I sent an email to my MP the other day asking quite politely about the Israeli actions and he responded without mentioning the legality of Israel’s actions and without mentioning the Palestinian people. I thought that was rather poor, although typically Tory. Message thread below for your edification!

Ron

Thanks for your e-mail.

The big issue here seems to me to be the smuggling of weapons and missiles into the Gaza Strip from Syria and Iran. I believe the West should help both Israel and Egypt counter this flow of weaponry and then the blockade could be lifted to allow the normal flow of goods and aid.

Best wishes,

Philip

Philip Hollobone MP

Member of Parliament for the Kettering Constituency

House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA

Tels: 01536 414715 / 020 7219 8373 / 07979 850126

E-mail: hollobonep@parliament.uk

—–Original Message—–

From: Ron xxxx

Sent: 31 May 2010 23:43

To: Philip Hollobone

Subject: Gaza flotilla and Israel’s actions

Dear Philip

Congratulations on your re-election.

I have been following the story regarding the actions of the Israeli forces since early this morning. To listen to the BBC one might imagine the poor Israeli commandos were attacked. Then I remembered that the BBC cowers in fear of the government…

Israel has acted with impunity with regard to its treatment the Palestinian people and after three years of an illegal blockade of Gaza it now feels it can board a foreign vessel in international waters. A simple act of war.

Clearly the time has come to make Israel pay for its repeated breaches of international law, first by lifting the Gaza blackade, as called for by William Hague, although that should just be a start.

I would like to know what you will be doing as an MP to hold the government to account for its policy towards the entire region.

Please let me know.

Regards

Ron

Wow. He sounds like a serious idiot. Maybe we should have a competition for worst MPs response (and best?).

Ron -

again, if as Israel claims it is in armed conflict and San Remo applies, then there can be no objection to Gaza attempting to obtain weapons from Iran or anywhere else.

Hi Craig…that massacre in cumbria seems to have knocked the Isreali attack on the aid ship off the headlines. Good timing I would say. Mossad or MI5

cid,

no, just a mad taxi driver, i think. Terribly sad.

“If you are in a formal state of armed conflict, you cannot categorise your opponents as terrorists.”

Members of armed forces are supposed to wear uniforms, at least when they’re attacking.

Craig.

Your knickers have sure been getting is some really strange twists recently.

If you have denounced “the rockets” as terrorism, then, even in a state of war, your statement: “Gaza has every right to attack Israel with rockets.” is wrong.

These rockets should NOT be launched period. First but not foremost, it hands Israyhell a propaganda coup which people like yourself and the BBC have to include as a token (or worse) of “balance” Secondly, as far as I know, these rockets are NOT aimed or hostile political targets. It is simply wrong to use them – although I can totally understand their desperation and anger at them being used.

To re-emphasise, as acts of resistance they are NOT legitimate – they do not discriminate against some civilian walking about. One of these rockets is pretty much as bad as a predator drone murdering families and attendees of wedding parties etc.

It is even illegitimate to launch them in the kleptomaniacs towards say Serdot because of the possibility (as much as there is a possibility of killing any person) they may kill the child of a Zionist, and that child is not guilty of the sins of their parents – until that child eventually gains power and responsibility over their own acts.

May the filthy Zionist state crumble (by legitimate means!).

@Ron – You’re lucky. I’ve got the odious James Arbuthnot as my MP. As well as claiming expenses for his swimming pool, he’s chairman of the parliamentary group of the Conservative Friends of Israel.

I recommend everyone read the (expectedly one-sided) briefing on the Conservative Friends of Israel website, where, amongst other things they flatly assert that Craig is wrong about the legality and other technical aspects of the flotilla attack and the Gaza blockade.

e.g. quote: “it is unfair that Israel alone is blamed for imposing a siege on Gaza.”

http://www2.cfoi.co.uk/Briefings/Other/

It makes my blood boil and I will be writing again to voice my outrage at their position.

Still no response from My MP, Richard Bacon.

I see that Israel is lamenting that it should hold the iquiery into itself and then sit in its own judgement, a true sign of utter insecurity and lack of argument, next thing will be the flight forward into some other calamity.

Turkey as the victim of this heinous crime at sea should and will hold an inquiery, in absentia if necessarry, looking at the Turkish comments, this sad attack will be remembered.

Egypt has shown how wobbly its support for the Israeli blockade is, it is Egypt that should now be made to understand that its position is akin that of Italy under Mussolini, giving Germans support, knowing full well that attrocities have been committed and are happening on a daily basis.

If, after this global loud scream, the MV Rachel Corrie does not get a military naval escort, plus some media attention, we will give Israel carte Blanche to do this all over again.

It is our MP’s and MEP’s that are as guilty as everyone else who’s watching what will happen next, many comparrissons can be drawn from history.

What does the law say about people who could act, but decided to become an ‘innocent bystander’ to human rights abuse and murder?

I was a little startled to have this piece forwarded to me. To the best of my amateurish knowledge combatants of any description who fight out of uniform are classified as ‘francs tireur’. In fact Israel would be entitled to shoot them, rather than treat them as criminals.

I merely mention this by way of a technical point. Perhaps you have a better grasp of these matters given your practical experience.

I still haven’t received a reply from my MP.

lwtc247, thats the nature of all rockets not just Katuyshas and Grads, the unsophisticated type.

From Hitlers V”‘s to todays modern systems, not much advantage is gained from targetting systems and giroscopes, they still are indiscriminate as to whom they hit.

You will remember the bombing of Baghdad from great hight and long distance, Fallujah, Kosovo, cruise missiles and apparently state of the art smart bombs.

remember that bunker which was hit killing woman and children, they called a hidden communications bunker, the civilians were dead, indiscriminately dead.

I understand what Craig means. If Israel is pretending it is at war, it might as wellm be that way. I would wait, because Ithink any forthcoming war will be initiated by Israel itself, no need to react to bullying.

No response from my MP, either. It’s Nick Clegg, so I suppose he’s effectively responded publicly already, but an individual reply of at least some kind, I think would, be the norm.

This appears to be the full text of San Remo:

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d14de6160e0c12563da005fdb1b/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce!OpenDocument

People focusing on the “soldiers out of uniform” issue seem to be missing the point.

If anything it just reinforces the fact that Israel is not at war with Gaza.

As Craig says, there is no war and San Remo does not apply.

Craig then went on to say that *if* there was a war then different rules would apply on a lot of different things, including treatment of POWs and classification of the Hamas rocket attacks. ** But there is no war. **

There’s no need to argue against things which were put forth for purely hypothetical reasons and which were predicated on a condition which was stated in advance to be false.

The second half of Craig’s post is saying that if there was a war — which there is not — then there would be other consequences/conditions in addition to San Remo’s supposed applicability. The fact those other conditions are not met shows that there is no war. It’s basic proof by contradiction.

I got Craig’s point, but he used something wrong, silly, proably illegal and actually a bit shameful, to get it accros.

His seemingly ‘anything goes or all’s fair {in war}’ expressions were quite worrying also!

ANY act of aggression be it resistance or act of war simply MUST have a legitimate target; Significant effort has to be spent in attempting to make it hit the correct and legitimate military(accidentally erased in my last post) or political target. People not bearing arms or people not directing and assisting armed forcess must NOT be targetted.

But far better than ALL of that is to have War Criminalised in the first place. Only that will stop manipulations to go to war – See the latest ever excellent John Pilger article, “The Back Art Of ‘Master Illusions’”

As for the armchair peace activists, far better than writing to your Zio friendly (or disempowered anti-Zionist MP – teetering on the brink of extinction) is to boycott Isreali products and companies with ties to this Zionist perversion of Israel.

Info here: http://www.inminds.co.uk/

as well as

bdsmovement.net

this is my second letter addressed to Richard Bacon, my Conservative MP, more over to Johnathan Wharam, his PA, asking him to forward the message to Mr. Hague as well.

Dear Johnathan

Thanks for your response to my letter.

I am very concerned that our position with regards to the flouting of international law is a tad inadequate and designed to smoothen out facts with news management. Please confer to the Right honorable William Hague MP, that an attack and murder on the high seas, subsequent kidnap of 600 people, including some 30-40 British citizens, a clear flagration against a flagged ship of a NATO country cannot be overridden by spin or news management.

NATO is in sitting over this issue for some time now and it is hard pressed not to act in some way.

I also would like to steer the attention to the Irish vessel MV Rachel Corrie, planning to land aid in Gaza within the next few days and urge to lobby and argue for instant EU naval assistance to safeguard its voyage. It is not tenable to watch another ship being taken over by an armed force when one can avert it.

The situation in Gaza after 4 years of blockade is untenable. The US and Russia are talking to Hamas, the Arab League is almost fully behind their administration, and despite the arranged stop to unification talks between Hamas and Fatah, the proximity talks must be started up again, with a unified and agreed council for both sections, but most important of all, the blockade must be lifted and if incoming wares are screened by EU peace keepers, so be it, but its must be lifted, we cannot subject 1.5 million people to more hardship and harassment by a heavily armed neighbor.

The San Remo treaty also says a lot about illegal blockades and how it does not apply to states not at war, so please, do not argue for treaties people know don’t apply.

Should Israel declare war on hamas, it’s the Geneva conventions that apply and that includes inspections of prisoners and rights for individuals as you might well know.

Please forward this to Richard and William Hague MP,please.

It is a matter of utmost urgency. Britain cannot be seen to appease those who flout international law and commit an act of war against a fellow NATO member.

lwtc247,

“People not bearing arms or people not directing and assisting armed forcess must NOT be targetted.”

I agree completely.

Although there are plenty of examples where those rules were broken, e.g. Hiroshima and Dresden in WW2.

And if Israel are arguing that aid into a besieged city is “support for terrorists” and a valid target for deadly force using wartime rules then it’s hard to see how that’s different to attacking random people who are part of the community on the other side. Not that I would defend either action. We must not bring ourselves down to their level.

Craig:

Would I be correct in thinking that in order for the Gaza “conflict” to be a war, Israel would have to:

1. Recognise Gaza (or Palestine) as a state

2. Recognise Hamas as the government of Gaza (or Palestine)

Aren’t wars (using the legal term rather than as in “war on drugs”) between states? Can a state ever be legally at war with a non state entity?

Bravo, Craig!

Total waste of time writing to MPs.

This Hollobone by name hollobone by nature buffoon was a prominent member of the racist Monday Club whilst at university:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monday_Club

Don’t expect any sympathy for Palestinians from a Monday Club racist.

You’d have better luck with an MP who merely took bribe money from Israel, if you could pay him more.

“Hollobone has condemned Hamas which he has described as “in its entirety… a terrorist organisation proscribed by the European Union”.

In February 2010, Hollobone caused controversy by describing the wearing of burqas as like “going round wearing a paper bag over your head” and by expressing his “huge sympathy” with those calling for a ban on the garments.”

lwtc247 – There’s nothing shameful in what Craig wrote. He’s illustrating the point that an official war has not been declared. As a matter of fact, war had not been declared against Iraq either, which made that action all the more thoroughly illegal.

Instead of being so outraged at Hamas bottle-rockets, why is more attention not being paid to unmanned drones, dropping Hellfire missiles on “suspects”, with the “collateral” deaths of innocents who happen to be nearby dismissed as a regrettable price. In the West, we hear very little about the protests against drones in Pakistan, pleading for us to desist.

*

The BBC is now all-gun-nutter, all-of-the-time. Who was he? What was he like? More important – The Victims.

Who were the victims? What where they like? Who did they know? What did the relatives of victims feel like when they found out? How did they find out? What were they doing at the time?

Now we’re onto speculation as to what form counseling might take. Might there be nightmares or flashbacks?

And so it goes. The horrendous crimes of Israel are consigned to a footnote at best.

Glenn.

There is something shameful in what he wrote. Did you actually read what I wrote?

1) He tried to equalize the horrors of Zion vis-a-vis the rockets.

2) He gave support to firing more indiscriminate rockets in a state of war! He showed no thought for innocents.

Thanks Craig, for explaining the Legality of this Attack under Maritime Law. The Israelis did not use the San Remo Manual of International Law as an excuse when they attacked the USS Liberty which killed 34 crew members and wounded 171. At the time, the ship was in international waters.

The Lame excuse both the Israeli and U.S. governments concocted into the incident, and issued reports, which concluded that the attack was a mistake, due to Israeli confusion about the identity of the USS Liberty. Which Body is authorised to should conduct the inquiry other wise we can expect a similar fairy tale cover-up from an Israeli Inquiry.

of course there is a war!

Israel are an occupying force, are your memories that shallow…..

I would question urging Hamas to step up its campaign, if the campaign continues to risk civilian lives. I accept that there is doubt that Hamas target civilians specifically on the basis that their rockets are wildly inaccurate, and they are in fact targetting +anything+. Hamas may legitimately hit Israeli military personnel and buildings if there is an agreement that they are in a state of war. But presumably in those conditions, not taking care to avoid hitting civilians would be a war crime, under international law?

I agree with the basic direction of the post though – Israel may not pick and choose which parts of international law it likes. And Israeli apologists do not get to specify whether Israel is in a state of war or not – it would be sensible only to allow the Israeli government to do that.

Im not sure what everyone is missing here….

Israel invaded Palestine (1967), nothing has changed QED they are both at a state of war…..

Jon,

I am not urging Hamas to step up its rocket campaign. It is a heavily conditional statement. The aim is plainly to ask Israeli supporters to consider the logical consequences of wishing to be regarded as in a state of armed conflict.

@glenn

the bbc and other so-called “news organisations” have to make it appear that they are actually useful to the folk who pay for them, hence the current media feeding frenzy. Already they are talking about tighter gun laws but surely the point was the guy had gone a bit loopy while legally owning guns. The laws are already some of the toughest in the world. The only way to stop all gun crime is to remove all guns from the country including police and army and that ain’t gonna happen. The politicians too have also to appear to be doing something and so they join in the frenzy. Sadly to the 24hour news squad dead bodies in Cumbria are more news worthy than those off the shores of Gaza.

Craig – thank-you for the comment footer.

I have re-posted your comment in it’s entirety on a Washington Post thread that describes President Obama’s warning to Israel urging caution and restraint.

Your courage is breath-taking and your comment I believe drops an important curtain.

Craig

You need to be careful here. Knowing what you are talking about, while all around you don’t care about the truth and only wish to promote their “line”, can only cause problems…

Craig, as we know the hasbara mouthpieces have suddenly found the San Remo convention, which they falsely claim applies to this situation.

However, you may be interested in Professor Francis Boyle’s more relevant point about the SUA convention:

“The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla violated the SUA Convention [Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation], to which Israel, Turkey, Ireland and the USA are all parties. This convention was pushed by the USA in reaction to the Achille Lauro hijacking and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer.”

The ironies of the reason for the adoption of this treaty need hardly any comment. Strange how Israel and the PR machine have ignored it.

See the article here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2255610

and the convention here:

http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=259&doc_id=686

Parky: Indeed. I wonder if anyone predicted that the arrival of 24-hour news would resulted in far less, not more, actual news being delivered. Instead of more subjects, greater international coverage, more politics and current affairs, we get that day’s (or week’s) Big Item repeated over and over again, maybe with more angles on the Big Item.

It’s unlikely they’ve been told they’d better move on to something else, after a day or so on the latest Israeli atrocity. They probably knew they’d already said all they could get away with.

Re the suggestion by lwtc247 that, if the Hamas/Israel conflict were to be regarded as war, then rockets fired into Israel would be illegitimate because they indiscriminately target Israelis rather than aiming at military targets.

Imo this suggestion is wrong because it does not take the particular circumstances of the Gazans into account. They are fighting a desperate defence against overwhelming force, under unchallenged enemy air superiority and ongoing close surveillance. They do not have the luxury of carefully designing strikes against military targets. In these circumstances, their rocket pin-pricks (whether by Hamas or by other minor Palestinian resistance organisations) against Israel are basically the best they can reasonably be expected to manage.

Unless you are going to be honest and adopt a hardline position that would render all the RAF and USAF strategic bomber crews of WW2 war criminals, there are no grounds for criticising Gazan rocket attacks on Israel on this basis.

And that’s to disregard the two greatest single terrorist acts in history – the atomic bomb murders of hundreds of thousands of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US regime, the perpetrators of which have lived in freedom, honoured by their national government, to this day.

“The aim is plainly to ask Israeli supporters to consider the logical consequences of wishing to be regarded as in a state of armed conflict.”

So you picked a side, Craig Murray, WHEN YOU DID NOT HAVE TO. So all it would take for you to overtly support a group that seeks the destruction of Israel is for Israel to declare war.

It must be noticed that you don’t “condition” your statement on some major disagreements a non-jihadist must have with Hamas.

One thing not mentioned so far is the right to self-defence (an Israeli favourite, this one), and also the right to resist an occupying force. Both apply to Gaza and its inhabitants.If they choose to interpret ‘self-defence’ as Israel does, then any offensive action, imprisonment without trial, seizure of land and houses etc is defined as self-defence, which of course they are quite entitled to.

Craig,

“Embargo activities in international waters are only legal when a state of war has been declared.”

Is this true and if so can you give me a reference to the relevent document?

Doug

Not precisely. The San Remo manual gives examples of where an embargo can be lawful in time of war. But it can also be lawful without war if supported by a UN secrutiy council resolution.

In this case, there is neitehr a war nor a UNSCR.

Ian M

Thanks – an important addition.

San Remo says: “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.”

Also exempt from attack are:

“(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;”

Where is the Palestinian declaration of war? Who speaks for the Palestinians? Why do you think the Israyhelli’s infiltrated and threw trinkets to the PLO? Which the PLO seemed happy to lap up. I remember Yessir Arafat’s Black Merc. Very Fancy. Fatah’s suits are pretty sharp too.

And is it really Hammas that launches these rockets? I don’t think so. I think it’s small groups of angry men. Hasn’t Hammas tried to crack down on these rocket launchers? And it is very strange how these rockets often seem to come at convenient times for Israyhell.

Did Israel not create Hamas?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPPmgZXjtkw&feature=player_embedded

Ron Paul.

Wow.

Yep. Loony British Left = Loony American Right

Craig,

Thank you for your insights. I’ve recently found your blog, and it is a very good read.

I join amk in asking: what would it take for Israel to declare war on Hamas?

Can a state declare a war on a non-state entity?

I’m not versed in matters of international law, but my limited understanding is that the PA has formal governance over the Gaza Strip, and the Hamas take-over in 2007 was illegal.

Therefore, can Israel declare war just on Hamas?

And if so, wouldn’t that mean that Israel recognizes Hamas as the valid sovereign in the Gaza Strip?

Larry -

Of course I picked a side. I view Israel in the same light I viewed apartheid South Africa – of which Israel was of course the greatest support.

The first I heard of San Remo was on the Radio the day after the attack. Some Aussie maritime lawyer talking about it. He said *if* it applied (and while he would not say it didn’t directly he very strongly implied it didn’t) then Israel broke it anyway because the force the used was unreasonable.

Thanks, Craig – as always – for your knowlegeable and insightful commentary on current events.

I see that South Africa has withdrawn it’s Israeli Ambassador today; can somebody explain to me what this actually means; presumably the two countries will still have diplomatic relations, and am I right in thinking that such withdrawals are very temporary, or is the Venezuelan Ambassador still absent from Tel Aviv & vice versa following the 2008/2009 Gaza massacre ?

Shay, no, Hamas is the democratically elected government of Gaza but everyone chooses to put their fingers in their ears and shout “I cant hear you” because Hamas is a “terrorist” organisation and the West only approves of elections that result in the right (pro-Western) winner, otherwise it starts overthrowing and assassinating.

International Humanitarian Law does indeed deem non-uniformed combatants “spies or terrorists”.

However, since no war has been declared between Israel and Turkey, the Law does not apply – and the occupants of a Turkish-flagged ship, on high seas, are considered Turkish civilians on sovereign Turkish territory – regardless of their manners.

One might observe that Turkey is now well positioned to finally test the legality of Israel’s blockade. Since no war has been officially declared by Israel on Gaza, that still makes the latter’s ports legally “neutral”. Under Section II, Paragraph 120 of the the now-famous San Remo Manual, lies a provision for a neutral warship to escort a neutral merchant vessel though a naval blockade to a neutral port – on the condition that the captain of the naval ship is willing to vouch for the non-military nature of the cargo on the merchant vessel.

Now an aid flotilla arriving at the blockade, flanked by a couple of Turkish warships would create what used to be once called “a devil of a fuss”… But then perhaps we need one? The freedoms and rights which a lot of us on this planet take for granted were not won by men who lay about paralysed by the thought of adverse consequences.

Larry from St. Louis at June 3, 2010 4:37 PM

Oh, Larry and you are so qualified to judge…

Such an amateur – LMFAO.

Larry

have just deleted your comments referencing 9/11 and Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If you want to 11p1l11ay1 1you1r x d1e11gree1s 11of s1e1pa11r111a1tion1 11game to link me to people with nutty beliefs, you can do it on other sites.

Glenn – apparently CNN is some thirty years old on the 1st June and although not perfect I’ve found it’s Europe service a bit more wide ranging than either of Sky or BBC’s offerings. When I first got a sky box just over ten years ago, I was pleasantly surprised that their international news was wider than the BBC and it was not so politically correct and fawning to New Labour.

However since then and I would say it was from about the time of 911, they all have dispensed with honest news reporting and have become a mush of dumbed down presentation and opinion. I rarely find I can bear any of their offerings for more than ten minutes at a time. With the prominence of the internet, television 24hour news is becoming an irrelevance.

Paul,

Hamas indeed won the 2006 Palestinian elections, but on June 14th 2007, President Mahmoud Abbas announced dissolution of government, dismissing PM Ismail Haniya of the Hamas.

That ended the official Hamas regime in the PA, including the Gaza Strip.

That dissolution could be undemocratic, but from a legal standpoint, the Hamas governing of the Gaza Strip is unlawful. And my question to Craig was about the word of the law.

Hamas aims are for an Islamic, Sharia-ruled state. And that is undemocratic as it can be. While I’m not supporting the “bombing democracy into the savages” approach favored by Bush, but I also do not justify a non democratic regime just because it won the majority vote.

I honestly think the Palestinian deserve better, and hope they would. And better isn’t necessarily Fatah, which I also don’t hold in high regard.

Craig – there’s something quite sick about you picking a side and supporting the killing of innocent civilians (yes, subject to your caveat that the Knesset somehow “declare war” on Hamas).

Again, you don’t caveat that with any change you’d like Hamas to make.

So you fully support the hatred of religious nuts of Gaza being stoked by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the completely disturbing and irrational belief that Israel can and should be destroyed.

Lots of people (for instance, me) take a more moderate approach. I generally support the existence of Israel, but of course I vehemently disagree with the many Jewish settlers fueling the flames based on an idiotic reading of a Bronze Age book.

In contrast, your support of Hamas killing innocent civilians is truly disgusting.

It’s quite pathetic, and quite telling, that you would bring up South Africa. Since Israel supported South Africa many years ago, you’re now willing carte blanche to religious crazies in Gaza.

By the way, who do you support in the Fatah?”Hamas conflict? Do you think the religious nuts in Hamas should have the same carte blanche to murder members of Fatah?

The US and Israel arranged a coup against the elected Hamas government by Fatah. Hamas staged a counter coup in Gaza.

The story was first broken in Vanity Fair, and later independently confirmed by (IIRC) Seymour Hirsch in the New Yorker.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

Larry from St. Louis

“………..completely disturbing and irrational belief that Israel can and should be destroyed.”

I don’t recall Craig saying or even alluding to that.

Kindly don’t misinterpret and regurgitate with your own clumsy spin, for your own hysterical ends, perfectly reasonable statements made by others.

You are either completely deluded or simply deliberately provocative and disruptive.

“I don’t recall Craig saying or even alluding to that.”

No, but apparently Hamas is guided by that principle, and Craig Murray supports such religious zealots in murdering innocent civilians.

He could not have made it any more clear.

@Ian M.

One little problem there, Ian. Israel, the U.S., and Turkey are signatories of the 1988 treaty. Not the 2005 amendments to the treaty. The 2005 amendments, which say you need permission from the flag country before searching, were only adopted by twelve countries. Israel, Turkey, Ireland, and the U.S. not included.

As for whether Israel violated the 1988 treaty. The treaty includes article 9:

“Nothing in this Convention shall affect in any way the rules of international law pertaining to the competence of States to exercise investigative or enforcement jurisdiction on board ships not flying their flag.”

SUA applies to non-state actors, not to States exercising investigative or enforcement jurisdiction, which Israel was doing.

Yes, a blockading power can still legally search and seize blockade runners outside the territorial waters of the country.

BTW, we blockaded North Viet Nam with no declaration of war and without accepting them as the government of a nation. The question is “is there a war” not “is there a declared war between two sovereign nations”.

Otherwise, you couldn’t blockade an enemy city in a civil war.

Let’s see, thousands dead on both sides (over the years), thousands of rockets fired by both sides (Palestinian rockets aimed at civilians, Israeli rockets at military targets). Conflict between organized political groups which each claim jurisdiction over their people. Sounds like a tea party to me. Oh, wait, not a tea party, a war.

Thanks that was fun.

I have a… Yes, it’s a postcard, from the House of Commons. Franked very neatly, second class, and printed with the words “Thank you for your communication of” – then 1-6-2010 filled in by hand, – “which will receive attention”. How quaintly British.

Oh, Hi Larry!

So many mistakes in one article.

1. Rockets are fired on civilians on purpose, that’s a clear war crime and terrorism by Hamas.

2. You need to look up the dictionary for the term terrorism, since you clearly don’t understand it. Not every act of war is terrorism.

3. All Gazans as prisoners of war? Why? Makes no sense.

In short, just propaganda drivel. I hope for the sake of the UK that other British diplomats are of higher standard than this.

Oh look! I’m up to my knees in Zionist trolls!

TheTruthO: 100% mistakes in your article.

1. You cannot have war crimes unless one is in a state of war. Arguably it’s terrorism rather than simply acting against an aggressor.

2. Terrorism is to use force against a population to bring about a political aim. What do you suppose the aim is in this case? I’d say it’s the survival of the people of Gaza.

Don’t give me any nonsense about the Israelis just responding to these bottle-rockets. Hamas gave it up for about a year until “Operation Cast Lead” – terrorist activity at a vastly different level – caused them to halt the agreed ceasefire.

3. A state of war has not been declared but, if it were, people of Gaza would be entitled to GC provisions as prisoners of war. Wake up – they are prisoners. Gaza is the world’s largest concentration camp.

Yours is, with all due respect, apologist drivel for a filthy, murderous regime entirely lacking a moral conscience, because it has never had cause to use restraint. If you took money to write your apologia, shame on you. If you wrote out of pure ignorance, shame on you again.

@Glenn. A state of war exists between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Why do you think people keep trying to get a peace treaty going?

“Prisoners of war” is a term that applies to captured soldiers and other lawful combat forces, not blockaded populations or captured terrorists.

Since the only time the Gazans are endangered is in response to Gazan terrorism and other attacks on Israel, their terrorist attacks serve no military purpose. They are simply acts of murder and attempted murder against innocent people. If you think using targeting civilians is ok, then why all the complaints about Israel killing civilians in the Gaza raid?

If Israel decided to adopt the Palestinian “morality” that says that murdering civilians is ok, Gaza and the West Bank would be wiped out in a couple of months.

As for lack of restraint, look at the Gaza war. More than 3 weeks, probably at least 10,000 soldiers, tanks, planes, artillery. Death count? Even by the Palestinians’ inflated numbers about 1500. About one dead for every 6 Israeli soldiers. What kind of lame, wimpy murderous thugs are they, give them three weeks and they can’t even kill one person per soldier? I mean seriously, three whole weeks, modern weapons, and less than half the number of dead than the 9/11 attack, 19 guys, four commercial planes, a few hours.

So, lets assume that your premise was correct. That the Israelis were a murderous regime. Figure, they could kill a bare minimum of one Gazan per soldier per day. How many is that? About 200,000 dead. Over 100 times the actual casualty count.

Same with the latest boat. Hundreds of passengers and only 9 dead? And only on one ship? What kind of lame massacre is that?

Seriously, it is almost comical to see people who obviously have no math skills look at incredibly low casualty rates and think that the intent was mass murder.

Oh, and Hamas stopped taking credit for the rockets for a while, but the rockets kept coming.

Hey Larry from St Loon ,

What is your Opinion of that other Ship that was shot up by Israelis called the USS Liberty killing 34 American crew members and wounded 170.

Bob: You don’t need to have a war – a term, incidentally, that is recognised under International Law – before peace processes can be got going.

For instance, the ‘peace process’ was a long operation in Northern Island, although that was never a war.

You say the only time people of Gaza are engaged is in response to terrorism. Would you mind explaining how the ceasefire concerning Hamas bottle-rockets actually ended, in that case? Would you care to demonstrate this rather sweeping principle you’ve asserted?

Israel is most certainly wiping out Palestinians with starvation and disease. Malnutrition and deaths through lack of medical supplies are rife. This is the result of Israeli “morality”, you will have to agree.

Oh, what “Restraint” you claim, was shown during “Operation Cast Lead”. Is that why white phosphorous was used on civilian areas, contrary to International Law? Is that how 1300-odd people, mostly citizens, died in Gaza? Your figure of 1 in 6 deaths being that of Israeli soldiers is utterly ludicrous. A score or so of IDF died, a large proportion of them through ‘friendly fire’ – doubtless because of this benevolent restraint!

(Did you just make this stuff up, or is this the New Story we’re supposed to hold now?)

*

You might find this comical, Bob – decent people find it horrific. If the Iranians behaved anything like this, I don’t suppose for a moment you’d have the same view. For the rest of us, we would have _exactly_ the same view, regardless of who did it.

That’s the difference between shills for Israel like yourself, and decent people.

Yes, the web-world and MSM are full of lap-dogs, barking the same one-tone barks. All they need is a bone. Give a dog a bone. Woof! Woof! Bow-wow! Down, boy, down!

For more info. on bulldogs/ dogs of war/ straw dogs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaRz-3DYV7c

You know ‘ny more?

Just for the record, can any of our filthy apologists for Israeli thuggery explain something. If they can. Why would the UK would not have been entitled to treat Ireland in exactly the same way as Israel treats Palestinians? After all, the IRA was a bigger threat. They blew up the government, attacked civilian targets all around, and even launched a real rocket (not a Hamas bottle-rocket) hitting Downing Street.

Should Britain have had an “Operation Cast Lead” against Ireland, raining down white phosphorous, scattering cluster bombs and killing civilians by the thousand?

Would Britain not be entitled to starve Ireland with a medieval style siege – for _years_ , and attack anyone who brought them aid with the excuse of “Well, aren’t we allowed to defend ourselves!” ?

Could we not justifiably steal Ireland’s water, its best land, constantly erode its boarders, etc. etc. ?

Couldn’t we criss-cross Ireland with roads for Jews, sorry, British citizens only, and hold up the Irish on check points indefinitely? This would have the effect of sub-dividing Palestine, sorry, Ireland so that people could not travel freely.

Wouldn’t all this be just fair, given the activity of the IRA?

(Oh yes, we’d regrettably be forced to imprison the Irish by the tens of thousands, children too, and torture them as it pleased us.)

And if the Irish had the temerity to respond violently – well, that justifies everything we were doing to them in the first place!

–

Can any Zionist apologist make a genuine attempt to answer my genuine question?

glenn at June 4, 2010 12:19 AM

Lol. Very good analogy.

Oh come off it Craig, it really is time that you stopped playing school boy politics.

There is a also a factial inaccuracy in your reasoning. You state…

‘They ignore those parts of San Remo that specifically state that it is illegal to enforce a general blockade on an entire population. But even apart from that, San Remo simply does not apply.’

I was under the impression that Israel allows humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza via a land route. Which suggests to me that there is no general blockade.

As for your sabre rattling and warmongering – well no doubt it plays well to your audience of student politians, but in the real world is it really your stance that people should be killed just to uphold your untested views on international law?

transfattyacid: There is widespread and growing malnutrition in Gaza. A lack of medical supplies are causing huge incidents of death and disease despite easily treatable conditions – should medicines be available.

Water treatment plants are not working, both due to a lack of spare parts, and a lack of fuel for the pumps. Electricity is in short supply due to the same.

Rebuilding after Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” abomination has not taken place, due to a lack of building supplies.

And you _seriously_ expect us to believe that “there is no general blockade.” Despite this aid flotilla being attacked, when it was utterly clear that it had nothing but aid on board – which was the case, incidentally, in case anyone had overlooked that point.

That tells us far more about your supposed credulity than it tells us about any misconception the rest of us might hold.

@Libertynut

I don’t know about Larry, but as for me…

Liberty was a friendly fire incident no different from the numerous times over the years that the U.S. has bombed or otherwise attacked its own troops or allies. Heck, we have bombed neutral buildings, which aren’t likely to move around to unexpected places. Like the French Embassy in Libya or the Chinese Embassy in the Balkans.

The Israelis bombed one of their own armored columns the day before, so we aren’t talking about infallible targeting.

Liberty was a tragic accident, not a deliberate attack on a U.S. ship.

The Liberty is a thoroughly investigated case that is kept alive purely by anti-Semites and conspiracy theory nut cases.

The main problems with claiming it was a deliberate attack is that there have been several investigations by various agencies and branches of the U.S. government that found that it wasn’t. Also the very facts you quoted are evidence that it was a friendly fire incident, not a deliberate attack on an American ship. 34 dead and a damaged ship. If they intended to attack a U.S. ship, the Israeli forces present could have easily sunk the ship and killed everyone on board.

Tactically, there was no reason for a hostile force to break off the attack, and every reason for a hostile force to continue it. When you have the upper hand, you wipe the enemy forces out, you don’t damage them a bit and then leave.

Then there is the question of motive, the conspiracy nutjobs have made up some garbage about the Israelis wanting to cover something up, but a partial attack can’t cover anything up.

My favorite is “trying to frame Egypt” with an attack that the Israelis reported to the U.S. embassy right after it happened as an accidental attack by Israel. A bit hard to convincingly frame someone when you just admitted it was your mistake.

Conspiracy nuts are fascinating. Basically, you start from the premise that nothing really bad ever happens without malicious intent. Or as was the case in the conspiracy theories of the JFK assassination, that a single bad person with luck on his side can’t have large bad effects.

Once you make that assumption, otherwise insane reasoning becomes understandable.

Some people are terrified by the chaotic nature of the universe. The idea that just at random, without you doing anything wrong you could die. They are somehow comforted more by the idea of large sinister forces that control everything. They find powerful evil less scary than bad luck and screw ups.

Bob: So the USS Liberty was just a “friendly fire” incident? I’m _so_ glad you’ve cleared that one up, historians were jolly puzzled about it. Could you explain the exact reasoning that brought you to such a conclusion? After all, entire books have been written about it – lengthy witness testimony and so forth. Your hand-waving explanations so far do not count.

You appear to postulate that the only argument is whether or not a sinking was intended, and that if the Israelis had intended to attack a US ship, “the Israeli forces present could have easily sunk the ship and killed everyone on board”.

They could also have attacked it to show they could attack it. Why be so simplistic in your reasoning of motive? Personal limitations? Intentional coyness?

*

Since you’re clearly into neatly sewing up complex questions, maybe you’ll have the courage to have a go at explaining why the British shouldn’t have bombed Ireland, and treated it in exactly the way Israel treats Gaza. Have a go, don’t be shy. But no weasling, now!

The answer in the hearts of normal white bourgeoise bigots to the Ireland versus Palestine analogy is simple: The Arabs are jealous, violent animals and incapable of living alongside civilized settlements. The Irish are white.

Yet in the 1840s the standard depiction of Irishmen in American art was of animalistic savages with strange clothing. Americans bought the English propaganda.

I remember when I was young the Chinese were still a phalanx of chillingly robotic murderers who couldn’t be trusted. But 100 years ago they were stupid, childlike fools who required the white man’s orders. Recall the term “Chinese fire drill”?

And in 1918 the Arabs were the heroes fighting alongside Capt. Lawrence in Lowell Thomas’ lurid accounts for Americans.

Ever get the impression that races get added to the “good” list or the “bad” list based on the needs of the powerful? What would the Arabs be like now if Britain had not cheated Faisal out of a united Arab kingdom? What would the Chinese be like now if arch-crook Chiang Kai-Shek installed a Mubarak-like dynasty backed by the US?

And if Britain had indeed decided to annex Ireland for good by crushing its people via Israeli methods, would we now regard all Irishmen as crazy, murderous religious zealots and terrorists?

@glenn

The people of Gaza are at war with Israel. Nothing says that a major population group has to be a sovereign nation to be at war.

“You say the only time people of Gaza are engaged is in response to terrorism. Would you mind explaining how the ceasefire concerning Hamas bottle-rockets actually ended, in that case? Would you care to demonstrate this rather sweeping principle you’ve asserted?”

The ceasefire never began. The number of rocket attacks decreased, but not a month went by without an attack. BTW, they fly 20 miles and have killed people at the other end. Calling them “bottle rockets” is just insulting the intelligence of your non-anti-Semitic readers. Should we start calling the Israeli automatic rifles “pop-guns”.

The major reopening of hostilities was when Israel discovered the Palestinians digging a tunnel across the border to Israel to attack and kidnap Israelis, just like the tunnel they used to capture Gilad Shalit. The Israelis responded to this attempt to invade Israel and capture or kill Israelis by sending men in to destroy the tunnel. The Hamas fighters resisted and some of them got killed. If your enemy is raising his gun to shoot you in the back, and you notice, shooting him first is self-defense.

“Israel is most certainly wiping out Palestinians with starvation and disease. Malnutrition and deaths through lack of medical supplies are rife. This is the result of Israeli “morality”, you will have to agree.”

ROFL. Speaking of “can’t do the math”. OK, rule number one of “how can I tell if a genocide is in progress”: If the population keeps increasing during the period in question, there isn’t a genocide in progress.

During the Gaza war, the Palestinian population of Gaza increased by a couple of thousand.

Israel sends more than enough food and medical supplies into Gaza to feed all of the Gazans. If through corruption and theft by Hamas and other armed groups, some Palestinians get three times what they need and others get none, that’s not Israel’s fault. The food situation in Gaza is far better than in many places in the Middle East.

“Oh, what “Restraint” you claim, was shown during “Operation Cast Lead”. Is that why white phosphorous was used on civilian areas, contrary to International Law?”

Nothing in international law that says you can’t use white phosphorus to make smoke screens, which is what the Israelis did. They weren’t using white phosphorus bombs.

“Is that how 1300-odd people, mostly citizens, died in Gaza?”

If you mean “mostly civilians” then you are mistaken. The names of the dead are known, and even from public records it is possible to find out that many of the “civilians” the Palestinians are reporting dead were members of terrorist organizations. For example “civilian” Nizar Rayan, a leader of Hamas military wing, a man who organized terrorist attacks on civilians. A man who sent his own son to die as a suicide bomber just to kill a couple of Israelis. According to the Palestinian casualty reports: Nizar Rayan was a civilian. Actually, the number of non-terrorists killed was less than 500. The number of terrorists killed was more than 700.

Find me a better kill ratio in an attack on an urban area used as a terrorist base.

“Your figure of 1 in 6 deaths being that of Israeli soldiers is utterly ludicrous. A score or so of IDF died, a large proportion of them through ‘friendly fire’ – doubtless because of this benevolent restraint!”

Oh dear, you can’t do math and you have reading comprehension issues. The 1 in 6 figure wasn’t the number of Israelis killed it was a rough estimate of the fraction of Israeli military people who killed a Palestinian (assuming about 10,000 Israeli soldiers and about 1500 dead).

Seriously, you seem to think Israel said “kill as many Palestinians as possible”. I want to know how many Palestinians you think the average Israeli military member could kill in one day in an area like Gaza. Given modern weapons. Put it like this, if they wanted to wipe out the population of Gaza, with conventional weapons alone, the Israelis wouldn’t need the whole three weeks to do it.

“You might find this comical, Bob – decent people find it horrific. If the Iranians behaved anything like this, I don’t suppose for a moment you’d have the same view. For the rest of us, we would have _exactly_ the same view, regardless of who did it.”

Nice little straw man there. I don’t find the deaths comical at all. I find the deaths of the terrorists satisfying and the deaths of the civilians tragic and entirely the fault of Hamas.

What I find comical is the insane interpretations placed on the number of dead by people who want to see Israel destroyed. Average of under 50 people a day with 10,000 soldiers? Given the circumstances, that’s a reasonable number if your orders are to show restraint.

If your orders are “kill indiscriminately” then they suck. I mean you send out 10,000 soldiers with modern weapons, order them to kill every Palestinian they see, and at least 9,950 of them don’t even kill one in a whole day?

The sad part is that you will just ignore the fact that the numbers are completely at odds with your conclusion. You are so far gone in hating Jews that you won’t even be able to think about the facts, just ignore them.

In your twisted theory about Israel being murderous and blood thirsty, do you have any answer for why so many Israeli soldiers didn’t kill any Palestinians during the war? I’m curious what you will come up with.

“That’s the difference between shills for Israel like yourself, and decent people.”

I’m not a shill for Israel, just someone who thinks about facts and statistics objectively instead of hysterically.

OF course, by “decent people” you mean “people who hate Jews”.

Bob: To respond to you by point.

If Gaza/ Israel is at war, please refer me to the declarations. Otherwise, why not stop talking about subjects you know nothing about, and are beyond you?

A ceasefire was observed, until Israel broke it. And they are indeed bottle-rockets compared with F-16s, helicopter gunships, drone missile attacks, heavy motor, tanks, white phosphorous and storm-troopers who use bystanders as shields as they raid houses, before demolishing them with US provided bulldozers. Would you dare to disagree?

Why not call Israeli rifles “pop-guns”? After all, a 60-foot high, 20-foot thick wall is a “fence”, and armed thugs who build villas with swimming pools actually are “settlers”.

You forgot to answer the question – who resumed hostilities, and broke the cease-fire?

*

Nobody in the UK would have said “You can’t do the math” – you must be confusing this site with Americans blogs on which you are required to respond. That talking-point just don’t apply here, old chum – 0/10 for that, get someone more senior to work this blog. You’re incompetent.

You’re not allowed to use White Phosphorous against people, and that is what the IDF did. International Law be damned, as always, when it comes to the IDF.

Your surmising about what you think I think is about as credible as your recalling of facts on the ground. How many IDF were killed, compared with Palestinians in “operation cast lead”? You said 1/6. I say that’s utter BS on your part. Where’s your rebuff?

And no – the “Kill indiscriminately” was not done in “operation lead” – that was done on previous rampages by the Israelis. I dare you to lie, and deny that the Israelis have never gone on murderous rampages against Palestinians.

Go on, Bob – give us the Big Lie. Tell me that no Israeli force has ever gone on a real, genuine, full-blooded massacre of Palestinians, even while they were in refugee camps. Go on.

@glenn

“Bob: So the USS Liberty was just a “friendly fire” incident? I’m _so_ glad you’ve cleared that one up, historians were jolly puzzled about it.”

Actually no historians are puzzled by it. There are two types of historians, (three is you count historians who never heard of it) the ones who know it was a friendly fire incident, and the conspiracy theorist whack jobs who think is was deliberate.

“Could you explain the exact reasoning that brought you to such a conclusion?”

I did in my last post. Go study.

“After all, entire books have been written about it – lengthy witness testimony and so forth. Your hand-waving explanations so far do not count.”

Entire books have been written about King Arthur, UFOs, ghosts, the JFK assassination and the moon landing being faked. Anyone with a computer, a typewriter, or pen and paper can write a book. They get published based on whether someone thinks they will sell, not on the truth content. A sensational conspiracy theory will outsell a boring truth any time. Some witnesses say one thing, some say another. Unless there was a telepath on board the Liberty, none of the witnesses from there were witnesses to what the Israelis were thinking. Which is the core issue.

Of course, the end result of all the witness testimony and investigations is that 7 U.S. government investigations found it was a friendly fire incident. Zero U.S. government investigations found it was anything but a friendly fire incident.

“You appear to postulate that the only argument is whether or not a sinking was intended, and that if the Israelis had intended to attack a US ship, “the Israeli forces present could have easily sunk the ship and killed everyone on board”.”

The question is whether they intended to attack a ship they knew at the time of the attack was a U.S. ship.

When you attack a ship, you intend to sink it. In fact, it was just luck that the torpedo didn’t sink it. The only reason they would have made one potentially sinking attack and then not follow up with a sinking attack is if they realized they had the wrong target.

“They could also have attacked it to show they could attack it. Why be so simplistic in your reasoning of motive? Personal limitations? Intentional coyness?”

Congratulations, I didn’t think anyone could come up with a stupider explanation than the “frame Egypt while informing the U.S. embassy that it was you”. But you topped it.

At least “to frame an enemy” is a rational motive, even if the facts make it an impossible motive.

You don’t attack an ally to show that you can attack him.

Why not say “because they didn’t like the shade of blue of the ocean that day”. It would make about as much sense.

Like I said, once you presume that nothing bad ever happens by accident, lunatic conspiracy theories follow.

Sorry Glenn, but if you are so far gone in hatred of Jews that you think “just because they are evil” is why they do things, then there is no hope for you.

“Since you’re clearly into neatly sewing up complex questions, maybe you’ll have the courage to have a go at explaining why the British shouldn’t have bombed Ireland, and treated it in exactly the way Israel treats Gaza. Have a go, don’t be shy. But no weasling, now!”

Give us a hard one. Four reasons right off the bat:

1) In N.Ireland and Britain, the number of UK citizens killed by the IRA et al., even in absolute terms was less than the number of Israelis killed by Palestinians. Compared to the population, less than an eighth.

2) The UK is the government in N Ireland. They could arrest people, confiscate weapons making machinery, confiscate weapons. Generally without house to house fighting. Israel can’t do that in Gaza. They aren’t police against armed civilians, they are a government against a belligerent government.

3) The N.Irish weren’t firing hundreds of potentially lethal rockets and mortars a month at the British.

4) Most of the Irish didn’t support the terrorist attacks and the Irish didn’t elect a government with the stated goal of wiping out the non-Irish population of the UK.

@Glenn.

To respond to you point by point.

“If Gaza/ Israel is at war, please refer me to the declarations. Otherwise, why not stop talking about subjects you know nothing about, and are beyond you?”

Well, I could demand that you first show me anything in international law that says that a war must be declared before a blockade is legal (hint, no such law). But instead:

‘Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it’

-Hamas Charter

‘We will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity’ – Hamas leader Fathi Hammad

Sorry glenn, you are just too funny. You remind me of those lunatics we have in the U.S. who think that because a comma was missing (or something equally inane) on the 16th amendment that they don’t have to pay taxes. Newsflash, the instant Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, a state of war existed between the U.S. and the Japanese.

“A ceasefire was observed, until Israel broke it. And they are indeed bottle-rockets compared with F-16s, helicopter gunships, drone missile attacks, heavy motor, tanks, white phosphorous and storm-troopers who use bystanders as shields as they raid houses, before demolishing them with US provided bulldozers. Would you dare to disagree?”

Of course I disagree. A weapon is no less lethal because the enemy has better weapons. A Russian Tank isn’t a “pellet gun” because the U.S. nukes are more destructive.

Obviously Oswald shot JFK with a rubber band because JFK had nukes and Oswald didn’t.

You are simply lying about the weapons the Palestinians are using.

“Why not call Israeli rifles “pop-guns”? After all, a 60-foot high, 20-foot thick wall is a “fence”, and armed thugs who build villas with swimming pools actually are “settlers”.”

Because words have meaning and rifles aren’t pop-guns.

How many people hear “bottle rockets” and think “six foot seven inch long, 200 pounds, 20 pound payload with a range of six miles”? That’s a description of Qassams the Palestinians make in Gaza (those are the little ones).

So drop the bullshit about “relative weapons”. You were trying to lie about the weapons Israeli is being attacked with because you wanted to fool people who don’t already hate Jews the way you do into thinking that Hamas attacks were harmless.

“You forgot to answer the question – who resumed hostilities, and broke the cease-fire?”

Oh, sorry, I thought I was clear. Let me spell it out for you “H.A.M.A.S”. Digging a kidnapping tunnel is an attempted attack. It broke the ceasefire.

“Nobody in the UK would have said “You can’t do the math” – you must be confusing this site with Americans blogs on which you are required to respond. That talking-point just don’t apply here, old chum – 0/10 for that, get someone more senior to work this blog. You’re incompetent.”

Never said I wasn’t an American. Sorry, since American English is beyond you. You can’t do the sums. Happy now? Would you prefer if I said you were innumerate?

“You’re not allowed to use White Phosphorous against people, and that is what the IDF did. International Law be damned, as always, when it comes to the IDF.”

Sorry, but even the Goldstone hatchet job “accept[s] that white phosphorous is not at this stage proscribed under international law”. They suggested its use be banned in built up areas, but that hasn’t happened yet.

“Your surmising about what you think I think is about as credible as your recalling of facts on the ground. How many IDF were killed, compared with Palestinians in “operation cast lead”? You said 1/6. I say that’s utter BS on your part. Where’s your rebuff?”

My rebuff is that you are quite simply lying (again) about what I said. I said the number of Palestinians killed was less than 1/6th the number of soldiers sent in. Not that the number of IDF soldiers killed was 1/6 the number of Palestinians. The number of IDF soldiers killed was about 10-15.

“And no – the “Kill indiscriminately” was not done in “operation lead” – that was done on previous rampages by the Israelis. I dare you to lie, and deny that the Israelis have never gone on murderous rampages against Palestinians.”

Have you stopped beating your wife? I don’t have to lie. The Israeli government has never ordered such a rampage.

Of course, like the Americans, the Irish, the Scots, and every other group on earth the Israelis have their murderous lunatics. On very rare occasions, individual Israelis commit acts of terrorism against Palestinians. Such as in Hebron a few years back.

Such attacks are condemned by the vast majority of Israelis.

“Go on, Bob – give us the Big Lie. Tell me that no Israeli force has ever gone on a real, genuine, full-blooded massacre of Palestinians, even while they were in refugee camps. Go on.”

No Israeli force? If you mean Israeli troops, the closest to a genuine massacre was an attack on a terrorist enclave in Lebanon a few decades back. The Israelis saw most of the population flee before they got there. They blew up a lot of buildings thinking they were deserted. Unfortunately, there were people hiding in them. About 80 casualties IIRC.

Or did you have something else in mind? The Deir Yassin hoax from 62 years ago perhaps? Even if that had been a real massacre, that doesn’t quite help you since your theory is that Israel is murderous and bloodthirsty, not that it was murderous and bloodthirsty three generations ago.

Come on, don’t be afraid to make predictions based on your theory.

Theory: A murderous and bloodthirsty regime sends 10,000 soldiers with all the weapons of a modern army into an area you can drive across in a couple of hours with 1.5 million people in it. The people have enough weapons to be a threat to the civilians of the bloodthirsty regime, but not enough to stop or seriously delay troops who will kill anything that moves.

Now, under your theory. Ballpark estimate, how many people would each troop kill a day (on average)? 1? 5? 10?

Be honest now. It’ll be a new experience for you. How many kills per troop per day (difficulty, no peaking at the actual number dead and working backward).

In fact, anyone who isn’t a raving anti-Semite can play. Given a modern army, 10,000 men, tanks, planes, bombs, etc. Ballpark how many dead per soldier per day?

Bob,

Yo! To provide some context, Glenn is a 911 denier; he apparently believes that the Men in Black pre-wired the Twin Towers.

He also probably thinks that both you and I are sitting in a basement in Dimona or at the Pentagon, engaged in Jewish-American disinformation.

What ignorant nonsense. Of course you can categorise combatants as terrorists if they don’t adhere to international conventions. Combatants are only legitimate if they wear a uniform; are part of an organised military unit; their military unit itself follows international conventions on the conduct of war; etc, etc, etc.

Hamas are not legitimate combatants. Even on the basis of not wearing a uniform, they can be categorised as spies and shot on the spot.

Oh, yes, and Murray the ‘humanitarian’ is now encouraging Hamas to murder even more Israeli civilians.

Why don’t you simply admit it, you ridiculous man: you don’t like uppity Joos.

Nobody in the UK would have said “You can’t do the math” -

Just more lies. I am a Brit, and I certainly would have said it, and have said it, many times, as have many of my friends.

I suppose some people get into the habit of lying about Israel, and they simply can’t stop.

“However, since no war has been declared between Israel and Turkey, the Law does not apply”

Drivel. A state of war exists between Israel and GAZA, which was the declared destination.

Plus: war doesn’t need to be ‘declared’. Germany was at war with Poland the second it attacked. Jordan was at war with Israel the second it attacked.

Why do ignorant Jew-haters feel they HAVE to make such fools of themselves?

@Bob

“What I find comical is the insane interpretations placed on the number of dead by people who want to see Israel destroyed. Average of under 50 people a day with 10,000 soldiers? Given the circumstances, that’s a reasonable number if your orders are to show restraint.

If your orders are “kill indiscriminately” then they suck. I mean you send out 10,000 soldiers with modern weapons, order them to kill every Palestinian they see, and at least 9,950 of them don’t even kill one in a whole day?”

What an insane justification for murdering thousands of civilians!

You are a certifiable lunatic if you consider any of this reasonable and I would be seriously worried to be living in your community.

@John

RE: “Math” instead of Maths.

“I am a Brit, and I certainly would have said it”

An ignorant, ill educated Brit., but a Brit. nonetheless.

@Bob,

“Now, under your theory. Ballpark estimate, how many people would each troop kill a day (on average)? 1? 5? 10?

Be honest now. It’ll be a new experience for you. How many kills per troop per day (difficulty, no peaking at the actual number dead and working backward).

In fact, anyone who isn’t a raving anti-Semite can play. Given a modern army, 10,000 men, tanks, planes, bombs, etc. Ballpark how many dead per soldier per day?”

And again, more disgusting statistical nonsense in an attempt to justify murdering innocent civilians. If these Israeli soldiers are so damn good and restrained then why didn’t they just send 50 in to achieve their killing objective.

You sir, are a criminally insane warmonger, jackboots and swastika’s at the ready!

If you read the San Remo rules you will find that there is no distinction between civil war and a war between states. If I’m mistaken, please point this out.

The question of belligerency is a question of fact, not law or official recognition. Hamas are in effective political control of Gaza but have not declared their entity to be a state. Therefore the state of belligerency between Israel and Gaza, and acts of war between them, are not breaches of international peace and are not acts of aggression.

Hamas is, in relation to Israel, an extraterritorial non-state counterbelligerent. Its acts of belligerency can come within the jurisdiction of Israel according to the protective principle, just as a civil war within a state is within its jurisdiction according to the territorial principle.

Does Gaza have the right to attack Israel with rockets?

International law has nothing to say about jus ad bellum. But it is unlawful under Israeli law, and those who fire these rockets without qualifying as lawful combatants (eg if they are not in uniform) are subject to the jurisdiction of the Israeli courts as common criminals, under the protective principle of jurisdiction. It would not be contrary to international law for Israel to exercise it.

Whether or not they are lawful combatants, Hamas are subject to international law concerning jus in bello, and they can be fixed with responsibility for war crimes if their acts qualify as such.

If Hamas, as a non-state belligerent, wage war in furtherance of a political, religious or ideological cause, then they would qualify as terrorists under British law – possibly under international law as well if sufficiently developed.

On the facts, Hamas have as their aim the imposition of an Islamic state on the ruins of Israel. That is a furtherance of a religious cause and is therefore an act of terrorism.

By any code which denies that Muhammad is a messenger of God, it is also morally unjust.

Ronnie Sofer of Israel News reported on Wednesday 19 September 2007:

“The security cabinet voted on Wednesday to declare the Gaza Strip a hostile political entity. The ministers also discussed the continuous rocket attacks against Israel.

“The unanimous vote also authorized the imposing of economic sanctions against Gaza, so long as they do not affect the civilian population. The measures to be taken against Gaza include cutting back on the supply of electricity and fuel, in accordance with international law.

“Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said that Israel’s decision constituted a ‘declaration of war.’”

So there’s your declaration of war!

Mr. Ambassador, you say that “There is no war” but the Gazans have the right to fire rockets into Israeli towns. Is sending rockeats at someone is not a practical announce of being at a state of war? Should the attacked person wait for a verbal decleration of the killer who point a gun on him? Or he may act before announcing some declaration into the open air?!?!

Israel is in war with Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. There are daily clashes between Hamas and its allies against Israel. Shooting rockets and sending bomb-terrorists into Israel means that there is practically a state of war. There is no need to vote in the Parliament, even it might be that there was such a vote. In any case, in the official papers of the state of Israel and in the Hamas announcements every sane person knows that both side are talking war. The Hamas even go further and claims war against non existing state which the call “the Zionist entity”, which is not shown on their maps. The Hamas calls to annihilate Israel in its and its leaders’ declarations. http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818.htm , http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/ .

What it has to do with “complaints”? Does one side can’t complain on the other side just because they are enemies? If there is a side that is more-complaining that is the Hamas side. Is that means that they are not extreme Islamist enemies of the Israelis? What a loop of thinking you use?!

What is your explanation for your saying the “Gaza has every right to attack Israel with rockets”?

So you accept the very fact that Gaza fire rockets at Israel because “they have right”. In that case, doesn’t you think that Israel has the right to prevent that shooting by military means? And if I’ll proceed your way of thinking in that case, because there is a state of war, Israel has the right to initiate any attack on military and civilian targets in Gaza (why civilian target? Because according to you the Hamas has the right to fire on Israeli civilian targets in Israel!). Your way of interpretation the law is quite bizarre.

In order to defend your judicial stand you ask to ignore the fact that the Hamas and other terror groups are firing rockets into Israel as a daily mission, as the Germans bombed Britain. Is that means that Britain hadn’t the right to defend itself by any plan needed to stop the German rockets? I didn’t check if the British government decided officially and vote for a “state of war” with Germany, but I’m sure that Churchill encouraged the British people to stand still against the attacks and to energize any power to fight back and to beat the Germans. Israel acts the same as Britain did, but their lucky because their Palestinian enemy is very dull, weak and incompetence. But that either doesn’t Israel’s fault! But their good luck. Opening a new supply corridor through the sea to Gaza port will change the odds and will turn that conflict to be more intensity, which will imposed upon the Israelis to react more aggressively. That would damage the Gazans more than they damaging their cause today. More Gazans than today will leave Gaza for good.

The frequency of Israeli complaints about rocket attacks are much less than rockets attacks themselves. Can’t a state complaint because of being attacked by rockets? Is the complain itself minimize the virtue and the verity of the claim? Is just because Israel says so you can presume the opposite? How can you explain your assertion that “Israel does not believe” when her officials say the opposite?

The war between Israel and Gaza is not a war between two states, but between one formal state and one terrorist entity that lays on fractions of some terror movements that sometimes fighting among themselves. Half of the Arab Palestinian chose to go with the Fatah that deny the rights of the Hamas to rule over Gaza (because forgeries and false election process). The war between both is not between states and in that case the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply. The UN failed to accept some “War against Terror Convention” from the last 20 years and there is no any international law that matches the current situation to deal with the Israeli-Palestinians conflict. I would say that the Maritime international law is not appropriate too, but because we might suggest that practical attitude of the law is to protect the peace and the states, I can interpret the existing law on the case before us, in order to compete the dangerous situation the extreme Islamic forces in Gaza want to impose on Israel, Gazans and the whole region. That’s why the Palestinian terrorists are not prisoners of war by law, but prisoners of terror. In any case the Israelis give the terrorists better conditions in jail than the Brits gave / give the IRA freedom fighters. The terrorists in jails have weekly meeting with their lawyers and families, they eat well healthy and tasty food, see television all day long, play most of the time, and study at the Open University. Israeli jails prepared many terrorist to be doctors through their stay on custody! Most of the terrorist are freed before time by seasonal agreements with the Fatah / PLO. The conditions that Israel is holding the terrorists at jails are better than applied and demanded in the Geneva Convention.

Israel is state that preserves the law very strictly, much better than many western states. I see no real case and argument in your baseless tongue-lashing on Israel, but a little bit of hate mongering based on lack of knowledge or miss-knowledge… . or maybe something else? But I’m glad that you have the moral courage to denounce the “Hamas rocket attacks into Israel”. But you have to understand that Israel denounced too, but had no choice but to deal practically with that problem through military ways. The first obligation of any government is to defend the lives and property of its citizens. I don’t want to ask you what Britain would have done to protect you if some terror German group was to fire onto Britain 8000 rockets in 9 years… .. or would have Britain confront that threat proper at time to stop the shooting after the first rocket, or may be the 100 rocket? I wonder.

Well, I’m glad everyone is talking about the USS Stark that was attacked by Iraqis.

Of course, everyone has always said there was some conspiracy by the Iraqis to sink the Stark just like there so obviously was with the Liberty.

That’s why everyone is always talking about the Stark these days just as they are with the Liberty, right?

AbeBird, tweet, tweet. More Uber-Zionist garbage from a selection of posters on this, and related threads, by people who never post here normally – my, my, they are on overtime this week, aren’t they? And angry, too, gosh how their anger fizzles and sparks like little hydrogen sulphide balloons.

The Uber-Zionists are like mini-Santa Clauses, except with blood and plutonium dust on their hands. Bye-bye, guys, your big lies and long passages won’t work any more – no-one believes the Big Lie any more. You guys are like big Oliver Hardy – a mass of fat and slapstick!

Fatuous ideas, supporting imperium and facilitating the killing of those whom they see as “wogs” and “cockroaches”.

No more.

Why do you say that if a country is at war, it cannot treat its prisoners as terrorists, when Professor Sandys mentioned in evidence to the JCHR that George Bush had done precisely that? Bush counted all opponents in the war on terror as terrorists in order to claim that they had no rights under the Geneva Convention.

do you even read what you are writing ?

“I have consistently denounced Hamas rocket attacks into Israel. I have categorised them as terrorism. If Israel wishes now to declare it is in armed conflcit with Gaza, I withdraw my opposition and indeed would urge Hamas to step up such attacks to the maximum. ”

hamas fired attacked israel fore more then 8 years, he attack not 1 but 5 different cities, think what your government will do in such position ?

let’s say for a second there is a state of war: Hamas fighters should wear uniforms, treat GILEAD SHALIT as a prisoner of war- reminder- he’s not been allowed but one vieo, for which Israel has “paid” 20 terrorists, and HAMAS IS FORBIDDEN TO HURL ITS MISSILES ON CIVILIAN POPULATIONS, AS THEY HAVE BEEN DOING FOR 8 YEARS. The Israelis let in all humanitarian aid.

Anais,

As you know very well, the Palestinians have killed 10 civilians in the last six years, the Israelis about 2,800.

Yes, if there was a state of war those things you say should indeed happen. But there isn’t a state of war. Gilead Shalit should be released, of course.

Suhayl Saadi; Have you something of value to say?

Anais; Do the Israelis have to apology because they can better defend themselves and that the terrorists dreams do not meet their ability to murder Jews? Why do you think that the Muslims want to open Gaza free? They need it free for bigger rockets and missiles. It’s their natural wish of course. But Israel natural wish is to keep the Hamas arsenal as dull as possible. A Legitimate purpose.

Just last week the Israelis killed 5 “innocent” Palestinians: 2 that succeeded to cross over the border fence from Gaza with rifles, bombs and ammunition, and 3 others “people of peace” that prepared a Kassam launcher to be delivered at Israeli civilians. The Israel missile hit the 3 seconds before the Kassam were to be launched. So, do you wish to blame the Jews that they have killed 5 Arabs while they were protecting themselves quite better? Do the Israelis should sacrifice some of them in order to meet your demands and satisfaction and to equal the dots? What kind of logic you are using?

ISRAELI IS NO BETTER THAN THE SOMALI PIRATES!

Hi Suhayl – I expect AbeBird might be an Israeli, and his/her perspective is highly likely to be modified by the anti-Palestinian status quo in Israel, the highly militarised nature of Israel, and the financial/social/power incentives to be one-sided in favour of Israel.

But don’t let these people annoy you, even if they have been called to post via their Megaphone system. For the new posters, I would be inclined to ask a simple question, such as whether they support peace and justice for both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Troublemakers can usually be weeded out quite early, as the often have a problem with the last bit, and offer provisos and qualifications.

@AbeBird – I’d love to hear where you’re from, so we can assess your perspective. I take the view that terror or murder from either side is counterproductive – would you agree? I am not persuaded by the idea that the disproportionate death toll is evidence that Israel can defend itself better – it is better armed, to be sure, thanks to US aid and a blind eye to UN resolutions – but is it not possible from your perspective that Israel is too aggressive, and is discrediting itself?

Would you support a two-state solution back to the 1967 borders? It would require the repatriation of all settlers back to Israel, on the basis that Israel should not have expanded in the first place. But your settlers would not move, and it would be a rare Israeli politician that would try it (it has been tried in small blocs, with violent resistance). Hamas would accept this in a deal, I believe, but Israel has been backed into a corner and does not want to offer it. It appears to want endless war, but that does both sides no good at all. What should Israel be prepared to do to secure a lasting peace?

Incidentally, I support peace and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians. Do you?

Jon; I expect you to be a Muslim as Suhayl and that you’re modified by Anti -Israelism (or by Helen Thomas’s kind of Anti-Semitism) status quo in your Millie.

I am a Belgian, where are you from? Are you Craig? Terror is not counterproductive as we see in the Palestinian case. The Arabs of Palestine succeeded to build a fabricated Arab people to challenge the Jewish existence in the land of Israel. Much of this success is due to their terrorizing behave and policy. Terror is a legitimate tool in the eyes of the western Lefties, that holding that ideology more than a century now (Bolshevik Revolution, Red power, People terror groups such as Baader Meinhoff, Che Guevara, executing hard and violent policies against opposers etc.).

How can a “people” can call himself and its own “native” and “historical” land and nationhood with a letter ["P"] which is not exist in their language at all? There is no “P” in Arabic so that’s why Arabs turned the “P” to “F”. If that land was genuinely Arab’s and if there were some really historical separate and special Arab people of Palestine, they would have called themselves naturally with their own name describing their entity. But It didn’t happen. This phenomenon is just one of many that contradict the new imaginary architected history of the existing of some unique Arab Palestinian people through history. We didn’t meet that “people” until Arabs started to blow themselves in order to kill Jews. As a part of the Arabs war of Jihad they are producing temporary means and tools, from historical point of view, to meet their general cause. The Israelis stand alone in front of waves of Islamic attacks, protecting themselves and much of the Western society. Weakening Israel is a significant act against the West and Democracies.

UN resolutions equal nothing. All the votes there are against Israel and it shows that the UN is a bunch of 57 Islamic states enforced by 80 3rd world Arab oil-dependent states. It is not a court of justice but a public court of mobs led by political infidels and immoral corrupted societies.

I don’t care what is the political solution that both sides should achieve and accept at the end through political means only. It’s their problem. But I can observe and raising up some facts that should make you think again on that matter.

now you can shut down this stupid blog…

trying to equate Hamas to a civilized ppl is asinine!

That why I love America, albeit the current POTUS/CIC…

here you go idiots!

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

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;

@Redders

Wow, is English not your first language? Because either you have terrible reading comprehension, or you are simply deliberately lying about my position.

The question (which I note you didn’t answer) is about testing a theory. That’s how you figure out whether a theory is false. You make a prediction based on the theory and you see if that holds up.

The anti-semites (check your mirror) have a theory that Israel wanted to kill as many people as they could. That theory predicts a casualty count of the number of people a soldier can kill in a day, times the number of soldiers, times the number of days.

The number of soldiers was at least 10k, the number of days was more than 20, the only missing number is how many kills can a soldier make per day.

If the answer is 1, then the anti-semites’ theory predicts 200k dead. Does the prediction match the facts? Nope. So the theory is false and the people who believe it are anti-Semites or idiots.

If Israel wanted to kill 1500 people in Gaza in 3 weeks, 50 soldiers would have been plenty. Just 1.66 people per day per soldier (with Saturday off).

BTW, none of this is an attempt to justify anything, just a demonstration that people who think Israel went in to slaughter people are morons.

Oh, and the number of civilians killed was about 400, not “thousands”.

A naval blockade is defined in Article 7.71 of the U.S. Naval Handbook as “a belligerent operation to prevent vessels and/or aircraft of all nations, enemy as well as neutral, from entering or exiting specified ports, airfields, or coastal areas belonging to, occupied by, or under the control of an enemy nation (governing entity – Hamas – Which stated so many time by word and deeds, that is intention to destroy Israel!).”

Israel fulfilled all obligations in relationship to Naval Blockade of Gaza in accordance to 1994 by the San Remo Institute of International Law:

Israel had no obligation to take the ships’ crew at their word as to the nature of the cargo or make the Turkish Jahadists of IHH execption to the rule!

Being attacked with metal rods and knives IDF commandos could not use paint-ball guns they had in hands in order to protect their own lives, could they?

It’s always quite funny to see people arguing about the rules of war, and who can throw rockets or bullets at whom and still be “legal”. The answer is always quite simple – the winners.

If you don’t believe me, and you think there’s some merit to “international law”, I’d invite you to go and visit Dresden and Nagasaki. Or, frankly, Baghdad. The level of “discrimination” between civilian and military targets is not quite as precise as the US Dept of Defense would like us to believe. Bottle rockets or not, the attacks from Gaza would be perfectly within the normal range of civilised European warfare, as far as civilian casualties go.

Of course, if we want to decide that only populations capable of arming their militaries with the latest in modern technology and training can decide the standard for what is “indiscriminate” or not, then I think we reveal our own biases – and indeed, it could be no other way. The whole “war crimes” thing is always an oxymoronic attempt to cover the sins of the winning side, which is why the arguments always trend towards the hilariously discombobulated and incoherent when the winners find themselves on the back foot.

It will be interesting to see the international fallout on this, certainly, but rather more so to see the internal fallout within Israel. Will the trend towards hard-right authoritarianism and short-term lunacy continue with every provocation by the nutters in the Palestinian elite? Or will the populations on both sides begin to realise that neither the Israeli Hard Right nor the Hamas power bloc gives much of a shit what happens the populations they are ostensibly elected to represent, as long as they secure and expand their own feifdoms within the kingdom. The optimist in me would like to believe that the latter will happen, but he has unfortunately been taken out back and summarily executed by the cynic in me.

What is for certain is that the international response will have bugger-all to do with the so-called “laws” as written and everything to do with the political games played from here out.

Oh, and I do not agree that in the event of a formal declaration of war that Hamas should bomb more Israeli targets. But, I just don’t see how one could make the argument that they should not, unless one also believes that World War II was won by criminal means.

Of course, this extends to Israel too, and as a nuclear power run by a group of people which appears to fervently believe its own propaganda that every single person in Palestine is a subhuman Hitler just waiting to wipe the nation off the face of the planet, I’ve struggled for years with what the hell the strategic benefit of anything other than a full-scale genocide actually is. If I were to specifically design a military strategy that would ensure the continuation of a low-scale military conflict and occasional unnecessary death among the Israeli population, I do not think I could do better than they have done. While the Right Wingers do benefit from it, though, I think this is just an interesting example of the evolution of policies once a mentality of war and righteous nationalism takes hold: you end up with this metastable clusterfuck that no sensible person could ever think was a good idea but too many entrenched interests benefit from in their own tiny ways. The only way out of such a scenario is by raising the crisis stakes considerably, changing the rules of the game, and since both sides are benefiting from the continuing low-intensity conflict, and the resultant misery, nobody will wish to risk losing what they have by going all-in at this stage.

If Israel is not at war with Hamas would someone please tell Hamas?

Heck, I think it is even in their charter.