Israel Attacks Unarmed Humanitarian Ship in International Waters.

Oh, Israel.

Basically, Israel has some sort of "blockade" up, and a humanitarian ship tried to enter the waters off Gaza to provide aid. Israel enforced their "blockade" and have killed about 14-16 people. The Turkish people are rioting outside the Israeli consul-Shit's going down.

With Turkey being a NATO country and the attack happening in international waters..... As if international opinion of Israel wasn't bad enough.


AljeezeraNet reporting...

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

Oh, Israel.

Yeah, I opened the news today and . They used to be smoother once, remember the raid on the Lebanon airport?
On the other hand, if the Israeli sources are telling the truth and people on board the convoy were packing heat... that's a SMART move.

The Unoriginal wrote:

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

Oh, Israel.

Yeah, I opened the news today and . They used to be smoother once, remember the raid on the Lebanon airport?
On the other hand, if the Israeli sources are telling the truth and people on board the convoy were packing heat... that's a SMART move.

Heh, a prominent member of the Israeli government, Bibi Neytenyahu, will be dining with President Obama Tuesday. Or, he was planning on it but may have canceled. I'm reading conflicting reports right now.

First, the IDF said the humanitarians were brandishing knives. Now, they're claiming heat? God, this whole thing has the potential to seriously derail middle eastern politics. For fuck's sake, law enforcement has had to hold off protesters in front of Israeli consulates in two separate countries, and if Turkey has their way, the Israeli embassy there will be booted out so fast their heads will spin. I wonder what the US' response to Israel's actions last night will be? Congress has pretty much had a hard-on for Israel for the last sixty plus years.

Prior to losing the satellite connection the aid ship was well into international waters.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This puts the US in a precarious position. We are staunch supporters of Israel and Turkey is a NATO country.

Let's just hope this doesn't go to shit.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

Basically, Israel has some sort of "blockade" up, and a humanitarian ship tried to enter the waters off Gaza to provide aid. Israel enforced their "blockade" and have killed about 14-16 people.

That is pretty much how blockades work, yes. But why have one in the first place?

Quote :

Israeli deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon claims the Turkish-based
aid group has ties to terror groups including Al Qaeda.
"They have a history of arms smuggling and deadly terror," he said.

Oh.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

AljeezeraNet reporting...

...really?

Penguin wrote:

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

Basically, Israel has some sort of "blockade" up, and a humanitarian ship tried to enter the waters off Gaza to provide aid. Israel enforced their "blockade" and have killed about 14-16 people.

That is pretty much how blockades work, yes. But why have one in the first place?

Quote :

Israeli deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon claims the Turkish-based
aid group has ties to terror groups including Al Qaeda.
"They have a history of arms smuggling and deadly terror," he said.

Oh.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

AljeezeraNet reporting...

...really?

Can a third party verify the deputy minister's claim that this vessel had ties to terrorists? As far as I've read, no one else can substantiate those claims.

If the vessel were reasonably suspected to be dangerous, then why did Israel strike when the boat was eighty-three miles away from their shores, well into the international waters? That's a major risk of a major fuck-up, the risk Israel could claim is minimal at best. Frankly, neither side knows enough about both the intent of the flotilla and the intent of the IDF.

From the BBC article:

Quote :

Greece has withdrawn from joint military exercises with Israel in protest at the raid on the flotilla.

Greece just sided with Turkey. This is how much it has pissed off the international community.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

If the vessel were reasonably suspected to be dangerous, then why did Israel strike when the boat was eighty-three miles away from their shores, well into the international waters?

"Hey, guys? What does this button do?
...Oy vey."

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

If the vessel were reasonably suspected to be dangerous, then why did Israel strike when the boat was eighty-three miles away from their shores, well into the international waters?

Perhaps they wanted to board the ships while it was still dark.

The smart thing to do would be stopping the convoy as soon as it enters territorial waters, strip'n'search it, and claim 'weapon smuggling' if you find so much as a peashooter... this, if you're going to mantain that the blockade of Gaza is necessary to the country's security.
Maybe that's what they wanted to do, only they needed to gain control of the ships in order to do so, a hold has a lot of place to hide stuff. During the war in Kosovo, a Soviet MBT in working order was found during a search.

EDIT:
Holy shit, Hilarion Cappucci, the weapon-smuggling bishop was on board of the convoy... now that's shooting yourself in the foot.
If I was to compile a 'list of people to leave at the pier when leading a humanitarian convoy through a blockade', this clown would rank among the top twenty.

From the ABC article:

Quote :

It is understood Israeli forces boarded the Mavi Marmara and opened fire after passengers attacked them with axes and knives.

Hmm.

I don't think enough is known right now to start making judgements and pointing fingers. The ships were intending to breach a blockade. They were going to be stopped at some point. I'd believe that at least some of the 600+ people on board the ships brought a weapon with them.

That doesn't mean the casualties deserved it. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have been there. Perhaps it was a terrorist operation. Perhaps the organisation is a bit dodgy but the people involved in this particular mission sincerely wanted to help the ordinary people suffering because of the blockade. Whatever happened, Israel is going to suffer politically.

The Unoriginal wrote:

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

Oh, Israel.

Yeah, I opened the news today and . They used to be smoother once, remember the raid on the Lebanon airport?
On the other hand, if the Israeli sources are telling the truth and people on board the convoy were packing heat... that's a SMART move.

Not really - if the vessels were still in international waters, Israel had no legal right to stop them let alone attack and board them. Under current international law, Israel just committed an act of piracy.

Mavi Marmara has some troubles, May 29, not sure if relevant.

Link to the organization behind the ships.

Basically this ship is one of 7 ships that is loaded with supplies and is intending to breach the blockade. This 'terrorist' operation has multinational involvement.

Hmmm.

I'm wondering if there's going to be any real consequences for this. Yes, it's obviously very sketchy, both legally and morally, but Israel's been pulling stunts like this since day one. They're just too strategically important in the region to be taken to task over anything short of nuclear war.

I wish there would be, considering that the ship at the head of this flotilla was flying a Turkish flag. Turkey is making a lot of noise about putting more pressure on the U.S. to do something because Turkey can revoke airspace rights to U.S. military flights.

Most of those flights are transporting wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan to Germany. Having to take a longer route could be very bad.

Not to mention that Turkey could demand that NATO's mutual defense provisions be invoked. Granted, that is pretty much as long a shot as you can contemplate. But it is there.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu isn't coming to the White House today.

If Israel reacts like this to a probably unarmed humanitarian flotilla, how the fuck can we trust them with nuclear weaponry?

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu isn't coming to the White House today.

If Israel reacts like this to a probably unarmed humanitarian flotilla, how the fuck can we trust them with nuclear weaponry?

We can't not. They're in the Middle East and more or less on our side (well, they're on their side, but their side is pretty congruent with our side) so they're simply too valuable to lose. We can't say no, and they know we can't say no. End of story, really.

gaijinguy wrote:

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu isn't coming to the White House today.

If Israel reacts like this to a probably unarmed humanitarian flotilla, how the fuck can we trust them with nuclear weaponry?

We can't not. They're in the Middle East and more or less on our side (well, they're on their side, but their side is pretty congruent with our side) so they're simply too valuable to lose. We can't say no, and they know we can't say no. End of story, really.

I see your point. I just kind of hope that with the president's expressed desire for peace in the middle eastern region has some bearing on the White House's response and the actions at the UN Security Council meeting later today.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu isn't coming to the White House today.

If Israel reacts like this to a probably unarmed humanitarian flotilla, how the fuck can we trust them with nuclear weaponry?

We can't not. They're in the Middle East and more or less on our side (well, they're on their side, but their side is pretty congruent with our side) so they're simply too valuable to lose. We can't say no, and they know we can't say no. End of story, really.

I see your point. I just kind of hope that with the president's expressed desire for peace in the middle eastern region has some bearing on the White House's response and the actions at the UN Security Council meeting later today.

Everyone wants peace in the Middle East.

Everyone also wants a pony.

Guess what?

gaijinguy wrote:

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu isn't coming to the White House today.

If Israel reacts like this to a probably unarmed humanitarian flotilla, how the fuck can we trust them with nuclear weaponry?

We can't not. They're in the Middle East and more or less on our side (well, they're on their side, but their side is pretty congruent with our side) so they're simply too valuable to lose. We can't say no, and they know we can't say no. End of story, really.

I see your point. I just kind of hope that with the president's expressed desire for peace in the middle eastern region has some bearing on the White House's response and the actions at the UN Security Council meeting later today.

Everyone wants peace in the Middle East.

Everyone also wants a pony.

Guess what?

Various factions in the Middle East have been fighting with each other throughout recorded history. Chances are, people were fighting amongst themselves for thousands of years before recorded history--possibly hundreds of thousands. It's been the dream of every American president since modern Israel was founded to negotiate peace in the Middle East--but it isn't going to happen. People will continue to fight over the Middle East as long as humans inhabit it.

ZoZo wrote:

From the BBC article:

Quote :

Greece has withdrawn from joint military exercises with Israel in protest at the raid on the flotilla.

Greece just sided with Turkey. This is how much it has pissed off the international community.

Meh, wake me when Armenia comes out for Turkey....

I've looked at the articles, but I'm still unclear on why Israel wanted to board this ship in international waters. I can see searching it once it was in Israeli waters, but what were they doing boarding it so far out to sea? Did they have intelligence about it?

Lady Anne wrote:

I've looked at the articles, but I'm still unclear on why Israel wanted to board this ship in international waters. I can see searching it once it was in Israeli waters, but what were they doing boarding it so far out to sea? Did they have intelligence about it?

I've been reading that it's because the ship has "ties" to terrorists. I haven't read anything about any intelligence, but I have read that Israel was tracking that ship since it left the port. In any case, they let five previous ships from the same relief effort dock and unload aid.

I'll just leave this here

the asylum wrote:

I'll just leave this here

Even if that were the case, the IDF had no grounds under international law to board the vessel in the first place because it was outside their territorial waters.

The only time a military vessel may attack another ship in international waters is if that ship has engaged in a hostile act ("do not fire until fired upon"). And the IDF's own Rules of Engagement specify that they may not engage any ship until that ship has been positively identified as an enemy ship, or has engaged in a hostile act such as firing upon IDF forces or shelling Israeli territory.

Spotts1701 wrote:

the asylum wrote:

I'll just leave this here

Even if that were the case, the IDF had no grounds under international law to board the vessel in the first place because it was outside their territorial waters.

The only time a military vessel may attack another ship in international waters is if that ship has engaged in a hostile act ("do not fire until fired upon"). And the IDF's own Rules of Engagement specify that they may not engage any ship until that ship has been positively identified as an enemy ship, or has engaged in a hostile act such as firing upon IDF forces or shelling Israeli territory.

This. So hard this.


Oh look, more protesting. Apparently Parisian protesters were held off with tear gas a few hours ago.

Quote :

Israel's standing with the European Union has also taken another knock. The EU foreign policy representative, Catherine Ashton, called for an inquiry and for the blockade of Gaza to be lifted.

So, it's being widely reported now that the aid works fought back with melee weapons made from shit found lying around the ship. Maybe it's just me, but Gun > Pipe.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Even if that were the case, the IDF had no grounds under international law to board the vessel in the first place because it was outside their territorial waters.

The only time a military vessel may attack another ship in international waters is if that ship has engaged in a hostile act ("do not fire until fired upon"). And the IDF's own Rules of Engagement specify that they may not engage any ship until that ship has been positively identified as an enemy ship, or has engaged in a hostile act such as firing upon IDF forces or shelling Israeli territory.

I read 'attack another ship' as 'fire with guns', but boarding a ship is a different act.
During the Cuban missile crisis, the blockade around Cuba started at 800 miles and was then reduced to 500 miles. Several ships were stopped and inspected by US Navy personnel, so there has to be some international regulation of the matter. Last year the Italian financial police boarded a ship with a ton of cocaine on board, in the middle of the Atlantic. In 1966 coast guard boats gave chase and even fired at a tanker ship which would not stop for inspection, and this over 'mere' cigarette smuggling.

Another thing which is worth repeating - if, and I stress if, there were weapons on board the convoy, even for self-defense, that is a massive fuck-up on their part. How is one supposed to know that those weapons would not be unloaded in the Gaza harbour with the rest of the humanitarian aids? The Mediterranean is not the Somali straits, you shouldn't need guns to travel.