» Heh. RT @BevaniteEllie: RT @Tonygardner: Clarkson poster graffiti at Holborn tube. http://twitpic.com/1tdi9u 1 hr ago

» Israeli PM's statement ends with: "the Jewish state has a right to defend itself". Isn't it a secular democracy? http://twurl.nl/yuae18 4 hrs ago

» Should the media temper its Cumbria murders coverage? http://bit.ly/aoF3HZ - in which @charltonbrooker makes a great point 5 hrs ago

» Perhaps the US lent its submarines to Israel and doesn't have enough to help BP (h/t @ZubedaMir). Thanks James Cameron! 5 hrs ago

» It makes you wan to own a submarine so you can lend it to the US govt as they clearly can't get anything done themselves #uselessgits 5 hrs ago

Twitter profile


  • Family

    • Earwicga
    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Israel: Pirates?


    by earwicga on 1st June, 2010 at 9:57 am    

    Via Craig Murray

    A word on the legal position, which is very plain. To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare.

    Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean however that international law is the only applicable law. The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody’s territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory.

    There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.

    Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.

    Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.

    In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.


         
            Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Current affairs






    108 Comments below   |   Add your own

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. snowy

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Israel: Pirates? http://bit.ly/dzAadI


    2. Elly

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Israel: Pirates? http://bit.ly/dzAadI


    3. Matt Leys

      The legal situation re yesterday's attack RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Israel: Pirates? http://bit.ly/dzAadI


    4. 5te Steve

      Interesting. As ship was in intl waters, boarded ship was Turkish territory. http://bit.ly/dzAadI via @sunny_hundal


    5. sunny hundal

      Blog post:: Israel: Pirates? http://bit.ly/dzAadI


    6. Islamic Soc Britain

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Israel: Pirates? http://bit.ly/dzAadI


    7. Somali Pirates

      Pickled Politics » Israel: Pirates? http://ow.ly/17zyLd


    8. Lauolefiso Stibbie

      Pickled Politics » Israel: Pirates? http://bit.ly/caXOjn


    9. Casey Vanderpool

      Pickled Politics » Israel: Pirates? http://bit.ly/cXqZEs


    10. Jan Lidén

      Pickled Politics » Israel: Pirates? http://bit.ly/bQ6c1U


    11. Duane Omaha

      Pickled Politics » Israel: Pirates?: According to the IDF's official statement, “This IDF naval operation was carr… http://bit.ly/cGmP82


    12. Mohamed Ik Boulabiar

      Now there is no much difference between israel and Somali Pirates http://goo.gl/zBkw #flotilla #FreedomFlotilla


    13. TWEET POLITICS

      Pickled Politics » Israel: Pirates?: According to the IDF's official statement, “This IDF naval operation was carr… http://bit.ly/d89Qvz


    14. TWT POLITICAL

      Pickled Politics » Israel: Pirates?: According to the IDF's official statement, “This IDF naval operation was carr… http://bit.ly/d89Qvz


    15. Martin

      RT @sunny_hundal: Israel: Pirates? http://bit.ly/dzAadI


    16. Caspar 01

      Sounds more like an (inadvertant) declaration of war RT @sunny_hundal: Israel: Pirates? http://bit.ly/dzAadI




    1. dizzy — on 1st June, 2010 at 10:07 am  

      “The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody’s territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory.”

      You’re forgetting the application of hostis humani generis which has had wide-ranging intepretations. So it’s not “quite plain” at all. Law rarely is.

    2. damon — on 1st June, 2010 at 10:26 am  

      And if the ship had been flying a Panamanian flag, Israel would be at war with Panama?
      What if it was a Liberian flag?

      I can’t stand listening to supporters of Israel on the radio like I did this morning, but that Whitehall demonstration last night sounded pathetic.

      I have heard it stated that if a ship is thought to be running a blockade, then it doesn’t matter if an ”interdiction” takes place in international waters.

      Who is right?

    3. ian — on 1st June, 2010 at 10:37 am  

      “hostis humani generis” - “wide-ranging interpretations”

      But no actual real live applications - other than to piracy and slavers. Does Dizzy have some actual real live examples of hostis humani generis being applied outside of these situations?

      Or is he just engaging in FUD tactics?

    4. Vikrant — on 1st June, 2010 at 11:15 am  

      Israeli actions were stupid but legal!

      Once the flotilla made it clear in the press they intended to run the maritime blockade, according to international law, and even US law, the flotilla breached the law by attempting to violate the blockade.

      IDF did have under international maritime law governing maritime blockades during wartime, to board the vessels which which had in any case made it clear that breaching the blockade was their intention!

    5. Lucy — on 1st June, 2010 at 11:17 am  

      re Israel: Pirates?
      http://www.merip.org/mero/mero060110.html
      Two quotes [below] from this interesting report:

      1.”Before the convoy sailed, Israeli passenger Dror Feiler speculated that if the Israeli navy tried to stop the ships by force, “they’ll be the new pirates of the Mediterranean.” The Free Gaza Movement has echoed this charge, as has the Financial Times in its May 31 editorial denouncing “this brazen act of piracy.” This particular accusation will not stick, for the simple reason that by maritime law a state cannot commit piracy, but again it is important not to get tangled up in words. Israel has no legal leg to stand on, because it mounted a military assault upon a civilian boat (which is not, by any conceivable law, barred from carrying knives and metal rods) in waters not its own.”
      ============

      2.”Again, minus the carefully impounded testimony of the activists themselves, it is difficult to know what exactly precipitated the shooting. It is certainly clear that the raid itself was no panicking naval captain’s improvisation, but was approved by the Israeli security cabinet under the imprimatur of Defense Minister Ehud Barak. According to the IDF’s official statement, “This IDF naval operation was carried out under orders from the political leadership to halt the flotilla from reaching the Gaza Strip and breaching the naval blockade.”

      The dispute over who started the on-board combat misses the point, however. From a legal point of view, the Israeli operation was completely out of bounds and Israel is the aggressor. The raid occurred in international waters, meaning that Israel violated the convoy’s right of free navigation. Richard Falk, an international legal scholar and the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, says that the raid is “clearly a criminal act, being on the high seas.” Falk explains that storming a peaceful boat is akin to a home invasion, with the aggravating circumstance that the invaded space in this case was packed with goods intended to alleviate human suffering. “The people on these boats would have some right of self-defense,” Falk continues, as they were the ones who were under unprovoked attack. Israel’s claim of self-defense is preposterous, no matter who threw the first punch, because Israel’s self is not located at sea. “

    6. Shamit — on 1st June, 2010 at 12:05 pm  

      International Law has always recognised the right of States to implement embargo during times of conflict. And, Israel sees itself in conflict with Hamas which in its charter seeks destruction of Israel and has been firing rockets from Gaza on Israeli civilians.

      Both sides Hamas and the State of Israel are wrong and are prolonging a conflict which has now become a humanitarian disaster for ordinary citizens in Gaza.

      However. that said it is clear that Israel is right in its claim to be in conflict with Hamas and therefore does have the right under international law to impose embargo in international waters and there is enough previous exampled of other states doing the same - namely the United Kingdom, the United States as well as countries such as India.

      Therefore, claiming this to be an illegal activity is just bogus.

      What is most annoying about these posts published by this author (who by the way has deleted several of my comments because she could not win an argument) is that it does not focus on the bigger problem of resolving the middle east crisis and delivering a two state solution but go on banging about this particular incident and trying to paint Israeli soliders as evil.

      Out of 6 ships the problem happened in one ship only on which the soldiers were attacked by those who were on the ship - and in the ensuing violence people lost their lives. Loss of life is always sad and should not be condoned especially when it could have been avoided.

      ***************************************
      What I fear most is all this crap is not helping the people in Gaza - and if anything this has helped Israel and Hamas get more entrenched in their position. Further this has put a roadblock on the two state solution.

    7. MaidMarian — on 1st June, 2010 at 12:08 pm  

      earwicga - I’ll tell you what my problem is here.

      Whatever the rights and wrongs, these protesters went looking for this - have they not got exactly what they wanted? They made very plain their intentions in the global media. I guess they made a calculation that Israel is some paper tiger that would shy away from a media spotlight.

      More fool them.

      I would be an awful lot more comfortable with this had it been the case that this flotilla was about aid. Plainly it was not, it was political grandstanding.

      International law is, at the best of times a phantom as this case proves. It has become something used as a partizan political stick. The sense remains that this is people trying to do in a courtroom or a hearing room what they can not do through conventional politics - get Israel and have some cathartic declaration of, ‘wrongness.’ This is not about killings, this is about a political statement.

      Indeed, it is both telling and curious how quickly this has become not about Palestinian freedom, but about the rights of Western protesters.

      The law does not exist to protect people from their own stupidity, and to my mind the same can be said of international law. There is an awful lot to criticise Israel over - to be honest, this is not at the top of my list.

    8. Paul Moloney — on 1st June, 2010 at 12:38 pm  

      “The law does not exist to protect people from their own stupidity, and to my mind the same can be said of international law”

      The main stupidity I see here is on the part of the Israeli military who thought that dropping commandos one by one into the middle of a crowd of 600 people, bound to contain at least some who would have a go, on a densely packed ferry - a ferry in internationl waters flying under the flag of their own Muslim ally with whom relations are already strained - constituted a “plan”. Morality aside; the sheer and utter stupidity of the entire operation is baffling, unless as STRATFOR (Strategic Forecasting) has suggested, this result is precisely what those on the extreme right in Israeli want; more isolation in order to promote a bunker mentality.

      P.

    9. Lucy — on 1st June, 2010 at 1:37 pm  

      On what basis is it claimed that solidarity with Gazans is political grandstanding when the UN has made it plain that the basic needs of Gazans are not being met under the Israeli blockade?

      Mondoweiss and many other sources quote the Director of UNRWA:
      http://www.shoah.org.uk/2010/06/01/mondoweiss-online-newsletter-39/
      “The hardships of Israel’s closure of Gaza have been well documented by all human rights groups operating, most recently by Amnesty International in their Annual Human Rights Report concluding that the siege has “deepened the ongoing humanitarian crisis. Mass unemployment, extreme poverty, food insecurity and food price rises caused by shortages left four out of five Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid. The scope of the blockade and statements made by Israeli officials about its purpose showed that it was being imposed as a form of collective punishment of Gazans, a flagrant violation of international law.” The United Nations continuously states that only a fraction of the required aid is entering the Strip due to what it calls ‘the medieval siege’, with John Ging the Director of UNRWA in Gaza specifically expressing the need for the Flotilla to enter Gaza. The European Union’s new foreign affairs minister Catherine Ashton has just reiterated its call for, “an immediate, sustained and unconditional opening of crossings for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons to and from Gaza.”

      Daphna Baram wrote today/1/6/2010:
      ‘The Israeli government proves day after day that when you start robbing human rights off someone, you end up robbing them off everyone. The savage attack in the Mediterranean should be a wake-up call for every Israeli. If we do not speak up now, nobody will be left when the Netanyahu-Lieberman-Barak thugs come for us.’

      And as one CiF poster to Baram’s article [Valencienne 12.18pm] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/israelis-gaza-flotilla-activists
      pointed out in replying to another poster’s comment stating the Israeli government’s position on delivering aid :
      ‘The israeli governement had already told the flotilla that the aid would be delivered if they flotilla had put into an iraeli port, the flotilla chose not to? why?

      **Perhaps because the Israelis don’t deliver aid except when they feel like it? **[my emphasis]

      To quote Dov Weisglass, “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” I will also refer you to this link, which discusses the aid situation in more detail: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7545636.stm‘

      ======================================

      “People coming under an illegal attack on the high seas do have a right to defend themselves and to protect others who are injured. All of the detainees are being kept from communication with their lawyers and with their embassies. Israel has refused to answer requests about the exact number of dead and injured and who they are.” [a report just now from ‘Democracy Now’ by Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur for the OPT.
      http://www.democracynow.org/

    10. Omri — on 1st June, 2010 at 1:48 pm  

      Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War, 208 Consol. T.S. 338 (1909).

      http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1909b.htm

      Art. 15. Failing proof to the contrary, knowledge of the blockade is presumed if the vessel left a neutral port subsequently to the notification of the blockade to the Power to which such port belongs, provided that such notification was made in sufficient time.

      Art. 37. A vessel carrying goods liable to capture as absolute or conditional contraband may be captured on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerents throughout the whole of her voyage, even if she is to touch at a port of call before reaching the hostile destination.

      Art. 48. A neutral vessel which has been captured may not be destroyed by the captor; she must be taken into such port as is proper for the determination there of all questions concerning the validity of the capture.

      “CHAPTER VIII

      RESISTANCE TO SEARCH

      Art. 63. Forcible resistance to the legitimate exercise of the right of stoppage, search, and capture, involves in all cases the condemnation of the vessel. The cargo is liable to the same treatment as the cargo of an enemy vessel. Goods belonging to the master or owner of the vessel are treated as enemy goods.”

      You leftists seem to think international law is your whimsy set in stone. Well, it isn’t.

    11. Sofia — on 1st June, 2010 at 1:57 pm  

      lovely how you quote international law when it suits you…let’s forget murdering civilians or dropping phosphorus laden bombs in gaza..where’s your international law then?

    12. earwicga — on 1st June, 2010 at 2:03 pm  

      Indeed Lucy.

      Speaking to Reuters, Free Gaza Movement activist Greta Berlin, based in Cyprus, said: “We are an initiative to break Israel’s blockade of 1.5 million people in Gaza. Our mission has not changed and this is not going to be the last flotilla.”

      http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0601/breaking33.html

    13. MaidMarian — on 1st June, 2010 at 2:32 pm  

      Sofia - I’m sorry, but that rather tart reply at 11 kind of demonstrates the point about the idiocy of international law. Put simply, international law is what people want it to be.

      If some want it to, say, legitimise an invasion, that is how they read it. Is some want to grind an axe, that is how they find it.

      These concepts - sovereignty, self-determination, human rights, liberty all get thrown around as if they are absolutes that can be traded off and optimised against each other, codified in statute, reified and enforced by a judiciary. That is cobblers. One man’s human rights is another man’s facilitation of a denial of sovereignty. One man’s self-determination denies another man his liberty.

      Instead of looking to some fatuous legalism what those who care about people in the middle east should do is work through politics and apply pressure to all sides to solve this, rather than just perpetuating the situation as an easy stalking horse to use to project angst about our sociey, government and alliances. What part of two state solution do the people on the ground not understand?

