No Israel charge over Gaza ship raid

[webfact]

Gaza flotilla raid: No Israel charges over Mavi Marmara

(BBC) The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor says she will not take action over Israel's raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla in 2010 that killed nine Turkish activists.

Fatou Bensouda said despite "reasonable basis" to believe war crimes had been committed, the ICC had to prioritise larger-scale events.

Israel said the ICC had wasted time on a "politically motivated" complaint.

Lawyers who brought the case said they planned to appeal against the decision.

Ten Israeli soldiers were injured in the incident on the Turkish-owned ship Mavi Marmara as it attempted to breach a blockade of the Hamas-run territory.

It caused a deep rift between Israel and Turkey, who were former allies.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29934002


-- BBC 2014-11-07

[bigjules007]

now theres a surprise!!

[Ulysses G.]

A bunch of Turkish mercenaries and useful idiots try to violate a defensive military blockade and attack the soldiers that are enforcing it. Of course they got hurt. Much ado about nothing.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Seastallion]

" despite "reasonable basis" to believe war crimes had been committed, the ICC had to prioritise larger-scale events. "

Short-sighted. Obviously this will be appealed and the court will have to spend more time addressing that appeal and then likely (if the appeal is successful) even more time addressing the initial case. It wont just go away.

Sounds like the ICC needs more staff.

[RuamRudy]

now theres a surprise!!

At least the courts recognised that the Israeli action was in the realms of war crimes. Unfortunately I am sure that it would be naive to hope that the free world would hold the Israeli administration to account for its decades of brutality and repression of the Palestinian people.

[steven100]

did anyone expect anything different .....

[Seastallion]

did anyone expect anything different .....

Yes, I did.

The language is interesting; "reasonable basis to believe war crimes had been committed" while at the same time dismissing the case. It indicates that a case should be heard, but, perhaps because of "diplomatic matters", it can't be heard at this time. I am sure (despite my post above) that the judge knew full well an appeal will be lodged. It may even be a message from the judge for the prosecution to get it's ducks lined up properly and come back.

[Ulysses G.]

Of course the case was dismissed. What a waste of the court's recourses.

The panel's report said the commandos did face "significant, organised and violent resistance", requiring them to "use force for their own protection".

[RuamRudy]

Of course the case was dismissed. What a waste of the court's recourses.

The panel's report said the commandos did face "significant, organised and violent resistance", requiring them to "use force for their own protection".

Crack commandos so scared of activists seeking to alleviate state sponsored terrorism on a beleaguered people that they need to kill 9 of them?

As the article states, there is "reasonable basis" to believe war crimes had been committed.

Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

[Ulysses G.]

The "activists" were Turkish mercenaries that attacked the soldiers with steel pipes, metal chains and knives, before they boarded the ship. They got exactly what they were asking for.

[chuckd]

" despite "reasonable basis" to believe war crimes had been committed, the ICC had to prioritise larger-scale events. "

Short-sighted. Obviously this will be appealed and the court will have to spend more time addressing that appeal and then likely (if the appeal is successful) even more time addressing the initial case. It wont just go away.

Sounds like the ICC needs more staff.

Perhaps you could convince your Australian government to contribute funding to the ICC to take care of their staffing needs?

[johna]

The "activists" were Turkish mercenaries that attacked the soldiers with steel pipes, metal chains and knives, before they boarded the ship. They got exactly what they were asking for.

As usual UG, you have turned every thing upside down. The ship delivering aid was attacked in international waters by heavily armed Israeli soldiers, and the crew defended themselves with whatever came to hand.

No weapons were found on the ships, 9 innocent people were murdered.

[RuamRudy]

The "activists" were Turkish mercenaries that attacked the soldiers with steel pipes, metal chains and knives, before they boarded the ship. They got exactly what they were asking for.

State sanctioned terror in international waters. To be fair, these activists were delivering items that were banned by the Israeli government from entry into Gaza; terrorism related items such as: lentils, pasta, tomato paste, crayons, school books, footballs, toilet paper and many other diabolical objects.

Who knows what might have happened if the children of Gaza were able to get their school books. Thank God those brave, heavily trained and heavily armed commandos were able to shoot those 9 unarmed civilians in the head before a football ever reached the shore!

[chuckd]

You wanted charges filed.. You got charges filed and a judicial decision made on those charges

Now live with it.

The hysteria on here is astonishing at times.

[RuamRudy]

You wanted charges filed.. You got charges filed and a judicial decision made on those charges

Now live with it.

The hysteria on here is astonishing at times.

Life must be quite easy when you can be so blasé about apartheid in the 21st century. I just hope I am never able to turn my head and ignore such evil.

[Seastallion]

" despite "reasonable basis" to believe war crimes had been committed, the ICC had to prioritise larger-scale events. "

Short-sighted. Obviously this will be appealed and the court will have to spend more time addressing that appeal and then likely (if the appeal is successful) even more time addressing the initial case. It wont just go away.

Sounds like the ICC needs more staff.

Perhaps you could convince your Australian government to contribute funding to the ICC to take care of their staffing needs?

Are they not? If not, good point, and thanks for the advice. I should write a letter to my electorate MP.

[Ulysses G.]

The "activists" were Turkish mercenaries that attacked the soldiers with steel pipes, metal chains and knives, before they boarded the ship. They got exactly what they were asking for.

As usual UG, you have turned every thing upside down. The ship delivering aid was attacked in international waters by heavily armed Israeli soldiers, and the crew defended themselves with whatever came to hand.

No weapons were found on the ships, 9 innocent people were murdered.

Luckily, there is video footage to discredit those blatant lies. Otherwise, the soldiers that were simply defending themselves would surely have been charged.

[RuamRudy]

The "activists" were Turkish mercenaries that attacked the soldiers with steel pipes, metal chains and knives, before they boarded the ship. They got exactly what they were asking for.

As usual UG, you have turned every thing upside down. The ship delivering aid was attacked in international waters by heavily armed Israeli soldiers, and the crew defended themselves with whatever came to hand.

No weapons were found on the ships, 9 innocent people were murdered.

Luckily, there is video footage to discredit those blatant lies. Otherwise, the soldiers that were simply defending themselves would surely have been charged.

Did you not read the BBC report or do you simply refuse to acknowledge the fact the the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC suspects that war crimes were committed by the Israelis?

[Jimbolai]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Of course the case was dismissed. What a waste of the court's recourses.

The panel's report said the commandos did face "significant, organised and violent resistance", requiring them to "use force for their own protection".

Crack commandos so scared of activists seeking to alleviate state sponsored terrorism on a beleaguered people that they need to kill 9 of them?

As the article states, there is "reasonable basis" to believe war crimes had been committed.

Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

All the ships captain had to do was to take the ship to a designated port for inspection. He refused and was refused entry and put up a fight and lost. Turkey and the shipping company should pay damages to Israel.

You would demand no less in your country.

[RuamRudy]

The "activists" were Turkish mercenaries that attacked the soldiers with steel pipes, metal chains and knives, before they boarded the ship. They got exactly what they were asking for.

As usual UG, you have turned every thing upside down. The ship delivering aid was attacked in international waters by heavily armed Israeli soldiers, and the crew defended themselves with whatever came to hand.

No weapons were found on the ships, 9 innocent people were murdered.

Luckily, there is video footage to discredit those blatant lies. Otherwise, the soldiers that were simply defending themselves would surely have been charged.

They invaded a foreign flagged vessel in international waters and proceeded to commit, what the Hague considers to be, possible war crimes, but you still try to defend then. It says much about you.

[Ulysses G.]

"Possible war crimes" don't mean squat. They aren't being charged because they would not be convicted. The Hague needs to put up or shut up. There is a reason why they have had to back down.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[RuamRudy]

Of course there are reasons - it suits the republican agenda: it pump billions of dollars of taxpayers' money into the pockets of arms companies; it gives the US an ally in the middle east; and it is a further step along the road to satisfying the prophecies of the book of Revelations. Greed and fairytales continue to destroy the world.

[Lissos]

All the ships captain had to do was to take the ship to a designated port for inspection. He refused and was refused entry and put up a fight and lost.

Exactly.

[Ulysses G.]

I get it. The ICC was forced to back down and not charge anyone because of a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Seastallion]

All the ships captain had to do was to take the ship to a designated port for inspection. He refused and was refused entry and put up a fight and lost.

Exactly.

A flagged vessel in international waters has every right to resist boarding by pirates.'

How many ships in international waters can they attack and be allowed to get away with? This wasn't the first, but hopefully it will be the last, if the appeal succeeds (and it should) and the subsequent trial finds them guilty.

[Ulysses G.]

All the ships captain had to do was to take the ship to a designated port for inspection. He refused and was refused entry and put up a fight and lost.

Exactly.

A flagged vessel in international waters has every right to resist boarding by pirates.'

A pirate ship filled with mercenaries trying to run a defensive military blockade have the right to get boarded and shot, if they attack the men enforcing it - which is exactly what happened.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[japsportscarmad]

The "activists" were Turkish mercenaries that attacked the soldiers with steel pipes, metal chains and knives, before they boarded the ship. They got exactly what they were asking for.

As usual UG, you have turned every thing upside down. The ship delivering aid was attacked in international waters by heavily armed Israeli soldiers, and the crew defended themselves with whatever came to hand.

No weapons were found on the ships, 9 innocent people were murdered.

If it was in international waters the Crew could have legally killed all the Israeli terrorists when they boarded, as the captain has the right to defend his ship. They had no legal basis to board.

[japsportscarmad]

All the ships captain had to do was to take the ship to a designated port for inspection. He refused and was refused entry and put up a fight and lost.

Exactly.

A flagged vessel in international waters has every right to resist boarding by pirates.'

A pirate ship filled with mercenaries trying to run a defensive military blockade have the right to get boarded and shot, if they attack the men enforcing it - which is exactly what happened.

As usual your missing the point it was not a pirate ship? It was delivering aid to people starving to death by an illegal blockade targeting civilians! A war crime?

The ship was in international waters Israel had no legal right to board it, shame those on board were not better armed to defend against the terrorist attack that was carried out. However, hopefully next time there will be a proper risk assessment of likely pirate Israeli terrorists attacking and they will be better prepared to repel the borders.

Also to pre-empt your next comment the ships were carefully searched by the Pirates that boarded them and they found they were full of food clothes and medical supplies.

Edited November 7, 2014 by japsportscarmad

[japsportscarmad]

Of course the case was dismissed. What a waste of the court's recourses.

The panel's report said the commandos did face "significant, organised and violent resistance", requiring them to "use force for their own protection".

Crack commandos so scared of activists seeking to alleviate state sponsored terrorism on a beleaguered people that they need to kill 9 of them?

As the article states, there is "reasonable basis" to believe war crimes had been committed.

Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

All the ships captain had to do was to take the ship to a designated port for inspection. He refused and was refused entry and put up a fight and lost. Turkey and the shipping company should pay damages to Israel.

You would demand no less in your country.

He didn't need to take it anywhere he was in international waters, so the boarding was a breach of maritime law, like Somali Pirates to give a good example.

Are the Israelis settling the sea as well now.

Edited November 7, 2014 by japsportscarmad

[Ulysses G.]

As usual your missing the point it was not a pirate ship? It was delivering aid to people starving to death by an illegal blockade targeting civilians! A war crime?

As usual, the "point" is foolish. A defensive military blockade, to prevent supplies from reaching terrorists, is not illegal and the people of Gaza have an obesity problem. They are not starving. The Turkish mercenaries and useful idiots tried to run it and then attacked the soldiers enforcing the blockade. The Turkish pirates were killed in self defense as the court ruled.

The panel's report said the commandos did face "significant, organised and violent resistance", requiring them to "use force for their own protection".

Edited November 7, 2014 by Ulysses G.