The Humanitarian Gaza Flotillas Saga

[Billo_Really]

You're the one who just attacked Rocco for no reason other than that he made you look like the fool that you are.

He disrespected my on-line persona and I couldn't let that go.

 

[Billo_Really]

You poor little short boy.

And more zone 2 violations.

 

[Hollie]

I don't see that as necessarily the question. The question is: "do we take a position of uninterested observer as a virulently hateful politico-religious ideology seeks to completely cleanse an entire portion of the globe of all competing religious/ethnic/ideological entities."

Whats missing from the rhetoric of the usual Joooooo haters is any wailing about the "poor, oppressed moslems" being systemmatically slaughtered by their co-religionists across Iraq and Syria. It's moslems who are slaughtering their way through moslems. Threads such as this one exist only to placate the IJH Syndrome that oozes from a relative few and we all know who they are. The Arab/Moslem institutionalized hatred of Jews is used by arabs/moslems who seek to use the “plight of the Palestinians”™ they spurned from their own nations and lands many, many times as fodder to further their own agendas.

The institution of insensate Jew hatred (which is a function of moslem orthodoxy), was furthered by other Arabs who care less about “Palestinians” than what the “Palestinian” arabs could mean for their own political, financial, and social positions.

All of that provides a fitting context in which to consider the advent of modernity in the Middle East, and how it has contributed in its way to the Islamic extremism we now face. Make no mistake, Islamic extremism far pre-dates the dawn of the modern age in the Arab World. However, one unifying feature of these pre-modern groups, however, is that their violence was generally directed toward the Dar al-Islam itself, rather than the Western world, much like the numerous Protestant-Catholic conflicts major and minor that characterized the age following the death of Luther. Today's Islamic terrorist groups still mostly kill other Moslems, but they have acquired a new target in the modernized West, and these days the various governments of the Middle East and their enablers in the general population really are clueless as to the damage thay are causing themselves.

What is missing, is you specifically addressing Israeli atrocities. Instead, you constantly try to hijack the topic of discussion, away from said atrocities.

What's not missing is your ineptitude at actually addressing my comments..... short stop.

Forget to bring your Islamic-terrorist Pom Poms did ya'?

 

[Hollie]

You poor little short boy.

And more zone 2 violations.

Poor little short boy.

 

[Hollie]

You're the one who just attacked Rocco for no reason other than that he made you look like the fool that you are.

He disrespected my on-line persona and I couldn't let that go.

Standing up to him still left you coming up short, eh?

 

[Hollie]

I'm not sure you are a true observer.

I am sure, you don't care about the truth.

Oh, I don't think there is any question as to whether or not it is an armed conflict.

There is a very big question, when one side is not allowed to have arms.

The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) does not deny that they fire rockets and mortars into Israel;

In response to Israeli aggression.

nor do they deny that they conduct cross-border operations (kidnapping, murder, bombings, ambushes, etc) into Israel.

Both sides are guilty of that, with Israel taking the lions share of attacks.

"After the withdrawal comes a period of low-intensity warfare by different Palestinian organizations against Israel and from the Israeli military against Gaza. During 2005-2007 approximately 2700 locally manufactured rockets are fired from Gaza into Israel, resulting in 4 dead and 75 wounded Israelis. During the same period the IDF fires approximately 14600 shells into Gaza, killing 57 and wounding 270. There were also raids performed by both parties and repeated Israeli air attacks. Israeli blockades of commerce and travel is a repeatedly used instrument."​

The debate centers on two aspects questions:

1) Are these activities terrorist and jihadist activities?
2) Are these armed actions constitute either international or non-international armed conflicts?​

​

The answer is no, on both counts.

Yes, this is always an arguable point. The Arab Palestinians, especially those in Gaza, nearly always play the part of the innocent victim ravaged by the Jewish Regional Power.

They aren't playing the part, they are innocent victims. Listen asshole, 1.5 million Gazans, are not terrorists.

​

Relative to Customary International Humanitarian Law...

Blah, blah, blah.........spare me your unrelated data dumps.

The conflict between the State of Israel and HAMAS (Government of the Gaza Strip) is not truly a "belligerent Occupation" because the accused Occupying Force (Israel) does not meet the criteria:

Hague Convention of 1907 --- Article 42: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.​

​

When people are prevented from leaving the area to go to work, that is "under the authority" of a foreign force.

