• 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

I don't think there is any evidence that there is anything but aid. All ships were inspected in Turkey prior to departure.


And I don't think that there is any word yet about what was on that ship one way or another. Just speculation.

As far as Turkey saying that these ships were inspected before departure, Ok. That is Turkey saying so. Thy might have been, they might not have been....Are you saying that when the contents of this sixth ship are revealed that we hold Turkey accountable if it is found to have been carrying rockets and weapons?


Turkey is furious.

It is Israel's right to defend its blockade. The ships could have proceeded to an Israeli port and had the contents escorted across the border to Gaza no problem.

Whether the Government was involved I do not now and doubt but it is angry.

But you said they inspected the ships before departure, now you back off when the question is asked about whether or not the government sanctioned this convoy? Why?

It was a Turkish ship.

Yes

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.

And what do you think would be the official British response if shown that the ship had weapons aboard, and trying to "Smash the blockade"?


So Israel would think it was worth WW3 you think.

A little overdramatic don't you think?


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

Allies are like family, even family members screw up from time to time, and it is up to the other family members to tell them so.

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.

If it turns out that the sixth ship was carrying rockets or other weapons to Gaza, and trying to circumvent the blockade for that reason, I think that call is spot on.

j-mac
 
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.

Alexa,

I used the word "if" concerning weapons, as details remain somewhat unclear. From what I have heard, and the reports still need to be verified, is that knives and detonators were found. Detonators would raise the biggest concern, as those could have been en route to Hamas' weapons factories.

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.

An investigation will provide the exact details as to what happened. What is known on video footage is that the soldiers were attacked and suffered wounds. Under attack, they responded and their response also included live fire.

The medical records will determine whether the soldiers were stabbed, beaten, or shot, as has been cited. An investigation will also reveal numerous other details. It should be noted that the Israeli forces likely used the same tactics with the five other boats and met no resistance. Why did the sixth boat resist? If the reports about weapons is accurate, the cargo would explain the motive for their resistance, as the discovery of such a cargo would lead to prosecutions. It would also shatter the idea that the flotilla was solely on a humanitarian mission. I have little doubt that many of the people involved with the flotilla believed that it was, but have concerns about that sixth ship and its crew.
 
What will happen if Turkey engages in an act of war?

I imagine it will be recognized by Israel as an act of war.

Turkey would be legally quite entitled to ensure her boats safety until she got to Israeli waters. If Israel were to attack her there she would be the one beginning a war.

Do you have the same opinion of Iran. I have noted people go crazy when Iran takes action when ships accidentally go into her waters. How would you feel if she demanded to board a US ship in International waters. You might feel the need of your navy then.
 
-- 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.

I expect comments like that from many Americans on the forum who misunderstand the nature and workings of the UN - didn't expect that from you Don.

--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.

The call for an investigation has been watered down at US insistence from an International Inquiry to a "transparent investigation." The International Inquiry would I believe have been far more critical and probably taken in the Gaza factor. The intention of watering down the proposal is for Israel's benefit IMO.

The condemnation of "acts leading to loss of life" were also won at US insistence. Turkey wanted outright condemnation of the boarding and the subsequent shootings but " acts leading to loss of life" leaves room for Israel to also condemn the flotilla for ever setting sail.

Immediate relaease of the ships - they haven't committed illegal acts nor been found to have been trying to bring in any weapons for Gaza as some posters have tried to imply earlier. As for the civilians - no proof exists that they are terrorists or Hamas. Indeed some are international sympathisers including a couple of German MPs. Why are they locked up?

The "small number who started the violence should be locked up" - what happens if it turns out that the Israelis started the violence? We've all seen the footage of commandos coming on board - is this the start of action or have the IDF (like Al-Jazeera) only shown what is conducive to their arguement?

-- 2. Why was the stated intent of the so called flotilla to break the blockade? --

The blockade by Israel and Egypt of Gaza has been deemed "collective punishment" of all the people of Gaza. Israel does allow some goods in but apparently only a quarter of what is necessary and there are reports of malnutrition. "Collective punishment" is usually seen as illegal and would be if any other country than Israel were involved - but many American posters seem oblivious to the fact that Israel can sometimes do wrong.
 
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.


So says Turkey. Israel seems to say that they were breaking the law in two separate ways. 1. They were actively trying to "break the blockade". 2. They were refusing to port where told to do so.

Israel has the right to see what is going on with the contents of that ship.


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.

Unless they of a hostile intent. I would say that openly saying that they were going to 'break the blockade' qualifies no?


j-mac
 
The blockade by Israel and Egypt of Gaza has been deemed "collective punishment" of all the people of Gaza.


Deemed by whom? Hamas? The UN? Both have an agenda.


Israel does allow some goods in but apparently only a quarter of what is necessary and there are reports of malnutrition.

Do you have a source for that? Because according to Israel, members could have escorted their contents into Gaza to make sure they arrived.


"Collective punishment" is usually seen as illegal and would be if any other country than Israel were involved

And why do you suppose that Egypt, a Muslim country as well upholds a blockade with Israel?


but many American posters seem oblivious to the fact that Israel can sometimes do wrong.


That is always possible, but in a case where repeated attempts, and offers of peace have repeatedly been shunned by the Palestinians, and cease fires are shattered by rocket fire into populated civilian areas, then at some point an over reaction or two is inevitable.

j-mac
 
I expect comments like that from many Americans on the forum who misunderstand the nature and workings of the UN - didn't expect that from you Don.

I don't know about Don, but I'm sure never surprised by the dogmatic views of Europeans who aren't sharp enough to figure out the fallacies of the appeal to authority and the appeal to popularity, myself.
 
"except in accordance with this convention..." is the key qualifier. For that, one has to go to Articles 95 and 96. The ships that are immune from inspection are spelled out. The flotilla would not qualify.

You do realize that Israel is a non-signatory, right?
 
You do realize that Israel is a non-signatory, right?

You do realize that this argument would mean that they aren't bound by anything and can do as they please, right?
 
The call for an investigation has been watered down at US insistence from an International Inquiry to a "transparent investigation." The International Inquiry would I believe have been far more critical and probably taken in the Gaza factor. The intention of watering down the proposal is for Israel's benefit IMO.

Infinite Chaos,

My objection is not to the call for an investigation, even if the language were more robust. My objection is not to expressing regret that people lost their lives. My objections concern a rush to judgment--condemnation in this case--before the facts are clear and an investigation has been carried out. Issuing a condemnation, which is tantamount to a finding of guilt, before an investigation is carried out and the facts/circumstances have been established is not balanced. It is this kind of action that has occurred time and again at the UN General Assembly, but not very often at the Security Council where judgment has been more collected and rational, not impulsive.

Immediate relaease of the ships - they haven't committed illegal acts nor been found to have been trying to bring in any weapons for Gaza as some posters have tried to imply earlier. As for the civilians - no proof exists that they are terrorists or Hamas. Indeed some are international sympathisers including a couple of German MPs. Why are they locked up?

The "small number who started the violence should be locked up" - what happens if it turns out that the Israelis started the violence? We've all seen the footage of commandos coming on board - is this the start of action or have the IDF (like Al-Jazeera) only shown what is conducive to their arguement?

More specifically, I have no objections to releasing the ships and most of the crew. Those on the sixth ship should be detained, as should those who might have material information. Once it has been determined whether weapons were on board, appropriate prosecutorial action should be undertaken on that front. If no weapons were on board, then no prosecutions on weapons smuggling charges would be required. Those who engaged in violence should be prosecuted.
 
Of course. I mentioned that much earlier in this thread. I just wanted to point out that the interpretation that the flotilla enjoyed immunity from visits/inspection under the LOSC is incorrect.
 
Alexa,

I used the word "if" concerning weapons, as details remain somewhat unclear. From what I have heard, and the reports still need to be verified, is that knives and detonators were found. Detonators would raise the biggest concern, as those could have been en route to Hamas' weapons factories.

Please provide the link for detonators. I have looked in lots of different places and listened to many reports and not heard of any detonations except the ones done by Israel


An investigation will provide the exact details as to what happened. What is known on video footage is that the soldiers were attacked and suffered wounds. Under attack, they responded and their response also included live fire.

May provide. I am sure you know there are a multiple of variables which may come into the equation. One is the psychological stance. My hunch for instance could be true but never looked at.

The medical records will determine whether the soldiers were stabbed, beaten, or shot, as has been cited.

It looks more than likely that there was indeed some serious violence on the part of some passengers/crewe. I still believe the reason for that violence is crucial. The way Israel is talking about it, I doubt if they will look at that.

It should be noted that the Israeli forces likely used the same tactics with the five other boats and met no resistance. Why did the sixth boat resist? If the reports about weapons is accurate, the cargo would explain the motive for their resistance, as the discovery of such a cargo would lead to prosecutions. It would also shatter the idea that the flotilla was solely on a humanitarian mission. I have little doubt that many of the people involved with the flotilla believed that it was, but have concerns about that sixth ship and its crew.

Ok, I will speculate. This boat was different from the others. It was for instance the first boat. Perhaps the other ships on hearing the bullets had time to think and made sure no one did anything to get things started.

However I have also heard the Israeli's were able to stop the motors of the others. Did they go into the others by helicopter or boat.

There is a tiny number of list of 600 people who were involved in any violence. It does not seem plausible to me to think that one ship with 600 people on board decided it would include ten terrorists and none on the others. I have seen loads of the people on the boats. They are just normal decent people I have seen.

and.....People in Scotland are already talking about another boat.


(I have to go in a few minutes)
 
Of course. I mentioned that much earlier in this thread. I just wanted to point out that the interpretation that the flotilla enjoyed immunity from visits/inspection under the LOSC is incorrect.

Indeed, that's the opinion of the spokesman of Israel's prime minister.

But all the experts say the contrary:

Robin Churchill, a professor of international law at the University of Dundee in Scotland, said the Israeli commandos boarded the ship outside of Israel's territorial waters. "As far as I can see, there is no legal basis for boarding these ships," Churchill said.[92]

Ove Bring, Swedish expert on public international law, said that Israel had no right to take military action.[93]

That is also supported by Mark Klamberg at Stockholm University.[94]

Hugo Tiberg, professor in maritime law, states that Israel had no right to attack the ships.[95]

Canadian scholar Michael Byers notes that the event would only be legal if the Israeli boarding were necessary and proportionate for the country's self defence. Byers believes that "the action does not appear to have been necessary in that the threat was not imminent."[96]

The UK Times's defence editor wrote that "Israel may face problems justifying the legality of its decision", not least because "nder the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the high seas are regarded as not belonging to any nation". While boarding a vessel is acceptable in some circumstances, Israel still needed to seek permission from Turkey.[97]

Jason Alderwick, a maritime analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies of London, is quoted as saying that the Israeli raid did not appear to have been conducted lawfully under the convention.


Gaza flotilla clash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Please provide the link for detonators. I have looked in lots of different places and listened to many reports and not heard of any detonations except the ones done by Israel

Alexa,

I heard that report on the radio when driving to work. I'm still not sure what actually has been found. But if detonators were found, that would raise serious concerns. Once the results of inspections are available, I believe more will be known. For now, the conditional "if" applies.

As with the passengers on the sixth ship, I don't know what the full number was. I believe it will be possible to sort through them, determining who might have knowledge about the ship's cargo, who may have committed violence, etc. Of course, if others refuse to cooperate, that process will take longer. Those who were involved in the violence and those who might have knowledge about weapons should be detained. Afterward, if no weapons were found, then the latter group could be released. Those responsible for violence should be prosecuted.
 
Deemed by whom? Hamas? The UN? Both have an agenda.

Amnesty International, Geneva Conventions - Switzerland has complained, the UN etc. Obviously as none of these are American, I don't believe you will accept they have no agenda. :roll:

-- Do you have a source for that? Because according to Israel, members could have escorted their contents into Gaza to make sure they arrived.

Source BBC

Source Gisha (Israeli Human Rights Group)

One of many articles at the BBC that quotes the UN on the amount of aid allowed in

-- And why do you suppose that Egypt, a Muslim country as well upholds a blockade with Israel?

After Monday's incident, Egypt has just opened the border to Gaza. Before that, I'd speculate that there was a lot of US pressure to support Israel.

-- That is always possible, but in a case where repeated attempts, and offers of peace have repeatedly been shunned by the Palestinians, and cease fires are shattered by rocket fire into populated civilian areas, then at some point an over reaction or two is inevitable.

j-mac

Yes, but that "over reaction" by restricting the amount of food going into Israel shouldn't last 3 years...

I don't know about Don, but I'm sure never surprised by the dogmatic views of Europeans who aren't sharp enough to figure out the fallacies of the appeal to authority and the appeal to popularity, myself.

Nothing intelligent to add?

-- My objections concern a rush to judgment--condemnation in this case--before the facts are clear and an investigation has been carried out. Issuing a condemnation, which is tantamount to a finding of guilt

It's a condemnation of uneccesary deaths - both sides played a part in this. Not just protestors but Israelis too by reacting to the flotilla by boarding in international waters.

-- More specifically, I have no objections to releasing the ships and most of the crew. –snip-- Those who engaged in violence should be prosecuted.

I agree that those who engaged in violence should be prosecuted but are you doing what you accuse the UN statement of doing and making a premeditated judgement that the Israelis have no guilt here?
 
Link
BBC News - Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

Quote(The Palestinian movement Hamas says the Israeli navy has intercepted a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip.

Flotilla organisers say 30 people on board were hurt in clashes with Israeli forces. Israel has made no comment.

The reported interception took place in international waters, more than 150km (90 miles) off the coast of Gaza. )

I can well believe that people were hurt, Hamas claims the interception was in International waters, be interesting to hear where Israel claims the interception took place.


If a country has a blackade against another country then it is ****ing stupid to try to pass through that blockade. Of course I am sure that fact will get ignored by that Isreali bashers just like any other time Israel defends itself or retaliates for some attack by one of its neighbors. I don't blame Israel for not trusting any boat going to the Palestinians,how many terrorist attacks did the Palestinians do against Israel.
 
Last edited:
If people want to ignore me because this is slightly lazy on my part, be my guest. However was on a mini-vacation for 4 days and missed a lot of posts and saw this and am immedietely interested. I don't like making any kind of massive judgement until most of the facts are pretty much laid out there, and even an initial one I want to get a general idea. However this is a good 500 pages long already with much of it concerning discussions mostly back and forth between a few people. Anyone mind giving a little sum up of what is known thus far and what the opposition and support are generally saying?

My mind always boggles with the Israel stuff as its so amazingly nuanced and so passionate on every side, its hard to get a good grip on it.
 
You do realize that this argument would mean that they aren't bound by anything and can do as they please, right?

I was just pointing out that references to the UNCLOS may not be relevant here as Israel is a non-signatory. If it can be shown that they have accepted relevant provisions as customary international law since it was enacted and ratified by other states, then it would be relevant to relate it to Israel. Furthermore, Turkey, the biggest complaintant at this point, is ALSO a non-signatory.
 
But all the experts say the contrary...

Israel's inspecting boats in international waters is not illegal nor is it without precedent. For example, the BBC reported:

A massive cocaine seizure by the Royal Navy off the Nicaraguan coast has dealt a "sledgehammer blow" to traffickers, the defence secretary said.

HMS Cumberland seized two tonnes of cocaine worth £200m after intercepting a speedboat during a routine patrol.


The caption under the photo accompanying the story clearly notes, "HMS Cumberland intercepted the speedboat in international waters."
 
I agree that those who engaged in violence should be prosecuted but are you doing what you accuse the UN statement of doing and making a premeditated judgement that the Israelis have no guilt here?

No, but perhaps you didn't see my initial post in this thread (Message #58). I stated:

Were the soldiers attacked, they would be entitled to use such force as necessary to address the issue. That does not mean license to use unlimited or excessive force. The facts would need to be analyzed to assess whether the amount of force used was appropriate given the circumstances or excessive.

In short, there are constraints that would need to be respected under the Laws of War.
 
Israel's inspecting boats in international waters is not illegal nor is it without precedent. For example, the BBC reported:

A massive cocaine seizure by the Royal Navy off the Nicaraguan coast has dealt a "sledgehammer blow" to traffickers, the defence secretary said.

HMS Cumberland seized two tonnes of cocaine worth £200m after intercepting a speedboat during a routine patrol.


The caption under the photo accompanying the story clearly notes, "HMS Cumberland intercepted the speedboat in international waters."

Why are they all saying that it is illegal then?

I think there is a difference between boarding a boat of drug smugglers, and boarding an humanitarian convoy bound to an illegally besieged territory.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom