Israeli forces storm Gaza aid ship, and beat people on board. Fatalities reported.

[Fedayn]

Apparently footage is gonna be released that shows the IDF getting a pretty horrific beating before retaliating. It's going to get messy.

This might already be common knowledge, just passing on something from a mate in the know.

It's already been on BBC 24 or Sky I think. Yes, some soldiers got a serious kicking....

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Typical jc behaviour really. Post a load of "controversial" (on urban) stuff then deny it and play victim. Very passive aggressive. The comparison with sas is very apt.

Arseholes, the pair of them.

 

[gavman]

You approach a police blockade, and as you approach, the police warn you via bullhorn to stop or they will shoot.

You hear them, but continue toward them. What conclusions can be drawn from your actions in continuing in the face of the warning?

you won't be bullied or intimidated by thugs with guns?

 

[DotCommunist]

I was slightly amused in a 'oh, get an education bruv' way at my bro wondering why the turks are kicking of so hard about this. He just doesn't know how international politics work ffs.

 

[gavman]

I haven't seen into the hold of that ship. Have you?

no, but they were thoroughly searched at their port of embarkation, if you'd read the thread

 

[Diamond]

Just to back up some of the stuff I wrote earlier...

This is the report that Melanie Phillips referred to:

http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/WP2006/DIIS WP 2006-7.web.pdf

It is prima facie credible and makes for interesting reading on the IHH and the wider nexus between Islamic charities and militant Islam.

This is the IDF recording with radio chatter from their onlookers:



Broadly it backs up the Israeli version of being attacked by the protesters.

More specifically it verifies Israeli claims that the soldiers were principally armed with paintball guns - at 1.01-1.03 on the recording you can clearly make out a the hopper of the paintball gun as the soldier levels his weapon.

This video appears to show roughly the same timeframe as the one above except from the angle of those on the deck - i.e. the initial moment of boarding:



It appears to show an Israeli soldier being stabbed, albeit with a small blade, possibly a kitchen knife. The general impression is of a melee.

A final point, there appears also to have been at least one activist who was recorded wearing a gas-mask while in and around the central scenes.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Just to back up some of the stuff I wrote earlier...

This is the report that Melanie Phillips referred to:

http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/WP2006/DIIS WP 2006-7.web.pdf

It is prima facie credible and makes for interesting reading on the IHH and the wider nexus between Islamic charities and militant Islam.

This is the IDF recording with radio chatter from their onlookers:



Broadly it backs up the Israeli version of being attacked by the protesters.

More specifically it verifies Israeli claims that the soldiers were principally armed with paintball guns - at 1.01-1.03 on the recording you can clearly make out a the hopper of the paintball gun as the soldier levels his weapon.

This video appears to show roughly the same timeframe as the one above except from the angle of those on the deck - i.e. the initial moment of boarding:



It appears to show an Israeli soldier being stabbed, albeit with a small blade, possibly a kitchen knife. The general impression is of a melee.

A final point, there appears also to have been at least one activist who was recorded wearing a gas-mask while in and around the central scenes.

And given that the boarding was entirely illegal this is supposed to prove what?

 

[gavman]

Eh.. what I do ??

I don't know enough about the substantive issues to comment on them but I noticed the attempted return of a banned poster and the eagle eyed picking off of them by a mod in the midst of the thread.

wasn't exactly the most substantive thing on this thread though....

 

[ChrisFilter]

It's already been on BBC 24 or Sky I think. Yes, some soldiers got a serious kicking....

Aha - apologies for the old news.

 

[DexterTCN]

Broadly it backs up the Israeli version of being attacked by the protesters.

I'm sorry....you're saying that...as the soldiers.... with guns and grenades and night vision and helicopters and military communications and gunships on either side and drones....as those soldiers dropped illegally onto an aid ship in international waters....and they killed more than a dozen people.....

they were attacked?

That's what you're saying?

 

[bingiman]

Did Sas get banned for questioning the standard line? I guess I'd better tread lightly.

No he got banned for being a dick

• Video: 'Israel is a Lunatic State' - Finkelstein on Gaza Flotilla Attack

 

[gavman]

Yes. You've got that right. The hard part is piecing together the back-story.

That will require some thought, and not simply the digestion of a thirty second sound bite, followed by the expected reaction.

go on then, bud
and let us know what you decide

 

[Diamond]

And given that the boarding was entirely illegal this is supposed to prove what?

As I've already set out, I don't disagree with the idea that the entire enterprise was down to Israeli actions, nor do I disagree that it was illegal.

But the picture is more complicated than it first appears and failing to acknowledge that weakens an understanding of the current situation.

 

[Dowie]

Are there any grounds under which the military of one country can search a ship flagged to another country under international law?

For example under what rules do the vessels used by Somali pirates get searched by the various ships in the international task force deployed there?

I'm not trying to compare the demonstrators to Somali pirates - I'm just presuming that the IDF was using the same rules/law as a basis for boarding the vessel (if such rules/laws exist)?

(also it seems that other navies from developed nations can deal with heavily armed pirates, confiscate their weapons and then release them without having to kill a dozen in the process.... whereas the IDF has an issue restraining itself even against a bunch of demonstrators armed merely with metal poles...)

 

[gavman]

Did Sas get banned for questioning the standard line? I guess I'd better tread lightly.

you don't need to tread lightly, just not equate those pissed off with the actions of the israeli state with those running the gas chambers in 1940's germany

everything else seems acceptable.....

 

[ChrisFilter]

I'm sorry....you're saying that...as the soldiers.... with guns and grenades and night vision and helicopters and military communications and gunships on either side and drones....as those soldiers dropped illegally onto an aid ship in international waters....and they killed more than a dozen people.....

they were attacked?

That's what you're saying?

That's what the reports are swinging towards.

 

[toggle]

you don't need to tread lightly, just not equate those pissed off with the actions of the israeli state with those running the gas chambers in 1940's germany

everything else seems acceptable.....

or post private messages

 

[Open Sauce]

article 42 of the un charter



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter



the view here has a probably a pro israel bias... but the guy is a lawyer: http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/3110

This UNHCR report decrees the blockade as a collective punishment, thus illegal so I don't think the above applies. He also claims

I am no expert in this field and I know that international law is open to interpretation. But here's an account posted anonymously

Additionally, Gaza is by all intents and purpose still occupied as Israel controls the borders, the sea and the air and as a occupying force has certain obligations to the citizens.

 

[Diamond]

Are there any grounds under which the military of one country can search a ship flagged to another country under international law?

For example under what rules do the vessels used by Somali pirates get searched by the various ships in the international task force deployed there?

I'm not trying to compare the demonstrators to Somali pirates - I'm just presuming that the IDF was using the same rules/law as a basis for boarding the vessel (if such rules/laws exist)?

(also it seems that other navies from developed nations can deal with heavily armed pirates, confiscate their weapons and then release them without having to kill a dozen in the process.... whereas the IDF has an issue restraining itself even against a bunch of demonstrators armed merely with metal poles...)

This is an interesting point. I was wondering about it earlier.

International law isn't really what everyone would like it to be, or necessarily how people expect it to be.

 

[gavman]

Forvgie me, Im not a military fetishist/ armchair general but Israeli commandos usually know what they are doing - I genuinely cant see that they panicked and lost it

the myth of israeli competence has long been thoroughly scotched

 

[bingiman]

Seems pretty clear to me. Some laughably incompetent Israeli commandos illegally boarded a Turkish flagged aid ship to prevent badly needed building, basic hygiene and medical supplies reaching some poor fucks the Israelis have been tormenting. They got their arses kicked by a bunch of guys armed with mop handles, panicked and started firing into the crowd.

They should stand trial in Turkey for their crimes.

Word

 

[ferrelhadley]

the myth of israeli competence has now been thoroughly scotched

Sharpville 2010

 

[little_legs]

This UNHCR report decrees the blockade as a collective punishment, thus illegal so I don't think the above applies. He also claims


Additionally, Gaza is by all intents and purpose still occupied as Israel controls the borders, the sea and the air and as a occupying force has certain obligations to the citizens.

from the link i posted earlier: http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/3110

Monday 31st May 2010
Gaza: What does International Law Say?The BBC has provided space on its website for readers to complain that the Israeli naval raid off Gaza was "piracy" because it took place in international waters. A rather better use of the page would have been a piece informing its readers of the position in international law.

I am no expert in this field and I know that international law is open to interpretation. But here's an account posted anonymously in response to this excellent piece. I have retained the US spellings, perhaps the only clue to the identity of the author, "George".

1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.

2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea. (Examples: USA blockaded Cuba, UK blockaded The Falklands, the EU blockaded Yugoslavia)

3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.

5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.

6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.

7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.

8. A State may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.

9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.

10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.

11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.

12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Are there any grounds under which the military of one country can search a ship flagged to another country under international law?

For example under what rules do the vessels used by Somali pirates get searched by the various ships in the international task force deployed there?

I'm not trying to compare the demonstrators to Somali pirates - I'm just presuming that the IDF was using the same rules/law as a basis for boarding the vessel (if such rules/laws exist)?

(also it seems that other navies from developed nations can deal with heavily armed pirates, confiscate their weapons and then release them without having to kill a dozen in the process.... whereas the IDF has an issue restraining itself even against a bunch of demonstrators armed merely with metal poles...)

Yes, if they're suspected of being pirates or slave traders. The ships in question were neither.

It would also have been legal if Israel were in a state of war with either Turkey or Gaza, but they claim not to be (if they were at war with Gaza, they couldn't be nearly as cruel and malicious towards their civilians due to the requirements of the Geneva Conventions)

 

[Diamond]

A point on the issue of competence.

The kicking that the commandos got was down to their strategy.

Specifically, they attempted to board the ship using paintball guns.

Having written that down, it reads back as farcical.

 

[Diamond]

Yes, if they're suspected of being pirates or slave traders. The ships in question were neither.

Is that the exact legal basis?

 

[Sesquipedalian]

A point on the issue of competence.

The kicking that the commandos got was down to their strategy.

Specifically, they attempted to board the ship using paintball guns.

Having written that down, it reads back as farcical.

LOL.

 

[bingiman]

A point on the issue of competence.

The kicking that the commandos got was down to their strategy.

Specifically, they attempted to board the ship using paintball guns.

Having written that down, it reads back as farcical.

Probably because it is not true...

Paintballs don't kill

 

[agricola]

article 42 of the un charter



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter



the view here has a probably a pro israel bias... but the guy is a lawyer: http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/3110

Did you even read that UN charter quote before you posted it? That authorizes a blockade when the Security Council decrees so.

As for the Rosenberg piece, it perhaps needs to be dealt with point-by-point:

1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.

Israel is not "in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime" - Gaza is still an occupied territory which Israel occupies in defiance of Security Council Resolution 242.

2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea. (Examples: USA blockaded Cuba, UK blockaded The Falklands, the EU blockaded Yugoslavia)

The Cuban blockade did not take place as part of an "armed conflict" and in any case happened before the US signed the UN Convention of the High Sea came into effect (20th March 1966). The Falkands exclusion zone took place after the invasion of the Falkland Islands and against the backdrop of an actual war. In nearly every case of a blockade, it has been by one state against another - not one state against an occupied part of itself.

3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

This is - emphatically - not what the UN Convention on the High Seas states.

5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.

This (and the following point) appears to be correct.

8. A State may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.

This, again, is not what the Convention on the High Seas states. No state has the power to seize a flag vessel in international waters except for the flag-nation.

 

[gavman]

How are people not getting the international waters bit? You are not allowed to board a vessel on such waters. It is straight up piracy. The ensuing massacre, which is what it was, is entirely the fault of the masked pirates.

i thought it was an act of war?
(pirates- non state actors
idf- represents the state of israel)