Really? The 2nd graders and schoolteachers are doing that?
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 up that allowed Hamas to run in the elections in first place, and now everybody in there is paying the price for that.
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.
The Israelis are trying to organize a humanitarian flotilla to Turkish Kurdistan.
Ideas for ‘reverse flotillas’ gain steam
I wonder how Turkey will respond.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."
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
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?
No .
I wonder if the Hamas apologists know what that strange reason might be?
i don't apologize for their tactics. i'm worried about the slow extermination by israel.
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.
Actually, the activists have no legal way to stop an inspection at sea. Israel simply never requested it.
You did know this, right?
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?
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/...n_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.
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?
Israel has a right to inspect the ships at sea to ensure that there are no such weapons. They never exercised that right.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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:
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 cons ue 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.
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 cir stances. 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.
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.
They didn't need to inspect the ships. Only the cargo, because they took it off the ship, then transferred it by approved transportation.
If you say so...
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 su ion that any of these ships also carry weapons.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
Opinion. Your evidence backing up your theory is?
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?
Don't forget, Israel can stop all those vessels lawfully. THAT is my only gripe with them, really.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