      International law is an idiocy and the sooner people stop hiding behind it to put off the tough choices the better.

    14. Don — on 1st June, 2010 at 3:29 pm  

      Omri,

      This is not about ‘leftists’ and ‘rightists’. Those terms make no sense here.

      Purely as a matter of interest, don’t those articles apply only in a time of war? Is Israel in a declared state of war? I say as a matter of interest because the legality or otherwise of an act is relevant only if there is an agent willing and able to enforce the law in question.

      I see that the UNSC has stopped short of condemnation of the shootings.

    15. earwicga — on 1st June, 2010 at 3:36 pm  

      Don - the UNSC condemned the violence, but not the parties involved.

    16. Sofia — on 1st June, 2010 at 3:50 pm  

      Maidmarian - when states such as israel make a mockery of human rights and international law then yes you could say it is fatuous legalism. The issue of israel is not about sovereignty..it is about how they went about setting up the state of israel and are continuing to bulldozer palestinian homes, starve over a million people and refuse to recognise one iota of what they are doing might actually be inhumane. Dignity and liberty are not luxuries, they are basic human rights that are currently being denied to people around the globe. We are quick to condemn the taliban, saudi arabia, Iran etc etc, yet for some reason, Israel has carte blanche in relation to how they behave. Gaza is an enforced ghetto which does not allow free movement of goods and people. What pressure is being put on israel to alleviate the problems facing Gazans?

    17. Paul Moloney — on 1st June, 2010 at 4:12 pm  

      http://ibnlive.in.com/news/turkey-threatens-action-israel-on-alert/116743-2.html

      It just goes to show how badly handled this has been when it looks like Israel might actually end up - if not at war, then limited military action - against its only Middle East ally.

      P.

    18. earwicga — on 1st June, 2010 at 4:18 pm  

      yet for some reason, Israel has carte blanche in relation to how they behave

      That ‘reason’ is laid out here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

    19. MaidMarian — on 1st June, 2010 at 4:19 pm  

      Sofia - ‘The issue of israel is not about sovereignty..it is about how they went about setting up the state of israel and are continuing to bulldozer palestinian homes, starve over a million people and refuse to recognise one iota of what they are doing might actually be inhumane.’

      And there we have it.

      This is not about, ‘piracy,’ the treatment of protesters on the sea or rule of law. This is about a cathartic cry for attention. The flotilla is just a stalking horse for wider arguments about Israel. The speed of your recourse to moral equivalence about other states speaks volumes. This is all about some statement that Israel is, ‘wrong.’ The actual delivery of this aid forms no part of your argument.

      The arguments about Israel you make are far better than arguments about jurisprudence surrounding article X of the Charter of Whatever.

    20. Lucy — on 1st June, 2010 at 5:27 pm  

      Which is the ’stalking horse’ or the ‘cathartic cry for attention’? The flotilla, the assault on the flotilla, the international response to it, or the comments on this thread? Which? But obviously it’s not the comments on this thread which are a stalking horse or a cathartic cry for attention or you wouldn’t be commenting. So which is it, the flotilla, the assault or the international response?

      A requote of Dov Weisglass (above): “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”

    21. earwicga — on 1st June, 2010 at 5:31 pm  

      I wouldn’t discount the comments on this thread Lucy. Shamit thinks that people blogging about the Flotilla caused the deaths of the activists.

    22. Lucy — on 1st June, 2010 at 6:37 pm  

      Where does he say that?

    23. Katy Newton — on 1st June, 2010 at 6:45 pm  

      He doesn’t.

    24. earwicga — on 1st June, 2010 at 6:45 pm  

      Lucy - in the comment I deleted, so I take it back as the comment no longer exists. Doh!

    25. Lucy — on 1st June, 2010 at 6:59 pm  

      No worries.
      BTW, #18 was very useful stuff on reasons for carte blanche. Shocking even to see in a list like that. Meant to say earlier…

    26. Ant — on 1st June, 2010 at 7:06 pm  

      Although technically not piracy, this was certainly an act of war and a disgraceful abuse of human rights.

      Shame on Israel.

    27. genghis — on 1st June, 2010 at 7:52 pm  

      Palestine, including Gaza is a sovereign state. To attack the flotilla was an act of war.

    28. Noor — on 1st June, 2010 at 8:06 pm  

      Why arent British Jews being demanded to condemn Israel (the“ Jewish state“s) actions as British Muslims are every time one of our co-religonists does something wrong ?

    29. earwicga — on 1st June, 2010 at 8:19 pm  

      Noor - you know neither demand is reasonable.

    30. Boyo — on 1st June, 2010 at 9:11 pm  

      Noor, you probably don’t read PP often.

    31. damon — on 1st June, 2010 at 9:15 pm  

      Lucy – in the comment I deleted, so I take it back as the comment no longer exists. Doh!

      So this is a censored thread too?
      Then what’s really the point?

      I was going to ask if anyone had found their opinion changing in the last 24 hours or so, as more information had come out and we’d had a chance to read various opinion about it.

      About how it looked that this couldn’t have really been the outcome that Israel really wanted, unless you gave some credence to the opinion that Sunny gave last night ….. that maybe Israel really didn’t care about all this international condemnation, as ultra rightists in the government wanted it this way.
      To become isolationist.

      And to talk about the links in the opening post about Craig Murray’s speech in Whitehall last night …. and even to mention Channel Jon Snow in his Channel 4 News interview with Israeli spokesman Mark Regev tonight.

      I have admired Snow for many years, and have despised Regev since I first clapped eyes on him … but I thought Snow was poor tonight - talking about Turkish warships accompanying the next aid ships.

      It would be good to find a website where you could discuss this kind of thing without being deleted and censored for being off message.

    32. genghis — on 1st June, 2010 at 9:16 pm  

      So latest at the UN is that the Turkish move to have Israel investigated by the UN has been vetoed by its erstwhile ally, the good ‘ol USofA.

      Funny. Then the US wonders why there is so much angst against it in the Middle-east and among muslims generally.

    33. Shamit — on 1st June, 2010 at 9:23 pm  

      Assumption is the mother of all fu**&!!!

      Inability to comprehend comes a close second and it is especially dangerous -

      Lets try this -

      The situation in Gaza is apalling and the residents are being denied basic human rights by Israel, and I am afraid, Hamas as well.

      Behind the scenes, you have the most pro Palestinian US President since George Bush senior and who has pretty much forced Yahoo the idiot to work towards an actual decisive roadmap - none of the roadmaps for roadmaps - Obama wants a decisive fair solution of 2 states. And Abbas is smart, respected and trusted to do the right thing.

      Now if the roadmap works, Hamas and Hezbollah almost immediately lose their reason to exist. And, it also scares the shit out of rabid right wing nutters in Israel.

      This flotilla may have hit front pages and headlines in the media world over yesterday - actually its been simmering for the past few weeks. There has been diplomatic efforts to try to stop the flottila and get the aid through UN agencies and other established mechanisms.

      Everyone knew this flotilla was going to almost wreck the fledgling peace process yet rather than working towards solving the fundamental problem the flotilla sailed.

      And, almost as soon as the flotilla sailed, the internet started heating up - with emails ready to blast out to thousands - both sides of the fence took this to a frenzy - live blogging from the shipts - live blogging from israel - most of which had little to do with improving the lives of the people of Gaza.

      Everyone knew what was going to happen? Israel was going to stop the boats - - And macho Yahoo must have given the go ahead to show the world he can’t be messed with. So rather than stopping the boats by creating a barrier of warships they chose to drop soldiers on board.

      There were six ships - 5 of them were fine however when soldiers dropped on the 6th one they got attacked and clearly beaten up with metal rods. Only a fool or someone completely with no sense of pragmatism would think that soldiers especially one of the most elite commando forces in the world would not react. Violence led to tragedy.

      The bigger tragedy was the destruction of the actual peace process that has been initiated by the US President. So who benefitted from this?

      Hamas and the Israeli right wing - and in the process inflamed the Arab and Israeli streets - plunging another generation into a siege mentality. I am sure this would add fodder to recruitment for Hams and Hezbollah.

      So how did all this help the Palestinian cause? I don’t know. Because it didn’t.

      And the whole world’s bloggers and supporters and protestors were too busy shouting out for the glory seeking activists.

      And yes I don’t give two shits about the activists because they wrecked a peace process that actually could have delivered firm agreement for a viable two state solution before 2012 US Presidential elections. And if that happens Obama would be there to see it through. The man is ambitious and he could just get it.

      Clinton came close but like healthcare Obama could just pull it off. Now that is almost impossible.

      Some have bandied around words like “solidarity” and lectured me on why I should read Alone in Berlin. We are supposed to learn from history not repeat the same mistakes -

      Bloggers and protestors - Not many seemed to be to bothered about the real plight of the ordinary people in Gaza. If they were they would have supported the aid going through peacefully - so that people’s lives could have been just a little easier. No, everyone knew what was going to happen and the leaders of the world stood by and those on the sidelines of both sides egged on entrenched narratives,

      There are hundreds if not thousands of aid workers working in Gaza of all races & nationalities & religion - to me they are the ones who should be highlighted. To me they are the ones who should be applauded and egged on because they believe in a better future for the people of Gaza.

      So, while I think anytime there is loss of life it is sad - I have no sympathy for these glory seeking stupid imbeciles who could have made their statement and stood aside and let IDF search the ship and they would have been escorted to Asdoh and sent home.

      And those who egged them on knowing full well what would happen are equally foolish with typical myopic vision so evident in frenzied crowds.

      That’s what I meant

      Anyone who has watched the movie Philadelphia knows about the phrase “tell me like I’m a 10 year old” -

      Now hope things are little clearer -

      Katy got it - somehow others did not. May be I expect too much - or may be people should not try to give a bad spin to really stupid censorship of my comments - and it was more than one.

    34. genghis — on 1st June, 2010 at 9:40 pm  

      If anything it yet again highlights the utter and complete disregard Israel holds for international law. Yes this is predictable behaviour. Does any of this benefit Gazans? Yes. Because more than ever this has left the Zionists isolated.

    35. earwicga — on 1st June, 2010 at 9:50 pm  

      damon - get off your high horse, you sound hysterical. Parts of Craig Murray’s speech were borderline tbh. Others gave much better speeches.

      Israel is now deporting all activists, even those who were involved in the violence against military personnel. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-to-deport-all-activists-seized-on-gaza-flotilla-1.293634 This is over and beyond what I would have expected. Will Turkey now be investigating as to who attacked soldiers? Will Israel investigate who attacked activists?

      Apparently FreeGaza haven’t made a decision as to whether MV Rachel Corrie will continue on her course. http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=123&art_id=nw20100601104030680C541880 Egypt opening up it’s borders to aid should make a difference to this decision.

    36. damon — on 2nd June, 2010 at 12:18 am  

      Earwicga - I thought Jon Snow (who I respect) wasn’t his best tonight and that I find all this ‘international condemnation’ laughable, I don’t think makes me histerical.

      Is anyone really taking any notice of the demented Turkish government who would happily bomb and invade northen Iraq tomorow?
      Their ultra-nationalist pride has been hurt, that’s all.

      Is anyone taking any notice of the Arab League or Hamas leadership on this?
      And to get closer to home - those Socialist Worker/Respect/MCB types who turn out on every demonstration?

      And that’s the only reason I rolled my eyes at Craig Murray’s speech. Because it was made to that same old audience.

      I want to see the Israel - Palestine issue sorted and not have all this posturing all the time.
      http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/10/1231604397657/Demonstrators-let-off-fir-001.jpg

    37. douglas clark — on 2nd June, 2010 at 1:14 am  

      Reprise on a line:

      What we are interested in is finding common ground.

      Well, that is what I always thought this place was about. Those that don’t, haven’t been reading here long enough.

      Seems to me.

    38. Sunny — on 2nd June, 2010 at 1:56 am  

      It would be good to find a website where you could discuss this kind of thing without being deleted and censored for being off message.

      Oh stop getting all fucking precocious folks. People get deleted in I/P threads from the beginning of time - and I’ve been doing it for years.

      In fact you’re not a regular commenter on PP until your comment has been deleted. As for you damon, you know there’s little point in your crying censorship. You’re the resident agitator and Spiked Online fanboy :)

      There will be a few more I/P threads and more comments that threaten to derail the thread or throw ad hominems at the author will be deleted.

      That’s life. That’s blogging.

    39. Refresh — on 2nd June, 2010 at 1:57 am  

      Lets hope Turkey issues an international arrest warrant. That along with the impartial investigation called for by UNSC (disregard the US nudge and a wink that the perpetrators can investigate themselves); and regular flotillas ever growing in number is what will put an end to the trash that passes for international diplomacy.

      Shamit,

      This was an act designed not just to break the blockade, but also to put the so called ‘International Communtiy’ on the spot. Only those opposed to the flotilla, or those looking to provide cover for Israel appear to be seeking the fine dividing line between delivering aid and breaking the blockade. The flotilla was there to achieve both. Why else do it?

    40. Sunny — on 2nd June, 2010 at 1:57 am  

      Incidentally, the fucknuts over at Harry’s Place were making fun of Craig Murray over the UK / Iran diplomatic crisis too. And loads of people suddenly became experts at international law.

      It later turned out Craig Murray was right about the whole thing.

    41. Refresh — on 2nd June, 2010 at 2:02 am  

      Damon,

      ‘talking about Turkish warships accompanying the next aid ships.’

      I recall, over a year ago, proposing that the Royal Navy should be accompanying aid ships.

    42. Refresh — on 2nd June, 2010 at 3:13 am  

      Shamit,

      This piece spells it out

      ‘It’s up to us to lift the blockade

      The people of Gaza don’t need the West to send humanitarian aid. They need our leaders to take decisive action – after all, we have been complicit in this siege, writes Donald Macintyre’

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/its-up-to-us-to-lift-the-blockade-1988693.html

    43. douglas clark — on 2nd June, 2010 at 5:22 am  

      Sunny @ 40,

      The fucknuts at Harry’s Place, Gene in particular, are indeed the idiots that Flying Rodent has always accused them of being. There is a particular mentality that defends the indefensible.

      The most important point, according to the brain dead fools that are muscular liberals, is whether or not it is allowable to kill people on the high seas. Y’know, in terms of international law or summat!

      The fact that the blockade is a humanitarian affront, the fact that being attacked by the military for providing aid, and lets be honest publicity, seems to have got the regulars on Harry’s Place into the sort of advocacy that one might imagine the defence team had for Josef Fritzl. You have to defend the indefensible, you have to be a morally bancrupt numpty.

      That is what you do. The entire fucking bunch of them are defense lawyers and moral degenerates. I am not sure which informs the other. It is, however indefensible.

      They are, after all, muscular liberals.

      Or brain dead morons.

      Take your pick.

    44. douglas clark — on 2nd June, 2010 at 6:32 am  

      Sunny,

      As someone that comments here pretty regularily, can I assume that earwiga dosn’t have the right to ban my comments, without at least, discussing that with you and Rumbold? Or anyone else in the Pickled Politics conspiracy.

      It seems to me that some regular posters, damon for instance, are being assumed to be trolls or worse. I am not terribly happy when someones ego is more important than debate on here. Which is what, I, for one, have thought this place is supposed to be about.

      I’d appreciate a less than anodyne reply.

    45. Katy Newton — on 2nd June, 2010 at 8:07 am  

      Oh stop getting all fucking precocious folks. People get deleted in I/P threads from the beginning of time – and I’ve been doing it for years.

      For racism or antisemitism or islamophobia or pointless trolling, yes. But I don’t recall you deleting comments that were on topic because you disagreed with the commenter’s opinion. That’s a new and deeply unpleasant development.

    46. cjcjc — on 2nd June, 2010 at 9:03 am  

      I think you mean “precious”, not “precocious”.

      Deletion through pique is never attractive.

    47. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd June, 2010 at 9:10 am  

      It’ll make a good movie, this. Oo-ar pirates yo ho hoeing with a bottle of rum in sea battle with somalian pirates. Naturally, being Hollywood, it’ll be a produced by a Jewish billionaire and Alan Rickman will play the villanous ottoman moor. I’m a troll, aren’t I?

    48. Vikrant — on 2nd June, 2010 at 9:14 am  

      In fact you’re not a regular commenter on PP until your comment has been deleted.

      Sunny I have been here on and off since PP’s existence. This makes me feel unloved!

    49. douglas clark — on 2nd June, 2010 at 10:03 am  

      Sunny @38,

      Well?

      If Katy Newton and Vikrant and I agree, a conspiracy of the damned perhaps, what have you got to say?

      You allow, perhaps for comic effect, Lee John Barnes, to comment here.

      Earwigaca is, frankly, too sensitive to criticism, and I am someone who generally agrees with her. Despite a very bad start when she began posting here.

      That’s life. That’s blogging.

      No, Sunny. it isn’t.

      You had a consensus around here and this sort of shit is enough to destroy it.

      I liked what you set out to do. Do you remember what you set out to do?

      I do.

      Just saying that you have lost your compass.

      And I write this as a friend of Pickled Politics and your chum ;-)

      This place ought to be better than it currently is. It should remember it’s past and welcome contrary views. There are enough followers of this site to see off idiots without censorship.

      Least, that’s what I think.

    50. douglas clark — on 2nd June, 2010 at 10:29 am  

      …And there are plenty of people capable of seeing bullshit for what it is. Amongst those that remain around here Don and Rumblod and Jai come to mind.

      Those that you seem to have lost, along the way, include Sonia and bananabrain. Both folk that I have enormous respect for. Why do you think they have stopped posting here?

      Is it just:

      That’s life. That’s blogging.

      ?

      I don’t think it is, exactly. I think their ideas were marginalised. That is not a happy state of affairs.

      What say you?

    51. Sofia — on 2nd June, 2010 at 10:33 am  

      ‘This is not about, ‘piracy,’ the treatment of protesters on the sea or rule of law. This is about a cathartic cry for attention. The flotilla is just a stalking horse for wider arguments about Israel. The speed of your recourse to moral equivalence about other states speaks volumes. This is all about some statement that Israel is, ‘wrong.’ The actual delivery of this aid forms no part of your argument’

      In my response to you I was specifically talking about your views on international law. In context you think that the flotilla was looking for trouble..I think it was there to deliver aid whilst making a political point..of course. They are brave and courageous people who actually do what they believe in and don’t just talk about it. I met people like this back during the bosnian conflict. Humanitarians who delivered aid to bosnians under extreme conditions. These people aren’t attention seekers..they believe in a cause..

    52. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd June, 2010 at 11:05 am  

      If I repeat what Douglas says on other forums without paying him copyright, is it a form of piracy? I hope not because I like what he says. What we say.

    53. Ravi Naik — on 2nd June, 2010 at 11:29 am  

      When you look at goods that Israel bars from Gaza, you get the feeling that it is not just a case of stupidity. How can any sane individual believe that this sort of thing can help both Israelis and Palestinians is beyond me - it is almost psychotic.

    54. Refresh — on 2nd June, 2010 at 11:31 am  

      ‘There are enough followers of this site to see off idiots without censorship.’

      Its not the idiots you have to worry about - its the propagandists.

      An idiot is someone of subnormal intelligence, and I don’t care to use the word lightly.

      Whereas the propagandist presumes their targets to be idiots.

    55. Refresh — on 2nd June, 2010 at 11:34 am  

      ‘How can any sane individual believe that this sort of thing can help both Israelis and Palestinians is beyond me – it is almost psychotic.’

      There is something deeply deeply unsettling about the list of barred goods. It can only mean that Israel wants to psychologically imprint on the Palestinians who their master is and that resistance is utterly futile.

      Its disgusting.

    56. damon — on 2nd June, 2010 at 11:49 am  

      I’m not ”crying” censorship Sunny, and it’s fair enough if posts do get deleted, but I found the statement that posts were going to have to be approved on this Gaza situation to be a poor decision.

      I shall not be approving any more comments that blame the activists for being attacked and killed by Israeli commandoes in international waters. Not even William Hague agrees with you. Go post on Rumbold’s post.

      It does seem a little Socialist Workerish ….. or a bit like Spiked’s policy too.

      As for being a ”fanboy” of theirs … yes up to a point. I don’t get the climate stuff and disagree about Ireland, but I knew they’d say something interesting about this Gaza situation, and they have.

      I can see why people would hate this:

      ”Many people are understandably concerned about the siege of Gaza by Israel. But the flotilla incident this week confirms that there’s a more pressing, profound and almost completely unquestioned problem today: the intellectual, moral siege of Israel by the Respectable World. There is nothing remotely progressive, far less radical, in the transformation of Israel into the whipping boy of a motley crew of Western moral entrepreneurs, radical Islamists and momentum-seeking left-wing activists. In fact it is fuelled by a quite intense hypocrisy and political opportunism, and it is warping the political dynamic in the Middle East, making life worse for Israelis and Palestinians.”
      http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8947/

      I think that’s the kind of thing that Earwicga was talking about not approving …. but to me, those ideas is what a conversation on Israel/Gaza should start picking up on I think.

      Even though there is official disaproval of it on PP.

    57. Bored in Kavanagasau — on 2nd June, 2010 at 12:18 pm  

      The British/American blockade of Iraq during the 90s and early 00s had a similar list of items; it is not difficult, going by recent experience, to argue that Hamas run Gaza threatens Israeli lives much more so than Iraq did to British and American ones. The blockade was rather about keeping Saddam’s Iraq “in a box”. It didn’t cost the governing parties in the respective countries politically and it didn’t conjure as much outrage as the proceeding war. Newspapers such as the Guardian hardly commented on them at the time, despite their much greater destrucutive power than those currently applied in Gaza. Even the placards at the time of the big anti-war protests in late 2002 and early 2003 indicated as much: “No War on Iraq, Free Palestine” rather than “No War on Iraq, Stop the sanctions”, which might indicate that many at the time thought sanctions were a good thing at that time or certainly not a desperately bad thing worth campaigning against. Many people have already forgotten them: the despair over Labour and Iraq refers to solely to the war and not the sanctions period of Blair’s reign from 97-03. When Secretary of State Madelaine Albright said the lives of 500,000 children was worth it, as a result of enforcing the blockade, I can’t remember as many people fulminating as much as when Israel kills a few members of a rampaging mob, after severe provocation, in trying to enforce its more justified blockade? If people accepted the earlier blockade with such placidity, why stress yourselves about this much more benign one?

    58. Lucy — on 2nd June, 2010 at 12:32 pm  

      57. There were people who opposed the sanctions, but you are probably too bored to do the graft and supply the links and spoil your narrative. Where was your placard?

      56.Brendan O’Neill of Spiked doesn’t like the life style of the activists on board the flotilla and apart from that he radiates general misanthropy. That’s about it really.

    59. MaidMarian — on 2nd June, 2010 at 1:30 pm  

      Lucy (20) - ‘Which is the ’stalking horse’ or the ‘cathartic cry for attention’? The flotilla, the assault on the flotilla, the international response to it, or the comments on this thread? Which? But obviously it’s not the comments on this thread which are a stalking horse or a cathartic cry for attention or you wouldn’t be commenting. So which is it, the flotilla, the assault or the international response?’

      All three.

    60. Random Guy — on 2nd June, 2010 at 1:33 pm  

      One thing Shamit has not mentioned (as far as I can tell) in his posts, is the role both the U.S. and Israel played in destabilising Hamas and fracturing Palestinian society even further after they were democratically elected by the Palestinians. I am not sure how anyone can have a unified view of the peace process with just this single fact in hand.

      http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804?currentPage=1

    61. MaidMarian — on 2nd June, 2010 at 1:43 pm  

      Sofia (49) - Thank you for your reply to me.

      On Bosnia (my wife is from Macedonia) many in the region saw for themselves the severe blurring between those coming from outside to offer aid and those who came to fight. Go to the region and see the distrust for yourself because it lingers to this day.

      ‘I think it was there to deliver aid whilst making a political point..of course. They are brave and courageous people who actually do what they believe in and don’t just talk about it.’

      Well, that is your view and of course you are entitled to it. I, with all respect, disagree with your empahsis. I believe that there were some very well meaning people on board being used as cover.

      On a separate point, looking at the news coverage today, this ship appears NOT to have been Turkish.

    62. indrax — on 2nd June, 2010 at 1:44 pm  

      Lucy, #57, and previously: agreed.

      and the egoistic ostrich-like [head up own rectum rather than in sandy denial] delusions of objectivity in declaiming ’stalking horse’, ‘cathartic cry for attention’ etc .. a disposition somewhat related to the ’shock and awe’ heroes,
      is wholly and inordinately within contempt.

    63. MaidMarian — on 2nd June, 2010 at 1:49 pm  

      indrax - It is curious how on here my claims of, ’stalking horse,’ and, ‘cathartic cry for attention,’ seem to have become a bit of a rallying cry.

      Could it possibly be that a nerve has been touched and that my comments were rather closer to truth that some want to acknowledge?

    64. Sunny — on 2nd June, 2010 at 2:10 pm  

      damon - it’s arguable that blaming people who died for their own deaths is kinda ghoulish and in many ways the kind of hate speech that we would argue against. After all, I would delete comments that blamed a woman for her own rape if she got raped.

      Vikrant - I’m almost positive I’ve deleted comments of you from the early days. Remember your brief love-affair with the RSS? ;)

    65. indrax — on 2nd June, 2010 at 2:11 pm  

      Logically it could be true, but passing over the fatuous, the touched nerve is quite yours. If your kind is trully that deluded then I retract and thereby place you beneath contempt.
      But some intelligence is evident, so mote-and-beam-like, in impugning others you mock yourself.

    66. Naadir Jeewa — on 2nd June, 2010 at 2:29 pm  

      Spent an hour or two in the UCL library yesterday evening having a flick through some international law texts. Rather than give you my semi-coherent ramblings, I’ll just say that this seems pretty definitive to me, in the sense that it’s completely inconclusive.

      http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/why-is-israels-blockade-of-gaza-legal/

      “Israel’s defense of the blockade thus appears to create a serious dilemma for it. Insofar as Israel insists that it is not currently occupying Gaza, it cannot plausibly claim that it is involved in an International Armed Conflict (IAC) with Hamas. And if it is not currently involved in an IAC with Hamas, it is difficult to see how it can legally justify the blockade of Gaza. Its blockade of Gaza, therefore, seems to depend on its willingness to concede that it is occupying Gaza and is thus in an IAC with Hamas. But Israel does not want to do that, because it would then be bound by the very restrictive rules of belligerent occupation in the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

    67. MaidMarian — on 2nd June, 2010 at 2:46 pm  

      Naadir Jeewa - Well, it would not be flip to point out that Hamas has not exactly held back in the past in declaring war on Israel.

      But more than that. ‘And if it is not currently involved in an IAC with Hamas, it is difficult to see how it can legally justify the blockade of Gaza.’ Note the word, ‘difficult.’ Not, ‘impossible.’ Like Blair and Iraq, it was clear that invasion was, ‘difficult,’ to justify, but there certainly was a straw to grasp. And, of course the fact that international law is aspirational nonsense, still less something that carries an enforceable sanction means that it is nothing more substantial than the emperor’s new clothes.

      International law is a phantom, a nonsense. Instead of chasing some will-o-the-wisp it would be far better to look to both sides to do something - anything - to solve this rather than hoping for some great, ‘law,’ to do it all for us. As I said at 13, law will not solve this.

    68. GW — on 2nd June, 2010 at 3:04 pm  

      Well as one of those “fuckwits” wqho inhabits Harrys Place can I comment ? The IDF were entirely justified, legaly and morally in thier preventive actions.

      When Hammas recognise Israels right to exist then there is a case for lifting any blockade.

      GW

    69. Noor — on 2nd June, 2010 at 3:26 pm  

      Over at Spittoon they arent too pleased with you earwicga

      Abu Faris
      Posted June 1, 2010 at 3:53 PM | Permalink

      Having been recently banned again by her for daring to think differently from her, I think PP would be doing itself a massive favour by ridding itself of that objectionable squirt, earwicga, who seems to be acting as some sort of censor-in-chief of late.

      http://www.spittoon.org/archives/6333/comment-page-1#comment-18368

      ——————————————————
      Abu Faris
      Posted June 1, 2010 at 5:39 PM | Permalink

      Faisal

      “She’s only following orders”

      She’s a fecking fruitcake.
      http://www.spittoon.org/archives/6333/comment-page-1#comment-18374
      ————————————————————————
      Faisal
      Posted June 1, 2010 at 5:52 PM | Permalink

      Yes, she’s inane, malevolent, nasty and lacks almost any capability of tolerating any comment which she does not agree with without reaching for the delete button or to ban the commenter.

