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:
Let look at the major justifications for the blockade.
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)