Will this increase or decrease the likelihood of terrorist actions in America, Europe and the rest of the world?

If you were a member of a family murdered in this conflict, would you be seeking revenge?

Should Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert, be tried for war crimes if or when this conflict comes to an end?

What will the price of oil be in 4 weeks time?

Interesting to see a partial passanger list and some of the comments relating to beatings during interogation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7141720.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093

Incidentally, UNCLOS Articles 105, 107, 108 & 110 cover the right of warships or ships engaged soley on governmental business to board ships suspected of piracy & drug traffiking. Additionally, MOUs exist between nations to conduct searches once ships suspected of illicit activity have been boarded.

and don't bet against peter knowing his onions!

The waters are Gaza'a territorial waters NOT Israel's. Israel occupied Gaza and were regarded as the occupying power. Israel claims to have left Gaza and disengaged, but they still control Gaza's territorial waters and airspace. How can israel set up a blockade of Gaza's territorial waters?

Any boarding of ship suspected of acting illegally is supposed to involve informing and asking permission from the country under whos flag they are sailing. The consent of Turkey was NOT obtained.

UNSC Resolution 1874:

12. Calls upon all Member States to inspect vessels, with the consent of the flag State, on the high seas, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo of such vessels contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraph 8 (a), 8 (b), or 8 ( c ) of resolution 1718 (2006) or by paragraph 9 or 10 of this resolution, for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of those provisions

"Any boarding of ship suspected of acting illegally is supposed to involve informing and asking permission from the country under whos flag they are sailing."

Incorrect

I was under the impression the boarding took place in International Waters?
Is Gaza a recognised country and therefore have its own TTWs?

Oh and what does UNCSR 1874 have to do with Israel or the ME, I was under the impression that particular resolution and 1718 dealt with the DPRK?

Perhaps it has since been modified?

Even The Israeli defense minister referred to the flotilla sailing into Gaza's territorial waters.

and

"Israeli officials said that when the flotilla ignored calls from its naval forces to respect its closure of Gaza's territorial waters, soldiers boarded the ships from helicopters and from navy sea craft."

Gaza is part of Palestine.

I was going to place a series of photos of the destruction of Gaza and some of the mutilations of civilians and photos of the Polish ghettos and their destruction and murdering of Jewish people.

The similarities were for me are striking, the underlying inhumanity are of a similar primitive origin.

Some, defend the Israeli disproportionate use of force to defending themselves against what they are now creating for others.

I think the methods used in both Poland and Gaza are from the same base.

I feel the Israeli government and to a certain degree the representatives if the Palestinians should be ashamed of themselves, as anyone defends the actions which they are using.

There are other methods of resolving the conflict other than murder.
I decided not to paste some of the photos, but for any who cannot see the actions in the present conflict the Middle East are inhumane, and will not resolve the problem, I would suggest viewing the two sites.

Consider the injured and mutilated to be members of your own family.

http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&rlz=1B3WZPB_enGB336GB336&q=polish+ghetto+photos&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=3WgFTJ2PFtGT4gbd2_DLDg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQsAQwAA

Make allowances for below, as it is journalistic and has propaganda influence.

But the photos are graphic and the majority are not set ups etc..


http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/gaza-horror-large-photo-gallery-of-gaza-massacre-by-israel/

Haystack, you continue to make incorrect statements in nearly every post, generally clouding the issue(s) probably deliberately, you can't be that stupid surely?

It doesn't really matter what Israeli officials are reported as saying with regard to TTWs, what matters (in the context of your rather flawed argument) is whether Gaza is recognised as having TTWs (as part of Palestine) or not.

Care to comment on UNCLOS article 110 re your other incorrect statement or the relevance of UNSCR 1874?

The United Nations recognised that Gaza had territorial waters and airspace. They accepted that while Israel was occupied, Israel was in control of these. Isreael no longer occupies Gaza (although it might as well according to their behaviour). Who's territorial waters do you think they are then? They can't be Israel's as they are not adjacent to Israel.

Looks like you have accepted you're talking rubbish Haystack, ask a question when you cannot answer it yourself. By the way the UN appears to consider Gaza as still occupied, in which case Gaza does not have TTWs. Hoist by your own petard?

Does this remain extant?

The disengagement plan states: "Israel will hold sole control of Gaza airspace and will continue to carry out military activity in the waters of the Gaza Strip." Therefore, Israel continues to maintain exclusive control of Gaza's airspace and the territorial waters, just as it has since it occupied the Gaza Strip in 1967.

Israel's supreme court ruled in 2008 that after the disengagement, Israel "had no effective control over what occurred" inside Gaza, according to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Israel claimes that Gaza is not occupied and it has territorial waters that are being controlled by Israel. Either way the waters are NOT Israel's territorial waters.

post 2435
So they are NOT Israel's territorial waters, but Gaza's even though controlled by Israel.

Err, you're being even more stupid now Haystack (post 2437).

You are relying far tooo much on what people say rather than the stated facts, try re-reading post 2435. I haven't stated that Gaza does not have TTWs, actually I asked the question; but assuming the Disengagement Plan remains extant, it is immaterial, as you quite correctly state Israel controls those waters.

In any event as per my post 2427, the subject of Gaza TTWs is seemingly irrelevant:

"Activists said Israeli naval commandos stormed the ships after ordering them to stop in international waters, about 80 miles (130 kilometers) from Gaza's coast." Correct?

Internationally recognised TTWs generally extend 12nm, just in case you think 80 miles from the Gaza coast qualifies!

As the old saying goes, you can't educate pork!

of course the waters belong to Israel

haystack has lost his needle again

Sorry for the long post - but this is how the argument runs, apparently, if Gaza is (as Haystack asserts) a sovereign state:

Gaza has attacked, and continues to attack Israel with rockets (any provocation arguments are irrelevant here in law). The attacks give Israel the legal right to engage in acts of war as self-defence. This gives Israel the legal right to blockade Gaza, and to intercept (and sink if necessary) ships in international waters that are planning on breaching the blockade, so long as Israel abides by the general humanitarian rules of blockades.

Article 23 of the fourth Geneva convention requires parties to certain conflicts to permit transit to enemy civilian populations of a limited number of items and under a limited set of conditions (See Geneva Convention IV, Article 23). The law requires passage of food, clothing and medicines intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers, and maternity cases (See Geneva Convention IV, Article 92). There is no requirement for the passage of electricity, fuel, cement, construction equipment, slingshots, toys or anything else.

Under Article 23 a party can block passage even of food, clothing and medicine and even for these population grounds if it has serious grounds for suspecting that the items will be intercepted before reaching their destination or that the items may benefit the enemy's economy by substitution (Id.). Israel has excellent grounds for fearing both of these results. Hamas gifted Israel these grounds with its seizure of 14 Red Crescent trucks carrying humanitarian aid on 7th February 2008. (Id.)

Article 70 of the First Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 creates a slightly broader duty regarding the provision of food, medical supplies, clothing, bedding, means of shelter and "other supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population (Article 70 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12th August 1949, and Relating to the Protections of Victims of International Armed Conflicts). Israel, however is not a party to the First Protocol and is therefore not bound by the provisions of Article 70.

More generally, the Israeli Justice Ministry has acknowledged a duty under customary international law not to interfere with the supply of basic humanitarian items such as food and medicine. The Israeli Supreme Court has also enforced this duty in several decisions (eg HCJ 9132/07, Ahmed v Prime Minister 30th Jan 2008).

Hamas' previous diversions of assistance give Israel the legal right to interfere with the passage of humanitarian items, and to supervise their delivery to ensure that they do not reach the wrong hands or benefit the armed efforts or the economy of the enemy.

The blockade together with the rerouting of aid through Ashdod and subsequent land border is Israel's means of exercising the legal rights described above.

any ship can pass once it has been inspected

Gaza is not a sovereign state by any test

come to think of it, where is mahmoud abbas ?

on holiday is he ?