Israel attacks humanitarian aid convoy in international waters

[Firecat]

Haaretz: Interior Minister seeks to strip Israeli Arab MK of citizenship[/URL]

Have he gone completely bonkers?

Let's see how much traction this gets. One thing that I think is great about Israel is that there is a greater amount of freedom of speech, compared to the rest of the area. There are some lively debates and the press doesn't run in lockstep with the government. That said, there are some crazy people out there that do things which fly in the face of that freedom, which is unfortunate. You can judge the values of a country by how they treat their dissidents.

[nomix]

One and the same for Arabs - hence my post. But I do take your point I should have been more clear. The Government want no Arabs in the Houses of Parliament - infact none in the country if at all possible probably.

Well, Liberman doesn't want arabs in Israel, Bibi is more of a pragmatist in that respect. Lol, referring to Bibi as a pragmatist, just goes to show all is relative.

Let's see how much traction this gets. One thing that I think is great about Israel is that there is a greater amount of freedom of speech, compared to the rest of the area. There are some lively debates and the press doesn't run in lockstep with the government. That said, there are some crazy people out there that do things which fly in the face of that freedom, which is unfortunate. You can judge the values of a country by how they treat their dissidents.

The law is still the law, if the conditions are met, she will be stripped of her citizenship.

[Cobol74]

God himself gave the country to the Jews!

He gave me 34 Carduggan Road, Esher, Surrey - but I can not move my relatives in at the moment as the bloke who lives there is against it; and the Police are not convinced by this book I have that says it's mine.

[nomix]

What is interesting in that perspective is that if you look at (let's call it Palestine, just to keep it simple) in, well, 1880-90..

You'd find muslims, christians and jews. What's funny is that genetic research shows they were all the same people, with different religions. In other words, today's Palestinians have lived in the holy land since before christ. Cause they were the original jews, some converted, some didn't. Still the same people, living in the same land for 3-4000 years. I do think it's a very iffy argument to say that a religious connection makes a European jew more intitled to the land than a person who can trace his roots back for thousands of years.

But who gives a rats? There had to be a jewish state, and as of now, we need to make sure it survives. Let ancient history be ancient history, let's just figure out to fix the present.

[Cobol74]

I just think that they get a bit too much latitude sometime - nuclear weapon (Of course they have one) means that Iran can have one, or tell me why not? Caught spying on and in America twice, using allies passport forgeries so that the secret intelligence arm can do the odd assassination - not cool.

[nomix]

I just think that they get a bit too much latitude sometime - nuclear weapon (Of course they have one) means that Iran can have one, or tell me why not? Caught spying on and in America twice, using allies passport forgeries so that the secret intelligence arm can do the odd assassination - not cool.

Well, there is a difference between Israel and Iran. While Israel is run by fundamentalists, they are not in the same league as Iran. Spying is something friends do (especially friends), and using Israeli passports for a covert assasination would be stupid.

I don't agree with all that Israel does, but I see the rationale behind most of them.

[Firecat]

What bothers me is the way the United States fails to hold Israel accountable for certain acts. Like this or this or this

I think Jefferson said it best...

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none."

How does the United States benefit in this "special" relationship?

[nomix]

Not very well, but then again, you could argue pretty much the same about NATO. Err, except for Suez, obviously.

The US-Israeli relationship hasn't always been golden, of course, but today, it's pretty solid. Yes, even today.

What I've always said is what we need is someone to lock leaders from both sides into a room, with a very bossy, angry and noisy negotiator telling them to "STOP BEING DAMNED KIDS". I think my father had a novel idea, though. Put them all on the North Coast of Spitsbergen, don't give the guys from PLO their Johnny Walker, and don't give the Israeli leaders any opertunity to be corrupt. I'm sure that would be pretty effective, let's say we left them there for two months. In the middle of winter.

And if they didn't agree by then, two more months.

[brydie76]

http://twitter.com/IDFSpokesperson

I feel sick after reading their tweets.

Meanwhile, Rachel Corrie is top trending on twitter. Apparently it is within 20-50 miles of Gaza now. Isreali ships shadowing, but not intercepting yet. Conflicting reports that their (the Rachel Corrie's) radar is being jammed however. Hope they make it ok though, Israel is really being scrutinised in what they do here now.

EDIT: no contact with the Rachel Corrie for about 20 minutes according to Flashpoints radio on Twitter, IDFSpokesperson reporting they are about 50 miles away from Gaza at the moment. Oh, and people are flooding the search stream with porn. Gotta love Twitter as the main news source

[Plissken]

I have no idea why people still wonder whether Israel has a right to exist. Like people trying to ban nuclear weapons or abortion.. the genie is out of the bottle now and you have to deal with the fact that it does exist and argue how best to proceed.

[Peter3hg]

Oh dear, the Turkish PM has said he will sail to Gaza with a flotilla, accompanied by a naval escort. Things could get very messy very quickly.

[brydie76]

Oh dear, the Turkish PM has said he will sail to Gaza with a flotilla, accompanied by a naval escort. Things could get very messy very quickly.

umm.... some would consider that a declaration of war. Eep.

On the topic of the Rachel Corrie, it has been boarded and "taken over" (BBC' wording, not mine) by Isreali forces and diverted to Ashdod. Nohing from the activists on board yet (although i woud susect that the Israeli forces would have confiscated most/all forms of communication, but that's just me speculating). Free Gaza movement is saying it was oarded in international waters (again) and they will organisae more flotillas ".... until (they) break the siege".

Also, Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6536MF20100604) is reporting on what you were talking about earlier Firecat most of the peope killed were shot multple times at close rane (approximately 45cm away), some purely in the back/back of their head. I will justify later (12:45 am now, I am tired and want to go to bed), but this makes me doubt the IDF even more.

Sorry for any typos, llike I said I am very tired.

[kurthest]

Still, it's impossible for a camera released on June 1st 2006 to take a photo in February 2006. And I doubt Nikon use the IDF as BETA testers.

Other than that, that's an interesting link.

Well the picture you posted is just that, a picture.
You know how easy it is to modify EXIF data, yes?
So you download picture, modify EXIF data, take screenshot. Yeah, that sure is reliable evidence that the pictures are old

On another note, I have no sympathies for the palestinians whatsoever, as long as they keep supporting Hamas.
All this business is caused by Hamas (and partly Fatah), and their muslim supporters, like the IHH mob ganging up on israeli soldiers on one of the boats.

Also, the boarding was according to international law, as the flotilla clearly was out to break the blockade of Gaza.
And the people dying should be nominated to this years Darwin awards, for attacking professional soldiers like that!

[Firecat]

Could the "Israel can do no wrong" people at least try to say something logical/rational?

[Solberg]

This sums it up nicely:

[Plissken]

Well the picture you posted is just that, a picture.
You know how easy it is to modify EXIF data, yes?
So you download picture, modify EXIF data, take screenshot. Yeah, that sure is reliable evidence that the pictures are old

Err.. someone failed to notice they were posted by the IDF....

[Peter3hg]

Err.. someone failed to notice they were posted by the IDF....

The EXIF tags have seem to have mysteriously vanished now as well.

[nomix]

Well the picture you posted is just that, a picture.
You know how easy it is to modify EXIF data, yes?
So you download picture, modify EXIF data, take screenshot. Yeah, that sure is reliable evidence that the pictures are old

I do know that, I am a photographer. As for the EXIF, I was suspicious about the screenshot, so I went to the IDF flickr page and checked it out. The date reported in the screenshot was accurate, at least unless someone hacked IDF's flickr account and swapped files, which I find unlikely. However, I think you may have misunderstoot my post. What I was saying is that as the photo couldn't have been taken with a D2Xs in feb. 2006 when the D2Xs was released in june 2006, it indicates that someone has just been lazy enough to forget to set the date.

On another note, I have no sympathies for the palestinians whatsoever, as long as they keep supporting Hamas.

That's too simple a view. What we see as pure terrorist organisations often contribute a lot to their local communities. It's been true for pretty much all the big ones. Hamas does it, Hezbollah does it, the IRA did it for decades. Hamas were good at supplying health services, different sorts of education, to mention some. And they still do, even if conditions in Gaza are probably worse than ever.

All this business is caused by Hamas (and partly Fatah), and their muslim supporters, like the IHH mob ganging up on israeli soldiers on one of the boats.

Fatah? What has Fatah done recently to fuck this up? And while we're at it, the occupation and the settlements aren't playing any part in it at all? That does seem radical.

Also, the boarding was according to international law, as the flotilla clearly was out to break the blockade of Gaza.

That is only applicable if the blockade is legal, which the blockade of Gaza is not. Israel and the US deem it legal, but neither Israel or the US is anywhere near neutral in this, their arguments in favor carry as much weight as arguments against it by Hamas and Iran.

And the people dying should be nominated to this years Darwin awards, for attacking professional soldiers like that!

There we agree. They behaved like morons.

[kurthest]

Err.. someone failed to notice they were posted by the IDF....

Yes I see that now.
My point is still valid, EXIF data can not be used for neither proving or disproving the time and date of when a picure was taken.

[SpitfireMK461]

Before I get into any discussion, I want to go over one thing. According to "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea", assuming the Israeli blockade of Gaza is legal, then the interception and boarding of these ships is legal. The Gaza blockade is well known and all the ships involved were given fair warning that they'd be intercepted for trying to breach the blockade. These terms allow Israel to intercept ships in international waters to preempt them from breaching the blockade (if it is a legal blockade).

What I'm curious about is whether this blockade is legal or not (keep in mind that legality is very loosely used considering how weak "international law" actually is).

These are two interesting articles I found in a quick search of the matter. They both discuss the same issues. The first argues that the blockade is illegal, and second argues it is legal.

http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/wh...of-gaza-legal/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...429984110.html

There are two main issues regarding the question of legality. First, accepted international law defines war as an armed conflicted between two sovereign states, and that state actors can legally blockade each other in war. The second is that Gaza is not a sovereign state, but there is obviously some sort of armed conflicted between Israel and Gaza. There is little historical precedent for this sort of situation, making for no clear answer.

Both articles discuss the Union blockade of the Confederate States during the American Civil War. The CSA were not a sovereign state, so the Union blockade was initially called illegal by ships that were intercepted. The US Supreme Court decided an armed conflict existed, so it was ok to blockade. The second article asserts that this implies a state's right to use blockades against external AND internal threats. The first article, though, suggests that the declaration of a blockade and armed conflicted gave recognition to the CSA as a legitimate sovereign state, meaning there is a legally defined war occurring, hence the blockade was legal.

The point the first article makes is that Israel denies it occupies Gaza while refusing to recognize it as a sovereign state. The author suggests that if Israel switched either position, the blockade could be legal, but currently is not because it does not meet any standard for an international armed conflict. The second article asserts the Supreme Court decision for the Union blockade is precedent enough for the Gaza blockade to be legal. So we still have no clear answer here.

In January of 2009, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1860 nearly unanimously (the US abstained), which called for a ceasefire to the Gaza War and the end of the blockade. Because Israel is a party to the United Nations Charter, it is bound to follow any order from the Security Council. By this reasoning, the blockade is now illegal if it was not before. (NOTE: Entering personal opinion, I have not been extensively educated in international law) The ceasefire called by the Resolution was not followed by Israel OR Hamas. If it had been followed by Hamas, Israel would be directly bound to follow it as well, but Hamas did not, leaving Israel with no expectation of following it as well.

Personally, Israel's use of the blockade is a poor choice, legal or not. It could legally wait for ships to arrive in port and then search what they carry. It could also allow far more humanitarian supplies into Gaza while serving its purpose of blocking the flow of weapons. THAT BEING SAID, I believe the Israel blockade should be declared legal, for the precedent of declaring otherwise does not seem favorable. Imagine a state facing a serious internal conflict not being able to intercept shipments to its ports because they are not at war with a sovereign state. Imagine if the Union was unable to enforce its blockade (a large reason the CSA lost the war) because it was not at war with a sovereign state. While it might not be the most favorable decision in this situation, it seems to me the best overall. If this does not satisfy the situation, the UN Security Council would still be free take action regarding the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and Israel's arguably disproportional military action.