United Nations » Israel faced heavy criticism in an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council on Monday in response to its deadly attack on an aid flotilla trying to breach the Gaza blockade, but attempts to issue a formal statement stalled after the United States rejected the strong condemnation sought by Turkey.
Turkey proposed a statement that would condemn Israel for violating international law, demand a U.N. investigation and demand that Israel prosecute those responsible for the raid and pay compensation to the victims. It also called for the end of the blockade.
The Obama administration refused to endorse a statement that singled out Israel, and proposed a broader condemnation of the violence that would include the assault of the Israeli commandos as they landed on the deck of the ship.
Even though they were shooting even before they came on the ship, and killed the captain. But don’t let that small detail distract you. Just like all those stories about the Israelis using white phosphorus on civilians they so vehemently denied — but admitted, months later.
Nice one, Barrack. Now we need to condemn human rights activists for acting in self defense while being boarded at sea by militant Israeli terrorists. Could this be twisted any further from sanity? Perhaps the murder victims’ families should be doing yard work for the Israelis as a form of restitution.
Nothing new from “Mr. Change We Can Believe In”. Oh well…………..
It appears that the Israelis sabotaged two of the flotillas boats, as they both broke down with the same malfunction. And “grey ops’ were referred to by Israeli spokesperson…. Guardian report:
Which captain was killed? Any links? Thnx!
BOYCOTT ISRAEL!!! Even Naomi Klein says to do it! No scientists, no professors, no cultural events at all, of course, financially, but in every way, not just $$$$$$ BOYCOTT ISRAEL/WALLSTREETGANGSTAs. The wallet is the only place ‘feelings’ exist, OK; BOYCOTT ISRAEL.!!!! DO it now! Web page same name, gives lists of goods, suppliers, other parts of the nerwork of delivery.
Oh please…
Show me the proof that the Israelis fired first…
You can’t because it just ain’t so..
Yet there IS documented proof of supposed “peace activists” armed with clubs, attacking soldiers that are legally and legitimately boarding a hostile vessel.
Isn’t it funny how ya’all condemn Israel yet are strangely silent at the daily… DAILY terrorist attacks committed by Hamas.
Why is that??
Michale32086
Isn’t it funny how all these people pop out of the woodwork anytime the Israelis commit war crimes?
Susie,
That’s probably because there are people who are ignorant of the reality that insist on throwing around loaded terms like “terrorism” and “war crimes” without having clue one about what they are talking about.
I admire your passion. I simply believe it is misplaced… Why do you not condemn the DAILY terrorist attacks (TRUE terrorist attacks) committed by Hamas??
NOTHING justifies terrorism..
Michale32086
Gosh, Michael32086. How could the humanitarian flotilla fire first when they had had no guns? This was an act of piracy by Israel in international waters, and the people on those ships had every right to defend themselves from attack.
Obviously the truth in the Israeli Palestinian conflict is somewhere in the middle. White phosphorous weapons used on civilian targets is a war crime by any definition. Starving out the Gaza Ghettos and preventing international aid workers from observing the resulting calamities is cruel and vindictive disproportionate to the futile retaliations from the Palestinians.
How could the humanitarian flotilla fire first when they had had no guns?
Martigan — We don’t know if they had guns or not. Regardless, it was asinine (not to mention very foolish) to attempt to defend their vessels from an Israeli boarding party. Once the IDF determined that they would board the ships, it was over.
Michale — How could the humanitarian flotilla fire first when they had had no guns?
You’re kidding right? Those ships were in international waters carrying humanitarian aid. Israel had no right to board them. Nice knee-jerk reaction in the face of the facts.
My own take on this is that delivering the humanitarian aid was a secondary goal. The primary goal was to bring the attention of the world to the blockade. I believe they intended to have a confrontation with the Israelis and they got it. Israel walked right into a setup and seriously overreacted to a perceived threat, killing many people. They are now on the receiving end of the world’s scorn, albeit that doesn’t seem to include the U.S. at this point. I have been following the Guardian’s coverage of the incident here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/may/31/israel-troops-gaza-ships
Editing errors in my post above.
Michale — attacking soldiers that are legally and legitimately boarding a hostile vessel
You’re kidding right? Those ships were in international waters carrying humanitarian aid. Israel had no right to board them. Nice knee-jerk reaction in the face of the facts.
Also, this Regardless, it was asinine (not to mention very foolish) to attempt to defend their vessels from an Israeli boarding party.
should have read: Regardless, it was utterly stupid (not to mention very foolish) to attempt to defend their vessels from an Israeli boarding party.
I could really use a preview button. Any chance of that happening?
“You’re kidding right? Those ships were in international waters carrying humanitarian aid. Israel had no right to board them. Nice knee-jerk reaction in the face of the facts.”
———————————————————————–
Sorry, JB but you are incorrect..
The Law of Nations gives to every belligerent cruiser the right of visitation and search of all merchant ships, wherefore resistance to such search amounts to a forfeiture of neutrality… A neutral ship refusing to be searched would from that proceeding alone be condemned as a lawful prize.
-Lord Stowell, Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, War of 1812
That is the law of the sea in this regard to this day.
The flotilla was warned over a period of several days that they were entering an area of hostile action. They were advised to reverse course. They refused. That made them an invading force.
The activists on the boat armed themselves with weapons. Crude weapons to be sure, but weapons nonetheless. That made them combatants, not innocent civilians.
You also might want to review the Cuban Blockade initiated by the United States in 1962, I believe.
Blockades are a legitimate form of warfare when a state of war exists. Such as the state of war that exists between Israel and Hamas.
Any questions??
Michale32086
JB,
I second your request for a PREVIEW option.. 😀
I know about tags and attributes.. Can you give me the lowdown on ITALICS and BOLD?
Thanx
Michale32086
Martigan….
Until I figure out a better QUOTE option, please forgive the excessive punctuation…
)))White phosphorous weapons used on civilian targets is a war crime by any definition. ((((
White phosphorous is perfectly legal and legitimate to use as an illumination and marking device. Such was the use during the last
Gaza war…
)))Starving out the Gaza Ghettos and preventing international aid workers(((
No one is starving out out anyone and aid workers are freely able to pass to and from Gaza.
The problem with the IHH is, besides being a terrorist supporting organization is that they had no interest in humanitarian aid to Gaza. If they had, they would have used all the accepted channels for getting the aid thru..
Their intent was to provoke Israel. Too bad it blew up in their face and caused the deaths of 9 possibly innocent people.
One shouldn’t tweak the tail of the tiger, unless they have a plan to deal with it’s teeth…
Do you have any comments on the terrorism that is committed against Israeli citizens on a daily basis…
No???
Didn’t think so…
Michale32086
Blockades are a legitimate form of warfare when a state of war exists. Such as the state of war that exists between Israel and Hamas.
“The incident also places renewed attention on the blockade of Gaza, which has itself been described as a breach of article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the use of collective punishment.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/afua-hirsch-law-blog/2010/jun/01/gaza-freedom-flotilla-international-law
As for your law of nations:
According to prominent Turkish jurists, Israel’s bloody assault on the Mavi Marmara — one of the three Turkish boats carrying aid to besieged Gaza — violated international law as it occurred in international waters and against civilians who were on board for humanitarian purposes.
“The Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that a coastal state may consider intervention if a ship is engaged in arms and drug smuggling, the slave trade or terrorist activities. However, the case with the aid boats is totally different. They set sail in accordance with the Customs Act and are known to be carrying humanitarian aid, not weapons or ammunition. According to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, Israel was not entitled to launch a military operation against the boats and activists,” stated Dr. Turgut Tarhanlı from the law department of İstanbul Bilgi University.
Under the convention vessels are granted the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters. “Innocent passage” is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not “prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security” of the coastal state.
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-211726-102-jurists-israeli-flotilla-assault-violation-of-international-law.html
Here are some other articles regarding the legal arguments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060102934.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010053101699
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177028
Regardless of the legal issue, do you really believe that the Israeli reaction and use of force was proportional to the threat that was presented? It was not necessary to board the ships and it was entirely stupid to do so in the manner in which it was done.
As for bold and italics, they’re done with standard html tags and or and without the spaces though.
Looks like that didn’t work with the tags example. Use with an i or b for italic or bold text. Use with a /i or /b to turn them off.
That is the law of the sea in this regard to this day.
You might want to come up with a more recent source than 1812. There have been one or two developments since then.
Frankly, Michale, you’re defending the indefensible. The activist ships were unarmed — they made sure they were in case they were boarded and searched. The “weapons” confiscated and put on display by the IDF to show how DANGEROUS the activists were include kitchen knives, a paint roller and some wrenches.
Yeah, real dangerous. The keffiyeh in the picture is a nice touch, too.
As I understand it, any guns found on the activists belonged to the Israeli commandos, which really does make you wonder how prepared they were; it seems pretty clear that they expected the hippies to just roll over for them and never expected them to fight back when boarded in international waters by thugs.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that the IDF got its fee-fees hurt because those mean peace activists weren’t so peaceful after all, the fact remains that it was the activists, not the IDF, who suffered casualties.
And finally, a big fuck-you to the Obama Administration and its “both sides are equally bad” equivocating. The violence you condemn only became necessary because your buddies the Israelis boarded ships in international waters.
This article addresses the legal questions surrounding the Israeli actions quite well:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7142055.ece
Michale – The daily “terrorist” attacks you continue to bring up, are a weak response to the destruction of Palestinian homes and businesses as Israel continues to expand their settlements well beyond any established boundaries, (be they 1948 or 1968). I’m sure it’s annoying to have poverty stricken teenagers throwing rocks at your tank, but it doesn’t give you cause to turn your machine guns on them.
