The Israel-Palestine Conflict Mk.II

Original post by CombineHarvester

That same manual states the blockade is illegal if 'the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade'. The flotilla was carrying humanitarian aid rather than weapons to be smuggled into Gaza and since it was in international waters it could not have been boarded legally without the consent of the captain (which it did not receive). Warnings are irrelevant. If you were describing a state of war and this were a navy ship then you'd have a point, but an aid ship with humanitarian workers simply cannot be regarded as such. The only reasonable way of claiming it was legal is to disregard the Geneva Convention in favour of Israeli government justifications for the raid/blockade.

It can be boarded in international waters if it is attempting to break a blockade, so long as it has been given sufficient warning. An aid ship with 'humanitarian aid' is still regarded as a merchant vessel and I quoted to you a part of the Manual which says it is justified to attack such ships. I also said: Major John Dehn, a law professor at the West Point Military Academy, says that, if a state has instituted a legal blockade, then it can board neutral ships in international waters. Warnings are not 'irrelevant' at all: "Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked." (Section Two, Paragraph 98.) Furthermore many weapons were found upon the ship. Besides, the blockade is in place because Israel don't know what gets into Gaza. There quite literally could have been anything on that ship, which is why Israel made the reasonable offer for the ship to dock at Ashdod and for the aid to be searched by UN and EU representatives.

The Fourth Geneva Convention, if it applies, states Israel must "ensure the food and medical supplies of the population” as well as “agree to relief schemes on behalf of the…population” and maintain “public health and hygiene." This is what it was doing when it requested the ship to dock at Ashdod: the aid would have got through under UN admin, it would just have to be searched first. The Fourth Geneva Convention refers to territory as occupied where the territory is of another "High Contracting Party" (i.e., a state party to the convention) and the occupier "exercises the functions of government" in the occupied territory. Yet, the Gaza Strip is not territory of another state party to the convention - Egypt, which previously controlled Gaza, is a party to the convention, but Gaza was never Egyptian territory. And Israel does not exercise the functions of government - or, indeed, any significant functions - in the territory. It is clear to all that the elected Hamas government is the de facto sovereign of the Gaza Strip and does not take direction from Israel, or any other state. If Israel were indeed properly considered an occupier, under Article 43 of the regulations attached to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, Israel would be required to take "all the measures in [its] power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety." Thus, those who contend that Israel is in legal occupation of Gaza must also support and even demand Israeli military operations in order to disarm Palestinian terror groups and militias, as it was preemptively doing aboard the flotilla. Were Gaza still under military occupation (as the UN considers it to be), there would be no problem blockading it. Indeed, Common Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that IHL extends to undeclared wars and occupied territory, says Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, a law professor at the Viadrina European University. This being the case, the IHL rules governing naval blockades also apply to Gaza. Finally, under Article 23, a party can block passage even of food, clothing and medicine even for these population groups if it has serious grounds for suspecting that the items will be intercepted before reaching their destination or that the items may benefit the enemy’s economy by substitution. Israel has excellent grounds for fearing both of these results, especially after Hamas seized fourteen Red Crescent trucks carrying humanitarian aid on February 7, 2008, on the pretext that only Hamas may decide how to distribute aid in Gaza (Hamas redistributed the food products and medical supplies to Hamas-run ministries). See here for more info.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 8523

Balagan

4

Original post by sherlllll

Not really, you're a bunch of racists. I can prove it from one of the most non-biased sources available.

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/zionism.html

This intelligent, logical argument is what I'm basing my statement upon.

haha who is this joker? by his defintion all nation-states in the world are 'racist'. I assume he would like to see a world where there are no nations, no borders and everyone lives under one world-government? :rolleyes:

if you agree with him then you would also have to agree that palestinian nationalism and identity is racist.

Reply 8524

Original post by Mujeriego

Norway is thought to be one of the most anti-Semitic countries in the developed world. Not as a result of recent Islamic immigration which, I admit, can be incredibly bigoted towards Jews but as a result of their conduct during the last century. Or their conduct during the last decade even. For my part, I think the Norwegians are pretty damn chill.

What?

I've never met anyone who has anything against Jews. I've never heard about this. Well I know how it was in the past, but that was a long time ago. Well not that long ago, when you consider World War 2 and such. But it's not like that today.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 8525

sherlllll

8

Original post by Balagan

haha who is this joker? by his defintion all nation-states in the world are 'racist'. I assume he would like to see a world where there are no nations, no borders and everyone lives under one world-government? :rolleyes:

if you agree with him then you would also have to agree that palestinian nationalism and identity is racist.

He goes into further detail regarding Zionism and in particular these four characteristics that differentiate it from other nationalist ideologies.

Reply 8526

tehFrance

Original post by Mujeriego

Norway is thought to be one of the most anti-Semitic countries in the developed world.

Are you serious? I guess I need to yell I'm a Jew more around them as they seem fine too me :colondollar:

Reply 8527

Original post by tehFrance

Are you serious? I guess I need to yell I'm a Jew more around them as they seem fine too me :colondollar:

Norway is not a country full of "Jew haters". That's rubbish. Dark past , but it's not like today. Most are jolly nice , but there are bad people everywhere.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 8528

tehFrance

Original post by Luceria

Norway is not a country full of "Jew haters".

