Send the 6th fleet to Gaza

[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/52d68d14...e!OpenDo ent

SECTION IV : AREAS OF NAVAL WARFARE

10. Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this do ent 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...aelis/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 su ion that any of these ships also carry weapons.

What weapons were found?

Moreover, what reasonable su ion 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...aelis/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 su ion existed that Israel's ally, Turkey, was shipping armaments to Hamas?

Reasonable su ion 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?

Bull .

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]

Bull . 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?

[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 su ion 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 re ed, 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]

[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?

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.