Israelis board aid ship

[Azuremen]

Just to be clearer.

-

Israel is only enforcing a blockade to prevent materials that can be used in weapons from reaching Palestine. Case in point. The wheelchairs in the article above.

Now... I don't know about you... but sending regular old wheelchairs seems okay... but if they have a mass shipment of electric wheelchairs, which have compact batteries that can be used in making bombs... you've got to wonder when Hamas objects to the removal of said batteries... (and, oh, by the way... we really need that twenty tons of fertilizer and sulfur you blocked, too...)

In other words, Israel is not blocking aid. They're enforcing a weapons ban. Which seems pretty much within the rights of any government (though the libertarians here may object to the ban on principle) to do in order to protect its citizens.

This.

And I think even libertarians would agree to regulating the import of goods that could be used as weapons against the populace is acceptable. At least given the current state of affairs in Israel, and a clearly violent enemy that has used such goods.

 

[Omnis]

Close enough.

Haha.

As for the blockade runner, (does anyone else find themselves typing blockage instead of blockade?) I think Niky hit it on the head, but the political point made by the rest of the flotilla stands.

Isn't it cool how interests interpret actions and history?

 

[Touring Mars]

The settlements that they are building on Palestinian land is illegal under international law. And also in the attack on Gaza last year, White Sulphur was used and also innocent civilians were killed.

The land is Israeli. That's. The. Point.

It seems only Israel believe that the settlements they have built/are building in the West Bank are not illegal, so I think you are also guilty of missing the point too. The land is disputed, and the Palestinian's claim to areas in the West Bank and Gaza are internationally recognised and supposedly protected by international law.

 

[Famine]

They captured the West Bank in 1967. It's Israel. Like Tibet is China and the Falkland Islands are Britain.

Does Britain face UN sanctions for Britons building homes on territory Argentina asserts is theirs? Does China face UN sanctions for Chinese building homes on territory "Tibet" asserts is theirs? Why should Israel face UN sanctions for Israelis building homes on territory "Palestine" (a state that has never existed until Israel granted the Palestinian Authority autonomy in 2005) asserts is theirs?

 

[Touring Mars]

They captured the West Bank in 1967. It's Israel.

And nothing has happened since 1967, has it? No international agreements, peace talks, UN resolutions or local conflicts have done anything to change the status of the West Bank?! You cannot simply assert that Palestinian territory is Israel and expect that to be the end of it - the land is disputed and Palestinian territory is recognised as not belonging to Israel by pretty much everyone except Israel. That is the point.

Why should Israel face UN sanctions for Israelis building homes on territory "Palestine" (a state that has never existed until Israel granted the Palestinian Authority autonomy in 2005) asserts is theirs?

The point is not that (parts of) the West Bank are Palestinian, it is that they are not Israeli.

 

[senamic]

Who is a "protected person"?

Okay, here is the quickest summary I can find- sorry it is out of context, but you can read up further if you want:

[p.46] A. -- ' On the territory of belligerent States: ' protection is accorded under Article 4 to all persons of foreign nationality and to persons without any nationality. The following are, however, excluded:

(1) Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention;

(2) Nationals of a neutral or co-belligerent State, so long as the State
in question has normal diplomatic representation in the State in
whose territory they are;

(3) Persons covered by the definition given above under A who enjoy
protection under one of the other three Geneva Conventions of August
12, 1949.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State. The following are, however, excluded:

(1) Nationals of a State which is not party to the Convention.

(2) Nationals of a co-belligerent State, so long as the State in question
has normal diplomatic representation in the occupying State.

(3) Persons covered by the definition given above under B who enjoy
protection under one of the three other Geneva Conventions of August

senamic, out of curiosity, what's your position about US intervention in Afeghanistan and Iraq, as well as their actions in Guantanamo?

I am staunchly against the invasion of Iraq as well as to a lesser extent Afghanistan. Iraq was an invasion conducted without UN endorsement on the premise of eliminating nuclear weapons that were already known to be nonexistant. While I hold nothing against soldiers who merely went to do their country a service (in fact I respect them for having the dedication to do so), I believe that both conflicts, Iraq in particular, were economic wars fought under the masquerade of combating Terror. And while I am here may I note that firstly terrorist acts have been conducted by both sides in the conflicts of Iraq and Afghanistan, against military and civilian targets, and in my opinion both the militants in Iraq/Afghanistan and the Coalition of the Willing government and military officials responsible for such acts should stand before war crimes trials.

Gitmo? Detest it. Concentration camp for modern world. Don't forget the fact that many of the prisoners were not formally charged, several that were were charged with broad "terror" accusations, breaches of humanitarian law were commonplace while the US government thumbed its nose at such laws, as well as allied countries that protested (David Hicks for Australians, who while he did the wrong thing he did not breach any laws within the regions he was in, nor did he harm US soldiers or civilians, and there were those British chaps from memory were also detained without evidence and eventually released, but only after physical torture and mental anguish). So yeah, I am against those too.

Just to be clearer.

-

Israel is only enforcing a blockade to prevent materials that can be used in weapons from reaching Palestine. Case in point. The wheelchairs in the article above.

Now... I don't know about you... but sending regular old wheelchairs seems okay... but if they have a mass shipment of electric wheelchairs, which have compact batteries that can be used in making bombs... you've got to wonder when Hamas objects to the removal of said batteries... (and, oh, by the way... we really need that twenty tons of fertilizer and sulfur you blocked, too...)

In other words, Israel is not blocking aid. They're enforcing a weapons ban. Which seems pretty much within the rights of any government (though the libertarians here may object to the ban on principle) to do in order to protect its citizens.

It may serve you to read an essay in Pilger's The New Rulers of The World that covers similar policies by the UN and WHO under orders from the US following the first Gulf War. A long prohibited list of things given humanitarian aid was enforced, with public mentions of logical ones (such as nitrate fertilisers et al), and very private and strict enforcement of some less logical ones (including Nitrous Oxide (? or Nitrogen oxide?) that is used on women in labour to keep them alive in many cases, and Kemotherapy drugs that were in such small quantities that they could not possibly be weaponised). So yeah, in summary, until Israel publicly announces an inventory of every prohibited item, be wary of the legitimacy of what they state is a "weapons blockade". Additionally, it may be fair to note that during this blockade only around 20% of the pre war goods are allowed into Gaza. Do you really think that 80% of imports were for war industry?

 

[Famine]

And nothing has happened since 1967, has it? No international agreements, peace talks, UN resolutions or local conflicts have done anything to change the status of the West Bank?! You cannot simply assert that Palestinian territory is Israel and expect that to be the end of it - the land is disputed and Palestinian territory is recognised as not belonging to Israel by pretty much everyone except Israel.

Why?

A lot has happened since 1982, but we still say the Falklands are ours. Argentina occasionally disagrees, but it doesn't matter particularly. In terms of localised military conflict and UN recognition, the same applies to Tibet as to "Palestine" (which still has never existed as a state until Israel granted autonomy in 2005 - more than the Ottomans, the Brits, the League of Nations or the UN ever did for Palestinians).

That is the point.

Israel disagrees and the UN haven't been bothered enough about it in 40 years to act. In fact the UN classifies it as occupied territory - occupied by Israel - precisely for the reasons given above. The West Bank has never been an independant state or part of an independant state. It was governed by Britain in the Mandate until 1948 and then part of the state of Israel set up by the UN in 1948. It has never had sovereign status and the only claim on the land that can be considered legitimate is that of the occupying state - Israel.

There are sidebars to this. The UN doesn't recognise the validity of territory claimed through war, whether offensive or defensive, yet has no problems with Chinese occupation of Tibet, the British defence of the Falklands, Afghan land captured from the Taliban and given to the current administration or the divisions of the former Yugoslavia.

Ultimately, any land Israel has and says is theirs is merely disputed by the Palestinian Authority (and the usual sabre-rattling nations nearby) - the Palestinian Authority that Israel granted autonomy to in 2005. The UN has had forty-three years to act if it considers it to be illegal - and in fact gave Israel more than half the land in the West Bank in 1993.


The problem is further complicated by the fact that the current Palestinian Authority - controlled by Hamas - doesn't recognise anything done by the previous Palestinian Authority - controlled by Fatah - who hate each other almost as much as they hate Israel. But there are to be no UN sanctions against Israel for "illegal occupation" of Palestinian territory - since the UN can't be bothered to decide if it's illegal or not because the West Bank has never had sovereignty.

 

[Touring Mars]

Israel disagrees and the UN haven't been bothered enough about it in 40 years to act.

To act perhaps, but they are certainly clear enough about what they think about the disputed territories and the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of them..

2. Reaffirms that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 are illegal and an obstacle to economic and social development;

3. Recognizes the economic and social repercussions of the Israeli settlements on the Palestinian people in the Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, occupied by Israel since 1967, and on the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan;

4. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and the population of the Syrian Golan to their natural* and all other economic resources, and regards any infringement thereof as being illegal;

* includes land and water

Your argument seems to suggest that Israeli sovereignty is the only consideration here and that this solely confers Israel with legitimacy when it comes to claims over disputed territory, even that considered to have been taken illegally. Clearly, the UN disagree. Given that this issue is as much about the establishment of a Palestinian sovereign state as anything else, I reckon it is misleading to assume that Israel sovereignity is the only consideration. Heck, even Netanyahu recognises that Palestinian sovereignity is of critical importance.

 

[Famine]

To act perhaps, but they are certainly clear enough about what they think about the disputed territories and the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of them..

Three years after the UN divided the West Bank in three, giving control and administration of the largest (59% by area) division exclusively to Israel.

I doubt that the UN would declare Israeli settlement on land the Oslo Agreement gave to Israel in the West Bank 3 years previously to be illegal or illegitimate...

Your argument seems to suggest that Israeli sovereignty is the only consideration here and that this solely confers Israel with legitimacy when it comes to claims over disputed territory, even that considered to have been taken illegally. Clearly, the UN disagree. Given that this issue is as much about the establishment of a Palestinian sovereign state as anything else, I reckon it is misleading to assume that Israel sovereignity is the only consideration. Heck, even Netanyahu recognises that Palestinian sovereignity is of critical importance.

The question is... if the land isn't Israel's (and the UN recognise that Israel is the occupying force), whose is it? It has never been part of any recognised nation but Israel - it was part of the British Mandate for Palestine from 1922-1948 and part of Israel since. Israel recognised the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority in the West Bank in 2005 - once again, doing more to establish a nation called Palestine than any other body in the history of the region - though the subsequent Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority has denounced the previous one.

I only have one point here. Israel says the land they're on is theirs (and the rest is Palestinian Authority). The UN say their occupation of the West Bank is an occupation but, in 40 years, have never bothered with any kind of sanctions against Israel. Our local "anti-Zionist" says Israel should face UN sanctions for their settlements (and again, the UN say they don't recognise territory gained during war, but are about as bothered about Chinese occupation of Tibet, British occupation of the Falklands [and Northern Ireland, if you're feeling cheeky], Serb/Croat/Bosnian nations, Afghan Interim Government occupation of Afghanistan, and so on and so forth) but has failed to give any reasons why, or what sanctions they should face. Just that they should.


Of course one of the other problems with Israel is that it's a UN construct which seems to have gone badly wrong along the way (like, the DAY it was created). Britain wanted no part of the UN's plan to divide the Mandate between Arab and Jew (and were attacked by Jewish separatist groups for their trouble). Makes you kinda think we were right all along...

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

Our local "anti-Zionist" says Israel should face UN sanctions for their settlements (and again, the UN say they don't recognise territory gained during war, but are about as bothered about Chinese occupation of Tibet, British occupation of the Falklands [and Northern Ireland, if you're feeling cheeky], Serb/Croat/Bosnian nations, Afghan Interim Government occupation of Afghanistan, and so on and so forth) but has failed to give any reasons why, or what sanctions they should face. Just that they should.

Famine, you probably know the reasons why they should get sanctions and DO know what I'm trying to say. You're just trying to oppose me because I have an Anti-Zionist POV.

 

[Famine]

Famine, you probably know the reasons why they should get sanctions and DO know what I'm trying to say. You're just trying to oppose me because I have an Anti-Zionist POV.

No, I'm trying to get you to be objective. Turn off the "Israel is always in the wrong" blinkers for a minute and re-read the thread.

 

[arvore]

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

ARTº2 GC

and:

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly

ARTº 147 G.C.

But as we know International laws lack the proper coercion and political interests always superimpose over legal issues but that doesn't make it right...and the fact that other (powerfull) countries also violate these principles doesn't annihilate them...

 

[Famine]

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party

And whose territory is the West Bank? Well, prior to Israel... no state has ever included the West Bank as its territory. So the West Bank is not territory of a second "High Contracting Party" and the Convention doesn't apply.

This is probably one of the reasons the UN has never managed to make a decision about Israel.

 

[magburner]

I really do not understand how anyone can still defend the action of Israel. This was a crime committed in international waters. If ANY other country had acted as Israel had, things would be different now. Instead, we have to stomach (again), the twisted logic of Nazi-like automatons.

Well, not taking sides (because in this kind of situations there's no right side nor wrong side), your country has its pretty share of wantom acts of violence, classified as animal-like by you, in Northern Ireland throughout the last 50 years or so.

The difference is though, that there is peace in Northern Ireland now. 👍

My point is that I believe no country can ever assume a moral majority position towars another on this subject. As we say here in Portugal (we had our share too) every one (read: country) has a roof made of glass.

I believe you are wrong with this statement. There is absolutely no justification in the assumption that one act is acceptable because another similar act in the past preceded it. I am in no doubt that, my great nation has committed some heinous acts at one time or another, but they are where they should be, in the past.

It is worth pointing out too, that throughout history, my country has spent considerable effort fighting for the freedom and liberty of countless millions of people the world over. We could not have built modern civilisation acting as the Israelis have.

So your above statement is pretty much narrow-minded and ignorant (in regard of your own country's actions). If this isn't suffice as an example, please let me know what adjective other than "hypocrytical" would you use to classify UK's active support of Iraq invasion under the argument of the mass-destruction weaponry?

You are assuming that I was in favour of the Iraq invasion. I was not, never have been, and never will be. It goes against everything that I was brought up to believe right and proper, and is a stain on the conscience of my great nation. I also cannot be held responsible for the acts of my own country, particularly those acts, which are performed in ignorance of public opinion.

This also goes back to my original statement that some Israelis are hypocrites and animals. I do not believe that all Israelis are, only those that believe that this kind of action is acceptable, which seems to be a majority. 👍

I also think you are misunderstanding my usage of the term 'hypocrite'. If there were one group of people on this planet who understand persecution better than most, it would be the Israelis. I find it ironic that the Israelis have now switched roles to become the persecutors themselves.

Aren't we all, to some extent? Seeing as all Israelis are humans (no matter what neo-Nazis think) and humans are members of the animal kingdom.

Does that same understanding not apply to the Palestinians too? If you believe the statement you posted to be true, then surely you should be standing in condemnation of Israel, as I am. 👍

 

[Famine]

I really do not understand how anyone can still defend the action of Israel. This was a crime committed in international waters.

Yes, it was. The crime of running a legitimate blockade with weapons. Remember, 5 of 6 ships complied with the instruction, the one that didn't said force would need to be used and then attacked the soldiers boarding the ship. This ship was the only one containing weapons and amongst the people on board was a Dutch Hamas activist.

If ANY other country had acted as Israel had, things would be different now. Instead, we have to stomach (again), the twisted logic of Nazi-like automatons.

I don't condemn Israel's actions in this matter - they were attacked first by people intent on defying their legitimate blockade and take weapons to an enemy which, as recently as 18 months ago, bombarded their towns and cities with rocket and mortar fire, using their own people as shields against retaliation by placing rocket bases in houses.

Is my logic twisted? Am I a Nazi-like automaton? Because I don't condemn shooting back?

 

[arvore]

And whose territory is the West Bank? Well, prior to Israel... no state has ever included the West Bank as its territory. So the West Bank is not territory of a second "High Contracting Party" and the Convention doesn't apply.

This is probably one of the reasons the UN has never managed to make a decision about Israel.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from dictates of public conscience.

3. This Protocol, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 common to those Conventions.

4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations

Art 2. Definitions

For the purposes of this Protocol


(b) "Rules of international law applicable in armed conflict" means the rules applicable in armed conflict set forth in international agreements to which the Parties to the conflict are Parties and the generally recognized principles and rules of international law which are applicable to armed conflict;

As stated before I think those rules are mainly not enforced due to Political issues and the balace of powers in the Geoestrategic of the planet...

