Freedom Flotilla hijacked

Remove all ads!

There's nothing like the sound of a conservative playing the "race card."

Ragusa really isn't "struggling." And I'm a supporter of Israel; just not in this instance. As I've commented, Israel has plenty of good reasons to be paranoid. But when you have to go to the "might makes right" argument, it's really not going too well. Sorry.

 

Ok, let's relax ...

Indeed, and you're wrong.

Ah yes, the Darwinistic a view of international affairs. I asked you this before: It can work just as easily against Israel. Will you ask for mercy for her if history turns against her? Or will you condemn her, just like you do with the Palestinians, to their fate, because, alas, that's how things go?

Of course not. You're just posturing ... fool.

Not the point. BOC says that the footnotes in his law book say: The practice of nations has rendered obsolete the contrary provisions of the Declaration of London, arts. 17 & 19. It doesn't matter whether the declaration is old or whether Israel signed it. It's just a reference describing the current practice - which is contrary to the named provisions in the Declaration of London. It is an interpretative aid.

As for paragraph 102 ...

Note the underlined segment. Point is, Israel arguably does not do that. As a result of Israel's blockade, malnutrition is a serious problem in Gaza. Israel is arbitrarily blocking some kinds of foodstuff. Allowing canned meat and tuna, but not canned fruit, mineral water, but not fruit juice, sesame paste but not jam, tea and coffee, but not chocolate - that's not free passage. And Israel is blocking as a whole 'other essential supplies' such as concrete and iron for reconstruction of houses destroyed in the Gaza war.

There is a strong case that Israel is actually in violation of 102 (b), so that as a result the blockade is illegal, and that they also don't abide by 103. Sorry. But good seeing you making the effort to try to comprehend the argument.

 

I would never do that. I've been called a racist or a homophobe way to many times because I have a difference of opinion with people. In this case, I believe I'm merely stating a fact. The only thing that Israel could do to please Hamas, Iran, the Palestinians, etc. would be to roll over and die. If that isn't anti-semitic, I don't know what is.

 

Oh, yes. I agree with that. I thought you were commenting that the "critics" were the "racists." Sorry for the mistake, Snook. There is no doubt that Iran and some others are certainly racist. However, when there is a natural enemy, like Palestine, it's much more complicated than just race.

 

Thank you, Uncle Leo.

 

I don't get the reference

 

Seems there is plenty of "racism" these days:

It's pretty hard to make the case against Arab "racisim" with dumb bastards like this in our own government.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37518532/ns/us_news/

 

Google would help.

 

Splunge,
it does help. And it's funny

Snook,
I'd like to introduce the idea that after all the Palestinians went and go through they don't necessarily need to be incorrigible anti-Semites to have a problem with the state of Israel and individual Israelis.

undirected,
I said that IMO the ham fisted flotilla raid was aimed at killing the proximity talks. Interestingly, PA refrains from suspending Israel proximity talks, despite Israeli raid on Gaza flotilla.

 

Article 22 of the convention of high seas contradicts the passage.

How did you come to the conclusion that the convention is not applicaple during war? In San Remo manual Section V Article 12 says:

So the convention if fully applicable.

 

As long as this is a part of Hamas's charter and Hamas is in charge of Gaza, I think it meets the definition of incorrigible.

 

I'm not sure what your point is here. If you're trying to argue that the Declaration of London applies anyway, you're wrong. If you're trying to argue that the Manual shouldn't be taken as law, well, it's more complicated than that. You're correct in pointing out that this is just a description of current practices, but it is those practices which form international law. There is no international legislature to decide what will be legal and what won't be, nor is there a centrally codified code of law. There are various treaties between various groups, which codify the standard practices of their times, and then there are the new practices that have developed since then.

Note the next line:

Israel has provided for the free passage of these items, subject to their arrangements, including search.

According to the Red Cross, only micromalnutrition is a problem (i.e. not getting enough of certain vitamins and minerals) and that appears to be mostly due to Hamas wanting missles more than food. Israel itself ships in hundreds of thousands of tons of food stuffs every year, including fresh fruits and vegitables.

And it has a right to block these things, so long as it allows sufficient foods in for the population, which it has. 'Free passage' doesn't mean 'anything can come through'. It means 'things can come through'. 'Things' being denoted by what is provided 'free passage'. In this case, that's "food and other objects essential for its survival". So, how is chocolate essential for survival? How is fruit juice when fresh fruit is provided?

First off, Israel itself, again, provides Gaza with hundreds of tons of cement and iron every year. Secondly, there's no restriction on other building materials at all. Israel isn't required to allow them to live comfortably, just to allow the basic necessities. Cement and rebar aren't basic necessities.

