Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

Degreez · May 31, 2010

NolaMan said:
I have not seen any reports that it was actually in international waters, can you offer a link please?

BBC News - Deaths as Israeli forces storm Gaza aid ship

The incident happened about 40 miles (64 km) out to sea, in international waters.

NolaMan said:
In terms of legal issues, if Israel is in an open state of conflict with Hamas, which I think they are, then imposing a blockade is not actually illegal, and it is not illegal to prevent ships from entering the blockade area, regardless of their purpose or intent.

You are slightly incorrect. If Israel is to maintain a blockade on Gaza, regardless of motive, it must abide by laws regulating Occupying Powers. Israel says it is no longer occupying Gaza, despite imposing a land, air, and naval blockade for the past three years. It is illegal for Israel to maintain a blockade on Gaza without abiding by international laws. The blockade is an act of aggression.`

RyrineaHaruno · May 31, 2010

I found the Al Jazzeer video

mbig · May 31, 2010

Another Credible source.
This morning's Wall Street Journal citing two sides of the story.
Minutes ago.

More Than 10 Dead Dead After Israel Intercepts Gaza Aid Convoy - WSJ.com
MAY 31, 2010, 3:17 A.M. ET

"TEL AVIV—Israeli warships early Monday intercepted a flotilla of activists and aid bound for the blockaded Gaza Strip, and Israel's military confirmed that more than 10 activists had been killed in a Skirmish after Israeli forces boarded at least one of the ships.

The ships involved were still at sea, under Israeli naval escort, and believed headed for an Israeli port. The details of the boarding weren't clear early Monday.

An Israeli army spokesman accused activists on the ships of arming themselves with knives and clubs. The spokesman said at least a dozen activists had been injured, as well as 10 Israeli military personnel, in the fighting. He said activists stole a gun from one Israeli personnel and started firing on the soldiers.

Local media put the death toll much higher. Israel's Channel 2, a private station, citing Palestinian officials, reported early Monday that at least 16 died in a confrontation between Israel forces and activists and crew members aboard the ships. The station said Israeli soldiers acted only After responding to violence, but the source of the report wasn't clear.
[................]

Redress · May 31, 2010

mbig said:
Another Credible source.
This morning's Wall Street Journal citing two sides of the story.
Minutes ago.

More Than 10 Dead Dead After Israel Intercepts Gaza Aid Convoy - WSJ.com
MAY 31, 2010, 3:17 A.M. ET

Yes, that is pretty much what we have been saying here in the thread.

Infinite Chaos · May 31, 2010

mbig said:
Another Credible source.
This morning's Wall Street Journal citing two sides of the story.
--

Interesting that the WSJ's only real reference to whether this was in international waters or not is a quote from the Turkish Ministry.

If this was in International waters then Israeli troops have committed an act tantamount to piracy and the people on board the ships were entitled to defend themselves. Unfortunately I doubt anyone involved in ordering the boarding will be punished or held responsible if Israel turns out to be guilty.

mbig · May 31, 2010

Infinite Chaos said:
I

nteresting that the WSJ's only real reference to whether this was in international waters or not is a quote from the Turkish Ministry.

All indications were this was in Int'l waters as to catch/intercept before thet convoy was ready.
The convoy, however, Fully expected interception and probable boarding.
If they resisted despite their stated objective to do otherwise... the resulting casualties can be laid at their feet.

If this was in International waters then Israeli troops have committed an act tantamount to piracy and the people on board the ships were entitled to defend themselves. Unfortunately I doubt anyone involved in ordering the boarding will be punished or held responsible if Israel turns out to be guilty.

Again, they said thruout and for weeks, unarmed, peaceful, no resistance.
If they did otherwise they defeated their own purpose and lost the Moral high ground these Jerkoffs never really had.

Surely all the heavies behind the Charade (and MPs etc) could have prevailed on Egypt to open the Rafah border for 6 hours and gotten just as much in.

But it was a PR STUNT to embarrass/Demonize Israel.
The usual BS.
and getting the intended support/'indignation' from the same Sick circle.
-

ido_ · May 31, 2010

Gaza flotilla ships transported to Ashdod - Israel News, Ynetnews

Benyahu confirmed that the activists snatched one of the fighters' weapons. "He was attacked by the crowd and they opened fire. During the incident, our fighters were in real danger, both from the clubs and from the weapons. They used crowd dispersal means, and when there was no choice – live ammunition. We don't know if there were any other weapons on the ship, because the entire picture is unclear. We did not encounter peace activists on this boat."

If this is true I can understand how it ended up with 10 deaths

Infinite Chaos · May 31, 2010

mbig said:
All indications were this was in Int'l waters as to catch/intercept before thet convoy was ready.
The convoy, however, Fully expected interception and probable boarding.
If they resisted despite their stated objective to do otherwise... the resulting casualties can be laid at their feet.

Do you actually understand what "international waters" means?

mbig said:
-- Again, they said thruout and for weeks, unarmed, peaceful, no resistance.
If they did otherwise they defeated their own purpose and lost the Moral high ground these Jerkoffs never really had.

It makes no difference whether they intended to resist or not, if this flotilla had been in Israeli waters then the boarding would have been justified. A hostile boarding of a ship in international waters can be classified as piracy.

Defining the law

A piracy attack is an attack against a vessel that happens in international waters.

However, attacks that happen inside territorial waters, which are normally 12 nautical miles from the coast, are deemed as acts of robbery.BBC Story

mbig · May 31, 2010

Who the Hell cares about this "Intl Waters" BS.
They were heading by admission/For Provocation to run a Military blockade.
Knowing that intent... It's like, ergo, [pre] 'Hot Pursuit' which loses protections of boundaries.
They said they were unarmed and nonviolent.

And As I said:

Surely all the heavies behind the Charade (and MPs etc) could have prevailed on Egypt to open the Rafah border for 6 hours and gotten just as much in.

But it was a PR STUNT to embarrass/Demonize Israel.
The usual BS.
and getting the intended support/'indignation' from the same Sick circle.

Deaths are on the hands of those who ran this STUNT and resisted boarding that was fully expected.

Tho it is another PR 'Triumph' to be used precisely like this (indignation about those 'pirate' Israelis/bloodthirsty/do anything/Zionist Jews) by people Like you.
-

Redress · May 31, 2010

mbig said:
Who the Hell cares about this "Intl Waters" BS.
They were heading by admission/For Provocation to run a Military blockade.
They said they were unarmed and nonviolent.

And As I said:

Deaths are on the hands of those who ran this STUNT and resisted boarding that was fully expected.

Tho it is another PR 'Triumph' to be used precisely like this (indignation about those 'pirate' Israelis/bloodthirsty/do anything/Zionist Jews) by people Like YOU.
-

That "international waters BS" is a little thing we call law. It's important.

Infinite Chaos · May 31, 2010

mbig said:
Who the Hell cares about this "Intl Waters" BS.

Certainly not Israel - they never signed the UN convention on the laws of the sea.. Now we see why - so they and people like you could justify such acts of piracy.

mbig said:
They were heading by admission/For Provocation to run a Military blockade.
They said they were unarmed and nonviolent.

And As I said:

Deaths are on the hands of those who ran this STUNT and resisted boarding that was fully expected.

Tho it is another PR 'Triumph' to be used precisely like this (indignation about those 'pirate' Israelis/bloodthirsty/do anything/Zionist Jews) by people Like YOU -

For any other state (i.e. one that operates under international agreement) as long as the ship / boat is operating legally - up until a ship crosses into another nations territorial waters, it matters not what the boat is doing.

mbig · May 31, 2010

Redress said:
That "international waters BS" is a little thing we call law. It's important.

1. There is no real "Int'l Law". It's an abstraction. Nice two words tho.

2. Re-read my post.

You LOSE border protections under the doctrine of Hot Pursuit.
and their stated intent was to Run a Military Blockade.
Not inferred, stated, and just Hours away from doing so.
WE are chasing Osama and Taliban Stomping all over the place and "intl Law" to catch terrorists.

Israel is at WAR with Hamas, as we were in WWII with Germany and sinking each others Merchant shipping in Intl/ANY waters.

Got it now?

bub · May 31, 2010

mbig said:
1. There is no real "Int'l Law". It's an abstraction. Nice two words tho.

You cannot ask people to respect laws (like not launching rockets at you) if you do not respect the law yourself (like not boarding ships in international waters)

Redress · May 31, 2010

mbig said:
1. There is no real "Int'l Law". It's an abstraction. Nice two words tho.

2. Re-read my post.

You LOSE border protections under the doctrine of Hot Pursuit.
and their stated intent was to Run a Military Blockade.
Not inferred, stated, and just Hours away from doing so.
WE are chasing Osama and Taliban Stomping all over the place and "intl Law" to catch terrorists.

Israel is at WAR with Hamas, as we were in WWII with Germany and sinking each others Merchant shipping in Intl/ANY waters.

Got it sweety?

I never used the word "international". They where not in "hot pursuit" since the convoy had not at that point yet broken any...wait for it...laws.

I am not your "sweety", and you will please not call me that again.

kaya'08 · May 31, 2010

IDF forces have attacked the activists and apparently have killed a handful of members. In there defence they insisted they had been "attacked first" with bricks and rocks. There was a hidden camera on board, apparently, not too sure how true that is. If there was we'll know the truth sooner or later. Amongst the attacked where European officials. I hold Israel close to my heart, so i hope for there sakes they really where attacked first. Otherwise as a personal mission i swear by it i will not be visiting there again.

reefedjib · May 31, 2010

This seems to be SOP for the Palestinians. They stage a circumstance that forces Israel to take action. It turns violent and people are killed. It is an attempt to put Israel in a bad light. That they had a hidden camera present says it all. It was a psy-op for the Palestinians.

mbig · May 31, 2010

Redress said:
I never used the word "international".

Redress Minutes before said:
That "international waters BS" is a little thing we call LAW. It's Important.

So you LIED, or don't know what the hell you're saying.. as you did say "International" and referred to it's "LAW" in your last post.
What a Stupendous Blunder or LIE.

They where not in "hot pursuit" since the convoy had not at that point yet broken any...wait for it...laws.

If someone is coming at you, and told you so.... even tho they haven't hit you yet, one can well then use self-defense/or as I put it [pre]Hot Pursuit since they have said what they are going to do. Run your Blockade.
You don't have to wait until they breach your borders when they said that's what they're going to do and are hours away from exactly that.
ie, 1967 War.

I am not your "sweety", and you will please not call me that again.

I edited that out before your reply, but my sentiments havemn't changed.

bub · May 31, 2010

kaya'08 said:
IDF forces have attacked the activists and apparently have killed a handful of members. In there defence they insisted they had been "attacked first" with bricks and rocks. There was a hidden camera on board, apparently, not too sure how true that is. If there was we'll know the truth sooner or later. Amongst the attacked where European officials. I hold Israel close to my heart, so i hope for there sakes they really where attacked first. Otherwise as a personal mission i swear by it i will not be visiting there again.

It depends on what you consider "being attacked".

Is it breaking the blockade? Maybe, but they were still in international waters, so no they didn't violate anything at that point.
Is it boarding the ships? In international laws, yes.
Is it throwing bricks at the commando? According to the IDF yes, but since they had no right to board the ships, throwing bricks at pirates is self-defence.

bub · May 31, 2010

reefedjib said:
This seems to be SOP for the Palestinians. They stage a circumstance that forces Israel to take action. It turns violent and people are killed. It is an attempt to put Israel in a bad light. That they had a hidden camera present says it all. It was a psy-op for the Palestinians.

We disagree about that, but the result of this event is clear. It's one more diplomatic defeat for Israel.

Redress · May 31, 2010

mbig said:
So you LIED, or don't know what the hell you're saying.. as you did say "International" and refrerred to it's "LAW" in your last post.
This is UNbelievable and Pathetic.

I do not think you understand what quotation marks mean. In this case, it means that it was some one elses words.

If someone is coming at you, and told you so.... even tho they haven't hit you yet, wone can well then use self-defense/or as I put it [pre]Hot Pursuit since they have sai what they are going to do. Run your Blackade.

There are procedures to follow in situations such as this. Assaulting the ships is not how things are started, especially in a situation like this where it is not a naval force.

I edited that out before your reply, but my sentiments are the same.

BTW, what happened to Hatuey when called me outright "Dishones" in this very string while you were posting in it?

Thinking before you post and insult people is a good idea.

If you have a problem with something Hatuey said, report it. Bitching about it in thread is not going to do you any good.

Redress · May 31, 2010

reefedjib said:
This seems to be SOP for the Palestinians. They stage a circumstance that forces Israel to take action. It turns violent and people are killed. It is an attempt to put Israel in a bad light. That they had a hidden camera present says it all. It was a psy-op for the Palestinians.

The question will be what actions did Israel take. No one "forced" Israel to do anything, they chose to. Yes, the flotilla was probably looking for a confrontation. However, that does not mean Israel has to give it to them. Too much still uncertain about this to really judge.

mbig · May 31, 2010

Redress said:
I do not think you understand what quotation marks mean. In this case, it means that it was some one elses words.

Embarassed huh?
Those were part someone else's words and part yours, but YOU used it/Quoted it in ref to it's [International] Your word "LAW".
So it was you not only mentioning it, you agreed with it and reiterated it.

You own it. You were Caught/STUFFED/LIED and are now Wiggling.
You'll never get out of it with me tho.

There are procedures to follow in situations such as this. Assaulting the ships is not how things are started, especially in a situation like this where it is not a naval force.

Au contare, as said by many including the passengers... the ships fully expected to be boarded.
YOUR Biased/spun word "assaulted".

Thinking before you post and insult people is a good idea.

Yes, But only one of us is capable of that.

If you have a problem with something Hatuey said, report it. Bitching about it in thread is not going to do you any good.

I did.
LOL.

reefedjib · May 31, 2010

bub said:
We disagree about that, but the result of this event is clear. It's one more diplomatic defeat for Israel.

I don't think the result is clear. It all hinges on whether Israel claims the right to board ships at that distance from their coast. I believe international waters start 200 nautical miles from the coast. At 90 miles, they were in Israeli waters.

bub · May 31, 2010

reefedjib said:
I don't think the result is clear. It all hinges on whether Israel claims the right to board ships at that distance from their coast. I believe international waters start 200 nautical miles from the coast. At 90 miles, they were in Israeli waters.

Isn't it 12 miles?

Redress · May 31, 2010

mbig said:
Embarassed huh?
Those were part someone else's words and part yours, but YOU used it in ref to it's [International] Your word "LAW".
So it was you not only mentioning it, you agreed with it and reiterated it.

You own it. You were Caught/STUFFED/LIED and are now Wiggling.
You'll never get out of it with me tho.

No, I am not embarrassed. It is clear to any one reading my post I referred to your use of the term. Funny how you went after that and not the content of what I said.

Au contare, as said by many including the passengers... the ships fully expected to be boarded.
YOUR Biased/spun word "assaulted".

I have even said that I thought the flotilla "was probably looking for a confrontation". Funny that. By the way, what would you call landing an armed force on a boat?

Yes, But only one of us is capable of that.

I did.
LOL.

I have not had to retract a single thing I said. That makes one of us.

Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

onomatopoeic

Liberal Fascist For Life!

onomatopoeic

onomatopoeic

Liberal Fascist For Life!

onomatopoeic

R.I.P. Léo

Liberal Fascist For Life!

onomatopoeic

R.I.P. Léo

R.I.P. Léo

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

onomatopoeic

R.I.P. Léo

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency