Question State Terrorism?

[Scouse]

That entirely depends what question you are attempting to address. If its "was Isreal within its rights to board the ship with its military" then the wider context is irrelevant.

I think that the broader context is rarely irrelevant - and the thread itself is entitled "[Question] State Terrorism?"


Yes, within the context of a blockade itself then Israel is broadly within its rights to board the ships. There's a question of the legality, especially where the ships were boarded - if it's not within the legal blockade then I'd question that "right".

Just because they were destined for Gaza doesn't give Israel the right to leave the blockade's boundary and take ships in international waters. If we follow that logic, if a ship sets off from Southampton with the stated intent of docking at the Gaza Strip is it OK if Israel boards it off the coast of France?


Either way - the "kooky demonstrators" are right to attempt to run the blockade. Just because something is "legal" doesn't automatically make it legitimate.

 

[Wij]

I think that the broader context is rarely irrelevant - and the thread itself is entitled "[Question] State Terrorism?"

Given what had just happened I assumed the thread title "State Terrorism" referred to the boarding of the ship and subsequent deaths rather than the blockade itself.

Yes, within the context of a blockade itself then Israel is broadly within its rights to board the ships. There's a question of the legality, especially where the ships were boarded - if it's not within the legal blockade then I'd question that "right".

Just because they were destined for Gaza doesn't give Israel the right to leave the blockade's boundary and take ships in international waters. If we follow that logic, if a ship sets off from Southampton with the stated intent of docking at the Gaza Strip is it OK if Israel boards it off the coast of France?


Either way - the "kooky demonstrators" are right to attempt to run the blockade. Just because something is "legal" doesn't automatically make it legitimate.

According to a maritime law expert I heard on Radio 4 then *if* the blockade is legal then Isreal was within its rights to board the ship even where it was. There's a degree of interpretation allowed about where that can take place. Obviously just outside Southampton would not be reasonable but it's a fairly safe bet that it could be seen as reasonable where it actually did happen, given that the ship stated its destination WAS the blockaded port and it had ignored requests to stop. Blockades are a valid legal instrument. I don't pretend to understand them but a bloke who plainly does understand them backed this view.

From this it follows that the act of attempting to seize the ship by force was not state terrorism or a violation of international law. I'll freely admit though that that doesn't necessarily make it right.

 

[throdgrain]

What a load of bollocks. The thread is clearly and definately about the Israelis boarding that ship, which has now been proven to be legal, so now you've just changed the context so that it's about "is it alright to keep a load of terrorists locked up in a desert state" instead. Completely different question.

The answer to that question by the way is yes if you ask me. Oh god yeah it's a terrible thing, but if you removed all restrictions they would immediately start atacking Israel again.

Ask the wailing woman crying for peace "what do you want?"

The woman replies "we just want peace!"

"And how can we achieve that peace"

"We just have to kill all the Israelis...."

 

[Scouse]

From this it follows that the act of attempting to seize the ship by force was not state terrorism or a violation of international law. I'll freely admit though that that doesn't necessarily make it right.

I'd say that, in the context of enforcing a legal blockade it's not state terrorism, but in the wider context (which, IMHO, has to be taken into account) it most certainly is.


And Throddy, I "pinned my colours to the mast" in the first post and opened up the context so this individual action of boarding a ship and killing civilians was seen in the context I think it has to be seen in. I'm not going to quote myself again but I had brought up the issue of the reams of ignored UN resolutions, so, intellectually, nyah-nyah





Edit:

if you removed all restrictions they would immediately start atacking Israel again

The blockade isn't working. Everyone knows this (well, obviously not everyone). It's simply and quite obviously collective punishment.

 

[Ctuchik]

What a load of bollocks. The thread is clearly and definately about the Israelis boarding that ship, which has now been proven to be legal,

how was that proven legal?

even the UN security council (which USA is a part of*) has now made a statement against that boarding.

*yes, even Israel's "best friend" is protesting....

they can only board ships on international water IF they have reasonable grounds to believe there's weapons onboard that are meant to be used against them in a war, and that has yet to be proven by anyone other then Israel.

if they don't they actually have to ask for permission from the country the boat(s) are registered in.

but they can NOT take control of a neutrally flagged merchant ship on international waters no matter what.

 

[Raven]

Turn the whole region to into glass. Problem solved. Bored of hearing about the whole area and their petty squabbles.

 

[Wij]

how was that proven legal?

even the UN security council (which USA is a part of*) has now made a statement against that boarding.

*yes, even Israel's "best friend" is protesting....

they can only board ships on international water IF they have reasonable grounds to believe there's weapons onboard that are meant to be used against them in a war, and that has yet to be proven by anyone other then Israel.

if they don't they actually have to ask for permission from the country the boat(s) are registered in.

but they can NOT take control of a neutrally flagged merchant ship on international waters no matter what.

Source ?

 

[Raven]

how was that proven legal?

even the UN security council (which USA is a part of*) has now made a statement against that boarding.

*yes, even Israel's "best friend" is protesting....

they can only board ships on international water IF they have reasonable grounds to believe there's weapons onboard that are meant to be used against them in a war, and that has yet to be proven by anyone other then Israel.

if they don't they actually have to ask for permission from the country the boat(s) are registered in.

but they can NOT take control of a neutrally flagged merchant ship on international waters no matter what.

America can't really complain about them not having a real suspicion of them carrying weapons, they invaded a county and toppled a government over phantom weapons.

 

[Scouse]

America can't really complain about them not having a real suspicion of them carrying weapons, they invaded a county and toppled a government over phantom weapons.

Not bored enough to not post tho eh?


There's another ship on the way. Irish. Expected in two days.


As for the "international waters" thang - the plan (apparently) was (from reuters):

"Our original plan was to stop there and ask for Israeli permission before we entered and, if they refused, to stay at sea in protest ... but they attacked us before we had a chance to do that"

And, even though it's reported on the beeb, the activists have said:

Israeli forces began firing while still in the helicopters hovering over the ships

But good old Israel eh? Bless...

 

[Lamp]

If the people on the boat so peaceful why did they proceed to beat the Israeli soldiers with iron bars & attack them with knives?

State Terrorism? No. Thats the usual bullshit spouted out by the Arabs & Palestinians

 

[rynnor]

If the people on the boat so peaceful why did they proceed to beat the Israeli soldiers with iron bars & attack them with knives?

We have very little proof of that - all we have are edited videos taken using image intensification since it was 4am and dark presented by the israelis.

Israeli spokesman almost habitually lie so I wouldnt take too much notice of them.

For all we know the Israelis may have been shooting them from the helicopter and its also impossible to tell a stick from an iron bar on a distant video.

At the moment we only have the Israeli cover story - the truth will come out over the next few days.

 

[Lamp]

There's no proof that what you're saying is correct, either Rynnor

I guess each of us chooses which account to believe

The people on the boat can lie. Eye witnesses can put any political / religious slant on it they like. You're not going to get many palestinians or their sympathising friends siding with Israel are you under any circumstances

We don't know anything about the video shot lets be honest

 

[Raven]

What kind of sane person would attack gun totting special forces with a plastic lawn chair ffs.

Clearly Israel are talking bollocks again.

 

[rynnor]

There's no proof that what you're saying is correct, either Rynnor

I guess each of us chooses which account to believe

The people on the boat can lie. Eye witnesses can put any political / religious slant on it they like. You're not going to get many palestinians or their sympathising friends siding with Israel are you under any circumstances

We don't know anything about the video shot lets be honest

Its going to be difficult because the Israelis seized all of their cameras/mobiles etc. etc. - that in itself raises suspicions though.

We need both sides of the story out there - the truth will be somewhere in the middle as usual.

 

[Lamp]

like I said, each of us chooses to believe what they want

 

[rynnor]

like I said, each of us chooses to believe what they want

Not neccesarily - theres still the hope that some proof turns up - a smuggled video etc.

There will also be an investigation - that might shed some light but is at least months away - I dont think it matters though - clearly the Israelis have lost in the court of International public opinion.

