What's new

Israel Hijacks Aid cargo, executes hostages - Pak journo, Talat Hussain taken hostage

You need to look up the proper definition of 'genocide'. Then provide a source that says Israel is committing a 'genocide' in a neighboring country...say...Egypt for now.


It mean I will answer any questions you have provided they are devoid of hyperbolic nonsense and are relevant to the subject. So how does being a 'privileged combatant' has any relevance to a naval blockade, its legality and the boarding of a ship intent on entering the blockaded zone?


The definition of Genocide;

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.[1]

It does not mention how many you have to kill to consider it a genocide, now lets look at it from the Palestinian's point of view;

Is israel deliberately and systematically destroying in whole or in part the Palestinians by blocking their rights and freedom? What do you think is the answer to that.

(CPPCG)Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[2]



How many of the above can be applicable to the israelies actions in the neighboring countries. Almost all of the above.

With the support of the United States, the resolution was placed before the General Assembly for consideration. Defining genocide in 1943, Lemkin wrote:
Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.[13]



Sabra and Shatila massacre in Lebanon, even though it was done by the Lebanese Militia, but who was in charge. The good old sharone.
The above is just one example, now there are countless examples of israeli raids in neighboring countries where they killed innocent civilians. In Egypt, Jordan, Syria. Then you have the indiscriminate bombings and killings in the Lebanese cities during the war. So is all that justified. And didnt they all belong to one group, ie Arabs. So cant I tag that as a genocide.
And who decides what is the number of kills before you can term it as a genocide.


And by the way when I talk about the killings in Egypt I was referring to the killings in the past. Its all connected after all.
 
In Gaza people awake today to a new reality. Last night, my host Isa told me military coups were the sort of thing he heard and read about, he never thought he would experience one. Yesterday Gazans did. Although the final Fatah stronghold was still standing by the evening Hamas fighters were already making the rounds in the streets, three and four jeeps at a time, loaded with armed men wearing all black, their faces covered with masks, holding their guns in the air, a few, rather uncomfortably, waving to the people. On Alaqsa, the only remaining radio station being aired from Gaza belonging to Hamas, these areas are being called “freed” from the traitors...Sitting on the street one could hear the news spread, often the same names of people who had been killed or thought to have escaped were mentioned among the people walking by. The coup d'état was the only thought on their minds of young and old...

Until June, 2007, the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza enjoyed self-rule (as envisioned as early as the 1978 Camp David Accords) under a separation-of-powers democracy. As I understand it, Hamas was elected to a majority in parliament because Fatah was corrupt. Fatah, of course, retained executive power. However, Hamas then used their majority, military might, and terror to seize total control of Gaza and eliminate democracy.

Israel is happy with a knee-capped, de-fanged Hamas; that means only the Gazans are suffering from Hamas, right? (A Hamas re-armed with rocket weapons and concrete command posts, that's another story.) Eliminating a weak Hamas entirely, that's something the Israelis will not do, at least not without a great deal of international support - including support from the Muslim World, I guess.


Can you bring something new to the table apart from your same old bs theories repeated time and again by your gov. Come now even the world had started to laugh at them. Tell you what would be better, lets connect them to taliban. Lets give it some twist. Make it interesting. Otherwise its like
:blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah:
 
There is little question that Israel's blockade of Gaza is disproportionate in legal terms.
I do not agree with that statement, and I'm not the only one. Tens of thousands of tons gets trucked through Israel to Gaza every month.

If you read last week's Economist you may suspect that the blockade-running effort is part of a battle between Hamas and the U.N.: the U.N. controls most of the aid, and Hamas has been compelled, bit-by-bit, to come to terms with the U.N., loosening the shackles of terror here and there. Hamas can't stand that.

The proportionality principle requires, however, that Israel's security cannot come at any price. A balancing of interests is necessary to ensure that civilians should not pay too dearly for the security needs of others.
This is a fancy way of saying that Israel shouldn't defend its citizenry if that means human shields may be endangered.
Safeguarding the precious lives of innocents and respecting their dignity as fellow humans is the necessary burden that international law imposes on war.
Legal reference, please.

The harmful effects of the blockade on Gazan civilians have included the denial of the basics of life, such as food, fuel and medicine, as well widespread economic collapse.
Food and medicine Gaza gets plenty of, though maybe not enough lobster, caviar, and wine to suit Hamas leaders.

The UN agency on the ground, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), has described a "severe humanitarian crisis" in Gaza in relation to human development, health, education, "the psychological stress" on the population, high unemployment (at 50 per cent) and poverty (with 300,000 people living beneath the poverty line), and the collapse of commerce, industry and agriculture.
Breaking the blockade won't solve problems created by tyranny, will it?

I don't like your terminology, why do you insinuate that the Gazans are not a peaceful people?
I think many of them are, but some have other ideas, and compel the weak ones to follow them.

You have to stop mixing things up and attempt to steer away the focus from Israel's crime -
The point is, THERE IS NO ISRAELI CRIME! - but it is important to you to believe so, isn't it?[/QUOTE]
 
Can you bring something new to the table apart from your same old bs theories repeated time and again by your gov. Come now even the world had started to laugh at them. Tell you what would be better, lets connect them to taliban. Lets give it some twist. Make it interesting. Otherwise its like
:blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah:
Is it not the height of moral depravity to endorse those breaking a blockade to supply a party who wishes to kill millions of people in the name of phony humanitarianism? It has made you cynical and cruel, hasn't it? How many of your countrymen are affected the same way? Why doesn't the corruption in Pakistan ever end? Why is today's Germany, which acknowledges the horror of its ancestors, a "normal" country while Pakistan, which never acknowledges any wicked deed, in deep doo-doo? You don't see connections and parallels?
 
Yes & Israel has also taken over the Turkish New Paper - Huriyet.

Israel is good at that stuff.

Our citizens get killed and on top of that you and other Israeli terrorist sympathizers label them as terrorists. No wonder why people say life is not fair.
 
The thing is not That they retaliate. Attacking in International waters is act of war. Can't you put this in your empty minds. Who gave them the right to attack that ship in the first place.??

It is a blessing in disguise that the entire thing happened in international waters.Had it happened in Israeli waters they would have just machined gunned the activists.
 
Solomon. A couple of flaws in your reply.
You say that Israel's blockade of Gaza is legal. Israel itself uses the San Remo Manual to support its claims. However, what Israel conveniently omits to mention is that the San Remo Manual also contains rules governing the lawfulness of the blockade itself, and there can be no authority under international law to enforce a blockade which is unlawful. Paragraph 102 of the Manual prohibits a blockade if "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".
The background to that 'proportionality' rule is the experience of past world wars where naval blockades had devastating effects on civilian populations.

There is little question that Israel's blockade of Gaza is disproportionate in legal terms. The proportionality rule requires an assessment of the military advantage against the harmful effects on civilians. Israel claims that the blockade is necessary to prevent Hamas from mounting indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.

The proportionality principle requires, however, that Israel's security cannot come at any price. A balancing of interests is necessary to ensure that civilians should not pay too dearly for the security needs of others.

Safeguarding the precious lives of innocents and respecting their dignity as fellow humans is the necessary burden that international law imposes on war. That is why Israel reveals its contempt for international law when, for example in the past, its leaders have pledged to "destroy 100 homes for every rocket fired".

The harmful effects of the blockade on Gazan civilians have included the denial of the basics of life, such as food, fuel and medicine, as well widespread economic collapse.

The UN agency on the ground, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), has described a "severe humanitarian crisis" in Gaza in relation to human development, health, education, "the psychological stress" on the population, high unemployment (at 50 per cent) and poverty (with 300,000 people living beneath the poverty line), and the collapse of commerce, industry and agriculture.

Such effects are manifestly excessive in relation to Israel's security objectives and cannot possibly satisfy the conditions of a lawful blockade. Disrupting wildly inaccurate rockets from being fired at relatively underpopulated areas of southern Israel cannot possibly justify the acute disruption of the daily lives and livelihoods of more than one million Gazans.
Try to give credit and attribution when they are due...

ABC The Drum Unleashed - Israel's security cannot come at any price
What Israel conveniently omits to mention is that the San Remo Manual also contains rules governing the lawfulness of the blockade itself, and there can be no authority under international law to enforce a blockade which is unlawful. Paragraph 102 of the Manual prohibits a blockade if "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".

The background to that 'proportionality' rule is the experience of past world wars where naval blockades had devastating effects on civilian populations.

There is little question that Israel's blockade of Gaza is disproportionate in legal terms. The proportionality rule requires an assessment of the military advantage against the harmful effects on civilians. Israel claims that the blockade is necessary to prevent Hamas from mounting indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.

