• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Activists send new boat to challenge Gaza blockade

And yet the potential danger and risk to the state of Israel seems likely far less if they attempted to do it during the day, but within their unquestionably legal zone rather than doing it outside but at night.

I'm sorry, but what you're suggesting is its okay for a Cop to go forward and beat down and arrest a person that says "I think I'm going to trespass on that property over there" while he's 100 feet away from said property because he's bent over tieing his shoe and thus its more likely the officer is going to be successful in stopping him while he's distracted.

The legality of what Israel did is questionable at best to anyone looking at this without bias in their mind, while its legality would be unquestionable by any save for the most zealotous Israeli detractors if it happened within their legal border. What you're suggesting is that its fine to potentially break the law in stopping someone who MIGHT (lets even say probably will) break the law but has not done it yet simply because its advantageous to you to do so.

I'd say a better analogy would be the cops have it on very good information that a gang is going to break into a home with children inside. The gang might be heavily armed.

Now do the cops take the gang down before they break in, or after they break in?
 
Of course




The problem is more complex than just the blockade. To reach peace, a Palestinian state has to be created. And it can't be created as long as Palestinians are being blockaded.

So the blockade is not the but-for cause of the violence in Gaza. Put another way, you were wrong when you said that if the blockade was lifted, there would be no need for weapons in Gaza.
 
There is a reasoning though.
Waiting for those 5 ships to enter the territorial waters would have highly increased the risk and pretty much ensure that at least one of those ships will reach the Gazan port.
There was also the risk of Hamas sending its boats into the interception area and causing problems.

In this case however we have two ships if I'm not wrong, and so they can be boarded on the territorial waters.

That sounds like a fairly reasonable explanation, though I'd still be inclined to say that the added risk of doing it 24 miles from shore is probably smaller than the risk arising from the international reaction. Nevertheless, hindsight is 20/20 so I'm not sure whether I can really fault them for this, especially considering the 24 mile rule is a pointless technicality.
 
The EU is asking for an end of the blockade. That's 500 million people.

The UN also condemns Israel for the blockade. That's 6 billion people, but the USA and Israel disagree with that, so it's rather 5,6 billion people

At what point did the world get to vote on how a country handles its internal affairs? If the EU doesn't like what Israel is doing, then it should do something about it. This passive-aggressive **** is played out.
 
So the blockade is not the but-for cause of the violence in Gaza. Put another way, you were wrong when you said that if the blockade was lifted, there would be no need for weapons in Gaza.

That's one of the main thing that prevents peace, because, like the checkpoints in West Bank and the security fence, it makes life impossible for the Palestinians. Don't you agree???
 
At what point did the world get to vote on how a country handles its internal affairs?

We can assume that the elected governments of democratic countries reflect the opinion of their population

If the EU doesn't like what Israel is doing, then it should do something about it

Like a boycott?
 
The legality of what Israel did is questionable at best to anyone looking at this without bias in their mind...

Under international law, not only is the visiting/inspecting of ships in international waters not generally prohibited, but also there are precedents for it. The U.S. engages in such practices when it deals with ships suspected of carrying narcotics. For example, on the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's website one finds:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agents, working jointly with Caribbean Border Initiative (CCI) law enforcement officers, seized here today 1,930 kilograms of cocaine with a street value of approximately $58 million on board the Panamanian-flagged vessel M/V Megan Star...

As a result of the joint investigative efforts by CCI participants, a U.S. Coast Guard law enforcement detachment on board the USS Farragut Navy vessel intercepted the M/V Megan Star in international waters.

After successful coordination between officers of the USCG law enforcement detachment, Caribbean Corridor participating agencies, and the government of Panama, USCG personnel boarded the M/V Megan Star. The vessel was subsequently escorted to the Coast Guard base in San Juan for a more thorough inspection which revealed approximately 1,930 kilograms of cocaine hidden within different sections of the ship.


Legislation in Japan is moving that would authorize Japan's Coast Guard to inspect North Korean ships in international waters. From The Wall Street Journal:

A Japanese parliamentary committee passed a bill Thursday to authorize the nation's coast guard to inspect North Korean cargo ships in international waters.
 
That's one of the main thing that prevents peace, because, like the checkpoints in West Bank and the security fence, it makes life impossible for the Palestinians. Don't you agree???

I'm sure that it's on the laundry list of things that pisses various arab groups off. My point is that removing the blockade would not put an end to the violence in Gaza, which is what you claimed.

We can assume that the elected governments of democratic countries reflect the opinion of their population

Sure, but why do you think they get a say?

If the entire world wanted Belgium to start putting more hops in its beer, the fact that 6 billion people voted in favor of it still wouldn't mean ****. Belgium gets to handle its affairs however it wants to handle its affairs.

Like a boycott?

A boycott or military action or security council action. There are all sorts of ways in which countries can express their displeasure, so if they're really that angry, why don't they actually do it?
 
No its not, you said that Israel should just stop the blockaid.

I'm saying that in this particular instance, and in others, if Israel offers you an option to dock rather than break the blockaid and earn the consequences they should take it if they really give a damn about Gaza rather than making Israel look bad.

It would be reasonable indeed.

But if you look at it from a pragmatic point of view, letting Israel check the boat this time would not change anything, while creating an incident (which was obviously their goal) has much bigger consequences: it drew the world's attention around the blockade, and today many countries say Israel should lift the blockade immediately. That brings quite a lot of pressure on Israel, and though I don't think it will end the blockade immediately, it may be useful, just like international pressure made South Africa end its apartheid.
 
I'm sure that it's on the laundry list of things that pisses various arab groups off. My point is that removing the blockade would not put an end to the violence in Gaza, which is what you claimed.

Well I said it like that once in this thread to be brief, but of course, as I said several times, it's more complex. Let me rephrase it: to reach peace, you need a Palestinian state, and to get a Palestinian state you need (among other things) to lift the blockade since the blockade ruins the economy in Gaza.


Sure, but why do you think they get a say?

There is no poll about this precize question indeed, but from my first hand experience I can tell you that I've never met people who didn't condemn the blockade of Gaza in real life.



If the entire world wanted Belgium to start putting more hops in its beer, the fact that 6 billion people voted in favor of it still wouldn't mean ****. Belgium gets to handle its affairs however it wants to handle its affairs.

There is a difference between the percentage of hops in beer and the percentage of Palestinians who are aenemic because of the lack of food.

In the first case it is a culinary question that has nothing to do with international law, in the second case it is an humanitarian question, and you do not ignore that in these cases foreign states have their say on what a country does (see the interventions of the NATO in Kosovo for example)



A boycott or military action or security council action. There are all sorts of ways in which countries can express their displeasure, so if they're really that angry, why don't they actually do it?

Nothing can be done in the UN as long as the USA veto every resolution that is too critical towards Israel. As for boycotts, it's already done at a very small scale only. So far, all they've done is verbally condemn Israel and ask for explanations.
 
There is no poll about this precize question indeed, but from my first hand experience I can tell you that I've never met people who didn't condemn the blockade of Gaza in real life.

My point is that even if everyone else on the planet thinks Israel is wrong, that fact alone doesn't mean anything. If they want to intervene, they can do so, but simply being unhappy won't change anything.


There is a difference between the percentage of hops in beer and the percentage of Palestinians who are aenemic because of the lack of food.

In the first case it is a culinary question that has nothing to do with international law, in the second case it is an humanitarian question, and you do not ignore that in these cases foreign states have their say on what a country does (see the interventions of the NATO in Kosovo for example)


Nothing can be done in the UN as long as the USA veto every resolution that is too critical towards Israel. As for boycotts, it's already done at a very small scale only. So far, all they've done is verbally condemn Israel and ask for explanations.

And that's exactly my point. Other countries complain and complain whenever the US does anything without UN approval, but they get angry whenever the US stops the SC from going forward and then use that as an excuse for inaction.

When we and others felt that something was important enough (e.g. Kosovo/Iraq), we formed coalitions and did it anyways. If the rest of the world really feels that strongly about the Israeli situation, it should get together and do the same. If not, then I guess it's not that big a deal.
 
My point is that even if everyone else on the planet thinks Israel is wrong, that fact alone doesn't mean anything. If they want to intervene, they can do so, but simply being unhappy won't change anything.




And that's exactly my point. Other countries complain and complain whenever the US does anything without UN approval, but they get angry whenever the US stops the SC from going forward and then use that as an excuse for inaction.

When we and others felt that something was important enough (e.g. Kosovo/Iraq), we formed coalitions and did it anyways. If the rest of the world really feels that strongly about the Israeli situation, it should get together and do the same. If not, then I guess it's not that big a deal.

The only country that looks really pissed is Turkey.
 
Under international law, not only is the visiting/inspecting of ships in international waters not generally prohibited, but also there are precedents for it. The U.S. engages in such practices when it deals with ships suspected of carrying narcotics. For example, on the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's website one finds:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agents, working jointly with Caribbean Border Initiative (CCI) law enforcement officers, seized here today 1,930 kilograms of cocaine with a street value of approximately $58 million on board the Panamanian-flagged vessel M/V Megan Star...

As a result of the joint investigative efforts by CCI participants, a U.S. Coast Guard law enforcement detachment on board the USS Farragut Navy vessel intercepted the M/V Megan Star in international waters.

After successful coordination between officers of the USCG law enforcement detachment, Caribbean Corridor participating agencies, and the government of Panama, USCG personnel boarded the M/V Megan Star. The vessel was subsequently escorted to the Coast Guard base in San Juan for a more thorough inspection which revealed approximately 1,930 kilograms of cocaine hidden within different sections of the ship.


Legislation in Japan is moving that would authorize Japan's Coast Guard to inspect North Korean ships in international waters. From The Wall Street Journal:

A Japanese parliamentary committee passed a bill Thursday to authorize the nation's coast guard to inspect North Korean cargo ships in international waters.

I understand there's precedence, however the situations are not complete analogs, and while there are experts stating that "yes its perfectly legal" there's a fair number going the other way. Far too many, on both sides, to really be able to honestly say with absolute certainty that everything about it was legally on the up and up at this point.
 
Back
Top Bottom