Gaza flotilla blind to Hamas

[zraver]

Under the LOAC the blockade is legal.

1 Isreal and Hamas are at war.
2 The blockade is designed to prevent the shipment of armaments, war supplies and luxury go.
3 Hamas continues to fire rockets but at a much lower level implying in part the actions effectiveness under the rule of proportion. Hamas endangers as many Isrealies.
4 Hamas disregards the LOAC leaving Isreal few more direct options.
5 state sponsors of terrorism like Iran have attempted to use the sea to arm Hamas

No matter how its cut, under the LOAC the blockade is legal.

[zraver]

Under the LOAC the blockade is legal.

1 Isreal and Hamas are at war.
2 The blockade is designed to prevent the shipment of armaments, war supplies and luxury go.
3 Hamas continues to fire rockets but at a much lower level implying in part the actions effectiveness under the rule of proportion. Hamas endangers as many Isrealies.
4 Hamas disregards the LOAC leaving Isreal few more direct options.
5 state sponsors of terrorism like Iran have attempted to use the sea to arm Hamas

No matter how its cut, under the LOAC the blockade is legal.

[Parihaka]

Thanks for the welcome, and sure thing. The UN report is here.
.

The UNHRC does not write law.

[Dubitante]

If its denying Hamas arms to attack Israeli civilian neighborhoods then so be. Maybe when the people of Gaza have had enough Hamas might be overthrown. Until then they can still always move out of Gaza and thus out of the blockaded zone. So, I see no foul so long as the people of Gaza still have those options.

The international community has adopted international humanitarian law out of a common belief that civilians should be protected in a time of conflict, so I reject your argument as it is contrary to that law.

Using your logic, I could argue that Qassam rockets landing in Sderot are harmless since the residents could leave, if they wanted to.

[Dubitante]

No, the OHCHR can issue opinions, only the security council or the ICJ/ICC can issue legal rulings.

Yes, but this isn't new law, nor is it complex law. And the OHCHR is eminently placed to interpret such law, in fact that is pretty much their mandate. All that was required to demonstrate the illegality of the blockade was show that the impact on the civilian population was excessive compared to the concrete military advantage gained. Let's be fair, this has been demonstrated ad nauseum, happy to go into details if required.

Secondly the LOAC are a primary code, humanitarian law does not supercede it.

I'm really not sure what you mean by that. Israel is bound by international humanitarian law, no ifs, not buts, no trump cards.

The highest right of the state is self defence per UNC art 51.

Can you cite something to back that up?

Secondly, Israel cannot invoke article 51 against Palestine, nor can it invoke it against a humanitarian flotilla. Happy to go into details if required.

Cite please I know what I saw on video and interview.

Quoting from the UN report I already linked to:

However, [the Mission] has concluded that live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers.

[Dubitante]

Under the LOAC the blockade is legal.

The blockade doesn't contravene parking regulations either. To be legal, it needs to be legal under all binding laws, not some, not a few, not one, but all.

[Dubitante]

The UNHRC does not write law.

I never claimed it did. This isn't new law. The legal experts (and I use the word advisedly) that were assembled to look at this are eminently qualified to interpret the existing law.

[Parihaka]

I never claimed it did. This isn't new law. The legal experts (and I use the word advisedly) that were assembled to look at this are eminently qualified to interpret the existing law.

As Zraver has already pointed out, Israels actions under the LOAC were legal. I or you could or the UNHRC could write as many dissenting opinions as we like but that doesn't make Israels actions illegal. You might want to look at the blockade of Burma and the various ships intercepted by the US and others on the high seas as an example.

[Parihaka]

Yes, but this isn't new law, nor is it complex law. And the OHCHR is eminently placed to interpret such law, in fact that is pretty much their mandate. All that was required to demonstrate the illegality of the blockade was show that the impact on the civilian population was excessive compared to the concrete military advantage gained. Let's be fair, this has been demonstrated ad nauseum, happy to go into details if required.
:

You're arguing that the opinion of the plaintifs has greater force than the judiciary, in this case UNHRC vs the Security Council. They don't.

[Dubitante]

As Zraver has already pointed out, Israels actions under the LOAC were legal. I or you could or the UNHRC could write as many dissenting opinions as we like but that doesn't make Israels actions illegal. You might want to look at the blockade of Burma and the various ships intercepted by the US and others on the high seas as an example.

Zraver can quote a legal judgement to that effect if he wishes, that is up to him. You may feel better placed than the eminent legal experts to interpret international humanitarian law, I do not.

[Dubitante]

You're arguing that the opinion of the plaintifs has greater force than the judiciary, in this case UNHRC vs the Security Council. They don't.

I'm arguing that the independent arbiters of the UN have greater weight than either the perpetrators or the victims.

[Parihaka]

I'm arguing that the independent arbiters of the UN have greater weight than either the perpetrators or the victims.

You're arguing that Israels actions were illegal as defined by the UN, but the UN Security Council, the only relevant judiciary, hasn't ruled that.

[bigross86]

If I'm understanding your claim point properly, your main claim is the humanitarian damage the blockade causes, right?

[Dubitante]

Israels actions were illegal as defined by the UN,[/URL] but the UN Security Council, the only relevant judiciary, hasn't ruled that.

The Security Council isn't a judiciary, it is, at most, and only at times, a quasi-judicial body. With respect, it is simply false to say something is legal until it has been declared illegal by the UNSC. If you believe that the blockade is legal, cite a higher independent legal opinion. If it is just your opinion, that's fine.

[Dubitante]

If I'm understanding your claim point properly, your main claim is the humanitarian damage the blockade causes, right?

I should emphasise that it isn't my point, it is the point of the eminent legal scholars who compiled the report and the legal analysis. It was *their* view that the humanitarian situation was such that the blockade could not be described as legal.