posted
I'm curious if it would have gone better HAD the Israelis used real guns. The Free Gaza protestors may not have thought they were easy targets, and surrendered immediately.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Look, it's pretty simple. I don't believe that war is a game. Dumbass marquis of queensbury rules don't make sense. The aggressor has no right to do anything but stand down. And the aggressee has no responsibility to do anything but stop the aggressor from causing harm. By whatever means necessary.
This is just a mistaken theory of self defense.
If you come at me unarmed, and I have a tazer in one hand and a gun in the other, I'm morally obligated to use the minimum necessary force to ensure my own defense. Namely the tazer. Using the gun is wrong.
The same reasoning applies doubly in war, where more lives are at stake.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you come at me unarmed, and I have a tazer in one hand and a gun in the other, I'm morally obligated to use the minimum necessary force to ensure my own defense.
The minimum necessary force required to ensure your own defense is always going to be the maximum available force.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: [QB] Samp. that's not her approach. She was saying "sink all the ships" rhetorically.
"They should have just sunk the damned ships"
yes, that's very rhetorical.
quote:Israel continues to be subtle, it continues to try and fight as morally as it can
'trying to fight as morally as it can,' to me, would necessitate taking the extra step of not actually invading the ships while they were still in international waters and making this a clearly illegal act. They are clearly fighting as morally as they can be arsed to, but with little other regard.
quote: they sent in the operatives with paintball guns, and after suffering beatings and stabbings, they did what they had to do.
That's an interesting whitewash. If you enter my house and I hit you with a lamp, you don't 'have' to shoot me. You have the additional option of leaving my house.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I'm curious if it would have gone better HAD the Israelis used real guns. The Free Gaza protestors may not have thought they were easy targets, and surrendered immediately.
It would have gone better if the Israelis had gone onto the ships once they were no longer in international waters, and done so after waiting for daylight, while carrying cameras to document their side and having appropriate levels of LTL crowd control. The way they did it was stupid on all levels and WILL degenerate israel's security situation and put the nation at further risk.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you come at me unarmed, and I have a tazer in one hand and a gun in the other, I'm morally obligated to use the minimum necessary force to ensure my own defense.
The minimum necessary force required to ensure your own defense is always going to be the maximum available force.
A flamethrower would be even more forceful yet may very well bring burn down the whole house with you in it.
At some point, increasing the force applied will result in undesirable consequences, even if we look at the question purely pragmatically.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bad move. International waters. Taking the bait.
quote:I note that actions in war (or in boardings in international waters, which are most entirely a different thing) involve consequences that you want, and which you don't want. Smart leaders avoid these consequences. Dumb leaders 'solve' them in ways which create more problems down the line.
quote:And the real world continues to have consequences above and beyond the tactical, which is why in a situation where its really hardly ambiguous that Israel did the flotilla and the anti-israel forces of the world a favor
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Steven. It's getting old.
Back off. I have no idea what you're talking about, but back off, in a general sense. You're nobody, to take that tone.
I'm nobody? Dude. Who talks like that? Just because we're on the internet doesn't give you an excuse to behave like a total jerk. Present your opinions. And back off of Lisa. I, frankly, don't enjoy hearing from you in a post that lacked all substance and was simply there to jab at someone.
Seriously, Armoth, I appreciate it, but don't get involved with steven. Nothing he says matters. To paraphrase something Pix once said, getting insulted by steven is like being made fun of by the retarded kid in the playground. I know I should be mad, but all I can do is laugh.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you come at me unarmed, and I have a tazer in one hand and a gun in the other, I'm morally obligated to use the minimum necessary force to ensure my own defense.
The minimum necessary force required to ensure your own defense is always going to be the maximum available force.
A flamethrower would be even more forceful yet may very well bring burn down the whole house with you in it.
At some point, increasing the force applied will result in undesirable consequences, even if we look at the question purely pragmatically.
Or, similarly, a gun with poor stopping power may be more lethal but less effective in defense than a tazer.
A dart tipped with slow-acting poison would also be more lethal but less effective.
Anyway, I would be happy to amend the principle to say the minimum defense required to ensure your own defense to a reasonable level of certitude. For instance, if the tazer is 98% effective but non-lethal, and the gun is 99% effective and lethal, I would say you're obligated to use the tazer.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: 'trying to fight as morally as it can,' to me, would necessitate taking the extra step of not actually invading the ships while they were still in international waters and making this a clearly illegal act.
"Illegal act"? There's nothing illegal about boarding ships which are violating a blockade.
quote:That's an interesting whitewash. If you enter my house and I hit you with a lamp, you don't 'have' to shoot me. You have the additional option of leaving my house.
quote:Bad move. International waters. Taking the bait.
quote:I note that actions in war (or in boardings in international waters, which are most entirely a different thing) involve consequences that you want, and which you don't want. Smart leaders avoid these consequences. Dumb leaders 'solve' them in ways which create more problems down the line.
quote:And the real world continues to have consequences above and beyond the tactical, which is why in a situation where its really hardly ambiguous that Israel did the flotilla and the anti-israel forces of the world a favor
Actually they announced they are opening the border but the gates won't swing open until Wednesday. We'll see if that actually happens.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: 'trying to fight as morally as it can,' to me, would necessitate taking the extra step of not actually invading the ships while they were still in international waters and making this a clearly illegal act.
"Illegal act"? There's nothing illegal about boarding ships which are violating a blockade.
That is stupid. Your correction is ignorant, not the accusation. Redstate isn't even quoting a relevant law. They aren't even quoting law. They are quoting something which even they admit is not accepted under a maritime treaty between nations but which they apply as being "representative" of law.
Trust me, if Redstate could have found an actual law demonstrating how this was legal, they would not have felt it necessary to try to resort to stretching their case like this.
Ships in international waters remain sovereign territory of the flag that they fly and that this act was regretfully illegal under maritime law.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture
From Lisa's link, that definitely seems to show Israel had the legal right to attack it.
I wouldn't call it a bad PR move either. It doesn't seem to be changing anyones mind on the matter.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: From Lisa's link, that definitely seems to show Israel had the legal right to attack it.
I wouldn't call it a bad PR move either. It doesn't seem to be changing anyones mind on the matter.
1. That's not law. Even redstate admits that what they're quoting to evidence the 'legality' of the boarding isn't a treaty. it's got nothing to do with the convention of the law of the seas.
2. it is a bad pr move and it is bad for israel's security situation.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Actually they announced they are opening the border but the gates won't swing open until Wednesday. We'll see if that actually happens.
Border's open, dude. It is open today. Thousands of Palestinians have crossed already at Rafah. Guardian has pictures.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's nice to see some civil discussion on this issue happening here. Maybe that isn't new; it's been quite a while since I followed threads on the subject here.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: From Lisa's link, that definitely seems to show Israel had the legal right to attack it.
Meh.
quote:1. Did Israel violate international law in boarding the ships?
Yes, it probably did.
Israel justifies the boarding of the ships in international waters basically as an act of self defence. It is Israel’s argument that the naval blockade of Gaza is needed to prevent Hamas in Gaza from attacking Israel.
However, notes Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International law at UBC, the test in international for constituting legal self defence is whether the action taken was “necessary and proportionate.” On the facts, “the action does not appear to have been necessary in that the threat was not imminent,” Prof. Byers said.
“To say that this blockade would be jeopardized by the flotilla and that sometime down the road weapons might come into Gaza as a result, and thereby pose a threat to Israel, is to stretch the definition of self defence way further than anyone ever countenanced.”
The fact that commandoes may have encountered violent behaviour when they boarded the ships still is not justification for their use of deadly force, he added. “The issue isn’t whether the passengers were violent, but whether Israel should have boarded the ships in this way at all.”
quote: It doesn't seem to be changing anyones mind on the matter.
Well.
quote:Less than three years ago Shimon Peres addressed the Turkish Grand National Assembly - Turkey's parliament - in Ankara.
It was the first time an Israeli president had addressed legislators in a Muslim country, a gesture which spoke volumes about the extraordinary relationship between Israel and Turkey, a relationship dating back to the early Turkish recognition of the Jewish state in 1949.
Uniquely among Muslim countries in the region, Turkey has strong trading ties with Israel.
The Turkish military buys weapons from Israel and trains with its armed forces, and in 2008 Turkey played host to more than half a million Israeli tourists, making it their favourite overseas holiday destination.
What has gone wrong?
Over the past 18 months the two countries have lurched from one diplomatic crisis to another, culminating in the furious Turkish response to Israel's botched blocking of a convoy from reaching Gaza.
Combine that with Egypt's above response and the fact that China will probably have an easier time opposing sanctions on Iran after this.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Actually they announced they are opening the border but the gates won't swing open until Wednesday. We'll see if that actually happens.
Border's open, dude. It is open today. Thousands of Palestinians have crossed already at Rafah. Guardian has pictures.
From the article you linked,
"The decision...prompted dozens of people to race to the crossing point in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah, although the gates remained closed.
Officials in Egypt and Gaza said the crossing would open on Wednesday until further notice -- a step seen as an attempt by Cairo to deflect criticism of its role in imposing the blockade."
So people who are in need of medical assistance can come through, and those who are delivering aid into Gaza can come through. Palestinians who just want to enter Egypt, and buy a home, and find a job are not being allowed through. And seeing as how Islamists are likely going to be in control of Gaza for the foreseeable future, the border is not truly open.
quote:Anyway, I would be happy to amend the principle to say the minimum defense required to ensure your own defense to a reasonable level of certitude. For instance, if the tazer is 98% effective but non-lethal, and the gun is 99% effective and lethal, I would say you're obligated to use the tazer.
I don't agree.
While I think that risking your life to safeguard the well-being of your attacker is, in many cases, a morally superior act, I am not convinced that it's an obligation.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think risking your life to safeguard the well-being of your attacker is a fundamentally immoral act, and thankfully, carries its own punishment more often than not.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there is a legal blockade and it is violated then Israel has a right to take action. Other boats were peaceful and had no issues. One boat started attacking Israeli authorities, so they defended themselves.
As Martin Lawrence would say, "What the problem is?"
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is everyone assuming that boarding in international waters is illegal? A properly declared blockade may be enforced against neutral ships in any waters whatsoever. Or at any rate that's the doctrine Great Britain always followed when the Royal Navy was top dog. It's also the implicit doctrine the US followed when declaring the blockade in the Cuban Incident; those Russians were nowhere near American territorial waters.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: If there is a legal blockade and it is violated then Israel has a right to take action. Other boats were peaceful and had no issues. One boat started attacking Israeli authorities, so they defended themselves.
So, don't really see a problem here?
The problem was that this was an obvious trap, and Israel stupidly walked into it like they were playing their puppeteered part in a farce.
Don't want to create huge international outcry and degenerate your country's security situation? Don't shoot them once they start hitting you when you board their ship in international waters in a poorly-planned event. In fact, don't take the bait and board them in international waters at all.
That's what the problem is.
It's really pretty straightforward and simple. It should be even to the people who want to insist that they were right to board the ship, and will even contrive convoluted demi-legal justifications for it.
Even Israel's leaders realize that there is, definitely, a problem. Because, duh. Haaretz is reporting that there's a dust-up starting inside the Israeli government.
quote:Israeli ministers likely to demand probe of Gaza flotilla raid
Netanyahu convenes political-security cabinet; senior ministers fume after Gaza flotilla operation goes ahead without their approval.
Members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's political-security cabinet were expected Tuesday to demand that a panel of inquiry be established to investigate how and why the decision was made to carry out a commando raid on a flotilla carrying aid to the Gaza Strip.
Senior ministers have been sharply critical of the fact that the decision to seize control of the flotilla to Gaza was made after two meetings of the forum of seven senior ministers but without official deliberation by the inner cabinet, the body that has the authority to approve military actions of this scale.
With all this going on, it's a bit silly to sit back and wonder if there really is a problem. Here. There's problems. Look.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why is everyone assuming that boarding in international waters is illegal?
When you're making a legal argument, it involves what the law says. In this case, present-day maritime treaty. Present-day maritime treaty is different from maritime treaty many decades ago.
You could make a case that Israel used this precedent in thinking that they could get away with it cause others did, but that's different than talking about whether or not the act was illegal.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyway, I would be happy to amend the principle to say the minimum defense required to ensure your own defense to a reasonable level of certitude. For instance, if the tazer is 98% effective but non-lethal, and the gun is 99% effective and lethal, I would say you're obligated to use the tazer.
I don't agree.
While I think that risking your life to safeguard the well-being of your attacker is, in many cases, a morally superior act, I am not convinced that it's an obligation.
Fair enough.
I should emphasize that all I need to prove Lisa wrong is the fact that it's wrong to use a lethal method when a non-lethal method of equal or greater effectiveness is available.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Samprimary you have yet to post a single relevent link to show that this is indeed a violation of international law and thus far have been shown many links that it IS perfectly legal under international law and consensus.
quote:• Israel may face problems justifying the legality of its decision to storm the Turkish aid ship in international waters (writes Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor). Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the high seas are regarded as not belonging to any nation
• Boarding a vessel is acceptable in certain circumstances, such as when a boat is suspected of terrorist activities or carrying weapons of mass destruction, but even then Israel, for example, would need to seek permission from the country where the boat is registered, in this case Turkey
• Jason Alderwick, a maritime analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that the Israeli raid did not appear to have been conducted lawfully under the convention
• Israel declared a 20-mile exclusion zone off its shores, warning pro-Palestinian activists to stay away. Yesterday’s raid took place some 40 miles outside the exclusion zone
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Samprimary you have yet to post a single relevent link to show that this is indeed a violation of international law and thus far have been shown many links that it IS perfectly legal under international law and consensus.
I have been shown A link by lisa and it was not a valid legal argument. Meanwhile, multiple people have piped up with information on the legality of the event that shows otherwise. Don't fail your thread-reading comprehension roll.
quote:Smarten up boy.
Hmm. Still smarting to the extent you'll try to pick fights in other threads?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: So, don't really see a problem here?
The problem was that this was an obvious trap, and Israel stupidly walked into it like they were playing their puppeteered part in a farce.
Don't want to create huge international outcry and degenerate your country's security situation? Don't shoot them once they start hitting you when you board their ship in international waters in a poorly-planned event. In fact, don't take the bait and board them in international waters at all.
That's what the problem is.
It's really pretty straightforward and simple. It should be even to the people who want to insist that they were right to board the ship, and will even contrive convoluted demi-legal justifications for it.
I still don't see what the problem is. Whether it was bait or not, they were perfectly justified in their actions. Have you even read the reports? When the activists started attacking the Israelis, they first used non-lethal force, including paintballs. When order could not be restored, they resorted to lethal force.
They tried to calm them down and end the conflict peacefully. When that didn't work they used non-lethal force. When that still didn't work they used lethal force.
If they had just stormed the ship guns blazing then I would have an issue with it. As it stands though, Israel did what they had to do.
Bait or not, if the people on that boat went in with the intention of causing an international incident then screw them. If you want peace, practice what you preach. Don't go in with the intent of causing a ruckus and then claim to be victims.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Samprimary you have yet to post a single relevent link to show that this is indeed a violation of international law and thus far have been shown many links that it IS perfectly legal under international law and consensus.
I have been shown A link by lisa and it was not a valid legal argument. Meanwhile, multiple people have piped up with information on the legality of the event that shows otherwise. Don't fail your thread-reading comprehension roll.
quote:Smarten up boy.
Hmm. Still smarting to the extent you'll try to pick fights in other threads?
And multiple people have also piped up the opposite that you are wrong boy.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And multiple people have also piped up the opposite that you are wrong boy.
What's with calling me 'boy?' Is it just a step before you flip out in this thread too?
If so, please cut directly to the childish obscenities. No need to start slow when your course is so ruefully predictable.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still don't see what the problem is. Whether it was bait or not, they were perfectly justified in their actions. Have you even read the reports? When the activists started attacking the Israelis, they first used non-lethal force, including paintballs. When order could not be restored, they resorted to lethal force.
This has been said before: why not just leave? Let the ship go for now and wait for a more advantageous time to arrest the people on it.
Also, the claim on the table is that their mistake was boarding the ship in the first place.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Samprimary you have yet to post a single relevent link to show that this is indeed a violation of international law and thus far have been shown many links that it IS perfectly legal under international law and consensus.
I have been shown A link by lisa and it was not a valid legal argument. Meanwhile, multiple people have piped up with information on the legality of the event that shows otherwise. Don't fail your thread-reading comprehension roll.
quote:Smarten up boy.
Hmm. Still smarting to the extent you'll try to pick fights in other threads?
And multiple people have also piped up the opposite that you are wrong boy.
Blayne, just take a step back and cool off before you continue this discussion. Right now you are addressing Samp more than the actual issue.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
There are both problems and controversies with this event. Without even commenting on which party was 'in the right,' the events have caused both for Israel and, in many ways, aided those who wish to destabilize their security.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
There are both problems and controversies with this event. Without even commenting on which party was 'in the right,' the events have caused both for Israel and, in many ways, aided those who wish to destabilize their security.
I agree with you on this. When I first turned on the news this morning they made it seem like Israel had just gone over and attacked these people for no reason. It wasn't until I read more about it that I learned they didn't do that.
I think this has the potential to backfire on the activists though. If they were given instruction to cause problems, then harsher action could come down on future ships carrying aid. They took a risk and they hope this will make Israel look like the bad guys.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:• Israel may face problems justifying the legality of its decision to storm the Turkish aid ship in international waters (writes Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor). Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the high seas are regarded as not belonging to any nation
• Boarding a vessel is acceptable in certain circumstances, such as when a boat is suspected of terrorist activities or carrying weapons of mass destruction, but even then Israel, for example, would need to seek permission from the country where the boat is registered, in this case Turkey
• Jason Alderwick, a maritime analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that the Israeli raid did not appear to have been conducted lawfully under the convention
• Israel declared a 20-mile exclusion zone off its shores, warning pro-Palestinian activists to stay away. Yesterday’s raid took place some 40 miles outside the exclusion zone
I've been looking through the convention of the law of the sea, and it makes no mention of blockades. Consequently what is legal under blockade conditions is still regulated by the older conventions, the 1856 Treaty of Paris and the 1910 Declaration of London. These treaties allow you to stop and board neutral ships in international waters.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think this has the potential to backfire on the activists though. If they were given instruction to cause problems, then harsher action could come down on future ships carrying aid.
I'm sure plenty of aid will come in through the now-open border with Egypt.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry Samp, but if you don't burn easy, you do not have the fairest of the Faire princessey-white complexion.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
They don't hope. They know. They succeeded.
This is what you're not catching on to with this situation: the issues you don't see when you are asking 'what the problem is' is that the problems are already there, and manifest, but you seem inclined to believe that they'll readily be turned against the activists.
It's really too late for that. This is a blow to Israel. One that's so bad that it practically requires that they be protected by momma United States yet again. The US will invariably block and soften resolutions, but they've already earned themselves a complete fallout with Turkey, lost Egypt's blockade, weakened their international situation.
It could have played out differently if Israel hadn't gone about this in such a completely retarded way. They could have waited until the flotilla was out of international waters. They could have committed to the raid under better circumstances, and brought documentation crew. Went on board with effective crowd suppression. Just done anything that prevented them from waltzing right into this like a bunch of dunderheads.
When a state acts like this, they empower violent resistance. They empower a pack of about 30 clods wielding sticks to completely implode international ties and score a major victory against Israel. Admiral ackbar would be proud.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
