Will this increase or decrease the likelihood of terrorist actions in America, Europe and the rest of the world?

If you were a member of a family murdered in this conflict, would you be seeking revenge?

Should Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert, be tried for war crimes if or when this conflict comes to an end?

What will the price of oil be in 4 weeks time?

And what do the police charge a criminal with if a crime has not been committed?

Intent

Intent is a crime. They weren't even intending to commit a crime. They were running an ILLEGAL blockade.

spot on peter ..... if a delivery driver carries a baseball bat in the cab and does not have ball to accompany, he is charged with carrying an offensive weapon, even though it may be totally innocent .... ditto, carrying loose change in a sock carries that risk .... if spiteful, carrying a bag of tools is the same

===========

anyway, all getting off the point as to whether or not this flotilla was gun running or totally innocent and just carrying humanitarian aid

Hays,

The police in the UK can arrest an individual, if they suspect a "crime" is going to be "committed". etc.

But they can't do it in international waters.

Another point is that after this action, even if the Israelis produce a Sherman tank and a nuclear missile from the hold of the boats, nobody will believe them.

I hope this "crazy" action with pressure from outside Israel will force all parties to sit down at the table and have respectful and meaningful negotiations regarding the rights of all the "peoples" in Gaza and Israel.

Haystack, you must be having a bad day, error follows error. You asked a question which was answered in the context it was asked.

Whilst I have reservations about the conduct / outcome of this boarding, I doubt we've seen anything yet and like the Dubai assasination will eventually be considered small spuds in the grand scheme of things.

The ships were in international waters ......... so they were in the wrong

And when are they going to admit to having weapons of mass destruction or do the UN have to send in inspectors.

http://www.techeye.net/business/silicon-valley-hires-tony-blair

Were is Tony Blair when we need a peace envoy ?

White House spokesman Bill Burton said the United States "deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries sustained" in the incident.
what a pathetic response from usa, but should one expect anything different - disgusting!

Get real.

these guys chose to deliberately run a naval blockade - they knew what they were getting into and they were up for a fight. The're just a bit pissed that they didn't get to choose the location and the timing of the confrontation. Would you be so up in arms if Israel had waited until they were in Israeli waters in daylight and there were more casualties?

gausie - is that aimed at me? .... if so, no logic and/or misdirected

ptholden
No, the answer was not implicit in the question. There is no criime for there to be intent. It wouldn't matter if the ships were full of arms. that is NOT a crime in international waters. Running an illegal blockade is NOT a crime. No cime therefore no intent. Shipping arms to Gaza is not even a crime.

"Would you be so up in arms if Israel had waited until they were in Israeli waters in daylight and there were more casualties?"

The Gaza strip coastline is sufficiently long (40Km or 25 miles) that the cargo could have been delivered to Gaza WITHOUT entering Israeli waters.

"As the meeting of the UN Security Council got under way in New York, diplomats said the draft text of a resolution called for condemnation of the operation, the immediate release of the impounded ships and for an international inquiry. "

That would indicate that the ships are being held illegally.

"It wouldn't matter if the ships were full of arms."

Don't be silly

Why can't arms be taken to Gaza? Israel doesn't have any restrictions on arms being delivered to them. I suppose we wouldn't want the inhabitants of Gaza to fight back while Israel is indulging in ethnic cleansing.

Don't be silly ........ again

Haystack

You claim that the flotilla were not attempting to enter Israeli territorial waters, but were going to sail through Gaza territorial waters. You illustrated your point with an out of context land map that shed no light on anything.

Gaza doesn't have territorial waters.

As diverse as the opinions about the mandate might be, the fact that Gaza is is a mandated territory and not a country remains. And therefore it has no territorial water.

After the disengagement Israel has pulled its ranks and civilians from the narrow strip of land, giving Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) the mandate over the territory.

During this entire affair, no marine territory was ever discussed, and the water strip which abuts Gaza belongs de facto to Israels territory.

When the flotillas claim that they are sailing over Gazan territory, they arent stating a fact - but are making up a term which doesnt exist to propagate their propaganda. And you've fallen for it.

Theyve now reshaped their story to the claim that the water strip abutting Gaza is international territory.

But a duck is a duck no matter how many names you call it, and the sordid fact is that truth is not on your side here.

Why is all this relevant given that the engagement took place on the open seas? I'm not sure it is - save that it demonstrates the intent of the flotilla to confront israeli warships in israeli waters. This means that the conflict was inevitable and reinforces the opinion that although Israel's unexpected response was outside the law it was pre-emptive and they clearly took the decision to begin the engagement at a time and place of their own choosing. Maybe they figured that a 4.30am engagement would be safer? I understand that's a commonly held view amongst western military strategists.

If they finally end up with a two state solution then the question of airspace and territorial waters will be resolved as part of the discussions - but until that time it might make more sense for flotillas to ship in boat loads of psychiatrists to try to deal with the hate, international terror, suicide bombers and rocket attacks that currently give the mandated territory its identity.

Israel rejects Middle East nuclear talks plan

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli leaders do not comment on the country's nuclear status

Israel says it will not take part in a conference aimed at achieving a nuclear-arms free Middle East, proposed at a UN meeting in New York.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10191339.stm

According to a maritime law expert from UCL on Radio 4 Today this morning if the blockade itself is legal, then interception on the high seas is legal. There is a question mark over "proportionality of response" to resistance or violence offered by the crew of the ship.