Send the 6th fleet to Gaza

[RandomGuy]

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Monday, June 7, 2010 - 5:08 PM
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/07/how_to_end_the_blockade_of_gaza


How to end the blockade of Gaza
Back in May 1967, the Egyptian government led by Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered a blockade of the Straits of Tiran, cutting off Israeli shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba. This action crossed a "red line" for Israel, and was a major escalatory step in the crisis that led to the Six Day War. President Lyndon Johnson considered sending U.S. warships or some sort of international flotilla to challenge the blockade and defuse the crisis. But even though the United States had previously given Israel certain assurances about protecting freedom of navigation in the straits, Johnson ultimately declined to take decisive action to defend Israel's navigation rights. The United States was already bogged down in Vietnam and Johnson feared getting trapped in another volatile conflict. So he dithered, and Israel ultimately chose to go to war instead.

Had Johnson used U.S. naval forces to challenge the blockade, the Six Day War might not have occurred. Egypt would not have dared to challenge U.S. warships, of course, and sending a U.S. fleet to break the blockade would have given Nasser a way to back down but save face (i.e., he would have been backing down to a superpower, and not to Israel). And had the Six Day War been averted, many of the problems we are wrestling with now -- including the disastrous occupation of the West Bank -- might never have arisen.

Remembering this previous failure got me thinking: why doesn't the United States use its considerable power to lift the blockade of Gaza unilaterally? It's clear that the blockade of Gaza is causing enormous human suffering and making both the United States and Israel look terrible in the eyes of the rest of the world. It has also failed to achieve any positive political purpose, like defeating Hamas. So why doesn't the United States take the bull by the horns and organize a relief flotilla of its own, and use the U.S. Navy to escort the ships into Gaza? I'll bet we could easily get a few NATO allies to help too, and if money's the issue, we can get some EU members or Scandinavians to help pay for the relief supplies. And somehow I don't think the IDF would try to stop us, or board any of the vessels.

The advantages of this course of action seem obvious. The United States has been looking both ineffective and hypocritical ever since the Cairo speech a year ago, and many people in the Arab and Islamic world are beginning to see Barack Obama as just a smooth-talking version of George W. Bush. By taking concrete steps to relieve Palestinian suffering, Obama would be showing the world that the United States was not in thrall to Israel or its hard-core lobbyists here in the United States. What better way to discredit the fulminations of anti-American terrorists like Osama bin Laden, who constantly accuse us of being indifferent to Muslim suffering? The photo ops of U.S. personnel unloading tons of relief supplies would go a long way to repairing our tarnished image in that part of the world. Remember the Berlin airlift, or our relief operations in Indonesia following the Asian tsunami? Doing good for others can win a lot of good will.

Second, having the U.S. and NATO take charge of a relief operation would alleviate Israel's security concerns. The Israeli government claims the blockade is necessary to prevent weapons from being smuggled into Gaza. That is surely a legitimate concern, but if the United States and its allies are bringing relief aid in, then we can determine what goes on the ships and we obviously won't bring in weaponry.

But wait a minute: wouldn't bringing relief aid to Gaza end up strengthening Hamas? Not if we arrange for the relief aid to be distributed through the United Nations or other independent relief agencies. Some of it might end up in Hamas's hands indirectly but most of it won't, and reducing the level of deprivation and suffering would undercut the influence Hamas gains as a provider of social services.

It's true that a relief operation of this sort will probably require some U.S. officials to have some minimal dealings with Hamas, but this would actually be a good thing. If the United States is really serious about a genuine two-state solution, it is going to have to bring Hamas into the political process sooner or later and this is a pretty low-key, non-committal way to start. And while we're at it, we can tell them to get busy fixing that Charter of theirs and take a humanitarian gesture or two of their own, such as releasing captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

In short, using American power to end the blockade of Gaza could be a win-win-win for everyone. The United States (and Obama himself) would demonstrate that we really did seek a "new beginning" in the Middle East, and correct the impression that the Cairo speech was just a lot of elegant hooey. Israel's security concerns would be addressed, it would look flexible and reasonable, and we would be providing Netanyahu with an easy way to extricate himself from a position that is increasingly untenable. (It's one thing for him to lift the blockade himself, but quite another to do it at Washington's behest). And of course the long-suffering population of Gaza would be much better off, which should make us all feel better.

The more that I think about it, the more attractive this approach looks. All it takes is an administration that is willing to take bold action to correct a situation that is both a humanitarian outrage and a simmering threat to regional peace. That probably means that it has zero chance of being adopted. And of course you all know why.

---------------------------------------

Interesting idea.

(Note that wasn't "good" or "feasible", just interesting.)
In the Foreign Policy Journal grab-bag of articles, has the full spectrum from really good to really bad. It does however, offer an excellent view of things from an outside perspective that is sorely lacking in most US-based news sources.

Lack of understanding these viewpoints can lead to dangerous assumptions about the world.

[Wild Cobra]

That long article just to tell us Johnson didn't know shit about leadership?

[DarrinS]

"It's clear that the blockade of Gaza is causing enormous human suffering and making both the United States and Israel look terrible in the eyes of the rest of the world."


:rolleyes

[Winehole23]

What part of that sentence do you disagree with, D?

[DarrinS]

What part of that sentence do you disagree with, D?


People in Gaza are not starving and I'd rather be right than liked. Those two parts -- pretty much the entire sentence.

[Wild Cobra]

"It's clear that the blockade of Gaza is causing enormous human suffering and making both the United States and Israel look terrible in the eyes of the rest of the world."


:rolleyes
Don't some reports say that the daily supplies (80 to 100 trucks a day?) being shipped in have them better off than before the blockade?

[Winehole23]

People in Gaza are not starving and I'd rather be right than liked.Was it claimed Gazans are starving?

[Winehole23]

Don't some reports say that the daily supplies (80 to 100 trucks a day?) being shipped in have them better off than before the blockade?Links, please.

[Wild Cobra]

"It's clear that the blockade of Gaza is causing enormous human suffering"

OK, then the article is really wrong. It's the Hamas in Gaza causing the people to suffer. Not the blockage.

[DarrinS]

Was it claimed Gazans are starving?

"enormous human suffering" -- I assume that's what he meant.

[Winehole23]

Rather than assume, why not read something?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7545636.stm

http://www.alertnet.org/db/an_art/55076/2010/05/1-141115-1.htm

http://wapedia.mobi/en/2007%E2%80%93present_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip?t= 3.

[Wild Cobra]

Links, please.
I didn't bookmark any of the links I read when the six ships were boarded, but more than one pointed out that Israel increased their inspections to 80 trucks a day. Another article focused on Isreal sending in 100 trucks, which on that day, was probably 180 trucks since they loaded it, didn't have to inspect it.

It is understandable that Israel dopes all it can to stop incoming weapons. Until the Gaza government gets a grip on it's own people, I see no reason to blame Israel.

Here's something of interest:

The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/06_03_08_gaza.pdf)

[RandomGuy]

Don't some reports say that the daily supplies (80 to 100 trucks a day?) being shipped in have them better off than before the blockade?

Don't some reports say 9-11 was an inside job?

[ChumpDumper]

Are 80 trucks a day enough to support 1.5 million people?

[RandomGuy]

I didn't bookmark any of the links I read when the six ships were boarded, but more than one pointed out that Israel increased their inspections to 80 trucks a day. Another article focused on Isreal sending in 100 trucks, which on that day, was probably 180 trucks since they loaded it, didn't have to inspect it.

It is understandable that Israel dopes all it can to stop incoming weapons. Until the Gaza government gets a grip on it's own people, I see no reason to blame Israel.

Here's something of interest:

The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/06_03_08_gaza.pdf)

Do you blame Israel for the fletchette artillery rounds it used in civilian areas?

[DarrinS]

Holocaust in Gaza.


Warning: Very disturbing videos. Not for the faint of heart.


Z3B_OIqv0A0

[Winehole23]

^^^Snide, substance free and completely non-responsive. A very typical DarrinS post.

[Wild Cobra]

Don't some reports say 9-11 was an inside job?
So you agree the reports saying the blockade is the reason for Gaza's suffering could be wrong then. Right?

[Wild Cobra]

Do you blame Israel for the fletchette artillery rounds it used in civilian areas?
No. They have every right to return fire.

[Winehole23]

So you agree the reports saying the blockade is the reason for Gaza's suffering could be wrong then. Right?WC mounts his argument on the rhetorical slippage around the word "reason", ignoring the effects of the blockade and pinning responsibility for Israel's collective punishment of Gazans on Hamas.

[Wild Cobra]

Holocaust in Gaza.


Warning: Very disturbing videos. Not for the faint of heart.

Yes, it must be so disturbing to the libtards that they are wrong... again...

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, it must be so disturbing to the libtards that they are wrong... again...A market in Gaza had enough food for 1.5 million people! YouTube said so!

[Wild Cobra]

A market in Gaza had enough food for 1.5 million people! YouTube said so!
Wow...

Is that what you got out of that? No wonder you are so often wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

WC mounts his argument on the rhetorical slippage around the word "reason", ignoring the effects of the blockade and pinning responsibility for Israel's collective punishment of Gazans on Hamas.
When will you stop being incorrect in your assumptions of me?

I understand that the effects of the blockade are damaging. the suffering is not from the blockade however. Hamas is a resistance group that is attacking Israel. Gaza has gone downhill since Hamas won in the elections. They steal from the people. They have allowed attacks against Israel, forcing Israel to take protective measure.

Blame Hamas. Not Israel for protecting herself.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yes, it must be so disturbing to the libtards that they are wrong... again...

wrong about what in this case? Is your implication that a scene from a food market proves there aren't those who are suffering from the affects of the blockade? Please explain how libs are wrong..

[ChumpDumper]

Wow...

Is that what you got out of that? No wonder you are so often wrong.What exactly are you getting out of it?

Tell us.

[Wild Cobra]

wrong about what in this case? Is your implication that a scene from a food market proves there aren't those who are suffering from the affects of the blockade? Please explain how libs are wrong..
No, only that there is no proof the blockade is causing human suffering.

You guys are making such a claim, Where is the proof?

[George Gervin's Afro]

When will you stop being incorrect in your assumptions of me?

I understand that the effects of the blockade are damaging. the suffering is not from the blockade however. Hamas is a resistance group that is attacking Israel. Gaza has gone downhill since Hamas won in the elections. They steal from the people. They have allowed attacks against Israel, forcing Israel to take protective measure.

Blame Hamas. Not Israel for protecting herself.

So Hamas won in a democratic election.. hence the will of the people..so you in essence are blaming the one's who are suffering and stating it's their fault..

[clambake]

i'd probably take my family to a market.......if my house was being bulldozed to make room for settlements.

[George Gervin's Afro]

i'd probably take my family to a market.......if my house was being bulldozed to make room for settlements.

You could make a day of it..

[Wild Cobra]

So Hamas won in a democratic election.. hence the will of the people..so you in essence are blaming the one's who are suffering and stating it's their fault..
In a sense, yes. Just like we are now in turmoil over electing so many democrats.

[DarrinS]

You guys were right. I just had to look harder.


R3tjXqjf92k

[Winehole23]

No, only that there is no proof the blockade is causing human suffering.

You guys are making such a claim, Where is the proof?Supporting evidence posted upstream @ 1:43pm.

[ChumpDumper]

So Darrin's argument is that still photos of a market and a beach in Gaza means that there couldn't possibly be any problems there whatsoever.

[Wild Cobra]

Supporting evidence posted upstream @ 1:43pm.
That's right.

I forgot that if it's on the internet, the implications the journalist makes are true.

[DarrinS]

So Darrin's argument is that still photos of a market and a beach in Gaza means that there couldn't possibly be any problems there whatsoever.


I assume there are journalists and people with cameras in Gaza. I'm just looking for evidence of "enormous human suffering".


I can surely find evidence of the thousands of rockets fired from Gaza.

[Winehole23]

I'm just looking for evidence of "enormous human suffering.No, you're not. Your failure to respond to the evidence posted in this very thread only underscores that.

[Winehole23]

I forgot that if it's on the internet, the implications the journalist makes are true.Nice non-rebuttal. :tu

[ChumpDumper]

I assume there are journalists and people with cameras in Gaza. I'm just looking for evidence of "enormous human suffering".Are you posting everything you find?

[ChumpDumper]

Darrin says he can only find YouTubes of food and beaches in Gaza.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-CZ013_gaza_0_G_20090119100517.jpg

[George Gervin's Afro]

Darrin says he can only find YouTubes of food and beaches in Gaza.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-CZ013_gaza_0_G_20090119100517.jpg

Does she look hungry? She probably was on her way to the food market.

[Wild Cobra]

Hamas is the problem. Maybe if they didn't steal the humanitarian aide, making the UN stop shipping it, there would be more supplies.

One piece of evidence:

UN, Hamas meet to discuss stolen Gaza aid
Humanitarian aid on hold until further notice; UN spokesman: Donors won't give us aid if it goes to terrorists. (http://www.haaretz.com/news/un-hamas-meet-to-discuss-stolen-gaza-aid-1.269602)


UN officials would only confirm Saturday that they met with Hamas representatives but said they would not lift their freeze on aid shipments until all 10 trucks were returned.

"When they return what they have taken, we will inform everybody. But what we are hearing is positive as of now," said John Ging, the top UN aid official in Gaza.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) on Friday said it is suspending humanitarian aid in Gaza until further notice, after Hamas seized control of its warehouses and stole 200 tons of food and supplies.


A UN spokesman on Wednesday said Hamas police in Gaza broke into a warehouse full of UN humanitarian supplies and seized thousands of blankets and food packages, creating a rare public clash between the international agency that feeds much of the territory and the militant group that rules it.

The incident highlighted difficulties facing donors seeking to bypass Hamas while helping Gazans survive and rebuild after Israel's three-week military offensive.

"Hamas policemen stormed into an aid warehouse in Gaza City Tuesday evening and confiscated 3,500 blankets and over 400 food parcels ready for distribution to 500 families," said UNRWA spokesman Christopher Gunness on Wednesday.

"They were armed, they seized this, they took it by force," Gunness said, terming the incident absolutely unacceptable.

[Wild Cobra]

Supporting evidence posted upstream @ 1:43pm.
part of your supporting material says:

Food security exists when all people, at all time, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Food insecurity exists when this access is jeopardised.
So... if their food preferences are not met, they are suffering, right?

[Winehole23]

No. Selective highlighting doesn't change the syntax. Did you catch the modifiers "sufficient, safe and nutritious" as applied to "dietary needs"?

Pretending that the definition given above rests enirely or even largely upon access to "food preferences" is very misleading, but happily, only to those who read as selectively as you.

[Winehole23]

Hamas is the problem. Maybe if they didn't steal the humanitarian aide, making the UN stop shipping it, there would be more supplies.

One piece of evidence:

UN, Hamas meet to discuss stolen Gaza aid
Humanitarian aid on hold until further notice; UN spokesman: Donors won't give us aid if it goes to terrorists. (http://www.haaretz.com/news/un-hamas-meet-to-discuss-stolen-gaza-aid-1.269602)That's a big problem, for sure. But it's not the whole story.

[ChumpDumper]

Hamas is the problem. Maybe if they didn't steal the humanitarian aide, making the UN stop shipping it, there would be more supplies.

One piece of evidence:

UN, Hamas meet to discuss stolen Gaza aid
Humanitarian aid on hold until further notice; UN spokesman: Donors won't give us aid if it goes to terrorists. (http://www.haaretz.com/news/un-hamas-meet-to-discuss-stolen-gaza-aid-1.269602)That was a year ago.

Did you know the head of the UNRWA in the area gave a speech entitled "Illegal, inhuman and insane: a medieval siege on Gaza in 2010" a week ago?

[Wild Cobra]

That's a big problem, for sure. But it's not the whole story.
Sure, it's not the whole story. but aide is being cut of by the suppliers because of the losses, not because of Israel.

Should Israel allow weapons into Gaza to be attacked by?

Proper inspections take time. What is your solution?

[DarrinS]

Israel should just end their blockade and allow anything into Gaza. They should also just learn to live with the thousands of missles fired at them indescriminately as a nuisance.

Sincerely,

Upside-downers

[Winehole23]

^^^You're the only one who said so, Darrin. If you take away strawmen and youtubes, there's no there there.

[ChumpDumper]

Gaza is a paradise. YouTube told me.

Sincerely,

DarrinS

[Wild Cobra]

That was a year ago.
No shit Sherlock. Do you pride yourself in stating the obvious?

Did you know the head of the UNRWA gave a speech entitled "Illegal, inhuman and insane: a medieval siege on Gaza in 2010" a week ago?
True, but isn't he talking about Hamas?

[DarrinS]

Gaza is a paradise. YouTube told me.

Sincerely,

DarrinS


It could be. Too bad they elected Hamas.

[clambake]

should they elect someone that encourages the bulldozing?

[Winehole23]

It could be. Too bad they elected Hamas.They'd not have had the opportunity in the first place if the USA hadn't insisted Hamas be allowed to run. It's too bad our naive belief in "free elections" led us to pressure Israel to remove the ban on them.

[DarrinS]

should they elect someone that encourages the bulldozing?


They should probably elect a group that doesn't fire missles and use their own people as human shields.


LozGqhT1ZGE

[ChumpDumper]

No shit Sherlock. Do you pride yourself in stating the obvious?You act as if this has happened with every shipment.

Has it happened with every shipment?


True, but isn't he talking about Hamas?No. You're an idiot.


It could be. Too bad they elected Hamas.Why do you hate democracy, DarrinS?

[Wild Cobra]

True, but isn't he talking about Hamas?
No. You're an idiot.

Transcript please.

[ChumpDumper]

Transcript please.You need a transcript to tell you that Gaza cannot execute a medieval siege on itself?

You're an idiot.

[Winehole23]

....

[clambake]

They should probably elect a group that doesn't fire missles and use their own people as human shields.

they're firing missles at people that are slowly weeding them out, fister.

[Shastafarian]

I'd like to see a transcript of his speech. I'm curious what someone who lives there has to say about it.

[ChumpDumper]

I'd like to see a transcript of his speech. I'm curious what someone who lives there has to say about it.Podcast not yet available, but he sure isn't saying Hamas is besieging Gaza.

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2010/20100601t1830vNT.aspx#generated-subheading2

[Shastafarian]

Podcast not yet available, but he sure isn't saying Hamas is besieging Gaza.

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2010/20100601t1830vNT.aspx#generated-subheading2

Never said he was.

This is the same person who said Hamas doesn't steal or "confiscate" aid. Do you believe that?

[Wild Cobra]

Podcast not yet available, but he sure isn't saying Hamas is besieging Gaza.

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2010/20100601t1830vNT.aspx#generated-subheading2
Already went there. Funny how none of that stuff is available.

[ChumpDumper]

Never said he was.WC did.


This is the same person who said Hamas doesn't steal or "confiscate" aid. Do you believe that?Don't know about each specific incident. They certainly might have, but I don't know much about the governmental powers of that particular elected government.

[ChumpDumper]

Already went there. Funny how none of that stuff is available.Why is it funny?

Is it your contention that Ging claims Hamas is besieging Gaza?

Yes or no.

[Shastafarian]

The head of United Nation's Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) mission in Gaza, John Ging, specifically expressed the need for the Flotilla to enter Gaza due to the "medieval siege", mass unemployment, extreme poverty, food insecurity and food price rises caused by shortages left four out of five Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid. In response to the attempted undermining of Hamas' credibility by alleging that they might misuse aid is undercut by Ging's who has pointedly argued that Hamas simply does not steal and that thus any aid delivered to the UN will be respected.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/white-house-needs-to-reth_b_596754.html


The UN agency for Palestinian refugees said today it has halted all aid shipments into the Gaza Strip after the Hamas government seized thousands of tonnes of food and other provisions.

The UN Relief and Works agency said it made the decision after Hamas personnel intercepted an aid shipment for the second time this week.

In a statement, the agency said 10 truckloads of flour and rice delivered into Gaza yesterday were taken away by trucks affiliated with the Hamas-run social affairs ministry. Earlier this week, Hamas police took away thousands of blankets and food parcels meant for needy residents.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/06/gaza-un-aid-hamas

[Wild Cobra]

Why is it funny?

Is it your contention that Ging claims Hamas is besieging Gaza?

Yes or no.
Some elements are. There is no definitive yes or no. Those not doing it are allowing it.

Apparently you don't know. Do you typically go by titles?

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/white-house-needs-to-reth_b_596754.html


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/06/gaza-un-aid-hamasLooks like something in the middle is missing since shipments resumed.

[Shastafarian]

Looks like something in the middle is missing since shipments resumed.

I'd assume it has at least something to do with a new head of UNRWA.

[ChumpDumper]

Some elements are. There is no definitive yes or no. Those not doing it are allowing it.

Apparently you don't know. Do you typically go by titles?:lmao

Please show me where John Ging states Hamas is besieging Gaza.

You're an idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

I'd assume it has at least something to do with a new head of UNRWA.Is that all?

Your assumption?

[Shastafarian]

Is that all?

Your assumption?

Do you have something more concrete you'd like to share?

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

Please show me where John Ging states Hamas is besieging Gaza.

You're an idiot.
I don't know if he is or not. What evidence do you have?

[Shastafarian]

Hamas spokesman Taher Nunu demanded an apology and said UNRWA was spreading false news. Ihab Ghussein, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said the incident occurred because the UN was storing the blankets in an area not authorized to be distributed.

UN officials said the aid was kept in a local storage facility because the organization's regular warehouses were full. The UN, human rights groups and Palestinians have often complained that a blockade by Israel and Egypt has left Gaza critically short of vital supplies.

Senior UN official John Ging said aid distribution would continue. "We are not going to punish the refugees for the irresponsible actions of a few," Ging said. Now he's the head on the UNRWA in Gaza. Do you think there's any chance Hamas still seizes aid?

[Shastafarian]

It brings us back to the question of Ging's credibility.

[ChumpDumper]

Do you have something more concrete you'd like to share?You made the assertion. I was asking you for something concrete.


I don't know if he is or not. What evidence do you have?If you Googled him enough to find his speech, you already know -- but if you really need it:



UN official says Israel's siege of Gaza breeds extremism and human suffering

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem

Friday, 23 November 2007

A senior United Nations official has issued an unprecedented appeal to British MPs to use their influence to try to alleviate the impact of "indiscriminate" and "illegal" Israeli sanctions in Gaza which display "profound inhumanity" and are "serving the agenda of extremists".

In one of the strongest attacks on recent Israeli strategy issued by a senior international official, John Ging, Gaza's director of operations for the refugee agency UNRWA, said that "crushing sanctions" imposed since the Israeli cabinet declared the Strip a "hostile entity" in September had contributed to "truly appalling living conditions."

Mr Ging said the measures had been justified as protection from what he fully acknowledged were rocket attacks "terrorising" the Israeli civilian population within range. The rockets have killed two people this year and injured 99 others. But citing cuts in fuel and planned cuts in electricity along with closures which have had "an atrocious" impact on Palestinian medical care, "destroyed" Gaza's economy and threatened already "Third World" water and sanitation, he told the Britain-Palestine group of MPs: "This presupposes that the civilian population are somehow more capable of stopping the rocket fire than the powerful military of the occupying power.

"My message ... is that not only are these sanctions not working, but because of their profound inhumanity, they are counterproductive to their stated purpose and while Gaza is not yet an entity populated by people hostile to their neighbour, it inevitably will be if the current approach of collective punitive sanctions continues."

Mr Ging, whose agency is responsible for 70 per cent of Gaza's 1.5 million population, said that over the past two years "every hopeful opportunity has been irrationally dashed and followed by even worse circumstances". He added that Gaza's civilian population expected more of Israel and the international community, who regularly expressed concern about their humanitarian plight but "to no avail".

Mr Ging, whose message is reinforced by a letter warning of the "increasingly desperate situation" in Gaza from major aid agencies in today's Independent, said 649 Palestinians had been killed this year, including 63 children. The figure includes more than 330 killed in internal fighting.

Mr Ging added that UNRWA was unable to provide more than 61 per cent of the necessary calories to refugees. "At present we do not have sufficient funding to provide just one high nutrient biscuit to 200,000 children in UN schools."

Israeli officials cite signs of a decline in Hamas's popularity as evidence that the sanctions are working. But Mr Ging said the "human suffering and misery for the entire civilian population in Gaza was creating fertile ground for the extremists".

The Israeli branch of Physicians for Human Rights says that 11 patients have died since last month because their treatment was blocked or delayed. At least 800 more are being denied treatment abroad.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/un-official-says-israels-siege-of-gaza-breeds-extremism-and-human-suffering-760096.html

That's a couple years old, but the most complete statement I have seen from him and subsequent quotes from him have been similar. I haven't seen any claims from Ging that Hamas is besieging Gaza at all. Please show me one, WC.

[ChumpDumper]

Now he's the head on the UNRWA in Gaza. Do you think there's any chance Hamas still seizes aid?There is certainly a chance. Since Hamas is the elected government there, is any seizure or redistribution beyond its governmental powers? I personally don't know.

[Shastafarian]

You made the assertion. I was asking you for something concrete.
Sorry I don't have a press release stating why they have resumed shipments. All I have is Ging saying, while he was still just a senior official, that they wouldn't let the misdeeds of a few affect everyone in Gaza.

[Shastafarian]

There is certainly a chance. Since Hamas is the elected government there, is any seizure or redistribution beyond its governmental powers? I personally don't know.

The UN certainly thought so.

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry I don't have a press release stating why they have resumed shipments. All I have is Ging saying, while he was still just a senior official, that they wouldn't let the misdeeds of a few affect everyone in Gaza.So you have nothing but your assumption.

That's what I thought.


The UN certainly thought so.Thought what?

Were they right or wrong?

[Shastafarian]

So you have nothing but your assumption.

That's what I thought.
What do you have other than a title to a speech you haven't heard?


Thought what?

Were they right or wrong?
The UN certainly thought it was beyond their (Hamas) powers.

[ChumpDumper]

What do you have other than a title to a speech you haven't heard?:lol now you are the one who isn't reading articles. There wasn't even a link to follow to read the entire thing. Classic.


The UN certainly thought it was beyond their (Hamas) powers.Were they correct in thinking that?

[Shastafarian]

:lol now you are the one who isn't reading articles. There wasn't even a link to follow to read the entire thing. Classic.Oh my bad. I didn't realize that article was his speech.


Were they correct in thinking that?
According to whom?

[ChumpDumper]

Oh my bad. I didn't realize that article was his speech.It isn't. That is your bad. Besides that, what are you not understanding here?


According to whom?According to the law in Gaza. You know, where Hamas is the government and where the aid was.

[Shastafarian]

I wonder if you realize how good a poster you'd be if you weren't such a troll.

[ChumpDumper]

I wonder if you realize how good a poster you'd be if you weren't such a troll.According to whom?

[Wild Cobra]

You made the assertion. I was asking you for something concrete.

But your were saying he says Israel is to blame.


If you Googled him enough to find his speech, you already know -- but if you really need it:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/un-official-says-israels-siege-of-gaza-breeds-extremism-and-human-suffering-760096.html

That's a couple years old, but the most complete statement I have seen from him and subsequent quotes from him have been similar. I haven't seen any claims from Ging that Hamas is besieging Gaza at all. Please show me one, WC.

Yes, I saw that. Yet since the elections, Hamas has completely taken over Gaza, by force at several times even.

Didn't you know about the civil war between Hamas and Fatah? That's what I take the "medieval siege" to be.

This is a little over a year old, but shows his past words don't mean much:

Israel’s Humanitarian Aid in Gaza (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/aidgaza.html):

In preparation for the coming operation, The Israeli government sent 90 trucks worth of humanitarian aid goods into Gaza on Friday, December 26. Israel has been working around the clock with international and private aid organizations to ensure that the Palestinian civilians in Gaza are receving the food and medical supplies that they need.

On December 29 alone, Israel sent 63 trucks (1,545 tons) of humanitarian aid goods into the Gaza Strip including rice, yeast, flour, sugar and 64 tons of medical supplies. On December 31, 98 trucks and 2,366 tons of food and supplies were delivered in Gaza. On January 5, 80 trucks delivered goods to the area. On January 6, 49 trucks were sent into Gaza by means of the humanitarian unit of the IDF. 100 trucks and 500,000 liters of diesel fuel were sent in through the Kerem Shalom crossing on January 7.

Additionally, hundreds of thousands of liters of diesel fuel were pumped into Gaza on January 6 including fuel for the Gaza power station, UN facilities and domestic cooking fuel.

On Monday, January 12, Israeli security forces at the Kerem Shalom crossing caught a truck trying to smuggle electronic equipment into Gaza including infra-red cameras and computers. Electric equipment is not considered part of humanitarian aid although Israel has allowed certain electronics into Gaza in order to correct the city's electricity grid. As of January 15, Gaza's power grid was at 74% working capacity, up from 40% at the beginning of the operation.

On January 14 an El Al jumbo plane filled with 100 tons of medical and food supplies from UNICEF landed at Ben Gurion airport.

On Thursday, January 15, 170 trucks of humanitarian aid as well as 195,000 liters of fuel were sent into the area and on January 16, 135 truckloads were delivered. On these days combined, 3,790 tons of supplies were sent into Gaza.

So many truckloads of aid have been sent in, in fact, that the World Food Programme took a two day recess from its food donations. The organization resumed its deliveries on Tuesday, January 6. The Gaza food warehouses are filled to capacity and are capable of lasting the citizens two weeks.

On January 6 it was discovered that Hamas gunmen had opened their own hospital and were stealing a significant portion of medical supplies from the trucks that deliver humanitarian aid daily into Gaza. The medicine, of course, is intended for civilian hospitals and emergency medical care. By doing this Hamas is, yet again, denying its own civilian population the supplies that it desperately needs.

Similarly, Hamas gunmen are hiding themselves in civilian hospitals, particularly among the various maternity wards, attempting to find refuge from Israeli fire. This is just one more example showing that Hamas truly takes its people’s safety for granted.

For more on Hamas’s abuse of its citizens please see Hamas’s Human Shields

Although Israeli officials realize that Hamas is preventing aid supplies from reaching its intended point of delivery, on January 7 Israel began a “humanitarian recess” in which the IDF and IAF would stop its operation for three hours daily so that Gaza’s citizens could safely go into the streets to collect food and medical goods. Hamas gunmen were the first on January 7 to end the temporary ceasefire, firing dozens of rockets at Israel’s southern towns. The Israeli-enforced humanitarian corridors have continued each day as scheduled despite Hamas's refusal to cease rocket fire on the western Negev during the three-hour ceasefire.

On January 15, Israel decided to lengthen its daily humanitarian recess to four hours instead of three in order to allow more Gazans to get the supplies that they need. The decision to increase the time span of the pause came from Israel Joint Humanitarian Coordination Center (JHCC).

Israel has made it clear that this operation is against Hamas armed forces and terrorist cells - not Palestinian civilians. The Israel Defense Forces is doing everything in their power to minimize the number of civilian casualties. The IDF has gone so far as to call apartment complexes in the Gaza Strip that are known to house Hamas forces and warn the civilian residents of coming airstrikes, allowing them enough time to evacuate the buildings. These warnings are given despite the fact that they tip off Hamas operatives.

While the Arab world might like to deny it, the Israel Defense Forces are conducting their operation in as humane a way as possible by both limiting civilian casualties and offering an extreme humanitarian aid effort in Gaza. Hamas, on the other hand, denies its own people aid and infringes on their security.

Tensions continued to rise as Hamas and Fatah both pled with the international community not to give money to the other organization. Hamas does not want to give Mahmoud Abbas more power and the PA wishes to retain Hamas's weakened state. The organizations are fighting for control of Gaza including the authority to rebuild the area's infrastructure.
Israel is helping the people caught in the middle of this. At the same time trying to stop the attacks on their country.

[Shastafarian]

It isn't. That is your bad. What are you not understanding here?I'm not understanding how you think you've contributed anything to support your point. You referenced a speech from 2010 you hadn't heard nor read. To try and rectify it you post an article from 3 years ago even though "in 2010" is in the title of the speech you referenced. When I point out the man who made the speech has been ok with Hamas stealing thousands of tons of aid for the people of Gaza, you do circles.


According to the law in Gaza. You know, where Hamas is the government and where the aid was.:lol Are you serious?

[Shastafarian]

According to whom?

Pretty much everyone

[Wild Cobra]

According to the law in Gaza. You know, where Hamas is the government and where the aid was.
Hmmm....

they lied to the people to get power, so the people try to take back the government, but are subdued by them.

I would say the people are under siege by Hamas.

[Shastafarian]

It doesn't even matter how they came to power. He's actually asking if Hamas has made it ok for Hamas to seize aid.

:rollin:rollin:rollin

[ChumpDumper]

But your were saying he says Israel is to blame.Yes, that is what I am saying because that is what he said.


Didn't you know about the civil war between Hamas and Fatah? That's what I take the "medieval siege" to be.That's because you're an idiot.

[Shastafarian]

I hear Kim Jong Il has made it legal to kill people for speaking out against his government. I guess the UN would be "incorrect" if they said that wasn't ok to do.

[Wild Cobra]

They should probably elect a group that doesn't fire missles and use their own people as human shields.


LozGqhT1ZGE
Knowing this is one thing, but seeing it animated...

How can these libtards be Hamas apologists. They make me sick. If I could revoke their citizenship and send them to Gaza, I would.

[Shastafarian]

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) on Friday said it is suspending humanitarian aid in Gaza until further notice, after Hamas seized control of its warehouses and stole 200 tons of food and supplies...

A UN spokesman on Wednesday said Hamas police in Gaza broke into a warehouse full of UN humanitarian supplies and seized thousands of blankets and food packages, creating a rare public clash between the international agency that feeds much of the territory and the militant group that rules it...

"Hamas policemen stormed into an aid warehouse in Gaza City Tuesday evening and confiscated 3,500 blankets and over 400 food parcels ready for distribution to 500 families," said UNRWA spokesman Christopher Gunness on Wednesday.

"They were armed, they seized this, they took it by force," Gunness said, terming the incident absolutely unacceptable. From Wild Cobra's original link.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not understanding how you think you've contributed anything to support your point. You referenced a speech from 2010 you hadn't heard nor read. To try and rectify it you post an article from 3 years ago even though "in 2010" is in the title of the speech you referenced. When I point out the man who made the speech has been ok with Hamas stealing thousands of tons of aid for the people of Gaza, you do circles.I mentioned what the title of his speech was, and then posted the most complete article i could find that articulated his views -- which to my understanding have not changed. Have you found any evidence that his views have changed?

Post them.


:lol Are you serious?Actually, yes. I am not saying this is the reason the UN now says there were no thefts -- merely that it could be a possible explanation. As we currently have no hard evidence why shipments resumed, it seems to be that a clarification of Hamas' right to redistribute aid is as valid a theory as your assumption.

I am certainly open to the possibility that neither is correct.

[ChumpDumper]

From Wild Cobra's original link.That aid was seized is not in question.

[ChumpDumper]

I hear Kim Jong Il has made it legal to kill people for speaking out against his government. I guess the UN would be "incorrect" if they said that wasn't ok to do.You can disagree with a law. It's still the law.

[ChumpDumper]

If the UN merely decided it's ok for Hamas to continue seizing aid, that's what happened.

Is that what happened?

[Thompson]

they're firing missles at people that are slowly weeding them out, fister.

Really? The 2nd graders and schoolteachers are doing that?

[ElNono]

I think it's important to work towards a solution that doesn't penalize those that do not support Hamas. Don't forget that Hamas didn't win with 100% of the votes, and there's roughly 600,000 of the 1.5 million that didn't vote for them, yet everyone is living under the same limitations.

Also, I agree this is a byproduct of the fuck up that allowed Hamas to run in the elections in first place, and now everybody in there is paying the price for that.

[Thompson]

Here's an idea: they can send all the 'humanitarian aid' they want to Gaza, they just have to take it through Israeli ports so they can inspect it for weapons or contraband. When they verify there aren't any, they ship it all through to Gaza.

Wait, they already do that. The activists just don't want them to inspect all the aid shipments, for some strange reason.

[Yonivore]

The Israelis are trying to organize a humanitarian flotilla to Turkish Kurdistan.

Ideas for ‘reverse flotillas’ gain steam (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177789)


Although most of the recent talk regarding flotillas has revolved around ships sailing toward Gaza, at least two plans have emerged for "reverse flotillas" - from Israel toward Turkey - to highlight what organizers have labeled the Turks' "shameless hypocrisy" in their criticisms of the Jewish state.