      She’s absolutely perfect for Pickled Politics.

      http://www.spittoon.org/archives/6333/comment-page-1#comment-18376
      ————————————————-
      Abu Faris
      Posted June 1, 2010 at 7:35 PM | Permalink

      I agree, Faisal. Check out this exchange on one of earwicga’s threads:

      earwicga — on 1st June, 2010 at 5:31 pm

      I wouldn’t discount the comments on this thread Lucy. Shamit thinks that people blogging about the Flotilla caused the deaths of the activists.

      Lucy — on 1st June, 2010 at 6:37 pm

      Where does he say that?

      Katy Newton — on 1st June, 2010 at 6:45 pm

      He doesn’t.

      earwicga — on 1st June, 2010 at 6:45 pm

      Lucy – in the comment I deleted, so I take it back as the comment no longer exists. Doh!

      grifone — on 1st June, 2010 at 6:55 pm

      haha what an idiot!

      You couldn’t make it up!

      http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/8859

      http://www.spittoon.org/archives/6333/comment-page-1#comment-18378

    70. Katy Newton — on 2nd June, 2010 at 3:38 pm  

      it’s arguable that blaming people who died for their own deaths is kinda ghoulish and in many ways the kind of hate speech that we would argue against

      I, um, what? Really? You can’t say that someone caused the situation they’re in without it being hate speech?

      *clutches head*

      It wouldn’t kill you to just tell earwigca to tone it down with the deleting, you know.

    71. Katy Newton — on 2nd June, 2010 at 3:40 pm  

      Actually, I should really say it myself. Earwigca: don’t be afraid of debate, let people give their opinion and then show them why it’s wrong. All you’re doing is giving the impression of not being able to handle dissent and I am sure that’s not true of you.

    72. earwicga — on 2nd June, 2010 at 3:40 pm  

      Katy - I’ve deleted *very few* comments. Sunny’s analogy is apt.

    73. chairwoman — on 2nd June, 2010 at 4:04 pm  

      “Why arent British Jews being demanded to condemn Israel (the“ Jewish state“s) actions as British Muslims are every time one of our co-religonists does something wrong ?”

      I believe that British Muslims have been asked to condemn acts of terrorism carried out on British soil by other British Muslims.

      Please accept, in advance, my condemnation, should British Jews do similar.

    74. Naadir Jeewa — on 2nd June, 2010 at 5:14 pm  

      @64

      “But more than that. ‘And if it is not currently involved in an IAC with Hamas, it is difficult to see how it can legally justify the blockade of Gaza.’ Note the word, ‘difficult.’ Not, ‘impossible.’”

      Yup, but ‘difficult’ equally doesn’t mean ‘definitively’, at least if you read the whole post.

      “And, of course the fact that international law is aspirational nonsense”

      Really? We’re talking about centuries old stuff here. Not modern international humanitarian law, which can also definitely be applied in terms of proportionality.

      But I do want to kickback against the notion of Israeli “piracy”. By definition, piracy is conducted by non-state actors for private gain.

      You can call the action unlawful (tentatively), unjustified (definitely), but certainly not piracy.

    75. MaidMarian — on 2nd June, 2010 at 5:17 pm  

      Naadir Jeewa (70) - I agree with much of that. The fact that the ship appears not to have been Turkish flagged (as opposed to haveing a Turkish flag on the side of it) makes this even more of a headache.

    76. damon — on 2nd June, 2010 at 7:01 pm  

      Sunny

      damon – it’s arguable that blaming people who died for their own deaths is kinda ghoulish and in many ways the kind of hate speech that we would argue against. After all, I would delete comments that blamed a woman for her own rape if she got raped.

      Yes it is arguable. that’s just the point.
      What I can’t stand is the black and white of the way these discussions go - where your either with George Galloway or with Benjamin Netanyahu.

      That sound’s too much like George W Bush kind of talk for me.

      Who were these Turkish Islamists on board the ship?
      On the news last night there were pictures of them all tooled up (with sticks and bars) waiting on the stairs bellow the deck ready to go out and deal with any invasion.

      I’m not sure if you’re suggesting that these are things to be glossed over and ignored … because they are precisely the issues that the supporters of Israel’s action carp on about.

      Lucy - I don’t agree that this is misanthropy:

      ”The fact that the flotilla to Gaza, with its weird mix of hippy, Islamist and imperialist sentiment, was powered by an underlying desire for Western punishment of Israel does not, of course, justify the IDF’s reckless actions. But it does help to explain why Israel did what it did. These are fundamentally hostile boats – no, not because they purportedly harbour weaponry for Hamas or are packed with wannabe suicide bombers (though some on the boats have expressed their desire for martyrdom), but because they represent, fundamentally, the existential anti-Israel outlook that has manifested itself in the West in recent years. There is no nation on Earth that would not be at least concerned about the arrival of an intervention-demanding force near its shores”.

    77. Hermit — on 2nd June, 2010 at 7:13 pm  

      You are aware that the main vessel in the convoy is registered in the Comoros Islands and NOT Turkey?

      Any views on the likelihood of a Comoros Islands-Israel War?

      No, thought not.

    78. Hermit — on 2nd June, 2010 at 7:24 pm  

      My favourite comment from Hamas came at the height of the Gaza bombardment, when a senior Hamas commander informed the world (or at least the Arabic-speaking world) that the people of Gaza were willing to be martyrs… of course, he was tucked-up in a safe-house in Damascus at the time.

      Hamas are vile.

    79. Hermit — on 2nd June, 2010 at 7:32 pm  

      Here are the details of MV Mavi Mara (note that where she is flagged, she is not a Turkish flagged vessel):

      Vessel’s Details

      Ship Type: Passenger
      Year Built: 1994
      Length x Breadth: 93 m X 20 m
      DeadWeight: 525 t
      Speed recorded (Max / Average): 13.8 / 9.6 knots
      Flag: Comoros [KM]
      Call Sign: D6FU2
      IMO: 9005869, MMSI: 616952000

      Full details, here:

      http://marinetraffic.com/ais/shipdetails.aspx?MMSI=616952000

    80. Hermit — on 2nd June, 2010 at 7:36 pm  

      All rather puts paid to Murray’s “legal opinions” given in the OP, does it not?

    81. earwicga — on 2nd June, 2010 at 7:36 pm  

      Cheers Hermit. Do you have the details of the other 5 ships?

    82. Don — on 2nd June, 2010 at 7:40 pm  

      I have to say I am with Damon on this. If something is arguable then we argue about it, right? Civilly and rationally and without sneaky subterfuge, but we argue. Sort of the point of the exercise.

      Deletion is a necessary tool for trolls and mere frothing maniacs. But the suspicion that it is a tool for supressing valid points that are difficult to address really undermines the values of this site. And I value this site.

      I have no idea what viewpoints have been deleted from this thread. Some of them may have been clear hate speech or mere abuse. Others may have been points I might have engaged with.

      At the very least, could we have a ‘comment deleted’ marker so we can get an idea of how *very few* these are? Shamit, for example, is clearly neither a troll nor abusive.

      But then, how would I know?

    83. Hermit — on 2nd June, 2010 at 7:44 pm  

      Murray was directing his “very clear” [sic] legal opinion at the MV Mavi Mara, which he identifies in the OP as the vessel upon which the “incident took place”. Consequently, the flagging of the other vessels is not pertinent as they were not involved in the incidents to which Murray makes reference.

      Equally, one is a little taken aback by Murray’s rather odd interpretation of both the Law of the Sea and international law. The flag of a vessel does NOT automatically qualify that vessel for protection by the state of the flag, nor is that vessel to be understood as territory of that state. Ships are not floating embassies and diplomatic law (AFAIK) does not extend to them under normal circumstances.

      Murray’s whole argument is sunk.

    84. earwicga — on 2nd June, 2010 at 7:51 pm  

      Ok Hermit, it is perhaps not all that important anyway. Strange that the MV Rachel Corris isn’t listed on the site you posted at 78.

      You do realise that Murray wrote the text quoted above on Monday don’t you?

      Katy - just noticed your comment at 70 and I agree.

    85. Hermit — on 2nd June, 2010 at 7:57 pm  

      Not strange at all that MV Rachel Corrie is not mentioned on the site I linked to - it is not some Zionist conspiracy site, it is reputed maritime tracking site!

      MV Rachel Corrie, MV Challenger 1 and other vessels are presently without transponder signals, or have not logged present positions. At least one Greek registered vessel is presently at sea between Crete and Piraeus.

      It also seems odd that the issue is “perhaps not all that important anyway.” Given that Murray evidently thought it was - and you clearly did: why else post his (as per usual) off-the-wall commentary in the first place.

    86. douglas clark — on 2nd June, 2010 at 8:04 pm  

      GW,

      Well, at least you wear your stopid heart on your stupid sleeve:

      Well as one of those “fuckwits” wqho inhabits Harrys Place can I comment ? The IDF were entirely justified, legaly and morally in thier preventive actions.

      When Hammas recognise Israels right to exist then there is a case for lifting any blockade.

      Did you get that directly out of the ‘Harrys Place’ hymn book? Do you feel that vengance is yours to apply in a unilateral way?

      Seems so.

      Spelling doesn’t seem to be your forté, but that is trivial compared to your stupidity.

      It seems to me that the fools over there cannot compare and contrast the quite obvious analog with the steam boat Exodus. To their obvious disadvantage.

      To continue the maratime metaphor your lot have walked the plank.

      It is all very well to support a football team, say, ‘until I die’, without recognising their blemishes. It is not OK to apply that ridiculous partisanship to international affairs.

      You know your opponents have lost the plot when they descend to discussing the legality of what happened.

      It is pretty clear that what happened had nowt to do with the law. It had everything to do with showing up the current political leadership of Israel as fools. Which they are, and you are too for defending them.

    87. earwicga — on 2nd June, 2010 at 8:16 pm  

      it is not some Zionist conspiracy site

      Who suggested it was? These are entirely your own words, and thoughts.

      MV Rachel Corrie, MV Challenger 1 and other vessels are presently without transponder signals, or have not logged present positions

      Thank you.

    88. comrade — on 2nd June, 2010 at 8:26 pm  

      The 800 volunteers trying to deliver 10,000 tonnes of vital aid to Gaza where from 40 countries and include parliamentarians, journalists, women, children and the elderly. Forty members of the flotilla are British.

      The flotilla’s cargo of essential supplies denied to Palestinians under the illegal blockade includes 2,100 tonnes of cement, 600 tonnes of iron bars and 150 tonnes of iron, all needed for reconstruction of houses and infrastructure that were destroyed by the brutal Israeli massacre of Dec 08-Jan 09, which left more than 1,417 Palestinians dead and 5,000 wounded, many of whom were maimed for life.

      Also on board are 18 large and 80 small electricity generators, 50 large and 40 small prefab houses, 16 complete children’s playground kits, sports equipment including footballs and basketballs, $1m worth of medical equipment including a complete dental kit, construction and hardware supplies. The ships are carrying stationery supplies including crayons, pens and 20 tonnes of paper for schools,as well as textiles and food, including chocolate for Gaza’s children, currently banned by Israel.

      The youngest passenger on the Mavi Marmara is a one-year-old baby; the eldest is a Palestinian leader in his 80s, who vividly remembers the 1948 Nakba (‘catastrophe’), when Israel massacred thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians and drove hundreds of thousands into exile. Sixty-two years later, despite a plethora of UN resolutions condemning Israel and demanding the right of return for these Palestinian refugees, they and their descendants still live in refugee camps.

      The volunteers and peace activists of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla are unarmed. Their power lies not in weapons but in their determination to act where governments have refused. Standing in solidarity with their Palestinian brothers and sisters against Israel’s brutal, illegal occupation of Palestine and against the collective punishment of 1.7 million people (more than half of whom are children) living under siege, they have raised money in their communities to bring life-saving supplies to the besieged people of Gaza.

      The volunteers on the flotilla represent the vast mass of humanity. They are upholding international law, which Israel, the US and Britain flout with impunity in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan (to name but three). And they are part of a growing international movement to show Israel that the world will not stand by and allow the siege to succeed and the Palestinians to be starved into submission

    89. Hermit — on 2nd June, 2010 at 8:52 pm  

      comrade

      Got to love the cut-’n'-paste…

      Earwicga

      You were the one who appeared to be waxing conspiratorial with your musings about why the site to which I linked did not carry information about MV Rachel Corrie!

      As (I suspect) she may not be actually registered under that name, this might also account for her non-appearance on the site. Also, given that Israel generally does not publish information about shipping at dock in her harbours (note Askalon is not mentioned on the site?), you might be hard pressed to find her at berth in an Israeli port.

      However, do not let distract you from the absolute ship-wreck of Murray’s deranged OP. After all, why let reality get in the way of a pointless argument (I allude to your view that it might not be very important anyway - a bizarre view from the poster who put up the report in the first place; but there we go).

    90. termitude — on 2nd June, 2010 at 8:54 pm  

      Perhaps earwicga will explain why she has now blocked Hermit who was taking her arguments to the cleaners?

    91. Vikrant — on 3rd June, 2010 at 1:16 am  

      Vikrant – I’m almost positive I’ve deleted comments of you from the early days. Remember your brief love-affair with the RSS?

      Umm really? Dont really remember those good ole jihadwatch days when OP led me here. 5 years is quarter of a lifetime for me :) . But again, can’t we have a “like/dislike” vote button for all the comments here? That way if the comment is highly disagreeable to most picklers, they can make sure, everyone is aware of their disapproval without needing to nix the whole comment… Just a thought.

    92. Naadir Jeewa — on 3rd June, 2010 at 1:48 am  

      Here’s another take on the legality issue:

      “The basic principle under customary international law as regards ships in international waters was set out by the permanent court of international justice in the SS Lotus case (1927):

      “… vessels on the high seas are subject to no authority except that of the state whose flag they fly. In virtue of the principle of the freedom of the seas, that is to say, the absence of any territorial sovereignty upon the high seas, no state may exercise any kind of jurisdiction over foreign vessels upon them.”

      While international law does allow for exceptions to the above rule, entitling warships to interfere with ships flying the flag of another state while in international waters in limited circumstances, those exceptions do not apply to the events of 31 May. Indeed, a 1988 treaty (to which Israel is a party) criminalises the unlawful and intentional seizure or exercise of control over a ship by force, and all connected injuries or deaths.”

      http://jfjfp.com/?p=13577



    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.