Cyprus-Forum.com

[CBBB]

According to which Jihad news outlet - No Witness News?

by a british national with no bias, but not good enough for a blinkered person like you

The Daily Mail? If so, it must be true!

[Khadijah]

All media is biased in some way, I like to read at least 10 different stories to start getting a clearer picture, preferably from very different sources and countries as the censoring is different with each, even then you have to be very cautious... :-$

[Khadijah]

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast ... index.html

[CopperLine]

Paphitis and others are just plain wrong in their comments on what is permitted/forbidden actions in international waters or 'high seas'. Without a shadow of doubt the Israeli action constitutes a prima facie act of piracy, and piracy is a ius cogens prohibition i.e, in the history and development of international law it doesn't get any more basic or any more universally acknowledged as a crime.

It is forbidden in law to attack a ship on the high seas. Where this has been done between marine/navies it is a prima facie act of war. Where this is carried out against a merchant vessel it is a prima facie act of piracy. Motive does not come into it.

(Paphitis is also quite mistaken about what the Australian navy is doing refugees on the high seas).

What states do within territorial waters is another matter. Israel could have - contrary what people, including Netanyahu, have said - chosen to act once the ships were within territorial waters. But Israel chose international piracy over a legal impounding of a vessel within territorial waters.

What of warnings to the flotilla ? It appears from all the press releases etc that no warnings or cautions were issued immediately prior to the assault by masked armed men in the dead of night. And even if there was, why would a ship's captain, responsible in law for the safety of the crew and passengers, give way to a demand on the high seas ? Such a demand is, by definition, also without legal force.

I fail to see in whose interests (certainly not Israel's) it is to attempt to legitimate piracy. Paphitis and co. should simply ask themselves the question as to whether what they defend - the 'right' of any party to take so-called 'pre-emptive action' on the high seas - as a principle can be generalised or universalised ? (Iran doesn't like to see Saudi registered ships in the Gulf - attack them. Russian oil companies don't like to see Canadian oil rigs in the Arctic - attack them. Japanese whalers don't like to see greenpeace ships in whaling grouns - attack them..... and so on). It can't because what you get is ..... piracy, exactly what four hundred plus years of international law has been developing to abolish.

Will Israel get away with this piracy ? Probably. Has Israel mounted a massive PR campaign to explain how chalk is really cheese ? Yes. Will an enquiry, international or otherwise, result in anything significant to constrain Israel's increasing barbarism ? No. Is Israel more secure as a result of this latest stupidity ? No.

Copper,

You obviously haven't heard about Australia's so called Pacific Solution. It involved the interception of vessels in International Waters so that Australia is not obligated to process Asylum Seekers on Australian Territory. Detention Centres were set up on Nauru, PNG and Christmas Island which was redefined to not constitute Australian Territory within the Commonwealth of Australia (even though it is an Australian possession). Clever!

Now, the Pacific Solution was abolished in 2007, but Australia still does intercept foreign boats on High Seas and the Asylum Seekers are then processed on Christmas Island. Australia cites National Security concerns and potential terrorism activity, and Australia, to this day is condemned by various International Groups such as Amnesty International. Sometimes, Asylum Seekers who claim Asylum can be incarcerated for about a year. Children are fostered out by the State and attend school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Solution

You may also recall some very well publicised incidents. You can read about HMAS Adelaide intercepting the Siev4, a suspected illegal entry vessel, 100 nms (190km) from Australian Territory. The vessel caught on fire and sank, and the interception quickly turned into a rescue mission. The Royal Australian Navy claimed that the Asylum Seekers threw their children in the water as an act of desperation. It was later found in an inquiry, that defence photographs of people in the sea, were as a result of the sinking and that no children were thrown overboard. A very controversial incident which resulted in Australia introducing more draconian border security measures including the notorious "Pacific Solution". This saga came to be known as "The Children Overboard" Affair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_Affair

In August 2001, a diplomatic Incident occurred between Norway and Australia because Australia intercepted and boarded the MV Tampa, a Norwegian Registered Vessel which responded to a distress message from an Illegal Indonesian Fishing boat within the Australian EEZ (outside International Waters). The MV Tampa, signalled that it was then heading for Australian Waters, but the Australian Government stated that it would refuse entry. The Royal Australian Navy intercepted the vessel in International Waters. The MV Tampa was boarded by Australia's most elite, and heavily armed Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) which are Australia's most elite and best trained troops. The SASR, if you are not familiar, was also involved in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are considered to be some of the best troops in the world. How is that for an overreaction?

So you think Israel is bad! Compared to the above, you can say that Israel is almost a Saint!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Tampa

You may also recall a more recent event, where the Royal Australian Navy intercepted an illegal entry vessel just outside Indonesian Waters. The Royal Australian Navy transferred the Sri Lankan Asylum Seekers to the Australian Customs Vessel Sea Viking. The Indonesian Government agreed to process the Asylum Seekers in Indonesia and so the ACS Sea Viking entered Indonesia. The Indonesian Port Authorities refused to accept the Asylum seekers who refused to leave the Australian Customs Ship. They were on hunger strike and threatened to commit suicide.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 5791914095

So you see Copper, it all boils down to what the nation deems to be a National Security concern. And this is exactly why countries spend billions of dollars on defence in order to deal with these National Security concerns, perceived potential terrorism threats, border protection and EEZ protection. Of course, the ADF is not alone. There are other civil agencies which are involved in Border Security, from the Australian Federal Police, Australian Customs, Coastwatch and the Maritime Surveillance operation called Surveillance Australia under contract to the Federal Government by Cobham. Satellites are also deployed and intelligence is sent to the National Surveillance Centre in Canberra, which is a joint Intel gathering point for the ADF, Federal Police, Customs, and Surveillance Australia. It is probably the most elaborate surveillance network in the world and it is said that a floating esky full of beer will be picked up in High Seas. Obviously, the Royal Australian Navy will definitely intercept such an esky as a top priority!

For the first time in history, Australia has allowed a 60 minutes film crew to film a Royal Australian Navy interception and boarding operation. The footage will be screened on National TV this Sunday. Hopefully, the footage will be put on Youtube, and if that is the case, I will post it on CF. I have seen the clip. Some of the images can be quite disturbing. Sometimes there are women and children aboard the suspected illegal entry boats, and before the armed boarding party boards, tear gas canisters are fired onto the decks. What follows are scenes of mayhem, and confusion until the boat is secured. I believe this does not occur all the time, but it does happen often. It depends on the size of the boat, and whether the RAN perceives an increased threat to the boarding party.

At any given times, hundreds of foreign registered boats are under Surveillance, filmed and photographed by ADF, Customs, or civil Surveillance Aircraft. All boats are tracked by satellite. Dozens are boarded every week, some in International Waters and some within Australian Territorial Seas. About 4-5 boats are detained by The Federal Government and destroyed every week! Crews are prosecuted and thrown in jail.

So Copper, you are wrong!

Paphitis,
Unfortunately I can't be bothered to explain in detail to you why you are mistaken in your interpretation of Aus' actions. What you say above is well known and is not piracy; was negotiated with various pacific island states,was not unilaterally enforced; where international legal regimes on refugees and asylum-seeking may have been broken or jeopardised were then brought back into line, etc. In other words whatever excesses instituted by Aus' were subsequently circumscribed (though still open to criticism) and the default position was international law. Aus did not basically say, as Israel has done, 'this doesn't apply to us', 'we will use violence if it suits us', or in clear Australian, 'we don't give a fuck what the law is'.

[Paphitis]

This is where you are very mistaken Copper. Whilst I agree that Australia's Border Security policies were not unilaterally applied and do in fact mostly conform to International Law, there is still plenty of room for International criticism. Let's be very clear about this. Australia intercepts foreign registered vessels in International Waters, and some say this is a violation of International Maritime Law whilst Australia excuses itself by citing National Security concerns. Also, if Australian boarding parties are attacked in the same manner the IDF was, they too will open fire, hopefully causing no loss of life.

Israel, is also, quite rightly claiming National Security concerns. It is in its interests to not allow cement into the Strip or allow the convoy through. And since it views the convoy as a potential threat, the IDF stepped in as would any other country if faced with a similar dilemma.

[CopperLine]

A powerful article that I was sent through Jewish Voice for Peace (how long before Linitchka dismisses this as self-hating ?)

http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201006020003

Lying About The Gaza Flotilla Disaster
June 02, 2010 1:31 pm ET — MJ Rosenberg

It's been one lie after another in the US media about the Israeli attack on the Gaza-bound relief flotilla. No matter that the Israeli media views the whole incident as a debacle for Israel, in this country the Israel-can-do-no-wrong crowd is on overdrive defending the operation. As usual, facts don't matter to them.

Except they do.

The first thing you need to know about the Gaza flotilla disaster is that the intention of the activists on board the ships was to break the Israeli blockade. Delivering the embargoed goods was incidental.

In other words, the activists were like the civil rights demonstrators who sat down at segregated lunch counters throughout the South and refused to leave until they were served. Their goal was not really to get breakfast. It was to end segregation.

That fact is so obvious that it is hard to believe that the "pro-Israel" lobby is using it as an indictment.

Of course the goal of the flotilla was to break the blockade. Of course Martin Luther King provoked the civil authorities of the South to break segregation. Of course the Solidarity movement used workers' rights as a pretext to break Soviet-imposed Communism.

The bottom line is that the men and women of the flotilla had every right to attempt to destroy an illegal blockade that Israel had no legal standing to impose and which was designed to inflict collective punishment on the people of Gaza. (There is no truth to the story that Israel would have delivered the goods on the ships to Gaza if asked; the Israelis never made that offer and, judging by years of precedent, would have blocked any delivery.)

As for the Israeli argument that its soldiers were attacked, that is ridiculous. Israeli commandos were ordered to board a civilian ship in international waters and the government that sent them claims that the resisting passengers attacked them without provocation. This is like a carjacker complaining to the police that the driver bashed him with a crowbar that was under the seat. Neither carjackers nor hijackers should expect their victims to acquiesce peacefully.

Here are the facts about life in Gaza today -- facts that only can be changed by breaking the blockade. These data come from the American Near East Relief Association (ANERA), which provides relief to Gazans to the extent permitted by the Israeli (and American) authorities. ANERA is neither "pro-Israel" nor "pro-Palestinian." It has no political agenda at all. It merely determines what human needs are and tries to respond to them.

8 out of 10 Gazans depend on foreign aid to survive.

The World Food Program says Gaza requires a minimum of 400 trucks a day to meet basic nutritional needs - yet an average of just 171 trucks worth of supplies enters Gaza every week,

Clothes that were held in the port of Ashdod for over a year were released into Gaza but arrived covered with mold and mildew, unusable.

95% of Gaza's water fails World Health Organization standards leaving thousands of newborns at risk of poisoning.

Anemia for children under the age of 5 is estimated at 48%.

75 million liters of untreated sewage are pumped into the Mediterranean Sea every day - because piping and spare parts are not permitted.

During the 2009 bombing:

More than 120,000 jobs were lost as Gaza's industrial zone was destroyed... 15,000 homes and apartments were damaged or destroyed... 1/3 of all schools were destroyed.

None of these can be rebuilt, because construction supplies are kept out by the Israeli authorities.

Also, check this out from The Economist. It is a partial list of commodities allowed into Gaza and commodities banned.

So what is the blockade about?

It is not about stopping terrorism. Hamas has repeatedly offered Israel an indefinite cease-fire in exchange for lifting the blockade. And, on a half dozen occasions, Israel accepted the deal but did not live up to its side of it. In fact, the 2009 war began after Israel ignored its commitments under the Gaza cease-fire agreement, continued the blockade, and then provoked the resumption of attacks on Sderot through a series of targeted assassinations of Palestinians (Israel claims that no cease-fire agreement curtails its right to kill any Palestinian it deems to be a terrorist).

Israel asserts that it will not accept any long-term cease-fire agreement with Hamas because Hamas does not recognize its right to exist.

But Israel does not need the permission of anyone -- let alone Hamas -- to exist. All it needs from Hamas is an end to violence and that is precisely what Hamas is offering, in exchange for lifting the blockade.

This is not to say that Hamas need never recognize Israel. It should. But it is ridiculous to insist on recognition as a precondition for anything. Recognition would be the end result of negotiations, not a precondition for it.

But that is not what Israel wants. It wants to destroy Hamas because it is a terrorist organization. And that makes sense until one realizes that the African National Congress, Sinn Fein, the Israeli Irgun, the Algerian FLN and a host of other resistance movements were called terrorist organizations before negotiations brought them to power. Former Israeli Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir were both unabashed terrorists prior to their entrance into respectable politics. And so what? If dealing with terrorists -- as Israel has repeatedly done with Hezbollah -- will help achieve a worthy goal, why not do it? After all, if negotiations fail, one can always walk away.

But Israel will not change its self-defeating policies until we change ours. And there is no evidence that is happening (at least, not until after the November elections, for obvious reasons).

For now, our policies are joined at the hip with Israel's. We support the blockade of Gaza. We oppose any efforts at reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas. We even back Israel's opposition to the Arab Peace Initiative, which offers Israel full peace and normalization of relations with every Arab country in exchange for the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

Enough is enough. The Obama administration needs to join the rest of the world in demanding an end to the Gaza blockade as a first big step toward the resumption of negotiations.

The attack on the flotilla was one of the most disastrous blunders in Israel's history. At last, the whole world sees Israel's policy of collective punishment for what it is -- a means to perpetuate the occupation forever. Only the United States government has chosen to close its eyes.

The occupation is killing Israel. And we are on the sidelines letting it happen. Some ally!

[Paphitis]

A video surveillance video was released from the Mavi Mamara, that showed footage of the "activists" preparing weapons, projectiles minutes before the IDF approached the boat. As one of the IDF speed craft came close, "activists" were shown to be throwing projectiles.

Clear indication that the "activists" were first to attack.

[CopperLine]

Australia intercepts foreign registered vessels in International Waters, and some say this is a violation of International Maritime Law whilst Australia excuses itself by citing National Security concerns.

No, I'm sorry Paphitis. It is not like that at all. 'National security' concerns do not trump international law. If Aus' wants to take an action in international waters then it has sought to legitimise by invoking some instrument of law, either treaty or multilateral. What it has not done is an Israel. This is what is different about Israel's repeated actions. Israel is effectively saying, I repeat, "this law or that law does not apply to us; it is subordinate to our political/security interests." Aus' and most other govts. effectively say this law does apply to us how can we legitimately get round it or effectively interpret it. To do that requires disputes and disputed readings of the law to be adjudicated in a court not resolved through the barrel of a gun Israeli-style.

[Paphitis]

Australia intercepts foreign registered vessels in International Waters, and some say this is a violation of International Maritime Law whilst Australia excuses itself by citing National Security concerns.

No, I'm sorry Paphitis. It is not like that at all. 'National security' concerns do not trump international law. If Aus' wants to take an action in international waters then it has sought to legitimise by invoking some instrument of law, either treaty or multilateral. What it has not done is an Israel. This is what is different about Israel's repeated actions. Israel is effectively saying, I repeat, "this law or that law does not apply to us; it is subordinate to our political/security interests." Aus' and most other govts. effectively say this law does apply to us how can we legitimately get round it or effectively interpret it. To do that requires disputes and disputed readings of the law to be adjudicated in a court not resolved through the barrel of a gun Israeli-style.

Australia invokes it's unilateral right to protect it's borders, and if that ain't good enough, well the International Community will need to apply UN resolutions and sanctions. If this does not occur, then Australia can do whatever it likes to protect itself from illegal immigration and or terrorism.

As far as I know, there is only a unilateral Federal Law which permits Australia intercepting ships in International Waters. There is no multinational treaty or international legal instrument which allows Australia to circumvent International Maritime Law.

Australia uses similar methods to the IDF, and so far we have been fortunate enough to not experience much trouble.

Therefore, I can understand the IDFs reasoning and actions. 5 other ships were also boarded and not a single person was killed.

[Gasman]

That fact is so obvious that it is hard to believe that the "pro-Israel" lobby is using it as an indictment.

Of course the goal of the flotilla was to break the blockade.

Yes and I am amazed that so many here seem not to have been aware of the intentions of the Flotilla until after this mayhem.

It was well publicised in advance. Their intentions were well known.

If people felt strongly that they should not have been protesting in this way - why didn't they raise an outcry against it before it set off?

Or on previous occasions?