The most ambitious of the two plans has been devised by members of Israel's National Student Union, who this week announced their intention to set sail toward Turkey, in an effort to bring humanitarian aid to the "oppressed people of Turkish Kurdistan" and to members of the "Turkish Armenian minority."

I wonder how Turkey will respond.

[DarrinS]

Knowing this is one thing, but seeing it animated...

How can these libtards be Hamas apologists. They make me sick. If I could revoke their citizenship and send them to Gaza, I would.


It's because they live in some kind of upside down Bizarro world. It's blatantly obvious which side in this conflict shares our values and which side doesn't. Even after they see videos of "peace activists" beating and stabbing sraeli commandos, they still stilck to their talking points. <sigh>


BTW, here are two books by the author of the article cited in the OP

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NS6wN4p6L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Dz2leV0LL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg


Does this guy know that the 6th fleet actually repositioned themselves during the 6-day war to PROTECT Israel?

Do the younger posters on this board realize how amazing it was that Israel won that war against superior numbers, superior arms, and in such a short time?

[Wild Cobra]

Wait, they already do that. The activists just don't want them to inspect all the aid shipments, for some strange reason.
No shit.

I wonder if the Hamas apologists know what that strange reason might be?

[clambake]

i don't apologize for their tactics. i'm worried about the slow extermination by israel.

[ElNono]

Here's an idea: they can send all the 'humanitarian aid' they want to Gaza, they just have to take it through Israeli ports so they can inspect it for weapons or contraband. When they verify there aren't any, they ship it all through to Gaza.

The point of not sending it through Israel is two-fold:
1) Protest the blockade (duh)
2) Prevent Israel from filtering out whatever items it deems appropriate to be sent.


Wait, they already do that. The activists just don't want them to inspect all the aid shipments, for some strange reason.

Actually, the activists have no legal way to stop an inspection at sea. Israel simply never requested it.

You did know this, right?

[ElNono]

I wonder if the Hamas apologists know what that strange reason might be?

There's no strange reason. As soon as Israel decided to proceed lawfully by requesting an inspection of the ships at sea, this whole point becomes moot.
It's hard to deny an inspection when none was requested to begin with.

[Wild Cobra]

There's no strange reason. As soon as Israel decided to proceed lawfully by requesting an inspection of the ships at sea, this whole point becomes moot.
It's hard to deny an inspection when none was requested to begin with.
We will simply disagree on what is legally required.

Let me ask you this. Assuming my point of view on the legality is right, did Israel act improperly?

[Thompson]

The point of not sending it through Israel is two-fold:
1) Protest the blockade (duh)
2) Prevent Israel from filtering out whatever items it deems appropriate to be sent.


They protest the blockade and Israel filtering the aid because it makes it harder to ship in weapons and contraband (duh).

"If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other Western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security.

Third, were those onboard the ship simply innocent noncombatants? The act of breaking a military siege is itself a military act. And let there be no mistake about the purpose of this flotilla; it was decidedly not to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza, but rather to break the entirely lawful Israeli military blockade. The proof lies in the fact that both Israel and Egypt offered to have all the food, medicine and other humanitarian goods sent to Gaza, if the boats agreed to land in an Israeli or Egyptian port. That humanitarian offer was soundly rejected by the leaders of the flotilla, who publicly announced: "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians."
"
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/06/02/2010-06-02_israel_obeyed_international_law_legally_the_gaz a_flotilla_conflict_is_an_openand.html

Israel did proceed lawfully. Those who have trouble attacking Israel on the logic of their actions (to prevent weapons from reaching militants in Gaza) try to base their objections on legal technicalities. You're grasping at straws that aren't there.

[ElNono]

We will simply disagree on what is legally required.
Let me ask you this. Assuming my point of view on the legality is right, did Israel act improperly?

That's akin to asking 'Assuming that Hitler was right, did the Nazis act improperly?'

If everything is diluted to a matter of opinion, then you can eventually justify everything.

You're obviously incapable of looking at Israel with a critical eye. Requesting validation with a ridiculous question only shows at which lengths you will go.

And before you go there, let me repeat for the 72662627th time that I don't have any sympathy for Hamas and their supporters. I wish them all a painful death. But at the same time, there are thousands trapped in there that don't support them either, but have to put up with the inferior living conditions that the blockade forces upon them. I refuse to believe that there's no other way to protect Israel and at the same time give those people a shot at a better life.

[Wild Cobra]

That's akin to asking 'Assuming that Hitler was right, did the Nazis act improperly?'

If everything is diluted to a matter of opinion, then you can eventually justify everything.

You're obviously incapable of looking at Israel with a critical eye. Requesting validation with a ridiculous question only shows at which lengths you will go.

And before you go there, let me repeat for the 72662627th time that I don't have any sympathy for Hamas and their supporters. I wish them all a painful death. But at the same time, there are thousands trapped in there that don't support them either, but have to put up with the inferior living conditions that the blockade forces upon them. I refuse to believe that there's no other way to protect Israel and at the same time give those people a shot at a better life.
Do you think those people are better off allowing improperly checked relief supplies in that will ultimately include weapons?

[ElNono]

They protest the blockade and Israel filtering the aid because it makes it harder to ship in weapons and contraband (duh).

Israel has a right to inspect the ships at sea to ensure that there are no such weapons. They never exercised that right.


"[I]If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other Western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security.

Alan Dershowitz? Really? Might aswell quote the IDF press release.
How about an actual maritime law expert, or the actual law broken by boarding in international waters?


Israel did proceed lawfully. Those who have trouble attacking Israel on the logic of their actions (to prevent weapons from reaching militants in Gaza) try to base their objections on legal technicalities. You're grasping at straws that aren't there.

LOL. There's two other threads that you would do well to catch up with before bringing this weak stuff. Israel could have inspected those vessels for weapons and did not do it. That's lawful.

[ElNono]

Do you think those people are better off allowing improperly checked relief supplies in that will ultimately include weapons?

Your assumptions that the vessels can't be properly checked is unfounded, and considering there's no stipulated time limit to actually carry the inspections, there's really no excuse not to conduct them.
Furthermore, once in Israeli waters the flotilla can be intercepted and diverted, so Israel doesn't need to actually allow anything reaching Gaza...

[Wild Cobra]

Your assumptions that the vessels can't be properly checked is unfounded, and considering there's no stipulated time limit to actually carry the inspections, there's really no excuse not to conduct them.
I asked before if you understood how ships were built. Apparently, you don't. To properly inspect a ship the way they need to eliminate the possibility of weapons means cutting all possible places to weld something into the empty bulkheads. I guess you expect them to carry the blueprints for every ship that brings aide, and then take the weeks or months required to do a detailed check.

Furthermore, once in Israeli waters the flotilla can be intercepted and diverted, so Israel doesn't need to actually allow anything reaching Gaza...
Maybe that why the law and legal experts agree Israel was within her rights to stop the ship before it entered their waters?