Asymmetrical warfare almost always ends up with the weaker side resorting to guerrilla tactics. The colonials used this approach successfully against the British, the Vietnamese against the US, and the Afghans against the Soviets. It seems some people will do anything to defend their homeland, and somebody else will call them terrorists for doing it.
Just testing for attributes…
Bold with Less Than
[B]Bold[/B] with brackets
OK now that I have got that figured out, to business…
JB,
“The incident also places renewed attention on the blockade of Gaza, which has itself been described as a breach of article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the use of collective punishment.”
The collective punishment clause does not apply when there is a real, pressing and legitimate need to blockade a country as a measure of self-defense. When the primary goal is to prevent an enemy from acquiring weapons that could be used against them, a nation is perfectly within it’s rights to blockade an enemy, even if the secondary effect of such a blockade can appear to be a collective punishment.
Further, the collective punishment clause also does not apply because Israel DOES allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. The IHH chose to ignore the clear and established channels for such aid.
Apparently, they choose poorly.
According to prominent Turkish jurists, Israel’s bloody assault on the Mavi Marmara — one of the three Turkish boats carrying aid to besieged Gaza — violated international law as it occurred in international waters and against civilians who were on board for humanitarian purposes.
We have already established that the fact that they were in international waters is irrelevant to the issue as to whether they can be boarded or not. They can, due to the fact that their intent to violate the legal blockade was clear and present.
Further, due to the fact that the civilians had armed themselves in response to the fully legal boarding, they were no longer civilian humanitarians, but rather combatants.
Regardless of the legal issue, do you really believe that the Israeli reaction and use of force was proportional to the threat that was presented? It was not necessary to board the ships and it was entirely stupid to do so in the manner in which it was done.
Actually, due to the size and speed of the Mavi Marmara, the ONLY option was to board her.
Regardless, it is YOUR opinion that it was not necessary to board the ship. You were not there so, with the utmost respect, your opinion is based on not knowing the facts and is prejudiced by your apparent disdain for Israel.
Looks like that didn’t work with the tags example. Use with an i or b for italic or bold text. Use with a /i or /b to turn them off.
Thanx.. 😀 I knew the codes for the attributes, but wasn’t sure if this forum used the squared off brackets or the GREATER THAN/LESS THAN brackets.
zuzu,
You might want to come up with a more recent source than 1812. There have been one or two developments since then.
To be sure. Yet many MANY of the “Laws Of The Sea” that are in force today come from the same time period and even earlier..
Frankly, Michale, you’re defending the indefensible. The activist ships were unarmed — they made sure they were in case they were boarded and searched. The “weapons” confiscated and put on display by the IDF to show how DANGEROUS the activists were include kitchen knives, a paint roller and some wrenches.
Even if this were correct, it is irrelevant. If a person comes at you with a wrench, and you have a gun, it is perfectly legal to shoot them..
But in this case, you are incorrect. The facts show that the activists had a cache of weapons on hand, including bats, both metal and wood, large metal pipes and poles and an assortment of knives. The videos of the incident clearly show the activists employing those weapons immediately upon being legally boarded.
The IDF responded with remarkable restraint and did not employ deadly force until two of their own were shot or gravely wounded.
These are the facts..
As I understand it, any guns found on the activists belonged to the Israeli commandos, which really does make you wonder how prepared they were; it seems pretty clear that they expected the hippies to just roll over for them and never expected them to fight back when boarded in international waters by thugs.
It’s been made clear that the IDF was NOT prepared for the level of violence created by the activists. They boarding party was armed with non-lethal paintball guns with handguns as backup only. They DID expect that the so-called humanitarians would submit to the boarding. The IDF boarding party did not expect to be attacked.
They were and they responded with remarkable restraint, considering..
Nevertheless, despite the fact that the IDF got its fee-fees hurt because those mean peace activists weren’t so peaceful after all, the fact remains that it was the activists, not the IDF, who suffered casualties.
This is incorrect. The IDF had 8 soldiers injured, two severely. All injuries and deaths that occurred are the direct responsibility of the activists.
And finally, a big fuck-you to the Obama Administration and its “both sides are equally bad” equivocating. The violence you condemn only became necessary because your buddies the Israelis boarded ships in international waters.
While I agree with the FU part 😀 I have to admit that the Obama administration acted properly in this regard. This was avoidable, if the IHH would have obeyed the law and followed established procedures for getting so-called “vitally needed” aid to Gaza..
Martigan,
Michale – The daily “terrorist” attacks you continue to bring up, are a weak response to the destruction of Palestinian homes and businesses as Israel continues to expand their settlements well beyond any established boundaries, (be they 1948 or 1968). I’m sure it’s annoying to have poverty stricken teenagers throwing rocks at your tank, but it doesn’t give you cause to turn your machine guns on them.
Regardless of ANY provocation, NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING justifies terrorism..
NOTHING….
Asymmetrical warfare almost always ends up with the weaker side resorting to guerrilla tactics. The colonials used this approach successfully against the British, the Vietnamese against the US, and the Afghans against the Soviets. It seems some people will do anything to defend their homeland, and somebody else will call them terrorists for doing it.
No one is talking about “guerilla tactics”.. We are discussing terrorism.. There is nothing wrong with employing “guerilla tactics”.. But if your choice of targets for such tactics are innocent civilians, then that is terrorism..
And it’s not allowed.. That’s the rule…
Michale32086…..
Dear IDF warrior, please go to hell!!!!! All you have to say is crap already disproved.
There seems to be three arguments here.
1. Is the blockade of Gaza legal?
This is possibly the murkiest of the questions. On the one hand, we have the Geneva Conventions which clearly allow such blockades when a state of war exists. A state of war between Israel and Gaza DOES exist.. So, clearly by the GC, the blockade is perfectly legal… However, there is UN Resolution 1860. I am not sure if a UN Resolution can trump the Geneva Conventions. I tend to ignore anything coming out of the UN anyways, having seen first hand how completely and utterly incompetent the UN is.
Regardless, even if 1860 DOES trump the GCs, Hamas hasn’t fulfilled it’s obligations under 1860, so it’s really not binding on Israel.
So, all things being equal, it appears that the blockade of Gaza is perfectly legal by international law.. I am also constrained to point out that it is not even a COMPLETE blockade. Israel allows tons and tons of humanitarian aid to enter Gaza on a daily basis. If the IHH had availed itself of the proper way to get their aid to Gaza, we would not be having this conversation.
2. Did Israel have the right to board the ships in international waters?
Since we have established that the blockade is legal under international law then, clearly, the answer is yes. Vessels can be boarded in international waters if there is clear evidence that said vessels have an intent to run a blockade. I don’t think anyone will argue that the IHH flotilla had made clear their intent to run the Gaza blockade. Under such evidence, the Israeli Navy had clear legal authority to board the vessels, even if the vessels were in international waters.
3. Was the level of force appropriate for the IDF boarding party?
The answer here requires a certain level of experience and expertise to answer properly. It is clear from the evidence that the legal boarding party was attacked by armed activists. While it is not clear if the activists had handguns on hand or whether handguns were stolen from the boarding party, it is indisputable that at some point, an activist or activists wielded a handgun and shot at least one IDF soldier. Even before that point, use of deadly force was legitimate due to the ferocity of the attack by the activists armed with clubs and knives. The fact that the IDF boarding party did not open fire at that point is a tribute to their courage and their professionalism. Once gunfire erupted from the activists, the IDF was left with no choice but to return fire.
“These are the facts. And they are indisputable.”
-Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN
Michale32086
Rose,
Dear IDF warrior, please go to hell!!!!! All you have to say is crap already disproved.
For example…..????
Michale32086
not really impressed with the “tiger’s teeth” lately!
Gotta love watching those idiots repel one by one onto the ship so they could get what they deserved (in violation of their own doctrine for dealing with mobs in the occupied territories.)
Neither are your own analysts in Israel–where you seem to get a much more diverse slate of opinion than we do in our press here in the U.S.
But thanks for playing!
steveeboy,
Gotta love watching those idiots repel one by one onto the ship so they could get what they deserved (in violation of their own doctrine for dealing with mobs in the occupied territories.)
It’s understandable that the IDF didn’t think it would be dealing with a “mob”. It was 0400 hrs at the time that the boarding was initiated..
Which is not to say that the IDF didn’t make mistakes. They made mistakes to be sure. Their biggest mistake was erring on the side of caution. They should have had triple the force they did and that force should have been well armed and armoured… I am sure it was political considerations that imposed the idea of a small lightly armed and armoured force.
However, in their defense, there was plenty of precedence to show that a large well armed force wasn’t necessary…
Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20…
Neither are your own analysts in Israel–where you seem to get a much more diverse slate of opinion than we do in our press here in the U.S.
You think I am in Israel?? The “32086” didn’t give it away?? 😀 Seriously, I am flattered you think I would be in Israel..
If you see a fault in my analysis, by all means. Do tell… 😀
Michale32086
Since we have established that the blockade is legal under international law then, clearly, the answer is yes.
Really? Perhaps you missed it but that is strictly your opinion and certainly not a fact. It is the key legal question and your view is certainly not the consensus view as judged by the articles that I cited.
If the blockade is deemed to be illegal, the actions of Israel that followed are also illegal. I personally will wait for an actual authority to answer this question rather than accept your opinion.
JB,
If the blockade is deemed to be illegal, the actions of Israel that followed are also illegal. I personally will wait for an actual authority to answer this question rather than accept your opinion.
Ask and ye shall receive.
Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict. There are many such blockades that have never been legally challenged in recent history.
