The IDF was a model of restraint.

Based on the information I have recieved. Which by the way started a lot earlier than for the rest of you when I took the call from one of my contacts. Here is something from an unnamed international journalist.

We’re at war with Hamas, and Iranian controlled and fundedgroup whose stated aim is the extermination of a member state of the UN. These people were attempting to bring unknown and uninspected material to that enemy, through a declared military blockage. They attacked troops sent to enforce that blockade. What is their status under international laws relating to conflict?

Indeed this is a good question. What is not being reported is that both Israel AND Egypt – yes thats right Egypt has also blocaked the area because Hammas are a bunch of murdering nutjobs who slaughtered their way throught Fattah to take control of Gaza – offered to have the “aid landed at their ports and delivered from there after inspection. In fact the Israeli navy have been kind enough to SHOW you what they did. The flotilla of terror as its now being known reacted with non-compiance. The reaction from those on the warship is muted but tells you enough that they did not seek a confrontation.

Now I live in a country where we stop ships every other day of the week in our territiorial waters and will impund your ship if you have the wrong number of fish on board or don’t have the right paper work. These ships, with declared hostile intent, had refused inspection, refused cooperation with the lawful authroity and attmepted to repell a lawfull boarding of their ships is sorvrign territorial waters. I dare you tell me that New Zealand would have gone freaken apeshit in those circumstance.

In fact if you watch the video you might get an idea of what they were met with. My personal opinion is that had I been in command of one of the boarding parties I would have withdrawn and requested fire support. A couple of torpedoes being my recomendation. But these are Jews so a different set of rules applies. again I quote my source:

The sheer hypocrisy is what gets me. All these countries that are yelling at Israel would hve done the same or a lot worse if something similar was aimed at them.

Try thinking about the actual situation and apply it to your own country before you just buy into the usual media hysteria. Laws were broken and an aggrssive attempt was made to run a lawful blocakde after options for delivery of “aid” had been offered by two countries. All i can say is they were bloody lucky that only ten were killed. Most other countries would have been a lot less restrained. North Korea for example.

Its called a war for a bloody reason.

Once again I marvel at the professionalism and restrait of the IDF who all know damn well that regardless of what they do they will be accused of a masacre.


5 Responses to The IDF was a model of restraint.

  1. mikenz says:

    I think the Israelis have been too accommodating and humanitarian in their behaviour.
    The convoy were told clearly they were breaking a lawful blockade.

  2. Milhouse says:

    Point of fact: it wasn’t in Israel’s “sovereign territorial waters”. Not that that makes the slightest difference under the law of the sea, but let’s get the details right.

  3. Murray says:

    It is when they’ve declared an exlusion zone.

    Same as NZ has done. Either that or MAF is committing piracy.

    the owner is the guy who controls it. Thats the IDF.

  4. Milhouse says:

    A blockade zone isn’t the same thing as territorial waters. Usually powers engaged in a naval war are not right next door to each other, and of course a blockade is conducted near the enemy’s shore, not near ones own. E.g. the British blockade of France in WW0 (aka the Napoleonic Wars) took place in French and international waters, not in British ones. Ditto for the US blockade of Cuba; it took place in international waters, not in US ones.

    One way in which this matters is that the blockading power’s laws do not apply in the exclusion zone; Israeli forces searching ships can confiscate any weapons or other proscribed material, but if they see someone shooting up they can’t do anything about it. Nor can they confiscate any pr0n that would be illegal in Israel (not that there’s much that would qualify…).

    I actually have a personal anecdote about someone who made a mistake similar to yours: When flying from Canada to the USA, one goes through US customs and immigration at the Canadian airport, before heading to the gates and boarding ones plane. That way the planes enter the USA as domestic flights, and can land anywhere. It’s a convenient arrangement for all concerned.

    So one day I was flying from Montreal to New York, and when filling in my US customs declaration wrote that I was not bringing any food into the USA. Now perched right on top of my shoulder bag, with no attempt at concealment, was a sandwich and a bag of cherries; these were my breakfast, which I intended to eat in the gate lounge while waiting for the plane. The customs officer looked at my form, looked at my bag, and accused me of perjuring myself on the form. I explained that I wasn’t bringing the food into the USA, because I was going to eat it while still in Canada. He insisted that I was entering US territory now, and that everything beyond that point, including all the gate lounges, were part of the USA, not of Canada. I told him he was wrong, and asked him “Suppose I were to kill someone in the airport; would I be tried under Quebec law or that of some US state? Or suppose I were to have sex with someone who is of age under Quebec law but not under the laws of any US state; would I have committed a crime?”.

    The clod, of course, had no answer, and went through my stuff with a fine-toothed comb trying to find something to charge me with. In the end he had no choice but to let me go, while still maintaining that he would be within his rights to charge me with perjury. (He didn’t confiscate the food, though.)

  5. Murray says:

    The fact that the waters were full of the Royal Navy made them British “territorial waters”.

    If the IDF choses to park a Merkava on it then its Israel until they chose to leave or someone works out how to take it off them.

    Anything else is an artifical contsruct designed to alter reality by those on the recieving end of it. You can’t own what you can’t hold.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: