UN Panel: Gaza flotilla attack = war crime.

[McHrozni]

:
Look it up, but you appear to be pursuing an irrelevant strawman.

You do realize this was the question you were answering in the first place, right?

McHrozni

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

It looks to me like the UN decided it wants to condemn the actions as illegal, and now has to scramble to explain exactly how it's illegal.

It looks to me as though some apologists believe that Israel can never do anything wrong, no matter how they behave and no matter how many people they massacre - as in this latest massacre on the high seas.

It seems some are now scrambling to defend the indefensible by making ad homs and offering absolutely no support for their claims. A rather common approach for apologists of the apartheid, coriander dodgers in Tel Aviv.

It seems that desperation of the Israeli government supporters is now reaching crisis levels when they can no longer rustle up even a meagre argument is support of their favourite apartheid state.

 

[Pardalis]

Nothing on Sri Lanka?

 

[McHrozni]

It seems some are now scrambling to defend the indefensible by making ad homs and offering absolutely no support for their claims.

There is no law that would make the Israeli blockade illegal.
There is, in fact, international law mandating this exact same situation, and Israel acted well within it's bounds.

Please point the ad hominem in the above position. Thank you.

McHrozni

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Nothing on Sri Lanka?

They're 'investigating'. Who knows what they'll come up with? Meanwhile, anti-sinhalesism is alive and well with EU countries raising tariffs on Sri Lankan exports.

 

[JihadJane]

Perhaps I don't see any point in reading conclusions reached before the investigation started?

The report is the result of an investigation.

You do realize this was the question you were answering in the first place, right?

McHrozni

Your "unrestricted access to any particular area during war time" is a strawman. It doesn't feature in the report.

 

[McHrozni]

Your "unrestricted access to any particular area during war time" is a strawman. It doesn't feature in the report.

Why? The article did claim Israel was violating internation law with the Gaza blockade, did it not? The international law, on the other hand, explicitly permits Israel to do what it's doing.
So where is the strawman, exactly?

McHrozni

 

[JihadJane]

Why? The article did claim Israel was violating internation law with the Gaza blockade, did it not? The international law, on the other hand, explicitly permits Israel to do what it's doing.
So where is the strawman, exactly?

McHrozni

Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says:

"No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they can not be regarded as jointly and severally responsible".


That article underpins why the panel regards the blockade to be illegal. It's got nothing to do with "unrestricted access to any particular area during war time".

See paragraph 51 to 59 of the report (pdf). Paragraph 59 reads:

"The Mission [fact-finding mission] finds that that the policy of blockade or closure regime, including the naval blockade imposed by Israel on Gaza was inflicting disproportionate civilian damage. The Mission considers that the naval blockade was implemented in support of the overall closure regime. As such it was part of a single disproportionate measure of armed conflict and as such cannot itself be found proportionate."

 

[TragicMonkey]

It looks to me as though some apologists believe that Israel can never do anything wrong, no matter how they behave and no matter how many people they massacre - as in this latest massacre on the high seas.

It seems some are now scrambling to defend the indefensible by making ad homs and offering absolutely no support for their claims. A rather common approach for apologists of the apartheid, coriander dodgers in Tel Aviv.

It seems that desperation of the Israeli government supporters is now reaching crisis levels when they can no longer rustle up even a meagre argument is support of their favourite apartheid state.

Actually, I don't care for Israel at all. But I'm not frothing at the mouth with hatred for it, either. As far as I'm concerned, Israel and Palestine and indeed, the entire Middle East can piss up a rope.

 

[Thunder]

you know, threads like this make me look like an Israelophile.

 

[Pardalis]

They're 'investigating'. Who knows what they'll come up with? Meanwhile, anti-sinhalesism is alive and well with EU countries raising tariffs on Sri Lankan exports.

There is less energy and enthusiasm to investigate those 20,000 deaths, compared to those nine people in Gaza...

 

[portlandatheist]

Shame on the UNHRC for such blatant disregard of justice

 

[Captain.Sassy]

There is less energy and enthusiasm to investigate those 20,000 deaths, compared to those nine people in Gaza...

Only 12% less energy and 8% less enthusiasm, by conventional measures. Not a noticeable difference, especially when you factor in pretend variable inflation.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Now shall we move on to the war crimes of Hamas?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Oqo_wmuGo

The Flotilla incident is just another demonstration of Hamas using civilians as a human shield. They have made it so Israel has no choice but to inspect all shipments for weapons since they have demonstrated to use such methods to smuggle weapons in.

 

[McHrozni]

Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says:

"No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they can not be regarded as jointly and severally responsible".

I know what it says. The blockade is not a penalty, it is a necessary, legitemate and legal policy to keep war material away from Hamas.

That article underpins why the panel regards the blockade to be illegal. It's got nothing to do with "unrestricted access to any particular area during war time".

See paragraph 51 to 59 of the report. Paragraph 59 reads:

"The Mission [fact-finding mission] finds that that the policy of blockade or closure regime, including the naval blockade imposed by Israel on Gaza was inflicting disproportionate civilian damage. The Mission considers that the naval blockade was implemented in support of the overall closure regime. As such it was part of a single disproportionate measure of armed conflict and as such cannot itself be found proportionate."

Funnily enough, the document the Mission is quoting does not state that the blockade must be disproportionate. It must not be excessive, yes, but these words are not synonims, and indeed the San Remo manual uses both these terms in different contexts.
Excessive describes a quantity, amount, or degree that is more than what is justifiable, tolerable, or desirable. Disproportional, on the other hand, merely describes a "greater" amount in this case. Unlike excessive, disproportional could also mean a smaller amount (quantity, etc), but this is not applicable in our case.

While their finding that the blockade is dispoportional may or may not be correct, they haven't even argued that it is excessive, as they should have if they wanted to make the point they're trying to make.

They even go as far as to state, quoting the San Remo manual:
A blockade may not continue to be enforced where it inflicts disproportionate damage on the civilian population.

Which is a lie, as described above.

So again, if you're going to argue the blockade is illegal, at least quote an international law that would make it illegal. Your beloved Mission failed rather miserably, but maybe you can do better! Find me an international law which prohibits interferance with shipping of war material to the enemy. This is, after all, what this particular case was about.

McHrozni

 

[Newtons Bit]

Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says:

"No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they can not be regarded as jointly and severally responsible".

The blockade is to restrict access to war materials. Which can be just about anything in the hands of Hamas. It's not a penalty. It will stop when Hamas stops trying to make war with anything it can get its hands on.

 

[a_unique_person]

Now shall we move on to the war crimes of Hamas?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Oqo_wmuGo

The Flotilla incident is just another demonstration of Hamas using civilians as a human shield. They have made it so Israel has no choice but to inspect all shipments for weapons since they have demonstrated to use such methods to smuggle weapons in.

Who made who do what? The Palestinian people have been denied the right of self determination for hundreds of years. The situation is not so black and white as you describe it.

 

[bynmdsue]

No-one can say it better than Bob

The neighborhood bully he just lives to survive
He's criticized and condemned for being alive
He's not supposed to fight back, he's supposed to have thick skin
He's supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in
He's the neighborhood bully.

That's about the size of it.

 

[Donal]

Do you really think the world is going to allow Israel to carry on massacring people on this, now regular basis, for much longer?

Yes. They world has shown it has no will what so ever to step in between Israel and Palestine with any actual plan.

Over and over again. Have you not been paying attention?

The UN, the world and everyone stands idly by as Africa plays theater to several wars of genocide where rape, AIDS and child soldiers are weapons.

And the UN has done nothing, NOTHING, to put a stop to it.


What on heaven hell or earth makes you think they are going to do one concrete thing to fix the situation in Palestine?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Who made who do what? The Palestinian people have been denied the right of self determination for hundreds of years. The situation is not so black and white as you describe it.

Actually yes it is. When Jordan and Egypt had control over Gaza and West Bank they could have formed them into states with no problem. Did they? Nope. And who denied who rights?