Sorry boys, wrong yet again. There are plenty of experts who say it was legal no matter how much you try to deny it.

(Reuters) - Israel has said it will continue a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip despite growing global pressure to lift the siege after a navy raid on a Turkish ferry carrying aid killed nine activists this week.What is the legality of the blockade and did Israel's intervention breach international law? Below are some questions and answers on the issue:

CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?

Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognised document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea".

Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.

"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.

WHAT ARE INTERNATIONAL WATERS?

Under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea a coastal state has a "territorial sea" of 12 nautical miles from the coast over which it is sovereign. Ships of other states are allowed "innocent passage" through such waters.

There is a further 12 nautical mile zone called the "contiguous zone" over which a state may take action to protect itself or its laws.

"However, strictly beyond the 12 nautical miles limit the seas are the "high seas" or international waters," Roche said.

The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters.

Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.

CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS?

Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship.

"If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.

Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defence after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons.

Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives.

"But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said.

The use of force may also have other repercussions.

"While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments.

http://in.reuters.com/article/

Update: Consider also from the San Remo Manual,

SECTION VI : CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS

146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:

(a) are carrying contraband; ...

(f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.

:

(a) are carrying contraband

; ...

I think we would all agree they did have Cookies onboard so I guess it was a legitimate boarding after all

.

:

(a) are carrying contraband

; ...

I think we would all agree they did have Cookies onboard so I guess it was a legitimate boarding after all

.

A perfect example of intellectual dishonesty at best.

But this is not good enough for some die-hard fanatics and there are still bombings, shootings, other attacks in the province.

Some people will never be satisfied until they see their 'enemies' totally destroyed. There is no negotiating with them. No reasoning. Nothing you give them is enough.

This sums it up.

Thank you for answering.

However, it is pretty much lacking in any coherant thought or logic, which I will answer more fully in response to H.B.

Well it is nice to know that you will enlighten us sometime in the unspecified future, as your retort contains no "coherent thought or logic" at all. We are waiting for your brilliant response with great anticipation.

No coherent thought or logic? I have said I will give a more comprehensive answer in time, in its most simplistic form, something I am sure you would appreciate, is both coherent and logical.

I think it was a mistake not to recognize Hamas after the election. In a democracy, people have to learn (slowly) that they are voting for <deleted>. We should have let Hamas ruin life for the Palestinians without the US and others help. Let the people see for themselves that they voted the wrong way so they can vote the bums out next time. Otherwise, Hamas is just given a convenient excuse to use with the electorate. All of this doesn't mean that Israel shouldn't protect itself, they should.

Although I agree with you, sometimes when you have nothing to lose, you just ain't got nothing to lose, having said that I agree Israel has the right of defence.

But have a look at their last campaigns, high child casualty rates, whatever your view point, they are not part of the war, unless you are looking for the long war and taking out future terrorists.

Unfortunately, you recruit more than you take out.

When Israel suffers child casualties, it's because they are specifically targeted. When the Palestinians suffer child casualties, it's because Hamas and other terror groups use them as human shields.

Are you suggesting Koheesti, that all the children shot in the head and face were victims of shields?

I think it was a mistake not to recognize Hamas after the election. In a democracy, people have to learn (slowly) that they are voting for <deleted>. We should have let Hamas ruin life for the Palestinians without the US and others help. Let the people see for themselves that they voted the wrong way so they can vote the bums out next time. Otherwise, Hamas is just given a convenient excuse to use with the electorate. All of this doesn't mean that Israel shouldn't protect itself, they should.

Although I agree with you, sometimes when you have nothing to lose, you just ain't got nothing to lose, having said that I agree Israel has the right of defence.

But have a look at their last campaigns, high child casualty rates, whatever your view point, they are not part of the war, unless you are looking for the long war and taking out future terrorists.

Unfortunately, you recruit more than you take out.

When Israel suffers child casualties, it's because they are specifically targeted. When the Palestinians suffer child casualties, it's because Hamas and other terror groups use them as human shields.

Are you suggesting Koheesti, that all the children shot in the head and face were victims of shields?

No, not all. The fact is, Hamas and similar organisations launch attacks/rockets from civilian areas in hopes that any retaliation will kill innocents (children especially) which then can then be used as propoganda. That's not news to anyone here, is it?

As many people in the UK can tell you, these arguments are unresolveable.

We had problems with Ireland from the time of the first Queen Elizabeth until the first world war and on to the mid-nineteen-twenties.

This was resolved by giving the Irish their independence. But as the province of Ulster was populated by more Protestants than Catholics, and these wanted to stay with the UK, there was no independence granted to Ulster.

The Catholic extremists, supported from their comrades outside Ulster, continued the fight for freedom until the end of the last century, when a degree of self-government was agreed.

But this is not good enough for some die-hard fanatics and there are still bombings, shootings, other attacks in the province.

