Merged: Israel Attacks Palestinian Aid Flotilla, According To Reports

[thesyntaxera]

Originally Posted by Thunder

using an embargo to intimidate a civilian population into making a political change is indeed a form of terrorism.

if you do not like a political choice made by a civilian population, you can choose not to trade with them. but you have no right to prevent other countries from trading with them.

Exactly.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera

""No protected person(individual palestinians) may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties(Giant Walls) and likewise all measures of intimidation(Helicopter raids on humanitarian vessels) or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited(6 day war). Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited."

No. Building walls is not what is meant by punishment. Nor is interdiction of vessels in violation of blockades.

Using your definition would make any hostile act where civilians suffer into a war crime.

Heck, I'm curious, do you agree that compulsory insurance in the USA is collective punishment?

http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=1440

After all:

""No protected person(individual Americans) may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties(Giant Fines) and likewise all measures of intimidation(Arrests for nonpayment) or of terrorism are prohibited. [/quote]


Or would you like to return to reality, where:

Quote:

By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and World War II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_...ve_punishments

[KoihimeNakamura]

.. so this entire thread has only taught me two things
1) Most people who bash Israel don't have a sense of proportion.
2) you mean both Isreal and Hamas aren't acting rationally? SHOCKER! I WOULD HAVE NEVER GUESSED THAT!

[bit_pattern]

Quote:

"intimidatory measures to terrorize the population"

Like terrosing a civilian population into voting for someone different?

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera

Against the innocent Palestinians? Most definitely.That's like me locking you in a room and starving you, withholding water and toilet facilities just to get you to agree with me.

I'm curious why it matters whether the Palestinians are innocent or guilty. The issue to me is whether one nation can blockade another when that other is trying to destroy it. It doesn't scale down to an individual level, so I dismiss your false analogy to locking you in a box, athough I do note it's funny how you've abbreviated "agree not to kill me" to "agree with me."

Whether the Palestians who voted the genocidal terrorists into power count as "innocent" or not is an interesting sideline discussed in my earlier posts.

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by Rika

.. so this entire thread has only taught me two things
1) Most people who bash Israel don't have a sense of proportion.

Where's the proportion in illegally boarding a peaceful vessel in international waters and murdering ten civilians?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Sorry, not playing that game.

[thesyntaxera]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

No. Building walls is not what is meant by punishment.

And yet that is the result.

Quote:

Nor is interdiction of vessels in violation of blockades.

And yet that is the result.

Quote:

Using your definition would make any hostile act where civilians suffer into a war crime.

Ah to be a humanist.

Quote:

Heck, I'm curious, do you agree that compulsory insurance in the USA is collective punishment?

Nope, common sense. Just like car insurance is common sense.

Quote:

"No protected person(individual Americans) may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties(Giant Fines) and likewise all measures of intimidation(Arrests for nonpayment) or of terrorism are prohibited.

Wow. You just equated mandatory healthcare with the murder of a dozen or more people, and the virtual isolation and economic deprivation of a whole nation of people. Pat yourself on the back.

Quote:

Or would you like to return to reality, where:

Oh, you mean what I am talking about?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

I'm curious why it matters whether the Palestinians are innocent or guilty. The issue to me is whether one nation can blockade another when that other is trying to destroy it.

Precisely. That's the way the world has always worked. A nation with a government dedicated to destroying another nation will suffer the consequences.

[thesyntaxera]

**

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by lionking

Precisely. That's the way the world has always worked. A nation with a government dedicated to destroying another nation will suffer the consequences.

I like the way you completely ignore where I demonstrate that Hamas has for years stated its willingness to recognise Israel and continue repeating the same misconception. That takes a special kind commitment.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Let me clarify:

Quote:

Where's the proportion in illegally boarding a peaceful vessel in international waters and murdering ten civilians?

Anything highlighted I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying.

[thesyntaxera]

Originally Posted by lionking

Precisely. That's the way the world has always worked. A nation with a government dedicated to destroying another nation will suffer the consequences.

Quote:

I'm curious why it matters whether the Palestinians are innocent or guilty. The issue to me is whether one nation can blockade another when that other is trying to destroy it.

If ALL of the Palestinians wanted to destroy Israel maybe you would have a point.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

I like the way you completely ignore where I demonstrate that Hamas has for years stated its willingness to recognise Israel and continue repeating the same misconception. That takes a special kind commitment.

Except they're also asking impossible demands. There is no way Israel will give up /any/ of Jerusalem and everyone knows it.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera

If ALL of the Palestinians wanted to destroy Israel maybe you would have a point.

The idea that ALL the citizens of a beligerent nation must support the war effort before the target can respond is absurd.

[thesyntaxera]

Originally Posted by Rika

Except they're also asking impossible demands. There is no way Israel will give up /any/ of Jerusalem and everyone knows it.

Why didn't Israel simply maintain the pre-1967 borders, and avoid all this drama?

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by Rika

Let me clarify:


Anything highlighted I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying.

Can you point out the relevant maritime laws that allow vessels flying under national flags to be boarded by force in international waters?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

I like the way you completely ignore where I demonstrate that Hamas has for years stated its willingness to recognise Israel and continue repeating the same misconception. That takes a special kind commitment.

There are other threads dedicated to this fiction. I suggest you check them out.

[thesyntaxera]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

The idea that ALL the citizens of a beligerent nation must support the war effort before the target can respond is absurd.

The idea that one nations government can persecute another nations civillian population because their governments disagree is absurd.

[Skeptic]

One of the top reasons offered for Israel moving out from Gaza is that then, it will have the moral high ground, and the world will understand if it takes reasonable measures -- such as a naval blockade to stop arms smuggling -- against a terrorist government who had sworn to destroy and genocide it. Well, so much for that theory. Need I add that just this theory was paraded, in this very forum, by the very people who now condemn Israel for... imposing the naval blockade?

Israel should have learned long ago that "If you only will do this, I will love you" is always a lie. The same applies to a Palestinian state, by the way: in exactly the same way the very people who claimed they will support Israel once it regains the moral high ground by withdrawal from Gaza took about two weeks to start siding with its enemies once again, if Israel does what they say and regains the moral high ground by withdrawing from the territories it will take them even less time to support the new Palestinian state in enforcing the next stage of the "staged plan" for Israel's destruction.

No doubt the first thing a Palestinian state would do is arranged similar flotillas in favor of the "right of return" -- to finish Israel's destruction demographically, once they have their internationally-recognized terrorist base Palestinian state. And, no doubt, the same folks now urging Israel so strongly to withdraw, so that then it will be loved by them, will side with the Palestinians, calling the flotilla a "Palestinians rights peaceful protest" or whatever.

This, mind you, is NOT the case with EVERY supporter of a Palestinian state. I certainly am sympathetic with those who want a peaceful Palestinian state. The problem is not the desire of such a state, but in not realizing it's -- currently -- impossible (just think how long it will take Hamas to take over that state -- two weeks?).

But, be that as it may, such people typically show concern for Israel's security and try to see what can be done to ensure it, or in improving ties between regular Israelies and Palestinians, and so on. They have a goal which, while I think is currently unrealistic, is in itself admirable. They do not threaten Israel with the loss of their love lest it does exactly what they want right now without any concern to its safety. They do not dismiss all Israeli concerns as "propaganda" while swallowing Hamas' propaganda whole. They do not randomly and constantly criticize Israel for whatever-the-heck they feel like this week.

I am speaking here specifically of those who rant and rave about Israel using the Palestinian case as an excuse, who demand that Israel more or less unconditionally accept all Arab demands. For those folks, if the excuse of "the occupation" is taken away, as it was in Gaza, they just find another one -- the blockade, or the right of return, or whatever, since the real reason they rant and rave is that Israel exists at all. Their real goal is not peace, but the elimination of the Jewish state.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera

If ALL of the Palestinians wanted to destroy Israel maybe you would have a point.

Fine. Please explain how any action against a nation desiring your destruction can differentiate between individuals?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

Can you point out the relevant maritime laws that allow vessels flying under national flags to be boarded by force in international waters?

Pretty sure the law of blockades apply

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera

The idea that one nations government can persecute another nations civillian population because their governments disagree is absurd.

... Yes, wars are actually kinda absurd, but..

[thesyntaxera]

Originally Posted by lionking

Fine. Please explain how any action against a nation desiring your destruction can differentiate between individuals?

Well, how about really pressing the whole non-violent/diplomatic angle? If they really wanted a peaceful resolution they could have had one many times over. Neither government is willing to concede too much, unfortunately.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera

And yet that is the result.

And yet that is the result.

No the result is not what was meant by the term collective punishment
.

Quote:

Ah to be a humanist.

You can wish for a pacifistic world, and yet those who live in the real world use terms that distinguish "war crime" from "war"

Quote:

Nope, common sense. Just like car insurance is common sense.


Wow. You just equated mandatory healthcare with the murder of a dozen or more people, and the virtual isolation and economic deprivation of a whole nation of people. Pat yourself on the back.

No. I provided an intentionally absurd example of a fool equating mandatory healthcare with a war crime as you are doing with calling stopping blockade runners collective punishment.

Quote:

Oh, you mean what I am talking about?

No. There is a difference between murdering a village because a fighter came from there and enacting a blockade of a hostile nation. The first is the war crime of collective punishment. The second is not.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by lionking

Precisely. That's the way the world has always worked. A nation with a government dedicated to destroying another nation will suffer the consequences.

cool, you have just proclaimed the nation of palestine? Or have you just invented it for rhetorical purposes?

What you need to be discussing is stateless people on land controlled by Israel some of which are attacking Israel.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera

The idea that one nations government can persecute another nations civillian population because their governments disagree is absurd.

Welcome to the real world, where nations have wars.

Once again: We distinguish between 'war' and 'war crime' in the real world.

[thesyntaxera]

Originally Posted by Rika

Pretty sure the law of blockades apply

http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusiblck.htm

"The basic scheme is that a blockade, to be legal, MUST be effective: the term is a bit hazy, but, essentially, means that the bulk of enemy and neutral merchant shipping must be subject to being stopped. Once the blockade is LEGAL, then a belligerent ship may STOP a neutral or enemy merchant vessel and inspect it. If the cargo is found to be actual or conditional contraband, it can be seized without payment, though this can only be done once the ship is taken to a friendly port (which may be neutral) and a judicial proceeding is held to confirm that the cargo was indeed "contraband". (If the cargo is not contraband but is, for instance, food, it must be permitted to pass unhindered.) "

Quote:

... Yes, wars are actually kinda absurd, but..

But?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by The Fool

cool, you have just proclaimed the nation of palestine? Or have you just invented it for rhetorical purposes?

What you need to be discussing is stateless people on land controlled by Israel some of which are attacking Israel.

Fine, oh pedantic one, a state with a government then.

[KoihimeNakamura]

1) .. huh. You know, I suppose that makes sense, in a way, although there _is_ a port that aid supplies can be routed through.

2) ...

[thesyntaxera]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Welcome to the real world, where nations have wars.

Once again: We distinguish between 'war' and 'war crime' in the real world.

What is it with you and your confidence that you some how have some great insight into what the real world actually is. You sure talk about it an awful lot, but so far I have only got the impression that you only do it to make yourself feel smart.

Regardless, just because people suffer in the really real world doesn't make it right. These governments can chose to do the right thing, if they want to.

[thesyntaxera]

Originally Posted by Rika

1) .. huh. You know, I suppose that makes sense, in a way, although there _is_ a port that aid supplies can be routed through.

2) ...

Yep.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Should is not is.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera

Neither government is willing to concede too much, unfortunately.

What if Israel was willing to concede >90% of the West Bank, all the Gaza Strip, Palestinian control over East Jerusalem and compensation for the lost property of Palestinian refugees? That seems like a good deal to me.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera

What is it with you and your confidence that you some how have some great insight into what the real world actually is. You sure talk about it an awful lot, but so far I have only got the impression that you only do it to make yourself feel smart.

Regardless, just because people suffer in the really real world doesn't make it right. These governments can chose to do the right thing, if they want to.

I never said suffering is right. I never said war was right. I said suffering in itself (or war in itself) does not constitute a war crime and that it's dishonest to twist terms to try and make it seem otherwise.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by lionking

Fine, oh pedantic one, a state with a government then.

oh benevalent one has proclaimed them a state instead.....under what authority have you proclaimed the state of palestine.....


lets cut to the chase....you want palestinians to carry the responsibilities of statehood you want them to live up to these ideaals.....without actually giving them statehood or nationhood or whatever you want to call it.

you would much rather leave them in the hands of the Israeli government who....frankly....appear at the moment to be run by A grade buffoons..lurching from PR disaster to PR disaster. What *********** Idiot in the Israeli government suggested it would be a good Idea to go on board these ships and shoot some people? They will eventually have to get over this compulsion to control Gaza.....probably sooner is better than later.

Buffoons survive best when people give them total and unquestioning support irrespective of anything stupid they do. So lets keep chanting the support lines while they test the limits of incompetence in government.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by The Fool

you would much rather leave them in the hands of the Israeli government who....frankly....appear at the moment to be run by A grade buffoons..lurching from PR disaster to PR disaster. What *********** Idiot in the Israeli government suggested it would be a good Idea to go on board these ships and shoot some people?

Oh! I remember that idiot! He was the one that said "Hey guys, go stop those boats from violating the blockade on the governments that have sworn to destroy us. Also, don't shoot anyone unless they try to kill you."

What an idiot.

[BeAChooser]

After watching the videos and reading the actual facts, I think the activists are lucky the Israelis didn't just choose to sink the ship.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

One of the top reasons offered for Israel moving out from Gaza is that then, it will have the moral high ground, and the world will understand if it takes reasonable measures -- such as a naval blockade to stop arms smuggling -- against a terrorist government who had sworn to destroy and genocide it. Well, so much for that theory. Need I add that just this theory was paraded, in this very forum, by the very people who now condemn Israel for... imposing the naval blockade?

Israel should have learned long ago that "If you only will do this, I will love you" is always a lie. The same applies to a Palestinian state, by the way: in exactly the same way the very people who claimed they will support Israel once it regains the moral high ground by withdrawal from Gaza took about two weeks to start siding with its enemies once again, if Israel does what they say and regains the moral high ground by withdrawing from the territories it will take them even less time to support the new Palestinian state in enforcing the next stage of the "staged plan" for Israel's destruction.

No doubt the first thing a Palestinian state would do is arranged similar flotillas in favor of the "right of return" -- to finish Israel's destruction demographically, once they have their internationally-recognized terrorist base Palestinian state. And, no doubt, the same folks now urging Israel so strongly to withdraw, so that then it will be loved by them, will side with the Palestinians, calling the flotilla a "Palestinians rights peaceful protest" or whatever.

This, mind you, is NOT the case with EVERY supporter of a Palestinian state. I certainly am sympathetic with those who want a peaceful Palestinian state. The problem is not the desire of such a state, but in not realizing it's -- currently -- impossible (just think how long it will take Hamas to take over that state -- two weeks?).

But, be that as it may, such people typically show concern for Israel's security and try to see what can be done to ensure it, or in improving ties between regular Israelies and Palestinians, and so on. They have a goal which, while I think is currently unrealistic, is in itself admirable. They do not threaten Israel with the loss of their love lest it does exactly what they want right now without any concern to its safety. They do not dismiss all Israeli concerns as "propaganda" while swallowing Hamas' propaganda whole. They do not randomly and constantly criticize Israel for whatever-the-heck they feel like this week.

I am speaking here specifically of those who rant and rave about Israel using the Palestinian case as an excuse, who demand that Israel more or less unconditionally accept all Arab demands. For those folks, if the excuse of "the occupation" is taken away, as it was in Gaza, they just find another one -- the blockade, or the right of return, or whatever, since the real reason they rant and rave is that Israel exists at all. Their real goal is not peace, but the elimination of the Jewish state.

this bit early on in your post....

"One of the top reasons offered for Israel moving out from Gaza is that then, it will have the moral high ground, and the world will understand if it takes reasonable measures -- such as a naval blockade to stop arms smuggling --

Is the lie that you normally need to premise the wall of waffle that generally follows it. You are not blockading weapons you are blockading a lot more....

this bit amuses me too..
"No doubt the first thing a Palestinian state would do is arranged similar flotillas in favor of the "right of return" -- to finish Israel's destruction demographically,"

how they going to destroy Israel demographically?? If they round up some boatloads of arabs are you goiing to make them Israeli citizens or something?


funny thing is the racist extreme right in Australia also likes to spread scary stories of boatloads of arabs that are going to destroy australia demographically....can't you guys come up with original racist rants?

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by Rika

Pretty sure the law of blockades apply

They weren't in the Exclusion Zone, if such a law exists then I can't see how it can apply to vessels outside of the blockade area, in international waters, flying a national flag. Seems to me that Israel thinks itself above the law.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Oh! I remember that idiot! He was the one that said "Hey guys, go stop those boats from violating the blockade on the governments that have sworn to destroy us. Also, don't shoot anyone unless they try to kill you."

What an idiot.

keep applauding them and they will keep *********** things up for your amusement. Its a win-win situation