No, they didn't.

As I said before, Admiral Doenitz was found not guilty in Nurnberg based on Admiral Niemitz's statement that the US did the same thing to merchant ships heading to Germany.

You are now beginning to make up your own history for your narrative that Israel must have committed a crime, no matter what.

 

Says who? Now a brother may not fight a war without UN approval?

Can you find me the written law that says that the UNSC must now approve blockades? How do countries run a blockade if the UNSC doesn't like them?

And don't say "additionally" when every one of your arguments has been disproven already.

Or, alternatively, back up anything you say. Point me to these "international laws" you are referring to. You keep using them as arguments pretending that they are common knowledge but I'm afraid I am either ignorant of them or they don't exist but either way I don't know of them.

If you can find a written law somewhere that says what you claim "international law" says and can give me an example of a country following it at any relevant time, I guess you can win this discussion.

 

 

So what have we learned?

American submarines followed Japanese merchant ships and only fired at them when they entered Japanese territorial waters. This finding comes as a surprise to the Navy.

A blockade is a legal way to fight a war, but there is no war between Gaza and Israel. People in Gaza and Israel appear to imagine the violence.

But if there is a war between Gaza and Israel, a blockade is only legal if the UNSC approves it. That's why blockades didn't exist before the UN was founded.

Flying a Turkish flag next to a flag of a party to a war makes the ship untouchable. This trick is new and could have saved a lot of lives in World War 2 if it had been known.

 

I still think a population exchange would solve the problem.

The Arabs from Gaza can go to Darfur, and the Darfurians can go to Gaza.

 

Not so rightly since Doenitz was not convicted of any war crimes related to that at the behest of Admiral Nimitz.  As Leauki again pointed out, the US was sinking neutral shipping headed for Germany after they did enter the war.

The distance from Turkey to Israel is about 260 miles.  Which means there is no international water.  It is claimed by Turkey or Israel, and they were past the half way mark, so it was Israel waters.

Or are there separate rules for the US and everyone else since we claim 200 miles (except where that intersects another sovereign country's claim as in Cuba.  Or should the US just annex Cuba since it is within the 200 miles?)

Sorry, responded before reading.

I wonder when the law changed.

I asked so many people who claimed boarding enemy merchant ships is a war crime but nobody could point me to the law that said so. The UNSC also condemned Israel without pointing to the law Israel allegedly violated.



They came from Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus.

The legend about the ships being in international waters were probably invented by someone trying to fill a story with as many words as possible that would make the event sound worse.

What actually happened:

1. A few members of a Turkish terrorist organisation were killed. The IHH is a terrorist organisation per Turkish law and Turkey has in the past documented how they sent jihadis to Bosnia and Kosovo.

2. All the non-terrorist "peace activists" went home unharmed.

3. The goods arrived in Gaza after they were checked for weapons.

It would hardly be worth a mention if it wasn't about Israel.

But apparently this is a bigger crime than sinking merchant ships with submarines.




You mean get all of them at once rather than receive them boat-by-boat?

We made that mistake with East-Germany.

We could even use more current info than WWII. For example the boarding of ships during the first Gulf War. Quite far from US territorial waters. Perhaps Israel should just mine the waters, like Iraq did.

I am sure the UNSC allowed the US to do that, hence it is not a war crime.

 

Give it a few more years - no one will be left except Raul.

Hamas has now blocked delivery of the goods from the flotilla:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898181,00.html

Beat me to it, Leauki.  Yep, it's all about the humanitarian aid, you see.

Hi Leauki,

A couple of things-

Your analogy is flawed because

a) the goods would need to be destined for all the people of Iran, not just one little portion of guerilla fighters- this is because the convoy destined for Gaza was intended for the people of Gaza and not explicitly Hamas

Iran would need to be blockaded by another sovereign state, let's say Iraq for example

c) It has been explicitly covered under international law that there is a distinction between humanitarian aid and military aid to another country. The aid destined for Gaza was clearly humanitarian, again, things like building supplies, laundry detergent and food for the civilian populace.

Even if you are at war with another country, denying supplies to the civillian populace is a crime.

 

But as with all things the proof is in the pudding- and here's what I think will be the most interesting test..... on board the flotilla were about 60 journalists from registered news agencies.

The real test will be if Israel releases these journalists -with- their recording equipment and tapes intact, no censoring, no confiscation or erasing of their recordings. If Israel does that, I will have a lot more respect for them.

However, I fear that they will do their usual and release the journalists minus their tapes so that the real truth does not get out!

 

 

This wasn't the goal of the flotilla operation.  Its organizers have proudly proclaimed that the intent from the very beginning was to break the naval blockade or provoke a clash with Israel, using humanitarian aid as a pretext, the amount of which on board was trivial compared to what regularly moves into Gaza by land with Israel's blessing (delivery of which has now been refused by Hamas).  They could have easily accomplished delivery of humanitarian aid by proceeding to Ashdod, but that was not their reason for being there.  It was to provoke a confrontation which was inevitable and successfully accomplished.

If humanitarian aid is the only issue, why bother with this little skirmish when humanitarian aid can be delivered with ease via Ashdod?  The aim was to see if they could establish & legitimize a means to deliver weapons & munitions unfettered by Israeli security.  If Israel didn't stop them, primary mission accomplished; if Israel did stop them, alternate mission accomplished, with the reliable aid of the idiot media & anti-semitic regimes.

Better than I can say it.

Yes. And Israel has the right to check the goods to make sure they are indeed humanitarian aid.

This is exactly what Israel has done. And the goods have now arrived in Gaza.

 

Your X-ray vision must be better than mine. I had only the word of a Turkish terrorist group.

 

Not the issue here. Israel is not denying supplies to the civilian populace.

This is about stopping a ship to check the goods. It was never about stopping the supplies.

Stop changing the subject!

 

 

I thought Glen Beck summed up the background on the "humanitarians" pretty good this evening. If you missed it check it out later tonight or record it.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/biden-israel-right-to-stop-gaza-flotilla-from-breaking-blockade-1.293833

I found this mentioned by several news sites, including Bloomberg.

If it is true Obama and Biden have just earned their first badge for standing up to the world.

In an interview with Charlie Rose, Biden pointed out that Israel had given pro-Palestinian activists the option of unloading their cargo at the Ashdod port, and offered to bring it to the Gaza Strip on their behalf.

"They've said, 'Here you go. You're in the Mediterranean. This ship -- if you divert slightly north you can unload it and we'll get the stuff into Gaza,'", he said. "So what's the big deal here? What's the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza? Well, it's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping… 3,000 rockets on my people.
 

"Look, you can argue whether Israel should have dropped people onto that ship or not  -- but the truth of the matter is, Israel has a right to know -- they're at war with Hamas -- has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in."
During the interview, Biden also blamed Hamas for the crisis that has wracked the coastal territory and for the ongoing state of conflict with Israel.

"As we put pressure, and the world put pressure on Israel to let material go into Gaza to help those people who are suffering, the ordinary Palestinians there, what happened? Hamas would confiscate it, put it in a warehouse [and] sell it.
 

"So the problem is this would end tomorrow if Hamas agreed to form a government with the Palestinian Authority on the conditions the international community has set up," Biden told Rose.

The good thing is that Obama has street cred among the idiots. When his administration says something, most liberals will think it's true. And if facts come from someone who isn't George W. Bush, they can indeed be appreciated.

When Obama defends Israel and the west, I prefer him over Bush; not because I think he does a better job as such (he does not*), but because he in untouchable by the mainstream left.

 

*For example, as I mentioned before, he ignores the plight of Africans where REAL poverty and REAL oppression are rampant. George Bush increased aid to Africa and his administration worked out peace treaties in Liberia and southern Sudan. Obama has ignored Africa and was widely criticised by African human rights groups who had found an ally in George Bush.

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT???? War and blockades are not necessary correlated!  Big One, were we at war with Cuba during the Cuban Blockade?

BIG FAT NEGATIVE!  North Korea has a blockade, are we at war with North Korea?

The next blockade runner is coming and as usual the peace activists" promise they come in peace and won't resist IDF soldiers:

The activist said those on board were coming "in peace", and that they would not resist IDF soldiers if they insisted coming on board. 

But their tone has changed:

"We are not afraid, despite what happened on the Marmara," said Derrick Graham, who is on board with wife Jeanie. "The violence there was a product of fear, I saw the fear in the eyes of the soldiers. You need to send your veteran soldiers, not the young ones."

Hearing the "peace activists" themselves defending the IDF is a remarkable change.

I don't for a moment think that somebody who wastes money on bringing ever more goods to Gaza while Africans are starving really has a conscience, but I do think it is likely that they are afraid of something. Something has changed. I already pointed out that the tone in some media outlets had changed. Something is going on.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898334,00.html

A blockade is actually an alternative to war.

You can either have the enemy get weapons and fight it out, or you can stop the weapons and nobody has to fight.

 

Yes. Although there is a cease-fire which North-Korea periodically breaks.

South-Korea is in more danger than Israel.

 

 

I have no television.

 

Arty, do you know who is Suha Arafat is?  Suha Arafat, she is the in the TOP 20 WEALTHIEST WOMEN in the world.  Where did she get all of this money? 

Suha Arafat, widow of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, withdrawn tens of millions of dollars’ worth of investment from Tunis, prompting the Tunisian authorities to strip her of the Tunisian citizenship.  She was investing in hotels over there.   Where did this money come from?  She has inherited millions of millions of dollars.  I don't think you break the top 20 list by being the PA President.  I don't think pays in millions of dollars, so where did this money come from?  She lived in five-star Bristol Hotel in Paris that goes for about $16,000 a night while holding 19 rooms to herself, before she bought her nice little villa (which I am not going to even mention how much that was.   Where did that money come from?

You keep bringing up the power plant in Gaza (Gaza Power Generating Co.).  Gaza Power Generating Company (this plant at fully working would barely fall short at suppling the power needs)  was not able to be finished because there was infideta in 2002.  Israel wanted them to finish building the plant because they would supply power and never get paid for it.  They actually offered contrustion supplies but the PA wanted money.  This hoped when they have offered medicine countless times.  They want money.

Does it seem like these people really care about anyone except for their ideology and their cause? 

If that money was used to help the people instead of the 'cause' this situation wouldn't be happening.

 

I am going to go walk my dog, Gedalyah, with my Isaeli t-shirt :->

this is supposedly "peace activists" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaiMjAULWn0

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10199862.stm

 

Neutrality is not only bullshit, its also evil.. Impartiality is good... what is the difference?

Lets say John doe kidnaps a 5 year old and rapes and murders her.

Biased (mother of the victim): I want to cut him up with a rusty knife.

Biased (John himself): I admit I have a problem, but I should not be held accountable for my actions.

Impartial (me): I have no stake in the case either way, but I can tell you his act is inhumane and atrocious and he deserves the death penalty, for the good of society.

Neutral (liberal): Well, bad things happened to all involved, but it is not his fault that he has a problem, he needs our help and our understanding. Certainly he can't just walk out unpunished (nod towards victim), but we cannot violate his rights by executing him or exposing him to cruel and unusual punishment (equal nod towards victimizer), if we <insert appropriate punishment here> we are no better then him, and he deserves a chance to be "rehabilitated"

EDIT: you know what, this deserves its own article about the nature of "neutrality" http://soviet-overlords.joeuser.com/article/383323/Neutrality_is_pure_unadulterated_Evil

Israeli officials are standing defiantly saying soldiers had been defending themselves after they were "clubbed, beaten and stabbed" during a raid of a flotilla of Gaza-bound aid ships.

I find it interesting how the BBC state that Israeli officials "say" soldiers had been defending themselves, while showing the video that proves it. Even a proven fact in favour of Israel is merely the Israeli point of view and is to be treated as such.

I am sure that the BBC will claim that gravity is some Israeli claim when Israel says that soldiers were thrown overboard.