Israel kills to Maintain Blockade

**Louis VI the Fat** · 06-02-2010, 00:30

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I thought we settled the issue about international law.

The legality of the action remains very much in dispute:

International law experts differ over the legality of the Israel action, with some asserting that the raid constituted a clear cut violation of the Law of the Sea, while others maintain that Israel can board foreign vessels in international waters as part of a naval blockade in a time of armed conflict. But scholars on both sides of the debate agree that Israel is required by law to respond with the proportional use of force in the face of violent resistance.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060102934.html

**Jolt** · 06-02-2010, 01:03

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The legality of the action remains very much in dispute:

I think the major issue is this: Without legitimizing the Gaza blockade, the Israeli navy has absolutely no legal ground upon which to argue. That means if the Gaza Blockade is in itself a violation of the International Law, then Israel cannot use an illegal blockade as any base of argument for an intervention or apprehension of anything either off the International waters or in the Gaza EEZ/Territorial Waters.

Since I'm not aware of anything legitimizing the blockade in International Law, I'm afraid that the case is unarguable. The fleet is by all means allowed to break a blockade which is illegal from the get go.

As the blockade is illegal, it is not bound by the same rules as legally sanctioned blockades. Therefore, Israel cannot use its blockade as a valid argument for action.

**Ibn-Khaldun** · 06-02-2010, 01:15

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Having said international waters which is commonly understood to include the 200 mile zone, there is also the issue of Israel not having signed the convention of the law of the sea.
This indicates that they do not adhere to the convention and International courts can't do anythingand about it. Israel will claim immunity if a court case should appear in Turkey. Which leaves a court case in Israel...

There is always Netherlands.

Also, since Israel can declare 100 km security zones from their coast then I think Estonia should do it also. Perhaps, we should go even further. 200 km?

**Jolt** · 06-02-2010, 01:27

Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun

There is always Netherlands.

Also, since Israel can declare 100 km security zones from their coast then I think Estonia should do it also. Perhaps, we should go even further. 200 km?

I declare the entire world waters a Portuguese security zone. Further, Portugal reserves the right to aprehend any ship it desires and kill it's occupants. Thank you.

**Ibn-Khaldun** · 06-02-2010, 01:30

Originally Posted by Jolt

I declare the entire world waters a Portuguese security zone. Further, Portugal reserves the right to aprehend any ship it desires and kill it's occupants. Thank you.

Hey!! Don't get greedy!

**Incongruous** · 06-02-2010, 01:37

Why is anyone seriuosly discussing legal niceties when we are discussing Israel, a nation so outside the law I fail to understand how one could expect them to understand it, Israel has given up its right to be judged legally time and again. As far as I am concerned that nation does not desrve and should not recieve any legal considerations from its enemies, a dangerous situation for the most despised country on earth.

If the premier of Israel was assasinated, I believe it would simply be the removal of a criminal, when the IDF is attacked it is merely a response to a criminal gang.

Why should anyone treat Israel within the legal code if that nation refuses to abide by it?

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 06-02-2010, 01:46

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

Why is anyone seriuosly discussing legal niceties when we are discussing Israel, a nation so outside the law I fail to understand how one could expect them to understand it, Israel has given up its right to be judged legally time and again. As far as I am concerned that nation does not desrve and should not recieve any legal considerations from its enemies, a dangerous situation for the most despised country on earth.

If the premier of Israel was assasinated, I believe it would simply be the removal of a criminal, when the IDF is attacked it is merely a response to a criminal gang.

Why should anyone treat Israel within the legal code if that nation refuses to abide by it?

Magyar, stop sugar-coating things and tell me what you really think..... just kidding.

You do realize that if we take this standard as the operative standard, a large majority of nation-states would have to be considered criminal. Most of international law has been "honored in the breach" for a goodly number of annual orbits. You may have a particular animus toward Israel, but the number of states breaking, bending, or twisting international law to suit their own interests is not small. I daresay there are those who might view the USA as having transgressed the spirit of an international law or three....from time to time.

Doesn't it become impractical to treat everyone as criminals?

By the way, you implicitly are advocating a stance akin to old-style outlawry -- anybody can kill the outlaw at anytime without penalty -- which England itself moved away from beginning with Magna Carta. Do you really want international law and relations to revert there?

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 06-02-2010, 01:52

Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun

Hey!! Don't get greedy!

Aren't they still holding the Azores in abject subjugation?

**Louis VI the Fat** · 06-02-2010, 01:51

Originally Posted by Jolt

I think the major issue is this: Without legitimizing the Naboo blockade, the Trade Federation fleet has absolutely no legal ground upon which to argue. That means if the Naboo Blockade is in itself a violation of the International Law, then the Republic can not use an illegal blockade as any base of argument for an intervention or apprehension of anything either off the International space or in Naboo / Inner Rim.

Since I'm not aware of anything legitimizing the blockade in International Law, I'm afraid that the case is unarguable. The fleet is by all means allowed to break a blockade which is illegal from the get go.

As the blockade is illegal, it is not bound by the same rules as legally sanctioned blockades. Therefore, the Trade Federation can not use its blockade as a valid argument for action.

See now this is why I got such a headache from the Phantom Menace.

I don't understand that stuff man.

Just tell me who the bad guys are and then let Han run that blockade.

**Tellos Athenaios** · 06-02-2010, 01:47

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The legality of the action remains very much in dispute:

Well, what Jolt said. Furthermore there is a small but significant difference between interception and attack/assault/raid: it is a matter of proportionate military force. The former implies minimum of military force and a certain ritual*; the latter is the unceremonious inconsiderate rush to get what you want. Or to use the analogy once more: it is the difference between a police unit arresting an aggressive suspect and a day for the police brutality thread.

* A ritual which was only partially observed; for instance it is usually a repeated warning (as in: repeated when interception vessels meet their targets) followed by warning shots (before the bow) followed only then by more immediate action.