# Turkish flagged vessel attack \[What if?--becomes What now?\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765 "2010-05-25T23:32:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 35
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/681 "2010-06-02T19:46:24Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > I’m equally impressed with Hamas’ governance. You can see from one of the other cites that the infant mortality rate dropped quite a bit after they came to power. Too bad about the rockets. It isn’t all that surprising that Hamas does a better job of social welfare that the Palestinain Authority - my impression is that this is exactly why they won the election: that the PA was hopelessly incompetent and corrupt, and Hamas actually established a grass-roots social-welfare system. Unfortunately for Gazans, Hamas (unlike the PA) is also devoted to endless religious warfare with Israel. As to the figures - the impressive part is how the blockade has not physically harmed the civilian population (though admittedly annoying them with arbitrary restrictions on coreander etc.) ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/682 "2010-06-02T19:48:48Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > No. Actually you cited wikipedia to maintain a false-to-facts definition whereby “starvation” meant to do something other than starve. No. No. A fucking million times no. You clearly stated that starvation requires death - hence you demanding statistics of death due to starvation. I’ll put this on a separate lien for you, so you can’t miss it: Starvation does not automatically require or imply death. I’m on a Mac right now. OSX’s built-in dictionary uses this as the very first definition for the verb “starve”: > [@](#): > > (of a person or animal) suffer severely or die from hunger : she left her animals to starve | seven million starved to death | [as adj.] ( starving) the world’s starving children. Note two things: 1. OR die from hunger. 2. The usage of a qualifier in starved TO DEATH. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > I think that was some time around the point where you declared that chcocolate is an essential food in everybody’s diet as proven by the fact that the US army included cigarettes in their ration packs. Or chocolate. One of them was included and that showed it was essential and the other was included and that showed nothing, I forget which standard you’re using. I believe you also claimed that any food, at all, that has antioxidants must be a necessity due to the presence of antioxidants, just like elephant flank steaks are a necessity since people need to eat protein. Chocolate is calorie-rich. Milk chocolate is also a source of calcium. It is also a treat, keeping the spirits up of those that are being bombed to fuck. As pointed out to you earlier, cigarettes aren’t part of field rations anywhere in the world. On the Wiki page regarding field rations only one mentioned the possibility - Greece. Chocolate, however, is in all of them. To quote Wiki again, this is why: > **[Military chocolate (United States)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_chocolate)** > > Military chocolate has been a part of standard United States military rations since the original D-ration bar of 1937. Today, military chocolate is issued to troops as part of basic field rations and sundry packs. Chocolate rations served two purposes: as a morale boost, and as a high-energy, pocket-sized emergency ration. Military chocolate rations are often made in special lots to military specifications for weight, size, and endurance. The majority of chocolate issued to US military personnel ... > [@](#): > > Chocolate rations served two purposes: as a morale boost, and as a high-energy, pocket-sized emergency ration. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > In any case, to claim that there’s a crisis while people are not at any risk of death which again, you still won’t actually cite but keep talking about a “crisis!” An increase in infectious disease (which I did not ignore, quite contrary to your inaccurate claim) does not constitute a crisis either. [http://www.unicef.org/media/media\_49515.html](http://www.unicef.org/media/media_49515.html) > [@](#): > > UNRWA primary health clinics in the south are recording significantly higher prevalence of water and sanitation-related infectious diseases, including acute bloody diarrhea, over the same period last year Not simply “An increase in infectious disease”. Actually, sod this. If you can’t see that a country that has been bombed to fuck, has a water system so fucked up now that people are suffering from stuff like “acute bloody diarrhea” and malnutrition is widespread isn’t in a crisis then I’m just speechless. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Words have meaning. > You can talk about a problem, you can talk about the actual number of people effected, but if your argument is based around bombast then it means nothing. If people being in no danger at all of starvation and receiving adequate calorie counts is a “crisis and people are starving!” then it’s pretty clear that it’s an argument in search of facts rather than facts informing an argument. “No danger at all of starvation”. I really am fucking speechless. [http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/oPt\_1535.html](http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/oPt_1535.html) Note that this includes the “safer” West Bank: > [@](#): > > Chronic malnutrition affects nearly 10 per cent of children under age five. The situation is most acute in Gaza, where 50,000 children are malnourished. About half of children under age two are anaemic and 70 per cent have vitamin A deficiency. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/683 "2010-06-02T19:51:34Z")
[QUOTE=Mogle] I think you are missing the detail that Israel allow cinnamon, tea and coffee into Gaza, why do they allow that but not coriander and chocolate? [/QUOTE] The reasons are in your cite, especially if you read between the lines. Israel’s strategy seems to be to cause maximum inconvenience both the ordinary Gaza citizens and to groups trying to provide aid, without actually causing them physical harm. They seem to shift what is or isn’t allowed based not on items cast in concrete, but on continually updated lists of shortages and surpluses, and also on what goods and services ordinary citizens seem to be demanding (which would then go on the denied lists), and what they aren’t. I don’t think many people in this thread (or several people who were quoted in your cite) are grasping WHY Israel is blockading Gaza, or what they are trying to achieve. They aren’t doing this solely to hurt Hamas, or strictly based on military goods only. It’s similar to the embargoes that the US and the EU put in place against Iraq and North Korea (or Iran for that matter). They are designed to cause the populace discomfort and dissatisfaction in the long term, and (in theory) to turn them against those who have brought about those embargoes onto the populace by making them increasingly unpopular. Whether this works or not is a separate issue, but that’s the idea here. So, while it might not seem logical to block the importation of chocolate but allow tea, it actually makes sense when you consider what Israel is actually trying to achieve with the blockade, and when you consider that they deliberately shift around the items that are or aren’t being banned at any given time (plus don’t officially publish exactly what those luxury good items are). -XT ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/684 "2010-06-02T19:58:27Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Please get the facts straight. > Israel’s supreme court evidently said that _Gaza_ could not be considered an occupied territory, unless you have a cite to the contrary it has never said the same about the West Bank. What the merry fuck are you talking about? Who the fuck is talking about the West fucking Bank? I have mentioned that place for the VERY FIRST TIME in a post about 2 minutes ago, where I pointed out that the statistics included the “safer” West Bank. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > I can’t either. You were just arguing that you _weren’t_ claiming that self-identification determined applicability of the GC. I pointed out that you were. Now you’re arguing it, yet again. But okay, one more time, with feeling. What the hell are you on about? > [@FinnAgain](#): > > As stated above, the first half is incorrect. The second is false as well. Under the 4th GC a station has a positive obligation to provide certain basic provisions to the occupied populace. Without such a rule in force, there is no such obligation at all. That Israel does view itself as being obligated to provide the adequate amount of supplies to Gaza gainsays your claim. > > The 4th GC applies in a state of occupation. Occupying powers are granted certain courses of action which are allowable to them and restricted from others, as well as having certain issues mandated. An occupying power may, rather obviously, engage in allowed behavior under the laws of occupation even if someone else contends that violations are not properly punished. My God, despite being given a cite from the Supreme Court of Israel stating that the Gaza Strip was not an Occupied Territory and him accepting that he was wrong and that he was not aware of that ruling you are now claiming that the “first half” of this “is incorrect”: > [@](#): > > As Israel does not see itself as an occupying power Israel does not feel the need to act as an occupying power as set by the Geneva Conventions. Let me repeat that: Dspite being given a cite from the Supreme Court of Israel stating that the Gaza Strip was not an Occupied Territory and him accepting that he was wrong and that he was not aware of that ruling you are now claiming that “Israel does not see itself as an occupying power” is incorrect. I give up. Seriously. Do you actually read posts or just randomly type shit out? You are aware that we can read previous posts? I have to stop there. The levels of pure stupidity and ignorance being shown by you are going to get me into some serious trouble with the moderators. ---
**Author:** ![Noone\_Special](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/noone_special/32/2863_2.png) [@Noone\_Special](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noone_Special)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/685 "2010-06-02T20:00:34Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > [Here’s the CIA World Factbook on the Gaza Strip, dated from 2000.](http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2000/geos/gz.html) If these numbers are reliable, infant mortality in Gaza is down over the last 10 years, life expectancy is up, the death rate is down, and the birth rate is down. > > 2000: > Today: Out of curiosity, I dug out the data for all years, 2000-2010, according to the _CIA World Factbook_ ```auto Year Life exp. at birth Infant mortality source 2000 70.82 25.97 http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2000/geos/gz.html 2001 71.01 25.37 http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2001/geos/gz.html 2002 71.2 24.76 http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2002/geos/gz.html 2003 71.4 24.15 http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2003/geos/gz.html 2004 71.59 23.54 http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2004/geos/gz.html 2005 71.79 22.93 http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2005/geos/gz.html 2006 71.97 22.4 http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2006/geos/gz.html 2007 72.16 21.88 http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2007/geos/gz.html 2008 73.16 19 http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2008/geos/gz.html 2009 73.42 18.35 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate 2010 73.68 17.71 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html ``` So, it looks like the blockade has had no adverse effect on the continuing improvement in these two statistics. IMO, this means that teh blockade **is** causing hardship for the local population, but **is not** in any way creating a Humanitarian Crisis, at least not judging by these two stats. To address the whole issue from the POV of another Israeli citizen: - In the grand scheme of things, I think that the blockade is necessary, because of the insistence of Hamas on manufacturing/obtaining the ability to bomb the Israeli **civilian population** beyond perhaps all other goals. The government of Israel has a higher duty to the children of Sderot and Ashkelon than to the children of Gaza. That’s just the way it is (yes, “monkey-spheres.”) - As the factbook figures seem to suggest, and despite claims to the contrary, apparently enough food staples are getting into the Gaza Strip to keep the population, including newborns, as healthy or healthier than they were before the beginning of the blockade; there is a constant improvement in the key statistics of Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality, continuing unabated since the year 2000, with no dip at all even in the **rate of improvement** since the blockade has been in place. - I agree that the exclusion of many types of food from the list of allowed articles is a mistake, for both humanitarian and _real-politik_ reasons. I mean, chocolate? Corriander? Let them eat chocolate and corriander… - I also agree that the **tactical** execution of the blockade was, in this instance, to put it **very** mildly, a “monumental clusterfuck” :o :smack: - Both of which points bring me to the penultimate point, which is, that in terms of both overall leadership ability, as well as in terms of tactical crisis management, I wouldn’t want Ehud Barak nor Benjamin Netanyahu in charge of supervising my gold-fish bowl, let alone my country and military. Unfortunately, last election cycle, more than 51% disagreed with me. I believe many Americans who lived through 2000-2008 can sympathize with me on that… - And, ultimately, while I completely agree that the treatment of the flotilla was **very badly** botched – and this is going to cost us hugely in the future in terms of our ability to block arms from reaching Hamas – I **still** think that philosophically/strategically the blockade is justifiable both morally and in terms of international law. Which is not to say that I don’t feel horrible about the loss of life on the _Marmara_, nor that I don’t feel sympathy for Jamal Average in Gaza who rightfully won’t take to the streets against Hamas, but secretly wishes this war would be over and he could just make a living. As a side note to the whole debate – **Finn** , you are a **very** good source of factual information, but I have to say that your debating tactics tend, in my mind, to alienate the middle-of-the-roaders trying to interact with you. If we (you and I and other Israel backers) define “success” in this thread as “succeeding in making the average participant in this thread leave it slightly more sympathetic to Israel than when then came in,” I’m afraid that at the end of the day you may be winning all the battles, but losing the war. Sometimes, it’s worthwhile just to let go and not micro-debate every last point, even if you **are** factually right… Not attacking you, obviously _I_ think your heart is in the right place 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/686 "2010-06-02T20:29:25Z")
This [post](http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/why-is-israels-blockade-of-gaza-legal/)on a legal blog has some interesting discussion on applicability of the international law of blockades and it makes a convincing case that it applies to international armed conflicts (IAC) between states and not non-state conflict. Of course even if the San Remo manual is applicable it asserts principles like proportionality and international humanitarian law which IMO are clearly violated by Israel’s blockade. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/687 "2010-06-02T20:35:09Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > Starvation does not automatically require or imply death. Yes, it does. If you keep on starving you die. If you can maintain a level of food intake that will allow you to live out your entire life until you die of old age, you are not _starving_. At the point where you define starvation as something other than the lack of nutrients needed for life, then it’s lost any operational definition. One can of course arrest the progress of starvation by _eating food_, but starvation that goes unchecked results in death. If you’re claiming that a state of “starvation” exists _which can exist indefinitely_ then you’re talking about something quite different from starvation. Then again, as your argument is at the point where you’re claiming that chocolate is an essential food as proven by the fact that the US army includes it in rations, but cigarettes are not a necessary item as proven despite the fact that the US army included them, well… Your argument is proceeding backwards from a conclusion to find facts. It is now at the level of: ‘Starvation is going on and can go on forever as children grow up, have children and die of old age. And essential foods are not being provided, we know this because chocolate is not in supply.’ > [@amanset](#): > > Not simply “An increase in infectious disease”. Yes, actually, that’s exactly the situation. And its one that you’re cherrypicking the facts about, to boot. I already provided the cite, I’ll quote some more from it. [ > [@](#): > > Watery diarrhoea as well as acute bloody diarrhoea and viral hepatitis remain the major causes of morbidity among reportable infectious diseases in the refugee population of the Gaza Strip. Immunization coverage remains high across the Gaza Strip. > > Contaminated water samples have been found in the public water supply, water storage tanks, and in water wells in areas that were severely damaged during the war. An increasing trend was evident for watery diarrhoea cases after the crisis, however, no communicable disease outbreak occurred in the Gaza Strip. > > By the end of March the reported incidence from UNWRA clinics of acute watery diarrhoea in children less than 3 years of age breached the alarm threshold. However, this trend fluctuated for several weeks, did not imply an outbreak and was consistent with the disease’s seasonal variations. > > By the end of April, viral hepatitis also breached the alarm threshold but the pattern of reported cases was not consistent with an epidemic. Special clustering was noticed in Beach camp. > > According to UNRWA’s epidemiological surveillance system, no other major diseases showed breaches of alarm and alert thresholds during the last six months and their incidence remained within the seasonally expected range. ]([http://www.emro.who.int/palestine/reports/monitoring/WHO\_special\_monitoring/gaza/Gaza%20Health%20Assessment%20(29Jun09).pdf](http://www.emro.who.int/palestine/reports/monitoring/WHO_special_monitoring/gaza/Gaza%20Health%20Assessment%20%2829Jun09%29.pdf)) This is the problem, when the normal seasonal variations of a disease are a humanitarian crisis, we’re no longer using terms with any meaning besides political impact. > [@amanset](#): > > “No danger at all of starvation”. I really am fucking speechless. Apparently not. And you just cited something that debunks the hyperbolic nonsense about a “humanitarian crisis due to starvation!” Yes, there are Iron deficiencies, yes, there are vitamin deficiencies. No, one is not “starving” if they don’t get enough vitamin C in their diet. Otherwise America’s got a whole lot of starving fat people. :rolleyes: You’re also cherrypicking data there. I already cited UNICEF’s findings. Underweight children were roughly 1.5 percent of the population group. The percentage who evinced stunting are actually the lowest in the middle east (with Israel excluded, we would imagine). On the other hand, _overweight children make up about 16% of the population group_. > [@amanset](#): > > Who the fuck is talking about the West fucking Bank? 😃 You. You claimed that Israel was not an occupying power, at least according to its supreme court. That was false, as the SC’s verdict you cited only applied to Gaza. I asked you to provide a cite that it applied that verdict to the West Bank. I’m pretty sure the repeated use of “fuck” is not a cite. > [@amanset](#): > > you are now claiming that “Israel does not see itself as an occupying power” is incorrect. Yep, because it is incorrect. It would be correct if you stated that, instead of a blanket situation, Israel didn’t view its control over Gaza as constituting belligerent occupation. It would be even better if you stated that Israel doesn’t view its control over Gaza as constituting a belligerent occupation, but it does view itself as having responsibilities that are in accord with many of the requirements of occupying powers. Ironically, you yourself provided a cite that discusses the fact that Israel views itself as having more responsibilities than a non-occupying power. You cherrpicked the quotes you wanted and didn’t quote the rest, right around them. > [@](#): > > the Gaza Strip should not be regarded as a territory that is subject to a belligerent occupation from the viewpoint of international law, even though because of the unique situation that prevails there, the State of Israel has certain duties to the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip (for the position that the Gaza Strip is not now subject to a belligerent occupation, see Yuval Shany, ‘Faraway So Close: The Legal Status of Gaza after Israel’s Disengagement,’ 8 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2005 (2007) 359; see also the judgments of the International Court of Justice in Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda, where the importance of a physical presence of military forces was emphasized for the existence of a state of occupation: Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda (ICJ, 19 December 2005), at paragraph 173; with regard to the existence of certain obligations that the State of Israel has in the prevailing circumstances vis-à-vis the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, see HCJ 9132/07 Elbassiouni v. Prime Minister (unreported decision of 31 January 2008). That’s an interesting case which dealt with the humanitarian obligations that Israel had towards Gaza as balanced by security considerations. There’s also the fact that even though a state of belligerent occupation may have been rescinded in 2008, the decision in 2007 in fact reinforced the conclusion that Israel was bound by international law in the treatment of the population of Gaza. The relevant laws would be “Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.” [ > [@](#): > > 1. We have said, on more than one occasion, that we do not intervene in the question of the effectiveness or the wisdom of the security measures adopted by those responsible for security, but only in the question of their legality. Our role is limited to judicial review of compliance with the rules of Israeli and international law that bind the State of Israel, which the respondents declared before us are being scrupulously observed by the state. In this regard it has been said in the past that in times of war legal norms continue to apply, and the laws of war should be observed. > […] > Notwithstanding, as we said above, the State of Israel is committed to acting against the terrorist organizations within the framework of the law and in accordance with the provisions of international law, and to refrain from intentional harm to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip. In view of all of the information presented to us with regard to the supply of electricity to the Gaza Strip, we are of the opinion that the amount of industrial diesel that the State said it intends to supply, as well as the electricity that is continually supplied through the power lines from Israel, are capable of satisfying the essential humanitarian needs of the Gaza Strip at the present. ]([Redirect Notice](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=spellmeleon_result&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CBIQhgIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Felyon1.court.gov.il%2Ffiles_eng%2F07%2F320%2F091%2Fn25%2F07091320.n25.pdf&ei=1L4GTPTOL4O0lQfDut3iCg&usg=AFQjCNH37AxmiWK3-1kJVci1tOevpxNv9Q&sig2=UhrRXhIFA13go5FaY6QImA)) ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/688 "2010-06-02T20:50:14Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Israel’s what it wants to be according to the occasion: > > [**Piracy on the Blood-Red Sea**](http://www.counterpunch.org/gordon06022010.html) > – underline mine. The 1994 Gaza-Jericho agreement served as the basis for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. In it, Israel was given authority to act precisely as it did on Monday. The relevant sentence states: “As part of Israel’s responsibilities for safety and security within the three Maritime Activity Zones, Israel Navy vessels may sail throughout these zones, as necessary and without limitations, and may take any measures necessary against vessels suspected of being used for terrorist activities, or for smuggling arms, ammunition, drugs, goods, or for any other illegal activity…” ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/689 "2010-06-02T20:53:40Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > If Egypt had been conducting a similar land-based blockade on the other side of Gaza, why wasn’t Hamas launching rockets into Egypt as well? Thats a good question, why do you think gaza is launching rockets into Israel and not into Egypt? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/690 "2010-06-02T20:59:31Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > This [post](http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/why-is-israels-blockade-of-gaza-legal/)on a legal blog has some interesting discussion on applicability of the international law of blockades and it makes a convincing case that it applies to international armed conflicts (IAC) between states and not non-state conflict. Of course even if the San Remo manual is applicable it asserts principles like proportionality and international humanitarian law which IMO are clearly violated by Israel’s blockade. It’s not a very convincing argument; it seems to me an example of question-begging. Here’s the relevant part: > [@](#): > > But what justifies a blockade in non-international armed conflict (NIAC)? The London Declaration does not justify such a blockade, because it only applies to “war”– war being understood at the time as armed conflict between two states. **Does the San Remo Manual justify it? The Manual is not a picture of clarity concerning when its rules apply, but it does not seem to contemplate non-international sea conflicts.** Article 1 speaks of “the parties to an armed conflict at sea,” which does not seem to include NIAC, unless perhaps a rebel group has a navy. (Do any?) Article 2 parallels the Martens Clause in the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which only applies to IAC. Article 3 acknowledges the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, but — as Marko Milanovic has pointed out — that right is an exception to the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4), which only operates between states. And numerous articles in the Manual refer specifically to “belligerent States” (see, for example, 10, 20, 34). [Emphasis added] It seems what the author of the article does is to say that the San Remo Manual does not expressly state you _can_ “blocade” a non-state entity, and then leap to the conclusion that if the Manual does not expressly state you _can_ do it, them you _can’t_; and that because several articles expressly use the term “beligerent states”, this means that “states” are meant throughout. However, the authour should be aware that this is not how interpretation works. The authors are presumed to be using the term “states” when the mean “states” and where they deliberately _avoid_ using the term “states”, they mean something more inclusive. Let’s examine the provisions that the author of the article is basing his or her analysis on. The author claims that the Manual uses “states” in article 10, and thus only states must be included where interpreting who can be blockaded. Article 10 states as follows: > [@](#): > > 1. Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over: > > (a) the territorial sea and internal waters, the land territories, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent **States** ; > (b) the high seas; and > (c) subject to paragraphs 34 and 35, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of neutral **States**. The author appears to be claiming that this means only “beligerent **States** ” may be blockaded. Yet there is nothing to support that contention. Indeed, the exact opposite appears to be true. In the relevant article concerning “blockade”, the authors are careful not to use the term “belligerent **States** ”: > [@](#): > > Blockade > > 1. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all **belligerents** and **neutral States**. [Emphasis added] Please note the lack of qualifier “States” after the term 'belligerent[s]" The natural reading of this is that there can exist “belligerents” who are not “belligerent **States** ”, and who may be notified (and thus subject) to blockade. That exactly fits Gaza. In short, I do not think that the author has reasoned well. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/691 "2010-06-02T21:18:05Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > This [post](http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/why-is-israels-blockade-of-gaza-legal/)on a legal blog has some interesting discussion on applicability of the international law of blockades and it makes a convincing case that it applies to international armed conflicts (IAC) between states and not non-state conflict. Its claim rests around the fact that blockades are explicitly justified in a situation of war, and Sam Remo doesn’t specificy anything at all about international versus non-international blockades, but a declaration in the early 20th century in London > [@](#): > > only applies to “war”– war being understood at the time as armed conflict between two states The idea that the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas wasn’t the Israel-Hamas war but the Israel Hamas, I don’t know, police action? It’s a bit odd. Sam Remo was not some archaic document either. It dates from 1994. Surely if they meant that only IAC’s were recognized, they’d have put that in somewhere. In fact, they _do_ recognize the status of IAC’s in regards to specific instances (like a UNSC Chapter VII resolution). It does discuss conflict between a “state” and an “enemy”, _not_ “two states”. It also says > [@](#): > > SECTION II : ARMED CONFLICTS AND THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENCE > > 1. The exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations is subject to the conditions and limitations laid down in the Charter, and arising from general international law, including in particular the principles of necessity and proportionality. > > 2. The principles of necessity and proportionality apply equally to armed conflict at sea and require that the conduct of hostilities by a State should not exceed the degree and kind of force, not otherwise prohibited by the law of armed conflict, required to repel an armed attack against it and to restore its security. > > 3. How far a State is justified in its military actions against the enemy will depend upon the intensity and scale of the armed attack for which the enemy is responsible and the gravity of the threat posed. Article 51 clearly says: [ > [@](#): > > Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. ]([http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml](http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml)) It states _nothing_ about an armed attack “by another state.” Simply “an armed attack”. Likewise, the UNSC has _not_ taken steps to maintain peace and security were Hamas able to import freely. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/692 "2010-06-02T21:40:31Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Please note the lack of qualifier “States” after the term 'belligerent[s]" > > The natural reading of this is that there can exist “belligerents” who are not “belligerent **States** ”, and who may be notified (and thus subject) to blockade. That exactly fits Gaza. I think you are reading too much into this. The manual uses the terms “belligerent” and “belligerent states” interchangeably. For example" > [@](#): > > 1. Should a belligerent State be in violation of the regime of neutral waters, as set out in this document, the neutral State is under an obligation to take the measures necessary to terminate the violation. If the neutral State fails to terminate the violation of its neutral waters by a belligerent, the opposing belligerent must so notify the neutral State and give that neutral State a reasonable time to terminate the violation by the belligerent. If the violation of the neutrality of the State by the belligerent constitutes a serious and immediate threat to the security of the opposing belligerent and the violation is not terminated, then that belligerent may, in the absence of any feasible and timely alternative, use such force as is strictly necessary to respond to the threat posed by the violation. ``` Clearly the belligerent State referred to in the first line is the same as the "belligerent" referred to later. Nowhere in the document is there any reference to a belligerent being a non-state actor. As the post argues the history of international law of blockades has clearly been about international conflicts. If the San Remo manual wanted to extend that to blockades against non-state actors it presumably would have been specific about that. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/693 "2010-06-02T21:40:34Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Under the San Ramino rules, there are two ways in which a blockade is illegitimate: I’m not saying the blockade is illegitimate. Unlike some people I am willing to acknowledge possiblities other than the ones were floating around inside my head when the dabate started. The blockade may be legal and if so then maintaining that blockade in international waters was also legal. > [@](#): > > “Humanitarian crisis” isn’t part of the latter, so it’s (evidently extremely elastic) definition isn’t part of the analysis. Yeah I think its elastic as well and I just saw the blocakde as one of many indignities heaped on teh Palestinians to punish hamas. > [@](#): > > What has to be examined is two factors: > > a. The actual “damage” to the civilian population; and > > b. The actual military “advantage” expected from the blockade. > > The fact that (for example) the water system in Gaza is degraded is a factor weighing on the one side; the fact that rocketing of southern Israel has died down is a factor weighing on the other. > > It seems to me that the fact that infant mortality is down and life expectancy is up during the blockade are powerful factors weighing against the importance of the “damage” to civilians factor. Certainly, civilians have been horribly _inconvenienced_ by the blockade; but they have not, in objective terms, been _damaged_ very much - at least, according to the above-noted figures. If I were Israel I would want to prevent those rockets too but they went too far. They should have limited their blockade to actual weapons but now they won’t be able to keep a Turkish warship out of the Gaza harbor. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/694 "2010-06-02T21:43:09Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > It isn’t all that surprising that Hamas does a better job of social welfare that the Palestinain Authority - my impression is that this is exactly why they won the election: that the PA was hopelessly incompetent and corrupt, and Hamas actually established a grass-roots social-welfare system. > > Unfortunately for Gazans, Hamas (unlike the PA) is also devoted to endless religious warfare with Israel. > > As to the figures - the impressive part is how the blockade has not physically harmed the civilian population (though admittedly annoying them with arbitrary restrictions on coreander etc.) Isn’t there some way to keep the good part of hamas while getting rid of the bad part? I mean didn’t Golda Meir do seomthing like that with the Israeli terrorists that did bad stuff when Israel was created? Can’t some leader denounce terrorism and praise the aprt of hamas that runs schools and hospitals? ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/695 "2010-06-02T21:44:47Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Yes, it does. If you keep on starving you die. If you can maintain a level of food intake that will allow you to live out your entire life until you die of old age, you are not _starving_. At the point where you define starvation as something other than the lack of nutrients needed for life, then it’s lost any operational definition. One can of course arrest the progress of starvation by _eating food_, but starvation that goes unchecked results in death. You are simply wrong. The dictionary disagrees with you. I’m not saying that starving cannot result in death, it is simply that death is not a requirement. You’re American aren’t you? Is Merriam Webster ok? > **[Definition of STARVE](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/starve)** > > to perish from lack of food; to suffer extreme hunger; to die of cold… See the full definition [QUOTE=The Fucking Dictionary] 1 a : to perish from lack of food b : to suffer extreme hunger [/QUOTE] > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Then again, as your argument is at the point where you’re claiming that chocolate is an essential food as proven by the fact that the US army includes it in rations, but cigarettes are not a necessary item as proven despite the fact that the US army included them, well… > > Your argument is proceeding backwards from a conclusion to find facts. It is now at the level of: ‘Starvation is going on and can go on forever as children grow up, have children and die of old age. And essential foods are not being provided, we know this because chocolate is not in supply.’ > > Yes, actually, that’s exactly the situation. And its one that you’re cherrypicking the facts about, to boot. I already provided the cite, I’ll quote some more from it. > > [ > > This is the problem, when the normal seasonal variations of a disease are a humanitarian crisis, we’re no longer using terms with any meaning besides political impact. > > Apparently not. And you just cited something that debunks the hyperbolic nonsense about a “humanitarian crisis due to starvation!” Yes, there are Iron deficiencies, yes, there are vitamin deficiencies. No, one is not “starving” if they don’t get enough vitamin C in their diet. Otherwise America’s got a whole lot of starving fat people. :rolleyes: > > You’re also cherrypicking data there. I already cited UNICEF’s findings. Underweight children were roughly 1.5 percent of the population group. The percentage who evinced stunting are actually the lowest in the middle east (with Israel excluded, we would imagine). On the other hand, _overweight children make up about 16% of the population group_. I’m not getting involved in the rest. i find it too depressing. Look up malnutrition in a dictionary. One can be malnourished and still obese. Hell, one could argue that obesity may be caused by malnutrition. That’s the last I’ll say on the matter. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > 😃 > You. You claimed that Israel was not an occupying power, at least according to its supreme court. That was false, as the SC’s verdict you cited only applied to Gaza. I asked you to provide a cite that it applied that verdict to the West Bank. I’m pretty sure the repeated use of “fuck” is not a cite. We were talking ABOUT GAZA. The flotilla was heading TO GAZA. The West Bank never came into it. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Yep, because it is incorrect. > It would be correct if you stated that, instead of a blanket situation, Israel didn’t view its control over Gaza as constituting belligerent occupation. > It would be even better if you stated that Israel doesn’t view its control over Gaza as constituting a belligerent occupation, but it does view itself as having responsibilities that are in accord with many of the requirements of occupying powers. > > Ironically, you yourself provided a cite that discusses the fact that Israel views itself as having more responsibilities than a non-occupying power. You cherrpicked the quotes you wanted and didn’t quote the rest, right around them. Again, the discussion was about Gaza as that is where the Flotilla was heading. The West bank is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. One can only view this as a quite embarrassing attempt to wriggle out of a situation where you have shown to be really quite wrong and ignorant of the very basics of the situation in Gaza. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > That’s an interesting case which dealt with the humanitarian obligations that Israel had towards Gaza as balanced by security considerations. There’s also the fact that even though a state of belligerent occupation may have been rescinded in 2008, the decision in 2007 in fact reinforced the conclusion that Israel was bound by international law in the treatment of the population of Gaza. The relevant laws would be “Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.” > > [url=[Redirect Notice](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=spellmeleon_result&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CBIQhgIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Felyon1.court.gov.il%2Ffiles_eng%2F07%2F320%2F091%2Fn25%2F07091320.n25.pdf&ei=1L4GTPTOL4O0lQfDut3iCg&usg=AFQjCNH37AxmiWK3-1kJVci1tOevpxNv9Q&sig2=UhrRXhIFA13go5FaY6QImA)]]([http://www.emro.who.int/palestine/reports/monitoring/WHO\_special\_monitoring/gaza/Gaza%20Health%20Assessment%20(29Jun09).pdf](http://www.emro.who.int/palestine/reports/monitoring/WHO_special_monitoring/gaza/Gaza%20Health%20Assessment%20%2829Jun09%29.pdf)) Actually, the Supreme Court Ruling clearly states that Israel believes that it no-longer is required to fulfill certain duties and that those in Gaza could now be considered an “unlawful combatant”: > [@](#): > > In this regard it should be noted that since the end of Israeli military rule in the Gaza Strip in September 2005, the State of Israel has no permanent physical presence in the Gaza Strip, and it also has no real possibility of carrying out the duties required of an occupying power under international law, including the main duty of maintaining public order and security. > [@](#): > > January 2008). In our case, > in view of the fact that the Gaza Strip is no longer under the effective control of the > State of Israel, we are drawn to the conclusion that the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip > constitute foreign parties who may be subject to the Internment of Unlawful > Combatants Law in view of the nature and purpose of this law. > [@](#): > > Further to our finding that ‘unlawful combatants’ are members of the category > of ‘civilians’ from the viewpoint of international law, it should be noted that this court > has held in the past that international humanitarian law does not grant ‘unlawful > combatants’ the same degree of protection to which innocent civilians are entitled, > and that in this respect there is a difference from the viewpoint of the rules of > international law between ‘civilians’ who are not ‘unlawful combatants’ and > ‘civilians’ who are ‘unlawful combatants.’ But enough about that. The fact remains, you repeatedly claimed that Israel considered itself an occupying power with respect to Gaza (you know, the place that the flotilla was heading to and that we were discussing). You have been shown to be really quite wrong. FinnAgain, consider your ignorance fought and beaten. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/696 "2010-06-02T21:47:26Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Thats a good question, why do you think gaza is launching rockets into Israel and not into Egypt? I’m not exactly sure, which is why I asked. I suspect it has something to do with the presence of Jews on one side and not the other. Seriously though, if Egypt also had a blockade going, where was all the condemnation for that? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/697 "2010-06-02T21:48:35Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > I give up. Seriously. Do you actually read posts or just randomly type shit out? You are aware that we can read previous posts? > > I have to stop there. The levels of pure stupidity and ignorance being shown by you are going to get me into some serious trouble with the moderators. You’re right, so it’s unfortunate you didn’t go back and review the post to remove the stuff that was going to get you into trouble. “The levels of pure stupidity and ignorance being shown by you” is an insult, not an allowable attack on an argument. Suggesting another poster “just randomly type[s] shit out” isn’t allowed either. This is a formal warning: don’t do it again. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/698 "2010-06-02T21:51:38Z")
> [@Noone\_Special](#): > > -philosophically/strategically the blockade is justifiable both morally and in terms of international law. Up until last friday I might have been convinced that you are right. Today its a lot tougher. > [@](#): > > nor that I don’t feel sympathy for Jamal Average in Gaza who rightfully won’t take to the streets against Hamas, but secretly wishes this war would be over and he could just make a living. while you can’t sacrifice your children so Jamal can pursue his dreams a lot of the stuff that israel does seems to be directed at Jamal Average (or at least impacts him more than it impacts Hamas). ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/699 "2010-06-02T21:55:07Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Nowhere in the document is there any reference to a belligerent being a non-state actor. Nowhere in the document does it state that a belligerent must be a state actor. And as it’s based on the UN Charter Article 51, which also only references self defense and not only self defense in the context of an IAC,there’s no reason to think that Sam Remo simply failed to indicate that part of 51 no longer applied. Especially since it specifically and explicitly says that 51 is “subject to the conditions and limitations laid down in the Charter” and yet _nowhere_ states that a condition and limitation of that self defense is that both of the parties be states. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/700 "2010-06-02T21:57:30Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > I’m not exactly sure, which is why I asked. I suspect it has something to do with the presence of Jews on one side and not the other. Seriously though, if Egypt also had a blockade going, where was all the condemnation for that? When Egypt kills 9 humanitarian aid workers I will show you a lot of outrage towards Egypt. I think it has less to do with the Jewishness of the people on one side than it has to do with the last 60 years of history. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765.md?page=36)