Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

[mbig]

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.

AS I explained above.
I disagree Completely.

The Convoy had expressed and was just hours away from Breaching the 200 mile Limit.
Knowing that stated intent-- one doesn't have to wait under any decent pre-emptive doctrine.

and Second.. Israel is at/In a HOT WAR with Hamas... as we were at War with Germany in WWII. (thousands of supply ships were sunk EVERYWHERE)
and Are at war with Osama/Taliban/Al-Qaeda and reserve the right and do hit them anywhere.
But hey... this is whipping boy Isael and this STUNT was a set-up from the get-go.
-

 

[Redress]

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.

Been looking this up since I was unsure. By the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, territorial waters are 12 nautical miles from a countries baseland(don't ask, it's complicated, but roughly 12 NM from shore usually). The not surprising complication is that Israel is not a signatory of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. So what you have is a kinda legal limbo.

Edit: According to wiki, Israel claims 12 NM for Territorial Sea. Take that for what it is worth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters#Territorial_sea_claims

 

[mbig]

No, I am not embarrassed. It is clear to any one reading my post I referred to your use of the term.

No, Your Being at best Disingenuous... but as I said, just posting for ego now.
You "quoted" the term thusly and added that's why "we Have Law"// INTERNATIONAL LAW.
This little Weasling job doesn't get you out of your Blunder/LIE.
YOU said there was an important thing called [International Waters] And .... "Law" in reference to IT.

I have even said that I thought the flotilla "was probably looking for a confrontation".

Now Backpedalling.

Funny that. By the way, what would you call landing an armed force on a boat?

"Boarding" that was fully expected... But I already told you that in the last post.
Want to DISINGENUOUSLY ask yet again?

I have not had to retract a single thing I said.

That's a 100% Lie.. again.
You cited/quoted the ["International waters"] and added "Law" referring to that phrase and why "we have" it. (LAW On International Waters)
You Keep LYING about what You said.
This is unacceptable.

EDIT
I'm now DONE OUTING your tactics/LIES here Redress.
Last-word/Wiggle away.

 

[spud_meister]

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.

200 nautical miles is an economic zone, the actual nautical territory is for 22 KM off the coast, and there is a contugous zone for another 22 KM, so the convoy was still 20 KM outside of Iraeli juridiction to prevent it landing.

Territorial waters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but Israel has not signed the treaty for those definitions of territory.

 

[Tashah]

Been looking this up since I was unsure. By the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, territorial waters are 12 nautical miles from a countries baseland(don't ask, it's complicated, but roughly 12 NM from shore usually).

It is complicated. According to UNCLOS III...

Territorial Waters - 12 nautical miles - This is considered sovereign territory.

Contiguous Zone - An additional 12 nautical miles - A state could continue to enforce laws in four specific areas: pollution, taxation, customs, and immigration.

Exclusive Economic Zones - 200 nautical miles from the coastline. Refers to fishing rights, oil rights, etc.

The not surprising complication is that Israel is not a signatory of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. So what you have is a kinda legal limbo.

The US government signed the UNCLOS III treaty, but Congress has never ratified it. There are eight nations which claim territorial water rights of 200 NM.

 

[Redress]

It is complicated. According to UNCLOS III...

Territorial Waters - 12 nautical miles - This is considered sovereign territory.

Contiguous Zone - An additional 12 nautical miles - A state could continue to enforce laws in four specific areas: pollution, taxation, customs, and immigration.

Exclusive Economic Zones - 200 nautical miles from the coastline. Refers to fishing rights, oil rights, etc.

For Contiguous Zones, the country has to claim it. Since Israel is not a signatory, they never have claimed it and are listed as having no claim.

The US government signed the UNCLOS III treaty, but Congress has never ratified it. There are eight nations which claim territorial water rights of 200 NM.

I knew that the US had never ratified it, despite helping design and negotiate the treaty. What are the 8 countries with the 200 mile claim?

Edit, never mind: the countries are Benin, Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Liberia, Peru, Somalia

 

[reefedjib]

AS I explained above.
I disagree Completely.

The Convoy had expressed and was just hours away from Breaching the 200 mile Limit.
Knowing that stated intent-- one doesn't have to wait under any decent pre-emptive doctrine.

and Second.. Israel is at/In a HOT WAR with Hamas... as we were at War with Germany in WWII. (thousands of supply ships were sunk EVERYWHERE)
and Are at war with Osama/Taliban/Al-Qaeda and reserve the right and do hit them anywhere.
But hey... this is whipping boy Isael and this STUNT was a set-up from the get-go.
-

Ok, I agree with you here.

 

[donsutherland1]

While I'm awaiting more details on the circumstances of the clash that took place on one of the ships. 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. That is has been reported that a soldier's weapon had been seized and the individual fired on the soldiers indicates, assuming the report is accurate, that a level of force was necessary.

On the matter of a ship's presence in international waters, unless the ships were flagged with a sovereign state's flag, they did not enjoy immunity in international wates. Moreover, even as Israel is not a signatory to the Law of the Sea Convention, that Convention also highlights general principles concerning the boarding, among other things, of ships in international waters. Such principles have been drawn and adapted from earlier conventions e.g., the Hague Conventions.

In general:

The following ships enjoy immunity in international waters: (1) warships (article 95) and (2) Ships owned or operated by a State and used only on government non-commercial service (article 96). Of course, if the warship is used for purposes of piracy, it is no longer immune (article 102). All other ships can be "visited." (article 110)

The flotilla was not comprised of warships nor ships owned/operated by a state government used only on government non-commercial service. It was not immune from boarding.

Also from the San Remo Manual, neutral merchant vessels are subject to attack if they "are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture" (clause 67). Neutral waters constitute the waters within jurisdiction of neutral states, not international waters (clause 14).

 

[gunner]

For me there looks to be no justification for Israeli Commandos to board the ship, lets alone whilst in International waters.
Trying to justify whether the appropriate level of force was used is immaterial because of this point. The very fact that Israeli troops were fighting against 'persons with knifes/bars and a ceased weapon does in NO way suggest those on board were expecting, or preparing for, some kind of battle. If they were indeed ready for a fight i,m sure the protesters would have been appropriately armed.
Also, another PR disaster by the Israeli Government.

Paul

 

[gunner]

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:


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.
-

I,m not convinced 'boarding' and 'storming' are the same act...

Paul

 

[Apocalypse]

I wish I could have replied earlier, but I was busy.
Now here's a short review of this predicted disaster:

For a bit longer than one week, the Israeli government, media, and pretty much the entire nation was busy with this upcoming attempt to break the blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt on the territory known as Gaza Strip governed by the Islamic militia, Hamas.
It was more than known that this is nothing more than an attempt to provoke an Israeli reaction for the sake of pure propaganda.
Cameras were set up, live feed was supplied 24/7 by one of the ships, and many Arab media networks have sent their delegations with the 'activists'.
The ships were mainly populated by Turkish citizens and it is suspected that the Turkish government led by the Islamic party of PM Erdogan was behind the flotilla.
The ship was carrying aid that is summed at less than what Israel enters into the Strip every week by about one third, obviously nothing that could hope to change the humanitarian situation in the strip, one which is really not as bad as it is being told.

On the ship there were also more than a few popular extremists, including far-left Israelis, led by a far-left Israeli Knesset member(Israeli Parliament's member) from an Israeli-Arab political party, and also the leader of the Israeli Islamic movement, Rahad Salach, known as a major radical figure amongst the Israeli-Arab population.

Since it was known that this is a lose-lose PR situation for Israel, Israel has tried to be flexible and has offered the 'activists' to return to their countries instead of being arrested, with plane tickets paid for by the Israeli state itself.
And that's not all, Israel has actually offered that the flotilla would come to Ashdod's(Israeli coast city) port instead, drop the humanitarian aid there, and after a quick security check it would be transferred through the Israeli crosses into the Gaza strip, as Israel does weekly.
Needless to say those offerings were refused.

At the night of the interception, the Israeli navy has initiated the procedure followed at such cases and has called on the ship to stop.
The first call was completely ignored.
The Israeli navy has then called the ship to stop for a second time.
That call was completely ignored as well.
Realizing that the ship is not intending on stopping, or to even respond, the Israeli navy has given the green light to its commandos.
The commandos have intended to swiftly make their way to the captain's rooms of the ships and order the captain to stop the ship. They knew that they're going to face light resistance, and hence were equipped with paint guns and non-lethal equipment used at protests.
Every commando were also given a pistol, which he was told to use only at the danger of life.

The take-over of most of the tiny ships have went perfectly and completely without any physical resistance from the 'activists'.
On two of the three big ships they have met light resistance which they were able to face and swiftly prevent.
On the third big ship however the case was not so.

When the chopper filled with the commandos have attempted to land on the ship, 20 'activists' were waiting there for it, equipped with cold weapons, mainly long knives.
The bloodshed has begun when a rope was dropped from the chopper onto the ship, to drop the soldiers in. The rope was grabbed by the 'activists', who were mainly Turkish citizens, and was tied onto an antenna in the hope of bringing the chopper down.
Nevertheless, the soldiers did manage to drop into the ship one by one.
At the end of the rope the violent crowd was waiting for the soldiers, grabbing and attacking each soldier on his turn when he has made it to the ship.
The soldiers have managed to fight back the crowd, which has by then become 30, but were equipped with paint guns and were not allowed to use their pistols.
Through all that time, the force commander on the chopper was shouting to his soldiers "Do not fire! Do not fire!", fearing that they would respond to the threat of life with live fire.
Through the struggle 3 soldiers were moderately injured when they were stabbed by the crowd.

At one point, a group of the thugs has grabbed one of the soldiers, took his pistol from his belt, and threw him off from the boat's rooftop, onto the ship's deck, a 10 meters height, hitting him on the head and seriously wounding him, and then has started opening fire on the soldiers.
The soldiers have then all looked at the force commander, asking for the permission to be finally given, and the force commander has approved and have given them the permission to use live fire.
The soldiers have drawn their pistols, and shot at the thugs, aiming for their legs in order to neutralize them.
The crowd which has managed to take 2-3 pistols has been firing at the soldiers and has moderately injured two more soldiers.
Through the disaster 15 of the 'activists' were killed and about 30 overall were injured.

So here are the key points again:

1) The flotilla was a predicted, planned provocation, and a successful propaganda act. The 'activists' have received exactly what they've wanted.
2) The 'activists' have received an offering by Israel to take the humanitarian aid to Gaza by itself, and have refused the offering.
3) The ships were taken to the port of Ashdod, the 'activists' that were injured to the hospitals, and the humanitarian aid to Gaza.
4) The ships were warned to stop twice and have refused to comply or even respond.
5) The Israeli forces were not equipped or ready for a live-ammunition conflict.
6) "Out-of-proportions" force was not used by the Israeli Navy. In fact, the force that was intended to be used was minimal.
7) The organization behind the flotilla is recognized as a terrorist organization, tied with al-Qaeda and Hamas, and it is also suspected that Turkey is behind the act.

The probable results are the condemnations of Israel that were already made, a UN security council meeting and the further increase in damage to the already destroyed Turkish-Israeli relations.
It is important to say that it is only the Turkish controlling party that is hostile towards Israel, and that the Turkish people do not support it as they did anymore.
Erdogan is not bound to be the prime minister after the next elections.
I do fear however that if an Israeli inquiry would find that the Turkish government was involved, it would take harsh steps against it on the international stage, and I'm against any of that kind of actions.

 

[Gardener]

I,m not convinced 'boarding' and 'storming' are the same act...

Paul

Yes - - "storming" is the term favored by propagandists attempting to frame the event rather than understand it.

 

[Redress]

Yes - - "storming" is the term favored by propagandists attempting to frame the event rather than understand it.

This is what we call :spin:

 

[SgtRock]

I wonder if one of our DP members was involved in this. I think some of you may know who Im talking about. He is from the UK and is a huge supporter of the Palestinian people and has been in Turkey lately.

If these commandos were attacked then they have every right to defend themselfs. I know that dosn't matter to anti-israel crowd but we will have to see. It will also be intresting to find out what kind of contraband they found onboard these ships.

 

[Gardener]

This is what we call :spin:

No, the original choice of terms to use is the indication of spin. Learn a little bit about responsible journalism, and you would understand how certain choices of terms compromises the journalists neutrality.

In this case, the violence was aboard just one of the ships, the Mavi Marmara, which was sponsored by the extremist organization IHH, which has ties to Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Having boarded the ship, the IDF met with potentially lethal resistance and returned fire. You may certainly call the event anything you want, but unless you actually display some understanding, all you are doing is repeating the framing devices of others.

 

[gunner]

Yes - - "storming" is the term favored by propagandists attempting to frame the event rather than understand it.

Actually, its a term used in the military. Please refrain from showing your ignorance on matters you know little about, it only aids in derailing the thread.

Paul

 

[Apocalypse]

No, the original choice of terms to use is the indication of spin. Learn a little bit about responsible journalism, and you would understand how certain choices of terms compromises the journalists neutrality.

In this case, the violence was aboard just one of the ships, the Mavi Marmara, which was sponsored by the extremist organization IHH, which has ties to Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Having boarded the ship, the IDF met with potentially lethal resistance and returned fire. You may certainly call the event anything you want, but unless you actually display some understanding, all you are doing is repeating the framing devices of others.

Correct Gardener, but the IHH is tied with al-Qaeda, not simply with the The Islamic Jihad movement, which is sort of a sub-group of al-Qaeda.

 

[Redress]

No, the original choice of terms to use is the indication of spin. Learn a little bit about responsible journalism, and you would understand how certain choices of terms compromises the journalists neutrality.

In this case, the violence was aboard just one of the ships, the Mavi Marmara, which was sponsored by the extremist organization IHH, which has ties to Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Having boarded the ship, the IDF met with potentially lethal resistance and returned fire. You may certainly call the event anything you want, but unless you actually display some understanding, all you are doing is repeating the framing devices of others.

At the current time, some of those facts are in dispute. When you accept one side explanation of events without considering the other, and present it as fact, you are in fact, spinning. We do not yet know all that happened on the boat. Till then, it is premature to judge. Calling another view "propaganda", when all the facts are not in, is very much spinning, and demonizing some one who has a different view. Not good.

 

[Apocalypse]

I'd like to add that so far only a few nations have taken on a reasonable response on the issue.
A lot of countries were quick to condemn Israel and claim that a "blown-out-of-proportions" force was used without really knowing the facts, such as France, Sweden and Norway.
Some other countries have acted wisely and said that they are waiting for further details on the incident before making a conclusive statement, such as the UK and the USA.

 

[Apocalypse]

At the current time, some of those facts are in dispute. When you accept one side explanation of events without considering the other, and present it as fact, you are in fact, spinning. We do not yet know all that happened on the boat. Till then, it is premature to judge. Calling another view "propaganda", when all the facts are not in, is very much spinning, and demonizing some one who has a different view. Not good.

That's obviously correct, but do remember that there is only one truth, and that while some individuals are not yet aware of the facts that point at that truth, others already are.

 

[Gardener]

At the current time, some of those facts are in dispute. When you accept one side explanation of events without considering the other, and present it as fact, you are in fact, spinning. We do not yet know all that happened on the boat. Till then, it is premature to judge. Calling another view "propaganda", when all the facts are not in, is very much spinning, and demonizing some one who has a different view. Not good.

What complete bullsh!t. All you are doing is indulging in turnspeak where you try to confuse others into believing it is the extremely biased rhetorec that must be protected, while any attempt to challenge the inherent bias is "demonizing".

For anybody who actually wishes to understand a little something instead of just posturing, however, this details a bit of the organization in question.

IHH - a Turkish humanitarian relief fund with a radical Islamic anti-Western orientation.

 

[gunner]

Apoc, can you answer how YOU are able to distinguish, at this stage, who are the thugs and who are the protesters?

Paul

 

[Apocalypse]

Apoc, can you answer how YOU are able to distinguish, at this stage, who are the thugs and who are the protesters?

Paul

Certainly the thugs would be the minority on the one ship that has physically attacked the soldiers trying to kill them.
The protesters would be the majority that has complied with the arrest order/has resisted passively.

 

[Gardener]

Actually, its a term used in the military. Please refrain from showing your ignorance on matters you know little about, it only aids in derailing the thread.

Paul

and, of course, this statement will also go unchallenged by the same nattering individuals who actually do know nothing.

 

[Redress]

That's obviously correct, but do remember that there is only one truth, and that while some individuals are not yet aware of the facts that point at that truth, others already are.

Considering that the only people who know the truth are the ones there, and even they are not necessarily going to have an accurate view of events(ask cops about getting testimony from witnesses, and how several people will see the same event differently), the whole "points to the truth" thing is premature.

About the only truths know for sure right now is that the Flotilla is not now headed to Gaza, and that this is another PR nightmare for Israel.