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

[Count Iblis]

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?

Yes, but that's a problem for the country that enforces the blockade. What I mean is that if you are really in a war then this question never becomes a problem. It only becomes a problem if there is no real war and false arguments are used to justify the blockade. Then a bluff is called when the blockade is challenged.

The reason why there is a blockade is not because of some big military threat to Israel. Israel wants to remove Hamas from power. I'm certainly not a fan of Hamas at all, but the reality of the military situation is that Hamas is enforcing a cease fire, acting against mlitant groups who fire missiles. If Fatah were to rule Gaza there would likely be more missile firings as they would rule in a less authoritarian way. But then Israel would then not raise that issue anymore as they want a weak Palestinian leadership that they can manipulate better.

 

[arildno]

1. Again, you ASSUME, and declare that the blockade was "illegal". By what treaty is it deemed as such?

2. Furthermore, even if the blockade WAS illegal by some treaty, where is it written that a self-appointed group is entitled to break it, and, if they are NOT such entitled, why it would be illegal for the illegally blockading power to stop such an unentitled group.

So, for the THIRD time:

Where are your treaties?

 

[tiny-tim]

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.

I heard it on BBC radio half an hour ago.

Oh, how convenient!

Well, I was listening to BBC radio at the same time, and I heard no such thing.

And a site-specific google search for "rachel corrie" and "piracy" on the BBC website reveals no such Irish government statement.

 

[Count Iblis]

...even if the blockade WAS illegal by some treaty, where is it written that a self-appointed group is entitled to break it, and, if they are NOT such entitled, why it would be illegal for the illegally blockading power to stop such an unentitled group.

Plain logic. Suppose Iran imposes an illegal blockade on Hawaii and I'm in my sail boat traveling to Hawaii. Are you saying that I'm not entitled to sail to Hawaii?

 

[Count Iblis]

Oh, how convenient!

Well, I was listening to BBC radio at the same time, and I heard no such thing.

And a site-specific google search for "rachel corrie" and "piracy" on the BBC website reveals no such Irish government statement.

BBC world service on 648 khz AM. It was a statement made in the interview, not an official government statement.

 

[russ_watters]

Count Iblis, you need to start backing up your claims with citations of facts.

 

[Count Iblis]

Anyway, perhaps instead of arguing ourselves based on our own interpretation of international law and treaties, why not find any official government statement (not from Israel) that says that Israel was 100% correct in the way they acted.

Because governments ultimately decide on how to interpret international law, what is appropriate action and what is not.

 

[mheslep]

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.

Israel's population is ~7.5 million, with a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Population_Growth_Rate". If the gross dollar numbers are correct, then Palestinians have received more per capita. I'd grant that much of that money/aid never reached the man on the street due to the pocket-lining leadership of Arafat.

 

[Evo]

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.

That's not a valid mainstream source.

 

[Pattonias]

Yes, but that's a problem for the country that enforces the blockade. What I mean is that if you are really in a war then this question never becomes a problem. It only becomes a problem if there is no real war and false arguments are used to justify the blockade. Then a bluff is called when the blockade is challenged.

.

Well that is it in a nut shell then isn't it? These people called Israel's bluff and it turned out they weren't bluffing. Didn't it?...
Israel will maintain their "bluff" as long as no country of suitable strength either threatens to break up the blockade themselves or levies sanctions against them that are bad enough they can't afford to maintain the blockade. Enough with the "illegal", "legal" argument. They are only being judged in the court of public opinion right now. Nowhere else.

 

[EnumaElish]

Some things never change. Some issues just get people, and others seem to fly right under the radar. I'll listen to what Turkey has to say when they remember where they put 1 million Armenians...

We must never forget -- and not do onto others what we don't want done to ourselves.

 

[drankin]

We must never forget -- and not do onto others what we don't want done to ourselves.

It's just that some do not look at others as people and act accordingly.

 

[Hepth]

Some new video has been released.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4223683/new-flotilla-video-released

Basically the video is of the approaching IDF boat alongside the flotilla vessel. The IDF personnel are, I BELIEVE, constantly firing paintballs (you can hear the pops). The flotilla people are throwing bars, chains and stun grenades down into the IDF's boat, while hosing them down with a few fire hoses.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Some new video has been released.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4223683/new-flotilla-video-released

Basically the video is of the approaching IDF boat alongside the flotilla vessel. The IDF personnel are, I BELIEVE, constantly firing paintballs (you can hear the pops). The flotilla people are throwing bars, chains and stun grenades down into the IDF's boat, while hosing them down with a few fire hoses.

Hm, interesting. Any info released on which boat this is?


