Minutes ago, IAF retaliate on Gaza training camp

[Phoenall]

More bullshit from Mr. fulla shit bigmouth looser.

The UN concluded that the blockade was and is legal, until such time as the Hamas animals desist from their terrorist activities. Period end of story.

Some assholes in the "international community" called it illegal and a war crime. Who gives a ****. There isn't an organization more guilty of war crimes than Hamas itself. They are Islamist savages not unlike other Islamist savages like ISIS or Al Queda, who's goal has always been been to slaughter every Jew in the world, and create an Islamic Khalifate of Palestine over the corpse of a destroyed Israel. Israel should just reocopy Gaza and cleanse the land from the filth of Hamas.

You argue like you're in 10th grade.

U.N. experts say Israel's blockade of Gaza illegal

Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip violates international law, a panel of human rights experts reporting to a U.N. body said on Tuesday, disputing a conclusion reached by a separate U.N. probe into Israel's raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship.

The so-called Palmer Report on the Israeli raid of May 2010 that killed nine Turkish activists said earlier this month that Israel had used unreasonable force in last year's raid, but its naval blockade of the Hamas-ruled strip was legal.

A panel of five independent U.N. rights experts reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council rejected that conclusion, saying the blockade had subjected Gazans to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."

Back to you, *****!

You are so easy to prove wrong you know, did you even read what you posted.

Five independent experts reporting to a UN council is not an official UN SANCTIONED COMMISSION and their report was dismissed by the UN out of hand. Want to try again as the reason the report was dissmissed is because the "experts" were known anti semitic Jew haters

 

[Phoenall]

Like I said, asshole, UN already concluded that the blockade is legal. What some rogue "experts" say is meaningless. There are always experts that will counter any argument. Who gives a **** what a bunch of experts bought and paid for by the Muslim lobby say! Just like 9-11 Truther "experts" say that 9-11 was an inside job.

They weren't rogue experts, they were an official UN commission specifically convened to determine the legality of the blockade, not smooth relations between Israel and Turkey, as the Palmer Commission you keep pushing, was.

The Palmer Commission:
Installed in UN Headquarters in New York far from the site of the incident, the Panel did not see any exhibits or meet any witnesses, but has based its findings on information provided by the two delegations in the dispute. The report repeatedly makes it clear that the Panel was not a court. The result is effectively an opinion of the leadership, with the qualified partisan support from their colleagues. In arriving at some of these decisions the Panel has at times demonstrated naivety and a lack of knowledge, while some of its concerns exhibit a biased interest

It had no experts in international law and was not convened to determine the legality of the blockade. I'll say it again, its "mission", was not to determine the legality of the blockade. However, the other UN commission, was...

UNHRC FFM Commission:
The Panel’s [Palmer Commission] conclusions that the blockade is legal are based on false points and therefore suspect. In observing that the UNHRC FFM reached an opposing conclusion it observes that the FFM did not receive information from Israel. (Unlike the Panel however the FFM did read the Turkel protocols available to it.) However it does not allow for the fact that it has accepted false information from Israel in reaching its own conclusions. The FFM was equipped with a large support team so that its own very senior lawyers who are experienced in international criminal law were supplemented by experts in the law of the sea and international humanitarian law. In addition it met with a number of non-governmental organizations, had assistance from law firms in three countries, and was thoroughly briefed on the situation in Gaza by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. The UN [Palmer Commission] Panel did not have the services of anyone with expertise in international criminal or maritime law and did not conduct interviews of its own. That it should now criticise its more senior and better equipped counterparts in the UNHRC is an indication of the unreal world in which it has functioned.

An unreal world of which you belong to.

The panel of "experts" were not a UN commission just a group of ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATERS that were told to do a hatchet job. That is why their report was dismissed outside of their own area

 

[Billo_Really]

You are so easy to prove wrong you know, did you even read what you posted.

Five independent experts reporting to a UN council is not an official UN SANCTIONED COMMISSION and their report was dismissed by the UN out of hand. Want to try again as the reason the report was dissmissed is because the "experts" were known anti semitic Jew haters

So you will only accept a "sanctioned" UN commission?

Here you go!

United Nations A/HRC/15/21
27 September 2010

A blockade must satisfy a number of legal requirements,
including: notification, effective and impartial enforcement and

proportionality.

In particular a blockade is illegal 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.

53. In evaluating the evidence submitted to the Mission, including by OCHA oPt, confirming the severe humanitarian situation in Gaza, the destruction of the economy and the prevention of reconstruction (as detailed above), the Mission is satisfied that the blockade was inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza strip and that as such the interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal.

Kiss my ass, punk!

 

[Phoenall]

And if the same commission had said the blockade was illegal you would be singing a different song wouldn't you.

Of coarse. And so would you.

How about a link to this alleged second OFFICIAL UN SANCTIONED commission then dildo

See above.

As I requested an OFFICIAL UN SANCTIONED commission, not an Ad Hoc group that had no OFFICIAL BACKING from the UNGC.

WAITING

 

[Billo_Really]

As I requested an OFFICIAL UN SANCTIONED commission, not an Ad Hoc group that had no OFFICIAL BACKING from the UNGC.

WAITING

They weren't an "Ad Hoc" group. The UNHRC FFM was a full blown UN sanctioned commission, you dumbass!

 

[Phoenall]

You are so easy to prove wrong you know, did you even read what you posted.

Five independent experts reporting to a UN council is not an official UN SANCTIONED COMMISSION and their report was dismissed by the UN out of hand. Want to try again as the reason the report was dissmissed is because the "experts" were known anti semitic Jew haters

So you will only accept a "sanctioned" UN commission?

Here you go!

United Nations A/HRC/15/21
27 September 2010

A blockade must satisfy a number of legal requirements,
including: notification, effective and impartial enforcement and

proportionality.

In particular a blockade is illegal 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.

53. In evaluating the evidence submitted to the Mission, including by OCHA oPt, confirming the severe humanitarian situation in Gaza, the destruction of the economy and the prevention of reconstruction (as detailed above), the Mission is satisfied that the blockade was inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza strip and that as such the interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal.

Kiss my ass, punk!

Did you bother to read your own link.


49. According to applicable international law, unless an exception applies, a vessel on

the high seas is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of its flag State. Under the international

law of the sea such exceptions are usually limited to suspicion of certain activities (piracy,

the slave trade, unauthorized high seas broadcasting), ships suspected of lacking nationality
(i.e. stateless vessels) and cases where permission to board and inspect have been given
either ad hoc or by treaty (e.g. those related to narcotics smuggling).36 Other exceptions
would include acts of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter against
vessels which posed an immediate and overwhelming threat to the boarding State and
lawful acts under LOAC.

50
Indeed, the military manuals of many States (both UNCLOS parties and nonparties)
continue to include provisions on the law of naval warfare and blockade.38 Further,
a report of the United Nations Secretary General found that these UNCLOS provisions did
not affect action that was lawful either under the law of self-defence under Article 51 of the
Charter of the United Nations (the jus ad bellum) or acts justified by the law of armed
conflict (LOAC) once an armed conflict has commenced (the jus in bello).39 The majority
of scholarly opinion would also support the view that the law of naval warfare continues to
be potentially applicable on the high seas.



Blockade
51. Under the laws of armed conflict, a blockade is the prohibition of all commerce with
a defined enemy coastline. A belligerent who has established a lawful blockade is entitled
to enforce that blockade on the high seas.41 A blockade must satisfy a number of legal
requirements, including: notification, effective and impartial enforcement and
proportionality.


56. Thus, if there is no lawful blockade, the only lawful basis for intercepting the vessel
would be a reasonable suspicion that it:
• was making an effective contribution to the opposing forces’ war effort, such as by
carrying weaponry or was otherwise closely integrated into the enemy war effort
(belligerent right of capture);49 or
• posed an imminent and overwhelming threat to Israel and there was no alternative
but to use force to prevent it (self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations
Charter).


64. The Mission agrees with the assessment presented in the Goldstone Report as
follows:
Given the specific geopolitical configuration of the Gaza Strip, the powers that Israel
exercises from the borders enable it to determine the conditions of life within the
Gaza Strip. Israel controls the border crossings (including to a significant degree the
Rafah crossing to Egypt, under the terms of the Agreement on Movement and
Access) and decides what and who gets in or out of the Gaza Strip. It also controls
the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip and has declared a virtual blockade and
limits to the fishing zone, thereby regulating economic activity in that zone. It also
keeps complete control of the airspace of the Gaza Strip, inter alia, through
continuous surveillance by aircraft and unmanned aviation vehicles (UAVs) or
drones. It makes military incursions and from time to time hit targets within the
Gaza Strip. No-go areas are declared within the Gaza Strip near the border where
Israeli settlements used to be and enforced by the Israeli armed forces. Furthermore,
Israel regulates the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency (the new
sheqel) and controls taxes and custom duties.53
The Mission is satisfied that these circumstances continued to prevail at the time of the
incident under investigation.

