Page 105 of 147 FirstFirst ... 55595103104105106107115 ... LastLast
Results 1,041 to 1,050 of 1469

Thread: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

  1. #1041
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    What starving?

    I think Israel should deport all Palestinians from Gaza to the West Bank and raze it to the ground and build settlements.
    Unlike inspecting the flotilla, mass deportation/transfer of Gaza's population would be illegal under international law. Aside from the requirements of international law, it would not be practical for Israel to attempt to deport some 1.6 million people. Furthermore, such a move could destabilize Jordan, which is at peace with Israel.

  2. #1042
    Sage
    bhkad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    08-13-10 @ 01:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,745

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    My understanding is that Israel allows all sorts of aid materials to enter Gaza via land. Someone cited 100 trucks/day, though I'm not sure of the details on that.
    Michael Oren said it on PBS. He is the Israeli ambassador to the US.

    MICHAEL OREN: Well, certainly to provoke, not to provide humanitarian aid.

    Over the past several days, Israel has been engaged in intense diplomacy to try to convince the participants in the flotilla to transfer the humanitarian aid in their cargo holds to Israel. And Israel vowed to transfer that aid to Gaza. About 100 trucks of humanitarian aid, food and medicine go into Gaza every day. There's no shortage of food in Gaza. There's no shortage of immediate in Gaza. This would have been additional aid.

    And we would have been happy to transfer it on. But the purpose of this flotilla wasn't to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza. It was to make a political statement and to provoke Israel into blockading the flotilla from arriving to Gaza.

    The -- if they had wanted really to aid the people of Gaza, they would have given us the humanitarian aid.
    Israeli Ambassador: Soldiers Had 'No Choice But to Defend Themselves' | PBS NewsHour | May 31, 2010 | PBS

    OBL 11/24/02

  3. #1043
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Unlike inspecting the flotilla, mass deportation/transfer of Gaza's population would be illegal under international law. Aside from the requirements of international law, it would not be practical for Israel to attempt to deport some 1.6 million people. Furthermore, such a move could destabilize Jordan, which is at peace with Israel.
    Ahh, no easy answers then. It is either continue war or a peace settlement. Unfortunately, the leadership in Gaza wants no part of that. Too bad Palestine is split in two. My solution would have solved that problem.

  4. #1044

  5. #1045
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,216

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by bhkad View Post
    Michael Oren says that Gaza's ruling party, Hamas, is a hostile entity and under that interpretation the blockade and the flotilla boarding was legal. It's the law that made it legal for us to blockade and board ships bound for Germany in WWII.
    Incorrect. Go reread the additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions which prohibit collective measures that do not distinguish between civilian and military. The blockade is a collective measure on the inhabitants of Gaza, where it doesn't matter if you are civilian or Hamas, there is no distinction.

  6. #1046
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,216

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    This has been addressed in another thread. Read Art. III of the convention.
    Article 3

    1. Any person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and intentionally:

    (a) seizes or exercises control over a ship by force or threat thereof or any other form of intimidation; or

    (b) performs an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or

    (c) destroys a ship or causes damage to a ship or to its cargo which is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or

    (d) places or causes to be placed on a ship, by any means whatsoever, a device or substance which is likely to destroy that ship, or cause damage to that ship or its cargo which endangers or is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or

    (e) destroys or seriously damages maritime navigational facilities or seriously interferes with their operation, if any such act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of a ship; or

    (f) communicates information which he knows to be false, thereby endangering the safe navigation of a ship; or

    (g) injures or kills any person, in connection with the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offences set forth in subparagraphs (a) to (f).

    2. Any person also commits an offence if that person:

    (a) attempts to commit any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1; or

    (b) abets the commission of any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1 perpetrated by any person or is otherwise an accomplice of a person who commits such an offence; or

    (c) threatens, with or without a condition, as is provided for under national law, aimed at compelling a physical or juridical person to do or refrain from doing any act, to commit any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1, subparagraphs (b), (c) and (e), if that threat is likely to endanger the safe navigation of the ship in question.
    That is exactly what the Israeli commandos did, so you seem to be confused about the applicability of Article 3.

    And to say this Convention is inapplicable is laughable. This Convention will always apply to State signatories who conduct naval actions in the high seas.

  7. #1047
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 06:57 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,198

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Moderator's Warning:
    Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says HamasThis is a reminder to stay on topic. Obama had nothing to do with this topic.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  8. #1048
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    That is exactly what the Israeli commandos did, so you seem to be confused about the applicability of Article 3.
    Reread what you just posted.

    1. Any person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and intentionally:

    (a) seizes or exercises control over a ship by force or threat thereof or any other form of intimidation; or
    (a) is a subpart of heading 1. That means that the language in heading 1. applies to all following letters. The only way that (a) applies is if the conditions in 1. are met. Since 1. requires "unlawful" action, the only way that this convention applies is if illegality is proved in some other fashion.

    It's a Convention designed to provide a remedy, not to create new crimes. It's relatively common.

    And to say this Convention is inapplicable is laughable. This Convention will always apply to State signatories who conduct naval actions in the high seas.
    It's certainly applicable in situations where its conditions are met. This is not one.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #1049
    Sage
    bhkad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    08-13-10 @ 01:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,745

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    Incorrect. Go reread the additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions which prohibit collective measures that do not distinguish between civilian and military. The blockade is a collective measure on the inhabitants of Gaza, where it doesn't matter if you are civilian or Hamas, there is no distinction.
    Well, it remains to be seen which law and interpretation prevails in this matter. Obviously we disagree.

    OBL 11/24/02

  10. #1050
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,216

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Reread what you just posted.

    (a) is a subpart of heading 1. That means that the language in heading 1. applies to all following letters. The only way that (a) applies is if the conditions in 1. are met. Since 1. requires "unlawful" action, the only way that this convention applies is if illegality is proved in some other fashion.

    It's a Convention designed to provide a remedy, not to create new crimes. It's relatively common.

    It's certainly applicable in situations where its conditions are met. This is not one.
    It became unlawful for Israel to board the ship when it did not contact the Turkish government requesting permission to board while providing credible to make that request happen. The boats were flying the flag of Turkey. Article 14 and Article 6 state:
    Article 14

    Any State Party having reason to believe that an offence set forth in article 3 will be committed shall, in accordance with its national law, furnish as promptly as possible any relevant information in its possession to those States which it believes would be the States having established jurisdiction in accordance with article 6.
    Article 6

    1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 3 when the offence is committed:

    (a) against or on board a ship flying the flag of the State at the time the offence is committed; or
    If the offence is that the aid flotilla intended to break an illegal blockade, then they must notify the Turkish government of that offence and request permission to board.

    Again, there is absolutely nothing in international law that stipulates a States' jurisdiction may extend to international waters. don believes the absence of such a law provides the clause to commit such an action. That is not how law works.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •