Israeli raid on Gaza aid flotilla broke law - UN probe

P

pp0470

Guest
#1
The three-member panel said Israel's military response to the flotilla was "disproportionate" and also "betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality."

Israel insists that its soldiers acted in self-defence during the raid in May.

Nine people were killed on board a Turkish ship as it tried to breach an Israeli naval blockade of the Gaza.

In a 56-page report, the UN panel also said the blockade of the Palestinian territory was "unlawful" because a humanitarian crisis there at the time.
BBC News - Israeli raid on Gaza aid flotilla broke law - UN probe

Unlawful blockade, unacceptable level of brutality, humanitarian crisis in Gaza... speaks for itself really.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#2
BBC News - Israeli raid on Gaza aid flotilla broke law - UN probe

Unlawful blockade, unacceptable level of brutality, humanitarian crisis in Gaza... speaks for itself really.
Yep, but try explaining the implications of this to the gunboat diplomatists, carrier advocates, naval nostalgia junkies and general Dark Blue wall-bangers currently running amok on the Current Affairs Forum - truly, age doth not weary them... Hopefully Dr Who will master the Time/Space Continuum and teleport them all back to Rum Ration so that decent folk can get on with their lives.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#4
Unlawful blockade, unacceptable level of brutality, humanitarian crisis in Gaza... speaks for itself really.
Unlawful: was discussed to a great degree on here where several informed commentators pointed out that it was in no way illegal.

Brutality: Boarding a ship (one out of six ships, some of the passengers on which who had publicly proclaimed their desire to be martyrs) armed with non-lethal paintball type weapons?

Crisis: Stop lobbing rockets at Israel; crisis over.
 
#5
Unlawful: was discussed to a great degree on here where several informed commentators pointed out that it was in no way illegal.

Brutality: Boarding a ship (one out of six ships, some of the passengers on which who had publicly proclaimed their desire to be martyrs) armed with non-lethal paintball type weapons?

Crisis: Stop lobbing rockets at Israel; crisis over.
No great surprise anyway with the UN.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
Back on thread - what Delta Dog said.
 
#9
Given the robust Jewish state's lively self critical nature I fully expect the Israeli inquiry to highlight the extreme incompetence of both politicians and the military in this affair while stoutly defending the necessity of Israel acting outside international law and simultaneously insisting it didn't. Legalistic quibbling is pretty much irrelevant.
 
#10
Sixty said:
Unlawful: was discussed to a great degree on here where several informed commentators pointed out that it was in no way illegal.
Strange.

I remember several commentators posting on both sides of the debate. NOTHING to conclusively demonstrate "that it was in no way illegal". It seems better informed people have come to an alternative interpretation.

Still, since you're a Moderator Sixty, you must be right as always.

Sixty said:
Crisis: Stop lobbing rockets at Israel; crisis over.
Israel to pull back to pre-1967 borders, or maybe even the 1947/8 partition plan borders; crisis over.

Reality is that neither of these suggestions will end the crisis, will they?
 
#11
Can't see what the incident has to do with islamic terrorism to be honest. The UN is nothing but a composite of its parts. If it's an apologist for Islamic terrorism (even though it isn't), that's the UN's prerogative. It doesn't have to toe the line to a government/people that doesn't like its decisions.

Personally, I think it would be a great improvement to the Israel-Palestine situation if they conducted all their skirmishes out at sea. The nutters (both sides) can go and play at navy and leave the moderate majorities (Palestine and Israel) at peace.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#12
Strange.

I remember several commentators posting on both sides of the debate. NOTHING to conclusively demonstrate "that it was in no way illegal". It seems better informed people have come to an alternative interpretation.
I was basing that largely on Carpe_Diem's opinion since as a Naval officer he had rather a better insight into the situation than yourself. However, should you be a maritime law expert I'm sure you'll correct me.

Still, since you're a Moderator Sixty, you must be right as always.
Don't be facetious. It's tiresome.



Israel to pull back to pre-1967 borders, or maybe even the 1947/8 partition plan borders; crisis over.

Reality is that neither of these suggestions will end the crisis, will they?
Well my suggestion would end the blockade; yours is somewhat pie in the sky.
 
