Hypothesis: No Hamas = No More Problems. For anyone. - by SubJeff
Brian The Dog on 1/6/2010 at 13:45
The BBC has a (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10203333.stm) webpage giving the background on why the military team went in, and what happened when they landed. What they're not sure about is why 9 people were killed - unless the people onboard kept trying to pick up fallen sidearms or something.
Don't think either side covered themselves in glory on this one, by a long way :(
Scots Taffer on 1/6/2010 at 13:48
Can I cut five pages of babbling down to: SubjEff doesn't like Jews?
He's hardly alone!
DDL on 1/6/2010 at 13:56
Quote Posted by Brian The Dog
unless the people onboard kept trying to pick up fallen sidearms or something.
This, plus the fact they went in with pepperspray paintballs (and definitely not non-lethal sidearms), just makes me think of SWAT 4.
*paff paff paff paff* "hands in the air!!" *paff paff paff* "HAAANDS!"
....oh fuck it
*BLAM*
Matthew on 1/6/2010 at 16:07
Far better to have gone in with riot gear and a fucktonne of tear gas, I'd have thought.
And for those quoting the maritime lawyer from Radio 4, he said that if the blockade was legal, then the boarding action was legal under international maritime law. If the blockade was not legal, then neither was the boarding action.
Honestly, I think Israel has managed to cover itself in ignominy on this one. The relationship with Turkey, which had been one of the stronger international ties that Israel had, has been deteriorating over the last few years, but pissing them off in this fashion was still very unwise.
Not that the Americans won't block any vote on action to be taken, but considering Turkey is a current member of the Security Council it was perhaps even more unwise.
Finally, I heard earlier today that the UN estimates that the aid that Israel permits into the Gaza Strip constitutes only one quarter of what the UN considers necessary for the population there. Has anyone else heard that, or is it just another random accusation?
demagogue on 1/6/2010 at 16:14
If I had to pick out the weakest link in this story, the part where the tragedy could have been adverted the most straight-forwardly, I'd say it was this:
Quote:
The [Israeli] official said there was clearly an intelligence failure in that the commandos were expecting to face passive resistance, and not an angry, violent reaction.
It just strikes me as a possible "willful ignorance" tactic ... As if you're going to lengths *not* to know the situation just so you can always claim "Well, we didn't know that might happen" when shit goes down. If it's a situation where you have to send in commandos to enforce a policy, then you should expect shit might go down and figure out a better plan for dealing with it. Also the fact that commandos need to be in the business of keeping things under control, and you can expect riled-up bitter activists to act off the cuff.
Rug Burn Junky on 1/6/2010 at 16:30
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
Can I cut five pages of babbling down to: SubjEff doesn't like Jews?
He's hardly alone!
I was under the impression that SubJeff only liked jews, and it's everybody else's fault. We should start over, because the five pages obviously didn't get his message across clearly.
Rug Burn Junky on 1/6/2010 at 16:33
As for the situation itself, it's hard not to notice that Bibi is simply an incompetent bumbling ideologue who is acting not out of what's in the best interests of the country, but rather what a small band of ultraviolent fringe cowards think is the best way to bully his "oppoents" into submission.
Almost exactly like W., except jewier.
SubJeff on 1/6/2010 at 17:56
I'm not a militant supporter of Israel by any means - I think the blockade, legal or not, is inexcusable.
That doesn't mean I can't see when a bunch of bleeding heart liberals are being provocative arseholes with an agenda.
*Zaccheus* on 1/6/2010 at 17:57
I know as much about international law as most people around the world know about crate stacking in Thief, but this caught my eye:
Quote Posted by Wille
Here's what(
http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument) San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 says about blockades:
[...]
102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.
I think it's pretty clear that (b) applies to the blockade of Gaza.
Various people, including officials within the UN, have stated that the blockade of Gaza is illegal.
As such, Israel would not have had the right to board any ships in international waters.
In fact, I suspect it would have been quite legal for the people on the ship to defend themselves.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Without Hamas and attacks on Israel there would be no need for the Gaza blockade.
I'm pretty sure that Hamas are not the only group firing rockets into Israel.