From 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip (http://wapedia.mobi/en/2007%E2%80%93present_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip?t= 3):

According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, a blockade is a legal method of warfare at sea, but is governed by rules. The blockading nation must publish a list of contraband. The manual describes what can never be contraband. Outside this list, the blockading nation is free to select anything as contraband. The blockading nation typically establish a blockaded area of water, but any ship can be inspected as soon as it is established that it is attempting to break the blockade. This inspection can occur inside the blockaded area or in international waters, but never inside the territorial waters of a neutral nation. A neutral ship must obey a request to stop for inspection from the blockading nation. If the situation so demands, the blockading nation can request that the ship divert to a known place or harbour for inspection. If the ship does not stop, then the ship is subject to capture. If people aboard the ship are resisting capture, they can be attacked. It is still not allowed to sink the ship, unless provision is made for rescueing the crew. Leaving the crew in liferafts / lifeboats does not constitue rescue. If a neutral ship is captured, any member of the crew, resisting capture can be treated as prisoners-of-war, while the remainder of the crew should be released. A neutral nation may choose to send a convoy accompanied by warships. The warship can provide guarantees that the convoy does not contain contraband. in which case, the blockading nation does not have any right of inspection.

[Thompson]

There are 'legal experts' on both sides of the issue. You love to say matter-of-factly that Israel is definitely on the wrong side of the law, but there are experts who contradict you (and experts to contradict those experts).

You're trying to resort to legal technicalities to win your argument, when you are no authority on the matter yourself (and even among real authorities it is hotly debated). It is better to use simple reason.

The Israelis ordered the ship to a port where they could thoroughly inspect the cargo and then pass it along to Gaza. The activists wanted to break the blockade because they don't want shipments to be inspected. Why? Because it is harder to get weapons and contraband through in those circumstances. That's it. You can debate legal technicalities all you want, the fact is there are legal experts aplenty for you and against you. Reason is only on one side, and it isn't yours.

[ElNono]

I asked before if you understood how ships were built. Apparently, you don't. To properly inspect a ship the way they need to eliminate the possibility of weapons means cutting all possible places to weld something into the empty bulkheads. I guess you expect them to carry the blueprints for every ship that brings aide, and then take the weeks or months required to do a detailed check.

It took Israel 2 days to inspect all 6 ships. Furthermore, Israel merely unloads and inspects the cargo at the port. The ships are never taken out of the sea.
Which once again proves you're talking out of your ass.

See, there's a disconnect between what you 'think' and reality. Fairly common when it comes to you and this topic.
Ultimately, Israel can lawfully opt not to allow any of the ships to reach Gaza.

And we already established that Remo doesn't apply to humanitarian vessels, which all 6 of these clearly were. You can keep quoting it. It still doesn't make it relevant.

[Wild Cobra]

It took Israel 2 days to inspect all 6 ships. Furthermore, Israel merely unloads and inspects the cargo at the port. The ships are never taken out of the sea.
Which once again proves you're talking out of your ass. This way, no weapons hiding in bulkheads to be opened at a Gaza port.

They didn't need to inspect the ships. Only the cargo, because they took it off the ship, then transferred it by approved transportation.


See, there's a disconnect between what you 'think' and reality. Fairly common when it comes to you and this topic.
Ultimately, Israel can lawfully opt not to allow any of the ships to reach Gaza.

If you say so...


And we already established that Remo doesn't apply to humanitarian vessels, which all 6 of these clearly were. You can keep quoting it. It still doesn't make it relevant.

No, that is your contention. they were not clearly only aide vessels. By your reasoning, I can call a ship anything I want to avoid a proper inspection. What if it was mixed use, aide as a cover, and tons of weapons? If it was known to have weapons, but also carried food, would you say it couldn't be stopped?

there is reasonable suspicion that any of these ships also carry weapons.

[Thompson]

And we already established that Remo doesn't apply to humanitarian vessels, which all 6 of these clearly were. You can keep quoting it. It still doesn't make it relevant.

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMST

(c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:
(i) cartel vessels, e.g., vessels designated for and engaged in the transport of prisoners of war;
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;
(d) vessels engaged in transporting cultural property under special protection;

Read the Remo more thoroughly: they were not vessels engaged in humanitarian missions granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties. (ii) is a subsection of (c), requiring that Israel recognize the ship as humanitarian and agree to grant safe conduct, which Israel did not. You would do well to catch up on the law before bringing your weak takes on it.

[ElNono]

There are 'legal experts' on both sides of the issue. You love to say matter-of-factly that Israel is definitely on the wrong side of the law, but there are experts who contradict you (and experts to contradict those experts).

I've been asking for actual legal opinion of maritime law experts supporting the Israeli boarding and not have found it. It's actual rather unfortunate that Israel declined an investigation from an actual independent maritime law expert, since claritynis what we should be after here.


You're trying to resort to legal technicalities to win your argument, when you are no authority on the matter yourself (and even among real authorities it is hotly debated). It is better to use simple reason.

Win what argument? I want to know if the boarding was legal. I've read the relevant law and it didn't look to me like it was. We exchanged opinions with other people here about it.
I've yet to see an actual interpretation of the law by an actual maritime law expert explaining that what Israel did was proper. If you have it, feel free to post it. We're all trying to learn here.


The Israelis ordered the ship to a port where they could thoroughly inspect the cargo and then pass it along to Gaza. The activists wanted to break the blockade because they don't want shipments to be inspected. Why? Because it is harder to get weapons and contraband through in those circumstances. That's it. You can debate legal technicalities all you want, the fact is there are legal experts aplenty for you and against you. Reason is only on one side, and it isn't yours.

How many weapons did they find in those vessels?

See, the problem with your theory is that Reality is not on your side.

[Thompson]

I
How many weapons did they find in those vessels?

See, the problem with your theory is that Reality is not on your side.

The point of breaking the blockade is to allow for future weapons shipments. This whole exercise was a political operation, they would have been moronic to risk putting weapons on that shipment and risk the political hay they hoped to make with the incident.

If all cargo they intend to ship to Gaza is legitimate, what real reasonable objection can they have to letting Israel inspect it all? Can you answer that?

[ElNono]

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMST

(c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:
(i) cartel vessels, e.g., vessels designated for and engaged in the transport of prisoners of war;
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;
(d) vessels engaged in transporting cultural property under special protection;

Read the Remo more thoroughly: they were not vessels engaged in humanitarian missions granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties. (ii) is a subsection of (c), requiring that Israel recognize the ship as humanitarian and agree to grant safe conduct, which Israel did not. You would do well to catch up on the law before bringing your weak takes on it.

Israel simply has no jurisdiction to 'grant passage' in international waters.
Since you're brushing up with Remo, we can move on to the next topic, how does these ships fit the 'Merchant ship' definition...

[ElNono]

The point of breaking the blockade is to allow for future weapons shipments. This whole exercise was a political operation, they would have been moronic to risk putting weapons on that shipment and risk the political hay they hoped to make with the incident.

Opinion. Your evidence backing up your theory is?


If all cargo they intend to ship to Gaza is legitimate, what real reasonable objection can they have to letting Israel inspect it all? Can you answer that?

The fact that Israel removes basic stuff like cement from reaching Gaza?
Why do you think the US and pretty much every other country in the world think the blockade is 'untenable'? You think the Gaza population is having a party?

[ElNono]

Don't forget, Israel can stop all those vessels lawfully. THAT is my only gripe with them, really.

[ElNono]

One last thing before I go to bed: Ofcourse a lot of this is poltically motivated. That's how protest work. But that's exactly why Israel should have been 10X more careful in the way they proceeded. As I said numerous times in this topic, they took the bait and swallowed it whole, but IMO they have only themselves to blame for it.

[Thompson]

Israel did not grant them safe passage through their territorial waters and through the blockade, which they were approaching and intended to break through.

