F'd up move by Israel

[BrianFromWA]

You subtly but meaningfully changed it in building your examples. MARIS said "Fuck Israel" not "Fuck Israelis." As oldmangrouch noted, criticizing a nation is generally shorthand for their government and international presence, not every person within its borders. It's not being a Nazi sympathizer to criticize Israeli policy.

his quote was

The Israelis attacked a ship, unprovoked, as is their normal M.O., and it's a damn shame they weren't all slaughtered for their crimes.

Fuck Israel and everything they stand for. The most aggressively racist country in the world.

To me, at least, it seemed to indicate that those Israelis present should've been slaughtered, as well as that they were "the most aggressively racist country in the world". If this just meant the Israeli government, no worries and I agree that that doesn't offend me one iota. I took it to mean the collective inhabitants of the country, whether "racial" Israelis or "religious" Israelis, and that is very much in line with the thinking of all of those groups and people I mentioned above.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Why not take a moment and read an article or two instead of qualifying all of your posts by telling people you haven't read anything about this? I even posed an entire article and included a link when I started this thread.

B/c I'm not talking about the action...they were specifically in response to another poster. I'm talking about Geneva conventions, aid workers and racism. I'll get to the other stuff. My qualifications were to keep my conversation apart from the general topic.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Believe me, the Geneva Convention is something I'm pretty familiar with.

Anyway, as I said before, I haven't read anything about this yet. I have no idea what the israelis did, who they did it to, etc. I was responding to your post above which said "They boarded, uninvited, and should have expected to be killed for their unprovoked attack on an aid ship." All I wanted to add to the conversation is that, if you are performing an act of war (which, if you're using uniformed members of a government military service, you are--it's not a terrorist act) by illegally boarding an "aid vessel" on the high seas, then you shouldn't have expected to be killed, b/c you're attacking non-combatants. Or if you did, it's not an "aid vessel". Anyone that picks up an arm against you is now a combatant. According to the Protocol One and the Rome Statutes of Geneva Convention you can't attack a civilian...but if they try to fight, they're not civilians.

As for the "who you share company with", the following people have announced some form of "Fuck Israel and Everything They Stand For" racial epithets before: the Crusaders, various populaces during the Black Plague who thought it was spread by Jews, not rats; Martin Luther (though only advocating killing those who didn't convert to Christianity); the KKK starting up again in 1915 in the Leo Frank Affair (after being dormant since right after the Civil War); Hitler and a horde of his cronies; Stalin; various Arab leaders like Arafat and Ahmedinejad, the Neo-Nazis, etc. Not a lot of confusion on my part there, unless you were just kidding about the whole "Fuck Israel and Everything They Stand For" thing. Then, my fault. Otherwise... ... YOU MAKE THE CALL!

B/c I'm not talking about the action...they were specifically in response to another poster. I'm talking about Geneva conventions, aid workers and racism. I'll get to the other stuff. My qualifications were to keep my conversation apart from the general topic.

Seems like you were directly talking about the action.

You didn't say you had to read up about the Geneva convention, you said the Geneva convention was something you knew about. It's what Israel did (the action) that you said you haven't read about.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Ok, I've read the LA Times article.

First, I don't see a way that the Israelis can say that they were able to board the ship 80 miles out in international waters.
Second, bats and knives are weapons that you can use Deadly Force against in a proportional response. So if these soldiers were ordered to board the ship and do whatever (search for weapons, seize the "aid", take the captain prisoner, whatever) and were attacked with bats and knives and fired upon, Rules for the Use of Force in the US would allow Deadly Force in response. I don't know the Israeli rules.
Third, if the Turkish guys on the ship would've let the commandos come aboard and then filed an international protest, in all likelihood no one would've died and the Israelis would've been up shit creek for violating neutrality. As it is, their troops are justified in shooting people attacking them if Israel claims this is a military or police action.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Seems like you were directly talking about the action.

Nope, and I don't see the confusion, honestly. I was talking about the inability to say that one can expect to be killed attacking an aid ship.

