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

[arildno]

I would also please see people refrain from using statements like "evil", "death cult" or the like. It only serves to demonize and dehumanize people, and is meaningless in an actual discussion.

The man is self-demonizing, and doesn't need my assistance in de-humanizing himself.

He has already mutilated himself into this horror, years ago.

And no, it never hurts to actually know your..enemy.

It is, in fact, crucial.

 

[tiny-tim]

Doesn't exactly look like they're "protecting the blockade" here...

(referring to a map showing the ships opposite Tel Aviv, but three times the distance of israeli territorial waters)

You asked this question before, despite the fact that I had specifically dealt with it in my post which you claimed to be reading …

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?

… and I replied by quoting from that post …

"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.

This was from

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 …

I could also have repeated that Paragraph 146 of the San Remo document specifically allows capture of ships in international waters (ie outside "neutral waters", which means waters of a neutral country) …

146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they …
(f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.

Since the occupants of all the ships had publicly declared their intention of breaching the blockade, then (since after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refused to stop) international law entitled the Israelis to capture it anywhere along its route.​

To use your words, it certainly does 'look like the Israelis were "protecting the blockade".'

Please don't raise this issue again as if it hasn't been answered.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I was referring to the fact that they were, at least from my perspective, very far from the blockade. But maybe that's standard; Naval warfare is as you have noticed not one of my areas of expertise.

 

[Count Iblis]

The last time someone tried to blockade Israel we got the Six Day war. A Turkish blockade would certainly trigger total war between the two countries. A country would have to be insane to invite that kind of violence because of an incident like this

Yes, but then other actions are possible. NATO has already condemned the Israeli action, so you can well imagine NATO supplying Gaza with goods that Israel won't currently let through.

 

[Count Iblis]

We (the USA) intercept ships en route to Iran and NK, and from them under this same law. Note the lack of international outrage. The issue here is poor PR on the behalf of the Israelis, and a successful stunt on the other side. The condemnation of Israel has become so trite and tired at this point that it is hard to take it seriously anymore.

Lets make this simple, this is the international equivalent of tossing puppies under a bus, catching it on camera, and generating outrage against the bus-driver.

No ships are intercepted in international waters by the US except for Somali pirate ships. Ships from North Korea have been inspected when they wanted to re-supply. Intercepting an Iranian or North Korean ship in international waters would likely trigger a war that no one wants.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I'm listening to the press conference by the aforementioned politician.

According to him;
- The blockade is illegal (He quoted Amnesty on this).
- The boarding was illegal (I can't comment on from what stance he makes this view).
- The Israeli army tried to (apparently unsuccessfully) seize their passports.
- This was intended as nothing but non-violent resistance, and they had received training in non-violence before departure
- They had not made any sort of violent resistance (on his boat) and they had entered via hooks
- He claimed to have read several Israeli newspapers online condemning these actions.

So what I wonder is, what happened on the boat that did apparently make violent resistance?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

We have caused such ships to turn back, or used proxies (such as Israel!) to board them. We nearly caused a nuclear holocaust because of a blockade once, remember? Something to do with Cuba...

Come on, let's be intellectually honest here.

I wouldn't call the US much of an example in terms of military action, anyway...

According to him... so... who cares? According to the IDF this boat was a threat to national security, and according to IHH this was a group of peace-loving neo-hippies. Doubtless both are not correct.

I'm not going to make a statement on the validity of his claims, I am merely quoting a retelling of a first-hand experience. I thought it might be of interest to SOMEONE?

 

[tiny-tim]

… Naval warfare is as you have noticed not one of my areas of expertise.

Nor mine … I'm a freshwater fish.

But it doesn't stop either you or me from looking it up on google instead of just making up international law the way we would like it to be.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Nor mine … I'm a freshwater fish.

But it doesn't stop either you or me from looking it up on google instead of just making up international law the way we would like it to be.

I was basing my stance on the matter from what I had heard from several sources (mainly news stations here in Sweden) which all implied or outright stated that the boarding is illegal. Why this conflicts with the apparent law is not something I can judge.

Geiger: Now, now, now, the US "saving" Europe from the Nazis, eh? That's something for an entirely different topic...

