Turkish paper releases 'censored' photos of beaten Israeli commandos (You be the Judge)

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Can you provide any proof for your claim that the search was lawfull?
[edit on 7-6-2010 by Point of No Return]

en.wikipedia.org...
Took me 5 minutes to find, please try and make an effort before accusing anyone of anything.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
There are witness reports saying the Israeli's went in with guns blazin, way before the situation that was captured on the video.
[edit on 7-6-2010 by Point of No Return]

They were armed with paintball guns (had pistols for backup). Besides, you can clearly see the soldiers landing in the videos, not a single gun is blazing. Also you can see the soldiers getting a beating without so much as even raising their (toy) guns at anyone.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Commandos are not law enforcement personnel.
[edit on 7-6-2010 by Point of No Return]

They are navy seals, they are the only force in the IDF trained to act at sea, also they are trained in non lethal combat and take overs. Also in case of a naval blockade it is the armys role to enforce it.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Yes, nine activists were shot and killed, and no Israeli was killed, even though the activists clearly had the chance to do so.

What makes you think that? I would advice you to take a look at the thermal videos taken by the IDF and the ones taken by the activists. You can see the activists repeatedly bashng soldiers who are on the ground, dragging soldiers below deck, throwing them overboard, stabbing, etc, any of these actions could have resaulted in death eaisly. These are just tough people to kill I guess.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Ah what a change from seeing pictures of dead palestinian children.

A quick search can provide you with all the pictures of dead israeli children you'll ever want to see, with their stories. Palastinian press on the other han has been proven time and time again to have published fake and misleading stories, photos and videos. Just google it and see for yourself.

Originally posted by Kemal
These Israeli terrorists you see there actually # in their pants. For real. Check Turkish news.

Multiple stab wounds, head trauma, and broken bones will do that to a human being,

Originally posted by sdocpublishing It really blows my mind to see posters distort and lie and do it so blatantly.

What truth was he distorting? There are two sides to every story, never forget that, you may not hold the same opinions but that doesn't make his a lie.

Originally posted by BritishSpy
4. Shooting 5 times in the head of a 19 year old unarmed US/Turkish student is hard to explain as self defense (one shot maybe). The 4 shots from 45cm on a 60 year old Turkish man is also very problematic.

First off- before posting any "facts" please make sure they are indeed facts, you were wrong on all points but 3. As for the one quoted- Any proof other then hearsay? I would honestly like to know. Thank you.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
As far as I'm concerned, this is more proof the aid workers where acting in self defense. Notice how they had opportunity to give the pirates what they deserved, but let them live.

Go look online for IDF's thermal videos of the incident, doesn't look like self defense, question is were they in mortal danger, because only that would justify drawing a pistol. Your call I guess.

Originally posted by Gargamel
The Chosen Ones - Shooting unarmed civilians in the back of the head multiple times.
Dirty Raghead Terrorists - Caring for the wounded who had just killed 9 of thier shipmates.

Most of the people on board were peacful and did not know, did not condone, and did not take part in the violence.

Originally posted by Big Raging Loner
Ok fair enough, lets say that is true. Then put up the embargo, but also provide some essentials for civilians of Gaza. The Israeli government hasn't learned the lesson I learned when I was a child which is to be the bigger man and take the moral high ground. I severely doubt they will ever tread along that path again.

The blockade was set in place 4 years ago to put pressure on the hamas to allow the red cross to check on the israeli soldier they had kiddnapped. Untill this day no one knows where he's held, how is he treated, or what's his physical or mental condition and the red cross is still not allowed to meet him.
But I agree with you.. Punishing the people of gaza for the brutality of hamas is stupid, they already suffer enough.. The hamas has in fact killed more than 3 times the number of palastinians in gaza than what Israel was investigated for by the UN including children and women.
Israel should be doing something to stop this by helping the palastinian people rebuild, but with the hamas in control it isn't easy. Just look at the west benk- In ten years its cities will be rivaling israel's in life quality, night life, etc. They control 98 percent of their country and recieve 10 million dollars from israel every month to develope their country.
That being said keep in mind that israel also provides gaza with electricity, medicine, and food for free.
--------

Hope these two posts help clear things up,
With respect to everyone,
Eliad.

Originally posted by anon72
As far as I am concerned, just more proof the people on that ship had harmful intentions and started the fight with the Law Enforcement personnel that showed up to conduct a LAWFUL

I'm sorry but I can't agree with your assertion the search was legal, because it wasn't. If you want to keep making these claims you're going to have to start linking to the specific acts or legislation that contains these powers. Otherwise I ask you in the interests of the legal profession to please stop implying this.

