Israel Flouts International Law Again and Murders Innocent People.

[jodevizes]

The Israeli armed forces have flouted international law by attacking civilian ships in international waters and killing civillians.
As usual they lied and said they were shot at first. Then they said they were attacked with sticks and knives. Well, pardon my ignorance, but if you are sailing in international waters, if you are attacked, you are justified in defending yourself. If this were off the Somalia coast, they would be called pirates.

They are slowly strangling the Gaza strip by denying it access to building materials so that the people can rebuild their houses and schools.

They are not joining talks to keep the Middle East nuclear free

What a shame George and Tony aren't still in power, they could have found another country to invade.

scanty, the soldiers attacked the ship. They were boarding a ship in international waters by force. Some of the people in the ship did indeed try to fight them off. Then the Israelis responded by shooting dozens of protesters dead. As on previous occasions.

Coolfonz - you're a terrorist sympathiser then? Some would say the IRA were right, that Hamas are right, that MK were right, as you say. Certainly doesn't give anyone the right to kill other people.

I am aware that there was violence in South Africa. I was there, remember . But at least Nelson Mandela spoke out against it, led his people away from it, and for the most part they agreed with him. The Palestinians need a strong leader who genuinely wants peace.

Not so long ago Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians everything they wanted, except complete control of Jerusalem. Yassir Arafat turned it down. He didn't want peace, he didn't want what was best for his people. Nor do the current Palestinian leadership.

As for Netanyahu, he's a complete knob.

They ship was boarded because they set out to illegally dock Gaza. They were told that by continuing they would be boarded, that they should dock in Israel to make supply by land instead, and they refused, saying they insisted on going to Gaza.

The outcome was exactly as the activists desired - they engaged in an act of provocation and the Israeli navy responded as planned.

Great - the dulcet tones of Mark bloody Regev on the Today Programme yet again, attempting to sanitise state-sanctioned thuggery and terrorism.

This stinks, entirely. It does not MATTER if the flotilla were attempting to draw attention to the fact that it is impossible to dock at Gaza with aid, without Israeli interference. Their ship was invaded, in international waters, with a great deal of aggression. So they were sort of proved right, weren't they?

I'd say warnings and boarding isn't necessarily attacking the ship. I still don't know who started the violence. If the activists attacked the soldiers as they were boarding - how did they really think the Israelis would respond? I'll wait for clearer news reports before I jump to conclusions.

There were six ships, five were boarded peacefully.

Clearly many people on the sixth were out for violence.

and edam 'shooting dozens of protesters dead' - is this fact?

"Clearly many people on the sixth were out for violence."

Eh? You have no evidence for this at all!

AFAIK I think the difference between the ships is that the others were largely carrying the aid, this ship was mainly carrying people. What difference that makes I don't know, but it's worth bearing in mind IMO.

Lets get a few things straight.

1. Israel's blockade of Palestine is illegal. The UN does not support it.

1. The Israelis boarded the ship in international waters.

1. The Israelis fired live munitions onto a boat carrying civilians, including after a white flag had been raised.

there is evidence because they had weapons and were videoed attacking people and multiple injuries were sustained to the soldiers.

Israel continues to have the support of the very very strong Jewish contingent in the US which virtually runs the USA. I have said this before and to be honest, it still stands. There will probably be a 3rd world war because of this.

sulwah,
armed forces were attacking civilians for no reason at all. The civilians had knives and metal objects. What this means in SIMPLE TERMS is the civillians were trying their damndest to fight for their lives with what they had against a sadistic bunch of soldiers who had no right to be on their ship.

Can someone please explain to me why Iran and North Korea, oh yeah, and Iraq, are not allowed nuclear weapons when Israel is. I would really like to know the answer to this question.
Is it because they're the 'axis of evil', that ridiculous Hollywood-style crucade term coined by the monkey himself, George Bush?

Surely, it's a country's soverign right to have nuclear weapons, if they so choose. If you want to police the world, you can't condem those who don't share your world-view and support a country that keeps killing civillians every 6 months or so, whenever they feel like it.

Someguy, who cares that 5 were boarded peacefully? They had no right to be there in the first place.

