Thread: Israeli navy opens fire on international aid convoy for Gaza : At least ten dead

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Illegal according to which 'law'? Could you please cite the relevant entry in the Constitution of Israel?

That question could also be flipped to say legal by which law? And it would be appropriate to ask for the appropriate reference in Internationale law that would back it up.

Ultimately the point is moot. For those not in israel, israeli law is besides the point, for those in israel it is the only law that matters, and that is the same for every nation. International law is almost exclusively used by nations to further their own self-centered interests.

Andrew

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

Are you talking about IDF? They are not militants.

Semantics.

One group's military is another group's militants.

Originally Posted by Peace Now

Just as the US Coast Guard would be justified in interdicting a boat in international waters if they suspected them of carrying drugs or any other illegal cargo.

Except that you're wrong:

http://www.slate.com/id/1007689

When a suspicious vessel is identified at sea, the Coast Guard notifies the State Department, which then gets permission from the vessel's flag nation for the Coast Guard to board. (In the rare instances when permission is denied, the Coast Guard will generally monitor the vessel as it approaches U.S. territory.) In this case, the Coast Guard boarded the Svesda Maru and spent five days searching for drugs, which they eventually discovered in the space below the fishing holds. The trawler was brought to San Diego and the Russian and Ukrainian crew was jailed on drug smuggling charges.

The US gets permission from the vessel's flag nation before doing so. If they don't get permission, they wait until the boat is in territorial waters.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

If i was in charge of a expansionist power bent on weakening and ultimately destroying that last remnants of resistance in the displaced population and i depended on the the continued support and blind-eye of an international community i would have insisted that the ships be inspected for weapons before leaving port and i would have monitored them by all means available and i would have let them through without incident.

But of course, the current Israeli government is extremist and ultra violent, and they could not let this challenge to their authority go by unpunished. Childish behavior, in other words.



Well, i'm certainly neither a pacifist or a globalist.

Andrew

Somehow or other I get the sense of prejudice in your response. At any rate, you seem to be comfortable with placing your country and people at risk with little more than token assurances from a third party that isn't exactly an ally.

Hmmm....it's EXACTLY that same kind of passivism by Barack Obama which opened the door for the Palestinians to pull this stunt and, possibly, light the fuse on a ME powder keg.

Originally Posted by lutherf

Somehow or other I get the sense of prejudice in your response. At any rate, you seem to be comfortable with placing your country and people at risk with little more than token assurances from a third party that isn't exactly an ally.

Hmmm....it's EXACTLY that same kind of passivism by Barack Obama which opened the door for the Palestinians to pull this stunt and, possibly, light the fuse on a ME powder keg.

Oh, please. Anyone with an even remotely cosmetic familiarity with recent history understands that the POTUS had fuckall to do with this. Palestinians do what they want no matter who is in the WH. As do Israelis.

Spare us the breathless, groundless speculation about powder kegs.

The ships were threatening to run the blockade. I only used the US Navy and Coast Guard interdictions as an example. Of course we aren't talking about drug trafficking here, we're talking about counter terrorism.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Oh, please. Anyone with an even remotely cosmetic familiarity with recent history understands that the POTUS had fuckall to do with this. Palestinians do what they want no matter who is in the WH. As do Israelis.

Spare us the breathless, groundless speculation about powder kegs.

Nobody, Tanner, does what they want to without consideration of consequences. Now that it has been made quite clear that Obama will not back Israel the antagonizers have become emboldened and it won't be long before someone does something that provokes Israel to REALLY defend herself.

Originally Posted by lutherf

Nobody, Tanner, does what they want to without consideration of consequences.

And? That's not the issue here.

Now that it has been made quite clear that Obama will not back Israel the antagonizers have become emboldened and it won't be long before someone does something that provokes Israel to REALLY defend herself.

No, the cycle of intensifying and deintensifying conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis has been going on for far, far longer than this.

There is nothing particularly good or bad about the O being POTUS, in this particular case.

Originally Posted by Peace Now

The ships were threatening to run the blockade. I only used the US Navy and Coast Guard interdictions as an example. Of course we aren't talking about drug trafficking here, we're talking about counter terrorism.

The people on the ship were being invaded by armed gunmen on the high seas. Shouldn't they act to defend themselves and their ship?

Israel has the 'right' to do whatever it wants on the high seas and pay the consequences for their actions like every other nation that might do something viewed by the world as being 'illegal'. We saw what the Russians did when THEIR ship was attacked by pirates on the high seas.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

The people on the ship were being invaded by armed gunmen on the high seas. Shouldn't they act to defend themselves and their ship?

Israel has the 'right' to do whatever it wants on the high seas and pay the consequences for their actions like every other nation that might do something viewed by the world as being 'illegal'. We saw what the Russians did when THEIR ship was attacked by pirates on the high seas.

They were being "invaded" because they ignored requests to stop and be boarded peaceably or to head to a safe port for inspection. It was THEIR choice to escalate events.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Semantics.

One group's military is another group's militants.

Uh...no.
There is a tremendous difference between militants and the military.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

:rolleyes:

Only the most dedicated sheep believe that Israel's goal with Gaza is as simple as preventing weapons from entering.

hey, you're entitled.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Rude Boy

Um, I didn't post it, dude. Get a grip.

You may want to talk to the person who provided the link.

uhm I have a grip, dude. You commented, then I did, relax.