Jump to content
We've just launched our new store! Unique tees, mugs, bags, and more. 10% discount with code OPEN10

  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Panorama - Gaza blockage

Guest oafc0000

By Guest oafc0000
in Discussions

 Share

Recommended Posts

oafc0000 Newbie

oafc0000

Posted
Posted (edited)

I know peoples automatically reaction is to jump on Israel from a great height (as the whole world did) but I am really struggling to have any sympathy with the terrorists (sorry protesters) on that boat...

Seems like the majority were not their for a fight but a hardcore group certainly were... It was this hardcore group that are responsible for any innocent deaths... If their were any...

They also showed how the supplies they were taking their where out of date. So it was all about provoking Israel into a conflict...

Edited by oafc0000
Link to comment
Share on other sites
eFestivals Mentor

eFestivals

Posted
Posted

Seems like the majority were not their for a fight but a hardcore group certainly were... It was this hardcore group that are responsible for any innocent deaths... If their were any...

Whether or not they were there for a confrontation or not - and the only proof of that would be from it happening, had it been allowed to happen (so there is no proof!) - it is certainly the case that the ship was illegally boarded in international waters, and because of that the people on board were entitled to mount a defence against that illegal boarding.

If Israel had wanted to be and seen to be an upholder of the law then they would have upheld the law. Instead they very deliberately chose to take illegal action, despite the fact that it made no difference to whether the ship would be stopped or not. The ship could have been VERY easily stopped once it had entered Israeli (and Gaza) waters. Israel instead chose to attack it while outside their waters.

Because Israel deliberately chose to break international law*, then there is a irrefutable basis to condemn only Israel for this incident.

(* and it should be remembered that Maritime Law is the most widely recognised part of international law)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oafc0000 Newbie

oafc0000

Posted
Posted

Whether or not they were there for a confrontation or not - and the only proof of that would be from it happening, had it been allowed to happen (so there is no proof!) - it is certainly the case that the ship was illegally boarded in international waters, and because of that the people on board were entitled to mount a defence against that illegal boarding.

If Israel had wanted to be and seen to be an upholder of the law then they would have upheld the law. Instead they very deliberately chose to take illegal action, despite the fact that it made no difference to whether the ship would be stopped or not. The ship could have been VERY easily stopped once it had entered Israeli (and Gaza) waters. Israel instead chose to attack it while outside their waters.

Because Israel deliberately chose to break international law*, then there is a irrefutable basis to condemn only Israel for this incident.

(* and it should be remembered that Maritime Law is the most widely recognised part of international law)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eFestivals Mentor

eFestivals

Posted
Posted (edited)

When you say illegal is this the pseudo legality which is used to call Tony Blair a war criminal ? rolleyes.gif

No. Are you ever going to make a post where you have the first idea what you're talking about? :rolleyes:

Maritime Law - a part of international law, in fact the part that international law grew out of - is fully recognised and implemented by just about every country in the world. Unlike other aspects of international law which are disputed by a number of countries or where the lines aren't clear, this is not the case with Maritime Law.

It is very definitely recognised by Israel, the UK, the USA, and Turkey.

It says that boarding any vessel in international waters without the permission of that vessel is an act of piracy, and that the vessel has full rights to defend itself from attack.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites
strudders Newbie

strudders

Posted
Posted

No. Are you ever going to make a post where you have the first idea what you're talking about? :rolleyes:

Maritime Law - a part of international law, in fact the part that international law grew out of - is fully recognised and implemented by just about every country in the world. Unlike other aspects of international law which are disputed by a number of countries or where the lines aren't clear, this is not the case with Maritime Law.

It is very definitely recognised by Israel, the UK, the USA, and Turkey.

It says that boarding any vessel in international waters without the permission of that vessel is an act of piracy, and that the vessel has full rights to defend itself from attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oafc0000 Newbie

oafc0000

Posted
Posted

No. Are you ever going to make a post where you have the first idea what you're talking about? :rolleyes:

Maritime Law - a part of international law, in fact the part that international law grew out of - is fully recognised and implemented by just about every country in the world. Unlike other aspects of international law which are disputed by a number of countries or where the lines aren't clear, this is not the case with Maritime Law.

It is very definitely recognised by Israel, the UK, the USA, and Turkey.

It says that boarding any vessel in international waters without the permission of that vessel is an act of piracy, and that the vessel has full rights to defend itself from attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eFestivals Mentor

eFestivals

Posted
Posted

Funny because an expert on such matters was on newsnight not long ago talking about how that piece of law really dosen't apply to a state trying to protect its borders. It was brought in to stop actual piracy and not to stop states defending themselves. Hence, it dosen't really apply..

So, although you clearly know more than the expert the BBC choose to speak about the matter... go right ahead with you pseudo knowledge on international laws and all its complexity...

Its like picking arresting someone using anti-terror laws for taking pictures of buildings... Technically right probably, but come on...

So you - and that BBC 'expert' - think that those ships could travel the 60 miles of Israel's own waters in less time than the Israeli's would have taken to board the boats? :lol::lol::lol:

There was no reason to board the ships when they did do for defence purposes. That means that the Israeli's had zero right in international law to board them, and the people on those ships had absolute right to defend themselves from being boarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sifi Newbie

sifi

Posted
Posted (edited)

No that's very true and should not be forgotten, it does take two to tango, but then does that sort of behaviour then justify collective punishment on the civilian population?

Edited by sifimaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
strudders Newbie

strudders

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. The point I was making was that those firing the weapons aren't going to win any supporters in the Arab world if they miss Israel and kill people in Jordan instead by accident - which is exactly what happened here. Jordan is just over the water from Eilat. When I was there, we went on a boat trip and you I got text messages welcoming me to Israel, Jordan, Saudia Arabia and Eygpt all in a very small area.

Edited by strudders
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sifi Newbie

sifi

Posted
Posted

No your right, they do go off in all directions.... Its not a case of winning supporters though, the Palestinian militias are not the people. The Arab world will never turn its back on the people or what we call terrorists all the time they are seen to be fighting Israel. (they are terrorists as well)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...