israeli navy fires on Gaza aid flotilla

[ProfJohn]

Video of the event.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...d_with_knives_clubs__gunfire_by_aid_ship.html

The second one clearly shows a soldier being attacked right after he landed on the ship and you can see multiple people carrying sticks or bats as they move to the front of the deck.

We don't know at what point this took place though, could be the initial landing or could be later after the fighting started. I suspect the first though because once the commandos started to open fire most people probably ran for their lives.

 

[Perknose]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01flotilla.html?hp

The most current reports, which are always subject to revision as we have learned in the past;

Israeli naval commandos raided a flotilla carrying thousands of tons of supplies for Gaza in international waters on Monday morning, killing at least 10 people, according to the Israeli military and activists traveling with the flotilla. Some Israeli news reports put the death toll higher.

[...]

The Israeli Defense Forces said more than 10 people were killed when naval personnel boarding the six ships in the aid convoy met with “live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs.” The naval forces then “employed riot dispersal means, including live fire,” the military said in a statement.

[...]

A military statement said two activists were later found with pistols they had taken from Israeli commandos. The activists, the military said, had apparently opened fire “as evident by the empty pistol magazines.”

[...]

Channel 10, a private television station in Israel, quoted the Israeli trade minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, as saying 14 to 16 people had been killed. He said on Israeli Army Radio that commandos boarded the ships by sliding down on ropes from a hovering helicopter and were then struck by passengers with “batons and tools.”

 

[SamurAchzar]

Video of the event.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...d_with_knives_clubs__gunfire_by_aid_ship.html

The second one clearly shows a soldier being attacked right after he landed on the ship and you can see multiple people carrying sticks or bats as they move to the front of the deck.

We don't know at what point this took place though, could be the initial landing or could be later after the fighting started. I suspect the first though because once the commandos started to open fire most people probably ran for their lives.

Same footage shows a soldier attacked right after he descended from the rappel. Earlier on TV I saw thermal imagery from a UAV, showing how soldiers were lynched and thrown off the decks, before they started using live fire. If anything, Israel is stupid for sending commandos in with orders that incapacitate them. Can you see Navy SEALs sent to handle riots at a G8 summit?

 

[ProfJohn]

BTW none of this would have happened if the 'peace' activists wouldn't have resisted.

I have no idea what the idiots were thinking. You are surrounded by one of the best trained and most active military forces and the world and you decide to attack them with knives and sticks???

Did they really think that the Israelis were going to sit back and allow their soldiers to be beat to death??

 

[SamurAchzar]

Yes, 5 of the ships surrendered right away and diverted towards Israeli ports. They got their media coverage and attention, and no one got hurt. How beneficial for the Palestinian cause it would be when CNN shows pictures of a mob trying to lynch an Israeli soldier?

 

[Jaskalas]

The video clearly shows the Israel soldiers being attacked, if not killed, the moment they landed.

 

[nageov3t]

BTW none of this would have happened if the 'peace' activists wouldn't have resisted.

I have no idea what the idiots were thinking. You are surrounded by one of the best trained and most active military forces and the world and you decide to attack them with knives and sticks???

Did they really think that the Israelis were going to sit back and allow their soldiers to be beat to death??

maybe they figured that the Israeli army would be too busy worrying about whether or not their fellow soldiers were checking out their asses to fight effectively.

/random cheap shot
//carry on

 

[Infohawk]

I'm not a big fan of Zionism but this situation seems like this specific situation was provoked. Israel has a blockade on Gaza. You try to run a blockade, what do you think is going to happen? There's going to need to be use of force to stop you.

 

[Lemon law]

If we read the full text of San Remo manual, its clear that Israel had no right to stop or otherwise board what is essentially relief and humanitarian supply ship.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce

Had the ship been carrying war materials and had not Israel been starving Gaza as an illegal collective punishment, Israel might have a hope of being justified by San Remo.

But I will predict international courts will definitively rule against Israel in this case. And I suspect the sooner the better that feeble Israeli defense is shredded, the sooner the world can proceed to the next logical steps.

 

[KMFJD]

If we read the full text of San Remo manual, its clear that Israel had no right to stop or otherwise board what is essentially relief and humanitarian supply ship.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce

Had the ship been carrying war materials and had not been starving Gaza as an illegal collective punishment, Israel might have a hope of being justified by San Remo.

But I will predict international courts will definitively rule against Israel in this case. And I suspect the sooner the better that feeble Israeli defense is shredded, the sooner the world can proceed to the next logical steps.

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea says in paragraph 67:

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) 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.

Martyrs....they got what they where after, they never had a chance of reaching Gaza and they knew it

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

But I will predict international courts will definitively rule against Israel in this case. And I suspect the sooner the better that feeble Israeli defense is shredded, the sooner the world can proceed to the next logical steps.

You were doing real good and making a sensible argument right up until you turned into an anti-Israel nutjob here at the end.


Oh, care to cite a particular part of the law that makes 67 not apply?

 

[SamurAchzar]

If we read the full text of San Remo manual, its clear that Israel had no right to stop or otherwise board what is essentially relief and humanitarian supply ship.

Can you please point me at the relevant section backing up what you said?

 

[Atreus21]

You were doing real good and making a sensible argument right up until you turned into an anti-Israel nutjob here at the end.


Oh, care to cite a particular part of the law that makes 67 not apply?

This.

 

[Lemon law]

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea says in paragraph 67:

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) 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.

Martyrs....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the problem with just reading only subsection 67 of 100+ points full text with many of those terms being tests of the validity and applicability of item 67. Among other things, item 67 does not apply to essential humanitarian aid being with held by the blockading nation. By any causal read of the full text of San Remo, Israel is clearly in the wrong.

 

[ChunkiMunki]

I am carrying humanitarian aid, no need to look in the box....

 

[SamurAchzar]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the problem with just reading only subsection 67 of 100+ points full text with many of those terms being tests of the validity and applicability of item 67. Among other things, item 67 does not apply to essential humanitarian aid being with held by the blockading nation. By any causal read of the full text of San Remo, Israel is clearly in the wrong.

You're full of bullshit, LL:

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

This is the only relevant section I could find, dealing with a similar situation. Being that Israel offered to transfer the aid by land after inspection and that they attacked soldiers landing on the vessel, any protection they might have had due to humanitarian concerns is null and void. Not that the organizers of this circus qualify as an "impartial organization" anyway - they are political activists, not humanitarian workers (when was the last time a Red Cross member attacked someone with crowbars).

Nice try.

 

[ProfJohn]

Lemon, you are ignoring the REAL law of the seas.

The Israelis have guns, they can do whatever they want!

Afterwards you can complain all day long about what they did was wrong, but when it is going on I am going to defer to the people with guns and helicopters with guns and boats with even more guns.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

That is the problem with just reading only subsection 67 of 100+ points full text with many of those terms being tests of the validity and applicability of item 67. Among other things, item 67 does not apply to essential humanitarian aid being with held by the blockading nation. By any causal read of the full text of San Remo, Israel is clearly in the wrong.

Yes, but then you get into a situation of throwing different sections back and forth. For example:

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.

Reading 103 fully it would seem that Israel has every right to require that all items entering the area be searched, even if it is supposedly humanitarian supplies. You could certainly argue that 102 applies but unless there is a very, very similar court case then it is going to entirely come down to a judges opinion of the matter. At this point your argument that a "casual reading" of the law would show Israel in the wrong is clearly completely bull****.

 

[ProfJohn]

Question for you Lemon Law.

The SWAT teams breaks down your door, do you:

A. offer no resistance and comply with their orders
or
B. Charge at them with baseball bats screaming "you have no right to be here"

A. causes you a little inconvenience while B gets you killed.

Which would you choose?

 

[Lemon law]

For those questioning which section of San Remo I cite, try "103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:"

Although a great deal other passages could be used also.

After all, the relief convey made no secret of its cargo, destination, or purpose, and its a well known fact that Israel has been starving Gaza.

The other thing, I see no responsible Israeli official resorting to the San Remo defense, and my guess is because they know Israel will lose the argument.

 

[ProfJohn]

I can't believe people are quoting international law as if it really matters in this conflict, or any conflict actually.

Both sides have been ignoring the parts of international law they don't like since this thing started in 1948 and I don't think things are going to change now.

I am sure we will get a harshly worded condemnation from the UN over this and then nothing else will happen.

 

[Perknose]

Oh well, I'm sure we'll get more than one conflicting reading of the San Remo Manual:

Here's one!

Note, I am only quoting the exact wording from the document, and highlighting one sub-section. Make of it what you will:

In addition, the Manual lists[8] vessels that are specifically exempt from capture, on the basis of either treaty law or customary law:
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;
(d) vessels engaged in transporting cultural property under special protection;
(e) passenger vessels when engaged only in carrying civilian passengers;
(f) vessels charged with religious, non-military scientific or philanthropic missions; vessels collecting scientific data of likely military applications are not protected;
(g) small coastal fishing vessels and small boats engaged in local coastal trade, but they are subject to the regulations of a belligerent naval commander operating in the area and to inspection;
(h) vessels designated or adapted exclusively for responding to pollution incidents in the marine environment;
(i) vessels which have surrendered;
(j) life rafts and lifeboats.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

For those questioning which section of San Remo I cite, try "103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:"

Although a great deal other passages could be used also.

After all, the relief convey made no secret of its cargo, destination, or purpose, and its a well known fact that Israel has been starving Gaza.

The other thing, I see no responsible Israeli official resorting to the San Remo defense, and my guess is because they know Israel will lose the argument.

Again you are ignoring the fact that section 103 states that this is subject to inspection. The boats refused to submit to inspection. Are you actually delusional enough to think that in wartime you can get away with just saying "no, really, we only have basic humanitarian supplies" and have everyone assume you are telling the truth?

 

[Lemon law]

Gotta love the Non Prof John Argument of, "The Israelis have guns, they can do whatever they want!"

So to Somalia pirates and bank robbers, but guns provide them no legitimacy.

And why engage in forum pissing contests, others and not us will decide, and I suspect this will very soon hit the UN. And I also suspect Israel is going to lose badly there.

If nothing else, Israel may lose a very valuable ally in Turkey. And may cause the UN to forward the Goldstone report to the Hague for prosecution.

Only time will tell.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Oh well, I'm sure we'll get more than one conflicting reading of the San Remo Manual:

Here's one!

Note, I am only quoting the exact wording from the document, and highlighting one sub-section. Make of it what you will:

What you quoted, refers two fighting parties and accordingly labled "SECTION IV : CAPTURE OF ENEMY VESSELS AND GOODS". Section 103 refers to neutral merchant ships.

The other thing, I see no responsible Israeli official resorting to the San Remo defense, and my guess is because they know Israel will lose the argument.

Israeli spokesman (Mark Regev) was the one who referred to section 67A. It's plastered all over the Wiki page. Your selective comprehension is very selective.