expandmymind
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2010
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 120
- Location
- Scotland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
This is by far the most detailed analysis of the blockade of Gaza. I suggest reading it in it's entirety.
A Juridical Analysis of the Flotilla Incident
1 Status quo ante
In order to determine the legal implications of the flotilla incident (hereinafter the incident) it is necessary to begin by stating the situation which obtained previously, and, particularly, the declarations issued by the parties. Arguments involving the legality, propriety or right to exist of the state of Israel are beyond the scope of this analysis: Israel is a state, it fulfills the objective conditions required by international law as codified by the Convention of Montevideo of 1933, and any argument to the contrary ignores reality (both legal and factual).
After the “Six-Day War” of 1967, the Gaza Strip, which had hitherto been controlled by Egypt, becamed an occupied territory under Israeli power. Many Arab citizens–some of which had previously fled other areas of Palestine as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war–lived in that territory, under military administration of the occupying power.
After the war, the United Nations Security Council issued its Resolution 242, of November 22, 1967, which attempts to establish a basis for the restoration of peace and security in the area. This resolution, of difficult interpretation for reasons beyond the scope of this study, included a set of requirements on the parties: amongst those requirements are the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories, as well as requirements for Arab parties to reach peace with Israel. A reference is made on ¶ 1 to secure and recognized boundaries, which, as well as other matters, contributes to making the resolution difficult to interpret. Vitally, ¶ 2(a) of the resolution states:
http://david.a11d.net/israel/israel.html
A Juridical Analysis of the Flotilla Incident
1 Status quo ante
In order to determine the legal implications of the flotilla incident (hereinafter the incident) it is necessary to begin by stating the situation which obtained previously, and, particularly, the declarations issued by the parties. Arguments involving the legality, propriety or right to exist of the state of Israel are beyond the scope of this analysis: Israel is a state, it fulfills the objective conditions required by international law as codified by the Convention of Montevideo of 1933, and any argument to the contrary ignores reality (both legal and factual).
After the “Six-Day War” of 1967, the Gaza Strip, which had hitherto been controlled by Egypt, becamed an occupied territory under Israeli power. Many Arab citizens–some of which had previously fled other areas of Palestine as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war–lived in that territory, under military administration of the occupying power.
After the war, the United Nations Security Council issued its Resolution 242, of November 22, 1967, which attempts to establish a basis for the restoration of peace and security in the area. This resolution, of difficult interpretation for reasons beyond the scope of this study, included a set of requirements on the parties: amongst those requirements are the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories, as well as requirements for Arab parties to reach peace with Israel. A reference is made on ¶ 1 to secure and recognized boundaries, which, as well as other matters, contributes to making the resolution difficult to interpret. Vitally, ¶ 2(a) of the resolution states:
http://david.a11d.net/israel/israel.html
Last edited by a moderator: