Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal?

[Fozzledick]

CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?

Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognized document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea."

Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.

"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.

...

Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.

...

CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS?

Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship.

"If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.

Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defense after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons.

Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives.

"But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said.

...

OPPONENTS HAVE CALLED ISRAEL'S RAID "PIRACY." WAS IT?

No, as under international law it was considered a state action.

"Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest," Kraska said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602

[Jim Sagle]

1. Thanks for clarifying.

:thumbsup:

[county worker]

2. Who cares? Is it causing innocent people to suffer?

Legality is not the question.

[aquart]

12. Uh, yes. It is.

As for "innocent"...the people on those ships, except for the children they brought with them and you might want to examine what that means, were determined to violate international law and break the blockade.

Which gives Israel the right to detain and imprison. Oh, look. They let them go. Gosh those terrible evil murderers.

Palestinian publicity stunt. Not unlike the suicide bombings except this time they got idiot Turks to sacrifice themselves. Palestinians are excellent at letting others die, including their own.

So how are things on the West Bank?

[PDJane]

13. International law

means that the blockade is illegal. Moreover, boarding that ship in international waters is illegal under a law that the US and Israel pushed for.

[brendan120678]

47. Under internation law...

the boarding of the ships is completely legitimate.

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994

Specifically, the following sections:

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
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;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

SECTION III : ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT EXEMPT FROM ATTACK
Classes of vessels exempt from attack
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 scientific 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.

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.

[Chulanowa]

63. There's some trouble there

The blockade is illegal. From the same document you're quoting, take a look.

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited 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.

Israel gains no military advantage from the blockade. The stated purpose of the blockade is to collectively punish the civilian populace of gaza for voting for the party that Israel didn't want to win. The sole purpose very much is to deprive the gazans of food, medicines, reconstruction supplies, and amenities for survival such as clothing, wheelchairs, blankets, and formula for infants. As a result the people of Gaza are undoubtedly suffering a humanitarian crisis, even with the limited aid Israel allows in.

Zero military advantage plus greater-than-zero humanitarian cost equals illegal blockade.

Next, the blockade does not apply to international waters. Had Israel waited for the ships to actually breach the blockade zone within Israel-controlled waters, then that would be one thing. That is not what happened. The only thing the people on the boats did wrong was bring a deck chair to a gun fight.

[Statistical]

66. Blockades are perfectly legal in international waters. The heading is all that matters.

If ship is headed to the blockaded port it can be stopped on the other side of the world.

[Chulanowa]

68. Again, though, the blockade itself is illegal

Of course on DU, anything is acceptable, so long as it's the dirty greedy hateful hook-nosed jews Arabs suffering for it, right?

[Dick Dastardly]

72. The blockade is not illegal n/t

[county worker]

48. I care not what you say so save it for some fool who agrees with you

[Alamuti Lotus]

3. Is 4 bullets to the head at close range legal? So all is cool? Good, glad that was cleared up

I can now join the hasbara chorus cheering in lockstep fashion for the pirates and murderers.

[Chulanowa]

6. Oh, according to Fozzledick and those like him...

Killing non-Israelis doesn't count. Only Israeli jews are actually people. Everyone else is on the same level as the arabushim cockroaches.

[Fozzledick]

10. Thanks for telling me what I think - I'd never know that if you didn't tell me

Although to be honest, that sounds more like a projection of your own thinking.

[Chulanowa]

20. Well, when you advertise, you can't expect people to not mention it

[Alamuti Lotus]

27. Just because he posts piece after piece that are rabidly in support of the IDF pirates on this

does NOT mean that he supports the IDF pirates on this. How dare you for trying to piece together some kind of connection there. How. Dare. You.

[Chulanowa]

39. I know, right?

That's like calling Aquart a racist after he demands forced sterilization be applied to Arab women, or something.

[aquart]

18. Take it slowly, I know this is hard for you.

It was NOT piracy no matter how loudly the PR flotilla people proclaim it. Any ship that announces its intention of breaking a blockade can be legally boarded.

And anyone who reads the Al Jazeera reporter's statement KNOWS they didn't start firing immediately. They were using noise bombs. The first landing was met with resistance so the second landing on that boat fired.

Once the rules of peaceful demonstration and publicity stunt alter to determined resistance, then the soldiers.........you can follow this is you concentrate hard.......had no idea how far the resistance intended to go. So they changed their strategy to normal soldier behavior: they shot to kill.

Win Win for the Palestinians. Mourning for some Turkish mothers. Perhaps it will make them feel for Kurdish and Armenian mothers, but I doubt it.

[jayfish]

57. I must not be able to go slow enough. Was this before or after the paintball gun thing?

Oh, and do you have a connection with Israeli intelligence or something? Because even the official story (live as it is) doesn't play out even close to your description. :shrug:

FSH

[azurnoir]

4. from the comments

1. Gaza by International Law is an occupied territory – neither a territory nor a state.

2. Even if it was a state, you would need to declare a state of war or belligerence. Neither were declared or made by the Israeli government.

3. In the absence of a declaration of war or a state of belligerence, the action of Israel is considered civil… that it is the persons who organized the raid, and those who took part in it are subject to the International Maritime Law… just the same as most of Israel politicians are subject to common criminal laws in Europe, today, for example.

can you show us where Israel has formally declared war on the state of Gaza? ooops Gaza's not a state is it

all of the above are predicated on Gaza being a sovereign state which it is not

[Fozzledick]

14. Now that's just lazy!

Why quote other people's ignorance and denial? Can't you even make the effort to express your own?

[azurnoir]

23. trying to get out providing the proof I asked for?

you got my take your entire little scenario oh wait a minute it wasn't yours was it? Is based on Gaza being a sovereign state and a formal state of war existing between Gaza and Israel neither is true

[Fozzledick]

28. OK, thats more like it !

Willful ignorance of the fact that Hamas has declared war against Israel and craven denial that a belligerent need not be a recognized sovereign state as noted in the original article.

I knew you could do it if you tried!:evilgrin:

[azurnoir]

30. Has Israel formally declared war against Gaza? yes or no n/t

[Alamuti Lotus]

24. There's a flip side to this "state of war / blockade is awesome / murder is legal" argument...

...that I doubt the hasbara brigade wants to touch. At least, none have ventured to bring this up. If all of that is the case, then the rockets (of the "OH THE ROCKETS! THE ROCKETS!" fame) are perfectly fine too. OH SNAP.

[azurnoir]

33. Israel has avoided aformal declaration of war because then

the rules of war would apply but some here want it both ways

[Chulanowa]

43. I'm just waiting for Israel to see some of its civilian ships captured

by some of those states that haven't recognized Israel and exist in a state of more or less permanant war footing.

I imagine these racist dolts would be singing a different tune if it were 9 Israelis dead, one shot execution-style, on a raid in international waters off the coast of Yemen.

[shira]

49. Gaza is still occupied? Are you fucking kidding?

There's no question it's being blockaded by BOTH Egypt and Israel, but that doesn't equate to occupation. No one claims Egypt occupies Gaza due to their blockade.

Of course if it is occupation, then under international law Israel is still responsible for law and order in Gaza - meaning Israel is responsible for controlling Hamas by protecting Palestinians from Hamas.

So is Gaza still occupied?

:eyes:

I didn't think so.

[Chulanowa]

54. Yes, it is still occupied

It is no longer subject to settlement, which is a different thing from occupation.

Gaza does not control its borders.
Gaza does not control its coastline.
Gaza does not control its airspace
Gaza lives under effective Israeli military control.

It's an occupation, Shira.

What, Israel, trying to shirk its responsibilities and violating international law? NO WAI!

[Dick Dastardly]

64. Gaza sure does control its side of its borders with Israel and Egypt. Egypt controls its side of

its border with Gaza. Israel has no control of anyside of the Egypt/Gaza border and Israel only controls its own side of its borders with Gaza. No country is obligated to open its borders to anyone.

As far as coastline and airspace go, its a legitimate method to help defend yourself from attacks in a conflict. Was Japan occupied when the US controlled its air and sea during the war? No it wasnt until they surrendered and the US had full control internaly. Did the US occupy Cuba when we blockaded them during the Cuban Missile Crisis? No it was not an occupation. No one in history except Israel has been considered an occupier by instituting an air and sea blockade. Add to that fact that Israel does not control all the external Gaza borders only its own makes it blatant that Israel is again as usual held to ridiculous standards no one else is held to or ever has been held too.

[Chulanowa]

69. Israel often bombs the Egypt / Gaza border

I would certainly label that as control, as they have demonstrated a willingness to use their superior military power to, well, control that border.

Of course that doesn't fly when the message you're trying to get out is "it's solely the fault of those crazy dirty hook-nosed arabushim moon-worshippers!"

[Dick Dastardly]

60. So some anonymous person post an unsupported comment and you quote it as if it is irrefutable fact?

Sorry that does not wash as any proof. Not to mention it is incorrect anyway.

1. Its status as occupied is not true since the disengagement, it is a highly disputable claim.

Since Israel no longer has troops within Gaza, does not provide government functions in Gaza and does not control within Gaza under Geneva it does not meet the definition of being occupied.



2 and 3. This is false. It is not required to be a state. Nor is any formal delclaration of war or belligerence required although such a declaration solidifies its position better
.

That said Israel has actually made a formal declaration



Israeli Panel Declares Gaza a 'Hostile Entity'
Israel's security cabinet on Wednesday declared the Gaza Strip a "hostile entity"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091901156.html


Cabinet votes Gaza a 'hostile entity'
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3451149,00.html


So we see there has been a formal declaration

[Chulanowa]

5. All true. Except in international waters

The blockade does not extend beyond Israeli waters. Nor can any nation assault, board, or detain a ship bearing the flag of another nation while in international waters.

Notice how that keeps getting left out of the pro-murderer spin?

[Fozzledick]

8. Wrong again - RTFA

"Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say."

[Chulanowa]

15. I did read the fucking article

The fucking article is fucking wrong.

As explained by another poster, a legal blockade can only exist between two belligerent states in a declared war. Palestine is not a state, it is an occupied territory under (on paper) UN authority. Gaza certainly isn't a state.

Further for a blockade to be legal, the blockading power must be able to intercept the vast bulk of incoming shipments. Israel is not accomplishing this (remember, the West bank is part of the same entity - state, territory, whatever - as Gaza, and is not under any sort of blockade).

If a belligerent is unable to intercept all shipments coming in, then it is barred from trying to do so to neutral ships, and must instead focus on those belonging under the flag of the state being blockaded

Further, the ships in question must be taken to a friendly port if they are seized - a port of either belligerent is not considered "friendly" as it could come under attack from other parties involved in the war.

Lastly, these do not apply to international waters. On the high seas, navigation is unrestricted. Once the ship in question breaches Israeli waters, THEN the IDF can determine that it is breaking a blockade and bound for a belligerent territory, and may intercept and seize.

Also important is that even in the scenario of full legality and clearly determined blockade running, might does not make right, and killing the people on board a neutral-flagged ship can be considered a war crime. Injuries caused by the seizing party must be tended to to the fullest by the seizing party.

"Intercepting a vessel could apply globally" - yeah, I wanna see North Korea try to intercept South-Korea bound vessels under that logic.

[BootinUp]

26. this reads like bunk, do you care to cite the source post? nt

[Chulanowa]

42. Same source as the linked article

Also? Some other interesting parts.

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited 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.

Now, whether Israel is violating (a) is hard to tell, given the limited press access to Gaza. Israel says they're giving food and medicines to Gaza. Okay, let's go ahead and take them at that.

However, Israel clearly is in violation of (b). To date, the only method of assault that Gaza factions seem capable of delivering is qassam rockets. These have been shown time and time again to be hugely ineffective, to the point that Hamas should stop shooting rockets simply out of a basic cost - benefit analysis (If you spend a hundred bucks on a weapon and you just scorch a sidewalk with it, you wasted a hundred bucks). While I won't deny that the rockets can be deadly, the fact that they cannot be aimed and have only a moderate delivery makes them basically the military version of bottle rockets. Recently there were four fired from Gaza; the blockade doesn't seem to be hurting this capability.

So in the end, what we have is a threat that is not a threat (4 people killed in 2006 by rockets from Gaza, versus 208 murdered by their fellow Israelis the same year) that is not being hindered by the blockade. In other words, Israel is gaining no military advantage from the blockade. On the other hand, the people of Gaza are unquestionably suffering from it, even with whatever the Israelis are delivering.

Zero military advantage plus greater-than-zero humanitarian cost equals illegal blockade.

That alone basically nullifies any claims of legality on Israel's part in this whole mess.

Also? There's this:

SECTION IV : CAPTURE OF ENEMY VESSELS AND GOODS

135. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 136, enemy vessels, whether merchant or otherwise, and goods on board such vessels may be captured outside neutral waters. Prior exercise of visit and search is not required.

136. The following vessels are exempt from capture:

(a) hospital ships and small craft used for coastal rescue operations;
(b) other medical transports, so long as they are needed for the wounded, sick and shipwrecked on board;
(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; and
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable o 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) vessels charged with religious, non-military scientific or philanthropic missions; vessels collecting scientific data of likely military applications are not protected;
(f) 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 inspectiorr, and
(g) vessels designed or adapted exclusively for responding to pollution incidents in the marine environment when actually engaged in such activities.

So what we've got here is a Reuters article, using the source document, cherry-picking from a fairly substantive text, to put Israel in the right. This is flawed for several reasons.

1) Palestine and Israel are not at war.
2) Imagining for a moment that they were, the blockade is illegal on grounds of humanitarian cost vs. military advantage
3) Blockades cannot be declared at random; blockades occur in the waters of the enemy state, not international water
4) As a fleet of vessels engaged in a humanitarian mission, flying under neutral flags, these vessels were except form seizure.

Of course, what the fuck would the source document about international humanitarian law as applies to naval conflicts know about international humanitarian law as applied to a naval conflict, right? it contradicts Israel's claim, therefor it must be bunk. et.

[Dick Dastardly]

65. Why is it wrong, just because in your opinion you say it is. Or is it because as you say

it was "explained by another poster" which you consider hard fact even though it was a cut and paste from the article of unsupported comments posted by an anonymous person.

Absolutely nothing you say here is correct or applicable.






The San Remo Manual on International Law makes it clear Israel was within its rights
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce

International maritime law prohibits boats from entering an area subject to a maritime blockade and that vessels attempting to violate this may be captured or even attacked.

The San Remo Manual on International Law, specifically 67A as well as other support througout various sections, a state can enforce a blockade by boarding vessels in international waters that it reasonably expects might breach the blockade and vessels flying the flag of neutral states in neutral waters can be intercepted if they "are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade.
They had been warned in advance numerous times not to breach the blockade, Israel offered to accept and transfer the aid to Gaza but FGM refused because they had a stated goal which they openly expressed, of breaking the blockade. Furthermore under section 48 they are required to submit to identification and inspection to be exempt from attack which they refused to allow.


These points and much more in the link and other areas of international law make it clear Israel was well within its rights

[BootinUp]

9. So this doesn't mean what it says?

Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.

[Chulanowa]

17. Anonymous legal experts aren't always right, amazingly

NO WAI, right?

[Statistical]

67. The location of blockade is not relevent to the legality of it.

Only the destination of the ship.

[provis99]

7. it is an act of piracy on the open seas.

Reuters is a right-wing rag, and frankly the law the idiots cited applies in wartime. Israel is not at war with Hamas, the flotilla is not a Hamas flotilla, and piracy deals with attacking ships in international waters. All the Reuters article does is cite the opinions of a bunch of Israeli apologists.

[hack89]

40. Words have meanings - look up piracy as it pertains to international law

it was not piracy.

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. Why is a Likud apologist using a Jerry Garcia avatar?

Do you really think Jerry would support this shit? :evilfrown:

[Fozzledick]

16. Why should I listen to a warmonger using a Bob Dylan avatar?

:eyes:

[Chulanowa]

19. if we're debating the merits of avatars rather than opinions...

Both Jerry and Bob can suck Sitting Bull's little big horn.

[Sebastian Doyle]

22. Well, I think we know what Sitting Bull would say to NuttyYahoo

Pretty much the same thing he said to General Custer. And Bennie would be about as deserving.

But I never heard any of his records. :evilgrin:

[Sebastian Doyle]

21. Warmonger?

Obviously you haven't read any of my posts.

And what would Mr. Zimmerman say to the brutal murderous NuttyYahoo regime?

Probably something like this......

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build all the bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks.

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly.

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain.

You fasten all the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion'
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud.

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins.

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
That even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do.

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul.

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.

[Fozzledick]

25. So why are you supporting the war against Israel?

And are you really so slow you couldn't guess I was thinking of just that song when I asked the question?

[Sebastian Doyle]

31. I'm not supporting any war against anybody.

I don't have any use for Hamas OR Likud.

And NuttyYahoo is only making shit worse by attacking ships carrying humanitarian aid.

[Chulanowa]

38. Oh, that is the stupidest shit i've ever seen

And considering the section of DU we're posting on, that's saying a bit.

Supporting the war on Israel...

What war on Israel? The one being waged by the antisemitic fuckers in the Israeli government? The guys who get money and votes for having a few extra dead Jews? Who's political careers revolve around keeping other Jews living in fear? The antisemites who's assholes you're licking clean after every shit they take on the heads of Israelis, Palestinians, and whoever else they want?

If that's the war, then sign me up, because those motherfuckers have got to go.

[proteus_lives]

29. It was legal.

[Tripmann]

41. The blockade contravenes the geneva convention

So explain how its legal?

[Chulanowa]

44. It's Israel doing it

Therefor it's legal, by Proteus' outlook.

[proteus_lives]

58. It's Israel doing it.

Therefore it's illegal, by Chulas' outlook.

[Chulanowa]

71. Also by the UN's

I actually believed the blockade to be legal, up until reading the laws regarding blockades.

But nice try.

[Prometheus Bound]

32. It's complicated.

Legal moves over Gaza flotilla attack unlikely
BEN SAUL
June 4, 2010 - 2:26PM

<snip>

In addition, if Israeli forces killed or injured people on board a foreign vessel in international waters, they may have violated the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 1988. That international treaty makes it an international offence to seize a ship by force, as well as to kill or injure anyone in so doing. Any country that is a party to the treaty (including Australia) may exercise jurisdiction over those offences where committed on board one of the state's ships or by its nationals.

