UN finds Israeli raid on Flotilla unlawful

Archie D Bunker · 24-09-2010 10:28am

KyussBishop wrote: »

Have you read up on the effects of the blockade? You should, it's quite inhumane, it's not as simple as there being a blockade against 'terrorists', it's against an entire population.

Here are some of the effects of the blockade:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Israeli_blockade#Effects_of_land_blockade_on_Gaza

Do you support collective punishment on the people of Gaza? If you support the blockade, you support that as well by extension.

And yet the people of Gaza are basically much better off than people in Uganda, Darfur, Congo, parts of China, parts of India, parts of any Arab country you can think of.

Also, just out of curiousity - do you support a ban on Israeli goods (which can be considered as collective punishment for the people of Israel, including Israeli Arabs and Palestinians who work in Israel)?

--Kaiser-- · 24-09-2010 10:34am

KyussBishop wrote: »

Have you read up on the effects of the blockade? You should, it's quite inhumane, it's not as simple as there being a blockade against 'terrorists', it's against an entire population.

Here are some of the effects of the blockade:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Israeli_blockade#Effects_of_land_blockade_on_Gaza

Do you support collective punishment on the people of Gaza? If you support the blockade, you support that as well by extension.

Both sides are wrong in my opinion. I don't agree with a lot of Israels policies, I don't agree on the types of goods blocked by the blockade. I only agree with the blockade as a means to prevent weapons reaching Gaza. Hamas is a terrorist organisation and lets not forget that it has targeted it's own people as well as Israelis. From the site you quoted;
'On February 2007, members of the Palestinian Red Crescent, speaking on conditions of anonymity, said that Hamas had confiscated their humanitarian supply convoys that were destined for Palestinian civilians.'

Nodin · 24-09-2010 11:01am

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

And yet the people of Gaza are basically much better off than people in Uganda, Darfur, Congo, parts of China, parts of India, parts of any Arab country you can think of.)

Nonsense.

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Also, just out of curiousity - do you support a ban on Israeli goods (which can be considered as collective punishment for the people of Israel, including Israeli Arabs and Palestinians who work in Israel)?

Sanctions and/or a boycott would not reduce the Israeli quality of life to the same degree, by any stretch of the imagination.

Did you opposse the idea of sanctions against South Africa?

Fratton Fred · 24-09-2010 11:04am

Nodin wrote: »

Nonsense.

Sanctions and/or a boycott would not reduce the Israeli quality of life to the same degree, by any stretch of the imagination.

Did you opposse the idea of sanctions against South Africa?

I'm not sure how sanctions would be workable in this global age, but i would certainly support an arms embargo.

Not so sure the US arms companies would though.

Archie D Bunker · 24-09-2010 11:28am

Nodin wrote: »

Nonsense

Ok, show me examples of Palestinians starving to death, dying from various diseases, or killed by the thousands on a daily basis.

Nodin wrote: »

Sanctions and/or a boycott would not reduce the Israeli quality of life to the same degree, by any stretch of the imagination.

Did you opposse the idea of sanctions against South Africa?

I supported the sanctions against South Africa, but I don't really think you can compare South Africa to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
For example, the black population of South Africa did not go on terrorist campaigns against the white population, they did not declare day and night that their goal is to annihilate the white population, etc.

Nodin · 24-09-2010 11:32am

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Ok, show me examples of Palestinians starving to death, dying from various diseases, or killed by the thousands on a daily basis..

And all that happens "in parts of any Arab country you can think of."?

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

I supported the sanctions against South Africa, but I don't really think you can compare South Africa to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
For example, the black population of South Africa did not go on terrorist campaigns against the white population, ..................

You don't remember the Brits and US treating the ANC as a "terrorist" organisation? You don't remember Nelson Mandela only being removed from the no-entry list to the US in 2008?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

they did not declare day and night that their goal is to annihilate the white population, etc.

And when did the Palestinians sign up to the counterpart to this?

Gigiwagga · 24-09-2010 12:11pm

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

And yet the people of Gaza are basically much better off than people in Uganda, Darfur, Congo, parts of China, parts of India, parts of any Arab country you can think of.

Also, just out of curiousity - do you support a ban on Israeli goods (which can be considered as collective punishment for the people of Israel, including Israeli Arabs and Palestinians who work in Israel)?

I'm sure many of the Jewish people in the ghettos of Germany and Poland during WWII were probably 'better off' than many people in Darfur, Congo, etc.

Is this what you're trying to say "Don't complain all you poor suffering Palestinian people, you're not dead."

ScumLord · 24-09-2010 12:29pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not sure how sanctions would be workable in this global age, but i would certainly support an arms embargo.

Don't Israel make a load of weapons? Ether way it doesn't matter there's no way the Americans would stop selling them weapons.

Noreen1 · 24-09-2010 1:13pm

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

The head honchos ordered a retaliation as a snap decision to defend their troops. Too hard, yes, but the blockade runners were the instigators.

Since the ships were in international waters - they hadn't run any (illegal) blockade to begin with........... Hence the international outcry.

Noreen

meditraitor · 24-09-2010 1:15pm

ScumLord wrote: »

Don't Israel make a load of weapons? Ether way it doesn't matter there's no way the Americans would stop selling them weapons.

Isreali arms dealers are among the busiest in the world, they have been known to supply every savage dictator and petty regime throughout the america's and africa, there is even a suggestion they do this at the behest of america so the good old U S of A doesnt have to dirty its hands.
A small bit on them here>
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/09/20/Tough-times-for-Israeli-arms-dealers/UPI-66261285007036/

Isreal even supplies china with reverse engineered american weaponry,

The US supplies 3bn per year in aid and military equipment to Isreal,

Johro · 24-09-2010 3:44pm

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

It's been established that the blockade is 'illegal' or 'unlawful' or whatever legal terms you want to use, but think about it this way, Hamas is a terrorist organisation (as recognised by UN and just about everyone else) who are in conflict with Israel. Israel have a blockade on Gaza for the express purpose of preventing weapons/bombs/etc reaching Gaza, and by extension Hamas. Illegal or not, I agree with it. (I am not pro-Israeli or pro-Palestine normally, just in this case).

News item from not long after war on Gaza: 'The United Nations and the Red Cross are calling for a shift in Israeli policy toward entry of foreign aid to Gaza. All this time trucks from all over Europe (Ireland included) have been ferrying goods to a huge depot bordering Gaza, but Israel's authorities will allow only a limited number of trucks per day to deliver aid, and handpick goods to be delivered in the name of security. They say they won't allow items which can be used as weapons.' Fair enough you'd tink, only for some reason these include building materials, school supplies such as childrens textbooks, cooking utensils, computers, medical instruments etc. An Israeli official said they will only allow basic needs, such as bags of rice and flour, cooking oil and such. According to the Red Cross, 'just enough food is let through by the Israeli government with the intention of keeping the people (one and a half million) of Gaza hovering just above crisis level.'

Zebra3 · 24-09-2010 5:12pm

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

And yet the people of Gaza are basically much better off than people in Uganda, Darfur, Congo, parts of China, parts of India, parts of any Arab country you can think of.

Really?

The people of Gaza are better of than those in the UAE? :rolleyes:

Manic Moran · 24-09-2010 5:23pm

Noreen1 wrote: »

Since the ships were in international waters - they hadn't run any (illegal) blockade to begin with........... Hence the international outcry.

Noreen

Red herring. The UN report points out that international waters are of no protection to people intending to run a legal blockade. Pages 14 and 15.

NTM

wes · 24-09-2010 5:35pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Red herring. The UN report points out that international waters are of no protection to people intending to run a legal blockade. Pages 14 and 15.

NTM

Yes, the operative word being legal and from the BBC News (the article the OP posted) we can see the same UN said the blockade is actually "unlawful":

Israeli raid on Gaza aid flotilla broke law - UN probe

--SNIP--
The UN fact-finding mission also said the Israeli blockade of the Palestinian territory was "unlawful" because of a humanitarian crisis there.
--SNIP--

Manic Moran · 24-09-2010 8:16pm

wes wrote: »

Yes, the operative word being legal and from the BBC News (the article the OP posted) we can see the same UN said the blockade is actually "unlawful":

I know, but there are still plenty of people harping on about the international waters aspect as if it makes a difference. It doesn't, be the blockade legal or illegal the finding in either direction would have been the same ten miles from Gaza or 100 miles from Gaza.

NTM

Johro · 24-09-2010 9:22pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

I know, but there are still plenty of people harping on about the international waters aspect as if it makes a difference. It doesn't, be the blockade legal or illegal the finding in either direction would have been the same ten miles from Gaza or 100 miles from Gaza.

NTM

Better tell our guys to stop fishing then..

Terry · 24-09-2010 9:32pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

I know, but there are still plenty of people harping on about the international waters aspect as if it makes a difference. It doesn't, be the blockade legal or illegal the finding in either direction would have been the same ten miles from Gaza or 100 miles from Gaza.

NTM

Of course it would. That's because the blockade is illegal.

The American government do not pay any heed to the UN when it comes to the Middle east.
AIPAC and their generous political donations see to that.

