“All I saw in Israel was cowards with guns”

reply to post by Skellon


The Captain of the Mavi Marmara refused to comply. This was an act of defiance.


Why should he comply?
He was the Captain of a Passenger ship in International Waters..

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by Skellon

 

The Captain of the Mavi Marmara refused to comply. This was an act of defiance.


Why should he comply?
He was the Captain of a Passenger ship in International Waters..

Which was it - a passenger ship, or a cargo freighter with relief supplies?

Further, he was captain of a ship (of whichever kind) which had stated it's intent was to run a blockade. Blockade runners are considered (at least by the US navy, which generally complies with 'international law') to be running a blockade from the point they leave port. That means it could have been intercepted at any point on it's route, particularly after having clearly demonstrated that intent by failing to divert when requested to the previous 5 times by the blockade enforcement.

I don't think it matters what flavor of water they were in. It matters that they stated an intent, and then proceeded to demonstrate that intent.

reply to post by nenothtu


That depends on your opinion about the blockade.

I consider it illegal and therefore irrevevant.
Many, including the UN have voiced their agreement with my view.

Obviously you consider it legal.

We'll have to agree to dissagree

Originally posted by Skellon
reply to post by smurfy

 

Why should it only mean that?

The Mavi Marmara, unlike the other 5 ships, refused to turn away.

For 6 hours, between 10pm on the 30th to 4am on the 31st, the Israeli Navy requested that it turn away from its current course.

The Captain of the Mavi Marmara refused to comply. This was an act of defiance.

Therefore, at approx 4am, the Shayetet 13 were deployed to board the ship.

If the activists were truely 'peace activists' then they would have given up without resistance. The crowd control munitions would have been deployed to enable the commandos to get on deck with some safety, nobody would have come to any significant harm or lost their lives.

It would have been an unpleasant experience for them, but they would not be dead.

Skellon.




[edit on 12-6-2010 by Skellon]

So the only important thing is that soldiers can get to the deck safely. Stun grenades can do permanent damage in the immediate. Long term toxic damage effects are unknown. or at least we are not told about them. Apart from that, Ban Ki-Moon as head of the UN had deemed the blockade as unsustainable months ago, it was ignored by the Israeli government, even though the international maritime law on blockade says that it must be sustainable to persist, and remember this is international waters. Another thing, the last boat, the Irish aid boat, which actually complied with all the Israeli blockade demands, still had to put their faces in the dirt, lying belly down. I did not see anyone on the Mavi Marmara lying face down.

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by nenothtu

 

That depends on your opinion about the blockade.

I consider it illegal and therefore irrevevant.
Many, including the UN have voiced their agreement with my view.

Obviously you consider it legal.

We'll have to agree to dissagree

In the absence of a relevant law that deems it illegal, I have to consider it legal, until it can be shown otherwise. I can't just go on how I personally feel about it, I have to rely on the rule of law in the matter.

Yeah, I can live with agreeing to disagree.

Originally posted by smurfy
So the only important thing is that soldiers can get to the deck safely. Stun grenades can do permanent damage in the immediate. Long term toxic damage effects are unknown. or at least we are not told about them.

Shouldn't have been a problem to begin with. If they truly cared about the 'poor Palestinians of Gaza', and were truly humanitarian enough to care whether they got aid or not, they should have diverted as instructed.

Wouldn't have been any need for flashbangs OR boarding then, and the aid could have gotten to Gaza. As it is, last I heard, Hamas, acting in capacity of the Gaza government, had rejected the aid. Everybody loses (Hamas by choice), especially those 'poor Palestinians', and I can't see where the activists OR Hamas gives a rat's ass about the Gaza Palestinians, other than as pawns.

They certainly didn't care enough to actually let the aid get TO the Gazans.

Apart from that, Ban Ki-Moon as head of the UN had deemed the blockade as unsustainable months ago, it was ignored by the Israeli government, even though the international maritime law on blockade says that it must be sustainable to persist, and remember this is international waters.

Finally! Someone who thinks they can make a case for illegality! You might get it done. What I'll need are links to 1) the international law stating such, 2)Ban Ki Moon's pronouncement, and 3) evidence that Ban Ki Moon is authorized to make such pronouncements, which carry the force of law.

Convince me.

"International waters" is irrelevant if the blockade is legal, and "territorial waters" is irrelevant if the blockade is ILLEGAL.

I do wish folks would stop bringing up 'international waters', as if that carried some sort of relevance.

Another thing, the last boat, the Irish aid boat, which actually complied with all the Israeli blockade demands, still had to put their faces in the dirt, lying belly down. I did not see anyone on the Mavi Marmara lying face down.

I'll have to research that further, I guess. I was under the impression that the Irish boat also ignored the directions to divert to Ashdod for inspection. If so, then they DIDN'T comply with Israeli blockade demands. If they actually proceeded to try to run the blockade as well, then putting their face in the dirt was a kind measure, in light of what happened to the last runners.

If that is the case, I can't blame the Israelis much. I never did like getting beat with pipes, and I'm sure they didn't either, to the extent that they would attempt to prevent such occurrence, by doing a more aggressive boarding procedure on ANOTHER boat exhibiting the same aberrations as the last one that jumped them.

[edit on 2010/6/13 by nenothtu]

reply to post by nenothtu


In the absence of a relevant law that deems it illegal, I have to consider it legal

I would have thought it was just the opposite...

In the absence of a relevant law that deems it legal, I have to consider it illegal

reply to post by nenothtu

How many people need to say its illegal before Israel agrees??
Thats the big question....
BTW, this link was Aug 2009..So the statements were not based on this raid, it is also in many other links if you dont trust Fox.

GENEVA — United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay on Friday accused Israel of violating the rules of warfare with its blockade stopping people and goods from moving in or out of the Gaza Strip.

She cited the conventions' requirement that "no protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

The convention also bans reprisals against civilians under occupation and their property.
www.foxnews.com...

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by smurfy
So the only important thing is that soldiers can get to the deck safely. Stun grenades can do permanent damage in the immediate. Long term toxic damage effects are unknown. or at least we are not told about them.

Shouldn't have been a problem to begin with. If they truly cared about the 'poor Palestinians of Gaza', and were truly humanitarian enough to care whether they got aid or not, they should have diverted as instructed.

Wouldn't have been any need for flashbangs OR boarding then, and the aid could have gotten to Gaza. As it is, last I heard, Hamas, acting in capacity of the Gaza government, had rejected the aid. Everybody loses (Hamas by choice), especially those 'poor Palestinians', and I can't see where the activists OR Hamas gives a rat's ass about the Gaza Palestinians, other than as pawns.

They certainly didn't care enough to actually let the aid get TO the Gazans.

Apart from that, Ban Ki-Moon as head of the UN had deemed the blockade as unsustainable months ago, it was ignored by the Israeli government, even though the international maritime law on blockade says that it must be sustainable to persist, and remember this is international waters.

Finally! Someone who thinks they can make a case for illegality! You might get it done. What I'll need are links to 1) the international law stating such, 2)Ban Ki Moon's pronouncement, and 3) evidence that Ban Ki Moon is authorized to make such pronouncements, which carry the force of law.

Convince me.

"International waters" is irrelevant if the blockade is legal, and "territorial waters" is irrelevant if the blockade is ILLEGAL.

I do wish folks would stop bringing up 'international waters', as if that carried some sort of relevance.

Another thing, the last boat, the Irish aid boat, which actually complied with all the Israeli blockade demands, still had to put their faces in the dirt, lying belly down. I did not see anyone on the Mavi Marmara lying face down.

I'll have to research that further, I guess. I was under the impression that the Irish boat also ignored the directions to divert to Ashdod for inspection. If so, then they DIDN'T comply with Israeli blockade demands. If they actually proceeded to try to run the blockade as well, then putting their face in the dirt was a kind measure, in light of what happened to the last runners.

If that is the case, I can't blame the Israelis much. I never did like getting beat with pipes, and I'm sure they didn't either, to the extent that they would attempt to prevent such occurrence, by doing a more aggressive boarding procedure on ANOTHER boat exhibiting the same aberrations as the last one that jumped them.

[edit on 2010/6/13 by nenothtu]

I have just told you that the Irish boat, complied with Israeli instructions.

Here is a link to Ban Ki-Moon's statement,
www.haaretz.com...

Here is a link to the San Remo agreement, it's a big trawl, but I'll let you look for the salient bits..as I had to. So, when you read it, it's up to you whether you agree with it or you don't, but so far you seem to be agreeing with it, without even knowing what the San Remo agreement is ?? The Israeli government is tactically using the San Remo international agreement, without international agreement, since others, like Ban Ki-Moon as head of the UN said that the blockade is unsustainable prior to the incident, the US government has also come out with the same statement, but after the incident. So, what do you want, the legality of the San Remo agreement and all that entails and the UN going to court to prove their case of unsustainablity of the Israeli blockade, or a consensus of UN countries to say that the blockade is unsustainable.

www.icrc.org...

[edit on 13-6-2010 by smurfy]

reply to post by smurfy


Read my post above yours..

But the fact is Israel thinks its legal and Israel only cares about what Israel thinks.
Not sure what Israeli law constitutes it as leagal but I'm sure they will write one up to make it so...

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by nenothtu

 

In the absence of a relevant law that deems it illegal, I have to consider it legal

I would have thought it was just the opposite...

In the absence of a relevant law that deems it legal, I have to consider it illegal

No, the way law works is that everything starts out being legal. Then, when one thing or another is deemed by society to be a bad thing (well, actually by lawmakers, and society hasn't much say in it) then a law is passed to make it ILlegal.

If it were the other way around, everything would, by necessity, be illegal, until lawmakers saw fit to make it legal, by passing the relevant law.

A great many things were made illegal through the ages before we were born, and all our lives we have known them to be 'illegal'. That doesn't mean they were always that way.

You see, the very term 'illegal' in itself means 'not legal', 'counter-legal' or in other words 'against the law'. It logically follows that for something to be against the law, a law for it to be against must already have been passed.

No law passed is no law broken.

reply to post by nenothtu


Your logic is fine but this is not an event that has never happened before..

Therefore the onus is on Israel to prove it is legal...

By my posts above it appears only Israel thinks it is...

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by nenothtu

 

How many people need to say its illegal before Israel agrees??
Thats the big question....

NO people have to say something is illegal for it to be made so. A law must be passed by an authorized legislative body before an action becomes illegal. If blockading is made illegal by an international legislative body, then Israel has no choice in the matter, as illegal is illegal.

That's in theory.

In practice, 'international law' is usually arrived at by treaty consensus among a collection of nations. A treaty falls under 'contract law', and applies then only to signatory parties of that treaty. That's why al Qaeda gets to cut off peoples heads, against the Geneva Convention. al Quaeda was not, and is not, a signatory to the Geneva Conventions (since it isn't even a state, I doubt it would be allowed to enter the treaty, anyhow), and as a non-signatory, is not bound by that treaty. In point of fact, as non-signatories, al Qaeda is also not afforded protection under the Geneva Conventions, but for some odd reason those protections are often extended to them nonetheless. The only thing I can surmise is that the Geneva Conventions are extended as to citizens of signatories, rather than as to members of a non-signatory party.

But, under Article 4 (I think) of the Geneva Conventions, protection is specifically denied to members of organizations such as al Qaeda, so I'm really not sure what the rationale is, or why that section seems to be ignored.

The status of Hamas under the Geneva Conventions is unclear. As the governing body of Gaza, I don't think Gaza is a signatory, but I'm not sure of the actual Statehood status of Gaza, either. The have a flag, and a government, but I don't know if they actually have a state to bear those distinctions. As near as I can tell, Gaza is something on the order of a 'protectorate' of Israel, under Israeli jurisdiction according to the UN, but I believe Israel disputes that, and no longer wants any part of governing Gaza - in fact denies any such relationship.

Similar issues surround the West Bank, ever since the formation of the Palestinian Authority.

BTW, this link was Aug 2009..So the statements were not based on this raid, it is also in many other links if you dont trust Fox.

Fox is as good as any of them, in my estimation. Slanted in one direction, yes, but there are few if any that aren't.

GENEVA — United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay on Friday accused Israel of violating the rules of warfare with its blockade stopping people and goods from moving in or out of the Gaza Strip.

She cited the conventions' requirement that "no protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

The convention also bans reprisals against civilians under occupation and their property.
www.foxnews.com...

As an "accusation", the charge may or may not have merit. That would be determined under an international court, as measured against the specific provisions of the Geneva Conventions cited. As far as I know, the case hasn't been determined yet, although I agree, the charges are a-flyin', thick and heavy. It would be judicially determined by a court with jurisdiction in the matter, measured by comparing measures taken against the contractual obligations - the Geneva conventions in your example, the US Constitution in the case of American law. Similar circumstances. A party alleges violations of a contract, and a court makes findings in the case.

In my opinion, which I'm sure you've guessed carries no international weight whatsoever, the people in Gaza are not being collectively 'punished'. Their basic needs are being met by Israel allowing necessities in. In the case of the aid flotilla relief supplies, it is Hamas that has blocked the transshipment, not Israel. In that case, charges should be levied against Hamas, for a court to determine, as well as Israel. It would be up to a court to make findings in the case, separately or jointly.

I do think Israel should allow passage OUT of Gaza for those demonstrating hardship. I believe their rationale for not doing so is a fear that Hamas fighters will slip out in the crowd, to prosecute war against Israel from elsewhere. Should they do that, while not in uniform, then they would fall under the same provisions as al Qaeda under the Geneva Convention, and the be subject to the same penalties. The Geneva Convention allows summary execution in such cases. Under the Geneva Convention, a 'soldier' must be a national of a belligerent party, OR a member of their armed services, AND be in an identifiable uniform, with readily identifiable insignia. Any other belligerent falls under different headings, and is not afforded protection.

reply to post by nenothtu


All good points mate, as always with me there is a but

To me, to be legal they must recognise ALL of a law, not just the parts that suit their needs...

The same law they use to justify the blockade is regarging an "occupying force", therefore, as Israel has refused any request to recognise they are the "occupying force" they can not claim the blockade is legal....

Israel has also NOT declared they are at war...

Originally posted by smurfy
I have just told you that the Irish boat, complied with Israeli instructions.

So they DID divert to Ashdod when requested? How is it they were boarded at sea to begin with, then?

Here is a link to Ban Ki-Moon's statement,
www.haaretz.com...

The quote I found in that article was this:

"This is a positive, welcome step and I believe that we need far more ... I have repeatedly made it clear to Israeli leaders that their policy of closures is not sustainable and is wrong ... It causes unacceptable suffering," Ban said.

I believe your argument was centered on 'sustainability' of the blockade, and so that quote would be the only relevant one I could find.

I didn't find anything there concerning Ban Ki-Moon's authority to make that statement as a judicial determination, and so must so far assume that it was made as a personal opinion, not a judicial determination. As a personal opinion, it carries the same weight as mine, yours, Jose Gonsalves (of Juarez Mexico - a shoe salesman, I believe) or Vladimir Putin's in the matter of international law. None of the above are judicially qualified to make the legal determination.

Here is a link to the San Remo agreement, it's a big trawl, but I'll let you look for the salient bits..as I had to. So, when you read it, it's up to you whether you agree with it or you don't, but so far you seem to be agreeing with it, without even knowing what the San Remo agreement is ?? The Israeli government is tactically using the San Remo international agreement, without international agreement, since others, like Ban Ki-Moon as head of the UN said that the blockade is unsustainable prior to the incident, the US government has also come out with the same statement, but after the incident. So, what do you want, the legality of the San Remo agreement and all that entails and the UN going to court to prove their case of unsustainablity of the Israeli blockade, or a consensus of UN countries to say that the blockade is unsustainable.

www.icrc.org...

[edit on 13-6-2010 by smurfy]

The San Remo Agreement is a strange case. There has been debate, even here, as to it's legality and ratification history. In the absence of evidence otherwise, I'll accept it as a valid international treaty. That's subject to change, if I find evidence otherwise, but for the momet, that's the way it is.

According to Part III, Section V, paragraph 67(a), the entire flotilla, not just the Mavi Mamara, was subject to being sunk. I'm glad the Israelis were restrained, and didn't do such a thing. They were, on reasonable grounds (their own statements and actions) reasonably believed to be breaching a blockade, had prior warning, and refused to stop. That section clearly states that under such conditions, they were subject to attack. In the case of the Mavi Mamara, she also "clearly resisted visit, search or capture".

According to Part IV, Section II, Paragraphs 93 to 104 inclusive, the blockade appears to be legal. Paragraph 98 in particular restates the fate of blockade runners against such a blockade.

Part IV, Section III, Paragraph 111(a) specifically accuses the attacking 'peace activists' of 'perfidity', as defined in paragraph 111.

Sorry it took so long to reply, but that WAS, as you put it, "a big trawl". I couldn't find anything in it that has been shown to have been violated. If you think you have, point it out, and I'll re-read it and reevaluate my opinion.

Specifically, I saw nothing specifying that a blockade must be "sustainable", nor any definition of that term as regards the document. Part IV, Section II, Paragraph 95 DID say that a blockade had to be "effective", but was silent as to 'sustainability'.

I also found a section that caused me to have to re-evaluate my opinion of when blockade runners are considered to be running a blockade. In the case of vessels under neutral flag (Turkish in this case, I believe) they are not fair game until outside neutral waters (Again, Turkish) - not as soon as leaving port, as I previously stated. As near as I can tell, that distinction belongs only to belligerent parties.

Edit: to fix fouled quote tags

[edit on 2010/6/13 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Your logic is fine but this is not an event that has never happened before..

Therefore the onus is on Israel to prove it is legal...

By my posts above it appears only Israel thinks it is...

No, as I said above, the onus is on the accusatory party(ies), those saying an activity is illegal, to produce which law has been broken that makes the activity against the law.

For example, my neighbor can't take me to court, accusing me of the 'illegal activity' of picking dandelions out of my own yard, then require that I produce a law stating that picking dandelions in my own yard is specifically a legal activity. To the best of my knowledge, no such law exists here, and I could be imprisoned for life if such were the case, because I could never produce that law.

T'would be a neat way for my neighbor to get rid of me permanently, though, now wouldn't it?

reply to post by nenothtu


Heres an interesting bit from the San Remo Treaty...

A neutral nation may choose to send a convoy accompanied by warships. The warship can provide guarantees that the convoy does not contain contraband. in which case, the blockading nation does not have any right of inspection.

www.answers.com...

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by nenothtu

 

All good points mate, as always with me there is a but

The conversation would die for lack of air if there weren't!

To me, to be legal they must recognise ALL of a law, not just the parts that suit their needs...

Yup. That would be a requirement. If part of a law is broken, the entire law is.

The same law they use to justify the blockade is regarging an "occupying force", therefore, as Israel has refused any request to recognise they are the "occupying force" they can not claim the blockade is legal....

Wait! Are you saying they are using something other than the San Remo Manual, and all my reading and analysis was wasted? Now wouldn't THAT be a cruel trick!

If that's the case, which law is it I'm to review now? The San Remo Manual is mute about "occupying forces" in reference to a blockade.

Israel has also NOT declared they are at war...

Will I find that requirement in the same place I find the one about an occupying force, or is that yet another law to be reviewed?

Then, after I get done reviewing those, I suppose I'm going to have to determine supercession, so that I know which ones actually stand a chance of applying, since there are apparently more than one.

This is going to be a long night, isn't it?

reply to post by nenothtu


Very long, I'll go read some more

reply to post by nenothtu


Hers a good bit from San Remo..

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