The peace activists sing 'Jews remember Khaibar, the army of Mohammed is returning.' And the woman says she will either go to gaza or be a martyr. These were not peace protesters, but a group of angry islamic radicals on a suicide mission - using the humanitarian mission as cover to attack IDF.^^Are you kidding me? The peace activists intended a confrontation? If they did, then they would have set out on boats to attack the Israeli Navy ships. They were defending themselves in international waters from an illegal search by the security forces of a country that had NO JURISDICTION. I don't know how to make this any simpler. If anyone was desiring a confrontation, it was the Israelis, as they KNOWINGLY INVADED a ship in international waters.
The peace activists had a right to defend themselves and their ship if they thought they were in danger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk&feature=player_embedded
You are wrong on the law.
Israel has imposed a blockade on Gaza because they are in an armed conflict with HAMAS. They don't have much of a choice really, it's the only option left open to them. When they had a conventional attack, HAMAS used civilians as human shields and moved military targets into hospitals and schools, screaming 'war crime' at the top of its lungs. So - Israel is left with sanctions - which are then described as 'collective punishment'. HAMAS hates the sanctions, and wants them gone.
So, in order to say, get a ship full of floating jihadis who want to be martyrs, and have them beat the hell out of Israeli commandos who then have to defend themselves.
Under San Remo, a naval force can intercept a ship running a blockade, anywhere, even in international waters. Once those 'activists' picked up weapons, they became combatants, and could have been killed with extreme prejudice. Israel showed restraint.
Two law professors who say that Israel adhered to international law:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions...e_gaz a_flotilla_conflict_is_an_openand.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rolls-with-the-law-of-the-sea/article1589981/
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.
68. Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.
69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it.
Neutral civil aircraft
70. Civil aircraft bearing the marks of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband, and, after prior warning or interception, they intentionally and clearly refuse to divert from their destination, or intentionally and clearly refuse to proceed for visit and search to a belligerent airfield that is safe for the type of aircraft involved and reasonably accessible;
(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; or
(e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy's military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and, after prior warning or interception, they intentionally and clearly refuse to divert from their destination, or intentionally and clearly refuse to proceed for visit and search to a belligerent airfield that is safe for the type of aircraft involved and reasonably accessible.
71. Any attack on these aircraft is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument
They were attacked with knives, poles, axes, chains, as soon as they landed by islamic extremists. As Netenyahu said 'This wasnt the Love Boat.'
Last edited by a moderator: