• 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!

Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas


You're still missing the point.

Article 6 and Article 14 only apply to situations where Article 3 is violated.

Article 3 only applies where one of the lettered subparts is violated by an action that is already illegal under another law.

This is not a statute that makes things illegal. This is a statute that provides a remedy. The argument that an action is illegal because it violates Art. III is circular and erroneous.

This is 1L legal interpretation.
 

No you still have it confused. Article 3 applies because subpart a was violated when Israel did not contact the Turkish government requesting to board the ships and instead forcefully boarded the ships. The act of forcefully boarding the ships without first contacting the government of Turkey is unlawful, as stipulating from Article 6 and Article 14.
 

You're obviously not going to believe me and I'm not going to keep trying, so here's what you should do. Go out and find a friend who is a lawyer, or even someone who just happens to know a lot about writing. Show them this:


Ask them whether the language of heading 1. applies to each subpart, then come back here and let me know what they say.
 

Of course it applies to each subpart. That is why it is a subpart of heading 1. I've already e-mailed it to my mother and grandfather who both are wondering why anyone is even attempting to debate otherwise. My mother is a librarian with a Master's in Library Sciences and my grandfather (her father) has a PhD in English Literature & Creative Writing (which he earned after coming here on a FulBright Scholarship).

Explain why if there is a heading, it would not apply to each one of its subparts. Explain why it would only apply to one subpart instead of another.
 

...

...

I'm arguing that it DOES apply to each subpart. If you acknowledge that it applies to each subpart, then this should be very easy for you to understand.

Look: In order for Israel's action to be illegal under Art. 14 or Art. 6, it has to be a violation of Art. III. In order for it to be a violation of Art. III, the following has to be proved:

A person unlawfully and intentionally seized or exercised control over a ship by force or threat thereof or any other form of intimidation
Click to expand...

One of the elements of a violation of Art. III is that the action itself was illegal. If the action itself was not illegal, then there can be no violation of Art. III (and by proxy Art. 6 or Art. 14). You cannot use a violation of a subpart to prove an element of the Article. That's circular reasoning.





edit: Consider this example:

Imagine there is a law that says:

1. A crime is committed where a person uses a red crayon and:
a) uses a blue crayon
b) uses a green crayon
c) uses a yellow crayon
Click to expand...

Now imagine that someone used a blue crayon. The fact that someone used a blue crayon is not sufficient to show that a crime has been committed. You have to show that someone used a blue crayon and that the person also used a red crayon.

Now go back to the case at hand. It's obvious that someone seized control of the ship under subpart (a). However, nothing in the Convention applies unless you also show that it was done so unlawfully. This is why I've been telling you over and over that this Convention does not answer the question of whether the action was unlawful.
 
Last edited:
bhkad said:
Israeli Ambassador: Soldiers Had 'No Choice But to Defend Themselves' | PBS NewsHour | May 31, 2010 | PBS
Click to expand...

this quote was found within that interview with the israeli ambassador to the USA:
Hamas violently overthrew the legitimate Palestinian government of Gaza.
Click to expand...
you may question why that is significant. it is because it is a lie. a lie the isreali ambassador will state to avoid having to recognize the duly elected hamas government of gaza
Palestinian legislative election, 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if that israeli ambassador is willing to lie about the election results, why should he be found credible in his assertions that the israeli soliders had no choice but to defend themselves in their assault on the vessel carrying humanitarian aid to gaza?
 
The blockade is legal, after 7000 rocket attacks and the gaza ports known for it's smuggling points and being in a state of war, Isreal had every right to use what force is necessary, up to including sinking the ship, so Israel was restrained. Disproportianate force, where do you get this from, this is BS. Btw the Palistinians are oppressed by is ruling party Hamas and it constant taste for war.
 

15 June 2007

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Abbas sacks Hamas-led government

Hamas fighters overran most of Gaza on Thursday, capturing the headquarters of Fatah's Preventative Security force and hailing Gaza's "liberation".

After nightfall militants entered Mr Abbas' presidential compound, which had been left undefended when Fatah men slipped away earlier.

Palestinian Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti said Hamas was in total control of Gaza.

"What is happening now is not only the collapse of the Palestinian national unity government but actually the collapse of the whole Palestinian Authority," he told the BBC.
 
Last edited:
Although the wisdom of Israel's actions in stopping the Gaza flotilla is open to question, the legality of its actions is not. What Israel did was entirely consistent with both international and domestic law. In order to understand why Israel acted within its rights, the complex events at sea must be deconstructed.

The rest here...
Alan Dershowitz: Israel's Actions Were Entirely Lawful Though Probably Unwise
 

Michael Oren also stated on the Diane Rehm interview,today, that "the ship was too large to stop by non-violent means" ...so violent means were planned? Makes you wonder if he let the cat out of the bag, unintentionally.
 

