But running an blockade that's been called a crime against humanity and illegal by the UN isn't.
Israel's Claim of Democracy Wears Thin - Bans Arab MK from Speaking in Knesset
- Thread starter gryfin
- Start date
The blockade has not been called illegal by anybody. The border closure, which is different, has been criticized. The UN is about to come out and declare, explicitly, that the blockade is legal.But running an blockade that's been called a crime against humanity and illegal by the UN isn't.
Get your facts straight. The blockade and the closure are two different things.
In any case running a blockade is a clear act of war, and treason is the right word for a person who commits an act of war against their own state.
Not according to your pal, Goldstone and the UN report on the flotilla. The blockade is part of the illegal closure program, according to them.
Besides, there were no weapons on board and it was inspected for weapons before it left, so no reason to stop the ship for the blockade.
Besides, there were no weapons on board and it was inspected for weapons before it left, so no reason to stop the ship for the blockade.
Please quote anywhere in the Goldstone report where he even discusses naval interdiction. It simply is not mentioned in his report. He talks entirely about the quantity of goods flowing across the border and not the blockade.
Whether or not there are weapons on board the blockade it's still an act of war to try and run the blockade, and the goal is CLEARLY to break the blockade so that weapons-laden ships can follow later. That is obviously why Hamas organized Flotilla 2.
Whether or not there are weapons on board the blockade it's still an act of war to try and run the blockade, and the goal is CLEARLY to break the blockade so that weapons-laden ships can follow later. That is obviously why Hamas organized Flotilla 2.
If you insist.
13. The impact of the military operations and of the blockade on the people of Gaza and their human rights
65. The Mission examined the combined impact of the military operations and of the blockade on the Gaza population and its enjoyment of human rights. The economy, employment opportunities and family livelihoods were already severely affected by the blockade when the Israeli offensive began. Insufficient supply of fuel for electricity generation had a negative impact on industrial activity, on the operation of hospitals, on water supply to households and on sewage treatment. Import restrictions and the ban on all exports from Gaza affected the industrial sector and agricultural production. Unemployment levels and the percentage of the population living in poverty or deep poverty were rising.
and
75. Finally, the Mission considered whether the series of acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of sustenance, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their access to courts of law and effective remedies could amount to persecution, a crime against humanity. From the facts available to it, the Mission is of the view that some of the actions of the Government of Israel might justify a competent court finding that crimes against humanity have been committed.
and
78. The Mission is concerned by declarations made by various Israeli officials who have indicated the intention of maintaining the blockade of the Gaza Strip until the release of Gilad Shalit. The Mission is of the opinion that this would constitute collective punishment of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip.
13. The impact of the military operations and of the blockade on the people of Gaza and their human rights
65. The Mission examined the combined impact of the military operations and of the blockade on the Gaza population and its enjoyment of human rights. The economy, employment opportunities and family livelihoods were already severely affected by the blockade when the Israeli offensive began. Insufficient supply of fuel for electricity generation had a negative impact on industrial activity, on the operation of hospitals, on water supply to households and on sewage treatment. Import restrictions and the ban on all exports from Gaza affected the industrial sector and agricultural production. Unemployment levels and the percentage of the population living in poverty or deep poverty were rising.
and
75. Finally, the Mission considered whether the series of acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of sustenance, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their access to courts of law and effective remedies could amount to persecution, a crime against humanity. From the facts available to it, the Mission is of the view that some of the actions of the Government of Israel might justify a competent court finding that crimes against humanity have been committed.
and
78. The Mission is concerned by declarations made by various Israeli officials who have indicated the intention of maintaining the blockade of the Gaza Strip until the release of Gilad Shalit. The Mission is of the opinion that this would constitute collective punishment of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip.
Groggy, did you even read what you quoted? As I pointed out what he is actually talking about there is the border closure. He is not talking about naval interdiction. He does not even MENTION naval interdiction. He does not even MENTION weapons inspections.
He is very clearly talking about the restrictions on goods. He uses the word "blockade" but it is clear by his wording that he is talking about the economic impact of the quantity of goods shipped through the border.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY has seriously challenged Israel's right to inspect shipments for weapons.
At any rate the UN is about to affirm its legality.
He is very clearly talking about the restrictions on goods. He uses the word "blockade" but it is clear by his wording that he is talking about the economic impact of the quantity of goods shipped through the border.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY has seriously challenged Israel's right to inspect shipments for weapons.
At any rate the UN is about to affirm its legality.
You are a hoot, Fuji.Running a blockade is internationally recognized as an act of war. Were you ignorant of that?
What do you call someone who commits an act of war against their own state? Most people would call that person treasonous.
They already did:Groggy, did you even read what you quoted? As I pointed out what he is actually talking about there is the border closure. He is not talking about naval interdiction. He does not even MENTION naval interdiction. He does not even MENTION weapons inspections.
He is very clearly talking about the restrictions on goods. He uses the word "blockade" but it is clear by his wording that he is talking about the economic impact of the quantity of goods shipped through the border.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY has seriously challenged Israel's right to inspect shipments for weapons.
At any rate the UN is about to affirm its legality.
In this connection, the Mission supports the findings of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk,45 the report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict46 and most recently the ICRC47 that the blockade amounts to collective punishment in violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.
An act of war? these are unarmed protesters on a humanitarian mission not soldiers or terrorists. They are smuggling guns to kill Isreali soldiers, they are bringing nessessities to Gaza. Calling her treasonous and the floatilla an act of war is pure hyperbole.
Again, he is not referring to the naval inspections. He is referring to the border closure. Same with the ICRC.They already did:
In this connection, the Mission supports the findings of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk,45 the report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict46 and most recently the ICRC47 that the blockade amounts to collective punishment in violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.
In any case the UN is about to declare that it is legal.
They have repeatedly - by word and action - shown that the boats have nothing to do with humanitarian supplies. Hamas and Israel are in a state of war. Hamas controls Gaza and is the main beneficiary of ending the blockade. an Israeli politician aiding the enemy in war is treason....they are bringing nessessities to Gaza. ...
Sure he is.Again, he is not referring to the naval inspections. He is referring to the border closure. Same with the ICRC.
In any case the UN is about to declare that it is legal.
You really do not know what you are talking about in this case.
Try reading the report first, commenting later.
Maybe take your own advice. Goldstone's report was a hack job commissioned by the Arab League and is worthless to begin with, it's always been full of errors. Goldstone has subsequently acknowledged some of those errors. In this case he confuses "blockade" and "closure" in his report by using the word "blockade" but defining it to mean closure--in his report it very clearly refers to the quantity of goods being let into Gaza. The ICRC was clearer in its statements it always uses the word "closure" and has never been critical of the blockade.Sure he is.
You really do not know what you are talking about in this case.
Try reading the report first, commenting later.
And again, the blockade is recognized by all serious countries as legal, and the UN is about to release a report reiterating that.
Note that it is possible to support the blockade but oppose the closure, they are not the same thing. The closure could be lifted while retaining the blockade in place.
As usual Fuji, your reading comprehension needs some work.
I quoted two UN reports, the Goldstone report and the Flotilla report, both of which called the blockade illegal.
Maybe you're confused on the definition of blockade, but the UN is most definitely not. Both reports support the same judgement.
I quoted two UN reports, the Goldstone report and the Flotilla report, both of which called the blockade illegal.
Maybe you're confused on the definition of blockade, but the UN is most definitely not. Both reports support the same judgement.
Why does anyone read this neo-islamist nazi posts?
The only reason I can think of is you agree with him
The only reason I can think of is you agree with him
Do you know Andrew Berwick, by any chance?Why does anyone read this neo-islamist nazi posts?
The only reason I can think of is you agree with him
Did you like his book?
Planning on taking up farming?
By the way, Fuji, you are incorrect on Goldstone (your verdict on his confusion is as funny as your rational for cheating).
But you still also are trying to ignore the UN flotilla report, which is also very clear on the illegality of the blockade.
