Israel Attack on Gaza Aid Flotilla

• cbus4life

  http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/30/reports-israeli-ships-attack-aid-flotilla-dead/
  
  What do you guys think?
  
  I'm still going to wait on more information, hearing lots of conflicting reports at the moment, but i am worried that it won't end well.
  
  The Turks are up in arms and essentially going nuts at the moment, Israel PM canceled trip to U.S., etc.
  
  I wonder what the nationalities of those killed were?
  
  I hope to god there weren't any Turkish citizens...
• lhslep134

  

  Well, I always thought that a blockade meant a blockage.
  
  Not justifying the killing, but I am justifying the blockage of the aide. This probably could have gotten resolved more peacefully, but at the same time, why the hell would you send an aide flotilla to a place that you knew was blockaded by a country that isn't exactly a pushover.
  
  Stupidity on the Turks part.
• cbus4life

  Well, the Israelis said that they would take the cargo to another port, and send it from there to Gaza. But, i could understand if those in the flotilla didn't trust the Israelis to actually do it, given some of their past actions.
  
  But, if the goal of those in the flotilla was to make a statement, they sure succeeded in that regard.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  cbus4life;374311 wrote:But, if the goal of those in the flotilla was to make a statement, they sure succeeded in that regard.

  
  Agreed 100%
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Setting Aside the blockade for a moment, intercepting the ship at high seas is illegal. The only legal means to intercept a ship at high seas is if it is carrying slaves, WMD, or a pirate ship. The ships apparently do not merit any of those reasons. The U.S. has gotten in hot water over the years, the So San, in 2002 for doing this.
  
  I'd also like to know the proper procedure the Israelis used before they boarded. Did they "hail and query" the vessel, fire warning shots, and try to steer the vessel toward another port? Did their authority to board just come from the blockade? If so, that is pretty weak, especially in international waters.
  
  If the Israelis would have waited for the ships to come into their territorial water, they would have had better grounds for interception.
  Blockades, especially against an area that has no economic viability is touchy. Also, the Turkish ships were not that smart, but did they do this before, and have they tried to thwart the blockade in the past?
  
  All around it looks like a Charlie Foxtrot. Israelis should have held off until the ships were in territorial waters and the Turks should have not tried to break the blockade.
• Footwedge

  Test
• Mr. 300

  

  Going to wait until the whole story comes out before reaching any decisions.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Apparently, it looks like everyone says it happened in international waters-which leaves the Israelis to prove a lot to justify the the boarding. International maritime law is pretty clear on what can and where be interdicted on the high seas. International law states that only ships that do not fly their flag (pirate ships), are involved in slavery or are transporting drugs and WMD can be intercepted.
  
  The Israelis are going to have to prove that the Turkish ship was involved in either one of those. Otherwise, it violates longstanding international maritime law. If the Israelis worried about a direct threat to national security, they simply could have waited until the ships were closer to their shores. But, in international waters, it is harder to prove.
  
  I'd also like to know what prompted the Israelis to board.
  
  
  For those who say screw international law for Israeli security, maritime law is one of the oldest, longest standing, most valid form of international law. The laws of the high seas go back hundreds of years and are considered valid even by states like Iran and North Korea.
• believer

  

  I have a hunch the Israelis believe they had sufficient reason to do so I am willing to reserve judgment until they provide the international community with a more plausible explanation.
  
  However, I agree with you that any violation of maritime law cannot be good.
  
  The Israelis have some splalin' to do.
• sjmvsfscs08

  Well, that's Israel for you..
• dwccrew

  

  This doesn't surprise me one bit. Israel has been doing whatever they want for years and continue to do so. The sooner we stop backing them for everything, the better off our country and that region will be.
• FairwoodKing

  dwccrew;375026 wrote:This doesn't surprise me one bit. Israel has been doing whatever they want for years and continue to do so. The sooner we stop backing them for everything, the better off our country and that region will be.

  
  I totally agree. Israel gets away with murder because the US backs them.
• dwccrew

  

  Just to be clear, I don't feel that the United States should be backing any nation at this point in time. We should be aligned with no country right now.
  
  We can have foreign relations with countries, but creating alliances is not what our founding fathers intended for our country to do.
• believer

  

  dwccrew;375036 wrote:JWe can have foreign relations with countries, but creating alliances is not what our founding fathers intended for our country to do.

  As I recall our nation's founders were perfectly OK with accepting French assistance during the Revolutionary War.
• Belly35

  

  I support Israel and think that until additional informantion is provide I will hold off on my comments.
• cbus4life

  P.S.
  
  Just to clarify, i think the Israeli state and the Palestinian state are pretty much one in the same, at this point.
  
  Both worthless terrorist states that aren't any better than the other. Only difference is that people and governments are allowed to acknowledge the terrorist actions of the Palestinian government, but not of the Israeli government. Both are guilty of human rights abuses, Palestine in their treatment of their own as well as Israeli citizens, and the Israelis for the truly apartheid situation in Gaza. Amongst many other things.
  
  How anyone can place one state above the other is beyond me. Neither wants peace.
• lhslep134

  

  FairwoodKing;375029 wrote:I totally agree. Israel gets away with murder because the US backs them.

  
  And if Israel didn't "get away with murder" then there would be terrorist attacks every single damn day because there would be no respect for Israel's ability to fight back.
  
  The US also will never give up their relationship with Israel because we use them to play dirty so our hands are clean.
• cbus4life

  A shame that Israeli's "playing dirty" has led to a policy of Apartheid in the Gaza strip against innocent men, women, and children who have never committed terrorist attacks and have no ties to terrorist organiztions.
  
  I understand completely Israels precarious position, but that isn't an excuse for the human rights abuses they've committed.
  
  Building illegal settlements in Gaza, displacing Palestinians, etc., does nothing to prevent terrorist actions against them.
  
  No one is denying that Israel needs to defend themselves. It is how they go about "defending" themselves that is the problem.
  
  We get in arms about Palestinian actions against innocent Israeli civilians, but don't do the same when Israel does the same to innocent Palestinians.
  
  Yes, Israel as a whole might need our support in order to protect itself against Hamas, but the problem is that many of their actions do nothing to further "protect" them.
• majorspark

  

  dwccrew;375036 wrote:Just to be clear, I don't feel that the United States should be backing any nation at this point in time. We should be aligned with no country right now.
  
  We can have foreign relations with countries, but creating alliances is not what our founding fathers intended for our country to do.

  
  We don't have an alliance with Israel. I would consider an alliance a signed treaty of collective defense. Like NATO. I believe these types of alliances are what the founders were fearful of. History has proven them at times to be quite deadly by expanding war and automatically drawing nations into war. If Russia were to attack Poland we are at war with Russia. Look at WWI. One nation's prince is assassinated and the whole continent of Europe goes to war base on alliances of this nature.
  
  We merely have a special relationship with Israel. I believe it is through NATO. Title 22 where non-nato "allies" receive military and finacial benefits. This would also include nations such as Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Phillipines, South Korea, Japan etc.
  
  If Israel were attacked by any nation we are not required by any treaty to go to war against their attackers. We may depending on who the attacker is and the makeup of our government at the time. Same could be said of Egypt, Jordan, Australia etc. In the cases of non-alliance countries that house US troops I would say these countries would likely recieve our direct military assistance. Countries like: Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, etc..
• lhslep134

  

  Cbus, I was more referring to assassinations and other things of that nature that we outsource to Israel so our hands are clean.
  
  I've been to Israel twice, I absolutely love it there, but I'm not ignorant to some of the human rights violations there, and I don't support them at all in that sense. However, the Palestinians have truly brought it upon themselves. Using women and children as suicide bombers sort of backfired because instead of catching Israelis by surprise, the extremists have basically painted a target on every single Palestinian back because every type of person (man, woman, child) could be a possible attacker. For that reason alone, Israelis have to keep on guard, and have a quicker (probably) than necessary trigger finger.
• cbus4life

  Fair enough, and sorry for the confusion.
  
  I've also been to Israel once before, and was very impresesd and did enjoy my time.
  
  And yea, i understand the rationale, and it is a shame that the Palestinian government, Hamas, etc., has destroyed the lives of those they claim to "protect," as their actions have lead the Israelis to ruin the lives of many Palestinians who have no desire or inclination to take part in terrorist activities.
  
  Just a terrible situation all around, and there are no easy solutions.
• Belly35

  

  Is a Humanitarian Mission to Gaza still a Humanitarian Mission if some of those on board have a history of terrorist activities?
  
  Israel's deputy U.N. Ambassador Daniel Carmon said "this flotilla was anything but a humanitarian mission."
  Some activists have "terrorist history" and its organizers support radical Islamic groups such as Hamas, which controls Gaza and refuses to recognize Israel's existence, he said.
  Carmon defended the legality of Israel's blockade and the boarding of the ships -- which refused repeated calls to send their cargo to Gaza through Israel -- as "a preventive measure." He called the results "tragic and unfortunate."
  
  
  Maybe America and this Administration should take lessons from Israel on protecting their country and their citizen. Terrorism is not a game ….. you want to lose
• FatHobbit

  

  I like your new avatar Belly.
• Belly35

  

  FatHobbit;375229 wrote:I like your new avatar Belly.

  
  
  Thank you FatHobbit ..... It will only have meaning to those that know ...... The darker side of Belly
• lhslep134

  

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_FbuSN-3-k&feature=related
  
  
  Honestly, those Turks can go fuck themselves. It's pretty clear there was more to this flotilla than just "aid", as some of the people on there have had known sympathies towards Hamas.
  
  Now I'm glad the Israeli's killed those douchebags.