The US blockade of Cuba
The UK blockade of the Falklands
The EU blockade of Yugoslavia
Blockades were first defined in international law at the Congress of Paris in 1856. One of the agreed rules was that a blockade had to be effective in order to be lawful. This banned so-called “paper” blockades — blockades that were declared to the blockaded nation, but were not actively enforced, allowing the blockading party to seize the cargo of neutral states trading with blockaded harbors.[6] At the Declaration of London in 1909 another attempt was made to further protect the rights of neutral traders.[7] The treaty was only ratified by a few nations, preventing any application of the agreements. Parts of it were, however, applied during blockades in World War I.
Since 1945, the UN Security Council determines the legal status of blockades and by article 42 of the UN Charter, the Council can also apply blockades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade
So, we have established that blockades are a legal and legitimate form of warfare and self-defense.
Now, taken from your own link…
During an armed conflict, however, a belligerent state is entitled to blockade enemy ports as a measure of economic warfare.
Historically, such a blockade had to be conducted close to shore. In modern law, however, a blockade may be enforced against neutral vessels on the high seas, where the events on the Marvi Marmara took place.
A belligerent may stop, inspect and divert any vessel it suspects of intending to breach its blockade, which is what Israel says it intended to do.
While a merchant vessel has a right to freedom of navigation on the high seas, it can be intercepted legally when its express intention is to breach a blockade.
So, I guess your argument is that Israel’s blockade is not a legal blockade.
What do you base this on??
Humanitarian aid gets to Gaza to the tune of tons and tons on a daily basis..
Therefore the collective punishment clause does not apply.
By all standards of international law, Israel’s blockade of Gaza is perfectly legal.
This is not an opinion. This is a fact..
Now, if you have any specifics that dispute this fact….well, like Ross Perot said in the 1992 Presidential Debates, “I’m all ears.” 😀
Michale32086
It’s also relevant to note that Hamas can end ALL blockading of Gaza quite easily and quickly.
1. Release Cpl Schalit. A soldier that was brutally kidnapped and has been illegally held for over 4 years.
2. End all terrorist activities against Israel and Israeli citizens.
3. Acknowledge that the State Of Israel has a right to exist.
Those 3 things are the ONLY things that stand between peace and war between Israel and Gaza.
Until such times as those three conditions are met by Hamas, Israel has and will always have the legal and moral high ground.
Michale32086
You stated: Humanitarian aid gets to Gaza to the tune of tons and tons on a daily basis..
Therefore the collective punishment clause does not apply.
By all standards of international law, Israel’s blockade of Gaza is perfectly legal.
Again, this is opinion, not fact as you purport.
You seem to have omitted this relevant section from the link I provided:
The authority to intercept vessels and control aid deliveries, however, is available only in a lawful blockade. To be lawful, a blockade must not be implemented where the damage to the civilian population is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade, and this is where Israel’s legal position is open to question.
The BBC has reported UN agencies as saying that insufficient aid is reaching Gaza, possibly less than one quarter of daily needs. This raises serious questions about the underlying legality of the blockade.
The relevant rules of armed conflict prohibit intentionally starving the civilian population and require that humanitarian supplies essential to survival must be allowed to pass, albeit subject to certain controls by the blockading power.
To maintain a population at a level just above the bare minimum needed for survival might arguably be within the strictest letter of the law, but could never seriously be thought consistent with its spirit.
Calls for the immediate cessation of the blockade may well have a good case in law as well as in humanitarian policy.
The International Law basis for blockades in this case, comes from the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea est.12 June 1994
SECTION II-METHODS OF WARFARE
Blockade
93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.
94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.
95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.
96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.
97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.
98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.
99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.
100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.
101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94.
102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.
103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:
(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.
There is the law in black and white.
As I mentioned above, since the Israel is fully in compliant with the laws of warfare when it comes to their blockade of Gaza, all subsequent actions taken by Israel in this particular instance are fully legal and justified, by ANY interpretation possible of international law.
“Are there any intelligent questions?”
-Colonel Willie Sharp, ARMAGEDDON
😀
Michale32086
“Are there any intelligent questions?” More brilliant quips I see.
Perhaps you should first work on differentiating between opinion and fact.
Second, laws are subject to interpretation and just because you say that your interpretation is correct does not make it so. I realize that you have difficulty understanding that given your blind allegiance to the state of Israel and you, apparently, believe that they can do no wrong but there are other reasonable points of view different from your own. Someday maybe you’ll understand that.
What you’ve done here is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “no it’s not!, no it’s not!” Not terribly impressive.
To be lawful, a blockade must not be implemented where the damage to the civilian population is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade, and this is where Israel’s legal position is open to question.
Open to question by whom???
Who is in the best position to determine whether or not the damage to Gaza is excessive compared to the damage to Israel if Hamas is allowed free reign in importing weapons and explosives?
Seems to me that Israel would be in the best position to know that. It’s not up to you or I to determine that.
In the here and now, Gazans are struggling… If Hamas were allowed free reign to import anything they wanted, Israelis would be dying by the thousands.
Seems to me that hungry Gazans would not be “excessive” compared to the alternative.
That assumes, of course, that the Gazans ARE hungry, which I seriously doubt.
The BBC has reported UN agencies as saying that insufficient aid is reaching Gaza, possibly less than one quarter of daily needs. This raises serious questions about the underlying legality of the blockade.
The UN can report that pigs fly and the moon is made of cheese.. Doesn’t necessarily make it so.. The UN is crap as an organization. I wouldn’t take the UN’s word if they said that the sky is blue and water is wet..
If all you have are UN reports…??? Well, no offense, but that’s nothing…
But if foodstuff and medicines are at such low levels, perhaps Hamas should forgo smuggling in all the weapons and explosives and instead smuggle in foodstuffs and medicines, no??
As I said above, Hamas can end the blockade TODAY, if they wanted to…
But it seems to me that Hamas is more interested in killing Israelis than they are interested in taking care of their people.
Michale32086
Michale: as you may well be a lawyer, let me suggest to you that you apply for a position at Harvard. You would be a great understudy for Alan what’s-his-name, the guy to says torture is legal.
Your efforts on the behalf of Israel only show that you have become the new Nazis. Congratulations, and fuck you.
JB,
“Are there any intelligent questions?” More brilliant quips I see.
I do a lot of movie quotes.. 😀 Don’t take them personally..
Second, laws are subject to interpretation and just because you say that your interpretation is correct does not make it so.
Some laws do… This is not one of those laws…
I realize that you have difficulty understanding that given your blind allegiance to the state of Israel
My “allegiance” to Israel is far from “blind”. I know from first hand experience the threats that Israelis face on a daily basis. I have a military background and have worked closely with the IDF and IAF in my career.
and you, apparently, believe that they can do no wrong but there are other reasonable points of view different from your own.
Any point of view that says terrorism is justified is NOT a reasonable point of view by ANY stretch of the imagination.
As I said above, as long as Hamas resorts to terrorism and refuses to cede Israel’s right to exist, Israel will always have the moral and legal high ground in anything they do in response up to, but not including, terrorism itself.
Michale32086
Jesus,
Michale: as you may well be a lawyer, let me suggest to you that you apply for a position at Harvard.
No, I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. 😀
You would be a great understudy for Alan what’s-his-name, the guy to says torture is legal.
We can save that discussion for another day.. Suffice it to say, though, that I would have more feelings for a cockroach that I accidentally stepped on then I would have for some scumbag terrorist getting a “bath”.
Michale32086
Michale, either stop trolling or you’re banned.
Susie,
Huh??
I am not trolling.. I am simply responding to posts that are directed at me.
If a free exchange of ideas is not welcome here, I will be glad to leave.
Michale32086
Using eliminationist language like calling people “cockroaches” is grounds for banning.
Who is in the best position to determine whether or not the damage to Gaza is excessive compared to the damage to Israel if Hamas is allowed free reign in importing weapons and explosives?
What does humanitarian aid have to do with explosives and weapons?
It would seem to me that relief agencies and the UN are in a better position to judge the damage that the blockade is doing to the people of Gaza than Israel.
That assumes, of course, that the Gazans ARE hungry, which I seriously doubt.
Again, this is your opinion and it’s based upon what exactly? Your admitted Israeli bias?
If all you have are UN reports…??? Well, no offense, but that’s nothing…
That’s rich coming from you. You have only your opinion upon which laws are applicable and the pertinent interpretations. I would say that the opinion of the UN carries more weight than yours or mine.
As I said above, Hamas can end the blockade TODAY, if they wanted to…
Have you ever considered that the desires of the people of Gaza and Hamas are not the same? The people can not end the blockade by themselves.
Any point of view that says terrorism is justified is NOT a reasonable point of view by ANY stretch of the imagination.
I guess the definition of “terrorism” depends upon which side of the gun you’re on. I don’t support the violence in the Middle East regardless of who commits it.
Suffice it to say, though, that I would have more feelings for a cockroach that I accidentally stepped on then I would have for some scumbag terrorist getting a “bath”.
Susie, While I dislike the reference, in all fairness I didn’t infer the meaning in that statement that you did. I don’t think it was necessarily trolling.
Susie,
Ahh I see..
I wasn’t referring to anyone here (or any person at all) as cockroaches… I was simply using them as a comparative to express my disgust for terrorists. My apologies for the mis-understanding…
JB,
What does humanitarian aid have to do with explosives and weapons?
That’s kinda my point. Hamas doesn’t seem to have any problem smuggling in weapons and explosives. If there IS a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, then Hamas should forgo exposives and weapons smuggling and, instead, smuggle in foodstuffs and medicine.
Wouldn’t you agree??
It would seem to me that relief agencies and the UN are in a better position to judge the damage that the blockade is doing to the people of Gaza than Israel.
If you could show that said relief agencies and the UN weren’t biased against Israel, then I might be inclined to agree with you. Sadly, such is not the case.
Regardless, would ANY sovereign country trust the safety and security of their citizens to an outside agency?? Especially one as biased and as riddled with corruption as the UN…
Again, this is your opinion and it’s based upon what exactly? Your admitted Israeli bias?