I'd like to refer yourself and posters ITT to something called "The Use of Force Continuum", something that is common practice in law enforcement.

Use of Force

The litmus test for this being "Was the force used equal and proportionate?"

Now what must be taken into account on the side of the Israeli's is that there were a fair number of people on the ship so they represent a higher level of threat.

Although I can't tell for sure from the images. I'd rate the injuries to Israeli personnel as being in the category of "Grievous Bodily Harm" which is roughly equivalent in force to certain types of less lethal munition, and the use of a baton and or k9 unit.

However even with the number of "attackers" I don't believe the use of deadly force was equal or proportionate. And I believe the Israeli's deployed excessive force against the protesters.

reply to post by Eliad

en.wikipedia.org... Took me 5 minutes to find, please try and make an effort before accusing anyone of anything.

Whatever, I asked him to back up his claims made in the OP with proof, it's what we do here on ATS.

Your link is irrelevant. It has some info about bloccades. The attack happened in international waters, outside of the bloccade zone.

If you had proof for the lawfullness, you wouldn't have posted this irrelevant link.

What did you say about making an effort? Fail.

They were armed with paintball guns (had pistols for backup). Besides, you can clearly see the soldiers landing in the videos, not a single gun is blazing. Also you can see the soldiers getting a beating without so much as even raising their (toy) guns at anyone.

I clearly said in the post you qouted, that this had happened before the situation that was caught on video, according eye-witnesses.

Originally posted by Point of No Return There are witness reports saying the Israeli's went in with guns blazin, way before the situation that was captured on the video.

They are navy seals, they are the only force in the IDF trained to act at sea, also they are trained in non lethal combat and take overs. Also in case of a naval blockade it is the armys role to enforce it.

Enforce what? Not the law. They aren't law enforcers, nothingh in your post refutes my claims that they aren't.

any of these actions could have resaulted in death eaisly. These are just tough people to kill I guess.

BS, the activist had knives and such, didn't they? If they had wanted to kill the Israelis, they would have been dead. Instead, some were taken below decks, and received medical treatment by the activists.

Sofar, your post is way off, just more blatant lies and propaganda, everybody can see it.

Originally posted by Point of No Return


Can you provide any proof for your claim that the search was lawfull?

As far as I know the ships were in international waters, making it an act of war.

A Military enforcing a blockade have and can boarded vessels in international waters in the past by quite a few navies. It's especially easy to do it when the ship in question informs you it is going to run your blockade.

Here are a few historical ones:

* During the Peloponnesian War (431 BC–404 BCE), Spartan forces surrounded Athens on land. Athens withstood the landward attack, and subsisted on food imported by ship. After the battle of Aegospotami, Sparta also blockaded Athens by sea, and Athens surrendered.[9] * When Alexander the Great sought to take the city of Tyre in 332 BCE, he first blockaded the city for several months.

* 1394 to 1402 Ottoman blockade of Constantinople.[10]

* The Dutch Republic's blockade of the Scheldt from 1585–1792, denying Spanish-ruled Antwerp's access to international trade and shifting much of its trade to Amsterdam.

* British blockade of France and its allies during the French Revolutionary War and Napoleonic War.

* British blockade of the United States east coast during the War of 1812.

* Danish blockade of Germany during the First Schleswig War, starting in 1848.

* Union Blockade: the Union blockaded the coasts of the Confederacy during the American Civil War.

* Battle of Iquique during the War of the Pacific.

* 1897 Blockade of Constantinople by the Great Powers.[11]

* In 1898, the United States blockaded San Juan, Puerto Rico as part of the Spanish American War.

* British naval blockade of Germany during World War I.

* 1915-1918 Ottoman blockade of Lebanon.[12]

* The Second Battle of the Atlantic during World War II.

* United States blockade of Japan during the Pacific War of World War II.

* Soviet land blockade of West Berlin, 1948–1949, known as the Berlin Blockade.

* Egyptian blockades of the Straits of Tiran prior to the 1956 Suez War and the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

* United States quarantine of Cuba during the October 1962 missile crisis, a partial blockade.

* Indian blockade of East Pakistan during the 1971 Bangladesh War * Egyptian blockade of Israel during Operation Badr, part of the Yom Kippur War.

