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.