[N_Fiddledog]

Tman1 Tman1:

In other words, you don't know and have no evidence otherwise in accordance with the article but would rather shoot your mouth off. Great. Thanks. I never said anything about the legality of a 'blockade' but rather the actions occurred in the topic at hand.

Actually Sweet Pea, what you specifically said was...

Tman1 Tman1:

Israel committed an international crime.

The blockade was the topic at hand.

I informed you, you were incorrect, and at this moment you are. A ship can be stopped in international waters if there is a legal blockade. Whether, or not the Israeli/Egypt blockade on Gaza is legal has yet to be determined. Until it is no crime has been committed.

[HyperionTheEvil]

Tman1 Tman1:

Shhhh careful, the Human Rights Commission of Canada is seeing this. You could potentially be labeled as anti-semitic for posting that and see some jail time or hefty fines. Remember, we're a multicultural society and opinions against other cultures is a crime.

I;m not anti-semetic although i'm guessing that a few here are thinking that.

for the record this is what i believe in

- Complete and equal rights for gay couples to be married with all the same legal standings as straight couples

- Strict gun control, the only people who should have regular acces to fire arms are law enforcement and the military

- Abortion on demand for women to paid for by the country/province

Amongst others.I don't care if a person is gay,straight,Jewish, Bisexual, Black, Latino, Caucasian or what have you. We all have the right to leave peaceably under our secular laws. But if one of those people decides to act like an child they should be treated as such.



Israel is doing and has repeatedly done that and then hides behind the holocaust and attempts to guilt people into muting their criticisms because of course if you criticize Israel , well of course your an anti-semite.

It's a bunch of crap

[Tman1]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I informed you, you were incorrect, and at this moment you are. A ship can be stopped in international waters if there is a legal blockade. Whether, or not the Israeli/Egypt blockade on Gaza is legal has yet to be determined. Until it is no crime has been committed.

The blockade is not the topic at hand and you still don't get it at all. I informed you you had nothing to back up your silly claims and at this moment, you still don't. They killed innocent people delivering aid on that flotilla. THAT'S not a crime in international waters? Get back to me when and where in any place in the Mediterranean of the legality of an Israeli blockade (good luck with that anything to do with Israel) for people delivering aid to another party anywhere in the Mediterranean.

You know what, you won't find it because anything Israel does is either supported in the international stage or just condemned and let bygones be bygones until another day. I advise you to brush up on your international law most specifically, territorial waters and the laws herein, that includes commando raids and killing people delivering aid to...ironically people who are blockaded legally from your perspective....Sweet pea.

[desertdude]

Ok lets look at it from another angle. The blockade is illeagl because it is collective punishment

Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people as a result of the behavior of one or more other individuals or groups. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions. In times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities,and is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions

Secondly here is a partial list of the kind of restrictions in place



http://gisha.org/UserFiles/File/HiddenM ... 060510.pdf

Now what sense does this make ? Cinamon is allowed but corriander is not ? What kind of weapons can be made from choclate, A4 sheets of paper and some seeds ?

Also lets look at Israels justification fo the blockade. What right does Israel have to regulate what goes into Gazza ? They have Tanks and all other sorts of weapons comming into Israel from ports like Asdod. They say the blockade is vital for the security of the jewish state and its people from Hamas missle attacks. Just look back and you will see Israel had gone across and bombed over the border and killed more palestenians and destroyed more houses than any Hamas missles ever have.

Also there are about 1200 tunnels under the raffa border in which anything from peanuts to new cars are being smuggled through and if Hamas wants weapons they are getting it one way or the other.

This blockade is what makes these tunnels comericialy viable in the first place. And don't think Israel is not aware of these aswell. So if they allow all resonable aid and supplies to pass through under their own supervision all this would be unrequired in the first place and no weapons were found on board the flotilla.

Now back to the matter of the Israeli attack on ships in International waters. International Law says a country can extented its territorial waters in an emergencyy situation up to a certain limit called The Contiguous zone. 44kms from shore line. The flotilla was no where with in that range.

UN Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instru ... al_sea.pdf

Also intresting is the UN convention of high seas aticle 22 on warships boarding ships on highseas. Only justified if the ship is suspected of piracy, slave trade or flying under false flag and if none of these are true the ship has to be compensated

http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/196 ... 3_4_5p.pdf

Starting to look more like a Act of War than piracy !

As mentioned earlier in this thread Turkey being a member of NATO, NATO is legally obliged to respond by matter of treaty.

The videos till now published are heavily edited videos by the IDF, there were many cameras on board all the ship, why did Israel confisticate all those videos if it has nothing to hide ?

I'll agree from what we've seen until now,( The IDF videos ) evidence only provided by the Israelis at the moment that the people on board the Mavi Marmara could have behaved more like Peace Activists rather than hooligans.

But how do you justify the use of force and violence against peacefull resistance by using flash bangs, tasers, being held hostage at gunpoint and physical violence ? from boarding to detention till release ??

Here is an interview from Awiadah Arraf aboard the Challeger 1 American Ship about her eyewitness account

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2MIQz0txLc.

Why was the flotilla treated as a military target anyways. Many ships across the world have been denied entry into various ports with any of this happening/

In a nutshell Israel attacked, boarded and hijacked ships in International waters which is piracy or an act of war if not both. Ships which were going to breach a blockade which is illegal in the first place. So I really can't say how Israel can cry foul in this situation.

Many here have the same American govermental attitude when it comes to any altercation invlving Israel, that the other party is guilty until proven innocent and not the other way round. Israel has played its guilt card over the holocaust for way to long and loves to still play victim. Germany still pays 2/3rds of any weapons Israel buys from it to make for it !

P.S : Just for clarification reasons. I'm no fan of Palestine either and if they just had agreed to the 55/45 land division in the 1940's this crap wouldn't been happening. But still what is right is right and what is wrong is WRONG.

[N_Fiddledog]

Tman1 Tman1:

The blockade is not the topic at hand and you still don't get it at all.

In a thread titled "Ten dead after Israeli forces clash with aid flotilla", yes the blockade is the topic at hand, if you want to call the incident an "international crime".

If the blockade was legal any of the actions Israel took could be seen as legal.

Boarding the ship in international waters is legal if a clear intent can be shown to run a legal blockade. Force is legal if it can be shown the force used is proportionate to the force faced. Both are dependent on whether, or not the blockade itself is legal.

Under "customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London, updated in 1994 in a legally recognised document called the “San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control."

Israel claims it did all that.

Israel's action could therefore not be seen as Piracy according to Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College. He says...

"Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest,"

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6511I7.htm

"Normally, a nation that seizes a ship on the high seas, beyond its territorial waters, is guilty of piracy. But a nation that is enforcing a blockade in wartime has the right to board a ship that it reasonably suspects of carrying contraband for the cordoned-off area."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1DP01I.DTL

Both sides of the dispute on legality are represented in the one above with opinions from experts. You should check it out.

Al Jazeera went looking for an expert. Even their expert can not claim outright the blockade was illegal.



In contrast to Al Jazeera, Alan Dershowitz in the New York Daily News makes a clear case for the legality of the blockade.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/201 ... enand.html

I don't question whether, or not you could find a lawyer somewhere to question the legality of the blockade. Of course you could. In fact here's one with supporting links that says, "Many consider Israel's blockade to be on very shaky legal ground." I question the certainty with which you call it an "international crime". At the present time there is no legal decision saying that's the case.

[desertdude]

The working group drafted the "San Remo Manual", ]which, although not legally binding, provides a clear statement of existing law and practice

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.ns ... endocument

Its more of a guide line then a signed teaty or legal international law. Thus making the entire above argument moot as its based on the non legal San Remo manual.I know the Israelis have also been usuing the san remo as a crutch but it doesn't fit here.

If using that logic then Japan was within its right to attack the US fleet at Pearl Harbour because it knew eventually the US would join the war and end up on Japanese shores !!!

Blockade is illeagal under Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons ( read my post above ) Which Israel is a signatory of.

So in a nut shell, Israel attacked/hijacked and then kidnapped and murdered the passengers onboard humanitarian aid vessels which were trying to breach an illegal blockade in international waters which is also illeagal and Israel has no jurisdiction over.

As Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim says Israel is a rogue state. A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria; the cap fits and it must wear it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ja ... -palestine

[N_Fiddledog]

desertdude desertdude:

Blockade is illeagal under Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons ( read my post above ) Which Israel is a signatory of.

You're talking about "Collective Punishment" up there right?

As I understand it "collective punishment" refers to punishment of the innocent for crimes of the guilty. For example if an innocent village was wiped out, because there was resistance from forces not immediately within, or authorized by the village, that could be collective punishment. Collective punishment is outlawed in the Geneva Convention.

In this case there was a state authorized blockade. The legality of the blockade has yet to be determined, but Israel believes it to be legal. They enforced the blockade. They met armed resistance. They responded in kind. If Israel is correct in thinking the blockade is legal, and it can make a case for their claim the forceful response was proportionate to the force encountered there was no collective punishment.

Again it's currently a legal argument. There is no legal decision as of yet on the details.

[N_Fiddledog]

Just because I may never get a chance to agree with Joe Biden on anything, ever again, I'm going to post his view.

[desertdude]

See therein lies the problem " Israel believes that the blockade is legal " and majority of the world believes and probally knows that it isn't

In fact the video you posted was very helpfull in making it very clear that the blockade is illegal. from the video itself

For a blockade to be legal it has to follow certain steps,

1) There needs to be an armed conflict : Israel beileves there is one.

2) The limits of the blockade need to be defined and published : ok we are not clear to wheter it did or did not, I'm pretty it would be shouting it out loud if it did but since we dont know we'll give it that for now. Although the expert in the video says he has yet to see anything in relation to that, so most probally not

Now here is the most important one.

