Iron Edge
Iron Edge => Off Topic Discussion => Topic started by: Karga on September 13, 2010, 10:21:55 am
-
i was not expecting the host to be so Judgemental, but the guy did very well.
U want to hear about the Israelic blockade, the inhuman acts, try this video.
Edited to remove Karga's pointless last sentence. Let's try a thread without hate speech, yeah?
-
I think most of the EU thinks that Israel is quite fucked up. I have no problem with jews and I am not an antisemite.
But I am an antizionist.
-
I did 15 minutes! That's enough, I think.
It's interesting to see his body language. She definitely puts him on the back foot.
-
I don't really understand why people keep ignoring the fact that a state harrassed, boarded and murdered civilians inside an unarmed humanitarian ship in international waters. He mentions this twice but she completely ignores it. Not taking a stand against this simply scary, it is accepting that there is no international law but the law of the strong.
Israeli arguments are so weak I was suprised that there were people supporting it. By the same logic pirates have right to kill passengers and loot everything if passengers try to defend themselves.
I am also sceptical about boarding. I am sure one of the world's most trained and technologically advanced military force knows that sending a single troop in the middle of a mob with makeshift clubs isn't the best solution. There are so many different ways of disarming the passengers it doesn't really make sense.
-
Shall we try to avoid speculation about what those armed forces did or did not do?
The Turkish sympathisers will claim the Israelis started it. The Israeli sympathisers will say those on the ship started it.
Makes almost no sense to have that argument without the video tape (which Israel should release!)
-
Looks to me like another case of some country being a dick. Not the first time it's happened that's for sure. As long as America supports Israel, which it will continue to do as it wants to establish a foot in the middle east, Europe and the rest of the world can't do shit. We sent aid, Israel said no, we do nothing about it. GG Israel.
-
Looks to me like another case of some country being a dick.
Can you be a little more general please.
-
Well Turkish sympathisers don't need to prove who attacked first because they actually have right to attack armed people who board their ship, that is part of self defense. If they were in Israeli waters then that would be important. Also all the videos and photographs on the ship were forcefully taken (and an unarmed photographer was killed by a headshot) so we can never know what actually happened.
The whole event is handled in a such bad manner it would end in a government resignation in a normal western democracy. Only logical assumption is whole event being a show of power to the whole world and saying they can't do shit.Which is a common communication style of agressive military states.
-
Who started it is kinda meh. They boarded a civilian ship in international waters.
Who started the fight after that is another matter, they had no right to board them.
-
Looks to me like another case of some country being a dick.
Can you be a little more general please.
Sorry.
Looks to me like another case of something being a dick.
-
I understand the 'International waters' argument, but does it really matter?
If they had boarded them once they crossed into Israeli/Palestinian waters, would everyone be siding with the Israelis, or what? :P
-
They could have been a bit more diplomatic:
Hey guys you are trespassing get our or we board you!
Ok you are ignoring us then we are gonna throw you out with force.
Instead of basically kidnapping an entire ship full of people from international waters.
-
Don't avoid the question!
What would've happened if they did it in Israeli waters?
-
Im not a contrafactual history writer, but I do think they would have made a better case if they had given them the chance to get out of israely territory. Since its every countries right to defend their own territory.
I'll admit that the chance of them ignoring their warnings and ending in the same situation is quite high and that they really wanted a confrontation to show the media that israel are baddies.
-
there is no international law but the law of the strong.
There is NO law that is not the law of the strong. The weak cannot impose laws on the strong, because they cannot enforce it.
-
Grax -- it's just a silly situation with no real right answer. They could have made a 'better case', but can you really make a better case for attacking an (apparent) aid ship?
I don't think the location is important.
As you say, I think it's much more down to a) Israel being very aggressive and not caring enough about public image, and b) that aid ship surely wanted publicity.
Give some refugees some rice, and they'll feed themselves for a day -- give the world a reason to hate Israel, and you'll feed those refugees for an entire lifetime!
-
What would've happened if they did it in Israeli waters?
More death.
(activists got what they had coming).
Non passive resistance and beating/stabbing the boarding party-> bulletholes in the face.
Also, the two commando's who were actually shot by activists were shot by a different ammo type then that they use themselfs = those treehuggers had guns on board.
-
a quick google on maritime law:
According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994:
SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
NOTE: the San Remo Manual is not a treaty, but considered by the ICRC to be reflective of customary law.
Also, on piracy: the definition of piracy under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, section 101, is clear that piracy can only occur where there are “illegal acts of violence or detention” that are “committed for private ends.” Israeli actions were legal under the law of armed conflict (as evidenced by the San Remo Manual) and in any event, were not committed for private ends. Anyone using the term piracy to describe the Israeli action is clearly not aware of international law on the subject.
Here’s the bottom Line:
•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.
•Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.
•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.
•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.
•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.
•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.
•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.
•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.
•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.
•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.
•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.
•Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the “protesters” and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.
-
It was all going so well until the end, where it throws in unsubstantiated hearsay... :)
The international law bits sound good, though!
Still sounds like bigger military force gets to set the rules, though. 'We want to make a blockade' + the power to enact that blockade = International laws now allow you to stop any ship from going through your blockade?
-
It confirms that if this is indeed international law, it is defined by the strong.
Israel doesnt accept palestine territories they make settlements on palestinian territories.
They claim to be at war with a country that they dont acknowledge and thereby are able to make a legal blockade.