"The 2005 disengagement supposedly signaled the end of the Israeli occupation of Gaza. But, in reality, it brought more Israeli limitations on the movement of both people and goods. While the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access -- brokered by the US and signed by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority -- should have eased those restrictions, it didn’t.

The number of day laborers exiting Gaza via the Erez crossing offers a dramatic example. In January of 2000, before the Second Intifada began, an average of 17,635 day laborers passed through Erez every day. In January of 2005, that number had dropped to 49."​

If there was no authority, how could restrictions possibly increase after the disengagement?

The key here is that Israel must mount a full scale military operation to entry the Gaza Strip and exercise the authority of the Occupation Force. The Gaza Strip is not under the authority of the Israeli Defense Force as HAMAS clearly agrees with; and Israel does not have such authority as to exercise preventative law enforcement objectives such as the prevention of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza into Israel.

You're full of shit! If that was true, then why did Israel start the blockade back in 1991, long before Hamas hit the scene.

"...the gradual closure of Gaza began in 1991, when Israel canceled the general exit permit that allowed most Palestinians to move freely through Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. It was then that non-Jewish residents of Gaza and the West Bank were required to obtain individual permits."​

Yes the limit of Territorial Waters is defined in:

PARt II --- SECTION 2. LIMITS OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA; UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982)

Article 3. Breadth of the territorial sea

Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.​

This does not effect the armed conflict (exchange of hostile fire between forces) and the rules outlined in the San Remo Manual. The UNCLOS and San Remo Manual are two entirely different set of rules for two entirely different sets of conditions: UNCLOS for innocent passage, and San Remo Manual for Armed Conflicts. Don't make the mistake of trying to mix and match. As a vessel sails from one zone to another, so must the rules change.

Section V : Neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft ---
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea

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.​

68. Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.

69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it.​

​

Nothing there say's you can have a blockade in international waters.

​

I mentioned them in the effort of clarity and honesty --- BUT --- sure, let's go into them.

Whether or not you believe that is "exactly what this blockade is doing" is irrelevant. The standard is whether or not the "blockade" has it as the "sole purpose" of the objective. Which is not the case. Israel is not, as its "SOLE PURPOSE," attempting to starve the civilian population or deny it other objects essential for its survival. In point of fact, it is not a purpose of the blockade at all.

Oh yes it is and the Israeli's already admitted this.

"during the First Intifada. While the mere mention of the word invokes the image of suicide bombers in the Western imagination, it’s important to bear in mind that the First Intifada began as a non-violent uprising comprised of civil disobedience, strikes, and boycotts of Israeli goods.

So, that the general exit permit was canceled during this time suggests that this early hit on Palestinian freedom of movement was not rooted in security concerns. It seems, rather, a retributive act, intended to punish Palestinians for daring to resist the Israeli occupation."​

In addition to that, you have no right telling Gazans they can't have weapons.

The objective of the Blockade is to prevent contraband weapons from being smuggled into Gaza and being fired into the sovereignty of Israel. Since the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) is still firing rockets and mortars into Israel, it is obvious that the overall strategy is not yet strong enough to achieve a decisive military advantage.

Again, Gazans have a right to have weapons to defend themselves.

The perception, on the part of the Gazians, that the Blockade is a punishment is entirely wrong. It is, and unfortunate and unintended consequence of the Gazian supported HAMAS Government opening up hostilities against Israel. At some point, the people of Gaza must take responsibility for the consequences of their governments action.

You're a ******* hypocrite! Why don't you take responsibility for Israeli aggression, which is causing all the rocket fire?

This is ridiculous. It's taken almost an your to respond to your fucked up , inhuman posts.

**** you!

Respectfully,
billo

That's an [your] hour you will never get back, short stop. Why did you waste your time and everyone else's with that pointless Pom Pom flailing in defense of Islamic fascism?

 

[Daniyel]

I don't see that as necessarily the question. The question is: "do we take a position of uninterested observer as a virulently hateful politico-religious ideology seeks to completely cleanse an entire portion of the globe of all competing religious/ethnic/ideological entities."

