you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 358 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (70 children)

EDIT: Kidnapping. The word you're ignoring in the title is kidnapping.

  • source
  • hideshow 70 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    What would you call intercepting someone in international waters and taking them back to your country without their consent? If Somali pirates did that you'd have no qualms using the word 'kidnapped'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Can't really agree with you on this one. I would welcome and fight for more people doing the right thing for personal benefit. Seems a lot better than the current circumstances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Yes. The only tatoo idea I have for myself involves dice, chains, and the words "Let's tempt Fate." While I would prefer an ideal situation, it's taking too long. I will support any act that brings aid, supplies, or more notoriety to the plight of Gaza. Even Al-Capone had a soup kitchen for the hungry Chicagans of the Great Depression.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Can you please elaborate on that connection from your perspective. I imagine there must be some context I am overlooking.

    Willful ignorance of atrocities does not have any chance of stopping or slowing them. Source: Russian Gulags, North Korea, US native women murders/trafficking, Auschwitz.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Ahh yes, because that solves the bystander effect which is why Kitty Genovese did not die from being stabbed in 1964. Also why the Uvalde police are heros for not participating in that school shooting. /s

    You still haven't explained any of your reasoning, so I will assume it is in bad faith.

    Finally, your quote is about interpersonal conflict, not violence and murder. Mr. Dyer was a therapist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    You saying "In bad faith" = i cant meaningfully disagree with you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    You saying “In bad faith” = i cant I am not trying to meaningfully disagree with you

    You can prove it's in good faith by explaining your resoning. i.e. How is it worse, specifically? How will they possibly "sort their own mess out"?

    If you don't want to, that's fine. Spouting empty platitudes is all I've read the past two responses. Any more will be met with shitposts by me to match your energy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    She was kidnapped then released while other are still in jail for doing nothing illegal

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (38 children)

    When the UN doesn’t stop the Israeli’s from declaring it a conflict zone. It’s technically not kidnapping. Just like how the US abducted people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (37 children)

    No. They never entered anywhere Israel is legally allowed to exclude even in war It being full of aid and verifiable non combatants.

    It's kidnapping.

    Just like how the US abducted people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Your example is also kidnapping but even excluding that bit of nuance the key word is "in" they never entered territorial waters and thus were never "in" Israel or Palestine. Israel can declare 1500mi of the coast of Somalia an exclusion zone then kidnap people there and that would make just as much sense in a legal view.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    It's not like Israel boarded a ship that just happened to be in the area,

    That's exactly what happened, blockade borders have to be announced and ships have to be allowed time to leave the area. Israel left their blockade and kidnapped people aboard a ship they did not allow to leave an area they weren't in.

    these freedom flotilla yahoos very publicly declared they were bound for Gaza, which under Maritime Law permits Israel to board it.

    Once they breach the blockade yes arguably though with only aid that gets more complex. Essentially aid entry is allowed so long as you agree to security arrangements that are both reasonable and lawful. That could mean Israel could board and search, or doesn't mean they can blockade all aid to starve a population which is specifically and in multiple very very illegal.

    https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/blockade

    Their sources section is awash with good relevant information and specifically findings on the last Israeli famous Israeli blockade and subsequent boarding (and death of iirc 9) which was found to be a legal blockade so long as the purpose was not starvation and aid could enter with security arrangements.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    Correct to an extent, the accepted meaning is that they must agree to security measures to pass through. It is not and never has been a way to willfully prevent aid and aide staff into combat zones.

    They weren't in a blockaded zone as far as I'm aware, Israel only says they were approaching and providing intented destination as you must when attempting to pass through a blockade.

    Even ignoring that they must be allowed to leave even if they enter the blockaded area without permission, it isn't a seize your property and imprison your crew for being in the general area openly providing intent kinda thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Correct, they hadn't entered the area yet though so they technically heeded their warning.

    Stolen, if you take something from someone and dispense it as your own you're guilty of theft and conversion something they say Hamas does with aid. And moreover delivering aid doesn't negate the whole unlawful boarding, seizure and forcible human trafficking thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    You do actually. They need pc for arrest, they need reasonable articulable suspicion to detain, your simply confusing or conflating the two. Similarly a police officer needs jurisdiction, Israel doesn't have jurisdiction outside of the blockade or territorial waters.

    To run a blockade you actually need to enter it, at anchor in international water after declaring your intent is quite literally the textbook reaction to a blockade and specifically to enter one legally.

    Israel also says it's ok to run over people with tanks so maybe Israel is full of shit and you should trust third parties over the most active belligerent. FYI Hitler tried to say invading Poland for security reasons was legal, turns out no but Israel decided to quite literally pull a Hitler.

    Stop cucking for authoritarians bud.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Keywords warship and belligerent. They're neither a belligerent nor is it a warship.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    visit and search all merchant vessels

    A. Where do you see detain, seize, kidnap and deportation from a state they never intended to enter? Nowhere? Because it isn't legal.

    B. Yes Israel is the warship. No they're a humanitarian ship which is specifically allowed by international law so long as they agree to security measures like..... A visit and search. As an aside a merchant is involved in commerce ie. Trade. Humanitarians are the ideological antithesis of Marchants.

    C. You seem to think they can exert a total blockade which is illegal, your own source cites the 2019 decision that the 2019 blockade was legal specifically because it did not bar aid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Combatants and neutral ships that breach exclusion, again Israel isn't even claiming that's what happened so why are you?

    I'm not because they haven't, there's a man made famine at the moment hence all the starving children.

    USCG merchant definition:

    The term "commercial vessel" is defined by the United States Coast Guard as any vessel (i.e. boat or ship) engaged in commercial trade or that carries passengers for hire.

    It is not involved in trade nor available for hire. You should read once ever.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    they very publicly declared they were bound for a blockaded port.

    Not illegal.

    which under Maritime Law permits Israel to board it.

    Not detain and seize, maritime law is very specific in that a blockade cannot block aid unreasonably. A super famous ship you've searched that's filled solely with celebrities and aid is something you shouldn't turn away so long as they accept security arrangements like boarding and searching. This isn't star wars nor are they the trade union and total blockades like your implying are very illegal as defined by the law you're sourcing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Israel extends an empty gesture they have no intention of actually doing hence all the aid not coming in. Similarly even in a blockade aid is specifically allowed or the blockade is illegal, seizing an aid ship and deporting is crew is strong evidence it's an illegal blockade which is why they allowed all this to happen. It's gotta get to court somehow and doing this to white celebrities is bound to get more traction then some other group attempting the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    So Israel claims, they also claim they aren't murdering people and yet there's these piles of murdered people all over the place.

    It’s a political stunt, not about actually delivering aid effectively.

    Correct! The thing they announced was to draw attention and test it the blockade was legal in court like was done in 2019 was indeed to do exactly that! That said if you didn't know in 2019 they boarded a ship and murdered 9 people it's quite lucky nothing similar happened this time.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Maritime Law (the oldest of international law)

    Source?

    freedom flotilla yahoos [...] doing things that will hurt your feelings. [...] sovcit [...] pretend

    Ew.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    A. The first quoted section is providing past practice not current.

    B. They weren't suspected of carrying contraband, they were boarded and none was found and yet their property was seized and they were then trafficked through multiple countries against their will.

    B². Point to where it says they could seize a ship and take it as prize that was not caught with contraband.

    C. Your second quoted section provides no relevant reason to capture a neutral humanitarian ship.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Doesn’t Israel delegate 200 miles off the coast as a no go zone?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Something like that but the important thing is Israel is not claiming they entered the exclusion zone and similarly they even if they did the result is supposed to be being forcibly turned away not kidnapping and property theft.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Notice you never said they did breach the blockade which btw by international law they have to be given time and allowed to leave even if they enter without permission which they didn't do nor is Israel claiming they did.

    Intercept and detain yes, board, seizur, deport and treat as their own... No because duh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    A. Jurisdiction. B. You're confusing ras with PC , you need pc for arrest you need ras to detain.

    Because they don't have to, they're well outside the blockade and Israel doesn't own the ocean.

    No, international law says a ship entering a blockade illegally can be boarded and detained after they've been given a chance to leave the area.... If they have to be given a chance to leave you can't steal their property and kidnap their crew, that's a crime.

    Read the law and don't double post the same thing to me please.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    They never entered an exclusion zone, Israel essentially said leave the region which is illegal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You just didn't read it.

    Your own source says visit and search, not capture and take as a prize, you'll notice that's reserved for combatant ships not neutrals outside of the exclusion zone.

    Similarly the source your source cites specifically and in multiple lays or that humanitarian aid is a different beast and indeed blocking aid makes a blockade illegal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    It is. Did their ship get to shore, are their doctors doing doctor things in hospital (tents) in Gaza? Journalists doing journalism on the ground? No? Then they are preventing aid. Blockades are for security, what security risk is it to Israel for these people to get there on a ship Israel themselves searched and found no contraband nor combatants? None?

    That's how a blockade works. You even sourced your own contradiction, the blockade *must" be maintained by force a blockade that isn't adequately enforced is not a blockade. You announce intention slow to boarding speed and make way to your destination until ordered to slow and be boarded to enter.

    Yes, Israel specifically has not accused them of that nor charged them with anything that could be construed as such.

    Can’t let civilians simply sail straight into a combat zone in a foreign country either.

    You yourself provided the source that says they can be boarded and searched, at no point does it say they can be barred entry nor taken as prize when on humanitarian mission.

    You'd cheer a hospital ship being seized, the doctors deported and they're supplies seized?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)