• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Amazing that that is the sum total of your contribution to this 43-page thread.

No, wait, never mind. It's not amazing at all.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Sorry, dont have time to sympathize with terrorist supporters but perhaps you do
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
All I'm trying to say is that Israel has no tradition of custom to call upon that pre-date these treaties. They can't say "we've been doing this for hundreds of years, suck it."
It's not Israel's traditions that are relevant, it's the international community's traditions.

Imagine that members of a social club have an unwritten rule that if there's crappy beer in the fridge, any member can drink it. They also have some more formal written rules that discuss what happens with fine scotch (e.g. the person who brings it always gets the last drink, etc.). Now imagine that a new person joins the club, years after all these unwritten and written rules come into force. If that new person wants to drink fine scotch, he has to abide by the written rules, even though they were drafted before he got there. However, if he wants to grab a PBR, he's free to do so regardless of whether he ever drinks scotch. The fact that he was not there for the formation of the tradition or that he does not participate in the written scotch agreement has no bearing on whether or not he can participate in the custom of drinking crappy beer.

How much of what is recognized by most of the world these days as international law defined strictly by custom, and not by treaties?
Almost everything derives from customary international law in one way or another. Treaties are simply codifications of particular areas within a field.

If most of the rest of the world defines the law of the sea via a particular treaty, and Israel is not a signatory nation, isn't it fair to say that Israel can't use the law of the sea to justify what they're doing?
No. If the treaty is universally accepted as the exclusive law for a particular field, then it is the customary international law in that field. In that case, whether or not Israel was a signatory would be irrelevant, as it would still be bound by those principles. If the treaty is not universally accepted as the exclusive law for a particular field, then nonsignatories are only bound by the customary international law that the treaty sought to replace.

If there is significant disagreement over what the law of the sea actually is -- custom versus treaty -- then that serves to further prove my point, that Israel can't claim some sort of universal standard to justify what they did.
I don't think that Israel is claiming that every nation must agree that their actions are legal under all laws, I believe they're simply arguing that their actions are appropriate under customary international law. The fact that some countries may have signed onto another treaty doesn't necessarily change that.
 
Last edited:

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You also don't have time to come up with a suitable comeback.

Seriously, better writers or GTFO.
What suitable comback? You are arguing for terrorist sympathizers who ran a blockade.

Its pathetic watching you trying to justify it.
 
Last edited:

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,444
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It's not Israel's traditions that are relevant, it's the international community's traditions.

Imagine that members of a social club have an unwritten rule that if there's crappy beer in the fridge, any member can drink it. They also have some more formal written rules that discuss what happens with fine scotch (e.g. the person who brings it always gets the last drink, etc.). Now imagine that a new person joins the club, years after all these unwritten and written rules come into force. If that new person wants to drink fine scotch, he has to abide by the written rules, even though they were drafted before he got there. However, if he wants to grab a PBR, he's free to do so regardless of whether he ever drinks scotch. The fact that he was not there for the formation of the tradition or that he does not participate in the written scotch agreement has no bearing on whether or not he can participate in the custom of drinking crappy beer.



Almost everything derives from customary international law in one way or another. Treaties are simply codifications of particular areas within a field.



No. If the treaty is universally accepted as the exclusive law for a particular field, then it is the customary international law in that field. In that case, whether or not Israel was a signatory would be irrelevant, as it would still be bound by those principles. If the treaty is not universally accepted as the exclusive law for a particular field, then nonsignatories are only bound by the customary international law that the treaty sought to replace.



I don't think that Israel is claiming that every nation must agree that their actions are legal under all laws, I believe they're simply arguing that their actions are appropriate under customary international law. The fact that some countries may have signed onto another treaty doesn't necessarily change that.
Okay. I guess what it comes down to is my Constitutional pedantry won't necessarily get me much further than the door of the proverbial social club, if in fact most of the rules aren't written.

For some reason I was under the impression that they were.

I guess that's what I get for spending too much time thinking about the Geneva Conventions, much less the Constitution. :lol:
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,444
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What suitable comback? You are arguing for terrorist sympathizers who ran a blockade.
If you directed more than a single brain cell towards the reading of my posts, you'd know that wasn't true.

Its pathetic watching you trying to justify it.
No, what's pathetic is the half-assed way you justify your half-assed replies. :lol:
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,444
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Okay. I guess what it comes down to is my Constitutional pedantry won't necessarily get me much further than the door of the proverbial social club, if in fact most of the rules aren't written.

For some reason I was under the impression that they were.

I guess that's what I get for spending too much time thinking about the Geneva Conventions, much less the Constitution. :lol:
Hold on, wait just a damn minute.

If it isn't written, how the hell is it international law?

Is it generally accepted custom to refer to unwritten and therefore highly debatable rules as "law?"
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Okay. I guess what it comes down to is my Constitutional pedantry won't necessarily get me much further than the door of the proverbial social club, if in fact most of the rules aren't written.

For some reason I was under the impression that they were.

I guess that's what I get for spending too much time thinking about the Geneva Conventions, much less the Constitution. :lol:
You just lost the debate. You can always point out the vanquished because it's the first one to stop debating point for point and instead tries to run a synoposis of his overall position. A sad but predictable outcome.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,444
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You just lost the debate. You can always point out the vanquished because it's the first one to stop debating point for point and instead tries to run a synoposis of his overall position. A sad but predictable outcome.
If you're done talking to yourself, I'd be interested to know if you, you know, have anything to say.
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
If you directed more than a single brain cell towards the reading of my posts, you'd know that wasn't true.
I can't dumb down to your level but your posts are quite clear that you want to punish Israel for stopping a ship trying to run a blockade.

No, what's pathetic is the half-assed way you justify your half-assed replies. :lol:
Never use the same adjective in the same sentence more than once

They teach that in 5th grade English :2wave:
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
If you're done talking to yourself, I'd be interested to know if you, you know, have anything to say.
I've already said it. Let me know what areas of my statements you are having problems with and I'll break out the crayons and draw some pretty pictures for you.
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Hold on, wait just a damn minute.

If it isn't written, how the hell is it international law?

Is it generally accepted custom to refer to unwritten and therefore highly debatable rules as "law?"
Um you just argued with your own post, even quoted yourself then argued with it.

Don't get me wrong, its a great show you are putting on but didn't know if you were even aware you are on stage. :rofl
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,444
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I've already said it. Let me know what areas of my statements you are having problems with and I'll break out the crayons and draw some pretty pictures for you.
The sum total of your contributions to this thread have been:

1) A 9/11 reference
2) Name-calling
3) Throwing red herrings around

You haven't actually said anything, and when I admitted (as I often do when I end up disagreeing with RightInNYC on something) maybe I've got more to learn on the subject, you pointed to that as if it were some great victory of yours.

It wasn't. RightInNYC schools me from time to time, and as much as I hate being wrong, I learn a lot from him.

That doesn't give you grounds to make fun me, or anybody else for that matter.

Now, do you have an actual contribution to make to this thread, or are you going to stick to the superficial trolling tactics you're so well-known for?
 
Last edited:

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The sum total of your contributions to this thread have been:

1) A 9/11 reference
A reference to their reaction. You know, the people you are defending?

2) Name-calling
Pot meet Kettle

3) Throwing red herrings around
Ah yes the classic sign of defeat. Relable an entire position based on something you found in debating for dummies. It doesn't get into any specifics but it sure sounds good.

And you ignored my position on defending a ship that refused to comply with Israeli requests. Nice selective reasoning. No surprise though.

You haven't actually said anything, and when I admitted (as I often do when I end up disagreeing with RightInNYC on something)maybe I'f got more to learn on the subject, you pointed to that as if it were some great victory of yours.

It wasn't. RightInNYC schools me from time to time, and as much as I hate being wrong, I learn a lot from him.

That doesn't give you grounds to make fun me, or anybody else for that matter.
Before you climb up too high on your cross remember you were the one who began the insults.

Your first reply to me:

Amazing that that is the sum total of your contribution to this 43-page thread.

No, wait, never mind. It's not amazing at all.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
So please spare me your self righteous BS. You attacked first and now you're complaining? Pretty pathetic not to mention childish.

Now, do you have an actual contribution to make to this thread, or are you going to stick to the superficial trolling tactics you're so well-known for?
I've already made my positions quite clear on the matter.

You can either actually debate them or move on. Your choice.

But don't play the "poor me" game when you began the personal attacks.
 
Last edited:

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,444
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A reference to their reaction. You know, the people you are defending?
Yet another red herring! I haven't actually defended anyone in this thread! :lol:

Pot meet Kettle
I invite you to point me to where I called you a name in this thread. Specific quotes, please.

Ah yes the classic sign of defeat. Relable an entire position based on something you found in debating for dummies. It doesn't get into any specifics but it sure sounds good.
Wow, pot meet kettle indeed! :lol:

And you ignored my position on defending a ship that refused to comply with Israeli requests. Nice selective reasoning. No surprise though.
Actually, you didn't really define your position. You mainly just said you couldn't "dumb it down" enough for me.

Before you climb up too high on your cross remember you were the one who began the insults.
Incorrect, but if you keep it up with the red herrings, maybe I'll have enough for a stew before this is over!

So please spare me your self righteous BS. You attacked first and now you're complaining? Pretty pathetic not to mention childish.
I'm complaining that you've contributed nothing to this thread but a 9/11 reference, insults, and red herrings, which is 100% accurate.

I didn't complain that you attacked me.

I complained that you're not contributing.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
All I'm trying to say is that Israel has no tradition of custom to call upon that pre-date these treaties. They can't say "we've been doing this for hundreds of years, suck it."

How much of what is recognized by most of the world these days as international law defined strictly by custom, and not by treaties?

If most of the rest of the world defines the law of the sea via a particular treaty, and Israel is not a signatory nation, isn't it fair to say that Israel can't use the law of the sea to justify what they're doing?

If there is significant disagreement over what the law of the sea actually is -- custom versus treaty -- then that serves to further prove my point, that Israel can't claim some sort of universal standard to justify what they did.
According to international law, a non-signatory to a general treaty can be regarded as having accepted provisions of the treaty even without signature and ratification by adhering to said treaty as a norm of international law in its interactions with other states.

However, if such a general treaty is NOT accepted from the beginning and this is NOT accepted by the non-signatory state as a norm of international law, then it is not bound by it. This is the standard practice in modern itnernational law. You can find it in any introductory textbook to the subject...
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Moderator's Warning:
I understand there's been an incident in international waters involving the IDF and a humanitarian organization. Perhaps we should talk about that instead of each other.
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Per the mod's request I edited my response
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
According to international law, a non-signatory to a general treaty can be regarded as having accepted provisions of the treaty even without signature and ratification by adhering to said treaty as a norm of international law in its interactions with other states.

However, if such a general treaty is NOT accepted from the beginning and this is NOT accepted by the non-signatory state as a norm of international law, then it is not bound by it. This is the standard practice in modern itnernational law. You can find it in any introductory textbook to the subject...
Very well said.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,444
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
According to international law, a non-signatory to a general treaty can be regarded as having accepted provisions of the treaty even without signature and ratification by adhering to said treaty as a norm of international law in its interactions with other states.
I guess this is why I don't have a head for this particular area of law. In my mind, either you've agreed to be bound by it or you haven't. It sounds like there's a shadowy third position, where you can act like you agree with it, until it's not convenient -- at which time you mention that you never signed on the dotted line.

You can find it in any introductory textbook to the subject...
That's great, but the vagaries of international law aren't part of the main curriculum around here, so I'm kinda figuring this one out as I go.

As such, since I seem to be wrong on the point I was arguing here, I was trying to milk RightInNYC a little so I don't make the same mistake elsewhere.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Okay. I guess what it comes down to is my Constitutional pedantry won't necessarily get me much further than the door of the proverbial social club, if in fact most of the rules aren't written.

For some reason I was under the impression that they were.

I guess that's what I get for spending too much time thinking about the Geneva Conventions, much less the Constitution. :lol:
Almost all major countries are signatories to most of the important treaties, which means that most issues are governed by written rules. However, there are still many areas outside those fields that are governed by things that are less clearly codified.

Hold on, wait just a damn minute.

If it isn't written, how the hell is it international law?

Is it generally accepted custom to refer to unwritten and therefore highly debatable rules as "law?"
Absolutely. This is one of the reasons why many people (myself included) think that international law is by and large a crock of ****.

International law is comprised of three things:

1) Treaties and other written conventions
2) International custom
3) General principles of law

The last two are highly ambiguous. Although the "general principles of law" have been laid out by a few written treatises, international custom (aka customary international law) is almost entirely a product of argument and interpretation.

...

IFLR: Customary International Law

What is customary international law?

"It consists of rules of law derived from the consistent conduct of States acting out of the belief that the law required them to act that way." (Rosenne, Practice and Methods of International Law, p. 55)

The elements of customary international law include:

1. Widespread repetition by States of similar international acts over time (State practice).
2. Acts must occur out of sense of obligation (opinio juris).
3. Acts must be taken by a significant number of States and not be rejected by a significant number of States.

