That would be great. Give them their own islands thousands of miles apart. But both the Palestinains and the Israelis want those holy sites. As did just about every neighbor.>> ^gwiz665:

If no one can agree on who's piece of land it is, why don't we move them all out and leave it barren and uninhabited?
If you can't play well with your toy, I'm taking it from you.

It is indeed a lamentable plight. But Gaza is controlled by Hamas - an ultra-violent terrorist organization that openly uses deadly force and refuses to acknowledge Isreal as a state. Isreal just might have a good reason to want to blockade such a violent organization.

Y'think? Isreal started building walls in the mid-90s due to spates of vehicle bombings, suicide bombings, and other atrocities. The walls were effective and by the mid-00s had reduced terror attacks to historic lows. Before the walls, Gaza rocket attacks were crude. In 2006 after the walls went up all of a sudden MAGICALLY the Palestinians started getting long-range rockets. So Isreal blockaded Gaza to keep Hamas from getting these long-range weapons. Gawlee Sgt. Carter! The long-range attacks went down to a trickle.

Quite clearly the Isreali policies are EFFECTIVE at providing security to Isreal at the cost of decreased living standards in Palestine. There is a simple, obvious solution here... Arabs & Muslims need to take strong action to control their own people and remove Isreal's need for security actions.

I won't hold my breath... As long as Arab/Muslim violence is justifed by biased media coverage then nothing will ever change. This is exemplified by things like this video, the news media portrayal of the "violence flotilla", and crones like Helen Thomas. Good riddance to bad rubbish with that particular specimen getting a stake driven through her anti-semitic heart. Senility? Alzheimer's? Dementia? Who knows what finally gave us this peek at her true heart. But the same sentiment of hatred exists more cleverly wrapped in the bulk of the leftist news media.

Thank you sir.
In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
*quality

The situation is unacceptable, and for some reason it persists.

^Nice copy pasta. Well then I raise you with>

Cut and paste, yes, to prevent inaccuracy, and thank you.

To an ante of coin based in fact you raise in fiat of opinion. I addressed
opinion already. Don't like facts? How about polls? Opinions were all you laid down.
.
As such, and from the website of the International Committee of the Red
Cross at:

<http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/560?OpenDocument>

<Forum of adoption International lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Livorno (Italy)>

<The San Remo Manual was prepared during the period 1988-1994 by a group of legal and naval experts participating in their personal capacity in a series of Round Tables convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law. The purpose of the Manual is to provide a contemporary restatement of international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. The Manual includes a few provisions which might be considered progressive developments in the law but most of its provisions are considered to state the law which is currently applicable. The Manual is viewed by the participants of the Round Tables as being in many respects a modern equivalent to the Oxford Manual on the Laws of Naval War Governing the Relations Between Belligerents adopted by the Institute of International Law in 1913. A contemporary manual was considered necessary because of developments in the law since 1913 which for the most part have not been incorporated into recent treaty law, the Second Geneva Convention of 1949 being essentially limited to the protection of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea.>

Good enough for the Red Cross.

Israel had and has an extant blockade...Simply, there was no attack. Termed
a Visit within the language of the manual and is evidently reflective of Maritime
Law. Israel was within their proper bounds per the above.

All the harangue amounts to posturing. Mission(s) accomplished. This, by the
way, is the only opinion I have offered.

You're missing the point there. They boarded at international waters, that is a crime

This statement is factually incorrect. The blockading of a group involved in an armed conflict is legal. Hamas (controlling Gaza) and Isreal are in a state of armed conflict. Maritime law allows the boarding, siezing, and ATTACKING of ships in international waters - even those flying neutral flags - when there is reasonable cause to believe their intent is to violate a blockade. Greta Berlin (flotilla spokesperson) openly stated the purpose was not to deliver relief, but to make a polical statement. The flotilla refused repeated offers to unload the goods in Ashdod. The vessel captains ignored repeated warnings and orders to divert courses - which were all full steam ahead to violate the blockade. There were videos previous to the ships leaving port of groups of known militant activists shouting death threats about Isreal. The passenger manifests were filled with persons with known histories of anti-Isreal activity, Hamas ties, and other terrorist affiliations.