 

[Phoenall]

As I requested an OFFICIAL UN SANCTIONED commission, not an Ad Hoc group that had no OFFICIAL BACKING from the UNGC.

WAITING

They weren't an "Ad Hoc" group. The UNHRC FFM was a full blown UN sanctioned commission, you dumbass!

Still an Ad Hoc group put together to demonise Israel, as every member was a known and proven ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATER.

 

[Billo_Really]

Did you bother to read your own link.


49. According to applicable international law, unless an exception applies, a vessel on

the high seas is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of its flag State. Under the international

law of the sea such exceptions are usually limited to suspicion of certain activities (piracy,

the slave trade, unauthorized high seas broadcasting), ships suspected of lacking nationality
(i.e. stateless vessels) and cases where permission to board and inspect have been given
either ad hoc or by treaty (e.g. those related to narcotics smuggling).36 Other exceptions
would include acts of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter against
vessels which posed an immediate and overwhelming threat to the boarding State and
lawful acts under LOAC.

And none of them applied to this incident.

 

[Phoenall]

Did you bother to read your own link.


49. According to applicable international law, unless an exception applies, a vessel on

the high seas is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of its flag State. Under the international

law of the sea such exceptions are usually limited to suspicion of certain activities (piracy,

the slave trade, unauthorized high seas broadcasting), ships suspected of lacking nationality
(i.e. stateless vessels) and cases where permission to board and inspect have been given
either ad hoc or by treaty (e.g. those related to narcotics smuggling).36 Other exceptions
would include acts of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter against
vessels which posed an immediate and overwhelming threat to the boarding State and
lawful acts under LOAC.

And none of them applied to this incident.

So the UN charter which is a de facto treaty which states terrorism as a valid reason, along with gun running.

Just because you hate the Jews so much is not a valid reason to stop them from complying with the UN charter .

 

[Roudy]

Like I said, asshole, UN already concluded that the blockade is legal. What some rogue "experts" say is meaningless. There are always experts that will counter any argument. Who gives a **** what a bunch of experts bought and paid for by the Muslim lobby say! Just like 9-11 Truther "experts" say that 9-11 was an inside job.

They weren't rogue experts, they were an official UN commission specifically convened to determine the legality of the blockade, not smooth relations between Israel and Turkey, as the Palmer Commission you keep pushing, was.

The Palmer Commission:
Installed in UN Headquarters in New York far from the site of the incident, the Panel did not see any exhibits or meet any witnesses, but has based its findings on information provided by the two delegations in the dispute. The report repeatedly makes it clear that the Panel was not a court. The result is effectively an opinion of the leadership, with the qualified partisan support from their colleagues. In arriving at some of these decisions the Panel has at times demonstrated naivety and a lack of knowledge, while some of its concerns exhibit a biased interest

It had no experts in international law and was not convened to determine the legality of the blockade. I'll say it again, its "mission", was not to determine the legality of the blockade. However, the other UN commission, was...

UNHRC FFM Commission:
The Panel’s [Palmer Commission] conclusions that the blockade is legal are based on false points and therefore suspect. In observing that the UNHRC FFM reached an opposing conclusion it observes that the FFM did not receive information from Israel. (Unlike the Panel however the FFM did read the Turkel protocols available to it.) However it does not allow for the fact that it has accepted false information from Israel in reaching its own conclusions. The FFM was equipped with a large support team so that its own very senior lawyers who are experienced in international criminal law were supplemented by experts in the law of the sea and international humanitarian law. In addition it met with a number of non-governmental organizations, had assistance from law firms in three countries, and was thoroughly briefed on the situation in Gaza by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. The UN [Palmer Commission] Panel did not have the services of anyone with expertise in international criminal or maritime law and did not conduct interviews of its own. That it should now criticise its more senior and better equipped counterparts in the UNHRC is an indication of the unreal world in which it has functioned.

An unreal world of which you belong to.

Anus mouth strikes again. After the Flottila incident, a full investigation was conducted by the UN. One of the main points investigated was whether the blockade, for which the Flottilla had been stopped and searched, had any legal basis or not to begin with. They found that it was. Other "Experts" disagreed? Who gives a ****. The investigation was conducted in depth and was extensive.

You're about as stupid and ignorant as the Hamas animals you adore.

 

[Roudy]

You are so easy to prove wrong you know, did you even read what you posted.

Five independent experts reporting to a UN council is not an official UN SANCTIONED COMMISSION and their report was dismissed by the UN out of hand. Want to try again as the reason the report was dissmissed is because the "experts" were known anti semitic Jew haters

So you will only accept a "sanctioned" UN commission?

Here you go!

United Nations A/HRC/15/21
27 September 2010

A blockade must satisfy a number of legal requirements,
including: notification, effective and impartial enforcement and

proportionality.

In particular a blockade is illegal 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.

53. In evaluating the evidence submitted to the Mission, including by OCHA oPt, confirming the severe humanitarian situation in Gaza, the destruction of the economy and the prevention of reconstruction (as detailed above), the Mission is satisfied that the blockade was inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza strip and that as such the interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal.

Kiss my ass, punk!

Did you bother to read your own link.


49. According to applicable international law, unless an exception applies, a vessel on

the high seas is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of its flag State. Under the international

law of the sea such exceptions are usually limited to suspicion of certain activities (piracy,

the slave trade, unauthorized high seas broadcasting), ships suspected of lacking nationality
(i.e. stateless vessels) and cases where permission to board and inspect have been given
either ad hoc or by treaty (e.g. those related to narcotics smuggling).36 Other exceptions
would include acts of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter against
vessels which posed an immediate and overwhelming threat to the boarding State and
lawful acts under LOAC.

50
Indeed, the military manuals of many States (both UNCLOS parties and nonparties)
continue to include provisions on the law of naval warfare and blockade.38 Further,
a report of the United Nations Secretary General found that these UNCLOS provisions did
not affect action that was lawful either under the law of self-defence under Article 51 of the
Charter of the United Nations (the jus ad bellum) or acts justified by the law of armed
conflict (LOAC) once an armed conflict has commenced (the jus in bello).39 The majority
of scholarly opinion would also support the view that the law of naval warfare continues to
be potentially applicable on the high seas.



Blockade
51. Under the laws of armed conflict, a blockade is the prohibition of all commerce with
a defined enemy coastline. A belligerent who has established a lawful blockade is entitled
to enforce that blockade on the high seas.41 A blockade must satisfy a number of legal
requirements, including: notification, effective and impartial enforcement and
proportionality.


56. Thus, if there is no lawful blockade, the only lawful basis for intercepting the vessel
would be a reasonable suspicion that it:
• was making an effective contribution to the opposing forces’ war effort, such as by
carrying weaponry or was otherwise closely integrated into the enemy war effort
(belligerent right of capture);49 or
• posed an imminent and overwhelming threat to Israel and there was no alternative
but to use force to prevent it (self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations
Charter).


64. The Mission agrees with the assessment presented in the Goldstone Report as
follows:
Given the specific geopolitical configuration of the Gaza Strip, the powers that Israel
exercises from the borders enable it to determine the conditions of life within the
Gaza Strip. Israel controls the border crossings (including to a significant degree the
Rafah crossing to Egypt, under the terms of the Agreement on Movement and
Access) and decides what and who gets in or out of the Gaza Strip. It also controls
the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip and has declared a virtual blockade and
limits to the fishing zone, thereby regulating economic activity in that zone. It also
keeps complete control of the airspace of the Gaza Strip, inter alia, through
continuous surveillance by aircraft and unmanned aviation vehicles (UAVs) or
drones. It makes military incursions and from time to time hit targets within the
Gaza Strip. No-go areas are declared within the Gaza Strip near the border where
Israeli settlements used to be and enforced by the Israeli armed forces. Furthermore,
Israel regulates the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency (the new
sheqel) and controls taxes and custom duties.53
The Mission is satisfied that these circumstances continued to prevail at the time of the
incident under investigation.

It doesn't suprise me that he doesn't even bother reading his own links. He's just a big-mouthed fulla shit ignorant moron that is looking for attention.