Whats missing from the rhetoric of the usual Joooooo haters is any wailing about the "poor, oppressed moslems" being systemmatically slaughtered by their co-religionists across Iraq and Syria. It's moslems who are slaughtering their way through moslems. Threads such as this one exist only to placate the IJH Syndrome that oozes from a relative few and we all know who they are. The Arab/Moslem institutionalized hatred of Jews is used by arabs/moslems who seek to use the “plight of the Palestinians”™ they spurned from their own nations and lands many, many times as fodder to further their own agendas.

The institution of insensate Jew hatred (which is a function of moslem orthodoxy), was furthered by other Arabs who care less about “Palestinians” than what the “Palestinian” arabs could mean for their own political, financial, and social positions.

All of that provides a fitting context in which to consider the advent of modernity in the Middle East, and how it has contributed in its way to the Islamic extremism we now face. Make no mistake, Islamic extremism far pre-dates the dawn of the modern age in the Arab World. However, one unifying feature of these pre-modern groups, however, is that their violence was generally directed toward the Dar al-Islam itself, rather than the Western world, much like the numerous Protestant-Catholic conflicts major and minor that characterized the age following the death of Luther. Today's Islamic terrorist groups still mostly kill other Moslems, but they have acquired a new target in the modernized West, and these days the various governments of the Middle East and their enablers in the general population really are clueless as to the damage thay are causing themselves.

What is missing, is you specifically addressing Israeli atrocities. Instead, you constantly try to hijack the topic of discussion, away from said atrocities.

Yes we all heard your opinions about all the poor Hamas and Fatah members, so how about sticking to your own bullshit?

I don't care about the Palestinian's. And why should I? They don't affect my daily life in any way. The same goes for Israel. It doesn't affect my daily life. Jews don't affect my daily life. Muslims don't affect my daily life. With that being said, why would I waste time and energy in my own life hating or supporting either one?

But I will tell you what I do hate. Hypocrites. I hate hypocrites! I hate people who think they can live by a different set of rules than everyone else, which is what I believe Israel thinks it can do. The biggest problem with hypocrites, is they never take responsibility for the things they do. Take you question, for example...

[2014]

 

[theliq]

I'm not sure you are a true observer.

I am sure, you don't care about the truth.

Oh, I don't think there is any question as to whether or not it is an armed conflict.

There is a very big question, when one side is not allowed to have arms.

The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) does not deny that they fire rockets and mortars into Israel;

In response to Israeli aggression.

nor do they deny that they conduct cross-border operations (kidnapping, murder, bombings, ambushes, etc) into Israel.

Both sides are guilty of that, with Israel taking the lions share of attacks.

"After the withdrawal comes a period of low-intensity warfare by different Palestinian organizations against Israel and from the Israeli military against Gaza. During 2005-2007 approximately 2700 locally manufactured rockets are fired from Gaza into Israel, resulting in 4 dead and 75 wounded Israelis. During the same period the IDF fires approximately 14600 shells into Gaza, killing 57 and wounding 270. There were also raids performed by both parties and repeated Israeli air attacks. Israeli blockades of commerce and travel is a repeatedly used instrument."​

The debate centers on two aspects questions:

1) Are these activities terrorist and jihadist activities?
2) Are these armed actions constitute either international or non-international armed conflicts?​

​

The answer is no, on both counts.

Yes, this is always an arguable point. The Arab Palestinians, especially those in Gaza, nearly always play the part of the innocent victim ravaged by the Jewish Regional Power.

They aren't playing the part, they are innocent victims. Listen asshole, 1.5 million Gazans, are not terrorists.

​

Relative to Customary International Humanitarian Law...

Blah, blah, blah.........spare me your unrelated data dumps.

The conflict between the State of Israel and HAMAS (Government of the Gaza Strip) is not truly a "belligerent Occupation" because the accused Occupying Force (Israel) does not meet the criteria:

Hague Convention of 1907 --- Article 42: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.​

​

When people are prevented from leaving the area to go to work, that is "under the authority" of a foreign force.

"The 2005 disengagement supposedly signaled the end of the Israeli occupation of Gaza. But, in reality, it brought more Israeli limitations on the movement of both people and goods. While the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access -- brokered by the US and signed by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority -- should have eased those restrictions, it didn’t.

The number of day laborers exiting Gaza via the Erez crossing offers a dramatic example. In January of 2000, before the Second Intifada began, an average of 17,635 day laborers passed through Erez every day. In January of 2005, that number had dropped to 49."​

If there was no authority, how could restrictions possibly increase after the disengagement?