Yes, this is my opinion. It is based on the DOCUMENTED evidence of all the aid that is traveling to Gaza thru proper channels.. I believe the Israeli checkpoints all have WebCams available so that you can SEE the amount of aid that gets thru.
Regardless, do you have a link to those UN reports that document the alleged crisis in Gaza? I would like to read them…
That’s rich coming from you. You have only your opinion upon which laws are applicable and the pertinent interpretations. I would say that the opinion of the UN carries more weight than yours or mine.
Remember, you are talking about the same UN that made 9 BILLION (with a B) dollars a year off the Iraq OFF program. You are talking about the same UN that went down to a small African nation to disarm rebels and, instead, ended up arming them at a very nice profit for the UN.
There are simply WAY too many documented cases of UN fraud, malfeasance and downright incompetence for me to believe ANYTHING that comes out of the UN..
Yes, that’s my opinion.. But it is well backed up by facts…
Have you ever considered that the desires of the people of Gaza and Hamas are not the same? The people can not end the blockade by themselves.
Then perhaps they should not have voted in HAMAS to represent them as government.
But regardless of that, I *DO* agree with you. The people of Gaza are the losers in this. They are suffering, there is not any doubt in my mind about that. Just like the people of Germany and Japan suffered greatly for the actions of their leaders.
But their suffering simply CANNOT dissuade Israel from it’s primary function. And that is to safeguard the lives and liberties of it’s own citizens.
I guess the definition of “terrorism” depends upon which side of the gun you’re on.
Actually, terrorism is quite specifically defined.
“Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda.”
The idea that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is THE worst pile of carp of ALL the piles of carp there are in this world.. There is nothing noble or romantic or chivalrous about a terrorist..
I don’t support the violence in the Middle East regardless of who commits it.
Then you and I are in complete agreement..
I guess where we differ is in who should stop the violence first. It’s been made pretty clear that Israel has tried time and time again to pull back and to absorb hits and losses, only to be met with more attacks and more terrorism.
The pullback from Gaza is a perfect example of that..
It is unrealistic in the extreme for anyone to expect Israel to turn the other cheek when they are attacked, literally on a daily basis..
Michale…..
Jerusalem (CNN) — Israel has attempted to deliver humanitarian aid from an international flotilla to Gaza, but Hamas — which controls the territory — has refused to accept the cargo, the Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/02/israel.palestinians.aid/
Apparently, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is not as bad as some would claim.
Once again we see how Hamas is more interested in sticking it to Israel then they are in taking care of their people.
JB, I said it before and I’ll say it again. I completely and 1000% unequivocally agree with you.
The people of Gaza are the big losers in all this… 🙁
Michale…..
Apparently, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is not as bad as some would claim.
Again, as I said previously, the interests of Hamas and the people of Gaza are not necessarily in alignment. Refusing needed aid is yet another example.
As for terrorism, what exactly would you call Israel’s use of force in December of 2008? Justified? It was a gross overreaction by Israel, something they specialize in. I don’t see that getting any better with the neo-con wing in charge either.
JB,
Again, as I said previously, the interests of Hamas and the people of Gaza are not necessarily in alignment. Refusing needed aid is yet another example.
Then you and I are in complete agreement…
Common ground… A wonderful thing. 😀
As for terrorism, what exactly would you call Israel’s use of force in December of 2008? Justified? It was a gross overreaction by Israel, something they specialize in. I don’t see that getting any better with the neo-con wing in charge either.
At the risk of opening up another fight… 😀
Yes, the attack on Gaza was justified. Israel had been suffering daily terrorist attacks out of Gaza. Hamas had continued to violate provisions of the cease fire by tunneling into Israeli territory to kidnap more soldiers, by continuing to fire missiles at Israeli civilian targets and by not releasing Cpl Schalit.
The reason why there were so many innocent Palestinian causalities is a direct result of Hamas’ practice of putting military targets in civilian areas… There is a .GIF floating around the Internet that shows the difference between an Israeli soldier and a Hamas soldier. The Israeli soldier is firing at Hamas from in FRONT of a baby carriage and the Hamas soldier is firing at the Israeli from BEHIND the baby carriage.
That pretty much says it all as to why there was a disproportionate amount of innocent Palestinian casualties..
Which is not to say that Israel did not make mistakes. There were mistakes made, with tragic results. But they WERE mistakes. They were not intentional targeting of civilians or civilian areas.
That’s the difference between a soldier and a terrorist. Between Israel and Hamas. Israel looks to minimize civilian causalities. Hamas looks to maximize civilian causalities. There is an old “joke” amongst CT operators in the area.. When an air raid siren sounds in Israel, the Israeli government rushes it’s civilians into cover. When an air raid siren sounds in Gaza, Hamas rushes it’s civilians to the target.
It’s sad, but it is true…
I want to thank you for a very reasonable discussion.. Though we disagree on much, if not all, we can at least discuss it like adults…
Michale32086
Michale writes:
I wouldn’t take the UN’s word if they said that the sky is blue and water is wet..
If all you have are UN reports…??? Well, no offense, but that’s nothing…
But you do believe everything that your work colleagues (Israeli military organizations) say.
I think that these two statements tell us everything we need to know about your credibility and objectivity in this discussion.
Izquierdo,
But you do believe everything that your work colleagues (Israeli military organizations) say.
No, I don’t. I look at all available data that’s there for anyone to look at, if they were so inclined to challenge themselves and their beliefs. I take that data and then apply my own real world experiences in evaluating the accuracy of the reports..
I’ll give you a perfect example.
Al-Jazeera reported a statement by one of the boat captains that IDF soldiers pointed a gun at his head, even before they boarded the boat. Now, how can IDF soldiers point guns at his head when they weren’t even on board yet??
Another Al-Jazeera report claimed that the boats had raised white flags *AFTER* the IDF boarded and took control of the boats.
Now, I ask you.. Are either of those “eyewitness” reports credible?
I think that these two statements tell us everything we need to know about your credibility and objectivity in this discussion.
You know absolutely NOTHING about me and my objectivity. I have been respectful and have posted the facts and my opinions. Aside to JB, yes I acknowledge that sometimes I have mixed up the two. Mea culpa… 😀
Yet I have been cursed at and threatened and told to go to hell??
What kind of liberals are ya’all that you cannot listen to someone else’s message without attacking them.
But hay, that’s kewl.. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Something you apparently can’t reciprocate.
I respect your opinions, even though they are apparently grounded in ignorance.
Peace… 😀
Michale32086
“Any point of view that says terrorism is justified is NOT a reasonable point of view by ANY stretch of the imagination.”
hmmm, methinks someone needs to re-read the history of the state he supports so ardently as well as much of its leadership.
I seem to recall LOTS of terrorism in that narrative–bombings, mail bombings, etc.
I believe that would be the Irgun, a predecessor to toady’s Likud.
I seem to recall LOTS of terrorism in that narrative–bombings, mail bombings, etc.
For example…..?????
Michale…..
It seems to me that the legality of the blockade itself is at the core of this issue..
Because if the blockade is legal and lawful, then any and all actions that were taken by Israel in this incident are also legal and lawful.
Of course, conversely, if the blockade is an illegal blockade, then it becomes clear that Israel is legally in the wrong..
So, let’s look at that one point. The legality or illegality of the Gaza blockade..
There is only one part of the San Remo Manual that could, repeat *COULD* make the Gaza blockade illegal..
PART IV, SECTION II, Paragraph 102:
The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.
Subsection (a) does not apply, because it is clear that sole purpose of the blockade is NOT the starvation of Gaza but rather to stop weapons from reaching Hamas.
Subsection (b) would be the only section that one could hang their hat on, as far as illegality goes..
According to the subsection, a blockade would be illegal if the damage to the civilian population is excessive in relation to the direct military advantage that said blockade would provide.
The damage to the civilian population is clear. However, it IS mitigated to a great extent by the humanitarian aid that flows into Gaza from Israel on a daily basis..
So, while there IS damage to the civilian population, it is not excessive by any stretch of the imagination.
Now, let’s look at the direct military advantage that the blockade provides to Israel.
This is abundantly and crystal clear. The ability of Hamas to obtain weapons that would, in turn, be used against innocent Israeli civilians is severely curtailed by the blockade.
Therefore, if one approaches the issue from a strictly objective and logical point, free of excessive emotionalism, it is clear that the damage to the civilian population of Gaza is not sufficiently excessive to out weigh the very real military advantage afforded Israel by way of keeping an excessive amount of weaponry out of Hamas’ hands.
I am also constrained to point out that Hamas STILL can smuggle in weapons thru secret tunnels at the Gaza/Egypt border. The fact that Hamas chooses to smuggle in weapons and explosives rather than foodstuffs and medicines makes it abundantly clear that Hamas is more interested in killing Israelis than they are in taking care of their own citizens. This, in turn, demonstrates that the suffering of Gaza’s citizens is not caused SOLELY by the Israeli blockade.
Further, I must also point out that many countries in the region, INCLUDING Turkey and Egypt signed off on the blockade as perfectly legal. Up until yesterday, Egypt actually participated in the blockade, coordinating their efforts with Israel.
All of these facts support the opinion that the Israeli Blockade of Gaze is perfectly legal and in accordance with international law.
And, as I stated at the beginning. If the blockade is legal, then the IHH Flotilla incident that flowed from that blockade is also legal.
Finally, in the interests of full disclosure. I am a retired military officer who has almost 2 decades of service in the USAF and the US Army. I was an MI EllTee during Desert Storm and I have also been an LEO, an FSO and served in many postings around the world in the CT Operations field.
And, while I am not a laywer, I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. 😀
Michale32086