BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 12:22 PM

conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards.

Yup. Conforming to the Israeli's own rules & standards- wch by & large they make up to suit their own purposes.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 12:32 PM

No.
Conforming to International Law according to UN.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 12:47 PM

You're confusing 'legal' with 'justified' and 'legitimate' and- dare I say?- moral.


Voice of America News 1 Sept. 2011

"A long-awaited U.N. panel report on the Israeli raid of a Turkish aid ship bound for the Gaza Strip was leaked Thursday by the New York Times. In it, the panel found that Israel used excessive and unreasonable force during its raid of the Mavi Marmara last year, but concluded that the naval blockade of Gaza is legal under international law."

"The panel says the action of the Israeli commandos "seems to us to have been too heavy a response too quickly" and "it was an excessive reaction to the situation." They conclude that "the operation should have been better planned and differently executed." The report notes that seven of the dead suffered multiple gunshot wounds."

"The report criticized the loss of life resulting from the Israeli raid as "unacceptable." It said Israel has not provided a "satisfactory explanation" for the killings of the nine Turks, most of whom it says were "shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range."

"The U.N. panel did recommend that Israel should express regret and compensate the victims."

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 01:43 PM

The Israelis were morally and legally entitled to impose a blockeade to prevent arms reaching Gaza.
They offered to deliver the aid to Gaza from an Israeli port, and that is what eventually happened.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 06:06 PM

Sorry, Keith, you're inventing things again.

The U. N. Report said that the blockade was "legal", under international law.

It also said the the boarding and its aftermath were a colossal clusterfuck.

Spin it any way you like, it is what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: bobad
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 06:51 PM

The report states that Israel has the right to establish a blockade to prevent weapons from entering Gaza and it has the right to board any vessel heading to Gaza by sea. It also says that the commandos used excessive force when they were attacked by passengers on board the ship.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 06:57 PM

Not quite, Bo - See post 02 Sep 11 - 12:47 PM.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: bobad
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 09:15 PM

Excerpts from the UN Report which can be read in PDF format here:
Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident

humanitarian missions must respect the
security arrangements put in place by Israel. They must seek prior approval from Israel
and make the necessary arrangements with it. This includes meeting certain conditions
such as permitting Israel to search the humanitarian vessels in question.

The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is
subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real
threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was
imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering
Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international
law.

For Israel to maintain the blockade it had to be effective, so it must be enforced.
That is a clear legal requirement for a blockade.344 Such enforcement may take place on
the high seas and may be conducted by force if a vessel resists. To this point in the
analysis no difficulty arises. But the subsequent steps taken raise serious questions as to
whether the enforcement was executed appropriately in the circumstances

Israel's decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great
distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the
boarding was excessive and unreasonable:
a. Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance. In
particular, clear prior warning that the vessels were to be boarded and a
demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the type
of confrontation that occurred;
b. The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to the
initial boarding attempt became apparent so as to minimize casualties.

133. Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent
resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured,
mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded.
134. The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces
during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine passengers were
killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces. No satisfactory
explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths.
Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times,
including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the
material presented by Israel.

The blockading power is entitled to board a neutral merchant vessel if there are
reasonable grounds to suspect that it is breaching a blockade. The blockading power has
the right to visit and search the vessel and to capture it if found in breach of a blockade.
Breach could occur outside the blockade zone, including on the high seas where there is
evidence of the vessel's intention. If there is clear resistance to the interception or
capture, the blockading power may attack the vessel, after giving a prior warning. The
level of force used to enforce the above-mentioned rights must be proportionate; in
particular, it must be limited to the level necessary to achieve the military objective.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 10:20 PM

Please note:

But the subsequent steps taken raise serious questions as to
whether the enforcement was executed appropriately in the circumstances.

Israel's decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable:

a. Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance. In
particular, clear prior warning that the vessels were to be boarded and a demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the typeof confrontation that occurred;

b. The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to the initial boarding attempt became apparent so as to minimize casualties.

134. The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces. No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths.
Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: bobad
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 10:26 PM

Please note:

133. Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent
resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured,
mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: bobad
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 10:40 PM

The panel's recommendations for rapprochement: (which are reasonable in my opinion)

• An appropriate statement of regret should be made by Israel in respect of
the incident in light of its consequences.

• Israel should offer payment for the benefit of the deceased and injured
victims and their families, to be administered by the two governments
through a joint trust fund of a sufficient amount to be decided by them.

• Turkey and Israel should resume full diplomatic relations, repairing their
relationship in the interests of stability in the Middle East and
international peace and security. The establishment of a political
roundtable as a forum for exchanging views could assist to this end.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Sep 11 - 04:08 AM

The aid reached Gaza, and would have got there much quicker via an Israeli port.
The passengers started the violence, attacking the boats before any boardings, and the commandos as they descended.
Many passengers had expressed a determination to be killed fighting Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Sep 11 - 04:09 AM

And Greg, exactly what did I make up?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 03 Sep 11 - 07:03 AM

Let's not forget (Keith, bobad) that according to the UN itself (in the shape of UNCHR) the blockade is illegal. Not that I'm too concerned about judgments from the UN, or from any ad hoc panel it cobbles together for the express purpose of finding a form of words that can get two of America's buddies (probably the last two, if Doug R is to be believed) talking again.

It is enough for me that Israel's reckless behaviour has cost it another friend, just when the country is being rocked by demonstrations that have gone virtually unreported in the US and UK, and by simmering conflict between zealots and secularists. Happy days!

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: bobad
Date: 03 Sep 11 - 08:30 AM

Peter, the legality of the blockade is not a "judgement from the UN" rather the determination is based on international law and the applicable international legal principles are cited in the report if you had bothered to read it.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Sep 11 - 04:06 PM

yup- the conclusions drawn by the members of the U.N. panel resulting from their inquiry and the "applicable international legal principles" as interpreted by that panel.

But in no way is it a "judgement" from the U.N.

Right you are..........

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Sep 11 - 06:23 PM

I think it reasonable to assume that they had advice from some of the best lawyers in the world on the issue.
Greg, you said I made stuff up.
Did you make that up, or was there something?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Sep 11 - 08:25 PM

The pros and cons of this situation have gone round and round without a resolution. It seems as if the arguments here depict an unshakeable orientation without agreement on opposing views.

My contention is that Israel and the US are occupiers. The only way to resolve this conflict is through non-violence. One way to support the Palestinians is to consider supporting the BDS (Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions) toward Israel.
This is one way to force them to the table to negotiate.

From what I can gather, through Ha'eretz and other sources, Israelis are divided on the occupation of Gaza and what is really at loggerheads here is the Netanyahu
recalcitrance with some of the Israeli people.

Israel through Netanyahu is taking an isolationist position, a defensive paranoid
military approach and I wonder how much real backing he has.

There is an underlying problem here in that Israel is becoming less democratic and more theocratic.

There is another underlying problem with Palestinian religious orientation which at this point is not entirely secular.

As we wrestle in the US with the same issue, separation of Church and State, and the possibility of a president who is persuaded that the US Constitution should turn into the Ten Commandments and that Christians have dominion over government, there is the similar problem of religious strife in the Mid-East that dictates the divisions between not only Jews and Arabs but Arabs against Arabs.
fighting over territory.

The mistake that Egypt made was to turn their fledgling new government over to the military which means that the decisions are authoritarian and not favorable
to the Gazans, so Carol's concerns here are justified.

We have to face facts that theocratic decisions are being made in Israel and Gaza
and this compounds the problem.

The UN at this point as abnegated its responsibility to resolving this issue of occupation and legality of borders and who owns Gaza's waters. The US has made its position clear and this may be one of the reasons the UN is being bullied.

BDS might send a message that occupation is not the answer for Israel.