I suggest you read today's statement by the International Committee of the Red Cross:
Why? I like objective and informed sources of information.
You are going to have to quote the part of International Law which allows Israel to block food, medicine and humanitarian aid.
There is no basis in law for that as you well know. Your question has no other purpose then to legitimize the law blockade, without fact.
First you have to prove that Israel continuously and have a stated policy of denying aid. Even the UN can't prove that.
There are instances where material that should not be stopped, is. That is an egregious error on Israel's part. Which is why, as has been stated and proven, time and time again, it is not a stated, recorded, nor written policy. As happens even in North America, border guards oft use poor judgment in dispensing their duties.
This of course is a far cry from the overt act of raiding aid storehouses, NGO's and then selling the materials on the black market for personal gain. As has been done by Hamas.
Sine you obviously still read my posts and ignore answering them directly. Instead preferring to post blind questions, obviously to me, in a very cowardice way. So you don't have to acknowledge anything you can't refute in my posts. I will hold no hopes that you answer these questions.
Do you have proof that it is a state policy, written, and publicly acknowledged by the State of Israel, to deny humanitarian aid to Palestine?
If you believe that theft of humanitarian aid is a war crime, how can you defend Hamas as an honest group, when they have provable been stealing humanitarian aid constantly?
I'm not debating Israel's right to board ships looking for military material, or their right to commandeer vessels attempting to deliver military material to Gaza. But if all they find is humanitarian aid, then they can't interfere. That means they can't divert the ship to an Israeli port and decide which goodies they will keep for themselves and what crap will go to Gaza.
Says who?I've cited treaties, conventions and accords, that dictate otherwise. You've cited on source, of which I have already proven, to be flawed. They even admit to "re-interpreting" international law.
The ship in the video was filmed in 2009, look at your calender and you will see that may 31st 2010 is not in 2009 and the ship was never part of the flotilla. The man let his name be used by the zionist monolith of evil and crap. I don't need more than that to make a call.
Agree, the video in which heavy weapons are found, is not of the Miva Marmara. But you still haven't explained how the video of the boarding of the Miva Marmara is a fake. Apart from just blanket claims without any description of what they are.
Furthermore, if you believe that the video of the heavy weapons are from a ship stopped in 2009. I thanky you greatly for confirming the evidence, and the legal justification of the blockade.
Like Ive said a thousand times, in our culture the law is purchased just like toilet paper. Have you ever heard a lawyer joke? No of course you haven't. Your experts aren't as good as mine.
White House Souse. Jun 14 09:50
Hoax: Video Showing Heavy Weapons Discovered on Mavi Marmara is a Fraud
Tags:
A video has been racing around the Internet — purportedly showing heavy weapons discovered behind bags of flour on the Mavi Marmara. The find would serve to justify the lethal raid on the flotilla to Gaza and some posters have asked why no uproar? The answer is because the video is a fraud — it shows a boat that was actually searched in 2009.
Like I said earlier, Israel has made no official claim using that video. In fact, the only mention of it, is from a poster at the blog you are trying to use as supporting evidence.
AnnaG,
The ICRC isn't just another legal opinion.
It isn't even a source of legal opinion. It is an aid group, whose philosophical condemnation of war has coloured its own admitted re-interpretation of international law.
They have a UN mandate as defined in the 1949 Geneva Conventions regarding humanitarian activities during armed conflicts. "Experts on int'l law" may have their opinions, but decisions or judgements by the ICRC are considered authorative as per international law and the ICRC's UN mandate.
What absolute garbage. I notice you haven't even tried t
I suggest you read the section of this ICRC document regarding the ICRC's identity.
I have, and nowhere is it stated and supported by convention, that they are a legal body, with the right to re-interpret international law. They actually make claim and clearly state that they themselves gave themselves that right. As I have already proven with links to their own pages, and documents. Just because you ignore it, doesn't make it any less real.
So, unless you can actually cite what convention, and what legal grounds you believe give them the legal right to re-interpret law, and present legal opinion. You're post is simply bullsh!t, as usual and should be posted along with your other one, in the fun and jokes section.
You notice I actually go beyond what I'm told eao, I actually read what you post and address it, unlike yourself, who prefers to hide and ignore the responsibility of answering directly. Making it all to easy to ignore and dismiss things that tear apart your position.
Pathetic really.
Again, here is ICRC's authoritive statement regarding Israel's interference of humanitarian aid bound for Gaza:
You can't get much clearer than that.
The fact that so many people remain confused about the legality of Israel's humanitarian aid blockade has little to do with interpretation of international law and everything to do with the tsunami of pro-Israeli propaganda flooding Western media.
Again, more garbage, unsupported and without merit. They only people confused about international law, are those that get their interpretations of it, from humanitarian aid groups, completely apposed to conflict and view it as illegal to begin with!
Quite.
I read your article, then I traced it back through another site that mangled it all the way back to its sources. You may want to do that too. That way you will begin to understand what spin looks like.
The originating article does not claim that 75 activists were linked to Al Quada. It clearly states that they were linked to Al Quada and other terror groups, including IHH.
Spin spin spin.