Israel blocks aid fleet from landing in Gaza killing at least 10 people

[Corvus of the Black Night]

I would call this a crime against humanity if the people on the boat didn't beat the soldiers with chairs and poles, and didn't attempt to throw an Israeli soldier overboard.

Seriously, what the ****.

 

[SBaby]

I would call this a crime against humanity if the people on the boat didn't beat the soldiers with chairs and poles, and didn't attempt to throw an Israeli soldier overboard.

Seriously, what the ****.

What's really sad and pathetic is how people are comparing them to Martin Luther King. I'm no history expert, but I don't think he and his people were armed.

 

[twocows]

Exactly.

And we have also walked into their trap by siding with the so-called 'aid' ship. This happens all the time, people. Remember Desert Storm? Hussein would deliberately force women and children into military installations that he knew were going to be attacked, because he knew how protesters would react to it, and he knew it would demoralize our troops. It was one of the many war crimes he was executed for! And there are other times when this has happened. So I'd be willing to bet money that a political leader set that whole thing up. But, the mainstream media will never cover that. So if you really want to know if that's true or not, you'll probably have to go to youtube or some other site.

Except a political leader didn't set the whole thing up. There were multinationals from all over the world on that and the other ships; one of the killed was a US citizen.

Now, having gotten that out of the way, I would like you to think about something. 5 out of the 6 ships were detained without violence. Why? If Israel was intent on boarding and killing, they would have done it on all 6 ships. What happened was stupidity on the side of the military: the commandoes were not trained to deal with resistance. Yes, knives, guns, and pipes shouldn't be a big deal to commandoes, but in the early morning, if something happens you don't plan for, you panic. I deplore the loss of life, but I believe that, honestly, the flotilla planners WANTED this to happen. If they really cared about aid, they would have gone through Ashdod, where they're aid would have been taken to Gaza. They knew their aid wasn't going to get through the blockade. That was the point. They wanted to run the blockade, become martyrs, and draw international sympathy. Israel just walked into their trap.

Living here in America, its easy to blame Israel for anything. But if Cuba was firing rockets daily on Florida, you damn well know we would be full out DECIMATING Cuba this moment. I really do sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians, and I believe in a two-state solution. I don't want them to suffer. But how do you negotiate with a group that has vowed to destroy Israel and establish a state "from the river to the sea" (Hamas)? Israel was acting out of fear. Did they make a blunder? Hell yes. Was the loss of life justified? It never is. Should they have handled the flotilla differently? Yes. They should have disabled it and towed it into Ashdod. But to call the Israelis psychopathic maniacs who love killing Palestinians is just a dumbing down of the situation and throws fuel on the fire. With that attitude, there will never be peace. And while I am saddened by the loss of life onboard the flotillas, I believe those weren't noble ships. They were just attempting to wage more PR war against Israel. And I stand with Israel, and her ability to exercise her right to defend herself, fully.

The implications many are making are misleading. The people on the ship were initially unarmed. When their ship got boarded in international waters, they stripped their ship of planks and used chairs and such to defend themselves, as was their right. Again, if someone comes into your house waving a gun around and making threats, it doesn't matter if they haven't shot yet, attacking them is still considered self-defense.

When you say "they would have gone to Ashdod where their supplies would have been delivered," I believe you forgot the word "not" between "would" and "have." Cement, one of the supplies they were carrying, is barred from entering Gaza even though it is necessary for them to rebuild after Israel's bombings.

Also, I would like to note that both sides are firing missiles at each other, and it is over land that is contested, not Florida, which is not contested.

 

[Bards Sword]

Well man, you missed my point entirely, didn't you?

1. The IDF found small weapons aboard, including knives and pistols. While its still unclear who fired first, a passenger who claimed the commandoes fired first admitted they had arms to defend themselves. So don't give my that BS about not having any weapons.

2. Yes, I understand the terrible situation in Gaza, but how do you suggest we control the cement so it goes to building projects and not to Hamas weapons and bunkers? The UN is absolutely useless, whose going to oversee the cement?

3. When Israel pulled out of Gaza, they left all the buildings intact,giving the Palestinians a jump start for their state and economy. The Palestinians, under Hamas, tore down all the buildings and began firing at israel. They have been doing so every day until Operation Cast Lead. And Israel does not blindly fire missiles into Gaza. They do strategically placed strikes on Hamas bunkers, far from Hamas' attacking any city they can. Also, Israel drops notices about the bombings over towns near the site, warning civilians. Does Hamas do that? No. And to finalize the "contested" land, Israel doesn't want Gaza, they just want to stop being bombed. Or else why did they withdraw?

Having said all that, again, I am for peace and a two-state solution. I am deeply mournful about the loss of life on board the Mavi Marmara. But I also believe that in order for there to be peace, the Palestinians need to compromise as much as the Israelis. One of those "compromises," if you will, is getting control of themselves and their police force to stop terrorist attacks in Israel. Until then, there will never be peace, even with two states.

 

[twocows]

Well man, you missed my point entirely, didn't you?

I believe your point was that the civilians on board were as much at fault as the Israelis. Just because I disagree does not mean I "missed the point."

The IDF found small weapons aboard, including knives and pistols. While its still unclear who fired first, a passenger who claimed the commandoes fired first admitted they had arms to defend themselves. So don't give my that BS about not having any weapons.

I haven't seen this, and if it is true, it changes a lot (though it is still possible the IDF is lying to cover themselves). Do you have a source?

 

[Bards Sword]

You see, you did miss my point. My point was NOT that the civilians on board were at fault for dying. In fact, you'll note I state its the armies fault for not preparing for resistance. My point was two-fold: to prove the legality of the Gaza blockade and the right to defend it in international waters, and the fact that the foltilla organizers wanted this to happen. This was never about delivering supplies, it was about both demonizing Israel and ramming the blockade. The Israelis, stupidly, walked right into a trap. The raid was poorly organized and pulled off. Compare it with the later raid of the Rachel Corrie, where no one was injured.

As for my source, the IDF as a video here showing weapons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM.

As for the article about the witness aboard the ship, the one who claimed the Israeli's shot first but they had weapons to defend themselves, I've read so many news articles on the flotilla I've lost track. It was either from the New York Times or the New Jersey paper the Star Ledger. However, there seems to be a general consensus among all parties they were armed with small handheld weapons. The main debate is who shot first.

 

[twocows]

You see, you did miss my point. My point was NOT that the civilians on board were at fault for dying. In fact, you'll note I state its the armies fault for not preparing for resistance. My point was two-fold: to prove the legality of the Gaza blockade and the right to defend it in international waters, and the fact that the foltilla organizers wanted this to happen. This was never about delivering supplies, it was about both demonizing Israel and ramming the blockade. The Israelis, stupidly, walked right into a trap. The raid was poorly organized and pulled off. Compare it with the later raid of the Rachel Corrie, where no one was injured.

If that was your point, then I think, at worst, they hoped to draw attention to the issue rather than deliver supplies. But I also think that is unlikely. I think it is far more likely that they brought weapons to defend themselves in such a situation and that their primary intention was to help Gaza rebuild and draw attention to the issue in the process. I don't think it was about demonizing Israel, I'm pretty sure they've done that to themselves.

And I still don't understand how it could possibly be legal to board ships in international waters.

 

[Ivysaur]

I'm going to answer all of those, one by one:

94. Israel has followed all those except for what you call the "duration." Duration does not have to be a set time period. For example, we are currently engaged in a blockade against Cuba. Also, a blockade against Europe was in effect for the duration of WWII. They couldn't possibly know when it was going to end.

Well, as you say, they didn't specify the duration. That means that they aren't following the law. That means the blockade is illegal. Isn't it simple?

The US is keeping an embargo, not a blockade per se, but regardless, the fact that a country is doing it wrong as well doesn't mean that now that law can be broken by anybody.

And that law didn't exist during WWII.

The other two points, I'll give you that, are much more arguable.

About the question whether the assault on international waters was right or not, well, here is a wiki link, it's probably much better than any discussion we might have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_assessments_of_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid

You see, you did miss my point. My point was NOT that the civilians on board were at fault for dying. In fact, you'll note I state its the armies fault for not preparing for resistance. My point was two-fold: to prove the legality of the Gaza blockade and the right to defend it in international waters, and the fact that the foltilla organizers wanted this to happen. This was never about delivering supplies, it was about both demonizing Israel and ramming the blockade. The Israelis, stupidly, walked right into a trap. The raid was poorly organized and pulled off. Compare it with the later raid of the Rachel Corrie, where no one was injured.

As for my source, the IDF as a video here showing weapons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM.

As for the article about the witness aboard the ship, the one who claimed the Israeli's shot first but they had weapons to defend themselves, I've read so many news articles on the flotilla I've lost track. It was either from the New York Times or the New Jersey paper the Star Ledger. However, there seems to be a general consensus among all parties they were armed with small handheld weapons. The main debate is who shot first.

Well, that's right: their idea was about trying to take out a blockade considered illegal by an insane amount of countries and people and "demonizing Israel", which is kind of easy since they always choose the worst possible solution to solve all the issues, usually breaking a couple of international laws or so.

So, in that video, I see slingshots and small rocks (a very dangerous weapon, as the Zelda games taught us), some handles and sticks from the board, and knives used for cooking, from which only one could be considered an actual weapon. I have yet to see a single pistol or anything remotely similar.

And the debate isn't who shot first from the very moment when a ship in international waters is attacked. The people on the ship has all the right to defend themselves, and the "weapons" the ship was carrying still don't prove they really had the intention to attack them from the very beggining.

If the people aboard the ship did attack first, that would only prove that they were ready to attack the Israeli army to cause as much uproar as possible (being completely legitimate though, they were being assaulted on international waters).

 

[Bards Sword]

Dear lord, I'm not going to get anywhere here. First of, I believe the laws of blockade were set down in London sometime in the early 20th century, before WWII. Secondly, to set a time period for a "duration" defeat the point of a blockade. A blockade is established over enemy territory during a hostile period, usually to weaken the enemy. The "duration" is until the end of the conflict. If the blockade is maintained after that, then its illegal. If you have a blockade, you are allowed to even stop merchant vessels with force.

And finally, its people like you, people who claim to want peace but want a single Palestinian state from the river to the sea, that truly block peace, not any Israeli blockade.

 

[{NM}Redwolf]

Those evil terrorists, we must stop them before they purify water!

Israel claims that the humanitarians deserved to be shot because the drew knives against them. THEY ONLY PULLED OUT KNIVES BECAUSE YOU SHOT AT THEM WITH AK47s!

You my friend are an idiot. Israel is equipted with the Galil and the Tavor 21 not AK47s.....They are a very modern military and also use modified M4s and M16s so screw off till you can tell the difference in weapons.

Disregarding the democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has hardly turned away from Israel and started supporting Muslim countries. They were the only international country that made a statement about the incident that wasn't openly hostile to Israel, despite what I feel their response should have been.

All that aside, the ship was in international waters. Israel had no right to board it at that point, and even if the footage is accurate (which is debatable), the activists had every right to defend themselves upon being boarded illegally. And as for "smuggling weapons?" The only "weapons" I heard about were makeshift clubs made from taking apart the ship's railings, and if you think those could even be considered a weapon in a siege with areal bombing runs and missiles and every Israeli and Hamas fighter armed to the teeth with heavy weaponry, I don't think you quite understand how modern warfare works.

I believe you don't understand how modern warefare works. First off it is mainly hit and run tactics used by LIGHTLY armed terrorist. They may have a gun with maybe 3 clips and a grenade. They attack and run. Only one side in a these wars now indays is heavily armed with airpower and heavy weapons. An assault rifle isn't a heavy weapon. A heavy weapon can be considered a tank or a 50 cal on a hummer. These are heavy weapons. A RPD or SAW all are SUPPORT guns. RPGs and AT4s are antipersonal/antivehical weapons. None are heavy weapons or heavy support. Also in modern warefare anything is a weapon. They now train soldiers in the US to use anything as a weapon including sticks if need be. This was on the military channel even. A person is easy to kill. Anything from a stick to hammer can kill an armed person if used correctly. In swarms thing can change even more. There was probably only close to 16 commandos to the 500 people on all those boats...

 

[twocows]

Dear lord, I'm not going to get anywhere here. First of, I believe the laws of blockade were set down in London sometime in the early 20th century, before WWII. Secondly, to set a time period for a "duration" defeat the point of a blockade. A blockade is established over enemy territory during a hostile period, usually to weaken the enemy. The "duration" is until the end of the conflict. If the blockade is maintained after that, then its illegal. If you have a blockade, you are allowed to even stop merchant vessels with force.

And finally, its people like you, people who claim to want peace but want a single Palestinian state from the river to the sea, that truly block peace, not any Israeli blockade.

If you are referring to me, I have no opinion on the issue of a Palestinian state, I just find this recent business disgusting.

 

[TheUltimateSacrifice]

They stole Palestinian land and are planning to evict all non-Jews. Why should the Palestinians leave them alone?

And don't pull that "It was Israel land before the Palestinian's" because I'll just tell you to give California back to the Mexicans, and pretty much North America back to the Indians.

No way - a Muslim condemning Israel? That one came straight out of left field!

May lulz to be had at the nescience of chumps parroting the media.

Bards Sword - Thank you for restoring my faith in the ability of people around here to construct a rational thought.

 

[Starrcasm]

They stole Palestinian land and are planning to evict all non-Jews. Why should the Palestinians leave them alone?

Yeah, now that TheUltimateSacrifice quoted this, I wanted to address this topic. Israel has absolutely no intention of evicting all non-Jews, if it did it would be a rather small state. In Israel, citizens of all races, religions and creeds are treated exactly the same. And this CANNOT be said for the many Muslim countries who would like to evict all non-Muslims [or just evict jews, I'm not quite sure].

Hell, there are Muslim members of the Israeli Knesset [Parliament]. They're not going to evict anyone based on race. If someone from, say, Egypt, wants to become an Israeli citizen, and is a Muslim, he will not be persecuted. And he'll be treated with the same rights as any Jew.