3) A blockade should not proceed if it violates principal propotionality : If it inflicts excessive damage on civillian population in relation to the concrete military advantage..OOPS !

Sorry mate, sounds pretty much illeagal to me.

[desertdude]

As for ol Joey, The US is trying to very hard to please everyone. On one hand it does not want to go outright and upset little brother Israel as like I said it follows the policy of anything involving Israel, the proof of burden is on the other party and not Israel and at the same time trying to not look like a complete fool by not condeming the attacks.

So kinda looking stupid trying to satisfy Israel and rest of the world all at the same time

[commanderkai]

desertdude desertdude:

Now here is the most important one.

3) A blockade should not proceed if it violates principal propotionality : If it inflicts excessive damage on civillian population in relation to the concrete military advantage..OOPS !

Sorry mate, sounds pretty much illeagal to me.

Proportionality is sticking it's head around once more? Sigh. The problem is with your "Oops" is that proportionality is completely subjective. Since aid can still get to the Gaza population (of course, this assume Hamas lets aid get to the Gaza population), Israel can see the continuation as military beneficial (because they do stop weapon laden ships), and that said military advantage outweighs the potential harm to the Gaza population

Israel isn't as dumb as you people think. That's why they created the land corridors for aid. Why couldn't these "activists" unload their cargo and drive the aid in trucks? Even if there was some banned products, no doubt they could have sold said products and replaced it with allowed products. Oh right! Because this wasn't about aid at all, but rather to make a political point.

[N_Fiddledog]

desertdude desertdude:

See therein lies the problem " Israel believes that the blockade is legal " and majority of the world believes and probally knows that it isn't

Not at this time they don't. The blockade has been in effect for almost 3 years. If, as you believe, the world believes the blockade is illegal they have had lots of time to register a legal response. No such response exists.

$1:

In fact the video you posted was very helpfull in making it very clear that the blockade is illegal. from the video itself

The video was from Al Jazeera, and I posted it to show how not even they could find an expert to unequivocally state the blockade is illegal.

$1:

For a blockade to be legal it has to follow certain steps,

1) There needs to be an armed conflict : Israel beileves there is one.

2) The limits of the blockade need to be defined and published : ok we are not clear to wheter it did or did not, I'm pretty it would be shouting it out loud if it did but since we dont know we'll give it that for now. Although the expert in the video says he has yet to see anything in relation to that, so most probally not

Now here is the most important one.

3) A blockade should not proceed if it violates principal propotionality : If it inflicts excessive damage on civillian population in relation to the concrete military advantage..OOPS !

Blockade runners are not the "civilian population". Evidence appears to suggest they initiated the conflict, and caused bodily harm. Allegations of first shots have been made by the Israeli military, against the jihadi-pests. The blockade runners chanted death to Israel threats, promising blood, and waxed poetically about martyrdom before the conflict. Not only did they attack first, the attack was premeditated. They were armed, and prepared to attack. The Israeli response was proportionate to the attack. That is legal when enforcing a legal blockade. Not even the Al Jazeera expert claims it is not.

$1:

Sorry mate, sounds pretty much illeagal to me.

No need to apologize. You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is - an opinion.

[desertdude]

Ah there ya go again my friend. Nobodys arguging about letting weapons in and which BTW if you would have read my earlier post outlines the weapons getting in anyways through tunnels which are profitable only because of Israels blockade also the non sensical restrictions on items like choclate, fresh meat, A4 size paper and building materials etc etc. A recent report said that only 1/4th of aid is being let across than what is needed.

How can you say the military advantage outweighs the harm on the Gazzan population with a straight face.

" Israel isnt as dumb as you think " Its even dumber than that. The land corridors are a joke and everybody knows that. If it was a strictly no weapons blockade there would be no issue. Infact Israel would be in much better control but it chooses not to and make life miserable for the gazzan population. Why ?

Yes it wasn't totally about aid it was to raise awareness fo the plight of the Gazzan population who are currently living in what is akin to the Jewish ghettos of Nazi Germany.

[desertdude]

I've been hearing about all these armed gangs of terorists on board the Mavi marmara. And how they attacked first and all that. I would really like to see real evidence other than the IDF night vision videos of that and some accoounts from other than the soilders themselves.

I would think if they were so boiling for a fight they would have soem real wepaons on board and killed a few IDF soilders don't ya think but it was they other way round as far as I can remember. I havent heard or seen any reports about the "arms stash" found on board. Saw some pictures of some sling shots and gas masks and thats about it.

The blocake is ileagal and so is hijacking and murder on the high seas

[martin14]

desertdude desertdude:

who are currently living in what is akin to the Jewish ghettos of Nazi Germany.

That was a really pathetic shot, shows you know very little to nothing at all
about the history of the ghettos.




Your credibilty around here will be gone very quickly if you
keep choosing your words so very very poorly.