It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
. . .
The blockade is illegal.
WRONG!
According to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognized document called the “San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea”. Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.
And here is a link for you to read, though I know you won't.
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by twitchy
Are you trying to imply that there is no armed conflict between Gaza and Israel?
Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
You cited the San Remo manual which has nothing to do with whether the blockade is legal. It is a non-binding document which suggests that boarding a vessel on the high seas which intends to run a legal blockade is acceptable. Two very different things. Nice try, though.
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
You cited the San Remo manual which has nothing to do with whether the blockade is legal. It is a non-binding document which suggests that boarding a vessel on the high seas which intends to run a legal blockade is acceptable. Two very different things. Nice try, though.
It is considered the common law of the sea. For Christ's sake, the UN uses it.
Quit playing semantics here.
Originally posted by MystikMushroom
I'm sure my post will get lost amongst the side-to-side bickering, bantering, grandstanding and debate. *sigh*
Having my disclaimer out of the way, here are my true thoughts:
The Irish did the right thing. Be true, honest with your intentions, but don't back down -- and don't be stupid.
Can *ANYONE HERE* tell me why, WHY it's taboo and nearly a CRIME to question Israel? The second anyone questions their actions or motives, it seems an entire entourage of pro-Israeli folks lay down heavy handed responses.
Questioning government action by a country does not mean racism against an ethnic group!
This is *bleep* for brains thinking people. It's as if the world is brain-washed into thinking that Israel can never do ANY wrong, and questioning their actions is tantamount to treason.
I'm glad the Irish kept to their intended mission -- and I agree that Israel has the right (due to Palestine not keeping their people in check) to inspect the cargo.
Israel needs to make major concessions to ensure peace. Israel needs to remove themselves completely from disputed territories. Palestinians as well need to make huge concessions as well. POLICE YOUR RADICALS! Israel would not feel it necessary to be so heavy-handed if they could keep their people in check.
Sadly, it'll never happen. There are to many generations of blood-soaked killing that has tainted the very core of both sides.
I still do not understand how one cannot question the political/military actions of Israel without a S-storm of "you anti-semite!"???
I question my own government and I'm not called a "traitor" -- I'm called a concerned American citizen. I'm not sure when racial issues became so infused into the body politic of Israel -- but it NEEDS TO STOP.
.3
Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
Would you mind providing a source to support your assertion that the United Nations recognizes the San Remo Manual as law?
Also, the San Remo Manual has nothing to do with whether or not the blockade is legal. It implies that if the blockade is legal, military action outside of territorial waters to enforce it would also be legal.
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
You cited the San Remo manual which has nothing to do with whether the blockade is legal. It is a non-binding document which suggests that boarding a vessel on the high seas which intends to run a legal blockade is acceptable. Two very different things. Nice try, though.
It is considered the common law of the sea. For Christ's sake, the UN uses it.
Quit playing semantics here.
Finally, specific mention must be made of the fact that the Manual lays down that starvation blockades are unlawful and requires the blockading power to allow relief shipments if a secondary effect of the blockade is that civilians are short of food or other essential supplies.
International Committee of the Red Cross.org
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Never mind the fact that the opening words to the manual are:
SECTION I : SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE LAW
1. The parties to an armed conflict at sea are bound by the principles and rules of international humanitarian law from the moment armed force is used.
2. In cases not covered by this document or by 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 the dictates of the public conscience.
[url=http://www.ilrg.com/subject/lawofwar/13sanremomanual.html]Link[/url
102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.
103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:
A Jewish rabbi living in the West Bank has called on the Israeli government to use their troops to kill all Palestinian males more than 13 years old in a bid to end Palestinian presence on this earth.
Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
. . .
The blockade is illegal.
WRONG!
According to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognized document called the “San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea”. Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.
And here is a link for you to read, though I know you won't.
You cited the San Remo manual which has nothing to do with whether the blockade is legal. It is a non-binding document which suggests that boarding a vessel on the high seas which intends to run a legal blockade is acceptable. Two very different things. Nice try, though.
Originally posted by lee anoma
Sine when did Israel become a stickler for UN rules?
They've willfully broken about 66 resolutions.
If you want to follow the manual as the "common law of the sea" however, then Israel is DEFINITELY in the wrong.
How?
Aside from the fact that the manual deals with two States at war and Hammas isn't a State,
Originally posted by lee anoma
as I've said before, that very manual states that any blockade such as the one Israel has instituted isn't permitted.
Finally, specific mention must be made of the fact that the Manual lays down that starvation blockades are unlawful and requires the blockading power to allow relief shipments if a secondary effect of the blockade is that civilians are short of food or other essential supplies.
International Committee of the Red Cross.org
Originally posted by lee anomaThe blockade itself is in violation of UNSC resolutions and Articles of the Geneva Convention.
The San Remo Manual, Article 33 of the Geneva Convention, and the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860, all show that the blockade is in violation of international law as collective punishment.
Originally posted by lee anomaIf the blockade isn't legal neither is enforcing it.
Therefore the actions of the commandos were illegal and claiming self-defense is a joke.
- Lee
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
Would you mind providing a source to support your assertion that the United Nations recognizes the San Remo Manual as law?
Well, considering the manual is basically a reaffirmation of International Humanitarian Law, as put forth in the Hague Convention and the Geneva Conventions (which the UN Charter is based off of, and must follow) . . . you do the math.
Never mind the fact that the opening words to the manual are:
SECTION I : SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE LAW
1. The parties to an armed conflict at sea are bound by the principles and rules of international humanitarian law from the moment armed force is used.
2. In cases not covered by this document or by 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 the dictates of the public conscience.
Link
In other words, all parties involved are bound by International Humanitarian Law, which the manual is a part of, which the United Nations enforces.
Also, the San Remo Manual has nothing to do with whether or not the blockade is legal. It implies that if the blockade is legal, military action outside of territorial waters to enforce it would also be legal.
No, it has provisions on when a blockade is legal. Read it again. There is no "implications." It is all in there.
SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE
Blockade
93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.
94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.
95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.
96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.
97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.
98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.
99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.
100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.
101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94.
102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.
103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:
(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.