View Full Version : Turkey has announced they will send another flotilla to Gaza escorted by Turk Navy
Spur_Fanatic
06-02-2010, 05:55 PM
Interesting part, that of the ICS.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 06:07 PM
I think the blockade is legal too...
ElNono
06-02-2010, 06:16 PM
Even if Israel violated the article, there's no enforcement mechanism ... Our laws always provide a remedy for breach, i.e. jail. That's obviously harder to do with laws international in scope. The point being: why the fuck does israel care if it breaks international law?
It cares because it damages his position internationally. Don't forget they already had tense relation with Turkey, one of their biggest trading partners, since they instated the blockade. Now you also have a multitude of countries putting pressure to remove the blockade entirely. It also matters because Israel is one of the countries pushing for economic sanctions against Iran for breaching international law. Respecting and enforcing international law is in Israel's best interest.
And believe me, we will have another situation like this, and I expect Israel to have learned from this and approach the situation differently (even though the actual result would be the same, boarding the ship).
It cares because it damages his position internationally. Don't forget they already had tense relation with Turkey, one of their biggest trading partners, since they instated the blockade. Now you also have a multitude of countries putting pressure to remove the blockade entirely. It also matters because Israel is one of the countries pushing for economic sanctions against Iran for breaching international law. Respecting and enforcing international law is in Israel's best interest.
And believe me, we will have another situation like this, and I expect Israel to have learned from this and approach the situation differently (even though the actual result would be the same, boarding the ship).
I don't think I was clear--I meant: why would Israel care from a legal standpoint? It's not like it will suffer UN sanctions for killing those 10 people.
What you identify are more public relations-y/political concerns. They're probably valid, but not that significant in the end. It broke the law, but it also knows there's no real punishment for doing so. From a legal standpoint, it can break the law all it wants with basic impunity.
jack sommerset
06-02-2010, 06:27 PM
Hopefully when Israel boards the ship the activist won't beat them with metal rods, chairs and throw them overboard. Let them do their job and make sure there are no weapons. Pretty simple unless..............
ElNono
06-02-2010, 06:37 PM
I don't think I was clear--I meant: why would Israel care from a legal standpoint? It's not like it will suffer UN sanctions for killing those 10 people.
What you identify are more public relations-y/political concerns. They're probably valid, but not that significant in the end. It broke the law, but it also knows there's no real punishment for doing so. From a legal standpoint, it can break the law all it wants with basic impunity.
But there are significant consequences. Isolating yourself from the rest of the world does have tangible economic impact (be it in trade, military, etc). Furthermore, if it escalates into actual conflict (ie: the title of this thread), then it also becomes a security concern.
It also puts allies in a very uncomfortable position. Take the US, who is an ally of both Israel and Turkey, a NATO member.
Those ships are going to keep on coming. That's what the protest is about.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 06:40 PM
Hopefully when Israel boards the ship the activist won't beat them with metal rods, chairs and throw them overboard.
Let hope so. Let's also hope no more civilians have to die or Israeli soldiers have to get hurt.
But there are significant consequences. Isolating yourself from the rest of the world does have tangible economic impact (be it in trade, military, etc). Furthermore, if it escalates into actual conflict (ie: the title of this thread), then it also becomes a security concern.
It also puts allies in a very uncomfortable position. Take the US, who is an ally of both Israel and Turkey, a NATO member.
Those ships are going to keep on coming. That's what the protest is about.
We're talking past each other. There is no legal consequence to breaking international law. There are plenty of other consequences (like what you identify), but there's no legal remedy.
And absent a legal remedy, you got to wonder how much the Israeli government cares. Their obsession with their homeland seems to be a much higher priority than concern for international perception.
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 07:11 PM
Why don't you ask the 10 dead citizens how they feel about the illegal boarding?
It's obvious you haven't been keeping up.
Only 9 were killed.
I hate the fact that violence broke out and people were both dead and hurt.
Avoided? How. Let's assume the ships continued on, disrespecting the order to go to the requested port. They keep heading to Gaza. What's next, when the reach the 12 mile limit? Do you want to see the ships sunk when the refuse to listen to Israel, and keep traveling to Gaza?
This could have been entirely avoided.
Yes, if the people on the ship had just followed instructions. I see it as only being worse if Israel didn't board the ship.
This blockage is recognized by the UN isn't it? Israel isn't the only one actively supporting it. So is Egypt.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 07:17 PM
We're talking past each other. There is no legal consequence to breaking international law. There are plenty of other consequences (like what you identify), but there's no legal remedy.
There are. The Security Council has enforced sanctions before. From their sanctions committee site:
The range of sanctions has included comprehensive economic and trade sanctions and/or more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, financial or diplomatic restrictions.
Those are actual legal remedies from breaking international law/resolutions/treaties.
I don't really see the council attempting any of that with Israel in light of the US influence, and the fact that Israel has been on the other side of the table as victims many times.
And absent a legal remedy, you got to wonder how much the Israeli government cares. Their obsession with their homeland seems to be a much higher priority than concern for international perception.
Oh, I agree with that. But I think this was a clear example of why they do have to be careful. Eventually, a lot of diplomacy has to do with perception. Avoiding international incidents if possible is not only wise, it's simply a no-brainer.
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 07:18 PM
1) Israel had no right to board turkish ships in international waters (not without permission of Turkey). Turkey is rightfully pissed.
2) Funnily enough, the turkish crew is permitted to defend itself (in international waters) when agressed (for example, same applies when Somalian pirates attack your ship in international waters...)
1) It was not a turkish ship. The [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara]Mavi Marmara] is a Comoros-flagged ship. Most of the passengers were Turkish. I doubt the crew was.
2) They didn't defend themselves. They were the attackers.
My God.
You cannot get simple facts strait.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 07:24 PM
It's obvious you haven't been keeping up.
Only 9 were killed.
Did you ask them how they feel about being dead?
Avoided? How. Let's assume the ships continued on, disrespecting the order to go to the requested port. They keep heading to Gaza. What's next, when the reach the 12 mile limit? Do you want to see the ships sunk when the refuse to listen to Israel, and keep traveling to Gaza?
You don't have to assume anything. You simply have to inform yourself by reading the last two pages. Here's your chance. You don't even have to read the entire thread.
Yes, if the people on the ship had just followed instructions. I see it as only being worse if Israel didn't board the ship.
They're civilian protesters that broke no known law. Why should the follow any instructions? Do you do everything you're told to do, especially when you're protesting?
This blockage is recognized by the UN isn't it? Israel isn't the only one actively supporting it. So is Egypt.
The UN actually called for the blockade to end and they did as part of requesting a cease fire between Israel and Hamas. The UN also recognizes the blockade to be legal, and so do I, IMO. The blockade is being enforced by both Egypt and Israel, although due to yesterday's incidents Egypt temporarily opened up a checkpoint, and a limited amount of people went both ways through it today.
But the ships were not in the declared blockade zone nor in it's vicinity (at least at the time they were boarded), so the point is really moot.
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 07:26 PM
No, McCarthy was wrong, and provably so. McCarthy accused so many people that some of them were bound to be actual communists.
The problem for McCarthy's conspiracy theory is that it collapsed under its own weight, just as the 9-11 truth movement has.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4199607
Pfft. Only a fellow conspiracy theorist would find validation in McCarthy's claims.
OMG...
You really got that wrong. First of all, McCarthy only focused on communists agents in the State Department, and he was right. It was the democrats who did the Red Scare, then with the help of their friends in the media, put it all on McCarthy's lap. McCarthy was vocal enough about communists in the government, that it stuck. However, once the Venona Project was declassified in the 90's, it proved McCarthy right, and he is now vindicated.
Please show me the connections between McCarthy and the HUAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Committee_on_Un-American_Activities) and the Hollywood Blacklist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist). Start a new thread please if you can find anything he did wrong to the American Public like the HUAC did.
Lawyers would disagree. Compare 110 with other sections from the Preamble, like 111(8): Where a ship has been stopped or arrested outside the territorial sea in circumstances which do not justify the exercise of the right of hot pursuit, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been thereby sustained.
The italicized section provides a remedy -- legal damages. If you're wondering what happens for certain violations of Art. 111, you have your answer: money damages.
You can't say the same thing for 110. There's no prescription of a remedy. It just says what a state cannot do. There's no legal remedy, strictly speaking, because the law doesn't provide one -- section 110 has no corresponding remedy language as seen in 111.
I'm no expert on international law, but in order for a certain remedy (i.e. sanctions) to apply, the relevant statute would have to make such a provision. Lawyers at the UN would have a coniption fit if the Security Counsel tried to sanction Israel for a violation where the underlying state made no such provision for sanctions.
WC, comeon bro. You can't have it both ways, you are vindicating Israel from all blame.
You either take it that they were ill intentioned and caused needless bloodshed.
Or they weren't ill intentioned and were made into stupid ass fucks because the fact is they broke an international law.
It is impossible to argue with a person that doesn't accept a given premise.
1) It was not a turkish ship. The [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara]Mavi Marmara] is a Comoros-flagged ship. Most of the passengers were Turkish. I doubt the crew was.
2) They didn't defend themselves. They were the attackers.
My God.
You cannot get simple facts strait.
How again were they attackers? I thought their ship got raided by commandos in international water? Good thing you got your facts straight.
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 07:30 PM
Lawyers would disagree. Compare 110 with other sections from the Preamble, like 111(8): Where a ship has been stopped or arrested outside the territorial sea in circumstances which do not justify the exercise of the right of hot pursuit, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been thereby sustained.
The italicized section provides a remedy -- legal damages. If you're wondering what happens for certain violations of Art. 111, you have your answer: money damages.
You can't say the same thing for 110. There's no prescription of a remedy. It just says what a state cannot do. There's no legal remedy, strictly speaking, because the law doesn't provide one -- section 110 has no corresponding remedy language as seen in 111.
I'm no expert on international law, but in order for a certain remedy (i.e. sanctions) to apply, the relevant statute would have to make such a provision. Lawyers at the UN would have a coniption fit if the Security Counsel tried to sanction Israel for a violation where the underlying state made no such provision for sanctions.
I'm not interested in the laws that tie a nation from defending itself. Israel probably has violated international law. However, it has become normal operations for Israel to conduct themselves this way with ships heading to Gaza. No enforcement in the past years, and now you cry about enforcement.
Israel is at a constant state of war with terror. I would say they have every right to stop any cargo heading there. It may not be legal by the laws of man, but sometimes you have to consider natural laws and natural rights of self preservation.
How again were they attackers? I thought their ship got raided by commandos in international water? Good thing you got your facts straight.
he's right WC, you have to accept the given premise and build your argument on that, there are some universal morals and standards you have to abide by, like the internation law in this case to even argue your point.
There is a reason that is how the court systems throughout the entire world exist. You have to have something to work on.
If you can't give me any negatives on Israel, don't expect for people to take you seriously.
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 07:31 PM
How again were they attackers? I thought their ship got raided by commandos in international water? Good thing you got your facts straight.
Hmm...
Boarded = raided...
OK... I understand your mentality now.
I'm not interested in the laws that tie a nation from defending itself. Israel probably has violated international law. However, it has become normal operations for Israel to conduct themselves this way with ships heading to Gaza. No enforcement in the past years, and now you cry about enforcement.
Israel is at a constant state of war with terror. I would say they have every right to stop any cargo heading there. It may not be legal by the laws of man, but sometimes you have to consider natural laws and natural rights of self preservation.
It's ironic that a nation founded through a UN mandate should later on say that it can break the law's the UN stands for, isn't it?
And my point wasn't about whether the law should or shouldn't be enforced because of an existential threat. It was about statutory construction. But if those sling-shots really threaten the very existence of Israel, then nuke the bastards, right?
Hmm...
Boarded = raided...
OK... I understand your mentality now.
No, it was raided. A proper boarding would require proper jurisdiction, i.e. being in territorial waters. "Boarding" the ship in international waters was a pre-emptive raid. And you don't know shit about my mentality.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 07:42 PM
Lawyers would disagree. Compare 110 with other sections from the Preamble, like 111(8): Where a ship has been stopped or arrested outside the territorial sea in circumstances which do not justify the exercise of the right of hot pursuit, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been thereby sustained.
The italicized section provides a remedy -- legal damages. If you're wondering what happens for certain violations of Art. 111, you have your answer: money damages.
You can't say the same thing for 110. There's no prescription of a remedy. It just says what a state cannot do. There's no legal remedy, strictly speaking, because the law doesn't provide one -- section 110 has no corresponding remedy language as seen in 111.
I'm no expert on international law, but in order for a certain remedy (i.e. sanctions) to apply, the relevant statute would have to make such a provision. Lawyers at the UN would have a coniption fit if the Security Counsel tried to sanction Israel for a violation where the underlying state made no such provision for sanctions.
The UN Law of the Sea also establishes an open court to hear the cases, and award damages for violation of the law. The tribunal is by all measures fairly young (here's a link (http://www.jstor.org/pss/761689) to their first judgement on the merits, dated July 1999). And frankly, most of these cases involving states end up being settled diplomatically anyways.
To nitpick, I would add that 110 (3) does have the exact same wording as far as compensation goes in the case where boarding was unfounded.
But IANAL, and never claimed to be one, so I appreciate the differing view and insight. :toast
Nitpicking is a good thing. People have been left out in the cold and without a legal remedy because certain words were used while others were not -- or were not used at all.
ChumpDumper
06-02-2010, 07:56 PM
sometimes you have to consider natural laws and natural rights of self preservation.....for the people on the boats when faced with a raid by armed commandos in international waters.
OK.
Israel fucked up.
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 07:56 PM
UN Law of the Sea - High Seas (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm)
Check Article 110...
Since you prefer the law over what is morally right, how about this:
Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal? (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602)
CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?
Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognized document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea."
The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters.
Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 07:59 PM
Since you prefer the law over what is morally right, how about this:
Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal? (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602)
Intercepting and boarding are not synonymous.
A third grader gets that, do you?
Since you prefer the law over what is morally right, how about this:
Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal? (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602)
You really can't be this retarded. No one is disputing the legality of the blockade. The raid on the ship in international waters was illegal.
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 08:07 PM
Excerpts from San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMST):
SECTION VI : CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS
146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:
(a) are carrying contraband;
(b) are on a voyage especially undertaken with a view to the transport of individual passengers who are embodied in the armed forces of the enemy;
(c) are operating directly under enemy control, orders, charter, employment or direction;
(d) present irregular or fraudulent documents, lack necessary documents, or destroy, deface or conceal documents;
(e) are violating regulations established by a belligerent within the immediate area of naval operations; or
(f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.
Capture of a neutral merchant vessel is exercised by taking such vessel as prize for adjudication.
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.
That's a legal treatise, not a law. And it doesn't apply anyways.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 08:11 PM
146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67
Not only it doesn't apply, even if it would, read that again and tell me what that means.
ChumpDumper
06-02-2010, 08:12 PM
Burn.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 08:14 PM
Burn.
I'm just waiting for the inevitable meltdown followed by dropping the Jew-hater card.... you know it's coming.
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 08:15 PM
Not only it doesn't apply, even if it would, read that again and tell me what that means.
Neutral waters are 200 nautical miles out. If you were smart enough to look things up, you would know that.
durka durka mohamed jihad
ElNono
06-02-2010, 08:19 PM
Neutral waters are 200 nautical miles out.
I'll humor you. From your very same document:
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/560-06?OpenDocument)
14. Neutral waters consist of the internal waters, territorial sea, and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of neutral States. Neutral airspace consists of the airspace over neutral waters and the land territory of neutral States.
Neutral waters are 200 nautical miles out.
That's irrelevant. It's from a treatlse on armed conflict at sea. Also, it applies to merchant vessels, not humanitarian/civilian ships. And, that's not even to get into whether the laundry list of factors even applies.
And for the money shot:
The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
(a) hospital ships;
(b) small craft used for coastal rescue operations and other medical transports;
(c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:
(i) cartel vessels, e.g., vessels designated for and engaged in the transport of prisoners of war;
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;
(d) vessels engaged in transporting cultural property under special protection;
(e) passenger vessels when engaged only in carrying civilian passengers;
(f) vessels charged with religious, non-military scientific or philanthropic missions; vessels collecting scientific data of likely military applications are not protected;
(g) small coastal fishing vessels and small boats engaged in local coastal trade, but they are subject to the regulations of a belligerent naval commander operating in the area and to inspection;
(h) vessels designated or adapted exclusively for responding to pollution incidents in the marine environment;
(i) vessels which have surrendered;
(j) life rafts and lifeboats.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 08:19 PM
Actually, I'll use this post to say I misread internal for international waters.
Then again, there's vy with the money shot.
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 08:25 PM
I'll humor you. From your very same document:
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/560-06?OpenDocument)
14. Neutral waters consist of the internal waters, territorial sea, and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of neutral States. Neutral airspace consists of the airspace over neutral waters and the land territory of neutral States.
Good I got you to look things up.
Read that again...
Outside of neutral waters...
So... since the waters were not that of a neutral player, the waters were fair game, right? They would have been safe inside a neutral country's waters.
The 200 miles I gave was "The High Seas." My plan worked to mess you up.
ChumpDumper
06-02-2010, 08:26 PM
My plan
:lmao
ChumpDumper
06-02-2010, 08:27 PM
Whatever the legality -- Israel fucked up.
Cry Havoc
06-02-2010, 08:29 PM
A new development in this situation:
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-ship-on-collision-course-with-Israeli-navy-near-Gaza--95400359.html
The 'Rachel Corrie,' the Irish-owned ship with Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Maguire on board, continued to sail towards Gaza waters despite Israel making it clear they were giving no guarantees about its safety.
Maguire said the deaths of ten flotilla members at the hands of Israeli commandos had not deterred her of her fellow Irish blockade-runners. "We’re not frightened, no," she said in an interview.
Meanwhile, Ireland's leader warned that the Irish government was watching the fate of the 'Rachel Corrie' very closely.
"If any harm comes to any of our citizens, it will have the most serious consequences," Prime Minister Brian Cowen said.
The Rachel Corrie, called after an American activist who died protesting Israeli actions, had been left behind the main flotilla in Cyprus for repairs and is only now approaching Gaza.
On board the boat is an aid cargo of cement, medical equipment (including a CT scanner) printing paper, schoolbooks and toys.
The ship, which was bought by the Irish Free Gaza Movement and refitted after it was abandoned in port at Dundalk, County Louth, is now heading for a showdown with the Israeli navy.
But Irish Foreign Minister Micheal Martin confirmed to the Irish parliament that he had received no undertaking from Israel that the 'Rachel Corrie' would be given safe passage.
"In terms of the 'Rachel Corrie', we have received no assurances other than that the ambassador has conveyed to us that the Israeli government does not want conflict or confrontation with the 'Rachel Corrie'. So one would hope that a different mindset will prevail," he said.
Martin warned the Israeli government he would take "appropriate diplomatic action" if the ship was not allowed through.
"We will be watching this situation very closely and it is imperative that Israel avoid any action which leads to further bloodshed," he said.
Prime Minister Brian Cowen reinforced the message by saying Israel "did not have a leg to stand on" and warned there would be "serious consequences" if the Irish crewmembers of the 'Rachel Corrie' were harmed.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 08:30 PM
Good I got you to look things up.
Read that again...
Outside of neutral waters...
So... since the waters were not that of a neutral player, the waters were fair game, right? They would have been safe inside a neutral country's waters.
The 200 miles I gave was "The High Seas." My plan worked to mess you up.
And for the money shot:
The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;
Worked a treat... lol
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 08:32 PM
That's irrelevant. It's from a treatlse on armed conflict at sea. Also, it applies to merchant vessels, not humanitarian/civilian ships. And, that's not even to get into whether the laundry list of factors even applies.
And for the money shot:
The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;
Fail...
"supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population"
Gaza gets regular shipments of aide already. These supplies are not "indispensable."
Back to what I quoted:
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;
You guys just keep failing over and over.
Admit it. You are OWNED!
ChumpDumper
06-02-2010, 08:32 PM
Those godless heathens in Ireland need to be wiped off the map for talking bad about Israel.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 08:34 PM
Fail...
"supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population"
Gaza gets regular shipments of aide already. These supplies are not "indispensable."
What part of 'including' you need spelled out?
67. Merchant vessels
Do you know what a merchant vessel is?
What does your treatise define a merchant ship as? And based on that definition, how was the flotilla a merchant ship?
The flotilla carried humanitarian aid. Just because Gaza receives shipments of humanitarian aid doesn't mean that a ship carrying food/water/etc... isn't humanitarian aid. In fact, it probably means that what was carried on the flotilla was, in fact humanitarian aid.
Cry Havoc
06-02-2010, 08:38 PM
Fail...
"supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population"
Gaza gets regular shipments of aide already. These supplies are not "indispensable."
Yes. The quality of life in Gaza is just scintillating right now. :rolleyes I love that you feel you have the authority and knowledge to state what 1,500,000 people need or do not need to survive.
Admit it. You are OWNED!
The last recourse of someone who knows they're wrong and can't admit it. Bravo. You're bordering on trolldom, WC.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 08:41 PM
My God, you are being a stupid bitch. It's obvious you haven't absorbed the points I make. One by one, I would say you are right. However, the sum of the reasons make any shipment a highly possible threat that must be dealt with.
Considering I don't believe you to be that stupid, I will now believe you are a Jew hater. I bet you deny the holocaust also.
Come on Cobra...you did it once already... :lol
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 08:41 PM
What part of 'including' you need spelled out?
What part of "if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67" do you not understand?
Do you know what a merchant vessel is?
Yes, apparently you don't. It's a vessel that can carry passengers and cargo.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 08:42 PM
What part of "if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67" do you not understand?
Merchant vessel != humanitarian ship
Yes, apparently you don't. It's a vessel that can carry passengers and cargo.
Is that the definition in your document? Why don't you post it? :lol
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 08:42 PM
Come on Cobra...you did it once already... :lol
I'm having a hard time controlling my anger. Such simple concepts, but above your head.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 08:43 PM
I'm having a hard time controlling my anger. Such simple concepts, but above your head.
You don't have to control anything. Tells us how you really feel. :lmao
ElNono
06-02-2010, 08:44 PM
What does your treatise define a merchant ship as? And based on that definition, how was the flotilla a merchant ship?
The flotilla carried humanitarian aid. Just because Gaza receives shipments of humanitarian aid doesn't mean that a ship carrying food/water/etc... isn't humanitarian aid. In fact, it probably means that what was carried on the flotilla was, in fact humanitarian aid.
No answer. Must be the controlled anger. :lol
What part of "if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67" do you not understand?
Yes, apparently you don't. It's a vessel that can carry passengers and cargo.
This is how laws, work playboy. Certain "key" terms are used. Those "key" terms can mean a lot of things, and so the person who made the law had the courtesy to define what he meant when using that term.
A merchant can mean a lot of things. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, it means a dealer who's ordinary course of business is to sell goods. In the maritime context it could mean ships carrying the newest air jordans or it could just mean people.
Talk this one over with your buddy San Remo and get back to me.
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 08:46 PM
Merchant vessel != humanitarian ship
So it can violate a legal blockade by pretending to be a humanitarian ship?
Is that your twisted logic?
ElNono
06-02-2010, 08:46 PM
BTW, here I am admitting I was wrong:
Actually, I'll use this post to say I misread internal for international waters.
It's not hard really.
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 08:48 PM
This is how laws, work playboy. Certain "key" terms are used. Those "key" terms can mean a lot of things, and so the person who made the law had the courtesy to define what he meant when using that term.
A merchant can mean a lot of things. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, it means a dealer who's ordinary course of business is to sell goods. In the maritime context it could mean ships carrying the newest air jordans or it could just mean people.
Talk this one over with your buddy San Remo and get back to me.
It's a vessel that can carry passengers and cargo.
Isn't that what I said?
If anything, I should of replaced "and" with "and/or."
Do you realize you haven't contributed anything good?
ElNono
06-02-2010, 08:48 PM
So it can violate a legal blockade by pretending to be a humanitarian ship?
No you can't. Think about it. Then tell me why you couldn't do that.
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 08:51 PM
BTW, here I am admitting I was wrong:
It's not hard really.
Yes, I know, but you still refuse to acknowledge a vessel that is determined to break a blockade can he boarded outside the 12 miles. I laid it out, yet you refuse to acknowledge it.
Can you look post #280 again please.
Isn't that what I said?
If anything, I should of replaced "and" with "and/or."
Do you realize you haven't contributed anything good?
You're right. That's how *you* define it. Is that how the *law* defines it? Thankfully, those are two different things.
And, I think I contribute alot, actually.
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 08:53 PM
No you can't. Think about it. Then tell me why you couldn't do that.
I was laying that out as the way out thought process is developing. Not mine. That's the end result of your logic, allowing a ship full of missiles in.
Ghazi
06-02-2010, 08:54 PM
Israel has lost all its credibility to the international community
Even if they were stupid enough to attack Iran (they aren't), they wouldn't be able to due to the international outrage. USA will not support Israel in an attack on Iran, since the USA and Iran are allies :huddle:
ElNono
06-02-2010, 08:54 PM
Yes, I know, but you still refuse to acknowledge a vessel that is determined to break a blockade can he boarded outside the 12 miles. I laid it out, yet you refuse to acknowledge it.
A Merchant Vessel can. Please post the definition of merchant vessel from your Remo document. Also explain how the ships are not humanitarian ships, considering they were bringing humanitarian aid that Israel themselves distributed to Gaza.
Can you look post #280 again please.
I did. As explained to you many times, and 'you fail to acknowledge', it applies to merchant vessels, not humanitarian ships.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 08:56 PM
I was laying that out as the way out thought process is developing. Not mine. That's the end result of your logic, allowing a ship full of missiles in.
So you don't know why you couldn't pretend to be a humanitarian vessel and break a blockade?
ElNono
06-02-2010, 09:00 PM
And, I think I contribute alot, actually.
Well, I can safely say that even when we disagreed, we did it respectfully, and eventually both ended up learning something...
ElNono
06-02-2010, 09:02 PM
I wonder what's the next 'plan' to mess me up... :rolleyes
Cant_Be_Faded
06-02-2010, 09:06 PM
LOL
This movie is getting good. Will the United States side with its NATO ally which it is bound, under NATO charter to go to war with if its attacked?
Or will the supreme hegemon side with the leech-like artificial state that virtually everyone except the American Right despises? Find out
on the next exciting episode of How The World Ends
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 09:06 PM
A Merchant Vessel can. Please post the definition of merchant vessel from your Remo document. Also explain how the ships are not humanitarian ships, considering they were bringing humanitarian aid that Israel themselves distributed to Gaza.
I did. As explained to you many times, and 'you fail to acknowledge', it applies to merchant vessels, not humanitarian ships.
I'm growing tired of this.
A merchant ship is just about any non-military vessel. It can be a barge, cruise liner, ferry, etc.
13. For the purposes of this document:
(i) merchant vessel means a vessel, other than a warship, an auxiliary vessel, or a State vessel such as a customs or police vessel, that is engaged in commercial or private service;
As for classifying it as a vessel for humanitarian aide, it does not matter if it is not proven to be that. I already pointed out that just calling it that allows then you to ship weapons by just lying about what it is.
So again, does calling a ship a vessel of humanitarian aide give it the right to run a blockade? Does it eliminate the right of a nation to enforce a blockade outside of neutral waters?
Ghazi
06-02-2010, 09:06 PM
LOL
This movie is getting good. Will the United States side with its NATO ally which it is bound, under NATO charter to go to war with if its attacked?
Or will the supreme hegemon side with the leech-like artificial state that virtually everyone except the American Right despises? Find out
on the next exciting episode of How The World Ends
quoted for motha , fuckin, truth.
lol slingshots
lol deadly weapons
lol end of Israel as we know it
BTW, calling a ship a humanitarian vessel doesn't do ship.
The fact that a ship carries food/water/medicine/other humanitarian supplies does shit ... most of important of which is, according to your boy San Remo, exempt it from pre-emptive raids in international waters.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 09:16 PM
I'm growing tired of this.
A merchant ship is just about any non-military vessel. It can be a barge, cruise liner, ferry, etc.
As long as it's engaged in commercial or private service, and it's obviously not a humanitarian ship.
As for classifying it as a vessel for humanitarian aide, it does not matter if it is not proven to be that.
Sure it matters, as humanitarian ships delivering aid are excepted from attack under Remo.
I already pointed out that just calling it that allows then you to ship weapons by just lying about what it is.
Not true. Ship can still be lawfully inspected per UN Law of the Sea if there are any suspicions. That Remo doesn't apply to humanitarian ships doesn't mean that there's such clause in the UN law. Actually, there isn't.
So again, does calling a ship a vessel of humanitarian aide give it the right to run a blockade? Does it eliminate the right of a nation to enforce a blockade outside of neutral waters?
No.
David Bowie
06-02-2010, 09:18 PM
LOL
This movie is getting good. Will the United States side with its NATO ally which it is bound, under NATO charter to go to war with if its attacked?
Or will the supreme hegemon side with the leech-like artificial state that virtually everyone except the American Right despises? Find out
on the next exciting episode of How The World Ends
I would love for you to go and live in one of those Islamic states that you adore so much. Oh yah, thast right, you'll be dead in two days there for being an infidel :lol
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 09:19 PM
Not true. Ship can still be lawfully inspected per UN Law of the Sea if there are any suspicions. That Remo doesn't apply to humanitarian ships doesn't mean that there's such clause in the UN law. Actually, there isn't.
We disagree. Do you agree or disagree they cannot run a blockade?
We disagree. Do you agree or disagree they cannot run a blockade?
That's not the issue. Can Israel raid a humanitarian ship in international waters?
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 09:25 PM
That's not the issue. Can Israel raid a humanitarian ship in international waters?
Yes, but I disagree with the word "raid." Once they are know to intend to run a blockade, they no longer have that protection. Otherwise, it becomes a means to get contraband in via loop-hole.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 09:25 PM
We disagree.
What do you disagree about? That Israel is lawfully allowed to request inspection of the ship in international waters?
Do you agree or disagree they cannot run a blockade?
I agree. That's not what we're discussing though.
Yes, but I disagree with the word "raid." Once they are know to intend to run a blockade, they no longer have that protection. Otherwise, it becomes a means to get contraband in via loop-hole.
I'm in the U.S. I have some sandwhiches and a red bull in my fridge. I intend to run the blockade. Can Israel send the shock troops to my apartment?
ElNono
06-02-2010, 09:26 PM
Yes, but I disagree with the word "raid." Once they are know to intend to run a blockade, they no longer have that protection. Otherwise, it becomes a means to get contraband in via loop-hole.
Wrong answer.
And there's no loophole. Ship can't be attacked. However, it can be both intercepted and inspected. No loop-hole.
Cant_Be_Faded
06-02-2010, 09:38 PM
I would love for you to go and live in one of those Islamic states that you adore so much. Oh yah, thast right, you'll be dead in two days there for being an infidel :lol
So me admitting I would never live in an arab or islamist country means that Israel isn't like a parasite on our country?
Wild Cobra
06-02-2010, 09:45 PM
Wrong answer.
And there's no loophole. Ship can't be attacked. However, it can be both intercepted and inspected. No loop-hole.
When the ship refuses to go to the designated port for humanitarian aide. it is no longer considered such a ship.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 09:46 PM
When the ship refuses to go to the designated port for humanitarian aide. it is no longer considered such a ship.
Says who?
ElNono
06-02-2010, 09:52 PM
New Israeli Tack Needed on Gaza, U.S. Officials Say (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/world/middleeast/03policy.html?hp)
By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: June 2, 2010
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration considers Israel’s blockade of Gaza to be untenable and plans to press for another approach to ensure Israel’s security while allowing more supplies into the impoverished Palestinian area, senior American officials said Wednesday.
The officials say that Israel’s deadly attack on a flotilla trying to break the siege and the resulting international condemnation create a new opportunity to push for increased engagement with the Palestinian Authority and a less harsh policy toward Gaza.
“There is no question that we need a new approach to Gaza,” said one official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the policy shift is still in the early stages. He was reflecting a broadly held view in the upper reaches of the administration.
Israel would insist that any approach take into account three factors: Israel’s security; the need to prevent any benefit to Hamas, the Islamist rulers of Gaza; and the four-year-old captivity of an Israeli soldier held by Hamas, Staff Sgt. Gilad Shalit.
Since the botched raid that killed nine activists on Monday, the Israeli government has said that the blockade was necessary to protect Israel against the infiltration into Gaza of weapons and fighters sponsored by Iran.
If there were no blockade in place, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Israeli television on Wednesday evening, it would mean “an Iranian port in Gaza.” He added, “Israel will continue to maintain its right to defend itself.”
But the American officials said they believed that even Mr. Netanyahu understood that a new approach was needed.
Yet Mr. Netanyahu has resisted American pressure in the past. The Obama administration initially demanded a complete freeze on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but had to accept a 10-month partial freeze. Pressure on Israel also carries domestic political risks for Mr. Obama, given the passion of its supporters in the United States.
Israel withdrew its soldiers and settlers from Gaza five years ago and built the makings of an international border. But after Hamas, which rejects Israel’s existence, won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, Israel cut back on the amount of goods permitted into Gaza. When Sergeant Shalit was seized in a raid in June of that year, commerce was further reduced.
A year later, Hamas drove the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority entirely out of Gaza in four days of street battles, leading Israel to cut off all shipments in and out except basic food, humanitarian aid and urgent medical supplies.
Hamas declines to recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence or accept previous accords signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The diplomatic group known as the Quartet, made up of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations, has said that until Hamas meets those requirements, the Quartet will not deal with it.
But the world powers have grown increasingly disillusioned with the blockade, saying that it has created far too much suffering in Gaza and serves as a symbol not only of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians but of how the West is seen in relation to the Palestinians.
“Gaza has become the symbol in the Arab world of the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, and we have to change that,” the senior American official said. “We need to remove the impulse for the flotillas. The Israelis also realize this is not sustainable.”
At a meeting of the Quartet a year ago in Italy, for example, the group asserted that the current situation was not sustainable and called for the unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian aid within Gaza, as well as the reopening of crossing points.
But Obama administration officials made it clear that the deaths had given a new urgency to changing the policy.
Pressure against the blockade continued to grow on Wednesday: Turkey, which withdrew its ambassador to Israel after the raid, said full restoration of diplomatic ties was contingent on an end to the blockade.
The new British prime minister, David Cameron, also called for an end to the blockade, criticizing the raid as “completely unacceptable.”
In Israel, officials say there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza because the Defense Ministry makes sure that enough food and medicine reach the population. But international aid groups assert that real malnutrition is growing to about 10 percent and that problems with medical and sanitation supplies are rising perilously because of the Israeli and Egyptian embargoes.
In recent months, Israel has permitted increased — although still quite limited — movement of goods and people into and out of Gaza. One Israeli official said that under Mr. Netanyahu there had been a 20 percent increase in goods, including some limited building materials under third-party supervision so that Hamas would not get hold of them.
But Israel remains adamant, saying that if cement and steel were allowed to pass in any serious amount, they would end up in Hamas missiles and other weapons that would be aimed at Israel.
Discussion in Israel this week has largely focused on the details of the seizure of the ship where the deaths occurred rather than on the broader question of whether the blockade is good policy.
Amos Gilad, a senior defense official, said in an interview that in Gaza, “we only have bad solutions, worse solutions and worst solutions.” He added: “Hamas is a terrorist organization sworn to Israel’s destruction. We, on the contrary, are facilitating them to bring in all kinds of food, materials; they are even exporting strawberries and flowers.”
Aluf Benn, a senior editor and columnist for the left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote on Wednesday that the time had come for a new Gaza policy.
“The attempt to control Gaza from outside, via its residents’ diet and shopping lists, casts a heavy moral stain on Israel and increases its international isolation,” he wrote. “Every Israeli should be ashamed of the list of goods prepared by the Defense Ministry, which allows cinnamon and plastic buckets into Gaza, but not houseplants and coriander. It’s time to find more important things for our officers and bureaucrats to do than update lists.”
He suggested sealing the Israel-Gaza border and informing the international community that Israel was no longer responsible for Gaza in any way, forcing Gaza to turn to Egypt as its corridor to the outside world.
Egypt has consistently rejected such an idea in the past, asserting that Gaza is Israel’s responsibility because it has occupied it since 1967.
One of the primary rationales for the blockade offered by Israeli officials is the need to create a material and political gap between the West Bank, run by the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, and Gaza, run by Hamas. And political surveys have shown a preference for Fatah and discontent with Hamas among Palestinians. But the latest events, the American officials say, have given Hamas a dangerous lift.
Isabel Kershner contributed reporting from Jerusalem.
When the ship refuses to go to the designated port for humanitarian aide. it is no longer considered such a ship.
You're putting the cart before the horse. If the ship isn't in Israeli territory, then it has no jurisdiction -- meaning authority -- to tell the ship to do anything. The refusal is meaningless because Israel had no power to tell it where to go. That's why the raid was illegal.
Israel couldn't have boarded the ship for the same reason it can't send the IDF to my apartment -- it has no jurisdiction over the territory.
Oh, and if you've never been to a Middle Eastern country, you shouldn't try to stereotype them all as USA-Hating cesspools of anti-semitism.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 09:59 PM
At any rate, it will be interesting to see what happens a week or a month from now. Also if another ship sails, as it looks that it will, and what the reaction will be.
ElNono
06-02-2010, 10:01 PM
Also, anybody knows if the Negroponte doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroponte_doctrine) is still held by this administration?
angrydude
06-02-2010, 10:16 PM
You're putting the cart before the horse. If the ship isn't in Israeli territory, then it has no jurisdiction -- meaning authority -- to tell the ship to do anything. The refusal is meaningless because Israel had no power to tell it where to go. That's why the raid was illegal.
Israel couldn't have boarded the ship for the same reason it can't send the IDF to my apartment -- it has no jurisdiction over the territory.
no. that is just wrong.
no. that is just wrong.
Yah, that makes sense.
Cant_Be_Faded
06-02-2010, 11:29 PM
Who would of thought that Israel essentially running a 139 square mile concentration camp would cause problems in the world?
"Oh, we'll let you elect your own leaders!"
jack sommerset
06-02-2010, 11:33 PM
who would of thought that israel essentially running a 139 square mile concentration camp would cause problems in the world?
"oh, we'll let you elect your own leaders!"
wtf?
ChumpDumper
06-02-2010, 11:35 PM
Who would of thought that Israel essentially running a 139 square mile concentration camp would cause problems in the world?
"Oh, we'll let you elect your own leaders!"Not THAT leader!
No crayons for you!
Cant_Be_Faded
06-02-2010, 11:37 PM
wtf?
the gaza strip is a giant human zoo and anything short of that is a blatant euphemism.
No state in the history of the modern westernized world would be able to get by with ineffective level of obstruction against their giant zoo except Israel.
jack sommerset
06-02-2010, 11:40 PM
the gaza strip is a giant human zoo and anything short of that is a blatant euphemism.
wtf?
wtf?
reading comprehension not one of your strengths is it?
jack sommerset
06-02-2010, 11:57 PM
reading comprehension not one of your strengths is it?
Dumbass, I have no clue what a human zoo is? Not even from the movies. WTF is this guy talking about?
Cant_Be_Faded
06-02-2010, 11:57 PM
Check this out, pretty much what some of us in these threads have said but with far more detail:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100531_flotillas_and_wars_public_opinion
Flotillas and the Wars of Public Opinion
May 31, 2010 | 1828 GMT
By George Friedman
On Sunday, Israeli naval forces intercepted the ships of a Turkish nongovernmental organization (NGO) delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Israel had demanded that the vessels not go directly to Gaza but instead dock in Israeli ports, where the supplies would be offloaded and delivered to Gaza. The Turkish NGO refused, insisting on going directly to Gaza. Gunfire ensued when Israeli naval personnel boarded one of the vessels, and a significant number of the passengers and crew on the ship were killed or wounded.
Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon charged that the mission was simply an attempt to provoke the Israelis. That was certainly the case. The mission was designed to demonstrate that the Israelis were unreasonable and brutal. The hope was that Israel would be provoked to extreme action, further alienating Israel from the global community and possibly driving a wedge between Israel and the United States. The operation’s planners also hoped this would trigger a political crisis in Israel.
A logical Israeli response would have been avoiding falling into the provocation trap and suffering the political repercussions the Turkish NGO was trying to trigger. Instead, the Israelis decided to make a show of force. The Israelis appear to have reasoned that backing down would demonstrate weakness and encourage further flotillas to Gaza, unraveling the Israeli position vis-à-vis Hamas. In this thinking, a violent interception was a superior strategy to accommodation regardless of political consequences. Thus, the Israelis accepted the bait and were provoked.
The ‘Exodus’ Scenario
In the 1950s, an author named Leon Uris published a book called “Exodus.” Later made into a major motion picture, Exodus told the story of a Zionist provocation against the British. In the wake of World War II, the British — who controlled Palestine, as it was then known — maintained limits on Jewish immigration there. Would-be immigrants captured trying to run the blockade were detained in camps in Cyprus. In the book and movie, Zionists planned a propaganda exercise involving a breakout of Jews — mostly children — from the camp, who would then board a ship renamed the Exodus. When the Royal Navy intercepted the ship, the passengers would mount a hunger strike. The goal was to portray the British as brutes finishing the work of the Nazis. The image of children potentially dying of hunger would force the British to permit the ship to go to Palestine, to reconsider British policy on immigration, and ultimately to decide to abandon Palestine and turn the matter over to the United Nations.
There was in fact a ship called Exodus, but the affair did not play out precisely as portrayed by Uris, who used an amalgam of incidents to display the propaganda war waged by the Jews. Those carrying out this war had two goals. The first was to create sympathy in Britain and throughout the world for Jews who, just a couple of years after German concentration camps, were now being held in British camps. Second, they sought to portray their struggle as being against the British. The British were portrayed as continuing Nazi policies toward the Jews in order to maintain their empire. The Jews were portrayed as anti-imperialists, fighting the British much as the Americans had.
It was a brilliant strategy. By focusing on Jewish victimhood and on the British, the Zionists defined the battle as being against the British, with the Arabs playing the role of people trying to create the second phase of the Holocaust. The British were portrayed as pro-Arab for economic and imperial reasons, indifferent at best to the survivors of the Holocaust. Rather than restraining the Arabs, the British were arming them. The goal was not to vilify the Arabs but to villify the British, and to position the Jews with other nationalist groups whether in India or Egypt rising against the British.
The precise truth or falsehood of this portrayal didn’t particularly matter. For most of the world, the Palestine issue was poorly understood and not a matter of immediate concern. The Zionists intended to shape the perceptions of a global public with limited interest in or understanding of the issues, filling in the blanks with their own narrative. And they succeeded.
The success was rooted in a political reality. Where knowledge is limited, and the desire to learn the complex reality doesn’t exist, public opinion can be shaped by whoever generates the most powerful symbols. And on a matter of only tangential interest, governments tend to follow their publics’ wishes, however they originate. There is little to be gained for governments in resisting public opinion and much to be gained by giving in. By shaping the battlefield of public perception, it is thus possible to get governments to change positions.
In this way, the Zionists’ ability to shape global public perceptions of what was happening in Palestine — to demonize the British and turn the question of Palestine into a Jewish-British issue — shaped the political decisions of a range of governments. It was not the truth or falsehood of the narrative that mattered. What mattered was the ability to identify the victim and victimizer such that global opinion caused both London and governments not directly involved in the issue to adopt political stances advantageous to the Zionists. It is in this context that we need to view the Turkish flotilla.
The Turkish Flotilla to Gaza
The Palestinians have long argued that they are the victims of Israel, an invention of British and American imperialism. Since 1967, they have focused not so much on the existence of the state of Israel (at least in messages geared toward the West) as on the oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Since the split between Hamas and Fatah and the Gaza War, the focus has been on the plight of the citizens of Gaza, who have been portrayed as the dispossessed victims of Israeli violence.
