why dont they tangle the propeller with a net and then pull it to where ever.Too simple?

The fact is every-time the IDF goes into action there is an accusation of "disproportional force" awaiting their arrival home. Don't kid yourself if this is successful against Israel, they will use against any Coalition forces in any other conflicts. So the U.S., Britain, Germany, France any country that participates in in the conflicts that are always ongoing around the world, this will be applied. What the terrorists are doing is looking for a way to neutralize the superior armies of the Western powers. Their exploring ways to use International Laws to win wars they cannot, and should not, be able to win. So if you allow them to constantly attack Israel with these phony charges, they will use them on us next. They will criminalize the legal use of a superior army, so it can't be used against them. It's nonsense, and should be rejected as such.

well then do not send boats and you all will not get hurt.

People will get used to flotilla deaths. It won't be such a surprise next time. And the more flotillas they send to Gaza, the more people worldwide will learn about how things really are in Gaza. The "activists" think that this is good for their side, but it is actually good for Israel. Before the flotilla, the world thought Gaza was completely destroyed and dying. Since the flotilla, the world has heard more about luxury hotels and cars in Gaza.

Israel could also decide to let the flotillas pass. It would seem to be a major success for the organisers until Israel then closes the borders and hands over responsibility for deliveries to the flotilla people. Yes, they will bring in arms and rockets, but Israel could just reply to war with war and destroy Gaza every now and then, while other people can pay for rebuilding it.

Nr 6 doesn't know what he is talking about. Has he not learned that any giving in will only be seen for these evil forces that they have won? Thanks to the pullout of Gaza Israel is now in this position. No thanks there has already been enough blood shed

they should not come. pretty SIMPLE even a useful idiot 'peace activist' or an Islamo-Fascist pretending to be a useful idiot 'peace activist' can understand this.

Israel not only should stop anyone breaking the international laws but need to pursuit lawsuit against them

Protocol II is a 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. It defines certain international laws that strive to provide better protection for victims of internal armed conflicts that take place within the borders of a single country. As of 14 January 2007, the Protocol had been ratified by 163 countries, with the United States, Israel, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iraq being notable exceptions. However, the United States, Iran and Pakistan signed it on 12 December 1977 with the intention of ratifying it. even, not signing it doen't make it nul. Gaza is not sovereign state, but it is not part of Israel. Israel is illegally imposing the blockade. A blockade stands on four pillars:the relative weakness of the opposing force, the geography of the blockade, the value of the thing blockaded, and the willpower to maintain it. Israel holds the advantage in the first two categories. Her own military might in conjunction with her strong alliance with the United States tip the scales of power strongly in her favor. Moreover, Gaza’s geography and Egypt’s willingness to cooperate with the blockade mean that most of Israel’s work is already done for her; with Gaza hemmed in on three sides, Israel must merely patrol a tiny sliver of coastline immediately adjacent to her own. Israel is disadvantaged on the latter two pillars. Though Israel seeks to prevent weapons – particularly supplies for the construction of rockets – from entering Gaza, losses from Hamas rockets have never constituted a serious threat to Israel’s security. Consequently the value of the thing being blockaded – rocketry supplies – is fairly small when weighed against the potential cost of blockading it. This undermines the political legitimacy of Israel’s blockade and makes the enforcement of the blockade a potential liability for Israel on the world stage, particularly when the blockade is challenged. if the blockade is legal, why don't the Israeli leader considers consider taking off the ship engine, surround it with war boats, or whatever means without risking lives. Is it the policy of Israel to risk life whether of its soldiers or of the activists. I believe that if Turkish war-ships escort the flotilla, which is a probability rather than a possibility, those bad scenarios will not develop.

blow up a few boats and see everyones reaction. Prob stop them then.

You forgot to mention the Gaza country club for the elite Gazans.

I do know that evil forces will see any giving in as a victory. In fact my idea relied on that interesting fact. You must have missed that when you quickly looked over what I wrote. The point is that some victories are not so great. If Israel closes the borders and leaves aid transports to the flotillas, Israel will save a lot of money and the living standard in Gaza will go down dramatically. Yes, the flotillas can then bring in rockets. But they will also face the problem that they will have to bring much more food and other products to keep Gaza alive. If Israel plays this right and officially gives in to the flotillas, it will be difficult to blame Israel for the poverty that will finally reach Gaza. Worst thing you can do to a dishonest enemy: give them what they say they want.

it will be in serious violation of a whole host of maritime laws. If it carries weapons on board and is not licensed as a weapons carrier (with certain highly specialized retrofits in place in the holds and even more highly-specialized 20 and 40 TEU containers designed specifically to carry weapons) -- more violations. The consequences? Simply this: the flag state of the vessel(s) in question will delist the vessel(s); the jurisdiction of organization of the single-purpose entities which own the vessel(s) will dissolve the owning companies; the classification societies responsible for the vessel(s) will immediately remove class approval; the Protection and Indemnity Club that maintains insurances on the vessel will cancel the insurances and the International Maritime Organization will levy extremely heavy fines and -- more importantly -- will cancel the vessel's call sign and jam its radio frequency. With no classification society, no flag, no insurances and no valid ownership entity, no call sign and no radio frequency, none of the vessels will be able to enter any port and local pilots will not berth a vessel that has no flag, no owning entity, no insurances, no class approval and IMO sanctions. All the foregoing to bring alleged "humanitarian aid" to people who don't need any. If the organizers of the flotilla were serious about a humanitarian undertaking, they would set sail for the Sudan, or Somalia, or North Korea, or Haiti. Well, at least the hypocrisy of the flotilla's organizers are on display for all the world to see.

"the effect of the blockade on civilians must be proportionate to the effect on the military element for the blockade to be legally enforceable."

Part V Section II (95) of the San Remo Manual states that a blockade must be effective and cannot let certain vessels in while rejecting others. Israel has, since the start of the blockade, permitted certain ships to enter while not permitting others. Of the numerous trips staged by the Free Gaza Movement, several earlier trips have been permitted to reach Gaza through the blockade, where as others were not. The blockade is also in violation of Part V Section II (102) which prohibits blockades that: have the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential to its survival; or the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade. for a legal blockade, an "international armed conflict" with Gaza's Hamas leaders is a prerequisite. For such a conflict to exist, Israel would have to acknowledge that it is occupying Gaza. did Israel even declared the war on Gaza?

United Nations have called the blockade illegal according to the Geneva Conventions on a number of occasions, a call also echoed by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Both organizations repeatedly urge Israel to lift the blockade. Egypt maintained that it cannot fully open the Rafah crossing since completely opening the border would represent Egyptian recognition of the Hamas control of Gaza, undermine the legitimacy of the Palestinian National Authority and consecrate the split between Gaza and the West Bank. G8/G20 summits concluded that blockade must be lifted. Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip must be lifted in order to address the needs of Gaza's population for humanitarian and commercial goods, civilian reconstruction and infrastructure, and legitimate economic activity. Israel is not member of either G8 or G20 while KSA, Turkey & Indonesia are.

Blah blah blah...find me a comparable scenario that another nation has faced with the same or greater restraint. Every flotilla is a provocation of Israel hoping that they will be tied up in bureaucratic investigations thus diverting their resources and making them hesitant the next time a flotilla arrives. When Hamas no longer wants to kill Israel, then the ships can come.

I don't know if you just make this stuff up as you go along or what? But I just went through this in a different article, but I'll post it again so people understand that everything you stated was incorrect; First we see this legal opinion: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/israels-naval-blockade-pitches-and-rolls-with-the-law-of-the-sea/article1589981/ The a more complete picture here: http://naturalism7.blogspot.com/2010/06/gaza-flotilla-raid.html Both of these well documented opinions of the flotilla incident, some even cite the same legal source as you do observer. The difference is, you simply lied with your representation of the legal status, and interpretation of those Laws. In is pretty typical, of the anti-Israel writers to present half-truths, lies through omission, taking phrases out of context and outright fabrication of events (i.e. that Israel let some ships through instead of stopping all shipping). That is simply not true, Israel has complied entirely with all International standards when enforcing the blockade. Which is why you did NOT cite any particular ship Israel let through. You simply made the false allegation, without sourcing for verification. To those who read this I have provided the actual legal source with experts in International Law, who reviewed this incident. While observer just ran off a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo, to make his point sound grounded in a legal framework, to make it more believable, I guess. I let the reader decide, but I try to provide some neutral sources. Instead of wild, unproven, unsound, and without sources, accusations that vilify Israel, like observer.

job done - well worth the world outcry from the usual suspects. The majority of the people of the UK would like to see the demise of this jihadist supporter. I will pray galloway comes home in a box. STAY STRONG ISRAEL.

What a load of pure hogwash. Just like you Observer to twist all the events. Your biggest nightmare is Mark from Georgia, who tells the true story.

Bravo Mark on an excellent post.

I had understood your message Nr6. However I don't think you realize. Hamas and Co will always find reasons to blame Israel. No Israel cannot give in, that would be the beginning of the end. They want Israel to be completely destroyed, Israel in their eyes is illegal. Full stop. Them and the rest of the world will not see reason. Just look at the way they are trying to force Israel to extend Settlemend freeze etc. Has pulling out of Gaza brought peace?

Why don't you stop practicing curbside law? Maritime blockades are routinely imposed during times of armed conflict, or even in the event of a palpable threat. May I remind you that the United States imposed a naval blockade of Cuba simply because of the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba? Cuba never launched any, but their mere presence was enough to constitute a threat deemed sufficient to warrant the imposition of a blockade of Cuba. Which still has not been completely lifted, by the way. Israel's blockade of Gaza is the most legitimate blockade in effect today, and is internationally recognized and acknowledged -- the assorted flotsam and jetsam which use Gaza as a launching pad to fire missiles into Israel have received the vast majority of those weapons via maritime transport. It's a hot conflict (i.e., armed hostilities), and that is more than enough justification for Israel's imposition of a blockade. What part of that do you NOT understand?

...designed to get a violent reaction from Israel,enabling them to then whine to the naive,bleaters ofthe world that they were victimized. Gaza is not starving,they do not need aid...it's all bs.

I realize the middle east by geography weather is a hard place to live Gaza has this unique middle east condition do not blame us Jews for what the Creators Makers did in the begining like the Arabs we struggle to live in a hard barren world New York City has more people food than Israel I am not strong enough to survive it so Gaza suffers just like all of the middle east does no more no less freedom flotilas are European ideas to place pressure up on Israel we have not killed one 1 single Arab since 1889 by economic blockcades not one 1 so stop the lies about Israel already it only shows what cowards Europeans the world is regarding and so toward Israel it does not help the Arab cause either RIGHT ??? Thank You... M. S.

Let us cut your story, why not let the Red Cross to visit the abducted soldier who was kidnapped inside Israel and not in the enemy area? Have to remind you why Israel is doing a siege on Gaza?

a Jewish lawyer who represented the Canadian Jewish Congress! then why doesn't Prof. Ed Morgan adress the problem of "Israel is one of the non-signatories of the Law of the Sea conventions"? he can't base his claims on marine laws that Israel itself rejected. Israel's occupation of the West Bank continues without any real regard for international law, and international law is often invoked like verses from scripture - selectively and situationally for self-interest rather than high-minded commitment to principle.