Page 15 of 26 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131415161718192021222324 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 390
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: Gaza flotilla blind to Hamas

  1. #211
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    11,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubitante View Post
    They have accepted the reality that they were robbed, and just want to get out from under the Israeli boot. Is that a problem for you?
    I just re-read your post. Robbed?

    By Israel or by their so-called brothers? From what I know Israel occupied those territories that are now under dispute from Jordan and from Egypt, right?

    So let me see if I get this right. Jews (Zionist, Israelis, whatever you wanna call them) accepted the offer and Arabs refused it.
    Few days later Arabs attack Israel and lose, they do it again and again over the years and lose more, but they lose something which is not originally theirs.

    Here is my problem. Instead of seeing Palestinians pissed of on their so called friends and brothers for gambling with something that's not theirs and losing, they are still focused on Israel. Why? Because Israel never provoked any of those wars, but won them?

    Yet, Israel says they will negotiate with anyone who doesn't threat their very existence, but that seems to be a problem too?

    What happens with the land occupied by Egypt? it's perfectly suitable for 8mil people to live a prosperous life. Why Palestinians don't plot attacks in Egypt?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  2. #212
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    11,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubitante View Post
    So you think the Palestinians should be asking for all of Israel too? That puts you in some pretty extreme company.
    I never said that. Jews have every right to have their state where it is now. They just recognized the opportunity and accepted what was offered to them.

    Most of them just want to leave the refugee camps, return home, be given their right to self determination and get on with their lives. Do you support them in that?
    I don't have a problem with Palestinians having a state, too. Just to accept the reality they need to get it trough negotiations, not with rockets.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  3. #213
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    They just recognized the opportunity and accepted what was offered to them.
    It wasn't offered to them. The land we know as Israel was taken by brute force.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Just to accept the reality they need to get it trough negotiations, not with rockets.
    Like the Zionist terror groups did you mean?

    Palestinian rights are not subject to Israeli veto. There is currently no partner for peace in Israel, so rather than wait for Israel to accept the realities of Palestinian rights, the Palestinians will seek to take the process out of the hands of the US-Israel alliance and into the hands of the international community.

  4. #214
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    11,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubitante View Post
    It wasn't offered to them. The land we know as Israel was taken by brute force.
    Hardly voting in UN is a brute force.

    Like the Zionist terror groups did you mean?
    I was thinking more like how India, rather then how USA got independence from the Brits. It's a different centuries we are talking about.
    Look, I would have no problem at all even if Palestinians openly attack Israeli soldiers, but throwing rockets into populated areas isn't the answer.

    Palestinian rights are not subject to Israeli veto. There is currently no partner for peace in Israel, so rather than wait for Israel to accept the realities of Palestinian rights, the Palestinians will seek to take the process out of the hands of the US-Israel alliance and into the hands of the international community.
    Look, you can argue all you want, but it is Israel who has the foot there and surely is part of the solution.

    Also, no government in the world can force Israel to negotiate with someone who denies her very existence or recognizes it just to say it should be no more.

    Good luck with that vote. I am curious what it will end even if US or UK don't veto it.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  5. #215
    Global Moderator
    Dirty Kiwi
    Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    18,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubitante View Post
    Again, that is simply false, by your own admission, as you had previously declared that the UNSC could also do that. Any suitably qualified and suitably empowered body can give a legal opinion. The ICJ can give opinions, as it did when it condemned the illegality of the apartheid barrier. You may not like it, but there you go.

    The fact remains that the prevailing legal opinion of the UN is that the blockade is illegal. You may feel they are wrong, but I suspect you're not a lawyer.
    For the final time, an opinion is not a judgement. Your opinion that the actions were illegal, the UNHRC opinion that the actions were illegal carry no more weight than the opinions of those that the actions were legal.
    Only a court can decide the legality and the only court that has the right to decide is the UNSC. This is not a difficult concept and I can only conclude that your continued insistence that Israel had acted illegally based solely on an opinion is simply trolling.Nor do I appreciate being called a liar for stating an obvious truth. Coupled with your other obvious fallacies I really do question your purpose on this board.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  6. #216
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Hardly voting in UN is a brute force.
    The Zionists were not given the land by the UN. They took it by brute force.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Look, I would have no problem at all even if Palestinians openly attack Israeli soldiers, but throwing rockets into populated areas isn't the answer.
    You will find no stauncher critic of Palestinian violations of international humanitarian law than me, but I apply the same standards consistently, and when it comes to killing civilians, the Palestinians just aren't in Israel's league.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Also, no government in the world can force Israel to negotiate with someone who denies her very existence or recognizes it just to say it should be no more.
    Obviously, that's propaganda talking. The Palestinians recognise the fact of Israel's existence, this is plain. If you disagree, why are they trying to get a state on the 67 borders? What's on the other side of those borders? Can you point to an instance of an Israeli leader recognising Palestine's existence?