#13
Not as pie in the sky as some might think

According to the former prime minister, a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be based on the 1967 borders. "I don’t want to address the issue of territorial exchanges. I hope it will be negotiated on soon," he said.


Olmert insisted that following the path he had suggested as prime minister was the only way to achieve peace. "During my final meeting with Abbas, I presented a plan, including maps."


As for his plan to turn over some Arab neighborhoods in east Jerusalem to Palestinian control, Olmert said, "The holy sites (in east Jerusalem) will be controlled by five different sides. If we reach such an agreement, the world will shake with excitement. If we do not follow the path I suggested – there will be no chance for peace.
These things go on behind closed doors, every gridlocked conflict seems endless, then someone ends it.
 
#14
Sixty said:
I was basing that largely on Carpe_Diem's opinion since as a Naval officer he had rather a better insight into the situation than yourself. However, should you be a maritime law expert I'm sure you'll correct me.
I once sat in a Spitfire and moved the control column around. I guess that makes me an expert on Battle of Britain dogfighting!

Being a naval occifer doesn't a legal expert maketh.

It is very difficult to find any single situation on which the legalities are unarguably clear-cut. Law is open to interpretation - and the ability to buy the more competent lawyer. Carpe_Diem offered his interpretation. Look back over his posts over the years and it is no surprise that he interpreted the law in the way he did. That doesn't mean he is correct.

Sixty said:
Don't be facetious. It's tiresome.
So dressing up your opinion and passing it off as fact.

Sixty said:
Well my suggestion would end the blockade; yours is somewhat pie in the sky.
I don't believe it would end the blockade. Israel will just find some other reason to keep it in place until they FINALLY realise it is counter-productive to [what they claim is] their long-term goal.
 
#15
PS. You're correct about my pie-in-the-sky comment. The responsible action of leaving occupied territory - be it post-67 or post-47 partition map - is quite beyond the competence of the current Israeli mindset. How silly of me to bring up this ludicrous idea.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#16
I once sat in a Spitfire and moved the control column around. I guess that makes me an expert on Battle of Britain dogfighting!

Being a naval occifer doesn't a legal expert maketh.
No, but he did bring up some very pertinent points about the legality of such action. Especially when questioned about Israel not being at war with Hamas and our own blockade of the Falklands despite not being at war with Argentina.

It is very difficult to find any single situation on which the legalities are unarguably clear-cut. Law is open to interpretation
Agreed.



So dressing up your opinion and passing it off as fact.
In English please. Unless you're suggesting I did such a thing? I suggested that several learned people on here disagreed with the UN interpretation.



PS. You're correct about my pie-in-the-sky comment. The responsible action of leaving occupied territory - be it post-67 or post-47 partition map - is quite beyond the competence of the current Israeli mindset. How silly of me to bring up this ludicrous idea.
You're quite right. Imagine a country that had taken land from people who attacked it. Who could imagine such a thing? When do you suggest we demand back Calais?
 
#17
Sixty said:
In English please. Unless you're suggesting I did such a thing? I suggested that several learned people on here disagreed with the UN interpretation.
You wrote: Unlawful: was discussed to a great degree on here where several informed commentators pointed out that it was in no way illegal.

These words are presenting opinions as facts. I assume you agree with them.

Sixty said:
You're quite right. Imagine a country that had taken land from people who attacked it. Who could imagine such a thing?
Who attacked who and when?

I mean, on which particular set-to from the past eons are you basing your statement?

Sixty said:
When do you suggest we demand back Calais?
You actually want Calais? When was it part of Scotland?
 
#18
Oh right I see. Sorry for interupting, thought it might be an interesting debate, but apparently I have walked into a room clearly marked:

"Cock-measuring contest"
 
#19
Oh right I see. Sorry for interupting, thought it might be an interesting debate, but apparently I have walked into a room clearly marked:

"Cock-measuring contest"
And you hung like a Chinaman in winter....tsk :)
 
#20
Not as pie in the sky as some might think



These things go on behind closed doors, every gridlocked conflict seems endless, then someone ends it.
That may well be but that does not mean Israel must return to the status quo ante of 1967 as was suggested by the other post. As I recall Nasser effectively started that war with his closure of the Straits of Tiran.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top