<snip>

Israel itself has invoked the applicability of the San Remo Manual on the international law of armed conflicts at sea. That manual was designed to apply to naval warfare in international armed conflicts between states. Israel thus appears to accept that the relevant applicable rules are the more detailed ones applicable to international armed conflicts. If Israel seeks to rely on those rules to authorise its actions, then it must be held to account on those standards. The San Remo Manual is an authoritative statement of customary international law.

As Israel correctly claims, the San Remo Manual does indeed permit using force against the merchant vessels of neutral countries where they "are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade". Yet, Israel does not acknowledge that the manual also prohibits a blockade if "the damage to the civilian population is . . . excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated" from it. The international community is in near universal agreement that the Gaza blockade has inflicted grossly disproportionate suffering on Gazan civilians, which is excessive in relation to Israel's otherwise legitimate security concerns. There is no authority to enforce an unlawful blockade.

Accordingly, the law of armed conflict did not authorise Israel to board the flotilla vessels and so does not provide a defence to any Turkish or Australian criminal prosecutions. One of the only other situations in which a country may interfere with the cardinal principle of freedom of navigation of civilian ships in international waters is where the ship is suspected of piracy (armed robbery at sea), and there is no suggestion of that here.

Moreover, Israel's claim that its personnel acted in self-defence is unlikely to be substantiated. One cannot illegally attack a ship and then claim self-defence if those on board resist your attack. The right of self-defence instead rests with the passengers – a person may be entitled to resist one's own unlawful capture by armed men coming for you in the night. The only qualification is whether the passengers on board used too much force, since self-defence requires a proportionate response to the anticipated harm. That is a question of fact in individual cases, which would require more information.

Associate Professor Ben Saul is co-director of the Sydney Centre for International Law at The University of Sydney, a barrister, and a leading international authority on terrorism in international law. Dr Saul teaches the law of armed conflict and has been involved in such cases in The Hague, the Israeli Supreme Court, and in the Balibo coronial inquest.

More: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/legal-moves-over-gaza-flotilla-attack-unlikely-20100604-xjdc.html

[Cicada]

34. blockade is illegal if humanitarian costs exceed military benefit

the blockade is pemissible for military purposes.

But Israel blocks toys, children's text books, chocolate, stationary, writing paper, enough fuel to have electricity more than half the time, on and on.

Obviously the blockade is designed to torture those in gaza and therefore it is not legitimate nor legal.

If it were limited to military items it would be legal.

What do we call people who blocks toys, textbooks, chocolates from children?

Monsters.

[JDPriestly]

35. Thanks for posting this.

Would we establish a blockade if a country near our border declared war on us and lobbed explosives at us?

Of course.

And if we declared war on some other country, refused to recognize its government and blatantly showered it with explosives, that country would, if it could, blockade us.

That's the way the world works.

If the Palestinians want to change their situation, they can.

I remember when Israel took down some of its settlements as a peace gesture. Israel was not thanked. The Palestinians responded, as I recall, with violence.

The Palestinians need to grow up. I know that some of them have had it tough. But, I've been hearing about their refugee camps since the 1950s when I was a child. How can people remain in refugee camps that long, especially considering a) they have received a lot of charitable assistance, b) they have had so many corrupt leaders, and c) they are surrounded by wealthy Arab countries that claim to support their cause.

The "plight" of the Palestinians does not make sense to me. I am not a hard-hearted person, but there comes a time when you deal with the reality you have to deal with. The Palestinians make the worst of a bad situation. Their situation would get better if they decided to make the best of it.

[dkf]

36. The Palestinians are going to win this as world opinion turns the Israelis into the bad guys.

It was always hard for me to understand why the Israelis got to kick the Palestinians out of their homes and take over everything. I no longer see injustice as a reason to force the turnover of property. Someone explain to me why the creation of Israel was the correct thing to do.

[JDPriestly]

45. Why was Israel established?

A simple explanation of my understanding of the answer to that question.

The very short version: Because nobody knew where to send or what to do with the Jewish people who, a year after the end of WWII, were still living under abject conditions in the camps to which the NAZIs had sent them. Because Jews could not be released into the European countryside. It was simply to dangerous for them there.

The long version as I understand it.

There were always Jewish people in the area of Israel, beginning in Biblical times.

Until shortly after WWI, the area was governed by the Romans, others and then finally, the Turkish Empire. Jews who left Israel during the diaspora during the Roman era and later lived in many different parts of the Middle East and Europe.

Over the centuries, Jews were murdered, accused of crimes they did not commit, treated like dirt everywhere they went.

As you probably know, for example, the Inquisition in Europe attempted to convert Jews to Catholicism by threat of death and other physical violence. You have probably heard of the activities of the Inquisition in Spain.

The Russians also arrested, starved, tortured and otherwise harassed Jews in what were known as pogroms over the years.

All over Eastern Europe, Christians cruelly discriminated against Jews. Jews were not allowed to enter certain professions or take certain jobs. Jews were falsely accused of inhuman crimes. The Catholic Churches in Eastern Europe and Austria maintained shrines to imagined victims of Jewish people. In the latter half of the twentieth century, many of these accusations were reviewed based on the cultural and scientific knowledge of the modern time and found to be baseless.

Anti-Jewish sentiment was rampant all over Europe. I am not Jewish but personally witnessed a great deal of anti-Jewish sentiment in France and other European countries when I lived there at various times between the 1960s through the 1980s.

You are probably familiar with the history of the NAZI Holocaust. Jews from all over Europe, wherever the NAZIs governed, were deported to work camps and to extermination camps. Even in the work camps, the Jews were mistreated and often allowed to starve. I personally visited what remains of one of these camps and saw the photos and what is left of the gas chambers. The Holocaust was a horrible reality.

Hitler did not just deport Jews. He did not just kill them. He confiscated their property. I once lived in a town in Austria that had at one time been home to many Jewish people. As far as I could tell, they had all disappeared. Their former homes were still there. The NAZIs had stolen them and handed them over to people the NAZIs considered to be Aryan. I often wondered, as I walked through the town, what it had been like when Jewish people lived there. Very strange how so many people could just vanish.

When our troops freed Europe, they discovered the NAZI concentration camps. They saw many starving, dying Jews. The world was shocked and outraged at the sight of their emaciated bodies. And when the mass graves were discovered, the shock became even greater. The horror grew as our troops discovered the NAZI's careful records of the massacre of millions of Jews in those camps.

Because of the widespread and irrational hatred for Jews that continued to prevail in Europe after WWII, the Jews could not simply be released from the prison camps into the populations of Germany and Austria or certain other countries. They could not go to what had been home to them for centuries.

At the same time, the allies were unable and unwilling to take on the task of caring for the Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

So, one year after the end of WWII, for the most part, the Jews were still living, if you can call it that, in the NAZI prison camps. Some of them were homeless, parentless children.

Some Jews were able to obtain permission to immigrate to countries around the world. But many, maybe even most of them could not.

Jewish people had always lived in the Turkish Empire and particularly in various areas of what we now call Israel and Palestine. During the 19th century, some Jewish groups had begun to emigrate to the area now known as Israel hoping to establish a Jewish country, some place where Jews could be safe from the endless persecution they suffered over the centuries.

After WWII, the boundaries between countries all over Europe, maybe even the world, were redrawn. Germany became two countries. The Alsace-Lorraine joined France. Austria had already lost territory after losing WWI. Many countries were changed a great deal. Yugoslavia is a good example.

Thus, the formation of the state of Israel was not unique, and it seemed like a very good idea. The area that is now Palestine and Israel had been under British control for some time. The Turkish government and at least some of the prominent Muslim leadership in Palestine had sided with or openly sympathized with the NAZIs during WWII. In turn, our Allies had little sympathy for people they viewed as their former enemies or the sympathizers with their former enemies.

The U.S. government was divided with regard to the founding of Israel. The part of the government that favored it finally prevailed. The British government tended to oppose the establishment of Israel. The USSR finally proposed a UN resolution favoring the establishment of the State of Israel. By that time, some Jewish refugees had already defiantly gone to Israel to make it their home.

The former British Protectorate which had been a part of the Turkish Empire (and which was also, at some point, called Transjordan) until shortly after WWI was partitioned with a large portion of it designated as Jordan and the rest divided between Palestine and Israel.

Palestinians still live in what is called Israel. Palestinians serve in the Israeli parliament.

Palestinians generally claim that they were forced to leave Israel. Israel, I believe claims that many of them were, in fact compensated for their land and that many others left of their own volition albeit in the hope of returning. In the earliest years, when Jews moved to the British Protectorate, they were often welcomed by the people who lived then in Palestine.

Since the violence in Palestine, many Jews whose ancestors had lived in countries like Morocco and other parts of the Middle East for centuries, were forced to move. Many of them went to France. Some of them came here. I do not know, but I would imagine that some of them went to Israel.

Israel is the only country in the world in which Jews are the majority. Christians and Muslims are majorities in many countries in the world. Surely, after all the centuries of persecuting Jews, the world should permit Jewish people to live in peace without fearing irrational cruelty against them in one small corner of the world.

On edit, for those who do not know the history of WWII, the Jewish people, ordinary Jewish people did not cause that war. They did not cause the persecution against them. The reason for the persecution was simply irrational prejudice. It was just easy to blame the Jews for all kinds of problems.

We are seeing a resurgence in the kind of irrational hatred for Jewish people that resulted in the Holocaust.

[Chulanowa]

53. I just wanna address a few things

You've got a little history, and you've got a little propaganda.

The very short version: Because nobody knew where to send or what to do with the Jewish people who, a year after the end of WWII, were still living under abject conditions in the camps to which the NAZIs had sent them. Because Jews could not be released into the European countryside. It was simply to dangerous for them there.

Partially true. The Jews released from Nazi concentration camps were instead transferred to Russian or allied internment camps. Those who made a break for the Palestinian Mandate were diverted by the British and interned on Cyprus. However, the problem wasn't so much that the countryside was dangerous for the Jews... as the fact that none of the allied countries were any less antisemitic than the Axis was. The United States didn't want a bunch of jews moving in (both FDR and Truman were rather antisemitic fellows, sadly). Churchill and De Gaulle didn't want them. Stalin was busy exterminating Soviet Jews and sending the leftovers to the Yevreyskaya avtonomnaya oblast. For their part, the freed Jews weren't too keen on staying in Europe, and truthfully I couldn't blame them.

Unfortunately for this situation, these Jewish people, no matter how persecuted and unwanted they were, still had absolutely no right at all to that little patch of land on the Eastern Mediterranean. This didn't matter, though, as the powers that be - all of them Christian - saw an opportunity to fulfil biblical prophecy. For the most part, none of them considered Arabs to be worth consideration, which is a fine, proud tradition that survives to this very day.

Antisemitism with a dash of Antiarabism and a staunch belief in iron age fairy tales, what fun.

(History of Antisemitism in Europe)

Okay, I'm just putting that in the short version because that's a lot to quote. And you're pretty right on regarding all of that. No question that the Jews have been persecuted all over Europe for a long damn time.

The only place I draw exception is that you seem to believe that they are a special case. Reading what you've got there, I get the impression that you believe only Jews were victims of the Holocaust. Normally that's be wrong, but permissible as they were the major victims, constituting half of those slaughtered. However, as justification for the creation of Israel, it has one big flaw.

Where is the nation for the Rom people?

The Turkish government and at least some of the prominent Muslim leadership in Palestine had sided with or openly sympathized with the NAZIs during WWII. In turn, our Allies had little sympathy for people they viewed as their former enemies or the sympathizers with their former enemies

Okay, here we start getting into bullshit. The Turkish was a neutral state until 1944, when it joined the Allies in order to be allowed into the UN. It was considered by some to be "wobbly" due to the Ottoman's joining with the Central powers in WW1, but there was no actual reason to consider Turkey anything other than neutral in WW2.

There was no "Muslim Leadership" in Palestine. The term "Muslim Leadership" is for all intents and purposes equal to the term "cat herder," at least in Sunni communities (Shia have a bit more structure, which is where we get folks like Khomeini and Sistani). What there was was the "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem", Mohammad Amin al-Husayni.

The problem there? al-Husayni was a British appointee. He did not rise to community leadership as most Muslim leaders do, through scholarship and public acclaim. he was a puppet of the occupying power, and used as a tool to legitimatize British policies. he was treated as a tool by most Palestinians, save those who also wanted a piece of the British pie. Here's the wacky thing; part of the reason the British appointed al-Husayni was because he was a raving fucking antisemite. At the time the Brits wanted to reinforce their dictum that Jews would not be welcome in the Palestinian Mandate, by creating antisemitic sentiment among the population of the Mandate. Another wacky thing was that, due to the area's long history of cohabitation, the effort was wasted, and pretty much made al-Husayni look like a crazy asshole.

After WW2 broke out, al-Husayni did throw his support behind the Nazis. By then, al-Husayni had adopted Arab nationalism, and went to the enemies of the British to seek out a means to end the British occupation of Palestine. He was impressed by the Nazi attitude towards Jews - remember, crazy fucking antisemite - and went on a recruitment drive among Bosnian and Albaniam muslims to win them over to the nazis, with marginal success (less than 10,000 volunteered). He never made it back to Palestine during the war, since of course, the mandate being British territory, he was regarded as a criminal and would have been slapped in chains.

As it was, he was caught in Switzerland, and exiled to Egypt. He tried to press for a hand in the Egyptian military response to the creation of Israel, but the Egyptians told him to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up. And so, he sat in Egypt until he died in the 70's.

So there you have it. The "Nazi grand Mufti" that the Israelis and Israel supporters love hawking as evidence that the Palestinians "deserved it" was a British puppet who had no local support, and ended up becoming a homeless nobody who had absolutely no pull with the Nazis he ended up getting stuck with, or the Egyptians he was imprisoned under.

The U.S. government was divided with regard to the founding of Israel. The part of the government that favored it finally prevailed. The British government tended to oppose the establishment of Israel. The USSR finally proposed a UN resolution favoring the establishment of the State of Israel. By that time, some Jewish refugees had already defiantly gone to Israel to make it their home.

What? No, really, what? The creation of Israel was a British idea, with strong American support (Truman loved to take personal credit for the creation of the state, and is known to at least once had belted out "I am Cyrus! Me!" when called a 'participant' in the founding of Israel). The USSR was ambivalent of the idea, because it was trying to build its own Jewish Homeland out in Siberia (no, that's not a joke. it's still there, too, though it's mostly Russians rather than Jews living there now). Officially, Stalin was opposed to Zionism in all other forms. However, he ended up coming to the belief that Israel would become a socialist state and thus easily swayed by the USSR, and so the Soviets threw their support to the plan at the 11th hour.

Palestinians still live in what is called Israel. Palestinians serve in the Israeli parliament.

As second-class citizens, at best. Arab participation in Israeli poltitics is often harshly hobbled, for instance, Arab parties being denied election victories or even placement on ballots. Arab participation in Israel is sort of like Israelite participation in Pharaonic Egypt.

Palestinians generally claim that they were forced to leave Israel. Israel, I believe claims that many of them were, in fact compensated for their land and that many others left of their own volition albeit in the hope of returning.

Would you like a list of Arab villages, by province, that were emptied by Israel between 1948 and 1952, and are now part of Israel, lived in by Israeli jews, and have hebrew names? The Nakba is a reality, no matter how much the chronic holocaust deniers of Israel want to pretend it's not. People who voluntarily flee their homes in a time of war are 100% entitled to the right of return under international law, so I'm not sure why Israel even tries that angle.

In the earliest years, when Jews moved to the British Protectorate, they were often welcomed by the people who lived then in Palestine.

Yup. Of course there was some conflict. That's largely inevitable whenever you have immigrants coming in, though. It wasn't until it became apparent that the Jews were going to be given the territory's farmland, ports, fresh water, and suspected oil deposits as part of a Jew-only-Arabs-Fuck-Off state that the UN was proposing, that the Palestinians started going "Well, hey now wait a minute..."

Israel is the only country in the world in which Jews are the majority. Christians and Muslims are majorities in many countries in the world. Surely, after all the centuries of persecuting Jews, the world should permit Jewish people to live in peace without fearing irrational cruelty against them in one small corner of the world.

And here we have a nice, tightly-woven knot of propaganda.

Israel is the only country in the world where Jews are in the majority. And this will be the case until they are not the majority. What then? Demographics change, after all, and Israel is going to become a state where Jews are the minority at some point. so, what happens then? The United States will do just fine when non-whites become the majority (which is what, two years from now?) because despite its racist past, the United States is not a "White" state. While some people in the country may have an existential crisis, the country itself will do just fine. How will Israel fare when it's in a similar situation?

Christians and Muslims are majorities in many countries in the world, this is true... And how well do they treat their minorities? How are Jews treated in Saudi Arabia? This argument is so far from valid justification as to be laughable. You spend your whole post outlining how Christian majority nations have persecuted Jews, and then cite this as giving Jews authority to persecute others in a Jewish-majority state. Laughable.

Now, Jewish people should live as free of fear and irrational cruelty as any other people in the world; it's not a special entitlement for Jews, it's sort of a global thing. Palestinians share this right, but are evidently barred from exercising it. People in Tehran, who see a nuclear-armed Israel demanding immediate war on Iran, also have a right to live without fear of irrational cruelty. People on boats carrying humanitarian aid to a stricken area, also have a right to live and not fear irrational cruelty.

Now, as for one small corner of the world... the problem arises that that corner of the world was someone else's corner of the world before it was Israel's. Israel conquered this corner of the world and has built its houses over the bones and flesh of the fallen. Perhaps as an American, who's own home is similarly built, you don't see an issue with this; white people have rights brown people do not, whether the whites are christian or jewish, and whether the browns are Indians or Arabs.

On edit, for those who do not know the history of WWII, the Jewish people, ordinary Jewish people did not cause that war. They did not cause the persecution against them. The reason for the persecution was simply irrational prejudice. It was just easy to blame the Jews for all kinds of problems.

