StarGateWars Forums

Dr. House wrote:I would like to know why exactly these people think they should be allowed to just run a blockade all willy nilly like and not suffer the consequences.

www.freegaza.com wrote:E-mail Print PDF

Written by Greta Berlin | 30 May 2010
Posted in Press releases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Cyprus, May 30, 2010) The Free Gaza Movement now has two boats included in the Freedom Flotilla that is on its way to deliver 10,000 tons of supplies to the imprisoned people of Gaza. The third boat is being repaired.

Our two passengers boats, Challenger 1 and Challenger 1I, had mechanical problems on Friday, May 28, and were pulled into ports in Cyprus. After Cypriot port authoriies on the Greek side denied our request to pull in for repairs, our boat, Challenger 1 limped into the port of Famagusta, on the Turkish side of Cyprus.

Both boats are flagged and registered in the United States, which means they are U.S. territory.

Therefore we expect the U.S. government to intervene if U.S. property is wrongly confiscated by Israeli authorities as they have threatened. Israel has yet to return the Spriit of Humanity, registered under a Greek flag.

Please contact the American State Department and ask them what their plans are in case this happens. They can be contacted at Telephone No. (202) 647-4000 (24-hour number) or publicaffairs@panet.us.state.gov This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Contact: Audrey Bomse, 00 357 96 48 98 05

Greta Berlin, 00 357 99 18 72 75

Dr. House wrote:I would like to know why exactly these people think they should be allowed to just run a blockade all willy nilly like and not suffer the consequences.

Leslie H. Gelb wrote:Two Palestinian militants were killed in Israel Tuesday morning after sneaking across the border from Gaza, and Israeli security forces remain on high alert as the international fallout from the country’s botched raid on an aid flotilla trying to reach Gaza—during which at least nine people died—continues. The Daily Beast's Leslie H. Gelb says Israeli commandos mishandled the situation, but Israel was right to storm a ship bound for Gaza.


Israel had every right under international law to stop and board ships bound for the Gaza war zone late Sunday. Only knee-jerk left-wingers and the usual legion of poseurs around the world would dispute this. And it is pretty clear that this "humanitarian" flotilla headed for Gaza aimed to provoke a confrontation with Israel. Various representatives of the Free Gaza Movement, one of the main organizers of this deadly extravaganza, have let it slip throughout Monday that their intention was every bit as much "to break" Israel's blockade of Gaza as to deliver the relief goods.

The Israeli commandos who stormed the ship, where fighting erupted, badly mishandled the situation. But theirs was a mistake in pursuit of a legal goal, not a war crime. And as for calls for international investigations, they represent the usual hypocritical nonsense that will go nowhere. Except for those who routinely fool themselves about the judiciousness and effectiveness of action by the United Nations or the European Union, everyone understands their "investigations" will amount to nothing. Only the United States might do something useful—if the White House would only seize quickly the practical solution staring it in the face.

Israel has every right to protect itself under international law, including by blockades in international waters.

Regarding international law, blockades are quite legal. The United States and Britain were at war with Germany and Japan and blockaded them. I can't remember international lawyers saying those blockades were illegal—even though they took place on the high seas in international waters. There would be a general violation only if the hostile actions against the ships took place in waters under the jurisdiction of another sovereign state. Thus, for example, if the Israelis stopped the ships in Egyptian waters, that would have been a violation.

On a more tactical level, violations could occur if the force used to block and board were "disproportionate" to the circumstances. Those friendly to Gaza aboard the ship claim disproportionality, but this is not supported by the video available. In any event, and as a practical matter, no one is going to be able to prove exactly what happened on that ship Sunday night. Nonetheless, the overriding facts remain that Gazan leaders proclaim their goal is to destroy Israel, have tried for years to do so by missile attacks and terrorism, and that Israel has every right to protect itself under international law, including by blockades in international waters.

As for what the planners of this "humanitarian" flotilla had in mind, just listen to what the leaders of this enterprise have been saying. Greta Berlin, a leader of the pro-Palestinian Free Gaza Movement, told The New York Times that the Israeli claim that the people aboard the ship intended violence was preposterous. She argued that it was inconceivable that the civilian passengers on board would have been "waiting up to fire on the Israeli military, with all its might." By that keen logic, no Palestinian ever would have fired upon a militarily superior Israeli. We seem to know otherwise.

Or listen to Huwaida Arraf, one of the Free Gaza Movement leaders. She said on Sunday before the incident that the boats would steam forward to Gaza "until they either disable our boats or jump on board." How on earth did she expect that strategy would not lead to violence?

On what remains of the old Lehrer News Hour, Adam Shapiro, another Free Gaza guy, said Monday night that the flotilla aimed to break the blockade as well as deliver aid. Well, of course, no one asked him how he thought the blockade would be broken without violence. It couldn't—unless the flotilla escaped detection. And with six ships in the flotilla, that was highly unlikely.

So, the Free guys and gals achieved their real purpose—to provoke the Israelis, hope they did stupid things (which they did by boarding the ship with commandos who weren't prepared to do this job), and stirred international outrage.

Ah, the international outrage. Turks, French, all leaders large and small condemned Israel and called for international commissions. Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations Secretary-General, said he was "shocked" by the attack. He condemned the violence, and added: "It is vital that there is a full investigation to determine exactly how this bloodshed took place. I believe Israel must urgently provide a full explanation."

Well, where was all that international outrage and demand for explanations and retribution when the North Koreans sunk a South Korean ship? Where was it when the Gazans attacked Israel? Where, when Afghan men flogged their women for not wearing veils? Where, when Saudi Arabia funds terrorists around the world? This international outrage is highly selective, isn't it? The one consolation is that the international community, such as it has become, doesn't get anything of value done.

Which puts matters in the American lap, as usual. There is a reasonable solution to this terrible dilemma: The Gazan people are in need of food and medicine, and Israel must protect itself against Gazan terrorists. President Obama should propose this simple arrangement: First, those wishing to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza agree to land aircraft, dock ships, and use land checkpoints all reasonably designated by Israel for inspection of contents. Second, Israel agrees to inspect cargoes within two to three days, and allow all humanitarian goods to proceed to Gaza immediately.

The United States surely has the power to accomplish this. It would prevent much needless killing and haggling—and phony posturing around the world. And if one or both sides rejected the deal, then that one, or the both of them, are on their own.

Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Kit-Fox wrote:All Israel had to do was wait until the ships were decidely within their territorial waters. If they had the patience to do so everything would be fine.

Kit-Fox wrote: But they didnt & they commited an act of piracy, plain & simple. There is no excuse & no justification for their actions.

Thriller wrote:NO, you still don't get it. Your both to blame; and obviously anything i post to the contrary you believe is a personal reflection upon yourself since you identify with the country i'm criticizing. You did an excellent job critiquing the Palestinians now point some of that in your own direction.

Terrorism = wrong.
Interning the Palestinians = wrong.

2 state solution = fail, learn to live with each other or just finish each other off already.

With your last post we just came back to where we were before, i'm not going to keep going in circles. This line of circular discussion is what im trying to speak out against, i guess it's so ingrained in your culture there is no stopping it.

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:NO, you still don't get it. Your both to blame; and obviously anything i post to the contrary you believe is a personal reflection upon yourself since you identify with the country i'm criticizing. You did an excellent job critiquing the Palestinians now point some of that in your own direction.

Terrorism = wrong.
Interning the Palestinians = wrong.

2 state solution = fail, learn to live with each other or just finish each other off already.

With your last post we just came back to where we were before, i'm not going to keep going in circles. This line of circular discussion is what im trying to speak out against, i guess it's so ingrained in your culture there is no stopping it.

knowwhat, why won't you take the lead?
what's your solution?
and i would appreaciete something more concrete than this

Thriller wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:NO, you still don't get it. Your both to blame; and obviously anything i post to the contrary you believe is a personal reflection upon yourself since you identify with the country i'm criticizing. You did an excellent job critiquing the Palestinians now point some of that in your own direction.

Terrorism = wrong.
Interning the Palestinians = wrong.

2 state solution = fail, learn to live with each other or just finish each other off already.

With your last post we just came back to where we were before, i'm not going to keep going in circles. This line of circular discussion is what im trying to speak out against, i guess it's so ingrained in your culture there is no stopping it.

knowwhat, why won't you take the lead?
what's your solution?
and i would appreaciete something more concrete than this

You wouldn't like it, since it woul involve 1 state where you both live together and may have to deal with a few more muslims in your parliament.

Thriller wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:NO, you still don't get it. Your both to blame; and obviously anything i post to the contrary you believe is a personal reflection upon yourself since you identify with the country i'm criticizing. You did an excellent job critiquing the Palestinians now point some of that in your own direction.

Terrorism = wrong.
Interning the Palestinians = wrong.

2 state solution = fail, learn to live with each other or just finish each other off already.

With your last post we just came back to where we were before, i'm not going to keep going in circles. This line of circular discussion is what im trying to speak out against, i guess it's so ingrained in your culture there is no stopping it.

knowwhat, why won't you take the lead?
what's your solution?
and i would appreaciete something more concrete than this

You wouldn't like it, since it woul involve 1 state where you both live together and may have to deal with a few more muslims in your parliament.

@JO
They were in international waters juliette, that magical free zone where drug, gambling.. and many other vices can be indulged. Includding making political statements against israels blockade.

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:NO, you still don't get it. Your both to blame; and obviously anything i post to the contrary you believe is a personal reflection upon yourself since you identify with the country i'm criticizing. You did an excellent job critiquing the Palestinians now point some of that in your own direction.

Terrorism = wrong.
Interning the Palestinians = wrong.

2 state solution = fail, learn to live with each other or just finish each other off already.

With your last post we just came back to where we were before, i'm not going to keep going in circles. This line of circular discussion is what im trying to speak out against, i guess it's so ingrained in your culture there is no stopping it.

knowwhat, why won't you take the lead?
what's your solution?
and i would appreaciete something more concrete than this

You wouldn't like it, since it woul involve 1 state where you both live together and may have to deal with a few more muslims in your parliament.

do you really think that's feaseable?

renegadze wrote:and you could argue, if someone is trying to board your ship in international waters, then you would have a right to defend yourself from such an "attack"

Thriller wrote:

renegadze wrote:and you could argue, if someone is trying to board your ship in international waters, then you would have a right to defend yourself from such an "attack"

They weren't being "attacked". The israels were the first to escalate the situation beyond a sensisible course of action, but they didnt open fire. If those "peace" activits were really just trying to get food to gaza; they wouldn't have taken the "**Filtered** Yo **Filtered** UP!!" with a deck chair approach.

It's mutual idiocy; like i have been saying all along.

Thriller wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:NO, you still don't get it. Your both to blame; and obviously anything i post to the contrary you believe is a personal reflection upon yourself since you identify with the country i'm criticizing. You did an excellent job critiquing the Palestinians now point some of that in your own direction.

Terrorism = wrong.
Interning the Palestinians = wrong.

2 state solution = fail, learn to live with each other or just finish each other off already.

With your last post we just came back to where we were before, i'm not going to keep going in circles. This line of circular discussion is what im trying to speak out against, i guess it's so ingrained in your culture there is no stopping it.

knowwhat, why won't you take the lead?
what's your solution?
and i would appreaciete something more concrete than this

You wouldn't like it, since it woul involve 1 state where you both live together and may have to deal with a few more muslims in your parliament.

do you really think that's feaseable?

Yes. You guys used to live with each other before muslim/jew devide started. Mind you that was a few thousand years. It'll probably never happen in the next 100 years but i think it's thje only solution that will work.

I go for the 1 state solution because i beleive the two state solution will only further the US vs Them mantality the two regions maintain.

Unless israel is willing to develope a strong economic partnership with the palestinians under a situation similar to the EU or US/ Canada partnership you won't make it work. Since i can't see you guys getting along well enough under a seperate state solution for that to happen. I beleive the only way you guys can come to respect each other is through the mutual trust of living under one banner. WHere each is entitled to the same rights as the other.