* NATO blockade of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 1993-1996 during Operation Sharp Guard.

* Israeli sea and land blockade of the Gaza Strip since the outbreak of the Second Intifada (2000) up to the present.

* Israeli blockades of some or all the shores of Lebanon at various times during the Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990), the 1982 Lebanon War and the 1982-2000 South Lebanon conflict — resumed during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.

* Israeli and Egyptian blockade of the Gaza Strip, beginning in June 2007.[13]

* Turkey and Azerbaijan blockades on Armenia during the Nagorno-Karabakh War[/font]

en.wikipedia.org...

I guess it's illegal when Jews do it, huh?

it is very impossible to know who is right

the truth is that israel wants to control everything, and thats never a good thing, they probably own the US in some strange way

the truth too is that, if some guys with guns entered your house, you wouldnt be friendly if you could

reply to post by pavil


Lol, you guys just can't seem to get it right.

The biggest part of your examples are from before the current international laws were formed in the first place, so irrelevant.

All your examples are from bloccades, I'm not talking about bloccades, I'm talking about attacking ships in international waters, outside of the bloccade zone, again your examples are irrelevant.

You can keep posting as much irrelevant information as you want, it doesn't make the attack any less illegal.

I guess it's illegal when Jews do it, huh?

No, it's illegal when international law is broken.

I don't even know why this is still being debated.

Oh, I know, it's them Israel apologizers that keep twisting the facts.

reply to post by pavil


Anything before 1945 and the foundation of the UN and the Geneva conventions doesn't count. Anything after only counts if the blockade was in effect 1 year after the end of hostilities, which in several cases there it was not.

2008 Israel–Hamas ceasefire

The Palestinians who negotiated the cease-fire believed that the commerce in Gaza was to be restored to the levels preceding Israel's withdrawal in 2005 and Hamas's electoral victory. Israeli policy tied the easing of the blockade on success in reducing rocket fire. They re-opened supply lines gradually, in stages. They permitted a 20% increase in goods trucked into Gaza in the pre-lull period, up from 70 to 90 truckloads a day, and that included not only humanitarian supplies but also clothes, shoes, refrigerators, and construction materials. Fuel supplies increased from 55MW worth to 65MW worth. BBC News reported in 11 November that Gaza was then receiving only 28% of the amount of goods traded before the Hamas takeover.

Israel has stated that food imports into the Strip were restricted by its inability to operate at border checkpoints facing constant Palestinian attack, and not because of any Israeli-imposed limits. It has accused Hamas of exacerbating fuel shortages by leading labor union strikes by power plant workers. It has also accused Hamas of underfunding the Gaza health care system, and then blaming the situation on Israel despite its free trade of medical supplies. It maintains that some individuals claiming to require medical attention in Israel were in fact planning terrorist attacks, therefore forcing the government to impose travel restrictions. It also accused Hamas of continuing the smuggling of weapons into the Gaza strip via tunnels to Egypt, pointing out that the rocket attacks had not completely ceased.

Over the one month period from 4 November to 8 December, about 700 truck loads of goods went into Gaza, which is about the amount of material that would have gone through in a single day without a blockade. Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said in mid-July that "easing restrictions on Gaza crossings is going very slow and the population doesn't feel that there is basically a real truce and a normal life." Jimmy Carter has stated that he believes the cease-fire could have lasted had Israel been willing to lift the blockade and allow in an "adequate" amount of humanitarian supplies.

Wikipedia

Just because other nations have done it, does not make it ok. Because the blockade has lasted longer than 1 year since the official end of hostilities it is now an illegal occupation under the Geneva conventions and recognised under international law as such. And this occupation is against the 1967 UN brokered agreement and the spirit of the Balfour declaration. Therefore it is not legal. The blockade is not legal. And boarding and seizing ships is not legal.



I'm going to ask again for anyone claiming the blockade is legal to provide links to legislation or acts showing reference to the alleged legality of the blockade. Or stop making the claim.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Your link is irrelevant. It has some info about bloccades. The attack happened in international waters, outside of the bloccade zone.

If you had proof for the lawfullness, you wouldn't have posted this irrelevant link.

What did you say about making an effort? Fail.

My god man, just read it! Did you even start reading it, before you so elegantly declared my "fail"? Seriously, give me the respect I gave you by at least clicking the link and reading..

According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 ...The blockading nation typically establish a blockaded area of water, but any ship can be inspected as soon as it is established that it is attempting to break the blockade. This inspection can occur inside the blockaded area or in international waters, but never inside the territorial waters of a neutral nation. A neutral ship must obey a request to stop for inspection from the blockading nation. If the situation so demands, the blockading nation can request that the ship divert to a known place or harbour for inspection. If the ship does not stop, then the ship is subject to capture. If people aboard the ship are resisting capture, they can be attacked. It is still not allowed to sink the ship, unless provision is made for rescueing the crew. Leaving the crew in liferafts / lifeboats does not constitue rescue. If a neutral ship is captured, any member of the crew, resisting capture can be treated as prisoners-of-war, while the remainder of the crew should be released.

Do you understand what it means?

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Whatever, I asked him to back up his claims made in the OP with proof, it's what we do here on ATS.

If you feel so strongly about something you should strive to be educated in that subject, in any subject for the matter, especially when asking someone to disprove something that you haven't proven yet- I would first want to prove my point, then ask someone to disprove.. This passive approach of "I'll believe whatever I want, regardless of the truth, and you try and prove me otherwise" makes it so that you're more easily influenced by biased media. Always strive to know both sides of all stories.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
I clearly said in the post you qouted, that this had happened before the situation that was caught on video, according eye-witnesses.

Originally posted by Point of No Return There are witness reports saying the Israeli's went in with guns blazin, way before the situation that was captured on the video.

No, you said "went in with guns blazing" and what I meant to say by "you can see them landing" is that in all the videos you can see them going in, from the moment the helicopter reaches the boat to the moment they set foot on the ship, unless you think they were shooting from a distance.. But why would they do that and then land with paintball guns, and why can't you see wounded people on deck before the arrival of the soldiers.. Also does it make any sense to you that the moment shots are being fired no one would start recording? Believe nothing that you hear, and only half of what you see.. Use your head to analyze a situation, you can clearly see in the videos they did not board the ship guns blazing and they were carrying paintball guns anyway, any other scenario is just far fetched.. Also why would they do that just on one ship and not on any of the others?
Also, watch this, you can see them the moment they lend- www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Point of No Return
BS, the activist had knives and such, didn't they? If they had wanted to kill the Israelis, they would have been dead. Instead, some were taken below decks, and received medical treatment by the activists.

Have you seen the beating they're giving the soldiers? Have you seen them throwing a soldier to the lower deck? Do you know he shattered his skull? When you throw someone down 3 meters, do you expect them to live? Are you aware of how many spots on the body can cause death if stabbed by a knife? Kidneys, liver, lunges, heart, etc.. Do you mean to tell me those people are experts with knives, and can aim a knife in such way that is not lethal?
You are forgetting that 90% of the people on the ship truly were peace activists, and had nothing to do with the violence.. If I were a peace activist I would be shocked at what those people did and I would rescue the wounded soldiers no matter how much I hated israel.. But even though some of them were lucky enough to be helped by real peace activists, the rest were being beaten by fake ones, and had nothing they could do about it, with wounded friends on the floor, and wounded friends taken below deck for god knows what..
And to top that all off 3 pistols were taken..

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Sofar, your post is way off, just more blatant lies and propaganda, everybody can see it.

So far it is your posts who are way off, as you tend to ignore important detail that I've provided you, also I would challenge you to read my post again and find any lies.

Originally posted by Faiol
it is very impossible to know who is right

the truth is that israel wants to control everything, and thats never a good thing, they probably own the US in some strange way

the truth too is that, if some guys with guns entered your house, you wouldnt be friendly if you could

You're right about one thing- it is impossible to know who is right, especially to someone that doesn't live here, and doesn't have a full perspective, it is a very complex situation that gets even more complex as news choose to show what they want to show, for example (just look at the pictures)- blogs.reuters.com...
It's hard enough understanding it when you live in israel, don't think you'd understand it by watching the news, most people I talk to are so misinformed it's not even funny.

