Gaza mercy ship seized by Israel

July 2, 2009
Gaza mercy ship seized by Israel

by David Masters


Israeli forces have kidnapped 21 human rights workers who were attempting to take medicines and aid to Palestinians in Gaza.

The workers, from 11 different countries, were travelling into Gaza with the aid supplies aboard the Free Gaza Movement boat, the Spirit of Humanity, when the boat was attacked and boarded by the Israeli navy.

Among the 21 workers forcibly taken were Nobel Laureate Mairead Maguire and former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.

“This is an outrageous violation of international law against us,” said McKinney, a former US presidential candidate.

“Our boat was not in Israeli waters and we were on a human rights mission to the Gaza Strip.”

The ‘mercy ship’ has made a number of recent voyages to Gaza, including a recent trip taking European politicians to the region.

A report published this week by the International Committee of the Red Cross said Palestinians in Gaza are “trapped in despair”, with thousands still homeless in the aftermath of the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip in December and January.

Hospitals in Gaza are struggling to adequately treat patients, the report said, because Israel is disrupting the supply of medicines and medical equipment, despite demands from the Obama administration to let supplies in.

“President Obama just told Israel to let in humanitarian and reconstruction supplies and that’s exactly what we tried to do,” McKinney said.

“We’re asking the international community to demand our release so we can resume our journey.”

Mairead Maguire, winner of a Noble Peace Prize for her work in Northern Ireland, added: “The aid we were carrying is a symbol of hope for the people of Gaza, hope that the sea route would open for them, and they would be able to transport their own materials to begin to reconstruct the schools, hospitals and thousands of homes destroyed during the onslaught.

“Our mission is a gesture to the people of Gaza that we stand by them and that they are not alone.”

A total of eight UK nationals and residents were aboard the boat.

The British Foreign Office said it is aware of reports that the boat has been seized, and is working to establish the facts.

“We would be concerned if the stories of the Israeli Navy boarding the boat in international waters were true,” a Foreign Office spokeswoman said.

“We have made it clear to Israel that we are very concerned for the safety of British nationals.”

http://www.interfaith.org/2009/07/02/gaza-mercy-ship-seized-by-israel/

Israel Plans to Deport Gaza-Bound Boat Passengers

Israel plans to deport former U.S. lawmaker and Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney and 20 other human rights activists who were aboard a relief boat seized by an Israeli naval ship Tuesday after it refused to stay away from an Israeli blockade of Gaza.

Authorities took the activists to Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv where they await deportation, according to a news report in Israel.

McKinney, a longtime advocate for Palestinians, said her Greek-flagged boat, the Spirit of Humanity, was carrying medical supplies, cement, olive trees and children's toys to Gaza when it was intercepted by the Israeli navy.

The Free Gaza Movement organized the trip for the activists who hail from different countries, including Ireland, Britain and Bahrain.

"They simply kidnapped the passengers," FGM founding member Greta Berlin told Ynet news, an online publication based in Israel. "I call on the Israeli occupation forces to release our people immediately. It's funny. What are they going to do? Deport us? The last place we wanted to reach was Israel."

The Israeli military issued a statement Tuesday saying that the boat had attempted to break a blockade of Gaza and was forced to sail to an Israeli port after ignoring a radio message to stay out of Gaza waters.

The statement said navy personnel boarded the freighter Arion without any shots being fired, an those on board were to be handed over to immigration authorities. Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said Israel was planning to free the crew and passengers.

"Nobody wants to the keep them here," he said. 'They will be released as soon as they are checked."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) urged President Obama to demand the release of the activists.

"Our government must take action to protect the right of American citizens to provide humanitarian relief to those suffering under an inhumane blockade," said Nihad Awad, the group's executive director. "We must not be complicit in the immoral and unjust siege placed on the people of Gaza."

It was the second time this year that Israel seized a relief boat carrying McKinney. In December, McKinney was among 16 people aboard a medical supply boat that collided with an Israeli naval ship as it tried to enter coastal waters around Gaza.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/01/reports-israel-plans-deport-cynthia-mckinney-seizing-gaza-bound-boat/

Can you imagine what would have happened if any other nation in the world had kidnapped a former US Congresswoman in such a way? Would their have been this silence from our President and his administration?

US Congresspersons only have immunity from breaking "travelling" Laws when they are in-route to perform their duty in Congress.

No law was broken, Sam.

Stephanie wrote:Can you imagine what would have happened if any other nation in the world had kidnapped a former US Congresswoman in such a way? Would their have been this silence from our President and his administration?

Israel has every right to preserve and protect itself just as any other soverign nation does. We have no business taking sides in the matter no matter who was aboard that ship. McKinney made the choice to be where she was and she now reaps the consequences of her choices.

The catch is that neither side, neither the Palastians or Isreal wants peace. There is nothing we are going to do to change their mindset. They have to do it themselves. Everytime we sit our nose in their affairs we make it worse.

Israel has every right to preserve and protect itself just as any other soverign nation does. We have no business taking sides in the matter no matter who was aboard that ship. McKinney made the choice to be where she was and she now reaps the consequences of her choices.

What threat did this mercy ship to Gaza and its unarmed passengers present to Israel?

ziggy wrote:

Israel has every right to preserve and protect itself just as any other soverign nation does. We have no business taking sides in the matter no matter who was aboard that ship. McKinney made the choice to be where she was and she now reaps the consequences of her choices.

What threat did this mercy ship to Gaza and its unarmed passengers present to Israel?

I have no idea. Mostlikely nor did they until they board the ship.

Once they boarded the ship and learned it was only carrying humanitarian aid, what right did the Israeli government have to hijack the ship and kidnap and detain the passengers? What threat did any of them, including former Representative McKinney pose then?

Stephanie wrote:Once they boarded the ship and learned it was only carrying humanitarian aid, what right did the Israeli government have to hijack the ship and kidnap and detain the passengers? What threat did any of them, including former Representative McKinney pose then?

I don't know if they posed any, other than aiding an enemy who has swore to remove Israel from the map. Be that as it may, it isn't our concern. Yes, we give aid to Israel and if you look at the Federal Budget we also give aid to the Palastinians. That is something we shouldn't do and I wise we didn't. This would be over and we wouldn't be having this discussion if we and the rest of world kept our noses out of the affair and let them settle it themselves.

By the way Stephanie, I'm neither pro Israel or pro Palastine. Both sides have done their share of atroscities, so neither is the innocent side. Speaking a "what if", if I had been the leader of Israel, I would have had the ship sunk, without regard to who was aboard. A message would have been sent tot he world that if they are going to aid the Palastinians they are going to face grave danger and it woudl have sent a message to the Palasitians that we mean business.

I'm a student of both the Roman art of war, General William Sherman, and Sun-Tzu. If you are going to fight, fight to accomplish two things, win quickly and decisively, and destory their will to desire to ever wage war again. That isn't accomplished by allowing busybodies to provide aid and comfort to your enemy.

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Once they boarded the ship and learned it was only carrying humanitarian aid, what right did the Israeli government have to hijack the ship and kidnap and detain the passengers? What threat did any of them, including former Representative McKinney pose then?

I don't know if they posed any, other than aiding an enemy who has swore to remove Israel from the map. Be that as it may, it isn't our concern. Yes, we give aid to Israel and if you look at the Federal Budget we also give aid to the Palastinians. That is something we shouldn't do and I wise we didn't. This would be over and we wouldn't be having this discussion if we and the rest of world kept our noses out of the affair and let them settle it themselves.

By the way Stephanie, I'm neither pro Israel or pro Palastine. Both sides have done their share of atroscities, so neither is the innocent side. Speaking a "what if", if I had been the leader of Israel, I would have had the ship sunk, without regard to who was aboard. A message would have been sent tot he world that if they are going to aid the Palastinians they are going to face grave danger and it woudl have sent a message to the Palasitians that we mean business.

I'm a student of both the Roman art of war, General William Sherman, and Sun-Tzu. If you are going to fight, fight to accomplish two things, win quickly and decisively, and destory their will to desire to ever wage war again. That isn't accomplished by allowing busybodies to provide aid and comfort to your enemy.

By what legal and moral authority would you have sunk an unarmed ship regardless of who was aboard?

Since when do medical supplies and crayons for children constitute aid and comfort to the enemy?

What other nation would we continue to provide aid to who continually interfer with Americans violating no law, American or international? That boat was not in Israeli waters, Cato. Those people weren't carrying weapons, they were carrying humanitarian supplies to children who have endured the trauma of war and the Israeli government knew that when they stopped that ship.

If we are going to use the cover of International Law to protect our nation and our people, Israel must be held accountable for these actions, and other crimes commited by the Israeli government against US citizens seeking to provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people.

The rules of blockade are somewhat complicated.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/running+a+blockade

Stephanie wrote: Those people weren't carrying weapons, they were carrying humanitarian supplies ........................

And just what was Cynthia McKinney doing on that boat?

Did she have to take a job as a stevedore to pay her bills?

.

And just what was Cynthia McKinney doing on that boat?

She was carrying a suitcase full of crayons.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Once they boarded the ship and learned it was only carrying humanitarian aid, what right did the Israeli government have to hijack the ship and kidnap and detain the passengers? What threat did any of them, including former Representative McKinney pose then?

I don't know if they posed any, other than aiding an enemy who has swore to remove Israel from the map. Be that as it may, it isn't our concern. Yes, we give aid to Israel and if you look at the Federal Budget we also give aid to the Palastinians. That is something we shouldn't do and I wise we didn't. This would be over and we wouldn't be having this discussion if we and the rest of world kept our noses out of the affair and let them settle it themselves.

By the way Stephanie, I'm neither pro Israel or pro Palastine. Both sides have done their share of atroscities, so neither is the innocent side. Speaking a "what if", if I had been the leader of Israel, I would have had the ship sunk, without regard to who was aboard. A message would have been sent tot he world that if they are going to aid the Palastinians they are going to face grave danger and it woudl have sent a message to the Palasitians that we mean business.

I'm a student of both the Roman art of war, General William Sherman, and Sun-Tzu. If you are going to fight, fight to accomplish two things, win quickly and decisively, and destory their will to desire to ever wage war again. That isn't accomplished by allowing busybodies to provide aid and comfort to your enemy.

By what legal and moral authority would you have sunk an unarmed ship regardless of who was aboard?

Since when do medical supplies and crayons for children constitute aid and comfort to the enemy?

The waging of war is not a moral or legal issue. Despite what many want to think war canot be fought in a sanitary manner. Innocent people get hurt and killed. In the heat of battle what is legal or moral is irrelevent. The only thing that matters is defeating one's enemy. You and those people like you want war to be more like a gentleman's game. The catch is that it isn't. As I said, if I were the leader of Israel, I would have sunk the ship since it was providing aid and comfort to my enemy.

The United States has entered a number of conflicts with no intention of fighting to win. Viet Nam was one, Korea another, then Iraq twice and Afganistan. We've allowed ourselves to fight a moral and clean war, whihc in the end has done little but get alot of Americans killed or wounded. This whole mess would have been over and done, had our leaders fought the thing to win with the goals to a quick decivie victory and the breaking of the enemy's will to fight.

Just wondering willie how much you have studied Sun-Tzu and Sherman.

What do you think Sherman would have done if he was Commander-in-Chief of the IDF after the June 67 war?

I think I know, but just wonder if we agree.

Your answer would be just peachy-keen if our government stayed the hell out of it, Cato. What the people aboard these mercy ships are doing is trying to draw attention to the plight of the innocent victims of Israeli oppression being financed and condoned by their governments.

You want to know why so many Muslims hate us? You think it's because the Koran tells them to hate Christians? You think it's because they fear their sons and daughters will be infected by the promiscuity of western culture? They don't hate us because we're free. They hate us because we've been sticking our nose in their business for 50 years.

The Taliban doesn't exist because of Christianity. Those young Jihadists from the Middle East aren't blowing themselves up because Madonna gyrates around in a teddy on MTV or because of the sexual revolution in America or because the Beatles sang, "no one will be watching us, why don't we do it in the road?" Mothers aren't willing to sacrafice their children because we have some remnants of liberty. They are doing these things because we have been actively engaged in telling them how to run their nations all the while spending billions of dollars arming and funding a theocracy that turned so many of their brothers and sisters into permanent refugees.

Cynthia McKinney has my respect and admiration because she has demonstrated unbelievable courage. I wish I were half as brave.

Cato wrote:The waging of war is not a moral or legal issue. Despite what many want to think war canot be fought in a sanitary manner. Innocent people get hurt and killed. In the heat of battle what is legal or moral is irrelevent. The only thing that matters is defeating one's enemy. You and those people like you want war to be more like a gentleman's game. The catch is that it isn't. As I said, if I were the leader of Israel, I would have sunk the ship since it was providing aid and comfort to my enemy.

The United States has entered a number of conflicts with no intention of fighting to win. Viet Nam was one, Korea another, then Iraq twice and Afganistan. We've allowed ourselves to fight a moral and clean war, whihc in the end has done little but get alot of Americans killed or wounded. This whole mess would have been over and done, had our leaders fought the thing to win with the goals to a quick decivie victory and the breaking of the enemy's will to fight.

Thh United States has agreed that are lines you don't cross in war Cato and one of them is you don't sink civilian supply boats, medical boats or ships carrying humitarian aid.

You're also wrong on the war's you mentioned. Harry Truman was responsible for getting us involved in both Korea and Vietnam and in both cases, his object was to thawrt the spread of communism across Asia.

Truman said as much.

On Saturday 24 June 1950, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson telephonically informed President Harry S. Truman, “Mr. President, I have very serious news. The North Koreans have invaded South Korea.” Truman and Acheson discussed a US invasion response with defence department principals, who agreed that the United States was obligated to repel military aggression, paralleling it with Adolf Hitler's 1930s aggressions, and said that the mistake of appeasement must not be repeated. President Truman acknowledged that fighting the invasion was pertinent to the American global containment of communism:

"Communism was acting in Korea, just as Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese had ten, fifteen, and twenty years earlier. I felt certain that if South Korea was allowed to fall Communist leaders would be emboldened to override nations closer to our own shores. If the Communists were permitted to force their way into the Republic of Korea without opposition from the free world, no small nation would have the courage to resist threat and aggression by stronger Communist neighbors."

President Truman announced that the US would counter "unprovoked aggression" and "vigorously support the effort of the [UN] security council to terminate this serious breach of peace." In Congress, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Omar Bradley warned against appeasement, saying that Korea was the place "for drawing the line" against communist expansion. In August 1950, the President and the Secretary of State easily persuaded the Congress to appropriate $12 billion to pay for the additional Asian military expenses essential to the goals of National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68), the American global containment of communism.

After years of conflict in Korea and Truman's threat of using atomic weapons and years of war in Europe and Asia, Ike was determined to bring peace to American forces so he signed India's proposed Koran War Armistice on behalf to the US and the ROK.

In Vietnam, after the battle of la Drang, President Johnson sent Sec of Defense McNamara to Vietnam to interview the primary leaders and to come back with a recommendation of what the US should do.

When McNamara came back, he told Johnson that the US could not win in Vietnam and there was 2 choices. Either pull out of Vietnam or increase troops for an indefinate time and live with the losses, projected to be 1000 per month until a stalemate could be reached as in Korea.

Fearing that pulling out would send the wrong message to cold war allies and embolden communist leaders in Asia, Johnson chose to increase troops and escalated the war.

In both cases, the ONLY way we could have “fought the thing to win with the goals to a quick decisive victory and the breaking of the enemy's will to fight” would have been to drop nuclear weapons, at which point we would have faced retaliation strikes from the Soviet Union.

In both Korea and Vietnam, the primary objective was to thwart the spread of communism and in both cases, that primary result was achieved.

In Desert Storm, Bush I built a coalition to drive Iraq out of Kuwait and that's exactly what he did. Upon completion of that mission, he withdrew American troops as he said he would.

Aaron wrote:
Thh United States has agreed that are lines you don't cross in war Cato and one of them is you don't sink civilian supply boats, medical boats or ships carrying humitarian aid.

I have spoke on what I would do, which is playing armchair general and that is easy.

That being said, I am a student of Sun-Tzu, the Romans, and Genernal William T. Sherman. I bleieve that when one fights an enemy, there should be no mercy, and all in one's power should be brought to bear to accomplish to things, 1.) a QUICK and DECISIVE victory, and 2.) Break the enemy's will to ever wage war again. The second really being the m ost important.

War is not a gentleman's sport, with rules and it should never be fought that way. War cannot be fought or even thought of in a manner of being sanitary. All that accomplishes is prolonging a war, along with the suffering it causes. War cannot be fought by just killing the bad guy, either. War is going to cause collateral damage and death. That fact needs to be faced.

We've seen, during the Bush Adminsitration, the result of fighting a war where we've tried to keep blood off our hands. We've been at war for 8 years and are no further ahead than the day we began, other than giving the Jihadists a propaganda weapon that they have used quite effectively.

Though we can only guess at how this would have turned out, but imagine if Bush had waded into Afganistan, with one goal, the death of bin Laden and his associates, no matter haw many civilians were killed along with them. what about the Arab world's reaction to Bush using all the means at his disposal to accomplish his goal. I wonder if we would still be facing the Jihadists today, if they and the nations that support them were aware and had seen swift and horrible retaliation for acts of terror. We'll never know. What we do know is what we have do thus far as only drug out fighting that now appears it well never end.

Aaron wrote:

You're also wrong on the war's you mentioned. Harry Truman was responsible for getting us involved in both Korea and Vietnam and in both cases, his object was to thawrt the spread of communism across Asia.

Truman said as much.

And I didn't say otherwise. The point was and still is that it doesn't appear we went in to to accomplish the tiems I point to earlier, decisisve and quick victory and breaking their will to wage war.

sodbuster wrote:Just wondering willie how much you have studied Sun-Tzu and Sherman.

What do you think Sherman would have done if he was Commander-in-Chief of the IDF after the June 67 war?

I think I know, but just wonder if we agree.

I have read Sun-Tzu's book "The Art of War" and I agree with much of what he says. Especially, when he says the best way to win a war is to avoid fighting it. That is howscome, Sherman, I argue as I do for unrestricted warfare. War cannot ever be made or allowed to be considered an acceptable method of policy. War has to be made so horrible and distructive that it is never ever considered a viable alternative of foreign policy, not even by the most evil of leaders.

Based on a statement he made when asked about his march through Georgia, I think he would have destoryed as much of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt as possible. Gen. Sherman made the statement that he did what he did because he didn't want to have to do it again in a few years. His purpose was to break the South's will to wage war. He was quite successful at it.

Aaron wrote:Fearing that pulling out would send the wrong message to cold war allies and embolden communist leaders in Asia, Johnson chose to increase troops and escalated the war.

In both cases, the ONLY way we could have “fought the thing to win with the goals to a quick decisive victory and the breaking of the enemy's will to fight” would have been to drop nuclear weapons, at which point we would have faced retaliation strikes from the Soviet Union.

Aaron, and just how or why did anyone figure that pulling out of the War in Nam ….. or … dropping nuclear weapons in Nam would embolden communist leaders in Asia …… but increasing troops and escalating the war would not embolden said communist leaders?

That sounds like pacifist talk coming out of both sides of their mouth.

Don’t be forgetting, Aaron, a sorta “quick decisive victory” in Germany was averted and the War extended for several months with hundreds more US and allied personnel killed and wounded just because they cut Patton’s gasoline supply off just so Montgomery could claim part of the fame and to give the Soviet troops time to get to Berlin.

No one in authority thought the Soviet Union would react if we dropped nukes on Nam, it was the Chinese that were supplying the Viet Cong. And no one in authority thought the Chinese would react either. And the reason being, if either the Soviets or the Chinese jumped in to retaliate with nuclear devices …….. the other one would do the same to them.

And the reason being, it was currently a stalemate between the “Big 3” and if only two (2) of them got into a nuclear fracas then the winner of said would have been so beaten up and weary that the 3rd one could then have entered the nuclear fracas ….. and “won all the marbles” with little effort, expense or loss of lives.

The lefty pacifists who don’t think the US should get involved in the “warring problems” in or between other countries sure are quick at expressing a different opinion if it involves something like an Ebola outbreak in Africa.

Johnson's reasoning was that if he pulled out of Vietnam, communist leaders in other countries would see America as weak and indecisive and go after other countries.

I've always said that Vietnam was nothing more then a proxy war that could have just as easily been fought in several countries in Europe but that would have led to full scale war between the USSR and the US.

And I agree with what Cato is saying about waging war but in both Korea and Vietnam, the primary objective, as Truman said, was to thwart the spread of communism.

As for dropping nukes, that was the only way we were going to win decisively as Cato described in either place, after Truman, that wasn't acceptable to American leaders as they knew it would lead to retaliatory strikes.

Cato wrote:
That being said, I am a student of Sun-Tzu, the Romans, and Genernal William T. Sherman. I bleieve that when one fights an enemy, there should be no mercy, and all in one's power should be brought to bear to accomplish to things, 1.) a QUICK and DECISIVE victory, and 2.) Break the enemy's will to ever wage war again. The second really being the m ost important.

War is not a gentleman's sport, with rules and it should never be fought that way. War cannot be fought or even thought of in a manner of being sanitary. All that accomplishes is prolonging a war, along with the suffering it causes. War cannot be fought by just killing the bad guy, either. War is going to cause collateral damage and death. That fact needs to be faced.

We've seen, during the Bush Adminsitration, the result of fighting a war where we've tried to keep blood off our hands. We've been at war for 8 years and are no further ahead than the day we began, other than giving the Jihadists a propaganda weapon that they have used quite effectively.

Though we can only guess at how this would have turned out, but imagine if Bush had waded into Afganistan, with one goal, the death of bin Laden and his associates, no matter haw many civilians were killed along with them. what about the Arab world's reaction to Bush using all the means at his disposal to accomplish his goal. I wonder if we would still be facing the Jihadists today, if they and the nations that support them were aware and had seen swift and horrible retaliation for acts of terror. We'll never know. What we do know is what we have do thus far as only drug out fighting that now appears it well never end.

I agree on how we should fight a war and what we should do. But that's not going to happen and the reason is simple. The face of war changed with TV. We didn't see it much in Korea but we did in Vietnam. Had there been daily reports from the WW1 or 2 or from Sherman's march to Savannah, those back home would have lost the stomach to fight the war, just as they did in Iraq and would have pressured out leaders to end the mindless bloodshed.

I also agree that we should have sent 3/4's of our military into Afghanistan and not come out until we had Bin Laden and then brought every one of our troops home.

Of course, if we hadn't been meddling around in the Middle East since the end of WW2, none of this would have happened to begin with.

But of course our meddling in the Middle East was preceded by our meddling in Europe. Had we never went to war in 1917, that wouldn’t have led to us going to war in 41 and we as a nation would have been much better off.

Now I understand that's all water under the bridge and we can't go back and change it. But we can change how we act in the future and one of the things we as a nation should stop doing is playing both sides of the fence as we are doing with Israel and Palestine

If we're going to recognize Israel as a nation state, then we should recognize Palestine as a free and sovereign state as well and we certainly shouldn't be giving either side the money and support to kill each other that we do. We need to but out and let them resolve their own conflicts, which predated America by about 4000 years.

Personally, I think it's time we pull our troops home and let the rest of the world police themselves but that’s just me.

Aaron wrote:Personally, I think it's time we pull our troops home and let the rest of the world police themselves but that’s just me.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Cato