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

[Diamond]

My general sense is that the Israeli's are subtly and successfully conducting a highly sophisticated PR operation that is refocusing the news agenda on what they want.

The real issue isn't so much the point of attack but what happened in the minutes immediately after the footage released by the IDF.

They would rather the issue centers on what appears to be the logical starting point in all violence - who attacked who first.

They know that they are on relatively strong ground with regard to that.

The evidence persuasively shows aggression and pre-meditation on the part of the passengers thereby vindicating some of the Israeli claims.

However, the real issue must be the manner in which they retook the ship and the behaviour of their soldiers in the aftermath of the initial fracas.

None of the videos released so far record the time period after which the soldiers had been granted the authority to commence live firing.

In that period 9 people died.

Why did they have to continue shooting to such deadly effect?

 

[gavman]

Actually its not piracy, because the IDF were acting as the agents of a state and not on their own behalf.

so it's an act of war against turkey

 

[rocketman]

alright, so let me just skip the last 29 pages of pro and anti Israel drivel and let me just say:

Any cunt lands on my ship tooled up with guns from out a helicopter while I'm in international waters and frankly, for me at least, the party's on.

And food and medical supplies for Gaza IS a political issue. Decent Israelis understand this.

The rest of them?

*spits*

Thank you

 

[Open Sauce]

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...)

See my earlier post


A whole load of stuff on piracy on the link posted, also I don't think Somalia qualifies under "Article94 Duties of the flag State", so would be classed as "Article110 ... (d) the ship is without nationality;"

 

[Diamond]

Probably because it is not true...

Paintfalls don't kill

In the recordings released so far it appears that they were armed in that manner.

Their spokesman has explained to the Israeli media that they were armed with paintball guns. Their strategy was to employ anti-riot rather than military techniques.

They had holstered handguns which were only to be used upon direct authorisation and/or in the case of an immediate lethal threat.

They received that authorisation after the first team were overwhelmed.

A second team then descended onto the deck.

It is my guess that most of the shooting and most of the killers came from the second team.

I would be surprised if those from the first team were in much of a fit state to fire their weapons after the beating they took.

 

[agricola]

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?

No. What I am saying is that it appears to be clear that the IDF massively fucked up the raid captured on the film we have seen so far. They dropped, individually, soldiers armed with non-lethal weapons into a clearly armed (with bats, poles and whatnot) large and very angry mob and those soldiers proceeded to get the shit beat out of them. The Israelis then responded by opening fire, probably in somewhat justified acts of individual self-defence.

What I am not doing is defending the raid, indeed the way that it was carried out was absolutely appalling and directly led to the deaths that occured, and given that it happened in international waters means it was almost certainly illegal. The blame for it - and by it I mean everything, the deaths, the injuries to both the troops and the civilians - rests solely with the IDF.

 

[Sesquipedalian]

No. What I am saying is that it appears to be clear that the IDF massively fucked up the raid captured on the film we have seen so far. They dropped, individually, soldiers armed with non-lethal weapons into a clearly armed (with bats, poles and whatnot) large and very angry mob and those soldiers proceeded to get the shit beat out of them. The Israelis then responded by opening fire, probably in somewhat justified acts of individual self-defence.

What I am not doing is defending the raid, indeed the way that it was carried out was absolutely appalling and directly led to the deaths that occured, and given that it happened in international waters means it was almost certainly illegal. The blame for it - and by it I mean everything, the deaths, the injuries to both the troops and the civilians - rests solely with the IDF.

Nope.
That won't wash.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

All this Israeli propaganda is trying to obfuscate the basic fact of the matter, which was an (incompetent) Israeli attack on a NATO flagged ship in which their commandos were attacked by people trying to defend the ship and shot a bunch of them. Shooting people during the commission of a crime is not justified, no matter how threatened the criminals in question may feel.

 

[gavman]

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

exactly
or as a judge would say
'considering the initial action was unlawful did the authorities at any time cross back into lawful behaviour'?

or perhaps

'when authorities behave in an aggressive and arbitrary manner that threatens the life of an innocent party that individual or group have a duty to resist'

first quote is from summing up by circuit judge of a case where police had used the wrong law to conduct a traffic stop and confiscate our sound illegally

second quote from where a collective member was assaulted by police officers while in custody (and handcuffs)

 

[rocketman]

So, let me get this straight, Israel lands a bunch of commandos on a boat and then tries to say they were armed with ballooon launchers and flowers?

That's absolute bollocks, really, isn't it?

I mean, why bother dropping commando forces in the first place? WHy not drop a few Jesus lookalikes, if they wanted them killed?

It's all complete hogwash.

Yrs.
Angry of here.

 

[gavman]

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?

 

[agricola]

Nope.
That won't wash.

Sorry, but its true. This was handled appallingly.

 

[gavman]

No he got banned for being a dick

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

link broken / video removed

seems to be a lot of it about today

 

[little_legs]

@ agricola

i've read the article, yes. fine, i stand corrected. i assumed israel can use the past precedents and therefore justify its actions.

 

[gavman]

or post private messages

well that wasn't the post i reported, nor many others as far as i can tell

 

[Open Sauce]

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

Why did you post that..

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

It is just a C+P from someone that admits they have no idea about the law and the original poster did not leave their credentials.

What is being claimed in your link as that the boarding was legal because there was a blockade. I'd rather take the UN's POV on this that a C+P from someone that admits they don't know what they are talking about

Israel should end the blockade of Gaza, cease evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes, and ensure that the rights of children are respected and that all allegations of torture and ill-treatment are promptly investigated and perpetrators prosecuted

"In particular, the Government of Israel should allow unimpeded access to Gaza for humanitarian aid and the non-humanitarian goods needed for the reconstruction of properties and infrastructure,"

"Israel should also address effectively and immediately the water, sanitation and environmental crisis in Gaza,"

"Those heavy import restrictions, coupled with a near total prohibition on exports, have had a devastating effect on the Gaza economy. The blockade has also severely impaired the realization of a wide range of economic, social and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights."

Or this

UN has describes the blockade of Gaza as "collective punishment"

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

In times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities, and is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions.

So, no, I think an anonymous C+P from the Internet that tries to claim the blockade legitimises the boarding of a ship in international waters does not work when the blockade itself is deemed a war crime by the UN.

 

[Sesquipedalian]

Sorry, but its true. This was handled appallingly.

Sorry,but i don't believe you.
This was a deliberate act of aggression,
By the terrorist State Of Israel.

Save your apologies for the relatives of the dead.

 

[jcsd]

Fuck Israel. They just sank to a new depth of depravity

 

[little_legs]

i don't follow, what anonymous c+p you are referring to?

 

[DexterTCN]

No. What I am saying is that it appears to be clear that the IDF massively fucked up the raid captured on the film we have seen so far. They dropped, individually, soldiers armed with non-lethal weapons into a clearly armed (with bats, poles and whatnot) large and very angry mob and those soldiers proceeded to get the shit beat out of them. The Israelis then responded by opening fire, probably in somewhat justified acts of individual self-defence.

Yeah but when you say 'probably in somewhat justified acts of individual self-defence.' you're not talking about in any legal or moral sense...you're talking about in a fascist sense...as you use military control to force illegal compulsion to a corrupt state's desires...that kind of 'justified'? Jusfied in that the military murderers are suddenly just people as well?

That kind of 'self-defence'....where you are an army with guns against civilians carrying aid? And some of you get a kicking while murdering?

( bit sarky but there's so many posts here...who cares)

 

[1%er]

So, no, I think an anonymous C+P from the Internet that tries to claim the blockade legitimises the boarding of a ship in international waters does not work when the blockade itself is deemed a war crime by the UN.

Indeed, Israel claimed at the UN that they acted with-in the law, using the blockade as the legitimacy for their actions.

It was pointed out to them at the UN that the blockade is illeagle and therefore cannot be used to legitimise their actions

 

[Open Sauce]

i don't follow, what anonymous c+p you are referring to?

Christ, you didn't even read the link that you posted, even they second time around...


Note, this is what you posted...

Monday 31st May 2010
Gaza: What does International Law Say?
...

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".

Your legal expert, despite admitting he doesn't have a clue, cut and pasted an number of points posted anonymously to the comments section to Melanie Phillips blog.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

A nice line in innuendo, blaming the victims and arguing they knew what was coming so can't complain.... Nice.... real nice...

You can draw those conclusions if you want. What I said was

1) I wasn't there, so I can't know all the details. As a result, I'm engaging in conjecture, as are you.

2) In responding to a reply from the editor about the victims not wanting to be killed, I conjectured that given the fact that other in this struggle have chosen to commit suicide via bombs, in furtherance of the cause, it's not outside the realm of possibility that some individuals on that ship were prepared to die in furtherance of the cause. I said that this theory has some support from the fact that the ship proceeded in spite of repeated warnings from the Israeli military, which isn't known for making hollow threats. The legality of the boarding aside, once the warnings were issued, it can be taken as a given that the boarding will in fact happen.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The boarding was clearly illegal though, which means that the key argument is that criminals shooting people while committing a crime are acting illegally, no matter how threatened they may feel.

 

[little_legs]

Your legal expert, despite admitting he doesn't have a clue, cut and pasted an number of points posted anonymously to the comments section to Melanie Phillips blog.

he did, motherfucker. i honestly thought it was his expert view.

 

[dylans]

link broken / video removed

seems to be a lot of it about today

Here it is

Israel wanted to show the Arab states that it was capable of behaving like a mad dog lunatic state. These actions were premeditated and designed to restore fear of Israel in it's neighbours. It is now a lunatic state armed with nuclear weapons.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Just to clear up the legal position

Also taken from the site someone helpfully linked to above

There's a rule I live by when it comes to authorities like the cops, who as you know, are armed here. That rule is that if it's late at night, and some cop is being pushy with me, and he's probably overstepping his authority and maybe even breaking the law, my responses will be civil, and I'll do what he tells me to do. The reason is, he has a gun, it's late at night. He has all the power, I have none.

The right place to respond to his transgressions, is at a court or tribunal, with a lawyer by my side, to help level out the balance of power.

Late at night on the high seas, with searchlights playing over the deck, and commandos rapelling down ropes, isn't the time to try and decide matters of international law.

 

[gavman]

and in criminal law that exacerbates their actions, rather than justifying them

e2a @ bernie

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

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

Yes, they showed the bullies, and they were shot.

 

[rioted]

i am trying to say that idf acted like the fucking pirates. piss off.

I don't think even the fucking Somali pirates managed that number of casualties in one go! Nothing like.