Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Except for the bit where they're in international waters. The soldiers had no right to stop or board the ships. It's like Mexican cops trying to stop you in Texas.

What about the Cuban missle crisis? The U.S. was stopping and turning around ships bound for Cuba with nukes on the high seas in order to protect itself. Do you think that wrong also?

Yeah no boardings took place, no shots were fired. The reason the Cuban Missile Crisis was so tense was because boarding a foreign ship in international waters is generally AN ACT OF WAR.

jp400 wrote:Maybe we are seeing different videos on the net of it, but I have seen video and read that the flotilla was told and warned on a couple of different occasions not to attempt to run the blockade.

It is a simple cause of Cause and Effect.

1: They were warned.
2: They knew of the blockade and what the outcome might Be.
3: They decide to attempt to run the blockade.
4: They get boarded (Shocker) and decide to attack armed soldiers.
5: Soldiers react to threat.

It is a simple cause of Cause and Effect.
In a way this much is true, state criminality breeds state crime. The main problem is a national attitude by which Arabs are dehumaised to the extent no rights are seen to apply to them.

1: They were warned.
They were warned illegally. The word you are looking for it threatened.

2: They knew of the blockade and what the outcome might Be.
'Everyone' knows this Israel has a track record of killing protestors and Arab sympathisers.

3: They decide to attempt to run the blockade.
They ran an illegal blokade aka they sailed in international waters, as per their right.

4: They get boarded (Shocker) and decide to attack armed soldiers.
They resisted armed intruders who were engaged in an act of priacy. This is legal.

5: Soldiers react to threat.
Odd place to start to use the word threat. Points 1 and 4 are far more reasonable. Israeli commandos decided to baord they were resisted LEGALLY they reacted by shooting people. It's simply piracy.

Also note the aftermath of this. The boats were seized and the occupants are to be taken to Israel, this is false imprisonment.

The soldiers did nothing wrong. However, their commander did. I hope there are no repercussions for the soldiers involved who ended up having to defend themselves due to the idiocy of their commander. Truth be told, I don't give two tugs of a dead dog's d*ck. The world is gonna keep right on spinning tomorrow and within a month all of this will be old news and we will have more gak to be mad about.

Monday, May 31, 2010
Law Expert Dr Robbie Sabel IDF action in international waters legal

Int’l Law Expert Dr. Robbie Sabel: IDF action in international waters legal

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 31 May 2010

IMRA asked Hebrew University international law expert Dr. Robbie Sabel about
the legality of the IDF action in international waters.

Dr. Sabel explained that a state, in a time of conflict, can impose an
embargo, and while it cannot carry out embargo activities in the territorial
waters of a third party, it can carry out embargo activities in
international waters.

Within this framework it is legal to detain a civilian vessel trying to
break an embargo and if in the course of detaining the vessel, force is used
against the forces carrying out the detention then that force has every
right to act in self defense.

Dr. Sabel noted that there is a long history of embargo activities in
international waters.

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=48215

Just to throw this in about the "you can't do that in international waters!" bit.

Israel never confirmed or denied having nukes

This is true. But they do have nukes. It's more or less accepted fact.

I don't blame the soldiers for lighting the decks up when things looked nasty.

To be fair to the bleeding hearts, I don't think anybody blames the individual soldier for stuff like this. Soldiers are essentially machines in these situations. Their command apparatus has to know what the possible outcomes are, and plan accordingly.

By the time they're fast roping onto the deck, the real decisions are already made.

I don't listen to 'people'. You shouldn't either.

Both a valid point, but also impossible. People say things, I hear it, I absorb it as being part of their reality.

It's like Mexican cops trying to stop you in Texas.

No, it's like Mexican cops trying to stop you in international waters.

Texas is sovereign US soil. International waters belong to no nation.

but they are only making them look better in the eyes of those that Isreal is really hurting... the People in Gaza.

There's zero chance at all of the people of Gaza having a favorable view of Israel at any point in the near future. Israel isn't trying to make friends, they're trying to cripple the Palestinians' ability to attack them to the fullest extent that external (and internal) pressure allows.

boarding a foreign ship in international waters is generally AN ACT OF WAR.

As opposed to a full scale land invasion, as happend with Lebanon in 2006?

Guys, you need to STOP obsessing over the legalities and strict definitions here. None of this is new. Both sides of this conflict have been acting "illegally" since 1948 and beyond. It's like you guys are standing on the sidelines at the Battle of Kursk, saying "oh, that gentleman just offended that tank full of gentlemen! OH DEAR! Sir! You in the Stuka! You were TERRIBLY rude to that artillery crew!" You're correct, and your correctness is totally irrelevant.

loki old fart wrote:@Dogma
However, at the moment, Israel is a strategic asset due to its divisive influence on the Mediterranean seaboard.

And the American nuclear missiles, based in Turkey, are not a strategic asset?

What nuclear missiles based in Turkey?

olympia wrote:1. The Israeli blockade of Gaza is illegal.
2. Attacking civilian ships in international waters (80 miles west of Gaza) is illegal.

1. Blockading a militant country that is sporadically attacking them is illegal? Cool. Who is enforcing this law? The UN? HAH! Geneva conventions, what? The UN, while great for providing Humanitarian Aid, is useless for just about anything else. The Militant arm of the UN has been siting in Korea for how long doing what again?

2. Again, who is enforcing this? The UN?


I think what happened could have been avoided, both from the IDF side and the Civilian side, but saying something is Illegal in International waters is slowed. The UN in its current state has no meaning. International laws are a joke. The UN needs to reform how it works. If it is going to say something is illegal, it needs to have ACTUAL support from the countries it represents. Interpol needs a huge over haul while they are @ it.

Phryxis wrote:
Both a valid point, but also impossible. People say things, I hear it, I absorb it as being part of their reality.

Sorry? I don't have that problem. But feel free to exaggerate an issue that you wish to downplay.

The commandos primary armament was paintball guns.

They had pistols as a last resort.

A kick ass commado doesn't board a ship armed with recreational sporting equipment and aim to slash and burn.... just subdue/ pin down non lethally anyone trying to block access.

helgrenze wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

jp400 wrote:Maybe we are seeing different videos on the net of it, but I have seen video and read that the flotilla was told and warned on a couple of different occasions not to attempt to run the blockade.

It is a simple cause of Cause and Effect.

1: They were warned.
2: They knew of the blockade and what the outcome might Be.
3: They decide to attempt to run the blockade.
4: They get boarded (Shocker) and decide to attack armed soldiers.
5: Soldiers react to threat.

Except for the bit where they're in international waters. The soldiers had no right to stop or board the ships. It's like Mexican cops trying to stop you in Texas.

What about the Cuban missle crisis? The U.S. was stopping and turning around ships bound for Cuba with nukes on the high seas in order to protect itself. Do you think that wrong also?

Wanna show proof that the US Boarded those ships back in the 60's? What was the body count?
Sorry, but the Isrealis did wrong here. Its the same as what has happened in Darfur. Aid is being intercepted and then distributed as those taking it see fit. Isreal is blockading Gaza on land and sea to "hurt" Hamas, but they are only making them look better in the eyes of those that Isreal is really hurting... the People in Gaza.

The U.S. didn't need to board the ships because the ships turned back. If they hadn't, they would have been boarded.

A fair few people in this thread have repeated the old, old story about Israel simply attempting to defend itself, while it’s beset on all sides by hostile nations. We’re frankly at the point where that belief is unacceptably stupid. Even with the most superficial following of Israeli’s actions over the last couple of decades, it is obvious that Israel is not simply looking to defend itself, it continues to expand into land it recognised as Palestinian, land that wasn’t given to Israel as part of the 1948 deal, land that Israel itself recognised as Palestinian in 1972 deal. But it expands into anyway, because Israel seeks to expand and grow, and is happy to take land off of Arab countries to do so.

If you look at the other nations in the region, you will not find a country with the economic, political and military capability to attack Israel. You need all three, there isn’t a nation with one. Further, other than Iran there isn’t a decent sized country in the region without extremely close ties to the US. There is simply no overt military threat to Palestine.

It’s a very complex issue, there’s no shortage of mistakes or immorality on either side. A conclusion will be hard to find. It will be impossible as long as people in the rest of the world continue to follow the stupid, stupid idea that Israel is acting as it because of some ever present threat of invasion.

mattyrm wrote:and dont give me that 'i dont support them either' fence sitting lark, they demanded Hamas themselves. If you support the Palestinians, you support them.

I support a move to Palestine become it’s own nation, not kept under constant quarantine by Israel. I do not believe Hamas can be a part of that solution, and think the two key steps to be taken forward involve recognition of the two state solution as the only possible solution, and the de-legitimisation of Hamas and the return to a less extreme government, in part through the steady removal of oppressive controls on the Palestinians.

Where does that put me in pro-Israel/pro-Hamas grand world view?

Im certainly of the opinion you have to pick a side in a conflict as aggressive and unending as this and thanks to Hamas especially (have you seen their kids TV shows?!) and Israel to an extent also, this will never end. Im aware im a terrible cynic, but i just cant see it. Well, until someone loses or we have all out war.

I support any course of action that lets people lead decent lives, that doesn’t get people killed. To the extent that Israel and Hamas act against that, is the extent to which they are both bad. And they both do those very things.

So again, what said do you declare I must be on?

Gwar! wrote:If someone announced on the news they were going to shoot up a Police HQ, or a Mall, or a School, or anything in face, would the Police wait for them to do it, then take action after they shoot people, or take action preemptively?

If the police wait until they are under fire, the threat to their lives is greatly increased. So pre-emption is sensible. If the naval blockades waits until the flotilla has crossed the line, the nothing has changed. As such the argument for pre-emption is simply not there.

loki old fart wrote:Israel never confirmed or denied having nukes,
So should be MAYBE HAS NUKES

I confirm I have a nuclear weapon. Therefore I have nuke according to your logic above.

I neither confirm nor deny that I have an account on dakkadakka under the user name sebster. Therefore we don’t know if I have a user account called sebster or not.

A thing isn’t true or false dependant on the claims of the owner. It’s true or false dependant on the evidence for its existence. The evidence for Israeli nuclear weapons is overwhelming. It doesn’t matter that Israel chooses to confirm their existence or not, it is a given.

Kanluwen wrote:http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=48215

Just to throw this in about the "you can't do that in international waters!" bit.

Provided one accepts that Israel is in a time of conflict, has been since it’s inception and will be for the rest of history, then one can extend to Israel all manner of powers. This is problematic, at best.

dogma wrote:What nuclear missiles based in Turkey?

People are talking like Israel is under constant threat on invasion, and now we’re talking about US nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey. I think through some kind of weird sunspot activity people in this thread are posting from the 60s. It’s the only logical answer.

The U.S. didn't need to board the ships because the ships turned back. If they hadn't, they would have been boarded.

Possibly...

But there are also other things going on during this crisis. For example, American photo recon planes are flying numerous missions, at low altitude and high speed, through Cuban airspace, and being fired on by Cuban (or possibly Russian) anti-aircraft crews.

Was any of that "legal?"

Meh, no news here.

Gaza is a hellhole.

Israel is evil for making and keeping it so.

God forbid that Europe try to do something about it.

It’s a very complex issue, there’s no shortage of mistakes or immorality on either side. A conclusion will be hard to find. It will be impossible as long as people in the rest of the world continue to follow the stupid, stupid idea that Israel is acting as it because of some ever present threat of invasion.

You're right, up to the last sentence.

I think everyone involved with this situation in any meaningful way is fully aware of Israel's real status. The semantic games played by Israel (and their enemies) aren't real, and getting rid of them won't make the situation especially different.

So, to be clear, nobody that actually matters is viewing the situation so casually that "defense" is the beginning and end of their awareness. Israel, Hamas, Fatah, Hillary Clinton, the UN, all these entities are well beyond the simple rhetoric.

So the rhetoric isn't any real barrier to change... Even if it was, and I would hate to put words in your mouth, but it appears that you're suggesting that progress can't be made until Israel is denied the rhetorical shield of claiming they're defending themselves. The answer is not that Israel needs to back down, or needs to have its arguments denied it...

The problem here isn't Israel.

You yourself said it, before unsaying it. It's a complex issue.

If Israel made concessions, pulled out of all new settlements, met Palestinian demands, I firmly believe that new problems would be manufactured, new demands made, and Israel would be in the same exact fight, but in a weakened position.

Neither side of this thing is trustworthy, and honestly, I don't think a conclusion IS possible. It's been the same story since 1948. What's going to change 60 years later? 70? 80? If something doesn't change in three lifetimes, what's going to be different with the fourth?

The simple fact is that you have two sides that WANT to fight. You can't end that sort of fight. For the vast majority of human history, the way it was solved was when one side won and one side died. Now, in a UN-managed world, we all just lose forever.

sebster wrote:
People are talking like Israel is under constant threat on invasion, and now we’re talking about US nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey. I think through some kind of weird sunspot activity people in this thread are posting from the 60s. It’s the only logical answer.

Yep. Also, Americans love to be authoritative with respect to things they know nothing of. After all, politics is just like business, right?

Phryxis wrote:The simple fact is that you have two sides that WANT to fight. You can't end that sort of fight. For the vast majority of human history, the way it was solved was when one side won and one side died. Now, in a UN-managed world, we all just lose forever.

Except conflicts do end. Populations do move past the need to do each other harm.

And genocide, total war, is an extremely rare situation.

The troubles in Northern Ireland are all but over, without anyone committing genocide on the other.



Oh, and how is the Israeli positioned weakened when they don't have to commit additional forces to protecting settlements outside of their national border?

Phryxis wrote:
So the rhetoric isn't any real barrier to change... Even if it was, and I would hate to put words in your mouth, but it appears that you're suggesting that progress can't be made until Israel is denied the rhetorical shield of claiming they're defending themselves. The answer is not that Israel needs to back down, or needs to have its arguments denied it...

Rhetoric isn't the problem, but there is some sort of rhetorical shield?

Phryxis wrote:
If Israel made concessions, pulled out of all new settlements, met Palestinian demands, I firmly believe that new problems would be manufactured, new demands made, and Israel would be in the same exact fight, but in a weakened position.

Ah, there's that rhetorical shield. Aren't you a US citizen? Why do you care about Israeli supremacy?

Phryxis wrote:
The simple fact is that you have two sides that WANT to fight. You can't end that sort of fight. For the vast majority of human history, the way it was solved was when one side won and one side died. Now, in a UN-managed world, we all just lose forever.

Only if you think in terms of non-violence, which isn't what the UN does.

dogma wrote:Yep. Also, Americans love to be authoritative with respect to things they know nothing of. After all, politics is just like business, right?

I'm certain that's a purely American thing. You should have heard the nonsense in the coffee room this morning.

Dogma, you stereotype too much you know.

I don't know where to stand on this one. While they were carrying humanitarian aid, they were breaking a law.

Also, you don't hit an israeli commando with a stick, that just won't turn out well.

I would sympathise with them more had they not struck back at the commandos, I saw a video on CNN in which a guy clearly assaulted a commando with a stick-like looking object(maybe the pipe the israelis were mentioning, I don't know). That just makes me think they're radical morons like the "Sea Shephard" people who harass Japanese whaling boats.

sebster wrote:The troubles in Northern Ireland are all but over, without anyone committing genocide on the other.

Ha... HAHA.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This made me laugh. Every other week they find a bomb outside a PSNI police station mate. The "Troubles" have lessened, but they are far from "all but over".

And speaking as an Englishman living in Ireland (not willingly, but do not have the funds to escape ) I can tell you the anti English sentiment is still high.

halonachos wrote:Dogma, you stereotype too much you know.

Irony my friend, irony.

halonachos wrote:
I don't know where to stand on this one. While they were carrying humanitarian aid, they were breaking a law.

No, they weren't. That's the whole issue here.

Except conflicts do end. Populations do move past the need to do each other harm.

Sure, and the possibility of the conflict ending does exist. I just don't think it's very likely, and I don't think there's any one thing to be "done" about it. I don't think there's even a collection of things. I think it's beyond the deliberate control of human beings.

I don't mean to imply that fights can't ever end. Clearly they end all the time. I just mean to suggest that fights don't end if both sides don't want them to, and I don't forsee either side of this particular conflict wanting it to end.

Oh, and how is the Israeli positioned weakened when they don't have to commit additional forces to protecting settlements outside of their national border?

I was speaking of a whole spectrum of concessions, not just surrendering new settlements. Even so, the most obvious weakening is one of perception. Currently Israel is known for being relentless, aggressive and uncompromising, and they still have people testing them. Imagine what would happen if they were seen as being weak?

Additionally, while it's a cruel form of pragmatism, the Israelis attitude is that anything that empowers and liberates the Palestinians makes them more able to attack Israel. As things stand, rocket attacks are relatively common, even though Palestinians are broken up into numerous tiny neighborhoods, with checkpoints and other barricades to assembling such weapons. Were they given a reasonable state to live in, they'd be infinitely more capable of assembling and firing rockets. This would put Israel in a weaker position.

Rhetoric isn't the problem, but there is some sort of rhetorical shield?

I made two arguments. First I said I don't think that the rhetoric is really material to the problem. Second, I said that even if it was a genuine shield, the solution isn't to take away Israel's defenses.

Ah, there's that rhetorical shield. Aren't you a US citizen? Why do you care about Israeli supremacy?

Meh, this is beneath you. I said none of this.

I never said Israel needs to have supremacy. I never said "they're just defending themselves."

What I'm saying is that Israel making concessions won't benefit them, and it won't end the conflict, at least not until they concede themselves into non-existance.

This is not an appeal to defense, though. I'm not saying that the Israeli's must retain their current aggressive, expansionist stance to maintain their defense... What I'm saying is that the opposite, giving up land and making concessions, will not contribute to their defense either.

dogma wrote:No, they weren't. That's the whole issue here.

No, but they were going to.

If I announce I am going to run a blockade, why would I be surprised if they came to stop me?

Phryxis wrote:
Meh, this is beneath you. I said none of this.

I never said Israel needs to have supremacy. I never said "they're just defending themselves."

I think this whole conversation is beneath all of us. Also, HAWKS WON.

Phryxis wrote:
What I'm saying is that Israel making concessions won't benefit them, and it won't end the conflict, at least not until they concede themselves into non-existance.

This is not an appeal to defense, though. I'm not saying that the Israeli's must retain their current aggressive, expansionist stance to maintain their defense... What I'm saying is that the opposite, giving up land and making concessions, will not contribute to their defense either.

Then you're saying that Israel will cease to exist? I mean, I agree with that sentiment, but I'm not sure what you mean to describe with your 'middle-ground' approach. If the land to be given up isn't necessarily Israeli, then where are we left in terms of security?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:No, but they were going to.

If I announce I am going to run a blockade, why would I be surprised if they came to stop me?

I'm going to kill you Gwar!

Will you call the FBI?

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, but they were going to.

If I announce I am going to run a blockade, why would I be surprised if they came to stop me?

I'm going to kill you Gwar!

Will you call the FBI?

Don't be silly.

The filters installed on the American interwebs will do that for me!

Kanluwen wrote:

Monday, May 31, 2010
Law Expert Dr Robbie Sabel IDF action in international waters legal

Int’l Law Expert Dr. Robbie Sabel: IDF action in international waters legal

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 31 May 2010

IMRA asked Hebrew University international law expert Dr. Robbie Sabel about
the legality of the IDF action in international waters.

Dr. Sabel explained that a state, in a time of conflict, can impose an
embargo, and while it cannot carry out embargo activities in the territorial
waters of a third party, it can carry out embargo activities in
international waters.

Within this framework it is legal to detain a civilian vessel trying to
break an embargo and if in the course of detaining the vessel, force is used
against the forces carrying out the detention then that force has every
right to act in self defense.

Dr. Sabel noted that there is a long history of embargo activities in
international waters.

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=48215

Just to throw this in about the "you can't do that in international waters!" bit.

Dr Sabel is correct in his points, However, He used the wrong term in just what is in place around Gaza.
It is not an Embargo

An embargo is the partial or complete prohibition of commerce and trade with a particular country, in order to isolate it. Embargoes are considered strong diplomatic measures imposed in an effort, by the embargo-imposing-country, to elicit a given national-interest result from the country on which it is imposed. Embargoes are similar to economic sanctions and are generally considered legal barriers to trade, not to be confused with blockades, which are often considered to be acts of war.[

Even the isreali Government calls it something else....
A Blockade

A blockade is an effort to cut off food, supplies, war material or communications from a particular area by force, either in part or totally. A blockade should not be confused with an embargo or sanctions, which are legal barriers to trade

There is a difference as one is a legal barrier and the other is considered an act of war.

Isreal is seriously lucky that the Turks did not consider this an open act of war on one of their civilain vessels. They could have used this to declare war on Isreal and would have had the backing of EVERY country around that area backing them.
As it is, by almost any definition this was an act of war and shoulld be judged as such.

I say let the U.N. investigate the incedent with full access to all materials and not just the ones that the Isrealis haven't already destroyed.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:Dogma, you stereotype too much you know.

Irony my friend, irony.

halonachos wrote:
I don't know where to stand on this one. While they were carrying humanitarian aid, they were breaking a law.

No, they weren't. That's the whole issue here.

Sorry, but if someone declares embargo and blockades, I would call that a law. Also, I don't stereotype I just enjoy stereotypes.

halonachos wrote:

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:Dogma, you stereotype too much you know.

Irony my friend, irony.

halonachos wrote:
I don't know where to stand on this one. While they were carrying humanitarian aid, they were breaking a law.

No, they weren't. That's the whole issue here.

Sorry, but if someone declares embargo and blockades, I would call that a law. Also, I don't stereotype I just enjoy stereotypes.

The issue being they were quite a distance away from the blockade; thus they were not running it. Also technically the embargo is not recognized internationally. You're going to pains to defend a situation that I'm not entirely sure you read up on sufficiently.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Meh, no news here.

Gaza is a hellhole.

Israel is evil for making and keeping it so.

God forbid that Europe try to do something about it.

THIS, sums up everything.

Not to mention John's avatar is crazy good!

halonachos wrote:
Sorry, but if someone declares embargo and blockades, I would call that a law.

You would be wrong to do so.

halonachos wrote:
Also, I don't stereotype I just enjoy stereotypes.

You just did.