You didn't say you had to read up about the Geneva convention, you said the Geneva convention was something you knew about. It's what Israel did (the action) that you said you haven't read about.

I'm confused again. I do know about the Geneva Convention. And until 10 minutes ago, I hadn't read anything about this Israeli action. My responses were about Maris's opinions on how one should expect to be killed attacking an aid ship (something I regard as wrong and illogical) and about the racism I felt coming out about Israel, and comparing it to others who've spouted that stuff over the centuries.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

First you say you haven't read an article,

then you say no that's not what you were talking about

then you say you finally read the article.

OK, I think I get it now.

 

[barfo]

Third, if the Turkish guys on the ship would've let the commandos come aboard and then filed an international protest, in all likelihood no one would've died and the Israelis would've been up shit creek for violating neutrality.

Oh, yes, the Israelis would have suffered so. Someone might have touched their wrists with a feather. Meanwhile they would have accomplished their aims.

If you were on your submarine out in international waters, would you surrender if attacked by a hostile force, in hopes of filing an international protest later? Somehow I'm guessing not.

barfo

 

[barfo]

My responses were about Maris's opinions on how one should expect to be killed attacking an aid ship (something I regard as wrong and illogical)

If you are attacking something, shouldn't you at least consider the possibility of resistance?

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

I don't think you do, so I'll explain in small words. In Post 12, I hadn't read your article, and was responding to Maris's post 11. And qualified in post 13 that it was ONLY in response to Maris's post. OK so far?

My next post (20) was in response to Barfo and Maris's posts...again about what I'd written in Post 12, not post 13 or any part of your article. Still with me?

My next post (23) was in response to Maris saying I was confused about Geneva Conventions. I don't really think I am, and said so. I REITERATED THAT I DIDN"T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF THE ARTICLE, having not read it. I even stated EXACTLY what I was referring to, which was post 12. I then wrote about how I thought his posts sounded very anti-Semitic, and refuted that I didn't know who was on his list by showing some members of that list. So far, not a single word about your article.

Post 25 was my next one, in response to OldManGrouch and his thought about the diff b/w Judaism and Israel. Again, not a peep about your article.

Post 29 was in response to Minstrel's Post 26 about how he thought that the Geneva Conventions were illogical or I didn't understand them. There's another option to that, and I wrote about it. Still, not a word about your article.

Post 31 (I hadn't seen your post 30 yet) was in response to OldManGrouch and Minstrel's posts 27 and 28. More explanation about the racism/anti-semitism thing. Still, nothing about your article.

Post 30 you ask me to read your article, even though I'd gone to multiple pains to state how I wasn't AND STILL HADN'T talked about the specifics of your article, b/c I hadn't read it. I even responded to you in Post 32 to say that I wasn't talking about the specifics of your article, and wrote out in detail what I WAS talking about. But you asked, and so I did.

Post 33 you seemingly felt the need to misinterpret what I wrote...for what reason I don't get. But I let you know that you were wrong about it in Post 35. Meanwhile in Post 34 I wrote my first thoughts in the entire thread about your article.

In 36 you choose not to respond to it, and start in with making shit up, and assigning the crazy emoticon to it. I don't get that. But well done, I guess.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Oh, yes, the Israelis would have suffered so. Someone might have touched their wrists with a feather. Meanwhile they would have accomplished their aims.

If you were on your submarine out in international waters, would you surrender if attacked by a hostile force, in hopes of filing an international protest later? Somehow I'm guessing not.

barfo

Of course not. I'm a combatant. If I was on a pleasure cruise that got boarded by the Thailand Coast Guard or something, I don't get to steal a gun and fire on the people who boarded me, whether or not they're in the right. You wait for the authorities to do their job. Or if I do fight back, b/c it's "wartime", then I lose civilian status. This isn't that tough, guys.

 

[barfo]

Of course not. I'm a combatant. If I was on a pleasure cruise that got boarded by the Thailand Coast Guard or something, I don't get to steal a gun and fire on the people who boarded me, whether or not they're in the right. You wait for the authorities to do their job. Or if I do fight back, b/c it's "wartime", then I lose civilian status. This isn't that tough, guys.

What if they were Somali pirates? Do you still just wait for the authorities?

I don't see how the Israel military differs signficantly from Somali pirates here (assuming what's written here is true, I haven't read anything about it other than this thread myself). And there are no authorities that were realistically going to come rescue those aid ships.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

If you are attacking something, shouldn't you at least consider the possibility of resistance?

barfo

Are we playing semantic games now? If it's an aid ship, they shouldn't be boarding it in international waters. If they do, the aid ship doesn't all of a sudden get to start attacking them with knives and bats and stolen guns while still claiming non-combatant status, which I don't see anywhere in the article. I see that Turkish TV says that the boarding were conducted without the israelis firing a shot until attacked by the crewmembers. Not something an aid ship does, generally.

 

[BrianFromWA]

What if they were Somali pirates? Do you still just wait for the authorities?

I don't see how the Israel military differs signficantly from Somali pirates here (assuming what's written here is true, I haven't read anything about it other than this thread myself). And there are no authorities that were realistically going to come rescue those aid ships.

barfo

There's a big difference b/w Somali pirates and uniformed members of a government's armed forces.

To answer your question, though, I probably wouldn't endanger the lives of anyone on the ship if we were just being held hostage waiting for ransom money or something by Somali pirates.

If a cop entered your home without a warrant, would you shoot him? Or just call the police? Or just be able to talk about the illegal search and seizure in your countersuit?
he reason I ask is that a uniformed member of a government entity does something illegal (boarding a ship in int'l waters, illegally entering your home, etc.) If you shoot a cop, your ass is going to jail for a long time, if you survive the arrest. You think it's different with Israeli commandos? Or it being on a boat instead of in your home?

 

[barfo]

Are we playing semantic games now? If it's an aid ship, they shouldn't be boarding it in international waters. If they do, the aid ship doesn't all of a sudden get to start attacking them with knives and bats and stolen guns while still claiming non-combatant status, which I don't see anywhere in the article. I see that Turkish TV says that the boarding were conducted without the israelis firing a shot until attacked by the crewmembers. Not something an aid ship does, generally.

I don't think we are playing semantic games, but maybe we are talking past each other. It seems to me that the Turks have a right of self-defense, especially when attacked by, basically, pirates. You seem to be saying that even though it was an illegal operation by the Israelis, fighting back against them legally justifies more force being applied by the Israelis. That seems a little odd to me.

barfo

 

[barfo]

There's a big difference b/w Somali pirates and uniformed members of a government's armed forces.

Not if both of them are committing piracy.

If a cop entered your home without a warrant, would you shoot him? Or just call the police? Or just be able to talk about the illegal search and seizure in your countersuit?

I suppose it would depend on the level of threat I felt from him and what I thought my chances were. If he rappelled onto my deck in the middle of the night from a helicopter, I guess I'd be inclined to laugh.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

Not if both of them are committing piracy.

Disagree. One is state-sponsored. One is a criminal element. One the UN takes care of and one is a criminal matter, which on the high seas isn't really enforced.

I suppose it would depend on the level of threat I felt from him and what I thought my chances were. If he rappelled onto my deck in the middle of the night from a helicopter, I guess I'd be inclined to laugh.

barfo

I would think that no one on this board, even the most devout arms bearers among us, would shoot a cop in uniform who announced he was entering your home, regardless of if he had a warrant. I would think that almost all of us would appeal to a higher authority and call the cops on him, and many would sue the policeman, the police force and the City after the fact.

 

[barfo]

Disagree. One is state-sponsored. One is a criminal element. One the UN takes care of and one is a criminal matter, which on the high seas isn't really enforced.

So you are a big believer in the power of the UN? I'm a believer in the UN, but I don't see it being incredibly effective.
As for the criminal element, if they are committing crimes, I'd say they are both criminal elements. One is just better funded.

I would think that no one on this board, even the most devout arms bearers among us, would shoot a cop in uniform who announced he was entering your home, regardless of if he had a warrant. I would think that almost all of us would appeal to a higher authority and call the cops on him, and many would sue the policeman, the police force and the City after the fact.

It depends on whether I thought that he was there to kill me, or that he was there to conduct an illegal search. If I knew it was the latter, I'm sure I'd appeal to the higher authority. If the former, well, who knows.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

What if the cop had no legal authority in the country of your house? Let's say he's an Israeli cop and he forces his way into your Portland house. I don't think you need be afraid to physically defend your house by taking his gun from him. He's the one who brought the gun, not you.

You are assuming the Israelis had legal authority to invade the ship. And you say the cop is in uniform, but we don't even know whether the Israelis were in uniform (as if it matters).

You say the Geneva Convention requires that I, on a boat in international waters, must submit to anyone in the military of any country, who invades my boat, and let them kill me (as it appeared they would--they were armed with pistols loaded with bullets). I doubt the Convention says that.

 

[BrianFromWA]

you misunderstood me pretty badly.

On international waters, to protect your noncombatant status in a act of war (which most are claiming the israelis did), you can't shoot back. You have protection under GC if you don't shoot back. If you don't believe in that protection, or think that the other country's military is committing a war crime, by all means save your skin. But you lose non-combatant status when you do so.

 

[BrianFromWA]

What if the cop had no legal authority in the country of your house? Let's say he's an Israeli cop and he forces his way into your Portland house. I don't think you need be afraid to physically defend your house by taking his gun from him. He's the one who brought the gun, not you.

You are assuming the Israelis had legal authority to invade the ship. And you say the cop is in uniform, but we don't even know whether the Israelis were in uniform (as if it matters).

You say the Geneva Convention requires that I, on a boat in international waters, must submit to anyone in the military of any country, who invades my boat, and let them kill me (as it appeared they would--they were armed with pistols loaded with bullets). I doubt the Convention says that.

plus, you make some pretty wild assumptions. People are boarded all the time. Our Coast Guard boards dozens of vessels. People aren't killed, usually, unless they fight back.

As an example: http://www.2010military.com/military-news-story.cfm?textnewsid=2593

 

[jlprk]

I'm trying to understand. A military force illegally (international law) invades my vessel. It has no legal rights and I have the right of ownership. They shoot at me. If I grab one of their guns and shoot back, I am now a combatant, which gives them the legal right to shoot me.

So they should just provoke me into pulling off one of their guns so another soldier can shoot me. It's too easy for them. Any military force can invade a foreign country and make themselves legal. They can slaughter at will this way. You are sure that international law allows this?

This is like, if a burglar enters my house and shoots me, I am in the legal right, unless I swipe his gun and fire back. Now I'm the bad guy and he's the good guy. That gives him the legal right to finish me off and he won't be charged with murder. He will claim self-defense, as the Israelis did.

Let's say I invade a Coast Guard cutter because I don't like the absence of drugs on their boat. I shoot one and then one sailor takes my gun and shoots at me. This makes it legal for me to kill the rest of them. This is legal, right?

 

[The Sebastian Express]

Didn't the Israelis board the aid ship while it was dark out? Sorry, but if I'm on a ship that is suddenly getting boarded by people propelling from fucking helicopters while it's dark (and I'm assuming they didn't identify themselves as the Israel Military, either) then I'm not going to sit and be like "GUYS! GUYS! LET THEM BOARD! WE WILL FILE PAPERWORK IF WE ARENT DEAD LATER OKAY".

That's just ridiculous.

 

[BlazerWookee]

The ships were trying to get through a blockade that's been in place for what, three years? They should count themselves lucky that Israel didn't just sink them. There should be a US Carrier Group sitting right on the line defined by the laws instituting the blockade.

 

[Minstrel]

plus, you make some pretty wild assumptions. People are boarded all the time. Our Coast Guard boards dozens of vessels. People aren't killed, usually, unless they fight back.

People are boarded all the time in the middle of the night by commandos dropping from helicopters?

This part is interesting: "Night-vision footage released by the military showed..."

Note the "night-vision" part. So night-vision was necessary to show the proceedings, but the people on the ship, using their lame human eyes, should have quickly recognized that a "legitimate government" was boarding them like thieves in the night, quietly submitted and waited to submit paperwork grievance?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

They should count themselves lucky that Israel didn't just sink them.

You're right, considering the track record of amazingly retarded, heavy handed, dictatorial and draconian tactics Israel has.

It doesn't matter what Israel did, just that they did it in international fucking waters.

Also: something tells me if this was a ship full of white, American activists, there would be a very different slant to this story.

 

[maxiep]

The ships were trying to get through a blockade that's been in place for what, three years? They should count themselves lucky that Israel didn't just sink them. There should be a US Carrier Group sitting right on the line defined by the laws instituting the blockade.

This. It's funny how the news stories don't mention there's a joint Israeli/Egyptian blockade on Gaza in place to stop Hamas from procuring more missles to send across the Israeli border (10,000+ so far). This was a setup; a direct provocation sponsored by Turkey, Hamas and Iran to force the Israelis to respond, thereby putting international pressure on them to drop the blockade and allowing Iran to send all the weapons they want into Gaza. Remember, the Israelis or Egyptians aren't stopping food, medicine or other peaceful goods from entering Gaza, only weapons.

Here's some more news, analysis and opinions of the situation

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...-right-to-board-the-gaza-flotilla/?cid=hp:exc

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/05/useful-idiots-condemn-israel.html

http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/28/ha...audia-rosett.html?boxes=opinionschannellatest

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026427.php

http://volokh.com/2010/05/31/pollak-on-uniquely-israeli-stupidity/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/terror-finance-flotilla

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/05/31/reporting-israels-side-flotilla-incident

http://theothermccain.com/2010/05/31/it-was-not-violence-violence/

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/31/israels_increasingly_untenable_situation

I concur with the opinion that Israel was right to stop the ships, but did so in a stupid and clumsy fashion. Here's my favorite idea: Have Israel send aid for the Kurds via ship to the Turkish coast and see how the Turks respond. http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-about-convoy-to-turkey.html

 

[maxiep]

You're right, considering the track record of amazingly retarded, heavy handed, dictatorial and draconian tactics Israel has.

It doesn't matter what Israel did, just that they did it in international fucking waters.

Also: something tells me if this was a ship full of white, American activists, there would be a very different slant to this story.

Yeah, Israel is just paranoid. No one has ill will toward the Jews or the State of Israel.

 

[maxiep]

People are boarded all the time in the middle of the night by commandos dropping from helicopters?

This part is interesting: "Night-vision footage released by the military showed..."

Note the "night-vision" part. So night-vision was necessary to show the proceedings, but the people on the ship, using their lame human eyes, should have quickly recognized that a "legitimate government" was boarding them like thieves in the night, quietly submitted and waited to submit paperwork grievance?

Minstrel, is it your contention that this incident was undertaken with innocent motives, i.e., just to get Gaza humanitarian aid? If so, I'd like your reasoning why you believe that condition to be so.

 

[barfo]

This. It's funny how the news stories don't mention there's a joint Israeli/Egyptian blockade on Gaza in place to stop Hamas from procuring more missles to send across the Israeli border (10,000+ so far). This was a setup; a direct provocation sponsored by Turkey, Hamas and Iran to force the Israelis to respond, thereby putting international pressure on them to drop the blockade and allowing Iran to send all the weapons they want into Gaza. Remember, the Israelis or Egyptians aren't stopping food, medicine or other peaceful goods from entering Gaza, only weapons.

So were there weapons on the ships they attacked?

barfo

 

[maxiep]

So were there weapons on the ships they attacked?

barfo

Yes. One of my links has a photo of what was confiscated. They were minor, but of course carrying weapons on this trip wasn't the point. It was to run the blockade or force the Israelis to respond. If the blockade becomes null and void, then you start bringing in the serious weaponry.