Some people will never be satisfied until they see their 'enemies' totally destroyed. There is no negotiating with them. No reasoning. Nothing you give them is enough. This is the hard lesson of Northern Ireland and it should be learned by all negotiators when trying to deal with sectarian or religious or quasi-political differences.

Rational people will see some of both sides points of view. Fanatics will see only their own - and this point of view will get more extreme with the concessions offered.

Problems are always resolvable, just look at the Island of Ireland, fewer killings, far less bombings, no more army patrols and two intractable enemy stances working in some form of Government.

By the way, there has been trouble, war and strife in Ireland since the earl of Pembroke in the 12C, Cromwell 17C both recording million person kills and then the 19C, a further million through absentee landlords and the Famine.

The province of Ulster is not populated by more Protestants and the six N.E Counties are only kept in protestant majority by the gerrymandering of borders, and what exactly was resolved by 'giving' Irish Independence, not much I would suggest and nothing was 'given', the English were politely asked to leave.

The 'Catholic' extremists, no mention of British or their supporters the Protestant extremists, who wanted the elimination of the Roman Horde in the most North Easterly portion of Ulster, or why was the army installed in the first place.

If you take into account Ireland, there has been successful and continued negotiation, but there will alway's be some, who have no other option but to continue the fight, do not lump all into one ugly mess.

No negotiatiion, no reasoning?? Do you understand the situation?

As for fanatics, just take a look at this thread, thank Heavens they have no influence.

When Israel suffers child casualties, it's because they are specifically targeted. When the Palestinians suffer child casualties, it's because Hamas and other terror groups use them as human shields.

Are you suggesting Koheesti, that all the children shot in the head and face were victims of shields?

No, not all. The fact is, Hamas and similar organisations launch attacks/rockets from civilian areas in hopes that any retaliation will kill innocents (children especially) which then can then be used as propoganda. That's not news to anyone here, is it?

It seemed to me that you suggested that Palestinians suffered child casualties because other terrorist groups used them as human shields.

This was in relation to my statement of excessive child head wounds, by bullets by, not rockets by Israeli forces, have I misunderstood your above quote?

Just to pre-empt other responses, yes I agree futile rockets have no basis in proper negotiation and are in abject default of any usual sympathy vote.

When Israel suffers child casualties, it's because they are specifically targeted. When the Palestinians suffer child casualties, it's because Hamas and other terror groups use them as human shields.

Are you suggesting Koheesti, that all the children shot in the head and face were victims of shields?

No, not all. The fact is, Hamas and similar organisations launch attacks/rockets from civilian areas in hopes that any retaliation will kill innocents (children especially) which then can then be used as propoganda. That's not news to anyone here, is it?

It seemed to me that you suggested that Palestinians suffered child casualties because other terrorist groups used them as human shields.

This was in relation to my statement of excessive child head wounds, by bullets by, not rockets by Israeli forces, have I misunderstood your above quote?

Just to pre-empt other responses, yes I agree futile rockets have no basis in proper negotiation and are in abject default of any usual sympathy vote.

Apparently I misunderstood you then because I didn't know we were only talking about head wounds by bullets.

Rational people will see some of both sides points of view. Fanatics will see only their own - and this point of view will get more extreme with the concessions offered.

If you take into account Ireland, there has been successful and continued negotiation, but there will alway's be some, who have no other option but to continue the fight...

So, basically, you agree with Mossfin, so why the condescending put down of his post?

:

(a) are carrying contraband

; ...

I think we would all agree they did have Cookies onboard so I guess it was a legitimate boarding after all

.

A perfect example of intellectual dishonesty at best.

So sayeth the greatest practioner of it.

No, he knows perfectly well what the "aid flotilla" was really about and to pretend like he doesn't is being dishonest. Just like like you and some others.

Now take your one week holiday already like you agreed.

It has been proven more than once, that honesty is not high on their priority list.

Just to pre-empt other responses, yes I agree futile rockets have no basis in proper negotiation

That is awfully noble of you, but why never any posts about Arab atrocities?

Just to pre-empt other responses, yes I agree futile rockets have no basis in proper negotiation

That is awfully noble of you, but why never any posts about Arab atrocities?

Because we are talking about Israeli atrocities because they are supposed to be held to a higher moral law and act within the International community laws if as you say they are not terrorists like HAMAS now since they ignore the UN and international law there is no clear seperation between Hamas and Israel with both being guilty of Atrocities and both cases can be labeled Terrorists without being able to defend it.

You can accuse ANY nation that is at war of "atrocities" as that is pretty much what war is about. Why is Israel supposed to be held to a higher standard than anyone else?

As far as the U.N goes, most country's votes are for sale to the highest bidder anyway, so where is your outrage when Iran thumbs their nose at the UN and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that they signed.

You can accuse ANY nation that is at war of "atrocities" as that is pretty much what war is about. Why is Israel supposed to be held to a higher standard than anyone else?

As far as the U.N goes, most country's votes are for sale to the highest bidder anyway, so where is your outrage when Iran thumbs their nose at the UN and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that they signed.

I love it

you have an excuse for everything where Israel is concerned Good job lol

As for Iran I have commented 2 times on Iran so I think you know my opinion of them (no support here)

Pretending to be "unbiased" with a few comments is very different from page after page of vitriolic slander. It is not difficult to see your real agenda.

Daily Mail

London, August 25, 2001

UNDER THE BRITISH JACKBOOT

Rape, torture, execution and the horrors of interrogation camps. A new book paints a chilling picture of Germany under British rule in the aftermath of World War II

Christopher Hudson

TRY to imagine Britain occupied by a victorious Germany after World War II. A young boy is executed for displaying a picture of Churchill on his birthday.

Theft carries the death penalty, so does possession of any kind of firearm.

Firing squads are expensive. Hanging wastes time. The Nazi Penal Branch asks permission to use the guillotine, which can carry out six single executions in 14 minutes.

Meanwhile, internment camps have sprung up across the country. Almost 40,000 British civilians and prisoners of war, men and women aged 16-70 have been swept up into these camps and are held without charge or expectation of a trial.

They include not only 'war criminals', profiteers and anti-Nazi agitators, but anyone who 'ridicules, damages or destroys' German culture, along with any persons 'considered dangerous to the Occupation or its objectives', even if they have not committed any offence.

One English mother of four has been imprisoned for a year because she hid in a ditch to snatch a word with her husband who was out on a working party.

Conditions in these camps are brutal. Inmates sleep in their clothes, packed five at a time like sardines on beds constructed from old pieces of wood.

There is so little to eat that the majority of them are emaciated.

Family visits are restricted to 30 minutes every three months. Internees are frequently kept in dark cellars to prepare them for interrogation. According to a report compiled by a courageous German bishop, they are 'terribly beaten, kicked, and so mishandled that traces can be seen for weeks afterwards.

'The notorious Third Degree methods of using searchlights on victims and exposing them to high temperatures are also applied.' All this really happened -- but in reverse.

It happened in Germany, and we, the British occupying forces, carried it out

.

http://www.fpp.co.uk.../DailyMail.html

:

(a) are carrying contraband

; ...

I think we would all agree they did have Cookies onboard so I guess it was a legitimate boarding after all

.

A perfect example of intellectual dishonesty at best.

So sayeth the greatest practioner of it.

No, he knows perfectly well what the "aid flotilla" was really about and to pretend like he doesn't is being dishonest. Just like like you and some others.

Now take your one week holiday already like you agreed.

Delicious irony! A perfect example of intellectual dishonesty at best.

Remind us all, please, where I agreed, and to what I agreed, and under which conditions I agreed to take a holiday.

Since you want to start it all over again...Bring it on.

an excuse for everything where Israel is concerned Good job lol

The one excuse that amazes me is the fact that they... Israel....Constantly beat the drum about the possible build up of nuclear arms elsewhere. Claiming this & that about Iran not keeping to a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which yes they signed....

As well as many other countries.

Many if not all capable countries signed it in fact 189 States/Countries.... except three that never signed.... Israel, India & Pakistan...Four if you count North Korea who withdrew.

So your neighbors or possible threats are allowed to have weapons yet you are not? Is it hard to understand if any others from that area eventually withdraw?

Israel is spurious at best when questioned on their nuclear capabilities. Yet it is well known they have nuclear weapons programs & facilities... and they have the gall to complain about others?

Not unlike the ban on cluster bombs or the use of WP....It is not going to be a useful treaty if the greatest threats do not all take part in it.

I have no horse in the race but I cannot see how our country backs such a two faced policy. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The ones that did not sign the treaty should shut the hel_l up as they have no legit leg to stand on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

Just to pre-empt other responses, yes I agree futile rockets have no basis in proper negotiation

That is awfully noble of you, but why never any posts about Arab atrocities?

Because it would overload and crash the server...and the fear they might lose their head over it if someone ever hacks the member database.

You can accuse ANY nation that is at war of "atrocities" as that is pretty much what war is about. Why is Israel supposed to be held to a higher standard than anyone else?

Maybe the reason Israel is held to a higher standard than it's Arab neighbors is because one side is over-represented in the fields of science, medicine, law (ok, bad example), finance, classical music, art & are generally well-educated on the whole while the other side is over-represented in terror groups, stoning of women, stoning of homosexuals, lopping off heads, blowing up buses, markets and cafes, and are generally not too educated.