 

[mheslep]

What if the group at hand was the Klu Klux Klan, or the Jim Jones mass suicide (or mass homicide) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown" , Khaibar, oh Jews!") and twisted manipulation of a major religion and that of the Klan's, and that there's little difference between the Jihadist's cult-like embrace of death and that of Jim Jone's followers.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Save or not, our military efficacy at that time, and previously was high. For the prior statement you can and SHOULD do what the bright fish suggests (freshwater, I LOL'ed at that) and do the research so that you no longer base your views on the statements of politicians. The laws are available to peruse, and they are not terribly ambiguous.

Base my views on the statements of politicians? No, several independent news sources. Don't make a straw man of me.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

What I wonder is where the boat that ended up doing violent resistance happens to fit into this. From what I can see, at least MOST of them went there with non-violence in mind. Did the wrong people end up on the same boat, inciting each other? Was it planned before that that boat would make violent resistance? It doesn't add up to me.

 

[arildno]

As for the so-called humanitarian plight of the Palestinians, it is largely...non-existent.

IF conditions had been so horrible there, this should show itself on a number of statistics.

I will use data from IndexMundi here, W meaning "West Bank", "G" Gaza, "S": Syria, E: Egypt, C: China, T: Turkey.

1. Infant mortality rate (per 1000):
W: 15.96, G:18.35, S: 16.69 , T: 25.78, E: 27.26, C: 20.25

2. Life expectancy at birth (in years):
W: 74.54, G: 73.42, S: 74.22, T: 71.96, E: 72.12, C: 73.47

3. Death rate (per 1000)
W: 3.66, G: 3.44, S: 3.72, T: 6.1, E: 4.88, C: 7.06

All numbers should be 2009-estimates.
http://www.indexmundi.com

The low death rates are consistent with that in W&G, most people are young, AND that the vast majority of persons there die of old age, rather than from anything else.

(Norway has an aging population, with a 9.29 death rate, and 3.58 infant mortality rate.)

 

[mheslep]

No ships are intercepted in international waters by the US except for Somali pirate ships. Ships from North Korea have been inspected when they wanted to re-supply. Intercepting an Iranian or North Korean ship in international waters would likely trigger a war that no one wants.

I believe you are mistaken. I believe the US has stopped and sunk NK ships in international waters bound for Iran, though I can't reference cases.

 

[mheslep]

Heh, of course if the KKK had done one thousandth of what Jihadis had in the Middle East,

I would not be so fast to minimize the KKK over the length US history. It claimed maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Urbanization" of the US population in the 1920s, including many nationally prominent politicians.

 

[tiny-tim]

the Stockholm defence

I was basing my stance on the matter from what I had heard from several sources (mainly news stations here in Sweden) which all implied or outright stated that the boarding is illegal.

Since when were Swedish news stations unbiased?

And since when were Swedish news presenters experts on international law?

And they're hardly independent …

i] news stations tend to copy each other

ii] when they're not doing that, they tend to copy from the same sources.

Anyway, are you seriously pleading a new "Stockholm defence" …

"I was relying on Swedish news stations"?​

 

[estro]

Or what if the jews had been nazis? I think that there's a striking resemblance between the conditions they force the Gaza people to live in and the work camps of Nazi Germany.
...

Some people just have no idea what they talking about...
It seems to me you more interested in controversy rather then debate...

 

[estro]

...
Lets make this simple, this is the international equivalent of tossing puppies under a bus, catching it on camera, and generating outrage against the bus-driver.

This one converges to reality very fast...

 

[tiny-tim]

the Stockholm defence

I think that there's a striking resemblance between the conditions they force the Gaza people to live in and the work camps of Nazi Germany.

Did you get that from Swedish news stations also?

Those Swedish news stations really are racist, then …

there's no comparison between Gaza and Nazi "work camps". ​

 

[arildno]

Did you get that from Swedish news stations also?

Those Swedish news stations really are racist, then …

there's no comparison between Gaza and Nazi "work camps". ​

Especially when the unemployment rate there was...40% in 2009..(in my previous post, I have some other stats from indexmundi)

 

[zomgwtf]

Hmm now that I've read arildno's stats I'd like to see some stats which are supportive of the harsh living conditions in Gaza and West Bank. I would also like a cited source which conclusively shows that this has been caused by the recent Israeli blockade. I'm pretty sure prior to Hamas take over of Gaza relations between Palestinians and Israel were 'good'. Once Hamas took over things all went downhill for the area, Hamas had even been confiscating aid for the Gaza strip for awhile... wtf?

As well about the continued bickering about the blockade and how it was so far away.

First things first the image you show doesn't show the position of the blockade, it shows the position of Israel territorial waters. Let us see what this means. The territorial waters are around 22kms from land I believe. A territory also can protect a further 22km from the edge of the previous boundary making for a grand total of 44km under their protection. This was just to make it clearly understood what territorial waters meant. It has nothing to do with the blockade though.

A blockade at sea just means that any boats on route to the country must pass through. It isn't restricted to the countries territorial waters at all, that makes no sense. It's about restricting ANOTHER countries supplies... it can happen anywhere. The blockading country has to always be enforcing the blockade or else it is an unlawful blockade If Israel allowed this boat to undermine it's blockade of Gaza then Israel would have been breaking International laws regarding blockades, if it continued the blockade after the incident. So that is enough of the claims that they had no right to stop them or they should have just let them through, or these people weren't terrorist.

It does not matter who they were or what they were bringing Israeli forces were obligated by International laws to stop that ship. They did that, got attacked, and the people who attempted to undermine the blockade paid the price with their lives. If there is one thing I've learned in life from family in the military it is this: you do not **** around with the military in a warzone.

In fact I think it should be noted that Israel has practiced quite a bit of restraint against Gaza... they have an EXTREMELY powerful military with nuclear weapons. Yet they decide to board a ship which intends to undermine it's blockade of a state, with only paintball guns. Something they use for what? Riots? There are videos online of the Israeli forces dealing with child suicide bombers at the boarder, they don't shoot them or anything like that, they talk to them and get them to take the vests off. Of course if they don't comply there are now problems. Those 10 people on this boat found that out. I repeat: Do not **** with the military in a warzone.

 

[arildno]

He's become less extreme these days. But yes, he's a member of what you'd call the "intellectual left" in Sweden. Perhaps somewhat odd in certain views, but not violent extremists.

Bollocks.

Mankell has actively SUPPORTED a Maoist China that exterminated..millions of their inhabitants.

He writes damn good books, and so did my favourite Norwegian author Knut Hamsun.

That doesn't make Hamsun less of a Nazi and traitor, nor do I have any sympathies for the old b*st*rd.

 

[arildno]

Hmm now that I've read arildno's stats I'd like to see some stats which are supportive of the harsh living conditions in Gaza and West Bank. I would also like a cited source which conclusively shows that this has been caused by the recent Israeli blockade.

Electricity consumption pr. inhabitant is pretty low. In Gaza about 200Wh per person annually ( I think), in Egypt, 7 times as much (unless I botched the numbers).

Might have something to do with the complete lack of heavy industry on the Gaza strip, though, rather than not being able to telephone out to the big world whining about how horrible your life is..

 

[EnumaElish]

In fact I think it should be noted that Israel has practiced quite a bit of restraint against Gaza... they have an EXTREMELY powerful military with nuclear weapons. Yet they decide to board a ship which intends to undermine it's blockade of a state, with only paintball guns.

Did they kill the activists by paintball? What am I missing?

 

[zomgwtf]

Did they kill the activists by paintball? What am I missing?

Sorry I mis-typed. With only paintball guns as their primary weapons. I think it is clear that Israeli intentions were not to cause death or even harm to these people, just to enforce their blockade as set out by International law.

 

[Proton Soup]

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.

what do UN inspectors have to do with israeli soldiers ?

 

[zomgwtf]

what do UN inspectors have to do with israeli soldiers ?

They were the ones that were going to be going through the cargo of the ship had it complied with the request of Israel to land the ship? I suppose I should have called them UN workers. I had read this somewhereee... but I am looking to cite it and I can't refind the article. I could have sworn that Israeli had told the ships they were not authorized to pass the blockade and had to land to have their cargo inspected so that all possible weapons could be removed.

 

[Jack21222]

Israelis made what Israel is today.

Palestinians have made "Palestine" into what it is today.

Billions of dollars per year in foreign aid make Israel what it is today. If Israelis are what make Israel so great on their own, then the US government can stop taking my tax dollars away from me and handing it over to the Israelis, right?

 

[arildno]

Billions of dollars per year in foreign aid make Israel what it is today.

Palestine has, for the last 60 years received a lot more in foreign aid than Israel.

Except from the Arab countries, of course, who have never bothered to give their professed "brethren" anything. That includes extremely rich countries like Kuwait and Saudi-Arabia

 

[Jack21222]

Palestine has, for the last 60 years received a lot more in foreign aid than Israel.

Except from the Arab countries, of course, who have never bothered to give their professed "brethren" anything. That includes extremely rich countries like Kuwait and Saudi-Arabia

Do you have sources for your claim? I have sources for mine.

My source for US aid to Israel is:

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000594

A chart on that page from the "Jewish Virtual Library" shows over 99 billion dollars of aid from the US between 1949 to 2006, and this excludes loan guarantees and certain programs such as the "research and development of the arrow missile."

My source for aid to Palestine is:

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000592

Much of the aid to Palestine comes in the form of the United Nations Relief and Works agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). A chart on this page (from the Congressional Research Service) shows a total of 2.6 billion from the US to UNRWA, but it only covers the years 1950-2003. Extrapolating out to 2006, to match the Israeli chart gives a total of approximately 3 billion.

If you're looking at all sources, the UNRWA got just over a half billion in 2005. If we are to assume they received the same amount of aid every year since 1950 (which I believe is a very generous assumption), over the course of 60 years, Palestine would have received on the order of 30-40 billion dollars from all sources. According to http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/4316.pdf direct aid to Palestine was 0.36 billion in 2005. Once again, generously extrapolating that over the course of 60 years, we reach a number of approximately 22 billion.

So, best-case scenario using generous assumptions, we reach a total of 50-60 billion dollars in total foreign aid to Palestine in the past 60 years. Compare this to the 99.3 billion from the United States alone to Israel, excluding certain other "perks" that weren't included in that number.


To your assertion that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have not given to Palestine; the United Nations chart on the second website listed would disagree. According to that chart, Kuwait gave 1.5 million and Saudi Arabia gave 20 million to the UNRWA in 2005.

I'd post more sources and be a little more careful with my numbers, but I've run out of time, I must get to work.

 

[Proton Soup]

They were the ones that were going to be going through the cargo of the ship had it complied with the request of Israel to land the ship? I suppose I should have called them UN workers. I had read this somewhereee... but I am looking to cite it and I can't refind the article. I could have sworn that Israeli had told the ships they were not authorized to pass the blockade and had to land to have their cargo inspected so that all possible weapons could be removed.

i thought i had read somewhere that the ship was in international waters.

anyhoo, the point is that the point of involving UN in a situation like this is have a third party do the inspections and avoid just this type of confrontation. israel's action here seems intentionally inflammatory to me. but the best of all situations might be to simply have UN handle the shipments, as both sides seem to be wanting something symbolic from this.

 

[Pattonias]

From what I read this is what was supposed to occur. Most of the flotilla was directed to a port in Israel, inspected, and then the goods were trucked into Palestine. The ship that was raided refused to comply.

 

[Count Iblis]

An Irish ship "the Rachel Corrie" is now underway to Gaza. The Irish prime minister and foreign minister have warned Israel not to board the ship. This will be regarded as an act of piracy against Ireland.

 

[Pattonias]

Is it not considered an act of war for Ireland to deliberatly send a ship through another sovereign nations blockade without permission? In this event Ireland would be the aggressor. This would not be an act of "piracy" at all.

 

[Count Iblis]

They attempted to challenge the sovereign power of a nation, which carries inherent risk. Armed or not, they made a choice and payed for it. Presumably they felt it was worth the risk.

It is the other way around. Israel illegally challenged the sovereign rights of the Turkish and other nationals on board the ship. The whole blockade of Gaza is illegal and has been condemned by the UN. Enforcing any blockade is always an act of war in which you go beyond your sovereign rights anyway. In this case, the international community does not agree with Israel's arguments that the war-like state is necessary.

Then to have a situation in which you end up killing people when enforcing the blockade in a case where even the rejected arguments for the blockade do not apply, is completely unacceptable. This is why the whole world has strongly condemnded this action.

 

[Proton Soup]

Is it not considered an act of war for Ireland to deliberatly send a ship through another sovereign nations blockade without permission? In this event Ireland would be the aggressor. This would not be an act of "piracy" at all.

i think the entire question here is hinging on whether Palestine is sovereign. i think the Obama administration is taking the position that it is, as efforts are underway to stop further settlements.

 

[arildno]

An Irish ship "the Rachel Corrie" is now underway to Gaza. The Irish prime minister and foreign minister have warned Israel not to board the ship. This will be regarded as an act of piracy against Ireland.

With respect to WHAT treaty?

The London declaration (1909)?
Excerpts:

"Art. 14. The liability of a neutral vessel to capture for breach of blockade is contingent on her knowledge, actual or presumptive, of the blockade.

Art. 15. Failing proof to the contrary, knowledge of the blockade is presumed if the vessel left a neutral port subsequently to the notification of the blockade to the Power to which such port belongs, provided that such notification was made in sufficient time.

Art. 17. Neutral vessels may not be captured for breach of blockade except within the area of operations of the warships detailed to render the blockade effective.

Art. 18. The blockading forces must not bar access to neutral ports or coasts.

Art. 20. A vessel which has broken blockade outwards, or which has attempted to break blockade inwards, is liable to capture so long as she is pursued by a ship of the blockading force. If the pursuit is abandoned, or if the blockade is raised, her capture can no longer be effected.

Art. 21. A vessel found guilty of breach of blockade is liable to condemnation. The cargo is also condemned, unless it is proved that at the time of the shipment of the goods the shipper neither knew nor could have known of the intention to break the blockade.

Art. 24. The following articles, susceptible of use in war as well as for purposes of peace, may, without notice (*), be treated as contraband of war, under the name of conditional contraband:

(1) Foodstuffs."

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1909b.htm

Perhaps the milder San Remo Manual??

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;


PART V : MEASURES SHORT OF ATTACK: INTERCEPTION, VISIT, SEARCH, DIVERSION AND CAPTURE

114. If the commander of a warship suspects that a merchant vessel flying a neutral flag in fact has enemy character, the commander is entitled to exercise the right of visit and search, including the right of diversion for search under paragraph 121.

115. If the commander of a military aircraft suspects that a civil aircraft with neutral marks in fact has enemy character, the commander is entitled to exercise the right of interception and, if circumstances require, the right to divert for the purpose of visit and search.

SECTION II : VISIT AND SEARCH OF MERCHANT VESSELS

Basic rules

118. In exercising their legal rights in an international armed conflict at sea, belligerent warships and military aircraft have a right to visit and search merchant vessels outside neutral waters where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are subject to capture.

119. As an alternative to visit and search, a neutral merchant vessel may, with its consent, be diverted from its declared destination.

120. A neutral merchant vessel is exempt from the exercise of the right of visit and search if it meets the following conditions:

(a) it is bound for a neutral port;
(b) it is under the convoy of an accompanying neutral warship of the same nationality or a neutral warship of a State with which the flag State of the merchant vessel has concluded an agreement providing for such convoy;
(c) the flag State of the neutral warship warrants that the neutral merchant vessel is not carrying contraband or otherwise engaged in activities inconsistent with its neutral status; and
(d) the commander of the neutral warship provides, if requested by the commander of an intercepting belligerent warship or military aircraft, all information as to the character of the merchant vessel and its cargo as could otherwise be obtained by visit and search.


Diversion for the purpose of visit and search

121. If visit and search at sea is impossible or unsafe, a belligerent warship or military aircraft may divert a merchant vessel to an appropriate area or port in order to exercise the right of visit and search."

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument


Do provide som hard facts about the Israeli action that would render it into an act of "piracy".

An absolute condition is that you provide links to the treaty in question, and why that one, rather than the two cited, is proper intenational law in view of the armed state of affairs existing between Israel and the Hamas regime.

 

[Pattonias]

How do you enforce a blockade if you warn someone you are going to use force to stop them and they refuse comply? What would the outcry have been if they fired a shot across the bow and the ship still refused to change course?

 

[Count Iblis]

Is it not considered an act of war for Ireland to deliberatly send a ship through another sovereign nations blockade without permission? In this event Ireland would be the aggressor. This would not be an act of "piracy" at all.

I'm sure that most countries think that Israel is the aggressor for imposing the blockade. The fact that until this incident, many countries have tolerated the Israeli blockade does not mean that they accept that Israel is within its rights to do this.

 

[arildno]

It is the other way around. Israel illegally challenged the sovereign rights of the Turkish and other nationals on board the ship. The whole blockade of Gaza is illegal and has been condemned by the UN. Enforcing any blockade is always an act of war in which you go beyond your sovereign rights anyway. In this case, the international community does not agree with Israel's arguments that the war-like state is necessary.

Then to have a situation in which you end up killing people when enforcing the blockade in a case where even the rejected arguments for the blockade do not apply, is completely unacceptable. This is why the whole world has strongly condemnded this action.

