# 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:** 37
**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 3, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/721 "2010-06-03T01:46:56Z")
[QUOTE=bengangmo] So in other words to “punish the general population”? Isn’t that one of the things that makes a blockade illegal? [/QUOTE] I guess it depends on how you are using the word ‘illegal’. If by that term you mean ‘I don’t like it’ then, sure…it’s ‘illegal’. If by that term you mean ‘not legal’ then on what basis do you make this statement? IOW, why does ‘punish the general population’ equate to ‘illegal’ in your mind? Illegal how? To who? On what basis? You do realize that just about every embargo ever put into effect would equally be ‘illegal’, right? I mean, the embargo against Iraq prior to the second GW…‘illegal’. The embargo against North Korea…‘illegal’. The embargo against Iran…‘illegal’. All of them most certainly ‘punish the general population’, so therefore would be ‘illegal’ by your definition here. Of course, if they ARE ‘illegal’, then that term really doesn’t mean anything…does it? -XT ---
**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 3, 2010, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/722 "2010-06-03T01:49:06Z")
> [@Noone\_Special](#): > > Which is one of the reasons that I agree with you and many others that the way the operation on the \*Marmara \*was carried out was stupid, **stupid, STUPID** (in addition to, y’know, small piddling details like 9 dead people :() > Way for us to win a battle but lose the war… > > I agree with you. But I think where we’ll need to agree to disagree is on the use of the specific word “directed.” Civilian suffering in Gaza, like in any war zone, is the potential result of three proximate causes: > > 1. Their own leaders (Hamas) making life difficult for the masses to score political points (or just out of sheer kleptocracy) > 2. The other side (Israel) making life difficult for the masses out of sheer hate and spite. AND > 3. General conditions, AKA “War is Hell.” > > I submit that most of the detractors of Israel will claim that the breakdown of causes here is something like 10-80-10 (i.e., 80% a result of Israeli spite and hatered); my personal view is that it is more like 20-20-60. > **which is still 20% too much in category 2!!** I am **not** in any way claiming that Israel as a concept, or Israelis as individuals, are white-clad angels with harps – we have our share of assholes and bigots, and like everywhere else they are drawn to power like moths to light. Only that we are not the devils that our detractors are setting out to make us, rather that we are trying to bumble, generally the best we can, through a lose-lose situation – no worse than any other country would or does, and arguably (in my mind) actually a lot less poorly than many others. I would add another couple of additional proximate causes: Israel’s relative indifference to the injustices and indignities suffered by Palestinians; Failure of neighboring countries to offer asylum to refugees. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/723 "2010-06-03T01:49:59Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Neither did I. I could explain how being aware of previous Israeli claims but not the 2008 version doesn’t constitute a lack of fact checking… but then again, your argument is now that being aware of the 2008 verdict constitutes total and complete ignorance, except for you, and then it doesn’t constitute total and complete ignorance, because you were ignorant of it. Well going to somewhere like Wikipedia and finding it saying something the complete opposite to what you believe to be true should have been a hint that something was up. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > No, your repeated mistake on that part is odd. I never said we were talking about the West Bank, I pointed out that your blanket claim that Israel stated it wasn’t an occupying power was false. It’s fairly simple and I’ve now explained it to you again, and I know you read it because you quoted it in your response here. You’d have a point if I had actually made a blanket claim. The problem is, I was talking about Gaza as the discussion was about Gaza. Example: If we were discussing Iraq and I said “the US failed to find WMDs”, that wouldn’t be a blanket statement of the US not finding WMDs anywhere they’ve ever looked. It would obviously be about Iraq as the discussion was about Iraq. Adding “in Iraq” is not required for everything as it is the focus of the discussion. I can’t believe you need this explaining to you. Just face it, you were wrong. Stop trying to squirm out of it. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > This is fiction. \* Incendiary weapons\* are illegal to use against civilians or in civilian areas. WP is not an incendiary weapon. Article 1 of Protocol 3 clearly states that: > > [ The very first line of the Wikipedia page on White Phosphorous: [White phosphorus - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorous)]([Protocol III - Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons](http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm)) > [@](#): > > White phosphorus (WP) is a material made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus that is used in smoke, tracer, illumination and incendiary[1] munitions. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Again, your claim was that Israel said it was not an occupying power. That is manifestly false. Especially since it was a claim in service of ‘proving’ that > “Israel does not feel the need to act as an occupying power as set by the Geneva Conventions.” Except as already cited and quoted by me, Israel did indeed accept that it had affirmative obligations to the Gazans rather than the merely negative prohibitions that are inherent in the laws of armed conflict that do not include the 4th GC. See up there ^^^regarding your pathetic attempt to pretend I was making a blanket statement regarding israel rather than a statement about the focus of the discussion, Gaza. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > What an odd mistake for you to make. I pointed out that a detailed discussion of malnutrition was not silly, but the “Gazans are starving!” was silly terminology. Hence, the contrast between the two phrases. Please cite where I made “silly statements”. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > As already pointed out, UNICEF’s readings were nothing out of the ordinary, did not indicate an epidemic, and were totally expected for seasonal variations. Like I said, you are relying on the UNICEF cite even though the WHO put it into context and rebutted the claims you are making. The facts, again, are that there was no epidemic and there was no increase over seasonal norms. Cite please that “acute watery diarrhoea” (WHO) and “acute bloody diarrhoea” (UNICEF) are the same thing. Additionally, the WHO’s report is for children under 3 years of age. UNICEF doesn’t state what their metric is. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Looks like you did say you hadn’t seen them. English comprehension again not being your strong point. I said I couldn’t find it when I was writing that post. This in no way means that I did or did not read the cite earlier, just that when i specifically went back to look for it I couldn’t find it. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > As we’ve already had the same discussion on the same subjectseveral times, please tell me what you object to in my previous answers. Give me a link to the answer and I will do. It is 3:47am here, I am not going to search through this thread to find something that you seem to want to refuse to restate, even when you are asked. If these magical caveats even begin to mention “Occupying Power” I swear I am going to lose it. ---
**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 3, 2010, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/724 "2010-06-03T01:50:30Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > But how many people have been starved (apparently a loaded term in this thread) of needed supplies from the blockade in the Egyptian side? Why doesn’t that draw an equal amount of ire from Gaza residents? Its essentially the same tactic, only one is being employed by fellow Arabs, the other by Jews. > > Egypt is one of the few Arab nations that actually has some level of peaceful relations with Israel. Who’s blockade was initiated first? At who’s behest? Was it a cooperative effort between Israel and Egypt to both have blockades for security purposes? My understanding was that Egypt was cooperating because they recognized that hamas would make a horrible neighbor and might radicalize their own population. ---
**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 3, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/725 "2010-06-03T01:53:12Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Unfortunately, in the case of Gaza, the reverse happened. So Palestinians had to choose between crazy and incompetent and they chose crazy. Perhaps we should be doing more to buildup these institutions, isn’t there something we can do to build these institutions without creating puppets? ---
**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 3, 2010, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/726 "2010-06-03T01:57:26Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > You say that if its not essential to life, that its a luxury item, right? Would you be in favor of feeding the Gazans a liquid slurry containing water, glucose, fat, amino acids, and vitamins? Soylent green? > [@](#): > > The problem isn’t about the chocolate or the spices per se; it is about denying people for the sake of denying people. How are people supposed to react to that reality, or more specifically, how do you _want_ them to react to it? Well, the natural reaction would be to rise up and revolt against Hamas… DUH ---
**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 3, 2010, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/727 "2010-06-03T01:59:16Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I guess it depends on how you are using the word ‘illegal’. More likely than not the argument is that it qualifies as collective punishment under the GC. [ > [@](#): > > Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. ]([http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5)) However, while _that is explicitly prohibited_, damaging an enemy’s economy and instituting an embargo in order to force them to devote their resources to non-military endeavors _is explicitly authorized_. I think that would tend to suggest that that which is explicitly authorized is not the same behavior as the one that’s explicitly prohibited. 😃 > [@](#): > > Art. 23. Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases. > > The obligation of a High Contracting Party to allow the free passage of the consignments indicated in the preceding paragraph is subject to the condition that this Party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons > for fearing: > > (a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination, > (b) that the control may not be effective, or > (c) that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy through the substitution of the above-mentioned consignments for goods which would otherwise be provided or produced by the enemy or through the release of such material, services or facilities as would otherwise be required for the production of such goods. > > The Power which allows the passage of the consignments indicated in the first paragraph of this Article may make such permission conditional on the distribution to the persons benefited thereby being made under the local supervision of the Protecting Powers. > > Such consignments shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible, and the Power which permits their free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed. ---
**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 3, 2010, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/728 "2010-06-03T02:11:50Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > The USA most certainly _ **does** _ have the right to inspect all ships coming into Cuba, _ **if the US is maintaining a declared naval blockade** _ of Cuba. Read about the “Cuban Missile Crisis”. You harm your own position by that ill-considered statement. I don’t think you understand what I was saying. The Cuban Miisile Crisis is exactly what I was referring to. Some people have been talking about Israel’s “right to blockade” as if any violation of the blockade was a violation of Israel’s rights. Israel doesn’t have a “right” to the blockade, they may blockade without violating international law, I don’t think its a particularly subtle difference. If a Russian freighter came along and the USA told them to open themselves to inspection, would the freighter be breaking any law by saying “no thank you” Would they be violating America’s right to blockade? America would obviously snort and just board and inspect the freighter anyway but the freighter didn’t violate America’s rights and if Russia comes along and busts the blockade, did Russia violate Americas rights? The reason i bring this up is because some posters have been saying things that show that they think that Israel has some sort of rights to the blockade. The right to blockade (declared or not) in this instance merely means that they “MAY” blockade and if done correctly it would be within the rules of war. ---
**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 3, 2010, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/729 "2010-06-03T02:16:00Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > The very first line of the Wikipedia page on White Phosphorous: > [White phosphorus - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorous) Well, I’ve provided an actual cite for the actual law that says some smoke or illuminants (WP serves as both) but also has incendiary effects is not an incendiary weapon. You have the first line of a Wikipedia cite that goes to a page called [“Pyrotechnics, Explosives & Fireworks.”](http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/ttpyro.html) One that, by the way, says that WP _once used_ used in incendiary weapons. > [@amanset](#): > > Cite please that “acute watery diarrhoea” (WHO) and “acute bloody diarrhoea” (UNICEF) are the same thing. > > Additionally, the WHO’s report is for children under 3 years of age. UNICEF doesn’t state what their metric is. Wrong. The WHO did _not_ confine its analysis to children under three and it did _not_ confine its analysis for only one disease, it looked at _all_ major infectious diseases. [ > [@](#): > > 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)) > [@amanset](#): > > If these magical caveats even begin to mention “Occupying Power” I swear I am going to lose it. Feel free, although they’re not magical and they are very clearly spelled out. We’ve already been over that many times too. Self-identification does not determine if the 4th GC can be applied or not. ---
**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 3, 2010, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/730 "2010-06-03T02:17:23Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > Fortification material. Automatically “contraband of war”, and thus _ **must** _ be rejected under a proper GC-legal blockade. Must be? The USA didn’t keep out construction material from Cuba (or coriander for that matter). I didn’t read anywhere that Israel MUST keep out construction material. Anyways my point was that there were ships that only had items that were on the restricted list. the post that generated this issue was a comment that these ships should have just let the Israelis distribute the goods to Gaza and the response was that something like 75% of it was considered contraband by Israel. Someone replied that this number seemed really high and I noted that there were ships that had nothing but contraband aboard. Concrete may very well be an appropriate item to put on the restricted list. ---
**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 3, 2010, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/731 "2010-06-03T02:19:13Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The reason i bring this up is because some posters have been saying things that show that they think that Israel has some sort of rights to the blockade. Because they do. We’ve already identified that, cited it, quoted it, yadda yadda. Blockades are allowed under Sam Remo in accord in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Article 51 justifies self defense. As such, nations have a right to self defense via blockade. For instance, stopping Hamas from getting rockets that they can then shoot at civilians. ---
**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 3, 2010, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/732 "2010-06-03T02:26:00Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Then we get Michele Bachmannesque rhetoric from Netanyahu:Good lordy, how is anyone supposed to take Israel’s ‘legitimate concerns’ seriously with that sort of nonsense spewing from it’s prime minister? > The ‘holier than the rest of us’ routine doesn’t work when you’re preventing Gazans from making proper falafel out of spite. I believe chick peas are on the always good list, its the tahini that poses a security threat. ---
**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 3, 2010, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/733 "2010-06-03T02:28:27Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > My understanding was that Egypt was cooperating because they recognized that hamas would make a horrible neighbor and might radicalize their own population. That’s a hell of an admission. I wish it were broadcasted more… ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/734 "2010-06-03T02:29:08Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > The very first line of the Wikipedia page on White Phosphorous: > > [White phosphorus - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorous) This does not mean what you think it means. Even if one use of the material is forbidden, this does not mean that _all_ uses of the material are forbidden. A ban on using phosphorous to set targets on fire does not also ban the use of phosphorous for creating smoke, or to make tracer rounds easier to see. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/735 "2010-06-03T02:30:51Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > Please stop lying. This sort of accusation is forbidden in Great Debates. This is Warning not to do it again. [/Moderating] ---
**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 3, 2010, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/736 "2010-06-03T02:33:12Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > You claimed, in error, that Israel said it was not an occupying power. It doesn’t matter if Israel says it occupies the West Bank or Outer Mongolia, your claim that Israel says it is not an occupying power is false. > It would have been correct to say that Israel said it was not occupying _Gaza_. But you didn’t, you said Israel denied it was an occupying power. Period. Full stop. Does that really have ANYTHING to do with the topic of this thread or advance the debate in any way other than to play gotcha by quibbling about irrelevant facts? I sense another “Lebanon bombing sub-thread” any moderators wanna nip this one in the bud or do you want to wait until it drags on for page after page? It gets difficult to ignore this stuff sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/737 "2010-06-03T02:40:05Z")
**amanset** , **FinnAgain** , and **everyone** else: there will be no more observations about what another poster has said. You may quote the text of another poster and then post a reply that challenges that statement, but you are no longer permitted to claim that another poster “really” said something else or to make the observation that they are wrong or misguided or failed to read something or anything similar. The majority of the heat in this thread is arising from snide comments based on _interpretations_ of other posters’ remarks and the rest of it is the result of niggling over fairly sophomoric attempts to get over other posters with semantic games. It stops here. We have attempted to keep this discussion at the serious level that it deserves, but if you all cannot post without getting into pissing contests, we are going to close this and send you to the BBQ Pit. [/Moderating] ---
**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 3, 2010, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/738 "2010-06-03T03:14:08Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > This does not mean what you think it means. Even if one use of the material is forbidden, this does not mean that _all_ uses of the material are forbidden. A ban on using phosphorous to set targets on fire does not also ban the use of phosphorous for creating smoke, or to make tracer rounds easier to see. Yep: [ > [@](#): > > Phosphorus rounds are usually used to spread a thick, white smoke to screen military actions and mark specific areas. Military experts say phosphorus is often particularly useful in urban warfare, in part because it creates tall columns of smoke that can obscure upper-story windows. ]([http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/middleeast/22phosphorus.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/middleeast/22phosphorus.html)) [ > [@](#): > > In Gaza, even the Red Cross accepts that the intention is probably to use WP to create smoke rather than to deliberately injure; the Associated Press quotes the ICRC’s Peter Herby as saying: “It’s not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it’s being used in any other way.” > > WP causes terrible injuries, burning right through skin and flesh. > It is not classed as a chemical weapon, and as Jason Sigger points out, > WP smoke rounds are not classed as an incendiary weapon either. This is because the 1980 Geneva Protocol on Incendiary Weapons specifically does not cover “Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signaling systems.” ]([http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/white-phosphoru/](http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/white-phosphoru/)) But of course, also: [ > [@](#): > > So, by this logic, there are no incendiary weapons being used and no case to answer. However, the case put forward by Human Rights Watch and others is not that WP is an incendiary, but that its use “violates the requirement under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life.” This looks like a reference to a different treaty, the 1949 Geneva Protocol, which has a section on “General protection against effects of hostilities”: > > ``` > (ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects; > > ``` > > […] > then the legal arguments can start about what “feasible precautions” mean in this type of military action. ]([http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/white-phosphoru/](http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/white-phosphoru/)) ---
**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 3, 2010, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/739 "2010-06-03T03:18:48Z")
In thought I responded to this post a while ago but I guess not. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Yes… you asked for where you denied that Israel had a right to self defense, I pointed out there (and you’ve pretty much repeated the same comment in other places) as to how Israel doesn’t have a right to self defense, something you just repeated (“a second bite of the apple”). You have claimed that the blockade is now “broken”. If Israel doesn’t have a right to defend itself by preventing Hamas from acquiring weapons then rather obviously that is a statement that Israel does not have that right. One more time in all caps: SAYING “YOU SHOULD DROP THE BLOCKADE” (in response to a question asking what Israel should do) IS NOT THE SAME THING AS SAYING “ISRAEL DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF” no matter how much you want it those phrases to be synonymous, they are not AND IT IS DISINGEUOUS TO SUGGEST THAT THEY ARE. SAYING “ISRAEL WILL NOT GET A SECOND BITE AT THE APPLE” (in response to suggestions that everyone should back off and let Israel modify the blockade to avoid the stuff that everyone seems concerned about) IS NOT THE SAME THING AS SAYING “ISRAEL DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF” AND IT IS DISINGENUOUS TO SUGGEST THAT THEY ARE. I do not think that Israel does not have the legal ability to blockade, i just think that in light of recent events, they should drop it especially since those weapons now have an avenue of entry through rafah anyways. But in any event I am not saying Israel must lay down and die and it is disingenuous of you to suggest that is what I am saying. > [@](#): > > However, perhaps I was incorrect and your point is that Israel may defend itself from certain threats, but it doesn’t have a right of self defense from Hamas? sheesh. > [@](#): > > Yet again, prohibiting a nation from engaging in self defense is not a “humanitarian” goal. Prohibiting? Are you a native English speaker? I don’t mean any offense but you seem to keep using words that i a gross general sense mean what I think you mean but have nuances and applications that make them inappropriate for what I think you are trying to say. It would explain a lot. I say this because the humanitarian aid workers aren’t prohibiting the blockade any more than Gandhi was prohibiting the British monopoly on salt. They certainly aren’t “prohibiting” Israel from engaging in self defense. > [@](#): > > This is nonsense. Rather obviously the Rafah crossing is _not in the sea_. > The maritime blockade has not been rendered ineffective. Yeah I got that from another poster as well. I only bring it up because the San Remo Manual talks about effectiveness and maybe I admit I may be reading it wrong but if the blockade is no longer keeping stuff out of Gaza I thought it made the blockade ineffective, I could be wrong but I hardly think its “nonsense” I thought it was a pretty reasonable interpretation of the word “effective” > [@](#): > > By _explicitly_ stating that they were trying to end the blockade which is _explicitly_ primarily set up to deny Hamas weaponry, they were _explicitly_ stating that their intention was to end Israel’s ability to interdict the flow of weapons by sea to Hamas. It was also set up to prevent coriander and cement from getting to Gaza. If you had set it up to only exclude offensive weapons and chocolate, people might not have gotten so upset about it. > [@](#): > > Folks can use whatever rhetorical ju jitsu they’d like In other words you admit you were wrong to equate what I said to mean “Israel doesn’t have the right to defend itself” but you really really really feel that people should be able to treat me as if that is in fact what I said.. > [@](#): > > preventing the blockade of weapons to Hamas means that their importation will be allowed. The opening of Rafah already punched a hole in that prophylactic. > [@](#): > > It’s just a fact. It is a prediction. If Hamas has learned ANYTHING from this fiasco (and I hope they have the ability to learn), they will have learned that there is a better way to fight Israel, call the media and stage a peaceful march where IDF will be forced to engage in brutality to enforce the border and the blockade. It would encourage this sort of behaviour if America would do something dramatic in response to the killings of the humanitarian aid workers. Perhaps reiterate our intention to honor our NATO obligations. [quote] calling a fact an “opinion” because the fact harms your argument is not an effective tactic of making the fact go away. [quote] You are making a prediction about the future actions of human being, your level of certainty might be very high but it is not 100%. I think you probably are right but it is still just a prediction at this point. But lets not quibble about this and assume that Hamas will in fact get weapons through Rafah and they will use them. > [@](#): > > No, actually, they don’t. > **[Int'l Red Cross Decries Gaza Humanitarian Crisis](https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2009-01-06-voa37-68822277/413599.html)** > > Operations Chief Kraehenbuehl calls situation for Gaza civilians intolerable [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR2009010800842.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR2009010800842.html) [http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-01-06-redcross-gaza\_N.htm](http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-01-06-redcross-gaza_N.htm) [http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/suffocating-gaza-israeli-blockades-effects-palestinians-2010-06-01](http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/suffocating-gaza-israeli-blockades-effects-palestinians-2010-06-01) They don’t talk about people starving to death in the streets but their definition of humanitarian crisis doesn’t seem to require genocide. > [@](#): > > Excellent example that shows why your claims about Gaza have no weight, at all. > [url=[BBC News | Asia-Pacific | '3.5m North Koreans starved to death'](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/433641.stm)] Wait… What? Huh? You made a statement that said there was no humanitarian crisis in Gaza because the birth rate was high. So I picked one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world and showed you that they also have a positive birth rate that exceed the birth rate of industrialized countries and you take this to mean that North Korea sets the standard for defining humanitarian crisis? That seems like an odd way to respond to my posts. > [@](#): > > Comparing Gaza to NK is an absurdity. /sputter. WTF!!! I am not comparing Gaza to North korea, I don’t think they are comparable I was using the North Korea example to show you what utter crap your argument about birth rates are. You couldn’t in good faith be taking these disingenuous position so you must have misread what I said. Please go back and read my prior posts. ---
**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 3, 2010, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/740 "2010-06-03T03:23:56Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Because they do. We’ve already identified that, cited it, quoted it, yadda yadda. > Blockades are allowed under Sam Remo in accord in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Article 51 justifies self defense. > > As such, nations have a right to self defense via blockade. For instance, stopping Hamas from getting rockets that they can then shoot at civilians. NO THEY DON"T!!! They may engage in the blockade without breaking international law but noone else has to respect that blockade. Turkey is not violating Israel’s rights when they send a warship to escort the next shipment of humanitarian goods and breaks the blockade. Israel may very well be engaging in the blockade out of self defense and that is why blockades are allowed because sometimes they are the best way to defend yourself without a lot of bloodshed. But they don’t have some right that will be violated when Turkey breaks the blockade. Is anyone else confused about the point I am making? Because several people now seem to act like Israel’s rights are being violated when people choose to disregard the blockade. I didn’t think it was a difficult concept, or are people being intentionally obtuse. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765.md?page=38)