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d14de6160e0c12563da005fdb1b/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce!OpenDocument

SECTION IV : AREAS OF NAVAL WARFARE

10. Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over:

(a) the territorial sea and internal waters, the land territories, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States;
(b) the high seas; and
(c) subject to paragraphs 34 and 35, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of neutral States.

[elsewhere]

(i) merchant vessel means a vessel, other than a warship, an auxiliary vessel, or a State vessel such as a customs or police vessel, that is engaged in commercial or private service;


Opinion. Your evidence backing up your theory is?


Simple reason and precedent. Israel captured two ships in the last couple of years that were loaded with weapons bound for Gaza. There can be no reasonable objection to letting Israel inspect the shipments. Your one justification,



The fact that Israel removes basic stuff like cement from reaching Gaza?


is not valid; Israel removes basic stuff like cement because Hamas uses it to build tunnels to smuggle in weapons.

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/hamas-closes-gaza-tunnels-amid-sinai-kidnapping-threat-against-israelis/19439615

Israel does allow the use of cement for specific projects, as long as they can control and monitor where the cement goes to make sure it isn't used for illicit purposes.


Don't forget, Israel can stop all those vessels lawfully. THAT is my only gripe with them, really.

They did stop them lawfully.

[Winehole23]

there is reasonable suspicion that any of these ships also carry weapons.What weapons were found?

Moreover, what reasonable suspicion existed that Israel's ally, Turkey, was shipping armaments to Hamas?

[Winehole23]

(a) the territorial sea and internal waters, the land territories, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States;
Gaza is not a state, but an occupied territory. As the occupying power, Israel is responsible for the well-being of the people there. The blockade of all manner of essential goods cuts against this responsibility.

[Winehole23]

There can be no reasonable objection to letting Israel inspect the shipments. El Nono already agreed with this. But the manner of inspection was piratical, not legal. Israel attacked the flagged ships of its ally, Turkey, in international waters.

[ElNono]

Israel did not grant them safe passage through their territorial waters and through the blockade, which they were approaching and intended to break through.

But they didn't break through. And therein lies the problem. I actually have no problem with Israel doing what it did once the vessels entered it's jurisdiction. I also have no problem with Israel using their legal recourse to inspect the ships at sea to make sure they're who they claim they are.
Or Israel intercepting (notice that intercepting is not the same as boarding) the ships and forcing them to detour to where they want them to go.
But that's not what happened, is it?


(i) merchant vessel means a vessel, other than a warship, an auxiliary vessel, or a State vessel such as a customs or police vessel, that is engaged in commercial or private service;

What 'commercial or private service' were those vessels engaged in?
They claimed to be humanitarian aid ships, and indeed turned out to be just that.


Simple reason and precedent. Israel captured two ships in the last couple of years that were loaded with weapons bound for Gaza. There can be no reasonable objection to letting Israel inspect the shipments.

Israel can inspect the shipments lawfully at sea, but refuses to do so. So you simply cannot claim that there are any objections to an inspection.


Your one justification, is not valid; Israel removes basic stuff like cement because Hamas uses it to build tunnels to smuggle in weapons.
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/hamas-closes-gaza-tunnels-amid-sinai-kidnapping-threat-against-israelis/19439615
Israel does allow the use of cement for specific projects, as long as they can control and monitor where the cement goes to make sure it isn't used for illicit purposes.

Do they use jam and chocolate to build tunnels too? Crayons?
You can use a hammer to build something or to kill someone. You can use a knife to eat or to kill someone. Where you draw the line?
I understand trying to control Hamas. But at what cost?

Has this blockade brought solutions?

What's more idiotic is that because of their reckless conduct, they damaged relations with a couple of countries they had great relationships with, Turkey and Egypt. Egypt being key into it's blockade strategy. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.

[Wild Cobra]

What weapons were found?

Moreover, what reasonable suspicion existed that Israel's ally, Turkey, was shipping armaments to Hamas?
Reasonable suspicion does not mean they exist.

Terrorists prior to 9/11 were said to have done "trial runs." When they found holes in the security system, they implemented those for their final plan. I doubt any weapons will be found. However, I honestly believe once a method was found to get a ship into a Gaza port was found, I think there would have been massive weapons shipments.

I have no quarrel with Israel being proactive.

[Wild Cobra]

But they didn't break through. And therein lies the problem. I actually have no problem with Israel doing what it did once the vessels entered it's jurisdiction. I also have no problem with Israel using their legal recourse to inspect the ships at sea to make sure they're who they claim they are.
Or Israel intercepting (notice that intercepting is not the same as boarding) the ships and forcing them to detour to where they want them to go.
But that's not what happened, is it?

Bullshit.

the ship was ordered to change course for inspection, and failed to do so.


If the situation so demands, the blockading nation can request that the ship divert to a known place or harbour for inspection.

[ElNono]

Bullshit. the ship was ordered to change course for inspection, and failed to do so.

Israel has no jurisdiction to tell anybody to do absolutely anything in international waters.

[DarrinS]

Israel has no jurisdiction to tell anybody to do absolutely anything in international waters.

Legal opinion varies on this, but you keep stating it as a fact.

[ElNono]

Legal opinion varies on this, but you keep stating it as a fact.

Can I read some of those legal opinions?
I never claimed to be an expert, and I can certainly be wrong. Unfortunately my requests for expert legal opinion have gone unanswered.

Maybe a YouTube? :rolleyes

[Winehole23]

Thompson was not forthcoming with any large number of substantiating links either. Go figure.

[Winehole23]

(*Just another drive-by,* apparently.)

[MiamiHeat]

yeah, let's send our men and women into danger once again,

so that more arabs can hate america, once again,

so that another country will hate us and keep a vendetta, once again

good idea.

[Winehole23]

Reasonable suspicion does not mean they exist.

Terrorists prior to 9/11 were said to have done "trial runs." When they found holes in the security system, they implemented those for their final plan. I doubt any weapons will be found. However, I honestly believe once a method was found to get a ship into a Gaza port was found, I think there would have been massive weapons shipments.That's wicked retarded, WC.

I have no quarrel with Israel being proactive.Obviously not.

But didn't you notice you just flagrantly ignored two fairly simple and direct questions?

[Winehole23]

(Please don't blame it on not bein in *threaded mode* again.)

[Winehole23]

You already wore that one out.

[Winehole23]

:lol

[Winehole23]

...the manner of inspection was piratical, not legal. Israel attacked the flagged ships of its ally, Turkey, in international waters.Nobody addressed the justification of a peacetime attack on the flagged ships of an historical ally, Turkey, in international waters.

[Winehole23]

Was the justification announced in advance?

[Winehole23]

Think I missed that part.

[DarrinS]

Can I read some of those legal opinions?
I never claimed to be an expert, and I can certainly be wrong. Unfortunately my requests for expert legal opinion have gone unanswered.

Maybe a YouTube? :rolleyes

Google is your friend

[Winehole23]

Yours too, if you care to give color to your own claims. Apparently you prefer just so assert things by fiat.

[DarrinS]

Yours too, if you care to give color to your own claims. Apparently you prefer just so assert things by fiat.


I already posted an article on the legality of the blockade in another thread. I see no need to repeat myself. People can do their own searching.

[Winehole23]

I already posted an article on the legality of the blockade in another thread.Because that would've been so much more trouble than the reply you just gave

Guess you wouldn't want to change your hard-earned rep for being lazy and superficial.

[Winehole23]

Fine by me, Mr. Crankypants. Wouldn't want you to sprain anything.