Zionist piracy

[nirakar]

I would agree with the analogy if the vessels were a cruise ship on their way to Barbados. As it stands the vessels were heading into what they KNEW would be a situation whereby the Israeli's would stop the vessels. Why wouldn't the Israeli's attempt to stop them and seize their cargo? Would you have been satisfied if the Israeli's had waited until they entered their waters and then board the ship and seize the cargo? Are soldiers, ANY SOLDIER , supposed to allow themselves to be attacked? What would you do if you were a soldier and someone came at you with a crow bar?

They didn't just spit at these soldiers they attacked them.

If you fuck around with armed men you should be prepared to get shot.

I assume they were prepared to be shot and they were shot. They probably advanced their cause by hitting the Israeli's and getting shot. If nobody died the flotilla would not get much coverage.

If they were not willing to die they should not have been on boats that were going to defy Israel.

 

[pjdude1219]

No, it's called changing your story when it's convenient for you, and it's often done by people who are full of crap.

?? so your saying you don't adapt to convinve?

Which truth then, exactly are you sticking to?

the same one I always have.

They defended themselves preemptively? Or they defended themselves after they were attacked?

the first is a counter argument that involves even if what your saying is true they attacked first it could still be justified as self defense. self defense law has acknowledged immienent danger. the second is my argument and what I believe happened.

 

[Mr.Spock]

the first is a counter argument that involves even if what your saying is true they attacked first it could still be justified as self defense. self defense law has acknowledged immienent danger. the second is my argument and what I believe happened.

But they said they spontaneously defended themselves. Why would they say that?

 

[pjdude1219]

But they said they spontaneously defended themselves. Why would they say that?

because its the truth?

 

[Black Jack]

?? so your saying you don't adapt to convinve?

What do you mean? Do I change my story to better suit my purposes whenever it's convenient for me? No, I don't. That's something only a child (or a politician) would do.

the same one I always have.

the first is a counter argument that involves even if what your saying is true they attacked first it could still be justified as self defense. self defense law has acknowledged immienent danger. the second is my argument and what I believe happened.

I see something odd here... you claim that you've been sticking to the same ONE you always have.... but then I read your explanation, and I see TWO... I sincerely hope that I'm not seeing doubles, because that would be bad. Not only that, but the explanation of your reasoning is so ridiculous that it actually made me cock my head to the side involuntarily. Do you know what that means? That means you just broke my brain with what I can't even describe without verbally assaulting you. Congratulations, I hope you're happy.

 

[pjdude1219]

What do you mean? Do I change my story to better suit my purposes whenever it's convenient for me? No, I don't. That's something only a child (or a politician) would do.

So if something clearly isn't working to convinve someone you keep at it? why?

I see something odd here... you claim that you've been sticking to the same ONE you always have.... but then I read your explanation, and I see TWO... I sincerely hope that I'm not seeing doubles, because that would be bad. Not only that, but the explanation of your reasoning is so ridiculous that it actually made me cock my head to the side involuntarily. Do you know what that means? That means you just broke my brain with what I can't even describe without verbally assaulting you. Congratulations, I hope you're happy.

there are 2 arguments but only one of which I am using. The argument I am using is that the protesters were attacked first and defended them selves. the second one is a so what counter arguemnt as a refutation being that since Israel has a known history of violently attacking peaceful protesters they were justified in attacking premptively. they could defend themselves if the commandoes got established.

 

[Black Jack]

So if something clearly isn't working to convinve someone you keep at it? why?

Because changing my story won't convince them, especially when they can see that's exactly what I'm trying to do. People can see through that sort of cheap tactic. The best policy, if you believe in what you're defending, is to simply stick to your guns unwaveringly. If it doesn't convince anybody then so be it, at least I know I didn't betray my convictions by stooping to some childish tactic.

there are 2 arguments but only one of which I am using. The argument I am using is that the protesters were attacked first and defended them selves. the second one is a so what counter arguemnt as a refutation being that since Israel has a known history of violently attacking peaceful protesters they were justified in attacking premptively. they could defend themselves if the commandoes got established.

If it truly were the case that you were only using one argument, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, now would we? I can't speak for what you'll do moving forward now that you've been discovered, but you were using both arguments interchangeably whenever it suited your interests to do so.

 

[pjdude1219]

Because changing my story won't convince them, especially when they can see that's exactly what I'm trying to do. People can see through that sort of cheap tactic. The best policy, if you believe in what you're defending, is to simply stick to your guns unwaveringly. If it doesn't convince anybody then so be it, at least I know I didn't betray my convictions by stooping to some childish tactic.

not changing the story changing the focus and the way its presented. as one learns what a person accepts and thinks ones argument should adapt to that info. in other words what you call a cheap childish tactic is common sense

deleted because obvious poster doesn't understand what being done

 

[ElectricFetus]

So how can you claim with certainty that the blockade is legal?

Aside for the fact the UN has let Israel and Egypt do this for the last 3 years?

 

[mordea]

Aside for the fact the UN has let Israel and Egypt do this for the last 3 years?

That in no way suggests that the blockade is legal.

 

[mordea]

What do you mean? Do I change my story to better suit my purposes whenever it's convenient for me? No, I don't. That's something only a child (or a politician) would do.

And something the Israeli administration does.

 

[ElectricFetus]

That in no way suggests that the blockade is legal.

I don't actually believe it is legal, but there is clearly a debate in the inter-nation community about it legality, from a pragmatic stand-point if it has been allow it was legal, this does not forgo it being morally wrong or able to condemned later.

 

[mordea]

I don't actually believe it is legal, but there is clearly a debate in the inter-nation community about it legality,

Correct. I also suspect that the UN lacks the balls to enforce the law against an ally of the United States.

from a pragmatic stand-point if it has been allow it was legal,

I disagree. Simply because a law has not been enforced, does not mean it does not exist.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

That in no way suggests that the blockade is legal.

Mordea dear heart I thought this would help you out a little:


LONDON, June 2 (Reuters) - Israel has said it will continue a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip despite growing global pressure to lift the siege after a navy raid on a Turkish ferry carrying aid killed nine activists this week.
What is the legality of the blockade and did Israel's intervention breach international law? Below are some questions and answers on the issue:


CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?

Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognised document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea". Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.

"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.

WHAT ARE INTERNATIONAL WATERS?

Under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea a coastal state has a "territorial sea" of 12 nautical miles from the coast over which it is sovereign. Ships of other states are allowed "innocent passage" through such waters.
There is a further 12 nautical mile zone called the "contiguous zone" over which a state may take action to protect itself or its laws.
"However, strictly beyond the 12 nautical miles limit the seas are the "high seas" or international waters," Roche said.
The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters.
Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.


CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS?

Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship.
"If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.

Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defence after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons.
Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives.
"But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said. The use of force may also have other repercussions.

"While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments.

"However, not every operation that the law permits is necessarily prudent from the strategic point of view."

OPPONENTS HAVE CALLED ISRAEL'S RAID "PIRACY". WAS IT?

No, as under international law it was considered a state action.
"Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest," Kraska said.

HAVE THERE BEEN ANY SHIPPING DISRUPTIONS AFTER THE RAID?

None so far but the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), an association which represents 75 percent of the world's merchant fleet, has expressed "deep concern" over the boarding by Israeli forces, arguing that merchant ships have a right to safe passage and freedom of navigation in international waters.
"These fundamental principles of international law must always be upheld by all of the world's nations," the ICS said.

For links to the maritime declarations click on: http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d1.../7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce!OpenDocumen

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6511I7.htm

Okey-dokey?:shrug:

 

[ElectricFetus]

I disagree. Simply because a law has not been enforced, does not mean it does not exist.

No, but its physically legal if it allow but unpunished, for example it may still be illegal in some towns in the USA to drink alcohol still, as the record books were never changed since prohibition, but if it has been ignored all this time it technically legal.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

People under international law the blockade IS legal!!!!

 

[GeoffP]

another thing that needs to be mentioned that eletric, geoff, and the other Israel apoligists need to remember( not counting the jewish supporters of Israel because quite frankly their a lost cause and can't emotionally seperate what they want Israel to be and wish the fact we to what Israel actually is and what the facts actually are)

OT, but: Well, that wasn't biased at all.

is that ISrael has a proven track record of violently attacking peaceful protest.

There is a record of violence on both sides. Perhaps the Israelis should have shot first for the same reason? You wish to speak to some kind of motivation on the Israeli side, as though all Israelis were violent. I know Sam believes this (she usually makes no such distinction; in fact, to put a personal point on this if I may, she's usually happy to make no such distinction) but I hope you do not also fall into this category.

saw that video before multiple times before.

Then why don't you address it instead of ignoring it?

There is a not-too-subtle difference here: the proponents of the protestors have, collectively, turned a blind eye to the videos or to their meaning; the hate rally is a "song and marshmallow club", the flashes "must have been edited out" (on the B&W and colour vids, the latter being taken by al Jazeera I think, or by one of the passengers), the iron bars were (incredibly, incredibly spoken) "iron sticks". (And precisely what is an "iron stick"?) It reeks of sheer politicism. Now, it's possible that all these things occurred - maybe the Israel censors really did edit the rappel videos (although that isn't at all what it looks like prima facie), and maybe al Jazeera was wrong about the hate rally (and we just can't see the marshmallows) and maybe the iron bars really were "sticks". But that isn't what we're seeing so far. Maybe the Israelis shot from the helicopters (I haven't seen any such news) but the angle of impact might have come from a higher deck to a lower: where was the man shot? is the question. (I'm certain I'll be roundly damned or huffily ignored for even daring to ask the question, but it is an important one.)

and if its a paint ball gun why is their a clip on the bottom and not a hopper on top?

This is a valid point. I haven't gone looking for paintball guns in the vids; there are side-loaded version as well, however. I used to own one. I don't know what models are now available.

According to the news, the head injuries on one journalist show that he was shot from the top of the ship ie from helicopters. I think under such circumstances, its not proactive to defend themselves when the commandos rappel down.

Why were they shooting at journalists from the helicopters?

See above. The second point is sort of scurrilous: how did they know they were journalists? Did they spot the ticket sticking out of their fedoras?

19 year old Turkish American Furkan Dogan. Shot four times in the head and one time in the chest. Do Israelis always shoot in the head and chest? Even one year olds in Gaza were shot in the chest

That is very tragic. I hope he was not attacking the soldiers and attempting to martyr himself? (And yes, I'll be damned for that comment too.)

The last point is propagandish, and smacks of the same thing I hope pj was not alluding to above: the general demonization of Israelis.

This is a not uncommon sentiment on here: generalization about Israelis or even about Jews (particularly in Sam's case). It's ironic (assuming we don't use the picky definition, I guess), because this is precisely the charge leveled by the "other side": that those backing Israel to one extent or another, or those with any beef with theology or politics vis-a-vis Palestine must be "generalizing". I have to admit that I don't pay much attention to the arguments of the latter, since it's less likely that they're speaking directly to me, but it's certainly present in the arguments of the people I've argued with: gross demonization and generalization. It's possible that it's a slip of the mind, although I'd be stunned if I was ever extended such courtesy, and perhaps it's right that I'd be attacked if I'd made such an argument, accidentally or no. But then the same must work the other way, no?

No?

 

[GeoffP]

People under international law the blockade IS legal!!!!

Possibly so. I earlier stipulated to one of James' remarks on this issue but seemingly the water is muddier than I thought. Are UN members who have not signed the Law of the Sea bound to its principles? I'd wager that Iran would stand on a hobby horse about withdrawing from the NPT if it came to that, and innumerable people would just throw up their hands and say "got us there, I guess". Is there a general convention by which non-signing members of a treaty can be held to it? James argued on general usage, I think, but is that true?

The larger question, as a member of humanity, is whether the blockade is moral (although I know that wasn't the specific question you were asking; not trying to call you out here). I think we can all agree here that it isn't. Personally I would be willing to see a cessation of support for Israel until the West Bank and Gaza issues are resolved.

Not that that would ultimately mean anything to Hamas, of course.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Whether the law is moral or not is another issue. As it stands the surrounding nations of Gaza are exercising their legal rights. Turkey being the nation that participated in the flotilla is a signatory so they are not arguing legality they are arguing morality. There are nations that flout international law all the time but its up to the rest of the international community to decide whether they will enforce the law. We have seen a shying away from military confrontation on that account but just take a look at sanctions, what was the international community handling of Iraq if not one long blockade before the US finally went in and finished off the regime? Burma doesn't have to sign up to anything and UN charters be damned but they still will suffer the consequences of having other nations isolation. So is the blockade legal? Yes. Have the Israeli's taken it too far? Maybe. But here's the rub. These stunts have created a situation where Israel may not be able to stop the blockade or be seen as cowering to global public opinion. They will stand back and rest on the legality. I mean the activists could have hardened them in their position but who knows, time will tell how they further direct themselves

Where is Modea now.

Come on ya wus! Don't punk out now! Come and face the legalities

 

[GeoffP]

Maybe so, and duly noted: but, come on - it just isn't right.

Perhaps I'm being foolish, pushing for morality on an issue in which both players are hiding their faces.