New video released of flotilla "peace activists" vs Israeli commandos

[GoPackGo]

I didn't realize Parks lobbed stun grenades at anyone.

It happened...it's just not talked about.

 

[Red Dawn]

Israel had already setup a blockade, they knew what they were doing when they ran the blockade. You can certainly argue the legitimacy of Israel setting up a blockade in the first place but don't try and pretend they were just strolling along minding their own business in international waters, it's the flotilla captain that placed their people in harms way.

I'm not pretending, what I'm saying is that the Israelis fucked up boarding that ship in International Waters . What were they expecting, a bunch of Hippies in sandals and tie dyed shirts?

 

[Sclamoz]

The Israeli Commandos had no choice but to use deadly force, that's not in dispute. What's in dispute is them landing on the boat in the first place without permission in International Waters. Their Commanders placed them in harm's way.

The fact the boat was planning on running an Israeli blockade means Israel has the right to put soldiers on it or divert it to a location where the boat can be searched. The fact the boat was in international waters doesn't make a difference.

From the Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality

Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked 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, capture or diversion.

Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.

From the US Navy Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations:

Blockade is a belligerent operation to prevent vessels and/or aircraft of all nations, enemy as well as neutral, from entering or exiting specified ports, airfields, or coastal areas belonging to, occupied by, or under the control of an enemy nation. While the belligerent right of visit and search is designed to interdict the flow of contraband goods, the belligerent right of blockade is intended to prevent vessels and aircraft, regardless of their cargo, from crossing an established and publicized cordon separating the enemy from international waters and/or airspace.

Breach of blockade is the passage of a vessel or aircraft through a blockade without special entry or exit authorization from the blockading belligerent. Attempted breach of blockade occurs from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port or airfield with the intention of evading the blockade, and for vessels exiting the blockaded area, continues until the voyage is completed. Knowledge of the existence of the blockade is essential to the offenses of breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade. Knowledge may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification provided to affected governments. It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of interception bound for neutral territory, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area. There is a presumption of attempted breach of blockade where vessels or aircraft are bound for a neutral port or airfield serving as a point of transit to the blockaded area.

 

[PokerGuy]

Exactly, nobody cares about maritime law, blockades, paintball guns, metal rods, who hit who first, etc.

The big picture is:

Israel bungled this big time.

This, absolutely this. They can argue all they want, they completely screwed the pooch on this one and in the court of world public opinion, they lost this skirmish. They need to be smarter about how they handle such things, their approach is overly heavy handed much like the old soviet union style.

 

[woolfe9999]

She would also have accomplished nothing if she listened to authorities and gave up her seat. Resisting unjust authority is the key to protest.

Rosa Parks protested by breaking the then existing Jim Crow laws non-violently. She did not attack the police with clubs, chains, knives, handguns and stun grenades. What she did is called civil disodience. You might resist arrest by chaining yourself to a fence (she didn't even do that as memory serves), but you wouldn't physically assault the police. If you don't understand the difference between violent and non-violent protest, I don't know what to say.

FFS, you've got me agreeing with Nick, and that really says something about the paucity of your logic.

- wolf

 

[dammitgibs]

I'm not pretending, what I'm saying is that the Israelis fucked up boarding that ship in International Waters . What were they expecting, a bunch of Hippies in sandals and tie dyed shirts?

lol naw dude they obviously weren't expecting that, that's why they showed up with some big sticks and blew those idiots away. The better question is what did those idiots on the flotilla expect, a guy in a dingy shaking his fist at the flotilla as they drove through the blockade?

 

[epidemis]

World opinion? I haven't seen a change personally. This will be forgotten in a week, tops.

 

[PokerGuy]

The fact the boat was planning on running an Israeli blockade means Israel has the right to put soldiers on it or divert it to a location where the boat can be searched. The fact the boat was in international waters doesn't make a difference.

Oh? So it doesn't matter where this takes place? How about if a boat off the coast of Brazil says they are going to deliver goods to Gaza and run the blockade, can troops simply assault the ships there? That makes no sense. One would reasonably assume that no force can be used against a ship that is outside the actual blockade line.

From the Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality

Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked 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, capture or diversion.

Note that it says "breaching a blockade". You can't be breaching a blockade if you are outside the blockade area, otherwise every ship in the world can be considered a target for takeover.

 

[PokerGuy]

World opinion? I haven't seen a change personally. This will be forgotten in a week, tops.

No, it won't. Not where it matters, in the middle east and east asia. Heck, Israel even managed to create a lot of anger in their one rational and moderate neighbor, Turkey.

Now the Egyptians have opened the border and I'm sure the bad guys are using the opportunity to smuggle in all sorts of stuff. In other words, complete failure, they achieved exactly the opposite of what they wanted to achieve with the blockade.

 

[Sclamoz]

Oh? So it doesn't matter where this takes place? How about if a boat off the coast of Brazil says they are going to deliver goods to Gaza and run the blockade, can troops simply assault the ships there? That makes no sense. One would reasonably assume that no force can be used against a ship that is outside the actual blockade line.



Note that it says "breaching a blockade". You can't be breaching a blockade if you are outside the blockade area, otherwise every ship in the world can be considered a target for takeover.

BELIEVED to be breaching, and the breaching starts from the time a ship starts it voyage. To answer your question about the ship in Brazil, according to the US Navy yes it is legal to board them as soon as they leave port:

Breach of blockade is the passage of a vessel or aircraft through a blockade without special entry or exit authorization from the blockading belligerent. Attempted breach of blockade occurs from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port or airfield with the intention of evading the blockade, and for vessels exiting the blockaded area, continues until the voyage is completed. Knowledge of the existence of the blockade is essential to the offenses of breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade. Knowledge may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification provided to affected governments. It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of interception bound for neutral territory, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area. There is a presumption of attempted breach of blockade where vessels or aircraft are bound for a neutral port or airfield serving as a point of transit to the blockaded area.

 

[cubby1223]

Here is the bottom line, and anyone who disagrees with this, seriously, is an absolute idiot.

Israelis are not going anywhere, they're not packing up and moving to another part of the world. Palestinians are not going anywhere, they're not packing up and moving to another part of the world.

Here is the choice we have to make, which scenario do we believe in more:

(A) If the Israelis lay down then the Palestinians will destroy them. If the Palestinians lay down then there will be peace.

(B) If the Palestinians lay down then the Israelis will destroy them. If the Israelis lay down then there will be peace.

(C) If either side lays down then the other side will destroy them. There will never be any peace under any circumstance.

Which is more likely?

That's all this discussion is about. One believes in one scenario, while the next believes in another. Everything else is just propaganda to try and prove your scenario over another. All these "what if" games are pointless crap. What if Obama finally waved the magic wand he has and there was peace on Earth?

 

[Moonbeam]

All I saw was this guy on the ship drop a nuclear bomb into the Israeli boat. I know that's what happened because I was told what I was seeing, my eyes not being good enough to see for themselves.

 

[Jaskalas]

Rosa Parks was looking for trouble too. Of course they are looking for trouble, it's a protest action.

Who was Rosa Parks physically beating to death?

You're a real piece of !@#$ to even attempt that comparison.

 

[theeedude]

Who was Rosa Parks physically beating to death?

You're a real piece of !@#$ to even attempt that comparison.

You got nothing but personal attacks.

 

[theeedude]

World opinion? I haven't seen a change personally. This will be forgotten in a week, tops.

Then someone will send another ship. That's the beauty of this. Israel is not in control of the PR battle here, the protesters are.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I'm not pretending, what I'm saying is that the Israelis fucked up boarding that ship in International Waters . What were they expecting, a bunch of Hippies in sandals and tie dyed shirts?

And that view point can be spun around.

What were these morons on the flotilla of fail expecting when they decided to openly violate a military blockade and then assault armed naval personnel conducting a lawful search? They wanted a fight well they got one and now they are crying like little bitches.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

You got nothing but personal attacks.

Actually your comparison was pretty stupid.

 

[theeedude]

Actually your comparison was pretty stupid.

If you see Gazan civilians as less human and entitled to civil rights than Americans, yes.
But guess what, the American civil rights movement was viewed as a bunch of trouble makers, as was South African, as was Indian, etc, etc. If you want to bring change, you have to stand up to unjust authority.

 

[Zebo]

If you see Gazan civilians as less human and entitled to civil rights than Americans, yes.
But guess what, the American civil rights movement was viewed as a bunch of trouble makers, as was South African, as was Indian, etc, etc. If you want to bring change, you have to stand up to unjust authority.

Yes they voted for a terrorist group. Like every German they are complicit when we bombed the crap out of German cities.. Since you like American history so much Israel should do the same until they unilaterally surrender.

 

[theeedude]

Yes they voted for a terrorist group. Like every German they are complicit when we bombed the crap out of German cities.. Since you like American history so much Israel should do the same until they unilaterally surrender.

By your twisted logic, is Hamas justified in bombing Israeli civilians, since they voted for politicians who are bombing Gaza?
The answer to your broader point is that times have changed. Willful collective punishment policies are no longer accepted in the civilized world, unless Israel wants to be in same grouping as rogue states and terrorists.

 

[Zebo]

By your twisted logic, is Hamas justified in bombing Israeli civilians, since they voted for politicians who are bombing Gaza?
The answer to your broader point is that times have changed. Willful collective punishment policies are no longer accepted in the civilized world, unless Israel wants to be in same grouping as rogue states and terrorists.

Oh Bullshit. They accept it when it's Black Africans in Darfur. Or 200000 Algerians and the list is endless of modern genocides your failed UN has failed to stop. They only criticize Israel which is the very definition of antisemitism. But why should we be surprised? old habits die hard in Europe and with Muslim countries running UNs policy.

 

[theeedude]

Oh Bullshit. They accept it when it's Black Africans in Darfur. Or 200000 Algerians and the list is endless of modern genocides your failed UN has failed to stop. They only criticize Israel which is the very definition of antisemitism. But why should we be surprised? old habits die hard in Europe and with Muslim countries running UNs policy.

So you want us to accept Israel's actions because genocidal regimes got away with it?
By your twisted logic, is Hamas justified in bombing Israeli civilians, since they voted for politicians who are bombing Gaza?

 

[jonks]

BELIEVED to be breaching, and the breaching starts from the time a ship starts it voyage. To answer your question about the ship in Brazil, according to the US Navy yes it is legal to board them as soon as they leave port:

Breach of blockade is the passage of a vessel or aircraft through a blockade without special entry or exit authorization from the blockading belligerent. Attempted breach of blockade occurs from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port or airfield with the intention of evading the blockade, and for vessels exiting the blockaded area, continues until the voyage is completed. Knowledge of the existence of the blockade is essential to the offenses of breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade. Knowledge may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification provided to affected governments. It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of interception bound for neutral territory, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area. There is a presumption of attempted breach of blockade where vessels or aircraft are bound for a neutral port or airfield serving as a point of transit to the blockaded area.

Stop with the codes and statutes already, don't you know it's easier to blather on rhetorically when you can just assert what you think the law is!

According to the San Remo Manual, it is permissible under rule 67(a) to attack neutral vessels on the high seas when the vessels “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.”

There was absolutely no doubt where the ships were going since they announced their intentions before they set sail. Egypt even tried to dissuade them from breaching the blockade. And now the same group has announced, once again, that it is sending two more ships to breach the blockade. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when these ships put to sea and head directly for Gaza where they plan on going. This was never a secret mission, the whole point was to create a conflict.

http://www.mererhetoric.com/2010/05...za-flotilla-brutally-attacking-idf-commandos/

 

[jonks]

No, but would you want Rosa Parks shot in the head if she did?

If she attacked the police with a lead pipe, yes, then she'd deserve to get shot. Gandhi and MLK, Jr were pacifists and their sole method of dissent was peaceful demonstration. No armed resistance, no violence. MLK would not have endorsed Rosa Parks if she had attacked the cops.

Course today they'd probably have just tased her a few dozen times.

 

[Zebo]

So you want us to accept Israel's actions because genocidal regimes got away with it?
By your twisted logic, is Hamas justified in bombing Israeli civilians, since they voted for politicians who are bombing Gaza?

No my point was the All-Israel-All-The-Time UN is antisemitic by virtue of singularly focusing on Israel while ignoring or not taking to task much greater atrocities not to mention morally bankrupt.

The only one twisted is you. You can't recognize a relentless aggressor is hamas along with their state sponsors. If you punch someone and he beats your ass you are guilty of assault not him. Likewise with Hamas' endless jihad, they are morally guilty not Israel for retaliation.