Comments on: Seizure of ‘Spirit of Humanity’ was ‘simple act of piracy’

By: ismail

ismail — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:28:30 +0000

You may be an average piece of shit but you're certainly no American. Real Americans support Israel.

By: ismail

ismail — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:27:36 +0000

Well, I certainly don't speak for insane Americans like you.

By: Thom

Thom — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:15:51 +0000

Amnesty International said that bombing the house/armory of a Palestinian terrorist was a war crime because he and his 4 wives and 11 children decided to stay there after Israel told them the house was going to be bombed. Amnesty International is like PETA. They have some legitimate points, but a lot of their stuff is just insane. In this case, they are talking about two Lebanese Nationals. I don't know the story about Shaykh ‘Ubayd, but Mustafa al-Dirani is a terrorist leader. For purpose of argument, I will assume they both are. Lebanon is an HCP, so the GCs apply to them. They are not protected by the 3rd GC (POWs) because they are not officially members of the armed forces of Lebanon, and for various other reasons that preclude terrorists from claiming POW rights under the 3rd GC. The 4th GC applies, which allows Israel to lock up people who are dangerous to Israel's security until they are no longer dangerous. Like many people who don't understand the law, you seem to think that conditional phrases should be read as unconditional. Sorry, but when the rule is "If X, then doing Y is forbidden" and the fact is "Not X" then doing Y is not forbidden. Also, the HRW "analysis" simply assumes that the blockade is collective punishment. It also ignores the fact that the rule against collective punishment is in part III of the 4th GC, which only applies to countries/groups that obey the GCs. They are as careless with their terms as you are. They like throwing legal jargon around without the bother of figuring out what it means.

By: Peter H

Peter H — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:04:06 +0000

I also trust Amnesty International more than you: " target="_blank">http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/030...

By: Peter H

Peter H — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:43:33 +0000

I trust Human Rights Watch' analysis more than yours: " target="_blank">http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/04/30/letter-secr...

By: cosmopolitan

cosmopolitan — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:33:38 +0000

Search and seizure by a force of a country that is violating the international laws and international agencies that gave it world legitimacy is subject to punishment by the world community. Otherwise, any country can just do whatever it wants. That was the way it was until after WW2. Israel's collective activities are very regressive. Every country always justifies its aggression in the name of "self-defense." There are no international treaties, laws, agencies that incorporate all countries except those Israel ignores. A rogue state is a rogue state. Time to "put 'er down."

By: Citizen

Citizen — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:25:15 +0000

What rule post Nuremberg says you can settle in land you won by war? What was the point of the Nuremberg trials? If none. Then so be it. Merely victor's justice, as Goering always said? How can Israel point to the UN for its world-wide legitimacy, yet ignore UN resolutions? How can Uncle Sam do this? Either there are internationally recognized war crimes or not. If not, then Hitler's philosophy has indeed won.

By: Thom

Thom — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:58:28 +0000

Well, Nazi eyes, that is just paranoia. The Israelis have no reason to tamper with the Palestinians food. Just curious, what tampering do you think they do? Is this the paranoia about Israel putting anti-fertility drugs in the food? Because obviously that isn't the case. Just about every story about the Palestinians includes "and his 27 brothers and sisters".

By: Thom

Thom — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:54:05 +0000

ROFLMAO "Acts of war are a violation of international law". That is hilarious. What a moron. The blockade is an act of war however, act of war != violation of international law. The Palestinians are at war with the Israelis. The Israelis have tried to make peace with the Palestinians. The Palestinians refused. That means they do not surrender. The Geneva conventions apply to signatories. However, many specific actions and inactions are only required by the conventions only apply when the enemy obeys the conventions too. Go read them. The 4th GC specifically says that "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it." There are some exceptions to that rule, but they are spelled out in the 4th GC itself. You do realize that the 4th GC is a treaty right? That the nations that signed it chose to be bound by it. Why on earth would all those countries tie their own hands in situations where the enemy isn't bound by it? Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you (Palestinians) don't abide by it, then Israel, by the terms of the 4th GC itself, is released from most of the provisions.

By: Yoni C.

Yoni C. — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:04:46 +0000

thank you for confirming the illegitimacy of the Hamas controlled government in Gaza. They are merely sub-state actors with no legal authority!