Such attacks were well documented by the UN's Goldstone Report and are a serious security threat to Israel. Israel has every right to protect its civilians from indiscriminate terrorist attacks by Hamas.

The proportionality principle requires, however, that Israel's security cannot come at any price. A balancing of interests is necessary to ensure that civilians should not pay too dearly for the security needs of others.

Safeguarding the precious lives of innocents and respecting their dignity as fellow humans is the necessary burden that international law imposes on war. That is why Israel reveals its contempt for international law when, for example in the past, its leaders have pledged to "destroy 100 homes for every rocket fired".

The harmful effects of the blockade on Gazan civilians have included the denial of the basics of life, such as food, fuel and medicine, as well widespread economic collapse.

The UN agency on the ground, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), has described a "severe humanitarian crisis" in Gaza in relation to human development, health, education, "the psychological stress" on the population, high unemployment (at 45 per cent) and poverty (with 300,000 people living beneath the poverty line), and the collapse of commerce, industry and agriculture.

Such effects are manifestly excessive in relation to Israel's security objectives and cannot possibly satisfy the conditions of a lawful blockade. Disrupting wildly inaccurate rockets from being fired at relatively underpopulated areas of southern Israel cannot possibly justify the acute disruption of the daily lives and livelihoods of more than one million Gazans.
It is not nice to deceive the readers that way when you lifted others' work practically word for word and try to pass it off as your own.
 
washingtonpost.com

Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 4, 2010

The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.

But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.

In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.

Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.

Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.

Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?

But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense.

(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.

Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to fight them here.

But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.

Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.

(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense -- military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.

The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli -- the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war -- effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.

(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.

But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?

Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.

What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence.

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.
 
This is not about Hamas or Iran.
Yes it is.

- Gaza may not be a state but is a territory that has state-like characters.

- Gaza was under Egyptian control but Egypt has long retracted said control. Egypt also maintain a blockade, or highly restricted access, to Gaza from Egyptian soil. If Gaza remained under Egyptian control, the burden of maintaining law and order would fall upon Egypt. Failure to maintain effective control of Gaza would make Egypt a party to an international armed conflict (IAC) against Israel, thereby violating the current peace treaty between the two states. Therefore, the naval blockade of Gaza would be illegal if Gaza was under effective Egyptian control and there is a peace treaty between the two states.

- Hamas and Hezbollah are agents of other states that has not openly declared their formal hostilities to Israel. However, while non-declarations of formal hostilities are usually defaulted to tacit peace treaties, the support for agents who act in the interests of states nullifies any unspoken and unwritten peace treaties, thereby creating an international armed conflict (IAC) with the territory called Gaza part of that IAC. Therefore, the naval blockade of Gaza is legal.

- The naval blockade of Gaza is legal if Gaza is a combative secessionist region that is recognized by other states to be a peer. However, Gaza is not a part of Israel and not an incorporated territory under Israeli control, like how Puerto Rico is to the US. So while this legal argument is inapplicable because Gaza is not a combative secessionist region, the fact that Gaza is under the control of hostile agencies, Hamas and Hezbollah, these agencies then made Gaza part of an IAC, therefore the naval blockade is legal.

- The naval blockade of Gaza is legal if Gaza is a part of a country who is a belligerent party in an IAC. That is not the case here.

- Resolutions 1373 and 1860 called for regional states to cease their weapons support to their agents. Refusal to abide and continuation of weapons support to these agents via sea routes make the blockade legal, in other words, the blockade is the only viable alternative solution to the arms control demand.
 
SOURCE : AFP

"According to a representative of Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards are ready to provide a military escort to cargo ships trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza."
 
SOURCE : AFP

"According to a representative of Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards are ready to provide a military escort to cargo ships trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza."
Good...Finally the world can have a formal declaration of war by Iran against Israel by running this blockade.
 
shame on you , its the height of ignorance whats so dificult you cant figure out here there is this one guy with minor injuries and other side 12 dead bodies.
So if I'm walking along the street minding my own business, talking to people here and there, and I'm suddenly surrounded by a dozen thugs who want to maim, kill, or capture me, and my only weapon is a gun, it isn't right for me to shoot them in self-defense?

I have read that Muslim boys whose mothers submit to purdah may form gangs on the street, starting at a very early age. I can see that to someone inured to gang culture the idea of the little guy standing up for himself is instinctively offensive. Is this your background, and are these your feelings?
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom