# The Israeli Blockade of Gaza



## Xeiheo (Mar 2, 2010)

It is somewhat unfortunate the last thread on this topic was closed, but I understood if ended up becoming less than civil! So please, gents, keep it clean this time!

What is everyone's opinion of the events of the last several days? It seems international views on Israel have shifted from indifference to outright hostility with even the United States having trouble justifying their continued support of the Israeli government. I think the cover-piece of the Economist was spot on with their analysis of the situation; Israel is stuck in a vicious cycle. When they react with violence, they face a growing number of enemies which only breeds more violence. What's the solution then?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

You've had my view and Victor's. It seems pointless discussing the topic here as it it blatantly obvious that quoting FACT and what the UN and the rest of the world knows does not meet with the approval of the moderators. Also, Israel said over the weekend that it would not go along with a UN investigation into the incident. 

However, it seemed perfectly acceptable a few years ago for this and other forums to make the "criminal allegation" (Alex's turn of phrase) that Iraq possessed WMD despite the total absence of evidence...not to mention the total absence during that illegal war of the detection of any WMD!!!! 

But hey, who am I kidding? Since 9/11 the US media and US citizens had already "found guilty" all Arabs of all Arab nations regardless of fact, evidence or anything else needed to operate a democratic process. 

Guantanamo Bay? yea, democracy and fairplay at work. 

And you Alex are censoring a thread because we've simply stated FACT and called the state of Israel killers. Jesus Alex, how big is your greenhouse? Kevlar panes or perspex? 

The irony in this case is that we have more than evidence we have cold hard FACTS 1, the ship was in international waters 2, Israeli commandos boarded and killed several people 3, weapons were not found on board, which was why the Israeli authorities made themselves look like complete buffoons when they resorted to presenting everyday ship's items as weapons, i.e. lengths of rope, metal tools and kitchen knives....not really much of a match for sub-machine guns fired by trained soldiers. And only someone without the sljightest measure of intelligence would believe that the ships passengers made a focused attempt to kill the soldiers armed with sub-machine guns. 
The passengers in international waters had every right to defend themselves against armed soldeirs illegally boarding their vessel. The soldiers had no right to kill people! 


Fortunately, for the rest of the world the ship carried some very well respected and credible Swedes who stand witness to the whole attack. 

I no more wish to see the state of Israel obliterated by extremist Arabs than I do the Palestinian communities by Israelis. 
I don't write "extremist Israelis" for the simple fact that it is Israeli policies that are the problem, and as the Israeli govt rules by majority it is clear that the majority considers themselves represented in those policies. 

Last Tuesday at a societal security meeting in XXXXX (where I was all week, hence my absence here) I spoke to an Israeli who works for a govt body.The one thing we agreed on was that the Israeli media needs to make more of an effort to get its message out to the rest of the world. However, "Jerry" who lives in Israel said, "the Israeli media really don't care how the rest of the world views us" He might be right, and he would be the best judge of that.
"Jerry" considered the entire crew and all the passengers on the ship as terrorists, I mentioned the Swedish writer and the Swedish-Israeli Jewish organiser who were on board, but he didn't change his opinion. And this is a person I've met and worked with before, a normal, mild mannered Israeli. But his poltiical mind-set is set in concrete or cement! "Jerry" sincerely feels, he told me, that Israel is fighting for its survival at every turn. 

Cement by the way is one of the commodities the Palestinians don't have and was something the Irish ship was carrying in large quantities along with writing paper, pens, and other basic essentials stopped by the Israeli blockade. 

The parallels with Northern Ireland will have escaped no one. The simple solution is this: You (Israel/UK) give our people (Catholics/Palestinians) equal civil rights and a place to live without interfering and without occupation and we(IRA/PLO/INLA/Hammas) will stop attacking you to force you to do that which is only fair and democratic anyway.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You've had my view and Victor's. It seems pointless discussing the topic here .


I did mention this about the Interchange before. It only ends in tears.

Moderation is one reason. Another is you may be addressing somebody who thinks all Europeans are basically commies. There is little common ground.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Kingstonian said:


> I did mention this about the Interchange before. It only ends in tears.
> 
> Moderation is one reason. Another is you may be addressing somebody who thinks all Europeans are basically commies. There is little common ground.


You were right then of course and you're right now. I had hoped of course, perhaps naively, that a sense of fair play and openness in discussion would allow for all views to be expressed.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Isn't it true that the European Union officially classify Hamas, including it's political wing, as a terrorist group?

(as do the governments of the US, Japan and Canada)


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

Xeiheo said:


> I
> What is everyone's opinion of the events of the last several days?


