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?

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 ?

from Arab News

it seems that hamas is the rogue in this mess
but we all knew that anyway


By MOHAMMED MAR'I | ARAB NEWS

Published: Jun 1, 2010 23:13
RAMALLAH: A prominent Palestinian figure on Tuesday said that reconciliation efforts between rival Palestinian movements Hamas and Fatah would resume soon.

Al-Masri added that he was assigned to head the delegation.
He added that he could finish forming the delegation by Tuesday before traveling to the Gaza Strip.

Hamas had seized control of the Gaza Strip by force in June 2007 following two weeks of heavy fighting with Abbas' security forces.

Following Hamas takeover of Gaza, Abbas outlawed the movement and deposed its government, but Hamas rejected his decree and continues to rule the enclave.

Egypt had in October presented a draft reconciliation paper to the rival factions. Fatah accepted the document while Hamas refused to sign, saying it had reservations.

Hamas wanted reconciliation efforts to be handled through a committee representing all the factions and says the Egyptian paper authorized Abbas to form these committees without national understanding. Egypt rejected Hamas demands.

Member of Fatah's central committee Abbas Zaki said Abbas decision to reconcile with Hamas was based on a need to resolve the crisis quickly.

"Why don't we resolve our feuds by ourselves? I believe that all the previous excuses are meaningless and there is nothing that obstructs reaching a real reconciliation," said Zaki.

Meanwhile, Hamas has dismissed the visit as a ploy to persuade them to approve the Egyptian reconciliation draft.

The waters are NOT Israel's. Even Israel calls them Gaza's territorial waters. It is just that Israel controls them and is blockading them.

Still piracy. Still illegal. What will Israel do when the next flotilla arrives?

lol

PTH.
Ref yr post 2418.
I believe the saying is "A man who keeps his mouth closed
might be considered an idiot, but a man who opens his
proves it"

haystack, you are just making it up as you go along

do stop posting rubbish

I have booked a ticket for you on the next boat

don't forget to take your swiss army knife with you

lol

Haystack, you are right 100% of what you posted , but the terrorist and piracy done by israeli army is called legal as they have the full support from USA, when this relation is little bit change everything will change and appear, the time is coming soon.

Statement by HRH Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan on the outrageous raid on the freedom convoy to Gaza

The continuing siege on Gaza, or what has commonly become known as the 'War on Terror', has developed a new dimension since the outrageous and controversial raid on the freedom convoy began. I say controversial because the convoy carrying international citizens and travelling in international waters, left ports of countries with which Israel has diplomatic relations. What this suggests is that perhaps Israel is seeking total isolation to justify continued violence leading to further pre-emptive strikes and a regional war. Regardless of its current motivations, Israel has taught us that in the past when pressured diplomatically, its preferred recourse is the use of arms. That said, would it not have been possible to liaise with these international bodies instead? Even if so-called 'proximity talks' were used to engage them and identify their cargo. I say this knowing full well that they would have been searched by the authorities of those countries from which they departed in keeping with the conditionality of the so-called 'War on Terror'.

If however, Israels main complaint is the continued loss of Israeli lives and not the cargo of the flotilla per se, does the loss of thousands of lives in this war-torn region mean that two wrongs make a right and that wrongful arbitrary behaviour makes a right? Head-strong actions cannot be (and are not) by accident, as we condole the families of the bereaved and cry out for justice and security for the peoples of this region.

The recently convened Washington conference calling for a zone free of weapons of mass destruction was, sadly, not attended by Israel. Fortunately, WMDs have not been a feature of this confrontation. Conventional weapons, however, have been, and they also amount to mass destruction on a multitude of levels as we are currently witnessing, not least of all on the faith that many honest citizens hold that this region has a future based on peace, justice and security.

The unswerving commitment that these peace activists have in the belief that the rights of others be recognised is built with courage and sacrifice over decades, and now it is being destroyed by the force of arms, whether conventional or not. It is not surprising that this region is devoid of an international conference for security and cooperation because it is obvious that there is a lack of belief in the concept of security and cooperation. Rather the focus is on the strong controlling the weak.

Those who believe in human rights and democratic practices have to put their actions where their words are, and this is what these activists have tried so valiantly to do, but for what reward I call for a halt to the suffering and for a commitment by the international leaders and decision makers to peace and justice for the peoples of the region, - a region of such vital importance to the world. I am fully aware of the fact that the Near East, once known as the Cradle of Civilisation, has become a tinder box of war; but in losing sight of peace and humanitarian law, we are surrendering one-by-one to the crushing power of the opportunist 'hatred industry'.


El Hassan bin Talal

Amman, Jordan

31st May 2010

this is the link

http://www.elhassan.org