Int'l actions legitimize our policy

[Freshgeardude]

http://www.jpost.com/SpecialSection/Article.aspx?id=181380

Calls by the US and the European Union's to the ship's captain to accept Israel's diversion requests legitimizes Israel's policy, said Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon on Wednesday morning to Israel Radio.

The determination that Israel demonstrated towards the previous aid ship, Mavi Marmara, also contributed to effective policy, Ayalon commented in a broadcast of "This Morning."

RELATED:
Libyan shipowner invites IDF to board
IDF probe: Army didn't have a 'Plan B' for flotilla op
Analysis: Blockade-busting backfires

According to Ayalon, Israel can consider itself victorious in its handling of the Libyan aid ship.

In response to the possibility of Egypt inspecting the Libyan vessel's cargo, Ayalon said that Israel and Egypt share a common interest in preventing the arming of Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Early Wednesday morning, the IDF reported that the ship had been delayed due to an engine failure.



On Tuesday morning, the navy made initial radio contact with the ship and urged the captain to change his course and sail to El-Arish in Sinai. Navy missile ships were closely tracking the cargo ship, which on Tuesday evening was sailing about 6 knots an hour and was 120 km. from El-Arish and 145 km. from Gaza.




Twenty-one people are on the ship from a number of countries, including Libya, Haiti, Syria, Algeria, Nigeria and Cuba. The captain, a Cuban named Antonio, spoke by radio with one of the navy ships and said that contrary to claims by the Libyan organization behind the voyage, he planned to sail it to El-Arish.

The navy said it did not have intelligence indicating that the ship was carrying weapons, but was suspicious and therefore would continue to track the ship until it was clear that it was sailing to Egypt. In addition to the ships at sea tracking the vessel, teams of commandos from the navy’s Flotilla 13 – known as the Shayetet – were put on standby in case they needed to seize the ship to prevent it from reaching Gaza.

EU and US both worked to keep the ship from attempting to run the blockade.


Seems like both are agreeing with israel.

 

[Atreus21]

One US observer noted that if reconstruction proceeds, around 40,000 more Gazan children will attend schools run by the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) rather than Hamas.

New UNRWA commissioner Filippo Grandi hinted at the difference this might make – without mentioning Hamas, he called UNRWA “a vehicle” for promoting “the fundamental values... of tolerance for diversity, peaceful coexistence, nonviolence, respect for human rights and human dignity of everyone without distinction.”

That is most definitely good news.

 

[Freshgeardude]

^ yup it is

 

[PokerGuy]

You referenced jpost. Fail.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You referenced jpost. Fail.

Same info was on other media sites.

It will be interesting to see what was on the ship and what Egypt does.

Hamas wanted the ship to run the blockade

 

[JEDIYoda]

What is interesting and probably indicative of how wrong Lemon law is when he claims that countries are no longer cooperating with Israel...is to look at the level of cooperation ---

Calls by the US and the European Union's to the ship's captain to accept Israel's diversion requests..

Israel and Egypt share a common interest in preventing the arming of Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

The captain, a Cuban named Antonio, spoke by radio with one of the navy ships and said that contrary to claims by the Libyan organization behind the voyage, he planned to sail it to El-Arish.
Looks to me as if there is a lot of cooperation between these groups.....

Now I am going to pull up a chair, open a diet coca and sit back and see what those who are against any sort of cooperation with Israel will post on this thread......

 

[piasabird]

Just sink the ship. If they just kill a few of these people and sink the ship, maybe others will not be so quick to commit stupid acts of war.

 

[Freshgeardude]

You referenced jpost. Fail.

Did the US and EU both call on the boat to go to Eygpt to avoid a conflict at the naval blockade? Was it at the request of Israel?

The answer to both questions is a solid YES.

which site I post the same story doesnt change the answers to the two questions

 

[kylebisme]

One US observer noted that if reconstruction proceeds, around 40,000 more Gazan children will attend schools run by the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) rather than Hamas.

New UNRWA commissioner Filippo Grandi hinted at the difference this might make – without mentioning Hamas, he called UNRWA “a vehicle” for promoting “the fundamental values... of tolerance for diversity, peaceful coexistence, nonviolence, respect for human rights and human dignity of everyone without distinction.”

That is most definitely good news.

Yeah, though a shame that the UN isn't in any postion to replace the extremist schools on the other side of the conflict too.

Also, Israel (inadvertently) admits it broke law in raiding flotilla.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Yeah, though a shame that the UN isn't in any postion to replace the extremist schools on the other side of the conflict too.

Also, Israel (inadvertently) admits it broke law in raiding flotilla.

Thats the ebst you can do??
I has no bearin g on jack squat what Israel inadvertently did.....you are just trying to derail this wonderful post.

 

[Zebo]

Doesnt surprise me. As Europeans allowed into their midst millions of Muslims they are quickly come around to the fact the ideas inoculated by Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, is that a state of permanent war must exist between Believer and Unbeliever, Muslim and Infidel, are coming to that view slowly but surely. The behavior of Muslims themselves is by now obviously more threatening and intransigent than the behavior of Israeli and support will turn slowly but surly out of self preservation if anything else.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Yeah, though a shame that the UN isn't in any postion to replace the extremist schools on the other side of the conflict too.

Also, Israel (inadvertently) admits it broke law in raiding flotilla.

LOLOLOL

You need to stop trying to beat the dead horse.

International maritime law gives israel the right to stop and inspect any ship attempting to run its naval blockade.


Like I said previously, you post things from random corners of the internet to say anything that remotely applies to your ludicrous ideology


From haaretz, a radical leftist newsgroup in Israel, which was linked to your post.

The recommendation, which was written by the Foreign Ministry's legal department and distributed to the defense establishment and the Prime Minister's Bureau yesterday, said that the ship's documentation indicates it is headed for El-Arish, Egypt, and not Gaza, and so it cannot be determined whether the vessel intends to break the naval blockade.
The ministry advised that unofficial statements by the ship's crew indicating that they do intend to reach Gaza might not be legally sufficient to justify stopping the ship at sea.



"We recommend that any enforcement be carried out only if the blockade is actually breached or at least at maximum proximity to the closure zone, so as to create a clearly justified basis for the action. As will be recalled, we recommended [in the Turkish flotilla] that action be taken as close as possible to the blockade zone. It was explained that this was operationally impossible, however certainly in this case, when there is only one ship, this is possible."

Israel was hoping it was going to turn to Egypt, which it did, which is why they didnt intercept it in international waters.

Israel was; howver, ready to intercept it if it concluded that the ship was in fact heading for gaza instead of egypt, hence the "We recommend that any enforcement be carried out only if the blockade is actually breached or at least at maximum proximity to the closure zone, so as to create a clearly justified basis for the action."

I could agree, that it wouldn't be justifiable for israel to stop a ship heading to Egypt.



fucking moron.

 

[kylebisme]

International maritime law gives israel the right to stop and inspect any ship attempting to run its naval blockade.

Not out in international waters, which is why you can't cite any international law to suggest otherwise, and why:

The Foreign Ministry advised the defense establishment yesterday to wait until the Libyan aid ship reportedly headed for Gaza approaches or enters the coastal strip's territorial waters before making any attempt to stop it. The ministry made the recommendation to avoid the risk of breaking international law.

 

[Zebo]

Fear not Israeli - like I said people are waking up and beginning understand it well enough as a Jihad against Israel. A Jihad which began against the Jews when Mohammad, the profit, slaughtered the Jews of Medina and continues to this day. Muslims are helping us understand - or, more accurately inhabitants of the Free world and Western Europe can no longer pretend Jihad does not exist - shown by open warfare, by terrorism, by economic boycotts and so forth if they are not sufficiently submissive to Muslim demands. Muslims always spit their load too early and leave us disappointed and delegitimizing themselves. Key is for you to remain overwhelmingly stronger militarily until blood flows through our streets and we do something about it once and for all.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Holy fucking shit kylebisme. I have cited international law on this matter. It was cited back during the mavi marrwak (however u spell it) event. You are such an ignorant fuck.

The Foreign Ministry advised the defense establishment yesterday to wait until the Libyan aid ship reportedly headed for Gaza approaches or enters the coastal strip's territorial waters before making any attempt to stop it. The ministry made the recommendation to avoid the risk of breaking international law.

THIS WAS SAID BECAUSE IT IS OBVIOUSLY ILLEGAL TO STOP A SHIP HEADING TO ANOTHER COUNTRY, IE: NOT RUNNING YOUR BLOCKADE. HENCE THE "WAIT UNTIL THE SHIP HEADS FOR GAZA" REMARK.


DOES ME TYPING IN CAPS MAKE IT EVER SO MORE CLEAR FOR YOU?

 

[kylebisme]

I have cited international law on this matter.

No you haven't, nor can you, which is why you are left with resorting to insults and profanity instead.

 

[kylebisme]

A Jihad which began against the Jews when Mohammad, the profit, slaughtered the Jews of Medina and continues to this day.

Why do you consitanly bash Islam with lies? The truth of the matter is:

In the Constitution of Medina, Jews were given equality to Muslims in exchange for political loyalty. However, after each major battle with the Medinans, there were accusations of Jewish tribal treachery for aiding the enemies of the community in violation of the Constitution of Medina. After Badr and Uhud, the Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadir, respectively, were expelled "with their families and possessions" from Medina.

 

[Zebo]

Why do you consitanly bash Islam with lies? The truth of the matter is:

Never seen anyone question the qurayza massacre where the profit Mohammad slaughtered 800 male Jews and took women and children as slaves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza


Muslim Historain Ibn Ishaq describes the killing of the Banu Qurayza men as follows:

“ Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off.[46][47][59]

 

[Freshgeardude]

No you haven't, nor can you, which is why you are left with resorting to insults and profanity instead.

This is going to be the last time I am going to dig up a thread on the raid to give you this information you clearly had available to you before.

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea says in paragraph 67:

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) 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.

47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:

(a) hospital ships;
(b) small craft used for coastal rescue operations and other medical transports;
(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;
(d) vessels engaged in transporting cultural property under special protection;
(e) passenger vessels when engaged only in carrying civilian passengers;
(f) vessels charged with religious, non-military scientifc or philanthropic missions, vessels collecting scientific data of likely military applications are not protected;
(g) small coastal fishing vessels and small boats engaged in local coastal trade, but they are subject to the regulations of a belligerent naval commander operating in the area and to inspection;
(h) vessels designated or adapted exclusively for responding to pollution incidents in the marine environment;
(i) vessels which have surrendered;
(j) life rafts and life boats.

Conditions of exemption

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; and
(c) do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required.

 

[kylebisme]

Never seen anyone question the qurayza massacre...

Calling it a "massicre" is a misapplication of the term, as that suggests indiscriminate killing rather than the selective killing which took place.

This is going to be the last time...

I've long been aware of what the San Remo Manual says, but I'm also aware of the fact that it's a manual, not a treaty or any other sort of legally binding document.

 

[Freshgeardude]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Re...onal_Law_Applicable_to_Armed_Conflicts_at_Sea

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea was adopted in June 1994 by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law after a series of round table discussions by naval and legal experts. It is "the only comprehensive international instrument that has been drafted on the law of naval warfare since 1913." [1]
The manual is a legally recognized document [2], but is not binding [3].

 

[kylebisme]

Yep, as Wiki says, it was adopted by "an independent, non-profit humanitarian organisation" rather than the UN, and hence holds no legal weight on matters of international law.

 

[Freshgeardude]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_assessments_of_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid

Many legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid were published subsequent to the event. International law experts (and non-lawyers) differed over the legality of the Israel action.


Some, such as law experts Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, Chicago Law School Professor Eric Posner, and Johns Hopkins International Law and Diplomacy Professor Ruth Wedgwood, said that the naval blockade, the boarding in international waters, and the use of force were in accord with long-standing international law.[1][2][3] Dershowitz compared the blockade with the U.S. blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis and Posner with the Coalition blockade of Iraq during the first Gulf War.[1][2][3]
Others, in contrast, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the National Lawyers Guild's International Committee and Istanbul Bilgi University's Law Department Dean Turgut Tarhanlı said that the blockade was illegal, or agreed with University of Dundee international law professor Robin Churchill that the boarding on the high seas was illegal, or agreed with international law professor Said Mahmoudi that the use of force was not proportional and was therefore illegal.[4][5][6][7] Both sides generally agreed that Israel was required to respond with only a proportional use of force in the face of violent resistance; whether the force used was proportional was disputed.[8][9]
The issue of possible violation of international law was discussed at the UN Security Council. The United States blocked criticism of Israel for violating international law, as proposed by Turkey, the Palestinians, and Arab nations.[10]

So on one side, we have legal experts from Harvard, Chicago Law Professor, etc. LEGAL experts, defending israel

On the other side, we have people from the UN (lol anti-israel bias), red cross (k they have no legal expertise in naval law, only thing they could condemn would be the amt of force israel used), A national lawyer guild which has been known to help terrorists (link here In 2003, a controversy arose around the case of NLG member attorney Lynne Stewart, who was charged with transmitting "terrorist communications" from prison for Omar Abdel-Rahman, her former client and mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. Stewart was ultimately convicted of the charges and sentenced to 28 months in federal prison.), Istanbul... lol, and Said Mahmoudi an obvious Islamic person.

These people either saying EVERYTHING was illegal, or disproportional force was illegal.



And this has already been looked over. paintball guns to a knife fight...

 

[kylebisme]

So on one side, we have legal experts...

So-called "legal experts" anyway, but as they can't cite actual internal law to back their claims, they aren't demonstrating any expertise on the matter.

 

[Freshgeardude]

So-called "legal experts" anyway, but as they can't cite actual internal law to back their claims, they aren't demonstrating any expertise on the matter.

Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of International Law and Diplomacy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, said that under the law of armed conflict, which would be in effect given Hamas's rocket attacks on Israel and Israel's responses, Israel has "a right to prevent even neutrals from shipping arms to [Hamas]".[3]

International law Professor Ed Morgan of the University of Toronto, likewise, noting that it is clear that Israel and Hamas are in a state of armed conflict, which has been noted by the General Assembly to the Human Rights Council in its Goldstone Report, wrote that a blockade of an enemy’s coast is an established military tactic.[13] He pointed out that it is recognized as a means at the Security Council’s disposal under Article 42 of the UN Charter, and is similarly set forth in Article 539 of the Canadian Forces manual Counter-Insurgency Operations.[13]

Having announced its blockade, Israel had no obligation to take the ships’ crew at their word as to the nature of the cargo. The blockading party has the right to fashion the arrangements, including search at a nearby port, under which passage of humanitarian goods is permitted.[13]
​

Abbas Al Lawati, a Dubai-based Gulf News journalist on board the flotilla, opined that Israel is likely to cite the Gaza–Jericho Agreement (Annex I, Article XI) which vests Israel with the responsibility for security along the coastline and the Sea of Gaza.[15] The agreement stipulates that Israel may take any measures necessary against vessels suspected of being used for terrorist activities or for smuggling arms, ammunition, drugs, goods, or for any other illegal activity.[16]

Professor Wedgwood opined that the goal of the flotilla was to: "denude Israel of what it thinks it was guaranteed in the 1993 Oslo Accords which preceded the Gaza-Jericho Agreement, which is the control of the external borders of Gaza and West Bank.... The problem ... is that you could easily have a rearming of Hamas, which caused a terrible conflict."[3]

all these legal experts resort to international laws and treaties.