I'm not sure that the boat was armed with 'metal bars' and 'chairs'

If soldiers entered my home/property/what have you i would defend myself with the materials at hand which appears (though as i said before will wait until to sift throught the propoganda to see properly) what happened here

The people were being fired at, with live amunition, the feared for their lives, distracting someone from shooting them by smacking them with a bar/chair doesnt seem tgat awful

Israel is to geo=politically sensitive for the US for them to do anything radical against Israel - it provides aa "US presence" in the middle east and is a buffer to Iran ( and the then Iraq) and along with Egypt is a US-funded old-style 'iron curtain'. We will hear huffing and puffing but not a lot else.

The thing is SGM Obama will not be able to do anything. Even if, he as person wanted to, as a puppet president (which is what he clearly is imo) he will not be given any authority to help Palestine or back off relations with Israel.

I also think the "they attacked the armed soldiers with knives and bars" argument is rather dim-witted. As an old proverb says "you're pretty fucked if you bring a knife to a gunfight"! It was very obvious they were not out for violence otherwise they would have been properly equipped! Surely? Not just defending themselves with the nearest possible heavy/sharp thing.

The point of the whole thing is, they were in international waters, not Israeli waters. The brass neck of Israel! Complete disregard for the UN and the law! Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't the flotilla had to have gone through Israeli waters eventually to get to Gaza? If this is the case, then why didn't Israel just wait until they entered their territory. At least then they may have a point!

BTW I am so sick of Mark Regev he makes me wretch!

It looks as though Ireland is accusing Israel of kidnapping its citizens, see here.

I am ashamed by Cameron's urging "Israel to respond constructively to legitimate criticism of its actions, and to do everything possible to avoid a repeat of this unacceptable situation."

Robert Fisk has a relevant commentary this morning, here.

Thanks for the link zazizoma. On point commentary by Fisk as usual. Cameron/Clegg's lack of a proper response makes me ashamed to be British.

Pleased you enjoyed it MollieO, I especially liked his point that such extreme action by the citizenry is necessary only because international leadership is so appallingly absent.

Frankly I find it shocking. This could have been Cameron's opportunity to set out his stall on the world stage and take a lead. Instead he has done nothing. It speaks volumes for what we are likely to endure for the next 5 years with regard to UK foreign policy.

Sakura 'armed forces were attacking civilians for no reason at all. The civilians had knives and metal objects. What this means in SIMPLE TERMS is the civillians were trying their damndest to fight for their lives with what they had against a sadistic bunch of soldiers who had no right to be on their ship.'

'Sadistic bunch of soldiers' - how do you know this, hardly subjective, think you are showing your blind hate. That's right you were the one saying you like Iran because they stand up to the Israelis. You understand that the Iranian Government has repeatedly said it wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Israel may have acted illegally and will have to face the consequencies for the actions in terms of world opinion. Other ships complied and were boarded without injury or shots being fires so it seems. This ship seems a bit crazy to have attacked the soldiers when they were heavily out armed, unless the Israelis fired first for no reason. If the Israelis had waited till they had entered Israeli waters would opinion have been any different?

Mandela supported armed struggle, Joe Slovo headed the MK and 100,000 people came to his funeral, including Mandela and the entire ANC top brass. There is no such thing as terrorists. Only idiots use that word.

Everyone supports violence.

Just depends how it is used and against whom.

Note that Hamas are also the elected government of the strip.

There are plenty of governments around the world who believe they are legitimate in killing civilians to achieve political aims. The US, the UK, Israel, Burma, the DRC, Sudan, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Iran, Indonesia and many more...

The idea state terror is ok and armed struggle is illegitimate is obviously idiocy. People like you would have been asking the French resistance to stage protest bake-ins.

And yeah I support the aims of Sinn Fein. Their country was forcibly partitioned by the British in 1922...one might note through history these kind of actions by governments only produce bloodshed (Vietnam, Korea, large parts of Africa...)

MrsCrafty - that is just utter anti-Semitic bullshit.

Scanty, yes my opinion would be different. The fact that Israel conducted this raid in international waters demonstrates once again its arrogance, disregard for international law and western values, and highlights its committment to defend Israel against any perceived provocation regardless of consequences.

This attitude calls into question for me the validity of any western support for Israel. At what cost should Israel exist? Is the tacit approval of millions of people living under apartheid conditions a price that I'm willing to pay for the existence of a fundamentalist religious state? No.