Israel opens fire on Gaza aid flotilla; at least 10 dead, 60 wounded

[Double K]

And yet you don't SOUND like you're skeptical about the other side *despite* their own history. I find that weird.

 

I'm basing current judgement on "reliable" non-partisan news reports.

I completely disregard any evidence brought forward by either party.

I don't think Al-Jazeera is non-partisan and I dont think Israel is.

SMH reporters I believe and consider that Australia and Israel have fairly close ties and no reason what so ever to report biasedly on this issue.

Also these are seasoned war correspondants...not just activist appointed camera holders.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Israel offer the ships to have the UN and/or an independent party conduct the security checks before the aid continues to Gaza - that is, not have Israel do it, but have another country or the UN do it. That's a third party who's unrelated.

The ships refused.

I have pointed out twice already that Turkey searched the ships before their departure, according to their Prime Minister.

[mooeypoo]

I have pointed out twice already that Turkey searched the ships before their departure, according to their Prime Minister.

And I've pointed out that the search was (a) not according to international standards (they missed the knives and bats, didn't they?) and (b) the ship stopped along the way. There are claims now that the violent group on the upper deck came onboard after the rest of the ship. I'll look up the references in the morning.. I need to go to sleep now.

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'm basing current judgement on "reliable" non-partisan news reports.

I completely disregard any evidence brought forward by either party.

I don't think Al-Jazeera is non-partisan and I dont think Israel is.

SMH reporters I believe and consider that Australia and Israel have fairly close ties and no reason what so ever to report biasedly on this issue.

Also these are seasoned war correspondants...not just activist appointed camera holders.

Unfortunately, I posted (and others did too) some articles with different accounts from people who are supposed to be "reliable" the same way (not the soldiers themselves).

 

Who do you believe if you IGNORE your personal biases (and we all have them)?

 

My point is that in this case, it seems that the personal accounts are *less reliable* in *all* sides than the videos and pictures and audio communication that come out.

 

~moo

[Double K]

I think the "she was asking for it" defence has been tried before and not worked with rape cases.

 

There is such a thing as "aggravated assault" but saying that they were "asking for it" doesn't forgive the fact that Israel took the bait and "gave it".

 

At the point they were at sea they could easily have stopped the progressof the flotilla and waited for a neutral party to board and inspect the ships. They had options and chose the swift pre-emptive strike. If Israel should know anything, it should know the rest of the world wont accept "pre-emptive" strikes at the moment as we are still caught in the throws of a war based on exactly that.

[mooeypoo]

Just to follow up regarding the Aussie that got shot in the leg

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_536705.html

 

'I've just been left there to lay down on the ground and just bleed, and I can't believe it,' he told national broadcaster ABC from his hospital bed in Istanbul. 'Many of the soldiers that came up, picked up my passport because it was a different colour, looked at it, chucked it on the ground next to me and said, 'Ah, you're Australian'.'

 

Mr Luqman, 20, said that after the raid the Israelis made him 'climb all the stairs on my own without any assistance, and I passed out like three or four times just getting up the stairs on my own.'

 

Nine activists died during the Israeli naval operation against the flotilla, which was attempting to break a blockade on Gaza. Mr Luqman, whose nursing student wife was with him at the time and gave him immediate medical attention, said he was not intending to fight the Israelis and had been trying to seek cover when he was hit.

 

'I was just trying to get into the cabin and (was) just shot, like most of the other people who were just shot for nothing,'

I feel like you're missing my point, and it's my fault here, I am not conveying it right. I don't accuse the reporter of being a liar, and I don't think he's generally untrustworthy. I don't doubt his credentials at all. I do think that in *THIS* instance his eyewittness testimony is unreliable because he was inside the situation, suffering, probably very confused, around a crowd that he wasn't part of (I doubt he was part of the actual attacks on the soldiers).

 

Look. When I was a teenager, I was part of a fairly large Peace movement in Israel; I was a very big activist for palestinians rights. I still do some of that, although today I no longer live in Israel, so I have less time to do that. However, when I was 17, my friend blew up in a terrorist attack in a restaurant where she was eating lunch with her friends. I was supposed to join. I was very late (was about to cancel when I heard the news).

 

For the few days after this happened, my immediate reaction was emotional and extreme. Quite frankly, I wanted every one of them dead or gone far far and away from me. Why? Because when you're faced with a life-and-death situation - a real life one, not one in the movies or tv - your emotions eat your logic up completely. I was NOT rational, and I can tell you that (naturally) I remember this situation in a very biased way.

 

However, now, years after the fact, I can look back at the global situation differently. You might find this ironic, but inside Israel I am considered relatively pro-palestinian. I do think my government is doing things it shouldn't do, and I think there's a *lot* to fix. But I am not deluding myself as to think I can be unbiased in explaining the events of that terrorist attack where I lost my friend. Nor can I be biased in arguing about the specific events of the other terrorist attacks that I either witnessed myself, or had friends die.

 

Emotions skew your perspective, and in a situation where you're lying on the ground bleeding under a mess of people screaming, yelling, beating, shooting and flailing around, you *can't* know what's going on.

 

I don't think this reporter is biased in general. I don't think he's generally unreliable. I think that in this PARTICULAR INSTANCE the eye witness accounts are partial, affected by *extreme* distress and emotion (which is *TOTALLY* understandable) and therefore they cannot be considered unbiased or reliable.

 

On all sides.

 

And so I treat *all* eyewitness accounts as unreliable in this case, because they are all unbiased. They are all either from people who weren't in the situation or from people who were in the situation but had an agenda, or were in the situation and got hurt without being part of the group that was violent (probably they didn't expect this group to act the way they did either).

 

I therefore try to find other evidence that can show me the real picture. Not because I want to protect the integrity of my country - but because I think that only the real truth can lead everyone - my country included, and my country *in particular!* to do things DIFFERENTLY. To *not* have this happen again.

 

The reporters can have the best track record possible; that doesn't mean they are able to be unbiased in this particular case. I don't think they are purposefully lying, I think they aren't *able* to be objective here. Understandably.

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There is such a thing as "aggravated assault" but saying that they were "asking for it" doesn't forgive the fact that Israel took the bait and "gave it".

I think you sould read my posts throughout the thread again.

 

I didn't say they were asking for it, not at all. I did say that they attacked the soldiers. If the IDF was using the "rape" reasoning, it wouldn't have waited two whole minutes (this is a *LONG* time in combat situation where you're beaten up and thrown out the deck and stabbed) to react with live fire. They shot the feet, until they were attacked back with (supposedly their own) weapons, at which point they reacted immediately and deadly.

 

That's not "they asked for it", that's "they created a bad situation".

 

As was said earlier in this thread, If SWAT was to storm your apartment and hold you at gun point, then go "oops, wrong house", you would do well by cooperating first and suing later. If, on the other hand, you would be pulling a knife and stabbing the SWAT members, then no matter how right you are, you will likely be shot.

 

And that's assuming the IDF acted against the laws - which is a whole other debate (not as clear cut as you seem to think it is). According to most accounts fo the international law, though, the IDF acted to the letter. People don't like that, maybe, but that doesn't mean it's not legal to stop ships that declare they're about to cross a naval blockade.

 

~moo

[Double K]

Well that's horrible about your friend, I hate to think anyone innocent anywhere in the world ends up in a situation where they end up being a pawn in a game they aren't even playing.

 

That's what gets me really, more than anything, is the "collateral damage" not really who is to blame.

 

There have been many many cases of journalists being in war zones for alot of television and even radio media. The real break throughs happened in vietnam when there was a shift from reporting only the government approved story and actually reporting the facts. I would like to think that we still see this today even though I'm sure remaining objective in an emotionally distressing environment must be tough, I'm sure it's not impossible as it's been done before, and (unedited) video cant lie.

[forufes]

Of course it gets more reliable - the journalist was part of the flotilla that has a clear agenda against Israel.. he isn't objective. I'm not saying he's completely unreliable, i'm saying I have no way of knowing which eyewitness is right in light of so many conflicting testimonies so far (and we should really wait for the investigation). Hence, I will rather not trust *ANY* eyewitness testimony. Equally.

live unedited media feed was casually jammed by the IDF before their "self defense" operation was carried out. they definitely didn't have anything to hide.

http://www.news24.com/World/News/Journalists-on-Gaza-flotilla-safe-20100531

 

journalists keep memos and videos, they were confiscated (apparently for bombs and explosives)

http://en.ammonnews.net/article.aspx?articleNO=8314

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105384977

 

the testimonies of the passengers, the journalists(whose job IS to report news), Israelites, hell, even a a member of the Israeli parliament!!!, and their testimonies, are all rejected, what's left? you want the head of the IDF to be on the boat and tell you what happen, and even then you won't take his testimony?

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/01/gaza.raid.eyewitnesses/index.html

 

shots are shot, people die, others survive to testify, the world ups in rage, and yet;

Hence, I will rather not trust *ANY* eyewitness testimony. Equally.

why? because the killer's and the victim's testimonies conflicted:rolleyes:

 

the world condemns, europe, the US, the UN, austrailia, i'm sure even people on the arctic or any aliens in space would, even israeli ambassadors are condemning, demonstrators are filling the streets in athens, clashing with riot police, the embassy in the uk is under siege, the freaking world is on fire!!.. and here we are sipping coffee and "dealing with facts- preferably objective", when that's the last thing that is done here

 

every time i open this thread, i get overwhelmed by the dumbfounding arguments going around here i don't even know where the heck to start!, as if nobody can watch tv or search the internet. i can say mooy, that your contribution especially to this thread has been very negative. and very nonfactual, mostly misleading.

 

this thread is very very sad, one which would take a century to deal with properly.

[vordhosbn]

the world condemns, europe, the US, the UN, austrailia, i'm sure even people on the arctic or any aliens in space would, even israeli ambassadors are condemning, demonstrators are filling the streets in athens, clashing with riot police, the embassy in the uk is under siege, the freaking world is on fire!!

Now these are pretty solid statements, forufes! You are generalizing and basically just oversimplifying. Watching the video footage from the raid, I can't understand, how can you not agree, that beating soldiers with metal poles, stabbing them with kitchen knifes and throwing stun grenades at them is not an honorable peace protest?!

Before being accused of being pro-israeli, I definitely think that this situation could be managed much, much better by the IDF, but still, it's not all black and white...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And I've pointed out that the search was (a) not according to international standards (they missed the knives and bats, didn't they?) and (b) the ship stopped along the way. There are claims now that the violent group on the upper deck came onboard after the rest of the ship. I'll look up the references in the morning.. I need to go to sleep now.

According to the articles presenting that claim, Netanyahu gave no evidence.

 

Now, as for (a) and (b). (a) isn't a valid excuse, because there's no way for Israel to have known that until after they boarded. (And there aren't international standards for searching boats.) It's not like they could say "No, we reject your inspections, because we're going to find knives aboard."

 

Also, knives are a perfectly normal thing to find aboard boats, considering that there are kitchens. A lot of people I know carry around pocket knives as well.

 

Also, the point of the inspections is to check the cargo for items not to be sent to Gaza. The knives were personal effects of the passengers. They would have been irrelevant if the IDF did not board, because there'd be no opportunity to use them on anyone. Knives are only important if you want a fight.

 

Unfortunately, I posted (and others did too) some articles with different accounts from people who are supposed to be "reliable" the same way (not the soldiers themselves).

What articles are these? Here's another account I just found:

 

http://pulsemedia.org/2010/06/06/ken-okeefe-we-the-defenders-of-the-mavi-marmara/

 

We were abused in just about every way imaginable and I myself was beaten and choked to the point of blacking out… and I was beaten again while in my cell.

 

My point is that in this case, it seems that the personal accounts are *less reliable* in *all* sides than the videos and pictures and audio communication that come out.

 

The videos and pictures and audio communication that came out are incomplete. They don't tell us what happened, they show us a sliver of the events. There aren't any pictures or video of how the Israelis treated their prisoners, so eyewitness accounts of Israeli brutality are all you're going to get.

 

The videos don't tell us anything about before the helicopters arrived, about what the people on the boat were thinking, about what was going on below decks, about what happened after the ship was seized.

 

Also, seeing that the IDF has already been found to have released a doctored audio recording, I would not be surprised if what we have been shown is the nice, IDF-friendly side.

 

 

 

Now, in other news, regarding legality: the National Lawyer's Guild's International Committee has put out a press release stating unequivocally that the blockade is illegal.

 

http://www.nlginternational.org/news/article.php?nid=313

 

There is little question that Israel's blockade of Gaza is disproportionate in legal terms. The proportionality rule requires an assessment of the military advantage against the harmful effects on civilians. Israel claims that the blockade is necessary to prevent Hamas from mounting indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.

 

Safeguarding the precious lives of innocents and respecting their dignity as fellow humans is the necessary burden that international law imposes on war. That is why Israel reveals its contempt for international law when, for example in the past, its leaders have pledged to "destroy 100 homes for every rocket fired".

 

(see http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3665517,00.html )

 

The UN agency on the ground, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), has described a "severe humanitarian crisis" in Gaza in relation to human development, health, education, "the psychological stress" on the population, high unemployment (at 45 per cent) and poverty (with 300,000 people living beneath the poverty line), and the collapse of commerce, industry and agriculture.

 

Such effects are manifestly excessive in relation to Israel's security objectives and cannot possibly satisfy the conditions of a lawful blockade. Disrupting wildly inaccurate rockets from being fired at relatively underpopulated areas of southern Israel cannot possibly justify the acute disruption of the daily lives and livelihoods of more than one million Gazans. Nor is it lawful to seek to pressure Hamas by instrumentally impoverishing its civilian supporters.

 

It is very difficult to regard that offer as sincere given Israel's track record. Israel's practices concerning the transit of goods through Israeli entry points has been arbitrary at best and deliberately obstructive at worst.

 

The UN notes that everything from crayons to soccer balls to musical instruments has been denied entry into Gaza - hardly rocket components. Goods sit idle for months or are never delivered at all. In such circumstances, no-one could have any confidence that the goods would ever reach Gaza.

 

Fourthly, under international human rights law, the apprehension and detention of those on board the vessels likely amounts to arbitrary, unlawful detention, contrary to article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, since there is lawful basis for detention.

 

Legally speaking, government military forces rappelling onto a ship to illegally capture it are treated no differently than other criminals. The right of self-defense in such situations rests with the passengers on board: a person is legally entitled to resist one's own unlawful capture, abduction and detention.

 

Whether doing so is wise, in the face of heavily armed commandos, is a different question. Whether running the gauntlet of an Israeli military blockade is sensible or foolhardy is another.

[emphasis all mine]

 

Go and read it.

 

If you accept the premise of disproportionality, which is easy (considering Gaza's current state), then the rest follows quite nicely.

 

Also, these people are lawyers.

[Mr Skeptic]

live unedited media feed was casually jammed by the IDF before their "self defense" operation was carried out. they definitely didn't have anything to hide.

http://www.news24.com/World/News/Journalists-on-Gaza-flotilla-safe-20100531

 

Wow, a whole 19 activists dead after being attacked by the "zodiacs", and here I thought it was only 9.

 

journalists keep memos and videos, they were confiscated (apparently for bombs and explosives)

http://en.ammonnews.net/article.aspx?articleNO=8314

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105384977

 

Yes, because normally military and law enforcement always publish and allow themselves to be filmed, right?

 

the testimonies of the passengers, the journalists(whose job IS to report news),

 

Actually, the job of journalists is to make money for news agencies, not to report the news. Accuracy really isn't a concern other than that it needs to have enough of the facts that people still consider them a news source and they don't have too many embarrassing retractions.

 

If you've ever seen the news on a story you personally know about, you would realize what a difference this can be.

 

Note that you don't make news by saying people who attacked a military with melee weapons died, you make news by saying that Israel killed aid workers. And what makes news makes money: this is what journalists are paid to do.

 

Israelites, hell, even a a member of the Israeli parliament!!!, and their testimonies, are all rejected, what's left? you want the head of the IDF to be on the boat and tell you what happen, and even then you won't take his testimony?

 

What's left is facts. Sure, there are few facts that can be known for sure at the time, but you don't get to just make them up because the facts are unavailable. The fact is, the eyewitness testimonies are not facts because they contradict each other and so have to be considered unreliable.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/01/gaza.raid.eyewitnesses/index.html

 

shots are shot, people die, others survive to testify, the world ups in rage, and yet;

 

Ah yes, I guess we should believe the guy who says 10 people were killed, yes? Didn't I earlier say something about eyewitnesses being unreliable?

 

why? because the killer's and the victim's testimonies conflicted:rolleyes:

 

Generally when presented with testimonies from criminals and law enforcement, I tend to believe the law enforcement side. Even if some of the criminals were killed in the confrontation. (see how fun labeling is?)

 

the world condemns, europe, the US, the UN, austrailia, i'm sure even people on the arctic or any aliens in space would, even israeli ambassadors are condemning, demonstrators are filling the streets in athens, clashing with riot police, the embassy in the uk is under siege, the freaking world is on fire!!.. and here we are sipping coffee and "dealing with facts- preferably objective", when that's the last thing that is done here

 

Dealing with the facts comes last because you don't know the facts at the start.

 

Oh, here's another one from a link the Capt'n shared:

http://maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=289874

*** In a previous version of this article Arraf was quoted as saying she was "certain" that she did not say she had permission to dock in Gaza from the Port Authority there, but later clarified that "Listening to the new version released by the Israelis, I have no reason to doubt that I did say it on this voyage also." The article has been modified to reflect that clarification.

 

Witnesses are all kinds of unreliable.

 

every time i open this thread, i get overwhelmed by the dumbfounding arguments going around here i don't even know where the heck to start!, as if nobody can watch tv or search the internet. i can say mooy, that your contribution especially to this thread has been very negative. and very nonfactual, mostly misleading.

 

this thread is very very sad, one which would take a century to deal with properly.

 

Actually, I think mooey's contribution was far more valuable than your own. Also, I think you are misunderstanding what is going on in this thread as well. If everyone here were railing against the flotilla, I suspect mooey would be pointing out where Israel made mistakes. I suspect the Capt'n is taking the other side mostly because despite their numbers he doesn't think that side is doing a good job. Because when dealing with the facts, if one side is being taken care of by lots of people someone has to take the other side, for a while at least.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Oh no. No, if there were no deaths, the actions of the flotilla would have been largely unremarkable and nobody would really care. The boats would be towed to Israel, everyone would say "that wasn't so bad," and the blockade would continue.

 

Instead, some people died, and outrage erupted. It doesn't matter if those people were fighting and were a threat; they died. On a mission to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza. Sure, they were asking for it, but they died, and the media had something to latch onto.

 

Now, everyone's interested. Everyone goes, looks, and learns what's happening: Israel is blockading Gaza, many Gazans are in poverty, humanitarian efforts go badly, etc.

 

Now the UN is condemning the blockade and Iran is seizing the PR opportunity to pick on Israel. (Although Iran would take any chance they could get. If Netanyahu sneezed on TV they'd send a ship full of Kleenexes to Gaza, just because.) Nations are demanding investigations and searching through international law. That wouldn't happen if this ended peacefully.

 

No, the protesters succeeded brilliantly. Their actions brought attention to the blockade of Gaza, just as they wanted. They may have brought negative attention upon themselves, but they don't care. In the end, people are demanding action about Gaza now, and so they've won.

 

It's a pity people had to die to achieve that.

 

Exactly. People died to make this news. Not sure if they intended to die, maybe just wanted to get beat up to complain about Israeli brutality, or maybe this whole thing was a mistake and everyone was trying to defend themselves (they say they were attacked before being boarded, which they responded to by defending themselves by attacking the soldiers who responded by defending themselves).

 

Plus due to the damage the blockade is doing, it would be illegal or borderline legal, which makes said spotlight all the more powerful.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[ecoli]

the world condemns, europe, the US, the UN, austrailia, i'm sure even people on the arctic or any aliens in space would, even israeli ambassadors are condemning, demonstrators are filling the streets in athens, clashing with riot police, the embassy in the uk is under siege, the freaking world is on fire!!.. and here we are sipping coffee and "dealing with facts- preferably objective", when that's the last thing that is done here

 

The reason why the "world is on fire" (gross exaggeration, btw) is because most people ignore trifles like evidence. When they see evidence they proclaim that it supports their prior viewpoint. If, by some unlucky accident, they happen to see evidence that doesn't support it, they'll usually ignore it.

 

If you always seem to run into evidence that confirms your ideas and opinions, you may want to read into this subject before concluding that you are fully informed and right about everything.

[John Cuthber]

When the journalists get their video back they can black out the faces to protect the identities of the soldiers . Nobody cares exactly who they were in this context.

Then they can show the pictures from start to finish.

Of course I guess the IDF will also have video they want to present.

 

Then, perhaps, we will get to see what happened.

If it turns out that the journalists' recordings are all missing that will be rather telling.

 

It is unusual that I find a group of American lawyers holding much the same view as I do but it seems to have happened here.

Is there any independent, legally qualified, group who considers the blockade to be legitimate?

If there is then I will be happy to look at the evidence that they submit indicating that the blockade is proportionate.

As far as I am aware, from all I have seen in this thread and elsewhere, no such evidence exists.

It seems to me that these people were subject to an unprovoked and unlawful attack and sought to defend themselves.

There is no debate that the incident took place well into international waters.

A boat full of people with knives and sticks can not attack a helicopter containing men with guns.

Never mind the guns, you simply cannot reach the helicopter with a stick. Throwing a knife at a chopper is not a meaningful threat.

The pilot always had the option of flying away. He chose not to do so. (I realise he was probably under orders; but retreat is a perfectly well recognised military strategy).

 

 

The boat had already been checked for "contraband" by a third party. (That leaves the question of the military significance of cement but, since this was eventually allowed through anyway, both sides seem to have accepted that it is not a particularly important threat.)

 

All the evidence seems to indicate that the boat was no threat to the helicopter or to the nation it represented, but that the soldiers (or their leaders) decided to invade it anyway. They could have simply ignored it.

 

It is difficult to portray that as anything better than bullying; such behaviour generally loses the moral high ground.

 

Since the action was in support of an apparently illegal blockade, and also ignores the rule of the presumption of innocence, it would seem difficult so say they had the moral high ground in the first place.

 

The essence of the legal argument against the blockade is that it is disproportionate.

While I accept the right of a state to defend itself, I find it hard to see the loss of 9 lives in order to slow down a shipment of goods as proportionate.

 

I'd also like to say that I'm very pleased that the tone of this whole discussion, on what is clearly a very emotive topic, has generally remained very civil and polite. I hope nobody will be offended if I thank Mooeypoo in particular, for keeping a cool head in what may have been a rather trying debate.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Update:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-prepares-to-confront-israel-with-aid-flotilla-1994124.html

 

An Arab Israeli member of parliament accused colleagues of conducting a "witch-hunt" before a panel voted to strip her of parliamentary privileges for taking part in the flotilla aimed at breaching Israel's sea blockade of Gaza.

 

The Knesset's House Committee voted seven to one in favour of stripping Haneen Zuabi, a member of the opposition Balad party, of parliamentary privileges including the right to a diplomatic passport and legal financial support.

 

Ms Zuabi's participation in the protest drew intense anger in Israel. She was pushed, poked and jostled by colleagues in the Knesset last week and a Facebook page calling for her execution soon attracted thousands of followers. Interior Minister Eli Yishai has called on the Attorney General to strip Ms Zuabi of her Israeli citizenship.

 

This is worrisome.

[mooeypoo]

The blockade, whether you think it's justified or not, is a decision taken by the parliament. A member of parliament is supposed to work for the people, not for herself, and once a decision passes the parliament, you should fight the decision LEGALLY.

 

If you chose to take an ILLEGAL action then you lose your membership in the parliament. It might be unclear if this is internationally legal or not, but the decision was made to law inside israel, which means that making a decision to break this blockade is going *AGAINST* Israeli law.

 

If a member of congress was to break an American law to show the law is unjust, that member of congress would likely lose their position too.

 

That's not the way to change laws in a democratic country. Not in Israel, and not in the US and not in England (whom Israel took its parliamentary system from).

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

BTW, I just found these analyses (multiple, however you spell that..) interesting, specially since it doesn't come from an Israeli site, but rather a site well known for exposing image-related blunders.

 

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/link/215282_Fauxtography-_Reuters_Crops_Out_Peace_Activist_Weapon_Again

 

The propaganda war, it seems, is not just in Israel's side, and it appears that it isn't just on the "obviously biased" sources either. You'd expect Reuters to be a fair source... apparently not so much?

Edited June 8, 2010 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

[about the blockade being illegal due to being disproportionate]

 

But, who judges what is disproportionate? Also, who enforces this law, and what were they doing for the last couple of years? It's not like we just found out about the blockade or something.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Mr Skeptic

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I believe the standard procedure when someone is claimed to have broken the law is to hold a trial.

 

In the US, we impeach Congressmen by holding a trial in the Senate. There has never been a Congressman successfully impeached.

 

In any case, I don't believe Zuabi broke the law; as an occupied territory, Gaza is under military control, not Israeli civil control, so Zuabi would be violating a military blockade rather than a civil law. Also, in no event did she actually breach the blockade -- the ships stayed outside of the declared blockade area. Israel may have been allowed to stop the ships, but they were not yet committing any crime.

 

Also, members of Congress, and members of the Knesset, have explicit immunity from civil or criminal trial.

 

(Also, we don't threaten to strip citizenship of Congressmen who do bad things, we threaten to impeach them)

[Mr Skeptic]

Update:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-prepares-to-confront-israel-with-aid-flotilla-1994124.html

 

 

An Arab Israeli member of parliament accused colleagues of conducting a "witch-hunt" before a panel voted to strip her of parliamentary privileges for taking part in the flotilla aimed at breaching Israel's sea blockade of Gaza.

 

The Knesset's House Committee voted seven to one in favour of stripping Haneen Zuabi, a member of the opposition Balad party, of parliamentary privileges including the right to a diplomatic passport and legal financial support.

 

 

This is worrisome.

 

I'm sure we'd have some precious words if, say, Senator Obama had participated in defending Iraq from the US or aiding Al Qaeda in any way. Talk about partisanship.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm sure we'd have some precious words if, say, Senator Obama had participated in defending Iraq from the US or aiding Al Qaeda in any way. Talk about partisanship.

 

And if Obama had tried taking humanitarian aid to the Iraqis?

 

Zuabi wasn't sneaking missiles into Gaza. She was not attempting to aid Hamas. The analogy doesn't work.

[mooeypoo]

I wonder if JFK's blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis is deemed illegal too.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I believe the standard procedure when someone is claimed to have broken the law is to hold a trial.

She's not going to jail, she's voted out of the party, and off her seat.

Edited June 8, 2010 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I wonder if JFK's blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis is deemed illegal too.

Probably not. The quarantine was solely against offensive weapons. At the time, that meant "nukes and long-range missiles." The quarantine also did not last long enough to have a major humanitarian impact on Cuba, since Kennedy achieved his goals diplomatically within two weeks. Thus it wasn't disproportionate, as the Gaza blockade has been.

 

She's not going to jail, she's voted out of the party, and off her seat.

 

Don't you think someone should establish that a crime was committed and allow her to defend herself before taking punishment?

[Mr Skeptic]

Don't you think someone should establish that a crime was committed and allow her to defend herself before taking punishment?

 

Why?

[padren]

When the journalists get their video back they can black out the faces to protect the identities of the soldiers . Nobody cares exactly who they were in this context.

Then they can show the pictures from start to finish.

Of course I guess the IDF will also have video they want to present.

I do wonder how American armed forces would react to finding journalists embedded with an operation designed to disrupt and circumvent a US Military mission pursuant to national security.

 

Whether you agree with the mission or whether it is important to their national security, they have long since made it clear that in their view it is, and the blockade has been internationally recognized as such for years.

Then, perhaps, we will get to see what happened.

If it turns out that the journalists' recordings are all missing that will be rather telling.

 

It is unusual that I find a group of American lawyers holding much the same view as I do but it seems to have happened here.

Is there any independent, legally qualified, group who considers the blockade to be legitimate?

If there is then I will be happy to look at the evidence that they submit indicating that the blockade is proportionate.

As far as I am aware, from all I have seen in this thread and elsewhere, no such evidence exists.

It seems to me that these people were subject to an unprovoked and unlawful attack and sought to defend themselves.

There is no debate that the incident took place well into international waters.

A boat full of people with knives and sticks can not attack a helicopter containing men with guns.

Never mind the guns, you simply cannot reach the helicopter with a stick. Throwing a knife at a chopper is not a meaningful threat.

The pilot always had the option of flying away. He chose not to do so. (I realise he was probably under orders; but retreat is a perfectly well recognised military strategy).

It's an internationally recognized military blockade of a port. If people want to challenge whether it is legal and have Israel sanctioned, or otherwise see political pressure applied to lift the blockade that is fair - but to simply say "In my mind I don't think it's justified" and then condemn any actions taken to enforce it is just backwards.

 

Again, I think it would be a double standard to expect our own military to work this way.

 

The boat had already been checked for "contraband" by a third party. (That leaves the question of the military significance of cement but, since this was eventually allowed through anyway, both sides seem to have accepted that it is not a particularly important threat.)

This already proves that such third party checks are irrelevant if they are not done by a trusted third party. If they were a genuinely objective third party, trying to further the cause of having third-party inspections before leaving so as to be allowed to dock in Gaza, they shouldn't have shipped items known to be in violation of the blockade.

 

It doesn't matter if the cement was eventually allowed in - Israel blocks the unrestricted shipping of cement into Gaza. Everyone knows this. The "inspectors" knowingly gave this ship a "pass" despite the fact it was carrying cargo in breach of the blockade.

 

They reviewed the case in question, and decided to let it in with certain restrictions to it's use. They have the right to do this. That right may be overbearing and may be subject to change due to political pressure, but it is part of the nature of the current well known blockade.

 

All the evidence seems to indicate that the boat was no threat to the helicopter or to the nation it represented, but that the soldiers (or their leaders) decided to invade it anyway. They could have simply ignored it.

 

It is difficult to portray that as anything better than bullying; such behaviour generally loses the moral high ground.

 

Since the action was in support of an apparently illegal blockade, and also ignores the rule of the presumption of innocence, it would seem difficult so say they had the moral high ground in the first place.

Again, the US military routinely engages in missions that some people would call illegal. I'm pretty sure Saddam considered the entire invasion of Iraq illegal, and the Taliban considered the entire Afghanistan war illegal.

 

 

Honestly it's no different than sending aid trucks over a minefield that the military warns the aid convey is there, then getting all upset over the consequences of driving over a minefield.

 

It's the frick'n military - when they conduct an operation, they'll point a gun at your head to ensure their operation succeeds, and try not pull the trigger unless they feel they absolutely have to. That's not the Israeli military, that's standard for all military operations.

 

Maybe we are just desensitized to seeing the military involved in these sorts of events, but the military is a last resort because then you need them to enforce a political action, things have long since gotten very grave and dangerous.

 

They did not issue stern letters to nations trading with Gaza ports, they did not warn how docking in Gaza could hurt diplomatic relations, they put up a row of guns and said "Do not freaking dock here."

 

There's a certain amount of gravity to that, and I don't think any of us would appreciate it if our own military operations were dismissed so flippantly simply because some people find them disagreeable.

The essence of the legal argument against the blockade is that it is disproportionate.

While I accept the right of a state to defend itself, I find it hard to see the loss of 9 lives in order to slow down a shipment of goods as proportionate.

