• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

Seriously...?

Except one cannot exclude Clause 48:

48. Vessels listed in paragraph 47 are exempt from attack only if they:

(a) are innocently employed in their normal role;
(b) submit to identification and inspection when required...


The ship in question may not have been "innocently employed in their normal role" as there have been reports that weapons were found on board. We'll see if those reports are confirmed. In addition, the ship's crew engaged in violence in refusing to "submit to...inspection when required." Hence, it lost the protection set forth in Clause 47.

Incorrect. Israel has no authority to inspect a humanitarian vessel in international waters. If they were in Israeli territorial waters, then legally they had a right to forcefully board the ship. However, they boarded the humanitarian ship in international waters, well out of Israel's jurisdiction.
 
Israel is stealing ships and taking the crews hostage with the intention of ransoming them back? LINK?

I didn't say that, which you know damn well.

I said they have as much authority to do what they're doing as the Somali pirates have to do what they're doing.

Nice try with the strawman, though.
 
Well it may be technically difficult to describe because you never usually find a city isolated in the world without control of it's airspace, boundaries and even seaport. People have been calling it occupied for years. It may be a hazy one in law. It is certainly under siege.

Yea, I mean that is the whole legal debate really... is it "occupied" or "under siege." Depending on where you come down on the issue, that has a dramatic impact on how you interpret the legal obligations of the parties involved. At best, it remains open question.
 
No, this is more refusal on your part to accept international law that has been pointed out to you time after time. You guys are hopeless.

No, it's refusal on your part to admit that Israel can't invoke international law to justify its actions when it hasn't signed the treaty by which that law was established.
 
Incorrect. Israel has no authority to inspect a humanitarian vessel in international waters. If they were in Israeli territorial waters, then legally they had a right to forcefully board the ship. However, they boarded the humanitarian ship in international waters, well out of Israel's jurisdiction.

So you're telling me that if this scenario had played out identically, but 24 miles from Israel's coast, you and everyone else who's up in arms about this would have no problem with what happened?

Somehow I doubt that it's the distance from shore that is causing all the agitation.
 
Except one cannot exclude Clause 48:

48. Vessels listed in paragraph 47 are exempt from attack only if they:

(a) are innocently employed in their normal role;
(b) submit to identification and inspection when required...


The ship in question may not have been "innocently employed in their normal role" as there have been reports that weapons were found on board.
We'll see if those reports are confirmed.

Here is the problem Don. Who is being responsible for finding all this out? Israel obviously is one of the parties involved. Is there any way to have an unbiased investigation? I doubt it.


In addition, the ship's crew engaged in violence in refusing to "submit to...inspection when required." Hence, it lost the protection set forth in Clause 47.

This would of course depend on whether an unbiased investigation decided they had a need to submit to people descending on them out of helicopters.

You know a lot depends on what really did happen and I do not have a clue. However though it is becoming much less usual in the worLd now, resistance is something which imo has held the world to good many times. Even when not successful, it has led to change.
 
There is no such thing as acquiring territory from winning a war. I thought you actually knew a miniscule amount of international law, but I see I was clearly mistaken.

Try again.

Myth

"According to Security Council Resolution 242, Israel’s acquisition of territory through the 1967 war is ‘inadmissible.'"

Fact

On November 22, 1967, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 242, establishing the principles that were to guide the negotiations for an Arab-Israeli peace settlement. This resolution was a tortuously negotiated compromise between competing proposals.

The first point addressed by the resolution is the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” Some people take this to mean that Israel is required to withdraw from all the territories it captured. On the contrary, the reference clearly applies only to an offensive war. If not, the resolution would provide an incentive for aggression. If one country attacks another, and the defender repels the attack and acquires territory in the process, the former interpretation would require the defender to return all the land it took. Thus, aggressors would have little to lose because they would be insured against the main consequence of defeat.


Myth and Fact: Can Territory Be Acquired in War?
 
Well it may be technically difficult to describe because you never usually find a city isolated in the world without control of it's airspace, boundaries and even seaport. People have been calling it occupied for years. It may be a hazy one in law. It is certainly under siege.

And will be until they quit trying to kill Israelis.
 
Here is the problem Don. Who is being responsible for finding all this out? Israel obviously is one of the parties involved. Is there any way to have an unbiased investigation? I doubt it.

Unfortunately, a whole lot of international law is essentially the foundation by which:
  • Victorious nations can justify their actions
  • Vanquished nations can accuse the victors and justify their insurgencies
  • Bystanders can criticize either or both sides

There isn't a sovereign nation on the face of the earth that would willingly submit to an "unbiased" third party.
 
I didn't say that, which you know damn well.

I said they have as much authority to do what they're doing as the Somali pirates have to do what they're doing.

Nice try with the strawman, though.

You're the one with the strawman, I was just looking to see if it was.
 
Unfortunately, a whole lot of international law is essentially the foundation by which:
  • Victorious nations can justify their actions
  • Vanquished nations can accuse the victors and justify their insurgencies
  • Bystanders can criticize either or both sides

There isn't a sovereign nation on the face of the earth that would willingly submit to an "unbiased" third party.

Assuming there is such a thing as an "unbiased" third party.
 
Unfortunately, a whole lot of international law is essentially the foundation by which:
  • Victorious nations can justify their actions
  • Vanquished nations can accuse the victors and justify their insurgencies
  • Bystanders can criticize either or both sides

There isn't a sovereign nation on the face of the earth that would willingly submit to an "unbiased" third party.

I accept that. However it also means I cannot believe anything unless there is real proof. I think that will also be most of the world's view. (Bye the way I noticed that other thread about Israel having nuclear submarines off the coast of Iran. I hope this is not all a distraction. :shock:)
 
I accept that. However it also means I cannot believe anything unless there is real proof. I think that will also be most of the world's view.

Each side will believe the sources it chooses to believe, and all will remain as it was before.

(Bye the way I noticed that other thread about Israel having nuclear submarines off the coast of Iran. I hope this is not all a distraction. :shock:)

Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
 
Alexa,

The situation will need to be investigated. All evidence will need to be examined.

Under 48(b), all that would be required is for Israel to be able to demonstrate that the ship's crew resisted the inspection. Medical records relating to the soldiers' injuries should help provide sufficient evidence. The International Red Cross can potentially assist on that front. When the individuals responsible for the violence are prosecuted, as they should be, additional information could be revealed.

What was found on the ship could address 48(a).

But only one of those conditions need to be satisfied.

In the meantime, a measure of patience will be required. One cannot immediately know all the facts.
 
I really don't see much actually coming from any of this anger.

That is what people said over the passport thing .....and you are right, nothing happened. My hope is that it does manage to get some change to open Gaza. It's seaports could be opened with European or other supervision. There are very few rocket attacks so that is not what is keeping the blockade going. It is purely political and the longer it stays the more Hamasified Gaza becomes. They need to get out and start mixing and earning an ordinary living again.
 
So you're telling me that if this scenario had played out identically, but 24 miles from Israel's coast, you and everyone else who's up in arms about this would have no problem with what happened?

Somehow I doubt that it's the distance from shore that is causing all the agitation.

The true source of the agitation for these poeple is pretty obvious. Heaven forbid that it ever be named, though.
 
NolaMan then what is this about then, So Iseral can get away with anything? I think not with as many people, and states that are effect by this they are calling for an end to the blockaid.

A lot of people hate Israel regardless of what they do and would be more than willing to protest at any time. I think this will ultimately be a flash in the pan so to speak, and it will bring about nothing that actually changes anything.

And calling for an end to the blockade is not really "new" news. This gives them something to point to for awhile, but I doubt Israel actually caves on the issue, or if they do, it will be set right back up after the first rocket attack.

A whole lot of people protested against the Iraq War... didn't mean anything.
 
Last edited:
The true source of the agitation for these poeple is pretty obvious. Heaven forbid that it ever be named, though.

You're absolutely right.

Now we have proof: The Lost series finale wasn't just bad for the fans, it was bad for world peace too. :lol:
 
Incorrect. Israel has no authority to inspect a humanitarian vessel in international waters. If they were in Israeli territorial waters, then legally they had a right to forcefully board the ship. However, they boarded the humanitarian ship in international waters, well out of Israel's jurisdiction.

The standard applies to "neutral waters." Neutral waters are defined as "the internal waters, territorial sea, and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of neutral States." Was the flotilla in Lebanese or Egyptian waters at the time of the incident? There is no evidence that it was in the waters of any other state. Hence, the visit/inspection was lawful.
 
Back
Top Bottom