Ending the Blockade via Future Flotillas

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Boredie, Jun 15, 2010.

  1. Boredie

    Boredie In need of Entertainment

    I'll try and stay as impartial as possible in this discussion.
    I want to raise the following questions:

    Regardless of whether or not the blockade on Gaza is justified or not, do you think using the flotillas are the right way to go in order to stop it?

    Everywhere I read, those organizing the flotillas are intent on doing so to break the blockade and to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza, as if there is no aid going into Gaza on a weekly basis.
    Is no one aware that every week 15,000 tons of supplies/foods/medication etc. are being sent into Gaza in order to help the same people the flotilla organizers wish to provide aid to? Yes, a blockade exists, but that doesn't mean we do not provide for these people. Israel is portrayed as a bully with no thoughts whatsoever of the Gazan people, but the weekly 15,000 tons are a fact that the majority wish to ignore and that bothers me.

    If the sole purpose of the flotillas are to provide aid, then by all means provide it via Israel's policies.

  2. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    ..but the sole purpose of the flotillas is not to provide aid. The sole purpose of the flotillas is to raise awareness to the blockade(or as you put it Israel's policies) in a war of propaganda.

    Will they end the blockade....no...will Israel look the worse for not ending the blockade....yes >>>>>>mission accomplished.
  3. Boredie

    Boredie In need of Entertainment

    Their success in the first round is undeniable.

    It seems like they plan on ruining any credibility Israel ever had with international countries with the upcoming flotillas... :sigh:
  4. Tucker

    Tucker Lion Rampant

    From the standpoint of Palestinian publicity, the tactic seems to be a very effective one. As far as forcing a change in policy, I think we all know that would be anathema to the Israeli government. Here's a thought that I hope isn't too naive: why can't Israel inspect ships bound for Gaza and verify their cargoes, instead of summarily turning all away? In other words, if Israel is allowing "15,000 tons of supplies/foods/medication etc." to reach Gaza every week, what difference would it make if some of it arrived by sea?
  5. Boredie

    Boredie In need of Entertainment

    Umm.. that's exactly what they did the first time round. All the ships were sent to Ashdod port and there they inspected the goods that the ships brought with. They never sent them away from providing the aid they wished to provide.
    So to sum up, there is no difference if the aid arrives by sea to the Ashdod port to be able to inspect the cargoes.
  6. Tucker

    Tucker Lion Rampant

    Factoid: According to a United Nations report, the amount of aid required in Gaza is four times what Israel currently allows in.
    You mean the ships were diverted to Ashdod. On what authority should the Palestinians have to go out of their way to provide transparency for Israel, and why should the reverse not also then be true?
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2010
  7. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    Yep, because these people believe Israel abuses its credibility and is exorbitant in its actions. So what do they do? ....give it a soft target.
  8. Boredie

    Boredie In need of Entertainment

    And your point is?
    As I stated above, there is no reason in the world why the flotilla organizers cannot provide aid to Gaza - it is the way they do it which is the problem.

    The same Palestinians who elected Hamas to be in leadership in the Gaza strip.
    If Hamas was out of the picture there wouldn't be a need for this.
  9. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    Good. Israel is a rogue nuclear state guilty war crimes, most notably in the form of a blockade.

    Alas, ever since the American media started reporting that the blockade would be eased (which is completely false), people seemed to have stopped caring.

    Hamas is the democratically elected government of Gaza. Israel has no right to intervene.
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2010
  10. Alex37

    Alex37 Registered Member

    1. Israel is in a state of armed conflict with Hamas in Gaza.

    Hamas rules Gaza. And it is in a state of permanent war with Israel. Hamas may tactically moderate its stance, in the short-term, with talk of ‘truces’. But it does not moderate its long-term ideology. Hamas has converted Gaza into a heavily armed frontline military base, in an Iranian sponsored confrontation with Israel. Hamas has fired or permitted the firing of thousands of rockets and missiles from Gaza at Israeli civilian targets in recent years. In addition, Hamas has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israeli men, women and children in suicide bombing attacks within Israel. The orchestrators of those attacks operate freely in Gaza today. Many are in the senior echelons of Hamas, and regarded as “resistance leaders”. In short, Israel is in a state of “armed conflict” with Hamas. After the extremely violent Hamas coup in Gaza in June 2007 Israel formally confirmed that to be the legal position between the two entities.

    2. The Hamas threat is sustained by the smuggling of weapons into Gaza.

    Hamas sustains its threat to Israel by smuggling huge amounts of weaponry into Gaza, mainly via tunnels under the Egyptian border. Hamas has in the past also tried bringing weaponry into Gaza by sea, and if it had a free route to do so, unchecked, this would readily become its main line weapons supply.

    3. A naval blockade is a lawful form of self-defence under international law.

    It is a legitimate form of self-defence under international law for a sovereign state to impose a naval blockade against an adversary with which it is in armed conflict. That is Israel’s goal in imposing the Gaza naval blockade. In the context described above, the naval blockade is not illegal. Israel has tried to alleviate the impact of the blockade by enabling huge quantities of humanitarian supplies into Gaza, overland, including food, medical supplies and basic necessities. The international community is itself committed to preventing the smuggling of arms to Hamas in Gaza, via UN Security Council resolution 1860 of January 2009 while obliges UN member states to “prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition”. Critics of Israel’s naval blockade, such as the Red Cross, do not suggest any alternative way for Israel to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza.

    4. It is lawful under international law to intercept and detain vessels which threaten to break a blockade.

    A country may impose at sea as long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral third party states. There’s no suggestion that Israel has barred such access. A country imposing a naval blockade must give notice of the existence of the blockade. Israel publicised the existence of the blockade repeatedly, via the recognised and accepted international maritime organisations. Furthermore, Israel notified the captains of the flotilla vessels in real-time and repeatedly that they were sailing towards an area where a maritime blockade was in force, and that Israel intended to enforce the blockade. When a maritime blockade is in effect, no vessels can enter the blockaded area – civilian or military. It is lawful to detain a civilian vessel that seeks to break the blockade.

    5. The flotilla announced their intention to break the blockade while sailing in international waters, and it was therefore lawful to intercept them there.

    The flotilla leaders made very clear via press releases and orally that they intended to “break the blockade”. The routes of the vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade. An authoritative handbook of the US Naval Command on the Law of Naval Operations provides that a vessel is considered to be in an attempt to break a blockade from the time it leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade. Israel proposed that they could unload their supplies in Ashdod, as an alternative way of getting the aid in Gaza. But this proposal was rebuffed (revealing that the flotilla members were not on a humanitarian mission). Given the crews’ proclaimed intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce it.

    6. The Israeli commandoes acted in self-defence on the Mavi Marmara, reasonably fearing that they could be killed by activists on the ship.

    When Israeli commandos abseiled onto the deck of the Mavi Marmara, they were ferociously assaulted by Turkish activists, armed with clubs, iron bars and sticks. Several were heavily beaten. One was reportedly stabbed. Another was thrown over the deck, crashing 30 feet to the deck below. Much of this has been captured on film and will be the subject of fierce claim and counterclaim as the facts are investigated. Israel calls it an attempted “lynch”. The commandoes had boarded the vessel armed only with paintball guns, which are non-lethal, and used for crowd control. It was only after the direct violence against the commandos escalated that they received permission from their commanding officers to fire live ammunition. Israel argues that the lives of its commandoes was in real danger and they acted in self-defence to save their lives. Israel triggered the incident; but the Turkish activists on the Mavi Marmara triggered the violence.
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2010

Share This Page