• 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!

Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

Seems to me Israel has pretty much scored an own goal with this fiasco.
I almost feel sorry for Israel, it just cannot get a break.

Killing civilians on ships under the flag of a NATO member and done in IW? I don't recall the last time I've seen a country so utterly devoted to ensuring its isolation from the world.
 
If the UN cannot be regarded as impartial, then who can? --snip-- Perhaps you believe that no investigation of the raids and the deaths is necessary.

I think you're misreading jujuman13 in this case.

The UN Security Council has issued a statement calling for an impartial inquiry into Israel's raid on a flotilla of Gaza-bound aid ships.

The statement said the investigation should be "prompt, impartial, credible and transparent".

--snip--

The statement was the result of a compromise between Turkey and the United States, with Turkey reluctant to water down its trenchant criticism of Israel while the United States, Israel's closest ally, wanted to temper the language used, says the BBC's UN correspondent Barbara Plett in New York.

Turkey is furious at the commando raid, which targeted a Turkish ship and appeared to have killed mostly Turkish activists, our correspondent says.

The compromise took out direct condemnation of Israel and removed references to an international investigation, our correspondent adds.

It also weakened demands for an end to the economic blockade of Gaza that the activists were trying to break, but the incident has refocused international attention on the siege and many states have renewed calls for it to be lifted, she says.

--snip--

That means that almost 600 people, from several countries, are still being held in detention centres across Israel and are being questioned by the authorities.

Israel has imposed an information blackout, making it difficult to gather first-hand accounts from the campaigners.

UN urges inquiry

Pretty conclusive "own goal" by Israel so far. Relations with Turkey has soured ever since the collective punishment of the citizens of Gaza started 3 years ago and this has just put the nail into that coffin, most of Europe condemns the actions and the rest of the world seems to agree.

It's left to the US to back Israel once again, my only surprise was that the US actually didn't use its veto and whitewash the whole incident.
 
I think the Israeli government has gone too far. There were many other incidents which shook me considerably, but this one is very troubling. Attacking humanitarian aid people and calling them people trying to "delegitimate" Israel. Calling an aid ship an "enemy ship, intruding into Israeli waters"....My, my, what arrogance.
Also, the US just watched the incident without batting an eye, while it roared in anger when NK tested nukes which killed nobody (I'm not pro-North Korean)......
 
That is what people said over the passport thing .....and you are right, nothing happened. My hope is that it does manage to get some change to open Gaza. It's seaports could be opened with European or other supervision. There are very few rocket attacks so that is not what is keeping the blockade going. It is purely political and the longer it stays the more Hamasified Gaza becomes. They need to get out and start mixing and earning an ordinary living again.
:applaud:applaud
 
There comes a time in every country's life where they stop being the oppressed and become the oppressor.

Whenever you show up, I just know the hackery will be escalated. I wasn't disappointed. Did you listen to the Israeli side of the story before you started hating? No you didn't. The Israeli soldiers went onboard unarmed initially to ask the ship to be inspected.
 
How does that make it okay? See my avatar for more info.
Well we clearly have a different view on this. I do not know your age but many changes happened because people were willing to put in a stand against what was. You will find this in the suffragette movement, civil rights movement, CND and so on. Civil disobedience is where people are willing to make a stand despite risk because they believe that what they are working for is worth that. A green peace boat got shot at and possibly destroyed by France when involved in such action. What is, is not always, what is right. Civil disobedience has gone out of fashion but it is a powerful force for change. Note how everyone is talking about how the situation in Gaza must change now and that includes in Israel, certainly by the news reports I have heard.

Again, the fact that their end goal might be laudatory from one's perspective is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the way they went about it was appropriate. As to the number of people involved in the incident, I'm sure we'll learn more in the coming days.

For everything apart from the violence including as I hear people choosing detention rather than deportation, it is appropriate for their objective.

For the violence, I need to find out more. The best strategy is always complete pacifism in such situations. We know one Brit is among the injured. Like all the killed and injured, this is not good.
 
