ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

I will say this again.
The UNCLOS gives Israel a legitimate legal right to stop any ship within 24 miles of their coastline, if that vessel is headed for Israel.

You can bitch and moan all you want, but since the UN says its ok, there is nothing anyone can do about it, unless the UN decides to change the rules.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

I've read numerous witness accounts saying the attack took place roughly 70 nautical miles away from the coast. That would be well outside of the contiguous zone, wouldn't it?

3 Replies

@old europe,

The reports I have seen say 55 kilometers, which is just over 34 miles.
So, there was no legitimate reason to board that ship that far at sea.

But if it was 70 nautical miles, that is still about 80 miles off the Israeli coast.

So, IF those ships were more then 24 miles off the Israeli coast, then Israel was 100% wrong.
BUT, if those ships get within 24 miles of the Israeli coast, then Israel is justified under all international conventions regarding the law of the sea to board and search those ships.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

I've read numerous witness accounts saying the attack took place roughly 70 nautical miles away from the coast. That would be well outside of the contiguous zone, wouldn't it?

The U.S. naval blockade of Cuba in 1962 was not within the territorial waters of the U.S. Also, the blockade of the Falkland Islands was nowhere near the UK.

I do not believe that international waters has anything to do with international law relating to naval blockades to protect a nation's citizens.

Why is Turkey suddenly involved in these Middle Eastern affairs? They were almost in the EU at one point, I thought? Perhaps, too many Europeans just had some anti-Turkish bias? I thought many Europeans liked Turkish taffy?

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

The U.S. naval blockade of Cuba in 1962 was not within the territorial waters of the U.S. Also, the blockade of the Falkland Islands was nowhere near the UK.

Isn't a blockade different from an embargo in that it constitutes a military operation or an act of war rather than a legal barrier to trade?

Do you think it's more appropriate to consider this operation against civilians an act of war rather than an enforcement of national laws and regulations?

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foofie wrote:
The U.S. naval blockade of Cuba in 1962 was not within the territorial waters of the U.S. Also, the blockade of the Falkland Islands was nowhere near the UK.

Isn't a blockade different from an embargo in that it constitutes a military operation or an act of war rather than a legal barrier to trade?

Do you think it's more appropriate to consider this operation against civilians an act of war rather than an enforcement of national laws and regulations?

Bother some one else with parsing definitions. Since there have been suicide bombers that were civilians, and many civilians world-wide have taken sides with the Palestineans, it is academic in my opinion, who officially was on that boat.

There are many reasons to side with the Palestineans: 1) Concerns about losing Arab oil for one's country if the perception is that the world is anti-Palestinean (aka, anti-Arab); 2) not wanting to give Arabs the impression that the Christian world is all against the Arabs, since there are Christian communities in Arab countries, and they should not be the victim of Arab frustrations; 3) by siding with the Palestineans, and demonizing Israel it may be psychologically comforting, since one then need not feel that Europeans were so bad in assisting the Holocaust; 4) some may believe a future Palestinean state will be socialistic, giving one more left-wing vote in the UN; 5) identifying with the Palestineans gives some (white) Europeans the feeling that they cannot be racist, since Israel's "image" is still that of European Jews, even though a large percentage are Middle Eastern Jews.

All the above thoughts are obviously not everyone's thoughts, and there might even be the honest concern for Palestineans as the underdogs in their situation with a more advanced Israel. Oh yes, one more possible reason: there are some that follow fads, and being pro-Palestinean is sort of "hip" in some circles. Oh, and a possible last reason: there are anti-Semites that cloak their anti-Semitism in the supposedly more acceptable anti-Zionist/pro-Palestinean position.

Now, can we end this. I cannot change your mind, I believe, nor can you change my mind.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

What you've left out of your abbreviated chronology is the fact that the Haganah, the precursor to the IDF, and the terrorist organizations Irgun and LEHI carried out massacres and wholesale cleansing of entire Palestinian villages and towns such as Deir Yassin, Tiberias, Haifa, Safed, Beisan, Jaffa and Acre that came under their control in the war that preceded the 1948 war and lasted between November 1947 to May 14,1948 upon the termination of Britain's Palestine Mandate, and the declaration of independence by the state of Israel.

Dump your bigotry!

Your post would have been valid had it not included the phrase "wholesale cleansing of entire Palestinian villages and towns".

You should have posted:
What you've left out of your abbreviated chronology is the fact that the Haganah, the precursor to the IDF, and the terrorist organizations Irgun and LEHI carried out massacres of entire Palestinian villages and towns such as Deir Yassin, Tiberias, Haifa, Safed, Beisan, Jaffa and Acre that came under their control in the war that preceded the 1948 war and lasted between November 1947 to May 14,1948 upon the termination of Britain's Palestine Mandate, and the declaration of independence by the state of Israel.

What I also left out of my post were:
the massacres of large number of Jews by the Palestinian Arabs after 1938 and prior to May 14, 1948.

Both massacres were indeed horrible. While so-called "tit-for-tat" is no excuse for such horrors, it is a too human reaction of victims of such outrages.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

I've read numerous witness accounts saying the attack took place roughly 70 nautical miles away from the coast. That would be well outside of the contiguous zone, wouldn't it?

I guess you feel that our actions at Midway, when we sunk most of the Japanese navy, was illegal. Midway is in the middle of the Pacific.

When it comes to Israel, a dual standard applies. It was certainly illegal when Hamas fired 8,000 missiles, etc., into Israel. It was illegal, and an act of war, when Hamas broke into Israel killing soldiers and kidnapping Schalit. Despite this, Israel is supposed to sit on its hands and allow the resupply of various arms, etc., going to Gaza.

3 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

I guess you feel that our actions at Midway, when we sunk most of the Japanese navy, was illegal. Midway is in the middle of the Pacific.

Weren't those actions military operations, acts of war carried out as part of an effort to win a war that Japan had declared against the United States?

Are you saying we should see the Israeli attack as an act of war?

0 Replies

Why not?

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Those ships were sailing under the flags of the United States, Turkey, Greece, the Comoros, Kiribati and Cambodia. If Israel committed an act of war against them, how should those countries react?

1 Reply

Israel is prejudiced against captains of ships destinued for Gaza that do not permit their ships to be searched well before landing at Gaza. So Israel forces such ships to either go away or be searched by the Israeli militsry. Israel defeats any armed resistance to such searches.

Trouble with Israelis is all they care about is their own survival.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Being prejudiced against someone for whatever reason does not give you special rights. If I'm prejudiced against you, it doesn't make it legal for me to get a gun, invade your home and kill you if you offer any resistance.

1 Reply

@old europe,

You're right. Just because Israelis think people are trying to kill them is not a good reason for them to defend themselves by killing those people who attack them. Where is their sense of humanity?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

It is not bigoted to point out that the Zionist forces perpetrated wholesale cleansing of entire Palestinian villages and towns in the Palestine Civil War. This was one of the factors that contributed to the refugee problem that persists to this day in light of the fact that the state of Israel refuses to abide by UN resolution 194.

I posted exactly what I should have posted.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

If I think you're trying to kill me, is this a valid reason to invade your house and kill you when you're trying to attack me? Would this hold up in an American court? What if I had absolutely no evidence that you were even trying to kill me, other than the fact that you attacked me when I invaded your house?

Enlighten me.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

When it comes to Israel, a dual standard applies.

That is certainly true with respect to Advocate's tortured rationalizations of whatever Israel does, particularly when compared to his criticisms of U.S. policies.

Arguably Israel has blockaded the Gaza coast and has the right to enforce it. I know of no provision of accepted international law that requires a blockade to be enforced only in the immediate vicinity of the coast in question. That the vessels in question were openly attempting to challenge the Israel blockade is beyond doubt.

It seems to me that the really significant new fact emerging from this event is the Islamization of the Turkish government and its fundamental shift away from Europe and towards leadership of its former empire. The days of the political alliance between the then secular government of Turkey and Israel are over.

More recently the Iranian government has announced an intent to aid future efforts to break the Gaza blockade. All this paints an increasingly dark picture for Israel. To a very large extent this is traceable to the breastbeating, apologies and ass (or hand) -kissing that Advocate's much-admired President Obama has extended to the Islamic world. A leader who is and is perceived to be weak and feckless is not an asset to either us or those who depend on us.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Those ships were sailing under the flags of the United States, Turkey, Greece, the Comoros, Kiribati and Cambodia. If Israel committed an act of war against them, how should those countries react?

The flag a ship sails under is of no moment. It used to be that every other ship in the world sailed under the flag of Panama. I think that you can guess why that was.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

It is not bigoted to point out that the Zionist forces perpetrated wholesale cleansing of entire Palestinian villages and towns in the Palestine Civil War. This was one of the factors that contributed to the refugee problem that persists to this day in light of the fact that the state of Israel refuses to abide by UN resolution 194.

I posted exactly what I should have posted.

Infra is a one-trick pony. All he gives us, over and over again, is the tired one-sided charge mentioned above. He doesn't give the other side of the story. He also continues to lie about Israel being ethnocentric.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

The flag a ship sails under is of no moment. It used to be that every other ship in the world sailed under the flag of Panama. I think that you can guess why that was.

It is your honest opinion that it is of no consequence if countries commit acts of war against vessels sailing under the American flag? That is astonishing.

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know