Even if it were true that the blockade was illegal (never mind the tiny little FACT that the other side, Hamas, has sworn to ANNIHILATE Israel, in its very charter, something sane persons regard as an automatic casus belli), it does NOT follow that everyyone has the legal capacity to attempt to break that blockade.

 

[Pattonias]

If the rest of the UN is not willing to forcefully say "Stop the blockade or else."; then they are being irresponcible in sending these unarmed civilians, under their flag, into harms way to make a point. What it comes down to is no one likes the blockade, but no one wants to tell them not to have one. Anyone that is harmed trying to run the blockade has no one to blame but themselves. They wanted Israel to blink and let them through. Israel didn't blink.

 

[Pattonias]

Of course, a direct challenge by respected countries to the blockade would open their own issues for the same criticism. They don't want that.

They don't want it, but that is what it is going to take. Israel has had enough. Whether we agree with it or not is not what they are concerned with. They are tired of dealing with Hezbollah and have taken these measures to deal with it. Unless we either talk them out of it or force them to stop, we are just beating the wind "condemning the event".

 

[Count Iblis]

it does NOT follow that everyyone has the legal capacity to attempt to break that blockade.

I don't think any country has recognized that the high seas fall under Israeli jurisdiction.

 

[arildno]

I don't think any country has recognized that the high seas fall under Israeli jurisdiction.

Nor does it fall under the jurisdiction of some rabble of peace activists, either.

What was your point again?

In particular, what treaty concerning armed conflicts that has relevance for legitimacy/illegitimacy of blockades&boarding has Israel broken?

Paragraph references and links obligatory.

 

[tiny-tim]

"Irish government reference to piracy"?

The Irish prime minister and foreign minister have warned Israel not to board the ship. This will be regarded as an act of piracy against Ireland.

I couldn't find any evidence of an Irish government reference to piracy on a google search.

Did you make it up?

If not, please provide a source.

 

[Count Iblis]

What they think, and the reality of the situation diverges in this case. Israel has the same rights as any sovereign nation, to defend its territorial waters, when the declaration to break a blockade has been made in international waters. You may not like that, but it's the law. Moreover, I find this selective outrage at Israel disingenuous when other players on the world stage commit greater atrocities against their OWN people. Your preferences and beliefs have no impact on realpolitik. If you do not like this, feel free to do something about it, but specious arguments and this outrage do not count.

It is not just my belief, but the belief of most of the world except mainly Israel. It is certainly not "the law" that would allow Israel to do this. Note that not only was this international waters, the territorial waters off Gaza are not part of Israeli sovereign territory either.


The outrage, also from Israel's strongest allies, is about the fact that people who by any reasonable measure cannot be said to have been posing an imminent threat to Israel were killed. That is unacceptable and the World will always strongly condemn such actions.

 

[Count Iblis]

I couldn't find any evidence of an Irish government reference to piracy on a google search.

Did you make it up?

If not, please provide a source.

I heard it on BBC radio half an hour ago.

 

[arildno]

It is not just my belief, but the belief of most of the world except mainly Israel. It is certainly not "the law" that would allow Israel to do this. Note that not only was this international waters, the territorial waters off Gaza are not part of Israeli sovereign territory either.
.

So you are nothing but an ignorant blatherboy, then, who cannot back up your claims of "illegality" by any known or signed treaties?

I have quoted extensively from both the London Declaration and the San Remo Manual, and nothing in those legal tools indicates anything wrong in Israel's conduct.

What are the laws YOU are guided by?

Those within your own fevered brain, perhaps?

Sorry, that's not good enough for the rest of us..

 

[mheslep]

An Irish ship "the Rachel Corrie" is now underway to Gaza.

True.

The Irish prime minister and foreign minister have warned Israel not to board the ship.

False

This will be regarded as an act of piracy against Ireland.

By who?

 

[Count Iblis]

So you are nothing but an ignorant blatherboy, then, who cannot back up your claims of "illegality" by any known or signed treaties?

I have quoted extensively from both the London Declaration and the San Remo Manual, and nothing in those legal tools indicates anything wrong in Israel's conduct.

What are the laws YOU are guided by?

Those within your own fevered brain, perhaps?

Sorry, that's not good enough for the rest of us..

What you quoted applies to conduct given that a blockade is imposed. It is of no relevance about the question of imposing a blockade in the first place.

It's a bit like saying that Saddam was in his right to impose all sorts of restriction in Kuwayt after he had occupied it. That doesn't mean that we should just accept the occupation and the restrictions that come with that.