I think that it is ridiculous that even after a UN report vindicates Israel's actions, Turkey is still going to take its case to the International Criminal Courts, on trumped up charges that shouldn't even be admitted. The pitiful thing is that Turkey was Israel's closest Middle Eastern ally and now it looks like it could take decades to resolve this.
What are your opinions on the flotilla that occurred last year, and what do you think the end result of this spat between former allies will end up as?
Please though, a source, and explain the situation?
Basically Turkey is still mad about the killing of 9 people aboard the Mari Marmara, when Israeli Shayetet commandoes boarded the ship for refusing to divert to another port, since the one in Gaza is blockaded by Israel in an attempt to prevent weapons and illicit materials from entering Gaza and being controlled by Hamas. Had the ship diverted to an Egyptian port and allowed the cargo to be searched, this would have been prevented. However, because the activists refused to divert, they were boarded by the soldiers, who were then beaten down by people with metal pipes and with other make-shift clubs. The soldiers opened fire, and killed 9 people. Fast forward to today. The UN has recently released a report which states that while the killings were wrong, the blockade is just, and legal. Turkey is just P.Oed and expelled the Israeli ambassador. Turkey now wants this case examined by the International Criminal Court.
Please post your opinions about what is going on, and who do you think is right.
Oh yeah I remember that on the news a year ago on BBC, where they showed the uncensored vids. The soldiers fired on the sailors with rubber bullets after being met with resistance (hit with pipes, chairs, knives, etc) because some of the activists on the ship were trained and were expecting/anxious to fight. HOWEVER, the soldiers fired "warning shots" and dropped stun grenades on the ship before boarding. They were wrong to board the ship because it was in international waters (I think it was 3X farther out than the blockade's maximum jurisdiction). It would've been perfectly acceptable if the raid happened within the blockaded waters, but it didn't.
Neither side is right because the activists wanted to be met with resistance and the soldiers acted too soon.
Neither side is right because the activists wanted to be met with resistance and the soldiers acted too soon.
Actually, the soldiers were allowed to board the ship because it was attempting to run a blockade. Because blockades take place in international waters (it's legal, look it up), and the Mari Marmara was attempting to run the blockade, they were allowed to ask it to stop. When it didn't, they then fired warning shots and sent commandoes. The "humanitarians" are just lucky the navy decided not to sink the ship.
Because blockades take place in international waters (it's legal, look it up),
Although they do take place in international waters, there's limits on how far out they can go. Here's the path of the ship. The range of the blockade's jurisdiction ends at the purple line.
The range of the blockade's jurisdiction ends at the purple line.
No, that merely shows the territorial waters. The blockade was a few nautical miles outside of that. Plus, after the flotila announced it was running the blockade, and then refused to divert, the Israelis had every right to board the ship.
Only about 3X as wide as Gaza. It looks about the same as the earlier map.
Yes, but you are missing that because the flotilla had already announced its intentions to run the blockade, the navy was attempting to divert it to another port. It was perfectly legal. Had the "humanitarians" only decided to divert, none of this would be happening.
It would've been perfectly legal if it took place within the confines of the area. They could've waited until it got there then did whatever they wanted: If someone's standing by the US border but he's in Mexico and he yells at a US cop "I will go over there and beat you up" because he wanted to fight, that dosen't give the cop the right to go over there and kill him. It's out of his jurisdiction. As soon as the guy crosses the border, then the cop could take action.
The way I see it, I guess it was technically wrong to through to run that ship through the blockade, but I personally think it's wrong to have that blockade there in the first place.
For example (though an extreme one) a government oppresses its people and removes their freedom of speech, and then someone protests against this, and is killed, is it the person's fault, or the governments fault for making the law in the first place?
Perhaps an exaggerated example, but the point is the same, what they did was wrong, but it shouldn't have been.
Though, of course, seeing as how some people decided to attack the soldiers, I can't really blame them for fighting back either. TBH, I don't think anyone was 100% right in that incident.
but I personally think it's wrong to have that blockade there in the first place.
Compare it to this. Say that New Jersey (I am assuming you are American) was taken over by terrorists. The only way that they could get weapons and supplies was through the port, since the US has blocked off all other land routes. Do you think the US would have a blockade? Of course. And if a ship tried to run that then I think that the same thing would happen here. And also, that example is completely invalid, since a Mexican shouting names at a cop is not a national security risk.
Oh, and iMogwai, I was shooting down EPs example. Your example is inaccurate, however, because you did not mention how the oppressed people were shooting rockets into heavily civilized areas, and were given multiple opportunities to stop.
how the oppressed people were shooting rockets into heavily civilized areas
Not all Palestinians are Hamas members and/or terrorists. Are you saying that in your example, all of New Jersey would be branded terrorists because they live in a city where some terrorists are?
The only way that they could get weapons and supplies was through the port, since the US has blocked off all other land routes.
The problem with this blockade is that it also stops goods that the civilian population needs. Rather than stop those who wish to bring food or building materials as well as the weapons smugglers, they could try to keep track of what was brought on the ship or just bring in the required goods themselves.
As it is now, the entire Palestinian population is being punished for the actions of a terrorist group. Continuing with your example, to make up for the need for the blockade, the government could at least either provide what the civilians need to survive, or let those who wish to help do so after their goods have been searched.
Not all Palestinians are Hamas members and/or terrorists. Are you saying that in your example, all of New Jersey would be branded terrorists because they live in a city where some terrorists are?
I am not saying that. I am saying that those innocent civilians are extremely unfortunate to live in the area where the terrorists are.
The problem with this blockade is that it also stops goods that the civilian population needs. Rather than stop those who wish to bring food or building materials as well as the weapons smugglers, they could try to keep track of what was brought on the ship or just bring in the required goods themselves.
They do allow goods that are could be used for civilian use in to Gaza. They allow medicine, food, and the like, but not materials that could be used to build weapons or bunkers. However, Israel is considering making it policy to allow items like concrete to be brought in, as long as whatever is constructed is watched over by an international supervisor.
As it is now, the entire Palestinian population is being punished for the actions of a terrorist group.
While that is unfortunate, what exactly do you think should be done? Say, "Hey, all of you people who are not terrorists can leave, but the terrorists should stay." There really is no "nice" solution.
