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.

 

URGENT – IMMEDIATE ATTENTION: Spirit of Rachel Corrie Ship Heading Towards Gaza Attacked By Israel

page: 7
55
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Many many posts without one shred of proof..

Though as always I respect your opinion, but it is just that...




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
ooooo everybody look at me im the only one right you are all wrong i have dozens of post per page on here to prove it either im right or ill leave no room for anyone else to share their right opinions

i must post post after post after post to prove my point and never back down because this is ats and oh sooooo important to real life

here continue reading, there will be another page following this one and ill have tons of posts on that page too



ats has gotten nonsensical



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
When Israel comes out into international waters to attack a humanitarian ship, and someone is on here trying to defend that rationally, it speaks volumes about why that person is really here.

That's all I wanted to add to the discussion. My other comments about the OP are on the first page.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Many many posts without one shred of proof..

Though as always I respect your opinion, but it is just that...


It's all been proven over and over again at ATS, but if you'll specify what points you want proof of, I'll try and look up those posts. You are correct that it's "opinion", as all matters of law are until decided in court. There is ample evidence to back that opinion, but until it hits the court room, it IS just opinion.


As for the other two posts on this page, looks like I must have struck a nerve or hit bone. It won't be the first time I've been accused of bearing "disinfo", and likely won't be the last, just for having a dissenting voice contrary to "conventional wisdom". Here's a tip, if you find anything I say you'd care to debate, then present your side, and we'll have at it. Otherwise, it sounds like sour grapes aimed at an unassailable position.

Have a nice day!




edit on 2011/5/17 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


The legality of the blockade has been questioned by many including the UN..

I don't see how you can claim it legal simply because you and Israel say so..



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
There is a very simple way the ships could get through. Allow a UN supervised inspection of the cargo to insure there is nothing that can be used to continue provocative acts against Israel. The people who organize the shipping are doing it JUST to make trouble. There is a very good and reasonable way to get things shipped.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Iran told their ship to turn around LMAO...

Good.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nenothtu
 


The legality of the blockade has been questioned by many including the UN..

I don't see how you can claim it legal simply because you and Israel say so..



No, it's not legal on "say so", it's legal because it has neither been shown to be nor determined by a competent authority to be illegal. In order for something to be "illegal", a law must be contravened, and a determination made that the law WAS in fact contravened. Up to that point, it's not "illegal".

So far, I'm not aware of anyone who has made a real effort to cite a law that has been broken, much less insisted on a legal ruling. If a law HAS been broken, it should be a simple matter to cite which law that is. So far, nothing. Notice I said CITE the law. That means to quote it and give a reference to where it may be found. So far, all I've seen are a lot of folks making this or that claim as to "illegality", but none have been accompanied by a proper citation to back the claim up.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I'm going off on a tangent and use, as bad as I hate to, an Obama quote.

"You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig."

I wouldn't care if the ship had a giant Red Cross painted all over the side of it.

If it's headed towards Israel or Gaza(it's the same difference) from a port that's hostile towards Israel, then it needs to be stopped. For crying out loud! If a ship doesn't have anything to hide, then being stopped and searched shouldn't matter if the ship is indeed humanitarian.

What should've happened is that the Spirit of Rachel Corrie should've ended up at the bottom of the sea to send a clear message that Israel will not tolerate any provocation. Then it would be news.




edit on 18/5/11 by Intelearthling because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



So far, all I've seen are a lot of folks making this or that claim as to "illegality", but none have been accompanied by a proper citation to back the claim up.


Including you good self...

My reading of the law seems to show a country must be at war or an occupying force to declare a blockade..
Israel refuses to state their position and thus IMO their blockade is illegal..

I have stated this over and over and no one, including yourself, have shown proof of Israel stating their position on Gaza..



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
We know this... The Spirit of Rachel Corrie Mission, involving a Malaysian owned ship carrying aid for Palestine, has been intercepted and attacked by the Israeli naval forces in the Palestinian security zone this morning at 0654 Jordan time. Currently the ship has been forced to anchor in the Egyptian waters at one and a half nautical miles from the Gazan waters...
I googled and found this... formerly Perdana Global Peace Organisation (PGPO...googled that and found this....The sixth trip which had US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was rammed by the Israeli Navy while en route to Gaza on December 2008.
Recently on June 2009, McKinney together with Nobel Laureatte Mairead Macguire were on board the eighth trip when their vessel was stopped by the Israeli forces in international waters while again en route to Gaza to send aid and supply. On June 2010...PRESS RELEASE
The Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW) joins the international community in condemning, in the strongest possible terms, the illegal and unwarranted attack by the Israeli Defence Force on the humanitarian aid vessel Mavi Marmara in which at least 9 people were killed and dozens more injured. The vessel was attacked in international waters, 65km off the Gaza coast. Live ammunitions were used by the Israeli soldiers when they stormed the ship in pitch darkness.... it's not a new thing these guys get every year...you should see what we do to drug ships at key entry points in the US. And ships that do not want to cooperate get the Isreali treatment....woop-woop!



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nenothtu
 



So far, all I've seen are a lot of folks making this or that claim as to "illegality", but none have been accompanied by a proper citation to back the claim up.


Including you good self...

My reading of the law seems to show a country must be at war or an occupying force to declare a blockade..
Israel refuses to state their position and thus IMO their blockade is illegal..

I have stated this over and over and no one, including yourself, have shown proof of Israel stating their position on Gaza..


Absolutely. I haven't provided that evidence because I believe it to be wholly unnecessary, as I've said more than once now. I know of no law that would stipulate either of those requirements. It might help get to the bottom of it if I knew which law you were reading them in.

I'll have to get back to you on the citations. Rather than research them all over again, I'm going to look up my posts in the Mavi Marmara thread where the analysis was originally made. I'll post links to that analysis, which already has the citations in situ.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by paranoid2live

I googled and found this... formerly Perdana Global Peace Organisation (PGPO...googled that and found this....The sixth trip which had US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was rammed by the Israeli Navy while en route to Gaza on December 2008.
Recently on June 2009, McKinney together with Nobel Laureatte Mairead Macguire were on board the eighth trip when their vessel was stopped by the Israeli forces in international waters while again en route to Gaza to send aid and supply. On June 2010...PRESS RELEASE


Cynthia McKinney was aboard? They should have sunk the damned thing!



The Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW) joins the international community in condemning, in the strongest possible terms, the illegal and unwarranted attack by the Israeli Defence Force on the humanitarian aid vessel Mavi Marmara in which at least 9 people were killed and dozens more injured. The vessel was attacked in international waters, 65km off the Gaza coast. Live ammunitions were used by the Israeli soldiers when they stormed the ship in pitch darkness.... it's not a new thing these guys get every year...you should see what we do to drug ships at key entry points in the US. And ships that do not want to cooperate get the Isreali treatment....woop-woop!


"Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalize War"? Good luck with that quest... why is it they condemn Israel for repulsing an act of aggression, but not the Palestinians for committing them? Seems a bit one sided to me, as most of the debates in this arena are.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
As far as the UN goes on this issue - start here:

CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Articles 39-50 deal with breach of peace and talk about sanctions, blockades etc. What is being overlooked are Articles 51, 52 and 53, which states nothing can intefere with a country who exercises self defense.

There is no "1967 line" and there never has been one. The only border in existance is the 1949 armistice line which called for all beligerants to cease military operations against each other, which is to say they were told to stop where they were at until a final peace can be made (and to date, there still is no resolution). The 1949 armistice also took notice that where the respective militaries stopped engagement were not neccisarily the new borders. They went on to state that the borders would have to be negotiated on, and the current setup had no weight.

Fast forward to the 6 day war - Israeli preemptive strike on Syria, Jordan and Egypt, where the Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza were captured.

The war ended with UN REsolution 242 (1967)[.

UN 242 passed the security council and had 2 main components -
* - Israel was to withdraw from captured territory
* - Palestinians were to recognize the existance of Israel.

and minor components -
* - Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

* - Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

* - Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

* - Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

* - Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

* - For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

* - For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

* - For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones.


UN resolution 242 was adopted by the UN in 1967.

Israelis response was to agree with one exception -
* - Israel pledged to maintain its occupation until peace treaties were attained with respective Arab states. To date, Syria has no relations with Israel, and the relations between Egypt and Israel are in flux because of the government change.

Arab response was to refuse to endorse the resolution -
* - because it called for the recognition of Israel. Resolution 242 was finally adopted by the PLO in 1988, 21 years after its inception.

The current Palestinian argument is to force Israel to recognize the 1967 borders, which do not exist, and never have existed in terms of Palestinian territory.

Gaza was captured from Egypt, not Palestine
West Bank was captured from Jordan, not Palestine
Golan Heights were captured from Syria, not Palestine (moot point for this debate)

Since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and their have been NO discussion with Egypt about returning the territory back to their rightful control, Israel still maintains technical control over Gaza per UN charter. That issue, coupled with the fact Hamas's charter calls for the destruction of ISrael and refuses to recognize their right to exist, is a violation of the resolution the PLO signed onto.

That violation by Hamas is what gives Israel the right to intercept and inspect any ship, aircraft or ground shipment of goods / supplies / humanitarian aid to Gaza. Israel has not restricted aid shipments, and has legal authority under UN Charter, IRC, Laws of War and Articles 51-53.

Any country occupying an area is allowed under the above sources to designate how aid shipments are passed into the occupied areas. Israel has a port designated, and these floatillas know this. They refuse to dock and refuse to have their shipments inspected, which is not only a violation of International Law on their part, it changes their status from neutral shipping to combatant for attempting to run the blockade.

To date they are lucky Israel has not sunk those vessels. They have every right (see above sources) to stop and inspect any vessel in territorial waters or on the high seas if the target vessels has declared their intent to violate the blockade.

A state of war does not have to exist for a blockade.
The UN can facilitate large scale sanctions / blockades, but if you read the last few articles, it allows for a regional issue to be dealt with at that level by the affected parties, which is what is occuring at this time.

As far as the settlements go in the West Bank, that is going to go back to the origional 1949 armistice, and the 1967 resolution. There is no "border", and the UN has cited this time and again, and as a matter of fact, its been cited now in 2 UN resolutions (see above). Both resolutions specifically state the need to establish borders in an effort to end the problem, and as of yet, this has not occured.

What other evidence would you like?




edit on 19-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nenothtu
 



So far, all I've seen are a lot of folks making this or that claim as to "illegality", but none have been accompanied by a proper citation to back the claim up.


Including you good self...

My reading of the law seems to show a country must be at war or an occupying force to declare a blockade..
Israel refuses to state their position and thus IMO their blockade is illegal..


Alrighty, here's the first installment in the citation sweepstakes. This is a direct quote of a post I made last year during the Mavi Marmara Incident, when another poster had brought up the San Remo Manual to attempt to back his contention of the blockade's "illegal" nature. MY citations are embedded right in there, chapter, section, and paragraph:



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.


Source Post

Link to the San Remo Manual for verification of citations

I've bolded the specific section pertaining to the legality of the blockade itself. The pertinent sections of the San Remo Manual which I cited above in regards to the legality of the blockade follow:



SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE

Blockade

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94.

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.

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
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.


Now it's your turn. What laws have you read that specify that a blockade must be enforced by a party who has made a formal declaration of war, or is an "occupying force"? As an exercise in logic, you might expand on how a blockade would affect resupply of that occupying force, considering that THEY, as occupiers, would be on the wrong side of the blockade line as well. What I'm getting at there is that it's counter productive for "occupiers" to enforce a blockade which they are actually inside of, and so I'm REALLY interested in reading the law that sets that particular requirement, which would be entirely against reason.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Well according to your post,
anyone can enforce a blockade with NO reason given..
In other words it's merely the one with the biggest stick..

BTW, many would argue the blockade is illegal on this point you quoted.

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.


Oh, and the San Reno papers are NOT a binding law, only a guide.


edit: And the section you quoted is titled,

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE


Kinda says to me war MUST be declared, which it hasn't been.

edit on 19-5-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


San REmo is a part of the Rules of Armed Conflict. As is the CAT and a few others. Heck most of the documents from the League of NAtions is worked into the UN.

As has been pointed out, war does not need to be declared in order for a blockade to be present, as UN charter itself talks about regional issues being contained at that level.

But lets take a look at whats going on -

An existance of armed conflict is present, and has been present against Israel, and ISrael against Egypt, Jordan Syria or Lebanon since the founding of Israel.

As with UN Charter, Israel has an absolute right to self defense, as does Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

UNR 242 calls for Israel to neogiate borders along with Jordan Syria Egypt.
UNR 242 calls for arabs to recognize the existance of Israel.

Since Hams refuses to do this, they have violated the resolution ending the the 6 day war.

You have 2 choices at this point -
Argue Hamas is not bound by the UN resolution because they are not Egyptian, Syrian or Jordanian, which makes there actions illegal under UN charter and International Law.

Argue Hamas is bound by the UN resolution, making their ctions in violation of said resolution, which allows Israel to defend itself against Hamas, who is the agressor.

Your choice?
edit on 19-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Well according to your post,
anyone can enforce a blockade with NO reason given..
In other words it's merely the one with the biggest stick..


That's essentially correct, provided they follow the proper guidelines in establishing the blockade. I believe that the reason for the blockade is specified in the announcement of the blockade, so it won't necessarily be for "no" reason, but it may not be for a reason one likes.



BTW, many would argue the blockade is illegal on this point you quoted.

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.



Quite right, it can be argued that is the case, but the argument should be accompanied by evidence that supports the argument, otherwise it's unlikely to prevail. Point (a) can be countered by Israel pretty handily, and it would likely be futile to second guess the reasons for the blockade as being other than the stated reasons. Point (b) would be the stronger argument, but it would doubtless be a hard-fought one.



Oh, and the San Reno papers are NOT a binding law, only a guide.



The San Remo Manual is not law at all. It is rather a compilation of the relevant maritime international law into one place for ease of reference. The law it contains is binding, but it is not [i\]law in itself. I find it immensely amusing that it was held up by the opposition as "binding international maritime law" until the point was reached that they realized it didn't say what they thought it did, whereupon it was relegated to "just guidelines, not law".



edit: And the section you quoted is titled,

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE


Kinda says to me war MUST be declared, which it hasn't been.



No, it doesn't say anywhere that a formal declaration of war must exist. You are reading into it things that simply aren't there. There is nowhere that I'm aware of any law stated that formal declaration of war must be made before war can be prosecuted. That would eliminate 100% of all surprise attacks, which wouldn't be a bad thing, really, but it would tend to make war a damn sight tougher for the little guys, who generally have not much more than surprise on their side.

I'm with you on that, really, and would like to see such implemented. Were a formal declaration necessary before the prosecution of war, the US would have never been dragged into WWII, as the Pearl Harbor attack which was justification for that would never have occurred, and the world might be a vastly different place today.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Double post. Internet hiccuped.


edit on 2011/5/19 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

You have 2 choices at this point -
Argue Hamas is not bound by the UN resolution because they are not Egyptian, Syrian or Jordanian, which makes there actions illegal under UN charter and International Law.

Argue Hamas is bound by the UN resolution, making their ctions in violation of said resolution, which allows Israel to defend itself against Hamas, who is the agressor.

Your choice?


Just to clarify, I assume you mean by this that Hamas could be considered unlawful combatants under the 4th Protocol of the Geneva Conventions by virtue of being a stateless entity (not Egyptian, Syrian, or Jordanian) engaging in hostilities. Is that what you mean?




top topics



 
55
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join