Greece offers to transport flotilla's aid to Gaza

Greece offers to transport flotilla's aid to Gaza

www.haaretz.com

As part of compromise intended to end flotilla affair, Greece offers to transport humanitarian aid to Gaza using Greek governmental ships under UN supervision, as per the request of UN Chief Ban Ki-moon.

(visit the link for the full news article)

If these terms are agree'd to, there's really no difference between the Flotilla organizers sailing themselves to the Ashdod port like the IDF originally wanted them to. So I don't see any real hope of the flotilla organizers accepting these conditions.

I've got an alternative solution, since neither sides can come to a mutual agreement. How about an Israeli and UN ambassador join the flotilla crew on the flotilla ships, inspect the cargo themselves, and tag along for the entire journey to make sure there aren't any un-nesicary stops.

And I also want to propose my alternative for the naval blockade around Gaza. Instead of an active military no-go zone, why don't they set up security ports in Gaza, but continue monitoring all traffic like an airport. They can send out patrols from the security ports to intercept any potential threat. This way citizens of Gaza can flourish and import/export essentials. Obviously there will be inspections at the security ports (derp derp).

This way Israel can relieve international pressure, and Gazans can rebuild their society. Let me know what you all think. Don't be rude, just an idea.

www.haaretz.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The only reason to reject Greece's proposal is if they are transporting contraband. I suspect that is what this is all about in the end anyway.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
The only reason to reject Greece's proposal is if they are transporting contraband. I suspect that is what this is all about in the end anyway.

Flotilla organizers made it clear from day one that the sole purpose of these flotillas was to break the illegal blockade by Israel..

Nothing has changed other than some with bad memories..

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
The only reason to reject Greece's proposal is if they are transporting contraband. I suspect that is what this is all about in the end anyway.

Flotilla organizers made it clear from day one that the sole purpose of these flotillas was to break the illegal blockade by Israel..

Nothing has changed other than some with bad memories..

Then they deserve the attack that is coming imo.

OP,

Make sure you update the thread as tomorrow is the captains day in court.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776

Then they deserve the attack that is coming imo.

Why??

Show me how the blockade is legal and how banning chocolate and livestock makes Israel safer.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

Then they deserve the attack that is coming imo.

Why??

Show me how the blockade is legal and how banning chocolate and livestock makes Israel safer.

hmm..lets see chocolate will give them more of rush as the glucose intake would be high so i guess that would cause more rocks to be thrown resulting in launching apache's supported by artillery strikes and as for the live stock, they could have made them swallow weapons only to have them later slaughtered and removed from the stomachs. You need to keep alert with these p.l.o. dudes, give em an inch they want a mile, give them chocolate then they want biscuits.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

Show me how the blockade is legal and how banning chocolate and livestock makes Israel safer.

Dear backinblack,

Thanks for getting me interested in this subject on the other thread. It's too bad you were not able to stay with that thread long enough to see the Reuters article I found. Would you take a look at it and let me know if you are satisified that the blockade is legal? I'd be very interested in seeing an article that calls the blockade clearly illegal that contains a similar amount of research.
Reuters' analysis June 2010

I'm also struck by Israel's willingness to allow supplies into Gaza if they come in overland through Egypt or another approved land route.

Finally, if the protestors are anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, you'd think the lack of support from our President, the European Union, Russia, and the Secretary General of the UN would make them think they've misjudged their protest in some way.

Again, backinblack, my thanks for getting me interested in this.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

Then they deserve the attack that is coming imo.

Why??

Show me how the blockade is legal

1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.

2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.

3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states.

4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.

5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.

6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.

7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.

8. A state may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.

9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.

10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.

11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.

12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776

1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.

Please cite where Israel have stated they are involved in an "armed conflict"..
The rest of your argument hinges on that..

reply to post by charles1952


The only "so called" expert in that article is Philip Roche..

He is nothing but an insurance lawyer involved in shipping. with limited experience..

The San Reno Treaty is also a "non binding" guideline, not law..

Israel's refusal to state their stance on Gaza does not allow anyone to truly say their actions are legal..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.

Please cite where Israel have stated they are involved in an "armed conflict"..
The rest of your argument hinges on that..

You know. They have this wonderful tool called "google" which allows one to do their own research. I highly recommend it's use.

Israel Foreign Ministry

Did Israel have the right to resort to force to defend itself?

All states have the inherent right and the obligation to defend themselves against armed attacks.

Israel was faced with an ongoing armed conflict by a highly organized, well-armed, and determined group of terrorists.

Clearly, Israel was legally justified in resorting to the use of force against Hamas in self defense.

reply to post by BiGGz


The last lot of flotilla aid was rejected by Hamas at the Israeli/Gaza crossing because it was all expired medicine & food and broken wheelchairs etc.

Dear backinblack,

I admire your enthusiasm and passion.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by charles1952

 

The only "so called" expert in that article is Philip Roche..

You probably overlooked J.Peter Pham, described as an advisor to European and American governments, who also was quoted as saying the blockade is legal.

He is nothing but an insurance lawyer involved in shipping. with limited experience..

I don't understand you. If you're saying he's prejudiced, please explain why. If you're saying a partner in a maritime law firm doesn't know what he's talking about, I'd appreciate being told how you know that.

The San Reno Treaty is also a "non binding" guideline, not law..

At the bottom of the article in Reuters is a link to the manual or treaty discussed. There's nothing in the introduction or any other part of it that tells me it is not binding. There's a lot of talk in it about rules and laws. Do you know of a law that meets all of your standards that says the blockade is illegal?

Israel's refusal to state their stance on Gaza does not allow anyone to truly say their actions are legal..

Sorry, I'm confused here. "Their stance on Gaza?" I had the impression that both sides were pretty darn irritated with each other. Is there confusion on this issue? What stance do you want them to have to show that their actions are legal? And I don't believe they have to prove there actions are legal, isn't somebody's responsibility to show they are illegal? You know, innocent until proven guilty?

These "aid" flotillas are beginning to look more and more like a Divide and Conquer technique than they are a genuine effort to help suffering Palestinians...

Here's some reports on all that expired medicine and food going in to Gaza by those flotillas and the UN:

www.israelnationalnews.com...

sabbah.biz...

www.youtube.com...

Hamas prevents flotilla aid from entering Gaza:

www.haaretz.com...

reply to post by BiGGz


I don't think it will make it, too expensive of a journey for the Greeks

reply to post by bluemirage5


Forgive me, I could be missing this one. Are you making the point that much of the aid being sent to Gaza is for propaganda purposes only? Or are you saying that international restrictions on Hamas are preventing the shipping of useful aid? Or are you making another point that I'm missing entirely? (See my signature.)

The flotilla is nothing more than a PR move. Thats it.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by bluemirage5

 

Forgive me, I could be missing this one. Are you making the point that much of the aid being sent to Gaza is for propaganda purposes only? Or are you saying that international restrictions on Hamas are preventing the shipping of useful aid? Or are you making another point that I'm missing entirely? (See my signature.)