Well, bLatch, I have little knowledge of maritime law, but I thought that stopping any kind of aid to zones is pretty illegal. And even if the blockade is legal, how can you defend their decision to stop help to a very poor zone in need of help?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Well, bLatch, I have little knowledge of maritime law, but I thought that stopping any kind of aid to zones is pretty illegal. And even if the blockade is legal, how can you defend their decision to stop help to a very poor zone in need of help?
The 'activists' were carrying 10,000 tons of 'humanitarian aid materials' (I am still skeptical that it was even that)... at the same time Israel is sending 15,000 tons a week to Gaza. I'm not saying Gaza doesn't need help but stopping a boat that refused to be searched for weapons doesn't make the situation in Gaza worse...
EDIT: I didn't follow it closely enough, so it was aid (aside for the metal rods and such which could have easily been turned into weapons...), now, Hamas refused it? This helps the situation a ton for the Palistinians...
Well, bLatch, I have little knowledge of maritime law, but I thought that stopping any kind of aid to zones is pretty illegal. And even if the blockade is legal, how can you defend their decision to stop help to a very poor zone in need of help?
They're not "stopping aid" -- they perform inspections. Without inspections, there's no way to know if you're letting through aid and stopping weapons, or vice versa. And inspections are done by military forces since otherwise stopping weapons isn't gonna happen. Even in this fiasco, the aid did get through... until Hamas refused it, that is...
Some elements of the San Remo Manual, that would probably be good for reference.
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
68. Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.
69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it.
Section 67(a) does make it clear that neutral vessels may not be attacked unless the vessel is attempting to breach the blockade. In the situation involving the vessel that was attacked, it was warned over the course of 4 hours to divert and be subject to inspection. Since the vessel didn't divert, it could be held as a breach of the blockade or refusal to be searched. This is repeated further:
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.
Based on the wording, I would think that the blockade applies evenly to all ships, whether of neutral states or not. For neutral states, there are additional provisions, but the manual still allows for searches of those vessels as part of the application of the blockade. And there are provisions for the allowance of capturing or attacking the vessel. As far as where these operations can be conducted:
10. Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over:
(a) the territorial sea and internal waters, the land territories, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States;
(b) the high seas; and
(c) subject to paragraphs 34 and 35, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of neutral States.
And the earlier section I noted that the force maintaining the blockade can be stationed based on military requirements. Which is going to be discretionary, and there is no rule present that states that is subject to any restriction.
The 'activists' were carrying 10,000 tons of 'humanitarian aid materials' (I am still skeptical that it was even that)... at the same time Israel is sending 15,000 tons a week to Gaza. I'm not saying Gaza doesn't need help but stopping a boat that refused to be searched for weapons doesn't make the situation in Gaza worse...
EDIT: I didn't follow it closely enough, so it was aid (aside for the metal rods and such which could have easily been turned into weapons...), now, Hamas refused it? This helps the situation a ton for the Palistinians...
Yes, I agree that part of the issue is that Hamas are a huge bunch of ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺s, and I do agree that the activists most likely had ulterior motives, but how does that make this blockade just?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
They're not "stopping aid" -- they perform inspections. Without inspections, there's no way to know if you're letting through aid and stopping weapons, or vice versa. And inspections are done by military forces since otherwise stopping weapons isn't gonna happen. Even in this fiasco, the aid did get through... until Hamas refused it, that is...
I have little to add beyond this. Israel was not stopping it. If they had been allowed to inspect the ships, and the ships had no contraband on them, they would have been allowed to pass.
It really boggles my mind that people don't understand the fundamentals of how a blockade works.
Yes, I agree that part of the issue is that Hamas are a huge bunch of ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺s, and I do agree that the activists most likely had ulterior motives, but how does that make this blockade just?
Well, I think that's why this issue can be looked at in three parts:
(1) Is the blockade legal or illegal? Looking at the San Remo Manual, it seems like it satisfies some parts of it. But as has been mentioned before, Israel would also need to recognize the rights of Hamas soldiers as enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention. So, either Israel recognizes the San Remo Manual and is not following the Geneva Convention, or they aren't following the San Remo Manual. (Do note that the manual is voluntary. There's no requirement that it be recognized.)
(2) Is the blockade reasonable? This part is where I think the security issue needs to be evaluated, from both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Because while the Israelis may view it as "reasonable", since it protects them, it also may not be a reasonable way to deal with the issue given how it affects the Palestinians in the process.
(3) Is the blockade just? I think this transcends both the previous issues, especially when looking at the consequences (social, economic, military) of the blockade. And the consequences are pretty significant. Enough so that I find it hard to believe that the blockade is just, even if it's legal.
You can't peacefully intercept anything with commandos and warships. It is not possible to peacefully launch a military raid on a vessel, let alone a civilian one. This is outright Orwellian language. It also completely ignores that the aid workers had no possible way to affect the IDF fleet until the IDF decided to send in soldiers. That's an act of aggression, by the way, since the ship in question was a civilian vessel flying a foreign flag in international water.
Well... the ships were running a blockade, so I don't think you can expect there wouldn't be warships around. What was Israel supposed to do, have the warships wait around and wait for an unarmed vessel to arrive?
EDIT: And it wasn't like the warships, helicopters and soldiers came in all guns blazing.
The blockade constitutes collective punishment in that it imposes unbearable conditions on the civilian population of Gaza in the attempt to get it to change its political leadership. This is prohibited. Thus, the blockade is not legitimate.
I don't think it's unbearable to live without toys and some spices... and the reason they ban construction materials is because they can easily be turned into weapons. And yet Israel still sends aid!
Israel had offered to send some of it, while the aid workers were still captive. It'd still be Israel that decided which parts to send. That's why it was not accepted, it was a thoroughly dishonest offer.
This only makes the situation you deemed to be unbearable worse. If the situation is really THAT bad, why doesn't Hamas accept the aid? Isn't something better than nothing when you're so desperate?
And by the way, the activists are being held because they attacked and injured soldiers...
How would they turn concrete and wood into weaponry? What are they going to do, construct pitfalls?
Because the offer was not made in good faith. Would you come crawling to your oppressor?
Soldiers who attacked their ship in international waters, killed nine, wounded many more and brought them to Israeli territory, none of which the soldiers had any right to do. Why do you make statements based upon assumptions that I have repeatedly gone to some length to dispel? You aren't even pretending to acknowledge the arguments I make.
If the situation is really as bad as you think it is, then yes, Hamas should accept the aid to help the people they govern... but then, they're a terrorist organization, so I wouldn't expect much of them.
And I'm not ignoring your arguments... I disagree with you and think the San Remo manual does apply... and I also trust that the soldiers were attacked first before using force because I trust the validity of the videos that have been released showing the personnel on the ships waiting for the soldiers with bats, clubs, pipes, and broken bottles, unlike how you seem to.
Out of curiosity, what do you think should be done with Israel, an established country?
At this point there isn't any more discussion on the issue. as these people are never going to change their mind.
their arguements to the blockade in place have already been refuted. The US blockade's ships all the time. In fact they did it and have done it numerous times in history.
The british have blockaded ships in fact they were the ones that set the rules to begin with.
The blockade is legal they are allowed to do it and stop any ship attempting to enter their ports or gaza even in international waters. that is not a safe zone that you can do what you want. this isn't tag where if you touch the post you are safe.
Running the blockade can earn you a smuggler's market which then allows for force to be used if needed.
In this case the activists (sorry they are not peaceful) chose made the wrong choice (seeing how the other 5 ships in the convey didn't have the same problem) and the IDF gets caught up in an attempted smear campaign.
The soldiers boarding the ship only had paintball guns and non-lethal ammo with them except for like a pistol.
Once the other guys started seeing their buddies being beat and stabbed that is when the real ammo came out. all of which is perfectly legal and these activist are clearly to blame. had they responded peacefully like they claimed to be then they would not have gone through what they did since again the other 5 ships in that convey didn't have problems.
my real question is why are these people not ragging on egypt as they are holding a blockade of the area as well only they are doing it on land.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
they have already been posted you ignored it not to mention allthe examples of blockades that have been used in the past but now as well.
Damn, I almost posted the above somewhere in an obscure forum with a post time on it so I could prove that I had guessed this exact response. I have seen this same post from mystery45 soooo many times.
all of which are used in a non-war mode and all of which occur in international waters.
heck even today the blockade of cuba still goes on. This has severly crippled the cuban economy as the US would be a very good market for their items.
not trading with a country=/=blockading basic supplies
Comparing our relationship with Cuba to Israel and Palestines is hilarious.
they have already been posted you ignored it not to mention allthe examples of blockades that have been used in the past but now as well.
all of which are used in a non-war mode and all of which occur in international waters.
heck even today the blockade of cuba still goes on. This has severly crippled the cuban economy as the US would be a very good market for their items.
So yes you can have a blockade such as israel does.
The US constantly stops ships in international waters. in search operations.
it isn't anything new.
It's an embargo, not exactly a blockade. Cuban stuff still gets here, believe you me some people just cannot get enough of their Cuban smokes which makes the black market all that more enticing.
However, that brings up an interesting point, is economic warfare moral?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
However, that brings up an interesting point, is economic warfare moral?
Given the baggage associated with the word "moral", I'd prefer to stick with assessing it along the lines of "Legal? Reasonable? Just?" If only because I think you can look for specific laws, and then go from there answering the two other questions. But that might be my own personal conceit.
But even modern warfare has economic consequence to it. A blockade is itself a form of economic warfare, and the destruction and capture of facilities during wartime has economic consequences to it. In fact, there's apparently a strategy (used in WW1 and WW2) where a belligerent nation would purchase specific materials from a neutral nation just to prevent another belligerent nation from having access to those materials.
Well, legal and moral are not the same thing. Reasonable and moral, hm, there's a connection for sure. Just and moral? Yeah, those are the same thing.
I don't agree. Questions involving whether something is "just" usually have an underlying basis in whether the action is "legal". Whereas a question of "moral" often steps away from "legal" and assesses the situation on a different spectrum. I would concur that there is a relation, but they aren't strictly equivalent questions. (Though if you want to go even further, often what we define as "legal" is based on certain things we find to be "moral".)
Edit: Further, I'd prefer not to derail the discussion into a debate on terms that we don't necessarily have to agree upon in order to answer the question originally posed at the beginning of the thread, or in order to Captain Morgan's question. I prefer to split up the question along those three lines, but like I said, that may be my personal conceit.
during the 1960 i do believe bobby kennedy did in fact put a blockade on cuba to stop russian ships from entering the country this didn't help and fed to what would become the cuban missle crisis.
the US also constantly detains and searches ships on a regular basis in international waters for a variety of reasons.
This is not a compelling argument that the blockade of movement of people and civilian goods to and from Gaza in the attempt to pressure its political leadership does not constitute collective punishment due to the terrible effect it has on the civilian population
the US has done the same to Cuba, to the south during the civil war i do believe they even did such things during vietnam and other police engagements. Not to mention that the US constantly detains and boards ships on a regular basis.
Comparing our relationship with Cuba to Israel and Palestines is hilarious
Not really as both have done the same type of damage. By not allowing free trade with cuba we only strengthened castro's support base as the people only had him to turn to. Not to mention the blockade that stopped russian supply ships which had tradable goods not just weapons on them even though that is what we were trying to stop.
had the US had an open trade policy with cuba and their goods then the cuban people would have had the full might of the US economy on their side and castro would have had a much more difficult time in keeping power unless he just started arresting everyone.
If there is anything that shows that the civilian cost is not out of proportion to the military advantage of the blockade (which is something that the San Remo Manual prohibits, by the way, so if we wanted it to apply this would be an important thing to check) then please provide it or re-link to it because it seems that I may have missed it. Again, thanks in advance.
I never understood the idea of something being moral. There is a reason we try to keep the whole idea of morality out of the courts and arguments because there is no definition of moral. One person's morals can be different from another person, so legality is really the only thing that matters in events like this. That being said; with all the crap that Israel has gone through in the entirety of its sovereignty, I feel that they have a free pass to do whatever it is they need to keep their country safe. If it was us in a similar situation I would say the same thing: "Do what we need to do to protect America". I think this cutesy, lets all be friends, make peace not war rhetoric overplayed, unrealistic and keeping us from gets real problems and serious situations from getting out of hand. Remember, Hitler took half of Europe and Africa because of concessions and trying to make friends before taking care of the problem.
Israel does not recognise Gaza as a separate nation nor does it consider itself in a state of war with Gaza. Since the San Remo Manual applies to conflicts between states there are some difficulties with using it to legally justify the blockade.
Actually, it's interesting that you bring that up. Because, if you examine Section 1 (SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE LAW), it simply reads "the parties to an armed conflict". Even in Section 5 (DEFINITIONS), it doesn't specifically define who is or isn't a "party to an armed conflict", or that it even defines "parties". The document certainly uses terms like "Belligerent party", "Belligerent state", "Belligerent military", "Belligerent force" and "Neutral state". But it seems to me that the Manual leaves it vague as to who exactly can be a party to the armed conflict.
Now, it may be that the document was written for "commonly understood" terms, or was written with those terms defined in another document (for example, in the Geneva Convention itself). But, I also have to wonder if the Manual was written such that those terms were intentionally left vague by the framers of the document. Otherwise, why not put that in Section 5, or write Section 1 to specifically discuss States? As opposed to "parties"?
One reason that I think could merit some "vague" wording, is in a situation where you had a legitimate government and State overthrown by a group not recognized by the United Nations. As a result, certain parties may want to blockade that group until the legitimate government and State had been returned to power, or until the situation was settled and the group formerly established itself as the "legitimate government". (It might not be a perfect example, but Myanmar may fit. Where there was an election that hasn't been recognized and a government deemed "illegitimate" is in power, and certain countries have put bans and embargoes in place.)
Admittedly, this is a bit speculative on my part and the subject of conjecture. But I noticed that the wording of the Manual compared to some other laws I've read does leave certain terms undefined.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Regional Judge (L3)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The 'activists' were carrying 10,000 tons of 'humanitarian aid materials' (I am still skeptical that it was even that)... at the same time Israel is sending 15,000 tons a week to Gaza. I'm not saying Gaza doesn't need help but stopping a boat that refused to be searched for weapons doesn't make the situation in Gaza worse...
EDIT: I didn't follow it closely enough, so it was aid (aside for the metal rods and such which could have easily been turned into weapons...), now, Hamas refused it? This helps the situation a ton for the Palistinians...
DECKS
:symw::symb: Life Gain :symb::symw:
Building (eventually)...
:symb::symr::symg: Dragon-Ramp :symg::symr::symb:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
68. Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.
69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it.
Section 67(a) does make it clear that neutral vessels may not be attacked unless the vessel is attempting to breach the blockade. In the situation involving the vessel that was attacked, it was warned over the course of 4 hours to divert and be subject to inspection. Since the vessel didn't divert, it could be held as a breach of the blockade or refusal to be searched. This is repeated further:
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.
Based on the wording, I would think that the blockade applies evenly to all ships, whether of neutral states or not. For neutral states, there are additional provisions, but the manual still allows for searches of those vessels as part of the application of the blockade. And there are provisions for the allowance of capturing or attacking the vessel. As far as where these operations can be conducted:
(a) the territorial sea and internal waters, the land territories, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States;
(b) the high seas; and
(c) subject to paragraphs 34 and 35, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of neutral States.
And the earlier section I noted that the force maintaining the blockade can be stationed based on military requirements. Which is going to be discretionary, and there is no rule present that states that is subject to any restriction.
Yes, I agree that part of the issue is that Hamas are a huge bunch of ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺s, and I do agree that the activists most likely had ulterior motives, but how does that make this blockade just?
I have little to add beyond this. Israel was not stopping it. If they had been allowed to inspect the ships, and the ships had no contraband on them, they would have been allowed to pass.
It really boggles my mind that people don't understand the fundamentals of how a blockade works.
Well, I think that's why this issue can be looked at in three parts:
(1) Is the blockade legal or illegal? Looking at the San Remo Manual, it seems like it satisfies some parts of it. But as has been mentioned before, Israel would also need to recognize the rights of Hamas soldiers as enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention. So, either Israel recognizes the San Remo Manual and is not following the Geneva Convention, or they aren't following the San Remo Manual. (Do note that the manual is voluntary. There's no requirement that it be recognized.)
(2) Is the blockade reasonable? This part is where I think the security issue needs to be evaluated, from both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Because while the Israelis may view it as "reasonable", since it protects them, it also may not be a reasonable way to deal with the issue given how it affects the Palestinians in the process.
(3) Is the blockade just? I think this transcends both the previous issues, especially when looking at the consequences (social, economic, military) of the blockade. And the consequences are pretty significant. Enough so that I find it hard to believe that the blockade is just, even if it's legal.
But, that's just how I'm parsing this.
Well... the ships were running a blockade, so I don't think you can expect there wouldn't be warships around. What was Israel supposed to do, have the warships wait around and wait for an unarmed vessel to arrive?
EDIT: And it wasn't like the warships, helicopters and soldiers came in all guns blazing.
I don't think it's unbearable to live without toys and some spices... and the reason they ban construction materials is because they can easily be turned into weapons. And yet Israel still sends aid!
This only makes the situation you deemed to be unbearable worse. If the situation is really THAT bad, why doesn't Hamas accept the aid? Isn't something better than nothing when you're so desperate?
And by the way, the activists are being held because they attacked and injured soldiers...
DECKS
:symw::symb: Life Gain :symb::symw:
Building (eventually)...
:symb::symr::symg: Dragon-Ramp :symg::symr::symb:
If the situation is really as bad as you think it is, then yes, Hamas should accept the aid to help the people they govern... but then, they're a terrorist organization, so I wouldn't expect much of them.
And I'm not ignoring your arguments... I disagree with you and think the San Remo manual does apply... and I also trust that the soldiers were attacked first before using force because I trust the validity of the videos that have been released showing the personnel on the ships waiting for the soldiers with bats, clubs, pipes, and broken bottles, unlike how you seem to.
Out of curiosity, what do you think should be done with Israel, an established country?
DECKS
:symw::symb: Life Gain :symb::symw:
Building (eventually)...
:symb::symr::symg: Dragon-Ramp :symg::symr::symb:
their arguements to the blockade in place have already been refuted. The US blockade's ships all the time. In fact they did it and have done it numerous times in history.
The british have blockaded ships in fact they were the ones that set the rules to begin with.
The blockade is legal they are allowed to do it and stop any ship attempting to enter their ports or gaza even in international waters. that is not a safe zone that you can do what you want. this isn't tag where if you touch the post you are safe.
Running the blockade can earn you a smuggler's market which then allows for force to be used if needed.
In this case the activists (sorry they are not peaceful) chose made the wrong choice (seeing how the other 5 ships in the convey didn't have the same problem) and the IDF gets caught up in an attempted smear campaign.
The soldiers boarding the ship only had paintball guns and non-lethal ammo with them except for like a pistol.
Once the other guys started seeing their buddies being beat and stabbed that is when the real ammo came out. all of which is perfectly legal and these activist are clearly to blame. had they responded peacefully like they claimed to be then they would not have gone through what they did since again the other 5 ships in that convey didn't have problems.
my real question is why are these people not ragging on egypt as they are holding a blockade of the area as well only they are doing it on land.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
they have already been posted you ignored it not to mention allthe examples of blockades that have been used in the past but now as well.
all of which are used in a non-war mode and all of which occur in international waters.
heck even today the blockade of cuba still goes on. This has severly crippled the cuban economy as the US would be a very good market for their items.
So yes you can have a blockade such as israel does.
The US constantly stops ships in international waters. in search operations.
it isn't anything new.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Damn, I almost posted the above somewhere in an obscure forum with a post time on it so I could prove that I had guessed this exact response. I have seen this same post from mystery45 soooo many times.
not trading with a country=/=blockading basic supplies
Comparing our relationship with Cuba to Israel and Palestines is hilarious.
It's an embargo, not exactly a blockade. Cuban stuff still gets here, believe you me some people just cannot get enough of their Cuban smokes which makes the black market all that more enticing.
However, that brings up an interesting point, is economic warfare moral?
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Given the baggage associated with the word "moral", I'd prefer to stick with assessing it along the lines of "Legal? Reasonable? Just?" If only because I think you can look for specific laws, and then go from there answering the two other questions. But that might be my own personal conceit.
But even modern warfare has economic consequence to it. A blockade is itself a form of economic warfare, and the destruction and capture of facilities during wartime has economic consequences to it. In fact, there's apparently a strategy (used in WW1 and WW2) where a belligerent nation would purchase specific materials from a neutral nation just to prevent another belligerent nation from having access to those materials.
I don't agree. Questions involving whether something is "just" usually have an underlying basis in whether the action is "legal". Whereas a question of "moral" often steps away from "legal" and assesses the situation on a different spectrum. I would concur that there is a relation, but they aren't strictly equivalent questions. (Though if you want to go even further, often what we define as "legal" is based on certain things we find to be "moral".)
Edit: Further, I'd prefer not to derail the discussion into a debate on terms that we don't necessarily have to agree upon in order to answer the question originally posed at the beginning of the thread, or in order to Captain Morgan's question. I prefer to split up the question along those three lines, but like I said, that may be my personal conceit.
during the 1960 i do believe bobby kennedy did in fact put a blockade on cuba to stop russian ships from entering the country this didn't help and fed to what would become the cuban missle crisis.
the US also constantly detains and searches ships on a regular basis in international waters for a variety of reasons.
the US has done the same to Cuba, to the south during the civil war i do believe they even did such things during vietnam and other police engagements. Not to mention that the US constantly detains and boards ships on a regular basis.
Not really as both have done the same type of damage. By not allowing free trade with cuba we only strengthened castro's support base as the people only had him to turn to. Not to mention the blockade that stopped russian supply ships which had tradable goods not just weapons on them even though that is what we were trying to stop.
had the US had an open trade policy with cuba and their goods then the cuban people would have had the full might of the US economy on their side and castro would have had a much more difficult time in keeping power unless he just started arresting everyone.
http://www.slate.com/id/2255610
does a good explination of what is going on.
Israel has a right to stop ships that are heading into gaza for searches that is pretty much a fact.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602
this right here pretty much seals the deal as far as that israel blockade is legal.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Actually, it's interesting that you bring that up. Because, if you examine Section 1 (SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE LAW), it simply reads "the parties to an armed conflict". Even in Section 5 (DEFINITIONS), it doesn't specifically define who is or isn't a "party to an armed conflict", or that it even defines "parties". The document certainly uses terms like "Belligerent party", "Belligerent state", "Belligerent military", "Belligerent force" and "Neutral state". But it seems to me that the Manual leaves it vague as to who exactly can be a party to the armed conflict.
Now, it may be that the document was written for "commonly understood" terms, or was written with those terms defined in another document (for example, in the Geneva Convention itself). But, I also have to wonder if the Manual was written such that those terms were intentionally left vague by the framers of the document. Otherwise, why not put that in Section 5, or write Section 1 to specifically discuss States? As opposed to "parties"?
One reason that I think could merit some "vague" wording, is in a situation where you had a legitimate government and State overthrown by a group not recognized by the United Nations. As a result, certain parties may want to blockade that group until the legitimate government and State had been returned to power, or until the situation was settled and the group formerly established itself as the "legitimate government". (It might not be a perfect example, but Myanmar may fit. Where there was an election that hasn't been recognized and a government deemed "illegitimate" is in power, and certain countries have put bans and embargoes in place.)
Admittedly, this is a bit speculative on my part and the subject of conjecture. But I noticed that the wording of the Manual compared to some other laws I've read does leave certain terms undefined.