Today I'm angry about.....

[William the White]

Just a quick look at those nice peaceful aid workers.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcb ... r_embedded

A picture paints a thousand words....

Wow, just wow....

June 19 2008 2378 rockets and mortars were launched. This is more than the 1,639 attacks launched in all of 2007

I can think of NO country in the world that would put up with that.

That was during the period of open warfare between Hamas and Israel. Indeed, i notice you snip your quote up in an accidentally misleading way... It starts - up unitl the ceasefire on june 19 2008... pity you missed the first bit out... Also a shame to conflate rocket and mortar attacks...

According to the wiki article you are quoting from after the ceasefire 20 rockets were fired.

If you go on to see Hobinho's very fair and balanced selection of links you will see in the reuters report the true disjuncture of attacks, firepower and death. 1203 deaths of Palestinians. Israeli deaths 13 (five by friendly fire). number of israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets - 3.

as for the vid - two things - who is claiming these were aid workers? And people being attacked sometimes fight back, you might have noticed? In fact, in many courts 'self-defence' is a strong judicial defence.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

In fact, in many courts 'self-defence' is a strong judicial defence.

Quite.

[thebish]

5. the palestinians fire the odd rocket into Israel - which is wrong - but is hardly parallel to Israel's misdemeanors

Oh dear! Now I can see that this particular BWFC forum is "left leaning" from this and other political debates, but there comes a point when comments such as above need to be challenged. So parking the fact that the odd rocket was more like hundreds how many "odd" rockets would you accept on towns in the UK from an enemy whose doctrine insists the total anhilation of your people?

How many before you use your strength of arms to react as Israel has done and still does to survive?

Let me tell you that if you were in charge and it even got above 2 or 3 and you decided to wring your hands as you expect them to do you would be strung up and rightly so!

Our own recent history tells me that we would not respond as Israel has responded.

are you old enough to remember the IRA mainland bombing campaign?

we did not respond by blockading Ireland or by bulldozing Irish estates or by carpet-bombing neighbourhoods in Ireland where we suspected terrorists might be living, killing hundreds of civilian men women and children in the process. We did not build 12ft wall around them annexing Irish Land to the UK in the process. we did not deny them airspace and seaspace. we did not bomb cars on motorways which we suspected might be carrying terrorists - accepting the "collateral damage" of the deaths of other innocent motorists. we did not routinely use deah squads all over the world to eliminate those we suspectd without trial.*

*some would argue we did at Gibralter Rock (where 3 suspected IRA bombers were shot) - but even if you add that to Bloody Sunday - and you factor in the shame and years of condemnation and hand-wringing over these incidents - these would still rank as primary school picnics alongside the murderous thuggery and brutality of the IDF

as for the Hamas pledge to drive Israel into the sea...

the protagonists in our own struggle were no less compromising... Paisley is famous for his "No Surrender" and "The pope is the antichrist"... and yet he now sits down for tea and buns and laughs and jokes with Martin McGuinness.....

[thebish]

In fact, in many courts 'self-defence' is a strong judicial defence.

Quite.

I'll interpret this cryptic addition to mean that you view the Israeli rsponse as "self-defence"

presumably you'd defend me in court with that defence (were you suitably qualified) if I had been kicked in the shin by a spiteful 5 year old - she really was being nasty and I didn't deserve the kick - it was unprovoked violence against me - and I retaliated in self defence by smacking her across the back of the head with a baseball bat, breaking both her legs, killing her puppy, bulldozing her house, killing her entire family and razing to the ground he nighbourhood where she lived?

or maybe you would think that as an adult (read: responsible nation state) I was over-reacting (read: going well beyond the bounds of self-defence) and making the situation worse by giving a whole community and future generations a reason to seek revenge....

[Montreal Wanderer]

In fact, in many courts 'self-defence' is a strong judicial defence.

Quite.

