Woah, that’s not what I would have expected.
Yeah, and? Egypt has ended their cooperation with the blockade so it is in fact ineffective now so it is illegal now right?
What does that have to do with Israel maintaining a blockade taht was causing a humanitarian crisis?
Yeah, and? Without teh humanitarian crisis you don’t have the problem you have today from having killed humanitarian aid workers. Israel does not have some inviolate right to maintain a blockade that everyone must respect. Israel can maintain a blockade, others can try to run that blockade. Israel can respond by killing people who try to run the blockade, even humanitarian aid workers. The rest of teh world can respond by doing whatever it feels it appropriate to respond to the killing of humanitarian aid workers. It seems everybody has rights.
Yeah, OK, these guys were trying to end the blockade, not negotiate with israel on the terms of the blocakde, so?
I don’t think explicitly means what you think it means. If Israel had originally blocakded weapons only and not caused a humanitarian crisis, there are no dead humanitarian aid workers today and Turkey is not providing armed escorts to the blockade runners.
Israel could have taken the flotilla as an opportunity to reform its blockade and ending the humanitarian crisis but it didn’t and now the blockade is broken. Unfortunately Israel does not get a second bite at this apple (unless the US expends enormous political capitol to buy Israel a second bite), they had one chance to run a humane blockade and they screwed up. Now they have to figure out some other way to achieve their goal and perhaps Likud will have learned that if you treat the whole world as your enemy, pretty soon your treatment becomes jsutified.
The Red Cross, Amnesty International and the UN don’t think the crisis is imminent, they think its here and has been here for quite some time regardless of the birth rate in Gaza. Of course these organizations had some harsh words for Hamas as well and if you want more people to condemn hamas then let me be the first. Hamas sucks and we should try to get rid fo them, but it is naive to think that the general population of Gaza are going to rise up in revolt.
That is your opinion. Amensty International, the Red Cross and the UN disagree.
I don’t now about rapid increase but I would say taht north Korea has been experienceing a humanitarian crisis for decades now and their population keeps increasing (not a population explosion but faster than the birth rate of most western nations). I’m just saying taht you can have increasing populations during times of humanitarian crisis.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:PRK&dl=en&hl=en&q=north+korea+population
You can’t call prognostication a fact can you? Its your OPINION.
WTF dude?
you claimed I was "Denying that Israel has any right to self defense "
I asked you to cite and you reply with: “Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi :
Stop the blockade”
I said stop the blockade when Xtisme asked what Israel should have done and you say taht I am denying that israel has the right to self defense? HOW THE HECK DO YOU MAKE THAT LEAP? You CONSTANTLY ENGAGE IN THESE SORT OF TACTICS and the moderators wonder why people constantly get pissed off at you.
Now show where I “DENY THAT ISRAEL HAS ANY RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE” or retract your statement.
Show where I say that they have no right to continue the blockade? I aid stop the blockade in response to Xtisme asking me what I think Israel should have done.
Stopping the blockade is the humanitarian goal they were trying to achive. Israel has already demonstrated its inability to maintain a humane blockade and its unwillingness to negotiate more humane terms why should the humanitarian goals be anything less than eliminating the blockade? You had your bite at the apple, in fact you had several years of bites and you ignored everyone until now, NOW you want to try and negotiate mroe humane blockade terms. WTF?
Yeah and israel had YEARS of people cajoling and beggin them to do that and they told everyone to frak off. Well now they are going to have to tell a Turkish warship to frak off. yeah Likud has done wonders for Israel.
Israel had a lot of opportunities to modify, ease, set up new policies. people begged Israel to modify ease or set up new policies. Israel told them to frak off, its a security issue. Now, Israel might not get another bite at the apple.
I’ve never seen anyone die of a chocolate or coriander deficiency disease. If it’s not essential to life, it’s a luxury item, and thus legally contrabannable. In the post you responded to I did give a “sane” explanation. If you don’t buy it as reasonable (sane is the wrong term), that does not mean there isn’t military value to excluding it. Reread my post.
Now that Egypt is not cooperating in the blockade don’t you have to blockade Egypt as well to make the blockade effective adn therefore legal?
I doubt it. The blockade is of the sea route. If a blockade had to be total (that is, all possible routes cut off - including all land routes) then there would be very few that would qualify.
By “effective”, I believe the restatement means that the blockading country must have the physical power and intent to do what it sets out to do - i.e., prevent shipping without inspection by the blockading power. Egypt’s co-operation is not required for this.
The problem for this line of argument is that the examinations of objective measures, assuming those are correct, appear to indicate that conditions have improved in Gaza in spite of the blockade.
