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

reply to post by ShaunHatfield

As another very intelligent person pointed out.... If you have a problem with the blockade, take it to the UN! Don't continuously attempt to break the blockade!

What, so they can get yet another 14-1 vote with the US using it's veto power once again??

Yep, that's democracy for you..

reply to post by djyorkie



Sorry djyorkie.

I should have hit the "Post Reply" button instead of the "Reply To" button. My reply really was not intended for you and you alone....it was for the thread. Hope you will accept my appologies if it appeared otherwise.

As for the sewage pipes.....* shrug*. I really have no idea or really care what's on the ship. As I stated earlier, the intent of the shipment is to give Israel a black eye, and I stand by my statement relative to how I think they should handle it. They have the right to defend themselves as a nation.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Both resolutions specifically cited the issue of borders. They both stated the "borders" are not defintitive as Israel has a right to defensible borders. This was akcnolwledged when the PLO signed onto 242 in 1988, and when the arab governments accepted the armistice of 1949.

BackinBlack wanted evidence to show Israeli actions were legal, and I was providing them. Because Hamas is violating the armistice as well as 242 by continuing to refuse to recognize Israel, and by launching attacks, Israel is allowed under UN Charter to defend itself, as they have been doing.

Hamas either has to recognize Israel right to exist, or they are in violation of Un resolution, and as such, can be attacked for violating it.

Defensible borders are for occupied territories and does NOT allow for building settlements for civilians..

WTF does that sentence mean? A defensible border is a "BORDER THAT CAN BE DEFENDED"... In which direction were you trying to twist the words?

You know that but as with most you like to twist the facts..
You can't force Hamas to recognize the Jewish State of Israel anymore than you can force Israel to recognize the state of Palestine..

World public opinion is turning against Israel..
Of course they will scream the anti-semetic card and remind us daily of the holocaust and that they're God's chosen, but in the end I think they need another false flag event to continue as they are..

Spirit of Rachel Corrie...

Update:

The Spirit of Rachel Corrie Mission hereby objects to the use of an Israeli land port to deliver its humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people.

The team is thankful to the Malaysian Government for their negotiations with the Egyptian Government in securing the docking of MV Finch into the El-Arish Port since May 16th.

We have been informed that the Egyptian Government has imposed on the Malaysian Government as a condition precedent for the cargo to be discharged, that the same be transported via Karem Shalom, at the Israeli border in Gaza.

The team was never consulted in the negotiations nor was its opinion taken into consideration by the Egyptian Government.

This decision is against the principle of the team’s mission, which is to break the illegal siege of Gaza by the Israelis.

Have we agreed to the cargo being unloaded via Israel, we would have agreed on the 16th of May, when the Israeli navy demanded that we proceed to Ashdod.

However, we insisted in proceeding to Gaza Port and were then attacked brutally by the Israeli navy.

On 28th April 2011, the Foreign Ministry of Egypt issued a statement that the Rafah Crossing would be permanently opened to enable humanitarian aid to pass through Gaza.

It is therefore in contradiction and inconsistent with our intent that our cargo should now be diverted via Israel and with the expressed permission of Israel which we did not and will not seek in any circumstances.

To comply with this unreasonable demand would abrogate the fundamental principle by which we embarked on this mission – to break the illegal siege of Gaza.

In addition, we are not assured that this cargo would in fact be delivered to Gaza, as in the past, all assurances given to previous missions were not implemented and most of the humanitarian aid were laid to waste, only 40% was allowed to enter Gaza.

For the past 10 days, we were given repeated assurances by the Egyptian Government that the cargo of PVC pipes to restore the destroyed sewerage system would in fact be transported via Rafah.

This turn of events demonstrates the insincerity of the Egyptian Government and their implicit endorsement of the illegal siege when they explicitly stated they would permanently open the Rafah Crossing to humanitarian aid, and as this aid will prevent the spread of infectious diseases must be considered humanitarian aid.

We are therefore compelled to take drastic action to uphold the dignity of the Palestinian people and the justice of the cause. Any compromise of this fundamental principle would undermine the heroic struggle of the Palestinians in the last few years to resist the cruel and inhumane blockade of Gaza, the largest open prison in the world and a collective punishment of the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza.

This is a unanimous decision of the team which consists of a crew of 5 comprising 3 Malaysians and 2 Indians, and 7 activists made up of 4 Malaysians, 2 Irish and 1 Canadian, expressing and representing the aspirations of all people who support the just struggle of the Palestinians to break the inhumane and illegal siege.

This illegal siege by Israel is a contravention of the Geneva Conventions which inter alia provides that a nation under occupation is entitled to have access to clean drinking water and sanitary conditions.

As a result of the barbaric invasion codenamed “Operation Cast Lead” in 2008, 7.5km of sewage pipes were destroyed. Yet, our cargo of 7.5km PVC pipes, a humanitarian aid to restore the existing sewerage system, has been denied entry to Gaza.

taken from the webpage:
BREAKING NEWS; Spirit of Rachel Corrie Mission: Break the Gaza Blockade

reply to post by djyorkie


Nothing like arguing that Israel is in violation of UN charter, while at the same time this ship is violating UN charter.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by djyorkie

 

Nothing like arguing that Israel is in violation of UN charter, while at the same time this ship is violating UN charter.

Care to quote those charters??

reply to post by ShaunHatfield

WTF does that sentence mean? A defensible border is a "BORDER THAT CAN BE DEFENDED"... In which direction were you trying to twist the words?

Is English not your main language??

In SOME instances a country at war may hold some land for defensive purposes..

This land however is not permitted to be settled by civilians..

Is that hard to comprehend??

and this is why the blockade is sooo wrong......

Palestinian medical sources announced that Israeli authorities banned an infant in Gaza Strip to transfer to a hospital inside Israeli entity for medical treatment since the suffocated siege imposed by israel for more than five years continued to affect the lives of hundreds of patients in the coastal region.

Hundreds of Palestinian children suffered from critical health conditions as Israeli government has restricted the movement into Israeli territories to receive treatment, in an attempt to tighten the suffocated blockade imposed in 2007, when Hamas movement seized control over Gaza strip.

It’s noteworthy that several children in the besieged Gaza strip lost their lives simply because they were rejected access to necessary medication within Israeli hospitals .

taken from the web page Palestinian infant close to death as Israel denies him medication

reply to post by djyorkie


maybe hamas and the aid ships should smuggle medication instead of weapons in then... just a suggestion..

@ Backinblack

The UN charter where you fondly point out how illegal the bloclkade is, while I poiint out the UN charter that states a country that is occupying land is responsible for the people in that land, as well as any aid coming into said land. Those items can be sent to a port of the occupying countries choosing, and that country can decide what is allowed and what is not allowed.

reply to post by Xcathdra



why not supply me a link to show me proof that every ship heading to gaza contains arms, and not humanitarian aid? just a suggestion.



just waiting for a blockade supporter to start stating how the blockade is legal, and quoting San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea where i am sure they will start extracting all the relevent info to try and proove that the blockade is legal.

this IS an armed conflict, as Israel will continue to use ANY force to stop any ship heading to gaza at any cost, as has been seen before.
You do not need to be a legal expert to read the San remo manual to realise that the israeli claims to the legality of the blockade are just spin. Some points in the manual make it very clear that the blockade of Gaza is not agreed by international law.

reply to post by djyorkie


Thats just it.. The moment a vessel declares their destination as gaza, it doesnt matter what their cargo is, they are subject to search by the occupying country, regardless of the fact the vessel is in Israeli territorial waters or international waters.

Any attempt to run the blockade changes the designation of those vessels to combatants.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by djyorkie

 

Thats just it.. The moment a vessel declares their destination as gaza, it doesnt matter what their cargo is, they are subject to search by the occupying country, regardless of the fact the vessel is in Israeli territorial waters or international waters.

Any attempt to run the blockade changes the designation of those vessels to combatants.

could you just refer me to the source of this information please. after all, i do have the good mannaers to supply links to everything i quote, or refer to. it makes my job a lot easier to understand where you are getting your quotes from. many thanks.

reply to post by djyorkie


Article 7 Chapter 42

International Humanitarian Law
IHL - Blockade

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

and

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.

reply to post by Xcathdra

The UN charter where you fondly point out how illegal the bloclkade is, while I poiint out the UN charter that states a country that is occupying land is responsible for the people in that land, as well as any aid coming into said land. Those items can be sent to a port of the occupying countries choosing, and that country can decide what is allowed and what is not allowed.

Great, so you can show me where Israel has admitted to being the occupying force??

If not then I guess your argument is nothing but BS

reply to post by backinblack


www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Xcathdra



but israel cannot use San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
you cannot just use the parts you agree with, and disregard the rest.
it is something that you follow ALL of it, or NONE AT ALL.

There are two ways to assess the legality of the Israeli blockade in accordance with the San Remo Manual. The first is assessing the legality of the nature of the blockade. This means asking if the way in which the blockade exists is in accordance with the San Remo Manual's guidelines for sanctioned blockades. The second is by assessing the legality of the existence of the blockade. In essence, this means asking if the very existence of a naval blockade of Gaza by Israel is permitted under the guidelines of the San Remo Manual. Let’s begin with the question of the nature of the blockade first.

Part V Section II (95) of the San Remo Manual states that a blockade must be effective and cannot let certain vessels in while rejecting others. Israel has, since the start of the blockade, permitted certain ships to enter while not permitting others. Of the numerous trips staged by the Free Gaza Movement, several earlier trips have been permitted to reach Gaza through the blockade, where as others were not. All of these ships were carrying flags of “neutral states.” This inconsistency is contrary to Part V Section II (100 & 101) which states that the blockading party must treat ships of neutrally flagged states equally, and is a clear indication that the nature of the blockade is not legal.

The blockade is also in violation of Part V Section II (102) which prohibits blockades that:


a.) have the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential to 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.


Dov Wiesglass, the Israeli official and aid to Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated the intention of the blockade was “to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” Numerous international aid agencies and non-government organizations have made it clear that the deleterious effects on the civilian population are severe. A growing chorus of NGOs and officials, not excluding Israelis, has questioned the blockade's strategic value to Israel and many have concluded it is instead counterproductive in nature.

Further, the Israel blockade is also in violation of Part V Section II 106 (c) which states that the zone of the blockade shall not exceed the area “strictly required by military necessity and the principles of proportionality.” Israel has enforced a blockade around the 20 nautical mile mark for incoming ships, like those which are part of the Freedom Flotilla, but it has also enforced it at the three nautical mile mark against Gaza’s fishermen, devastating their livelihoods out of no military necessity whatsoever. see this link to see how fishermen get attacked/killed

Clearly, a number of arguments can be made regarding the nature of the blockade and its failure to meet the standards required by the San Remo Manual. However, all of the above violations are predicated on the assumption that the San Remo Manual even applies to the territorial entities involved, in this case, Gaza and Israel.

The Manual only applies to “belligerent states” and “neutral states” as clearly indicated in Section IV. Gaza, which is part of the Palestinian Occupied Territories along with the West Bank, is not a state, due in large part, ironically, to Israeli intransigence. Gaza was occupied by Israel in 1967 and, under customary international law, Israel has been the belligerent occupier of the strip since. Despite ending their colonization of the Gaza Strip in 2005 when they withdrew the colonies they had developed and populated with their civilians, Israel still maintains “effective control” over the Gaza Strip through control of its borders, air space and of course, sea lanes.

reply to post by djyorkie


Which is where the UN charter and the IHRC comes into play.

This is what I was saying, that both sides are accused of breaching UN and international law, while at the same time people on each side argue the legality of their side.

Since Israel withdrew all forces from Gaza in 2005, and with Hamas continually attacking Israel, Israel is justified under Chapter 7 of the UN for taking self defense against those attacks. Israel would be legally justified invading Gaza.

slipperly slope argument.

To answer part of your argument above though about the blockade, its been announced and notices have been sent. Any vcessel declaring their destination as gaza are violating the blockade, regardless of the fact they are in the zone or not. This is how Israel can justify boarding those vessels in international waters.

Also, refer to the section that talks specifically about non international conflicts, as well as what actions can be taken within a geographic region.

Any vessel not stopping when told to do so while breaching the blockade can be attacjked as well.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by backinblack

 

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No mate...

That's NOT Israel admitting it IS the OCCUPYING FORCE..

Try again...
Quote an Israeli official stating that fact or change your stance..

BTW, you are aware the San Reno treaty is NOT even law right??

reply to post by Xcathdra


and as for your quoting of Article 7 Chapter 42
it clearly states

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

so that refers that first, it has to be shown that section 41 needed to have been followed first...
which states:

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

so has the Security Council made these considerations? if you are quoting the security council as having said that israel can blockade Gaza under section 42, then can you please supply the link? it is no good supplying links to international laws that have not actually been agreed upon by the Security Council . many thanks

reply to post by Xcathdra

Since Israel withdrew all forces from Gaza in 2005, and with Hamas continually attacking Israel, Israel is justified under Chapter 7 of the UN for taking self defense against those attacks. Israel would be legally justified invading Gaza.

What drugs are you on???

Hamas is justified in attacking an invading force..
Or do you deny Israel's continued stealing of Palestinian land for settlement of CIVILIANS ????

I believe the continued settlements are well documented so good luck with that argument.