Ships to Gaza incident

[Kuciwalker]

The law that Israel broke in stopping a ship in international waters.

[Asher]

I'm not a lawyer, but everything I've ever read in military history leads me to believe that the Israelis were entirely within their rights as a blockading power to stop and search those ships in International waters as they approached Gaza.

Diverting the ships to Ashdod and forwarding humanitarian aid to Gaza is not precedented AFAIK, but not much of a stretch given conventions adopted at various points in the last 100 years. In the 'good old days' they'd just be turned back or seized/sunk, period.

The problem is not all humanitarian aid is getting to Gaza. The list of items Israel "permits" to be forwarded to Gaza is very small, and doesn't include some essential things such as concrete.

The attitudes of some of the passengers on the Love Boat and actions by Hamas tell me a lot regarding what this is all about.

The border through Egypt is open now. They don't need to rely on the supplies from the boat, especially the pathetic selection of supplies Israel actually "passes on".

[Asher]

The law that Israel broke in stopping a ship in international waters.

Stopping a ship is fine.

Boarding it with commandos at night and shooting people onboard, not so much.

It's not even so much as an international law thing so much as a humanitarian thing. The Israelis were king douches here.

Their actions alone have moved me from the "I couldn't give a **** about Gaza/Irsrael" position to the "Free Gaza" position. I'm far from the only one.

A nation as stupid as Israel has been here cannot be supported by anyone with integrity.

[Kuciwalker]

Stopping a ship is fine.

Boarding it with commandos at night and shooting people onboard, not so much.

But you're complaining that they violated international law. Had they just waited a little bit for the ship to enter Israeli waters, it would have been perfectly legal. You would have been fine with that? If not, then you don't actually care about the violation of international law, and to complain about it makes you an idiot and/or a tool.

[Asher]

But you're complaining that they violated international law. Had they just waited a little bit for the ship to enter Israeli waters, it would have been perfectly legal. You would have been fine with that? If not, then you don't actually care about the violation of international law, and to complain about it makes you an idiot and/or a tool.

If the ship entered Israeli waters, of course they'd the right to board it.

I'd have said the ship had what was coming to them.

Stop being a tool.

[Kuciwalker]

Ok, then we return to the point - what is the purpose of the law they violated?

You don't seem to understand why you're actually upset - you're just as bad as the people who hate illegal immigrants "because they're illegal".

[Asher]

Ok, then we return to the point - what is the purpose of the law they violated?

You don't seem to understand why you're actually upset - you're just as bad as the people who hate illegal immigrants "because they're illegal".

I'm a man of principle.

You can't go an kill people outside of your borders. This goes for the US unlawfully invading Iraq, it goes for Israel unlawfully boarding ships and killing people.

Your argument here is juvenile and embarrassing. You're saying someone doesn't know why they're upset for saying someone shouldn't break the law. Get real, Kuci.

Are you asking me to defend the international law which says a country can't board other ships at random and kill its occupants in the open seas?

[Kuciwalker]

What is the purpose of the law, Asher?

[Asher]

What is the purpose of the law, Asher?

You are seriously asking me what the purpose of the law which prevents countries from boarding ships outside their territorial waters and killing its occupants?

SERIOUSLY?

[Kuciwalker]

You are seriously asking me what the purpose of the law which prevents countries from boarding ships outside their territorial waters and killing its occupants?

SERIOUSLY?

Yes. More precisely, what's the purpose of the law preventing nations from interdicting international waters while permitting them to interdict their own waters? If it's really so obvious to you, you should be able to answer the question easily.

[notyoueither]

The problem is not all humanitarian aid is getting to Gaza. The list of items Israel "permits" to be forwarded to Gaza is very small, and doesn't include some essential things such as concrete.

The border through Egypt is open now. They don't need to rely on the supplies from the boat, especially the pathetic selection of supplies Israel actually "passes on".

Is the boirder with Egypt wide open, and will it remain open?

Questioning the legitimacy of the blockade is the way to go, but there some people may have a problem given that Israel is not the only country that chose to cut off Gaza while it is ruled by Hamas.

Conventionally, a blockade is conducted in a hot war or over a short period during a crisis. It has an end with the defeat of one side or the other, or the crisis is resolved. However, there have been other sorts and even the UN has sponsored some sustained blockades in the absense of a shooting war, with horrendous effects on civilian populations, in order to achieve some desirable end.

It's not clear to me that Israel's treatment of a Hamas ruled Gaza is that different from the treatment of Iraq under Saddam in the later years. People were starving to death in Iraq. Is anyone starving to death in Gaza?

[Asher]

Yes. More precisely, what's the purpose of the law preventing nations from interdicting international waters while permitting them to interdict their own waters? If it's really so obvious to you, you should be able to answer the question easily.

Because it's a matter of principle. They do not own those waters, they cannot police those waters.

If we didn't have such laws, you're saying it would be legal for the Canadian Navy to stop and board US ships in international waters, and kill 9 of its occupants?

[Kuciwalker]

Because it's a matter of principle. They do not own those waters, they cannot police those waters.

Incorrect. That is not the purpose of the law.

[Asher]

Incorrect. That is not the purpose of the law.

Kuci, you're one or two posts away from taking the crown of most obnoxious poster on Apolyton from Ben.

You are not an arbiter of correctness. Far from it.

Why don't you enlighten us all to the factual purpose of the law which prevents people from boarding sovereign nation's boats and killing its occupants in international waters.

[Kuciwalker]

Asher, since you clearly don't seem to know what you're talking about, why do you even bother posting?