I know, this surprised me as well, but it appears to be the case.
Does that affect your opinion on the matter?
Oh the irony is killing me.
Totally irrelevant. Military rations are not based on what’s absolutely required to sustain life. They are based on what’s required to sustain combat effectiveness. Soldiers in the field need the occaisional luxury item to maintain morale. However, luxury items (like the chocolate ration) are the first things to be cut in the event of logistical bottlenecks. In other words, they are also the first things to be cut by a blockade.
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?
OK so when the the San Remo manual says the blockade must be effective, theya re only talking about the naval blockade, they don’t have to maintain an effective seige? OK, but it seems like a pretty weak definition of “effective”
It has been repeatedly pointed out, including pointing to the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention, that they did indeed have such authority. How many times must it be repeated?
If you have the legal authority to shoot, Yes.
I believe the ‘effectiveness’ requirement is imposed in order to prevent a combatant from using the declaration of blockade itself as a weapon, when it cannot actually impose one.
Say that the US of A was in a conflict with Somalia. The US of A declares the seas around Somalia a blockade area, and sends mucho warships to enforce it. So, Somalia declares the seas around the US of A a blockade area, in response.
The latter may impose certain costs on those doing business with the US (for one, insurance rates would go up) if it was a "legal’ blockade; but it isn’t because Somalia cannot realistically maintain a blockade on the US.
In contrast, the fact that Somalia’s neighbours have not joined the blockade does not render the US blockade "ineffective’ and thus illegal.
I can’t tell how the cite supports taht contention but if it is true, it is puzzling. I am not an expert on humanitarian crises so I am inclined to give the Red Cross, Amnesty International and the UN the benefit of the doubt when arguing whether or not a humanitarian crisis exists.
I think we need to define humanitarian crisis because omse people think this means that people have to be dropping dead in teh streets of starvation (which would make the blocakde illegal), others think it means denying chocolate (my wife would probably agree with them).
For the record, no, we don’t. 
I told you yesterday that this kind of stuff doesn’t belong in this forum. We’ve already had to remind far too many people what the rules are. You’ve got kind of a bad track record of following mod instructions in this thread. Don’t do this again.
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.
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?
Yet again, prohibiting a nation from engaging in self defense is not a “humanitarian” goal.
This is nonsense. Rather obviously the Rafah crossing is not in the sea.
The maritime blockade has not been rendered ineffective.
Yes, we are indeed without a humanitarian crisis.
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.
Folks can use whatever rhetorical ju jitsu they’d like, but preventing the blockade of weapons to Hamas means that their importation will be allowed. It’s just a fact.
As is what Hamas will do if they get weapons, because they’ve said so. You can try to cast some sort of alternate universe where Hamas will stockpile weapons in order to turn them into farming implements, but calling a fact an “opinion” because the fact harms your argument is not an effective tactic of making the fact go away.
No, actually, they don’t.
And nothing has been cited by any of them that point to any imminent crisis, at all. They all tend to use bombastic language, but none have reported on the number of deaths we’d see from an actual crisis. In point of fact, the Food and Agriculture organization at the UN certified that there was no such crisis and food supplies were acceptable but that there should be more red meat, poultry and eggs.
See, that’s the point. Instead of a measured position based on the facts, we keep hearing this nonsense bombast about “ZOMG, crisis! Humanitarian disaster!!!”
Except, there isn’t one. We’re not seeing scores of Gazans dying of starvation. I’m not aware of any dying due to starvation, although it’s possible. In point of fact obesity is a problem in Gaza.
Excellent example that shows why your claims about Gaza have no weight, at all.
[
](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/433641.stm)
Comparing Gaza to NK is an absurdity.
Under the San Ramino rules, there are two ways in which a blockade is illegitimate:
-
Where the sole purpose is “starvation” of the population. I think we can all agree that doesn’t fit; and
-
Where the harm caused to the civilian population is disproprtionate (the word used is “excessive”) to the military advantage expected from the blockade. This would be the arguable ground.
cite:
“Humanitarian crisis” isn’t part of the latter, so it’s (evidently extremely elastic) definition isn’t part of the analysis. 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.
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?
The problem seems to be that Israel has not published a list of allowed goods, and non-staple goods are approved or rejected on a case-by-case basis with no apparent logic behind it.
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.
For the same reason that when Egypt held Gaza and Jordan held the West Bank and both prevented the formation of a Palestinian state, the PLO was formed before the 1967 war in order to attack Israel.
Indeed.
How many Gazans are obese during this ‘ongoing crisis’?