First Flotilla Ship En Route to Gaza

Arutz Sheva ^ | 29/6/11 | Gavriel Queenann

[tbpiper]

The first thing that came to mind was the phrase “hot, staight, and normal”.

[bert]

-——’Dignity’ decided to skip the rendezvous——

This can be interpreted to mean there is friction and lack of leadership. The movement is riven with ambition and decension

[D-fendr]

Attacking a merchant vessel in international waters? That is an act of piracy.

They're attempting to run Israel's blockade of it's own waters. I believe it's legal to stop them anywhere along the way.

[D-fendr]

Here’s a link to a thread on the question:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2742059/posts

[Eleutheria5]

A machine that can cut through steel? Whatever can cut through steel? Hmmmm.... Beavens to hetsy! They used a hacksaw! The fiends.

[Karliner]

In the good ols dys,Limpet mines,...ticky tickey most rickey tick, BA BOOM!

[Vanders9]

I'm not a maritime legal expert, but I don't see how that be true. The point of a blockade is that you deny access to someone from waters that belong to you. Until someone attempts to actually cross into those waters, then they haven't actually done anything wrong. I know they are saying they are going to run the blockade, but then people say they are going to do a lot of things. You're only guilty when you actually do.

Anyway, taking them out, even non-violently, in international waters would be a propoganda coup for these people. They would call it a terrorist act from the Zionist terrorist State.

[tet68]

They would call it a terrorist act from the Zionist terrorist State.

That’s what they will call it anyway...

[Vanders9]

They will, but the public perception of the actions of the Israelis over the next few days will determine how much of that charge will "stick". For political reasons Israel's actions need to be legal, but they also need to be seen to be fair and just.

This is hideously unfair of course. HAMAS et al never seem to have to justify lobbing missiles indiscriminately into major Israeli population centers, but that is the nature of the beast, alas.

[D-fendr]

I agree that propaganda and “world opinion” is a key consideration here, and Israel is out-gunned in this department.

I’m not a maritime expert either. But arguing the logic of it, if someone’s purpose, plan, preparations, course, stated objective are to run your blockade, and they are on course to do it, I think international waters is the logical place to stop them. Waiting til they are closer serves no purpose and gives them more advantage.

Again, I’m no expert, but the analogy I would draw is wartime, with a declared enemy headed towards your port with the stated intention of docking there. I think that’s enough basis to stop them along the way.

It seems to me Israel realizes the closer they get, and the more force the IDF uses, the worse it is for them propaganda-wise. So, they are moving on other fronts and much slower with more restraint than some on these threads advocate.

But I don’t think this is because of legal or military justification. That’s my humble opinion based on limited reading. You or others may be right in correcting me.

Thanks for your reply and discussion.

[Eleutheria5]

Whether it’s for legal, PR, or basic fair play reasons, the key word is to “stop” them, not to demolish them. The former can be done by interdiction, while the latter would be excessive. Interdiction could turn the entire maneuver around on them, too. Someone could make a documentary showing the ships and their passengers and goods being interdicted, the handling of the passengers and crew, the processing of the goods through inspection and ultimate distribution in Ghaza, then some pictures of how Ghaza really looks, the farms, fishing fleet, hotels and malls, not just the miserable neighborhoods where they keep the Fatah supporters. All of that’s available anyway on the Internet, if you read Arabic.