J
JMLanders
It's somewhere in the fine print
Israel..wouldn't we do the same?
- Thread starter skitzee2k
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
J
joinerjohn
Lets see what the International thoughts on Hamas (who control the Gaza Strip) are.
Quote
"International Designation of Hamas
[246]–
Australia The military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, is listed as a terrorist organization.
Canada Describes Hamas as a "a radical Sunni Muslim terrorist organization."
European Union Lists Hamas among the entities against which it applies restrictions in order to combat terrorism.
Israel The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that "Hamas maintains a terrorist infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank, and acts to carry out terrorist attacks in the territories and Israel."
Japan Stated in 2005 that it had frozen the assets of "terrorist organizations, including... Hamas."
Jordan Banned Hamas in 1999.
Norway Norway was the first Western country to recognize the 2007 Palestinian government consisting of both Hamas and Fatah, and Norwegian officials have met with Hamas representatives on several occasions. "We know that the USA and the EU have legal obligations since they have Hamas on their terrorist list. We must be able to take an independent decision about contact," Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr Støre responded to a 2006 United States' attempt to dissuade Norwegian contact with Hamas.
Russia Russia does not recognize Hamas as a Terrorist Organisation, and is the only major country to hold direct talks with Hamas since it won the Palestinian election, defending this position by saying that it intends to press Hamas to reject violence and recognise Israel.
United Kingdom The Iz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades is listed as a proscribed terrorist group.
United States Lists Hamas as a "Foreign Terrorist Organization"
Unquote.
Thanks to Wikipedia
Quote
"International Designation of Hamas
[246]–
Australia The military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, is listed as a terrorist organization.
Canada Describes Hamas as a "a radical Sunni Muslim terrorist organization."
European Union Lists Hamas among the entities against which it applies restrictions in order to combat terrorism.
Israel The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that "Hamas maintains a terrorist infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank, and acts to carry out terrorist attacks in the territories and Israel."
Japan Stated in 2005 that it had frozen the assets of "terrorist organizations, including... Hamas."
Jordan Banned Hamas in 1999.
Norway Norway was the first Western country to recognize the 2007 Palestinian government consisting of both Hamas and Fatah, and Norwegian officials have met with Hamas representatives on several occasions. "We know that the USA and the EU have legal obligations since they have Hamas on their terrorist list. We must be able to take an independent decision about contact," Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr Støre responded to a 2006 United States' attempt to dissuade Norwegian contact with Hamas.
Russia Russia does not recognize Hamas as a Terrorist Organisation, and is the only major country to hold direct talks with Hamas since it won the Palestinian election, defending this position by saying that it intends to press Hamas to reject violence and recognise Israel.
United Kingdom The Iz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades is listed as a proscribed terrorist group.
United States Lists Hamas as a "Foreign Terrorist Organization"
Unquote.
Thanks to Wikipedia
JJ..(can I call you that since you like designations..)
None of that excludes hamas as a legitamately elected government does it...
And I note, all of those sources you quote are 'western'
have you spotted the the flaw in your argument yet?
None of that excludes hamas as a legitamately elected government does it...
And I note, all of those sources you quote are 'western'
have you spotted the the flaw in your argument yet?
Sponsored Links
J
joinerjohn
JJ..(can I call you that since you like designations..)
None of that excludes hamas as a legitamately elected government does it...
And I note, all of those sources you quote are 'western'
have you spotted the the flaw in your argument yet?
Sorry, I never realised that Japan and Jordan considered themselves, "Western States"
Perhaps the word you were looking for was " Civilized?"
Perhaps the statement " A legitimately elected government" needs looking at again. They terrorise their own people (look up their history if you don't believe me) into voting for them.
call me what you like if it makes you feel better
International law "seems" to have been complied with. "Public" opinion counts for little in law, I believe you know that.
The "quote" is from the most recent guidance I could find on international law and the high seas, upto and including 2002.
It
the term 'illegal' doesn't seem to have sunk in yet ....
Despite your intentional pun
you're the one having trouble with the meaning of "illegal" The courts of public opinion do not make the "law" the blockade has not been ruled unlawful in any court of law I could find. (If you know different, please enlighten me) If the blockade is "legal" then Israels actions to prevent a breach whether in territorial or international waters seem to be legal, of course, the courts of law may take a different view.
Well that was all exciting, it would seem AJstone has a good point that just because some people call it an illegal war doesn't mean it is. ....what does that even mean anyway? From what i can tell it is legal if the people deciding the law are fighting on your side and illegal if not.
Anyway...
...I still maintain that if you were in charge of Israel you would have ordered the same defence.
Anyway...
...I still maintain that if you were in charge of Israel you would have ordered the same defence.
The 'law' is written in the geneva convention, and Israel has been cited by the UN...
Israel states it is at war with Hamas (as you have confirmed..
), so therefore it has obligations under the GC..."no protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
But if it is not 'at war' (as some argue), then of course the blockade is illegal too, and so is the action in INTERNATIONAL waters..
So which is it?
The UN is hampered by the US in what it does as regards Israel. Just as in the case where the The International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled the 'barrier' is illegal, but the UN can't act because the US vetoes any action. Does this make it any more legal?
Of course Israel doesn't recognise the world court - how convenient...
Not withstanding the US, there have been more than 140 resolutions (more than all others in the middle east combined) passed against Israel at the UN, and not one acted upon...But when certain arab states violate the odd concocted charge, we invade/attack. Why is that?
"no protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. " What protected people have been punished?
It is also the case that if you are a soldier you need to wear a uniform, any incident where you dress as a civilian is illegal, and you lose your rights. You become an unlaw combatant and under direct domestic law of the other party..in this case Israel..
So if israeli soldiers are attacked with weapons by "civilians" of another state, they are unlawful combatants and can be arrested and detained under the laws of Israel. (So their action is not illegal).
It is also the case that if you are a soldier you need to wear a uniform, any incident where you dress as a civilian is illegal, and you lose your rights. You become an unlaw combatant and under direct domestic law of the other party..in this case Israel..
So if israeli soldiers are attacked with weapons by "civilians" of another state, they are unlawful combatants and can be arrested and detained under the laws of Israel. (So their action is not illegal).
Gaza is not recognised by Israel as a state, or part of a state (oh the irony..)...therefore by definition it is a 'protected area' under the rules of war. Hence why the laws of the GC apply...
So are you suggesting that the civilians on the ships were actually soldiers without a uniform?
The 'law' is written in the geneva convention, and Israel has been cited by the UN...
Israel states it is at war with Hamas (as you have confirmed..
"no protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
But if it is not 'at war' (as some argue), then of course the blockade is illegal too, and so is the action in INTERNATIONAL waters..
So which is it?
The UN is hampered by the US in what it does as regards Israel. Just as in the case where the The International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled the 'barrier' is illegal, but the UN can't act because the US vetoes any action. Does this make it any more legal?
Of course Israel doesn't recognise the world court - how convenient...
Not withstanding the US, there have been more than 140 resolutions (more than all others in the middle east combined) passed against Israel at the UN, and not one acted upon...But when certain arab states violate the odd concocted charge, we invade/attack. Why is that?
Now you're moving to a different argument
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 44,075
- Reaction score
- 2,917
- Country
Folk here seem to be saying it's OK for Israeli troops to open fire because they were attacked.
Seems pretty clearcut to me. A boat sailing in international water is suddenly boarded by armed troops. Of course you will defend yourself.
If the Israeli troops had not boarded, there would have been no need for defence.
Seems pretty clearcut to me. A boat sailing in international water is suddenly boarded by armed troops. Of course you will defend yourself.
If the Israeli troops had not boarded, there would have been no need for defence.
No I'm not...you questioned the illegality, and I'm answering you.Now you're moving to a different argument
I note you havn't answered the actual point, but then neither does Israel...
- Status
Sponsored Links
