Iran vs Israel

[naomiglover]

Remember in 2007, the reaction when a British Royal Navy boat was seized by Iranian military, in what Iran called, Iranian waters and later it was investigated and was shown to be disputed waters? How were the Israeli apologists' reaction to that?

If heavily armed Iranian Revolutionary Guards had rappelled down from helicopters onto an humanitarian aid ship in international waters, killed ten on board and injured 50, I wonder what the international reaction would be. Would those on board who resisted be depicted as idiots who pretty much deserved whatever they got? Would the Iranians be seen as acting within their rights? Would our government and Obama be bending over backwards not to condemn them and talking about it as an 'unfortunate incident'?

[Bonam]

If heavily armed Iranian Revolutionary Guards had rappelled down from helicopters onto an humanitarian aid ship in international waters

If they had rappelled down onto a "humanitarian aid ship" it would have been condemned strongly. But if they had rappelled down onto a ship filled with 300+ armed insurgents, trained human shields, and protesters, foolishly trying to run a legal blockade of a territory controlled by a terrorist group sworn to the genocide of the Iranian people, I'd say they would indeed have been within their rights.

[DogOnPorch]

Wow...a thread critical of Israel. We don't get many of those 'round these here parts.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... Would the Iranians be seen as acting within their rights? Would our government and Obama be bending over backwards not to condemn them and talking about it as an 'unfortunate incident'?

Hey, I like how you worked that American gravitas in on this hypothetical. The South Korean Navy could use your analysis skills. In fact, shooting down an Iranian airliner with an Aegis cruiser was seen as an "unfortunate incident".

[WIP]

I've been waiting a couple of days before commenting, to get a fix on the conflicting claims being made about the raid, and I am coming to the conclusion that if the U.S. and Israel's new best friend - Canada - are real friends, they should stop kowtowing to the Israel lobby in Washington and their Christian Zionist fanatic allies, and give the Israeli Gov. a straight honest opinion about the direction they're headed in. It would have been nice if the Obama Administration was up to the job, but after hearing about Joe Biden's apologetic performance on the Charlie Rose Show, it's not likely going to happen. It looks more like they will continue to write blank cheques for whatever Israel does...at least until that long awaited attack on Iran actually happens...then, all bets are off.

The biggest lasting damage of this midnight raid is likely going to be a complete severing of diplomatic relations with Turkey. Adding Turkey to the enemies list not only removes their only regional ally, it also makes it more costly for the U.S. to continue to offer blank-cheque absolute support for Israel. Also, the neutral Arab neighbours likely that Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia will have to re-position themselves to take a more hardline stance against Israel, to avoid the wrath of the angry mobs in their own countries.

The IDF used to be considered invincible. Their responses were reasoned and executed flawlessly. Now look what's happened! Dropping commandos one at a time into an angry mob on ship's deck, and then having to kill in order to save them. The brief, censored videos they put up as evidence of being attacked are laughable! What the hell did they expect would happen? It's like Somali pirates expecting to be welcomed aboard ship.

The Israeli government could have made a few phone calls to Turkey to offer some sort of compromise, if they were worried about weapons being smuggled aboard. The writing should have been on the wall that they would have to make some compromises on their embargo of Gaza. The claim that aid would be distributed from Ashkelon has no credibility in light of all of the materials that have been banned. If everything but weapons were really allowed through, the flotilla wouldn't have been necessary in the first place.

The increasing radicalization of Israeli politics is leading to a situation where Israel is becoming America's North Korea. China is stuck being unwilling to condemn North Korea for sinking a South Korean warship, and paying a financial and diplomatic price because they believe they have to keep North Korea from falling apart. Something similar is happening between the U.S. and Israel, where the Israelis no longer care about becoming a pariah state, but the price for cutting off aid to Israel, or other punitive measures, is not one that any U.S. government will be willing to make.

[M.Dancer]

If heavily armed Iranian Revolutionary Guards had rappelled down from helicopters onto an humanitarian aid ship in international waters, killed ten on board and injured 50, I wonder what the international reaction would be. Would those on board who resisted be depicted as idiots who pretty much deserved whatever they got? Would the Iranians be seen as acting within their rights? Would our government and Obama be bending over backwards not to condemn them and talking about it as an 'unfortunate incident'?

In this scenario, is the ship running a recognised blockade or are the iranians acting outside of the convesntions of war?

[GostHacked]

In this scenario, is the ship running a recognised blockade or are the iranians acting outside of the convesntions of war?

Who recognizes the blockade?

[M.Dancer]

Who recognizes the blockade?

Besides Egypt and Israel....well, most of the world. By recognised, I do not mean endorsed...I mean that in following the conventions of war, a blockader must decalre the blockade and publish the coordinates so that the navies and shipping of the world know that is an areas of exclusion where, if the cross they may be boarded, seized or sunk, according to the decision of the blockade commander.

Now you may ask, how many ships have tries to run the blockade?

[GostHacked]

Besides Egypt and Israel....well, most of the world. By recognised, I do not mean endorsed...I mean that in following the conventions of war, a blockader must decalre the blockade and publish the coordinates so that the navies and shipping of the world know that is an areas of exclusion where, if the cross they may be boarded, seized or sunk, according to the decision of the blockade commander.

Now you may ask, how many ships have tries to run the blockade?

Well looks like that is changing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37482341/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration believes Israel's blockade of Gaza is untenable and wants to see a new approach that would allow more supplies into the impoverished Palestinian area while guaranteeing Israel's security, The New York Times reported Thursday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100602/wl_mideast_afp/israelconflictgazaunban

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) – UN chief Ban Ki-moon demanded Wednesday that Israel lift its blockade of the Gaza Strip immediately in the wake of its deadly raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla.

If you can show me what countries recognize the blockade. I can't seem to locate any information.

[M.Dancer]

If you can show me what countries recognize the blockade. I can't seem to locate any information.

Do i need to explain again what recognising the blockade means? It does not mean approval...it means that ships that do not want to be boarded (or the alternatives) avoid the blockade.

By the way..

The Obama administration officially supports the Gaza blockade, as the Bush administration did before it. But Mr. Obama, some aides say, has expressed strong frustration privately with the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01policy.html

[sharkman]

This comparison between incidents is the classic apples and oranges comparison.

I get curious about what makes certain people tick. Anti-semites, for instance. What makes them single out Jews? Why are Jews so nasty in their eyes? How does this blossom in a person? Is it simply passed on from parents, or is there more to it, somebody should do a study.

[GostHacked]

Do i need to explain again what recognising the blockade means? It does not mean approval...it means that ships that do not want to be boarded (or the alternatives) avoid the blockade.

If you recognize something you definitely approve of it. Does recognizing Israel's right to exist mean that one does not approve of it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01policy.html

Keep it coming.

[M.Dancer]

If you recognize something you definitely approve of it. Does recognizing Israel's right to exist mean that one does not approve of it?

Do you recognise that walking into the polar bears den in the zoo is dangerous?

Do you recosnise that Israel has established a naval blockade of Gaza? You should...it isn't a secret.

Do you need to, once again, be told what the rules of a blockade are?

[GostHacked]

Do you recognise that walking into the polar bears den in the zoo is dangerous?

Do you recosnise that Israel has established a naval blockade of Gaza? You should...it isn't a secret.

Do you need to, once again, be told what the rules of a blockade are?

You know we are talking about recognizing and legitimizing a blockage on Gaza by other countries, that was the question I posed. I could not find many sources that would indicate what countries supported the blockade. This is why I asked if you had/could find some articles to support that.

[M.Dancer]

You know we are talking about recognizing and legitimizing a blockage on Gaza by other countries, that was the question I posed. I could not find many sources that would indicate what countries supported the blockade. This is why I asked if you had/could find some articles to support that.

Yes I realize that was what you assumed and that I why I corrected you. A recognised blockade is a blockade that has been duly announced, defined and enforced...it has nothing to do with approval.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes I realize that was what you assumed and that I why I corrected you. A recognised blockade is a blockade that has been duly announced, defined and enforced...it has nothing to do with approval.

Yes....it relies heavily on the enforcement angle, which really helps recognition too. Leave the lawyers at home, "blockades" aren't about approval by anybody. Running or breaking a blockade is very exciting!

[Jack Weber]

This comparison between incidents is the classic apples and oranges comparison.

I get curious about what makes certain people tick. Anti-semites, for instance. What makes them single out Jews? Why are Jews so nasty in their eyes? How does this blossom in a person? Is it simply passed on from parents, or is there more to it, somebody should do a study.

There is someone here who could help you...

[naomiglover]

This comparison between incidents is the classic apples and oranges comparison.

You are right. They are different and here is how they are different:

- The Iranians captured the British soldiers in disputed waters, whereas the Israelis captured the humanitarian ships in International Waters

- The British navy boat is obviously considered a security risk, whereas the humanitarian ships were not, as they were searched and authorized by port authorities before departing.

- The Iranians did not shoot and kill anyone even though the British soldiers raised their weapons at them, whereas 10 people on board the humanitarian ships were killed by Israeli commandos.

- The response given to the 2 incidents are a clear indication of the hypocrisy that drips from the fingers if Israeli apologists.

I get curious about what makes certain people tick. Anti-semites, for instance. What makes them single out Jews? Why are Jews so nasty in their eyes? How does this blossom in a person? Is it simply passed on from parents, or is there more to it, somebody should do a study.

Oh wow. You just played the anti-semite card again. You and the rest of the apologists have so abused, overused and exploited the 'anti-semitism' and 'anti-Israel' accusations for improper and nakedly political ends that those terms have become drained of their meaning, have almost entirely lost their sting and have become trivialized virtually to the point of caricature.

Don't people like you and DogOnPorch get sick of yourselves and your almost robotic responses when you are unable to counter facts?

Edited June 4, 2010 by naomiglover

[segnosaur]

You are right. They are different and here is how they are different:

- The Iranians captured the British soldiers in disputed waters, whereas the Israelis captured the humanitarian ships in International Waters

In one of the other threads that you started on the project, another poster referenced a section of Maritime law that pointed out that stopping ships in international water as part of a blockade is acceptable if the destination of the ships is the country/region being blockaded. Since the ships were bound for Gaza (the area that was blockaded) then intercepting them was valid.

See: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602

So, you your first argument is a big fat fail.

- The British navy boat is obviously considered a security risk, whereas the humanitarian ships were not, as they were searched and authorized by port authorities before departing.

Ummm... No.

Whether the port of departure approved the cargo is irrelevant. Since the destination was a region that is in conflict with Israel, then Israel is the one that has to give approval. Israeli security forces have no way to tell whether the country of departure actually did a proper search, or whether any of the ships picked up additional (and illegal) material during its journey.

So, your second ardument is another big fat fail

- The Iranians did not shoot and kill anyone even though the British soldiers raised their weapons at them, whereas 10 people on board the humanitarian ships were killed by Israeli commandos.

Again, read the referred-to article.

There is nothing illegal about using force (even leathal force) in self defense.

Should be pointed out that other ships that were boarded did not have any loss of life. Perhaps the people on those other boats decided not to try fighting the legal blockade.

So, 3 big fat fails so far.

- The response given to the 2 incidents are a clear indication of the hypocrisy that drips from the fingers if Israeli apologists.

Or, more likely, we are able to recognize and understand the issues (such as what Maritime law actually says) instead of just giving a knee-jerk "Evil Israeli" response like you seem to be doing.

Oh wow. You just played the anti-semite card again. You and the rest of the apologists have so abused, overused and exploited the 'anti-semitism' and 'anti-Israel' accusations for improper and nakedly political ends that those terms have become drained of their meaning, have almost entirely lost their sting and have become trivialized virtually to the point of caricature.

Perhaps if you don't want to be accused of anti-semitism you should quit starting multiple threads criticizing Israel, while never starting a single thread that I can remember criticizing Hamas, who (as their charter states) wants the destruction of Israel, and is willing to kill school children to accomplish its goals.

Don't people like you and DogOnPorch get sick of yourselves and your almost robotic responses when you are unable to counter facts?

No, but we do get sick of people automatically criticizing Israel without having a clear understanding of the basic facts.

[naomiglover]

Do you recognise that walking into the polar bears den in the zoo is dangerous?

The ship was not in Israeli waters (Polar Bear Den). It was in international waters. You recognize that, correct?

Do you recosnise that Israel has established a naval blockade of Gaza? You should...it isn't a secret.

A blockade that is recognized to violate international law, recognized by Amnesty International and Richard Goldstone. By the way, those two are considered respectable and experts on international and humanitarian laws. (outside of the Israeli government and their apologists' circle.)

Do you need to, once again, be told what the rules of a blockade are?

You mean the rules of an illegal blockade?

[naomiglover]

Part III: Basic Rules and Target Discrimination

Section 1: Basic Rules

39. Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians or other protected persons and combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and military objectives.

41. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document.

42. In addition to any specific prohibitions binding upon the parties to a conflict, it is forbidden to employ methods or means of warfare which:

(a) are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; or

( are indiscriminate, in that:

(i) they are not, or cannot be, directed against a specific military objective; or

(ii) their effects cannot be limited as required by international law as reflected in this document.

SECTION II : PRECAUTIONS IN ATTACK

46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

(a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack;

( in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives;

© they shall furthermore take all feasible precautions in the choice of methods and means in order to avoid or minimize collateral casualties or damage; and

(d) an attack shall not be launched if it may be expected to cause collateral casualties or damage which world be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole; an attack shall be cancelled or suspended as soon as it becomes apparent that the collateral casualties or damage would be excessive.

SECTION III : ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT EXEMPT FROM ATTACK

Classes of vessels exempt from attack

47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:

(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

( engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;

© act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;

(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;

(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or

(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it.

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE

Blockade

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

( 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.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies…

The bottom line is that the legality of the blockade - which has, by the admission of the Israeli government itself, the purpose of “put[ting[ the Gazans on a diet”, is in fact illegal under these laws because it is designed specifically to cause collective suffering throughout the entire populace. That renders Israel’s interception of the humanitarian aid ships illegal. Additionally, Israel is not letting supplies through freely after inspection. It is in fact seizing those supplies and letting the vast majority of them rot, for the express purpose of enabling the continued starvation which the blockade is meant to enforce.

Israel’s raid on those ships was illegal. But don’t take my word for it. Read here:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce

[bush_cheney2004]

The bottom line is that the legality of the blockade - which has, by the admission of the Israeli government itself, the purpose of “put[ting[ the Gazans on a diet”, is in fact illegal under these laws because it is designed specifically to cause collective suffering throughout the entire populace. That renders Israel’s interception of the humanitarian aid ships illegal. Additionally, Israel is not letting supplies through freely after inspection. It is in fact seizing those supplies and letting the vast majority of them rot, for the express purpose of enabling the continued starvation which the blockade is meant to enforce.

Even if what you claim had legal standing (it doesn't), your description of illegal actions first and foremost are an admission that a blockade would otherwise be very "legal" and "enforceable". Israel has considered "sterile" staging areas for the receipt and distribution of humanitarian aid, but Hamas would lose political inertia for the Palestinian plight.

If Israel's supporters (here) are guilty of blind cheerleading, then you are guilty of blind sympathy.

[August1991]

Remember in 2007, the reaction when a British Royal Navy boat was seized by Iranian military, in what Iran called, Iranian waters and later it was investigated and was shown to be disputed waters? How were the Israeli apologists' reaction to that?

If heavily armed Iranian Revolutionary Guards had rappelled down from helicopters onto an humanitarian aid ship in international waters, killed ten on board and injured 50, I wonder what the international reaction would be. Would those on board who resisted be depicted as idiots who pretty much deserved whatever they got? Would the Iranians be seen as acting within their rights? Would our government and Obama be bending over backwards not to condemn them and talking about it as an 'unfortunate incident'?

Uh, the Israelis did not stop the boats because they were wandering into Israeli territory. The Israeli boats were trying to enforce an embargo.

Which is to say, when a neighbouring territory is lobbing rockets into Iran and killing its citizens, then maybe your comparison will make sense.

-----

But your thread title is too rich. Naomi, what world are you living in?

Zahra Kazemi certainly knew:

The story did not become a major controversy until almost two years later when Shahram Azam, a former staff physician in Iran's Defence Ministry, released a statement saying he examined Kazemi in hospital, four days after her arrest and found obvious signs of torture, including:

A skull fracture, two broken fingers, missing fingernails, a crushed big toe and a broken nose.

Severe abdominal bruising, swelling behind the head and a bruised shoulder.

Deep scratches on the neck and evidence of flogging on the legs.

Wikipedia

Or this:

In Israel, like in Canada, criticsm of the government is normal and common. People are not tortured and do not die simply because they openly disagree with the government.

In Iran, as elsewhere in the Middle East (except Israel), the story is different.

Edited June 5, 2010 by August1991

[sharkman]

Oh wow. You just played the anti-semite card again. You and the rest of the apologists have so abused, overused and exploited the 'anti-semitism' and 'anti-Israel' accusations for improper and nakedly political ends that those terms have become drained of their meaning, have almost entirely lost their sting and have become trivialized virtually to the point of caricature.

Don't people like you and DogOnPorch get sick of yourselves and your almost robotic responses when you are unable to counter facts?

That is a very telling response. In my post, I never mentioned you specifically, nor anyone else. Yet you respond as if attacked, protesting too loudly to be innocent. You could have simply ignored it, but a knee jerk reaction reveals guilt. Stop hating, naomi, it will fester inside and make you a bitter person.

[bloodyminded]

That is a very telling response. In my post, I never mentioned you specifically, nor anyone else. Yet you respond as if attacked, protesting too loudly to be innocent. You could have simply ignored it, but a knee jerk reaction reveals guilt. Stop hating, naomi, it will fester inside and make you a bitter person.

You're only underlining naomi's claim, and quite perfectly.

The point is that the misuse of the anti-semitism charge is made exclusively by delicate little flowers too frightened to debate honestly. It's an admission of this.