D
droid
Guest
Is this genuine? Israelis celebrate outside the Turkish embassy in Tel Aviv last night:
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
Since it's been a while since we had an Israel/Palestine thread...
- Thread starter Mr. Tea
- Start date
-
- Tags
- barf emoji basking perchance childlike tripe craner's been mossad from day one dissensus gets fatwa'd fatwa sex hmt govt hat keinen schwand jamaican voodoo gang from predator 2 knob v cretin linebaugh's balls ground into dust mixed biscuits is a virgin but he has clamydia nastiness new tab for trotsky proxy wars pussyclaat voodoo gang from predator 2 strictly for the consequentialist tea and biscuits the cancellation of stan the fundamentalist core of mr tea the hegel reference the lust to execute oliver craner the mythifus of sisyphus third cares for his okra third neglects his okra third puts okra up his bum underschooled undergrads
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I didn't see any telly yesterday so first I heard of this was in the papers left on the train on my way into work this morning - fucking Israel man, I don't know. This is just so mad and horrible. My first thought was that the Israeli govt would try and make some "rogue" navy commander the fall guy, but if they do that, they'll presumably have to hand over the senior officer(s) in charge to face war crimes charges, wouldn't they? Not that there's a great history of IDF commanders being charged with, let alone convicted of, war crimes.
Also an awful deja-vu with the young American woman losing an eye after getting hit square in the face by an Israeli tear gas canister - didn't the exact same thing happen to one of your mates a few years back, padraig?
Also an awful deja-vu with the young American woman losing an eye after getting hit square in the face by an Israeli tear gas canister - didn't the exact same thing happen to one of your mates a few years back, padraig?
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
The IDF are never going to hang their soldiers out to dry. It would take a government uninterested in retaining power to do that.
Some op-eds from Haaretz:
"Operation Mini Cast Lead": http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/operation-mini-cast-lead-1.293417
"Seven idiots in the cabinet": http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/seven-idiots-in-the-cabinet-1.293418
"A Special Place in Hell / The Second Gaza War: Israel lost at sea": http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-spec...e-second-gaza-war-israel-lost-at-sea-1.293246
Really, this is a strategic error of epic proportions. It's hard to imagine how a worse hand could have been played.
Some op-eds from Haaretz:
"Operation Mini Cast Lead": http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/operation-mini-cast-lead-1.293417
"Seven idiots in the cabinet": http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/seven-idiots-in-the-cabinet-1.293418
"A Special Place in Hell / The Second Gaza War: Israel lost at sea": http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-spec...e-second-gaza-war-israel-lost-at-sea-1.293246
Really, this is a strategic error of epic proportions. It's hard to imagine how a worse hand could have been played.
D
droid
Guest
I guess its war then?
Haaretz has taken a pseudo-state line on this one. Critical of the strategic decisions and how it will make Israel look, no mention of the fact that piracy, murder and kidnapping in international waters in order to defend an inhuman blockade is morally and legally indefensible.
vimothy
yurp
Ah, I doubt that.
Anway, Haaretz is conflicted, that's why its interesting--that's why I posted the articles.
And yet they also publish things like, "We are no longer defending Israel. We are now defending the siege." That isn't a government line. Neither is the hostility to the cabinet, nor the calls to end the blockade, nor the claims that everything the IDF touches turns to shit.
Anway, Haaretz is conflicted, that's why its interesting--that's why I posted the articles.
And yet they also publish things like, "We are no longer defending Israel. We are now defending the siege." That isn't a government line. Neither is the hostility to the cabinet, nor the calls to end the blockade, nor the claims that everything the IDF touches turns to shit.
D
droid
Guest
Me too - but thats what IL says...
RE: Haaretz. I was quite careful to say 'pseudo-state' not 'pseudo-government' there. Haaretz does offer conflicting opinions and the occasionally publish something genuinely critical, but their editorial line and the vast majority of their coverage follows the same 'liberal' line as much of the US press... 'our aims arent wrong, its how we try and achieve them that's the problem'.
RE: Haaretz. I was quite careful to say 'pseudo-state' not 'pseudo-government' there. Haaretz does offer conflicting opinions and the occasionally publish something genuinely critical, but their editorial line and the vast majority of their coverage follows the same 'liberal' line as much of the US press... 'our aims arent wrong, its how we try and achieve them that's the problem'.
vimothy
yurp
Actually, whether or not its even casus belli is debatable: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1909b.htm
D
droid
Guest
Well no - I meant that Haaretz encompasses the type of criticism you tend to get from Israeli establishment sources - intellectuals, politicians, religious leaders, the military - which represent the 'state' as a whole, rather than whoever happens to be in power at any one time.
That criticism (with some notable exceptions) almost never questions Israel's legal or moral 'right' to occupy, bomb, murder, torture, imprison etc... only how effective the methods are.
But yes, I cant see war with Turkey, seeing as they're expecting delivery of 10 drones from Israel in a fortnight, but as I said, wars have been fought over less, and if Israel doesn't cut out the bullshit and unequivocally state that they are not at war with Turkey, then according to IL Turkey have every right to retaliate - especially seeing as the 'blockade' has no standing in International law, and Israel does not even recognise Palestine as a state to begin with.
That criticism (with some notable exceptions) almost never questions Israel's legal or moral 'right' to occupy, bomb, murder, torture, imprison etc... only how effective the methods are.
But yes, I cant see war with Turkey, seeing as they're expecting delivery of 10 drones from Israel in a fortnight, but as I said, wars have been fought over less, and if Israel doesn't cut out the bullshit and unequivocally state that they are not at war with Turkey, then according to IL Turkey have every right to retaliate - especially seeing as the 'blockade' has no standing in International law, and Israel does not even recognise Palestine as a state to begin with.
vimothy
yurp
This is where I see the complications:
If the blockade is lawful, then I believe that the Israelis are permitted the use of force in international waters (per treaty above).
The ships were bound for Gaza to supply an organisation with which Israel is in a state of war or near equivalent.
Israel is legally allowed to stop ships and search them to prevent supply of materiel to belligerent parties.
Ships were apparently offered port in Ashod where cargo could be inspected for materiel and then delivered to Gaza by land.
If the blockade is lawful, then I believe that the Israelis are permitted the use of force in international waters (per treaty above).
The ships were bound for Gaza to supply an organisation with which Israel is in a state of war or near equivalent.
Israel is legally allowed to stop ships and search them to prevent supply of materiel to belligerent parties.
Ships were apparently offered port in Ashod where cargo could be inspected for materiel and then delivered to Gaza by land.
D
droid
Guest
But the blockade is not lawful, the ships were thoroughly inspected for arms in Turkey and were on route to supply humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, activists would have every reason to distrust Israeli claims to 'distribute' the aid themselves, and Israel has never declared war on Gaza, nor could they as they don't even recognise it as a state.
grizzleb
Well-known member
Yeah, it's actually pretty ridiculous. They raid a boat in the middle of the night in full military gear, dropping down from helicopters with guns out with live ammunition etc and then are shocked when people maybe fight back. Haha. I wonder what the fuck they were thinking.
I don't think it would be in Turkey's best interests to retaliate. All those nukes Israel has got....
I don't think it would be in Turkey's best interests to retaliate. All those nukes Israel has got....
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
Yes, the fact that Israel is the only sovereign entity certainly complicates matters.
Israel is at war--it has the right to prevent supply of materiel to co-beligerents in the conflict. But this is Hamas, not Gaza or the PA. So the conflict is not between sovereigns. Not sure how this affects the freedom of the seas standard and contraband exception.
Anyone know of any good maritime law blogs?
In any case, you may well be right about all of the above. But from the Israeli perspective, two things seem obvious: Israel has the right to police its blockade of Gaza (or it has no right to blockade it in the first place); once committed, it was inevitable that the IDF were going to get into *some* sort of stupid confrontation.
Israel is at war--it has the right to prevent supply of materiel to co-beligerents in the conflict. But this is Hamas, not Gaza or the PA. So the conflict is not between sovereigns. Not sure how this affects the freedom of the seas standard and contraband exception.
Anyone know of any good maritime law blogs?
In any case, you may well be right about all of the above. But from the Israeli perspective, two things seem obvious: Israel has the right to police its blockade of Gaza (or it has no right to blockade it in the first place); once committed, it was inevitable that the IDF were going to get into *some* sort of stupid confrontation.
D
droid
Guest
Not necessarily, they've prevented vessels from leaving port before (sunk by Flotilla 16 in Cyprus in one case), and they've turned ships around and boarded ships before without major incident.
Incidentally, various Israeli Politicians and defense figures are stating (in defense of Israel no less!) that the other boats which were supposed to join the flotilla were sabotaged in a display of Israel's 'more sophisticated' methods.
But anyway, I get where you're coming from, though its redundant seeing as no-one recognises the blockade as lawful...
Incidentally, various Israeli Politicians and defense figures are stating (in defense of Israel no less!) that the other boats which were supposed to join the flotilla were sabotaged in a display of Israel's 'more sophisticated' methods.
But anyway, I get where you're coming from, though its redundant seeing as no-one recognises the blockade as lawful...
D
droid
Guest
Petition calling for UN investigation to be submitted after 200,000 signatures: http://www.avaaz.org/en/gaza_flotilla_3/?cl=590251628&v=6404
D
droid
Guest
So any ship which passes within 200 miles of gaza can be subject to Israeli assault and seizure? :slanted:
Incidentally, that's the exact opposite of Israel's position regarding the strait of Tiran prior to the six day war, where they argued for the right of 'innocent passage' despite the Egyptian blockade.
vimothy
yurp
It's my understanding that the express mission of the fleet was to land at Gaza, that the Israelis had instructed it to either turn around or land at Ashod and subject the cargo to inspection for contraband, and that the activists had refused to do this.
Its not the fact that the fleet passed within 200 miles of Gaza, but the fact that it was heading directly for Gaza, that motivated the Israeli response.
There are of course some very reasonable objections to this, such as those you raise above. But still, the legality of the Israeli position is not as completely untenable as Murray makes out, I think.
Its not the fact that the fleet passed within 200 miles of Gaza, but the fact that it was heading directly for Gaza, that motivated the Israeli response.
There are of course some very reasonable objections to this, such as those you raise above. But still, the legality of the Israeli position is not as completely untenable as Murray makes out, I think.