Manic Moran · 24-09-2010 10:53pm

Of course it would. That's because the blockade is illegal.

You miss my point.

The conclusion that the boarding was illegal had nothing to do with where the boarding took place: In international or territorial waters, the conclusion was the same, it was deemed illegal due to the effect of the blockade and that it deemed the ships unlikely to be carrying weapons. (Irrational logic, if you ask me, but anyway).

Had the report concluded that the blockade was legal, or that the Israelis had a right to search the ships for weapons, then, the report says, the overall result would not have been affected by the location where the boarding took place: In international or territorial waters, a belligerent has the ability to board the vessel.

The location was irrelevant.

NTM

ascanbe · 24-09-2010 11:52pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

You miss my point.

The conclusion that the boarding was illegal had nothing to do with where the boarding took place: In international or territorial waters, the conclusion was the same, it was deemed illegal due to the effect of the blockade and that it deemed the ships unlikely to be carrying weapons. (Irrational logic, if you ask me, but anyway).

Had the report concluded that the blockade was legal, or that the Israelis had a right to search the ships for weapons, then, the report says, the overall result would not have been affected by the location where the boarding took place: In international or territorial waters, a belligerent has the ability to board the vessel.

The location was irrelevant.

NTM

How is the location irrelevant? Even if you believe the blockade was legal, the location of the boarding is absolutely relevant.
They were in international waters.
To use an analogy: i don't know where you live, but you probably have certain rights under law to protect your property/land if someone tresspases on it. But you don't have any legal right to go out into the streets and attack anyone that, for whatever reason, you think may be about to/is thinking of trespassing on it.

Manic Moran · 25-09-2010 5:52am

How is the location irrelevant? Even if you believe the blockade was legal, the location of the boarding is absolutely relevant.
They were in international waters.

Again, read pages 14 and 15 of the report when it explains the issue. Here's the operative bit, page 15.

Under the laws of armed conflict, a blockade is the prohibition of all commerce with a defined enemy coastline. A belligerent who has established a lawful blockade is entitled to enforce that blockade on the high seas.

(If you're not familiar with the terminology, 'High Seas' = 'International Waters')

But you don't have any legal right to go out into the streets and attack anyone that, for whatever reason, you think may be about to/is thinking of trespassing on it.

I also don't have the ability to declare blockades or states of conflicts with other people. The analogy is not particularly accurate.

NTM

squod · 25-09-2010 12:31pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Again, read pages 14 and 15 of the report when it explains the issue. Here's the operative bit, page 15.

Under the laws of armed conflict, a blockade is the prohibition of all commerce with a defined enemy coastline. A belligerent who has established a lawful blockade is entitled to enforce that blockade on the high seas.

(If you're not familiar with the terminology, 'High Seas' = 'International Waters')

I also don't have the ability to declare blockades or states of conflicts with other people. The analogy is not particularly accurate.

NTM

:rolleyes:

squod · 25-09-2010 1:21pm

Clinton: 'Russian Jews and 'settlers' are obstacles to Middle East 'peace'

Isreal's take on his speech.

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/09/clinton-russian-jews-and-settlers-are.html

Another view of the story

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0924/1224279587117.html

Manic Moran · 25-09-2010 4:21pm

squod wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Which has nothing to do with the international waters argument. If a similar situation were to happen next week, either with a different blockade or the now-slightly-relaxed Gaza one, the report has just verified that location is irrelevant. I think people should understand it before spouting off the 'they were in international waters' line. As they're still doing, even though the report has just made the legal position fairly clear.

NTM

slimjimmc · 25-09-2010 6:17pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Again, read pages 14 and 15 of the report when it explains the issue. Here's the operative bit, page 15.

Under the laws of armed conflict, a blockade is the prohibition of all commerce with a defined enemy coastline. A belligerent who has established a lawful blockade is entitled to enforce that blockade on the high seas.

(If you're not familiar with the terminology, 'High Seas' = 'International Waters')

I also don't have the ability to declare blockades or states of conflicts with other people. The analogy is not particularly accurate.

NTM

Is this (pdf) the same report you're reading? Because you seem to have left out a number of (in)convenient points in the rest of the report.

The entitlement your quotation refers to is qualified by "lawful blockade". The report continues to state that (under the same laws):

56. Thus, if there is no lawful blockade, the only lawful basis for intercepting the vessel would be a reasonable suspicion that it:
• was making an effective contribution to the opposing forces’ war effort, such as by carrying weaponry or was otherwise closely integrated into the enemy war effort
(belligerent right of capture);49 or
• posed an imminent and overwhelming threat to Israel and there was no alternative but to use force to prevent it (self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter)

The report deems that neither of these conditions exist, and the interception was indeed illegal

58. Given the evidence at the Turkel Committee, it is clear that there was no reasonable suspicion that the Flotilla posed any military risk of itself. As a result, no case could be made to intercept the vessels in the exercise of belligerent rights or Article 51 self-defence.
Thus, no case can be made for the legality of the interception and the Mission therefore finds that the interception was illegal.

and that it was a breach of those laws of armed conflict referred to in your quote.

61. The Mission considers that the enforcement of an illegal blockade does not only constitute a violation of the laws of war, but also a violation of the laws of neutrality giving rise to State responsibility.

Seems fairly clear cut to me.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which has nothing to do with the international waters argument. If a similar situation were to happen next week, either with a different blockade or the now-slightly-relaxed Gaza one, the report has just verified that location is irrelevant. I think people should understand it before spouting off the 'they were in international waters' line. As they're still doing, even though the report has just made the legal position fairly clear.

NTM

Are you saying any country can set up an blockade (declared unlawful by the UN) and legally board any ship without abiding by the laws of war?

Terry · 25-09-2010 9:08pm

I got as far as the part where he put Palestinians in commas and saw that he has a clock on his blog.
I can look at the bottom right corner of my monitor if I want to see what time it is.

The majority of Israelis do not like being told that their government has done wrong. They cannot handle it when their brutal treatment of human beings is criticised.

Wah wah wah. The Romans didn't like us. Maybe if you stopped treating others in the way your ancestors were treated, you would gainsome respect from the rest of the world.
Until then Israel, STFU.

You might want to take note of the Good Friday Agreement here. It's not perfect, but you will never please everyone.
Between us and Britain, we had a handful of lunatics intent on killing as many people as they could. Then they decided to talk to some rational people and the violence stopped (until new lunatics took up arms, but like I said, you can't please everyone).

Had you attended this week's U.N. conference in New York instead of making a lame excuse about it being a religious holiday, then perhaps some progress would have been made. Instead you decided not to send any representatives.

It seems to me that you want to fight the inevitable war by ignoring the 30th of September deadline for talks on East Jerusalem.
You just keep on pissing off your neighbours, and there will come a time when your best friend has enough of your childish behaviour.
You're an arrogant little cúnt with small man syndrome. That's why very few people like you.

Go fúck yourself, Israel.

BlaasForRafa · 25-09-2010 9:44pm

Terry wrote: »

Had you attended this week's U.N. conference in New York instead of making a lame excuse about it being a religious holiday, then perhaps some progress would have been made. Instead you decided not to send any representatives.

If you weren't so phenomenally ignorant you'd realise that Sukkot is an important jewish holiday but your irrational dumbness warps your perception.

wes · 25-09-2010 10:41pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If you weren't so phenomenally ignorant you'd realise that Sukkot is an important jewish holiday but your irrational dumbness warps your perception.

So there are no Atheists, Christians, Bhuddists etc or people who don't take it seriously in Israel at all, who they could have sent? You can't possibly tell me, there wasn't anyone they could have sent who would have been ok with missing the holiday. I find that very very hard to believe.

Also, from my understanding (from what John Stewart said on the Daily show) is that Sukkot is apparently not that bit a deal, but let say your right it is a big deal. I still find it very hard to believe, they could not have sent someone, who would be ok with missing the holiday.

Manic Moran · 26-09-2010 1:12am

slimjimmc wrote: »

Is this (pdf) the same report you're reading?

Yes.

The report deems that neither of these conditions exist, and the interception was indeed illegal and that it was a breach of those laws of armed conflict referred to in your quote.

I am not disputing that. I am pointing out that the reason the Mission decided the raid was unlawful was because it decided that the blockade was unlawful, not because the raid occurred in international waters: The Mission pointed out that location was irrelevant.

Had the Mission decided that the blockade was a lawful one, the raid would have been a lawful one, even though it was on the high seas.

Are you saying any country can set up an blockade (declared unlawful by the UN) and legally board any ship without abiding by the laws of war?

Not at all. I'm pointing out that what some people seem to think are the laws of war are, in fact, not. (A situation I find myself in unfortunately frequently on Boards, it would seem). The issue of 'Was the blockade lawful' was a judgement call by the Mission, in effect an issue of personal opinion. The issue of 'Is a raid illegal just because it's in international waters' is not one of personal opinion, as there is no judgement required in interpreting the rules.

NTM

kenny1977 · 26-09-2010 1:14am

israel is daugther of americans

kenny1977 · 26-09-2010 1:14am

nnnnobody can touch israel

UN finds Israeli raid on Flotilla unlawful

Comments