• 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

Crunch said:
More crap..... those ships had stated they were going to run a legal blockade. By international law that gave Israel the right to stop the ships and board them..... see the the san remo memorandum.
Click to expand...

Yet another refutation . . . without actually refuting the argument. :lol:
 
Crunch said:
That would be easy..... get the Palestinians to quit shooting at the Israeli people, that would be a great start.

Next step would be to quit trying to blow them up.
Click to expand...

Well if that is what Israel is interested in, it is going about it the wrong way. At the moment the best chance of earning a living in Gaza is working for Hamas. I recently read that where they used to fire them to, Sderot I think, used to be homes to a lot of their families before they had to leave. Things are not nearly as cut and dried as you want to imagine.

The blockade is only building up more and more terrorists for the future. There are adults there now who have never been out.

It is so not necessary for Israel's security to keep this city cut off from the rest of the world. Psychologically it is extremely damaging and the longer it goes on the more normal it seems and hence the more damage is done.
 
Degreez said:
Because Gaza's territory is still under effective Israeli control. Nothing can fly over Gaza without Israeli approval. No boat can come to Gaza's coast without Israeli approval. And no person or vehicle can enter Gaza without Israeli approval. Thus Israel still occupies Gaza without playing the part of the Occupying Power.
Click to expand...

The counter argument is that Gaza is "under seige" fron air, land, sea etc, but is not an occupied territory, and by extension the laws governing how occupying powers must act does not apply in this case in its entirety.

The High Court in Israel has actually ruled on this issue, stating,
"ince September 2005, Israel no longer has effective control over the events in the Gaza strip. The military government that had applied to that area was annulled in a government decision, and Israeli soldiers are not in the area on a permanent basis, nor are they managing affairs there. In such circumstances, the State of Israel does not have a general duty to look after the welfare of the residents of the strip or to maintain public order within the Gaza Strip pursuant to the entirety of the Law of Belligerent Occupation in International Law. Nor does Israel have effective capability, in its present status, to enforce order and manage civilian life in the Gaza Strip. In the circumstances which have been created, the main duties of the State of Israel relating to the residents of the Gaza Strip are derived from the situation of armed conflict that exists between it and the Hamas organization controlling the Gaza Strip; these duties also stem from the extent of the State of Israel's control over the border crossings between it and the Gaza Strip, as well as from the relations which has been created between Israel and the territory of the Gaza Strip after the years of Israeli military rule in the area, as a result of which the Gaza Strip has now become almost completely dependent upon supply of electricity by Israel."
Click to expand...
 
Degreez said:
Because Gaza's territory is still under effective Israeli control. Nothing can fly over Gaza without Israeli approval. No boat can come to Gaza's coast without Israeli approval. And no person or vehicle can enter Gaza without Israeli approval. Thus Israel still occupies Gaza without playing the part of the Occupying Power.
Click to expand...


You left out one little detail there.... Israel does not occupy Gaza, they just control access to it. Big difference in law.
 
NolaMan said:
The counter argument is that Gaza is "under seige" fron air, land, sea etc, but is not an occupied territory, and by extension the laws governing how occupying powers must act does not apply in this case in its entirety.

The High Court in Israel has actually ruled on this issue, stating,
Click to expand...

The UN considers Gaza still occupied. It is put quite well here
"They are re-invading occupied territory," Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi said on "CNN Sunday Morning." She added that Israel has "all the powers and none of the responsibilities of the occupying force."

Ambassador Reda Mansour, Israel's consul general to the Southeastern United States, decried "the same old story about 'occupation.'" He added, "We didn't have, until the last 48 hours, one soldier inside Gaza. We didn't have one settler there."

The United Nations still calls Gaza "occupied," although U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon last year balked at the question. U.S. government Web sites also describe Gaza as "occupied." Israel's supreme court ruled last year that after the disengagement, Israel "had no effective control over what occurred" inside Gaza, according to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Click to expand...

Is Gaza 'occupied' territory? - CNN.com
 
Redress said:
So what we have here is two sides who cannot agree on legality, on appropriateness of action and reaction. We have several injured people one one side, several dead on the other, which people of both side just see as counters in the continuing fight and not as the tragedy it is. No one is willing to give an inch or see the possibility that their side acted less than appropriately.

Just another day in the ME. Makes me sad.
Click to expand...

I agree, to a point..... what would you suggest when a people decide you have no right to exist and are doing everything in their power to make it so?
 
Crunch said:
You left out one little detail there.... Israel does not occupy Gaza, they just control access to it. Big difference in law.
Click to expand...

I think that is why by law it is occupied.
 
Based on what appears to have happened, I have a very hard time mustering up any sympathy for these people. The kind of person that gets involved in this **** and then tries to fight with soldiers does so with the express goal of provoking conflict so that they can make a huge deal out of it. They got exactly what they bargained for.
 
Degreez said:
You're the one who seems to have trouble grasping international law. Forcefully boarding any ship in international waters is piracy.
Click to expand...

So boarding go-fast boat in international waters is piracy? :roll:


forcefully boarding a humanitarian ship is even worse.
Click to expand...

That ship had intent to run their blockade. They were smugglers not a humanitarian ship.

Israel's defense is that the ship had intent to break its blockade around Gaza. There are many things wrong with this defense, because:
- the blockade is illegal.
Click to expand...

What's illegal about it?

Israel refuses to play the part of Occupying Power despite it's effective control on everything that goes in and out of Gaza.
Click to expand...

The provisions of the GC apply to occupied state territory. Which states territory is Israel occupying?

- the ship was not a merchant vessel, which is the only type of vessel that can be boarded if its intent is to break a legal blockade.
Click to expand...

No according to the San Remo Memorandum a humanitarian ship would fall into the category of merchant vessel which is defined as:

Definitions

(i) merchant vessel means a vessel, other than a warship, an auxiliary vessel, or a State vessel such as a customs or police vessel, that is engaged in commercial or private service;

Only vessels which are conducting humanitarian missions agreed upon by both conflicting parties are exempt.

Classes of Vessels Exempt From Attack
(c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:

(i) cartel vessels, e.g., vessels designated for and engaged in the transport of prisoners of war;
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea
 
Crunch said:
I agree, to a point..... what would you suggest when a people decide you have no right to exist and are doing everything in their power to make it so?
Click to expand...

My opinion is that there is no side I would call "the good guys" over there. When you look at the overall conflict, it's my opinion that both sides seem to have a preference for a continued conflict, not finding some peace.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Oh nice trump card Crunch... Don't actually refute what he says but call him a hater of Israel, even if they did something wrong... wow. What an argument.
Click to expand...

I, and many more besides me have proven time after time that what Israel did was fully within international law. He/she/it refuses to accept that and keeps dragging that crap that if they didn't sign on to said law they can't use it or enforce it. That is just plain bull**** and anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows it. Thanx showing your own ignorance of the conversation.... par for the course.
 
alexa said:
The UN considers Gaza still occupied. It is put quite well here


Is Gaza 'occupied' territory? - CNN.com
Click to expand...

Has the UNSC stated that Gaza is occupied? Because the UNGA is a joke and their sentiments do not have the force of law. Furthermore; whose territory are they occupying? Which state is claiming that Israel is occupying their territory?
 
Crunch said:
I agree, to a point..... what would you suggest when a people decide you have no right to exist and are doing everything in their power to make it so?
Click to expand...

Mark Thomsen says this was a direct response to the Likud Party saying in 1977
Unquestionably however, the Hamas document is a response to the Likud Party Platform of 1977 that reflected similar thoughts of many Israelis, particularly West Bank settlers, when it rejected any two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli crisis:
"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and
is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore Judea and Samaria will
not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan
there will only be Israeli sovereignty." D4
Click to expand...

http://www.christianzionism.org/Article/Thomsen01.pdf
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The point is you get the power to do certain things when you sign the document, which binds you to behaving in a certain manner.

If you don't sign the document, then your authority in international waters and that of the Somalian pirates is exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Israel is stealing ships and taking the crews hostage with the intention of ransoming them back? LINK?
 
Redress said:
So what we have here is two sides who cannot agree on legality, on appropriateness of action and reaction. We have several injured people one one side, several dead on the other, which people of both side just see as counters in the continuing fight and not as the tragedy it is. No one is willing to give an inch or see the possibility that their side acted less than appropriately.

Just another day in the ME. Makes me sad.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, for a little while, there is a lull in the violence...then everything returns to normal (snafu).
 
Redress said:
My opinion is that there is no side I would call "the good guys" over there. When you look at the overall conflict, it's my opinion that both sides seem to have a preference for a continued conflict, not finding some peace.
Click to expand...

(Nice avatar. Game's about to start..... ;) )


.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Yet another refutation . . . without actually refuting the argument. :lol:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Redress said:
My opinion is that there is no side I would call "the good guys" over there. When you look at the overall conflict, it's my opinion that both sides seem to have a preference for a continued conflict, not finding some peace.
Click to expand...

That certainly seems to be true for those ruling both. Very sad. Has to change.
 
Crunch said:
More crap..... those ships had stated they were going to run a legal blockade. By international law that gave Israel the right to stop the ships and board them..... see the the san remo memorandum.
Click to expand...

No, what you are spouting is pure crap.

First, the blockade is illegal. Second, Israel has a right to stop merchant vessels who are intent on breaking a legal blockade. They have no right to board a humanitarian ship in international waters. Go reread the San Remo memo. I already posted the articles relating to humanitarian vessels and refuted the one about breaking a blockade. You have some catching up to do.
 
alexa said:
The UN considers Gaza still occupied. It is put quite well here

Is Gaza 'occupied' territory? - CNN.com
Click to expand...

Unless the UNSC redescribes what is occuring as an occupation, the current definition stems from a 40 year old resolution that has no real impact on the situation today. The intent is clear as the UNSC has continually removed additional language of "occupation" from subsequent resolutions on the matter.
 
alexa said:
Well if that is what Israel is interested in, it is going about it the wrong way. At the moment the best chance of earning a living in Gaza is working for Hamas. I recently read that where they used to fire them to, Sderot I think, used to be homes to a lot of their families before they had to leave. Things are not nearly as cut and dried as you want to imagine.

The blockade is only building up more and more terrorists for the future. There are adults there now who have never been out.

It is so not necessary for Israel's security to keep this city cut off from the rest of the world. Psychologically it is extremely damaging and the longer it goes on the more normal it seems and hence the more damage is done.
Click to expand...

Do you know how many times Israel has given up territory for peace? Territory they won in war after being attacked by almost every Arab country in 1967. Has it worked? Maybe you just want they to cut their own throats? That would give them peace.

Your efforts to paint Israel as the aggressor in the Middle East shows your complete lack of knowledge of the history of the region.
 
Crunch said:
Do you know how many times Israel has given up territory for peace? Territory they won in war after being attacked by almost every Arab country in 1967. Has it worked? Maybe you just want they to cut their own throats? That would give them peace.

Your efforts to paint Israel as the aggressor in the Middle East shows your complete lack of knowledge of the history of the region.
Click to expand...
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.
 
NolaMan said:
The counter argument is that Gaza is "under seige" fron air, land, sea etc, but is not an occupied territory, and by extension the laws governing how occupying powers must act does not apply in this case in its entirety.

The High Court in Israel has actually ruled on this issue, stating,
Click to expand...

Yup.... the only responsibility Israel has is to protect their own citizens from the attacks that originate from there..... hence the blockade.

BTW..... Egypt is also blockading Gaza, wonder why?
 
NolaMan said:
Unless the UNSC redescribes what is occuring as an occupation, the current definition stems from a 40 year old resolution that has no real impact on the situation today. The intent is clear as the UNSC has continually removed additional language of "occupation" from subsequent resolutions on the matter.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Degreez said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom