Yep, they should have had their phasors set to stun. However, their weapons didn't have a stun setting.
Not for Israel, no. These people were obviously provoking. Israel just had to wait until they broke one law, International or Israeli, and Israel already knew they would. This is the reason you see the backlash from the Israeli media against Netanyahu.
israel had means to check those ships peacefully, and also could have avoided the negative connotation of what happened entirely. They did neither.
Why do they need to respond with weapons at all? Are armed commandos the only way to inspect a humanitarian ship in international waters?
Does that make it acceptable for them to violate international law?Then why did they radio "jihad" three times in response to Israels request? Isn't that considered a declaration of war? I could see a situation where Israel was afraid they might be carrying missiles on that ship. It was certainly large enough to carry some really big missiles.
Have there been any instances of attacks launched from these ships in the past? Are Israel and Turkey not relatively close allies?Did we only attack Japanese and German vessels in our 12 mile limit?
I see lots of reasons to potentially inspect a ship if it enters Israeli waters. I have seen nothing to suggest that the Israeli military needed to act so aggressively.I don't have all the facts, but can see many potential reasons. What will you say if tomorrow, Israel shows the world pictures of large missiles on that ship? Will you change your mind, or become a Jihad apologist?
Why is there international condemnation of this even, WC? Don't you think that if Israel had a good reason for the attack, they would show it?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/...ex.html?hpt=T2
They have released the activists on the boats. Do you think that if there were any kind of even MODERATE weaponry on the boats that anyone would be going free so soon?
I would have to look into Israeli maritime laws. IIRC, once you're on territorial waters, territorial law applies. If you're looking for International maritime law, this is the link
They never would have boarded if the ship diverted to port for inspection.
Depends on the facts. Facts we might not be privy to, including facts that would show their secret intelligence gathering methods.
Was there ever an instance of a 757 being used as a weapon before 9/11?
Stupid question. There has to be a first for everything.
They were only aggressive after being attacked. Do you think they wouldn't have been attacked if they boarded within the 12 mile limit?
Political posturing. So what?
Yes, I like this quote:
Not all of them yet. So far, just 48 by that link. They expect processing to be finished in 48 hours, after starting a little earlier (Tuesday night in Israel).The IDF said the aid aboard the flotilla's three cargo ships had been transferred into Gaza through the Kerem Shalom border crossing, a main entry point used by Israel.
Wait till they get 25 miles and launch a missile? Not saying it would have happened, but when a ship is warned to change course, and doesn't, then radios "jihad"... Seriously... take an unbiased look at this. Wouldn't you think that maybe it's on an attack course?
What is there. One public backlash? Two, maybe three? Do all the Israeli pundits engaging in backlash? Are you cherry picking by chance?
How? If they refuse to divert to port, what makes you think they will allow inspection? Port is the only way to properly inspect. Move all the goods to one location, inspect, then move them to a loading zone for transportation. You cannot inspect the good in the ship, where switching after the fact can occur, or hidden good may be in the bulkheads.
[QUOTE=ElNono;4390176]
I disagree that Israel did the wrong thing. The Israeli forced being attacked tells me they would have continued to sail in, maybe forcing Israel to sink it with 581 passengers. That could have been the master plan. Put the blood of innocent civilians on Israel.
I am taking an unbiased look (as much as I hope it is). The problem is you keep neglecting getting informed first, and that's why you come across as biased. For the 3483483249342th time, Israel could have simply requested to inspect the ships in international waters if it suspected of anything. It's spelled out in the UN law of the seas. They did not do that.
You have a lot of reading and catching up to do:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=133
Not only is that not correct, it's not supported by international law. I posted a link to the relevant laws at least twice since last night. Please do your homework. I would have no problem having a discussion with you, but I hate having to repeat myself over and over again. And FWIW, inspections of vessels in the high seas happens all the time. I would say daily. There's nothing new about it.
Or Israel could have simply boarded them with commandos once the protesters actually broke a law...
Last edited by ElNono; 06-01-2010 at 05:47 PM.
I think the most idiotic thing I read so far is that protesters were supposed to follow Israeli demands. I mean, do you even know what a protest is?
They don't inspect at sea. They unload it, inspect it, then move it by ground to Gaza. For the umpteenth time, it is impossible to inspect a complete ship in any timely manner.
So now, I'm suppose to believe such things too? Israel has more than 20 newspapers. The biggest paper of your linked list has this in their wiki writeup:
Most of the media does just that. Sell spectacularism.It is published in tabloid format, and according to one author, its marketing strategy emphasizes "drama and human interest over sophisticated analysis.
Oh well, I guess you believe everthing you see on the internet, huh?
So? I'm not arguing the law. I'm arguing what can and does occur.
I don't care about what the law says. I am not arguing legal and illegal. I understand that Israel will do what they think they must do for their defense. The fact the UN doesn't have the balls to enforce their laws is the problem from the way you want to argue the situation. Israel will continue to break international law just like the illegal immigrants keep coming here. No penalty, no enforcement, free access.
Could the international law not being enforced be a sign the UN agrees with Israel?
Maybe if you stopped trying to argue against things I'm not arguing for...
Just because others nations do inferior inspections to Israel doesn't mean they should lower their standards.
Then what? Chance the defiant ship with the flag of a Sunni country set it for a collision course, and not have time to change it?
Just a valid fear. Not saying it would have happened.
Am I wrong?
I though Free Gaza was an activist group sending aide. Not protesting.
You don't think this group of organizations were protesting the blockade by attempting to deliver aid breaking through it?
That you're a protester doesn't mean you can't do a good deed. They're not mutually exclusive.
Heck, you protest the current executive all the time in here, yet pay your taxes like the rest of us to make sure those in need receive their food stamps.
That's not what international law says. International law says the vessels must be inspected at sea, and there's no actual limit of time to conduct the inspection. However, if the su ion is incorrect, the inspected vessel can request compensation for the wasted time.
You would know this if you actually read what the law governing ships in International waters is. Obviously, you keep on not doing that and talking out of your ass instead.
But you know better? Let's see your quotes from the other 10 newspapers supporting Netanyahu...
No, you're repeating what Israel demands were. The protesters were under no obligation to carry out those demands and were not braking any law by doing so.
You do everything everybody tells you to do?
So you oppose economic sanctions to Iran. Good to know. Since you don't have a problem with Israel breaking international law and getting away with it, I have to assume you're ok with Iran doing the same and getting away with it too. Otherwise, you would have a bias, right?
But Internationa law through UN resolutions or otherwise do get enforced. At least in most cases it does.
My question to you is: Does lack of enforcement automatically mean that no law was broken? Think before you answer this one.
Please list the rules governing inspections of vessels in the High Seas, and how does Israeli inspections differ from the standard. I mean, if you claim differing standards, then you must know both, right?
Again skipping parts. If the Israeli had any doubts, then could have simply requested to inspect the ships in international waters. That's what international law dictates. I also fully understand that you think Israel is somehow above the law, and that the end always justify the means. I just don't agree with that vision and I don't think it's right at all, especially when there was a lawful way to do this whole thing, and potentially saving human lives in the process.
Well ElNono, if you've seen the updated news, you will know this was not Israels fault.
Again, the law in this case isn't the issue.
Two Israeli soldiers were wounded by gunfire. Why isn't gunfire a proportional response?
If you want to keep pushing the illegality of it, let me ask you this. If you did nothing wrong, owned weapons, saw an overwhelming SWAT team outside your house, would you shoot at them when they broke the door down because?
that ship is a sitting duck anyway out at sea, no point trying to launch a missile when israel can send something out there take the crew down
Why is Israel exempt from the law, WC?A word on the legal position, which is very plain. To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare.
Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean however that international law is the only applicable law. The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody's territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory.
There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.
Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.
Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.
In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.
Nobody is exempt from the law, but there are mitigating cir stances. When life or death is on the line, especially that of a nation, nobody in their right mind will allow extermination because of legal loopholes.
This, to me, is not a legal issue. It's a survival issue. Israel has stopped so many shipments of Arms to Hamas with these practices. The International law has not been enforced. Just like our illegal immigration, why should Israel worry about the law if nobody enforces it?
What updated news would those be? Why did Turkey break diplomatic relations with Israel if they don't consider it's their fault?
Sure it is. That you don't want to talk about it, doesn't mean it's not an issue.
I don't have a problem with the Israeli reaction, and stated so at least twice since the news broke out. If you actually would have read the thread(s) about this topic, then you would know this already.
However, I do take issue with the illegality of the boarding in the first place, which wether you like it or not, triggered the exchange of violence and eventually the deaths. And I'm pretty sure that any other nation not named the US or Israel would have had to answer for that.
Now, I'm fully aware that you're the kind of guy that could care two s about international law, and that for you, the end always justify the means. You will always have a scenario out of 24 at hand to justify cir venting the law (Used two in this thread alone: what if they had missiles? they screamed jihad!).
What's even worse is the admitted double standard. If North Korea pulls this , you would be all over them. When Israel points fingers at Iran for their enriched uranium so they get sanctioned, then 'international law must be respected and enforced'.
I have no problem with Israel. I think they have it rough. But I also expect them to be the ones with the moral high ground and the for ude to admit and apologize when they make a mistake. We're all human and make mistakes, there's no shame in that.
Straw man. What we're discussing here is if the SWAT team had any rights to break into the house or not. And if it's established that they did not, wether they should answer to anybody for their mistake and the damage they caused in the process.
Shooting or not shooting after the fact is entirely irrelevant. If I shoot, and they entered illegally, they still entered illegally. If I do not shoot, they still entered illegally.
And I rest my case
After that post, WC better never trumpet how sacred the cons ution is.
Mitigating cir stances in this case are that an armed military boarded ships illegally in international waters.
The protestors would be within their rights to shoot an invading army within their borders, as the ship were essentially Turkish territory at that point.
If the Israelis has simply shadowed the ships and waited until they were within Israeli waters, that would have been legally a different ballgame.
If a bunch of armed men who weren't the police burst into your house and you were armed, would you be within your rights to shoot at them?
My God...
You really that stupid?
This has nothing to do with our cons ution. This has nothing to do with international law. It has to do with the preservation of a nation under attack.
Too bad. Israel broke international law and committed what appears to be an act of war on Turkey. It doesn't matter if they were provoked after the fact, hit with sticks, shot at, whatever. They knowingly, willfully broke the law and that led directly to the needless deaths of at least 10 people. Unless those soldiers were denounced as rogue, they were acting as representatives of the state, which means they preemptively murdered 10 Turkish civilians in a time of peace on behalf of the State.
Unfortunately for you, WC, you are not the adjudicator of the seas. You are attempting to assess a situation that runs contrary to the law because you have a biased moral standpoint and cannot be objective in the situation, even for one moment. It's clearly stated that you're wrong in this case, so you're wrong, along with Israel. Your opinion of "what's important" does not trump international law.
IMHO, this is a plausible scenario on how this could have been handled:
- Israel requests inspection of the ships in international waters
** If the protesters decline or defy the order, then Israel has legal grounds to proceed with the forceful boarding.
** If the protesters accept, then Israel can spend all the time it wants making sure there are no rockets, weapons, etc etc etc. And also warn the protestors that as soon as they leave international waters they will be boarded forcefully. If weapons, rockets, etc are found, then Israel has legal ground to forcefully board the ships.
After that, Israel has every right to board the ship if they leave international waters and enter the Israeli waters or the vicinity of the blockade area.
It's entirely baffling that they did what they did.
Well played, sir, although that would be kinda hard given his current siggy (a pic of the cons ution)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
