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.

 

San Remo Manual DOES NOT justify Israel's Actions.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
I know we've all seen WAY too many Israel threads in the past few days but I'd like to clear up a few things. I know Israel and every other person defending Israel's actions has tried to use the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea" in order to justify Israel's actions. I know multiple Israeli Officials have been quoted using it to justify the raid....

I present the following evidence for the readers to decide for themselves if this is a good enough defense in a court of international law. 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

What I find to be absolutely HILARIOUS if not Ironic....is the supposed "law" ((it isn't a law)) that Israel is quoting as it's defense actually INCRIMINATES them in this act. And I quote:




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.


I think it 100% evident that a secondary effect of the "blockade", which is meant PRIMARILY to keep out weapons (according to Israel...I'd argue that point too though...regardless) is the STARVATION of the Palestinian people. The San Remo Manual specifically states that if a secondary effect of the blockade is shortage of food/supplies then Israel MUST allow relief shipments.....which the GAZA Flotilla WAS.....

/discuss




posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ElijahWan
 


Nice work...Much better to link the WHOLE law rather than trying to pick one little line. No one can say they are following a law if they just chose the bits that suit..



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by ElijahWan
 


Nice work...Much better to link the WHOLE law rather than trying to pick one little line. No one can say they are following a law if they just chose the bits that suit..


Aye I think it's hilarious when Israel wants to use "part" of the "non legal binding law" yet we both know they won't ever talk about that little tidbit of info in the very end....since it disproves their ENTIRE blockade since starvation IS INDEED a secondary effect of their "weapons blockade"



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ElijahWan
 


And yet these people actually provide us the link that proves them wrong..
Way to funny


Obviously not paid to think:;



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by ElijahWan
 


And yet these people actually provide us the link that proves them wrong..
Way to funny


Obviously not paid to think:;


Spinning propaganda drivel doesn't take a mind....."HAIL NETANYAHU! HAIL NETANYAHU!" *snicker* Anyways....I'm in no way condoning Anti-Semitic thoughts/words should anyone come in here trying to use that as a defense...I'm simply pointing out the fallacy in logic that is "the Israeli defense" for it's UNJUSTIFIABLE actions....*sigh*



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
"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 [..]"

www.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics
 
4

log in

join