Israel Deputy UN Ambassador Defends Deadly Attack on Gaza Aid Ships Citing "Danger" of Flotilla

[EFerrari]

As Global Outrage Mounts, Israel Deputy UN Ambassador Defends Deadly Attack on Gaza Aid Ships Citing "Danger" of Flotilla

Israel’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Daniel Carmon, speaks to Democracy Now! and defends the Israeli attack on the Gaza aid flotilla that killed at least nine people in international waters. "Israel enforced a maritime blockade, which is a measure that is totally legal in international law, to enforce a blockade when there is a possibility of a danger emanating from some source. And this was exactly the case."

AMY GOODMAN: On the line with us is Ambassador Ed Peck. He is just back from the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, one of the ships—the ships were attacked by Israeli commandos. But first, we’re going to turn to another diplomat. Sharif?

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, yesterday I had a chance to speak with Israel’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Daniel Carmon. I reached him on the phone and questioned him about the raid.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Why did Israel attack a boat carrying more than 600 international activists in international waters?

DANIEL CARMON: Israel did not attack a boat. Israel enforced a maritime blockade, which is a measure that is totally legal in international law, to enforce a blockade when there is a possibility of a danger emanating from some source. And this was exactly the case. There was a flotilla of so-called real, genuine humanitarian aid to Gaza. And when I’m saying "so-called," I mean some of this flotilla was not a genuine, naive humanitarian aid-only flotilla. And for this reason and for the danger that emanated from this, we—our navy enforced the blockade, as—

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: But this was in international waters.

DANIEL CARMON: The international law—and I would refer you to international law—when there is a danger, when there are conditions that require this, boarding can be done on a dangerous vessel in international waters, too.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/2/israel_deputy_un_ambassador_defends_deadly

Audio, video at link

[Hoopla Phil]

1. Relevant maritime law is. . .

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

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;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) 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.

Edited for spelling.

[LakeSamish706]

2. "breaching a blockade" But the blockade is illegal in accordance with the UN.

[EFerrari]

4. That's right. This red herring is irrational at every step. n/t

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

11. Make all the personal attacks you like. But that is the law.

They made the intention of running the blockade very clear.

[EFerrari]

21. Ridiculous, even farcical. The blockade is illegal.

The boarding was ILLEGAL. The kidnapping, illegal. And the "deportation" of hostage, illegal.

Israel has jumped the shark in front of the entire world.

[Hoopla Phil]

26. Your claims are not founded in fact or law. If the blockade is illegal please

source a finding by the U.N. as such or some law as I did.

The boarding was legal in accordance with the law I sourced. The seizing of the crew and vessel is also addressed in that same citation. Please go read it as you clearly do not understand the law.

[EFerrari]

48. U.N. Human Rights Chief: Israel's Blockade of Gaza Strip Is Illegal

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539363,00.html

U.N. envoy Tutu calls Gaza blockade illegal
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2849170120080528

Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Palestinian territories:

RICHARD FALK: Good morning, Amy. This was a shocking incident that involved, as your other guests have said, a complete disregard of international law, in several respects. It was an act of naked aggression. It was done on the high seas. It was done in defiance of elementary humanitarian standards. It was known that this flotilla had no weapons. It was not a security issue by the remotest stretch of the imagination. If there was a right of self-defense, it belonged to the people onboard these ships. Israel, as the aggressing state and political actor, had no claim whatsoever of self-defense. It’s an absurdity. And one can only imagine if another country that the United States didn’t like had engaged in this kind of behavior, we would have been denouncing them or, worse, using force. One can only imagine what would happen if Iran had done something of this comparably outrageous character and sought to provide some kind of legal cover for it, while silencing those that actually experienced the incident.

So I feel that we’ve almost never seen such a direct confrontation with the most elementary principles of international law. And it is a disgrace that our government has decided to stand apart from all other countries in the world, including our normal European friends, and withheld a denunciation and a call for lifting the blockade, because one needs to appreciate that underneath this criminal act, which amounts to a crime against humanity, underneath this has been the almost three years of criminal blockade of the people of Gaza. The blockade is a direct violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibits collective punishment. And this is one of the first examples where a civilian population has been locked inside a zone that has been subjected to this kind of mental and physical threat to subsistence and survival.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/1/global_condemnation_of_israeli_armed_attack

[Hoopla Phil]

50. That is interesting, but not a sanction or a law against the blockade. That

is an obfuscation of what "collective punishment" is and it is not applicable here. If a blockade WAS "collective punishment" then it would not be allowed by statute in international law. Please provide evidence that says the BLOCKADE is illegal not evidence that "collective punishment" is illegal, as they are two different things.

Alan Dershowitz on the blockade:

First, there is the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which included a naval blockade. Recall that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, it did not impose a blockade. Indeed it left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area. Instead Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare against Israel. These acts of warfare featured anti-personnel rockets, nearly 10,000 of them, directed at Israeli civilians. This was not only an act of warfare, it was a war crime. Israel responded to the rockets by declaring a blockade, the purpose of which was to assure that no rockets, or other material that could be used for making war against Israeli civilians, was permitted into Gaza. Israel allowed humanitarian aid through its checkpoints. Egypt as well participated in the blockade. There was never a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, merely a shortage of certain goods that would end if the rocket attacks ended.

The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This, despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerency against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.

Israel's critics have failed to pinpoint precisely what Israel did that allegedly violates international law. Some have wrongly focused on the blockade itself. Others have erroneously pointed to the location of the boarding in international waters. Most have simply pointed to the deaths of so-called peace activists, though these deaths appear to be the result of lawful acts of self-defense. None of these factors alone warrant condemnation, but the end result surely deserves scrutiny by Israeli policy makers. There can be little doubt that the mission was a failure, as judged by its results. It is important, however, to distinguish between faulty policies on the one hand, and alleged violations of international law on the other hand. Only the latter would warrant international intervention, and the case has simply not been made that Israel violated international law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/israels-actions-were-enti_b_596285.html

[EFerrari]

52. Please. I give you links to UN officials and you return with links to a propagandist.

lol

[Hoopla Phil]

56. You gave no links that the blockade is illegal. You gave links of one

U.N. official that equated a blockade with collective punishment. TWO different laws and not the same thing and not a U.N. sanction that this blockade is illegal. THAT is the propaganda, to get people to believe that a legal act (a blockade) is the same as an illegal act (collective punishment).

No can you provide a source that the blockade is illegal or not? I as because the link you provided does not.

[Hoopla Phil]

40. Here is what Alan Dershowitz has to say regarding the legality of the blockade

First, there is the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which included a naval blockade. Recall that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, it did not impose a blockade. Indeed it left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area. Instead Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare against Israel. These acts of warfare featured anti-personnel rockets, nearly 10,000 of them, directed at Israeli civilians. This was not only an act of warfare, it was a war crime. Israel responded to the rockets by declaring a blockade, the purpose of which was to assure that no rockets, or other material that could be used for making war against Israeli civilians, was permitted into Gaza. Israel allowed humanitarian aid through its checkpoints. Egypt as well participated in the blockade. There was never a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, merely a shortage of certain goods that would end if the rocket attacks ended.

The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This, despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerency against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/israels-actions-were-enti_b_596285.html

[EFerrari]

46. Why are you posting the work of this notorious neocon bigot to DU?

[Hoopla Phil]

47. Don't know when he was labled a "neocon bigot". I've know him to be a champion of civil rights

for a very long time. And a very successful lawyer that often takes cases from the ACLU.

In 1976, Dershowitz handled the successful appeal of Harry Reems, who had been convicted of distribution of obscenity resulting from his acting in the pornographic movie Deep Throat. In public debates, Dershowitz commonly argues against censorship of pornography on First Amendment grounds

Dershowitz is one of a number of scholars at Harvard Law School who have expressed their support for limited animal rights.<62> In his Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights, he writes that, in order to avoid human beings treating each other the way we treat animals, we have made what he calls the "somewhat arbitrary decision" to single out our own species for different and better treatment.

[IndianaGreen]

54. The Dersh man is an advocate of torture and neocon wars

Only in an Orwellian world would a POS like the Dersh man be considered a champion of civil rights.

[Hoopla Phil]

58. I guess these don't count then

In 1976, Dershowitz handled the successful appeal of Harry Reems, who had been convicted of distribution of obscenity resulting from his acting in the pornographic movie Deep Throat. In public debates, Dershowitz commonly argues against censorship of pornography on First Amendment grounds

Dershowitz is one of a number of scholars at Harvard Law School who have expressed their support for limited animal rights.<62> In his Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights, he writes that, in order to avoid human beings treating each other the way we treat animals, we have made what he calls the "somewhat arbitrary decision" to single out our own species for different and better treatment.

[Hoopla Phil]

49. So I guess you never did find any evidence that the blockade was illegal? If you

had I guess you wouldn't need to try and "shoot the messenger."

[EFerrari]

53. I gave you the links.

And it reflects on you that you use Dershowitz as a source for anything, not on me that I point out he's not credible.

[Hoopla Phil]

57. You gave no links that the blockade is illegal. You gave links of one

U.N. official that equated a blockade with collective punishment. TWO different laws and not the same thing and not a U.N. sanction that this blockade is illegal. THAT is the propaganda, to get people to believe that a legal act (a blockade) is the same as an illegal act (collective punishment).

Now can you provide a source that the blockade is illegal or not? I as because the link you provided does not.

[EFerrari]

59. Keep repeating. You're too late. The world acknowledges

that Israeli policy in Gaza is a crime. The world is uniting against it.

It's over.

[Hoopla Phil]

62. This is not about Israeli policy in Gaza but the enforcement of the blockade.

One that you still claim as being illegal but cannot source as actually being illegal. When asked to you come up with one U.N. official that says the "collective punishment" is illegal - which it is but a blockade and collective punishment are two different things.

[Tripmann]

5. You quoted the part dealing with neutral merchant vessels, not aid vessels

Here, in fact, is the actual relevant maritime law from the same link you posted........

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:

(a) hospital ships;
(b) small craft used for coastal rescue operations and other medical transports;
(c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:
(i) cartel vessels, e.g., vessels designated for and engaged in the transport of prisoners of war;
(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;
(d) vessels engaged in transporting cultural property under special protection;
(e) passenger vessels when engaged only in carrying civilian passengers;
(f) vessels charged with religious, non-military scientifc or philanthropic missions, vessels collecting scientific data of likely military applications are not protected;
(g) small coastal fishing vessels and small boats engaged in local coastal trade, but they are subject to the regulations of a belligerent naval commander operating in the area and to inspection;
(h) vessels designated or adapted exclusively for responding to pollution incidents in the marine environment;
(i) vessels which have surrendered;
(j) life rafts and life boats.

[EFerrari]

7. Thanks. Yet another layer of mendacity.

Disgusting.

Listen to Ed Peck if you can.

[Hoopla Phil]

9. You may want to reconsider that "mendacity". This was missed

Conditions of exemption

48. Vessels listed in paragraph 47 are exempt from attack only if they:

(a) are innocently employed in their normal role;
(b) submit to identification and inspection when required; and
(c) do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required.

[EFerrari]

10. Not at all. There is no condition there that says, "submit to attack

by armed commandos".

[Hoopla Phil]

14. Conditions of exemption You seem confused on what the exemption is from.

Please go read the law and educate yourself on the issue.

Conditions of exemption

48. Vessels listed in paragraph 47 are exempt from attack only if they:

(a) are innocently employed in their normal role;
(b) submit to identification and inspection when required; and
(c) do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required.

[EFerrari]

19. Wrong. The ship does not give up its exemption when it is ATTACKED at sea.

Educate yourself.

[Hoopla Phil]

25. Yes it does. Go read the law. It specifically says who you give up your

exemption and this ship did that.

[EFerrari]

55. Nope. When a ship is being illegally boarded, the passengers

have the right to defend themselves and without penalty.

But this is the legalistic albeit inaccurate crap that defenders of this indefensible atrocity have left to them, I suppose.

[Hoopla Phil]

60. The ship WAS being legally boarded according to international law.

And the engaged in hostile actions first.

[Hoopla Phil]

8. You missed: Conditions of exemption. It would seem they lost theirs.

Conditions of exemption

48. Vessels listed in paragraph 47 are exempt from attack only if they:

(a) are innocently employed in their normal role;
(b) submit to identification and inspection when required; and
(c) do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required.

[LakeSamish706]

12. And you missed the fact that the blockade is illegal in accordance with the UN.

[Hoopla Phil]

15. Please source that. I am not aware of a U.N. rulling on that.

[LakeSamish706]

17. Here is one source, and there are many more if you Google it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539363,00.html

By Fox news no less:

Another Source, although they don't say it is totally illegal, but certainly in question:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7142055.ece

[Hoopla Phil]

22. That does not source "the fact that the blockade is illegal in accordance with the UN."

It is the opinion of one U.N. official.

I source specific maritime law. You stated "the fact that the blockade is illegal in accordance with the UN." Please source that the Israeli blockade is in FACT "illegal in accordance with the UN." There should be some sort of resolution or law that you can site if this is a fact.

[LakeSamish706]

18. Also note this and I will post the source as well.

In times of peace, a vessel on the high seas may be stopped only either with the permission of its flag state, or on suspicion of international offences such as piracy and slave trading.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7142055.ece

To my knowledge Israel is not at war with Turkey, YET!

[Hoopla Phil]

24. That is not a source that the UN has in FACT found the blockade to be illegal.

And the Turkish vessel would be the neutral party referenced in my source. Please go back and read it again.

[Hoopla Phil]

41. Alan Dershowitz on the blockade

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/israels-actions-were-enti_b_596285.html

First, there is the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which included a naval blockade. Recall that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, it did not impose a blockade. Indeed it left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area. Instead Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare against Israel. These acts of warfare featured anti-personnel rockets, nearly 10,000 of them, directed at Israeli civilians. This was not only an act of warfare, it was a war crime. Israel responded to the rockets by declaring a blockade, the purpose of which was to assure that no rockets, or other material that could be used for making war against Israeli civilians, was permitted into Gaza. Israel allowed humanitarian aid through its checkpoints. Egypt as well participated in the blockade. There was never a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, merely a shortage of certain goods that would end if the rocket attacks ended.

The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This, despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerency against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.

[Tripmann]

23. Which subsection are you contesting invalidated their exemption

a, b, or c?

[Hoopla Phil]

27. Do you really need to ask?

[Tripmann]

29. Please

A quick sentence explaining why would be useful as well.

Ta

[Hoopla Phil]

35. They failed to allow inspection.

[Tripmann]

69. And where is the evidence of this?

That they failed to allow inspection?

There has been no footage of the IDF callign for them to allow boarding for inspection.

Do you have evidence that the world media doesn't have?

[Hoopla Phil]

72. The other five ships allowed inspection and all ended peaceably. How about this

video that makes their intentions very clear.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk&playnext_from=TL&videos=1oZDPQQfS_k


So can you explain to me why the other ships were in the convoy did not come under fire and this ship did? Do you think it has ANY thing to do with the attack on the Israelis? Have you watched the footage I have posted? The people on the boat were attacking the Israelis before the got to the boat and continued to brutally attack and beat them when they were down. Did you watch that? If you were in that situation being beaten with metal clubs and being knifed would you use your side are to defend yourself, or just roll over and die at the beating?

[backscatter712]

51. Also highlight "(i) vessels which have surrendered;"

The activists raised the white flag, but the Israeli commandos kept firing live ammo.

I don't know about you, but if I surrender, and the opposing force refuses to accept my surrender, I reserve the right to stop surrendering and take measures to protect my life.

[Hoopla Phil]

63. Have not read anything about that so I cannot speak to it. I know the

other five ships did surrender when they were boarded and there was no violence. Guess that would have been the outcome on this ship had they not attacked the boarding party.

[EFerrari]

6. Ambassador Peck's portion is here:

There is no transcript yet.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/2/israels_explanation_for_deadly_gaza_aid

[Ikonoklast]

13. Yeah, when you get uncooked rice thrown at you, it might hit your eye.

Please.

[Hoopla Phil]

16. This does not look like rice being thrown to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo&playnext_from=TL&videos=qK-qniVF_Hw

Please.

[ChangoLoa]

20. That looked like pirates invading a ship in international waters.

They had no business sending their commandos on that boat. There were many other ways to handle this attempt to "violate" their illegal self-appointed vital space©

[Hoopla Phil]

28. It was in accordance with maritime law in enforcing the blockade. As I sourced

up thread. They did have business enforcing the blockade. If the blockade is illegal please source the UN finding or law as I am unaware of such.

[ChangoLoa]

31. A blockade cannot be enforced in international waters

Have you found a law stating otherwise?

[Hoopla Phil]

36. Yes it can. Here is Alan Dershowitz on the matter.

The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/israels-actions-were-enti_b_596285.html

[ChangoLoa]

42. AD is not a law book yet. That operation was completely pointless IMO. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

45. If the point was to enforce the blockade then it not only had a point but

was successful. And while AD is not a law book yet he agrees with the international law on this matter.

[ChangoLoa]

61. Did you find something in int'l law on this kind of operations? I'm really curious.nt

[Hoopla Phil]

64. Haven't looked for it. I guess they could have just sunk the ship but I think

this was a lot more practical. They did have a right to stop/board the ship though, that much is clear.

I notice that you've given up your argument on the international waters deal. At least we are making progress.

[ChangoLoa]

67. Sunk it?

Come on...

We still on the same argument: boarding a ship in int'l waters. No progress made since the beginning.

[Hoopla Phil]

71. Boarding a ship that is planning to run a blockade is legal

but you are correct. No progress made since the beginning. Israel acted legally in accordance with international law. Some don't like the fact that the ship was boarded and are looking for any excuse to find fault with Israel. Looks like this will go no where. Too bad some simply will not read the law and accept it but rather turn a blind eye to the law and blame Israel.

[Ikonoklast]

34. Shooting people dead from above is piracy.

The IDF came in guns blazing. More than one person was struck by gunfire before any IDF personnel stepped on deck.

What part of that do you find 'legal'?

[Hoopla Phil]

37. I find the account inaccurate, and contrary to the video evidence. If you

have a source for such occurring please provide.

[Hoopla Phil]

44. Here is evidence that the first attacks came from the boat up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24

[Ikonoklast]

33. Shoot at me first, and I will use any means necessary to defend myself.

You are on the wrong side of this one, no matter how much you spin.

Israel was the aggressor.

They STARTED out using violence and deadly force. From the get-go, coming in guns blazing.

They got the reaction they deserved.

[Hoopla Phil]

38. The evidence provided so far does not support that the Israelis fired

prior to being assaulted with clubs and knives. If you have such evidence please provide it.

I am not spinning anything. I am citing international law. So far I have not be refuted on any matter of the law.

Israel was legally enforcing their blockade under international law. I have provided the law as reference. Can you provide any evidence to the contrary?

Please site and/or source any evidence were they came in "guns blazing". So far I have seen only evidence that they responded with violence only after being assaulted with clubs and knives.

[Hoopla Phil]

43. More video. Shows the Israelis being attacked before getting on board.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24

[Hoopla Phil]

30. I have to pick up my daughter now so I have to leave with this. So far the only

way I can see this action being illegal is if the blockade is illegal. Some have said that it is but have not sourced it. One person sourced a news article where a U.N. official said it was but also said a lot of other rhetorical things. What is needed is a UN sanction or law sourced (as I did) that shows the blockade to be illegal.

For those that do not know the law covering this action in enforcing the blockade here it is again.
PLEASE read it.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce

The Turkish ship (a neutral flagged vessel) lost it's exemption as you will find codified in the above law.

[Tripmann]

32. Can you clarify how please

I have poste the passage from your link that exempts aid boats. You have said this is not the case but refuse to explain why.

Can you explain for us all please when you're back on DU?

[Hoopla Phil]

39. The refused to allow inspection as required to maintain their

exempt status.

Here is an excerpt of Alan Dershowitz on the issue

The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/israels-actions-were-enti_b_596285.html

He also address the legality of the blockade.

[Tripmann]

70. Dershowitz?

You don't postr here very often, do you?

Anyways....

Wheres your evidence that they failed to allow inspection?

There has been no footage of the IDF callign for them to allow boarding for inspection.

Do you have evidence that the world media doesn't have?

[Hoopla Phil]

65. Oops, weapons found.

Guess that inspection was needed after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM&feature=player_embedded

Wonder what would have been in the next shipment had this one made it through.

[IndianaGreen]

66. We call it planting a gun back here in America

Philadelphia cops are known for doing that.

[Ignis]

68. "Sprinkle some crack on him and let's get out of here!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFHpvPwq2i8&feature=channel_page

[Hoopla Phil]

73. So you accept one side of the argument but non of the evidence from the other side?

How open minded of you.

I expected to hear a different argument to excuse the weapons but not that one. I would think if the Israelis were going to "plant" evidence they would have "planted" some more more modern weapons. But hey, some people will not believe anything Israel says not matter how much evidence there is. To some Israel is always wrong.

[Meeker Morgan]

74. Hamas stops flotilla aid delivered by Israel (CNN)

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/02/israel.palestinians.aid/

Jerusalem (CNN) -- Israel has attempted to deliver humanitarian aid from an international flotilla to Gaza, but Hamas -- which controls the territory -- has refused to accept the cargo, the Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday.

Palestinian sources confirmed that trucks that arrived from Israel at the Rafah terminal at the Israel-Gaza border were barred from delivering the aid.

Ra'ed Fatooh, in charge of the crossings, and Jamal Khudari, head of a committee against the Gaza blockade, said Israel must release all flotilla detainees and that it will be accepted in the territory only by the Free Gaza Movement people who organized the flotilla.

...

So much for the line that Israel is starving poor little children.

It was a re-supply mission. The "freedom fighters" are using children as human shields for their operations to achieve a Jew-free Palestine.

The Israeli forces messed up in so far as they may have exceeded their orders, but I'd waste no sympathy even if they'd sunk the ship with all hands.