Their goal isn't to slow down shipments of goods. It's to ensure that unchecked goods aren't being shipped into Gaza. The goal of the flotilla wasn't to get aid into Gaza either - they refused all forms of compromise offered that would allow that. Their goal, and what they seem to be pushing for is unchecked unfettered access to Gaza.

 

* They refused third party trusted inspection.

* They refused to dock and observe the inspection of goods.

 

It isn't what they want to transport, its how they want to do so without inspection or answering to anyone for anything they want to bring.

 

Their goal wasn't "To get food and aid into Gaza" as they were given many remedies for this. They want unfettered access. They want to dock with no inspections.

 

This is what sickens me the most: they are using aid as an entire red herring. They bring aid, because it's easier to say "this is harmless and we should be allowed to dock" which, if that was allowed, would mean they could bring anything.

 

 

 

I'd also like to say that I'm very pleased that the tone of this whole discussion, on what is clearly a very emotive topic, has generally remained very civil and polite. I hope nobody will be offended if I thank Mooeypoo in particular, for keeping a cool head in what may have been a rather trying debate.

Would just like to add a "ditto" to that.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I do wonder how American armed forces would react to finding journalists embedded with an operation designed to disrupt and circumvent a US Military mission pursuant to national security.

 

Whether you agree with the mission or whether it is important to their national security, they have long since made it clear that in their view it is, and the blockade has been internationally recognized as such for years.

Has it been recognized? I don't know exactly how that works.

 

This is what sickens me the most: they are using aid as an entire red herring. They bring aid, because it's easier to say "this is harmless and we should be allowed to dock" which, if that was allowed, would mean they could bring anything.

 

I don't think they want to ease the blockade. They want it removed entirely, so they can have unfettered access.

[mooeypoo]

Israel operates by the parliamentary system, not by direct vote. That means that this representative wasn't directly voted in, she is part of a larger party that got into the parliament and was assigned seats according to the coalition agreements. Revoking her seat is not a punishment that requires a trial, it's a democratic procedure necessitating a majority vote.

 

If the attorney general decides that criminal proceedings should be brought up (not sure if that's likely to happen) then she will have an investigation and a trial.

 

But losing her seat is not a criminal proceeding, it's part of a democratic proceeding just like voting on a bill. There was a majority vote regarding a party which she is part of. The party will replace her with someone else, so the party itself is not losing seats.

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Would just like to add a "ditto" to that.

And I would like to say ditto on all of you. You guys made it very easy to have an intellectual debate rather than an emotional one, and you sure as heck got me thinking about my position (whether we ended up agreeing or not), which is, imho, the most important result. I wish all political discussions were like this one

 

~moo

Edited June 8, 2010 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[jackson33]

Under international law there are certain laws of war governing military occupation, including the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention.[20] The UN, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies and NGOs consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters, and does not allow the movement or goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea.[4][5][6] Israel states that Gaza is no longer occupied, inasmuch as Israel does not exercise effective control or authority over any land or institutions in the Gaza Strip.[21][22] Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel Tzipi Livni stated in January, 2008: “Israel got out of Gaza. It dismantled its settlements there. No Israeli soldiers were left there after the disengagement.”[23] [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip

 

The ‘effective control’ test has been

interpreted by various courts. In 1983,

the Israel Supreme Court decided

the Tsemel case which arose during

the occupation of southern Lebanon.

It ruled that occupation forces do

not need to be in actual control of

all the territory and population.[/Quote]

 

http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR26/FMR2608.pdf

 

 

 

 

I'd rather not get involved over who the protector of the Gaza Strip is, under International Law (may not be covered) but for their own protection anything landing or arriving in or along the this strip certainly would fall under Israel. To emphasize this if were known that 'any entity' was about to drop a nuclear weapon on Gaza, it would be in the interest of Israel to stop that action. It would be my opinion, then that the reverse should also be true or that if the people of Gaza were to try and wage war, they should have equal authority, even if they (Israel) is the target of the war.

 

As for member of parliament, or in fact the American Congress to deliberately try to overthrow (IMO including violent protest) a decision made by the whole, would be considered treason based on whatever oath they had taken to serve in that office. As moo has suggested, the proper way is under law and the Israeli do have the equivalent of a Supreme Court, I'll assume having a say in legislation passed, if contested and applicable.

 

If you accept, Israel has the authority to embargo and/or protect the Gaza Strip, then during an embargo any vessel not complying with the terms, regardless of intent would be subject to not only being boarded, but if resisted, legally having military action used on preventing that breaking including sinking of the ship, if with in -x- number of miles (I've seen 20 mentioned, but think International Law accepts authority if declared, to 50 miles of the territorial Border).