The picture some people are trying to paint of the flotilla being an innocent bunch of peaceful college professers and celebrities on their was to deliver food is a blatant lie. There were probably some of that kind of useful idiot along for the ride, but the overt stated purpose of the entire flotilla by its sponsors and leaders was to illegally violate the blockade to Hamas and provoke a confrontation with the intent of obtaining sympathetic media coverage. End of story.

Krauthammer - no lockstep conservative - nails it this way...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304287.html

Basically the only people trying to claim the blockade is 'illegal' are the Turks - who sponsored the flotilla. Everyone else recognizes that Hamas (Gaza) and Isreal are in a state of armed conflict (kind of hard to deny with 4000+ rocket attacks) and that the blockade is a legal effort by Isreal to prevent the re-arming of Hamas. Ships flying neutral flags in international waters can be legally stopped, searched, diverted, and even attacked if there is reasonable cause.

In this case, the cause was far more than reasonable for many many reasons. Isreal offered to have the goods unloaded at Ashdod, but the offer was refused. Very suspicious if the 'intent' is to provide relief... Greta Berlin (flotilla doyanne) plainly stated the flotilla was not about delivering aid... Videos of the flotilla participants as they left port showed them brandishing weapons and shouting anti-semitic death threats. Radio communications and warnings were ignored or got responses of arabic curses & threats.

I know that the far-left really Really REALLY wanted this to be all Isreal's fault - but those darn pesky facts just keep cutting the legs out from under the lies. The facts are clear. The deaths were primarily the fault of (in order of culpability...)

#1: The flotilla sponsors for deliberately putting their people in danger when they had numerous other options...
#2: The boatniks for behaving like a bunch of stupid moron idiots...
#3: The IDF for not going in with a lot more force so as to cow an obviously hostile mob... Dropping those guys in 1 at a time by helicopter was just not smart & this would have all gone down different if they'd just shot the propeller out and towed the thing to Ashdod.

Those troublesome Jews

Charles Krauthammer

Friday, June 4, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.

It's not legal until proven illegal, though, is it? I mean, if it's contested whether it's a legal blockade or not, it's neither legal nor illegal until it's been established either way, isn't it?

The above collegiate hand-wringing is based on the as yet unestablished position that the Isreali blockade is not legal. As that assertion is not established, the enforcement of the blockade is therefore legal. Ergo, the stopping of vessels that are clearly intending to ignore the blockade is justified. The activists were offered the chance to unload and truck the goods in. They refused. This is established fact. In fact, the Palestinians are REFUSING to accept the goods from the flotilla. This was never about providing aid. This was a political stunt for PR purposes. Mission accomplished I guess as far as these sleazeballs is concerned. Too bad some of their idiot pawns had to pay with their lives.

With all due respect, there are alot of feelings and opinions being expressed here. I sought facts and found this that may be read in its entirety at

<http://www.redstate.com/jeffdunetz/2010/05/31/was-israels-boarding-of-the-gaza-flotilla-a-violation-of-international-law/>

I like facts, especially when legality is at issue.

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

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;

NOTE: the San Remo Manual is not a treaty, but considered by the ICRC to be reflective of customary law.

Also, on piracy: the definition of piracy under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, section 101, is clear that piracy can only occur where there are “illegal acts of violence or detention” that are “committed for private ends.” Israeli actions were legal under the law of armed conflict (as evidenced by the San Remo Manual) and in any event, were not committed for private ends. Anyone using the term piracy to describe the Israeli action is clearly not aware of international law on the subject.

Here’s the bottom Line:

* A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.

* Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.

* A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

* The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.

* In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.

* Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.

* Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.

* A State may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.

* Note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.

* Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel’s intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.

* Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.

* Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the “protesters” and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.>

>> ^NinjaInHeat:

rougy: ummm... you do realize the commandos were stabbed with knives and seriously beaten (they are seriously injured, there's no question about that) before they opened fire?
Imagine yourself in the shoes of these peace activists, can you really imagine yourself coming to the conclusion that stabbing the commandos is the only appropriate course of action? you can argue all you want about the legitimacy of taking over the boat in the first place, but grow up, what sort of gentle peace-loving mob would be able to seriously injure commandos?


You're missing the point there. They boarded at international waters, that is a crime. Whether or not the ships had intent to travel to Gaza is another story. Just because someone has intent does does not mean they have committed a crime, unless that intent is to harm another person.

If I told you I was going to cross the fence of your yard, and just stood at the fence you could not act on me for crossing the fence. Why? Well because I didn't cross the fence, I simply had intent to cross the fence. Does that give you the right to come onto the sidewalk and fuck my shit up? No. In short Israel doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, and neither would a person defending his property by going outside of that property.

Is it Israel's right to blockade a population? That I don't know and I would differ to much more informed people.

The argument is, Israel over stepped their fucking bounds. They're like North Korea only they are supposed to be the good guys.

YT: "It is a Crime to attack a ship on International Waters. Israel Doesn't own it. Due to this blockade, 60% of the Children in Gaza have anemia, the entire Palestine Economy has collapsed.

When the blockade was first imposed, the Israel Prime Minister's top aid - The purpose is to put the Palestine people on Diet.

Here's what Glenn had to say about his appearance..

I was just on MSNBC talking about Israel, the Gaza blockade and the flotilla attack with Eliot Spitzer, who was guest-hosting for Dylan Ratigan. It was a rather contentious discussion, though quite illustrative of how Israel is (and is not) typically discussed on American television, so I'm posting the whole 8-minute segment below. Two points: (1) before I was on, Spitzer had on an Israel-defending law professor, followed by Netanyahu's former Chief of Staff, and both of them (along with Spitzer) were spewing pure Israeli propaganda in uninterrupted and unchallenged fashion; at the end of Spitzer's discussions with them, he asked them to "stick around just in case," and once I was left, he brought at least one of them back on to respond to what I said without challenge; (2) literally 90 seconds before my segment was about to begin, the new cam and sound system I just acquired stopped working, forcing me to unplug everything and use only my laptop cam and mic, which caused the technical aspects to be less than ideal (though still perfectly workable)"

Military lawyers imminent.

@joedirt. But what you do have to admit is this. All sides lie and spread propaganda that is completely distorted. Israel does not have a blockade on shifty tactics and you simply choose the side you want based on the information you are fed. Both sides are simply vying for power and deserve the pain they inflict upon one another.

Russia shows the flotilla bringing flowers and good hope... and only weapons of kindness. Israel shows them bringing knives and pipes... Which side to believe? Hrm. Neither for me!

Oh, and the definition of something and its practical use are two different things... CS is hardly "less lethal" (Since I, and millions of sevice men and women, have been sprayed with CS multiple times, and heck, I am allergic to it, the proof is pretty well known. Neither is pepper spray or pepper balls.) You have to be a pussy to argue that those weapons, when used in the open, are worse than a spray of bullets...

*Note, I did not argue who was right or wrong in this case so don't bring me into this debate.

Aside from the profanity, that's about the most sensible summation I've seen so far on this whole kerfuffle lamp. The blockade is there to prevent arms smuggling to terrorists. Would it be nice if Isreal didn't do this? Sure, but wake me up when the Palestinians start abhorring violence and the need for Isreal's security precautions goes away. Isreal sets up the blockade and a bunch of hippies run it. It doesn't take rocket science to predict that there are going to be morons on these boats who are looking for trouble. Isreal should have been better prepared for this. So far I've seen nothing that required firing on these boatniks, aside from their own stupidity for deliberately provoking one of the most no-nonsense military organizations on the planet.

First of all, I never said "international waters" because the Mediterranean is not.

Secondly if there is "paint ball" guns, then you are an idiot if you think the military carries paint ball guns used by children. These are military weapons used often in Iraq and other places because the "paint balls" contain chemical weapons. These are know as less lethal crowd control weapons.

These marines illegal boarded a vessel with many many fully automatic assault weapons and shot people. Anyone trying to point to a paint ball gun like it justifies piracy and murder is really pathetic and sadly trying to justify murder by these Israelis.

What if these people were afraid and were turning back? How would you know considering they were miles from the shoreline. The truth is that Israel should have waited until this ship was in THEIR waters and violating some law or justifiable reason to board a boat and kill people.

But they were cowards and wanted to do this at night instead of waiting until they were 22 or 11 miles or whatever and it was daylight and maybe even the media could see this.

Sure, these "activists" probably should have expected to be boarded. In fact, they knew about this boarding. For some reason some people on the boats tried to defend themselves. Does that justify shooting them?

How do you know the marines weren't going to murder everyone on the ship and steal the boat? How would anyone even think that wasn't a possibility? I mean what rational reasonable navy of a modern country can't just come alongside a ship during the daylight hours and say "turn back". They have a naval blockade.. Why not use it?