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.

Trouvere,
The most amazing thing about this whole conflict is how misinformation operates. I cannot understand the logic behind those who believe in some justifications. I understand even less how this San Remo Manual (drafted by some experts, a guide, not law) has become relevant in this discussion. Some kind of propaganda I am missing out?

This non legally binding manual is about conflicts at sea, such as 'Falkland/Malvinas' or the operations in the sea during the Iran-Iraq war and similar. I really hope this information is only the fruit of some disoreinted googling about, no some information given on purpose to justify any of what has happened. It is amazing how brainwashing operates.

There is not always 'two sides'. Sometimes there are clear abusers and exploited/abused. Apartheid, slavery... and so many others Israeli people are well aware of. It does happen and human beings seem particularly good at repeating history.

I vividly recommend the film 'Distric 9' by the way

I wouldn't class Israel as a nuclear armed 'rogue state' at all. I think it has been used by both the US and the European governments to keep attention focussed in that area and as a buffer state.

The comment "Someone who doesn't want to talk, and has no intention of coming to any sort of agreement with you." was actually my view of Hamas, as I don't think that whatever Israel offered they would accept unless it were the dismantling and removal of the State of Israel.

If Israel were serious about blockading Gaza completely, then they would blow up the tunnels that are used as smugglers runs and tighten up much more. Perhaps if Hamas produced the soldier they are holding (either dead or alive),then Israel might relent.

Hi scary, agree that Hamas is not so interested in conversation, but to assume that is true of all Palestinians is incorrect and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to talk to no one.

I'm using the term rogue state because it appears that US and other western allies don't have a lot of control over Israel at the moment and that it considers itself accountable to no one. Maybe the term is a bit extreme, but not completely off target.

Bessie, DP is quite happy and is freeing himself from a cutural perspective he inherited but that he finds abhorrent. It's the 21st century, and I applaud his strong sense of individuality and humanist instincts. He'd be amused by your pity.

There doesn't need to be a declared state of war. There's still a blockade, which the flotilla was breaching. The ships still needed to submit to inspection, which they didn't.

Are you really suggesting that unless Israel declares war on Gaza (which I imagine is technically impossible, since Gaza is not a sovereign entity) that they can do nothing to stop vessels sailing into those waters?

Is there a state of war between the US, or EU countries, or China, or Russia, and Somalia? No. Then on what grounds are ships (in international waters, no less) boarded by ships from all those countries for inspection, even when, as I assume must occasionally happen, they turn out to be legitimate fishermen, and not pirates?

No Trouvere, I am not suggesting anything about 'declared wars' for a war to exist... However, Israel denies the existence of war and regulations applicable because they deny the existence of another State, you see? And the Turkish boat in the High Sea is not in any 'conflict water'. I think it is quite easy to understand.

By the way... there is a big exception to boats you can board in the high seas: pirates mainly because they do not have a flag... And yes, sometimes I guess there are mistakes about pirates and a very detailed regulation about 'reparations' in casses of mistake

Still, I am curious...
Is this your own 'research' informing your posts or it comes from somewhere else?

Come on; it's not about 'controlling' Israel for the US or NATO; why do you think there has been no condemnation really from the US or NATO?

The flotilla was clearly a red rag gesture; the other ships allowed themselves to be searched, this one didn't. Yes, the Israelis should have waited until territorial waters had been breached, but the outcome would have been much the same I imagine.

Trouvere, I asked dh this last night, and the difference is that Op Atalanta, inderdicting piracy off Somalia is backed by a UN resolution.

Ok,
This is really beyond the discussion, but piracy is a very different scenario. In particular, the International Convention on the Law of the Sea (art. 105):'Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken
by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the
property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may
decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action
to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights
of third parties acting in good faith.'

This is follow by art. 106 explaining liability of the state in case of mistakes:

Article 106
Liability for seizure without adequate grounds Where the seizure of a ship or aircraft on suspicion of piracy has been
effected without adequate grounds, the State making the seizure shall be
liable to the State the nationality of which is possessed by the ship or aircraft
for any loss or damage caused by the seizure.

So no need of any UN resolution for pirates- It is not comparable to boarding a boat with Turkish flag bringing aid and then killing people. I know... it is so difficult to handle dangerous civilians in boat without killing a few...

"I have to say that I think Israel has at times been remarkably restrained seeing that they could just blow Gaza to perdition."

Nice. A little bit o' genocide on Mumsnet.

This idea that Israel will be destroyed if it makes peace: somewhat self-fulfilling no? It means Israel can't ever make peace.

Oh well. I don't live there at the end of the day.

And as I said, I hope I'm wrong, but there is no long-term future for Israel under the current extreme right wing politics. (Ably demonstrated on this thread, child killing justified, a bit of genocide advocated, "death marches" and other hysteria. You might as well be talking to Al-Quaida supporters or any conspiracy fruit loop)

One day, in 10 years, 50 years, 100 years whenever, Israel will be weak. Then what?

Coolfonz YOU are the one justifying child killing. You think it is Israel's fault if Hamas uses children as human shields. You think it is Israel's fault if school buses are blown up by Palestinian suicide bombers. You think it is Israel's fault if Israeli children are killed or maimed by rockets fired into Israel.

"The Palestinian problem could have been solved long ago if any of the Muslim countries surrounding Israel had offered a piece of land to the Palestinians for their homeland, but I haven't seen that happening. So much for the Ummah. They don't want the problems of the Palestinians either it seems."

So the Palestinians should migrate en mass, even though, they were there first? It was their land. Why should they leave? There are many Palestinian refugees all around the arab world and here in the UK.

"The problem with what some of you are advocating is that it is hard for Israel have a dialogue with someone who doesn't want to talk"

Of course they do want to talk, the problem is now they are sceptical about any of Israel's "offers". You can't offer a homeless person crumbs and expect them to be grateful?

"If Israel were serious about blockading Gaza completely, then they would blow up the tunnels that are used as smugglers runs and tighten up much more."

You mean those black market tunnels that keep collapsing and which bring in contraband that is then sold on at an extortionate price. Why would they both blowing them up, it would be a complete waste of time and cause unnecessary provocation. By doing nothing and allowing these operations to continue it's a win win solution.

Bessie, I feel obliged to say nowhere have I seen coolfonz justifying child killing and that is an awful thing to accuse somebody of.

I love David Milliband; the questions he's asking now of the Foreign Secretary are brilliant.

"The Palestinian problem could have been solved long ago if any of the Muslim countries surrounding Israel had offered a piece of land to the Palestinians for their homeland, but I haven't seen that happening. So much for the Ummah. They don't want the problems of the Palestinians either it seems."

Scaryteachers, the surrounding muslim countries did not perpetrate the shoah, so why should they be left to pick up the pieces to appease anybody's conscience?

Now it seems the international community has 2 problems on its conscience, and Israel a one of their own.

Fascinating debate on this topic happening now during PMQ.

First, you need to look deeper into these 'innocent civillians' and you will find they are willing combatants, just as Rachel Corrie was. She and other members of ISM are and were no peaceniks. To get anywhere near the fullk complexity of these issues, you need to look furhter than the BBC and wikipedia and trust no one who is fully on one side or the other.

The fact is it is about anti-semitism. Maybe not for you Fonz, but you're not actually prime mover in these issues - sorry to burst your bubble there. You reallyu have to forgive the Israeli's for erring on the side of caution as far as extermination and genocidal threats go, seeing as the last time they didn't take them seriously they were almost wiped out.

Muslim countries did not perform the first extermination, but many actually did aid and abet it and were very pally with Hitler.

The threats Israel faces from its muslim neighbours is no mirage. It would be suicide to give up its nuclear deterent. Be very sure, the moment Iran gets its hands on any nuclear technlogy, both Israel and Palestine are in danger as Ahmadinejad has publicallt stated that the destruction of palestine is worth it if Israel is destroyed.

Just take pause and think about that. Palestine is not the issue for these people. The destruction of Israel is. And western liberals are their patsies. If Israel falls the whole of the west will will be soon after. We all need to pray this never happens.

I'm sorry, but did Monkey just suggest that Rachel Corrie was an anti-semite and got what she deserved? And did he suggest that if Israel falls the whole western world will follow?

Another good one from the NYTs, an op ed from Turkey. The pressure that Turkey is putting on the US is pretty serious.

I am heartened after listening to Secretary Hague during PMQ. He understands and shares the depth of feeling this incident has generated, and has assured everybody that it is shared globally. David Milliband made the excellent point that in this action Israel was not defending themselves, but defending a failed policy, the Gaza blockade. Great distinction.

It is really interesting Monkey that you say this is all about anti-semitism to proceed and speak about 'the muslim' danger... So far I have only seen evidence of very narrow, limited sources of knowledge from those who are defending the Israeli side in this one.

By the way, I am actually disgusted by the way the BBC tries to be 'impartial'. Check the FAQ on this and you will find as an answer to the question of the 'legality' the views of the government of Israel. A jocke really.

I guesst there is no much option actually: to be impartial means to provide two sides of the story: a) the obvious one and b) the view of Israel

Obviously people in the boat were willing combatants- This comes from wiki or the BBC? You only need to look at the outcome of this very legal and fair combat.

Monkeytrousers am just flabbergasted by your post. Like seriously don't even know where to start although SGM did a good job.

"In this action Israel was not defending themselves, but defending a failed policy, the Gaza blockade. Great distinction."

Never thought I'd like that David Milliband, maybe there's hope for the labour party yet

Netanyahu belligerent and unapologetic here. Claims lifting Gaza blockade would create "a base for Iranian missiles that would threaten both Israel and Europe."

video of israelis celebrating attack on ship and killing of activists outside turkish embassey in Tel Aviv

(Please note some dodgy adverts, 'hot girls' etc, running on site but is genuine source link not embedded footage but possibly not one to open with kids about)

Camaleon, irrespective of whether you think there is a need or not for a UN resolution for Op Atalanta, one is in existence and that provides the legitimacy for the EU to be running this operation.

Coolfonz - I did not advocate genocide anymore than I advocate the use of UK nuclear weapons against Afghanistan. The point I was making is that militarily, Israel is much stronger than those in Gaza and that it hasn't as yet decided to use all the force it could.

I am never convinced Song Biird that the Palestinians were there first; the fact that the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa are built on the site of the Temple suggests to me that actually the Jews were there first; in fact, weren't the Romans fighting the Jews in AD70 under Vespasian and then Titus? Seem to remember a bit in the Bible about Israel being Jewish as well.

If the Palestinians want to talk, perhaps they should have accepted the offer Arafat rejected at Camp David.

I've been looking at some of the comments from the public in the papers regarding this. The majority seem to be backing the Israelis and telling the peace activitits they are on their own.

Only one comment on this thread. There has been reference to the current extreme right wing politics and that this is causing paranoia. This is simply not correct. The current government does not have a coherent link which is part of the problem. It demonstrates as usual the complete mess that proportional representation can cause, namely you have to sit in power with a coalition of people with quite vastly differing interests and somehow appease them to an extent that they will not topple your government without making compromises that would lose your own core support base. If Clegg gets a referendum through on PR imagine what would happen if you had lots of one interest parties trying to rule together and how this would affect stability.

The current government is considerably less right wing than some previous ones e.g. Begin and Shamir in the 1980s but the great truism about Israeli politics is it is generally the right wing that can get the dramatic peace decisions through. It was Sharon, a right wing politician with an extreme history, who was responsible for disengagement from Gaza - an example of what happens if you give land away which is generally ignored on these threads. (For those who are not aware, the answer is you get rockets on all the towns which were previously protected by the buffer zone of the settlements in Gaza.) It takes 2 to tango and while giving land worked with Egypt to a certain extent, it obviously did not have the same impact on Hamas.

Paranoia is not caused by a right wing government but is a symptom of living surrounded by other countries whose motto is your destruction. This is proven by wars, terrorist attacks within Israel's borders, kidnappings and manouvering in the international arena and dallying with nuclear weapons to ensure that Israel remains in a state of tension. As the saying goes, just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

I am not getting drawn into another it's not anti-semitism thread to attack Israel (and my personal view is that they handled the situation very badly and could have done various other things to achieve the same aim without attracting all this criticism). I would like to draw to the attention of all who inevitably claim it is not anti-semitism that if you search for threads on Sri Lanka you will find one with 3 posts discussing whether the Tamil demonstration in parliament square was legal or not. Does anyone recall a little genocide going on there last year? Yet Israel as usual elicits 225 posts without any difficulty. I've heard all the claims that it relates to heavier media coverage, which leads to the question of why Israel always gets such heavy media coverage, or because the EU gives money to Israel (they also give to the PA). Either way it does not explain why the response to anything involving Israel is always more heated than just a few bland comments of "poor them" or "how awful" or "Organisiers of demonstrations are meant to contact the authorities beforehand. They didn't".

I hope I've got everything in as I will now refrain from posting any more as from past experience I don't have time for anything else given their levels of activity.