• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IDF foils attack close to Gaza

D

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From today's edition of The Jerusalem Post:

Israeli Navy commandos prevented a terror attack on Monday morning, when a unit of heavily armed Palestinian frogmen was intercepted in the Nahal Aza area...

According to IDF, the size of the unit and equipment it was carrying proved that a large scale attack had been planned, and only the commandos' quick, effective response prevented a disaster.

This foiled terrorist operation highlights the security threat posed by terrorist organizations from within the Gaza Strip and the need to limit their ability to obtain weapons and other materials that they could use to strengthen their capabilities. In other words, it reaffirms the need to maintain security measures, including the maritime blockade. Indeed, without a blockade, it is plausible that the terrorists would have slipped away from the Gaza Strip undetected.
 
I wonder how this ties in with the recent flotilla incident.
 
American said:
I wonder how this ties in with the recent flotilla incident.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. It could be purely coincidental. On the other hand, the terrorists might have believed that Israel had been distracted by the international criticism following the incident and perceived an opportunity to carry out an attack. There could also be a chance that at least some involved in the flotilla had passed on information to Gaza's terrorist network concerning positioning of Israeli naval forces at the time the flotilla was stopped, etc. Unfortunately, Israel released all persons from the flotilla, even those who were involved in the violence. While such a move lowered international pressure somewhat, I believe it was a mistake. Those involved in the violence should have been prosecuted and those who possessed material information should have been held until Israel had a full understanding as to what the flotilla was seeking to accomplish, with whom it was communicated, what information it was disseminating, etc.
 
Last edited:

I do not think Israel had any choice. The Obama administration has them by the throat. I think that much of what has happened recently, including the flotilla and turkey's actions stem from what the world sees coming out of Washington. I see you are from NY, I wonder if supporters will continue to vote in Democratic senators that stand idly by while Israel is being sold down the river.
 

Good for Israel; prevention certainly goes a long way toward the security of their borders and curbing the need to respond with violence. I hope they prosecute these militants to the full extent of the law.
 
The same commandos who've taken out the four terrorists were on the Mavi Marmara.
 
Apocalypse said:
The same commandos who've taken out the four terrorists were on the Mavi Marmara.
Click to expand...

Are you surprised that Obama has not asked the secrity council to investigate how these terrorists were able to leave Gaza without Hamas knowing???
 

That would have gone over well

Israel kidnaps, and holds hostage Turkish citizens, leading to Turkey asserting that it was attacked by a foreign country and demands that Nato assists it as Nato is obligated to in dealing with that foreign country.

Obama did what he had to do from an international diplomatic point of view. Israel holding Turkish citizens that it took prisoner of when they were in international waters could have seen Turkey demanding their release or see Turkey and Nato use force to secure their release.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
That would have gone over well

Israel kidnaps, and holds hostage Turkish citizens, leading to Turkey asserting that it was attacked by a foreign country and demands that Nato assists it as Nato is obligated to in dealing with that foreign country.
Click to expand...

Turkey would not have been attacked. Detaining and prosecuting criminal suspects does not amount to an attack. Otherwise, one could assert that the U.S., UK, and PSI states (one of which is Turkey) regularly engage in attacks on other sovereign states when they capture, detain, and sometimes prosecute individuals who are running narcotics or even WMD components through international waters.

If one examines the NATO Charter, it is clear from the language in Articles 5 and 6 that there would not be even the remotest chance under which the above could be considered an attack on Turkey that would trigger NATO's assistance.

For those who are unfamiliar with it, Articles 5 and 6 are as follows:

 
What crime did the people in the floatilla commit? They broke no international law as they were not transporting narcotics or WMD's they did not enter Israel territory, all they did was defend themselves and their boat from being boarded. As such there would be no justification to hold them for any period of time
 
Last edited:

Only until they attempted to breach the maritime blockade (which was established by Israel against a non-sovereign entity to protect the lives of Israel's people--every sovereign state has an inherent right of self-defense) and resist inspection, they committed no crime. However, as that is not what happened, those who engaged in violence should have been prosecuted. Moreover, knives and a molotov cocktail were found onboard, so the mission in question was not a purely humanitarian one.
 
Last edited:
You mean like knives wow

By god I have those in my house used for cooking

Do you think ships might have kitchens used to cook things and that knives might be used to assit in cooking things?

It was a humanitarian/political mission

Humanitarian in that it was providing NON military materials to Gaza, and a political one in that it was highlighting the blockade and the humanitarian issues that it is causing in Gaza.

At the time of the raid, the ships were still in international waters and as such did not attempt to breach the blockade (at that time).

Israel also raided in the early morning, did they ask to be allowed to inspect the vessels at sear, or was the goal to seize the ships and bring them into Israeli territory. I am sure that an inspection would not have been prevented, but a raid to seize control of the ships is a different story entirely is it not
 
jallman said:
Good for Israel; prevention certainly goes a long way toward the security of their borders and curbing the need to respond with violence. I hope they prosecute these militants to the full extent of the law.
Click to expand...

They prosecuted them alright. They prosecuted them to death.

The troops opened fire after calls to stop were ignored, and five terrorists were killed in the ensuing gunfight. No IDF commandos were wounded in the incident.
Click to expand...

IDF foils attack close to Gaza

Fans of proportionality probably think the IDF should allow five of their own to be killed as well.
 

"This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians." (AFP, May 27, 2010.)
Click to expand...

Alan Dershowitz: Israel's Actions Were Entirely Lawful Though Probably Unwise
 
bhkad said:
They prosecuted them alright. They prosecuted them to death.



IDF foils attack close to Gaza

Fans of proportionality probably think the IDF should allow five of their own to be killed as well.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous statement. These 5 terrorists were making a b-line directly into Israel. If they were shot, so be it.

There's a difference between killing an intruder and racing your tanks up and down the streets of the equivalent of an Indian reservation.
 
bhkad said:
Alan Dershowitz: Israel's Actions Were Entirely Lawful Though Probably Unwise
Click to expand...

Good article.

I thought this was the most important part:

The act of breaking a military siege is itself a military act, and those knowingly participating in such military action put in doubt their status as non-combatants.
Click to expand...

I think that this gets to the crux of the issue. I could care less about the international legality of the blockade. Whether or not it is legal or illegal, trying to break it is painting a target on one's self.
 

IMO, the White House has been unnecessarily and inappropriately tough on Israel. At the same time, it has all but overlooked the previous Palestinian boycott of negotiations and seems to be having some difficulty understanding the big picture in the Middle East. IMO, the Administration should not have supported the recent Security Council statement that all but condemned Israel for the flotilla incident.

In terms of New York, political competition is weak. The New York State GOP is largely moribund. The committee has ineffectual leadership, the party has few credible candidates, the State committee does little to help fund those in statewide races, etc. Those weaknesses amplify the impact of a decided enrollment disadvantage. Hence, the kind of big changes that one might see in other states in November, not to mention those that have already occurred in New Jersey and Virginia, are not very likely in New York.

Finally, as for New York's senators, I will give credit where credit is due and note that Senator Schumer has been supportive of Israel.
 

Why? Its called border and sea controls. Anyway, what does this all matter now? Mubarak seems like he has no intention in closing the Egyptian blockade on Gaza, which pretty much renders everything else useless.
 

He say been, but seems very quiet this time around. I am also surprised that has not at least tried to screaming at Wall Street. They made mistakes but do you think a Midwestern senator would allow bashing of farmers if the price of wheat went through the roof.

I understand NY politics a bit, I grew up there. In that neighborhood the election was really if there was a primary. Not sure why someone has not jumped at the chance to take him on. Might be money, expensive media market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…