I'll interpret this cryptic addition to mean that you view the Israeli rsponse as "self-defence"

presumably you'd defend me in court with that defence (were you suitably qualified) if I had been kicked in the shin by a spiteful 5 year old - she really was being nasty and I didn't deserve the kick - it was unprovoked violence against me - and I retaliated in self defence by smacking her across the back of the head with a baseball bat, breaking both her legs, killing her puppy, bulldozing her house, killing her entire family and razing to the ground he nighbourhood where she lived?

or maybe you would think that as an adult (read: responsible nation state) I was over-reacting (read: going well beyond the bounds of self-defence) and making the situation worse by giving a whole community and future generations a reason to seek revenge....

Hang on a moment, bish. Pencilbiter is a lawyer and merely agreed that self-defense is a justification in law. He cut out the rest of William's polemic so I don't think one can interpret him to state the Israeli attack in international waters was self-defense. In over six decades of troubled history Israel has acted from time to time in self defense. It has also acted aggressively and way over the top at others. I doubt PB would state that assassination by the Mossad could be justified (let alone using British passports). I actually knew one of the Mossad's victims, a former professor at my university called Gerald Bull (murdered in Brussels). Personally I have little sympathy for the political elite (though elite may be stretching the term) of either side, but have sympathy for the innocent civilians on both sides (though more so for those in the Gaza because of the unbelievably poor quality of life).

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

In fact, in many courts 'self-defence' is a strong judicial defence.

Quite.

I'll interpret this cryptic addition to mean that you view the Israeli rsponse as "self-defence"

I think there was a strong element of Israeli self-defence involved in what went on at sea on Monday, yes.

Look, I don't generally take either of the unpleasant sides in this conflict - goodness knows I don't have the knowledge of the history of the situation to make a reasoned judgement possible.

I don't think the blockade is a humane way of fighting this battle, with the impact on civilians it has, and I also think it's a very bad idea practically, because it only strengthens Hamas's grip on the Palestinian economy.

However, Israel has a right to protect itself from its enemies. It has a right to stop the smuggling of arms to Gaza, to prevent the infiltration of rockets and weapons that could be fired by Hamas militants against Israeli targets. The Israeli armed forces know, from bitter experience, that even humanitarian operations can be exploited by the country’s enemies. It is neither unreasonable nor a breach of international 'law' to insist that ships on the high seas, suspected of carrying weapons, submit to inspection before they are allowed to dock.

I would join William in endorsing the other William's words today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/t ... 718664.stm

The deaths are indeed deplorable and it's clear that Israel has behaved in an unacceptable way. But Hague's criticism today and over the past couple of days has been appropriately nuanced - a big problem seems to have been the lack of 'preparedness'. I don't think anybody seriously thinks the Israeli forces went hellbent to shed some blood. The problem seems to have been that the tactics were wrong, and the intelligence was wrong - there doesn't seem to have been an appreciation of the fact that they were heading into a seaborne riot. Unfortunately, things were poorly planned and executed and some people have paid for those dreadful mistakes with their lives.

Hague has also stressed that the consistent advice has been to avoid attempting to access to Gaza this way, because of the high risk of trouble breaking out.

Let's not mess around here - lots of people on this ship were well up for a fight and even martyrdom. The Times yesterday carried a quotation from an interview a Turkish news station had done with some passengers on the ship as it was about to depart Cyprus: "We are now waiting for one of two good things — either to reach Gaza or achieve martyrdom" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 141520.ece

[Montreal Wanderer]

However, Israel has a right to protect itself from its enemies. It has a right to stop the smuggling of arms to Gaza, to prevent the infiltration of rockets and weapons that could be fired by Hamas militants against Israeli targets. The Israeli armed forces know, from bitter experience, that even humanitarian operations can be exploited by the country’s enemies. It is neither unreasonable nor a breach of international 'law' to insist that ships on the high seas, suspected of carrying weapons, submit to inspection before they are allowed to dock.

