Turkey to challenge Israel’s blockade of Gaza in international court

[CDNBear]

And what is causing it isn't some innate hatred of Jews.

It's a big part.

Both sides have idiots in charge with their own agenda.

Yep.

 

[lone wolf]

Yeah but if they don't eliminate the reasons that's causing that aggression towards Israel in the first place they aren't interested in peace.
And what is causing it isn't some innate hatred of Jews.
Both sides have idiots in charge with their own agenda.

Why aren't you in Greece setting authorities straight there?

 

[CDNBear]

Yup they do, did any of the ships in that flotilla have weapons shipments? Or did Israel only find humanitarian aid?

Humanitarian aid and a bunch of idiots looking to be martyrs.

But that doesn't change the fact that Israel is sill justified and within the law.

 

[gerryh]

Humanitarian aid and a bunch of idiots looking to be martyrs.

But that doesn't change the fact that Israel is sill justified and within the law.

They're justified to stop and search, not turn back. Unless of course you can show me on the list of blockaded contraband, that Israel has made, showing that humanitarian aid is also blockaded.

 

[Goober]

They're justified to stop and search, not turn back. Unless of course you can show me on the list of blockaded contraband, that Israel has made, showing that humanitarian aid is also blockaded.

They can divert to an Israeli port to have the ship inspected - That is legal - pretty hard to inspect a ship that is loaded with cargo.

 

[CDNBear]

They're justified to stop and search, not turn back. Unless of course you can show me on the list of blockaded contraband, that Israel has made, showing that humanitarian aid is also blockaded.

1, They did not turn them back.
2, Gaza does not have a deep sea port, that could have accepted the ships in the flotilla.
3, The aid shipment was taken to the border, at Israeli expense.
4, Hamas turned them away.
5, What Goober said.

 

[gerryh]

They can divert to an Israeli port to have the ship inspected - That is legal - pretty hard to inspect a ship that is loaded with cargo.

and what exactly did Israel do?

1, They did not turn them back.
2, Gaza does not have a deep sea port, that could have accepted the ships in the flotilla.
3, The aid shipment was taken to the border, at Israeli expense.
4, Hamas turned them away.
5, What Goober said.

Do you or Goober have a link?

 

[CDNBear]

and what exactly did Israel do?

Apart from board the ships, and get attacked. I answered that question.

Do you or Goober have a link?

Look up the flotilla thread.

 

[Goober]

and what exactly did Israel do?



Do you or Goober have a link?

Check out your own links- Prove me wrong - the Israeli's can legally divert the ship to a friendly - in this case Israel port for inspection.

 

[gerryh]

Check out your own links- Prove me wrong - the Israeli's can legally divert the ship to a friendly - in this case Israel port for inspection.

Didn't say they couldn't. Just asked for a link from you to prove your contentions as to what it was they did do. You know, the same thing that you, Bear, Das, and I have asked abtfet for. But, I guess I'm done here as I am not about to wade through former threads to answer a simple question. Have fun guys.

 

[CDNBear]

Didn't say they couldn't. Just asked for a link from you to prove your contentions as to what it was they did do. You know, the same thing that you, Bear, Das, and I have asked abtfet for. But, I guess I'm done here as I am not about to wade through former threads to answer a simple question. Have fun guys.

Bye. Since it may be a simple question, it would require me to go searching for links.

Which is a waste of time, since we have a thread that has them all in it.

Ask DaS, he's really good at intel.

 

[Goober]

Didn't say they couldn't. Just asked for a link from you to prove your contentions as to what it was they did do. You know, the same thing that you, Bear, Das, and I have asked abtfet for. But, I guess I'm done here as I am not about to wade through former threads to answer a simple question. Have fun guys.

We will -

 

[DaSleeper]

Seems like the anti blockade raise questions..... but do not disagree that it was legal...

Jerusalem - A United Nations report on a May 2010 Israeli raid on a flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip 'confirms the legality' of Israel's naval blockade of the salient, a senior Israeli government official said Friday.

The report also confirms the lawfulness of Israel's enforcement of the sea siege, the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said.

The 105-page report, which was leaked to the New York Times on Thursday, was to be formally presented to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon later on Friday.

It says that Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip was 'legal,' since Israel faces 'a security threat from violent groups in Gaza,' although Israeli naval commandos used 'excessive and unreasonable' force in taking over the lead ship in the flotilla, the Mavi Maramra.

At the same time, the soldiers faced 'organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers' on board the Maramra, the report notes.

Eight Turkish nationals and one Turkish-American citizen were killed in the Israeli take-over. The report says the loss of life was 'unacceptable.'

Turkey warned Thursday that it would take 'drastic' diplomatic steps - including a possible downgrading of diplomatic and economic ties - if it did not receive an apology from Israel.

Israel has said it will not apologise.

Israel says UN report confirms legality of naval blockade - Monsters and Critics

Dr Douglas Guilfoyle


We do not yet know all the facts about what happened aboard the Marvi Marmara. We do know that Israel boarded it to enforce its blockade of Gaza.

International law tells us that states may create and enforce blockades during an armed conflict, but it also tells us that those blockades must meet humanitarian standards to be lawful.

The underlying legal question is whether or not Israel’s blockade of Gaza is lawfully established. The final assessment of whether Israel’s actions were lawful or not could well depend on the answer.

In times of peace, a vessel on the high seas may be stopped only either with the permission of its flag state, or on suspicion of international offences such as piracy and slave trading.


During an armed conflict, however, a belligerent state is entitled to blockade enemy ports as a measure of economic warfare.

Historically, such a blockade had to be conducted close to shore. In modern law, however, a blockade may be enforced against neutral vessels on the high seas, where the events on the Marvi Marmara took place.

A belligerent may stop, inspect and divert any vessel it suspects of intending to breach its blockade, which is what Israel says it intended to do.

While a merchant vessel has a right to freedom of navigation on the high seas, it can be intercepted legally when its express intention is to breach a blockade.

Gaza fleet raid raises questions over legality of Israel’s blockade - Times Online

 

[earth_as_one]

Israel has the same right as any country to wage war. That includes imposing a military blockade. Israel can legally block arms and probably construction material. Israel cannot legally block food and medical aid.

The ships running the blockade were not moving weapons. They were moving food and medical aid. Israel has a right to inspect all ships entering their waters, which include Gaza, but if they aren't smuggling arms, Israel has to allow them to deliver the humanitarian aid unimpeded.

Unfortunately Israel does illegally block food and medical aid from entering Gaza and as a result humanitarian aid organizations can justify attempting to run Israel's illegal humanitarian aid blockade in order to carry out their legal humanitarian aid activities.

Regarding the Turkish flotilla, Israel has the right to board the ships and look for arms or other things they can legally block. They can even use force to do so. Israel can not use excessive and unreasonable force to impose its blockade. The recent UN report condemned Israel for using excessive and unreasonable force.

Israel won't apologize for using excessive and unreasonable force. I doubt Israel's sincerity regarding their expression of regret over killing people attempting to legally deliver humanitarian aid to the people suffering under Israel's illegal humanitarian aid blockade. I doubt the Turkish government or the friends and family of the the people the IDF gunned down in cold blood believe Israel regrets killing these people. Does anyone here believe Israel regrets killing these people?

 

[DaSleeper]

Maybe they will not apologize because they did not use "unreasonable force" and only when they were attacked viciously by people who were only there to put on show and set them up did they use force as has been proven many times before...

 

[CDNBear]

Israel has the same right as any country to wage war. That includes imposing a military blockade. Israel can legally block arms and probably construction material. Israel cannot legally block food and medical aid. The ships running the blockade were not moving weapons. They were moving food and medical aid. Israel has a right to inspect the ships, but if they aren't smuggling arms, Israel has to allow them to deliver the aid unimpeded. If Israel didn't illegally block food and medical aid, the ships would not be justified in attempting to run the blockade. Since Israel does illegally block food and medical aid, humanitarian aid organizations can justify attempting to run the blockade in order to carry out their legal activities.

Israel doesn't block food or medical aid.

Regarding the Turkish flotilla, Israel has the right to board the ships and look for arms or other things they can legally block. They can even use force to do so. Israel can not use excessive and unreasonable force to impose its blockade. The recent UN report condemned Israel for using excessive and unreasonable force.

An opinion, reached by a proven biased commission.

Israel won't apologize for using excessive and unreasonable force. I doubt Israel's sincerity regarding their expression of regret over killing people attempting to legally deliver humanitarian aid to the people suffering under Israel's illegal humanitarian aid blockade. I doubt the Turkish government or the friends and family of the the people the IDF gunned down in cold blood believe Israel regrets killing these people.

"In cold blood" would indicate without just cause, as i have already shown you.

Why do you continue to use it, if you aren't trying to demonize Israel?

Does anyone here believe Israel regrets killing these people?

It's a large country, I'm not prone to answer for a few million people I don't know.

I know, I for one wouldn't lose any sleep over it. It was lawful and just.

 

[earth_as_one]

Maybe they will not apologize because they did not use "unreasonable force" and only when they were attacked viciously by people who were only there to put on show and set them up did they use force as has been proven many times before...

Too bad you didn't contact the authors of the UN report. I heard they were looking for expert opinions of random people on the internet like yourself. If you would have contacted them, I'm sure the report would have been completely different.

 

[DaSleeper]

Too bad you didn't contact the authors of the UN report. I heard they were looking for expert opinions of random people on the internet like yourself. If you would have contacted them, I'm sure the report would have been completely different.

And what makes you more of an expert than me...

And are you saying that the people on that ship were not there for the sole purpose of baiting the IDF?

 

[earth_as_one]

(cold-blooded) cold: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood"; "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction"

And what makes you more of an expert than me..

I never determined that Israel used excessive and unreasonable force. A committee of experts chosen by the UN made that determination..

And are you saying that the people on that ship were not there for the sole purpose of baiting the IDF?

Oh that's completely different then. I guess Israel really has the right to board ships in international waters and shoot people. What was that committee thinking...

 

[CDNBear]

(cold-blooded) cold: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood"; "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction"

Ya, I already pointed out your select editing of the definition.

And your failure to post accreditation.

At any rate, carry on demonizing Israel.

Oh that's completely different then. I guess Israel really has the right to board ships in international waters and shoot people.

It does.

What was that committee thinking...

They were thinking of demonizing Israel, just like you.