    Recognition by the UN would be the birth of the peace process, and yes, it would be interesting to see Israel forced to negotiate with the Palestinians as equals, rather than insisting that the Palestinians should beg for scraps from the master's table.

  7. #217
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    an opinion is not a judgement.
    I never claimed it was. Your opinion seems to be that an opinion carries no legal weight, which is self-evidently absurd. Did the ICJ's opinion on the apartheid barrier also carry no weight?

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Only a court can decide the legality and the only court that has the right to decide is the UNSC.
    You're getting confused. Firstly, the UNSC isn't a court (I thought we'd covered this). Secondly, any suitably qualified and suitably empowered can give a legal opinion. Again, this is self evidently the case. If you believe that the UNSC is the only body capable of determining legality, please cite something to that effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Nor do I appreciate being called a liar for stating an obvious truth. Coupled with your other obvious fallacies I really do question your purpose on this board.
    I'm sorry you have chosen to take offence. I've tried to be as respectful as possible. In the spirit of debate, I disagree with your position. It's a subject I know well and feel I am well placed to engage in a civilised debate on the topic.

  8. #218
    Global Moderator
    Dirty Kiwi
    Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    18,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubitante View Post
    What would you call civilians on a flotilla laden with humanitarian aid determined to break an illegal and inhumane blockade?
    Violent blockade runners



    You are plainly delusional
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  9. #219
    Global Moderator
    Dirty Kiwi
    Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    18,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubitante View Post
    I never claimed it was..
    Yes you did.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubitante View Post
    Israel has the right to board vessels only in a legal naval blockade, as the blockade has been confirmed illegal by the UN, Israel has no right to halt the vessels.
    As I have pointed out, your opinion, the UNHRC or Santa Claus's opinions provide no legal basis. Only the UNSC can do that. There has been no confirmation by the UN that Israels actions were illegal.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  10. #220
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    You are plainly delusional
    It's a common truth inversion. The IDF, as part of an illegal blockade, launch an (also illegal) assault on a humanitarian vessel. But in your eyes, the IDF isn't the violent aggressor, they are the innocent victims, and the people defending the ship from the illegal assault who are the aggressors.

  11. #221
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Yes you did.
    Read it again. Find the word "judgement". Their eminently qualified legal opinion, which carries significant weight, confirms the illegality of the blockade.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Only the UNSC can do that.
    I'll argue that point if you can provide one academic source to back that up.

  12. #222
    Global Moderator
    Dirty Kiwi
    Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    18,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubitante View Post
    It's a common truth inversion. The IDF, as part of an illegal blockade, launch an (also illegal) assault on a humanitarian vessel. But in your eyes, the IDF isn't the violent aggressor, they are the innocent victims, and the people defending the ship from the illegal assault who are the aggressors.
    The blockade isn't illegal, as I and others have pointed out to you ad infinitum. No sanctions have been passed against Israel either inside or outside the UN in regards to the blockade and Egypt also maintains a land based blockade against Gaza. Hamas on the other hand faces economic and other sanctions from a wide variety of countries.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  13. #223
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    The blockade isn't illegal, as I and others have pointed out to you ad infinitum.
    Take it up with the UN and the legal experts at Amnesty International. Unless you feel your opinion to me more qualified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    No sanctions have been passed against Israel either inside or outside the UN in regards to the blockade and Egypt also maintains a land based blockade against Gaza. Hamas on the other hand faces economic and other sanctions from a wide variety of countries.
    Don't confuse impunity with legality. Israel violates more UN resolutions that any other nation on Earth, and is allowed to do so purely because of the protection they receive from the US.

  14. #224
    Global Moderator
    Dirty Kiwi
    Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    18,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubitante View Post
    Read it again. Find the word "judgement". Their eminently qualified legal opinion, which carries significant weight, confirms the illegality of the blockade..
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubitante View Post
    Take it up with the UN and the legal experts at Amnesty International. Unless you feel your opinion to me more qualified?
    And here are two " eminently qualified legal opinion's" which disagree
    Israel has said it will continue a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip despite growing global pressure to lift the siege after a navy raid on a Turkish ferry carrying aid killed nine activists this week.

    What is the legality of the blockade and did Israel's intervention breach international law? Below are some questions and answers on the issue:

    CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?

    Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognized document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea."

    Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.

    "On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.

    WHAT ARE INTERNATIONAL WATERS?

    Under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea a coastal state has a "territorial sea" of 12 nautical miles from the coast over which it is sovereign. Ships of other states are allowed "innocent passage" through such waters.

    There is a further 12 nautical mile zone called the "contiguous zone" over which a state may take action to protect itself or its laws.

    "However, strictly beyond the 12 nautical miles limit the seas are the "high seas" or international waters," Roche said.

    The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters.

    Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.

    CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS?

    Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship.

    "If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.

    Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defense after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons.

    Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives.

    "But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said.

    The use of force may also have other repercussions.

    "While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments.

    "However, not every operation that the law permits is necessarily prudent from the strategic point of view."

    Although the wisdom of Israel's actions in stopping the Gaza flotilla is open to question, the legality of its actions is not. What Israel did was entirely consistent with both international and domestic law. In order to understand why Israel acted within its rights, the complex events at sea must be deconstructed.

    First, there is the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which included a naval blockade. Recall that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, it did not impose a blockade. Indeed it left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area. Instead Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare against Israel. These acts of warfare featured anti-personnel rockets, nearly 10,000 of them, directed at Israeli civilians. This was not only an act of warfare, it was a war crime. Israel responded to the rockets by declaring a blockade, the purpose of which was to assure that no rockets, or other material that could be used for making war against Israeli civilians, was permitted into Gaza. Israel allowed humanitarian aid through its checkpoints. Egypt as well participated in the blockade. There was never a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, merely a shortage of certain goods that would end if the rocket attacks ended.

    The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This, despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerency against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.

    The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security.

    Third, were those on board the flotilla innocent non-combatants or did they lose that status once they agreed to engage in the military act of breaking the blockade? Let there be no mistake about the purpose of this flotilla. It was decidedly not to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza, but rather the break the entirely lawful Israeli military blockade. The proof lies in the fact that both Israel and Egypt offered to have all the food, medicine and other humanitarian goods sent to Gaza, if the boats agreed to land in an Israeli or Egyptian port. That humanitarian offer was soundly rejected by the leaders of the flotilla who publicly announced:

    "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians." (AFP, May 27, 2010.)

    The act of breaking a military siege is itself a military act, and those knowingly participating in such military action put in doubt their status as non-combatants.

    It is a close question whether "civilians" who agree too participate in the breaking of a military blockade have become combatants. They are certainly something different than pure, innocent civilians, and perhaps they are also somewhat different from pure armed combatants. They fit uncomfortably onto the continuum of civilianality that has come to characterize asymmetrical warfare.

    Finally, we come to the issue of the right of self-defense engaged in by Israeli soldiers who were attacked by activists on the boat. There can be little doubt that the moment any person on the boat picked up a weapon and began to attack Israeli soldiers boarding the vessel, they lost their status as innocent civilians. Even if that were not the case, under ordinary civilian rules of self defense, every Israeli soldier had the right to protect himself and his colleagues from attack by knife and pipe wielding assailants. Less there be any doubt that Israeli soldiers were under attack, simply view the video and watch, as so-called peaceful "activists" repeatedly pummel Israeli soldiers with metal rods. Every individual has the right to repel such attacks by the use of lethal force, especially when the soldiers were so outnumbered on the deck of the ship. Recall that Israel's rules of engagement required its soldiers to fire only paintballs unless their lives were in danger. Would any country in the world deny its soldiers the right of self-defense under comparable circumstances?

    Notwithstanding the legality of Israel's actions, the international community has once again ganged up on Israel. In doing so, Israel's critics have failed to pinpoint precisely what Israel did that allegedly violates international law. Some have wrongly focused on the blockade itself. Others have erroneously pointed to the location of the boarding in international waters. Most have simply pointed to the deaths of so-called peace activists, though these deaths appear to be the result of lawful acts of self-defense. None of these factors alone warrant condemnation, but the end result surely deserves scrutiny by Israeli policy makers. There can be little doubt that the mission was a failure, as judged by its results. It is important, however, to distinguish between faulty policies on the one hand, and alleged violations of international law on the other hand. Only the latter would warrant international intervention, and the case has simply not been made that Israel violated international law.
    As I previously said, opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one.

    Your opinion does not make Israel's actions illegal.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  15. #225
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    And here are two " eminently qualified legal opinion's" which disagree
    I bring lengthy considered opinions from a UN panel of experts and fact finding mission. You bring a newspaper article. You see the difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Your opinion does not make Israel's actions illegal.
    My opinion is irrelevant. The opinion of the FFM commissioned by the UN is not.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Panorama - What happened on the Flotilla to Gaza
    By 1980s in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18 Aug 10,, 21:22
  2. EU envoy lays Gaza blame on Hamas
    By LetsTalk in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 27 Jan 09,, 02:14
  3. Hamas discusses Gaza-Egypt border
    By Ironduke in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08 Apr 08,, 16:46
  4. Hamas claims full control of Gaza
    By glow in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15 Jun 07,, 03:05
  5. Hamas judge killed in Gaza Strip
    By Ironduke in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 15 Dec 06,, 22:07

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •