Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

MV Rachel Corrie being boarded NOW

page: 29
61
<< 26  27  28   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by LieBuster
 


First, before anyone jumps on me I am not supporting the Zionists, just making a point.

TheTruthSeeker is a notoriously anti-Zionist web site. I don't have a problem with that, but you have to bear that in mind when reading things on their site.

Hamas has absolutely no comparison to Mossad.

Hamas's history originates from a charitable aid organisation, where as Mossad's roots are in a security force. The attribute of terrorists applied to Hamas is because of this:


From 1993 to 2005, Hamas carried out many suicide bombings in Israel, killing many Israeli civilians. A 2007 study of Palestinian suicide bombings during the second intifada (September 2000 through August 2005) found that 39.9 percent of the suicide attacks were carried out by Hamas


Source Wikipedia History of Hamas

Without discussing the reasons for the suicide bombings, the fact that they took place labels them as terrorists by accepted definitions .

All of this stupidity would probably be resolved if Israel would just go back to the 1967 boundaries, but unfortunately they will not, or not unless public opinion can so shame them that without resorting to the violence of war they realise the error of their ways. (can someone pinch me, I think I must be dreaming) :shk:




posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
In fact, if you read the above very carefully, you'll find this snippet:


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.


Which indicates that the blockading belligerent must allow passage of the vessel after applying reasonable conditions (i.e., search). It does not say that the blockading belligerent may confiscate the goods and deliver them on it's own.


The key word appears to be IF.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival


Israel seems to maintain that they are adequately provided for.


The document below is a detailed breakdown of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip in 2009-2010. The statistics include the amount of trucks and tons of aid imported in each year, as well as what goods were imported into the Strip.

2009: 30,894 trucks and 738,576 tons of aid imported into Gaza

2010 (as of June 3rd): 11,972 trucks and 287,110 tons of aid imported into Gaza


Gaza Merchandise and Humanitarian Aid 2009-2010



[edit on 6/6/10 by makeitso]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


They were told not to go, so dont go.
what are these people tryin to prove



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by makeitso
Partially correct.
The San Remo manual does address acceptable methods of blockades by sea in general, and the Gaza blockade appears to be in compliance with these rules.


Only the UN, as well as various humanitarian groups say it isn't.
So again, if the blockade isn't legal neither is enforcing it.

- Lee



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma

Only the UN, as well as various humanitarian groups say it isn't.
So again, if the blockade isn't legal neither is enforcing it.

- Lee


Only Humanitarian groups don't hold the force of law.

The U.N. does not say its illegal.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by makeitso
That appears to be incorrect.
The manual says; "The parties to an armed conflict".

Not "Two States at war".


The Manual doesn't keep referring to a "State" for the fun of it.

There are only two types of "armed conflicts" legally recognized by international and humanitarian law.

1) International armed conflicts between two or more States
2) Non-International conflicts between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups
ICRC.org

If the conflict between Israel and Hamaas is an international armed conflict, then they both must be States. If not, and it is a non-international conflict, San Remo Manual of International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea doesn't seem to apply, considering the fact that this is regarding "the parties to an armed conflict at sea".

Does Hamaas have a Navy?

The first two articles are specifically referencing attributes considered to be a part of an international-conflict, where for example article 2 specifically deals with respect of the laws of war once on land.

Start from the beginning and read exactly what the manual describes the parties as being and are thus referred to throughout. It is referring to a International Armed Conflict taking place at sea. It is regarding armed conflict between two States as written in the manual.

Since Hamaas isn't a State, has Israel declared it was at war with Gaza?

If so then all of it's prisoners technically can't be deemed "terrorists" but are in fact "prisoners of war" and must be afforded all protections according to the Geneva Convention.

This also means that Israel has to recognize Palestine as a State with Hamaas as its legal government.

If Israels blockade of Gaza is not due to an international armed conflict with Hamaas (which admittedly seems odd considering their proximity), and this is a non-international conflict then it seems that Israel would also have to admit it is occupying Gaza.

Of course she would never do this because then she would be bound to respect even more rules, rather than continue to break and ignore them.


That also appears to be incorrect.

The manual states that it is prohibited if; "it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population"
That does not appear to be the sole purpose of the Gaza blockade.



'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,
- Dov Weisglass, adviser to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert

Gaza on brink of implosion as aid cut-off starts to bite - Salon.com


Whatever the stated purpose of the blockade, the end results are exactly what is prohibited as according to the San Remo Manual.

Just because you call an apple and orange doesn't mean it will taste like one.
The "Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations" states that...

- 61% percent of Gazans 65% of whom are children under the age of 18, are “food insecure”

- The level of anemia in infants 9-12 months old was as high as 65.5%.

UN.org

This U.N. Report states that...


...insufficient food and medicine is reaching Gazans, producing a further deterioration of the mental and physical health of the entire civilian population since Israel launched Operation Cast Lead against the territory,

The rapporteur noted that building materials necessary to repair the damage resulting from the heavy bombardment and artillery assaults could not enter Gaza. He also blamed the blockade for continued breakdowns of the electricity and sanitation systems due to the Israeli refusal to let spare parts needed for repair get through the crossings. U.N. Report - U.N.org


Again, San Remo states:

(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:


Everything that San Remo says you can't do during a blockade is happening.


That also appears to be incorrect.
Article 33 says that; Collective penalties are prohibited.

By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and World War II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility.




That is what is happening right now in Gaza.

Collectively, 1.5 million people are being held responsible for actions that not all of them haven't committed. They are facing a major humanitarian crisis as described by the UN as well as any number of Human Rights, or Humanitarian aid groups BECAUSE of the blockade.

The most pertinent part of the article is the line that states:


No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed.


Weakening Hamaas, the stated reasoning behind the blockade by Israel, is a political rather than a military one, and its policy affects over 1 million people, most of which are innocent civilians.

That is a violation.


Additionally, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860 does not address or have the words "collective punishment" in it.


Yes, but it addresses making the actions that lead to collective punishment illegal. I am afraid you have missed the connection altogether.

It calls for "unimpeded provision through Gaza of food, fuel and medical treatment, and intensified international arrangements to prevent arms and ammunition smuggling."

Israel, who not only has violated over 60 U.N. Resolutions, refused to cooperate internationally and impedes all efforts, including an international investigation in the death of protesting foreign citizens. One of which is an American.

The U.N.S.C. as well as many other humanitarian aid groups have also stated that the blockade violates the Resolution I mentioned.

Is the UN also incorrect about the definitions of its own Resolutions?


Stressing that the situation in Gaza was not sustainable, the Council re‑emphasized the importance of the full implementation of resolutions 1850 (2008) and 1860 (2009). In that context, it reiterates its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stresses the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.
Security Council Condemns Acts Resulting in Civilian Deaths during Israeli Operation


Please read through the list of UN members stating that the blockade is in clear violation as I correctly put it.


This can also be deduced by reading the statement of the U.N. Security Council on the matter. It does not claim that any law was broken. As high profile as this was, we can be sure if it thought a law had been broken, they would have written that in their statement.


You didn't fully read the statement or clearly missed the part that mentions that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860 needs to be adhered to.

Based on the statement from the UNSC I can conclude that the Resolution isn't being followed.

Admittedly the whole situation in this conflict is very slippery but nothing I stated was outright incorrect or in disagreement with the U.N. and its opinions.

Your responses were inaccurate and do not follow with the definitions of the San Remo manual, UN resolutions or the articles of the Geneva Convention that I mentioned.

- Lee



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by makeitso

Originally posted by lee anoma

Only the UN, as well as various humanitarian groups say it isn't.
So again, if the blockade isn't legal neither is enforcing it.

- Lee


Only Humanitarian groups don't hold the force of law.

The U.N. does not say its illegal.


The blockade is in violation of the Sam Remo Manual itself.

If you are going to ignore that fact, then you may as well ignore the points made by Israel using it to justify its raid.

In fact just forget it all together.

Israel can't expect people to adhere to Sam Remo while claiming it doesn't have to.

That is arrogant and delusional.

- Lee



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Our sermon in church today was about israel and the beasts that daniel saw in his dreams. If your interested in reading more about the armageddon prophecy in the bible its in daniels and revelations. I think it is becoming true



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


The San Remo argument is a red herring

as it is not actually a treaty, but a series of non-binding recommendations:


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.

www.icrc.org...



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by lee anoma
 


Hamas is the elected government of Gaza. In being so, they represent the state. What you are trying to imply is that it is like the Democrats fought in WW2, so the US was technically not involved.

Preposterous.




Tell that to Israel, because that is their position.

They claim they aren't at war with Gaza but rather Hamas.

I'm not sure you understand what "two States at war" means in regards to the terminology in the Manual you keep quoting nor the difference between an "elected government" and a "State".

Hamas is not a State.
Israel is a State.

If Israel continues to claim they are simply fighting the terrorists Hamas (and they will), San Remo has no legal merit in regards to their blockade.

I'm glad you see it as preposterous too.


“Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization,”
- Barrack Obama on his disagreement with Carters Hamas meeting


Whether you agree with the argument that Hamas is a terrorist organization or not that first part of what he said should be quite obvious.

They must DECLARE war in order to claim to use those rules they mention.

Who is Israel at war with?

Israel claims it isn't occupying Gaza nor is it at war with Gaza, but simply fighting the "terrorist group" Hamas. This is to afford it more liberties in how it fights and what it is allowed to do and also to not recognize any form of a Palestinian State. If this was a State vs State conflict then other laws would apply that haven't been followed.

So again, tell that to Israel, because if Israel is at war with Gaza then that changes everything.

- Lee

[edit on 6-6-2010 by lee anoma]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
reply to post by lee anoma
 


The San Remo argument is a red herring

as it is not actually a treaty, but a series of non-binding recommendations:


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.

www.icrc.org...


Yes.
This is true.

There is a thread I read a few days ago here that stated this too: San Remo Manual DOES NOT justify Israel's Actions

I starred and flagged it but it didn't get half the attention it deserved.

- Lee



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   

This is what really happened!



This report details exactly what happened when the MV Rachel Corrie approached the coast of Gaza, and it is not as previously reported.

Prepare to be shocked and amazed!


This a snippet from this shocking report of untold violence.


The latest information we have is that the MV Rachel Corrie is headed full speed toward Gaza escorted by Turkish warplanes. Please stay tuned to Mantiq al-Tayr for further updates.


[edit on 6/6/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I wrote about this on another thread....under the oslo agreements etc Israel is still in control of all airspace and waters around Gaza and the West bank, has been since '67...

here is a nice short version about the legality of Israels' sea blockade....

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ulsterman
reply to post by PuterMan
 


They were told not to go, so dont go.
what are these people tryin to prove


They are bringing the attention of the world to Israel's treatment of the people of Gaza.

With your attitude I would imagine you would be happier watching some reality TV show than participating in a conspiracy forum.

reply to post by spender
 

Nice find. Thanks for that.

[edit on 8/6/2010 by PuterMan]





new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 26  27  28   >>

log in

join