Geiger: Hold it. Are you accusing people who are not pro-Israel of being antisemitic?

 

[zomgwtf]

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

read my post a few posts back. People need to stop thinking that international waters means something in this situation. Really now it's been brought to attention I think 5 times in this thread.

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.

They acted intentionally inflammatory? By boarding a ship with PAINTBALL guns as their primary weapon? Give me a break Porton they could have just shot the ship down, you do know that right? Instead they boarded the ship, with weapons only intended to control crowds, and continued with their REQUESTS.
These people on the ships were acting intentionally inflammatory, in my opinion, by not recognizing the Israeli/Egyptian blockades imposed and attempting to undermine the situation.

You don't agree with the blockades? Fine. That's your opinion it probably means next to nothing to the Israeli's, and I personally don't think the majority of people on these forums should be formulating opinions over Egypt and Israels blockade since none of them know what life is like over there. If you want to go out a try to have the blockade stopped I would suggest against trying to undermine the entire thing and against attempting to take on the Israeli military unless you are properly armed yourself. If you follow through with these types of plans don't be surprised when you get boarded and when people on the ship attempt to excessively attack military personal that bullets with LIVE ammunition, gets fired and people really do die. I'm juts going to take this moment to point out the AMOUNT OF RESTRAINT shown by the Israeli forces, there are videos on the web showing them shooting paintballs and attempting to control the crowds EVEN WITH THEIR MEN GETTING TOSSED OVERBOARD! 10 people died? The ones that survived should be thankful that the military showed such restraint.

This is the real world. Welcome to it.

Now what's going to come from this attack from the international community? Probably nothing really. Nations will probably just say 'hey chill out with the killing over there'. Ohhhh, I bet they have Israeli's shaking in their boots now. The fact of the matter is that Palestine, as it stands currently, poses a much greater threat to Israeli citizens then pretty much the entire collection of first world nations. The nations of the world just want Israeli to let up on the blockade, Palestinian government wants to eliminate Israel.

 

[EnumaElish]

Some new video has been released.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4223683/new-flotilla-video-released

Basically the video is of the approaching IDF boat alongside the flotilla vessel. The IDF personnel are, I BELIEVE, constantly firing paintballs (you can hear the pops). The flotilla people are throwing bars, chains and stun grenades down into the IDF's boat, while hosing them down with a few fire hoses.

What happened to the good old days of broadside collisions and use of http://www.livius.org/cn-cs/corvus/corvus.html to board a naval vessel?

 

[Hepth]

I actually don't know what the IDF is trying to do in the video. I can't tell if there's a megaphone and they're saying anything. They don't look like they're boarding. They just sort of stay along side the ship. I assume they were probably awaiting orders to board or whatnot.

 

[zomgwtf]

Some new video has been released.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4223683/new-flotilla-video-released

Basically the video is of the approaching IDF boat alongside the flotilla vessel. The IDF personnel are, I BELIEVE, constantly firing paintballs (you can hear the pops). The flotilla people are throwing bars, chains and stun grenades down into the IDF's boat, while hosing them down with a few fire hoses.

This was the video I was talking about in my earlier post, I had skipped a page it seems when I responded to the posts and missed this one lol.

Anyways you can CLEARLY see from this video that the 'activists' are aggressive towards the soldiers. Yet the soldiers were just firing paintballs back ! How some people are playing this out as a 'deadly boarding by Israeli commandoes' is beyond me.

These idiots thought that they could undermine the blockade imposed and that Israel would just allow them to go through. WRONG Israel is NOT ****ing around they DO mean business and they WILL **** your **** up if you mess with them.

As for the question about the Iran blockade off the coast of Hawaii. That's laughable.

First of all: Iran would never be able to impose a blockade on Hawaii. Americans would just sail on over there and that would be the end of that.

However! IF Iran had been able to impose such a blockade on Hawaii and you tried to sail through it they are OBLIGATED to stop you. They are not allowed to allow you get through or else the blockade is undermined and IT IS ILLEGAL. If they continually stop people from going through then BAM it is a LEGAL blockade as set out in international law which was posted in page 2 I think by tiny.

Now a blockade is considered to be AN ACT OF WAR! So the fact that Israel is imposing a blockade on Gaza means NECESSARILY they are at war. It's NOT 'fake' or 'made-up' or whatever the heck count-iblis was trying to point out. This is a REAL war there is nothing fake or made up about it. They really mean business as is exemplified by their boarding and stopping of this floatilla. If they let the ships go through then any further action by this same blockade would be deemed illegal by international law.

Now a question! Has an inventory of supplies on the ships been made public yet? I'm just asking because people have claimed here they had no weapons... but I haven't found any source to verify this claim. I'm finding it kind of 'sketchy' that they had stun-grenades... why?

 

[Pattonias]

I wonder if you are found to have an "illegal blockade" if the international police will pull over your navy and write you a ticket?

 

[zomgwtf]

AHARON LESHNO-YAAR (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said the recent events were tragic and unfortunate, and Israel regretted any loss of life. Foreign nationals were being treated and repatriated. The Gaza Strip was controlled by the Hamas terrorist group, which in its Charter sought to obliterate Israel as a land and people, and indiscriminately attacked Israeli land and citizens on a daily basis. For this reason, Israel imposed a maritime blockade to impede the importation of war material into the Gaza Strip. Free access to Gaza would impede Israel from protecting its citizens from terrorist attacks. No State could put itself before such a reality. The threat to Israel's peace and security was constant and real - just yesterday, two more rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip. International law allowed for such a maritime blockade, and allowed Israel to proscribe technical agreements to ensure that nothing was transferred to others besides the civilian population. The ships involved were invited several times to dock at Ashdod and transfer their goods through established security procedures. All overtures were rejected outright. This so-called freedom flotilla was political in nature, and clearly intended to break the blockade. Five of the six ships were peacefully intercepted and brought to the port of Ashdod. The use of iron bars, knives, and Molotov cocktails against the Israeli forces, as well as the presence of gas masks and bullet-proof vests, were evidence of the intent of the flotilla. With regard to the detainees captured, Israel was in adherence with international law, and was currently in the process of releasing all detainees. The world should not lose sight of the objective - how to empower Palestinians and Arab moderates and advance the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, regretted having to call for a vote on this draft resolution. The United States had already engaged in discussion and was working with partners to ensure that the event would be appropriately addressed. The United States condemned the acts that had resulted in the loss of life and expressed its condolences to the families. The United States believed that it was important to conduct an independent and impartial investigation and that there were several ways to do so. The situation in Gaza was unacceptable and unsustainable and the United States would continue to ensure the flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza while keeping in mind Israel’s legitimate security concerns. The only solution to the conflict in the Middle East was dialogue. Unfortunately the resolution before the Council rushed on a set of facts which were only starting to be understood and so risked further politicising the situation. The United States had an obligation to consider the facts and called for a vote.

BOUDEWIJN J. VAN EENENNAAM (Netherlands), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, deplored the loss of lives and the violence and urged that a full enquiry by Israel should be undertaken. It was still to be determined if the United Nations had a role to play in this investigation. The Human Rights Council should not go over and beyond the course of action recommended by the Security Council. The Netherlands wanted to see more consensus on this issue and regretted that the majority of the proposals made by the European Union were not incorporated by the sponsors of the resolution. That was the reason for which the Netherlands would vote against the resolution.

About a vote by the UN Human rights council... seems to me like the vote was pretty useless. None of the 'big countries' voted in favor and most abstained, mostly because they noted that the council is overstepping it's boundaries and because of what was specifically stated in the text.

These are the countries that supported it:
Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa, and Uruguay.

In my opinion, big deal. All the countries that actually matter to Israel are requesting an investigation into the situation. I think most of this has to do with the politics of the situation... people died from various countries. So they can't be like 'we support you killing people' else it'll look bad on them.

However! I'm not afraid to be an ******* and I will say that these people fully deserved to die. Their actions are not defendable in anyway... 5 of the ships went peacefully... They were requested to follow normal procedures AND Israel forces showed immense restraint prior to killing 10 people. HUNDREDS get to go back home. Give me a break.

I am willing to bet ANY amount of money that Israel would HAPPILY trade places with the majority of countries that condemn its actions. What they should do is trade places with Turkey or whatever, put all the Turkish citizens in Israel and vice versa. They shouldn't tell the Palestinians though. Then they should have Turkey end the blockade, without the Palestinians knowing it wasn't the Israelis there. See what comes of it. I'm willing to bet that attacks begin and the Turkish people start to die and eventually fight back. It'd be a good experiment IMO.

 

[zomgwtf]

I wonder if you are found to have an "illegal blockade" if the international police will pull over your navy and write you a ticket?

Well the Security Council, which you want on your side, would be against you. You would be commiting war crimes, which isn't good when the Security Council is against you... and you would face the consequences. As well I'm pretty sure the people invovled would now be internationally wanted criminals, although we've seen how ineffective that system is.

 

[Flat]

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

I am interested to see how Israel handles this. Has Israel made any statements regarding this?

 

[Pattonias]

I am interested to see how Israel handles this. Has Israel made any statements regarding this?

I wonder if anyone on this boat will attack the commandos when they begin to board the ship? Somehow, I think they may be more cautious.

 

[zomgwtf]

I wonder if anyone on this boat will attack the commandos when they begin to board the ship? Somehow, I think they may be more cautious.

Indeed, I think the same thing will happen. Israel is not messing around I don't see what people don't understand about this. The ship will either go peacefully or it will get boarded. Maybe the soldiers will show even more restraint if they get attacked but I'm somewhat skeptical.

If I were Israel, and I had no repercussions to take from the developed nations I would torpedo said boat and kill everyone involved. That should set a pretty good precedent of don't push me again.

People are acting like this is some sort of game to Israel. It's far from... I mean like LOL LETS SEND ANOTHER BOAT! That's not a really mature or smart way of dealing with the situation. Like I said before I'm sure Israel would gladly exchange geographical locations with any country, including Ireland. Who thinks the Irish would want to be in that area of the world?

All they have to worry about really is to remember their keys when they leave the house to go to work. Israel ends the blockade and the people have to worry about being close enough to the bomb shelters at all times in the day. Or worry about if when they go back to home if their home is still even there.

 

[Jack21222]

Evo:

I find it interesting you claim my sources aren't valid, but you say nothing to the people who don't have any source and just make up "facts" out of thin air. I guess that is preferable.

 

[Pattonias]

I imagine that if they tried to run the blockade, the Israelis would board the ship with more soldiers at one time and would use much more effective crowd control methods than paintballs. The one thing I think we can criticize Israel for is not having a more thought out escalation of force. To go from paintballs to live rounds as the next step was not a good idea. I imagine whoever was in charge of the boarding operation won't be running the next one.

They should have had tear gas, sand bags, stun guns, and low-velocity rubber bullets at the ready. Not to mention some of the new sound suppresion tech that is in common use by the cruise industry. These non-lethal weapons are seriously more dangerous than paintballs. (I've played paintball myself, and apart from sucking to get shot they didn't really make me stop playing all together.)
Perhaps people would still get hurt, but at least Israel would look better on the International level. I doubt they'll make the same mistake twice. A sand-bag gun can put someone in the hospital, but at least they'll be alive.

 

[zomgwtf]

I imagine that if they tried to run the blockade, the Israelis would board the ship with more soldiers at one time and would use much more effective crowd control methods than paintballs. The one thing I think we can criticize Israel for is not having a more thought out escalation of force. To go from paintballs to live rounds as the next step was not a good idea. I imagine whoever was in charge of the boarding operation won't be running the next one.

They should have had tear gas, sand bags, stun guns, and low-velocity rubber bullets at the ready. Not to mention some of the new sound suppresion tech that is in common use by the cruise industry. These non-lethal weapons are seriously more dangerous than paintballs. (I've played paintball myself, and apart from sucking to get shot they didn't really make me stop playing all together.)
Perhaps people would still get hurt, but at least Israel would look better on the International level. I doubt they'll make the same mistake twice. A sand-bag gun can put someone in the hospital, but at least they'll be alive.

They apparently did escalate the amount of force which included stun-grenades. Maybe that's how the people on the ship got a hold of them? They just caught them and threw them back? I'm not sure exactly how stun grenades work but maybe it's possible?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...ia_ow=t0:s0:a49:g43:r2:c0.153846:b34565242:z0

 

[zomgwtf]

Evo:

I find it interesting you claim my sources aren't valid, but you say nothing to the people who don't have any source and just make up "facts" out of thin air. I guess that is preferable.

If you want sources for claim then ask. Don't make a blanket statement like this. You posted a source and Evo said it wasn't mainstream, that's her call. If a person makes a claim and you want a source you ask for it (Normally if it's something controversial or not well-known it gets posted in the first place but people do forget when they are stating their opinions mixed in with fact) the source will then under go the same scrutiny that yours just did...

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The interesting question to me is WHY one of the boats displayed such aggressive behaviour when it was not apparent in the rest (and was as far as I can discern not the purpose of the trip, rather the opposite). Was it planned in advance that one of the boats would act aggressive? Was it some sort of internal pact between the people on that boat? Or did just the wrong people end up together?

 

[Pattonias]

The interesting question to me is WHY one of the boats displayed such aggressive behaviour when it was not apparent in the rest (and was as far as I can discern not the purpose of the trip, rather the opposite). Was it planned in advance that one of the boats would act aggressive? Was it some sort of internal pact between the people on that boat? Or did just the wrong people end up together?

Good question. I think it was all those things. The intent of the group was to break the blockade, not just take in supplies. It wasn't necessary to send in all the ships to make their point. The responce could have been worse as well if the IDF had to stop multiple ships. Measure the responce if you have a single person shove a police officer or you have a mob bum rush them.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Fair enough, but I can't see how using improvised weaponry against armed soldiers is going to accomplish either of those. I find it difficult to connect the Ship to Gaza intentions with the violent actions of the people on board, seeing as their goal was to break the blockade with non-violence. I think that by looking at the participants it is clear that far from all of the members were extremists, at least in the violent sense.

The only thing that I can think of would be that they would have exploited this in order to gain martyrdom, but it seems awfully elaborate, in particular seeing as all of them ended up on the same boat. It just doesn't add up to me.

 

[Pattonias]

It could have had a lot to do with some misconceptions about the rules just like we have them in here. They may have thought they had a right to defend their ship against boarding by any means. They probably didn't realize that the IDF had the right to take the ship by any means as well.

 

[zomgwtf]

It could have had a lot to do with some misconceptions about the rules just like we have them in here. They may have thought they had a right to defend their ship against boarding by any means. They probably didn't realize that the IDF had the right to take the ship by any means as well.

They do have the right to defend their ship. They just didn't bring big enough iron-bars.

 

[mheslep]

This should be good for some more turmoil. VP Joe "what's the big deal here?" Biden just http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensm..._Israel_Whats_the_big_deal_here.html?showall":

"I think Israel has an absolute right to deal with its security interest. I put all this back on two things: one, Hamas, and, two, Israel's need to be more generous relative to the Palestinian people who are in trouble in Gaza," Biden said, according to a transcript of the interview, in which he went on to discuss Hamas's control of Gaza:

"[The Israelis have] said, 'Here you go. You're in the Mediterranean. This ship -- if you divert slightly north you can unload it and we'll get the stuff into Gaza.' So what's the big deal here? What's the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza? Well, it's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping eight -- 3,000 rockets on my people,'" Biden said

Well that's a mildly different take.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Well, at the least, (presuming that is accurate), that confirms the intention being to break the blockade.

 

[Count Iblis]

I wonder if anyone on this boat will attack the commandos when they begin to board the ship? Somehow, I think they may be more cautious.

NATO has already warned Israel. Although Ireland is not a NATO member, if Israel were to prevent the ship from moving to Gaza, this will likely trigger NATO to step in more forcefully. I.e. the next ship to violate the Israeli blockade could e.g. be a French war ship bringing aid (like building materials, cement etc., that Israel does not currently allow in) to Gaza. There is then no way Israel could stop that. Also any argument that the ship is carrying weapons from militants would be a non-starter.

 

[zomgwtf]

NATO has already warned Israel. Although Ireland is not a NATO member, if Israel were to prevent the ship from moving to Gaza, this will likely trigger NATO to step in more forcefully. I.e. the next ship to violate the Israeli blockade could e.g. be a French war ship bringing aid (like building materials, cement etc., that Israel does not currently allow in) to Gaza. There is then no way Israel could stop that. Also any argument that the ship is carrying weapons from militants would be a non-starter.

I do not believe that would occur, this would be seen as an act of war against Israel from France. I don't think France would declare war on Israel in order to break the blockade, that's just stupid.

I honestly do not see NATO doing anything what-so-ever to stop the blockade other than by urging talks between the two nations.

I think the fact that the world is putting so much attention on this is rediculous. I mean in Sudan right now you have huge milias taking children raping them, killing some, and making the rest into child soldiers. Then they send them to attack the other militias or sometimes govn't forces. Some how this doesn't make it into the news even though it's a MUCH larger humanitarian crisis. Gaza gets aid, a large number of Sudanese people do not get aid and what they do get is very little. (SO many have been purposely starved to death in attempts at genocide)

How the world can turn a blind eye to this tribal warfare going on in a country yet they can pay so much attention to a country DEFENDING itself in an ACTIVE warzone is beyond me.

I think more people die in Africa after a pastor claims they are a witch than have died in Palestine the last year as a direct cause from Israel.

 

[zomgwtf]

Athough this news report is biased I think it depicts the situation on the boats perfectly.

The commandoes were equipped with handguns but were told they should only use them in the face of life-threatening situations. When they came down from the chopper, they kept on shouting to each other “don’t shoot, don’t shoot,” even though they sustained numerous blows.

In this report it shows a commando claiming that he saw a rifle pointed at them as well an activist had a pistol which he wrestled away from a commando after dropping him out of the ship. There is a video of this actually... I saw it on the news last night CityTV, at 11pm (i think that was the time). So their story seems pretty close to what we actually see in the videos... right along with the speedboat that wasn't mentioned in any other reports I've seen.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/05/jihadis-brutal-ambush-in-jewish-soldiers-at-sea.html

 

[EnumaElish]

Like I said before I'm sure Israel would gladly exchange geographical locations with any country, including Ireland.

Really? Oh, it must be the British who forced Israel to settle there. Are you sure you aren't typing faster than you can think?

 

[zomgwtf]

Really? Oh, it must be the British who forced Israel to settle there. Are you sure you aren't typing faster than you can think?

Well, you'd have to bring along their holy locations too I guess. My point is that they would gladly get rid of their neighbour in exchange for another. I guess I should have put it that way instead...

As an aside Britain did have a lot to do with the creation of Israel actually. I wonder what it felt like being a Jew, having survived the holocaust, yet no country wants you. I think Canada took 1000 Jews, good job Canada! That brought a huge increase in population of Jews to Palestine which ended up in riots and I'm sure you know the rest (Since British rule was around this is how Britain was involved a lot)

 

[mheslep]

NATO has already warned Israel.

NATO has issued no warning to Israel; this is blatant misinformation. The extent of NATO's Sec. Gen. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-7B10CA1D-56F8C464/natolive/news_63983.htm?mode=pressrelease" was to express regret 'over the loss of lives', and 'call' for investigations.

 

[Evo]

Evo:

I find it interesting you claim my sources aren't valid, but you say nothing to the people who don't have any source and just make up "facts" out of thin air. I guess that is preferable.

That link is not an acceptable source. Anyone can throw up a website and claim that they have no bias.

We only allow well known mainstream sites.

I've yet to see any source that was non-biased.

For example, we know Fox news is biased to the right. We know Huffington Post is biased to the left. At least when it's a well known mainstream site, members can view the information knowing the bias.

 

[Hans de Vries]

However! I'm not afraid to be an ******* and I will say that these people fully deserved to die. Their actions are not defendable in anyway... 5 of the ships went peacefully... They were requested to follow normal procedures AND Israel forces showed immense restraint prior to killing 10 people. HUNDREDS get to go back home. Give me a break.

If I were Israel, and I had no repercussions to take from the developed nations I would torpedo said boat and kill everyone involved. That should set a pretty good precedent of don't push me again.

Your ******* stands for extremist ? The Irish government doesn't
seem to agree with your ****** viewpoint:

Meanwhile, Ireland's leader warned that the Irish government was watching the fate of the 'Rachel Corrie' very closely.

"If any harm comes to any of our citizens, it will have the most serious consequences," Prime Minister Brian Cowen said.

The Rachel Corrie, called after an American activist who died protesting Israeli actions, had been left behind the main flotilla in Cyprus for repairs and is only now approaching Gaza.

On board the boat is an aid cargo of cement, medical equipment (including a CT scanner) printing paper, schoolbooks and toys.
The ship, which was bought by the Irish Free Gaza Movement and refitted after it was abandoned in port at Dundalk, County Louth, is now heading for a showdown with the Israeli navy.

But Irish Foreign Minister Micheal Martin confirmed to the Irish parliament that he had received no undertaking from Israel that the 'Rachel Corrie' would be given safe passage.

"In terms of the 'Rachel Corrie', we have received no assurances other than that the ambassador has conveyed to us that the Israeli government does not want conflict or confrontation with the 'Rachel Corrie'. So one would hope that a different mindset will prevail," he said.

Martin warned the Israeli government he would take "appropriate diplomatic action" if the ship was not allowed through.

"We will be watching this situation very closely and it is imperative that Israel avoid any action which leads to further bloodshed," he said.

Prime Minister Brian Cowen reinforced the message by saying Israel "did not have a leg to stand on" and warned there would be "serious consequences" if the Irish crewmembers of the 'Rachel Corrie' were harmed.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Ir...e-with-Israeli-navy-near-Gaza--95400359.html"

"Ireland's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Micheal Martin, has accused Israel of "essentially kidnapping” seven Irish citizens who were aboard the Gaza bound aid flotilla.
...
"These people did not enter Israel illegally. They were essentially kidnapped from international waters, taken into Israel, and asked to sign documents confirming that they entered illegally. That is unacceptable,” said Martin."

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Israel-accused-of-kidnapping-seven-Irish-citizens-95306729.html

Cement, A4 paper and toys are all on the list of forbidden
goods which are blocked from import to Gaza imposed by
military force, as are chocolates, musical instruments,
donkeys and goats.

http://www.economist.com/node/16264970

The donkeys and goats can be used to transport Iran's army
from Gaza to Europe and beyond while the chocolates can be
used to energize the solders and musical instruments can be
used for combat stimulation.

At least that's what one might conclude from Netanyahu's speech,
where he claims that the real intention of the activists is to help
prepare an attack on Europe by Iran using the Gaza strip. He is
proud that his solders helped to avoid this...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898256,00.html

It must be true since I have trouble finding another good reason
of using military to enforce an import ban of chocolate, potato
chips, vinegar and so on. Certainly they wouldn't do that just to
harass and bully the Palestinian population, would they?

Civilized, grown up persons with a bit of self respect don't do
things like that, don't they? especially not when you want some
respect for your home country from the international community.

Netanyahu should make his point clear to the NATO however
because they seem to be pretty pissed off and had an "extraordinary
meeting to discuss the recent Israeli operation against ships bound
for Gaza"

 

[Proton Soup]

Your ******* stands for extremist ? The Irish government doesn't
seem to agree with your ****** viewpoint:



http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Ir...e-with-Israeli-navy-near-Gaza--95400359.html"

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Israel-accused-of-kidnapping-seven-Irish-citizens-95306729.html

Cement, A4 paper and toys are all on the list of forbidden
goods which are blocked from import to Gaza imposed by
military force, as are chocolates, musical instruments,
donkeys and goats.

http://www.economist.com/node/16264970

The donkeys and goats can be used to transport Iran's army
from Gaza to Europe and beyond while the chocolates can be
used to energize the solders and musical instruments can be
used for combat stimulation.

At least that's what one might conclude from Netanyahu's speech,
where he claims that the real intention of the activists is to help
prepare an attack on Europe by Iran using the Gaza strip. He is
proud that his solders helped to avoid this...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898256,00.html

It must be true since I have trouble finding another good reason
of using military to enforce an import ban of chocolate, potato
chips, vinegar and so on. Certainly they wouldn't do that just to
harass and bully the Palestinian population, would they?

Civilized, grown up persons with a bit of self respect don't do
things like that, don't they? especially not when you want some
respect for your home country from the international community.

Netanyahu should make his point clear to the NATO however
because they seem to be pretty pissed off and had an "extraordinary
meeting to discuss the recent Israeli operation against ships bound
for Gaza"

many of those prohibitions seemed designed to thwart any sort of stockpiling of food, self-reliance, industry, permanence, etc. others just seem there to demoralize them.

i find it odd that Peter Beinart's article came out just before this warning that they were slipping too far to the right and that fascism was on the rise in israel.

 

[Proton Soup]

If Ireland does not want their citizens to be harmed, they shouldn't send civilians to break a blockade. For the rest, a blockade doesn't have to be "guns and ammo", in fact pressuring and demoralizing a population can be part of it. You may not like that, but it is not unusual. Realpolitik again, like it or not. Casting Israel as heroes or villains, or the Palestinians as cultists or underdogs is simplistic and misses decades of history. Far uglier things are happening around the world, yet notice seems to pass them by. The bottom line is that Israel is an effective proxy for US interests, and unless that changes they have as close to carte blanche as it gets.

By the way, how has the wall and blockade done in terms of keeping attacks down? Seems to be working, and keeping Hamas and Hezbollah contained.

i think the ultimate goal of the israeli government now in power is ethnic cleansing of the area and jewish resettlement there. effective proxy or not, the current US administration is not playing along. a lot of israelis are very unhappy about that, too. it'll be interesting to see what happens. i imagine nothing much for the next couple years, and a concerted effort by groups like AIPAC to seat a republican candidate.

 

[russ_watters]

What shocks me, is that Israel is not known for bluffing; surrounded as they are such a thing cannot be afforded.

Indeed, the risky but successful no-negotiation policy on airplane hijackings from the '80s is evidence of that.

So...

The interesting question to me is WHY one of the boats displayed such aggressive behaviour when it was not apparent in the rest (and was as far as I can discern not the purpose of the trip, rather the opposite). Was it planned in advance that one of the boats would act aggressive? Was it some sort of internal pact between the people on that boat? Or did just the wrong people end up together?

The very nature of the effort by the activists was intentional confrontation, so the real questions are what they thought would happen when they tried to run the blockade and how far they were willing to go to do it. There's two schools of thought on this. Either the protesters were very smart or very stupid. While I have a serious disdain from such activists and have seen incredible stupdity from them, it is hard to me to believe that with the resources required to make the effort that stupidity could have dominated. But the reality may have just been that confrontation was desired and passion took the confrontation to violence. Either way, though, the result was a positive one for the movement: publicity and knee-jerk anti-Israel reactions.

The issue for the Israelis is far more complicated. Here's a pretty even-handed editorial on it: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-06-02-editorial02_ST_N.htm

You can take your pick of who was more to blame for the deadly shipboard clash Monday between Israeli commandos and pro-Palestinian activists. In practical terms, the argument hardly matters. By opting for an assault on the six-ship convoy trying to break a 3-year-old blockade of Gaza, Israel handed its opponents a victory they could not have achieved by other means and simultaneously left itself, the United States and the struggling Mideast peace process with a huge problem...

The truth is more complicated. The activists' stated core mission — delivering humanitarian aid — was by definition peaceful. But it is also undeniable that they sought a confrontation. What else would one expect of an attempt to break a military blockade? If the organizers didn't plan on a violent ending, they or some on board certainly could not have missed the potential benefit in such an outcome...

To be sure, the commando raid was not the Israelis' initial response. Israel issued warnings and offered to let the vessels land in Israel and have the supplies shipped to Gaza. And granted, too, that keeping weapons out of the hands of Hamas was legitimate cause for establishing a blockade. Israel has every right to protect itself from its enemies.

Given the existential threat Israel faces, you can understand why it does such things. But that doesn't make the strategy smart.

There is, though, a smart solution to the current impasse. Israel should allow humanitarian aid into Gaza on the condition that cargo first be inspected for weapons. Palestinians should accept that restriction. The United States and United Nations should try to ensure its enforcement.

That approach will take time, if it can succeed at all. In the interim, Israel, for its own sake, had better come up with a new plan before the next flotilla arrives.

The problem with the USA Today solution and the criticism of Israel's response is that the reality is that Israel is in this alone. The US's economic support is just money and the political support (such as it is right now) is just talk. We have no real risk here, nothing at stake if Israel gets overrun by terrorists or nuked by Iran. As a result, people look for simple, easy, painless solutions to a problem that has none.

USA Today's solution doesn't look altogether different from what the Israelis are already doing and just as the Israelis can't just open the floodgates, the opponents of Israel have nothing to lose by confrontation (no, the death of a few activists is not really a loss, it is a win for the activists).

 

[zomgwtf]

The problem with the USA Today solution and the criticism of Israel's response is that the reality is that Israel is in this alone. The US's economic support is just money and the political support (such as it is right now) is just talk. We have no real risk here, nothing at stake if Israel gets overrun by terrorists or nuked by Iran. As a result, people look for simple, easy, painless solutions to a problem that has none.

USA Today's solution doesn't look altogether different from what the Israelis are already doing and just as the Israelis can't just open the floodgates, the opponents of Israel have nothing to lose by confrontation (no, the death of a few activists is not really a loss, it is a win for the activists).

Agreed completely.

 

[Hans de Vries]

You could see it coming in advance: The "provocation" will be stopped at any cost...

Israel's foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said the country was prepared to stop the flotilla "at any cost." He called the aid mission a provocation and urged the international community to show understanding for the tough response. "We really have all determination and political will to prevent this provocation against us," he said. "I think that we're ready at any cost ... to prevent this provocation." Military officials said an initial group of gunships went out to sea Friday to prepare for the flotilla's arrival.

Avigdor Lieberman, Russian ultra nationalist and his controversies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#Controversies

Russian language election video for his nationalist party Yisrael_Beiteinu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="660" height="525"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nWHaeIvXyEM&hl=en_US&fs=1&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nWHaeIvXyEM&hl=en_US&fs=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="525"></embed></object>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yisrael_Beiteinu

Irish ship Rachel Corrie was sabotaged by Israeli intelligence says report

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Ir...sraeli-intelligence-says-report-95425309.html

During his briefing on the operation to the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Colonel Itzik Turgeman hinted that the IDF had sabotaged the engines of the other five ships, saying that "they took care of them."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...ael-gradually-becoming-burden-on-u-s-1.293540

 

[arildno]

I see that absolutely NOONE has been able to refer to any treaties by which:

a) Israel's blockade is illegal

b) Further restrictions are laid upon a blockading power's rights to board neutral vessels than those given by the London Declaration and San Remo Manual

c) That Israel in any way has violated either the San Remo Manual or the London Declaration.



But, some people are so noble of mind and pure of heart that every sentiment they feel ought automatically be recognized as binding, international law (except by evildoers, of course).

 

[arildno]

Plain logic. Suppose Iran imposes an illegal blockade on Hawaii and I'm in my sail boat traveling to Hawaii. Are you saying that I'm not entitled to sail to Hawaii?

State structures possesses the right to exert violence. You don't, except in cases of unavoidable preservation of life.

Since you can avoid threats to your own life by not sailing to Hawaii, that is the course you should choose.