With this I'm not taking sides here,I recognize Israel legit actions in protecting their territory and people I was only trying to question the legality of their actions in this episode...

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

And whose territory is the West Bank? Well, prior to Israel... no state has ever included the West Bank as its territory. So the West Bank is not territory of a second "High Contracting Party" and the Convention doesn't apply.

This is probably one of the reasons the UN has never managed to make a decision about Israel.

Well that's because no one referred it to as the West Bank, they just called it a part of the British Mandate for Palestine.

 

[Famine]

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

None of which apply. This is one of the problems.

There's never been a country called Palestine. The regions currently governed by the PA have never been independant or part of any other nation than Israel. The most applicable situation to this is that of civil war - two (or more, including the varying divisions within each) opposing factions fighting over land never owned by anyone but them.

As stated before I think those rules are mainly not enforced due to Political issues and the balace of powers in the Geoestrategic of the planet...

That and there really isn't a single applicable rule to this circumstance. But, as stated before, Israel is the UN's own baby. They need to admit that they failed before they will ever act - and I doubt that'll ever happen.

Well that's because no one referred it to as the West Bank, they just called it a part of the British Mandate for Palestine.

Correct. And then it was part of Israel for one day in 1948 before Jordan attacked and annexed it. Israel took it back in 1967.

 

[arvore]

Customary International Humanitarian Law, March 2005

Proportionality in Attack

Rule 14. Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited. [IAC/NIAC]

Precautions in Attack

Rule 15. In the conduct of military operations, constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimise, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. [IAC/NIAC]

There was a raid in a humanitary convoy(legit or not,debatable)

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

Also, Israel's illegal settlements are to wipe out the Palestinians off of their land. But, the international law says:
"States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction."

Also the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice, found the settlements to be illegal under international law. So why are you denying that the settlements are illegal when the UN court said so?

 

[Touring Mars]

I really do not understand how anyone can still defend the action of Israel.

This incident must be viewed with one eye on the wider context and one eye on the matter in hand on its own merits. It is abundantly clear that there is fault on both sides - and while I believe it is perfectly fair to question and/or criticise Israel's behaviour toward the Palestinians, I also think that, in this particular incident, Israel's behaviour was justifiable - to an extent - just as Israel's naval blockade itself is also justifiable - to an extent. The problem comes in when addressing just where to draw the line - but that is what Israel is compelled to do under international law. A total blockade would be illegal because it would not make the requisite discrimination between military and civilians, and collective punishment (of civilians) is illegal. The blockade is only justifiable in view of Israel's objection to those who seek to arm her military opponents in Gaza - but let's be totally clear - Israel's opponents, principally Iran, are most certainly willing/trying and would enjoy nothing more than the UN, the US or anyone else for that matter to come along and force the Israelis to drop their naval blockade. Not only that, but the moderate Palestinians who are willing to recognise Israel (and who still exist in the West Bank) were violently forced out of Gaza by Hamas, a group who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and who openly advocate indiscriminate murder of Israeli civilians (or anyone else who they object to, including moderate Palestinians).

Israel may not be the friendliest regime, and their treatment of the Palestinians may be far from acceptable, but it doesn't make them automatically wrong in this case. Not only that, but Israel are not the only ones letting down the civilian population of Gaza. Arguably, it is Hamas themselves who are responsible for their current plight as much as anyone else. And belligerent Arab nations such as Iran who seek the destruction of Israel are also just as much to blame as Israel ever were or will be. A key difference is that Israel are in a position where they are capable of improving things for ordinary Gazans, whereas the rest only seem capable of making things worse.

 

[Dotini]

Two points:

Israel feels its back to the wall, fighting for existence in an hostile world. It cannot and will not compromise what it perceives are its vital interests.

After all due reference to the tattered skein of international law, there is one which in daily fact precedes and supersedes all others - might makes right. Until the US stops backing Israel, jungle rules will prevail.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

There was a raid in a humanitary convoy(legit or not,debatable)

Five of six ships, the ones actually carrying aid, were not raided. The sixth ship which refused the instruction to be towed to port, and was carrying weapons, attacked the boarding party and were retaliated against. The "humanitarian convoy" was not attacked nor raided.

Also, Israel's illegal settlements are to wipe out the Palestinians off of their land.

Whose land? You keep saying it's Palestinian land, but this has no basis.

But, the international law says:
"States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction."

Israel gave land to the Palestinian Authority in 2005 - no other body has managed this to date. The Palestinians wanted this. It is not apartheid

Also the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice, found the settlements to be illegal under international law. So why are you denying that the settlements are illegal when the UN court said so?

*sigh*

I'm not. I'm saying that the land is not Palestinian land like you keep claiming. The UN recognises that Israel is the occupying authority on land that has had no previous sovereign status. The UN gave complete control of 59% of the West Bank to Israel in the 1993 Oslo accord - why would they then say that this land is occupied illegally?

The UN can't decide whether Israel is in the West Bank illegally or not. You say they are (or at least you're quoting the parts of Wikipedia you think says they are - the bit you quoted actually refers to Israel building a wall around what it considers their part of the West Bank, and it concludes the result of the wall would be illegal, not the building of it).

You say Israel should face sanctions. You have yet to justify why they should, or what sanctions they should face.

 

[senamic]

*sigh*

I'm not. I'm saying that the land is not Palestinian land like you keep claiming. The UN recognises that Israel is the occupying authority on land that has had no previous sovereign status. The UN gave complete control of 59% of the West Bank to Israel in the 1993 Oslo accord - why would they then say that this land is occupied illegally?

The UN can't decide whether Israel is in the West Bank illegally or not. You say they are (or at least you're quoting the parts of Wikipedia you think says they are - the bit you quoted actually refers to Israel building a wall around what it considers their part of the West Bank, and it concludes the result of the wall would be illegal, not the building of it).

You say Israel should face sanctions. You have yet to justify why they should, or what sanctions they should face.

If Israel is recognised as the occupying authority they are in breach of the fourth Geneva Convention due to their enacting of collective punishment over collective punishment. If they are not the occupying authority they are in breach of the various conventions on war listed by other members above. Either way they are in the wrong in regards to their conduct pertaining to Palestine, as well as being guilty of multiple war crimes during operation cast lead. And they should not have to face sanctions because it could harm them as a nation?

That is like not giving a kid who is in a fight club detention because it would cause him to forfeit, losing his unbeaten record.

 

[Famine]

If Israel is recognised as the occupying authority they are in breach of the fourth Geneva Convention due to their enacting of collective punishment over collective punishment.

Except, as detailed above, the fourth Convention doesn't apply because it's not someone else's land and never has been.

If they are not the occupying authority they are in breach of the various conventions on war listed by other members above.

Except, as detailed above, the various conventions on war don't apply because they are not at war with anyone (nor is anyone at war with them).

Either way they are in the wrong in regards to their conduct pertaining to Palestine, as well as being guilty of multiple war crimes during operation cast lead.

How can they be guilty of war crimes when they haven't been involved in a war? Remember Saddam? He was tried for "crimes against humanity" for his acts against the Kurds which many considered to be war crimes.

And they should not have to face sanctions because it could harm them as a nation?

Who said that then?

The UN don't have anything that applies to Israel. Even if they did, they'd have to admit that their project - the one they effectively ousted British rule to implement - has gone wrong. I don't see the UN ever doing that.

 

[Kent]

I think one of the biggest problems in this matter is that organizations like the UN make resolutions and talk big but don't actually do anything. Further, no one recognizes the violence other than the military actions Israel takes, maybe we should start to consider bus bombings and random rocket attacks as a factor contributing to the problem and stop acting like it's ok simply because the people are oppressed.
Its like an argument turning into a fight... Being right in the argument doesn't give you the right to fight, but people do it anyway and in the end it makes both parties look bad regardless of who threw the first punch.

Btw, I love how someone above actually used the "nazi" word regarding the Israelis, that's so perfect.

 

[niky]

"States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction."

Yeah. We should really take the UN to court for segregating the Arabs and the Jews. Oh... you've forgotten/ignored that part for the past few pages, haven't you? Then you can ignore it again.

Israel are not the only ones letting down the civilian population of Gaza. Arguably, it is Hamas themselves who are responsible for their current plight as much as anyone else. And belligerent Arab nations such as Iran who seek the destruction of Israel are also just as much to blame as Israel ever were or will be. A key difference is that Israel are in a position where they are capable of improving things for ordinary Gazans, whereas the rest only seem capable of making things worse.

And herein lies the whole crux of the problem. Like I've said before, it's in the best interests of the anti-semitic movement to keep the Palestinians in a state of oppression.

At least, on the Israeli side, when power swings between elections, we see some softening towards Palestine. The peace agreements... the legitimization of the Palestinian government by the Israeli government (as Famine has noted)... it's Hamas and their foreign supporters who keep the flames alive with the verbal and physical attacks on Israel.

That's not to say that I agree with the hardline stance of Israeli hawks... and, indeed, many Israelis are also sick of all the fighting. But to say that all the blame lies in the hands of the Israeli government is to grossly underestimate their enemies.

There was a raid in a humanitary convoy(legit or not,debatable)

Israel responds to continuous terrorist attacks with rocket attacks on suspected terrorist positions and blockades to prevent weaponizable materials from entering their country. Does that seem harsh? Really? The US responded to one terrorist act by invading two countries. One of which had nothing to do with the attack... and which was not at war with the US at the time, but merely suspected of possibly possessing the capacity to attack the US.

 

[arvore]

Israel responds to continuous terrorist attacks with rocket attacks on suspected terrorist positions and blockades to prevent weaponizable materials from entering their country. Does that seem harsh? Really? The US responded to one terrorist act by invading two countries. One of which had nothing to do with the attack... and which was not at war with the US at the time, but merely suspected of possibly possessing the capacity to attack the US.

True,but that doesn't make it right does it?
I recognize without shadow of doubt Israel right to prevent further weapons to reach their enemies criminal hands...even if that implies the stoping of a supposed humanitary convoy...
My doubt lies in the proportion of the response...how many Israeli soldiers were killed during the attack?
There were 9 "civilians" killed in result of Israeli troops actions !
A few years back something similar happened to a Portuguese ship heading to East Timor during the Indonesian occupation but no one was killed and if that was the case here I wouldn't be arguing,but this time there were deaths involved...were they really absolutely necessary?
This is my major doubt about the legality of Israeli actions!

 

[NLxAROSA]

I really do not understand how anyone can still defend the action of Israel.

And I really do not understand how anyone can still defend the action of the fundamentalists onboard the Mavi Marmara, while it is proven (according to their own words no less, filmed by an Arab TV-station) that their mission was a holy war and their primary objective was to die at the hands of the Jews, rather than to help the people in Gaza.

I really don't understand why people hammer down on Israel so much, when it is so clear that the whole incident was orchestrated by Hamas and related organisations. But then again, maybe it's not so strange, since the media (at least the European ones) are showing only one side of the story, and people are generally ill-informed about what really is going on. Especially the left-wing dominated media in The Netherlands is awful: when the activists were released the headlines read 'Israel deports activists', not 'Isreal releases activists'. Words like that don't just enter headlines by themselves, they're put there by people for a reason (the word has a historical meaning).

 

[Danoff]

..but this time there were deaths involved...were they really absolutely necessary?

Do they need to be a necessity to make it ok? I'll give you a quick hypothetical. A man storms into your house with a gun, and murders your wife and kids. You have a gun in your hand. He says he's not going to harm you yet and starts to leave. Is it necessary to kill this man? No.

Israel doesn't have to kill anyone. They could surrender today under the terms that they need to be able to evacuate the country, and turn over control of the state to Hamas.

Likewise, they could have allowed this "aid" convoy through their blockade and not only compromised their blockade but allowed materials into Gaza which I think no one doubts would be used to kill more innocent Israelis.

In my view, Israel would have been within their rights to blow any ships that try to run the blockade right out of the water. Israel has the submarines to do it, and would have been within their rights to kill every single last person on the ship by sinking it. That they did not shows restraint... I think perhaps too much restraint. Part of me wishes they had sent a stronger message.... run this blockade and you will be destroyed.

The ship that declared it would run the blockade said they'd need to be forced to stop. I wonder if they would still have tried if Israel's response had been "as soon as you hit Israeli waters we will sink you".