 

[Helme]

Could you let me know about the prior warning they got before being commando dropped upon?


It falls under that law/treaty because it happened in international waters.

67a doesn't apply if the blockade itself is illegal, which according to the UN, the EU and various other independant sources it is.

Under article 3 of the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 1988, it is an international crime for any person to seize or exercise control over a ship by force, and also a crime to injure or kill any person in the process.

If you unlawfully board a ship(which Israel did) you cannot claim self-defense if something bad happens.

The major issue here though is that everyone has forgotten the illegal siege of Gaza, which is the important part in my opinion. There will probably never be peace in the area, but preventing 1.5 million people from basic supplies like paper and pens, irrigation pipes and so on clearly isn't an option.

 

[Wij]

67a doesn't apply if the blockade itself is illegal, which according to the UN, the EU and various other independant sources it is.

Can you source this ?

 

[Helme]

Can you source this ?

The blockade is considered collective punishment which is illegal by the Geneve Convention, and by extension customary international law.

Granted, Israel hasn't signed the fourth article of the convention which includes all this but that's hardly an excuse.

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Granted I'm by no means an expert, just offering another viewpoint from what I've collected from various sources. Israel are way over their head on this but it doesn't seem to matter. Western media seem to be doing everything to sweep it under the rug, even the Swedish media who I thought was actually sort of unbiased on international news(because we're not important enough to matter anyways) does it.

 

[Chilly]

why should a country be subject to laws they are not signed up to via treaty?

 

[Helme]

In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted a report from the Secretary-General and a Commission of Experts which concluded that the Geneva Conventions had passed into the body of customary international law, thus making them binding on non-signatories to the Conventions whenever they engage in armed conflicts.

From previous wikipage.

 

[Scouse]

why should a country be subject to laws they are not signed up to via treaty?

And why should we intellectually defend countries that won't sign up to a charter which is solely about defence off innocent people? (And drawn up mainly because of the shit that Hitler pulled - quite a lot of it on the Jews no less)

Israel doesn't need to sign up to the 4th amendment rules. Collective punishment is already covered in earlier treaties.


Terrorist state.

 

[Helme]

Seems like this will all be for nothing anyways, the US are blocking an international inquiry into the boarding of the ship - and says that Israel should do the investigation themself instead.

Why don't we just let murderers handle their own investigations in the future, seems like a smart way to save resources.

 

[Scouse]

US are blocking an international inquiry into the boarding of the ship

In the same way they veto all the UN resolutions against Israel and in the same way that they stop the embargo being lifted against Cuba, despite votes of 180-4 (ish) against them.


Yet another reason to hate the yanks IMHO

 

[Helme]

Hopefully Turkey will demand an independant investigation, given the choice between the two I'm fairly certain they would eventually side with Turkey on this due to how their entire Iraq campaign relies on using Turkish airspace and bases.

 

[Chilly]

everyone loves a good veto

 

[Scouse]

everyone loves a good veto

What are you trying to say here, other than "I can't be arsed contributing anything intelligent"?

 

[Chilly]

What are you trying to say here, other than "I can't be arsed contributing anything intelligent"?

precisely that.

we all know israel are taking the piss. we all know these turks were trying to provoke a situation. we all know that israel overreacted slightly, and are going to feed the media a stinking heap of shit.

what is left to debate?

 

[Wij]

The blockade is considered collective punishment which is illegal by the Geneve Convention, and by extension customary international law.

Considered by whom ? It may well be but I'm sure Isreal sees it differently. I'm not aware of any ruling on it one way or the other.

 

[Helme]

They are denying basic supplies and the ability to leave at will for the entire population of Gaza because Hamas won an election. This includes half a million children who were too young to vote, people who voted for the other options or abstained.

That is pretty much the definition of collective punishment, which according to the Geneve convention is illegal - and since 93 the Geneve convention has passed into customary international law which makes it binding even to non-signatories like Israel.

edit: Amnesty and the UN are the biggest sources of this - and both have urged Israel several times to lift the siege, the problem is that the US works against them at every turn. Veto'ing any kinds of sanctions.