"Customary international law develops from the practice of States. To international lawyers, the practice of states' means official governmental conduct reflected in a variety of acts, including official statements at international conferences and in diplomatic exchanges, formal instructions to diplomatic agents, national court decisions, legislative measures or other actions taken by governments to deal with matters of international concern."
Customary international law and general principles of law served as the backdrop for almost all international law in the pre-UN era. Since then, written treaties have become more important, but these types of law are still crucial.

I guess this is why I don't have a head for this particular area of law. In my mind, either you've agreed to be bound by it or you haven't. It sounds like there's a shadowy third position, where you can act like you agree with it, until it's not convenient -- at which time you mention that you never signed on the dotted line.
It's not quite like that, ludahai is referring to a way in which a country can be bound to portions of a treaty despite never affirmatively signing it.

For an example, let's say that there is no clear customary law laying out the number of warning shots that a ship must fire before boarding a ship that has entered territorial waters. You're the head of TEDonia, and whenever a ship comes into your area, you fire three warning shots. You're not required to do that, that's just the way you do business. Let's say that next year, the leaders of almost every other country sign a treaty that deals with international shipping, and includes a minor provision that says that you must give at least two warning shots before boarding a ship. You don't sign the treaty because you're unhappy about tariffs or some other issue, but you nevertheless keep on firing three warning shots before boarding, saying that you think that part of the treaty is a good international practice. Ten years down the road, a new leader of TEDonia is in power and gets pissed at a ship that comes near its borders. He orders his troops to capture the ship without firing a warning shot.

Now, because you never objected to the provision requiring two warning shots, and because your standard practice was to provide a minimum of two warning shots, the owner of that ship could argue that you implicitly agreed to be bound by that provision of international law, meaning that you were required to fire at least two shots. The fact that you never signed the treaty doesn't let you worm out of it like that.

However, imagine that at the time the treaty was proposed, you objected vigorously, saying that although you usually gave three warning shots, you refused to do that every time and reserved the right to board without warning shots. Fast forward to the situation ten years later, and you would have been perfectly entitled to board without warning, because you made it clear at the time of the treaty that you were not going to be bound by that provision.

It's somewhat confusing and not directly related to this issue, but it's still sort of interesting.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I guess this is why I don't have a head for this particular area of law. In my mind, either you've agreed to be bound by it or you haven't. It sounds like there's a shadowy third position, where you can act like you agree with it, until it's not convenient -- at which time you mention that you never signed on the dotted line.
Not quite right. If you accept it and abide by it in general practice, you are bound to it even if you are not a signatory to it. If you object to it from the beginning in both word and deed, you are not bound by the provisions.


That's great, but the vagaries of international law aren't part of the main curriculum around here, so I'm kinda figuring this one out as I go.
Very few people on here are likely to have ever taken a class on international law or done any serious research in the area. I have taken classes, and while my related research area was in a different part of the world (Western Pacific), the general principles apply universally.

As such, since I seem to be wrong on the point I was arguing here, I was trying to milk RightInNYC a little so I don't make the same mistake elsewhere.
Nothing wrong with that so long as it is done sincerely...
 

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
UN urges inquiry into Israel convoy raid
Link
BBC News - UN urges inquiry into Israel convoy raid

Naturally with the UN looking into this incident, they can hardly be called Neutral, thus whatever conclusion they arrive at will be clouded by their own beliefs which seem to favor any Nation excepting Israel.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,097
Reaction score
12,352
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Naturally with the UN looking into this incident, they can hardly be called Neutral, thus whatever conclusion they arrive at will be clouded by their own beliefs which seem to favor any Nation excepting Israel.
If the UN cannot be regarded as impartial, then who can? If, and I don't think this would be accepted by anyone other than the most partisan pro-Israeli, the UN is not the impartial body to adjudicate and investigate the incident, who would you suggest should do so? Perhaps you believe that no investigation of the raids and the deaths is necessary.
 

Djoop

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
683
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If the UN cannot be regarded as impartial, then who can? If, and I don't think this would be accepted by anyone other than the most partisan pro-Israeli, the UN is not the impartial body to adjudicate and investigate the incident, who would you suggest should do so? Perhaps you believe that no investigation of the raids and the deaths is necessary.
I think you put a lot of people on the most partisan pro-Israeli side by stating this, to me it's pretty obvious Israel has little chance of an impartial investigation done by the UN. That doesn't mean no investigation is necessary, that just means I prefer an objective party.
 
Top Bottom