuwait, and most Arab countries. They are considered useful political tools, but no one wants them and they are perceived as having become savage and insane. This is probably not helped by their election of Hamas.

Every arab I have met was in support of Palestine and were exceptionally supportive and welcoming of any Palestinians they met. Many Arab nations officially support Hamas too - they provide more social work and aid than many governments.

By the way, who are these Palestinians, when there is no Palestine? Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah brother.

There is a Palestine. How can you simultaneouly claim that Palestinians elected Hamas and that Palestine doesn't exist? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Why does it sicken you? If mexico started to launch rockets into the US we probably would blockade them... just saying..

That is an utterly absurd comparison. Israel shoved them together, occupied them and then harassed them, escalating in a blockade. Palestine has been wanting a two-state solution for, I don't know, 25 years? Yet Israel keeps harassing them with superior firepower.

 

[magpies]

Well in all honesty there wasn't hardly anyone living in that area until the state of israel was created after the world wars and only after the country was built up into a mostly substainable environment did tons of arabs flock to it to get the... "freebies" the area israel is in has almost no natural clean water it's all pumped in sea water that gets treated and turned into clean water ect for drinking and other uses. Of course nobody really cares about what happens in history or why people in the past did things.

Really of course it seems obvious that one of the reasons for creating the state was to make an allied base of power in the middle east.

 

[tiny-tim]

Israeli rights in international waters

… there wasn't hardly anyone living in that area until the state of israel was created after the world wars and only after the country was built up into a mostly substainable environment did tons of arabs flock to it …

sorry, but that's rubbish … arab immigration into the west bank and gaza since 1948 has been almost nil …

the population explosion is due to high birth-rates

perhaps you're thinking of the high arab immigration rate into palestine in the nineteenth century, roughly doubling the population in a short period, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...the_late_Ottoman_and_British_Mandate_periods" … "According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy,[26] the population of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000, in 1860 it was 411,000 and in 1900 about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs."​

Interesting. Would "Breaching a blockade" constitute any vessel reaching harbor?

"Breaching or attempting to breach a blockade" includes heading towards the blockade area with the declared intention of entering it …

which certainly includes these ships.

But no. They have to show that they're BIGGER and STRONGER than those vile terrorists who would wish for the freedom of Gaza.

No, they have prevent the terrorists from receiving rockets, other weapons, and materials for storing and manufacturing weapons.

They have to prevent the terrorists from resuming their 8-year record of crimes against humanity by firing rockets daily at purely civilian targets.

 

[zomgwtf]

The boat wasn't armed, they just used improvised weaponry which kind of makes sense when you're attacked. Regardless of how they reacted to the Israelis, the idea was to move supplies to Gaza and/or show how absurdly Israel acts.

'They weren't aremed but they used weaponry!' lol... interesting. They sure looked armed to me when they were beating the soldiers. As well it's come out now that the soldiers were using paintball guns, .

No the point was to undermine the complete blockade Israel had put up, they hadn't actually intended on being able to breach the blockade. As tiny-tim has pointed out they were completely in their rights to board the ship and in their request to have it land and be inspected.

I really do not think you know the entire situation of what's going on in Gaza. As well stop claiming this is an 'act of war' by Israel. According to casus belli the ship would be classified as the aggressors... besides they are at war, so it makes you sick when states act like they are at war when they are at war? That's awesome... I bet you also felt bad and sickened when NATO bombed Bosnia and Herzegovina for the Markale massacres and genocides?

I think you should do a bit more research on the topic of Israeli and Palestinian relations before commenting about how sickening it is that Israel boarded a ship with paintball guns. What about how the Palestinians send children and women into Israel with bombs strapped under the clothes? Or the thousands of bombings done on Israeli citizens? I mean, seriously, come on now... They indoctrinate their children with their political motives of wiping Israel off the map.

Do you think that if such bombings had occurred on American cities from Mexico that America would stand for such an act? I am almost willing to bet a large amount of money that if that ever happened America would rape Mexico, then set up a blockade. Israel has the support in the blockade by the most of the major powers of the world, including USA. Although most countries (including the USA) agree that Israel should 'calm down' with the blockade and allow more aid to get through. However this is entirely Israel and Egypts choice. Just as an aside why are you citing UN sources etc.? Do you think that they actually mean anything?? Not really. The only part of the UN that matters is the Security Council... the big players from there support Israel, sooooorrrry. And even that America has proven to be useless .

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Well in all honesty there wasn't hardly anyone living in that area until the state of israel was created after the world wars and only after the country was built up into a mostly substainable environment did tons of arabs flock to it to get the... "freebies" the area israel is in has almost no natural clean water it's all pumped in sea water that gets treated and turned into clean water ect for drinking and other uses.

I'd like a source on this statement, it strikes me as somewhat dubious.