UN report on Gaza Flottila is Released

[ljkeane]

So you can't find a quote then?

[Yoadm]

Why don't you actually quote where they do that. It would be a good start.

So you can't find a quote then?

Your argument keeps getting weaker by the minute:

The report cites the following two opinions to back up its assertion:

such tragedies are entirely avoidable if Israel heeds the repeated calls of the international community to end its counterproductive and unacceptable blockade of Gaza.

only a complete lifting of the blockade can address the humanitarian crisis

And then claims that:

One of the consequences flowing from this is that

for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law.

No reference to the blockade being eased, or limited to military hardware. Lifted, full stop. There is no reference to it being proportional or not. Thus, it consideres tha conflict a non-international armed conflict, at least when viewing the blockade, but it changes its stance while calling Gaza occupied (pointing to it being an international armed conflict). As I said, duality of interpetation of international law.

There are many other incidents of their bias in the posts I presented above, which you, surprise surprise, ignored.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I think you're reading that differently from ljkeane (and me, for that matter). That, to me, doesn't indicate that Israel can't impose any blockade; it states that the blockade as it exists - i.e., this particular blockade - violates their statements of international law and must be lifted. If a different blockade were imposed, I don't know that the UNHRC would object. At least, not the same way.

[Yoadm]

I think you're reading that differently from ljkeane (and me, for that matter). That, to me, doesn't indicate that Israel can't impose any blockade; it states that the blockade as it exists - i.e., this particular blockade - violates their statements of international law and must be lifted. If a different blockade were imposed, I don't know that the UNHRC would object. At least, not the same way.

The report explicitly states that Israel has no right to stop passing vessels unless it knows for sure that they are carrying military contraband. This indicates they would accept 'inspection', but not any form of blockade, even not a military blockade that checks incoming goods for arms.

[ljkeane]

You can't find anything that more than sentances or less that you need to quote out of context, impressive.

The entirety of section II B. part 1 of the report is dedicated to explaining why the blockade is illegal because it fails to meet the necessary criteria for being a legal blockade.

Look people can just read the report themselves to see your argument is ridiculous.

ETA: Regarding your last point it in fact says in light of the conclusion that the blockade is illegal that the only legal basis for intercepting a vessel is:

56. Thus, if there is no lawful blockade, the only lawful basis for intercepting the vessel

would be a reasonable suspicion that it:

• was making an effective contribution to the opposing forces’ war effort, such as by

carrying weaponry or was otherwise closely integrated into the enemy war effort

(belligerent right of capture);49 or

• posed an imminent and overwhelming threat to Israel and there was no alternative

but to use force to prevent it (self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations

Charter).

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Okay, that's totally different from the part you just quoted in support of "UNHRC will accept no blockade". What is the quote about no right to stop passing vessels?

Never mind, if ljkeane just quoted the part you're talking about.

[Samalander]

Well, you made me read it (well, I just skimmed it. ok, ok, just the parts about the blockade. When the report isn't laugh out loud hilarious, it's really boring).

Few things of the top of my head:

1) Any section after 56 is under the assumption the blockade is illegal, and hey, we all agreed that it was, so let's really give it to them. I do not remotely agree, since:

2) They took this here little codicil :

(B) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade. and decided after debating between themselves that yes sir, indeed the damage to the civilian population is excessive. But you know what I haven't seen a single word about? That's right, the other side of the equation. This is basic mathematics (but I guess judges don't study mathematics) - If you are going to disprove an equation you must address BOTH parts of the equation. Where the hell is the evaluation of the expected military advantage anticipated from the blockade? I can get more out of Shryke and Pax on this issue than this august, professional committee. How the hell do they know the damage is excessive if they didn't even bother to say what they think are the military advantages are? Maybe removing the threat of rockets from 1,000,000 civilians is worth the damage? You know what, maybe they decide it isn't. So why don't they have the guts to say so?

[Yoadm]

You can't find anything that more than sentances or less that you need to quote out of context, impressive.

That's rich coming from someone who didn't even read the report. They claimed the blockade should be lifted. Not eased, not limited. How much more proof do you need?

The entirety of section II B. part 1 of the report is dedicated to explaining why the blockade is illegal because it fails to meet the necessary criteria for being a legal blockade.

Yes, and not only was this debunked above in two long posts quoting international law which you ignored (the report misrepresented its own sources, shown above), but allso, for the 7th time (!), the report stated that the whole blockade is illegal, not parts of it. Had the report said something akin to "the blockade's current status is disproportionate" would be one thing. They said that Israel had no right to blockade, or even a military blockade. They explicitly stated that all Israel can do is inspect contraband only in cases where it was sure the incoming vessels were carrying it. Meaning, in other words, that even a blockade of military hardware was illegal. Thus, proportionality is irrelevant. They disagree with the very notion of a blockade.

ETA: Regarding your last point it in fact says in light of the conclusion that the blockade is illegal that the only legal basis for intercepting a vessel is:

And I referred to it in this post above. This means (for the second time) that all Israel is allowed to do is inspection of very specific vessels only if it has evidence they are carrying contraband. This means that even a blockade limited to stopping vessels, checking them for weapons and letting them go, is 'too much' for the commision.

Okay, that's totally different from the part you just quoted in support of "UNHRC will accept no blockade". What is the quote about no right to stop passing vessels?

Never mind, if ljkeane just quoted the part you're talking about.

A military oriented blockade is one that stops incoming vessels, inspects them, and only sends back vessels carrying military contraband. This is the mildest form of a blockade possible, but the commision indicated (look at his quote) that even this was too much. The most Israel could, according to them, do, is to inspect only vessels it has direct evidence they are carrying contraband. That's not a blockade, by definition. In other words, the commision sees any form of a blockade as illegal in Gaza.

[ljkeane]

Ok I'm done. If people can't see how ridiculous your argument is by now that's their problem.

[Yoadm]

Ok I'm done. If people can't see how ridiculous your argument is by now that's their problem.

It would be hard to see since you were unable to adress any evidence I presented, and rather chose to either discount or ignore it.

[ljkeane]

It would be hard to see since you were unable to adress any evidence I presented, and rather chose to either discount or ignore it.

:lol: Seriouly I'm done, if people are convinced by your 'evidence' then again that's their problem.

ETA: Samalander, you made a rational point that to be fair I don't agree with but I've reached my limit on this subject so I won't discuss it.

[Yoadm]

Seriouly I'm done, if people are convinced by your 'evidence' then again that's their problem.

Yes, I heard you the first time, and, again: They would have a very hard time seeing your point as you either avoided dealing with or discounted the factuall information I presented on the report, from its treatment of witness testimonies, duality of interpeting international law, and misrepresenting its own citations. You allso seem to confuse individual inspection with blockade, treating them as one and the same, thus failed to comprehend that treating only the first as legitemate means a blanket dismissal of any blockade in Gaza.

Did I miss anything here or is that all?