As for your second point, you are clearly either misinformed or misjudging the situation- let's talk about israeli controlled land- Gaza strip: We were there, had settlements and soldiers, we got out to further the peace process with gaza- Once we did the hamas advanced their missiles further inland and began firing, what was the number? 6 or 10 times more rockets than they had ever done before. So that's gaza.
In the west bank- the palastinian authorities now control 98% or the territory in the west bank. Have you ever been there? My ex girlfriend is arabic (I'm an israeli), and she goes there from time to time, life there is slowly blooming, thanks to their government (also thanks to the 10 million dollars we give them every month, just so they can develop).
Let's talk about the 67' borders- After the 6 day war in 67 the UN said that israel needs defensible borders, watch this and understand why (ignore the "propaganda" and just take note of the facts) - www.youtube.com...
Just think what would happen if any terrorist with a missile launcher could shoot a rocket at planes whenever he wanted to..
The golan heights is the same story- In the golan heights there are two chains of hills (1k-1.5k high), one on the israeli side, and one on the syrian side, which are the only way we can defend ourselves from a syrian attack, the rest of the way down is flat, and impossible to defend.
We gave back sinay, which is 3 times larger than israel..

.. For peace, may I add, and you think we're fighting over these little bits of land because we want to control everything? Does it make sense? Do you know the size of israel? It's 22,000 square km, that's smaller than new jersey, almost the same size as the fiji islands for god's sake.. So we gave back sinai, which is 60,000 square km, but we're fighting over tiny bits of land in the name of controlling everything? Seriously?

And as for your last point:

Originally posted by Faiol
the truth too is that, if some guys with guns entered your house, you wouldnt be friendly if you could

I don't know if you know, but not many years ago (when I was a kid, and when I was a teen) terrorists were exploding in buses in the middle of the day, or were showing up with guns at places and just start shooting people.
The difference is that when the IDF enters someone's house with guns it will do so with no intent to hurt anyone innocent, that is something you must understand, and while civilians do get hurt, and die, it is never the goal of any action to kill or attack civilian population. Terrorists on the other hand do aim for civilians. That's about all they ever do...
That being said I would also like to add that the palastinian people and the hamas and other terrorists are two separate entities, I don't blame the civilians for any of the actions done by hamas.. As I've said before, they suffer enough at their hands already.

Originally posted by belial259
I'm going to ask again for anyone claiming the blockade is legal to provide links to legislation or acts showing reference to the alleged legality of the blockade. Or stop making the claim.

ATTENTION-
PLEASE READ THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE I HAVE PROVIDED ON MY FIRST POST: en.wikipedia.org...

IN THERE IT SAYS:

According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 ...The blockading nation typically establish a blockaded area of water, but any ship can be inspected as soon as it is established that it is attempting to break the blockade. This inspection can occur inside the blockaded area or in international waters, but never inside the territorial waters of a neutral nation. A neutral ship must obey a request to stop for inspection from the blockading nation. If the situation so demands, the blockading nation can request that the ship divert to a known place or harbour for inspection. If the ship does not stop, then the ship is subject to capture. If people aboard the ship are resisting capture, they can be attacked. It is still not allowed to sink the ship, unless provision is made for rescueing the crew. Leaving the crew in liferafts / lifeboats does not constitue rescue. If a neutral ship is captured, any member of the crew, resisting capture can be treated as prisoners-of-war, while the remainder of the crew should be released.

Is it.. Do you guys just don't want to read anything that disproves your opinions? I don't get it...

If anything they were breaking the international law by not obeying when asked to stop when nearing a blockade...

Edit: Highlighted the important bits for you, so you won't have to read a lot.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Eliad]

reply to post by Point of No Return


This is a pointless argument. Israel is enforcing a blockade, other nations have done so very recently. You can claim it's illegal, most people don't like being blockaded, it doesn't change the fact they are enforcing the blockade. The ship told them it was going to run the blockade. As a military blockade, you can intercept, board and inspect ships you feel are headed into your blockade zone, even if they are beyond your territorial waters. Again this had been done numerous times in the examples I have shown of blockades.

In Operation Sharp Guard, NATO and WEU forces challenged more than 74,000 ships, boarded and inspected almost 6,000 at sea, and diverted 1,500 to ports for further inspection. Of those, nearly a dozen vessels were found to be blockade runners, some carrying arms in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. NATO officials said that the maritime blockade had a major effect in preventing escalation of the conflict.

You may not like the idea of Israel having and setting up a blockade, I am sure Israel doesn't like the idea of ships trying to run it's blockade.

First off for those quoting the San Remo Manual, please understand it is NOT maritime law nor is it binding. If those quoting it had bothered to read it they would have known this.

Secondly, for the blockade to be lawful, Israel MUST be in a declaired war with Hamas or the Occupying force. In both cases Israel has denied this. Thus the boarding of the flotillia in international waters is illegal. They boarded a Turkish flaged ship by military force, this is an ack of war against Turkey. Israel is in direct violation of maritime law and has attacked and boareded a civilian Turkish flaged ship. Call it what you want but its an act of war.