For those who are interested, the text of the UN Security Council's Presidential can be found at: BBC News - UN statement on Israel's Gaza aid ships raid

IMO, the Statement is badly unbalanced and is symptomatic that the excessive bias that has long pervaded the UN General Assembly and various UN bodies has begun to spread into the Security Council. On one hand, it calls for "a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards" (something I agree with and believe is very much in Israel's interests; if the statement only included that call and expressed regret over the loss of life, it would have been appropriate, but it didn't). On the other, it rushes to judgment before such an investigation has even been undertaken and "condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least ten civilians and many wounded" without acknowledging any of the violence by the crew that instigated the whole incident. It also calls for "the immediate release of the ships as well as the civilians held by Israel." That, too, is an unacceptable act of interference with Israel's sovereignty. The small number of individuals who started the violence should be prosecuted accordingly. If, in fact, weapons were present on the ship, those on the particular ship should also be prosecuted for transporting illicit weapons.
 
For those who are interested, the text of the UN Security Council's Presidential can be found at: BBC News - UN statement on Israel's Gaza aid ships raid

The small number of individuals who started the violence should be prosecuted accordingly. If, in fact, weapons were present on the ship, those on the particular ship should also be prosecuted for transporting illicit weapons.


I think the weapons were sticks and iron rods which were on the boat. Some people apparently also had knifes. Apart from that I have seen some marbles and a few catapults.

I watched a CNN video where they had an expert who talked through the Israel movie. He pointed out that when the first man was getting near the ship from a helicopter the Israelis set off some harmless explosion, can't remember the name, to divert the passengers attention. One of the things I am interested in, is whether the people believed they were under attack. The explosion may well have led them to believe this.
 
If the UN cannot be regarded as impartial, then who can? If, and I don't think this would be accepted by anyone other than the most partisan pro-Israeli, the UN is not the impartial body to adjudicate and investigate the incident, who would you suggest should do so? Perhaps you believe that no investigation of the raids and the deaths is necessary.

The UN is absolutely not impartial. The video says it all. The Israelis were attacked. No investigation is necessary.
 
I don't want to read this whole thread, but where is the evidence that they were armed?

Moreover, if they were in international waters then how isn't defending their flotilla against unauthorized boarding justified?
 
Last edited:
If the UN cannot be regarded as impartial, then who can? If, and I don't think this would be accepted by anyone other than the most partisan pro-Israeli, the UN is not the impartial body to adjudicate and investigate the incident, who would you suggest should do so? Perhaps you believe that no investigation of the raids and the deaths is necessary.

Yes, this same august body made up of representatitives of so many totalitarian states and tin pot dictatorships, having once passed a resolution calling the right of self determination for Jewish people "racism" is now "impartial"?

I can't imagine how anybody could be so incredibly naive as to believe that.
 
I don't want to read this whole thread, but where is the evidence that they were armed?

Moreover, if they were in international waters then how isn't defending their flotilla against unauthorized boarding justified?

The videos show that the people on-board were attacking the Israelis with pipes and bats. They took weapons from the Israelis.

The boarding was not unauthorized, it was legitimate.
 
What will happen if Turkey decides to send another ship but next time with a military escort. Interesting question.

What will happen if Turkey engages in an act of war?

I imagine it will be recognized by Israel as an act of war.
 
The link below asks an interesting question. Israel forcefully boarded a ship of another nation Turkey in International Waters. What will happen if Turkey decides to send another ship but next time with a military escort. Interesting question.

YouTube - Inside Story: A look into the aid flotilla attack by Israel



Then I for one would expect Israel to defend its blockade. I think the questions that should be being asked here is 1. What was really on those ships? 2. Why was the stated intent of the so called flotilla to break the blockade? 3. Was this intrusion into the ongoing situation there sanctioned, and approved by the Turkish government?

To answer your question, if Turkey decided to send a ship with military escort, then I think that they would be injecting themselves into the ongoing struggle, and at fault. They would deserve what they get.


j-mac
 
The videos show that the people on-board were attacking the Israelis with pipes and bats. They took weapons from the Israelis.

So the only weapons they had were pipes and bats?

The boarding was not unauthorized, it was legitimate.

How so?
 
So the only weapons they had were pipes and bats?


We don't know that conclusively yet. I think it is not only premature to forward that conclusion, but irresponsible in a partisan way to do so.

From the information we do know, the other ships had no resistance, only this one, why?


j-mac
 
Then I for one would expect Israel to defend its blockade. I think the questions that should be being asked here is 1. What was really on those ships?

I don't think there is any evidence that there is anything but aid. All ships were inspected in Turkey prior to departure.
2. Why was the stated intent of the so called flotilla to break the blockade? 3. Was this intrusion into the ongoing situation there sanctioned, and approved by the Turkish government?

To answer your question, if Turkey decided to send a ship with military escort, then I think that they would be injecting themselves into the ongoing struggle, and at fault. They would deserve what they get.


j-mac

Turkey is furious. Whether the Government was involved I do not now and doubt but it is angry. It was a Turkish ship. If it had been a British ship our government would have had a responsibility to protect us, particularly if we are attacked on the high seas.

So Israel would think it was worth WW3 you think.

You are American are you not. You should be aware that Turkey is also an important ally of the US.

Israel seems also furious with Turkey. I heard one of their spokespeople this morning comparing the Turkish Government to Hamas. It looks like the friendship between Turkey and Israel may be at an end.
 
Until they forcibly took weapons from the Israelis and opened fire on the Israelis.



There have been several posts about it. Here is one: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...aza-flotilla-says-hamas-6.html#post1058778784

That cite of international law is incorrect in this case. The ships in question were not merchant vessels or commerial boats, they were humanitarian ships on a relief effort.

SECTION III : ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT EXEMPT FROM ATTACK

Classes of vessels exempt from attack

47. 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;

Conditions of exemption

48. Vessels listed in paragraph 47 are exempt from attack only if they:

(a) are innocently employed in their normal role;
(b) submit to identification and inspection when required; and
(c) do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required.

donsutherland1 posted that they were required to submit to identification and inspection and refused to do so. They identified themselves but do not, under any circumstance, have to submit to an inspection while in international waters. Israel has no authority to require a neutral vessel to submit to an inspection in international waters. Had they been in Israeli territorial waters, they would have all the authority to make them submit to an inspection. But it happened in international waters.
 
Last edited:
That cite of international law is incorrect in this case. The ships in question were not merchant vessels or commerial boats, they were humanitarian ships on a relief effort.

donsutherland1 posted that they were required to submit to identification and inspection and refused to do so. They identified themselves but do not, under any circumstance, have to submit to an inspection while in international waters. Israel has no authority to require a neutral vessel to submit to an inspection in international waters. Had they been in Israeli territorial waters, they would have all the authority to make them submit to an inspection. But it happened in international waters.

They are not enemy vessels, so paragraph 47 does not apply.
 
donsutherland1 posted that they were required to submit to identification and inspection and refused to do so. They identified themselves but do not, under any circumstance, have to submit to an inspection while in international waters.

There is nothing in the San Remo Manual that bars such inspections in international waters. The manual is very specific about exemptions, including those in neutral waters (neutral waters are waters under the jurisdiction of sovereign states neutral to a conflict; they are not the same thing as international waters).
 
There is nothing in the San Remo Manual that bars such inspections in international waters. The manual is very specific about exemptions, including those in neutral waters (neutral waters are waters under the jurisdiction of sovereign states neutral to a conflict; they are not the same thing as international waters).
Incorrect.

There is nothing that grants power to a State to exercise authority outside its territorial jurisdiction.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm
Article24

Duties of the coastal State

1. The coastal State shall not hamper the innocent passage of foreign ships through the territorial sea except in accordance with this Convention. In particular, in the application of this Convention or of any laws or regulations adopted in conformity with this Convention, the coastal State shall not:

(a) impose requirements on foreign ships which have the practical effect of denying or impairing the right of innocent passage; or

(b) discriminate in form or in fact against the ships of any State or against ships carrying cargoes to, from or on behalf of any State.

2. The coastal State shall give appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation, of which it has knowledge, within its territorial sea.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom