israel flotilla attack stupid, yes, illegal, no

Post #327,365 by boxley 6/4/10 9:24:06 AM Reply	israel flotilla attack stupid, yes, illegal, no : http://www.vilp.de/Enpdf/e025.pdf (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. I wasnt sure of the status because it was in international waters but apparently they have the right to storm the ship. Stupid, again but not a crime as everyone is howling
Post #327,366 by static 6/4/10 9:43:04 AM Reply	Arguments against cite the illegality of the blockade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #327,368 by boxley 6/4/10 9:54:18 AM Reply	under what laws, treaties?
Post #327,383 by jay 6/4/10 1:36:46 PM Reply	Geneva convention is the most popular The legality of blockades is a very messy topic. The international treaties that cover these situations are complex and vague to begin with, plus they are relatively old and don't apply well to the modern world. I see at least three grounds for questioning Israels blockade. The one I've seen quoted elsewhere the most is that the 1997 amendment to the Geneva convention prohibits collective punishment against civilian populations. Essentially, Israel can't impose a blanket blockade, they have blockade only military goods. However, Israel has not signed that particular protocol, so it's legal applicability to Israel is questionable. The second is also based on the Geneva Convention, the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention which regulates the behavior of occupying powers. Israel has been consistent in saying that since they have removed the ground force from the Gaza Strip they are no longer an occupying power. But many experts disagree, saying that Israel's control over the Gaza strip amounts to an occupation. The third, which I have not seen raised anywhere else but seems obvious to me, is that the UN charter makes it illegal. Under the UN charter countries are only legally allowed military action in self-defense the face of armed attack, except when the US security council authorizes it. Under that rule, Israel is only allowed to blockade Gaza during periods of missile attacks. Jay
Post #327,384 by boxley 6/4/10 1:54:23 PM Reply	so we can only blockade afghanistan only on every other thursday because thats when the talib attack? That doesnt make sense. Thanks for the other references though
Post #327,390 by jay 6/4/10 4:17:48 PM Reply	Navel blockade of Afganistan doesn't make much sense anyway Though apparently there are provisions in the treaties to cover blockades of land locked nations. More to the point, there is an obvious gap in the treaty over time frames. The treaty doesn't say anything about response times or how long the Security Council has to act or how long your are justified in retaliating after an attack. You obviously can't read it as being an elaborate game of green light/red light where you have to stop the moment the other side says they are stopping. But at the same time you can't sensibly read it as lasting forever either, Iran can't justify invading Iraq now over the invasion Saddam ordered of Iran. Ultimately it's a matter of political pressure. Jay
Post #327,391 by boxley 6/4/10 8:20:50 PM Reply	ideally egypt keeps it open and hamas becomes smart enough to no try to get iranian missiles in there, instead use the peoples natural abilities to make a shining part of the world like monaco and never have a thing further to do with Israel. After a few years sue Israel for reparations. Turn their back on the zionist entity. I wont hold my breath on it tho. Just a matter of time until they start lobbing better missiles into the zionist entity then go crying to the UN when they get stomped into a mudhole again.
Post #327,407 by static 6/5/10 9:00:10 AM Reply	I couldn't find the article I saw it in. Sorry; should have mentioned that. Jay covered it, though. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #327,395 by rcareaga 6/4/10 10:31:59 PM Reply	self-defense against terrorists Sez so right here: LONDON (Reuters) Â Nine Turkish activists killed in an Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship were shot a total of 30 times and five died of gunshot wounds to the head, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Friday. Autopsy results showed the men were hit mostly with 9mm bullets, many fired at close range, the Guardian said, quoting Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the Turkish council of forensic medicine which carried out the autopsies on Friday. http://news.yahoo.co...lotilla_autopsies C'mon, box. Tell us how the IDF is on the side of the angels.
Post #327,404 by boxley 6/5/10 8:06:24 AM Reply	3 buds held below decks in unknown conditions think I would be coming in hot To get them out. Facts on the ground like that I am not looking for angels to help out, I want devils to keep them from sitting next to shallit
Post #327,406 by Another Scott 6/5/10 8:38:05 AM Reply	The problem is the premise. When Israel takes it upon itself to send in the Marines when Customs is the relevant agency, they will get little sympathy for their approach. This shouldn't have been a military operation. Anyone with sense realizes that there isn't anything on these relief ships that threatens Israel's security. Wheelchairs and paper and building materials and toys don't threaten the IDF. Israel needs to reject the premise that anyone who disagrees with them (or supports people under effective IDF control) is supporting terrorism and their destruction. Whether a legal argument can be made that it was appropriate for Israel to commandeer the boats is not relevant, IMHO. The raid was stupid and counter productive to Israel's interests at the very least. As a result, dozens of people are dead and injured and Israel has achieved no improvement in their "security". Instead, they've inspired more people of all stripes to resist the blockades. So Israel will have to commandeer more boats, wasting more resources and risking more casualties, or they have to back down and implement a more sensible policy. There's no effective upside on their current path. What is it going to take for the people in charge in Israel to stop viewing the world through exclusively military lenses? I dunno. But it needs to happen. Not that I expect any changes in Israel's outlook anytime soon. :-( Cheers, Scott.
Post #327,411 by boxley 6/5/10 11:48:19 AM Reply	yeah on your last statement, on both sides :-(
Post #327,424 by Another Scott 6/5/10 6:15:01 PM Reply	Agreed. It's probably going to take a while. I'm sure this happens on both sides, and in many other contexts as well. A couple of paragraphs that vividly illustrate what we're up against is at Sullivan's blog. A reader writes: http://andrewsulliva...syndrome-ctd.html Ultimately, it all comes back to education. Cheers, Scott.
Post #327,425 by boxley 6/5/10 7:11:17 PM Reply	ROFL! I guess he doesnt know any other jews I spent my early years in Sunday school --like every other Jew I know surprised you didnt catch it
Post #327,426 by Another Scott 6/5/10 7:51:51 PM Reply	Ah. Yeah, that's a give away... Still, I can picture something like it based on my memories of (Baptist) Sunday school... OTOH - http://www.google.co...aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #327,427 by boxley 6/5/10 7:54:34 PM Reply	reformed, it figures :-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!