Israel attacks aid ship

[csirl]

It's abundantly clear from the PSI's own website what its intent is. When and where did the Israelis accuse the ships of carrying WMD or materials to fashion them, unless of course Israel believes that fruit-juice is such a material.?

You cant tell what a ship is carrying until it is inspected - hence the reason for the inspections. It is logical to suspect that ship which refuses to allow inspections may be carrying suspect cargo.

Originally Posted by Sunny http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=1046378#post1046378
A country does not have the right to board a civillian ship in international waters using an elite commando unit, bring the ship and the people aboard into Israel, detain the people, deny them consular assistance and then make them sign declarations that they entered Israel illegally despite not wanting to go there in the first place

There is no evidence that anyone on the ships signed anything saying they entered Israel illegally. Look at the unlawful combatants section of the Geneva Conventions. It has a definition of an unlawful combatant. The Geneva Conventions specifically exclude unlawful combatants from recieving the benefits of the conventions.

 

[Bill Struth]

You cant tell what a ship is carrying until it is inspected - hence the reason for the inspections. It is logical to suspect that ship which refuses to allow inspections may be carrying suspect cargo.



There is no evidence that anyone on the ships signed anything saying they entered Israel illegally. Look at the unlawful combatants section of the Geneva Conventions. It has a definition of an unlawful combatant. The Geneva Conventions specifically exclude unlawful combatants from recieving the benefits of the conventions.

Clutching at straws now...

 

[Sunny]

You cant tell what a ship is carrying until it is inspected - hence the reason for the inspections. It is logical to suspect that ship which refuses to allow inspections may be carrying suspect cargo.



There is no evidence that anyone on the ships signed anything saying they entered Israel illegally. Look at the unlawful combatants section of the Geneva Conventions. It has a definition of an unlawful combatant. The Geneva Conventions specifically exclude unlawful combatants from recieving the benefits of the conventions.

Seriously, is that the best you can do?

Not even going to bother refuting that rubbish.

 

[DublinTexas]

Seriously, is that the best you can do?

Not even going to bother refuting that rubbish.

So if this would have happened within 12 nautical miles of Gaza you would not have a problem?

 

[Sunny]

I still maintain that the IDF has the right to inspect any vessel that tries to get into Gaza and in fact I think that the IDF has the right to seize vessels that are not co-operating in depended on where the vessel is. This is and has been done worldwide by other states.

I’m all for giving the people of Gaza aid and Israel offered to ferry the cargo from the ships to Gaza after inspections (a needed step to prevent further terrorist attacks on their country). Why did the other ships accept that but this one vessel did not? It was a reasonable offer of Israel but clearly the militants on board of this one vessel had different intentions.

So if China sticks up a blockade around Tibet, seizes a ship in international waters on the assumption that they are trying to smuggle weapons into Tibet and brings all the passengers back to the China, you don't have a problem with that?

The other boats didn't agree to anything. They were taken over as well but only put up a peaceful resistence but there are reports emerging of the use of tear gas and plastic bullets by Israeli troops on these boats.

 

[mathepac]

You cant tell what a ship is carrying until it is inspected - hence the reason for the inspections. It is logical to suspect that ship which refuses to allow inspections may be carrying suspect cargo. ...

There is no obligation on the master of a ship in international waters to submit to an inspection or search; the Israeli terrorists have no justification for their murderous actions.

Even if an arrest warrant for a vessel is issued under international maritime law, the owner / master must be served and the arrest can only be effected by duly authorised personnel in the territorial waters of a participating signatory state; boarding / detaining a vessel in international waters is an act of piracy.

 

[csirl]

I fail to understand why so many Irish people lend their support to a terrorist organisation such as Hamas - a bunch of people who want to inflict genocide on their neighbours, totalitarian rule over their own people and who are very violent.

Israel is far from perfect, but these people are about as evil as they come.

 

[csirl]

There is no obligation on the master of a ship in international waters to submit to an inspection or search; the Israeli terrorists have no justification for their murderous actions.

Even if an arrest warrant for a vessel is issued under international maritime law, the owner / master must be served and the arrest can only be effected by duly authorised personnel in the territorial waters of a participating signatory state; boarding / detaining a vessel in international waters is an act of piracy.

There is an obligation under PSI to facilitate a PSI inspection. And PSI is designed to take place without any advance warning, hence no warrants apply.

 

[Sunny]

So if this would have happened within 12 nautical miles of Gaza you would not have a problem?

Course I would. 10 people died.

I just don't see how anyone can't that understand that any Country launching a military operation and boarding a civillian ship in International waters is setting a very dangerous precedent.

 

[Sunny]

I fail to understand why so many Irish people lend their support to a terrorist organisation such as Hamas - a bunch of people who want to inflict genocide on their neighbours, totalitarian rule over their own people and who are very violent.

Israel is far from perfect, but these people are about as evil as they come.

Show me one post that shows people supporting Hamas?

Again you are grasping at straws.

 

[Sunny]

There is an obligation under PSI to facilitate a PSI inspection. And PSI is designed to take place without any advance warning, hence no warrants apply.

There is nothing under PSI agreement that justifies the stopping and searching of these vessels. Show me where in the agreement, it allows it.

 

[Latrade]

I fail to understand why so many Irish people lend their support to a terrorist organisation such as Hamas - a bunch of people who want to inflict genocide on their neighbours, totalitarian rule over their own people and who are very violent.

Israel is far from perfect, but these people are about as evil as they come.

I agree, but then I don't agree with justifying everything Israel does. I can generally be in agreement with Israel of some aspects and actions, but criticise when I think it's wrong. It is wrong in this action. And no matter how many irrelevant documents to try to justify the attack are dug up, they were wrong, Israel is wrong. The G W Bush attitude that this suddenly makes me a Hamas supporter is pathetic. Having some notion of the difficulties for the palestinians does not make me a Hamas supporter, the two are not intrinsically linked.

 

[RonanC]

I fail to understand why so many Irish people lend their support to a terrorist organisation such as Hamas - a bunch of people who want to inflict genocide on their neighbours, totalitarian rule over their own people and who are very violent.

Israel is far from perfect, but these people are about as evil as they come.

That is unreal !! I really doubt anyone in Ireland who supports the Palastinian struggle gives any support at all to Hamas. Show me one example of genuine support for ordinary palastinians and Hamas also.

And a quote from our Minister for Foreign Affairs

'The seven individuals concerned did not enter Israel illegally; rather they were essentially seized from international waters, taken into Israel and asked to sign documents confirming that they entered illegally. This is simply not acceptable.'

What part of this do people on this site not understand?

 

[DublinTexas]

So if China sticks up a blockade around Tibet, seizes a ship in international waters on the assumption that they are trying to smuggle weapons into Tibet and brings all the passengers back to the China, you don't have a problem with that? .

The crucial difference here is that Tibet did not attack china, rather the opposite, so yes I would have a problem with it.
Hamas attacks Israel so its Israel’s right to ensure that no weapons are provided to them.

The other boats didn't agree to anything. They were taken over as well but only put up a peaceful resistence but there are reports emerging of the use of tear gas and plastic bullets by Israeli troops on these boats.

And in the end they reached their goal, they get the aid delivered and made their political point.

 

[RonanC]

The Rachel Corrie (with formner UN assistant general secretary Denis Halliday on board) is still on its way to Gaza as we speak, so much for Israel's rubbish that all other 5 ships decided to head to Israel instead of trying to break the blockade.

I really fear for their safety now as Israel's navy is about to stop the boat and sieze it.

 

[RonanC]

And in the end they reached their goal, they get the aid delivered and made their political point.

The aid will not be delivered, it will remain in warehouses somewhere in Israel, probably because some of the contents of the aid are on an Israeli banned list..

Who gave Israel the right to ban anything entering another country, especially if its medical equipment or food which is badly needed.

 

[mathepac]

I fail to understand why so many Irish people lend their support to a terrorist organisation such as Hamas ...

I'm not sure which Irish people you mean, but please don't confuse my opposition to and abhorrance of the murderous actions of the Israeli pirate terrorists with implicit support of any other organisation.

 

[Sunny]

And in the end they reached their goal, they get the aid delivered and made their political point.

Well actually they didn't. The aid did not get to Gaza.

Israel made the political point for them by killing 10 people.

Now it turns out that the Israeli military sabotaged about 5 aid ships before they even left. So much for welcoming the aid.

 

[Purple]

The legalities of boarding a ship in international waters are covered by the San Remo Manual. I have no idea what it says about this situation but for those who think that the niceties’ of international law are relevant here then that's the place you should look.

 

[Latrade]

There is an obligation under PSI to facilitate a PSI inspection. And PSI is designed to take place without any advance warning, hence no warrants apply.

Just for clarification is this the PSI that was cobbled together by the US and gained a few signatories from US supporters that basically allowed the US to stop North Korean ships anywhere they wanted and inspect them? The same PSI that has been used on several occasions and not once yielded an actual cargo of WMD?

The same PSI that has not been signed up to by every member of the UN, unlike the UN's rules which have? The same UN rules that allow the transport of nuclear materials and weaponary across waters? The same UN rules that actually have a legal basis?

The same PSI rules that's the equivallent of me joinging up with a couple of neighbours and deciding we don't trust the guy in number 4 so we can enter his house at any time, by any means and confiscate any equipment we deem suspicious despite the laws of the land stating something completely different? But we signed it together!

The same PSI that doesn't define WMD?

The same PSI that only is only applicable to those "terroist states" named?

The same PSI that doesn't include Gaza in the list of these states?

The same PSI that doesn't include any of the nations under which the ships were registered in the list of these states?

The same PSI that Israel hasn't invoked, didn't mention and they've only ever said that they were diverting the aid because it was heading to the blockade and haven't once said they suspected anything in the way of weaponary (otherwise if the did suspect there was, wouldn't they have gone aboard with more than paintball guns and side arms?), that they knew it the cargo was just aid supplies but they want to control the route and flow of aid so the ships had to be diverted?

Well if so, colour me Hamas.