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.

 

Israel fires warning shots at aid ship

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 



So no... The San Remo manual is not binding. No wonder it is called a MANUAL.


Everyone knows that but some ignore the fact because it doesn't suit..

Also, how does Israel work out legality if they still refuse to state what their position is on Gaza??

You need a starting point to decide legality..




posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 


I see the “militant” in your speech is starting to show – calling me an IDIOT.
My posts were deleted for much less, let alone you accuse me of ad hominem. Lol, what a joke.

So if the San remo manual is none binding but it is “"the only comprehensive international instrument that has been drafted on the law of naval warfare since 1913." , than what do you chose?

Israel acted in accordance to that manual which is the ONLY international law concerning naval warfare. That is apparently not good enough for you. If it didn't, then you would surly be citing this manual like crazy. Basically you're saying, Israel can do what ever it wants because there is no abiding law concerning naval warfare.
Who is the idiot now ?



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by gravitational
 


I see your using your usual tactic. Refereing to my other posts in OTHER THREADS, when you are on the backfoot. There are specific international laws which Israel must obey, however, this dosen't change the fact that the San Remo Manual is non-binding. It may be the only comprehensive manual drafted since the 30's, but it still dosen't change the fact that it is no binding. I really thing it would be good if you read this book: www.cambridge.org...

Let look at the major justifications for the blockade.
a) Piracy
The accusation of piracy is inapt, since under both customary law and Article 101 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that applies only to acts done for private gain.

A blockade of an enemy’s coast is an established military tactic. It is recognized as a means at the Security Council’s disposal under Article 42 of the UN Charter where collective action is authorized. However there are accepted conditions which must be met.

A maritime blockade is for security purposes only, and must allow humanitarian assistance to the civilian population. Since the ships sailing for Gaza were on a declared humanitarian mission, those on board had the right to expect that any humanitarian goods would ultimately find their way to their intended recipients. However this is where we come to the tricky question. Israel was entitled to search the vessel once it left international water approaching Gazan waters: Which it had not. The other tricky question is the fact that Israel at the time (and still) refuse to allow many humanitarian items. Remember the case of the wheelchairs that weren't working? (the same case that pro-Israel supporters constantly lobby around to prove that the flottila members don't care about humanitarian aid) well Israel actually removed the electric motors from the wheelcharids- rendering them useless. Israel also does not allow, catlle, goats, lambs, chicks, chickens or any livestock for that matter. These are essentialy if one is to be a self-sufficient independent (or autonomous) state. Tell me what security thread to chicks and goats pose? Are the terrorists going to attatch grenades to chickens and order them to fly into Israel (chickens can't fly). Other items include fishing nets (last time I checked they weren't explosive materials), sweets and chocolates. Also sage, cumin, coriander, ginger and most spices are banned- are the terrorists going to throw that in your eyes? Furthermore dried fruits, potato chips and seeds (necassary for self-sufficiency) are banned from entering Gaza. Iron, cement and wood all necassary for construction are banned.

If one examines the list, they will come to the realization that much (in fact most) humanitarian aid will not reach Gaza. Israel has no justification for banning simple foods, seeds and livestock from entering Gaza. They do not pose any security threat. Unless of course you are scared that the terrorists will launch cow dung across the seperation wall.

My opinion? If one looks at the restriction enacted by Israel, if they have any sanity, they would come the the conclusion that this is designed to demoralize the Gazan people. Others with more extreme views would say this is collective punishment. I tend to disagree with the far left who says this, however, on this occasion I agree.
edit on 11-7-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)



new topics
 
11
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join