UN demands actions

tom prendergast said:
Again, it is all about proportionality and Israel's refusal to adhere to any international standards of behaviour, be it the use of phosphorus in a heavily populated area, attacking a ship in international waters or imposing an illegal blockade.

This time however they have committed a real shooting in the foot scenario which has meant that Turkey and the UAE, their only real friends in that region, have turned on them.
Click to expand...

do tell us what 'international standards' Hamas adheres to????

Also, the blockade is not illegal and while it would have been smarter to board in territorial waters, that too is not illegal.
 
tom prendergast said:
I saw it on the news last night, I don't think it has been posted online yet. By the way, you might want to read this from Human Rights Watch stating that the blockade is illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/11/20/letter-olmert-stop-blockade-gaza

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=10079&LangID=E
Click to expand...

Yeah, i saw the same thing last night on Newsnight.

At the very least those who are defending both the Israeli seizure and the blockade itself have to concede that the legality of such acts are hotly disputed.
 
Its refreshing to know that antisemitism is alive and well in 2010. I was worried that we had all become too lovey-dovey and keen-spirited...
 
T&A said:
Its refreshing to know that antisemitism is alive and well in 2010. I was worried that we had all become too lovey-dovey and keen-spirited...
Click to expand...

I think Obamas doing a shit job as well.

Have you any idea where i could get hold of some fire resistant sheets?
 
T&A said:
Its refreshing to know that antisemitism is alive and well in 2010. I was worried that we had all become too lovey-dovey and keen-spirited...
Click to expand...

Umm. It's not antisemitism to hold israelis accountable for their actions.

Stop being such a noahide brainwash victim.
 
charver said:
Yeah, i saw the same thing last night on Newsnight.

At the very least those who are defending both the Israeli seizure and the blockade itself have to concede that the legality of such acts are hotly disputed.
Click to expand...

There are many for whom the Israelis can do no wrong and will always spout the same old tripe that it is only a little country surrounded by hostile neighbours. It may be a little country but it is bristling with weaponry and nuclear weapons and has had, until now at least, the unwavering support from the USA.

I wonder if they know that Ariel Sharon removed Avigdor Lieberman from the Israeli cabinet in 2004 because of his vehement opposition to the Gaza disengagement plan, now the fucker is the foreign minister!!
 
Superfreak said:
So they are not only attempting to run the blockade, but they are also carrying cargo specifically banned for Gaza?

yeah... its the Israeli's doing the provoking...
Click to expand...


Can you explain to me who gives Israel the right to ban things like medical equipment, wheelchairs, school supplies and cement?

As far as the violence? Who is to blame? Well it all depends on what you think is excessive force.

First? Can Israeli troops boarding in international waters be considered provocation? Yes. Did the Flotilla passengers use excessive force? YES.

Did Israeli soldiers respond with excessive force? YES.

As far as who is responsible for the escalation? Israel should not have boarded the flotilla in International waters.(Braking International law)

Would the passengers have over reacted if they were confronted in Israeli waters? Most likely but that is what Israel should have done.

Maybe next time they could trade the paintball guns for tranquilizers.

Did all nine dead fire at the soldiers? Nine dead is a very high death toll and all on one boat. Now it is possible that the Israelis can have a legitimate explanation but this certainly has to be investigated.

As far as the actual blockade? It is ILLEGAL. And Obama has been calling on Israel(the welfare state of the USA) to lift the blockade(only for show) Since Jewish elites control America.

When is Obama going to put pressure on Israel? I can understand restricting certain things but restricting things to rebuild Gaza's infastructure is Illegal. Denying Hamas to rule when they clearly won the Democratic election is also illegal. Who made Israel and the USA the masters of the world?

Now Israel must pay compensation to Turkey for breaking international Law. An investigation over the killiongs must also take place and if Israeli soldiers are found guilty, Israel must compensate their families.

Obama and the UN(international community) must put REAL pressure for the Israelis to lift the blockade. And Hamas must be allowed to form a unity government with Fatah.This unity government must make sure that no acts of violence are committed against Israel(which I know they are capable of stopping). And the diplomatic route must be taken.

We have seen what decades of violence has brought. Death and destruction.
 
Last edited:
charver said:
Yeah, i saw the same thing last night on Newsnight.

At the very least those who are defending both the Israeli seizure and the blockade itself have to concede that the legality of such acts are hotly disputed.
Click to expand...

I do not dispute that it is hotly contested.... but those saying the blockade is illegal are quite simply... wrong.

On that note, here are the relevant passages from the Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality:

5.1.2 (3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion.

5.1.2 (4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they (a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy; (b) act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces; (c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system; (d) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or (e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

5.2.1 As an exception to Principle 5.1.2. paragraph 1 and in accordance with Principle 1.3 (2nd sentence), belligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.

5.2.10 Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.
 
Superfreak said:
I do not dispute that it is hotly contested.... but those saying the blockade is illegal are quite simply... wrong.

On that note, here are the relevant passages from the Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality:

5.1.2 (3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion.

5.1.2 (4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they (a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy; (b) act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces; (c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system; (d) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or (e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

5.2.1 As an exception to Principle 5.1.2. paragraph 1 and in accordance with Principle 1.3 (2nd sentence), belligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.

5.2.10 Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.
Click to expand...

These are in the context of war. What war is going on? None.
 
In this case, we have an ally attacking a ship of another ally. Not a great place for the US to be...
 
AssHatZombie said:
These are in the context of war. What war is going on? None.
Click to expand...

Gaza is run by an internationally recognized terrorist organization who thinks its lifes goal is the complete destruction of Israel. It lobs rockets repetitively into Israel from Gaza.... but yeah... they are not at War. Since War has not been declared.

Likewise, there is no war going on in Iraq. There was no war in Vietnam. etc...
 
Superfreak said:
I do not dispute that it is hotly contested.... but those saying the blockade is illegal are quite simply... wrong.

On that note, here are the relevant passages from the Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality:

5.1.2 (3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion.

5.1.2 (4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they (a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy; (b) act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces; (c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system; (d) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or (e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

5.2.1 As an exception to Principle 5.1.2. paragraph 1 and in accordance with Principle 1.3 (2nd sentence), belligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.

5.2.10 Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.
Click to expand...

Who sanctioned this war?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top