Israel..wouldn't we do the same?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have tried to find the amendments but there have been so many it's hard to keep up.
Further reading suggest the Israelis could have legally sunk that vessel.
 
Sponsored Links
I have tried to find the amendments but there have been so many it's hard to keep up. Further reading suggest the Israelis could have legally sunk that vessel.
Why does the word "Lucitania" spring to mind :!:

Nostradamus predicted that the end of the world would be from something happening in the middle east. He may well, for once, be proven right :confused:
 
"Now if it is 'internationally recognised', then surely Egypt is now breaking that recognition?""

But the point remains,, Egypt have recognised it for years.

Sorry, Did you answer if it's recognised by the UN?...

Anyway, I'm still waiting for your condemnation of rocket attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip.

Oh yeah, you seem to have missed...;)

I havn't actually defended Hamas, other than to recognise they are democratically elected...

Now if that's not good enough for you, I'll explicitly say that the rocket attacks are unacceptable - But I've also tried to explain that those who are interested in solving this might just like to look at how both sides justify their actions instead of coming down on one side alone!

So now, maybe you might like to elicit a similar quick response from those who can't answer the point about INTERNATIONAL waters...

And respond yourself (as I've said) as to the legality of the blockade in the UN...

As I have stated, Egypt recognised this blockade for years. That's good enough for me as I don't have dealings with the United Nations, nor live in the Middle East.
The point about International Waters has already been answered by others and seems to be quite legitimate (according to UN convention).

We are only a forum here in the cyber world and therefore can't solve the problems in the Middle East. You say we seem to come down only on one side, but obviously, from your comments on here, you have only taken one side.
Pot , Kettle and calling black seems to come to mind.

Surely if there is ever to be peace in the Middle East, the people and the politicians in that region have to want it? At the end of the day two wrongs will never make a right. Both Israel and Arab states just seem to have this tit for tat attitude. International condemnation of one or the other won't solve anything.
Perhaps you would like to tell us your plan for peace?
 
As I have stated, Egypt recognised this blockade for years. That's good enough for me as I don't have dealings with the United Nations, nor live in the Middle East.
In other words, you know f*ck all about the situation and won't elaborate because you know you are are wrong! If it's internationally legal then it goes through the UN...Of course Israel doesn't bother aboout that because they have the highest number of resolutions passed against them of any nation , and not one acted upon!

The point about International Waters has already been answered by others and seems to be quite legitimate (according to UN convention).
Where is that?...you see if a blockade is not recognised legally, then any action related to that 'blockade' is actually ILLEGAL... ;)


We are only a forum here in the cyber world and therefore can't solve the problems in the Middle East. You say we seem to come down only on one side, but obviously, from your comments on here, you have only taken one side.
Pot , Kettle and calling black seems to come to mind.
Then you havn't bothered to read my replies have you...you asked me about the rocket attacks and I said they were unacceptable - me one sided?


Surely if there is ever to be peace in the Middle East, the people and the politicians in that region have to want it? At the end of the day two wrongs will never make a right. Both Israel and Arab states just seem to have this tit for tat attitude. International condemnation of one or the other won't solve anything.
Perhaps you would like to tell us your plan for peace?
Oh the people in the area want it, it's the vested interests that don't - and that includes the west! A first start is to condemn any atrocity from wherever it came - if you have a bias as to how events are judged, then there is no way forward!
 
Sponsored Links
If it's not asking too much, and with the concept of "sanctions" in mind, could someone advise me what exactly does Israel do/trade and with whom for it's money?
 
"Oh the people in the area want it, it's the vested interests that don't - and that includes the west! A first start is to condemn any atrocity from wherever it came - if you have a bias as to how events are judged, then there is no way forward!""

The world condemned the rocket attacks but they still continued. Who's vested interest was that in??

Keep poking a dog with a stick and it will eventually retaliate.
You mention the vested interests as including the west. Who else has a vested interest in that area then, to keep the tension between these countries going?.
I may not know all of the facts, or as you put it, I may know f**k all about it. Does that make my opinion any less valid?
Please tell who all of the others are that have a vested interest in prolonging this.
I mean ALL,,,,,, not just the west.
 
If it's not asking too much, and with the concept of "sanctions" in mind, could someone advise me what exactly does Israel do/trade and with whom for it's money?

Here you go..

The United States of America consumes almost 40% of Israel’s total export shipments, far more than second-place Belgium at 6.5% and third-place Hong Kong at 5.9%.

Israel’s imports are less concentrated, with products from trade partners distributed more proportionately. Leading exporters into Israel include the U.S. (12.4%), Belgium (8.2%), Germany (6.7%), Switzerland (5.9%), the United Kingdom (5.1%) and China (also 5.1%).
Israel exported an estimated US$50.2 billion worth of goods onto the international trade marketplace. Israeli imports totalled roughly $55.8 billion, resulting in Israel’s overall $5.6-billion trade deficit last year.

The principal U.S. exports to Israel include computers, integrated circuits, aircraft parts and other defense equipment, wheat, and automobiles. Israel's chief exports to the U.S. include cut diamonds, jewelry, integrated circuits, printing machinery, and telecommunications equipment.
So as for sanctions, spot the american percentage and that answers the question...

Also, they've gained 'expertise' in a certain area... ;)

Israel is one of the world's major exporters of military equipment, accounting for 10% of the world total in 2007.
 
Israel should use all force necessary to kill her foes and drive them from her lands.

Googled from the net wrote.
Unlike Islam's Koran, which commands Muslims to force the entire planet to submit to literal control by Islam, the Jewish Torah promises the children of Israel a modest and reasonable allotment of land.
Israel is a democratic nation 1/19th the size of California, surrounded by 22 hostile Arab/Islamic dictatorships with 640 times her size, 60 times her population and ALL the oil.

How can Israel, which occupies one-sixth of one percent of the lands called Arab, be responsible for the political dissatisfaction of 22 Arab countries?
How can the 13 million Jews in the world (almost 5 million fewer than they were in 1939!) be blamed for the problems of the 300 million Arabs, who have brotherly ties to 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide?
 
Israel should use all force necessary to kill her foes and drive them from her lands.

Defying forum precedants today, I might suggest that is akin to an 'extremist' view... ;)

'I'madinnerjacket' said the same thing against Israel and was internationally condemned - where does that leave you?
 
ellal
Was Israels actions illegal? all the evidence I've seen points to it being legal (it may have been unwise).

They are at war with Hamas. They have a declared navel blockage in place.(you may not like that) That declaration complies with international law. As a result, they have the legal right to board, search or stop by any means any vessel attempting to breach that blockade.
 
ellal
Was Israels actions illegal?
yes

They are at war with Hamas.
Are they? or are they at war with the palestinians?.. or Gaza?....

They have a declared navel blockage in place.(you may not like that) That declaration complies with international law.
And here's the clincher...The blockade has no legitimacy under international law - if you know different then post it here! You won't because you can't...;)
As a result, they have the legal right to board, search or stop by any means any vessel attempting to breach that blockade.
Only if the blockade is legal - see above

I've noticed that when challanged as to the legality over maritime law various posters have disappeared and failed to back up the actions of the Israeli/pariah state!

Time will tell if a true investigation is actually held, but I won't hold my breath!
 
Who cares if its legal or illegal? Israel should just nuke Iran and then rid Gaza of palestinians forever.
 
7.7 BLOCKADE

7.7.1 General. Blockade is a belligerent operation to prevent vessels and/or aircraft of all nations, enemy as well as neutral, from entering or exiting specified ports, airfields, or coastal areas belonging to, occupied by, or under the control of an enemy nation. A belligerent's purpose in establishing a blockade is to deny the enemy the use of enemy and neutral vessels or aircraft to transport personnel and goods to or from enemy territory. While the belligerent right of visit and search is designed to interdict the flow of contraband goods, the belligerent right of blockade is intended to prevent vessels and aircraft, regardless of their cargo, from crossing an established and publicized cordon separating the enemy from international waters and/or airspace.

7.7.2 Traditional Rules. In order to be valid under the traditional rules of international law, a blockade must conform to the following criteria.

7.7.2.1 Establishment. A blockade must be established by the government of the belligerent nation. This is usually accomplished by a declaration of the belligerent government or by the commander of the blockading force acting on behalf of his government. The declaration should include, as a minimum, the date the blockade is to begin, its geographic limits, and the grace period granted neutral vessels and aircraft to leave the area to be blockaded.

7.7.2.2 Notification. It is customary for the belligerent nation establishing the blockade to notify all affected nations of its imposition. Because knowledge of the existence of a blockade is an essential element of the offenses of breach and attempted breach of blockade (see paragraph 7.7.4), neutral vessels and aircraft are always entitled to notification. The commander of the blockading forces will usually also notify local authorities in the blockaded area. The form of the notification is not material so long as it is effective.

7.7.2.3 Effectiveness. In order to be valid, a blockade must be effective. To be effective, it must be maintained by a surface, air, or subsurface force or other mechanism that is sufficient to render ingress or egress of the blockaded area dangerous. The requirement of effectiveness does not preclude temporary absence of the blockading force, if such absence is due to stress of weather or to some other reason connected with the blockade (e.g., pursuit of a blockade runner). Nor does effectiveness require that every possible avenue of approach to the blockaded area be covered.

7.7.2.4 Impartiality. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels and aircraft of all nations. Discrimination by the blockading belligerent in favor of or against the vessels and aircraft of particular nations, including those of its own or those of an allied nation, renders the blockade legally invalid.

7.7.2.5 Limitations. A blockade must not bar access to or departure from neutral ports and coasts. Neutral nations retain the right to engage in neutral commerce that does not involve trade or communications originating in or destined for the blockaded area.

7.7.3 Special Entry and Exit Authorization. Although neutral warships and military aircraft enjoy no positive right of access to blockaded areas, the belligerent imposing the blockade may authorize their entry and exit. Such special authorization may be made subject to such conditions as the blockading force considers to be necessary and expedient. Neutral vessels and aircraft in evident distress should be authorized entry into a blockaded area, and subsequently authorized to depart, under conditions prescribed by the officer in command of the blockading force or responsible for maintenance of the blockading instrumentality (e.g., mines). Similarly, neutral vessels and aircraft engaged in the carriage of qualifying relief supplies for the civilian population and the sick and wounded should be authorized to pass through the blockade cordon.

7.7.4 Breach and Attempted Breach of Blockade. Breach of blockade is the passage of a vessel or aircraft through a blockade without special entry or exit authorization from the blockading belligerent. Attempted breach of blockade occurs from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port or airfield with the intention of evading the blockade, and for vessels exiting the blockaded area, continues until the voyage is completed. Knowledge of the existence of the blockade is essential to the offenses of breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade. Knowledge may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification provided to affected governments. It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of interception bound for neutral territory, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area. There is a presumption of attempted breach of blockade where vessels or aircraft are bound for a neutral port or airfield serving as a point of transit to the blockaded area. Capture of such vessels is discussed in paragraph 7.10.

7.7.5 Contemporary Practice. The traditional rules of blockade, as set out above, are for the most part customary in nature, having derived their definitive form through the practice of maritime powers during the nineteenth century. The rules reflect a balance between the right of a belligerent possessing effective command of the sea to close enemy ports and coastlines to international commerce, and the right of neutral nations to carry out neutral commerce with the least possible interference from belligerent forces. The law of blockade is, therefore, premised on a system of controls designed to effect only a limited interference with neutral trade. This was traditionally accomplished by a relatively "close-in" cordon of surface warships stationed in the immediate vicinity of the blockaded area.

The increasing emphasis in modern warfare on seeking to isolate completely the enemy from outside assistance and resources by targeting enemy merchant vessels as well as warships, and on interdicting all neutral commerce with the enemy, is not furthered substantially by blockades established in strict conformity with the traditional rules. In World Wars I and II, belligerents of both sides resorted to methods which, although frequently referred to as measures of blockade, cannot be reconciled with the traditional concept of the close-in blockade. The so-called long-distance blockade of both World Wars departed materially from those traditional rules and were justified instead upon the belligerent right of reprisal against illegal acts of warfare on the part of the enemy. Moreover, recent developments in weapons systems and platforms, particularly submarines, supersonic aircraft, and cruise missiles, have rendered the in-shore blockade exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to maintain during anything other than a local or limited armed conflict.

Notwithstanding this trend in belligerent practices (during general war) away from the establishment of blockades that conform to the traditional rules, blockade continues to be a useful means to regulate the competing interests of belligerents and neutrals in more limited armed conflict. The experience of the United States during the Vietnam Conflict provides a case in point. The mining of Haiphong and other North Vietnamese ports, accomplished by the emplacement of mines, was undertaken in conformity with traditional criteria of establishment, notification, effectiveness, limitation, and impartiality, although at the time the mining took place the term "blockade" was not used.

Given that Israel is in armed conflict with Hamas (the elected voice of the Palestinian people) in the occupied territories, the blockade of Gaza appears to be lawful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top