Oh well, so much for trying to defend PB. I'm not sure I would agree with your interpretation of international law here. Sending an armed party aboard a ship in international waters and killing members of the passengers and crew without the sanction of the international community of nations sounds very much like piracy to me. It might be different if this took place in Israeli waters i suppose.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

However, Israel has a right to protect itself from its enemies. It has a right to stop the smuggling of arms to Gaza, to prevent the infiltration of rockets and weapons that could be fired by Hamas militants against Israeli targets. The Israeli armed forces know, from bitter experience, that even humanitarian operations can be exploited by the country’s enemies. It is neither unreasonable nor a breach of international 'law' to insist that ships on the high seas, suspected of carrying weapons, submit to inspection before they are allowed to dock.

Oh well, so much for trying to defend PB. I'm not sure I would agree with your interpretation of international law here. Sending an armed party aboard a ship in international waters and killing members of the passengers and crew without the sanction of the international community of nations sounds very much like piracy to me. It might be different if this took place in Israeli waters i suppose.

I'll admit my knowledge of international law is pretty shallow, partly because I don't have much time for the concept.

But my understanding is that boarding a vessel in this way is acceptable in certain circumstances under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea - they would have to seek permission from the country where the boat is registered (Turkey in this case), though, and it seems to be unclear whether these matters of protocol were followed.

[Montreal Wanderer]

However, Israel has a right to protect itself from its enemies. It has a right to stop the smuggling of arms to Gaza, to prevent the infiltration of rockets and weapons that could be fired by Hamas militants against Israeli targets. The Israeli armed forces know, from bitter experience, that even humanitarian operations can be exploited by the country’s enemies. It is neither unreasonable nor a breach of international 'law' to insist that ships on the high seas, suspected of carrying weapons, submit to inspection before they are allowed to dock.

Oh well, so much for trying to defend PB. I'm not sure I would agree with your interpretation of international law here. Sending an armed party aboard a ship in international waters and killing members of the passengers and crew without the sanction of the international community of nations sounds very much like piracy to me. It might be different if this took place in Israeli waters i suppose.

I'll admit my knowledge of international law is pretty shallow, partly because I don't have much time for the concept.

But my understanding is that boarding a vessel in this way is acceptable in certain circumstances under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea - they would have to seek permission from the country where the boat is registered (Turkey in this case), though, and it seems to be unclear whether these matters of protocol were followed.

If a blockade is declared in time of war belligerent states have the right to stop (or reroute) neutral vessels intent on running the blockade. It is not clear that this is a war as envisioned in international law. In times of peace I believe you would be correct - permission to board would be sought from the country of registry. I do not think such permission was requested or given. There must also be evidence that contraband (i.e. arms) were aboard. I have heard nothing about that so far - did they find anything?

[William the White]

However, Israel has a right to protect itself from its enemies. It has a right to stop the smuggling of arms to Gaza, to prevent the infiltration of rockets and weapons that could be fired by Hamas militants against Israeli targets.

Since you support the right to self defence... What do you think the Palestinians have the right to do?

This is not intended as a trick question... But I really would appreciate it if you felt you could answer...

[Lord Kangana]

I'm still bemused as to what not having time for international law means? Perhaps we should all go back to living in caves or something?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

However, Israel has a right to protect itself from its enemies. It has a right to stop the smuggling of arms to Gaza, to prevent the infiltration of rockets and weapons that could be fired by Hamas militants against Israeli targets.

Since you support the right to self defence... What do you think the Palestinians have the right to do?

This is not intended as a trick question... But I really would appreciate it if you felt you could answer...

Yes, the Palestinians have that same right - as I say, I don't really have a 'side' and all I can see is two sides fighting, without either one really being in the right and without any visible light at the end of the tunnel.

[William the White]

However, Israel has a right to protect itself from its enemies. It has a right to stop the smuggling of arms to Gaza, to prevent the infiltration of rockets and weapons that could be fired by Hamas militants against Israeli targets.

Since you support the right to self defence... What do you think the Palestinians have the right to do?

This is not intended as a trick question... But I really would appreciate it if you felt you could answer...

Yes, the Palestinians have that same right - as I say, I don't really have a 'side' and all I can see is two sides fighting, without either one really being in the right and without any visible light at the end of the tunnel.

This is not a trick question - you give a list of things you think Israel has a right to do... Is it possible for you to offer a list that you think the Palestinians have the right to do?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

If a blockade is declared in time of war belligerent states have the right to stop (or reroute) neutral vessels intent on running the blockade. It is not clear that this is a war as envisioned in international law. In times of peace I believe you would be correct - permission to board would be sought from the country of registry. I do not think such permission was requested or given. There must also be evidence that contraband (i.e. arms) were aboard. I have heard nothing about that so far - did they find anything?

Right, it's not clear whether this can properly be called a 'war', it's not clear the extent to which Hamas is separate from the state, it's not clear etc....

I'm not sure there has to be evidence that arms were aboard, but, rather, reasonable grounds for suspicion that that is so... perhaps you wouldn't accept the distinction.

Anyway, there does not appear to be a consensus among the international lawyers about what the position is. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

However, Israel has a right to protect itself from its enemies. It has a right to stop the smuggling of arms to Gaza, to prevent the infiltration of rockets and weapons that could be fired by Hamas militants against Israeli targets.

Since you support the right to self defence... What do you think the Palestinians have the right to do?

This is not intended as a trick question... But I really would appreciate it if you felt you could answer...

Yes, the Palestinians have that same right - as I say, I don't really have a 'side' and all I can see is two sides fighting, without either one really being in the right and without any visible light at the end of the tunnel.

This is not a trick question - you give a list of things you think Israel has a right to do... Is it possible for you to offer a list that you think the Palestinians have the right to do?

Erm, ok - the Palestinians have a right to protect themselves from their enemies and even to fight for the land they feel is theirs too.

[William the White]

However, Israel has a right to protect itself from its enemies. It has a right to stop the smuggling of arms to Gaza, to prevent the infiltration of rockets and weapons that could be fired by Hamas militants against Israeli targets.

Since you support the right to self defence... What do you think the Palestinians have the right to do?

This is not intended as a trick question... But I really would appreciate it if you felt you could answer...

Yes, the Palestinians have that same right - as I say, I don't really have a 'side' and all I can see is two sides fighting, without either one really being in the right and without any visible light at the end of the tunnel.

This is not a trick question - you give a list of things you think Israel has a right to do... Is it possible for you to offer a list that you think the Palestinians have the right to do?

Erm, ok - the Palestinians have a right to protect themselves from their enemies and even to fight for the land they feel is theirs too.

So do they have the right to fire rockets and mortars against military targets in Israel? Do they have the right to use military force to resist the blockade? If they have the capacity do they have the right to sink Israeli ships trying to enforce that blockade?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So do they have the right to fire rockets and mortars against military targets in Israel? Do they have the right to use military force to resist the blockade? If they have the capacity do they have the right to sink Israeli ships trying to enforce that blockade?

Yes, it's a horrible business isn't it, this war stuff?

I suspect when people do come down on the Israeli side, it's because their Hamas opponents describe a peaceful solution as being "religiously forbidden and politically inconceivable".

[TANGODANCER]

There was a time when religion just meant believing in your God and not using it to make your own laws.

[William the White]

So do they have the right to fire rockets and mortars against military targets in Israel? Do they have the right to use military force to resist the blockade? If they have the capacity do they have the right to sink Israeli ships trying to enforce that blockade?

Yes, it's a horrible business isn't it, this war stuff?

I suspect when people do come down on the Israeli side, it's because their Hamas opponents describe a peaceful solution as being "religiously forbidden and politically inconceivable".

I've no sympaty for Hamas ideology but could you source that quotation for me?

[William the White]

There was a time when religion just meant believing in your God and not using it to make your own laws.

When and where was that, Tango?