Yosi, the attack having been in international waters IS a significant point. Not just for us plebs, but you will find the UN, heads of states, etc. making the point.
Also, the ships' contents had been inspected before departure. Nothing but aid was carried. I'm sure Israel knew... after all, don't they boast having the best intelligence network?
Again, you are just trying to get 'one up' by being seemingly learned.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister, says the flotilla was carefully inspected before departure:
I want to say to the world, to the heads of state and the governments, that these boats that left from Turkey and other countries were checked in a strict way under the framework of the rules of international navigation and were only loaded with humanitarian aid."
There was no one on board "other than civilian volunteers" he said.
15,000 tons of humanitarian aid are delivered each week. That resolution, at least as far as you have quoted from it, says nothing about the illegality of the blockade. Which is not even to mention the fact that unlike the Helsinki treaty that actually spells out the laws governing blockades, UN resolutions DO NOT CONSTITUTE INTERNATIONAL LAW, a point that you have always and forever ignored. International law is governed by treaties, accords, and conventions (redundant terms, I know), not by impromptu UN resolutions thrown together on the fly.
Redrock, the fact that the UN, heads of state, etc. are making the point simply means that they are ignorant of the relevant legal facts. Blockades may be legally enforced in international waters. It is a violation of international law to enforce a blockade in the sovereign waters of a neutral state, but this is not what occurred. I have provided a direct quotation from the relevant legal document. Please direct me to the international treaty that says that blockades may not be enforced in international waters? As for the ships contents, they are not relevant to the discussion. The ships were attempting to break a blockade. What they were carrying is beside the point. I am not trying to get "one up" by being seemingly learned. You have all repeatedly made this discussion about the illegality of Israel's actions under international law, evidently without actually knowing what the relevant laws actually said. I provided direct quotations from the relevant international treaty that show that what you have been saying is incorrect. That is not me trying to be seemingly learned. That is me blowing your arguments away by an appeal to the relevant sources. If you continue to insist that Israel violated international law I would simply ask that you provide a direct quotation from the legally binding document that spells out the law they have broken in this instance.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
One more thing: you need reasonable grounds for suspecting the ships carry contraband, which is defined quite narrowly as military equipment and some dual-use material such as fuel. It's noteworthy that the actual excuses being made by the Israeli Government - the flotilla is a "provocation", the activists are really supporters of Hamas/Al Qaeda etc - have no bearing on whether the flotilla was carrying contraband.
Secondly, you're supposed to obtain permission from the neutral country for the inspection: in this case Turkey. No such permission was sought.
Thirdly, there's no basic right to ignore these rules just because compliance would jeopardise the integrity of the blockade. The blockade is illegal, but for arguments sake even if it was legal, that would still not give Israel an automatic right to maintain it at all costs.
Finally, Israel has declared a 20km "exclusion zone" for its blockade, not a 65km zone. That is not a territorial claim (which would be smaller) but a statement about the limits of the blockade. Having set an exclusion zone, it's surely wrong in principle to then invent a further exclusion zone to "protect" the original one.
The bottom line is, if you cannot enforce a blockade by legal means, you are not entitled to ignore the inconvenient parts of the law to make life easier for yourself.
If ships could simply break a blockade because they claimed not to be carrying contraband material then a blockade would be pretty meaningless. Besides, the ships were carrying building materials that are explicitly targeted by the blockade.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
One more thing: you need reasonable grounds for suspecting the ships carry contraband, which is defined quite narrowly as military equipment and some dual-use material such as fuel. It's noteworthy that the actual excuses being made by the Israeli Government - the flotilla is a "provocation", the activists are really supporters of Hamas/Al Qaeda etc - have no bearing on whether the flotilla was carrying contraband.
Secondly, you're supposed to obtain permission from the neutral country for the inspection: in this case Turkey. No such permission was sought.
Thirdly, there's no basic right to ignore these rules just because compliance would jeopardise the integrity of the blockade. The blockade is illegal, but for arguments sake even if it was legal, that would still not give Israel an automatic right to maintain it at all costs.
Finally, Israel has declared a 20km "exclusion zone" for its blockade, not a 65km zone. That is not a territorial claim (which would be smaller) but a statement about the limits of the blockade. Having set an exclusion zone, it's surely wrong in principle to then invent a further exclusion zone to "protect" the original one.
The bottom line is, if you cannot enforce a blockade by legal means, you are not entitled to ignore the inconvenient parts of the law to make life easier for yourself.
If ships could simply break a blockade because they claimed not to be carrying contraband material then a blockade would be pretty meaningless. Besides, the ships were carrying building materials that are explicitly targeted by the blockade.
Israel's military blockade of Gaza has left more than 1.4 million Palestinian men, women and children trapped in the Gaza Strip, an area of land just 40 kilometres long and 9.5 kilometres wide.
Mass unemployment, extreme poverty and food price rises caused by shortages have left four in five Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid. As a form of collective punishment, Israel’s continuing blockade of Gaza is a flagrant violation of international law.
Closed borders
Since the blockade of Gaza was imposed in June 2007, the five Israeli-controlled crossings between Gaza and Israel or the West Bank have been kept closed.
The one other land crossing at Rafah, on the border between Gaza and Egypt, is controlled by the Egyptian authorities and kept shut most of the time. The closures prevent the movement of Palestinians into and out of Gaza in all but a handful of cases, generally in exceptional humanitarian cases.
Basic goods
The blockade prohibits most exports and restricts the entry of basic goods, including food and fuel. Much of the available food is provided by the UN and other aid agencies, or smuggled in through tunnels running under the Egypt-Gaza border and then sold on at exorbitantly high prices to Gaza’s beleaguered residents.
The situation has been made worse by the Egyptian government’s construction of a steel wall along the border at Rafah to disrupt the cross-border smuggling that has become Gaza’s lifeline, as well as the bombing of tunnels by the Israeli airforce.
Economic collapse
Rather than targeting armed groups, the blockade mainly hits the most vulnerable, such as children (who make up more than half of the population in Gaza), the elderly, the sick and the Gaza Strip's large refugee population.
According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the number of refugees living in abject poverty in the Gaza Strip has tripled since the blockade began. These families lack the means to purchase even the most basic items, including soap, school materials and clean drinking water. According to the UN, more than 60 per cent of households are currently "food insecure".
Lack of facilities
There are worsening problems with the supply of electricity in the Gaza Strip, with many residents enduring 8-12 hours of power cuts each day. There are also recurrent shortages of cooking gas, requiring the implementation of a rationing scheme in which hospitals and bakeries are prioritised.
Aid blocked
While Israel allows some humanitarian supplies from international aid agencies into Gaza, these are strictly limited and frequently delayed. UN agencies have said that additional storage and transportation costs incurred from delays due to the blockade totalled around $5 million in 2009.
Health
Gaza's health sector has been plagued by shortages in equipment and medical supplies during the blockade.
Following the Israeli closure of crossings, people with medical conditions that cannot be treated in Gaza have been required to apply for permits to leave the territory to receive treatment in either foreign hospitals or Palestinian hospitals in the West Bank.
The Israeli authorities frequently delay or refuse these permits; some Gazans have died while waiting to obtain permits to leave the territory for medical treatment elsewhere.
World Health Organization (WHO) trucks of medical equipment bound for Gazan hospitals have repeatedly been turned away, without explanation, by Israeli border officials.
The Gaza conflict
From 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009, Gaza was subjected to a devastating Israeli military offensive – Operation “Cast Lead” – which Israel said it carried out to stop Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups firing indiscriminate rockets into Israel.
More then 1,380 Palestinians were killed, including more than 300 children and other civilians, and thousands were injured. Many thousands of homes were destroyed or severely damaged, as were the electricity and water systems. Civilian buildings, including hospitals and schools, were also damaged or destroyed by Israeli attacks.
Operation “Cast Lead” pushed the humanitarian crisis in Gaza to catastrophic levels. Since it concluded, the blockade has severely hampered or prevented reconstruction efforts. With many construction materials barred or limited by Israel, Gaza’s inhabitants are unable to rebuild their shattered lives.
Continued violence
In November 2009, Hamas declared a unilateral cessation of rocket fire, although this has since been breached on several occasions by members of Palestinian armed groups.
Since the ceasefire following Operation “Cast Lead” in January 2009, one person in southern Israel has been killed by mortars and rockets fired by Palestinian armed groups.
Israeli military forces, meanwhile, have conducted regular raids into Gaza and have continued to bomb the tunnels under the border at Rafah used for smuggling between Gaza and Egypt. In the year following Operation “Cast Lead”, 71 Palestinians were killed and 130 injured in the Gaza tunnels from tunnel collapse, accidents or airstrikes.
Israeli soldiers also continue to shoot at Palestinian farmers, fishermen and other civilians when they venture near Gaza’s perimeter or approach the three nautical mile limit that Israel imposes on Gaza’s coastline causing deaths and injuries.
Collective punishment
The Israeli authorities have put forward a range of justifications for the blockade - saying variously that it is a response to attacks from Palestinian armed groups, a reaction to the continued holding of the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, and a means to pressure the Hamas de facto administration.
But whatever its stated justification, the blockade is collectively punishing the entire population of Gaza, the majority of whom are children, rather than targeting the Hamas administration or armed groups.
Read More
Israel's military blockade of Gaza has left more than 1.4 million Palestinian men, women and children trapped in the Gaza Strip, an area of land just 40 kilometres long and 9.5 kilometres wide.
Mass unemployment, extreme poverty and food price rises caused by shortages have left four in five Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid. As a form of collective punishment, Israel’s continuing blockade of Gaza is a flagrant violation of international law.
Closed borders
Since the blockade of Gaza was imposed in June 2007, the five Israeli-controlled crossings between Gaza and Israel or the West Bank have been kept closed.
The one other land crossing at Rafah, on the border between Gaza and Egypt, is controlled by the Egyptian authorities and kept shut most of the time. The closures prevent the movement of Palestinians into and out of Gaza in all but a handful of cases, generally in exceptional humanitarian cases.
Basic goods
The blockade prohibits most exports and restricts the entry of basic goods, including food and fuel. Much of the available food is provided by the UN and other aid agencies, or smuggled in through tunnels running under the Egypt-Gaza border and then sold on at exorbitantly high prices to Gaza’s beleaguered residents.
The situation has been made worse by the Egyptian government’s construction of a steel wall along the border at Rafah to disrupt the cross-border smuggling that has become Gaza’s lifeline, as well as the bombing of tunnels by the Israeli airforce.
Economic collapse
Rather than targeting armed groups, the blockade mainly hits the most vulnerable, such as children (who make up more than half of the population in Gaza), the elderly, the sick and the Gaza Strip's large refugee population.
According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the number of refugees living in abject poverty in the Gaza Strip has tripled since the blockade began. These families lack the means to purchase even the most basic items, including soap, school materials and clean drinking water. According to the UN, more than 60 per cent of households are currently "food insecure".
Lack of facilities
There are worsening problems with the supply of electricity in the Gaza Strip, with many residents enduring 8-12 hours of power cuts each day. There are also recurrent shortages of cooking gas, requiring the implementation of a rationing scheme in which hospitals and bakeries are prioritised.
Aid blocked
While Israel allows some humanitarian supplies from international aid agencies into Gaza, these are strictly limited and frequently delayed. UN agencies have said that additional storage and transportation costs incurred from delays due to the blockade totalled around $5 million in 2009.
Health
Gaza's health sector has been plagued by shortages in equipment and medical supplies during the blockade.
Following the Israeli closure of crossings, people with medical conditions that cannot be treated in Gaza have been required to apply for permits to leave the territory to receive treatment in either foreign hospitals or Palestinian hospitals in the West Bank.
The Israeli authorities frequently delay or refuse these permits; some Gazans have died while waiting to obtain permits to leave the territory for medical treatment elsewhere.
World Health Organization (WHO) trucks of medical equipment bound for Gazan hospitals have repeatedly been turned away, without explanation, by Israeli border officials.
The Gaza conflict
From 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009, Gaza was subjected to a devastating Israeli military offensive – Operation “Cast Lead” – which Israel said it carried out to stop Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups firing indiscriminate rockets into Israel.
More then 1,380 Palestinians were killed, including more than 300 children and other civilians, and thousands were injured. Many thousands of homes were destroyed or severely damaged, as were the electricity and water systems. Civilian buildings, including hospitals and schools, were also damaged or destroyed by Israeli attacks.
Operation “Cast Lead” pushed the humanitarian crisis in Gaza to catastrophic levels. Since it concluded, the blockade has severely hampered or prevented reconstruction efforts. With many construction materials barred or limited by Israel, Gaza’s inhabitants are unable to rebuild their shattered lives.
Continued violence
In November 2009, Hamas declared a unilateral cessation of rocket fire, although this has since been breached on several occasions by members of Palestinian armed groups.
Since the ceasefire following Operation “Cast Lead” in January 2009, one person in southern Israel has been killed by mortars and rockets fired by Palestinian armed groups.
Israeli military forces, meanwhile, have conducted regular raids into Gaza and have continued to bomb the tunnels under the border at Rafah used for smuggling between Gaza and Egypt. In the year following Operation “Cast Lead”, 71 Palestinians were killed and 130 injured in the Gaza tunnels from tunnel collapse, accidents or airstrikes.
Israeli soldiers also continue to shoot at Palestinian farmers, fishermen and other civilians when they venture near Gaza’s perimeter or approach the three nautical mile limit that Israel imposes on Gaza’s coastline causing deaths and injuries.
Collective punishment
The Israeli authorities have put forward a range of justifications for the blockade - saying variously that it is a response to attacks from Palestinian armed groups, a reaction to the continued holding of the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, and a means to pressure the Hamas de facto administration.
But whatever its stated justification, the blockade is collectively punishing the entire population of Gaza, the majority of whom are children, rather than targeting the Hamas administration or armed groups.
Read More
the 793,520 children of Gaza (56% of the population) have lived under occupation and siege all of their lives. They are beautiful, resilient, curious and full of potential. They deserve the basics that all children in the world should have. Food, clean water, healthcare, safe places to play and learn. They deserve the tools to deal with their nightmares, and sleep that is not punctuated by bombing. They deserve life, freedom, and hope.
B, again, Amnesty does not make international law. I've provided direct quotations from the relevant treaty. If you can do the same in support of your point I would welcome your contribution. However all you seem to be able to do is to avoid the central issue of whether Israel actually violated international law. If they did then you should be able to provide a quotation from the relevant binding legal document showing the laws that have been violated. Until you do so I don't know that there is really anything else to discuss.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
UN resolutions DO NOT CONSTITUTE INTERNATIONAL LAW, a point that you have always and forever ignored. International law is governed by treaties, accords, and conventions (redundant terms, I know), not by impromptu UN resolutions thrown together on the fly.
Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip, an occupied territory under the Fourth Geneva Convention, constitutes collective punishment in violation of the laws of war.
Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
B, again, Amnesty does not make international law. I've provided direct quotations from the relevant treaty. If you can do the same in support of your point I would welcome your contribution. However all you seem to be able to do is to avoid the central issue of whether Israel actually violated international law. If they did then you should be able to provide a quotation from the relevant binding legal document showing the laws that have been violated. Until you do so I don't know that there is really anything else to discuss.
ultimately, it comes down to the legality of the blockade of gaza ... it should be obvious to you that many of us do not consider the blockade legal ... the reason for this is simply because by law, the blockade must not punish the civilian population above and beyond the military benefits ... obviously, we see that to be the case ...
based on the illegality of the blockade in gaza - everything done on the floatilla was illegal ... and even beyond the legality of the blockade itself - the disproportionate use of violence resulting in death by the IDF is a crime unto itself ...
If they did then you should be able to provide a quotation from the relevant binding legal document showing the laws that have been violated. Until you do so I don't know that there is really anything else to discuss.
“The real question is: “Is the blockade itself lawful?’” says Douglas Guilfoyle, a specialist in international and maritime law at King’s College London. "Everything else turns on that."
Mr. Guilfoyle says that under the international Law of Armed Conflict a state that has legally established a blockade can enforce it by boarding vessels in international waters that it reasonably expects might breach the blockade.
But a blockade itself is illegal, he says, "if it will cause excessive damage to the civilian population in relation to the military advantage gained... so therefore intercepting a vessel on the high seas to support or enforce the blockade would not be lawful.”
Israel says the blockade is necessary to protect if from rocket fire, but it has also led to economic collapse in Gaza, where the employment rate is now over 40 percent and the quality of medical care is deteriorating. Gazans say they can't see how prohibiting the import of fishing lines or canned goods – two of the items on Israel's banned list – enhances Israel's security, and conclude instead that a policy of collective punishment is being pursued against Gaza's people for having elected the Islamist Hamas movement to govern them.
Another issue is that the Marvi Marmara, on which at least nine people (including four Turks) died after Israeli troops stormed the vessel, was flying under a Turkish flag.
“Since the ship was flying a Turkish flag it was only subject to Turkish jurisdiction,” says Daniel Machover, a co-founder of the London-based lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights (LPHR). He says that while the Geneva High Seas Convention permits warships to interfere with ships flying the flag of another state in limited circumstances, such as if the vessel is engaged in the slave trade or piracy, no such factors apply in this case.
In actuality Israel offered to let the flotilla dock in Israel, at the port in Ashdod, and to allow the aid to reach Gaza overland after it underwent an inspection. I'm not sure why this offer would be turned down (which it was) except if the goal of the flotilla was as much political as it was humanitarian, i.e. they were as interested (if not more interested) in breaking the blockade as they were in getting aid to Gaza.
maybe because israel won't allow things like fruit juice, coriander, wood....and up until 2 months ago shoes from entering gaza! not only that but the un reported what israel allows in only meets 1/4 of gaza's daily needs. if they turned the items over they wouldn't be give to gaza
who is israel to tell 1.5 million people they can't use coriander or wood or drink fruit juice!? and can you explain how a resident of gaza having one of those items would lead to the destruction of israel?? it's as crazy as that former soviet state that the us gives aid to that banned things like the ballet
Well.......9 people would still be going home to their families.
yeah, if only israel didn't attack them in international waters, which is illegal.
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Exactly, they poked them in the eye instead of just docking in Israe which, to me, makes the captain of the boat responsible for the deaths. The people on that ship provoked this. But most of the people on this forum believe that just because someone is called a peace activists or a humanitarian aid worker they can not do anything wrong. They simply should have listened to the orders that they were given.
Sure, it was the fault of the aid workers that they were mown down and killed. Just as it was the fault of the 1000 Palestinian civilians in Gaza last year that they were slaughtered by the IDF.
Israel apologists love trying to turn reality on it's head, probably because this is all they have. The truth is not in them.
it is their fault, if they'd just get off the land israel wants they wouldn't be killed
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Redrock, the fact that the UN, heads of state, etc. are making the point simply means that they are ignorant of the relevant legal facts. ...........That is me blowing your arguments away by an appeal to the relevant sources. If you continue to insist that Israel violated international law .....
Yosi... when will you read posts instead of whirling words in your head?
Did I talk about 'legal'? YOu said: "You guys keep talking about this having happened in international waters, and making this out to be a significant point." I said: "Yosi, the attack having been in international waters IS a significant point. Not just for us plebs, but you will find the UN, heads of states, etc. making the point." Making the point that it is not just US, i.e. those you seem to think are idiots on the board, but learned, educated and high ranking people thinking it is a significant point.
You're not blowing away any of my argument in your post directed to me. I have no argument. I made an observation.
Did I say anything about Israel violating international law? Nope.
And Yosi, if I had all the time in the world, I would google and find stuff but, to be honest, I can't be bothered with you. We all know what has happened here. We all know the spin Israel is putting on this - and all their other vile actions - to try and limit damages (which, by the way, is not going to happen). The worldwide community sees right through this and, if it wasn't for the US, Israel would not be able to shrug all of this off and not care a bit (except for their image). THey don't give a shit, never have and never will. Hide behind words as much as you want Yosi, the truth is obvious for all to see.
Well then B, that would seem to indicate that there is no such thing as a legal blockade, since all blockades are inherently a form of collective punishment if they target any goods whatsoever with a civilian use, which they almost always do. But evidently blockades are not universally illegal. So how do you square the Geneva Convention with the Helsinki Treaty. And how exactly does the Fourth Geneva Convention relate to the legality of Israel's actions vis a vis the flotilla? You are doing a little better, I'll grant you that. Now you are actually working with legal treaties. You just aren't making points that actually address the issue at hand.
P, I get that you don't think the blockade is legal. But just because many people on the MT think something is illegal doesn't mean that it is. If you want to talk about something being a violation of international law then you have to actually prove that it is a violation of international law. Since this blockade has been in effect for three years now, and virtually all of the world powers have accepted its legality, or at the very least not challenged its legality, I'm inclined to believe that strictly speaking it is not illegal. Foolish perhaps, or cruel, or any number of other things, but not technically illegal (and in matters of law technicality matters).
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
You guys keep talking about this having happened in international waters, and making this out to be a significant point, one that makes Israel's actions tantamount to piracy. Maybe the following article excerpt will inject some actual knowledge into the discussion.
There were several smart pieces yesterday about the flotilla fallout. One was written by Michael Sean Winters in the lefty National Catholic Reporter. It is called “Judging Israel.” And it judges the Jewish state fairly. But perhaps the most important take on the episode appeared in The Daily Beast. The piece (“Israel Was Right”) was written by Leslie H. Gelb, a senior ideas man in the American foreign policy establishment, a former New York Times columnist, and the longtime president (now president emeritus) of the Council on Foreign Relations. Writes Gelb:
Israel had every right under international law to stop and board ships bound for the Gaza war zone late Sunday. Only knee-jerk left-wingers and the usual legion of poseurs around the world would dispute this. And it is pretty clear that this "humanitarian" flotilla headed for Gaza aimed to provoke a confrontation with Israel. Various representatives of the Free Gaza Movement, one of the main organizers of this deadly extravaganza, have let it slip throughout Monday that their intention was every bit as much "to break" Israel's blockade of Gaza as to deliver the relief goods.
[…]
Regarding international law, blockades are quite legal. The United States and Britain were at war with Germany and Japan and blockaded them. I can't remember international lawyers saying those blockades were illegal—even though they took place on the high seas in international waters.
On that note, here are the relevant passages from the Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality:
5.1.2 (3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion.
5.1.2 (4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they (a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy; (b) act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces; (c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system; (d) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or (e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
5.2.1 As an exception to Principle 5.1.2. paragraph 1 and in accordance with Principle 1.3 (2nd sentence), belligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.
5.2.10 Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.
I would recommend that before you guys start ranting and raving about the illegality of something under international law that you actually bother to know the law first. You will even notice that the last sentence of the last paragraph (5.2.10) suggests that even had the soldiers not been attacked by the activists, since the ships had already been warned not to try to breach the blockade and were nevertheless attempting to do so that the Israelis were within their rights under international law to attack them. This loss of life was tragic, and I truly mean that, but if you have to blame someone Israel really doesn't seem to be a good target in this case.
in other words: "i'm right and everyone else is a fucking moron." :roll:
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
P, I get that you don't think the blockade is legal. But just because many people on the MT think something is illegal doesn't mean that it is. If you want to talk about something being a violation of international law then you have to actually prove that it is a violation of international law. Since this blockade has been in effect for three years now, and virtually all of the world powers have accepted its legality, or at the very least not challenged its legality, I'm inclined to believe that strictly speaking it is not illegal. Foolish perhaps, or cruel, or any number of other things, but not technically illegal (and in matters of law technicality matters).
in the interests of humanity - let's not have a discussion on semantics ... yes, the legality of the blockade is up for interpretation ... the reasons why it it hasn't been challenged is for reasons i am positive you are aware of ...
You are doing a little better, I'll grant you that. Now you are actually working with legal treaties. You just aren't making points that actually address the issue at hand.
You are doing a little better, I'll grant you that. Now you are actually working with legal treaties. You just aren't making points that actually address the issue at hand.
Since this blockade has been in effect for three years now, and virtually all of the world powers have accepted its legality
Such as?
no doubt! i hope this doesn't end up like all the other million questions yosi never answers, who accepts this blockade as legal??
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Well then B, that would seem to indicate that there is no such thing as a legal blockade, since all blockades are inherently a form of collective punishment if they target any goods whatsoever with a civilian use, which they almost always do. But evidently blockades are not universally illegal. So how do you square the Geneva Convention with the Helsinki Treaty. And how exactly does the Fourth Geneva Convention relate to the legality of Israel's actions vis a vis the flotilla? You are doing a little better, I'll grant you that. Now you are actually working with legal treaties. You just aren't making points that actually address the issue at hand.
P, I get that you don't think the blockade is legal. But just because many people on the MT think something is illegal doesn't mean that it is. If you want to talk about something being a violation of international law then you have to actually prove that it is a violation of international law. Since this blockade has been in effect for three years now, and virtually all of the world powers have accepted its legality, or at the very least not challenged its legality, I'm inclined to believe that strictly speaking it is not illegal. Foolish perhaps, or cruel, or any number of other things, but not technically illegal (and in matters of law technicality matters).
My previous posts have already addressed the relevant issues.
It's plain to anyone reading this that your simply using the standard tactics of all Israel apologists by dragging the discussion down to a matter of futile semantics, as Pepe rightfully pointed out. You have no argument, and you are incapable of defending and justifying the latest atrocity by Israels armed forces, despite you're concerted efforts to do so.
Your posts are way too transparent, and somewhat tedious.
1000 Palestinian civilians slaughtered and you come on the internet trying to justify and excuse it.
Between 9 and 16 civilian aid workers slaughtered and you come on the internet trying to justify and excuse it.
Seriously pal, do you have nothing more constructive to do?
You people sure were busy the last day and a half.
No way I can possibly address everything written in the 7 pages since my last post, so I will write a few general statements in no specific order. I appologize in advance about the length of the post. My only request from all of those that hate me because I am an Israeli and plan on replying saying that I have been brainwashed and so on is that you read the whole thing before you automatically say I am wrong (I know, what an absurd request)
First, I see that Yossi already decently addressed the issue of the attack happening in international waters much better than I could have, so I will not continue the matter on that subject.
I would like to propose that we eliminate the word "propaganda" here. It is being thrown around way to often. Just because someone reports things opposite to what you believe or think does not make it propoganda. By that logic, I can say that everything you believe is a cause of Palestinian propoganda (I am not saying that by the way for all the hard of reading).
Can we stop with all the personal insults on each other here? They are pretty uncalled for and childish. We do not agree on this subject (and probably never will), but I was personally raised in a democratic society and was thought that every one is entitled to their own beliefs. The point of the MT, and I quote, is: "Politics, current events - reasoned debate and discussion - we can all learn something new." Some where along the line the "reasoned debate and discussion" fell off the train. Remember that the reason we are all here to begin with is that we are all fans of Pearl Jam, so at least we have that in common if nothing else.
What the heck is "plebs"??
As for the rest, I would like to bring this thread back to the subject stated in the title (I am sure there are enough random threads on the MT that bash Israel in general and say that it is an illegitimate state and bla bla bla...).
Considering the name of the thread, the question now as I see it is like this: Either you are outraged over what happened because you believe that there should be no blockade on Gaza at all, or You are outraged by Israels actions on the ship. If it is the first one, than this is not the correct thread for you (start a new one if you like, I'll come visit there too, I promise :P ).
If on the other hand you have a problem with what happened on Sunday night, let's look at the evidence that is availible to us (I would personally love to see a neutral country - Maybe Greece with Dimitri as the head of them - conduct an investigation). So far, all video footage I have seen, once again please give a link if you have seen something else, has shown that the soilders were viscously attaked the second they landed on the ship. In the one video I posted a couple of days ago you can actually see that they are armed with paintball guns (deny it as much as you likebut seeing is beliving). The organizers of the convoy stated for days before the incident that they would react with peacefull objection to any military action made by Israel. Obviously, that did not happen.
Some of you keep posting pics of elderly people and woman and so forth as being the people on the ship and that makes it unlikely that they would attack young and strong soilders "armed to the teeth" as someone here said. There were just under 700 activist in total on the 6 ships. Almost 600 of which were on the ship were the incident happened. Nobody here ever said that they were all terrorists and extremeists looking for a fight. Quite the opposite. There were around 40 - 50 people on the deck of the ship waiting for the soilders in order to attack them. The rest were below deck. These few were not part of the humantitarian mission of the convoy. They were there for a fight. I have heard reports on the news here today (which you will probably dismiss as propoganda again) That these few had something in common - none of them had any ID on them, and most of them had large sums of cash on them. Some here have theorized that they were merceneries sent by organizations with ties to el qauida (again, this is just stuff that they said on the news, take it with a grain of salt).
Let us not be naive here. 95% of the activists on the ship were there for humanitarian reasons. the other 5% had something else in mind. I know, I know, you find it shocking that someone would use a humanitarian convoy for a political and/or military purpose.
But then again, I have probably been brainwashed by Zionist propoganda...
Still can't believe I met Mike Mccready at the Guggenheim and got a pic with him!!!!!
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
go check out the post by TriumphantAngel in one of the threads that shows the kind of "evidence" being released by the IDF ... it was an article in Haaertz showing apparently a left-wing radical ... it was a joke of photo released for a plethora of reasons ...
also - if you read yosi's posts - you will also see that he recognizes the blockade as something that is cruel (i don't want to put words in his mouth) but at least he recognizes the effect it has on the people of gaza ...
lastly, go read the reports from many of the activits on the ship ... the ship was attacked in the middle of the night by idf soldiers ... the fact at least 9 civilians are dead indicate that paintball guns weren't used ... also, the confiscation of all media equipment and blackout procedures implemented are also a sign that there were things israel did not want to get out ...
in due time - we will see the full extent of this act ...
I would like to propose that we eliminate the word "propaganda" here. It is being thrown around way to often. Just because someone reports things opposite to what you believe or think does not make it propoganda. By that logic, I can say that everything you believe is a cause of Palestinian propoganda (I am not saying that by the way for all the hard of reading).
.
I think the word propaganda is quite appropriate in these circumstances. Definition being: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause". I think one can only agree this is what happened here. There was a media blackout by Israel, videos/films/mobile phones, recorders, etc. all confiscated from the activists by the IDF. Activists were also held incommunicado. Therefore the only material which flooded the media was what Israel decided to put out, this to further push their side of the story. Since no other material (ie from the 'other side') was show, I believe this to rightly be Israeli propaganda (or spin, or whatever you want to call it).
Plebs - the common people of ancient Rome. A way of saying 'us commoners'. Used ironically as some may think they are more learned than others and are patronizing.
the videos speak for themselves. if these soldiers were peacefully boarding the ships, as they claim, they would have peacefully boarded from the side of the ship or boarded from below. they would have told the ship that the soldiers are coming aboard and they are coming in peace to inspect the cargo or whatever it is they were supposed to be doing...and they would have been allowed to board...they would not have dropped down on the decks from circling helicopters as spiders would. if you would analyze the tactic, if these guys were special forces and they were carrying out a mission against "a known hostile ship" they would have not used this drop in technique because it exposes the soldiers to the beatings that we see on the videotape. now unless the soldiers were recording this for dramatic effect to be used as propaganda later on they achieved what they wanted to portray. that is the only reason i would even guess they would use the drop in from above tactic. if anyone would ever read "the art of war" you would know that one of the main premises is "never leave the high ground" and "never attack an enemy that is on high ground" (i am paraphrasing of course) because whomever has the higher ground, in this case the soldiers, has an amazing advantage. why would the israelis risk their soldiers in this way and in such a dramatic fashion?? it does not make any sense to me at all.
that said. how could the israelis NOT expect to be confronted when dropping in from above in the middle of the night when most of the people on the ship were asleep? this is an elementary question that NOBODY seems to be able to answer...it is my opinion that the soldiers had sinister intentions and they boarded that ship lookig for a fight...but we may never know due to the media blackout.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
the videos speak for themselves. if these soldiers were peacefully boarding the ships, as they claim, they would have peacefully boarded from the side of the ship or boarded from below. they would have told the ship that the soldiers are coming aboard and they are coming in peace to inspect the cargo or whatever it is they were supposed to be doing...and they would have been allowed to board...they would not have dropped down on the decks from circling helicopters as spiders would. if you would analyze the tactic, if these guys were special forces and they were carrying out a mission against "a known hostile ship" they would have not used this drop in technique because it exposes the soldiers to the beatings that we see on the videotape. now unless the soldiers were recording this for dramatic effect to be used as propaganda later on they achieved what they wanted to portray. that is the only reason i would even guess they would use the drop in from above tactic. if anyone would ever read "the art of war" you would know that one of the main premises is "never leave the high ground" and "never attack an enemy that is on high ground" (i am paraphrasing of course) because whomever has the higher ground, in this case the soldiers, has an amazing advantage. why would the israelis risk their soldiers in this way and in such a dramatic fashion?? it does not make any sense to me at all.
that said. how could the israelis NOT expect to be confronted when dropping in from above in the middle of the night when most of the people on the ship were asleep? this is an elementary question that NOBODY seems to be able to answer...it is my opinion that the soldiers had sinister intentions and they boarded that ship lookig for a fight...but we may never know due to the media blackout.
plus, they attacked pre-dawn in the dark ... purpose being? ...
the videos speak for themselves. if these soldiers were peacefully boarding the ships, as they claim, they would have peacefully boarded from the side of the ship or boarded from below. they would have told the ship that the soldiers are coming aboard and they are coming in peace to inspect the cargo or whatever it is they were supposed to be doing...and they would have been allowed to board...they would not have dropped down on the decks from circling helicopters as spiders would. if you would analyze the tactic, if these guys were special forces and they were carrying out a mission against "a known hostile ship" they would have not used this drop in technique because it exposes the soldiers to the beatings that we see on the videotape. now unless the soldiers were recording this for dramatic effect to be used as propaganda later on they achieved what they wanted to portray. that is the only reason i would even guess they would use the drop in from above tactic. if anyone would ever read "the art of war" you would know that one of the main premises is "never leave the high ground" and "never attack an enemy that is on high ground" (i am paraphrasing of course) because whomever has the higher ground, in this case the soldiers, has an amazing advantage. why would the israelis risk their soldiers in this way and in such a dramatic fashion?? it does not make any sense to me at all.
that said. how could the israelis NOT expect to be confronted when dropping in from above in the middle of the night when most of the people on the ship were asleep? this is an elementary question that NOBODY seems to be able to answer...it is my opinion that the soldiers had sinister intentions and they boarded that ship lookig for a fight...but we may never know due to the media blackout.
plus, they attacked pre-dawn in the dark ... purpose being? ...
nobody can provide a sufficient answer to that question either. none of it makes any sense. if you are looking to do a covert operation or a raid, most of the time you go under the cover of darkness.... if you go diplomatically you go by the light of day...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Well then B, that would seem to indicate that there is no such thing as a legal blockade, since all blockades are inherently a form of collective punishment if they target any goods whatsoever with a civilian use, which they almost always do. But evidently blockades are not universally illegal. So how do you square the Geneva Convention with the Helsinki Treaty. And how exactly does the Fourth Geneva Convention relate to the legality of Israel's actions vis a vis the flotilla? You are doing a little better, I'll grant you that. Now you are actually working with legal treaties. You just aren't making points that actually address the issue at hand.
