Israeli troops acted legally in ship raid acording to Israeli report

CBC NEWS

Of course the Israelis would never concede that they are criminals. Their report is justifying their illegal use of deadly force on un-armed persons.

The report, to be Israel's submission to a UN inquiry, said the actions of the troops were "found to be legal pursuant to the rules of international law."

The commission included four Israelis and two international observers, including Brig.-Gen. Ken Watkin, Canada's former chief military prosecutor, and David Trimble, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and former Northern Ireland first minister.

The UN report is not finished yet, but it doesn't matter anyway. The US will veto any resolution condemning Israel and make it a useless bunch of pages...

How can it be that such a small country has control over so much? It makes no sense. How can a small country do whatever they want and get away with it? It's disgusting. Israel's belief that they can do anything to anyone and not suffer the consequences like the rest of the world does is what is making the middle east so unstable today. This "we can defend ourselves from rock throwers and un-armed humanitarians" BS should be getting more attention so that people can see what's going on behind the curtain...

If it would have been any other country who did this, the world would be in an uproar and they would hear about it... Just look at how the world is treating Iran for no reason.

This report is a farce and the world should stop supporting Israel's government.

Magnum

Originally posted by Magnum007
CBC NEWS

Of course the Israelis would never concede that they are criminals. Their report is justifying their illegal use of deadly force on un-armed persons.

The report, to be Israel's submission to a UN inquiry, said the actions of the troops were "found to be legal pursuant to the rules of international law."

The commission included four Israelis and two international observers, including Brig.-Gen. Ken Watkin, Canada's former chief military prosecutor, and David Trimble, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and former Northern Ireland first minister.

The UN report is not finished yet, but it doesn't matter anyway. The US will veto any resolution condemning Israel and make it a useless bunch of pages...

How can it be that such a small country has control over so much? It makes no sense. How can a small country do whatever they want and get away with it? It's disgusting. If it would have been any other country who did this, the world would be in an uproar and they would hear about it... Just look at how the world is treating Iran for no reason.

This report is a farce and the world should stop supporting Israel.

Magnum

They do realize they committed this act in international waters? That alone makes it illegal. Dude, people like my parents believe that the Israel in the Bible is the same as the one today. Never mind that it was created last century.

Ha ha...

this will go nice on the shelf next to Warren Commission Report and the 9/11 commission.

reply to post by Magnum007


Why don't we wait and see what the report has to say before we come to conclusions?

The U.N report will never find Israel's actions legal, even if they did act according to international law, much in the same way that the Israeli report will probably be biased for Israel.

You say Israel has control over so much, ask yourself that- Who controls the U.N? Who controls the UNHRC and why?

The short answer would be the world's worst human rights violators, and they like having someone to deal with that isn't themselves.

The question isn't why such a small country has so much control, but how such a small country gets so much attention for actions that are being done on much bigger scales elsewhere?

If Israel had control it would've kept everyone quiet, instead of having to deal with this, don't you think?

Israel is making the middle east instable? Is it responsible for the coups going on all over the Arab nations? Is it responsible for the status of Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran/etc?

There's much to be said about Israel, but is there really need to exaggerate?

You know what's funny... People get angry at the police for this or for that... Yet they accept the actions that Israel do. People don't accept the police actions stating the fact that they pay for it in their taxes, that it's unconstitutional etc...

Yet, these same people's tax money fund Isreal and their war/humanity crimes at much higher cost. US tax money has displaced, made homeless, and killed so many people, yet nobody says anything.

This 2 face ideology kills me... Actually it angers me...

Magnum

reply to post by Eliad


My friend,

The U.N report will never find Israel's actions legal, even if they did act according to international law, much in the same way that the Israeli report will probably be biased for Israel.

Israel has broken international law. They were in international waters when they attacked. Plus, the blockade has been deemed illegal many times by the UN. Illegal deadly force was used.

You say Israel has control over so much, ask yourself that- Who controls the U.N? Who controls the UNHRC and why?

The control of the UN and the UNHRC question is moot. All it takes is 1 of the few countries who have veto power to disagree and it's over. Funny thing that the US is usually the first and only one pushing the "veto button"...

The question isn't why such a small country has so much control, but how such a small country gets so much attention for actions that are being done on much bigger scales elsewhere?

I agree that there are many other conflicts which deserve more attention : sudan, darfur, somalia, just to name a few. The problem is that zionists extremists control the media in the US and MAKE SURE Israel is #1 in the spotlight... My guess is so that they can look like victims.

If Israel had control it would've kept everyone quiet, instead of having to deal with this, don't you think?

It's easier to make a "report" than to just "not confirm or deny" anything... People demand answers and they give them what they want to give to them.

Israel is making the middle east instable? Is it responsible for the coups going on all over the Arab nations? Is it responsible for the status of Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran/etc?

Actually it is. Israel is somehow forcing the US' hand in going into the middle east to "destroy the enemies of Israel". Look at Iran. They are the next target of Israel via the US.

There's much to be said about Israel, but is there really need to exaggerate?

Exaggeration is never necessary. The truth, however, is.



Magnum

Should anyone be suprised? This is the same country that feels legally justified in stealing someone else's land, committing genocide and various attrocities against the people who have inhabited that land for thousands upon thousands of years and committing espionage against their "allies". Of course they were gonna say it was all good.

I just can't help wondering when allied governments are going to figure out that the only true ally Israel has is Israel. The rest of us, remember, are simply goy and chattal.

Almost a laughably standard report result for Israel about any situation they have gotten themselves into. Who would expect their investigation to find otherwise. This song's definitely on repeat.

reply to post by Magnum007


You're talking about police brutality, right?
People don't usually attack the police with assault rifles and RPGs, so they should be less violent..

You're comparing two completely different things.

reply to post by Magnum007

They were in international waters when they attacked.

Are you sure the international law doesn't permit that? I mean once they enter Gaza's waters they effectively break the blockade, no?

At least that's what I read on several local and foreign sources (and it's been debated excessively).

The control of the UN and the UNHRC question is moot. All it takes is 1 of the few countries who have veto power to disagree and it's over.

Yeah, but even if the U.S does veto the result is attention being diverted to Israel, which is exactly the point. You think the Arab/Muslim countries aren't acting like bullies? Some of the worst dictatorships and monarchies in the world and they all gang up on Israel simply because the Palestinians are Arabs and Muslims, other conflicts, especially ones that reflect badly on Islam, like the one in Darfur (if I'm not confusing conflicts), are completely ignored.

It's all politics, they're the ones who have the real power...

Funny thing that the US is usually the first and only one pushing the "veto button"...

Once Israel outgrows its usefulness it will be tossed aside just like the Taliban. Will it ever outgrow its usefulness? Hard to tell, it's the only properly functioning, stable, friendly democracy in the middle east.

The problem is that zionists extremists control the media in the US and MAKE SURE Israel is #1 in the spotlight... My guess is so that they can look like victims.

That's not how it works, would China advertise its child labor to defend it? Or its crimes in Tibet? Would Russia advertise its crimes against humanity to defend them?
Anyway it's not working very well, so why aren't they stopping?

Actually it is. Israel is somehow forcing the US' hand in going into the middle east to "destroy the enemies of Israel". Look at Iran. They are the next target of Israel via the US.

You think Israel is behind this? Not oil? Not U.S political interests? That's like saying the war on Iraq wasn't for oil and resources, but to protect Israel from Saddam.

Exaggeration is never necessary. The truth, however, is.

True.

With respect,
Eliad.

If the commission were to find Israel guilty, than Magnum et al would go on saying: Ah ha, you see, this evil state of Israel.
Now that the commission find Israel was acting according to international law, Magnum et al say: Ah ha, what did you expect from Evil Israel.

Anyway, there were two foreign observers and advisers in that commission, Lord William David Trimble, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and Ken Watkin, international lawyer and former judge advocate general for Canada.
I guess their say on the commission's conclusions is also worthless by your standards.
www.ynetnews.com...

reply to post by Eliad


He can argue whether the blockade is legal or illegal...

But he cant be ignorant enough to deem the Boarding of the ship illegal all by it's self..
Boarding that ship in international waters to "enforce a blockade" Is 100% legal....

Now, if he is saying the blockade is illegal... Then in turn, the boarding would also be illegal.

But, if the blockade was legal or not deemed illegal.. Boarding that ship was 100% legal... To say otherwise would be either a lie or just plain ignorance.

I am yet to see a UN quote stating that the blockade is illegal.. I can find 1million + forums and links saying that it is illegal.. Not one official UN Statement that I can find, will source "word of mouth".

The blockade is in fact illegal.

1) A blockade is an act of war. Thus legally, members of the United Nations may only perform a blockade when in a state of war. Israel is not at war with the Palestinian Authority. They can't declare war on just Hamas; that would be like if a foreign power were to declare war on the Republican Party or something. Doesn't work that way.

2) The blockade must be effective. That is, the goals of the blockade must be manifest. Israel's statement as to the reason for the blockade is to deny arms to Hamas. This has obviously not worked at all. Second, the blockade cannot extend beyond the blockaded nation's territorial waters. Third, if you cannot effectively maintain the blockade (that is, if you have too few boats on the water) then the blockade is illegal.

3) The blockade violates several portions of the San Remo Manual. Such things as attacking local fishermen, or threatening them with attack. The big, BIG violation though, is in that the blockade causes undue harm to the noncombatant population.

Section II, point 102 is where Israel's big violation of the law is, though.

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.

sub-point b is the important one (Even I don't think it's Israel's intent to starve the Gazans). The people of Gaza ARE suffering from the blockade. You can argue as to how much they're suffering, but the point is, they're clearly experiencing a negative impact. However, Israel is gaining absolutely zero military advantage from the blockade. Some suffering is greater than nothing advantageous, ergo the blockade is illegal.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

1) A blockade is an act of war.

If I remember correctly they could in fact declare a blockade because they are at war with Hamas and Hamas is the single ruling entity in Gaza, or something along those lines

2) The blockade must be effective.

How do you conclude that it isn't effective?

3) The blockade violates several portions of the San Remo Manual.

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.

But the blockade in itself does not have the sole purpose of starving the civilian population, the fact that it did hurt the economy might be wrong, but not illegal according to international law.
And do you find that the economic damage of the blockade was excessive in relation to the fact the Hamas stopped getting ship loads of weapons? Can you really make that call?

I agree with parts of you analysis, but I don't think that we have enough data on smuggling before and after the blockade, nor are we legal experts of international law...

reply to post by Eliad


Wikipedia says the following:

Since 2005 Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[125][126] After Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from the Gaza strip, Israel no longer has troops stationed within Gaza. Israel has retained control over Gaza's airspace and coastline, and over its own border with the territory. Egypt has control of its border with Gaza (except for the tunnels). Israel and Egypt also control the flow of goods in and out. Israel controls fuel imports to Gaza, and also controls the majority of electricity used in Gaza (approximately 60%), which it supplies from the Israeli electrical grid.[32][127] There have been a series of attacks by Israeli ground forces such as the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as well as rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and cross-border attacks by Gazan militant groups against Israeli troops. Human Rights Watch argues that Israel is still an occupying power and is responsible for Gaza under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which seeks to protect the civilian population.[32] BBC's World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds said that if Gaza is treated as a "hostile entity" the question is whether the measures used by Israel and Egypt sufficiently distinguish between civilian and military. The 1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions protocols prohibits the use of collective measures that do not distinguish between civilians and military.[32] The amendment protects civilian populations in time of conflicts that fall short of war. Israel has not signed these protocols but there is an expectation internationally that it should respect them.[32] Hamas does not administer an internationally recognized state and also has not signed these protocols. Amnesty International said that “The blockade constitutes collective punishment under international law and must be lifted immediately.” And that as the occupying power, Israel has a duty under international law to ensure the welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, including their rights to health, education, food and adequate housing.[128] Justus Weiner and Avi Bell of the JCPA said that Israel’s combat actions and blockade cannot be considered collective punishment. They cite Article 75(4)(b) of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which says the bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties on individuals or groups on the basis of another’s guilt, or the commission of acts that would otherwise violate the rules of distinction and/or proportionality. According to Weiner and Bell, the blockade does not "involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties or the violation of the rules of distinction and proportionality."[129]

The UN says (on same source):

On January 24, 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council released a statement calling for Israel to lift its siege on the Gaza Strip, allow the continued supply of food, fuel, and medicine, and reopen border crossings.[130] According to the Jerusalem Post, this was the 15th time in less than two years the council condemned Israel for its human rights record regarding the Palestinian territories.[131] The proceedings were boycotted by Israel and the United States. Prior to this, U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, John Holmes, described the blockade as "collective punishment", saying, "We all understand the security problems and the need to respond to that but collective punishment of the people of Gaza is not, we believe, the appropriate way to do that."[132] On December 15, 2008, following a statement in which he described the embargo on Gaza a crime against humanity, United Nations Special Rapporteur Richard A. Falk was prevented from entering the Palestinian territories by Israeli authorities and expelled from the region.[133] The Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Itzhak Levanon[134] said that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur was "hopelessly unbalanced," "redundant at best and malicious at worst." [135] In August 2009, U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay criticised Israel for the blockade in a 34-page report, calling it a violation of the rules of war.[136] In March 2010, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon stated that the blockade of Gaza is causing "unacceptable suffering" and that families were living in "unacceptable, unsustainable conditions".[137] A UN Fact Finding mission in September 2009 lead by South African Judge Richard Goldstone suggested that the blockade was a war crime and possibly a crime against humanity: "Israeli acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed."[14] The Goldstone report recommended that the matter be referred to the International Criminal Court if the situation has not improved in six months. In May 2010, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs stated that the formal economy in Gaza has collapsed since the imposition of the blockade.[138] They also stated that the "restrictions imposed on the civilian population by the continuing blockade of the Gaza Strip amount to collective punishment, a violation of international humanitarian law." [139] In June 2010, United Nations envoy to the Middle East and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that "The policy of Gaza is counter-productive and what [Israel] should be doing is allow material in to rebuild homes and sanitation and power and water systems and allow business to flourish. Nor do we in fact do damage to the position of Hamas by harming people in Gaza. People are harmed when the quality of service is poor and people cannot work." He also called for Hamas to stop the "terrorism coming out of Gaza".[140] In the same month, Robert Serry, the UN special envoy for Middle East peace process, also said that "The flotilla crisis is the latest symptom of a failed policy. The situation in Gaza is unsustainable and the current policy is unacceptable and counter-productive, and requires a different, more positive strategy. The closure and blockade of the Gaza Strip needs to come to an end. There is now a welcome international consensus on Gaza."[141]

Eliad, everyone ]knows that this is illegal.

What's worse is that it's not only a legal question... It's also a moral one whereby we must ask ourselves whether we should let people suffer without saying anything as we have been for so long; even going as far as aiding and abetting the whole process...

I will say one thing INTERNATIONAL WATERS ! ILEGAL ! also known as piracy .Secondline -THE BOTTOM LINE PERIOD !

Its a funny old world. If they had of been Somalies they would have been shot out of the water. But israeli pirates are within the law

reply to post by Magnum007

Eliad, everyone ]knows that this is illegal.

No, the UNHRC claims it's illegal, Goldstone claims it is illegal, but the international law is clear and dry, and there's no room for emotion or morals (Sad, but true)- The blockade isn't starving the population of Gaza, and it is necessary since Hamas insists on keeping on fighting Israel.

Had the PA been in control of Gaza this blockade would have been lifted a long while ago.

Look, I can understand everything- The ban on commodities, the concrete supply, the fishermen not allowed to fish (if true), the economical situation in Gaza- All these need to change, as soon as possible. But the blockade can not be lifted! How can it when it can be used to move in (*And we have caught many ships trying*) rockets, weapons, anti tank and anti air weaponry, etc?

I mean, really, in the past we have caught frikkin' tons of weapons and ammo on single boats, how can we allow that to happen?

When morality comes into question we're faced with a dilemma, do we ease the suffering of the Palestinians, knowing that Hamas would take advantage of the situation to hurt Israel? Meaning- Do we lift the ban knowing that Hamas would acquire better weapons? Do we open the borders knowing that Hamas would attempt suicide bombings and attacks? Do we remove the buffer zone knowing that Hamas would mask itself as farmers only to ambush Israeli soldiers?

With respect,
Eliad.

reply to post by Eliad

When morality comes into question we're faced with a dilemma, do we ease the suffering of the Palestinians, knowing that Hamas would take advantage of the situation to hurt Israel? Meaning- Do we lift the ban knowing that Hamas would acquire better weapons? Do we open the borders knowing that Hamas would attempt suicide bombings and attacks? Do we remove the buffer zone knowing that Hamas would mask itself as farmers only to ambush Israeli soldiers?

The solution I've come up with is unrealistic, and I believe I already mentioned it in another thread, but I think that it would be the best one:

Put the leaders from both sides in a room. Leave them there, I mean LOCK THEM UP IN THERE. They eat, sleep, talk, piss, #, and do everything together until they come up with a solution. Once they are ready to agree on things and come up with a solution to their problems. Then, and only then, will they be permitted to come out.

The other solution would be to dissolve both governments, both places losing their autonomy and have the international community make it a neutral demilitarized zone. Make it a kind of a limbo land where everything stops (expansions, settlements, etc...). Take away the reasons for the fights (settlements, embargoes, etc...) and you have a more peaceful situation.

I hope.

Magnum

Originally posted by Magnum007
Israel has broken international law. They were in international waters when they attacked. Plus, the blockade has been deemed illegal many times by the UN. Illegal deadly force was used.

Just curious, but do you have any links to any official UN source that has made a legal determination over the Israeli actions.

Regards