The key here is that Israel must mount a full scale military operation to entry the Gaza Strip and exercise the authority of the Occupation Force. The Gaza Strip is not under the authority of the Israeli Defense Force as HAMAS clearly agrees with; and Israel does not have such authority as to exercise preventative law enforcement objectives such as the prevention of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza into Israel.

You're full of shit! If that was true, then why did Israel start the blockade back in 1991, long before Hamas hit the scene.

"...the gradual closure of Gaza began in 1991, when Israel canceled the general exit permit that allowed most Palestinians to move freely through Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. It was then that non-Jewish residents of Gaza and the West Bank were required to obtain individual permits."​

Yes the limit of Territorial Waters is defined in:

PARt II --- SECTION 2. LIMITS OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA; UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982)

Article 3. Breadth of the territorial sea

Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.​

This does not effect the armed conflict (exchange of hostile fire between forces) and the rules outlined in the San Remo Manual. The UNCLOS and San Remo Manual are two entirely different set of rules for two entirely different sets of conditions: UNCLOS for innocent passage, and San Remo Manual for Armed Conflicts. Don't make the mistake of trying to mix and match. As a vessel sails from one zone to another, so must the rules change.

Section V : Neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft ---
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea

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.​

68. Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.

69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it.​

​

Nothing there say's you can have a blockade in international waters.

​

I mentioned them in the effort of clarity and honesty --- BUT --- sure, let's go into them.

Whether or not you believe that is "exactly what this blockade is doing" is irrelevant. The standard is whether or not the "blockade" has it as the "sole purpose" of the objective. Which is not the case. Israel is not, as its "SOLE PURPOSE," attempting to starve the civilian population or deny it other objects essential for its survival. In point of fact, it is not a purpose of the blockade at all.

Oh yes it is and the Israeli's already admitted this.

"during the First Intifada. While the mere mention of the word invokes the image of suicide bombers in the Western imagination, it’s important to bear in mind that the First Intifada began as a non-violent uprising comprised of civil disobedience, strikes, and boycotts of Israeli goods.

So, that the general exit permit was canceled during this time suggests that this early hit on Palestinian freedom of movement was not rooted in security concerns. It seems, rather, a retributive act, intended to punish Palestinians for daring to resist the Israeli occupation."​

In addition to that, you have no right telling Gazans they can't have weapons.

The objective of the Blockade is to prevent contraband weapons from being smuggled into Gaza and being fired into the sovereignty of Israel. Since the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) is still firing rockets and mortars into Israel, it is obvious that the overall strategy is not yet strong enough to achieve a decisive military advantage.

Again, Gazans have a right to have weapons to defend themselves.

The perception, on the part of the Gazians, that the Blockade is a punishment is entirely wrong. It is, and unfortunate and unintended consequence of the Gazian supported HAMAS Government opening up hostilities against Israel. At some point, the people of Gaza must take responsibility for the consequences of their governments action.

You're a ******* hypocrite! Why don't you take responsibility for Israeli aggression, which is causing all the rocket fire?

This is ridiculous. It's taken almost an your to respond to your fucked up , inhuman posts.

**** you!

Respectfully,
billo

That's an [your] hour you will never get back, short stop. Why did you waste your time and everyone else's with that pointless Pom Pom flailing in defense of Islamic fascism?

When you speak Hollie,Everyone leaves the room,you talk mostly Shit and are the mere shadow of Billo,something you should keep in mind in the future,you ZIONAZI

 

[Hollie]

I'm not sure you are a true observer.

I am sure, you don't care about the truth.

Oh, I don't think there is any question as to whether or not it is an armed conflict.

There is a very big question, when one side is not allowed to have arms.

The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) does not deny that they fire rockets and mortars into Israel;

In response to Israeli aggression.

nor do they deny that they conduct cross-border operations (kidnapping, murder, bombings, ambushes, etc) into Israel.

Both sides are guilty of that, with Israel taking the lions share of attacks.

"After the withdrawal comes a period of low-intensity warfare by different Palestinian organizations against Israel and from the Israeli military against Gaza. During 2005-2007 approximately 2700 locally manufactured rockets are fired from Gaza into Israel, resulting in 4 dead and 75 wounded Israelis. During the same period the IDF fires approximately 14600 shells into Gaza, killing 57 and wounding 270. There were also raids performed by both parties and repeated Israeli air attacks. Israeli blockades of commerce and travel is a repeatedly used instrument."​

The debate centers on two aspects questions:

1) Are these activities terrorist and jihadist activities?
2) Are these armed actions constitute either international or non-international armed conflicts?​

​

The answer is no, on both counts.