The bid to shape global perceptions by portraying the Palestinians as victims of Israel was the first prong of a longtime two-part campaign. The second part of this campaign involved armed resistance against the Israelis. The way this resistance was carried out, from airplane hijackings to stone-throwing children to suicide bombers, interfered with the first part of the campaign, however. The Israelis could point to suicide bombings or the use of children against soldiers as symbols of Palestinian inhumanity. This in turn was used to justify conditions in Gaza. While the Palestinians had made significant inroads in placing Israel on the defensive in global public opinion, they thus consistently gave the Israelis the opportunity to turn the tables. And this is where the flotilla comes in.
The Turkish flotilla aimed to replicate the Exodus story or, more precisely, to define the global image of Israel in the same way the Zionists defined the image that they wanted to project. As with the Zionist portrayal of the situation in 1947, the Gaza situation is far more complicated than as portrayed by the Palestinians. The moral question is also far more ambiguous. But as in 1947, when the Zionist portrayal was not intended to be a scholarly analysis of the situation but a political weapon designed to define perceptions, the Turkish flotilla was not designed to carry out a moral inquest.
Instead, the flotilla was designed to achieve two ends. The first is to divide Israel and Western governments by shifting public opinion against Israel. The second is to create a political crisis inside Israel between those who feel that Israel’s increasing isolation over the Gaza issue is dangerous versus those who think any weakening of resolve is dangerous.
The Geopolitical Fallout for Israel
It is vital that the Israelis succeed in portraying the flotilla as an extremist plot. Whether extremist or not, the plot has generated an image of Israel quite damaging to Israeli political interests. Israel is increasingly isolated internationally, with heavy pressure on its relationship with Europe and the United States.
In all of these countries, politicians are extremely sensitive to public opinion. It is difficult to imagine circumstances under which public opinion will see Israel as the victim. The general response in the Western public is likely to be that the Israelis probably should have allowed the ships to go to Gaza and offload rather than to precipitate bloodshed. Israel’s enemies will fan these flames by arguing that the Israelis prefer bloodshed to reasonable accommodation. And as Western public opinion shifts against Israel, Western political leaders will track with this shift.
The incident also wrecks Israeli relations with Turkey, historically an Israeli ally in the Muslim world with longstanding military cooperation with Israel. The Turkish government undoubtedly has wanted to move away from this relationship, but it faced resistance within the Turkish military and among secularists. The new Israeli action makes a break with Israel easy, and indeed almost necessary for Ankara.
With roughly the population of Houston, Texas, Israel is just not large enough to withstand extended isolation, meaning this event has profound geopolitical implications.
Public opinion matters where issues are not of fundamental interest to a nation. Israel is not a fundamental interest to other nations. The ability to generate public antipathy to Israel can therefore reshape Israeli relations with countries critical to Israel. For example, a redefinition of U.S.-Israeli relations will have much less effect on the United States than on Israel. The Obama administration, already irritated by the Israelis, might now see a shift in U.S. public opinion that will open the way to a new U.S.-Israeli relationship disadvantageous to Israel.
The Israelis will argue that this is all unfair, as they were provoked. Like the British, they seem to think that the issue is whose logic is correct. But the issue actually is, whose logic will be heard? As with a tank battle or an airstrike, this sort of warfare has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with controlling public perception and using that public perception to shape foreign policy around the world. In this case, the issue will be whether the deaths were necessary. The Israeli argument of provocation will have limited traction.
Internationally, there is little doubt that the incident will generate a firestorm. Certainly, Turkey will break cooperation with Israel. Opinion in Europe will likely harden. And public opinion in the United States — by far the most important in the equation — might shift to a “plague-on-both-your-houses” position.
While the international reaction is predictable, the interesting question is whether this evolution will cause a political crisis in Israel. Those in Israel who feel that international isolation is preferable to accommodation with the Palestinians are in control now. Many in the opposition see Israel’s isolation as a strategic threat. Economically and militarily, they argue, Israel cannot survive in isolation. The current regime will respond that there will be no isolation. The flotilla aimed to generate what the government has said would not happen.
The tougher Israel is, the more the flotilla’s narrative takes hold. As the Zionists knew in 1947 and the Palestinians are learning, controlling public opinion requires subtlety, a selective narrative and cynicism. As they also knew, losing the battle can be catastrophic. It cost Britain the Mandate and allowed Israel to survive. Israel’s enemies are now turning the tables. This maneuver was far more effective than suicide bombings or the Intifada in challenging Israel’s public perception and therefore its geopolitical position (though if the Palestinians return to some of their more distasteful tactics like suicide bombing, the Turkish strategy of portraying Israel as the instigator of violence will be undermined).
Israel is now in uncharted waters. It does not know how to respond. It is not clear that the Palestinians know how to take full advantage of the situation, either. But even so, this places the battle on a new field, far more fluid and uncontrollable than what went before. The next steps will involve calls for sanctions against Israel. The Israeli threats against Iran will be seen in a different context, and Israeli portrayal of Iran will hold less sway over the world.
And this will cause a political crisis in Israel. If this government survives, then Israel is locked into a course that gives it freedom of action but international isolation. If the government falls, then Israel enters a period of domestic uncertainty. In either case, the flotilla achieved its strategic mission. It got Israel to take violent action against it. In doing so, Israel ran into its own fist.
Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence at the beginning or end of the report, including the hyperlink to STRATFOR:
"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR"
Eh, who the hell cares about public opinion. Israel bombed the shit out of a sovereign nation four years ago (Lebanon), and it got slapped on the wrist. It's treated innocent Palestinians like dogs for decades. If that didn't turn the public sentiment, killing some hippie activists isn't gonna do the trick.
Cant_Be_Faded
06-03-2010, 12:14 AM
eh, cuz public opinion is what will shape the outcome of this situation
creating, you know, reality
jack sommerset
06-03-2010, 12:17 AM
Eh, who the hell cares about public opinion. Israel bombed the shit out of a sovereign nation four years ago (Lebanon), and it got slapped on the wrist. It's treated innocent Palestinians like dogs for decades. If that didn't turn the public sentiment, killing some hippie activists isn't gonna do the trick.
You were there in Lebanon 4 years ago!?!? Fuck public opinion, tell us what really happened!
You're a lot more optimistic than I am that this shit will change people's minds. hell, Turkey came out and said it wasn't suspending joint-Israeli military operations/cooperation even after the activists got popped.
You were there in Lebanon 4 years ago!?!? Fuck public opinion, tell us what really happened!
I wasn't, but I had family at the airport when Israel was bombing it.
I couldn't tell if that was sarcasm or genuine ...
jack sommerset
06-03-2010, 12:23 AM
I wasn't, but I had family at the airport when Israel was bombing it.
I couldn't tell if that was sarcasm or genuine ...
I had family in the garden of eden. Adam told her not to eat the apple but Eve did it anyways. We all were fucked for that call.
hater
06-03-2010, 09:28 AM
I had family in the garden of eden. Adam told her not to eat the apple but Eve did it anyways. We all were fucked for that call.
how is the snake related to you?
Cry Havoc
06-03-2010, 09:44 AM
how is the snake related to you?
:lol
DarrinS
06-03-2010, 10:05 AM
Who would of thought that Israel essentially running a 139 square mile concentration camp would cause problems in the world?
"Oh, we'll let you elect your own leaders!"
A concentration camp where the "prisoners" fire thousands of rockets at their "captors" and dress their children in lovely suicide vests.
Yes, it's a concentration camp. Just like that flotilla was a humanitarian mission.
clambake
06-03-2010, 10:07 AM
cornered people that are treated like animals will fight, darrin.
DarrinS
06-03-2010, 10:09 AM
cornered people that are treated like animals will fight, darrin.
If I'm ever cornered, I don't plan on strapping bombs to my kids.
By the way, don't you think the Pals treat their kids like animals?
Cry Havoc
06-03-2010, 10:13 AM
A concentration camp where the "prisoners" fire thousands of rockets at their "captors" and dress their children in lovely suicide vests.
Yes, it's a concentration camp. Just like that flotilla was a humanitarian mission.
Sorry, is this how the everyday people live in Gaza?
Do you think the average person over there wants to strap a bomb to their child?
clambake
06-03-2010, 10:17 AM
If I'm ever cornered, I don't plan on strapping bombs to my kids.
we can re-visit that if the scenario develops.
By the way, don't you think the Pals treat their kids like animals?
they're already animals, darrin.
DarrinS
06-03-2010, 10:21 AM
Sorry, is this how the everyday people live in Gaza?
Do you think the average person over there wants to strap a bomb to their child?
Actually, probably not. I just took issue with someone calling Gaza a concentration camp. I also disagree with the notion that Palestinians are just cornered victims acting in self-defense.
Do people realize how many rockets have been fired from Gaza over the years?
Here are numbers from 2008 alone:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Rock_mort_gaza_2008.JPG
clambake
06-03-2010, 10:23 AM
gee, i wonder why that happens.
Cry Havoc
06-03-2010, 10:26 AM
Actually, probably not. I just took issue with someone calling Gaza a concentration camp. I also disagree with the notion that Palestinians are just cornered victims acting in self-defense.
Do people realize how many rockets have been fired from Gaza over the years:
And I have long been a supporter of Israel as they defend themselves against attack. How many have those rockets/mortars killed, anyway? They're dumbfire projectiles with almost no calculable trajectory, at least with the equipment being used in Gaza.
That isn't the issue here. I'm talking about the everyday lives of people who live in Gaza. How many of them are responsible for firing rockets? Are you going to take WC's position and suddenly decide that you personally know how much humanitarian aid those people need?
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 10:33 AM
Actually, probably not. I just took issue with someone calling Gaza a concentration camp. I also disagree with the notion that Palestinians are just cornered victims acting in self-defense.
Do people realize how many rockets have been fired from Gaza over the years?
Here are numbers from 2008 alone:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Rock_mort_gaza_2008.JPG
From Free Gaza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Gaza):
October 2008 sailing
The second sailing occurred in late October. The movement's 66-foot yacht, named Dignity, arrived at a Gaza port on October 29. The ship carried 26 activists and medical supplies.
Medical supplies and what else? Funny how in November they were firing mortars and rockets again.
Coincidence? I doubt it.
clambake
06-03-2010, 10:35 AM
i guess you think they've fired all their mortars. lol
Cry Havoc
06-03-2010, 10:46 AM
From Free Gaza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Gaza):
Medical supplies and what else? Funny how in November they were firing mortars and rockets again.
Coincidence? I doubt it.
Didn't Israel inspect the ship? Why are they so lax with their inspection methods?
Do you think Ireland is sending weapons to Gaza?
DarrinS
06-03-2010, 10:49 AM
And I have long been a supporter of Israel as they defend themselves against attack. How many have those rockets/mortars killed, anyway? They're dumbfire projectiles with almost no calculable trajectory, at least with the equipment being used in Gaza.
IMO, that makes it even worse. They don't know who they might kill. They just hope they kill an Israeli.
If you really want to know what motivates Palestinians, just listen the people interviewed at the end of this video (about 6:30 in).
ABjE_7uwA0I
ElNono
06-03-2010, 10:49 AM
Medical supplies and what else? Funny how in November they were firing mortars and rockets again.
They never stopped firing that year, if you look at the graph. The only reason that it dipped down in June was because Hamas signed a cease-fire and the blockade was supposed to be lifted by the agreement. Hamas obviously didn't stop firing, and Israel reportedly was still allowing in only very few goods.
Coincidence? I doubt it.
Considering that Hamas was actually raiding humanitarian aid trucks and distribution centers by January 2009, I would say it's pretty clear they didn't have unfettered access to such aid.
Ultimately Israel always had the right to inspect the vessels if they have any doubts.
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 10:50 AM
Didn't Israel inspect the ship? Why are they so lax with their inspection methods?
Do you think Ireland is sending weapons to Gaza?
How many times must I say this.
You cannot inspect every nook and cranny of a ship in any timely manner. That is why the ships are diverted, and the cargo unloaded and inspected in controlled conditions.
Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 10:51 AM
IMO, that makes it even worse. They don't know who they might kill. They just hope they kill an Israeli.
If you really want to know what motivates Palestinians, just listen the people interviewed at the end of this video (about 6:30 in).
ABjE_7uwA0I
No shit.
Aim for one building and hit a grade school. They're OK with that?
Maybe we should call Cry Havok, Hitler?
ElNono
06-03-2010, 10:54 AM
There's no justification for Hamas. They're a despicable terrorist organization.
That doesn't mean that 1.5 million people have to suffer while combating it. Looking for a better solution is simply the right thing to do.
ElNono
06-03-2010, 10:56 AM
How many times must I say this.
You cannot inspect every nook and cranny of a ship in any timely manner. That is why the ships are diverted, and the cargo unloaded and inspected in controlled conditions.
Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
And you know this because?
What's your expertise in maritime inspections?
Are you aware that ships like that one are inspected in the high seas all the time?
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 10:56 AM
They never stopped firing that year, if you look at the graph. The only reason that it dipped down in June was because Hamas signed a cease-fire and the blockade was supposed to be lifted by the agreement. Hamas obviously didn't stop firing, and Israel reportedly was still allowing in only very few goods.
What if that was just a ploy because they were running out and didn't know if they would get resupplied? Keep an open mind, or you will continue to fall into the traps.
Considering that Hamas was actually raiding humanitarian aid trucks and distribution centers by January 2009, I would say it's pretty clear they didn't have unfettered access to such aid.
Yes, the people are suffering from internal forces. Not external.
Ultimately Israel always had the right to inspect the vessels if they have any doubts.
They also have the right to enforce the blockade. Sorry if your antisemitic bias doesn't allow you to see it.
ElNono
06-03-2010, 11:00 AM
What if that was just a ploy because they were running out and didn't know if they would get resupplied? Keep an open mind, or you will continue to fall into the traps.
Maybe. The Egyptian border was open too though. What evidence you have that mortar/rockets supplies entered from one direction and not the other?
I would ask you to keep an open mind while you get educated too, but I'm well aware you're not interested in that.
Yes, the people are suffering from internal forces. Not external.
'Internal forces' doesn't create the list of goods that are 'allowed'. So, they're suffering both from internal and external.
They also have the right to enforce the blockade. Sorry if your antisemitic bias doesn't allow you to see it.
There was no blockade at that time (the agreement, remember?). And even WITH the blockade, they can still request to inspect the ships in the sea.
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 11:03 AM
And you know this because?
What's your expertise in maritime inspections?
Are you aware that ships like that one are inspected in the high seas all the time?
Please stop with such stupid statement. Think about inspecting individual crates of cargo in a known warehouse vs. inspecting the same cargo plus every nook and cranny of a ship, without cutting holes in every bulkhead to look for hidden weapons. You have to cut an unknown ship up for a proper inspection before it unloads outside your control.
Any concept how a ship is constructed?
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 11:08 AM
Maybe. The Egyptian border was open too though. What evidence you have that mortar/rockets supplies entered from one direction and not the other?
Good. You are aware of that.
I would ask you to keep an open mind while you get educated too, but I'm well aware you're not interested in that.
Believe me. I do.
'Internal forces' doesn't create the list of goods that are 'allowed'. So, they're suffering both from internal and external.
Then maybe they should have a revolution and kick out of kill the terrorists.
They are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and now you expect Israel to lower it's security and increase their numbers killed?
Screw that.
There was no blockade at that time (the agreement, remember?). And even WITH the blockade, they can still request to inspect the ships in the sea.
Back to the ignorance of being able to inspect at sea.
IMO, that makes it even worse. They don't know who they might kill. They just hope they kill an Israeli.
If you really want to know what motivates Palestinians, just listen the people interviewed at the end of this video (about 6:30 in).
ABjE_7uwA0I
Allahu Akbar means god is great, not Allah is the greater god.
Nice job on coming up with credible sources
ElNono
06-03-2010, 11:14 AM
Please stop with such stupid statement. Think about inspecting individual crates of cargo in a known warehouse vs. inspecting the same cargo plus every nook and cranny of a ship, without cutting holes in every bulkhead to look for hidden weapons. You have to cut an unknown ship up for a proper inspection before it unloads outside your control.
So you're guessing and know absolutely nothing about maritime inspections.
Not unexpected, and par for the course.
Do you even know what laws and regulations govern the examination of a foreign ship, be it at port or at sea?
Let's start there.
DarrinS
06-03-2010, 11:14 AM
Allahu Akbar means god is great, not Allah is the greater god.
Nice job on coming up with credible sources
Wow, they really fucked up that translation.:rolleyes
I DO speak English, so I was able to understand the stupid people at the end of the video.
Wow, they really fucked up that translation.:rolleyes
I DO speak English, so I was able to understand the stupid people at the end of the video.
So you don't think there's a meaningful difference between the two? Or is your point a cutesy roll of the eyes?
And what's wrong with what they said at the end? They have no problems with Jewish people; they're criticizing a state. What's wrong with that?
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 11:20 AM
So you're guessing and know absolutely nothing about maritime inspections.
Not unexpected, and par for the course.
Wow...
You completely ignore what I say. Talk about par for the course.
Please explain to me how weapons hiding in bullheads will be discovered.
Do you even know what laws and regulations govern the examination of a foreign ship, be it at port or at sea?
Hiding your ignorance behind the law again I see.
Let's start there.
No, I'm finished with you until you have a argument that isn't stupid.
ElNono
06-03-2010, 11:21 AM
Good. You are aware of that.
Aware of what? Are you going to answer the question or dodge it again? Pretty clear question:
What evidence you have that mortar/rockets supplies entered from one direction and not the other?
Believe me. I do.
I don't believe you. But I have to say that ridiculing you through your own ignorance is both entertaining and hilarious.
Then maybe they should have a revolution and kick out of kill the terrorists.
They are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and now you expect Israel to lower it's security and increase their numbers killed?
Screw that.
I never suggested that. Quote?
I merely said that it's a worthwhile goal to look into finding a solution that doesn't paint with the same brush 1.5 million people.
Back to the ignorance of being able to inspect at sea.
Unlike you, I actually backed up what I'm talking about with relevant documents. Who's the ignorant again?
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 11:22 AM
So you don't think there's a meaningful difference between the two? Or is your point a cutesy roll of the eyes?
And what's wrong with what they said at the end? They have no problems with Jewish people; they're criticizing a state. What's wrong with that?
Israel as a nation was around a few thousand years ago. It wasn't formed in the 40's, it was reestablished then. Anyone using time as an indicator of what nation the land is realizes it is Israel.
Spur_Fanatic
06-03-2010, 11:23 AM
I love it how some people here disregard the law, cause "what matters is morally right". Killing people is morally right? It's a joke Israel can do whatever they want, and every time one complains, the "The world owe us, cause of the Nazis" thing surfaces.
The world is not split between Nazis and Jew sympathizers, mind you.
I'm done trying to convince people about what international waters is, and what national territory is. What the flag in a ship mean, etc. Simply is people won't listen, cause they already have an opinion, an agenda to carry. We are no going to convince them, they are not going to convince us.
An aid ship gets to Gaza, and suddenly the "they must be giving them rockets and rpg's!" notion is mentioned! And if we ask for proof of their claims, they ask in return what proof we have they were not moving rockets and rpg's...
See the logic? For some people on all forums, no matter what, we have to believe in Israel's word. Why? Cause it's expected we side with them?
FUCK BOTH SIDES!
I still believe that what's best for the world is that Arabs and Israel destroy each other. They worth nothing to the rest of the world. On that premise, force both sides to sit, and threaten till they compromise to a peace settlement... They won't like it, yeah. Block them. No country is the world is self-sufficient for long.
ElNono
06-03-2010, 11:23 AM
Wow...
You completely ignore what I say. Talk about par for the course.
I answered your every post.
Please explain to me how weapons hiding in bullheads will be discovered.
If you knew what the applicable rules and regulations are, you wouldn't need to ask me for any explanation. Now, get to study.
Hiding your ignorance behind the law again I see. No, I'm finished with you until you have a argument that isn't stupid.
LOL... don't run away!!! Who's hiding now? :lmao
Israel as a nation was around a few thousand years ago. It wasn't formed in the 40's, it was reestablished then. Anyone using time as an indicator of what nation the land is realizes it is Israel.
That's both incorrect and irrelevant.
ElNono
06-03-2010, 11:26 AM
LOL @ WC that traps himself in a corner then runs away... :lol
Drachen
06-03-2010, 11:27 AM
From Free Gaza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Gaza):
Medical supplies and what else? Funny how in November they were firing mortars and rockets again.
Coincidence? I doubt it.
Can't you think of ONE other reason that they weren't firing at that time? REALLY??
That was during a cease fire! Geez, some people just dont pay attention to what is going on in the world.
Spur_Fanatic
06-03-2010, 11:27 AM
Israel as a nation was around a few thousand years ago. It wasn't formed in the 40's, it was reestablished then. Anyone using time as an indicator of what nation the land is realizes it is Israel.
You are a nation if the fucking rest of the nations recognize you as a nation, not because you just say so.
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 11:28 AM
That's both incorrect and irrelevant.
Israel existed about 1200 BC. The Islam nations didn't annex the area of Israel until the 600's AD.
Spur_Fanatic
06-03-2010, 11:29 AM
Hiding behind the law is ignorance?
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 11:30 AM
LOL @ WC that traps himself in a corner then runs away... :lol
No, I just cannot put up with utter stupidity at the moment.
ElNono
06-03-2010, 11:31 AM
Hiding behind the law is ignorance?
Gold. Should be my next sig. :lol
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 11:32 AM
Hiding behind the law is ignorance?
Hiding behind one specific law when another says otherwise. El don't-know is hiding behind a peacetime law rather than acknowledging the laws in play at the effective state of war, and legal blockade.
ElNono
06-03-2010, 11:33 AM
No, I just cannot put up with utter stupidity at the moment.
While you're at it, do your homework and educate yourself with laws and regulations governing maritime inspections, so we can actually have an informed discussion.
Wouldn't want to have to call you out for talking out of your ass again.
Spur_Fanatic
06-03-2010, 11:34 AM
You quoted a Reuters journalist opinion. Yet the UN laws are clear on those matters.
The UN statutes on international waters is then wrong?
Israel existed about 1200 BC. The Islam nations didn't annex the area of Israel until the 600's AD.
Islam nation? Did you just learn english?
Israel, as the geopolitical sovereign state, did not exist in 1200bc. The concept of a nation state did not exist at that time. There was a Jewish population or "people" and that is sometimes referred to as a nation. But it's no more a nation than "spurs nation" or "cavs nation."
The sovereign state was created in 1948. The girl in the video had problems with the policies of that state, not Jews.
Again, irrelevant and incorrect.
Drachen
06-03-2010, 11:41 AM
Israel existed about 1200 BC. The Islam nations didn't annex the area of Israel until the 600's AD.
I would actually counter that since that area was "originally" under the control of the Semetic people, that the Arabs have a "better" historical claim to it. The Arabic bloodline was affected by the Crusades, no doubt, but many many of the Jews living there now, had been parts of familys that had been living in Europe for many hundreds, even thousands of years.
This is all, of course a matter of intellectually curious, but futile debate, and based on an assumption (by me) that for the above reasons, the arab blood is "purer" than the jewish blood.
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 11:41 AM
Islam nation? Did you just learn english?
Israel, as the geopolitical sovereign state, did not exist in 1200bc. The concept of a nation state did not exist at that time. There was a Jewish population or "people" and that is sometimes referred to as a nation. But it's no more a nation than "spurs nation" or "cavs nation."
The sovereign state was created in 1948. The girl in the video had problems with the policies of that state, not Jews.
Again, irrelevant and incorrect.
I disagree. I would say you are setting your own qualifiers to justify your racism.
Spur_Fanatic
06-03-2010, 11:41 AM
Netanyahu just said "they don't want Gaza to be a port for Iran, which would be a real menace to Europe"?
OMG! All this time Israel has been looking our for the world's interests! :O
ElNono
06-03-2010, 11:42 AM
Hiding behind one specific law when another says otherwise. El don't-know is hiding behind a peacetime law rather than acknowledging the laws in play at the effective state of war, and legal blockade.
1) It was pointed out to you, in multiple instances, that there was effectively no blockade at the time
2) The onus is on you to prove that the law I'm making reference to only applies in peace times as opposed to war times or any other times.
Stop running away, calling me antisemitic, and address the actual points.
You've been good at nothing but beating around the bush in this thread and have the gall to tell other people that they bring nothing to the table.
Stop wasting my time if you can't even reference the sources of your own claims.
Spur_Fanatic
06-03-2010, 11:42 AM
I disagree. I would say you are setting your own qualifiers to justify your racism.
He must be a nazi, amiright? :rolleyes
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 11:44 AM
I would actually counter that since that area was "originally" under the control of the Semetic people, that the Arabs have a "better" historical claim to it. The Arabic bloodline was affected by the Crusades, no doubt, but many many of the Jews living there now, had been parts of familys that had been living in Europe for many hundreds, even thousands of years.
This is all, of course a matter of intellectually curious, but futile debate, and based on an assumption (by me) that for the above reasons, the arab blood is "purer" than the jewish blood.
The "semetic people" include the Hebrews, which the Jewish people are form. The Hebrews were in that area, and became Israel, because of a leaders name.
Wanna try again?
I disagree. I would say you are setting your own qualifiers to justify your racism.
Guess I'll join the Islams in a circle of racism then ...
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 11:56 AM
He must be a nazi, amiright? :rolleyes
I'm beginning to think anyone who refuses to acknowledge certain facts, have that mindset.
Drachen
06-03-2010, 12:03 PM
The "semetic people" include the Hebrews, which the Jewish people are form. The Hebrews were in that area, and became Israel, because of a leaders name.
Wanna try again?
Reading comprehension. The Semitic peoples include the Hebrews, Arabs, Ethiopeans, Canaanites, and Phoenicians. My point was that due to the dispersal of the Jewish people for many hundreds (and in some cases thousands of years) amongst non-Semitic people, and having just recently come back to the area, it is likely that the Arabs are far more Semitic than the Jews living in that area.
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 12:09 PM
Reading comprehension. The Semitic peoples include the Hebrews, Arabs, Ethiopeans, Canaanites, and Phoenicians. My point was that due to the dispersal of the Jewish people for many hundreds (and in some cases thousands of years) amongst non-Semitic people, and having just recently come back to the area, it is likely that the Arabs are far more Semitic than the Jews living in that area.
OK, you just outed yourself.
Racial purity.
ChumpDumper
06-03-2010, 12:36 PM
OK, you just outed yourself.
Racial purity.OK, you just outed yourself.
Abject stupidity.
Drachen
06-03-2010, 12:48 PM
OK, you just outed yourself.
Racial purity.
Outed what how?
Your arguement was that Israel was set up before Muslims made claim to the area. My arguement was that Semetic people (including Hebrews) were there before Israel was set up. Now if you want to go that route, you have to determine who has stronger claim since both groups are of the exact same peoples. Well, obviously it would be the ones who are of that people to the greater extent. You could even go really crazy and say that since Ismael was the first-born son of abraham that his offspring have greater claim to Abraham's legacy than Isaacs offspring.
Once again, this is just a fun exercise in intellectual curiosity than any kind of legally binding issue.
Whoever has a "historical" claim to the land is wholly irrelevant. It's reasonable to have an Israeli state just like it's reasonable to have a Palestinian one. The issue is the legitimacy of the policies pursued by the state. If it boxes up a million-five, deprives them of basic living necessities, and programatically destroys them, it's fair to question the legality of those claiming the right to run a state. If Obama started killing all native americans currently on Indian land, people would question the legality of those acts. And if the administration continued in it's course of action, people would rightly question the administrations right to control the government. The same thing can be said of Israel.
Who came from where, and when is irrelevant and impossible to prove.
Drachen
06-03-2010, 01:34 PM
Whoever has a "historical" claim to the land is wholly irrelevant. It's reasonable to have an Israeli state just like it's reasonable to have a Palestinian one. The issue is the legitimacy of the policies pursued by the state. If it boxes up a million-five, deprives them of basic living necessities, and programatically destroys them, it's fair to question the legality of those claiming the right to run a state. If Obama started killing all native americans currently on Indian land, people would question the legality of those acts. And if the administration continued in it's course of action, people would rightly question the administrations right to control the government. The same thing can be said of Israel.
Who came from where, and when is irrelevant and impossible to prove.
I agree with everything you wrote until the last 3 words. I only went that route to essentially show how silly it is.
DarrinS
06-03-2010, 01:53 PM
Whoever has a "historical" claim to the land is wholly irrelevant. It's reasonable to have an Israeli state just like it's reasonable to have a Palestinian one. The issue is the legitimacy of the policies pursued by the state. If it boxes up a million-five, deprives them of basic living necessities, and programatically destroys them, it's fair to question the legality of those claiming the right to run a state. If Obama started killing all native americans currently on Indian land, people would question the legality of those acts. And if the administration continued in it's course of action, people would rightly question the administrations right to control the government. The same thing can be said of Israel.
Who came from where, and when is irrelevant and impossible to prove.
I would agree with this if it were true.
this argument is getting painful to wathc :(
WC, you are cool and i like how you take a stance for what you believe in, but just this once don't hold Israel up on a pedestal and make them a 100% right in every situation.
You're right. It's like they combined Disneyworld and the spearmint rhino over there. Wanna take a visit?
19 year old american kid dead :( just been confirmed.
Shot at close range 5 times. 4 in the head, one in the chest.
http://open.salon.com/blog/gordon_wagner/2010/06/03/eight_turks_one_us_citizen_shot_dead_by_israel
DarkReign
06-03-2010, 02:05 PM
This has to be one of the more useless, tiresome threads I have ever read.
16 pages of circles. Seriously, gentlemen.
One must admit defeat in the face of willful ignorance. Certain personalities have no intention of breaking with their emotional convictions, evidence and law be damned.
You cannot argue or convince these individuals of anything. Ignore, admit defeat or conquer. Those are the choices.
Cry Havoc
06-03-2010, 02:09 PM
This has to be one of the more useless, tiresome threads I have ever read.
16 pages of circles. Seriously, gentlemen.
One must admit defeat in the face of willful ignorance. Certain personalities have no intention of breaking with their emotional convictions, evidence and law be damned.
You cannot argue or convince these individuals of anything. Ignore, admit defeat or conquer. Those are the choices.
It's really sad when a person cannot admit that they're simply wrong. WC claims to be person of science, yet he clings to his "feelings" in this situation over the law to ascertain what's right and wrong. It's depressing. :depressed
This has to be one of the more useless, tiresome threads I have ever read.
16 pages of circles. Seriously, gentlemen.
One must admit defeat in the face of willful ignorance. Certain personalities have no intention of breaking with their emotional convictions, evidence and law be damned.
You cannot argue or convince these individuals of anything. Ignore, admit defeat or conquer. Those are the choices.
this was actually one of the few times I thought no one could conjure up bullshit and just man up and say israel was wrong.
I'm still wondering what would happen if they were to nuke hawaii or something.
I'm guessing it would be something like they were hiding rockets or planning an attack.
Cry Havoc
06-03-2010, 02:30 PM
this was actually one of the few times I thought no one could conjure up bullshit and just man up and say israel was wrong.
I'm still wondering what would happen if they were to nuke hawaii or something.
I'm guessing it would be something like they were hiding rockets or planning an attack.
Haven't you heard? Ireland is full of Nazis now. :lol
Shastafarian
06-03-2010, 02:38 PM
I'm not commenting on anything anymore but I will post relevant articles.
ISTANBUL — One of the nine people killed in an Israeli commando raid on a flotilla of ships heading for Gaza this week was a United States citizen of Turkish descent, officials in Turkey and Washington said Thursday.
Related
The development added a new diplomatic complexity as Israel struggled to defuse rising international anger over its raid on six ships seeking to break its blockade of the Gaza Strip, where officials from the Hamas movement were reported on Thursday to be resisting Israeli efforts to deliver truckloads of goods seized from the flotilla...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/world/middleeast/04flotilla.html?exprod=myyahoo
Ghazi
06-03-2010, 03:13 PM
Israel-where killing Americans happens
EmptyMan
06-03-2010, 03:15 PM
Would not have happened if they hired Rambo to escort them...just sayin'
Drachen
06-03-2010, 03:57 PM
I have to ask, since the word Floatilla isn't used very often, does anyone else picture a taco shaped float for the river parade?
DarrinS
06-03-2010, 05:12 PM
I have to ask, since the word Floatilla isn't used very often, does anyone else picture a taco shaped float for the river parade?
or a flotilla
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 10:14 PM
this argument is getting painful to wathc :(
WC, you are cool and i like how you take a stance for what you believe in, but just this once don't hold Israel up on a pedestal and make them a 100% right in every situation.
I never claimed such thing. Like any government, they have their problems and mistakes. I cannot stand, however, that bigoted people see them as always being the problem.
Israel got caught in a trap to sever for propaganda. They did nothing wrong in this case, except not foreseeing the possible outcome that has occurred. I understand that some disagree with that viewpoint. Sure, they could have done things differently. I seriously doubt the end result would have been any better if they did.
Would you agree their is an obvious hatred to Israel by many people here? Is that healthy?
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 10:22 PM
It's really sad when a person cannot admit that they're simply wrong. WC claims to be person of science, yet he clings to his "feelings" in this situation over the law to ascertain what's right and wrong. It's depressing. :depressed
Where have my feeling outweighed my insistence of natural laws and rights of self preservation.
None of this would have happened if groups of terrorists would stop trying to destroy Israel. You want to blame Israel for protecting themselves in a manner they think appropriate and legal. It's not me that is forgetting that cultures and methodologies are different in other nations. Those of you convicting Israel over this are placing your standards over them. Most of you doing this are of the same mindset that claim to believe in multiculturalism, then refuse to see it from that different viewpoint.
Israel has an internationally accepted blockade in place. You may not like how they enforce it, but their methods are effective.
Wild Cobra
06-03-2010, 10:27 PM
I'm not commenting on anything anymore but I will post relevant articles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/world/middleeast/04flotilla.html?exprod=myyahoo
Leave it to the New York Slimes to misrepresent the truth.
What does "of Turkish decent" mean to you? The intended impression is his ancestry is from Turkey, but born in the USA.
Bullshit. You really have to watch how these left wing outlets mislead people.
He is from Kayseri, Turkey. A naturalized citizen, not born here. No mention of how old he was when his parents brought him here. He may be American by paper only.
ElNono
06-03-2010, 10:47 PM
None of this would have happened if groups of terrorists would stop trying to destroy Israel. You want to blame Israel for protecting themselves in a manner they think appropriate and legal. It's not me that is forgetting that cultures and methodologies are different in other nations. Those of you convicting Israel over this are placing your standards over them. Most of you doing this are of the same mindset that claim to believe in multiculturalism, then refuse to see it from that different viewpoint.
So you're ok with Hamas shooting rockets at Israeli civilians. You know, they have their own 'culture and methodology'. I personally do not, and condemn those acts.
I don't believe in violence against civilians, no matter who does it or what flags they're waving, and that has nothing to do with multiculturalism.
Israel has every right to do whatever it wants to do within it's boundaries. Outside of their jurisdiction, they need to behave just like every other good nation in the world, respecting the laws and treaties that they agreed to uphold. If they need help from the international community to comply, I'm sure they'll get all the help they need from their allies.
Luckily, rumors have started circulating that Israel is looking to comply with international law going forward. This is an excerpt from an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/world/middleeast/04flotilla.html?hp) today:
Israel’s Channel 2 television news reported on Thursday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had proposed to Tony Blair, the international envoy of the so-called quartet of Middle East peacemakers, that an international naval force inspect future aid ships bound for Gaza.
This is a good sign. It means that a workable solution is out there. Let's hope it comes to fruition.
ElNono
06-03-2010, 10:50 PM
I'm not commenting on anything anymore but I will post relevant articles.
We welcome comments from people that have insightful things to say. You've shown to understand what the discussion is and are definitely welcome to contribute.
I would say that even if we didn't agree initially, I thought we had a great exchange when the news broke out. :toast
ElNono
06-03-2010, 10:52 PM
I never claimed such thing. Like any government, they have their problems and mistakes. I cannot stand, however, that bigoted people see them as always being the problem.
I agree. Generalizations are almost always unfair and simply wrong.
ChumpDumper
06-04-2010, 06:23 AM
Leave it to the New York Slimes to misrepresent the truth.
What does "of Turkish decent" mean to you? The intended impression is his ancestry is from Turkey, but born in the USA.
Bullshit. You really have to watch how these left wing outlets mislead people.
He is from Kayseri, Turkey. A naturalized citizen, not born here. No mention of how old he was when his parents brought him here. He may be American by paper only.So what does that matter?
Do you consider him less a citizen than others such as yourself?
velik_m
06-04-2010, 09:44 AM
Leave it to the New York Slimes to misrepresent the truth.
What does "of Turkish decent" mean to you? The intended impression is his ancestry is from Turkey, but born in the USA.
Bullshit. You really have to watch how these left wing outlets mislead people.
He is from Kayseri, Turkey. A naturalized citizen, not born here. No mention of how old he was when his parents brought him here. He may be American by paper only.
Actually he was born in USA and moved to Turkey.
The youngest of the dead activists, 19-year-old Furkan Dogan - who was born in the US but moved to Turkey as a child - is being buried in his hometown of Kayseri in central Turkey on Friday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10236884.stm
Wild Cobra
06-04-2010, 10:34 AM
Actually he was born in USA and moved to Turkey.
OK, I stand corrected. So he is technically a US citizen by birth, but it's worse than I thought. He was raised in Turkey rather than here.
IceColdBrewski
06-04-2010, 01:02 PM
TDQ1O7tBEV8
ChumpDumper
06-04-2010, 01:04 PM
OK, I stand corrected. So he is technically a US citizen by birth, but it's worse than I thought. He was raised in Turkey rather than here.
So what does that matter?
Do you consider him less a citizen than others such as yourself?
Mavs_man_41
06-04-2010, 01:12 PM
look at those animals in the video! they would have undoubtedly attacked the young boy if not for police interference, and why? because he's Israeli.
Shastafarian
06-05-2010, 02:43 PM
Israel diverts Gaza aid ship Rachel Corrie to Ashdod
An aid ship intercepted by the Israeli military while trying to break the blockade of Gaza has arrived in the Israeli port of Ashdod.
Israel says its soldiers boarded the Irish-owned Rachel Corrie from the sea and did not meet any resistance.
There has been no word from those on board, who include several activists.
The incident comes five days after nine people were killed in clashes when troops boarded a Turkish aid ship, prompting international criticism.
Israel says it will question those on board at the port and transfer the aid to the Gaza Strip by land after checking the cargo for banned items.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the peaceful outcome to the operation.
The Israeli military issued footage of the Rachel Corrie boarding
"We saw today the difference between a ship of peace activists, with whom we don't agree but respect their right to a different opinion from ours, and between a ship of hate organised by violent Turkish terror extremists," Mr Netanyahu's office quoted him as saying.
Mary Hughes, a co-founder of the Free Gaza Movement which organised the shipment, told the BBC she was "outraged" by the latest Israeli action.
"They (the Israelis) once again went into international water and violently boarded a boat and forced people against their will to go to Israel, when all we wanted was to be left to go to Gaza, which is our goal," she said.
She added that further aid shipments to Gaza would be organised.
"We will continue until we break the siege," she said.
article continues (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10245176.stm)
Winehole23
06-06-2010, 03:46 AM
Nine Turkish activists killed in an Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship were shot a total of 30 times and five died of gunshot wounds to the head, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Friday.
Israeli commandos stormed a flotilla of aid ships planning to break the Israeli sea blockade of Gaza on Monday. The deaths, which all took place on one ship, the Mavi Marmara, drew widespread condemnation.
Israel said the marines who rappelled onto the Mavi Marmara fired in self-defense after activists attacked them with clubs and knives as well as two pistols snatched from the commandos.
The autopsy results showed that a 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back, the Guardian said.
A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has U.S. citizenship, as shot five times from less than 45 cm away, in the face, the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back, it said.
Two other men were shot four times. Five of those killed were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, the Guardian quoted Buyuk as saying.http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-autopsy-shows-gaza-activists-were-shot-a-total-of-30-times-1.294255
Winehole23
06-06-2010, 04:51 AM
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-was-right-1.293886
MaNuMaNiAc
06-06-2010, 07:01 AM
OK, I stand corrected. So he is technically a US citizen by birth, but it's worse than I thought. He was raised in Turkey rather than here.
let me get this straight, first you accuse him of being "just" a naturalized American or in your words "in paper only" as if being that makes him somehow less of a citizen than you, then when you're proven to be full of shit you move the goal posts and now the fact that he was born in the US makes no difference because he was raised somewhere else...
Seriously, you have got to be the most full of shit poster in this forum. I've never seen anyone argue for so long on no fucking point at all. You make it look like an art form.
DarrinS
06-06-2010, 08:17 AM
Israel diverts Gaza aid ship Rachel Corrie to Ashdod
An aid ship intercepted by the Israeli military while trying to break the blockade of Gaza has arrived in the Israeli port of Ashdod.
Israel says its soldiers boarded the Irish-owned Rachel Corrie from the sea and did not meet any resistance.
There has been no word from those on board, who include several activists.
The incident comes five days after nine people were killed in clashes when troops boarded a Turkish aid ship, prompting international criticism.
Israel says it will question those on board at the port and transfer the aid to the Gaza Strip by land after checking the cargo for banned items.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the peaceful outcome to the operation.
The Israeli military issued footage of the Rachel Corrie boarding
"We saw today the difference between a ship of peace activists, with whom we don't agree but respect their right to a different opinion from ours, and between a ship of hate organised by violent Turkish terror extremists," Mr Netanyahu's office quoted him as saying.
Mary Hughes, a co-founder of the Free Gaza Movement which organised the shipment, told the BBC she was "outraged" by the latest Israeli action.
"They (the Israelis) once again went into international water and violently boarded a boat and forced people against their will to go to Israel, when all we wanted was to be left to go to Gaza, which is our goal," she said.
She added that further aid shipments to Gaza would be organised.
"We will continue until we break the siege," she said.
article continues (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10245176.stm)
So, when Israeli soldiers board a ship and aren't immediately attacked with clubs, knives, and axes, they don't have to resort to self-defense? What a concept.
DarkReign
06-06-2010, 09:16 AM
So, when Israeli soldiers board a ship and aren't immediately attacked with clubs, knives, and axes, they don't have to resort to self-defense? What a concept.
...in international waters.
DarrinS
06-06-2010, 12:11 PM
...in international waters.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/04/MNCB1DP01I.DTL
As another ship carrying activists and supplies heads toward besieged Gaza, Israel is asserting the right to stop and search the vessel as it did earlier this week, when commandos boarded a flotilla in international waters and shot and killed nine passengers.
Normally, a nation that seizes a ship on the high seas, beyond its territorial waters, is guilty of piracy. But a nation that is enforcing a blockade in wartime has the right to board a ship that it reasonably suspects of carrying contraband for the cordoned-off area.
That raises the critical question of whether Israel acted legally nearly three years ago when it imposed a blockade on Gaza after withdrawing its troops. Most, though not all, scholars surveyed by The Chronicle said the blockade was legal.
"Israel has suffered rocket attacks that have been launched from Gaza and has the right of self-defense," said Chimene Keitner, an associate professor at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco who specializes in international criminal law.
Essentials allowed
"Under international law, the blockade probably can be justified," Keitner said. At the same time, she said, the law entitles civilians in a blockaded area to receive food, medicine and other essentials, and Israel may be violating that requirement.
"Most international lawyers ... would say a blockade is permissible in an armed conflict, and it includes the ability to stop and search ships in international waters," said Allen Weiner, co-director of Stanford's International Law Program. Although Israel has the right to control its border with Gaza, he added, it has applied a "choke hold ... that most of the world views as cruel and unjust."
Supplies on the ships included cement to rebuild some of the thousands of homes destroyed in Israeli bombing raids a year and a half ago. The blockade bars shipments of cement because it might be used for military purposes. Documents obtained by the Israeli human rights group Gisha have disclosed that chocolate, potato chips, fresh meat and fishing rods are also excluded.
'Armed conflict'?
Other scholars said it's not clear that Israel is in an "international armed conflict" with Gaza's Hamas leaders, a prerequisite for a legal blockade.
For such a conflict to exist, Israel would have to acknowledge that it is occupying Gaza, said Michael Scharf, an international law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio and a former State Department attorney under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
The Obama administration has expressed no such qualms. Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday that Israel is entitled to enforce its blockade.
"Israel has a right to know - they're at war with Hamas - has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in," Biden told PBS' Charlie Rose. "It's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping ... 3,000 rockets on my people.' ''
U.N. official's protest
Richard Falk, the United Nations' human rights investigator for the Palestinian territories, has a sharply different view. After the commando raid Monday, he called the Gaza blockade "a crime against humanity" and advocated prosecution of Israeli leaders who ordered the ships seized.
Falk, a former professor of international law at Princeton University, said Israel had shot unarmed civilians on ships "in the high seas where freedom of navigation exists."
Israel says its blockade is legal and humane and its forces defended themselves from shipboard attacks. Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said the ship's passengers "have wrapped themselves in a humanitarian cloak" while "engaging in political propaganda."
Beyond the factual disagreements is another legal dispute, with Falk arguing that Israeli forces, as aggressors, had no right of self-defense, while the passengers were entitled to protect themselves.
But Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of international law at Johns Hopkins University, said the ships were legally required to allow the Israelis to board.
'Made-for-TV' meeting
"This was a made-for-TV confrontation," she said. "It ought to have been resolved by having the Freedom Flotilla submit to search. Then you could have had a principled dispute about whether Israel is refusing humanitarian aid to Gaza."
Meanwhile, an Irish vessel has left Malta with 19 aboard, including Mairead Corrigan Maguire, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976 for her work against violence in Northern Ireland.
The ship is due to reach Gaza early today. Israel has vowed to intercept it.
Wild Cobra
06-06-2010, 12:18 PM
...in international waters.
Did you miss post #280:
Excerpts from San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMST):
SECTION VI : CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS
146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:
(a) are carrying contraband;
(b) are on a voyage especially undertaken with a view to the transport of individual passengers who are embodied in the armed forces of the enemy;
(c) are operating directly under enemy control, orders, charter, employment or direction;
(d) present irregular or fraudulent documents, lack necessary documents, or destroy, deface or conceal documents;
(e) are violating regulations established by a belligerent within the immediate area of naval operations; or
(f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.
Capture of a neutral merchant vessel is exercised by taking such vessel as prize for adjudication.
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.
ElNono
06-06-2010, 12:19 PM
"Most international lawyers ... would say a blockade is permissible in an armed conflict, and it includes the ability to stop and search ships in international waters,"
Correct. They can intercept and request to search the ship. However, Israel declined to do so. They haven't searched any of the ships at sea.
ElNono
06-06-2010, 12:21 PM
Did you miss post #280:
Excerpts from San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMST):
You missed post #288, excerpts from the same San Remo manual...
That's irrelevant. It's from a treatlse on armed conflict at sea. Also, it applies to merchant vessels, not humanitarian/civilian ships. And, that's not even to get into whether the laundry list of factors even applies.
And for the money shot:
The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
(a) hospital ships;
(b) small craft used for coastal rescue operations and other medical transports;
(c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:
(i) cartel vessels, e.g., vessels designated for and engaged in the transport of prisoners of war;
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;
(d) vessels engaged in transporting cultural property under special protection;
(e) passenger vessels when engaged only in carrying civilian passengers;
(f) vessels charged with religious, non-military scientific or philanthropic missions; vessels collecting scientific data of likely military applications are not protected;
(g) small coastal fishing vessels and small boats engaged in local coastal trade, but they are subject to the regulations of a belligerent naval commander operating in the area and to inspection;
(h) vessels designated or adapted exclusively for responding to pollution incidents in the marine environment;
(i) vessels which have surrendered;
(j) life rafts and lifeboats.
ElNono
06-06-2010, 12:23 PM
So, when Israeli soldiers board a ship and aren't immediately attacked with clubs, knives, and axes, they don't have to resort to self-defense? What a concept.
Not a new concept. 5 of the 6 previous ships didn't respond violently.
That doesn't mean that Israel has any right to board the ships in the first place.
Wild Cobra
06-06-2010, 12:36 PM
You missed post #288, excerpts from the same San Remo manual...
No I didn't. I said something about it before.
Sometimes things are in conflict. Israel has unequivocal proof that the ships were going to run the blockade. It was not a valid charitable relief ship like say, Red Cross. The group was full of Palestinian sympathizers and activists. It is proper to assume that some supplies are military, in which case, it is definitely not shielded by your argument.
Now I now you will talk about innocent till proven guilty. We have that concept. It doesn't work like that in most of the world.
Consider two rules of law in conflict. Israel did what they thought was right. Under the circumstances, I think if this ever goes to a legal hearing, Israel will win.
DarrinS
06-06-2010, 12:44 PM
Not a new concept. 5 of the 6 previous ships didn't respond violently.
That doesn't mean that Israel has any right to board the ships in the first place.
I think opinion varies on this. You can say it's illegal all you want and I can find numerous maritime attorneys that say it is legal.
ChumpDumper
06-06-2010, 01:26 PM
So, when Israeli soldiers board a ship and aren't immediately attacked with clubs, knives, and axes, they don't have to resort to self-defense? What a concept.Did commandos with guns drop from helicopters this time?
ElNono
06-06-2010, 01:29 PM
I think opinion varies on this. You can say it's illegal all you want and I can find numerous maritime attorneys that say it is legal.
Link? None you provided so far supports that point.
ElNono
06-06-2010, 01:31 PM
No I didn't. I said something about it before.
What you 'think' is irrelevant. Your San Remo manual has been demonstrated to be entirely irrelevant in this case. You need to reach for another manual.
Sometimes things are in conflict.
There's no conflict here. You can proceed respecting the law or you don't.
Mavs_man_41
06-06-2010, 03:08 PM
Did commandos with guns drop from helicopters this time?
you are such a troll why do you even waste your own time?
ChumpDumper
06-06-2010, 03:14 PM
you are such a troll why do you even waste your own time?Why do you waste your time reading and responding?
I was actually serious. Were commandos with guns dropping onto the boat this time?
Shastafarian
06-06-2010, 03:22 PM
Why do you waste your time reading and responding?
I was actually serious. Were commandos with guns dropping onto the boat this time?
Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answer?
ChumpDumper
06-06-2010, 03:41 PM
Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answer?I don't know the answer to this question. I thought someone who knew could tell me quickly. Is it in the rest of the article you posted?
Shastafarian
06-06-2010, 03:42 PM
I don't know the answer to this question. I thought someone who knew could tell me quickly. Is it in the rest of the article Darrin posted?
It's in the rest of the article I posted. There's an embedded video.
ChumpDumper
06-06-2010, 03:44 PM
It's in the rest of the article I posted. There's an embedded video.So you couldn't just tell me?
Shastafarian
06-06-2010, 03:46 PM
So you couldn't just tell me?
Why would I do that when you can see it for yourself?
ChumpDumper
06-06-2010, 03:49 PM
Why would I do that when you can see it for yourself?Save yourself several stupid posts.
So, since Shastafarian was afraid to just say it for some reason, there were no commandos with guns dropping from helicopters this time.
:tu
Shastafarian
06-06-2010, 03:51 PM
Save yourself several stupid posts.
So, since Shastafarian was afraid to just say it for some reason, there were no commandos with guns dropping from helicopters this time.
:tuHow was I afraid to say it? I posted the article. If you're too lazy or disinterested to actually read about what we're discussing, that's not my problem.
Shastafarian
06-06-2010, 03:54 PM
Why do you waste your time reading and responding?
I was actually serious. Were commandos with guns dropping onto the boat this time?
So when you're serious about knowing something you want us to spoon feed you what you want? I guess from now on we should just copy and paste entire articles and embed any videos found within. That would save you the hassle of actually having to do something on your own.
ChumpDumper
06-06-2010, 03:58 PM
How was I afraid to say it? I posted the article. If you're too lazy or disinterested to actually read about what we're discussing, that's not my problem.I asked a simple question to which you knew the answer and refused to divulge out of some weird fear that it undermines your pro-Israel stance. If you are too afraid to answer my question, don't get all pissy about it and whine about my asking questions. If it's not your problem, don't whine about it.
Good move by Israel not dropping commandos with guns on this ship. :tu
ChumpDumper
06-06-2010, 04:01 PM
So when you're serious about knowing something you want us to spoon feed you what you want? I guess from now on we should just copy and paste entire articles and embed any videos found within. That would save you the hassle of actually having to do something on your own.You could just answer the question with a simple yes or no and not make yourself look like an infant whining about my question post after post.
Shastafarian
06-06-2010, 04:02 PM
I asked a simple question to which you knew the answer and refused to divulge out of some weird fear that it undermines your pro-Israel stance.I "refused" to answer it because clearly you hadn't read the article. I wanted to help you out. You chose ad-hominem instead. Can't say I'm surprised. I guess disappointed would be a better word to describe it.
If you are too afraid to answer my question, don't get all pissy about it and whine about my asking questions. If it's not your problem, don't whine about it.Wasn't whining. I just had a feeling you hadn't read what you were commenting on. I was right.
Good move by Israel not dropping commandos with guns on this ship. :tu
Good move by the ship's captain telling the people on board to sit and not resist.
Shastafarian
06-06-2010, 04:03 PM
You could just answer the question with a simple yes or no and not make yourself look like an infant whining about my question post after post.
I answered it by steering you to the article everyone else was discussing. You know, the article you didn't read. It's funny how you always blast WC and others for not reading shit they comment on. They deserve it no doubt. But then you go an turn into them. A shame really.
ChumpDumper
06-06-2010, 04:05 PM
I "refused" to answer it because clearly you hadn't read the article. I wanted to help you out. You chose ad-hominem instead. Can't say I'm surprised. I guess disappointed would be a better word to describe it.Whining.
Wasn't whining. I just had a feeling you hadn't read what you were commenting on. I was right.Whining.
Good move by the ship's captain telling the people on board to sit and not resist.Agreed.
Do you think Israel's not dropping commandos with guns from helicopters was also a good move? That wasn't in the article you posted.
Shastafarian
06-06-2010, 04:07 PM
Whining.
Whining.I guess you don't like it when people call you on not reading articles huh?
Agreed.
Do you think Israel's not dropping commandos with guns from helicopters was also a good move? That wasn't in the article you posted.
Did you finally read the article?
ChumpDumper
06-06-2010, 04:07 PM
I answered it by steering you to the article everyone else was discussing. You know, the article you didn't read. It's funny how you always blast WC and others for not reading shit they comment on. They deserve it no doubt. But then you go an turn into them. A shame really.I wasn't commenting on it. I was asking a question about it. After the question was answered, then I commented on it.
Now you are simply lying about what I did.
A shame really.
Shastafarian
06-06-2010, 04:08 PM
I wasn't commenting on it. I was asking a question about it. After the question was answered, then I commented on it.
Now you are simply lying about what I did.
A shame really.
So instead of reading the article you had questions about, you ask us. Glad we clarified that.
ChumpDumper
06-06-2010, 04:09 PM
I guess you don't like it when people call you on not reading articles huh?A yes or no would have done fine. You were just pissy about actually answering because you think it somehow makes the raid look bad. I can't blame you. People like WC and yoni stonewall all the time when they are faced with making a concession.
Did you finally read the article?Stonewalling.
ChumpDumper
06-06-2010, 04:11 PM
So instead of reading the article you had questions about, you ask us. Glad we clarified that.You knew, didn't you? Had I known you would be so pissy and evasive, I certainly wouldn't have bothered asking. Most of the time, folks are rather forthcoming with simple facts. From now on, you can assume I am not asking you for any simple facts, because I know it upsets you so.
Shastafarian
06-06-2010, 04:12 PM
A yes or no would have done fine. You were just pissy about actually answering because you think it somehow makes the raid look bad.Nope. I don't think it makes that much of a difference whether soldiers repel down from a helicopter versus soldiers boarding from a ship. Oh shoot I ruined the ending for you!
I can't blame you. People like WC and yoni stonewall all the time when they are faced with making a concession. So your theory is what exactly? I hoped no one would click on the link and see for themselves what happened with the Rachel Corrie? I mean, I guess that's an ok theory for people who don't click the link and actually read the article.
Stonewalling.
Is that a no? Watch the video embedded in the article and then we'll discuss it.
Shastafarian
06-06-2010, 04:13 PM
You knew, didn't you? Had I known you would be so pissy and evasive, I certainly wouldn't have bothered asking. Most of the time, folks are rather forthcoming with simple facts. From now on, you can assume I am not asking you for any simple facts, because I know it upsets you so.
My biggest mistake was thinking for a second you already knew the answer to your question and were trying to troll DarrinS. If I had given you a simple "yes" or "no" you'd never read articles for yourself. What kind of friend would I be if I didn't help you?
ChumpDumper
06-06-2010, 04:16 PM
Nope. I don't think it makes that much of a difference whether soldiers repel down from a helicopter versus soldiers boarding from a ship. Oh shoot I ruined the ending for you!I do think it makes a significant difference. You are free to disagree.
So your theory is what exactly? I hoped no one would click on the link and see for themselves what happened with the Rachel Corrie? I mean, I guess that's an ok theory for people who don't click the link and actually read the article.My "theory" is you can't expect everyone to read every linked article completely and watch every video. You assumed I already had -- or you didn't. Whatever the case, you certainly seem to relish the opportunity to be pissy about it.
Is that a no? Watch the video embedded in the article and then we'll discuss it.Read the article. Watched the video. It basically did the same thing you could have answered with one word. Thanks for letting us all know just how much your butt hurts because I didn't click a link.
Shastafarian
06-06-2010, 04:19 PM
My "theory" is you can't expect everyone to read every linked article completely and watch every video. You assumed I already had -- or you didn't. Whatever the case, you certainly seem to relish the opportunity to be pissy about it.Is it pissy when you do the exact same things to WC and DarrinS?
Read the article. Watched the video. It basically did the same thing you could have answered with one word. Thanks for letting us all know just how much your butt hurts because I didn't click a link.
:lol
So my plan worked then. I win.
ChumpDumper
06-06-2010, 04:19 PM
My biggest mistake was thinking for a second you already knew the answer to your question and were trying to troll DarrinS.Yep, you fucked up and got really pissy about it.
If I had given you a simple "yes" or "no" you'd never read articles for yourself.Sure I would.
What kind of friend would I be if I didn't help you?I don't consider people who whine this much to be friends.
Sorry. Hope that doesn't upset you more.
ChumpDumper
06-06-2010, 04:21 PM
Is it pissy when you do the exact same things to WC and DarrinS?When do they ask me for simple facts that can be answered yes or no?
:lol
So my plan worked then. I win.Win what?
ElNono
06-06-2010, 10:14 PM
Israel rejects multinational inquiry into flotilla attack (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/06/israel-gaza-flotilla-attack-commission)
UN-proposed commission into flotilla raid is dismissed as global pressure grows for Israel to ease its blockade of Gaza
Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 6 June 2010 23.02 BST
Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, today dismissed a UN proposal for an international commission to investigate last week's assault on a flotilla of aid ships.
Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, proposed a commission of inquiry headed by the former New Zealand prime minister Geoffrey Palmer, who is an expert in maritime law. The commission would include representatives of Israel, the US and Turkey. All nine activists killed in the operation were Turkish; one held joint US citizenship.
Ban discussed the plan with Netanyahu, who later briefed party colleagues on the call, saying: "We need to consider the issue carefully and level-headedly while monitoring Israel's national interests."
Israel would not react or take decisions under the pressure of events, an official who was present at the meeting said.
Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, was more explicit: "We are rejecting an international commission. We are discussing with the Obama administration a way in which our inquiry will take place," he said.
Despite global condemnation of last week's raid and demands for a thorough and impartial investigation and an easing of Israel's blockade on Gaza, there was no discussion of the issues at today's cabinet meeting.
Important decisions relating to security issues are usually taken by a smaller security council, rather than full Israeli cabinet. However, according to the official, there are no firm plans for the smaller group to meet.
Israel is also pursuing compromise measures to deflect growing pressure to relax the blockade. Significantly, the US has added its voice to calls for a new policy, with the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, describing the current siege as "unsustainable".
Signs of divergent views within the cabinet came from Israel's welfare minister, Isaac Herzog, who called for the siege policy to be reconsidered. "The time has come to do away with the blockade, ease the restrictions on the inhabitants and find another alternative," he said.
The government claims it has indicated a willingness for greater flexibility in the amount and type of aid it allows into Gaza through land crossings, but insists it will maintain its naval blockade for security reasons.
"The policy was not static. It was moving anyway [before the flotilla] and we will continue to move," an official said.
Aid agencies say any relaxation of the blockade has been minimal and the current situation is totally inadequate to meet the needs of the 80% of Gazans dependent on international aid.
Britain's shadow foreign secretary, David Miliband, described the isolation of Gaza as "a stain on policy right across the Middle East". "I think there have been a series of deadly and self-defeating actions by successive Israeli governments in respect of Gaza," he told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show.
The UK today announced a £19m donation of aid to Gaza.
Israel's hard line on future shipping aid convoys could be as tested as early as this week after two organisations pledged to send boats carrying aid to Gaza in the next few days. Reporters Without Borders was attempting to assemble 25 European activists and 50 journalists for a boat leaving Beirut. The Free Palestine Movement was planning a similar operation.
The Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan – who was the subject of fresh vitriol in the Israeli media today – had raised the idea of personally joining an aid ship to Gaza, according to Lebanese media reports. Turkey last week recalled its ambassador to Israel.
Israel's foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, today insisted that "it is inconceivable that we should apologise to the Turkish government". He hinted that Turkey was heading in the same direction as Iran, saying Iran had been a "good friend" to Israel in the 1970s. This was echoed by his deputy, Danny Ayalon, who said: "If they sever relations, it is clear they are switching sides in the direction of extremist Islam."
The 19 passengers and crew who were on board the aid ship the Rachel Corrie when it was forcibly diverted to the Israeli port of Ashdod are due to arrive in Ireland tomorrow after being deported from Israel.
The Israeli government, still battling for the dominance of its version of events surrounding the flotilla assault, attempted to draw a distinction between the Rachel Corrie and the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish vessel that was the scene of last week's bloodshed. "The entire world saw the difference between a humanitarian flotilla and a hate flotilla by violent, terrorism supporting extremists," Netanyahu told party colleagues.
The US rock band Pixies cancelled a concert in Tel Aviv in protest at last week's bloodshed. The decision followed similar moves by Klaxons and Gorillaz. Authors Alice Walker and Iain Banks have backed the boycott, with Banks saying his books will not be translated into Hebrew.
Dockworker unions in Sweden and South Africa have refused to handle Israeli ships, while the UK's Unite union passed a motion to boycott Israeli companies.
Israel rejects multinational inquiry into flotilla attack (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/06/israel-gaza-flotilla-attack-commission)
UN-proposed commission into flotilla raid is dismissed as global pressure grows for Israel to ease its blockade of Gaza
Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 6 June 2010 23.02 BST
Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, today dismissed a UN proposal for an international commission to investigate last week's assault on a flotilla of aid ships.
Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, proposed a commission of inquiry headed by the former New Zealand prime minister Geoffrey Palmer, who is an expert in maritime law. The commission would include representatives of Israel, the US and Turkey. All nine activists killed in the operation were Turkish; one held joint US citizenship.
Ban discussed the plan with Netanyahu, who later briefed party colleagues on the call, saying: "We need to consider the issue carefully and level-headedly while monitoring Israel's national interests."
Israel would not react or take decisions under the pressure of events, an official who was present at the meeting said.
Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, was more explicit: "We are rejecting an international commission. We are discussing with the Obama administration a way in which our inquiry will take place," he said.
Despite global condemnation of last week's raid and demands for a thorough and impartial investigation and an easing of Israel's blockade on Gaza, there was no discussion of the issues at today's cabinet meeting.
Important decisions relating to security issues are usually taken by a smaller security council, rather than full Israeli cabinet. However, according to the official, there are no firm plans for the smaller group to meet.
Israel is also pursuing compromise measures to deflect growing pressure to relax the blockade. Significantly, the US has added its voice to calls for a new policy, with the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, describing the current siege as "unsustainable".
Signs of divergent views within the cabinet came from Israel's welfare minister, Isaac Herzog, who called for the siege policy to be reconsidered. "The time has come to do away with the blockade, ease the restrictions on the inhabitants and find another alternative," he said.
The government claims it has indicated a willingness for greater flexibility in the amount and type of aid it allows into Gaza through land crossings, but insists it will maintain its naval blockade for security reasons.
"The policy was not static. It was moving anyway [before the flotilla] and we will continue to move," an official said.
Aid agencies say any relaxation of the blockade has been minimal and the current situation is totally inadequate to meet the needs of the 80% of Gazans dependent on international aid.
Britain's shadow foreign secretary, David Miliband, described the isolation of Gaza as "a stain on policy right across the Middle East". "I think there have been a series of deadly and self-defeating actions by successive Israeli governments in respect of Gaza," he told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show.
The UK today announced a £19m donation of aid to Gaza.
Israel's hard line on future shipping aid convoys could be as tested as early as this week after two organisations pledged to send boats carrying aid to Gaza in the next few days. Reporters Without Borders was attempting to assemble 25 European activists and 50 journalists for a boat leaving Beirut. The Free Palestine Movement was planning a similar operation.
The Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan – who was the subject of fresh vitriol in the Israeli media today – had raised the idea of personally joining an aid ship to Gaza, according to Lebanese media reports. Turkey last week recalled its ambassador to Israel.
Israel's foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, today insisted that "it is inconceivable that we should apologise to the Turkish government". He hinted that Turkey was heading in the same direction as Iran, saying Iran had been a "good friend" to Israel in the 1970s. This was echoed by his deputy, Danny Ayalon, who said: "If they sever relations, it is clear they are switching sides in the direction of extremist Islam."
The 19 passengers and crew who were on board the aid ship the Rachel Corrie when it was forcibly diverted to the Israeli port of Ashdod are due to arrive in Ireland tomorrow after being deported from Israel.
The Israeli government, still battling for the dominance of its version of events surrounding the flotilla assault, attempted to draw a distinction between the Rachel Corrie and the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish vessel that was the scene of last week's bloodshed. "The entire world saw the difference between a humanitarian flotilla and a hate flotilla by violent, terrorism supporting extremists," Netanyahu told party colleagues.
The US rock band Pixies cancelled a concert in Tel Aviv in protest at last week's bloodshed. The decision followed similar moves by Klaxons and Gorillaz. Authors Alice Walker and Iain Banks have backed the boycott, with Banks saying his books will not be translated into Hebrew.
Dockworker unions in Sweden and South Africa have refused to handle Israeli ships, while the UK's Unite union passed a motion to boycott Israeli companies.
yea we all know why an outside source can't have an investigation, their dumbass propaganda bullshit would become apparent to the whole world.
Shastafarian
06-07-2010, 12:25 AM
The US rock band Pixies cancelled a concert in Tel Aviv in protest at last week's bloodshed. The decision followed similar moves by Klaxons and Gorillaz. Authors Alice Walker and Iain Banks have backed the boycott, with Banks saying his books will not be translated into Hebrew.
:lol
MaNuMaNiAc
06-07-2010, 07:27 AM
Gaza convoy tapes edited, Israel acknowledges
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/06/gaza.flotilla.recordings/index.html?hpt=T2
Gaza convoy tapes edited, Israel acknowledges
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/06/gaza.flotilla.recordings/index.html?hpt=T2
sheer propoganda, thats why they won't allow an investigation.
Its obvious they have something to hide because U.S public opinion matters so much to them, they wouldn't be able to leech off of us if everyone knew what they were doing.
Winehole23
06-08-2010, 02:12 AM
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/kadima-leader-livni-israel-can-save-itself-from-global-isolation-1.294704
Cry Havoc
06-08-2010, 10:09 AM
Nope. I don't think it makes that much of a difference whether soldiers repel down from a helicopter versus soldiers boarding from a ship.
:lol
Really?
I mean, really?
So commandos landing on the roof of your house with fully automatic weapons is the same to you as a couple of soldiers coming up to your door and knocking?
jack sommerset
06-08-2010, 10:17 AM
We all know soldiers entering the front door will be carrying flowers instead of guns. We also all know boats have front doors.
I mean reaaaaaaaallllllllly
_Yx0iKKi5xM
Shastafarian
06-08-2010, 10:45 AM
:lol
Really?
I mean, really?
So commandos landing on the roof of your house with fully automatic weapons is the same to you as a couple of soldiers coming up to your door and knocking?
I do think it's funny how you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Cry Havoc
06-08-2010, 11:19 AM
I do think it's funny how you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Speak for yourself.
Shastafarian
06-08-2010, 11:25 AM
Speak for yourself.
When jack sommerset can see one of the flaws in your analogy, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Here I thought Trainwreck's analogy was bad :lol
Wild Cobra
06-08-2010, 12:10 PM
When will the left realize how many times their side lies?
Reuters under fire for removing weapons, blood from images of Gaza flotilla (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/reuters-under-fire-for-removing-weapons-blood-from-images-of-gaza-flotilla-1.294780)
They make a habbit of it:
Reuters Brings Fauxtography to the Gaza Flotilla (http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2010/06/reuters-brings-fauxtography-to-gaza.html)
Reuters admits altering Beirut photo (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html)
Reuters admits to more image manipulation (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3287774,00.html)
MaNuMaNiAc
06-08-2010, 12:23 PM
When will the left realize how many times their side lies?
Reuters under fire for removing weapons, blood from images of Gaza flotilla (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/reuters-under-fire-for-removing-weapons-blood-from-images-of-gaza-flotilla-1.294780)
They make a habbit of it:
Reuters Brings Fauxtography to the Gaza Flotilla (http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2010/06/reuters-brings-fauxtography-to-gaza.html)
Reuters admits altering Beirut photo (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html)
Reuters admits to more image manipulation (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3287774,00.html)
First of all, this isn't a left vs right thing you gigantic piece of partisan shit. Its amazing how fucking obssesed you are with mouthing off against "the left". Who is "the left" supposed to represent? Anyone that doesn't agree with you?
Secondly, that first link shows interesting evidence, that should make people think about what actually went on aboard that ship, and how its being protrayed. Too bad it all got muddled up in your partisan bullshit post :rolleyes.
Wild Cobra
06-08-2010, 12:26 PM
First of all, this isn't a left vs right thing you gigantic piece of partisan shit. Its amazing how fucking obssesed you are with mouthing off against "the left". Who is "the left" supposed to represent? Anyone that doesn't agree with you?
Secondly, that first link shows interesting evidence, that should make people think about what actually went on aboard that ship, and how its being protrayed. Too bad it all got muddled up in your partisan bullshit post :rolleyes.
Whatever. if you say so. i disagree, but that's OK.
Where are your examples of Reuters editing photo's that supports the right's argument?
MaNuMaNiAc
06-08-2010, 12:37 PM
Whatever. if you say so. i disagree, but that's OK.
Where are your examples of Reuters editing photo's that supports the right's argument?
Jesus, who is this right you're referring to?? Israel? You've come to identify yourself so blatantly and for so long as right or left that you can't see any other fucking side to it.
This isn't left vs right politics, unless you're talking about the bullshit debates that go on in this forum between partisan hacks too intent on throwing dirt on one another to take a real look at the issue.
Israel has their side of the story, the flotilla passengers have theirs, and the rest of the world wants to know what the fuck really happened. Some people aren't satisfied enough to just take Israel's word for it while other people are all too happy to do it.
Point is, let the facts speak for themselves and stop with this "the left lies" or "the right lies" bullshit.
DarrinS
06-08-2010, 12:46 PM
Reuters doctored photos to hide "peace activists" weapons
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/reuters-under-fire-for-removing-weapons-blood-from-images-of-gaza-flotilla-1.294780
MaNuMaNiAc
06-08-2010, 12:56 PM
To tell you the truth, in spite of being really up to here with Israel's way of conducting themselves as if they can do whatever they want and not respond for it to anyone, I'm even more disgusted at Iran's attempt to goad Israel into a war over this... a war they've been looking for forever.
Somehow, Iran being involved in this makes me doubt Israel all that much less. In fact, I'm starting to believe this whole thing was orchestrated from the beginning. Just humanitarian aid my ass...
DarrinS
06-08-2010, 01:02 PM
I can't imagine living in a country smaller than New Jersey and being surrounded by enemies on all sides.
Wild Cobra
06-08-2010, 01:04 PM
I can't imagine living in a country smaller than New Jersey and being surrounded by enemies on all sides.
It's got to be worse than being a conservative on the Portland metro area.
MaNuMaNiAc
06-08-2010, 01:05 PM
I can't imagine living in a country smaller than New Jersey and being surrounded by enemies on all sides.
Doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want and not get called on it. Just saying. Its not a "get out of shit free" card.
Cry Havoc
06-08-2010, 05:44 PM
When jack sommerset can see one of the flaws in your analogy, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Here I thought Trainwreck's analogy was bad :lol
I was unaware that analogies must be able to be translated in completely literal terms, instead of serving to illustrate a point.
ElNono
06-08-2010, 07:36 PM
I can't imagine living in a country smaller than New Jersey and being surrounded by enemies on all sides.
Maybe the UN can craft a new mandate and move Israel over to New York. They already own more than half the city anyways. :lol
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.