You don't honestly believe that Deshowitz is either an authority on international law or an unbiased commentator concerning Israel?
 
Cassandra said:
Michael Oren also stated on the Diane Rehm interview,today, that "the ship was too large to stop by non-violent means" ...so violent means were planned? Makes you wonder if he let the cat out of the bag, unintentionally.
Click to expand...

Given that there were no incidents on any of the other boats and that the audio of the encounter indicates that the troops were very startled by the resistance, I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Moreover, why on earth would the Israelis want this to turn into a violent confrontation? Both sides knew full well that a violent incident would arouse sympathy for the activists, so that's exactly what the Israelis were trying to avoid and what the activists sought out.
 
Last edited:
Cassandra said:
Michael Oren also stated on the Diane Rehm interview,today, that "the ship was too large to stop by non-violent means" ...so violent means were planned? Makes you wonder if he let the cat out of the bag, unintentionally.
Click to expand...

If your quote is accurate why would the Israelis send troops in with paintball guns and allow themselves to be beaten with ax handles and metal rods, stabbed and slashed with knives and shot before shooting back with side arms (not assault weapons) if violent means were planned?

Maybe he meant force not violence.
 
Cassandra said:
You don't honestly believe that Deshowitz is either an authority on international law or an unbiased commentator concerning Israel?
Click to expand...

Yes, Jews have no credibility when it comes to Jews.

The Islamists who initiated the attacks, on the other hand, are always perfectly credible.
 
Cassandra said:
You don't honestly believe that Deshowitz is either an authority on international law or an unbiased commentator concerning Israel?
Click to expand...

He seems knowledgeable enough on the following count:


Alan Dershowitz: Israel's Actions Were Entirely Lawful Though Probably Unwise
 
bub said:
10-20 deads is still a lot
Click to expand...

and yet not nearly enough
should have killed them all
attack the military and odds are the military will kill you
their objective was to provoke teh miliitary
they attacked the military despite teh fact taht they boarded only to inspect
should ahve killed them all, just to be safe

hopefully they will just sink the next douchebags who try this
 

Wow, advocating a massacre... a firm but fair course of action :roll:

Not everyone on the ship was attacking the soldiers albiet. But hey who cares right? They're muslim.
 
Cassandra said:
You don't honestly believe that Deshowitz is either an authority on international law or an unbiased commentator concerning Israel?
Click to expand...
One thing for sure Alan Deshowitz being a credited lawyer and practicing law for a very long time, probably knows a helluva lot more about law than any of us here international or otherwise. That said, being a lawyer and having a article printed in a very liberal newspaper, I am sure he had his facts checked and rechecked. Although if you know something we don't please enlighten us...BTW are you a lawyer. Now we can also turn the tables on most of the posters who disagree with what Israel did, the extent of their knowledge of Israel and it's plight is what they hear and see on the media and then forming a bais opinion of their own. So what makes the posters here more fair and equal in judgment than Alan Deshowitz when most have never been to the Middle East or Israel or even lived in a constant state of war.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Wow, advocating a massacre... a firm but fair course of action :roll:

Not everyone on the ship was attacking the soldiers albiet. But hey who cares right? They're muslim.
Click to expand...

they were there on a mission to provoke an international incident resulting in the death of its intended targets
right to life was submitted by being apart of it.

they attacked and killed people who were armed with nothing more than painball guns
the youtube videos show the unprovoked deadly assaults on IDF whose sole purpose was to verify NO CONTRABAND
you **** with the bull you get the horn
and you lose the right to bitch about it
 
when Rodney King was attacked in a similar fashion the world was on his side

when Jews are attacked in the same fashion, ITS THEIR FAULT

just because it is popular does not make it right

Why is N Korea sinking a S Korea ship no big deal, but this is apocalyptic
 

Am I missing something here?

"Israeli soldiers from the Shayetet 13 unit boarded the ships at around 04:00 IST with firearms, and reportedly, paintball guns "

And Unless I'm mistaken, not a single IDF soldier lost their life? So they attack and Killed people? NO, they attacked people with JUST paintball guns... NO.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Wow, advocating a massacre... a firm but fair course of action :roll:

Not everyone on the ship was attacking the soldiers albiet. But hey who cares right? They're muslim.
Click to expand...
Running a Naval Blockade with military vessel armed to to the teeth regardless who you are is generally going to be met with force lethal or otherwise. So if you are a peace loving civilian Muslim, Christian or whatever you instantly become the aggressor when they attempt to run a blockade and the rules of war are clear up to including sinking the ship with all souls aboard. I assure there are thousand of Christians, Muslims, Pagans souls or whatever that are residing in Davy Jones locker for attemting such acts.
 
Your right about paint balls guns but the IDF soldiers also had a standard side arms reportly, the IDF soldiers pulled their side arms after being attacked.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…