Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

“So, to recap what seems thus far to be the central claim of Israel apologists: Israel is the official Owner of international waters (which is where the flotilla was when it was attacked). As such, they have the right to issue orders to ships in international waters, and everyone on board those ships is required to obey and submit. Anyone who fails to do so, or anyone in the vicinity of those who fail to do so, can be shot and killed and get what they deserve.

What’s so odd about that is that the U.S. has been spending a fair amount of time recently condemning exactly such acts as “piracy” and demanding “that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their crimes.” When exactly did Israel acquire the right not only to rule over Gaza and the West Bank, but international waters as well? Their rights as sovereign are expanding faster than the BP oil spill.

[...]

Thus, there are at least 10-20 dead passengers and 50-60 wounded on those ships—compared to no Israeli fatalities and virtually no wounded—but it’s the passengers, delivering humanitarian aid in international waters when Israel seized their ships, who are the aggressors and were “attacking Israeli sovereignty.” The only thing worse than this claim is how many apologists for Israel will start parroting it”.

Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone 1958
PART I. TERRITORIAL SEA
SECTION III. RIGHT OF INNOCENT PASSAGE
Subsection A. Rules applicable to all ships
Article 16.

Article 16
1.The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is
not innocent.
2. In the case of ships proceeding to internal waters, the coastal State shall also have the right to
take the necessary steps to prevent any breach of the conditions to which admission of those ships to those waters is subject.

Thus, there are at least 10-20 dead passengers and 50-60 wounded on those ships—compared to no Israeli fatalities and virtually no wounded—but it’s the passengers, delivering humanitarian aid in international waters when Israel seized their ships, who are the aggressors and were “attacking Israeli sovereignty.” The only thing worse than this claim is how many apologists for Israel will start parroting it”.

. The Israelis don’t seem to grasp that Western militaries don’t get to murder large numbers of civilians because they don’t like them, or because they could, on a far tinier scale, hurt Israelis. And you sure don’t have a right to kill them because they resist having their ship commandeered, in international waters. The Israelis seem to be making decisions as if they can get away with anything. It’s time the US reminded them in ways they cannot mistake that they cannot.

Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone 1958
PART I. TERRITORIAL SEA
SECTION III. RIGHT OF INNOCENT PASSAGE
Subsection A. Rules applicable to all ships
Article 16.

Article 16
1.The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is
not innocent.
2. In the case of ships proceeding to internal waters, the coastal State shall also have the right to
take the necessary steps to prevent any breach of the conditions to which admission of those ships to those waters is subject.

Hamas authorities on Tuesday refused to receive aid and supplies to the Gaza Strip through Israel, stressing that Israel must first free pro-Palestinian campaigners who were onboard an aid flotilla.

Israel can send aid that Gaza flotilla had carried to the coastal enclave "only if the shipments are complete and when Israel release all activists who were onboard the ships, Ziad Al- Zaza, Hamas' Minister of Economy, told Xinhua.

"The priority is to release the detained activists," Al-Zaza added.

On Monday, the Israeli navy stopped five of the vessels that were en route to Gaza to defy a three-year-old Israeli blockade, killing nine international activists and forcing the ships that carried 10,000 tons of aid into its sea ports.

Today, Israel allowed part of the aid, which originally included construction materials and medical supplies, to Gaza through one of its land crossing points, but Hamas refused to let that shipment in, witnesses told Xinhua.

desertdudeshj wrote:
Collective punishment under the geneva convetion is illeagal, thus trying to breach a illegal blockade is not illegal. And again the flotilla was in interntional waters and attacked which atleast equates to atleast piracy or a Act of war.

And lets believe G's argument for the sake of argument

RobbyG wrote:Listen, I know they could have handled it differently, but thats a different type of discussion as far as I'm concerned. However, the way they behaved and dealt with the situation on deck was appropriate and merely self defense. You might wanna check those video's again. You need a visual update my friend.

RobbyG wrote:As for emotion, I will share you mine: Ofcourse those Israeli's are cocksuckers that need to let aid pass through to Gaza. The people need it for f@ck sake. G-damn Israeli bastards.

event horizon wrote:Interesting development: Hamas does not want the aid

Hamas authorities on Tuesday refused to receive aid and supplies to the Gaza Strip through Israel, stressing that Israel must first free pro-Palestinian campaigners who were onboard an aid flotilla.

Israel can send aid that Gaza flotilla had carried to the coastal enclave "only if the shipments are complete and when Israel release all activists who were onboard the ships, Ziad Al- Zaza, Hamas' Minister of Economy, told Xinhua.

"The priority is to release the detained activists," Al-Zaza added.

On Monday, the Israeli navy stopped five of the vessels that were en route to Gaza to defy a three-year-old Israeli blockade, killing nine international activists and forcing the ships that carried 10,000 tons of aid into its sea ports.

Today, Israel allowed part of the aid, which originally included construction materials and medical supplies, to Gaza through one of its land crossing points, but Hamas refused to let that shipment in, witnesses told Xinhua.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001 ... 08237.html

If Hamas doesn't want the aid, then perhaps Israel can donate the aid to the poor Arabs of Yemen. Great idea, no?

event horizon wrote:Interesting development: Hamas does not want the aid

Hamas authorities on Tuesday refused to receive aid and supplies to the Gaza Strip through Israel, stressing that Israel must first free pro-Palestinian campaigners who were onboard an aid flotilla.

Israel can send aid that Gaza flotilla had carried to the coastal enclave "only if the shipments are complete and when Israel release all activists who were onboard the ships, Ziad Al- Zaza, Hamas' Minister of Economy, told Xinhua.

"The priority is to release the detained activists," Al-Zaza added.

On Monday, the Israeli navy stopped five of the vessels that were en route to Gaza to defy a three-year-old Israeli blockade, killing nine international activists and forcing the ships that carried 10,000 tons of aid into its sea ports.

Today, Israel allowed part of the aid, which originally included construction materials and medical supplies, to Gaza through one of its land crossing points, but Hamas refused to let that shipment in, witnesses told Xinhua.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001 ... 08237.html

If Hamas doesn't want the aid, then perhaps Israel can donate the aid to the poor Arabs of Yemen. Great idea, no?

symmetric wrote:and yet ur vagina never bothered to open and say anything about it.

Gaza: From blockade to bloodshed

06.01.2010 | The Guardian

Nothing has done more to establish Israel’s status as a pariah state among its neighbours than the actions of its armed forces
If an armed group of Somali pirates had yesterday boarded six vessels on the high seas, killing at least 10 passengers and injuring many more, a Nato taskforce would today be heading for the Somali coast. What happened yesterday in international waters off the coast of Gaza was the work of Israeli commandos, not pirates, and no Nato warships will in fact be heading for Israel. Perhaps they should be.

Nothing has done more to establish Israel’s status as a pariah state among its neighbours than the actions of its armed forces. Israel’s navy said it met with “pre-planned violence” when it boarded the ships and opened fire in the middle of the night. Their intention was to conduct a mass arrest, but the responsibility for the bloodshed was entirely theirs. Having placed themselves in a situation where they lost control and provoked a riot, the Israeli navy said they were forced to open fire to avoid being lynched. What did the commandos expect pro-Palestinian activists to do once they boarded the ships – invite them aboard for a cup of tea with the captain on the bridge? One of those shot and severely wounded was a Greek captain, who refused medical aid in Israel and demanded to be flown back to Greece. Presumably he, too, was threatening the lives of Israeli naval commandos.

There was nothing on board those ships that constituted a threat to Israel’s security, so Binyamin Netanyahu’s argument that his troops were acting in self-defence has no validity. They should not have been there in the first place. The convoy was carrying construction materials, electric wheelchairs and water purifiers for Gaza’s people. This was recognised by the Israeli navy, who said in a statement that it had offered to transfer the aid by land to Gaza. Four years into a blockade mounted ostensibly to prevent weapons from being smuggled into the enclave, this claim, too, is utterly specious. Two years of pressure from Washington failed to persuade Israel to let these construction materials in, for the benefit of the 5,000 families still in tents after the ruin wreaked by Operation Cast Lead. If Israel was so obdurate to the entreaties of its ally, why would it now acquiesce in the demands of its enemies? The fact is that Israel has used its blockade not only to prevent Hamas from rearming, but also to impose collective punishment – as a boot which it applied to the Palestinian throat. This pressure on the jugular has the opposite of its intended effect. Defiance has only grown in Gaza, and the Islamic resistance movement is reaping the benefits – as any Fatah man will admit.

In one operation Israel has destroyed whatever hold it had over the international community on Gaza. It is not simply the fury that it has created in Turkey, which will only grow as the bodies of its dead are buried. Egypt too is complicit, because its government has sealed the southern border of the Gaza strip. It has done so amid mounting popular opposition, and as a nervy transfer of power in Cairo is about to take place. The Egyptian government will not welcome the intense embarrassment that Israel has caused it. There were many calls yesterday for the siege to be lifted, notably from Britain’s new foreign secretary William Hague. After what Nick Clegg, his coalition partner wrote in this newspaper about Gaza last year, he could hardly do otherwise. But as Mr Clegg said, it is action, not words, that counts now.

The blockade should end, but that will only be the start of the U-turn which is now required. Closely allied to Gaza’s physical isolation is its political one. The international consensus is also crumbling on isolating Hamas by insisting it recognise Israel before it is allowed to join a national unity government with Fatah. Russia broke the taboo first two weeks ago when its president, Dmitry Medvedev, met Khaled Meshal, the Hamas leader in Damascus, but other countries in Europe are now planning to follow suit. Brick by brick, this policy is coming apart, and in a strange way Israel is helping.

RobbyG wrote:Haha, nice try. I never saw Israeli's as victims. To the contrary, they could use a good asskickin' as I said earlier.

But next to the emotional aspect of justice, lets consider factual justice. The protestors started the violence. The Israeli's behaved rather professional in their way of handling this. Its sad that their model didn't work perfectly.
Keep trying mate. Emotion and reality are two different things.

Berrin wrote:

But we have a moral obligation to support the Jewish people from a humanitarian perspective.
If only the Arabs were tolerant in 1947.

You must be in twilight zone.in that case your moral obligation should be with arabs couse before 1947 there was a palestine belong to palestinians until british started to tear it apart.

Misery Called Life wrote:

RobbyG wrote:Haha, nice try. I never saw Israeli's as victims. To the contrary, they could use a good asskickin' as I said earlier.

But next to the emotional aspect of justice, lets consider factual justice. The protestors started the violence. The Israeli's behaved rather professional in their way of handling this. Its sad that their model didn't work perfectly.
Keep trying mate. Emotion and reality are two different things.

Alrit I've read this whole thread in detail, at the expense of work...f*k that should have just been a journo instead....will DF pay us?? I promise to be impartial and fair

Anywas Rob I have to now admit, your argument is biased and so is flawed....
Purely on legal terms Israel was wrong to have even boarded the floatilla. Strategically they may have had valid reason, but that is an entirely separate argument which should be held on another thread.

So the net result is what Israel did was:

a) illegal - according to maritime law
b) stupid - given that they played right into the hands of violent militants
c) immoral - because if they had had an inkling of this, they should have put the safety of peaceful activists first (especially, as they didn't have to board the ship to stop it or turn it around)

RobbyG wrote:a) I disagree, a raid in International waters is allowed when ships deny cooperation and have intention to proceed to internal waters. I clearly pointed that out in the documents.

desertdudeshj wrote:G you keep quoting this, Do you even know what this means ?

Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone 1958
PART I. TERRITORIAL SEA
SECTION III. RIGHT OF INNOCENT PASSAGE
Subsection A. Rules applicable to all ships
Article 16.

Article 16
1.The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is
not innocent.
2. In the case of ships proceeding to internal waters, the coastal State shall also have the right to
take the necessary steps to prevent any breach of the conditions to which admission of those ships to those waters is subject.

Hear Lemme help you

Article 16
1.The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its TERRITORIAL sea to prevent passage which is
not innocent.

Territorial waters = Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea[1], is a belt of coastal waters extending at most twelve nautical miles from the baseline

Meaning a state is well with in its rights to do whatever when the vessel is in its TERRITORIAL waters

2. In the case of ships proceeding to INTERNAL waters, the coastal State shall also have the right to
take the necessary steps to prevent any breach of the conditions to which admission of those ships to those waters is subject.

desertdudeshj wrote:
The Flotilla was NOT in TERRITORIAL waters. Told you to get a refill mate

RobbyG wrote:@MCL: You are right MCL, I'm being a little biased as a devils advocate.
a) I disagree, a raid in International waters is allowed when ships deny cooperation and have intention to proceed to internal waters. I clearly pointed that out in the documents.

b) Stupid I agree, but where does the line end for Israel? Soon the whole worlds wants access to Gaza without inspection...That way, Israel is compromising its own safety. At least its consistent. Don't fark with Israeli's. It has its romance. lol

c) I fully agree. But then again, the convoy could have agreed to dock at Ashdod port. Instead they like provocation. In essence, they called upon the consistency of Israel to get corrected. It wasn't necessary.

Its a warzone people. Its not Club Med, or is it?

RobbyG wrote:I know that. My point is, that the intentions of the Mavi Marmara where to cross the blockade that Israel has imposed on Gaza. That means that the ship is intended to proceed to internal waters per 1994 agreement shown earlier. In my opinion, that gives Israel the right to take the necessary step to PREVENT that.

I agree with you that the document talks about Territorial seas. But who controls the blockade? Whos territory is it in that case?

Don't bite on this one too hard. The investigation will point out who is right. And I am never to proud to say I was wrong. In that case, you get an apology for all the efforts you been doing to debunk what I said.

One can't be right all the time.