This interesting list tells a lot...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_published_per_country_per_year

an excuse for everything where Israel is concerned Good job lol

The one excuse that amazes me is the fact that they... Israel....Constantly beat the drum about the possible build up of nuclear arms elsewhere. Claiming this & that about Iran not keeping to a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which yes they signed....

As well as many other countries.

Many if not all capable countries signed it in fact 189 States/Countries.... except three that never signed.... Israel, India & Pakistan...Four if you count North Korea who withdrew.

So your neighbors or possible threats are allowed to have weapons yet you are not? Is it hard to understand if any others from that area eventually withdraw?

Israel is spurious at best when questioned on their nuclear capabilities. Yet it is well known they have nuclear weapons programs & facilities... and they have the gall to complain about others?

Why don't Israel's Arab neighbors raise a stink over Israel's nuclear weapons then? I've read where they are less than thrilled about Iran getting one and even might support Israel taking any Iranian facilities out.

Why don't Israel's Arab neighbors raise a stink over Israel's nuclear weapons then? I've read where they are less than thrilled about Iran getting one and even might support Israel taking any Iranian facilities out.

Dont know & dont really care either....Could be the old school yard deal...Where the bully also has the biggest friend?

All I AM saying though is if your not part of the solution do not complain about the problem.

I mean can it be any more ironic? The one that is not taking part in a transparency treaty is complaining about someone they think is not being transparent enough.

You could not make that up ...yet it is exactly the case.

Tell you what, I have posted in this forum a few times about getting personal and nasty and it seems to no avail. Next person who does so will be suspended for a minimum of 15 days. Next person after that will get 30 days. and so on.

You guys are trying my patience beyond what I am normally willing to tolerate.

Why don't Israel's Arab neighbors raise a stink over Israel's nuclear weapons then? I've read where they are less than thrilled about Iran getting one and even might support Israel taking any Iranian facilities out.

Dont know & dont really care either....Could be the old school yard deal...Where the bully also has the biggest friend?

All I AM saying though is if your not part of the solution do not complain about the problem.

I mean can it be any more ironic? The one that is not taking part in a transparency treaty is complaining about someone they think is not being transparent enough.

You could not make that up ...yet it is exactly the case.

Israel is the one country on the planet that really needs the nuclear deterrent. Sadly, I'm not making that up.

Why don't Israel's Arab neighbors raise a stink over Israel's nuclear weapons then? I've read where they are less than thrilled about Iran getting one and even might support Israel taking any Iranian facilities out.

Dont know & dont really care either....Could be the old school yard deal...Where the bully also has the biggest friend?

All I AM saying though is if your not part of the solution do not complain about the problem.

I mean can it be any more ironic? The one that is not taking part in a transparency treaty is complaining about someone they think is not being transparent enough.

You could not make that up ...yet it is exactly the case.

Israel is the one country on the planet that really needs the nuclear deterrent. Sadly, I'm not making that up.

And they are the country most likely to use it Im not making that up either

Israel is the one country on the planet that really needs the nuclear deterrent. Sadly, I'm not making that up.

Well see that is how it works....Good for the goose....good for the gander.

Other countries that are threatened also want that same luxury/deterrent

Sadly the ones you claim really need it are far more capable & armed already than those who fear them.

Imagine how well it would go over in say the USA if they said to their citizens.....

Ok all you folks(insert nationality here xxx)can have guns...

You folks (insert nationality here xxx) cannot have guns...

Now live nicely next to each other.

Tell you what, I have posted in this forum a few times about getting personal and nasty and it seems to no avail. Next person who does so will be suspended for a minimum of 15 days. Next person after that will get 30 days. and so on.

You guys are trying my patience beyond what I am normally willing to tolerate.

Good.

I trust financial members and sponsoring members are judged as harshly as mere members.

I hope this warning is open ended.....i.e is a standing order with no expiry.

So, is that doubling the suspension time for each consecutive infraction, or simply adding 15 days? I vote for doubling.

Does it include implying, or does it have to be a direct "personal" or "nasty" comment?

What if a "personal" comment is a factual accusation? "koheesti, I accuse you of being an inhabitant of Dubai!!!!"

Since the punishment has an element of time in it, does the punishment meted out reflect the time the mod read it, or the time it was posted, because a post may be a response to a first insult, but the mod missed it....can there be an appeal based on timing of the posts?

I'm not being sarky here SBK, I genuiniely want to have these things made clear so that the worst offenders can't wriggle out of things.

Actually.....I"ll start the ball rolling. I'll take 15 days now.***offensive childish name calling removed--sbk***

Yeah, I know it's like hitting my head against a brick wall.....but I look forward to taking UG off ignore and actually being able to make a reasonable debate with all concerned.

Im not up for insulting anyone they have a right to there opinion just as I do mine however they dont like me having an opinion different to theres but hel_l I been suspended way too many times already not by SBK although I kinda like the whip thing she's got going on LOL

See ya later Harcourt enjoy your vacation