Unbelievable: US calls Israel to investigate into its own crime (Flotilla) - Polidicks

Some posts by an Israeli guy on another board, some of you might find interesting: [QUOTE=Fardreamer;1084144]Israelis have almost entirely lost the capacity to accept criticism of anything "security" related. It doesn't matter how corrupt politicians are (practically every minister is currently under police investigation) - any government decision labeled "security" automatically achieves universal acceptance by the public. And the politicians know that and use that. The fact that our government is racist and suicidal doesn't worry me as much as the fact that they have such wide support by the public. There's no political alternative. Just so you know, most of the Israeli public deems the world's reaction as an antisemitic diplomatic lynch orchestrated by Muslim Terrorists(TM) and their liberal anti-Zionist backstabbing commie Jew friends around the world. Even in Tel Aviv, the last haven of political sanity, you have to watch your words or get called an "Arab lover" or "Israel hater".[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Fardreamer;1084148]A co-worker just came up to me and went on and on about how Arab MKs should respect "our" laws and defend the state or be thrown in jail. But he doesn't think it will happen because "we're a state of pussies", unable to do what's right. He also mentioned his aspirations of smashing certain glass objects in their faces, should he be in their vicinity.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=CriticalThought;22326583]Claim 1: The raid was illegal The flotilla openly stated that it was going to break the military blockade Israel has on Gaza. According to the San Remo memorandum: [I]67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they: (a) are [B]believed on reasonable grounds[/B] to be carrying contraband or [B]breaching a blockade[/B], and [B]after prior warning[/B] they intentionally and [B]clearly refuse to stop[/B], or [B]intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture[/B];[/I] As you can note, they were openly intending to breach a blockade, and they clearly refused to stop. Therefore the raid on the flotilla was completely legal. Claim 1: [B]FALSE[/B] Claim 2: The Gaza blockade is illegal, therefore this raid is illegal Israel is currently at war with Hamas, a recognized terrorist group who was elected by the residents of Gaza as the government, and is therefore legally allowed to blockade it under international law. While certain events and acts that take place during the blockade can be argued legal or illegal on an individual basis, the blockade itself is in fact legal. Claim 2: [B]FALSE[/B] Claim 3: Israel fired on the activists before boarding These are the claims supporting this: "All I witnessed first hand was the shooting. They came on board and started shooting at people." "Moments later, we heard detonations and then soldiers from helicopters above us dropped down on board," he said. "The soldiers were all masked, carrying big guns and were extremely brutal." "They were shooting without warning," said Groth. "It was like war. ... They had guns, Taser weapons, some type of teargas and other weaponry, compared to two-and-a-half wooden sticks we had between us. To talk of self-defense is ridiculous." As can be seen by video evidence, the soldiers did not come on board and immediately start shooting people, they did not come on board with big guns, and the activists did not just have a few "two-and-a-half wooden sticks" between them. The fact that the IDF fired weapons first before boarding, as taken from this quote: "The operation started immediately with firing. First it was warning shots, but when the Mavi Marmara wouldn't stop these warnings turned into an attack," she said. Does not mean that they fired [B]on[/B] the activists first, they fired warning shots, and the "attack" was the boarding. Claim 3: [B]FALSE[/B] Claim 4: The lethal force used by the IDF was unnecessary As you can see by the quotes above, the activists tell a story of the IDF roping in and indiscriminately shooting people. Based on the video evidence, the IDF roped in using non-lethal weaponry such as pepperball guns, and were attempting to gain control of the bridge. As you can also see by the video, as soon as the first IDF operator hits the ground he is immediately mobbed and thrown over the side of the deck. Throughout the video, this can be observed: -Being mobbed and beaten by blunt instruments, which does not take long to inflict lethal damage -Being thrown over the side of the deck, where one IDF member sustained serious neck injuries -Being stabbed by makeshift implements, as one IDF member was seriously wounded -IDF members being restrained and having their firearms taken, which now puts the belligerent group as having the ability to inflict immediate casualties at range As you can see by the above, before the IDF resorted to lethal measures, their lives were seriously in danger. You may say that the activists had the right to defend themselves, except that they were doing so in a legal raid against a non-lethal policing force in an aggressive and malicious fashion. The other five non-Turkish ships were boarded peacefully, with no violence from either side, if these activists were truly defending themselves, what was it against? Being legally boarded? Claim 4: [B]FALSE[/B] As you can see by the above, these issues are now [B]NON-ARGUABLE[/B].[/QUOTE] Damn it, I'm supposed to be writing an essay. But anyways take a gander at article 33. (don't bitch about the wiki you'll find more credible sources at the bottom of course) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention[/url] Read over collective punishment, both the UN and the International Court of Justice have called the blockade Illegal. It absolutely irks me that a country that owes its existence to the UN disregards their laws and what they have to say.

[QUOTE=CriticalThought;22326583]Claim 1: The raid was illegal The flotilla openly stated that it was going to break the military blockade Israel has on Gaza. According to the San Remo memorandum: [I]67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they: (a) are [B]believed on reasonable grounds[/B] to be carrying contraband or [B]breaching a blockade[/B], and [B]after prior warning[/B] they intentionally and [B]clearly refuse to stop[/B], or [B]intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture[/B];[/I] As you can note, they were openly intending to breach a blockade, and they clearly refused to stop. Therefore the raid on the flotilla was completely legal.[/QUOTE] [B]FALSE[/B] The event took place in International waters, also the Gaza blockade is illegal meaning the San Remo memorandum does not not apply to it. If I created a random sea blockade in the middle of the Atlantic, would it be protected by the San Remo memorandum? No. [quote] Claim 1: [B]FALSE[/B] Claim 2: The Gaza blockade is illegal, therefore this raid is illegal Israel is currently at war with Hamas, a recognized terrorist group who was elected by the residents of Gaza as the government, and is therefore legally allowed to blockade it under international law. While certain events and acts that take place during the blockade can be argued legal or illegal on an individual basis, the blockade itself is in fact legal.[/quote] [B]FALSE[/B] Israel is not at war, and the blockade is not allowed under international law, as [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539363,00.html"]stated by the lawmakers them self[/URL], the United Nations. You cannot dispute this fact. [quote] Claim 2: [B]FALSE[/B] Claim 3: Israel fired on the activists before boarding These are the claims supporting this: "All I witnessed first hand was the shooting. They came on board and started shooting at people." "Moments later, we heard detonations and then soldiers from helicopters above us dropped down on board," he said. "The soldiers were all masked, carrying big guns and were extremely brutal." "They were shooting without warning," said Groth. "It was like war. ... They had guns, Taser weapons, some type of teargas and other weaponry, compared to two-and-a-half wooden sticks we had between us. To talk of self-defense is ridiculous." As can be seen by video evidence, the soldiers did not come on board and immediately start shooting people, they did not come on board with big guns, and the activists did not just have a few "two-and-a-half wooden sticks" between them. The fact that the IDF fired weapons first before boarding, as taken from this quote: "The operation started immediately with firing. First it was warning shots, but when the Mavi Marmara wouldn't stop these warnings turned into an attack," she said. Does not mean that they fired [B]on[/B] the activists first, they fired warning shots, and the "attack" was the boarding.[/quote][B]FALSE[/B] This is currently being investigated, however a small part of it was shown before Israel signal jammed the ships broadcast ([B]I WONDER WHY)[/B], and Israel's seizure of all recording equipment to make sure it doesn't contradict with their story. All members of that ship including an Israeli PM said they fired first. I am anticipating a UN investigation since a Israeli investigation means the defendant will be the one to judge his case. [quote] Claim 3: [B]FALSE[/B] Claim 4: The lethal force used by the IDF was unnecessary As you can see by the quotes above, the activists tell a story of the IDF roping in and indiscriminately shooting people. Based on the video evidence, the IDF roped in using non-lethal weaponry such as pepperball guns, and were attempting to gain control of the bridge. As you can also see by the video, as soon as the first IDF operator hits the ground he is immediately mobbed and thrown over the side of the deck. Throughout the video, this can be observed: -Being mobbed and beaten by blunt instruments, which does not take long to inflict lethal damage -Being thrown over the side of the deck, where one IDF member sustained serious neck injuries -Being stabbed by makeshift implements, as one IDF member was seriously wounded -IDF members being restrained and having their firearms taken, which now puts the belligerent group as having the ability to inflict immediate casualties at range As you can see by the above, before the IDF resorted to lethal measures, their lives were seriously in danger. You may say that the activists had the right to defend themselves, except that they were doing so in a legal raid against a non-lethal policing force in an aggressive and malicious fashion. The other five non-Turkish ships were boarded peacefully, with no violence from either side, if these activists were truly defending themselves, what was it against? Being legally boarded?[/quote][B]FALSE[/B] [release]"The Israeli assault took those of us on the ship by complete surprise," Vall said. "We saw about 30 war vessels surrounding this ship, and helicopters attacking with very luminous bombs. "More troops came and immediately opened fire, and killed people on the ship without any distinction."[/release] The increasing IDF presence and intimidation caused the activists to panic. Furthermore, when pirates attempt to seize your ship in [B]INTERNATIONAL WATERS[/B], you have every right to defend yourself. The activists took every measure possible to protect themselves. [quote] Claim 4: [B]FALSE[/B] As you can see by the above, these issues are now [B]NON-ARGUABLE[/B].[/quote][B]DEBUNKED[/B] As you can see by the above, these issues have been [HIGHLIGHT]DEBUNKED[/HIGHLIGHT]

Starpluck wins. International waters > blockade

[QUOTE=TH89;22326975]Some posts by an Israeli guy on another board, some of you might find interesting:[/QUOTE]Those [i]were[/i] interesting. Out of curiosity, what's your personal take on the whole situation?

[QUOTE=rosthouse;22322572]Sorry, but what the hell has this whole thing to do with the holocaust?[/QUOTE] Somehow everything relates back to the holocaust. :downs: Serious story, whenever i make fun of my jewish friend or ask for my money, he's all like "6 million jews died in holocaust" regardless of context and sad part is that he is totally serious. He believes that because of the holocaust he can do whatever he wants...

[QUOTE=TH89;22326975]Some posts by an Israeli guy on another board, some of you might find interesting:[/QUOTE] The guy is right in his rage, but he is over exaggerating. All over Facebook there are groups like "we love the IDF" and some stuff like that, relating to the latest events, this really pisses me off as they publish videos and news who only praise the IDF without showing anything bad about it. Nevertheless, I am sure just as many groups exist who do the same but against Israel and the IDF, not showing their good side at all. Edit: I know many of you don't know Hebrew, but let me tell you about this video: [url]http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//1682064[/url] (it's in the middle, just scroll down a bit). Basically, the guys at the Knesset are pissed at the woman because she was on the flotilla, however you can see the guy in the highest chair, he is the Knesset speaker, and he is defending her right to speak at the Knesset and sends all those who oppose her right out. It's barbaric the way they behave though.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22326966]As far as I know nobody is trying to move aid through Egypt, only through Israel, and this is why it's Israel's responsibility to make sure all the aid gets through.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/7793599/Egypt-opens-border-with-Gaza-for-humanitarian-aid.html[/url] That's because Egypt didn't previously allow it, but no one harps on them for "strangling" Gaza.

[QUOTE=CriticalThought;22327104][URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/7793599/Egypt-opens-border-with-Gaza-for-humanitarian-aid.html[/URL] That's because Egypt didn't previously allow it, but no one harps on them for "strangling" Gaza.[/QUOTE] I do. In fact, most of the world does, including Egyptians. The Egyptian government is an Israeli puppet. Fun fact, he's been president since 1981. No one cares (US, Israel e.g) since like I said, he's an Israeli puppet.

[QUOTE=aydin690;22327048]Somehow everything relates back to the holocaust. :downs: Serious story, whenever i make fun of my jewish friend or ask for my money, he's all like "6 million jews died in holocaust" regardless of context and sad part is that he is totally serious. He believes that because of the holocaust he can do whatever he wants...[/QUOTE] "Im sorry, Mr. Zbrokinskizowitzinheiminzieff, but your oral presentation is not quite what I expected, I think you should put more effort in--" "Six million jews died in the holocaust you bitch." [IMG]http://www.familyhealthnetwork.com/portal/images/stories/articleimages/aplus.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=DogGunn;22322883]Yes I know, but until Israel starts the systematic mass-murder of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip (which by the way, will not happen), then a comparison between Hitler and Israel is unjustified.[/QUOTE] Um, so what you're saying is that walling in all the palestinians and cutting supplies to them whenever they feel like it or bombarding their schools with white phosphorus isn't what hitler did to jews in polish ghettos?

[QUOTE=aydin690;22327165]Um, so what you're saying is that walling in all the palestinians and cutting supplies to them whenever they feel like it or bombarding their schools with white phosphorus isn't what hitler did to jews in polish ghettos?[/QUOTE] Well the jews didn't fire rockets at germans neither did they bomb german restaurants.

[QUOTE=Glorbo;22327203]Well the jews didn't fire rockets at germans neither did they bomb german restaurants.[/QUOTE] The Jews didn't have the means to, but when they did there were Jewish revolts. Also cmon lol only 2 superpowers had rockets by that time and only during the end of the war. Don't even try bring that up as comparison. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising[/url]

I have seen a speech by Netanyahu about the flotilla. Nothing interesting, except he said that Egypt has also offered the flotilla to check its cargo and then let it on through the blockade if no weapons were found out. I tried to search for it on Google but couldn't find anything about it, can anyone here see if they can find anything?

Sorry CT, the gaza blockade is not recognized by the world and israel is not at war with hamas (is this a new trend of islamophobe belief?). The raid was not legal, which is why the UN is hearing this. This blockade is a method employed to further exert oppressive israeli control over the palestinians. Even if this raid was legal, I could care less. Their defiance against israel is something to be inspired by.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;22326391]Oh, go away. Read up on the history of the land - and I'm talking biblical history. Actually, past biblical history.[/QUOTE] And iran was 2/3 of the known world in 500BC. So, with that logic, iran has the right to go back and reclaim all of those regions now?

[QUOTE=aydin690;22327472]And iran was 2/3 of the known world in 500BC. So, with that logic, iran has the right to go back and reclaim all of those regions now?[/QUOTE] Yes but they've lost it all in later wars.

[QUOTE=Askaris;22322751]Well, there goes my respect for Obama.[/QUOTE] I had no respect for him in the first place.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22327537]Yes but they've lost it all in later wars.[/QUOTE] So did Israel.

[QUOTE=starpluck;22327642]So did Israel.[/QUOTE] Maybe, but now they've got it back.

[QUOTE=starpluck;22326993][B]FALSE[/B] The event took place in International waters, also the Gaza blockade is illegal meaning the San Remo memorandum does not not apply to it. If I created a random sea blockade in the middle of the Atlantic, would it be protected by the San Remo memorandum? No.[/QUOTE] You are basing this solely on your next point, which I will get to. [QUOTE=starpluck;22326993] [B]FALSE[/B] Israel is not at war, and the blockade is not allowed under international law, as [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539363,00.html"]stated by the lawmakers them self[/URL], the United Nations. You cannot dispute this fact.[/QUOTE] Uh oh, FP fallacy! It's being reporting by FAUX NIUZ which makes it unreliable. Actually that would be silly, I'll just argue it instead. If you had read that article instead of the title you would have seen: [I]Leshno-Yaar, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, said Pillay "didn't make any effort to investigate things herself, which is quite unfortunate." Pillay said the Gaza blockade amounts to collective punishment of civilians, which is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare and occupation. She cited the conventions' requirement that "no protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."[/I] Basically I already got to this before, the blockade does not amount to collective punishment, else every blockade ever amounts to collective punishment, and would therefore be illegal, this is not the case. On the same issue of being denied humanitarian aid, what about Egypt, why is it not being called an accessory to war crimes? Israel does let aid get through, just not aid that can be used back against Israel. I find this completely reasonable. What I find unreasonable is that Hamas confiscates this humanitarian aid and sells it to the highest bidder. I'd also like to point out that this article is from over a year ago and that many policies have changed since then. [QUOTE=starpluck;22326993][B]FALSE[/B] This is currently being investigated, however a small part of it was shown before Israel signal jammed the ships broadcast ([B]I WONDER WHY)[/B], and Israel's seizure of all recording equipment to make sure it doesn't contradict with their story. All members of that ship including an Israeli PM said they fired first. I am anticipating a UN investigation since a Israeli investigation means the defendant will be the one to judge his case.[/QUOTE] I'd like you to point out to me where this Israeli PM said this as I have been unable to find it. I'd also like to know whether any of these claims are that the IDF "fired first" or "fired on the activists first" [QUOTE=starpluck;22326993][B]FALSE[/B] [release]"The Israeli assault took those of us on the ship by complete surprise," Vall said. "We saw about 30 war vessels surrounding this ship, and helicopters attacking with very luminous bombs. "More troops came and immediately opened fire, and killed people on the ship without any distinction."[/release] The increasing IDF presence and intimidation caused the activists to panic. Furthermore, when pirates attempt to seize your ship in [B]INTERNATIONAL WATERS[/B], you have every right to defend yourself. The activists took every measure possible to protect themselves. [/QUOTE] As you can see by the video, the activists were not panicking, they were waiting in a mob for the first IDF operator to rope in. I'd also like to know why you consider anything said by Israel a complete fabrication yet take whatever is said by the opposition at face value. As far as I know, the ship was not taken by surprise, as there was already a mob in waiting, and that Israel fired warning shots, and that Israel warned they would board. I also don't think there were any bombs deployed by helicopters, maybe he is confusing them for flares. FURTHERMORE, Israel were not pirates, and if these activists decided to defend themselves instead of surrendering peacefully, actually wait, they false surrendered and then attacked when Israel boarded, and you say Israel is the one in breach of international law. [QUOTE=starpluck;22326993][B]DEBUNKED[/B] As you can see by the above, these issues have been [HIGHLIGHT]DEBUNKED[/HIGHLIGHT][/QUOTE] No... not really, try a little harder next time.

Claiming reclaiming rights based on who lived where more than 1000 years ago is never going to get anywhere, and most people know this. It's often used as an argument, but quite frankly it's incredibly stupid, because if we should allow anyone who's family has lived somewhere to reclaim that territory, the world would be an enormous clusterfuck. Also, BurnEmDown, I can't seem to locate the pages where people were arguing about the legal claims(The thread is more than 5000 replies long, and I've got an exam on Saturday), but I remember someone posting this from a former British Ambassador: [quote=Craig Murray]A word on the legal position, which is very plain. To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare. Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean however that international law is the only applicable law. The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody's territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory. There are therefore two clear legal possibilities. Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime. Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law. In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.[/quote]

[QUOTE=PariahKing;22327039]Those [i]were[/i] interesting. Out of curiosity, what's your personal take on the whole situation?[/QUOTE] It's ugly. I can see how Zionism would have been attractive 70 years ago, but the religious attachment to Jerusalem (and the need to establish a country in the middle of the volatile Middle East) has made this whole thing much worse than it needed to be. These days in Europe and North America, Jews have largely been assimilated into the white majority, along with other formerly-oppressed groups like the Irish. So the need for a Jewish homeland is a lot less significant than it used to be. If there were no Israel today, and people wanted to create one, I would be against it. But there IS an Israel, and while I can understand some people's desire to dissolve the state, that's going to displace 7 million people, which is wrong for the same reason it's wrong for the Israelis to do it to the Palestinians. In a perfect world I'd like to see the Palestinians granted full citizenship status as part of Israel, and for Israel to abandon its "Jewish state" ideology and return to the secular ideals they started with. But I think the Palestinians are too fervently religious and the Israelis are too fervently racist for that to happen, so the two-state solution is probably the best we can hope for. As for the conflict itself, neither Hamas nor the IDF is particularly in the right here. The IDF is full of right-wing Jewish nationalists who could give a shit about Palestinians and take opportunities to shoot them down all the time. Hamas is an Islamist terrorist group that exploits its own people and baits the Israelis. But at this moment, the majority of the responsibility for resolving this conflict is on Israel's shoulders. Why? Because they have all the political power. They have all the economic power. They have all the military power. Look at the US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not unqualified successes, okay, but there's a clear strategy in play. People in general turn to violent ideologies when their life is shitty, when they can't support their families and when their country's infrastructure is failing. The US military knows the best way to fight terrorist uprisings in those countries is to help build infrastructure, and do whatever they can to make them prosperous. Someone with a good job who has a steady supply of water, electricity, and food isn't going to be as susceptible to terrorist recruiters. Nor is he going to be as vehemently anti-West. The majority of citizens in Afghanistan aren't happy with the US occupation, but they prefer us to the Taliban. At the moment, that's the closest thing we can get to friendship. Now compare that with the Israeli approach. Gaza is starving and in shambles. The IDF makes minimal effort to avoid civilian casualties, and demolishes people's homes ruthlessly. There is absolutely zero effort to win the hearts and minds of the Palestinians. Pro-Israeli people say the Palestinians should support Israel because Hamas is using them and screwing them over. And that's somewhat valid. But how do they expect that to happen when the only personal experience these people have with Israel is demolished homes and dead and displaced families? The problem with Israel is that it's been granted, by the West, the technology and military power of a first-world western country. But it BEHAVES like a petty second-world Middle Eastern dictatorship. For this to end, Israel needs to accept that it's in a position of immense power. They can essentially dictate the lives of the Palestinians. It's time for them to stop playing the victim and start acting with the prudence and compassion that a nation of its stature should. Moreover, Israel is the country that's receiving support via my taxes, from politicians I voted for, so what little political influence I have as an American citizen is over them. I'm aware that's a pretty neoconservative position to take, but there it is.

Well as you can see from page 7, a military ship is allowed to board a vessel if it's heading to break a blockade.

Again, very interesting TH89. I pretty much agree with your general opinion - Israel is a state already and we really can't undo that anymore, nor should we. At the same time Israel needs to act like a first world nation, etc. Thanks for writing that all up.

[QUOTE=Glorbo;22327203]Well the jews didn't fire rockets at germans neither did they bomb german restaurants.[/QUOTE] YEAH, SOOOO DEScRuCTIVE!!1! [IMG]http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/gaza_01_07/g07_17466021.jpg[/IMG] Those rockets are nothing but plumbing fixtures...

[QUOTE=aydin690;22328077]YEAH, SOOOO DEScRuCTIVE!!1! [IMG]http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/gaza_01_07/g07_17466021.jpg[/IMG] Those rockets are nothing but plumbing fixtures...[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter, Hamas uses terror and risks the security of Israel, so Israel blocked Hamas's way of getting weapons.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22327812]Well as you can see from page 7, a military ship is allowed to board a vessel if it's heading to break a blockade.[/QUOTE] Actually, it's not that simple, and I am trying to dig out the corresponding law from the Convention of the Law of the sea that says that any ship carrying humanitarian aid is not to be stopped. As a side note, these ships were fully searched in the harbours they departed from, and were confirmed not to carry any weapons nor contraband. Maritime law is taken very seriously, since if the sea was in a state of free-for-all, state sanctioned piracy becomes a huge issue (See Privateers). There is no legal grounds for Israel on this issue, they had no rights to attack these vessels, and those involved should be brought to justice. Unfortunately they won't because US has once again stepped in and given Israel the free card(See Goldstein report). I think that if Israel actually had to follow the international laws for once, they wouldn't do this at this magnitude. As it stands, they pretty much know they can get away with it because they've got America protecting them.

[QUOTE=CriticalThought;22327681]You are basing this solely on your next point, which I will get to. Uh oh, FP fallacy! It's being reporting by FAUX NIUZ which makes it unreliable. Actually that would be silly, I'll just argue it instead. If you had read that article instead of the title you would have seen: [I]Leshno-Yaar, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, said Pillay "didn't make any effort to investigate things herself, which is quite unfortunate." Pillay said the Gaza blockade amounts to collective punishment of civilians, which is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare and occupation. She cited the conventions' requirement that "no protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."[/I] Basically I already got to this before, the blockade does not amount to collective punishment, else every blockade ever amounts to collective punishment, and would therefore be illegal, this is not the case. On the same issue of being denied humanitarian aid, what about Egypt, why is it not being called an accessory to war crimes? Israel does let aid get through, just not aid that can be used back against Israel. I find this completely reasonable. What I find unreasonable is that Hamas confiscates this humanitarian aid and sells it to the highest bidder. I'd also like to point out that this article is from over a year ago and that many policies have changed since then.[/QUOTE] It does amount to collective punishment. The [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions"]1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions protocols[/URL] prohibits the use of collective measures that do not distinguish between civilians and military, the blockade doesn't. [IMG]http://media.economist.com/images/na/2010w23/201023NAC266B.jpg[/IMG] The bottom line is that the men and women of the flotilla had every right to attempt to destroy an illegal blockade that Israel had no legal standing to impose and which was designed to inflict collective punishment on the people of Gaza. (There is no truth to the story that Israel would have delivered the goods on the ships to Gaza, judging by years of precedent, the IDF would have [URL="http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/amira-hass-israel-bans-books-music-and-clothes-from-entering-gaza-1.276147"]blocked[/URL] any delivery). The activists were like the civil rights demonstrators who sat down at segregated lunch counters throughout the South and refused to leave until they were served. Their goal was not really to get breakfast. It was to end segregation. That fact is so obvious that it is hard to believe that the "pro-Israel" lobby is using it as an indictment. Of course the goal of the flotilla was to break the blockade. Of course Martin Luther King provoked the civil authorities of the South to break segregation. Of course the Solidarity movement used workers' rights as a pretext to break Soviet-imposed Communism. [quote] I'd like you to point out to me where this Israeli PM said this as I have been unable to find it. I'd also like to know whether any of these claims are that the IDF "fired first" or "fired on the activists first"[/quote]The Israeli PM is right here: [URL]http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/01/gaza.raid.eyewitnesses/index.html[/URL] [release] Hanin Zoabi, a member of the Israeli parliament, was on board the Miva Marmara, the ship that was the scene of a confrontation between activists and Israeli soldiers. That clash left at least nine people dead. The Israeli Navy fired on the ships five minutes before commandos descended from ropes that dangled from helicopters, Zoabi said during a press conference in Nazareth, Israel. She said passengers on board the ship were unarmed.[/release] [quote] As you can see by the video, the activists were not panicking, they were waiting in a mob for the first IDF operator to rope in. I'd also like to know why you consider anything said by Israel a complete fabrication yet take whatever is said by the opposition at face value. As far as I know, the ship was not taken by surprise, as there was already a mob in waiting, and that Israel fired warning shots, and that Israel warned they would board. I also don't think there were any bombs deployed by helicopters, maybe he is confusing them for flares. FURTHERMORE, Israel were not pirates, and if these activists decided to defend themselves instead of surrendering peacefully, actually wait, they false surrendered and then attacked when Israel boarded, and you say Israel is the one in breach of international law.[/quote]Israeli commandos were ordered to board a civilian ship in international waters and the government that sent them claims that the resisting passengers attacked them without provocation. This is like a carjacker complaining to the police that the driver bashed him with a crowbar that was under the seat. Neither carjackers nor hijackers should expect their victims to acquiesce peacefully. Also, here some interesting statistics from ANERA: [INDENT][release]8 out of 10 Gazans depend on foreign aid to survive. The World Food Program says Gaza requires a minimum of 400 trucks a day to meet basic nutritional needs - yet an average of just 171 trucks worth of supplies enters Gaza every week, Clothes that were held in the port of Ashdod for over a year were released into Gaza but arrived covered with mold and mildew, unusable. 95% of Gaza's water fails World Health Organization standards leaving thousands of newborns at risk of poisoning. Anemia for children under the age of 5 is estimated at 48%. 75 million liters of untreated sewage are pumped into the Mediterranean Sea every day - because piping and spare parts are not permitted.[/release] [/INDENT]During the 2009 bombing: [release] [INDENT]More than 120,000 jobs were lost as Gaza's industrial zone was destroyed... 15,000 homes and apartments were damaged or destroyed... 1/3 of all schools were destroyed. None of these can be rebuilt, because construction supplies are kept out by the Israeli authorities.[/INDENT][/release]

Once again the United States saves Israel's ass in the UN. That's been the case for the past 60 years. Despite what the pundits will yell about on Fox, the political consensus in the US government is firmly behind Israel.