Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Eliot Rosewater

Scofflaw wrote: »

It might have been better, in that case, to have phrased it more like this:

From Eliot Rosewater's point of view what you said is correct, and Eliot Rosewater has decided that this more objective way of phrasing is certainly more desirable.

Seriously though, point taken.

prinz

IrishTonyO wrote: »

My 3rd time posting these to you
article 87(a) provides for "freedom of navigation."
article 88, states, "The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes." article 89 states, "No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty."
article 90 states, "Every State, whether coastal or land-locked, has the right to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas"

...and once again I'll ask 87(a)freedom of navigation is a misnomer, drug barons don't have freedom of navigation to sail where they want etc 88 Er, warships? 89 Protective principle would disagree and 90 - yes they do, that doesn't mean they can't be stopped, searched, detained etc..


Oh and as I have repeatedly countered, Israel is not a signatory to the UNCLOS.

snow ghost

Shouldn't NATO respond to this vile unlawful Israeli attack on one of their member's ships - and innocent civilians - in international waters?

It will be interesting to see whether the usual facade of condemnations and empty rhetoric will be spouted by the Western nations or they will actually deal with this state sponsored terrorism.

The British must have a number Royal Navy ships in the Med and if Israel attempts to board the UK flagged aid ship in international waters and murder the civilians on board - as it did with the Turkish ship - then surely they would have to defend the British flagged ship?

Won't be too easy for the US to weasle out of condemning this either seeing as Israel has peed off one of their NATO allies Turkey - a very strategically and geographically important one at that.

alastair

prinz wrote: »

...and once again I'll ask 87(a)freedom of navigation is a misnomer, drug barons don't have freedom of navigation to sail where they want etc 88 Er, warships? 89 Protective principle would disagree and 90 - yes they do, that doesn't mean they can't be stopped, searched, detained etc..

88 Warships are military vessels - big, small, and middling. The IDF have military vessels, the flotilla don't.

89 Protective Principle is no legal basis for defence until the burden of proof warrants it's application - and it's patently not applicable here. It's not a legal catch-all for any extra-territorial act.

90 Yes it does.

Selected

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I agree. If people read what I said without thinking "this guy's an Israeli apologist" it might be clear that I'm only trying to explain causes - not justify them.

Why give an account of one's motives or conduct, by way of explanation, if one is not seeking justification for those actions?

This is an international humanitarian relief effort and not a legitimate conflict scenario.

Reesy

Slight change of sub-topic: I've lived in Ireland for over a decade & when I left the UK I never kept up my vote. I'll be reapplying for a vote so I can express my feelings to Wm Hague's organization as well as to M. Martin's.

I'm no pinko but this time I'm just disgusted with the action of Israel & the mealy-mouthed responses of govermnents to it.

alastair

prinz wrote: »

Oh and as I have repeatedly countered, Israel is not a signatory to the UNCLOS.

and as you've been made aware of, they are a signatory to the Convention on the High Seas - international law which they've contravened in their actions.

IrishTonyO

prinz wrote: »

...and once again I'll ask 87(a)freedom of navigation is a misnomer, drug barons don't have freedom of navigation to sail where they want etc 88 Er, warships? 89 Protective principle would disagree and 90 - yes they do, that doesn't mean they can't be stopped, searched, detained etc..


Oh and as I have repeatedly countered, Israel is not a signatory to the UNCLOS.

Well it is good to see you know more about the law of the sea, than the majority of European governments who have already condemned this as illegal and many other countries worldwide. But I am sure you have studied all this far more than any government or agency

Selected

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

If people read what I said without thinking "this guy's an Israeli apologist"

BTW - It's kind of difficult with a name like 'Eliot Rosewater'

Eliot Rosewater

Selected wrote: »

Why give an account of one's motives or conduct, by way of explanation, if one is not seeking justification for those actions?

I'm not justifying them personally - I'm trying to show how the Israeli government justifies them and, hence, how these events are caused.

Selected wrote: »

This is an international humanitarian relief effort and not a legitimate conflict scenario.

You're trying to view this incident in isolation, when I don't think it can be.

Selected wrote: »

BTW - It's kind of difficult with a name like 'Eliot Rosewater'

Why?

EDIT: Rosewater is a character from a book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Rosewater. I didn't pick it because he's Jewish; I just like the author.

dlofnep

Selected wrote: »

BTW - It's kind of difficult with a name like 'Eliot Rosewater'

Eliot is generally a balanced poster. I wouldn't attack his character based purely on his username. That's ad hominem, and adds nothing to the debate.

Eliot Rosewater

dlofnep wrote: »

Eliot is generally a balanced poster.

Many would disagree.

Cheers though. As I outlined above, the user name being Jewish is only a coincidence.

Capt'n Midnight

bambooze wrote: »

International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082...25641f002d49ce

This San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea and signed by all UN members, says in paragraph 67:

"67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) 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 or capture".

During the Cuban Missile Crisis they used the word quarantine because to call it a blockade was to declare war.

Who are they at war with ??

As the title says it's applicable to ARMED CONFLICT at sea, it doesn't apply in peacetime.

Read further in the link you posted

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94.

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.

prinz

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Well it is good to see you know more about the law of the sea, than the majority of European governments who have already condemned this as illegal and many other countries worldwide. But I am sure you have studied all this far more than any government or agency

Who has described it as illegal?

dlofnep

It's cool Eliot, I know you're balanced. While I may disagree with you on several points, you're respectful in orchestrating them.

Time for dlofnep to get up off his hole and attend this protest. Happy debating Although I'm sure by now, all points have been covered. Slán.

gizmo555

prinz wrote: »

Who has described it as illegal?

The Taoiseach, for a start:

Taoiseach Brian Cowen has said he believes the blockade action taken by Israeli defence forces is a violation of international law.

He said he regarded the incident as 'very serious'.

Speaking in Dublin this morning, Mr Cowen said people were entitled to receive humanitarian assistance.

He said he questioned under what legal basis the Israeli Defence Forces had boarded ships on a humanitarian mission in international waters.

He said an international investigation into the events of last night was essential.

He added that he considered the action taken by the Israeli army to be disproportionate.

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

Who has described it as illegal?

Michael Martin did. Right, I'm off.

Eliot Rosewater

dlofnep wrote: »

It's cool Eliot, I know you're balanced. While I may disagree with you on several points, you're respectful in orchestrating them.

The feelings are mutual. Best of luck with the protest anyway.

prinz

alastair wrote: »

and as you've been made aware of, they are a signatory to the Convention on the High Seas - international law which they've contravened in their actions.

You do realise that this Convention on the High Seas you keep referring to is part of the UNCLOS right? That Israel did not sign?

prinz

gizmo555 wrote: »

The Taoiseach, for a start:

He questioned the legality. He did not declare it illegal.

alastair

prinz wrote: »

Who has described it as illegal?

From today's IT:

Taoiseach Brian Cowen has called for an international inquiry into an Israeli attack on aid ship bound for Gaza which left 10 pro-Palestinian activists dead.

Mr Cowen said he believed Israel’s blockade of humanitarian assistance to Gaza was illegal under international law.

BluePlanet

prinz wrote: »

He questioned the legality. He did not declare it illegal.

Wow, what a KILLER response! :rolleyes:

You really pwn'd him!

alastair

prinz wrote: »

You do realise that this Convention on the High Seas you keep referring to is part of the UNCLOS right? That Israel did not sign?

The Convention on the High Seas is incorporated into the UNCLOS, but it also predates it by 24 years. Israel signed up for the convention, but didn't sign up to the later UNCLOS.

gandalf

prinz wrote: »

He questioned the legality. He did not declare it illegal.

Mr Cowen said he believed Israel’s blockade of humanitarian assistance to Gaza was illegal under international law.
“Whilst the Israeli government has withdrawn from Gaza, they remain a de facto occupying force since they decide what gets into Gaza and who gets out of it,” he said.
“The cause of this problem relates directly to the fact that there is a humanitarian blockade. I believe that is in violation of international law. People are entitled to have humanitarian assistance.”

Taken from this article,
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0531/breaking21.html

prinz

alastair wrote: »

Mr Cowen said he believed Israel’s blockade of humanitarian assistance to Gaza was illegal under international law.

Not quite black and white though is it. Far from governments across Europe declaring it illegal.

BluePlanet wrote: »

Wow, what a KILLER response! :rolleyes:
You really pwn'd him!

Yes I thought so.

partyguinness

prinz wrote: »

He questioned the legality. He did not declare it illegal.

Lets look at it another way:

Is is legal to board private property in international waters and murder unarmed civilians (wooden blanks and metal bars dont count) with no obvious or immediate threat to the security of Israel?

I think No is the resounding answer.

prinz

alastair wrote: »

The Convention on the High Seas is incorporated into the UNCLOS, but it also predates it by 24 years. Israel signed up for the convention, but didn't sign up to the later UNCLOS.

The UNCLOS also replaces the previous four conventions. Once the UNCLOS came along the previous conventions are rather meaningless.

Fits Morris

Can one of the apologists for the vile terrorist state of Israel please explain the following to me.

What right do immigrants from Poland, Russia, Germany, the USA etc have to land that they or their ancestors going back nearly two thousand years have never even set foot on, over people who were ethnically cleansed off their own land after 1948?

The Israelis have indeed abused history. They are not some brave little state, upholding democracy. They are a totalitarian bully who don’t care what anybody else thinks.

And as for the anti-semite card: don’t make me laugh. One of the people travelling with the flotilla is Hedy Epstein, an 85 year old holocaust survivor. She has been a tireless campaigner for the rights of the people of Gaza. Is she an anti-semite? Is Ilan Pape, who wrote “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”, an anti-semite?

In this country we liked to say, correctly in my view, that the Unionist notion of the six counties as “a Protestant state for a Protestant people” was sectarian. Is the notion of “a Jewish state for a Jewish people” not at least equally sectarian?

The Israeli ambassador to Ireland today said that “Israel has to defend itself”. From a ship carrying humanitarian aid? Which incidentally was sailing in international waters. But it’s not as if Israel has ever given a **** about international law. The strength of the Israeli lobby in the US and UK is such that they can get away with anything. Their spin merchants and big business connections stretch through the whole of Western society like a cancer.

The spin even stretches to internet discussion forums on politics and the likes, as was mentioned many pages back on this thread I think. Outright lying is what they specialise in. How about the whopper from Tom Carew of the Ireland –Israel Friendship League on the Pat Kenny show this morning claiming that the flotilla “had links to Al-Qaeda”?

Who has killed the most civilians in the conflict? Israel. By a mile. Between the start of the second intifada in September 2000 and the start of the Gaza invasion in December 2008 there were 4860 Palestinians killed by the IDF. 527 civilians and 90 IDF members were killed by Palestinians in the same period. This doesn’t include the stats from the Gaza invasion of 08/09 btw. Link to stats: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cpiq2Hfgl5EJ:www.btselem.org/english/statistics/casualties.asp+israel+civilians+killed+number&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

And yet it’s the Palestinians who are always painted as the aggressors because the Western media tend to swallow the Israeli propaganda. Palestinian violence was the inevitable reaction of the systematic oppression and brutalisation of a people. If you brutalise a people, don’t be surprised when they fight back.

I don’t advocate suicide bombs, far from it. But what do you expect? Rockets and suicide bombs became the last refuge of a youth that have known nothing other than brutal oppression. Israel has no problem brutalising the people of Gaza after a few rockets. So tell me, who are the real terrorists? In one way it would nearly make you think the British Army weren’t so bad after all. If they had applied Israeli standards, the whole of South Armagh and West Belfast would have been wiped out. I wonder does anybody here think that would have been justified.

The economy of the West Bank and Gaza has been systematically crippled. Israel currently blocks such dangerous items as pencils and chocolate from Gaza. The vast majority of people have no hope of ever getting a job. For many years the people of the West Bank have effectively been prisoners.

They can’t go anywhere without being held for hours on end at one of the hundreds of road blocks throughout a piece of land the same size as County Antrim. Their homes are bulldozed to make way for “settlements”, roads and shopping centres that only Israelis can travel on and shop in. The already armed settlers are protected by armed IDF soldiers and huge fences. The **** from the settlements is literally dumped on the Palestinians. Check it out: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-israel-is-suppressing-a-secret-it-must-face-816661.html

The Jewish settler leader Daniella Weiss is quite clear about the aim of the settlements – it is to ultimately drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank entirely. Israel pays lip service to the notion of two states. Its actions suggest entirely the opposite. This is ethnic cleansing. The Israelis are quite good at it. They've had practice.

Those people in Gaza and the West Bank, their parents and grandparents , they were the natives of what is now Israel. They too were burned and bulldozed out of their homes. That’s if they were lucky enough not to get shot. Israel talks about the “right of return” for Jews, people who have no connection whatsoever with that part of the world. What about the right of return for people who are the actual natives. They don’t count I guess.

If you want the real story, why not have a read of some of the work of writers like Gideon Levy, Amira Hass, Ilan Pape or Robert Fisk instead of relying on the Murdoch press from whom you presumably get most of your information. You might learn something.

alastair

prinz wrote: »

He questioned the legality. He did not declare it illegal.

Well - Cowen isn't in a position of responsibility to declare it illegal - that would be down to the UN reading of the situation, which Cowen is reflecting. It's pretty clear that he's 'describing' it as illegal though, eh?

OhNoYouDidn't

prinz wrote: »

The UNCLOS also replaces the previous four conventions. Once the UNCLOS came along the previous conventions are rather meaningless.

Give it a rest mate, you have had your arse slapped on this one...