I know, I guess you misunderstood my post :frown:

Reply 8529

Original post by tehFrance

I know, I guess you misunderstood my post :frown:

No, I didn't. lol. Just felt like saying it again.

Reply 8530

tehFrance

Original post by Luceria

No, I didn't. lol. Just felt like saying it again.

Righto, if you say so :tongue:

Reply 8531

MazalTov89

9

Original post by tieyourmotherdown

Because blue and yellow are totally last years colours. I mean *HELLO*, we can't have Israel joining an organisation which endorses colours that clash.

This, definately.

Reply 8532

Original post by tehFrance

Righto, if you say so :tongue:

It's the truth. This whole "Jew hate" is the most shocking thing I've heard all day, lol.

Because it's evil.

Original post by ukstudent1989

Israel is in the middle east.

Maybe if Turkey joined the EU, then maybe Israel would have a chance.

But to be honest, Israel has to many problems to even become a member of the EU.

Although the EU largely tolerates Israel, it is completely incompatible with the EU. Even if Turkey did get in, Israel would still be a definite no. The EU are constantly denouncing most things Israel does - unless it radically changes it has no chance whatsoever of joining.

Reply 8535

CombineHarvester

16

You seem to think it's universally agreed or even the most commonly held idea that the blockade is legal, clearly this is not the case and therefore has a significant effect on the legality of action taken to enforce the blockade. I've already quoted the relevant extract which suggests that if a blockade has a disproportionately bad effect on the civilians in the area or is used as a form of collective punishment it is illegal. Also the incredibly strict nature of the blockade means a lot of foodstuffs and aid including basic building materials which are necessities do not reach Gaza which is the exact reason why aid flotillas have come about - if Israel did let reasonable items through such as concrete, toys and chocolate flotillas wouldn't be so prevalent. Quoting a few lawyers is not a strong argument because there's countless international law professors and lawyers including many Israeli ones as well as institutions such as the Red Cross, UN, European Union and Amnesty International who have stated that it is illegal. The inquest into the legality of the raid has been carried out by the Turkish authorities and found to be illegal under international law. The UN will do similar so that should provide independent results. Also the IDF claims of weapons on the flotilla are completely unreliable, of course a group of people who have just shot dead many civilians aren't going to be an independent source of information, in fact the flotilla and its passengers had been thoroughly searched using x-ray machines and metal detectors before they were allowed to board.

In any case, legal technicalities (which you'd have to use as well as the Israeli government in order to defend this) are at most weak grounds on defending the raid or blockade. The reason why the law exists is far more important (to protect human rights, dignity, freedom etc.) and an independent inquiry would determine it to be illegal using a reasonable interpretation of the law rather than what you have done which is a false interpretation of international law which is not applicable to Israel today.

Reply 8536

jakemittle

Original post by callum9999

Although the EU largely tolerates Israel, it is completely incompatible with the EU. Even if Turkey did get in, Israel would still be a definite no. The EU are constantly denouncing most things Israel does - unless it radically changes it has no chance whatsoever of joining.

Not if Berlusconi and the Jewish Lobby have anything to say about it...that being said, I doubt Israel are even interested

Reply 8537

callum9999

16

Original post by jakemittle

Not if Berlusconi and the Jewish Lobby have anything to say about it...that being said, I doubt Israel are even interested

Berlusconi and the "jewish lobby" have insignificant power within the EU though. I think you're right about Israels view though. They have all the protection/cooperation they need from the West, so they have no incentive to join the likes of the EU who constantly criticise them.

Reply 8538

jakemittle

Original post by farhan

Palestinians plan 'Day of Rage' to protest U.S. veto on UN settlement resolution

Top Fatah official next Friday will be a day of Palestinian protest against the U.S. for vetoing a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlement building.

Palestinians are planning their own "Day of Rage" to protest the American veto on a United Nations resolution condemning Israeli settlements, Ma'an News Agency reported a top Fatah official as saying on Saturday.

"They are liars who pretend to support democracy and peace. Far from it," Fatah official and former Palestinian intelligence chief Tawfik Tirawi, referring to the U.S., told the news agency.

The U.S. on Friday voted against a draft resolution against Israeli settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Their vote prevented the resolution from being adopted, as the U.S. is one of five permanent members on UN Security Council. The 14 other members of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution.

Tirawi said the Palestinians have set Friday for the day when they will officially protest the U.S. veto, which he said amounted to "blackmail."

Israel, on the other hand, praised the U.S. vote, saying they "deeply appreciate" the veto.

Hamas also weighted in on the vote, saying that it showed the U.S. bias in favor of Israeli occupation.

Peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians were halted in September after a temporary Israeli settlement freeze expired. Palestinians refuse to return to the negotiating table unless settlement building halts completely, including in East Jerusalem.

Haaretz

The bit in bold says it all. Liars. The U.S. doesn't care about democracy and human rights when it comes to Israel.

I wonder how this will go

Reply 8539

jakemittle