Yes, this is always an arguable point. The Arab Palestinians, especially those in Gaza, nearly always play the part of the innocent victim ravaged by the Jewish Regional Power.

They aren't playing the part, they are innocent victims. Listen asshole, 1.5 million Gazans, are not terrorists.

​

Relative to Customary International Humanitarian Law...

Blah, blah, blah.........spare me your unrelated data dumps.

The conflict between the State of Israel and HAMAS (Government of the Gaza Strip) is not truly a "belligerent Occupation" because the accused Occupying Force (Israel) does not meet the criteria:

Hague Convention of 1907 --- Article 42: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.​

​

When people are prevented from leaving the area to go to work, that is "under the authority" of a foreign force.

"The 2005 disengagement supposedly signaled the end of the Israeli occupation of Gaza. But, in reality, it brought more Israeli limitations on the movement of both people and goods. While the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access -- brokered by the US and signed by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority -- should have eased those restrictions, it didn’t.

The number of day laborers exiting Gaza via the Erez crossing offers a dramatic example. In January of 2000, before the Second Intifada began, an average of 17,635 day laborers passed through Erez every day. In January of 2005, that number had dropped to 49."​

If there was no authority, how could restrictions possibly increase after the disengagement?

The key here is that Israel must mount a full scale military operation to entry the Gaza Strip and exercise the authority of the Occupation Force. The Gaza Strip is not under the authority of the Israeli Defense Force as HAMAS clearly agrees with; and Israel does not have such authority as to exercise preventative law enforcement objectives such as the prevention of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza into Israel.

You're full of shit! If that was true, then why did Israel start the blockade back in 1991, long before Hamas hit the scene.

"...the gradual closure of Gaza began in 1991, when Israel canceled the general exit permit that allowed most Palestinians to move freely through Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. It was then that non-Jewish residents of Gaza and the West Bank were required to obtain individual permits."​

Yes the limit of Territorial Waters is defined in:

PARt II --- SECTION 2. LIMITS OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA; UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982)

Article 3. Breadth of the territorial sea

Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.​

This does not effect the armed conflict (exchange of hostile fire between forces) and the rules outlined in the San Remo Manual. The UNCLOS and San Remo Manual are two entirely different set of rules for two entirely different sets of conditions: UNCLOS for innocent passage, and San Remo Manual for Armed Conflicts. Don't make the mistake of trying to mix and match. As a vessel sails from one zone to another, so must the rules change.

Section V : Neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft ---
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea

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.​

68. Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.

69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it.​

​

Nothing there say's you can have a blockade in international waters.

​

I mentioned them in the effort of clarity and honesty --- BUT --- sure, let's go into them.

Whether or not you believe that is "exactly what this blockade is doing" is irrelevant. The standard is whether or not the "blockade" has it as the "sole purpose" of the objective. Which is not the case. Israel is not, as its "SOLE PURPOSE," attempting to starve the civilian population or deny it other objects essential for its survival. In point of fact, it is not a purpose of the blockade at all.

Oh yes it is and the Israeli's already admitted this.

"during the First Intifada. While the mere mention of the word invokes the image of suicide bombers in the Western imagination, it’s important to bear in mind that the First Intifada began as a non-violent uprising comprised of civil disobedience, strikes, and boycotts of Israeli goods.

So, that the general exit permit was canceled during this time suggests that this early hit on Palestinian freedom of movement was not rooted in security concerns. It seems, rather, a retributive act, intended to punish Palestinians for daring to resist the Israeli occupation."​

In addition to that, you have no right telling Gazans they can't have weapons.

The objective of the Blockade is to prevent contraband weapons from being smuggled into Gaza and being fired into the sovereignty of Israel. Since the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) is still firing rockets and mortars into Israel, it is obvious that the overall strategy is not yet strong enough to achieve a decisive military advantage.

Again, Gazans have a right to have weapons to defend themselves.

The perception, on the part of the Gazians, that the Blockade is a punishment is entirely wrong. It is, and unfortunate and unintended consequence of the Gazian supported HAMAS Government opening up hostilities against Israel. At some point, the people of Gaza must take responsibility for the consequences of their governments action.

You're a ******* hypocrite! Why don't you take responsibility for Israeli aggression, which is causing all the rocket fire?

This is ridiculous. It's taken almost an your to respond to your fucked up , inhuman posts.

**** you!

Respectfully,
billo

That's an [your] hour you will never get back, short stop. Why did you waste your time and everyone else's with that pointless Pom Pom flailing in defense of Islamic fascism?

When you speak Hollie,Everyone leaves the room,you talk mostly Shit and are the mere shadow of Billo,something you should keep in mind in the future,you ZIONAZI

Did I somehow offend your tender Islamo-feelings? As for billy Bo bob, he casts a short shadow.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes we all heard your opinions about all the poor Hamas and Fatah members, so how about sticking to your own bullshit?

[2014]

My shit ain't bull, Danny Boy.

 

[Daniyel]

Yes we all heard your opinions about all the poor Hamas and Fatah members, so how about sticking to your own bullshit?

[2014]

My shit ain't bull, Danny Boy.

Excuse me I meant I Billshit.

 

[Phoenall]

So where was this Palestinian leadership from 1948 to 1988 then, why didn't it make some moves during that period. So when you say they did not get a chance you mean after the Egyptians and Jordanians kicked them out after they turned on them and tried to steal their countries.

 

[Phoenall]

If hamas had not stolen all the steel pipes from the sewage works in the first place they would not need replacing. Now they are refusing to accept plastic pipes as replacements because they cant make rockets or pipe bombs from them.
In the UK we use treated sewage and animal waste to supplement chemical fertilisers as they are more ecologically sound and don't cause damage to the land.

 

[aris2chat]

If hamas had not stolen all the steel pipes from the sewage works in the first place they would not need replacing. Now they are refusing to accept plastic pipes as replacements because they cant make rockets or pipe bombs from them.
In the UK we use treated sewage and animal waste to supplement chemical fertilisers as they are more ecologically sound and don't cause damage to the land.

Maybe they should have brought a check for the taxes that hamas does not want to pay to keep the power station functioning. Instead of the flotilla they could have used the money and given it to the PA.

Power station is shutting down this week. Hamas does not want, or claims they can't, pay the tax on the fuel needed.
It is an issue between hamas and the PA.

 

[Phoenall]

Under what laws ?

 

[Phoenall]

Yes those that support islamonazi terrorism

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, for heavens sake. And I even numbered them for you.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confused. When looking at sovereignty, you must examine it in both "theory" and how it is actually "practiced."

Q What are the modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty?
Ans Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
International law generally recognizes five modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty by a state, they are:

1 Occupation
2 Annexation
3 Accretion
4 Cession
5 Prescription​

Or! Stated another way:

A number of methods of acquisition of sovereignty are or have been recognized by international law as lawful methods by which a state may acquire sovereignty over territory.

• 1 Accretion
• 2 Cession
• 3 Conquest
• 4 Effective occupation
• 5 Prescription

Prescription

Prescription is related to occupation, and refers to the acquisition of sovereignty by way of the actual exercise of sovereignty, maintained for a reasonable period of time, that is effected without objection from other states.

Prescription, in international law, is sovereignty transfer of a territory by the open encroachment by the new sovereign upon the territory for a prolonged period of time, acting as the sovereign, without protest or other contest by the original sovereign. It is analogous to the common law doctrine of easement by prescription for private real estate. This doctrine legalizes de jure the de facto transfer of sovereignty caused in part by the original sovereign's extended negligence and/or neglect of the area in question.

SOURCE: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While it is true that ONE way to define a border is through treaty, But that is not the only way.​

I don't know what other way there is.

Borders and land are intrinsically linked. Borders merely define the presence of land. In reality the issue of borders is an issue of land.

The UN states that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity. I presume this to mean that nobody can arbitrarily lay claim to any land inside Palestine's international borders.

There are other items of interest in relation to land. It is illegal to acquire territory by force, and it is illegal to annex occupied land.

The only way for Israel to acquire any Palestinian land is by treaty with the Palestinians.

