Israel and international law

Originally posted by no1marauder
Israel's blockade includes non-military items and is clearly illegal under IL.

If Israel wants to stop rockets from being fired at them, they'd conclude a peace with the Palestinians and stop considering themselves at war with Gaza because the Palestinians there put in a government that Israel doesn't like.

They don't like that government because it shoots rockets at them.

1 too many!

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
They don't like that government because it shoots rockets at them.

That's putting the cart before the horse.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
They don't like that government because it shoots rockets at them.

Or maybe they do like that Government because it fires rockets at them, giving their reluctance to enter into meaningful peace talks with the Palestinians a fig leaf of plausibility, and perhaps Hamas likes the Israeli govt because they retaliate with over the top sanctions that drive the people of Gaza into the arms of Hamas, see everybody is happy.

Except for your average Israeli, or Palestinian.

Originally posted by mbakunin
Another Ship to Gaza was boarded in international waters and taken into custody by the Israeli military a few days ago.

While I might agree that Israel could board and inspect the ship to make sure it was not carrying contraband, that they can take a ship headed to Gaza with humanitarian supplies into custody, tow it to an Israeli port and arrest the pe ...[text shortened]... , is this not piracy? Is Israel not in conflict with international law?

What are your views?

As some of the other posters are showing, there's context to be considered, not just this individual action. If Israel was a nation that was at peace all the time, like Switzerland, then this action would be completely unjustified. But considering this is a nation constantly under attack, and threat of genocide (a few Arab leaders have said that they want to 'wipe Israel of the face of the earth'😉, than it's actions are understandable. Maybe not the "correct" way to go about, but at least understandable.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Is it your claim that because a rocket occasionally gets fired at Israel they are exempt from international law?

Rocket attacks from Gaza have averaged significantly more than one a day for several years now, which hardly qualifies as "occasionally."

I do agree that Israel's blockade is too broad and should be loosened, however.

Originally posted by sh76
Rocket attacks from Gaza have averaged significantly more than one a day for several years now, which hardly qualifies as "occasionally."

I do agree that Israel's blockade is too broad and should be loosened, however.

The averages are skewed by a high concentration of such attacks during Israeli military attacks on Gaza. 300+ were fired in the week of March 9-15, 2012 after an Israeli air strike on Zuhair al-Qaissi which led to the type of "tit for tat" responses I was speaking of. In general, "occasionally" seems an apt adjective.

There is really no justification for rocket attacks. Hamas would have a much better case with the international community if they ceased rocket attacks. Likewise, the path to a two-state solution would be greatly accelerated if Israel stopped its "retaliations" and the pointless and humiliating blockade of non-military goods. Of course, that's assuming that the both of them want peace (with reasonable terms and both sides conceding on some issues), but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
What does international law say about Hamas continuing to fire rockets into Israel?

You mean into Palestine... into the land annexed and ethnically cleansed by Israel and then claimed... by Israel... to be Israeli...

International law probably says: "Don't do it."

And two wrongs don't make a right.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
There is really no justification for rocket attacks. Hamas would have a much better case with the international community if they ceased rocket attacks. Likewise, the path to a two-state solution would be greatly accelerated if Israel stopped its "retaliations" and the pointless and humiliating blockade of non-military goods. Of course, that's assuming ...[text shortened]... able terms and both sides conceding on some issues), but that doesn't appear to be the case.

It seems, or so I've heard, that the Palestinians tried various peaceful means of getting their land back in the last 50 years and all have failed.
Their ethnically cleansed refugees aren't allowed to return, UN troops aren't allowed in to monitor the situation and walls and houses are still built by Israel on their land.

Maybe desperation is the justification?

Originally posted by shavixmir
You mean into Palestine... into the land annexed and ethnically cleansed by Israel and then claimed... by Israel... to be Israeli...

International law probably says: "Don't do it."

And two wrongs don't make a right.

The shavinator returns. Welcome back.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Israel's blockade includes non-military items and is clearly illegal under IL.

If Israel wants to stop rockets from being fired at them, they'd conclude a peace with the Palestinians and stop considering themselves at war with Gaza because the Palestinians there put in a government that Israel doesn't like.

Negotiations have to have two parties willing to give up something.

Originally posted by normbenign
Negotiations have to have two parties willing to give up something.

That's not in fhe definition of negotiation at all, sir.

Originally posted by shavixmir
That's not in fhe definition of negotiation at all, sir.

Shavvy, my main man...I'm back, you drunken lowland bastard!

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Shavvy, my main man...I'm back, you drunken lowland bastard!

Dude!