See if you can engage in a reasonable debate on the issues. Try to respond with some sense of mutual respect. I have not disrespected you. Please show me the same courtesy.

Quote Originally Posted by Islandborn
Israels blockade is COMPLETELY LEGAL under international law.
Again, just saying it does not make is so. Can you back it up? Would you please cite relevant international laws or protocols that justify your statement? Don't just parrot what Mark Regev an others say. Show us that you have done your home work - that you have done some critical thinking on this issue. If you are relying on the San Remo Agreement please point to those articles that you think apply. More importantly, tell us why the San Remo Agreement takes precedent over the 1982 Law of the Seas Treaty which governs maritime law in international waters beyond 12 miles of a sovereign coast?

Quote Originally Posted by Islandborn
Yes, Israel has the LEGAL right to stop ships in international waters.
Again, any chance that you can justify this? Don't just give us a link provided by Mark Regev, et al. Show us that you know what you are talking about.

Quote Originally Posted by Islandborn
Yes, Israel has the right to use force when stopping a ship and sorry, this wasn't "piracy" under ANY legal definition and this backs up what Im saying... International Humanitarian Law - San Remo Manual 1994
And this backs up what I'm saying:

The San Remo agreement being used by Israel to justify its attacks on the flotilla is only part of international maritime law. But accepting this as the governing body of law for the moment, there is nothing in the San Remo agreement that allows a belligerent state to murder civilians in international waters. The San Remo agreement allows countries to stop ??merchant vessels? in international waters under the following conditions:

-- If the vessels ??are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture.?

In this case, the blockade of Gaza is an illegal action. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1860 censured Israel for collectively punishing the people of Gaza. The resolution calls for ??the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including food, fuel, and medical treatment.? And before you start with the tired line about how the UN is biased against Israel, note that this was not a resolution of General Assembly but rather the five permanent members of the UN including the United States.

--If the vessels ??engage[s] in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy?

--If vessels are ??act[ing] as auxiliaries to the enemy??s armed forces?

--If vessels ??are incorporated into or assist the enemy??s intelligence system?

--If vessels ??sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft?

--Or if vessels ??otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy??s military action.?

Note that these ships were inspected at a number of ports en route to Gaza. They were supplying relief supplies for civilians targeted by the illegal blockade. Had there been anything of note on board those ships it would have been front page news the next day.

A more relevant international treaty in the case of this attack is the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty. This agreement allows for the ??innocent passage? of ships in international waters if their behavior is not deemed ??prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security? of the respective coastal state.

The Israeli attack took place 80 miles offshore, far outside of Israel??s sovereignty (which extends no further than 12 miles from Israel??s coast), in a zone where the Law of the Sea Treaty is the only basis for enforcement. It is clear why Israel and her appeasers do not want this treaty to apply as this attack would constitute a clear violation of the law. Not much different from what is going on off the coast of Somalia.

Again, where is the footage seized from the dozens of journalists on board? Why don't we get to see that? Where is it? You and I both know why it is being suppressed. It shows the murder of 9 civilians including 5 executed with shots to the back of the head and back.