It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was Israel’s Boarding Of the Gaza Flotilla a Violation of International Law?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Hows this...
Following Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula in 1982, as part of the 1979 Israel–Egypt Peace Treaty, that territory ceased to be considered occupied territory. Although Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in September 2005, it continues to be designated the occupying power in the Gaza Strip by the United Nations, the United States, the United Kingdom and various human rights organizations.[citation needed] Israel disputes it is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip. Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980[1] and the Golan Heights in 1981[2] has not been recognised by any other country.[3]

Note:Israel disputes it is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip

en.wikipedia.org...

Balls in your court.....And please note that I used the SAME source you did


[edit on 4-6-2010 by virgom129]




posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Actually the SAN REMO manual isn't Legally binding....Both I and another poster realized this whilst researching it the other day....

Even the wikipedia link said it was NOT LEGALLY BINDING....that is until just 2 days ago it was changed....you'll find the deletion log here

Wiki Deletion Log

The ATS thread post is here: ATS source

It has been changed in the past few days though....VERY fishy....I'd love to see if anyone can manage to find the original wiki page....I can't find it in cache....

AND I QUOTE:



The Manual is not a binding document. In view of the extent of uncertainty in the law, the experts decided that it was premature to embark on diplomatic negotiations to draft a treaty on the subject. The work therefore concentrated on finding areas of agreement as to the present content of customary law, which were far more numerous than initially appeared possible. As a second step the experts discussed controversial issues with a view to reaching an agreed compromise on innovative proposals by way of progressive development. However, although the Manual was to contain provisions of this latter type, most of them were always meant to be an expression of what the participants believed to be present law. Thus in many respects the San Remo Manual was intentionally designed to be a modern equivalent of the Oxford Manual of 1913. The experts believed that the drafting of such a document would help clarify the law, thus removing the impression that there was such a degree of disagreement as to render its uniform development in customary law or eventual codification impossible.[5] The experts particularly noted, when embarking on this project, that the result would be very helpful for dissemination purposes and would encourage the drafting of more national manuals.


SOURCE



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Hows this...
Following Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula in 1982, as part of the 1979 Israel–Egypt Peace Treaty, that territory ceased to be considered occupied territory. Although Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in September 2005, it continues to be designated the occupying power in the Gaza Strip by the United Nations, the United States, the United Kingdom and various human rights organizations.[citation needed] Israel disputes it is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip. Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980[1] and the Golan Heights in 1981[2] has not been recognised by any other country.[3]

Note:Israel disputes it is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip

en.wikipedia.org...

Balls in your court.....And please note that I used the SAME source you did


[edit on 4-6-2010 by virgom129]


I do not understand what you are asking? Or what your point is? I do not understand which analogy you are referring to?

Israel is not attempting to occupy the Gaza strip. They are at war with Hamas. So, I am confused as to what point you are trying to make.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Ah found another link to quote from. Hopefully all the links will work this time around.



Naval warfare has not been widespread during the last fifty years. However, some recent armed conflicts involving naval warfare have shown the inadequacies of certain aspects of the existing law, which has not seen any codification since 1949. The present state of the law of naval warfare was evaluated in the early 1990s by a group of international experts, scholars, naval officers and ICRC lawyers. The working group drafted the "San Remo Manual", which, although not legally binding, provides a clear statement of existing law and practice.


So uh...not sure why Israel is quoting a NON-LEGALLY binding document...but that's not going to fly in ANY court of law....except perhaps in Israel?

SOURCE

3RD SOURCE:
SOURCE



11. The applicability to naval blockades of the prohibition on starvation is affirmed by the 1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (San Remo Manual), which, although not legally binding, represents a modern restatement of the laws applicable to naval warfare : “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”. Published in IRRC, No. 309, November- December 1995, pp. 595-637.


B) sums it up....How is starving 2million some people not "excessive" in relation to any advantage that Israel gains from the blockade.....This won't fly in a court of law anywhere.....

edit to add another source

[edit on 6/4/10 by ElijahWan]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Then you shouldn't be trying to argue about law..
Their blockade is illegal if they are not the "occupying" force...
My link (which is the same as yours) shows clearly they REFUSE to accept respobsibility for GAZA..Plain and simple...

Pretty straight forward..If you are not assuming control and all the laws attached then how can you legitimately blockade???

If you dont know the laws then dont try to argue them...



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ElijahWan
 


True and why I posted this respone,

If you can show me an "old" link where Israel accepted (ratified) this law then I'm with you.
If you can do that then we will see if they acted within the word of all the laws within since the start of said blockade huh..

All the current links have been modified since June 1st.


I'm with you..



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by ElijahWan
 


True and why I posted this respone,

If you can show me an "old" link where Israel accepted (ratified) this law then I'm with you.
If you can do that then we will see if they acted within the word of all the laws within since the start of said blockade huh..

All the current links have been modified since June 1st.


I'm with you..


Ya I know man...It pisses me off...JohnnyElohim pointed out the law the other day in the original "flotilla" thread and I read it with my OWN EYES on wikipedia. It specifically stated it wasn't legally binding on there....Oddly enough...that bit has been removed? If you can find any old copies of the wiki page that would be GREAT....even though I'm quite certain the sources I quoted are sufficient to claim that it IS NOT legally binding.....

There used to be an article stub here: Wikipedia

but someone recently deleted that article and setup a redirect to the page it currently leads to....WTF?


edit for Spelling.

[edit on 6/4/10 by ElijahWan]

[edit on 6/4/10 by ElijahWan]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Then you shouldn't be trying to argue about law..
Their blockade is illegal if they are not the "occupying" force...
My link (which is the same as yours) shows clearly they REFUSE to accept respobsibility for GAZA..Plain and simple...

Pretty straight forward..If you are not assuming control and all the laws attached then how can you legitimately blockade???

If you dont know the laws then dont try to argue them...


The blockade is to prevent weapons and assistance of weaponry and war from reaching Gaza.

I think you are confused.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Next time a few Somali pirates board a Jew Boat and execute a few unarmed people, it will be a relief to know the pirates were entirely justified and within their rights according to the Jewish view of how the world works.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


No, you are the confused one or just pretending to be...

A blockade can be enacted by an occupying force.
Israel refuses to admit to being an occupying force.

Hence blockade illegal...

Can I make it any easier for you??

Or can you show me where Israel has declared to be occupying Gaza or for that matter, even declared to be at war...



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




Piracy
any robbery or other violent action, for private ends and without authorization by public authority, committed on the seas or in the air outside the normal jurisdiction of any state. Because piracy has been regarded as an offense against the law of nations, the public vessels of any state have been permitted to seize a pirate ship, to bring it into port, to try the crew (regardless of their nationality or domicile), and, if they are found guilty, to punish them and to confiscate the ship.

According to international law, piracy takes place outside the normal jurisdiction of a state, without state authority, and is private, not political, though acts of unlawful warfare, acts of insurgents and revolutionaries, mutiny, and slave trading have been defined as piracy by national laws of various countries or by special treaties.

source

Related:

Death on the High Seas Act

U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL CONDEMNS ACTS OF PIRACY, ARMED ROBBERY OFF SOMALIA’S COAST

If the U.N. condemns the pirates off the coast of Somalia, then what, may I ask, if the difference here? The Israelis are guilty of Piracy in International Waters, or, in the old way of speaking, on the High Seas. Also, if the Israelis attack a ship owned by a sovereign nation, by law that would constitute an act of war. Will the U.N. and the U. S. look the other way and let them get away with this?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Just found another source that states the "San Remo Manual" is NOT a legally binding document. Please read the following:




* Prepared by experts at San Remo International Institute of Humanitarian Law * Non-legally binding document * Fills gap created by AP I focusing on land warfare * Restatement of the law + progressive development * Provisions also applicable to aircraft


SOURCE

Just another source for ya my friend: source

And I quote:




Conspicuously absent from Detter's assessment of the law of naval warfare is any citation or reference to the International Institute on Humanitarian Law's Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea (the San Remo Manual). The San Remo Manual, issued in 1994 and published in 1995, is a contemporary restatement of the law Restatement of the Law n. a series of detailed statements of the basic law in the United States on a variety of subjects written and updated by well-known legal scholars under the auspices of the American Law Institute since the 1930s. ..... Click the link for more information. applicable to armed conflicts at sea. It was compiled by a panel of international law experts from various countries as an attempt to restate the customary and treaty law of naval warfare. It is not binding authority on states, but it is nonetheless persuasive evidence of the current law.



I believe I've provided conclusive evidence to prove that the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994)" IS NOT a legally binding document....Therefore Israel has no ability to quote it as justification for it's PIRACY of the Gaza Flotilla.....

Can we close this thread yet or must I provide more sources?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ElijahWan
 


Good work but even the Israel side here already knows that.
There is just no argueing with them...

THey read a book and point out one line....



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Oh I missed one part of the document that DIRECTLY applies to the situation at hand.

2nd line




Finally, specific mention must be made of the fact that the Manual lays down that starvation blockades are unlawful and requires the blockading power to allow relief shipments if a secondary effect of the blockade is that civilians are short of food or other essential supplies. This is a definite departure from traditional law and reflects the new rules prohibiting the starvation of the civilian population and stipulating the provision of relief supplies which were introduced in Protocol I in 1977 and are now generally seen as having become an established part of international customary law.


SOURCE

HAHA the law you and Israel are quoting actually INCRIMINATES them....Since it REQUIRES that those who are using a blockade MUST allow relief shipments IF a SECONDARY effect of the blockade is shortage of food or other essentials.........



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
The whole world is it not at war?
No nation trusts another!
Espescially the welsh

Japanese massacre Whales in Australian waters?...for decades?
Australia is a signatuory of the act protectiing whales?
Imagine the Aussies attacking the Japanese whaling ships....it will never happen.
Israel is protecting its interests.
It has a moral and logical right to do so.
Right or wrong Israel is now a nation.
It has the right to defend itself, it needs no approval from anyone.
Britain in its darkest hour , asked for USA support.
Israel in its darkest hour needs our support.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr Expired
 


Would you like to answer any of the questions asked by us posters regarding this thread or do you just want to sit back and make Whale sounds????



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by Dr Expired
 


Would you like to answer any of the questions asked by us posters regarding this thread or do you just want to sit back and make Whale sounds????


I will take your reply as humour
as oposed to ignorance.
If one could be bothered to understand as opposed to hate, on emay see I have replied to the questions asked.
I respect that understanding requires effort, and most of us are lazy.
My Iq is less than many but above some, just have an inkling of that yourself friend.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr Expired
 


This thread is about Israel justifying its actions based on this particular set of laws...
There have been arguments for and against.

Your posts add nothing...

BTW, my IQ is in the top 2% but who cares.

Stay on topic and dont post dribble...



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by Dr Expired
 


This thread is about Israel justifying its actions based on this particular set of laws...
There have been arguments for and against.

Your posts add nothing...

BTW, my IQ is in the top 2% but who cares.

Stay on topic and dont post dribble...


No worries mate I respect your reply totally and will exit this thread as a humbled man.
Little dots and whole pictures, Iq counts for nought.
War has no respect for law, I guess that is what I was hinting.
But keep on keeping on about international laws.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by Libertygal
 


No, you are the confused one or just pretending to be...

A blockade can be enacted by an occupying force.
Israel refuses to admit to being an occupying force.

Hence blockade illegal...

Can I make it any easier for you??

Or can you show me where Israel has declared to be occupying Gaza or for that matter, even declared to be at war...


If you would, show me something saying the blockade is illegal and only allowable by occupying forces. The blockade is to prevent arms getting to the Gaza strip. They allow food and aid in. The ones blocking the food and aid are Hamas.

Just because you deem it illegal doesn't make it so.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join