There may be an arguement, though I don't think it's strong, but it is meaningless until it's brought before the UN Security Council and they side with it. It's just like an arguement can be made that the new Health Care law is unconstitutional, but it's a meaningless arguement, no matter how good it is, until it's brought before a court.

No it isn't. You can't call two people racist at the same time, Chandos?

Again, this is dealing with peace-time actions, not war-time actions. You'll notice that no provision is made for attacking merchant vessels that are supplying your enemy with weapons? A tactic happily employed by all nations in the modern setting? That's because it's a tactic of war. You'll also notice that no provision is made for blockades, of any kind. That's because they're tactics of war.


I'd also like to submit the idea that the whole issue of international law may well be moot, and not on a basic 'might makes right' arguement, but on the idea that international law as a whole is only useful insomuch as the parties involved agree to them. Israel may or may not be in violation of international law in doing this, but Hamas definitely is in violation with their Qassam rocket attacks against civilians. Furthermore, and this is getting into the history of the region, both the Palestinians and the Israelis have historically shown no concern whatsoever for international law unless it can be turned to their advantage. Both have violated the laws, both have violated treaties, and both have snubbed UN declarations, sometimes jointly. It seems that, if there's one clear message in all this, it's that neither party want the international community involved unless they'll side with 'us' against 'them'.

A part of me wants to say the UN should just wash their hands of all this and back off. Another part wants to say the international community started it all, has shirked it's duity, and needs to get in there and settle this once and for all (with force, if necessary).

EDIT:
Another thought just occurred to me. If Israel's blockade is illegal, doesn't that mean Egypt's blockade is illegal, too? Admittedly, I don't know the laws concerning land blockades, but I would guess they'd be similar to naval blockades as far as humanitarian results are concerned.

 

You can't figure that out?

 

Am I? Prove it, Israel allows aid into Gaza and provides food for the population, that is not in dispute it is fact. as NOG quite rightly pointed out, even the red cross agree that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is not that bad.

yes I will, I couldnt give a crap what happens to Israel any more then I care about the palestinians, all I have ever argued for Israel is that they are not the evil entity they are made out to be, you poke a lion your going to get bitten

... fool.

this has always been my view with everything, when youve dealt in an environment where security can only be enforced through force you come to realise this. the only way we are able to break up a fight is because my security team are physiclly more dominant then the fighters.. The only reason the general population obey the law is because it is enforced by an entity which is stronger then you.

that is not the blockades sole purpose.

as the Isralies supply food and essential supplies, the damage to the civillian population is not excessive* in relation to the tactical advantage.

*excessive adjective
pronunciation of this word/ekˈses.ɪv/ adj

specifically : being out of proportion
Excessive describes a quantity, amount, or degree that is more than what is justifiable, tolerable, or desirable

 

@NOG

You're right but not for the reasons, you think. Your line about vessels that are supplying enemy with weapons made me read the San Remo very carefully and I've noticed something that I haven't seen before:

and

The key phrase is "outside neutral waters. What are "neutral waters"? The definition is given in article 14:

As far as I know, the position of the interception doesn't fit to the above definition.

However, there are some questions that are rising:

1) Is the blockade legal according to articles 102 and 103? This is alredy discussed

2) Has Israel published contraband lists according to articles 149 and 150? I don't know.

3) Was there an assurance by the neutral flag states that the flotilla was not carrying contraband (article 124)? I don't know.

4) Can a country be in a state of war with an organization in order San Remo to be applicable? Again I don't know.


Now something for the future. There are rumours that the next convoy will be escorted bt turkish warships. If you read article 120, the reasons for this are becoming obvious and of course a question is rising. Will the warships escort the convoy to the borders of the blockade or to the port of Gaza? If the Turkish warships escort the fleet to the port of Gaza, then the blockade could be considered illegal according to article 95.

What I think that will happen is that the warships will escort the convoy to Gaza, the Turks will say "we talk using the only language Israel understands, force", Israel will say "we let them pass because they assure us that they don't carry contraband", Turkey's reputation and influence in the muslim world will rise and here we come to my initial thought that the whole thing is fake and it aims to put Turkey in the place of Iran as muslim champion, something that it is among Israel's interestes.

 

Ah, that's what they meant when they said:

or in that other report where they said:

I got it - you just have a different way of reading things.

 

yeah, what I read from that article is "the area is severly overpopulated, and the supplies are not enough to cover the population" what do we do when animals overpopulate their food source? we cull them, but with humans for some reason we're not allowed to do this so nature will take its course.

so people are suffering from malnutrition and cramped conditions, boo hoo, if the blockade wasnt there people would be murdered in Israel every day, again, boo hoo - however Israel is the one with the power therefore it is their people who will survive

 

That's interesting, but potentially problematic for nations as a whole. By that reasoning, no blockade can be enforced in international waters for any reason, since those would then be 'neutral waters' and a ship can't be seized in them. As has already been established, such territorially limited blockades would be effectively useless, especially with the modern speeds of boats. This leads me to suspect you're missing something, but I don't know what.

I'm pretty sure the answer is 'Yes', considering the lists Ragusa has cited already.

No, actually, the reverse. They announced that they were carrying provisions known to be considered contraband by Israel. As had the new Irish ship.

This is a big iffy one. All these treaties only apply to 'International Armed Conflicts' (IAC), which require both parties to be recognized as states. If this isn't an IAC, then it's a 'Non-International Armed Conflict' (NIAC), which has a lot fewer laws, and much more freedom for combatants. That, though, generally covers internal national affairs, such as civil uprisings and internal resistance. Hamas and the Palestinian people as a whole don't quite fit in either category by typical definitions.

Sadly, I think that's wrong. Look again:

All conditions must be met, not just one. It is well established that Israel won't stop ships headed to Ashdod, the neutral port they suggest aid be sent to. It's only the restricted ports of Gaza that they stop ships from going to. Any ship following the course of the last ones would not be headed to a neutral port. Furthermore, so far, all vessels have certified that they are carrying contraband (usually cement or iron or the like). Lastly, though, the rumors of a Turkish escort have been going for a while now. Supposedly, there was supposed to be an escort for the 'Freedom Flotilla'. Nothing has manifested, though.

I doubt this will happen. Isreal is loathe to loose face in the region (and for good reason), even to an ally. At the same time, Turkey relies heavily on Israel for military supply. They're currently buying a couple billion worth of Israeli drones, for example. I doubt both that Israel would roll over for Turkey and that Turkey would seriously risk a conflict with Israel. The Turkish politicians will posture heavily against Israel, but I doubt anything will come of it.

Actually, 'that other report' is exactly what I was reffering to. You'll note how the Red Cross admits there's no 'overt food shortage'? "Micronutrient deficiencies"come from a lack of certain high-quality foods rich in vitamins and minerals. The funny thing is, a wide assortment of fresh fruits and vegitables, the exact high-quality foods we're talking about, are regularly shipped into Gaza, both from Israel herself and from international aid. Those shipments are then given to... Hamas. My guess is the Hamas officials are quite well fed, and may even be selling 'extra' to raise money for more missles and smuggling operations. You'll note that the tunnels they dig aren't used to smuggle in jam or chocolate, but... more missles.

 

Shoshino,
your stringent support of a position of social Darwinism puts you in interesting company intellectually. But you appear to feel well where you are, so suit yourself. Just keep speaking your mind.

I take that with a grain of salt [p.27; PDF]: (a) It isn't just about vegetables: For instance iron from animal sources is absorbed easily by the body, while iron found in vegetable sources is less available to the body (b) It isn't about vegetables 'getting shipped regularly' either: Quantity of supply (i.e. general availability) and pricing (i.e. affordability) are just as important. According to the most recent WHO report on Gaza:

Also the WHO laments for instance the lack of access for medical supplies into Gaza [PDF] - that statement isn't a week old.

Your guess is just that. You don't know that. You cook up a hypothetical scenario (B) to support a position that you already hold (A): (A) Israel does provide enough food to Gaza. (B) If Palestinians suffer malnutrition it is thus because of Hamas corruption or calculation. Ergo: The blame is on Hamas, so you can dismiss whatever the Red Cross, the WHO or the UNHCR or whoever else says.

Any potentially remaining lingering doubts are then dismissed with a generous dose of relativism: It is only 'micronutrient deficiencies'! These Gazans don't even sport a proper hunger belly! Indeed, there's a 'micro' in it, which can only mean it is a 'small' problem! Not so:

 

Ill post that article myself since it helps to support NOG's argument
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/04/i...4dc&ex=1299128400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

that article actually supports the argument that there is a steady flow into Gaza, just not a steady flow out, except of course into Egypt. "about 300 Israeli trucks and 50 Palestinian ones pass their goods through the wall. "

it is also pointed out that the checkpoint comes under attack, forcing Israel to close it, based on the fact that Isralies have been killed there I think they have the right to be tight.

also supporting the argument that Hamas are a big problem.

If the Palestinians are complaining about the problems going into Israel, then go to Egypt instead.