is that your infallible reference? then why doesn't Prof. Ed Morgan address 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. A 1988 U.N. Convention, to which both Israel and Turkey are parties, prohibits seizure of ships on the high seas or acts of violence against the passengers. Ironically, the treaty was adopted in response to the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985 by Palestinian terrorists.

Rockets from Hamas are a genuine, terrible threat to Israeli civilians, but are are far short of an existential threat akin to nuclear missiles in Cuba. President Kennedy President Kennedy was able to secure diplomatic support for the Cuban blockade, invoking the Rio Treaty, whereas Israel acted unilaterally and without consultation of its allies in the region such as Egypt and Turkey (well, former ally as far as the latter is concerned). The Cuban blockade was selective, whereas the Israeli blockade of Gaza is total and requires all ships bound for Gaza to be diverted to an Israeli port for inspection, with only a tiny trickle of goods permitted through, with nonsensical and paranoid exclusions like chocolate and x-ray film being prevented from entering Gaza proper. claiming this right essentially concedes Israel remains the occupying, controlling power in Gaza; by denying this, Israel is undermining it's own valid case for the blockade's neccessity. And by enacting a total blockade, Israel has relinquished the moral highground, something President Kennedy was careful to avoid. Belligerent occupation is different from a true state of war and may not confer the technical right to form a blockade. Second, the Flotilla incident occurred 40 miles off the coast of Gaza, well outside the traditional blockade range. Finally, Israel has allegedly been firing on Palestinian fisherman, which is absolutely illegal. The crisis lasted about two months, and few people realize just how massive a victory for diplomacy it represented, rather than crude military bravado. President Kennedy's political opponents demanded full-scale invasion of Cuba from the beginning, and even after the crisis had ended called the entire affair a "military defeat" for the United States, even though Kennedy literally averted a global nuclear war and made the USSR stand down. The omly similarity between the two blockades is that both are illegal. Most legal scholars now agree that Kennedy's move, while tactically inspired, was, in fact, against the law.

From the way this general is talking, you would think his army was confronting a real army instead of a bunch of activists without guns. Israel needs to get a grip on itself and stop perceiving the world through a paranoid's lens.

Ob. writes: "a Jewish lawyer who represented the Canadian Jewish Congress" So you attack the messenger, instead of his argument. So because he is Jewish, that negates his opinion, brilliant comeback. Ob. writes: ""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" Apparently, you didn't read his opinion, he clearly stated and I quote: "the accusation of piracy is inapt, since under both customary law and Article 101 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that applies only to acts done for private gain. Israel’s acts must be analyzed in terms of the law of naval warfare" He did not base his opinion on the "Law of the Sea" if fact he clearly states that it does not apply in this situation. But that Law was only for "private gain", and this was "warfare". So your wrong again, and just trying to mislead the reader. Then of course you change the subject to the West Bank, which has exactly what to do with this? Bottom line, I stand but what I've wrote, and you were wrong. You have written nothing to prove your points. You simply made a personal attack on the author and legal expert, then misquoted the Law of the Sea, and finally changed the subject to the West Bank. So I would say to you my friend. CASE CLOSED

I cut and pasted your post in Google and discovered that you have failed to attribute an article which you did not author. Can you spell "copyright infringement?" It's a crime, by the way. Thank you for confirming what we have always known -- you are a fraud and a phony.

These so-called "peace activists" carried weapons on the MARMARA. Why don't you check the facts before you accuse Israel of paranoia?

You infringed copyright on your theft of the content of the post at no. 10, too. What's the matter? Incapable of an original thought? Did you really think no one would notice the 180 degree turnaround from functionally illiterate to extremely articulate? Why not just do as everyone else here does, and supply a link rather than trying to pass off someone else's work as your own?