Originally posted by pstrron
First off for those quoting the San Remo Manual, please understand it is NOT maritime law nor is it binding. If those quoting it had bothered to read it they would have known this.

Secondly, for the blockade to be lawful, Israel MUST be in a declaired war with Hamas or the Occupying force. In both cases Israel has denied this. Thus the boarding of the flotillia in international waters is illegal. They boarded a Turkish flaged ship by military force, this is an ack of war against Turkey. Israel is in direct violation of maritime law and has attacked and boareded a civilian Turkish flaged ship. Call it what you want but its an act of war.

en.wikipedia.org...

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea was adopted in June 1994 by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law after a series of round tables of naval and legal experts. It is "the only comprehensive international instrument that has been drafted on the law of naval warfare since 1913."

The manual is a "legally recognized" document, but "The Manual is not a binding document".

And if you check what "not binding" means (which I'm sure you won't), you'll see it means-

4. Conclusion

As the San Remo Manual is the only comprehensive international instrument that has been drafted on the law of naval warfare since 1913, it is likely to have an important impact. It has already influenced the provisions relating to naval warfare in the German manual and it is quite likely that future manuals will also be so influenced. In this way the San Remo Manual should help consolidate contemporary international customary law, promote its coherent development and thereby provide a much firmer foundation for possible future treaty developments than could otherwise have been the case. The Manual and accompanying Explanation will also be very useful for dissemination purposes, which should in turn promote a better respect for the law.

Copied from the international review of the manual by the red cross
www.icrc.org...

I would advise you to check your facts before posting, as I have checked mine. If you have any other information regarding this, please provide it.

As for the blockade being lawful-

"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.

Taken from a reuters article on the legality of israel's actions (could have been taken from anywhere though)
www.reuters.com...

You are forgetting that the blockade is in place to prevent hamas from getting weapons, missiles etc, as israel has already intercepted and captured ships full of guns, ammo and bombs going in to gaza. anything else that they need like food, medicine, etc, they can get through ships docking in ashdod or egypt, and then moving it from there by land to gaza, this is how it's been done so far by all charity organizations including the red cross and the UN out of the understanding that the blockade is in place to prevent the hamas from arming further.
Again, please understand what you are talking about.

Also I would ask- please, enough with the wild accusations, enough with the calls for war, and please, try to be informed, fact check your arguments.
Do I really have to correct you every single time?

With all due respect to all those who deserve it,
Eliad.

Edit- Added the reason for the blockade.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Eliad]

This blockade is not lawfull , not legal , not moral .

Is it any good at solving the problems of Israel or is this blockade actually making more damage to Israel ?

Most Turks were actually OK with Israel & Jews on the whole .

I believe that Israeli wisdom will come thru and this government is Israel will be replaced by a more moderate government .

9 civilian Turkish are dead at the hands of the Israeli soldiers , on open waters .

Those who do defend the necessity of Israel's actions ought to understand that these actions create an example for any other country to replicate these acts on any ship on the international waters .

Turkish newspaper has published these pictures so everyone can understand what really has happened on board .

Turkish civilians actually have never expected to be killed by an ally country soldiers .

Arrest , detain and even some slap on the wrist , yeah , Turks expected that much .

Next time , if there is one , Turks will not have the same expectations .


What israeli strategy was simply put ; kill off one ship's passengers and there will be no more ships trying to breach the blockade .

Well , it failed .

When one is on a losing path , upon realisation of it , on should reverse the path , so a profit from the loss can be made .

Turkish Proverb

Originally posted by 23432
This blockade is not lawfull , not legal , not moral .

Please read my former posts, as they constitute that the blockade is both legal, and moral (unless you're think it's immoral to give weapons to terrorists), and that the blockade itself does not interfere with passage of goods to gaza.

I would agree with you that all of this solves nothing, and I would ask you why would the flotilla break international law by trying to break the blockade and not just let the cargo go to gaza by putting it either in egypt or israel and escorting it by land to gaza- both israeli and egyptian goverments offered to do so for the flotilla, on their own expense may I add.

I believe that Israeli wisdom will come thru and this government is Israel will be replaced by a more moderate government .

I wish the same for gaza.. Only then there will be peace.

Turkish newspaper has published these pictures so everyone can understand what really has happened on board .

It is well known that most of the people on board truely were peacful activists and only the ones who ambushed the soldiers were not.
Those people are genuinely kind hearted and would not have resisted the take over, as it happened in all other 5 ships.

Turkish civilians actually have never expected to be killed by an ally country soldiers .

They have a funny way of showing it
www.youtube.com...

What israeli strategy was simply put ; kill off one ship's passengers and there will be no more ships trying to breach the blockade .

Makes no sense- Why try and call the flotilla off? Why offer safe passage through ashdod? Why come armed with paintball guns? Why hasn't any other ship resisted? Why were there knives on board? Why were there clubs and poles on board? Why risk being condemned by the world? Why risk cutting off relations with turky?
Makes no sense, political suicide.
If you'd like to think that, I can't stop you, but I would ask you to consider facts...
Also watch this and ask yourself if it really makes sense that israel just by chance chose that ship to shoot at (this is security footage)-
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Eliad]

..and don't forget about the cropped photos from Reuters.

Shame on you for editing (cropping) photos depicting wounded Israeli soldiers in a way that hides the cold weapons (knives and metal clubs) in the hands of the “peaceful” voyagers.

Unfortunately, Reuters looses its stature as an unbiased media outlet time and time again.

reuters

reply to post by Eliad

4. Conclusion As the San Remo Manual is the only comprehensive international instrument that has been drafted on the law of naval warfare since 1913, it is likely to have an important impact. It has already influenced the provisions relating to naval warfare in the German manual and it is quite likely that future manuals will also be so influenced. In this way the San Remo Manual should help consolidate contemporary international customary law,

Please show were this is law and proof that it is binding. A non-binding document will not stand in a court of law.

Using a statement that the blockade is legal because of armed struggle is not valid. Requires declaired war or occupying force. Once again Israel denies both.

Look it up as to what it mean to attack and board a flagged ship in international waters by a military force (I'm sure you won't). If Israel wanted to be correct thay will need to state that they are an "occupying force" or at "war" with Hamas. Hamas is the legally elected government of Gaza wether they like it or not. Being in an armed struggle is not a declaired war. However if it's Israel's intention to get into a war, their going about it the right way.

[edit on 6/8/2010 by pstrron]

Originally posted by Eliad


Please read my former posts, as they constitute that the blockade is both legal, and moral (unless you're think it's immoral to give weapons to terrorists), and that the blockade itself does not interfere with passage of goods to gaza.

There are 1.5 million human beings in Gaza strip and most of them are not even at legal age .
To underwrite a law which would legalise the deprivity upon many underage human beings , is not a ' just ' law and would not stand under a close scrutiny .

Simply put , no one would make it unlawful to trade , unless if one is a communist .

I have read your former posts and your reasoning seems to be largely based upon the ' Letter of Law ' .

What we really are talking about here ( depriving Gaza kids in masses due to Gaza adults acts ) is actually about the ' Spirit of the Law ' not the ' Letter of the law '.

Law , to be seen to be just , needs both bases covered , the letter and the spirit of the law should be intact and only then it can be pronounced as a Just Law .

Thus your morality argument is not really in tact .



I would agree with you that all of this solves nothing, and I would ask you why would the flotilla break international law by trying to break the blockade and not just let the cargo go to gaza by putting it either in egypt or israel and escorting it by land to gaza- both israeli and egyptian goverments offered to do so for the flotilla, on their own expense may I add.

I am glad , Eliad that you & I can agree that all this solves nothing .
As for your question , well the answer is obvious , to break the illegal blockade , one has to test the waters .

Putting the aid in to the hands of either the Israeli or Egypt's hands , do not breach the blockade .

Real aim of IHH was to force Israeli hand for an overreaction and they have accomplished it .

Wise thing to do would been to stop the ships and tow them to Ashdod without boarding a single soldier.






It is well known that most of the people on board truely were peacful activists and only the ones who ambushed the soldiers were not.

Activist or not . These people were hotheaded and perhaps did stupid things to influence the events . This is not disputed.
It is only a detail in the greater analogy of the events .

For those who have ambushed soldiers , well , passengers are saying that they were shot at before the boarding . This makes it a self defense imho .

If I was on that board , I would not of ambushed nor attacked these soldiers . I would disagree with their action but I wouldn't make it worse .

In this situation , the liability is with the organised forces , rather then individual actions of hotheaded civilians .



Those people are genuinely kind hearted and would not have resisted the take over, as it happened in all other 5 ships.

This is not entirely true .
If you were ever under fire , you would know that some people literally will ' lose it ' .
And in this case soldiers and civilians lost it due to hyped up tensions between these two groups.

The other 5 ships have learnt their lesson but further ships to come will no doubt compensate for the lack of defense .

Lets hope it doesn't go that far .



They have a funny way of showing it
www.youtube.com...

You do realise that their expectations have changed once fired upon , right ?



Makes no sense- Why try and call the flotilla off? Why offer safe passage through ashdod? Why come armed with paintball guns? Why hasn't any other ship resisted? Why were there knives on board? Why were there clubs and poles on board? Why risk being condemned by the world? Why risk cutting off relations with turky?
Makes no sense, political suicide.

Because the current Israeli government is not sensible . If you think about it , you will see that many nations around the world are telling Israel the same thing ; Please come to your senses and stop being so afraid for your existence in ME .

Turks do have a mutual defence agreement , still in effect , with Israel .

Yet this didn't stop 9 Turkish civilians being killed by most unfortunate way.

As I said , no sensible wise Jew I know would ever embark upon such a silly path of loss.

Current Israeli government have too much of that Khazarian influence , that is why the senseless policy is still in action .







If you'd like to think that, I can't stop you, but I would ask you to consider facts...
Also watch this and ask yourself if it really makes sense that israel just by chance chose that ship to shoot at (this is security footage)-
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Eliad]

Eliad , I have cousins who are half Jewish .

Israel policy is making loss for Turks and Israelis .

Let's hope this idiocy comes to an end .

Originally posted by pstrron
Please show were this is law and proof that it is binding. A non-binding document will not stand in a court of law.

Using a statement that the blockade is legal because of armed struggle is not valid. Requires declaired war or occupying force. Once again Israel denies both.

Look it up as to what it mean to attack and board a flagged ship in international waters by a military force (I'm sure you won't). If Israel wanted to be correct thay will need to state that they are an "occupying force" or at "war" with Hamas. Hamas is the legally elected government of Gaza wether they like it or not. Being in an armed struggle is not a declaired war. However if it's Israel's intention to get into a war, their going about it the right way.

[edit on 6/8/2010 by pstrron]

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea was adopted in June 1994 by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law after a series of round tables of naval and legal experts. It is "the only comprehensive international instrument that has been drafted on the law of naval warfare since 1913."

The manual is a "legally recognized" document, but "The Manual is not a binding document".

It is the law. Get your lawyer to confirm if you wish.

Also read this: www.reuters.com...

Anyway I did search and I couldn't find what it mean to attack and board a flagged ship in international waters by a military force, seriously, looked it up all over wikipedia.. I'm assuming it's a deceleration of war though, right? But this is not valid in case of a blockade, unless you don't accept the San Remo Manual, which in that case I would advise you to get a lawyer and sue Israel. It's not happening because Israel was operating under international law.
I have provided my proof, if you can prove to me that the manual is not a legal document that allows Israel to enforce its blockade that I would change my statements, otherwise I suggest you change yours.

Since the Gaza strip is not a country, Israel can not declare official war on it, and as it's written in the reuters article I've provided, being in an armed conflict with hamas who is the elected government of that area is, legally, enough to be able to declare a blockade. Again here I have quoted a lawyer saying that on a reuters article, please prove me otherwise if you can.

Originally posted by 23432
I have read your former posts and your reasoning seems to be largely based upon the ' Letter of Law ' .

You have no idea how much I agree with you, I too don't think the people of gaza should suffer for the actions of hamas, that being said I hope you know that supplies and medicine, and any form of aid is being passed to them through sea and land, through israel and egypt, also israel provides the gaza strip with food, electricity, and money on daily and monthly basis, for free. Releasing the blockade will change nothing, ships that used to come directly to gaza now go to egypt and israel.
Secondly and more importantly is that the role of the naval blockade is only to stop weapons from coming in after finding weapons and bombs on several large ships headed to gaza, and that is why we can not allow them to pass through sea without checking the cargo.
Believe me if I could I would go feed all of gaza, but the naval blockade has nothing to do with it.

If you were ever under fire , you would know that some people literally will ' lose it ' . And in this case soldiers and civilians lost it due to hyped up tensions between these two groups.

I know what it's like to be under fire, your only instinct is to run and hide, trust me. Especially when all you have is a knife or a club.
The rumors that the soldiers came in guns blazing seem to be false for a couple of reasons-