Would anyone feel like we weren’t all reaping exactly what we’ve sown? Or that it was at all unfair? I cant imagine newscasters would be analyzing “why did they attack us?”

Are you being coy? I would bet my life savings that the majority of Americans would feel unjustly attacked, that it was unfair, and every news station would be drumming up support for a military conflict. Pro-Gaza support in the US would disappear overnight (either silenced or fear of being silenced), Pro-Israel support would multiply, and the US would be flying drones down Gaza and the West Bank.

Remember that when 9/11 happened the US had been meddling in the Middle East for well over a decade already and had meddled with the Israel-Palestine conflict plenty. When 9/11 happened a majority of the world jumped on the side of the US. It’s possible that if another attack occurred it wouldn’t play out the same way (most likely because of Trump), but my guess is that it would.

I honestly can’t disagree with this. The UN is functionally useless and any effort on their part is wasted. The veto power of the permanent members makes it difficult to actually pass anything and even if they do pass the member states don’t really have to implement it back home.

The UN reminds me of the US under the Articles of Confederation, basically a toothless paper tiger. What doesn’t help is that the UN has passed quite a lot of resolutions and conventions which make basically any sort of conflict illegal and then admitted a bunch of countries which are actively opposed to each other. Admission to the UN should have been a lot more like the EU in my opinion, selective and binding.

Ok, I’m done with you. You’re either deliberately stupid or actually so. You seem to have no ability to engage in rationale debate and your ability to source and cite information is on a high school level. Go back to your echo chamber and enjoy the sound of your own voice.

The blockade is illegal

Sure, I’ll agree with that

the raid was illegal

No, it’s factually not, even the UN agreed.

activists has the right to self defense against the occupying force

They did not have the right to deny the IDF access to the ship. The UN Panel agreed.

https://ihh.org.tr/en/mavi-marmara

Why would you quote the event organizers as if they are a valid or unbiased source?

EDIT: Since you’re following me around I’ll just direct you to my final response to you

So because it is funded by the Israeli government it can’t be used? Did you actually look at the report? It includes pictures of the “activists” beating the soldiers as the rappel onto the ship, photos from Turkish Journalist Sefik Dinç, youtube videos uploaded by the “activists”, and pictures from the “activists” of the soldiers bleeding from their heads while the “activists” smile and hold them in place.

I mean, I’m all for calling out propaganda and looking at where information is coming from (that’s like 90% of what I do here), but when one side has pictures and videos that the other side provided I’m a bit inclined to believe them. I put a lot of skepticism in the interviews included in the report, but when the IDF says they were attacked by the “activists”, they provide pictures and videos taken by the “activists” attacking the soldiers, the Turkish government says that the “activists” attacked the soldiers, and the UN Panel that investigated it says that the “activists” attacked the soldiers… I don’t know, maybe it’s true and not just IDF propaganda?

Wow you are also using meir amit an israeli organization funded by israel terrorist government. You are exposing yourself here

I’m not going to reference or use anything from here because I assume most people will disregard it because it comes from an Israeli source

You really are a caricature aren’t you?

Here it is if you don’t believe me.. I referenced the quote 2 hours ago and in my post to you said I referenced it. You’re being obtuse.

No I didn’t? Why would I need to note it again when you literally just said it and then I said I had used the same quote? That is by definition noting it.

It’s interesting you used that quote because I also used it in another response. The difference is that you failed to note that the report activists took the weapons of the IDF and shot 2 of the soldiers and 7 other soldiers were injured. In case you want to read it yourself, that would be item 124 on page 57.

Interestingly I have found this report by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center which includes very detailed accounts of the attack including photos and soldier statements. I’m not going to reference or use anything from here because I assume most people will disregard it because it comes from an Israeli source. Either way, you should still check it out.

You made a lot of statements and a lot of questions at once, so I’ll try to split them up.

The occupation is illegal

Agreed

stop justifying the unjustifiable

Disagree?

there is a difference between occupied land and internationally recognized land administrated by a country

Agreed, the coastal waters off the coast of Israel are different than the dry land in Gaza

I don’t want to hear about it being surprising or not

I’m sorry?

I want to know if you think the death of the 9 activists was respecting international law

Yes, people were smuggling goods through the internationally recognized waters administered by Israel. When the IDF boarded the ship to stop the smuggling they were attacked by a group of the passengers. While unfortunate, it was legal to defend themselves. I will say that the IDF should have done more to prevent the escalation to the point that people didn’t get killed, but that would likely have required an even larger show of force.

This document expose all Israeli lies and you covering from them

This is an article by Amnesty International? I’ll take the UN Panel’s report which stated ““The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.””

Everybody is Hamas according to Israel

Not really a good answer. Interestingly the Palmer report does say specifically where in the Israeli report they document the connection to Hamas, but for the life of me I cannot find the actual report. If anyone finds it I’d be curious to read it.

This is a good response to my earlier question. Please note that my first post was about the assertion of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition that they had the right to run the blockade. When someone said that the blockade itself was illegal I asked for a source which you and they have provided.

You could make the argument that since the blockade is illegal then the right to defend it would be ceded, but I don’t think it works that way. Much like how if a cop illegally arrests you you still don’t have the right to resist arrest.

The UN Panel that investigated the 2010 incident said both that the loss of passenger lives on the IDFs fault was unacceptable (especially including shooting some of the dead multiple times or in the back) and that the treatment of the passengers was unacceptable.

That same panel also stated, “The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.”

I would argue that nothing I said is misinformation. My post said that the basis for much of the Freedom Flotilla Coalitions argument is based on the Freedom of Movement clause of the UN Law of the Sea Convention as they state in #1 on their own post. Their purpose for doing the blockade run is about the violation of international law for Collective Punishment, but the basis for which they believe they can challenge the the blockade is the UN Law of the Sea.

As I stated in my original post, they are smuggling goods inside of the Economic Exclusion Zone of Israel. When told to stop and yield to inspection they are claiming they don’t have to because of the UN Law of the Sea which is incorrect in this instance.

Since you referenced the UN Forum to investigate the 2010 flotilla incident, the UN panel in their report noted that

“It is clear to the Panel that preparations were made by some of the passengers on the Mavi Marmara well in advance to violently resist any boarding attempt. The description given in the Israeli report is consistent with passenger testimonies to the Turkish investigation that describe cutting iron bars from the guard rails of the ship, opening fire hoses, donning life or bullet proof vests and gas masks, and assuming pre-agreed positions in anticipation of an attack. Witness reports also describe doctors and medical personnel coordinating before the boarding in anticipation of casualties. Furthermore, video footage shows passengers wearing gas masks, life or bullet proof vests, and carrying metal bars, slingshots, chains and staves. That information supports the accounts of violence given by IDF personnel to the Israeli investigation”

“The Panel accepts, therefore, that soldiers landing from the first helicopter faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they descended onto the Mavi Marmara. Material before the Panel confirms that this group was armed with iron bars, staves, chains, and slingshots, and there is some indication that they also used knives. Firearms were taken from IDF personnel and passengers disabled at least one by removing the ammunition from it. Two soldiers received gunshot wounds. There is some reason to believe that they may have been shot by passengers, although the Panel is not able to conclusively establish how the gunshot wounds were caused. Nevertheless, seven other soldiers were wounded by passengers, some seriously.”

So, the Flotilla asserts that they have the right to freedom of movement by the Law of the Sea Convention, which they didn’t, and when the IDF boarded the ship they were violently attacked by “non-violent” activists.

You can phrase it how you want, but at the end of the day they are smuggling goods in an area internationally recognized as being under the control and jurisdiction of a country. Part of nonviolent civil disobedience is that you are breaking the law. I don’t think it’s good that activists get hurt, but it’s definitely not surprising.

In the incident a UN Panel found that the IDF boarded the Mavi Marmara and were met with resistance from ~40 of the passengers where were said to be armed with iron bars and knives.

The panel had this to state about the actions of the flotilla:

“However, the Panel seriously questions the true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, a coalition of non-governmental organizations. The leading group involved in the planning of the flotilla was the Turkish NGO “İnsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri Vakfı” (IHH), a humanitarian organization. It owned two of the ships; the Mavi Marmara and the Gazze I. There is some suggestion that it has provided support to Hamas, although the Panel does not have sufficient information to assess that allegation. IHH has special consultative status with ECOSOC, a status which in the Panel’s view raises a certain expectation with respect to the way in which it should conduct its activities.”

“Other elements also raise questions concerning the objectives of the flotilla organizers. If the flotilla had been a purely humanitarian mission it is hard to see why so many passengers were embarked and with what purpose. Furthermore, the quality and value of many of the humanitarian goods on board the vessels is questionable. There were large quantities of humanitarian and construction supplies on board the Gazze 1, Eleftheri Mesogeio and Defne-Y. There were some foodstuffs and medical goods on board the Mavi Marmara, although it seems that these were intended for the voyage itself. Any “humanitarian supplies” were limited to foodstuffs and toys carried in passengers’ personal baggage. The same situation appears to be the case for two other of the vessels: the Sfendoni, and the Challenger I. There was little need to organize a flotilla of six ships to deliver humanitarian assistance if only three were required to carry the available humanitarian supplies. The number of journalists embarked on the ships gives further power to the conclusion that the flotilla’s primary purpose was to generate publicity.”

“It should be noted that flotilla passengers specifically committed not to bring weapons on the journey. Neverthless, it is alleged that the IHH participants on board the Mavi Marmara included a “hardcore group” of approximately 40 activists, who had effective control over the vessel during the journey and were not subjected to security screening when they boarded the Mavi Marmara in Istanbul. The Turkish report refers to 42 volunteers who acted as “cleaning and maintenance personnel” who boarded the Mavi Marmara in Istanbul and asserts that these individuals were subject to security screening. The Panel notes in this regard that all participants agreed to follow the decisions of the IHH organizers during the voyage and that at least one witness described himself as working for IHH ‘like a security guard.’”

“Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation.”

So the event organizers had alleged ties to Hamas, there were 10 tonnes of supplies provided by the organizers but the only supplies intended for the Gazans was that which was brought by individual volunteers, and a core group of armed volunteers tried to resist the IDF when they boarded. These were the UN’s findings.

Hey thanks for providing this, it actually answers the question. For those who didn’t read through this, the main International Laws Israel is accused of violating are:

• Human Rights violations - Israel is a member state of the UN and as such the UN asserts that Israel must follow the laws set forth. In reality Israel has been a signatory on 9/18 human rights treaties. (EDIT: Specifically Collective Punishment.)

• Invading a UN recognized State - Palestine was recognized in 1988 and is considered part of the UN. Israel occupying Palestine is tantamount to a violation of International Law.

I started this post and then had to step away and by the time I got back I had a bunch of responses, but you were the first.

What’s really disappointing is that I just made my Lemm.ee account because Lemmy.One had announced they were closing down. Kinda disheartening to make a new account only for the new instance to also shutdown.

Can you provide anything to support that assertion?

Removed by mod

Honest to god, when this happened I expected helicopters with machine guns overhead within 15 min. I watched the whole thing expecting to see a sudden blood bath. I had been to the White House and been told stories about how there were snipers on the roof, how crazy people had jumped the fence and been taken down. When the police barricade fell, people with tactical gear were swarming the halls of congress, and congress members were taking shelter in bunkers I was certain that we were going to see a radical military response unseen before.

Instead there was nothing. The USA died 1/20/2021.