to think that if you were shocked or saddened by Israel's actions today you could

[lowrib]

spare a moment or two to write a letter or an email to voice your protest.

For those of you who haven't seen the news, Israeli forces today stormed a flotilla of boats which were trying to deliver humanitarian aid to Palestine and shot dead 19 people, injuring many more. The people on the ships were an international group of unarmed civilians, and they were in international waters.

A friend of mine is on one of the ships. I'm yet to hear any news (Israel seem to be doing all they can to block any communication).

What you can do to help ...

(Copied from the Stop the War Coalition at stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1906/1/)

PROTEST TO FOREIGN SECRETARY WILLIAM HAGUE:

BY EMAIL: [email protected] AND [email protected] AND [email protected]

BY LETTER TO: William Hague MP, Foreign Secretary, King Charles Street, London, SW1A 2AH

PROTEST TO YOUR MP:
findyourmp.parliament.uk

PROTEST TO DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER NICK CLEGG
EMAIL: [email protected]

LETTER TO: Nick Clegg MP, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

Thanks.

Shdad- i dont see israel as having any moral rights,. in fact i would go so far as to say they have acted in an immoral way throughout the occupation

I dont believe that Israel has the rights to inspect the ships or decide what the will allow the people of Gaza to have in terms of babyclothes/building materials/food the ships should be inspected by a neutral party

These things have been reported as happening for a long time, this is just the first time an incident had been filmed and streamed, and based upon it judgements will be made about all the past incidents

The boats were in international waters, the trouble is that Israel has no respect for borders and wants to gain control of the entire region

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea

www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMSU

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) 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;

(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;

Are you on purpose missing my point shdad?

Exactly Zazimoa,

Shdad, Pardon me, but one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter and national hero, and always has been. The main historical difference is who is writing the history.

Shdad,
I understand you do not know anything about International Law of the Sea, which is very normal. But the fact that you post something like this, may make others believe you have some idea.

Your 'Manual' is a guideline for 'Armed conflicts at sea'. Nothing related with the case here. The boat was in the high sea, no rights whatsoever to board the boat. Obviously this was not a 'neutral merchant vessel' either... but would be long to explain.

There is no legal justificaton for what Israel has done. You may want to go on and on on the 'ethical' side of it... It is hard to see how the powerful, occupier of a territory, starving a whole people is the victim.

camaleon how was it not a neutral merchant vessel? and what happened yesterday if it isn't an armed conflict at sea?

What happened yesterday was a bunch of people using pipes and sticks against hundreds of commando carrying automatic weapons. Fighting for their lives after seeing what the commandos did to their friends who perished after they were fired on from warships.

Do you seriously want us to believe the commandos boarded the ship with automatic weapons and the people attacked them with sticks and pipes unprovoked?

Shdad,
I do not want to escape answering but it is a bit complicated by posting here. To have 'armed conflict at sea' you need an 'armed conflict'. In other words, a war. And normally you will have a clearly limted area of the sea designed as 'conflict waters' where some 'neutral merchant ships' will be allowed passage.

By the way, you should know that Israel is adamant about the NO existence of an armed conflict with Palestine... Otherwise they should apply Humanitarian Law and other regulations applicable in armed conflict, and they do not.

However, while you can discuss if an 'armed conflict' does exist between Israel and Palestine, there is no doubt that no armed conflict exist between Turkey and Israel.

Camaleon ?
?there is no doubt that no armed conflict exist between Turkey and Israel.?
which is why they will claim it was a neutral merchant ship trying to break a blockade.
Also Israel say of Palestine there is an ?armed conflict short of total war? so there is some admittance of armed conflict even if not a war.
I am not a lawyer (don't know if you are ), but I am sure there are experts out there who could argue both our cases.

Mainly from www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/applicable_international_law.php?id_state=113

The official Israeli Government position is that the Geneva Convention (armed conflicts)do not apply in the West Bank and other occupied territory, because of the lack of prior sovereignty over these territories (the Palestinians were not a "High Contracting Party" as required by Article 2 of the Convention). In general Israel prefers to speak about a 'disputed territory' and not about 'armed conflict'.

Nevertheless, Israel has declared that it will apply de facto the humanitarian provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The Israeli High Court of Justice has never ruled on this issue. Israel's assertion that Geneva Convention IV does not apply as a matter of law has been rejected by the International Court of Justice, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN.

There is no discussion about the 'neutral merchant ship', believe me. It does not fit any similar category. And if you are into supporting the views of Israel, speaking about an 'armed conflict' means separating yourself from one of their most contested position.

Well said Ryoko, I agree with everything you say. Israel do not want peace, they want to ethnically cleanse Gaza, no regard for any non jewish life.

I am very sad and shocked by the whole thing, the middle east is like a weeping sore that just keeps getting picked at by one or other side with neither apparently able to gain the upper hand and conclusively end the situation, or apparently prepared to sit down and make a real go of living together.

I've not had chance to look through the whole thread, just to say that the nice people at Avaaz have organised a petition calling for an independent investigation and an end to the blockade for humanitarian reasons.

If you feel strongly either way, it might be worth a look and a signature.

www.avaaz.org/en/gaza_flotilla_3/?vl

I too am very saddened but not surprised at what has happened.
Why do the Israelis think they have the right to behave in this manner?
No race or ethnic group are 'better' than the rest, and I don't see why they should be allowed to behave as if they are.
What makes the life of an Israeli worth more than the life of a Palestinian?

Lowri i am so sorry to hear about your friend. I hope you get some good news soon.

shdad perhaps you need to take your nicknames advice eh?

I?ll leave you to your 6th form politics... bye.

6th form politics! how rude! i didnt go to sixth form i is too thick! thats why i married owen!! come on shdad throwing your toys out just because you have no real knowledge apart from what you have read on wikipedia is a tad childish no?!

Free Palestine! shdad you are talking rot, this situation is an outrage to humanity, that you are probably the lone voice of dissent on this thread should tell you something no?

TheShriekingHarpy
NO that post was about the Palestinians who have been forced to move from their homes.

THeCOalitionNeedsYOu

That was a really good point about nations not having the "right" to exist. Nation-states are fairly recent constructs. I'm always shocked when I look at the map of Africa and see the countries all divided up into square-shapes, not along natural lines such as mountains or rivers, just because the colonizers decided where the nation-states should be.