P, I get that you don't think the blockade is legal. But just because many people on the MT think something is illegal doesn't mean that it is. If you want to talk about something being a violation of international law then you have to actually prove that it is a violation of international law. Since this blockade has been in effect for three years now, and virtually all of the world powers have accepted its legality, or at the very least not challenged its legality, I'm inclined to believe that strictly speaking it is not illegal. Foolish perhaps, or cruel, or any number of other things, but not technically illegal (and in matters of law technicality matters).
the blockade and trade restrictions imposed on the us by britain was one of the main reasons for the war of 1812.
anyway, you said:
"Since this blockade has been in effect for three years now, and virtually all of the world powers have accepted its legality"
so please cite all the world powers that accept the legality of this blockade. you ask for proof but i know if i give you the geneva conventions, UN or amnesty international you will say those don't count.
just go ahead and list the world powers supporting this blockade, if it's virtually the entire world it shouldn't be a problem to give me 2 dozen or so countries?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
nobody can provide a sufficient answer to that question either. none of it makes any sense. if you are looking to do a covert operation or a raid, most of the time you go under the cover of darkness.... if you go diplomatically you go by the light of day...
yeah ... no kidding ... some people would have us believe somehow that trained miltary task force armed to the tilt coming in the cloak of darkness from military helicopters were somehow victims in this confrontation ... :?
nobody can provide a sufficient answer to that question either. none of it makes any sense. if you are looking to do a covert operation or a raid, most of the time you go under the cover of darkness.... if you go diplomatically you go by the light of day...
yeah ... no kidding ... some people would have us believe somehow that trained miltary task force armed to the tilt coming in the cloak of darkness from military helicopters were somehow victims in this confrontation ... :?
if you ask me, if MY ship is boarded in such a manner in these circumstances, the people boarding the ship are going to get what is coming to them. if someone boards my boat in international waters in this fashion they had better be ready for whatever defenses i have. this is human nature to defend what is yours and to defend your rights.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
the videos speak for themselves. if these soldiers were peacefully boarding the ships, as they claim, they would have peacefully boarded from the side of the ship or boarded from below. they would have told the ship that the soldiers are coming aboard and they are coming in peace to inspect the cargo or whatever it is they were supposed to be doing...and they would have been allowed to board...they would not have dropped down on the decks from circling helicopters as spiders would. if you would analyze the tactic, if these guys were special forces and they were carrying out a mission against "a known hostile ship" they would have not used this drop in technique because it exposes the soldiers to the beatings that we see on the videotape. now unless the soldiers were recording this for dramatic effect to be used as propaganda later on they achieved what they wanted to portray. that is the only reason i would even guess they would use the drop in from above tactic. if anyone would ever read "the art of war" you would know that one of the main premises is "never leave the high ground" and "never attack an enemy that is on high ground" (i am paraphrasing of course) because whomever has the higher ground, in this case the soldiers, has an amazing advantage. why would the israelis risk their soldiers in this way and in such a dramatic fashion?? it does not make any sense to me at all.
that said. how could the israelis NOT expect to be confronted when dropping in from above in the middle of the night when most of the people on the ship were asleep? this is an elementary question that NOBODY seems to be able to answer...it is my opinion that the soldiers had sinister intentions and they boarded that ship lookig for a fight...but we may never know due to the media blackout.
plus, they attacked pre-dawn in the dark ... purpose being? ...
nobody can provide a sufficient answer to that question either. none of it makes any sense. if you are looking to do a covert operation or a raid, most of the time you go under the cover of darkness.... if you go diplomatically you go by the light of day...
and they cut all communications from the boat so they couldn't radio or call anyone right before it happened. they didn't want a chance of anyone knowing what was happening or the live stream from the boats going out.
and that haaretz photo...i noticed the other photo gives the photographers credit but the one with the knife with the extremely bright moon behdind them ( :roll: ) has none. but if that photo were real and since israel confiscated all the cameras and phones you can see in that pic there are several people standing behind the guy with the knife taking pictures, surely it won't be a problem for israel to release some of the pics showing the guy with the knifes back and the IDF in front of him being threatened with it, right??
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
and that haaretz photo...i noticed the other photo gives the photographers credit but the one with the knife with the extremely bright moon behdind them ( :roll: ) has none. but if that photo were real and since israel confiscated all the cameras and phones you can see in that pic there are several people standing behind the guy with the knife taking pictures, surely it won't be a problem for israel to release some of the pics showing the guy with the knifes back and the IDF in front of him being threatened with it, right??
that photo is sooo bad! ... i mean - there are a bunch of photographers with smirks on their faces ... i'm not sure what is sadder - the fact that they would use a photo so bad or the fact that people actually will sop that up ...
Comments
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister, says the flotilla was carefully inspected before departure:
I want to say to the world, to the heads of state and the governments, that these boats that left from Turkey and other countries were checked in a strict way under the framework of the rules of international navigation and were only loaded with humanitarian aid."
There was no one on board "other than civilian volunteers" he said.
Redrock, the fact that the UN, heads of state, etc. are making the point simply means that they are ignorant of the relevant legal facts. Blockades may be legally enforced in international waters. It is a violation of international law to enforce a blockade in the sovereign waters of a neutral state, but this is not what occurred. I have provided a direct quotation from the relevant legal document. Please direct me to the international treaty that says that blockades may not be enforced in international waters? As for the ships contents, they are not relevant to the discussion. The ships were attempting to break a blockade. What they were carrying is beside the point. I am not trying to get "one up" by being seemingly learned. You have all repeatedly made this discussion about the illegality of Israel's actions under international law, evidently without actually knowing what the relevant laws actually said. I provided direct quotations from the relevant international treaty that show that what you have been saying is incorrect. That is not me trying to be seemingly learned. That is me blowing your arguments away by an appeal to the relevant sources. If you continue to insist that Israel violated international law I would simply ask that you provide a direct quotation from the legally binding document that spells out the law they have broken in this instance.
If ships could simply break a blockade because they claimed not to be carrying contraband material then a blockade would be pretty meaningless. Besides, the ships were carrying building materials that are explicitly targeted by the blockade.
And you dont see anything wrong with that?
That's what you say. Now let's see what Amnesty have to say about it in a report issued yesterday:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-upda ... 2010-06-01
Suffocating Gaza - the Israeli blockade's effects on Palestinians
© Amnesty International
1 June 2010
Israel's military blockade of Gaza has left more than 1.4 million Palestinian men, women and children trapped in the Gaza Strip, an area of land just 40 kilometres long and 9.5 kilometres wide.
Mass unemployment, extreme poverty and food price rises caused by shortages have left four in five Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid. As a form of collective punishment, Israel’s continuing blockade of Gaza is a flagrant violation of international law.
Closed borders
Since the blockade of Gaza was imposed in June 2007, the five Israeli-controlled crossings between Gaza and Israel or the West Bank have been kept closed.
The one other land crossing at Rafah, on the border between Gaza and Egypt, is controlled by the Egyptian authorities and kept shut most of the time. The closures prevent the movement of Palestinians into and out of Gaza in all but a handful of cases, generally in exceptional humanitarian cases.
Basic goods
The blockade prohibits most exports and restricts the entry of basic goods, including food and fuel. Much of the available food is provided by the UN and other aid agencies, or smuggled in through tunnels running under the Egypt-Gaza border and then sold on at exorbitantly high prices to Gaza’s beleaguered residents.
The situation has been made worse by the Egyptian government’s construction of a steel wall along the border at Rafah to disrupt the cross-border smuggling that has become Gaza’s lifeline, as well as the bombing of tunnels by the Israeli airforce.
Economic collapse
Rather than targeting armed groups, the blockade mainly hits the most vulnerable, such as children (who make up more than half of the population in Gaza), the elderly, the sick and the Gaza Strip's large refugee population.
According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the number of refugees living in abject poverty in the Gaza Strip has tripled since the blockade began. These families lack the means to purchase even the most basic items, including soap, school materials and clean drinking water. According to the UN, more than 60 per cent of households are currently "food insecure".
Lack of facilities
There are worsening problems with the supply of electricity in the Gaza Strip, with many residents enduring 8-12 hours of power cuts each day. There are also recurrent shortages of cooking gas, requiring the implementation of a rationing scheme in which hospitals and bakeries are prioritised.
Aid blocked
While Israel allows some humanitarian supplies from international aid agencies into Gaza, these are strictly limited and frequently delayed. UN agencies have said that additional storage and transportation costs incurred from delays due to the blockade totalled around $5 million in 2009.
Health
Gaza's health sector has been plagued by shortages in equipment and medical supplies during the blockade.
Following the Israeli closure of crossings, people with medical conditions that cannot be treated in Gaza have been required to apply for permits to leave the territory to receive treatment in either foreign hospitals or Palestinian hospitals in the West Bank.
The Israeli authorities frequently delay or refuse these permits; some Gazans have died while waiting to obtain permits to leave the territory for medical treatment elsewhere.
World Health Organization (WHO) trucks of medical equipment bound for Gazan hospitals have repeatedly been turned away, without explanation, by Israeli border officials.
The Gaza conflict
From 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009, Gaza was subjected to a devastating Israeli military offensive – Operation “Cast Lead” – which Israel said it carried out to stop Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups firing indiscriminate rockets into Israel.
More then 1,380 Palestinians were killed, including more than 300 children and other civilians, and thousands were injured. Many thousands of homes were destroyed or severely damaged, as were the electricity and water systems. Civilian buildings, including hospitals and schools, were also damaged or destroyed by Israeli attacks.
Operation “Cast Lead” pushed the humanitarian crisis in Gaza to catastrophic levels. Since it concluded, the blockade has severely hampered or prevented reconstruction efforts. With many construction materials barred or limited by Israel, Gaza’s inhabitants are unable to rebuild their shattered lives.
Continued violence
In November 2009, Hamas declared a unilateral cessation of rocket fire, although this has since been breached on several occasions by members of Palestinian armed groups.
Since the ceasefire following Operation “Cast Lead” in January 2009, one person in southern Israel has been killed by mortars and rockets fired by Palestinian armed groups.
Israeli military forces, meanwhile, have conducted regular raids into Gaza and have continued to bomb the tunnels under the border at Rafah used for smuggling between Gaza and Egypt. In the year following Operation “Cast Lead”, 71 Palestinians were killed and 130 injured in the Gaza tunnels from tunnel collapse, accidents or airstrikes.
Israeli soldiers also continue to shoot at Palestinian farmers, fishermen and other civilians when they venture near Gaza’s perimeter or approach the three nautical mile limit that Israel imposes on Gaza’s coastline causing deaths and injuries.
Collective punishment
The Israeli authorities have put forward a range of justifications for the blockade - saying variously that it is a response to attacks from Palestinian armed groups, a reaction to the continued holding of the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, and a means to pressure the Hamas de facto administration.
But whatever its stated justification, the blockade is collectively punishing the entire population of Gaza, the majority of whom are children, rather than targeting the Hamas administration or armed groups.
Read More
the 793,520 children of Gaza (56% of the population) have lived under occupation and siege all of their lives. They are beautiful, resilient, curious and full of potential. They deserve the basics that all children in the world should have. Food, clean water, healthcare, safe places to play and learn. They deserve the tools to deal with their nightmares, and sleep that is not punctuated by bombing. They deserve life, freedom, and hope.
-Cindy Corrie.
Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip, an occupied territory under the Fourth Geneva Convention, constitutes collective punishment in violation of the laws of war.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008...blockade-gaza
The Fourth Geneva convention:
Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
ultimately, it comes down to the legality of the blockade of gaza ... it should be obvious to you that many of us do not consider the blockade legal ... the reason for this is simply because by law, the blockade must not punish the civilian population above and beyond the military benefits ... obviously, we see that to be the case ...
based on the illegality of the blockade in gaza - everything done on the floatilla was illegal ... and even beyond the legality of the blockade itself - the disproportionate use of violence resulting in death by the IDF is a crime unto itself ...
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-E ... illa-legal
Was Israel's raid on Gaza Freedom Flotilla legal?
“The real question is: “Is the blockade itself lawful?’” says Douglas Guilfoyle, a specialist in international and maritime law at King’s College London. "Everything else turns on that."
Mr. Guilfoyle says that under the international Law of Armed Conflict a state that has legally established a blockade can enforce it by boarding vessels in international waters that it reasonably expects might breach the blockade.
But a blockade itself is illegal, he says, "if it will cause excessive damage to the civilian population in relation to the military advantage gained... so therefore intercepting a vessel on the high seas to support or enforce the blockade would not be lawful.”
Israel says the blockade is necessary to protect if from rocket fire, but it has also led to economic collapse in Gaza, where the employment rate is now over 40 percent and the quality of medical care is deteriorating. Gazans say they can't see how prohibiting the import of fishing lines or canned goods – two of the items on Israel's banned list – enhances Israel's security, and conclude instead that a policy of collective punishment is being pursued against Gaza's people for having elected the Islamist Hamas movement to govern them.
Another issue is that the Marvi Marmara, on which at least nine people (including four Turks) died after Israeli troops stormed the vessel, was flying under a Turkish flag.
“Since the ship was flying a Turkish flag it was only subject to Turkish jurisdiction,” says Daniel Machover, a co-founder of the London-based lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights (LPHR). He says that while the Geneva High Seas Convention permits warships to interfere with ships flying the flag of another state in limited circumstances, such as if the vessel is engaged in the slave trade or piracy, no such factors apply in this case.
yeah, if only israel didn't attack them in international waters, which is illegal.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
it is their fault, if they'd just get off the land israel wants they wouldn't be killed
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Yosi... when will you read posts instead of whirling words in your head?
Did I talk about 'legal'? YOu said: "You guys keep talking about this having happened in international waters, and making this out to be a significant point." I said: "Yosi, the attack having been in international waters IS a significant point. Not just for us plebs, but you will find the UN, heads of states, etc. making the point." Making the point that it is not just US, i.e. those you seem to think are idiots on the board, but learned, educated and high ranking people thinking it is a significant point.
You're not blowing away any of my argument in your post directed to me. I have no argument. I made an observation.
Did I say anything about Israel violating international law? Nope.
And Yosi, if I had all the time in the world, I would google and find stuff but, to be honest, I can't be bothered with you. We all know what has happened here. We all know the spin Israel is putting on this - and all their other vile actions - to try and limit damages (which, by the way, is not going to happen). The worldwide community sees right through this and, if it wasn't for the US, Israel would not be able to shrug all of this off and not care a bit (except for their image). THey don't give a shit, never have and never will. Hide behind words as much as you want Yosi, the truth is obvious for all to see.
P, I get that you don't think the blockade is legal. But just because many people on the MT think something is illegal doesn't mean that it is. If you want to talk about something being a violation of international law then you have to actually prove that it is a violation of international law. Since this blockade has been in effect for three years now, and virtually all of the world powers have accepted its legality, or at the very least not challenged its legality, I'm inclined to believe that strictly speaking it is not illegal. Foolish perhaps, or cruel, or any number of other things, but not technically illegal (and in matters of law technicality matters).
in other words: "i'm right and everyone else is a fucking moron." :roll:
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
in the interests of humanity - let's not have a discussion on semantics ... yes, the legality of the blockade is up for interpretation ... the reasons why it it hasn't been challenged is for reasons i am positive you are aware of ...
Has anyone ever accused you of being smug?
Such as?
no doubt! i hope this doesn't end up like all the other million questions yosi never answers, who accepts this blockade as legal??
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
My previous posts have already addressed the relevant issues.
It's plain to anyone reading this that your simply using the standard tactics of all Israel apologists by dragging the discussion down to a matter of futile semantics, as Pepe rightfully pointed out. You have no argument, and you are incapable of defending and justifying the latest atrocity by Israels armed forces, despite you're concerted efforts to do so.
Your posts are way too transparent, and somewhat tedious.
1000 Palestinian civilians slaughtered and you come on the internet trying to justify and excuse it.
Between 9 and 16 civilian aid workers slaughtered and you come on the internet trying to justify and excuse it.
Seriously pal, do you have nothing more constructive to do?
I'm off to bed. Nighty night!
No way I can possibly address everything written in the 7 pages since my last post, so I will write a few general statements in no specific order. I appologize in advance about the length of the post. My only request from all of those that hate me because I am an Israeli and plan on replying saying that I have been brainwashed and so on is that you read the whole thing before you automatically say I am wrong (I know, what an absurd request)
First, I see that Yossi already decently addressed the issue of the attack happening in international waters much better than I could have, so I will not continue the matter on that subject.
I would like to propose that we eliminate the word "propaganda" here. It is being thrown around way to often. Just because someone reports things opposite to what you believe or think does not make it propoganda. By that logic, I can say that everything you believe is a cause of Palestinian propoganda (I am not saying that by the way for all the hard of reading).
Can we stop with all the personal insults on each other here? They are pretty uncalled for and childish. We do not agree on this subject (and probably never will), but I was personally raised in a democratic society and was thought that every one is entitled to their own beliefs. The point of the MT, and I quote, is: "Politics, current events - reasoned debate and discussion - we can all learn something new." Some where along the line the "reasoned debate and discussion" fell off the train. Remember that the reason we are all here to begin with is that we are all fans of Pearl Jam, so at least we have that in common if nothing else.
What the heck is "plebs"??
As for the rest, I would like to bring this thread back to the subject stated in the title (I am sure there are enough random threads on the MT that bash Israel in general and say that it is an illegitimate state and bla bla bla...).
Considering the name of the thread, the question now as I see it is like this: Either you are outraged over what happened because you believe that there should be no blockade on Gaza at all, or You are outraged by Israels actions on the ship. If it is the first one, than this is not the correct thread for you (start a new one if you like, I'll come visit there too, I promise :P ).
If on the other hand you have a problem with what happened on Sunday night, let's look at the evidence that is availible to us (I would personally love to see a neutral country - Maybe Greece with Dimitri as the head of them - conduct an investigation). So far, all video footage I have seen, once again please give a link if you have seen something else, has shown that the soilders were viscously attaked the second they landed on the ship. In the one video I posted a couple of days ago you can actually see that they are armed with paintball guns (deny it as much as you likebut seeing is beliving). The organizers of the convoy stated for days before the incident that they would react with peacefull objection to any military action made by Israel. Obviously, that did not happen.
Some of you keep posting pics of elderly people and woman and so forth as being the people on the ship and that makes it unlikely that they would attack young and strong soilders "armed to the teeth" as someone here said. There were just under 700 activist in total on the 6 ships. Almost 600 of which were on the ship were the incident happened. Nobody here ever said that they were all terrorists and extremeists looking for a fight. Quite the opposite. There were around 40 - 50 people on the deck of the ship waiting for the soilders in order to attack them. The rest were below deck. These few were not part of the humantitarian mission of the convoy. They were there for a fight. I have heard reports on the news here today (which you will probably dismiss as propoganda again) That these few had something in common - none of them had any ID on them, and most of them had large sums of cash on them. Some here have theorized that they were merceneries sent by organizations with ties to el qauida (again, this is just stuff that they said on the news, take it with a grain of salt).
Let us not be naive here. 95% of the activists on the ship were there for humanitarian reasons. the other 5% had something else in mind. I know, I know, you find it shocking that someone would use a humanitarian convoy for a political and/or military purpose.
But then again, I have probably been brainwashed by Zionist propoganda...
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
go check out the post by TriumphantAngel in one of the threads that shows the kind of "evidence" being released by the IDF ... it was an article in Haaertz showing apparently a left-wing radical ... it was a joke of photo released for a plethora of reasons ...
also - if you read yosi's posts - you will also see that he recognizes the blockade as something that is cruel (i don't want to put words in his mouth) but at least he recognizes the effect it has on the people of gaza ...
lastly, go read the reports from many of the activits on the ship ... the ship was attacked in the middle of the night by idf soldiers ... the fact at least 9 civilians are dead indicate that paintball guns weren't used ... also, the confiscation of all media equipment and blackout procedures implemented are also a sign that there were things israel did not want to get out ...
in due time - we will see the full extent of this act ...
I think the word propaganda is quite appropriate in these circumstances. Definition being: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause". I think one can only agree this is what happened here. There was a media blackout by Israel, videos/films/mobile phones, recorders, etc. all confiscated from the activists by the IDF. Activists were also held incommunicado. Therefore the only material which flooded the media was what Israel decided to put out, this to further push their side of the story. Since no other material (ie from the 'other side') was show, I believe this to rightly be Israeli propaganda (or spin, or whatever you want to call it).
Plebs - the common people of ancient Rome. A way of saying 'us commoners'. Used ironically as some may think they are more learned than others and are patronizing.
Just thought I would clarify those points.
that said. how could the israelis NOT expect to be confronted when dropping in from above in the middle of the night when most of the people on the ship were asleep? this is an elementary question that NOBODY seems to be able to answer...it is my opinion that the soldiers had sinister intentions and they boarded that ship lookig for a fight...but we may never know due to the media blackout.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
plus, they attacked pre-dawn in the dark ... purpose being? ...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
the blockade and trade restrictions imposed on the us by britain was one of the main reasons for the war of 1812.
anyway, you said:
"Since this blockade has been in effect for three years now, and virtually all of the world powers have accepted its legality"
so please cite all the world powers that accept the legality of this blockade. you ask for proof but i know if i give you the geneva conventions, UN or amnesty international you will say those don't count.
just go ahead and list the world powers supporting this blockade, if it's virtually the entire world it shouldn't be a problem to give me 2 dozen or so countries?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
yeah ... no kidding ... some people would have us believe somehow that trained miltary task force armed to the tilt coming in the cloak of darkness from military helicopters were somehow victims in this confrontation ... :?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
and they cut all communications from the boat so they couldn't radio or call anyone right before it happened. they didn't want a chance of anyone knowing what was happening or the live stream from the boats going out.
and that haaretz photo...i noticed the other photo gives the photographers credit but the one with the knife with the extremely bright moon behdind them ( :roll: ) has none. but if that photo were real and since israel confiscated all the cameras and phones you can see in that pic there are several people standing behind the guy with the knife taking pictures, surely it won't be a problem for israel to release some of the pics showing the guy with the knifes back and the IDF in front of him being threatened with it, right??
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
that photo is sooo bad! ... i mean - there are a bunch of photographers with smirks on their faces ... i'm not sure what is sadder - the fact that they would use a photo so bad or the fact that people actually will sop that up ...