(REMEMBERING)

A law only means something if it is realistically enforceable. Since the 1945 UN Charter was written, there have been a number of expansions that either used force, or coercion; or a combination of the two. Just to name a few of the anomalies:

• Russia and the Annexation of the Crimea (2014)
• The UN peace process (1991) stalled --- as of mid-2012, the UN is holding direct negotiations between Morocco and the Polisario, Independence Movement by guerrillas of the Polisario Front opened an insurgency.
• Indonesia and the Annexation of Western New Guinea (1969)
• Israel and the Annexation of the Golan Heights (1967)
• India and the Annexation of Goa (1961)
• Abyssinia and the Annexation of British Ogaden (1954)
• China and the Annexation of Tibet (1951)
• Jordan and the Annexation of the West Bank (1950)

The proscription against the acquisition of territory through the use of force is relatively new as international concepts go. The institution idea of legality derived from the UN Charter [Chapter I, Article 2(4)], which was later restated by the Security Council in Resolution 242 (1967) by stating that: "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"... That raised the bar a bit, because the Charter stated:

• From the Preamble: "to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and"
• Chapter I Article 2(4): "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

(COMMENT)

Technically, a "Treaty" is just but ONE process in the procession of gaining territorial sovereignty by "Cession."

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, there are two methods to acquire land: one by treaty and the other by fource.

Prescription
, in international law, is sovereignty transfer of a territory by the open encroachment by the new sovereign upon the territory for a prolonged period of time, acting as the sovereign, without protest or other contest by the original sovereign.​

And we see a lot of that from the Palestinians so that acquisition is illegitimate.

(COMMENT)

First, the Arab-Palestinians were NOT protecting or contesting sovereignty as an "original sovereign." They have not held any form of sovereignty for more than a eight centuries. So you would be incorrect there. The "original sovereign in this case would have been the Ottoman Empire, that surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Powers. The Allied Powers assumed control through the process of "Cession." Nowhere in the transfer were the Palestine people ever addressed. Nowhere in the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, or the Treaty of Lausanne, mention the inhabitance of the territory that was defined by the Allied Powers. Neither were the inhabitance mentions in terms of sovereignty or territorial compensation.

Second, "When a particular territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation. The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. The PCIJ ( permanent court of international justice) held that the occupation to be effective must consist of the following two elements:

(i) intention to occupy. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent.
(ii) occupation should be peaceful, continuous.
​

Now this is kind of interesting. This is the order of events.

APR 1950: The West Bank is Annexed by Jordan.
JUN 1967: Israel occupies the West Bank; and it becomes Israel occupied territory of Jordan.
JUL 1988: King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. The sovereignty abandons the West Bank, and Israel now Effectively Occupies the Politically Abandon Territory.
NOV 1988: PLO Declares Independence of West Bank and Gaza Strip, with Capital in Jerusalem.
​

It will become interesting to see when the ICC (International Criminal Court) defines the critical point, that becomes the time in which the understanding of the conditions are set. Would that be the Treaty dates with Egypt (1979) for the Gaza Strip; and the Treaty dates with Jordan (1994) pertaining to the West Bank. Or would it be the end of the 1973 Yom Kipper War, --- or --- when?

And would there be an argument that today's Palestine Arab is capable of effectively understanding and articulating the agreements and interpretations of 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90 years ago? Once the Provisional Government of Israel declared Independence and then had to defend that action against the Arab Coalition Army, was that a defining moment?

We simply don't know.

Most Respectfully,
R

First, the Arab-Palestinians were NOT protecting or contesting sovereignty as an "original sovereign." They have not held any form of sovereignty for more than a eight centuries. So you would be incorrect there.​

You are the one who is incorrect. The people are sovereign. A state is not required.

Being the native population and citizens of the defined territory of Palestine the Palestinians have certain inalienable rights.

An independent state is the product of the exercise of their rights not a prerequisite.

As where the Jews, and once again you try and remove the Jews inalienable rights to a homeland and free determination.

So why didn't the Palestinian inhabitants not declare an independent state, or did they and called it trans Jordan ?

 

[Phoenall]

Which has about as much validity as the recent $9 bills circulated in parts of the US

 

[Phoenall]

Which has about as much validity as the recent $9 bills circulated in parts of the US

 

[Phoenall]

The bottom line is, Israel has no right to stop a ship in international waters. Any ship, for any reason.

Wrong read the maritime laws again in regards to smuggling, gun running and other suspected illegal crimes on the high seas