gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
When I said these 'peace activists' meant harm, it does not mean they intended to be violent from the beginning of their trip. Am willing to grant that everyone had peaceful intention but I pointed it out before and will do again: That no one sane would assume that boarding troops will be armed with paintball guns and pistols. Five of six ships complied with Israeli boarding troops. Why did not the sixth ship? Why did they armed themselves with improvised hand weapons? Because somehow they knew that Israeli boarding troops were wielding non-lethal weapons. How could they have known? Because most likely people from the other five ships informed them of that fact.How do we know they meant harm and started the violence?
If they meant harm they would have been armed accordingly.
Those who mean harm and walk into hostile territory carry big guns.
I have been hit by paintballs before. It is painful but not crippling. Look at the sixth photo in this post...Don't you think the people on board were at least aware of what IDF does to those who attack, even if unarmed?
http://www.defence.pk/forums/914188-post1.html
Those men were armed with improvised hand weapons and WAITING at the door. Their clothing alone is enough to protect them from any distracting pain from painball shots. They can easily rush any boarding troop so lightly armed before the soldier could pull his pistol. If they were so fearful of the IDF, then why were they willing to ambush boarding troops? Because they were alerted to the fact that Israeli soldiers were armed with non-lethal weapons and no longer were so fearful.
No...You cannot dismiss the fact that those Israeli boarding troops were so lightly armed. No boarding troops from any military does. But the fact that they were so lightly armed meant that Israel intended to have as non-violent a process as possible. Show the forum a single navy in the world that armed their assault troops with paintball guns. You had better believe that every navy in the world right now is laughing at Israel for being so foolish. A pistol is the proverbial last ditch defense for self when nothing else worked or is available. So if people were killed it was because they were sufficiently threatening, not because those Israeli troops intended to kill anyone the moment they set foot aboard. Five out of six ships complied peacefully. Why not the sixth? This fact everyone avoided. Again -- Show everyone a single navy in the world that armed their assault troops with paintball guns. Can you do that?At the end of the day the people on board were killed by real Israeli bullets, that is the fact of the matter so let us not go into the whole paintball scenario!
What kind of 'reconstruction' was that? This naval blockade is about three years old and ships have passed through before. This is no 'reconstruction' but merely your own fantasy story.Let us look at it from another angle if people here are now reconstructing events to justify what IDF does.
Let me reconstruct events as well.
Many would agree that it would be perfectly in line with what IDF has been doing in the past.
The ships belonged to a neutral nation and the shipment was inspected by the neutral nation as well.
IDF knows that if it finds nothing contraband in all six vessels then they would have to let the flotilla pass under International law...
So what do they come up with?
They deliberately rough up the people on board one of the vessels to infuriate them and when they react an armed conflict takes place in which IDF manages to kill people (since they have more than paintball guns) and the entire episode is cited as an excuse to block the passage of the flotilla.
Really...??? Here is what a supposedly 'neutral' party must do in order to earn immunity from boarding...If Turkish warships had escorted the flotilla, Israel could not even board the flotilla.
As per international law, the guarantee of a neutral nation with accompanying warships, renders the right of inspection by the blockading country as null and void.
International Humanitarian Law - San Remo Manual 1994
Look at item 'a' for starter. But in this, Turkey is hardly a 'neutral' party. Even though Turkey is not in an armed conflict against Israel, Turkey as a country is now hostile to Israel, from the citizenry to top leadership, Erdogan. Turkey is nowhere qualified as a 'neutral' party. If you want to talk 'neutrality', bring in the Swiss or Japan, for examples. Not Turkey. If all sides agreed to have a neutral party involvement, the blockading country effectively transferred that 'right to visit' to the neutral party. Even so, the blockading country still has the right to have representatives at any inspections for contraband-ed items. Whether the blockading country will send representatives or not is a matter of trust between the blockading country and this neutral party since the neutral party is the one who offered to do the inspections. Inspection representatives are not boarding troops.120. A neutral merchant vessel is exempt from the exercise of the right of visit and search if it meets the following conditions:
(a) it is bound for a neutral port;
(b) it is under the convoy of an accompanying neutral warship of the same nationality or a neutral warship of a State with which the flag State of the merchant vessel has concluded an agreement providing for such convoy;
(c) the flag State of the neutral warship warrants that the neutral merchant vessel is not carrying contraband or otherwise engaged in activities inconsistent with its neutral status; and
(d) the commander of the neutral warship provides, if requested by the commander of an intercepting belligerent warship or military aircraft, all information as to the character of the merchant vessel and its cargo as could otherwise be obtained by visit and search.
Spare me the hyperboles. It does not matter if the UN endorses the Gaza naval blockade or not.Let us leave the rules of engagement which apply in case of a justified war time blockade for a moment.
Does the UN support the blockade?
Does the world support Israel on the blockade except USA which does it mostly out of its strategic interests?
We are discussing that Israel is running a blockade as if it is a legal and humane action, it is a most brutal act in every sense of the word and has to be condemned...
No mention of protocol would legitimize the blockade
Charter of the United Nations: Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Agression
Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip years ago...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.
Israel's unilateral disengagement plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...was a proposal by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, adopted by the government on June 6, 2004 and enacted in August 2005, to evict all Israelis from the Gaza Strip and from four settlements in the northern West Bank.
Those Israeli citizens that refused to accept government compensation packages and voluntarily vacate their homes prior to the August 15, 2005 deadline, were evicted by Israeli security forces over a period of several days.[1] The eviction of all residents, demolition of the residential buildings and evacuation of associated security personnel from the Gaza Strip was completed by September 12, 2005.[2] The eviction and dismantlement of the four settlements in the northern West Bank was completed ten days later.
Look at this phrase...
Ham-*** attacks came from Gaza. Withdrawal from a territory mean ceding control of said territory to another authority with a the expectation that said authority will exercise restraint and work towards a peaceful resolution to a conflict. So from the moment Ham-*** used Gaza to conduct military or paramilitary operations, Article 51 of the UN Charter came into effect, rendering this naval blockade eminently legal. The UN does not need to publish any statement of endorsement. Its own charter has that endorsement of self defense, of which a blockade is a mechanism of said self defense.Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs...
A blockade is usually accompanied by a belligerent occupation of a territory, either come before or after. But since Israel back in '05 willingly withdrew from Gaza, where is that belligerent occupation that everyone is talking about? A blockade is not an occupation. Egypt once had partial control of Gaza and is now maintaining a land blockade from Egyptian soil to Gaza. Why does no one accuse Egypt of 'occupying' Gaza?
Here is something for you to chew on...Gaza is not part of any country and that fact alone allows Israel to reoccupy Gaza as a belligerent power. But Israel chose not to reoccupy Gaza. So absent a belligerent occupation and a naval blockade that allows inspected cargo to pass through the blockade zone and into the territory, Israel is performing similar to a 'pacific blockade'...
Pacific blockade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No state stepped forward to claim to act on Gaza's behalf. No one wanted to openly wage a war against Israel. Why not? Truth is that no one care about the Palestinians and no state care because Gaza, the West Bank and the Palestinians themselves serves no strategic interests to them. The Palestinians are pawns in this religious war. If Iran is capable of wiping Israel off the map and did so, the Iranian mullahs would be as brutal in their occupation of Palestine just as they are in Iran. This 'pacific blockade' imposed by Israel is supposed to motivate internal changes in Gaza by the Gazans themselves away from the current low intensity but wearying war on both sides. Just as no state dared to step forward to challenge Israel in overt warfare, no state therefore is capable of even issuing a credible threat to compel Israel to impose this 'pacific blockade' either and Israel can impose an even harsher blockade than the current one, a blockade that is appropriate to a war of conquest. So the fact that this 'pacific blockade' exist and for years is an indication that Israel is willing to work with 'the international community' provided that this 'community' put the same public pressure on Ham-*** to stop using Gaza as a war staging ground.Pacific blockade was a term invented by Hautefeuille, the French writer on international maritime law, to describe a blockade exercised by a great power for the purpose of bringing pressure to bear on a weaker state without actual war.
That it is an act of violence, and therefore in the nature of war, is undeniable, seeing that it can only be employed as a measure of coercion by maritime powers able to bring into action such vastly superior forces to those the resisting state can dispose of that resistance is out of the question. In this respect it is an act of war, and any attempt to exercise it against a power strong enough to resist would be a commencement of hostilities, and at once bring into play the rights and duties affecting neutrals. On the other hand, the object and justification of a pacific blockade being to avoid war, that is general hostilities and disturbance of international traffic with the state against which the operation is carried on, rights of war cannot consistently be exercised against ships belonging to other states than those concerned. And yet, if neutrals were not to be affected by it, the coercive effect of such a blockade might be completely lost. Recent practice has been to limit interference with them to the extent barely necessary to carry out the purpose of the blockading powers.
You cannot, in the interests of intellectual honesty, so casually dismissed justifications. Yes...Any act of war, and a blockade is an act of war, will produce misery. But then why not the same argument be applied against Ham-***? Are you afraid of appearing impartial? Again...Israel withdrew from Gaza in '05. What prompted this blockade? Just for the hell of it?The UN office for coordination of humanitarian affairs has state in May 2010 that formal economy has collapsed in Gaza.
What will this lead to?
Peace or violence?
Will this push the common man towards vengeance or silent acceptance of his fate?
Gaza is situated on the coast and has access to international waters.
Gaza has a significant fishing industry which has also suffered a lot.
Regardless of any justification, the blockade of Gaza is only making matters worse!
Israel Continues to Transfer Humanitarian Aid to Gaza
Got that? This 'humanitarian aid' by sea is only a small fraction of what passed through by land. The goal of this 'aid' fleet was never to deliver any significant amount of aid but to harass Israel behind the shield of civilian immunity in a conflict zone. You have a problem with the blockade? One alternative is to allow Ham-*** access to weapons to continue the war and this alternative would be unacceptable to Israel. Acceptable to you I presume? Another is for Israel to impose a harsher blockade and reenter Gaza as a belligerent occupation power to take the war to Ham-*** itself. Another would be for the 'international community' to have a credible enforcement presence in Gaza to assure the Israelis of their border security concerns and eventually there would no be no blockade at all. The keyword here is 'enforcement' and unfortunately for the Jews this self appointed and self annointed group of 'international community' would sooner be filled with Ham-*** fighters who would waste no time donning the righteous robe of 'peace activist' and proceed to do Iran's work before they get around to improving Gaza..A flotilla of nine vessels organized by pro-Palestinian activists is currently en route to Gaza carrying various goods. However, the total amount of supplies transported by the flotilla, 10,000 tons, is less than the weekly average amount of goods transferred by Israel into Gaza.
Economic hardship is not the same as economic deprivation or destruction. Gaza is suffering economic hardship that is the result of this blockade. The alternative is worse. When Israel withdrew in '05, it was with the expectation that Gazans would be a peaceful autonomous territory that while may not be a state, Gaza can still be accorded respects due a state. Ham-*** destroyed that possibility.
Increased humanitarian aid to Gaza after IDF operation Jan 2009
It is presented elsewhere on this forum other sources that Gaza is hardly deprived as your hyperboles would like us to believe.At the Cabinet meeting of 22 March 2009, the Government of Israel instructed the bodies dealing with the matter to enable the entry - without restriction - of foodstuffs to the residents of Gaza from all relevant sources, after it has been verified that they are indeed foodstuffs, and this in the framework of the humanitarian efforts. The Government directed that the foregoing be scrupulously implemented.
Essential food products including meat, chicken and fish, grains and legumes, fresh vegetables, dairy products, oil, flour, salt and sugar, in addition to animal feed, hygiene products, clothing, medicines and medical supplies are among the goods that are regularly delivered to Gaza.
Note: Gas for domestic use (cooking and heating) is supplied according to Palestinian demand and is not subject to any limitation by Israel. After the fuel depot at Nahal Oz was repeatedly attacked by Palestinian terrorists from the Gaza Strip, it was forced to limit its operations. The Kerem Shalom crossing has since been adapted to the transfer of fuel. In addition, a new gas line with double the capacity to transfer gas was built.