Flotilla raid 'regrettable' but legal, Israeli commission finds - Polidicks

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27631048]Except the soldiers informed the ship multiple times that they were going to board them for a routine check-up and that if they don't resist none of them would be harmed, that was true for the first 5 ships who were boarded, it could have been for the 6th, but the crew resisted the soldiers forcefully. Also, the international waters part is bullshit. According to the law, it doesn't matter if it's in international waters or not, it could even be in the port from where the ship is leaving, what matters is the blockade and the way the power that is enforcing the blockade takes control of the ship.[/QUOTE] Under the laws of armed conflict, a blockade is the prohibition of all commerce with a defined enemy coastline. A belligerent who has established a lawful blockade is entitled to enforce that blockade on the high seas.41 A blockade must satisfy a number of legal requirements, including: notification, effective and impartial enforcement and proportionality.42 In particular a blockade is illegal if......... So as we read above, Israel has a right to enforce that blockade on high seas [B]IF[/B] the blockade is legal. However, 42 In particular a blockade is illegal if: (a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or (b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.43 [release]52. A blockade may not continue to be enforced where it inflicts disproportionate damage on the civilian population. The usual meaning of “damage to the civilian population” in the law of armed conflict refers to deaths, injuries and property damage. Here the damage may be thought of as the destruction of the civilian economy and prevention of reconstruction further to damage. One might also note, insofar as many in Gaza face a shortage of food or the means to buy it, that the ordinary meaning of “starvation” under the law of armed conflict is simply to cause hunger.44 53. In evaluating the evidence submitted to the Mission, including by OCHA oPt, confirming the severe humanitarian situation in Gaza, the destruction of the economy and the prevention of reconstruction (as detailed above), the Mission is satisfied that the blockade was inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza strip and that as such the[B] interception[/B][B] could not be justified and[/B] [B]therefore has to be considered illegal. [/B] 54. Moreover, the Mission emphasizes that according to article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, collective punishment of civilians under occupation is prohibited. “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.” The Mission considers that one of the principal motives behind the imposition of the blockade was a desire to punish the people of the Gaza Strip for having elected Hamas. The combination of this motive and the effect of the restrictions on the Gaza Strip leave no doubt that Israel’s actions and policies amount to collective punishment as defined by international law. In this connection, the Mission supports the findings of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk,45 the report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict46 and most recently the ICRC47 that the blockade amounts to collective punishment in violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.[/release] [release]The Mission considers that the enforcement of an illegal blockade does not only constitute a violation of the laws of war, but also a violation of the laws of neutrality giving rise to State responsibility.[/release] [URL]http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf[/URL] [editline]24th January 2011[/editline] Game over

[QUOTE=Lambeth;27631134]Nobody recognizes the blockade as legal though. [editline]24th January 2011[/editline] Even the US wants it outta there[/QUOTE] A blockade doesn't have to be recognized to be legal, if anything, other nations have to recognize it as illegal in order for it to be illegal, not the other way around.

(Lines 55-60 was skipped to shorten it down)

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27631212]A blockade doesn't have to be recognized to be legal, if anything, other nations have to recognize it as illegal in order for it to be illegal, not the other way around.[/QUOTE] Plenty countries think it's illegal.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27631212]A blockade doesn't have to be recognized to be legal, if anything, other nations have to recognize it as illegal in order for it to be illegal, not the other way around.[/QUOTE] Yes. It. Does. That's the whole reason there is so much shit about this.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;27631198]Under the laws of armed conflict, a blockade is the prohibition of all commerce with a defined enemy coastline. A belligerent who has established a lawful blockade is entitled to enforce that blockade on the high seas.41 A blockade must satisfy a number of legal requirements, including: notification, effective and impartial enforcement and proportionality.42 In particular a blockade is illegal if......... So as we read above, Israel has a right to enforce that blockade on high seas [B]IF[/B] the blockade is legal. However, 42 In particular a blockade is illegal if: (a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or (b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.43 [release]52. A blockade may not continue to be enforced where it inflicts disproportionate damage on the civilian population. The usual meaning of “damage to the civilian population” in the law of armed conflict refers to deaths, injuries and property damage. Here the damage may be thought of as the destruction of the civilian economy and prevention of reconstruction further to damage. One might also note, insofar as many in Gaza face a shortage of food or the means to buy it, that the ordinary meaning of “starvation” under the law of armed conflict is simply to cause hunger.44 53. In evaluating the evidence submitted to the Mission, including by OCHA oPt, confirming the severe humanitarian situation in Gaza, the destruction of the economy and the prevention of reconstruction (as detailed above), the Mission is satisfied that the blockade was inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza strip and that as such the interception could not be justified and [B]therefore has to be considered illegal. [/B] 54. Moreover, the Mission emphasizes that according to article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, collective punishment of civilians under occupation is prohibited. “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.” The Mission considers that one of the principal motives behind the imposition of the blockade was a desire to punish the people of the Gaza Strip for having elected Hamas. The combination of this motive and the effect of the restrictions on the Gaza Strip leave no doubt that Israel’s actions and policies amount to collective punishment as defined by international law. In this connection, the Mission supports the findings of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk,45 the report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict46 and most recently the ICRC47 that the blockade amounts to collective punishment in violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.[/release] [release]The Mission considers that the enforcement of an illegal blockade does not only constitute a violation of the laws of war, but also a violation of the laws of neutrality giving rise to State responsibility.[/release] [URL]http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf[/URL] [editline]24th January 2011[/editline] Game over[/QUOTE] Except that's just an independent UN inquiry, it doesn't represent the whole UN, there is a different inquiry ordered by Ban Ki-Moon that has yet to make its decision. [editline]24th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=MrEndangered;27631262]Yes. It. Does. That's the whole reason there is so much shit about this.[/QUOTE] So whenever a country starts a blockade on another, it must wait for approval by all other countries? Don't think so mate. The same logic applies to war, I don't have to ask other countries if they think it's OK for me to declare war on another, I just do it, and if other countries think it's illegal, they claim so, and then the UN decides what to do.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27631265]Except that's just an independent UN inquiry, it doesn't represent the whole UN, there is a different inquiry ordered by Ban Ki-Moon that has yet to make its decision.[/QUOTE] Even if it was just an "independent" U.N. inquiry, it wouldn't matter. It's not as if they just declared it to be illegal without base. They cited the exact law and elaborated why it was illegal, I cut it down, so if you further proof read the full thing.

Oh look Another one of THESE threads Why is this in the NEWS section, again?

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27631265]So whenever a country starts a blockade on another, it must wait for approval by all other countries? Don't think so mate. The same logic applies to war, I don't have to ask other countries if they think it's OK for me to declare war on another, I just do it, and if other countries think it's illegal, they claim so, and then the UN decides what to do.[/QUOTE] Incomparable. You obviously can't "unrecognize" a war, but you can have the right to not recognize a blockade as legal.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27631265]So whenever a country starts a blockade on another, it must wait for approval by all other countries? Don't think so mate. The same logic applies to war, I don't have to ask other countries if they think it's OK for me to declare war on another, I just do it, and if other countries think it's illegal, they claim so, and then the UN decides what to do.[/QUOTE] If Germany said to France, during a war, that 'we're going to blockade your shit' and went into FRENCH TERRITORIAL WATERS, and blocked military and economic vessels, then that would be legal, they don't need to ask the UN's permission exactly. Israel boarded a humanitarian ship, that had no firearms (Which Israel proved themselves) in INTERNATIONAL WATERS. See the problem?

[QUOTE=Starpluck;27631294]Even if it was just an "independent" U.N. inquiry, it wouldn't matter. It's not as if they just declared it to be illegal without base. They cited the exact law and elaborated why it was illegal, I cut it down, so if you further proof read the full thing.[/QUOTE] "Article 51 Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security." But according to this law, Israel has the right of self-defense, as long as Hamas keeps firing rockets into Israel, at least until the security council decides on a course of action. That's why I said that we have to wait for the real UN inquiry from the security council, and the SC's decision on the matter. Until then, it doesn't matter even if all the countries in the world say that it's illegal. [editline]24th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=MrEndangered;27631350]If Germany said to France, during a war, that 'we're going to blockade your shit' and went into FRENCH TERRITORIAL WATERS, and blocked military and economic vessels, then that would be legal, they don't need to ask the UN's permission exactly. Israel boarded a humanitarian ship, that had no firearms (Which Israel proved themselves) in INTERNATIONAL WATERS. See the problem?[/QUOTE] Yeah but as a blockader Israel has the right to check all ships for firearms. How could Israel know it didn't have firearms if it didn't board it? See the problem?

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27631377]"Article 51 Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security." But according to this law, Israel has the right of self-defense, as long as Hamas keeps firing rockets into Israel, at least until the security council decides on a course of action. That's why I said that we have to wait for the real UN inquiry from the security council, and the SC's decision on the matter. Until then, it doesn't matter even if all the countries in the world say that it's illegal.[/QUOTE] 'Self-defense' cannot be attributed to everything. An illegal blockade is [B]not[/B] self-defense, a legal blockade may be seen as a form.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;27631324]Incomparable. You obviously can't "unrecognize" a war, but you can have the right to not recognize a blockade as legal.[/QUOTE] But there's a huge difference between "not recognizing a blockade as legal" and "recognizing it as illegal". It's not semantics, there's a big difference between the two. One is neutral, the other is "against" the blockade. [editline]24th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Starpluck;27631415]'Self-defense' cannot be attributed to everything. An illegal blockade is [B]not[/B] self-defense, a legal blockade may be seen as a form.[/QUOTE] The fact that Israel is acting in self-defense against rocket attacks make the blockade legal.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27631419]But there's a huge difference between "not recognizing a blockade as legal" and "recognizing it as illegal". It's not semantics, there's a big difference between the two. One is neutral, the other is "against" the blockade.[/QUOTE] I know that

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27631419]But there's a huge difference between "not recognizing a blockade as legal" and "recognizing it as illegal". It's not semantics, there's a big difference between the two. One is neutral, the other is "against" the blockade.[/QUOTE] You're kinda splitting hairs. I meant for it to be read as recognizing it as illegal.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27631377]Yeah but as a blockader Israel has the right to check all ships for firearms. How could Israel know it didn't have firearms if it didn't board it? See the problem?[/QUOTE] International. Waters. They cannot board ships in: [b]International. Waters.[/b] Not ISRAELI waters. International waters. See the problem?

[QUOTE=Lambeth;27631442]You're kinda splitting hairs. I meant for it to be read as recognizing it as illegal.[/QUOTE] Don't write what you don't mean next time.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27631419]The fact that Israel is acting in self-defense against rocket attacks make the blockade legal.[/QUOTE] I don't think you're getting the general idea correctly. Yes, as a nation you are permitted to place a blockade against a nation as a measure of self-defense, if however, the blockade is illegal, then 'self-defense' cannot be an argument or used as an excuse to keep the illegal blockade in place. You can't do whatever you want in the name of self-defense.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27631157]Is there any proof that the soldiers shot on the ship before boarding? [/QUOTE] There's an hour long video where you clearly see them shooting and there's this: Link: [URL="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf"]http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodie...RC.15.21_en.pdf[/URL] [quote]57. Therefore the Mission is satisfied not only that the flotilla presented no imminent threat but that the interception was motivated by concerns about the possible propaganda victory that might be claimed by the organizers of the flotilla. 58. Given the evidence at the Turkel Committee, it is clear that there was no reasonable suspicion that the Flotilla posed any military risk of itself. As a result, no case could be made to intercept the vessels in the exercise of belligerent rights or Article 51 self-defence. Thus, no case can be made for the legality of the interception and the Mission therefore finds that the interception was illegal. 76. The Free Gaza Movement, a human rights organization registered as a charity in Cyprus, organized five successful boat voyages to Gaza between August 2008 and December 2008 using on each occasion one or two small boats. The self-declared purpose of the voyages was to break the blockade on Gaza. The boats were not intercepted by the Israeli authorities at the time, although some threatening messages were received by the organizers from the Israeli authorities. A sixth mission in December 2008 was obliged to divert to Lebanon after the boat was rammed and severely damaged by the Israeli Navy and a seventh mission in January 2009 was aborted after fears it too would be rammed. 88. There was stringent security surrounding the Mavi Mamara in the port of Antalya and all items taken on board were checked. Passengers and their luggage were subjected to security checks similar to those found in airports before boarding, including body searches The passengers who were transferred from the Challenger 1 onto the Mavi Marmara on the ocean were subjected to the same security checks. 89. Similar meticulous security checks were carried out on passengers onboard the Eleftheri Mesogios at the port in Greece. The Svendoni was primarily carrying passengers but also had on board a few medical items, including an ultra-sound machine, which had been donated. The boat’s captain personally checked the machine and the boat to confirm that there were no weapons or similar items on board. Witnesses also said that the cargo onboard the Rachel Corrie was checked by three independent authorities and sealed before it left Ireland. The seals remained intact when the ship was boarded by the Israelis. 100. Following radio communication with the Israeli Navy and the sightings of the Israeli vessels, it became apparent that a boarding of the ship was an imminent reality. Passengers were instructed to put on their life jackets. Although there does not seem to have been a coordinated plan involving all passengers, some individuals grouped together with the intention to defend the ship. There is little evidence of any unified command to coordinate the defence of the ship. 101. During the night of 30 to 31 May, some passengers took electric tools from the ship’s workshop, which was not kept locked and sawed sections of railings into lengths of approximately one and a half metres, apparently for use as weapons. Lengths of metal chains from between the railings were also removed. When the ship’s crew discovered this, the tools were confiscated and locked in the radio room on the bridge. A number of the passengers were also provided with gas masks to counter the effects of tear gas. However, the Mission notes that the ship’s standard fire-fighting equipment would have included breathing apparatus. Furthermore, the fact that some passengers engaged in last minute efforts to fashion rudimentary weapons shortly prior to the interception confirms the findings of the Mission that no weapons were brought on board the ship. 109. In response, the captains of the various vessels stated that their destination was Gaza and the purpose was to deliver humanitarian aid. They also asserted that the Israeli forces did not have the right to order the vessels to change course and that the blockade referred to was illegal. A representative of the Free Gaza Movement spoke to the Israelis on behalf of the whole flotilla, reiterating that the passengers were unarmed civilians delivering humanitarian aid and that none of the ships that should be considered as any form of threat to Israel. At no stage was a request made by the Israeli Navy for the cargo to be inspected. Contacts with the Israeli Navy continued until around 0200 hours when communication equipment was jammed by the Israeli forces, cutting them off to all external communications. However, the vessels in the flotilla were able to maintain contact with one another via handheld two-way radios. 114. Just minutes after soldiers from the zodiac boats had made initial unsuccessful attempts to board, the first helicopter approached the ship at approximately 0430 hours, hovering above the top deck. At this point between 10 and 20 passengers were located in the central area of the top deck, although this number increased as other passengers learned of events on the top deck. The Israeli forces used smoke and stun grenades in an attempt to clear an area for the landing of soldiers. The first rope that was let down from the helicopter was taken by passengers and tied it to a part of the top deck and thereby rendered ineffective for the purpose of soldiers’ descent. A second rope was then let down from the helicopter and the first group of soldiers descended. The Mission does not find it plausible that soldiers were holding their weapons and firing as they descended on the rope. However, it has concluded that live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers. 116. A number of the passengers on the top deck fought with the soldiers using their fists, sticks, metal rods and knives.69 At least one of the soldiers was stabbed with a knife or other sharp object. Witnesses informed the Mission that their objective was to subdue and disarm the soldiers so that they could not harm anyone. The Mission is satisfied on the evidence that at least two passengers on the bridge deck also used handheld catapults to propel small projectiles at the helicopters. The Mission has found no evidence to suggest that any of the passengers used firearms or that any firearms were taken on board the ship. Despite requests, the Mission has not received any medical records or other substantiated information from the Israeli authorities regarding any firearm injuries sustained by soldiers participating in the raid. Doctors examined the three soldiers taken below decks and no firearm injuries were noted. Further, the Mission finds that the Israeli accounts so inconsistent and contradictory with regard to evidence of alleged firearms injuries to Israeli soldiers that it has to reject it. 118. Israeli soldiers continued shooting at passengers who had already been wounded, with live ammunition, soft baton charges (beanbags) and plastic bullets. Forensic analysis demonstrates that two of the passengers killed on the top deck received wounds compatible with being shot at close range while lying on the ground: Furkan Doðan received a bullet in the face and Ýbrahim Bilgen received a fatal wound from a soft baton round (beanbag) fired at such close proximity to his head that parts such as wadding penetrated his skull entered his brain. Furthermore, some of the wounded were subjected to further violence including being hit with the butt of a weapon, being kicked in the head, chest and back and being verbally abused. A number of the wounded passengers were handcuffed and then left unattended for some time before being dragged to the front of the deck by their arms or legs. [/quote] Again, it's piracy. Plain and simple. International Law states very clearly this is illegal.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;27630128]Saw this thread. Opened it. Knew what to expect. It was very legal. You don't just run a military blockade and expect nothing to happen - do you think the US wouldn't do anything if they blockaded Cuba and a bunch of hostile "aid" worker passengers (who could very well be "something" else as far as the military is concerned) on a boat or two decided they'd just sail right through and disregard everyone? Technically speaking, it would've been legal to just sink all of the boats trying to run the blockade. Enough of the Israel hate. You may not "like" what they did. It may have been "wrong" to some holier-than-Israel do-gooders on this forum. The fact remains, though, that trying to run a military blockade and then violently resisting a routine and sensible weapons search is not a great way to avoid trouble and enter a contested area peacefully.[/QUOTE] Wow you are retarded. Not a single person on any of the blockade-breaking vessels had a firearm. There were journalists and authors and medical people and shit

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;27631538]Wow you are retarded. Not a single person on any of the blockade-breaking vessels had a firearm. There were journalists and authors and medical people and shit[/QUOTE] They even proved it themselves by providing images of 'illegal' good they seized. Such as work tools and cooking knives.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27631419]But there's a huge difference between "not recognizing a blockade as legal" and "recognizing it as illegal". It's not semantics, there's a big difference between the two. One is neutral, the other is "against" the blockade.[/quote] Not exactly. If international law doesn't regonise you, you think it's justified to go ahead and do it? Just because they don't OUTRIGHT go out and say it's illegal, it's somewho perfectly fine? [quote]The fact that Israel is acting in self-defense against rocket attacks make the blockade legal.[/QUOTE] That was the exact logic used by the germans in the Warsaw ghetto uprising.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;27631449]International. Waters. They cannot board ships in: [b]International. Waters.[/b] Not ISRAELI waters. International waters. See the problem?[/QUOTE] "67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they: (a)[b] are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;[/b]" "Section IV : Areas of naval warfare 10. Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over: (a) the territorial sea and internal waters, the land territories, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States; [b](b) the high seas[/b]; and" See the problem? [editline]24th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Starpluck;27631499]I don't think you're getting the general idea correctly. Yes, as a nation you are permitted to place a blockade against a nation as a measure of self-defense, if however, the blockade is illegal, then 'self-defense' cannot be an argument or used as an excuse to keep the illegal blockade in place. You can't do whatever you want in the name of self-defense.[/QUOTE] Well how about we wait for the security council to make up its mind regarding the legality of the blockade then?

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27631625]"67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they: (a)[B] are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;[/B]" "Section IV : Areas of naval warfare 10. Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over: (a) the territorial sea and internal waters, the land territories, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States; [B](b) the high seas[/B]; and" See the problem? [/QUOTE] Under the laws of armed conflict, a blockade is the prohibition of all commerce with a defined enemy coastline. A belligerent who has established a lawful blockade is entitled to enforce that blockade on the high seas.41 A blockade must satisfy a number of legal requirements, including: notification, effective and impartial enforcement and proportionality.42 In particular a blockade is illegal if......... So as we read above, Israel has a right to enforce that blockade on high seas [B]IF[/B] the blockade is legal. However, [B] 42 In particular a blockade is illegal if:[/B] (a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or (b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.43 [release]52. [B]A blockade may not continue to be enforced where it inflicts disproportionate damage on the civilian population[/B]. The usual meaning of “damage to the civilian population” in the law of armed conflict refers to deaths, injuries and property damage. Here the damage may be thought of as the destruction of the civilian economy and prevention of reconstruction further to damage. One might also note, insofar as many in Gaza face a shortage of food or the means to buy it, that the ordinary meaning of “starvation” under the law of armed conflict is simply to cause hunger.44 53. In evaluating the evidence submitted to the Mission, including by OCHA oPt, confirming the severe humanitarian situation in Gaza, the destruction of the economy and the prevention of reconstruction (as detailed above)[B], the Mission is satisfied that the blockade was inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza strip and that as such the[/B][B] interception[/B][B] could not be justified and[/B] [B]therefore has to be considered illegal. [/B] 54. Moreover, the Mission emphasizes that according to article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, collective punishment of civilians under occupation is prohibited. “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.” The Mission considers that one of the principal motives behind the imposition of the blockade was a desire to punish the people of the Gaza Strip for having elected Hamas. The combination of this motive and the effect of the restrictions on the Gaza Strip leave no doubt that Israel’s actions and policies amount to collective punishment as defined by international law. In this connection, the Mission supports the findings of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk,45 the report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict46 and most recently the ICRC47 that the blockade amounts to collective punishment in violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.[/release] [release]The Mission considers that the enforcement of an illegal blockade does not only constitute a violation of the laws of war, but also a violation of the laws of neutrality giving rise to State responsibility.[/release] [URL]http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf[/URL] See the problem?

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;27631591]That was the exact logic used by the germans in the Warsaw ghetto uprising.[/QUOTE] Except the guys in the Ghetto only fired on Germany's military, not civilians.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27631625]"67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they: (a)[b] are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;[/b]" "Section IV : Areas of naval warfare 10. Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over: (a) the territorial sea and internal waters, the land territories, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States; [b](b) the high seas[/b]; and" See the problem? [editline]24th January 2011[/editline] Well how about we wait for the security council to make up its mind regarding the legality of the blockade then?[/QUOTE] International Maritime law doesn't really cover it if the blockade is illegal. By the way, you should start providing sources for your quotes. Just shouting out pieices of treaties and the like doesn't really cover it. Not only that, you quoted a section on Naval warfare. The neutral ship bit was a child section to the parent section. If the parent section of a law doesn't cover it, then it's null. Please read your sources before posting.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27631625](a)[b] are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;[/b]"[/QUOTE] Firstly, the Israeli definition of 'contraband' involved farm tools, seeds, and other non-lethal products. Basically, they're saying 'we can search anything and anyone we want'. The goods they've blacklisted either violate or very nearly violate human rights laws. That is not reasonable grounds to go in armed with commando's. If anything a small very lightly armed patrol ship would have been reasonable. (And would not have been judged that harshly) Secondly, the blockade is illegal. The UN themselves have said so, and I doubt the security council will rule otherwise. Thirdly, the video clearly shows that they did not shoot/injure/harm the soldiers first. The ship was in international waters and a black helicopter full of men with guns was approaching you - you have a right to self defence. [quote]"Section IV : [b]Areas of naval warfare[/b] [b](b) the high seas[/b]; and"[/QUOTE] A search is not naval warfare. Try again. Unless you're trying to tell me that Turkey is at war with Israel.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27631704]Except the guys in the Ghetto only fired on Germany's military, not civilians.[/QUOTE] Tactics, though undesirable in Gaza, are kinda not the point. The grand scheme of things is the palestinians are responding to this little apartheid state Israel is in love with.

Just gonna leave this here... [url]http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-israel-s-gaza-flotilla-report-is-credible-and-impartial-1.339064[/url]

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27646740]Just gonna leave this here... [URL]http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-israel-s-gaza-flotilla-report-is-credible-and-impartial-1.339064[/URL][/QUOTE] Well that’s a surprise, the U.S. state department is in favor of Israel, that changes everything and now Israel is in the right! No, that’s the equivalent of the Middle East announcing its support for an Arab led commission of the Flotilla.