Piracy.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Relayer said:


> Isn't it true that the European Union officially classify Hamas, including it's political wing, as a terrorist group?
> 
> (as do the governments of the US, Japan and Canada)


What the hell has Hamas got to do with a ship load of volunteers, some of them well known Swedes, trying to deliver humanitarian aid to the Palestinians? 
If you are one of those who, like Israel in their paranoia thinks the ship was full of terrorists, then just come out and say it.
On second thoughts don't, because that would be a "criminal allegation" and would get you censored by the moderator.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Piracy, absolutely. The US went to war with Britain in 1812, at least ostensibly, over Britain's claim to stop ships in international waters. The Treaty concluding that war established that no state has a right to stop ships at sea, in international waters, unless they have declared that they are in a state of war, and that they have established a legally recognised exclusion zone. Israel haven't done that, so its piracy.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

"The last attempt to reach Gaza by sea was in June 2009 - then, Free Gaza ships were intercepted by the Israeli Navy off Gaza, and forced to proceed to the southern Israeli port of Ashdod, *where the cargo was impounded (*some of it was later transferred by land to Israeli crossings and sent into Gaza*). The activists aboard were jailed before deportation."*

*WHY?*

The paragraph above is taken from this article on the StG website:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

culverwood said:


> Piracy.


Absolutely!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Xeiheo said:


> When they react with violence


Part of the problem is that when they react with force they always overreact, for example, using phosphor bombs on civilians in Gaza last year - against the Geneva Convention.

Remember too, that the IDF have some of the world's best and most advanced weaponry and troops, which they aren't shy about using against various Palestinian militias and paramilitary groups armed with AK47s, RPGs, PE, and C4, when they can get hold of them. Talk about David and Goliath...ironically.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

Xeiheo said:


> What's the solution then?


 Uncle Sam should cut off Israel's allowance if they can't play well with others.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Uncle Sam should cut off Israel's allowance if they can't play well with others.


China has north korea and the US has isreal, neither of us are willing to discipline our pet country


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Uncle Sam should cut off Israel's allowance if they can't play well with others.


AIPAC, the ADL and Abe Foxman amongst others,may have something to say about that.

Read Mearsheimer and Walt's 'The Israel Lobby' to see how difficult your suggestion would be to implement.

Hardliners successfully lobbied to get Norman Finklestein dismissed from his university tenure for challenging them.

The 2009 Israeli documentary film 'Defamation' is also well worth watching. It is available for free on the net, though it was not widely promoted in the US. It shows that not all Israeli are hawks but those voices are not calling the shots.


----------



## dmbfrisb (Apr 17, 2010)

I'm surprised that the other thread was closed...for "criminal allegations". Am I to assume that we weren't allowed to have a conversation on, say, Anand Jon being arrested on rape charges or Alexander McQueen's stolen stuffed tiger, should anyone have found that interesting? There's also a big difference between an "allegation" and cold, hard GPS coordinates and video shot by the perps broadcast on the internet. The thread I saw wasn't so much political (like say, the history of Ireland posts) as economic; the OP saw a clear violation of human/international rights carried out with the approval of a state government, and felt that boycotting that country's goods would send a message that these actions are not acceptable.
I'd be disappointed to find out that discussion on current events is discouraged. Glad no one's mentioned BP yet!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

dmbfrisb said:


> I'm surprised that the other thread was closed...for "criminal allegations". Am I to assume that we weren't allowed to have a conversation on, say, Anand Jon being arrested on rape charges or Alexander McQueen's stolen stuffed tiger, should anyone have found that interesting? There's also a big difference between an "allegation" and cold, hard GPS coordinates and video shot by the perps broadcast on the internet. The thread I saw wasn't so much political (like say, the history of Ireland posts) as economic; the OP saw a clear violation of human/international rights carried out with the approval of a state government, and felt that boycotting that country's goods would send a message that these actions are not acceptable.
> I'd be disappointed to find out that discussion on current events is discouraged. Glad no one's mentioned BP yet!


Exactly, well said.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Cement by the way is one of the commodities the Palestinians don't have and was something the Irish ship was carrying in large quantities along with writing paper, pens, and other basic essentials stopped by the Israeli blockade.
> 
> The parallels with Northern Ireland will have escaped no one. The simple solution is this: You (Israel/UK) give our people (Catholics/Palestinians) equal civil rights and a place to live without interfering and without occupation and we(IRA/PLO/INLA/Hammas) will stop attacking you to force you to do that which is only fair and democratic anyway.


1) They were invited to have thier cargo inspected by either Israel or Egypt which was refused.

2) Ireland is not Gaza. Some Irish should take offense but I'll leave that up to them. Isreali "fairness" has led to rocket attacks in the past. Not peace.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I'm unaware of any parallels with N.Ireland. 
Israel denies full civil rights to Palestinians, whereas the current N.Ireland, and when it was administered by the British government before it, has equal civil rights for all citizens, whatever their faith or ethnicity. Indeed, Irish, not only Northern Irish, citizens living in Britain are entitled to vote in British elections. 
Israel occupies and blockades Palestinian land. N.Ireland is it's own self-governing polity, under the Crown, with it's own police service. It isn't occupied, nor is it under blockade. 

I'm unaware of any civil rights issues in N.Ireland, any interference or any occupation. I fail to see the parallel.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 2) Ireland is not Gaza. Some Irish should take offense but I'll leave that up to them. Isreali "fairness" has led to rocket attacks in the past. Not peace.


I said, Northern Ireland not Ireland. And many Irish people readily accept the similarities and have supported the Palestinians down the decades and are not offended. I might not live in Ireland anymore but I'm still an Irish citizen.

Israeli fairness,surely an oxymoron! What? Do you mean like when the Israeli Defence Forces with their tanks and artillery in the 1980s surrounded Shabra and Shatila in Lebanon, which contained thousands of Palestinian refugee families. Keeping them jammed in there so that the Lebanese Christian militias could go in and massacre hundreds!!! Is that the kind of Israeli fairness you're talking about? If so we're reading from very different dictionaries.

Don't forget, EVERYTHING is documented. And the irony never escapes me or anyone else for that matter, that "Israel" as a people having suffered so much during the Second World War then only two years later 1947 started to inflict similar hardships on the Palestinians.

Don't forget the Holocaust...No, I never do. However, having suffered that doesn't give Israel a licence to treat the Palestinians the way they do.
And some people still wonder why there are so many Turks and Palestinians welcome in Germany. Talk about not seeing the wood for the trees!

The Jewish ghettos of Eastern Europe and the occupied Palestinian areas. Not very different. Walled, guarded, goods in and out controlled, traffic ditto.


----------



## Pembers (May 3, 2010)

I'd like to make a few points, as I don't think you've simply presented objective facts in your post. You've interpreted them, which is different, and you should acknowledge that.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> FACTS 1, the ship was in international waters


International law stipulates that a sovereign state has the right decide what goes through its borders, i.e. it has the right to enforce a blockade. Those on board the ship had unambiguously expressed their intention to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. It is therefore NOT simply a fact that Israel broke international law by boarding a ship whose passengers had made clear that they themselves planned to break a blockade which is in accordance with international law.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> 2, Israeli commandos boarded and killed several people 3, weapons were not found on board, which was why the Israeli authorities made themselves look like complete buffoons when they resorted to presenting everyday ship's items as weapons, i.e. lengths of rope, metal tools and kitchen knives....not really much of a match for sub-machine guns fired by trained soldiers. And only someone without the sljightest measure of intelligence would believe that the ships passengers made a focused attempt to kill the soldiers armed with sub-machine guns.
> The passengers in international waters had every right to defend themselves against armed soldeirs illegally boarding their vessel. The soldiers had no right to kill people! .


Here you've carried over your "fact" that the IDF boarded the ship illegally. If one doesn't take this "fact" for granted, it is certainly not clear that the passengers had the right to attack the soldiers, who were not themselves initially violent. A Turkish newspaper printed pictures yesterday (or maybe on Saturday, not sure, saw it on the Andrew Marr Show) of the serious injuries dealt to the soldiers. Videos show that the soldiers were attacked *as soon as* they boarded the ship. The passengers were clearly not acting in self defence. I'd like to ask you - if we accept that the legality of the boarding is ambiguous, and hypothetically give the IDF the benefit of the doubt, how were they *supposed* to react to the attacks. It's pretty difficult to use "reasonable" force when people are attacking you with knives and metal bars. It's also interesting that there was no violence on any other ships in the flotilla? Do you really think that group of soldiers who bordered the Marmera(sp?) had completely different instructions to their fellows boarding the other ships? I'm more inclined to conclude that the passengers on the Marmera simply reacted differently, and had to be fought against.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> The parallels with Northern Ireland will have escaped no one. The simple solution is this: You (Israel/UK) give our people (Catholics/Palestinians) equal civil rights and a place to live without interfering and without occupation and we(IRA/PLO/INLA/Hammas) will stop attacking you to force you to do that which is only fair and democratic anyway.


It's not a great parallel, because the IRA has finite aims. They wanted to unify Ireland whereas Hamas, according to their founding charter, want to destroy the state of Israel and kill Jews, wherever in the world they live. The genius that is Stewart Lee puts it quite well, although he's comparing the IRA to Al Qaeda:





Can I just make clear that I haven't really made up my mind about whether Israel was right to do what it did. I just think that people like you, who present Israel's barbarity as "fact", only make things worse.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Israel has previous on attacking ships in international waters - USS Liberty in 1967.

https://www.gtr5.com/


----------



## Pembers (May 3, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The Jewish ghettos of Eastern Europe and the occupied Palestinian areas. Not very different. Walled, guarded, goods in and out controlled, traffic ditto.


This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm not Jewish, but I really have to question the motives of anyone who makes this kind of comparison. Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were starved to death. No one is claiming that Gaza is a holiday camp, but it actually has one of the fastest growing populations of anywhere in the world. Compared with the rest of the Arab world, rates of stunting (one of the main signs of malnutrition) are unusually low in Palestine - a prevalence of 10%. Only Tunisia has a better statistic. This is according the the UN's IRIN news agency:
https://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=87018

Clearly, Gaza has huge problems. The Warsaw Ghetto, however, it is not.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

Pembers said:


> It is therefore NOT simply a fact that Israel broke international law by boarding a ship whose passengers had made clear that they themselves planned to break a blockade which is in accordance with international law.


The blockade of Gaza is in accordance with international law! Pull the other one. This act of piracy, and despite your attempt at justification that is what it was, cannot be defended.

If the action had taken place in Israeli of disputed waters I would still not have supported it but would not have called it piracy. I had thought to put up some parallels but the case is so clear they are unnecessary.


----------



## Pembers (May 3, 2010)

culverwood said:


> The blockade of Gaza is in accordance with international law! Pull the other one. This act of piracy, and despite your attempt at justification that is what it was, cannot be defended.
> 
> If the action had taken place in Israeli of disputed waters I would still not have supported it but would not have called it piracy. I had thought to put up some parallels but the case is so clear they are unnecessary.


Could you briefly explain to me why you think the blockade is so obviously illegal? Bit hard to reply otherwise.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Pembers, you talk about objectivity then go on to try and explian away a FACT that the UN and the rest of the world (not to
mention on board GPS devices) have already accepted as FACT. What you write about international waters is utter nonsense! You clearly need to read up on the subject! The blockade is not in accordance with international law at all. Where are you getting this stuff from? 

Perhaps you should get off the fence, stow the analytical pedantry and start feeling for the issue!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Pembers said:


> Could you briefly explain to me why you think the blockade is so obviously illegal? Bit hard to reply otherwise.


Go to the UNHCR homepage or the ICHR homepage or the GC homepage or the Red Cross, if you want an answer. If you don't already know the basics of this issue, as you clearly don't by asking such a question, why in the heck are you arguing it? Do your own homework!


----------



## Pembers (May 3, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Pembers, you talk about objectivity then go on to try and explian away a FACT that the UN and the rest of the world (not to
> mention on board GPS devices) have already accepted as FACT. What you write about international waters is utter nonsense! You clearly need to read up on the subject! The blockade is not in accordance with international law at all. Where are you getting this stuff from?


Can I ask you the same question as I did Culverwood? I'm not claiming to be some kind of expert, and my knowledge of law is limited. But no one has EVER explained to me (and as an undergrad I know a lot of "anti-zionists") why this particular blockade is illegal. Blockades in general certainly aren't.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> What the hell has Hamas got to do with a ship load of volunteers, some of them well known Swedes, trying to deliver humanitarian aid to the Palestinians?
> If you are one of those who, like Israel in their paranoia thinks the ship was full of terrorists, then just come out and say it.
> On second thoughts don't, because that would be a "criminal allegation" and would get you censored by the moderator.


Well, you injected Hamas into the conversation... not me... remember.

Anyway, I don't know what was on the ship. Neither did you. Neither did Israel, so they stopped it to find out for certain. This was no "suprise raid". They tried to board by boat and were refused. They rappeled in and were attacked (I don't know if it was by the well known Swedes, or just less well known peace loving folk). They were determined to have vioklence that day to make their point, so they had it. Hamas (which you brought up) lobs a few hundred rockets indiscriminantly into Israel quite regularly. It is my hope that Israel will continue to stop ships and insure that no war-making materials are on board. I know they label other things as contraband, and there is a legitimate argument about some of those things.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Chouan said:


> I'm unaware of any civil rights issues in N.Ireland, any interference or any occupation. I fail to see the parallel.


Chouan, I so don't want to make this about Northern Ireland but I'll make my point and leave it at that - no provocation is meant here either.

Today - your statement holds true - very true.

But, I believe Earl is not referencing the current but is referencing events in the past - as an example and as I'm sure you'll remember the denial of civil rights to Northern Ireland's Catholic population that led to the Civil Rights marches and ultimatly Bloody Sunday. Now, it's taken nearly 40 years to get to the truth of the matter of Bloody Sunday and we're still waiting but we all broadly know what happened - the British Army massacred an unarmed civilian population by an over zealous unforgiving army. Now before you talk about IRA men shooting at the British Army with wild abandon, all men killed were unarmed. So, this is still current as we are all awaiting the publication of the Saville report. It is this reason why the the people of Ireland empathise so much with the people of Palestine - not Hamas, not the PLO but normal everday people. People with no infrastructure, industry or livelihood. This is a people oppressed and cornered.

I'm not interested in the political or the religious aspecs of this issue. I'm only interested in the humanity or lack of.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Pembers said:


> Can I ask you the same question as I did Culverwood? I'm not claiming to be some kind of expert, and my knowledge of law is limited. But no one has EVER explained to me (and as an undergrad I know a lot of "anti-zionists") why this particular blockade is illegal. Blockades in general certainly aren't.


Read my reply above. By the way I'm not an anti-zionist. I never define myself by what I amn't, only by what I am.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

I am sure you are a first class student but you are wrong. (Pembers: I've been lurking for a while now, and this seems like a good place to make my first post. I'm an undergraduate, studying history, from England. And I work as a tennis coach in my vacs.)

I know Wiki is not authoritative but it is a place to start:
_The Gaza Strip has been blockaded by Israel and Egypt since June 2007, when, after their 2006 victory in the Palestinian legislative election, Hamas took control of the Palestinian territory in the course of the Battle of Gaza (2007) from the Palestinian government of March 2007 after forcing out Fatah. It immediately followed the 2006-2007 economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority following the election of Hamas to the Palestinian government.
The Gaza Strip has land borders with Israel and Egypt, and a sea border. Egypt and Israel largely keep their borders with the territory sealed. Israel allows only limited humanitarian supplies from aid organizations into the Strip. The amount of goods Israel allows into Gaza is one quarter of the pre-blockade flow. The Israeli navy maintains a sea blockade *from three nautical miles offshore*. Egypt is constructing an underground steel barrier to prevent circumvention of the blockade through smuggling tunnels.
Israel maintains that the blockade is necessary to limit Palestinian rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip on its cities and to prevent Hamas from obtaining other weapons. Egypt maintains that it cannot open the Rafah crossing since opening the border would represent Egyptian recognition of the Hamas control of Gaza, undermine the legitimacy of the Palestinian National Authority and consecrate the split between Gaza and the West Bank. 
The blockade has been criticized by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Human Rights Council and other human rights organizations. It is officially supported by the United States. 
Legal arguments
According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, a blockade is a legal method of warfare at sea, but is governed by rules. The blockading nation must publish a list of contraband. The manual describes what can never be contraband. Outside this list, the blockading nation is free to select anything as contraband. The blockading nation typically establish a blockaded area of water, but any ship can be inspected as soon as it is established that it is attempting to break the blockade. This inspection can occur inside the blockaded area or in international waters, but never inside the territorial waters of a neutral nation. A neutral ship must obey a request to stop for inspection from the blockading nation. If the situation so demands, the blockading nation can request that the ship divert to a known place or harbour for inspection. If the ship does not stop, then the ship is subject to capture. If people aboard the ship are resisting capture, they can be attacked. It is still not allowed to sink the ship, unless provision is made for rescueing the crew. Leaving the crew in liferafts / lifeboats does not constitue rescue. If a neutral ship is captured, any member of the crew, resisting capture can be treated as prisoners-of-war, while the remainder of the crew should be released. A neutral nation may choose to send a convoy accompanied by warships. The warship can provide guarantees that the convoy does not contain contraband. in which case, the blockading nation does not have any right of inspection.
An occupying power is obliged to follow the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which seeks to protect the civilian population. The Security Council held in 1979 that the Fourth Convention applies in the territories captured by Israel in 1967, including Gaza. Israel does not accept that the convention formally applies in the occupied territories, arguing that the conventions refer to occupied state sovereign territories. It has said that it will be bound by their "humanitarian provisions". Since 2005 Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.
After Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from the Gaza strip, Israel no longer occupied Gaza with troops. There have been a series of attacks by Israeli ground forces such as the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, as well as rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and cross-border attacks by Gazan militant groups against Israeli troops. Israel has retained control over Gaza's airspace and coastline, and over its own border with the territory. Egypt has control of its border with Gaza (except for the tunnels). Israel and Egypt also control the flow of goods in and out. Israel controls fuel imports to Gaza, and also controls the majority of electricity used in Gaza (approximately 60%), which it supplies from the Israeli electrical grid.
Human Rights Watch argues that Israel is still an occupying power and is responsible for Gaza under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.
BBC's World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds said that if Gaza is treated as a "hostile entity" the question is whether the measures used by Israel and Egypt sufficiently distinguish between civilian and military. The 1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions protocols prohibits the use of collective measures that do not distinguish between civilians and military. The amendment protects civilian populations in time of conflicts that fall short of war. Israel has not signed these protocols but there is an expectation internationally that it should respect them. Hamas does not administer an internationally recognized state and also has not signed these protocols. Amnesty International said that "The blockade constitutes collective punishment under international law and must be lifted immediately." And that as the occupying power, Israel has a duty under international law to ensure the welfare of Gaza's inhabitants, including their rights to health, education, food and adequate housing.
_

Support by the USA does not automatically make an illegal action legal.

I understand the Rafah crossing has very recently been opened (since attack on ships) at the orders of the Egyptian President but someone will correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> I'm unaware of any parallels with N.Ireland.
> 
> I'm unaware of any civil rights issues in N.Ireland, any interference or any occupation. I fail to see the parallel.


ROFLMAO......You should take up comedy. Don't tell me you failed to realise I'm talking historically not currently. 
That's the best one I've heard in a long time. Here's a similar one you can add to your repertoire "I'm unaware of any civil rights issues in the southern United States" That'll go down a storm as well. Or how about, "There are no homelss people in the UK"

April 1st is still a long way off. Can you wait?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Ultimately of course there isn't much fun being a member on a US forum and having political discussions once one has discovered that 80% of the members are US Republicans who view all Arabs and all political shades to the left of Genghis Khan as dog-sh*t or commies, I don't know which one I am considered as....probably both!


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Ultimately of course there isn't much fun being a member on a US forum and having political discussions once one has discovered that 80% of the members are US Republicans who view all Arabs and all political shades to the left of Genghis Khan as dog-sh*t or commies, I don't know which one I am considered as....probably both!


So, earlier in the thread, you said, "I had hoped of course, perhaps naively, that a sense of fair play and openness in discussion would allow for all views to be expressed."

What you were really looking for were views that agreed with yours.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Relayer said:


> So, earlier in the thread, you said, "I had hoped of course, perhaps naively, that a sense of fair play and openness in discussion would allow for all views to be expressed."
> 
> What you were really looking for were views that agreed with yours.


Yes, because that was where I was being naive I suppose. I hadn't in my wildest imaginings envisaged that there would be so much support on this forum for the atrocious acts carried out by the Israeli troops that boarded a ship and killed 9 people.
In essence you are supporting homicide. 
Like I said, obviously the wrong forum.
In a similar vein I don't, and I doubt you do, read a newspaper whose politics I don't agree with. What would be the point? Other than to make me angry every day.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I understand.

You need a forum where there is no real challenge to the group mentality. One where there is a unified opinion with no influence outside of folks who think just like you. Anyone with a differing view is to be chased away.

An interesting philosophy.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Relayer said:


> Anyone with a differing view is to be chased away.


Oh it's like child's play. Oh how easy you were to trap. Hook line and sinker. Reel him in boys. You're doing all the work for me!

"Anyone with a differing view is to be chased away." Indeed, which is why I suspect Alex closed the first thread! QED. No fairness of discussion.

End of!


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Oh it's like child's play. Oh how easy you were to trap. Hook line and sinker. Reel him in boys. You're doing all the work for me!
> 
> "Anyone with a differing view is to be chased away." Indeed, which is why I suspect Alex closed the first thread! QED. No fairness of discussion.
> 
> End of!


So, now you have "trapped" me. Ouch!

I do have to admit, though, that I really can't make the slightest bit of sense out of your last post.

You are the clever lad, now, aren't you?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Relayer said:


> You are the clever lad, now, aren't you?


Well clearly, as I can understand plain English, whereas you admit to having problems with it. Do try to keep up. Maybe it's too much California sun!

Got anything else or is that it?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pembers said:


> Could you briefly explain to me why you think the blockade is so obviously illegal? Bit hard to reply otherwise.


A country can only declare a blockade on another country that it is in a state of war with. Britain, for example, couldn't legally establish a blockade of France. Israel, therefore, cannot legally declare a blockade of Gaza. They can, of course, establish an illegal blockade, through the use of force. But, the use of force doesn't make it legal!
In any case, defending one's vessel against an illegal boarding by armed men is perfectly acceptable in law; rather like using force to defend one's home against armed intruders.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Relayer said:


> I understand.
> 
> You need a forum where there is no real challenge to the group mentality. One where there is a unified opinion with no influence outside of folks who think just like you. Anyone with a differing view is to be chased away.
> 
> An interesting philosophy.


I agree entirely. The Earl has me on his "ignore" list so he can't see my posts. However, he does respond to other members quotes from my posts, usually derogatively, without seeing the full post. He, of course can't (won't) see my comments so can respond knowing that I can't reply directly to him. A very mature level of behaviour.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> A country can only declare a blockade on another country that it is in a state of war with. Britain, for example, couldn't legally establish a blockade of France. Israel, therefore, cannot legally declare a blockade of Gaza. They can, of course, establish an illegal blockade, through the use of force. But, the use of force doesn't make it legal!
> In any case, defending one's vessel against an illegal boarding by armed men is perfectly acceptable in law; rather like using force to defend one's home against armed intruders.


Why has the blockade remained largely unchallenged since 2007??

Is there anything going on with Iran that could connect the two issues??

Anything at all??


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> Chouan, I so don't want to make this about Northern Ireland but I'll make my point and leave it at that - no provocation is meant here either.
> 
> Today - your statement holds true - very true.
> 
> But, I believe Earl is not referencing the current but is referencing events in the past - as an example and as I'm sure you'll remember the denial of civil rights to Northern Ireland's Catholic population that led to the Civil Rights marches and ultimatly Bloody Sunday. Now, it's taken nearly 40 years to get to the truth of the matter of Bloody Sunday and we're still waiting but we all broadly know what happened - the British Army massacred an unarmed civilian population by an over zealous unforgiving army. Now before you talk about IRA men shooting at the British Army with wild abandon, all men killed were unarmed. So, this is still current as we are all awaiting the publication of the Saville report. It is this reason why the the people of Ireland empathise so much with the people of Palestine - not Hamas, not the PLO but normal everday people. People with no infrastructure, industry or livelihood. This is a people oppressed and cornered.


I accept your interpretation of what the Earl might have meant, if not what he actually said! It is the supreme irony of modern Northern Ireland's history that British troops were sent there because of the anti-Catholic stance of the Unionist controlled Northern Ireland government of Stormont, which, as you suggest, was denying equality of civil rights to catholics. After a few weeks during which the catholic community welcomed the troops as their protectors, especially after the "police riots" in Londonderry, where the RUC and its "B" Specials attacked catholic areas, and catholics, the situation soured, essentially through the army command trusting the views of the RUC. Being used to a community police force in Britain, it was, I assume, impossible for them to think of the RUC as anything but a British police force, rather than the hard line Unionist armed militia which it was.


----------



## dmbfrisb (Apr 17, 2010)

Blockades, legality, and imaginary lines on the earth; all needless tangents for this conversation. There is a human being aboard a humanitarian vessel with four bullets in his head, as well as eight others with fatal injuries. As gentlemen (defined as well-mannered and considerate men with high standards of proper behavior) we would be remiss if such conduct was to be condoned. I believe there is little question that the level of aggression applied deserved to be condemned. The questions and discussions should focus on the why and how can this be prevented in the future.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Why has the blockade remained largely unchallenged since 2007??


Of course it hasn't remained unchallenged. What is constant though is Israel's continuing blanket refusal to abide by any UN resolutions or demands, so far I think they're up to about 150 UN decrees regarding Palestine that they've simply ignored. most famously all the UN rulings on the illegal wall.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> I agree entirely. The Earl has me on his "ignore" list so he can't see my posts. However, he does respond to other members quotes from my posts, usually derogatively, without seeing the full post. He, of course can't (won't) see my comments so can respond knowing that I can't reply directly to him. A very mature level of behaviour.


Actually, no, not on my ignore list anymore. By the way, well said on the explanation of blockades you gave to Pembers. I couldn't have written it better myself.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

dmbfrisb said:


> Blockades, legality, and imaginary lines on the earth; all needless tangents for this conversation. There is a human being aboard a humanitarian vessel with four bullets in his head, as well as eight others with fatal injuries. As gentlemen (defined as well-mannered and considerate men with high standards of proper behavior) we would be remiss if such conduct was to be condoned. I believe there is little question that the level of aggression applied deserved to be condemned. The questions and discussions should focus on the why and how can this be prevented in the future.


Well said again sir. When I was a soldier and later a police officer the following mantra was drummed into me and my colleagues "use only the minimum amount of force necessary" The IDF far overstepped that mark.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Of course it hasn't remained unchallenged. What is constant though is Israel's continuing blanket refusal to abide by any UN resolutions or demands, so far I think they're up to about 150 UN decrees regarding Palestine that they've simply ignored. most famously all the UN rulings on the illegal wall.


Why has Egypt's wall been ignored??

Why did you ignore any possible connection with Iran?? (To unrest in Gaza)

Does anyone, any Nation require "permission" from the UN to build a defensive structure of any kind??


----------



## dmbfrisb (Apr 17, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Well said again sir. When I was a soldier and later a police officer the following mantra was drummed into me and my colleagues "use only the minimum amount of force necessary" The IDF far overstepped that mark.


I believe you hit the point even better, no force was necessary; when the flotilla reached Israeli waters, two naval vessels could have been waiting to block and escort them into port.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Indeed, Chouan, Indeed. It's taken an awful long time, an awful lot of bloodshed, pain and suffering to get things to where they are now. Both sides commited dreadful atrocities and those atrocities could have been avoided imo. Just like today in Israel. There is no quarter shown by an occupational force and now Israel have attacted, killed and injured not just Palestinian but Turks and others. Israel are faced with a very difficult problem by loosing the support of Turkey.


----------



## Pembers (May 3, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Of course it hasn't remained unchallenged. What is constant though is Israel's continuing blanket refusal to abide by any UN resolutions or demands, so far I think they're up to about 150 UN decrees regarding Palestine that they've simply ignored. most famously all the UN rulings on the illegal wall.


UN resolutions against Israel are more a reflection of the bigotry of some of its members than anything else. There have been under 7,000 deaths in Palestine/Lebanon since 2000, and 249 resolutions against Israel. Compare that to the 200,000 that have died as a result of the conflict in Chechnya, and the number of resolutions that have been passed against Russia (zero). Only 56 resolutions were passed regarding the war in Congo, when over 4 million were killed! Let's be honest, the UN is a bit of a joke when it comes to resolutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israe...esolutions_in_comparison_with_other_conflicts


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Pembers said:


> UN resolutions against Israel are more a reflection of the bigotry of some of its members than anything else. There have been under 7,000 deaths in Palestine/Lebanon since 2000, and 249 resolutions against Israel. Compare that to the 200,000 that have died as a result of the conflict in Chechnya, and the number of resolutions that have been passed against Russia (zero). Only 56 resolutions were passed regarding the war in Congo, when over 4 million were killed! Let's be honest, the UN is a bit of a joke when it comes to resolutions.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israe...esolutions_in_comparison_with_other_conflicts


Good points all, Pembers. And you won't get an argument from me. For a long time I've thought that the UN is a toothless comedy monster. But until further notice it's the only global organisation we've got that still has some powers and credibility.

And 249 already??? Blimey last time I looked (editing a CEP handbook in 2008) they weren't even on 150, now they're almost on 250!!!


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

I, too, do not know how Victor Romeo's thread was closed. It is possible that I hit the wrong button. If so it was unintentional.

We must remove unproven, unattributed accusations of extreme crimes for reasons of website liability. If you want to make an accusation of this nature, say "I believe/allege/accuse X of committing Y". Don't say "X committed Y" because it will have to be removed.

Edit: This is a moderator's instruction. It is not a discussion point.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Good explanation Alex.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Fair enough Alex and wilco. Previous post edited and questioning removed....


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Thanks for the explanation, Alex. I guess they have to stop slapping you around, now.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> For a long time I've thought that the UN is a toothless comedy monster. But until further notice it's the only global organisation we've got that still has some powers and credibility.


Always go with your first/gut instinct!!

Why should Isreal (or any nation) have to appply to the UN for wall building permits??


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Why is this here...Isn't there some political discussion message board better suited for this type of ... stuff? I'm all for having a light general purpose forum here on this clothing message board, but I don't think this is really the place for highly-charged arguments like this. Well, that's my opinion, anyway.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

This IS the Interchange, this is NOT one of the clothing forums!


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> Why is this here...Isn't there some political discussion message board better suited for this type of ... stuff? I'm all for having a light general purpose forum here on this clothing message board, but I don't think this is really the place for highly-charged arguments like this. Well, that's my opinion, anyway.


I hate to sound mean, but the interchange is the proper place to talk about politics or current events.

Here is the interchange description:A place for ladies and gentlemen to sit back in a plush leather club chair, with drink and cigar in hand and pleasantly *discuss the great issues of the day that are not about clothes. * Although I personally can't think of a single issue that isn't all about the clothes!


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

ZachGranstrom said:


> I hate to sound mean, but the interchange is the proper place to talk about politics or current events.
> 
> Here is the interchange description:A place for ladies and gentlemen to sit back in a plush leather club chair, with drink and cigar in hand and pleasantly *discuss the great issues of the day that are not about clothes. * Although I personally can't think of a single issue that isn't all about the clothes!


_You_ do not sound mean. Unlike the previous poster, who felt it necessary to yell (which is what CAPS represents), your post came across as very polite and intelligent.

You are correct about the forum description, of which I was already aware. However, while you might chose to call out one particular part of the description by making it bold, the only part I was thinking of when I posted my earlier reply was the word *pleasantly*. You see, in my mind, I must have gotten the exact wording of the forum description a bit mixed up, for while it actually says, "pleasantly discuss...issues," I was thinking of it more like, "discuss pleasant issues," which this topic clearly is not. To anyone who hasn't yelled at me, I apologize for my confusion.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Yelling? No, simply writing two words in capitals to emphasise them. Would you have prefered italics? Or bold text? Or both? Please don't asume that your netiquette is the same as mine becasue it clearly isn't! I write on the net in the same way I write documents in which capitals are often used to emphasise words.

This_* is*_ the Interchange, this is _*not*_ one of the clothing forums! ​


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yelling? No, simply writing two words in capitals to emphasise them. Would you have prefered italics? Or bold text? Or both? Please don't asume that your netiquette is the same as mine becasue it clearly isn't! I write on the net in the same way I write documents in which capitals are often used to emphasise words.


If you wish to write using alternative, non-standard conventions, that is certainly your prerogative. However, I simply cannot be bothered to remember "when this guy uses caps he means this" and "when another guy uses bold he means something else"; therefore, I simply interpret messages according to the commonly-accepted standards. One such standard is that caps indicates shouting. See https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/609/01/ and https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/636/01/ for two of countless citations.



> Because writers using computers today have access to a wide variety of fonts and textual effects, they are no longer limited to underlining to show emphasis. Still, especially for academic writing, italics or underlining is the preferred way to emphasize words or phrases when necessary.





> Boldface is also used, especially outside of academia, to show emphasis as well as to highlight items in a list...





> Some writers use ALL-CAPITAL letters for emphasis, but they are usually unnecessary and can cause writing to appear cluttered and loud.


----------