Very true. yet ironic, as so many Israel supporters happily blame Arabs for the suffering foisted on them by Israel.

We are seeing a resurgence in the kind of irrational hatred for Jewish people that resulted in the Holocaust.

I see perfectly rational anger directed at the antisemitic government of Israel. The irrational hatreds seem to be flowing mostly from that government, and the authoritarian, racist sons of bitches who believe no wrong can come of said government.

[JDPriestly]

59. As you know, Transjordan was intended as the primary country

for the Palestinians.

I believe that you have your facts wrong. At one time, Jews lived all over the area as did Palestinians. Had that not been true, there would have been no need for a partition other than to find some place on earth to house Jewish refugees.

I left out the fact that Jews were fleeing Europe to go to Israel as a refuge of last resort during the late 1930s. That is where Raoul Wallenburg, the Swedish diplomat to Hungary, became aware of the horrible persecution of the Jews in NAZI Germany. Wallenburg was sent to Israel to represent his father's bank. He met many Jewish refugees.

Interestingly, I recently read an old book on the history of the Jewish people by a very, very liberal and scholarly professor of ethics and religion named Theodore Soares. The title of the book is The Origins of the Bible. It was published in 1941. Here is what this, I repeat, very liberal professor (very modern biblical scholar for his time) said about Israel and Palestine:

"Today the Arabs east of Jordan are watching what goes on in Palestine. They know the strength of the British force. They are informed of negotiations that go on in London. They are in contact with the Arabs in Palestine, and receive reports of all the doings of the JEws. If political exignecy should compel the British to withdraw their troops, the Arabs from Transjordania would swarm across the river and wipe out the Jews who have settled the land."

That was the sentiment of the time in the West, and that is why Israel was born.

Don't criticize Roosevelt and Truman for their unwillingness to accept Jewish refugees in the 1930s and 1940s. We were barely surviving the depression in the 1930s and trying to fight a war in the 1940s. We did take in many Jewish refugees in the 1940s, but we did not even have enough housing for the returning soldiers and their families in the late 1940s. We began taking many, many refugees then, but took many more in the 1950s. I remember that time. Housing was so scarce that more than just a few American families lived in quanset huts that had been built as military barracks during the war.

As for why the Jews should have their own state. Because their people considered to be of their religion and ethnicity have been murdered for centuries for no reason other than that they are Jewish. Spanish-speaking people can call Spain a sort of safe place. Everybody there speaks their language. People of African decent can look to African countries for culture and identity regardless of where they live. Another group that suffers the same problems the Jewish people suffer is the Armenians. There are no doubt other smaller groups that suffer similar fates. In Europe, I met members of the Bahai religion who had been persecuted in Iran after the Mullahs assumed power. African-Americans suffered great indignity, no opportunity, economic oppression and occasional physical violence in the United States prior to the 1960s (especially in the South) but that was nowhere comparable to the horrible massacres that the Jewish people suffered. As I said, the Armenians have suffered in some ways as the Jewish people have, but the Armenians have not been persecuted for centuries (as have the Jews), as far as I have heard. You are correct, the Roms are also a persecuted people. They were certainly persecuted by the NAZIs. They also should have a refuge. I do not oppose creating refuges for people who are persecuted because of their religion or ethnicity.

I simply disagree with your version of the facts. And statements by people who lived at the time prior to the partition of Palestine tend to back me up.

Also, the British were responsible and governed Palestine at the time of the partition. They had the authority to do what they did. Russia was the first country to propose the resolution supporting partition in the United Nations. You are quite incorrect about your understanding of the disagreements in the western governments about the partition. Read your history of the United States during that period more carefully.

[Chulanowa]

61. It was what, now?

You really shouldn't title a response with something like that, and then state that someone else has their facts wrong. Honestly, when you start out that way, you're telling me you really, truly have no idea what the samhill you're talking about. When you tell me that the USSR was first in line to support the partition, you're only confirming this. Russia was a latecomer to the partition plan, having initially supported an Arab / Jewish binational state.

I would suggest you read some history. Actual history. As in, peer-reviewed history gleaned from primary sources, not Daniel Pipes and Charles Krauthammer.

[Douglas Carpenter]

37. Israel has never slowed down its relentless settlment expansion - never

Comprehensive Settlement Population 1972-2008
— filed under: general-stats, stats


Year West Bank Gaza Strip East Jerusalem Golan Heights Total
1972 1,182 700 8,649 77 10,608
1983 22,800 900 76,095 6,800 106,595
1985 44,100 1,900 103,900* 8,700 158,700
1989 69,800 3,000 117,100 10,000 199,900
1990 78,600 3,300 135,000 10,600 227,500
1991 90,300 3,800 137,300 11,600 243,000
1992 101,100 4,300 141,000 12,000 258,400
1993 111,600 4,800 152,800 12,600 281,800
1995 133,200 5,300 157,300 13,400 309,200
1996 142,700 5,600 160,400 13,800 322,500
1997 154,400 5,700 161,416 14,300 335,816
1998 163,300 6,100 165,967 14,900 350,267
1999 177,411 6,337 170,123 15,313 369,184
2000 192,976 6,678 172,250 15,955 387,859
2002 214,722 7,277 175,617 16,503 414,119
2003 224,669 7,556 178,601 16,791 427,617
2004 234,487 7,826 181,587 17,265 441,828
2005 258,988 0 184,057 17,793 460,838
2006 268,400 0 186,857 18,105
473,362
2007 276,462 0 189,708 18,692 484,862
2008 295,380 0 n/a 19,083 n/a

*1986 data

Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Abstract of Israel, 1992-2008 and List of Localities, the Populations, and Symbols, 1995-2007. Statistical Yearbook of Jerusalem, Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 1991-2008.

http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/settlement-info-and-tables/stats-data/comprehensive-settlement-population-1972-2006

if the vast majority of settlements are not REMOVED - a two-state solution is physically impossible

The Netanyahu government has publicly promised the radical settler movement that they will never, ever evacuate any settlers or settlements - ever and the Netanyahu government has publicly promised the radical settler movement that any limited freeze on settlement expansion is one time only and will never ever again be repeated - ever. It is not simply the words that the Israeli state issue, which are frequently very fine words about wanting peace, it is the expansion, expansion and expansion that makes viable Palestinian economy and independence impossible - thus a peace settlement implausible at least for the foreseeable future.

There are approximately 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, (*now closer to 500,000) including East Jerusalem. According to B'tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, " the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank" .*

http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp

full PDF map:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/Settlements_Map_Eng.pdf

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/728a69d4-12b1-11dc-a475-000b5df10621,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F728a69d4-12b1-11dc-a475-000b5df10621.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss%2Fdu


“there is no Palestinian state, even though the Israelis speak of one.” Instead, he said, “there will be a settler state and a Palestinian built-up area, divided into three sectors, cut by fingers of Israeli settlement and connected only by narrow roads."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/world/middleeast/11road.html?_r=12&pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=22948d4799a34065&ex=1187496000&emc=eta1&oref


Furthermore, Sharon has repeatedly said the "disengagement" from Gaza would help consolidate Israel's control over large settlement blocs in the West Bank

Officials: Robust Growth in W. Bank Settlements



Friday, August 26, 2005

JERUSALEM — An Israeli government official said Friday the population in its West Bank settlements has grown by more than 12,000 in the past year, reinforcing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's goal of strengthening large settlement blocs while withdrawing from the Gaza Strip.

Sharon has repeatedly said the withdrawal would help consolidate Israel's control over large settlement blocs in the West Bank, where the vast majority of Jewish settlers live. New figures from the Interior Ministry show robust growth in these blocs.

Gilad Heiman, a ministry spokesman, said the settler population in the West Bank grew to about 246,000 in June, an increase of 12,800, or 5 percent, over the previous year.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167143,00.html

In West Bank, Israel Sees Room to Grow
Government Moves Swiftly to Capitalize On Pullout From Gaza Despite Criticism

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 28, 2005

MAALE ADUMIM, West Bank -- In the tan hills a few miles east of Jerusalem, construction cranes dangle over a string of red-roofed neighborhoods that make up the largest Jewish settlement in the West Bank. It is here that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is reengaging with his electoral base following Israel's efficient but divisive exit from the Gaza Strip.

Enjoying a moment of international sympathy, Sharon's government is moving swiftly to capitalize on its unilateral withdrawal and ongoing demolition of 25 Jewish settlements. The government's efforts are focused largely in the West Bank, land of far more religious and strategic importance to Israel than the remote slice of coastline it has left behind.

A little more than 31,000 Israelis live in Maale Adumim, a suburban settlement built on land captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war. Israeli officials say it will grow to more than 50,000 people and eventually touch the edge of East Jerusalem, even though the U.S. government and Palestinian leaders have said that such growth would severely complicate efforts to establish a viable Palestinian state.

Last week, as the world watched settlers being hauled from their homes in Gaza, government officials ordered the confiscation of 400 acres of West Bank land for a barrier that will separate Maale Adumim from Palestinian-populated territory. Just east of the main settlement, where construction plans had been frozen because of U.S. opposition, Israel will soon break ground on a new police headquarters serving the entire West Bank.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082701113_pf.html

as I'm sure you must know it was Israel, not Hamas that broke the cease fire in Nov 08 prior to the invasion of Gaza two months later

A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.

Hamas responded by firing a wave of rockets into southern Israel, although no one was injured. The violence represented the most serious break in a ceasefire agreed in mid-June, yet both sides suggested they wanted to return to atmosphere of calm.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians

CNN Confirms Israel Broke Ceasefire First

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4


When people are under siege and are closely crowded together and have very little hope in a place where life has been unbearable for years and they are almost completely cut off even from even the rest of he occupied territories - of course that is a formula for disaster and instability. Yes, Egypt could do more. The Palestinians inside Gaza might have responded better. But these circumstances do not lend themselves to a stable situation.

.

[Fozzledick]

51. Oh Jeez, not this spam again!

:eyes:

[Wizard777]

46. Funny how they don't quote the whole law.

SECTION II : PRECAUTIONS IN ATTACK

46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

(a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack;
(b) in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives;
(c) they shall furthermore take all feasible precautions in the choice of methods and means in order to avoid or minimize collateral casualties or damage; and
(d) an attack shall not be launched if it may be expected to cause collateral casualties or damage which world be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole; an attack shall be cancelled or suspended as soon as it becomes apparent that the collateral casualties or damage would be excessive.

Blockade

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited 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.

[hayu_lol]

50. Some people here have apparently forgotten the ship or two...

from N Korea and loaded with weaponry that were stopped en-route to the middle east with rockets and other weapons aboard. In at least one case, the ship was allowed to continue but was clearly marked as a weapons carrier.

There are other examples. In any case, the term 'piracy' does not apply, neither does illegal stoppage and inspection. It does no one any good to play fast and loose with words that tend to inflame an already tense situation.

Israel is following, to the letter, the Sam Remo application insofar as their blockade goes. Too bad that HAMAS pays no attention to the same accords.

[Wizard777]

52. Many people all over the world disagree with that and this a matter of Customary law.

So their opinions count no matter how much Israel tries to dismiss it.

[Hugabear]

55. Is murdering humanitarian aid workers in cold blood legal?

If this had been a country "unfriendly" to the US, we would be leading the charge to convene a UN Security Council meeting to deal with this.

[Chulanowa]

62. We regularly contemplate bombing Iran...

Because we think they might be planning to almost violate a UN treaty in a few years.

Israel is all for the bombing of Iran on grounds that they might be thinking about developing potential that could perhaps violate a UN treaty in a few years.

Just for a little perspective on the hypocrisy and flaming fucking bigotry evidenced in this "debate"

[backscatter712]

56. It's used to enforce collective punishment & the "diet" against Gaza civilians, so it's illegal. n/t

[Recursion]

70. An alternate Q&A, from Slate

http://www.slate.com/id/2255610/

Timothy Palmer, in Slate's "Explainer" column, answers the question "Is Israel's blockade of Gaza illegal?" with "more or less".

I'll add, International Law has no real enforcement mechanism in most arenas, so there has been little adjudication of most "is this action illegal?" questions, which means we're all talking out of our asses.