對以色列海軍突擊國際人道救援船隊的看法
2010-06-02 12:55 am
以軍襲國際救援船殺19義工 阻送巴人物資 船員投降士兵照開槍
圖片參考：http://l.yimg.com/mq/i/nws/partner/mp.gif
(明報)2010年6月1日 星期二 05:10
【明報專訊】以色列海軍突擊隊昨在加沙對開海面，襲擊一支從土耳其出發的親巴勒斯坦國際人道救援船隊，以色列傳媒報道，至少19人被以軍殺死，逾30人受傷。包括中俄法在內的多國都譴責以軍做法，土耳其斥責事件是「國家恐怖主義」，身在遇襲船上的卡塔爾半島電視台記者稱，儘管船上人員已扯白旗投降，但以軍仍繼續開槍。聯合國安理會決定召開緊急會議商討對策。
船隊赴加沙 黎明前遇襲
由40多個國家資助的「自由加沙行動」船隊，運載全球各地共700名義工，帶同1萬公噸的建築材料、醫療物資和書本，從塞浦路斯出發，原定在當地時間昨午抵達加沙地帶，但在加沙外圍的國際水域遭以軍攔截。參與這次人道活動的700人，半數來自土耳其，其餘來自全球逾50國家，當中有歐洲議會議員、作家和記者。卡塔爾半島電視台隨船記者描述，以軍利用夜色掩護，強行登上領軍的土耳其人道救援船「藍色馬爾馬拉」號（Mavi Marmara），隨即向船員向火。船上另一名土耳其記者拍攝時大叫：「他們正在這裏大開殺戒，救救我們吧！」之後便聽到以軍用希伯來文叫他們閉嘴，廣播隨即中斷。
法新社引述以軍官員透露，3架以軍直升機和多艘特種部隊快艇，約於當地時間周一清晨4時逼近人道船隊。一段在網上流傳的短片顯示，身穿黑色軍裝的以軍突擊隊員由直升機游繩而下，與船上人員衝突，多數受傷人員躺在甲板上。
「向船上熟睡平民直接開槍」
根據船隊的地面通訊協調員柏林稱，在以軍突襲前，他所收到的最後一則通訊，是「一切平靜，有以軍船隻在我們船頭側邊，讓我們繼續睡覺」。未料不久就有船上人士透過Twitter發出留言，指以軍接觸他們，「（軍事）干預一觸即發」，之後就傳出船上有人喪命。在場目擊的半島電視台記者指，來襲的以軍數以百計，雖然船員已扯白旗，但以軍仍繼續開槍，傷者包括船長。有身在船上的「自由加沙」運動成員更稱，登船突襲的以軍，竟「向船上大批正睡覺的平民直接開槍」。
以色列揚言士兵開火屬自衛
以色列則堅稱，其海軍攔截6艘企圖駛往加沙的船隻，但士兵登船時遭到攻擊，以軍揚言是船上人員用利刀和鐵棍襲擊士兵，又搶奪以軍槍械，實彈射擊他們，以軍於是開火「還擊」。一名以軍指揮官聲言，他一登上甲板曾被毆，約30名說阿拉伯語的人攻擊他們又搶走武器，有士兵更被拋到水中，他們要落水救人。另一軍官更揚言，船上人員襲擊是「有預謀」的，展示一箱內有鐵棍、大粒鐵球的武器。
船隊投降後已遭以軍扣押，正駛往以色列在地中海南部的港口阿什杜德（Ashdod）。今次運送人道物資行動，本是近3年來最大規模的國際聲援加沙行動，1976年諾貝爾和平獎得主瑪莉德（Mairead Maguire）亦是座上客。船隊未駛入加沙附近的海域時，以色列便已警告船隊，挑戰以軍針對加沙地帶巴人所實施的海上封鎖，是「非法」行為，下令海軍攔截。以色列自哈馬斯2007年取得加沙控制權後，便對當地實施海陸空三路封鎖，阻截任何貨物進出當地。國際人道救援團隊自2008年起，曾9次派船隻向加沙運送人道物資，其中5次獲以軍放行，但以軍在2009年1月以後，一直拒絕船隻進出加沙。
中國歐盟譴責 阿巴斯斥屠殺
中國外交部對以軍襲擊人道船隊表示震驚和譴責，敦促以方切實執行聯合國安理會決議，改善加沙人道主義局勢。巴勒斯坦自治政府主席阿巴斯斥事件是屠殺，歐盟與俄羅斯亦譴責以色列做法。長期被指袒護以色列的美國，則對「人命損失」表示深切遺憾，將「尋求了解」是什麼引致這場「悲劇」。
路透社/美聯社
回答 (5)
2010-06-04 1:57 am
✔ 最佳答案
002 國際水域強行登他國船= 侵入他國領土, 可導致戰爭. 反抗入侵是正常不過, 而且他們僅擁有鐵棍、大粒鐵球的武器. 因為信仰不同巴人可任意被宰殺?? 去你的宗教..2010-06-05 21:10:51 補充：
人權事務專員皮萊指，以色列封鎖加沙是非法，必須解除封鎖；並重申要徹查以軍日前射殺一艘救援船上九名船員的事件。美國 政府亦表示，以色列難以維持封鎖加沙，應改變有關決定。
封鎖加沙是非法, 殺人恐佈襲擊!!!
2010-06-14 00:47:35 補充：
事實證明以美兩國用盡方法製造合法理據搶地殺人, 講成好似被迫咁, 重要博同情. 大把人護航大可輕易咁不了了之, 強權大哂. 高.......
2010-06-14 01:19:49 補充：
現實亦可講明: 國際水域上你有權合法摧毁任何強行登船者, 只要你有足夠軍力對抗及面對之後軍事代价. 無嘜合法與非法等廢話. 蘇聯同美國都擊落過佢地應為非法進入佢地艦放空圈嘅客機, 一樣話合法.
2010-06-14 15:39:20 補充：
國際水域上你有權合法摧毁任何強行登船者, 只要你有足夠軍力對抗及面對之後軍事代价. 無嘜合法與非法等廢話. 蘇聯同美國都擊落過佢地應為非法進入佢地艦隊防空圈嘅客機, 一樣話合法.
2010-06-06 11:41 pm
皮萊是聯合國的人權事務專員，她理應代表聯合國立場。如果聯合國在2007年曾經通過制裁加沙方案，而她又不知道，那是匪夷所思的事！不知聯合國方案篇號是什麼？
以色列建殖民區也是違法，但各國際組織也奈以色列不何。
以色列軍聲稱在船上搜出的「武器」，說是用來攻勢裝備超一流的以色列軍，簡直令人難以置信。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
加沙外海槍聲引各方譴責 開火原因各執一詞
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/sowhat2002002/article?mid=600
2010-06-06 15:44:45 補充：
上一意見中間一句應為：『以色列軍聲稱在船上搜出的「武器」，說是用來攻「擊」裝備超一流的以色列軍，簡直令人難以置信。』
以軍拘禁記者阻報道襲擊 播公關片證「自衛」 沒註明時間惹質疑
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/sowhat2002002/article?mid=621
驗屍報告證以軍格殺義工 近距離射頭胸 9死者中30槍
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/sowhat2002002/article?mid=642
以軍YouTube片被指做手腳
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/sowhat2002002/article?mid=643
2010-06-09 16:16:02 補充：
反對歸反對，如果封鎖是ＵＮ通過的決議案，聯合國的人權事務專員絕對不會說是非法！
民主派反對現在的特首選舉法，也不會說現任特首是非法選出。
「This is a UN Sanctioned Naval Blockade, which give the Israel right to board any ship apporach the Gaza Blockade.」絕對不是事實！2006-2007制裁已於2007年六月期滿，之後沒有新的聯合國制裁方案。
2010-06-09 16:22:19 補充：
2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip
如果聯合國真的曾通過制裁方案，還需要大篇幅分析封鎖加沙是否合法嗎？
Gaza Blockade Legal? Hardly.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/06/08/gaza-blockade-legal-hardly/
2010-06-09 16:22:35 補充：
Never mind the 'Freedom Flotilla.' Is Israel's Gaza blockade legal?
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0608/Never-mind-the-Freedom-Flotilla.-Is-Israel-s-Gaza-blockade-legal
2010-06-09 16:47:57 補充：
002回答AN（HA06596612）說：「船上的醫療物資有很多是過期的」
根據資料，這次運送的主要是建材（因為在加沙幾乎沒有一間完整的屋）：
2,104 tons of cement, 600 tons of construction steel, and 50 tons of tiles（船名：Gazze）
150 tons of iron, 98 power units, 50 precast homes, 16 units of children's playground equipment（船名：Defne Y）
2010-06-09 17:05:47 補充：
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid
MV Rachel Corrie 有醫療物資，但是後來才出發。船上有包括諾貝爾和平獎得主的5名愛爾蘭及6名大馬人權人士。
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/sowhat2002002/article?mid=649
「他（以色列總理尼坦雅胡）告訴記者，遇襲船隊企圖將火箭或其他武器走私到加薩，以攻擊以色列。」
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/100531/8/ic7v.html
扣留了貨船幾天，結果搜不出「火箭或其他武器」（別告訴我那些刀棒是用來「攻擊以色列」的武器）。
以色列建殖民區也是違法，但各國際組織也奈以色列不何。
以色列軍聲稱在船上搜出的「武器」，說是用來攻勢裝備超一流的以色列軍，簡直令人難以置信。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
加沙外海槍聲引各方譴責 開火原因各執一詞
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/sowhat2002002/article?mid=600
2010-06-06 15:44:45 補充：
上一意見中間一句應為：『以色列軍聲稱在船上搜出的「武器」，說是用來攻「擊」裝備超一流的以色列軍，簡直令人難以置信。』
以軍拘禁記者阻報道襲擊 播公關片證「自衛」 沒註明時間惹質疑
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/sowhat2002002/article?mid=621
驗屍報告證以軍格殺義工 近距離射頭胸 9死者中30槍
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/sowhat2002002/article?mid=642
以軍YouTube片被指做手腳
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/sowhat2002002/article?mid=643
2010-06-09 16:16:02 補充：
反對歸反對，如果封鎖是ＵＮ通過的決議案，聯合國的人權事務專員絕對不會說是非法！
民主派反對現在的特首選舉法，也不會說現任特首是非法選出。
「This is a UN Sanctioned Naval Blockade, which give the Israel right to board any ship apporach the Gaza Blockade.」絕對不是事實！2006-2007制裁已於2007年六月期滿，之後沒有新的聯合國制裁方案。
2010-06-09 16:22:19 補充：
2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip
如果聯合國真的曾通過制裁方案，還需要大篇幅分析封鎖加沙是否合法嗎？
Gaza Blockade Legal? Hardly.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/06/08/gaza-blockade-legal-hardly/
2010-06-09 16:22:35 補充：
Never mind the 'Freedom Flotilla.' Is Israel's Gaza blockade legal?
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0608/Never-mind-the-Freedom-Flotilla.-Is-Israel-s-Gaza-blockade-legal
2010-06-09 16:47:57 補充：
002回答AN（HA06596612）說：「船上的醫療物資有很多是過期的」
根據資料，這次運送的主要是建材（因為在加沙幾乎沒有一間完整的屋）：
2,104 tons of cement, 600 tons of construction steel, and 50 tons of tiles（船名：Gazze）
150 tons of iron, 98 power units, 50 precast homes, 16 units of children's playground equipment（船名：Defne Y）
2010-06-09 17:05:47 補充：
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid
MV Rachel Corrie 有醫療物資，但是後來才出發。船上有包括諾貝爾和平獎得主的5名愛爾蘭及6名大馬人權人士。
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/sowhat2002002/article?mid=649
「他（以色列總理尼坦雅胡）告訴記者，遇襲船隊企圖將火箭或其他武器走私到加薩，以攻擊以色列。」
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/100531/8/ic7v.html
扣留了貨船幾天，結果搜不出「火箭或其他武器」（別告訴我那些刀棒是用來「攻擊以色列」的武器）。
2010-06-06 12:28 am
First, i don't want to say who'sright or who's wrong, i am not there, most of you guys who read this question or answer this question were not there when it happens. We cannot say for sure if Israel action were right or wrong. What i will do is, try to explain on the international maritime law aspect.
Is the Israeli bording legal?
According to interational law of water, any ship can be boarded in international water as long as either the following 2 requirments are fulfilled.
1.) The suspection of conducting piracy.
Navies of any nation can conduct boarding search on such vessel if the vessel are suspected to conduct piracy in international water. Example includes Somalian Pirate exclusion zone established in 2006 (Combine Task Force 150)
2.) The vessel bounded for zone of military action.
When a ship trying to break though a militarised naval zone which were established prior in international water (Which include naval exercises, military blockade, search and rescue zone and economic exclusion zone.) The navy or navies conducting military operation in those area can freely board such vessel.
Example include, US naval blockade to iran, Soviet Naval Blockade to Afghanistan, Chinese Naval Blockade to Taiwan outter island.
According to those international law, Israel can legally board those vessel even they are in international water as per Israel Naval Blockade to Gaza 2007. This is a UN Sanctioned Naval Blockade, which give the Israel right to board any ship apporach the Gaza Blockade.
Is the Israeli legally open fire?
For self defence, the act of self defend must be apporiate to the threat that preceived, an inapporiation of reaction is not consider as a self defence.
Unless Israel can show proof that their boarding crew were fire upon, then open fire on an otherwise non-lethal violent crowd is not legal in this sense.
Then again, none of us were there, as a result, we cannot really say who's at fault or what, i am just trying to explain the incident in a legal aspect
2010-06-06 05:56:24 補充：
to 003:
Someone say something is illegal does not mean that things is illegal in term of law. If you think that's illegal blockade, file a compaint to either The Hague Maritime Court and UN Security Council. They will revoke the blockade if the Blockade iturns outto be Illegal AFTER TRIAL.
2010-06-06 05:57:35 補充：
When the blockade was passed from the UN, then it's legal, if you think otherwise challege it in court, not to break the blockade yourselve.
2010-06-06 05:58:37 補充：
When you see someone blocking your access road, you don't go charge them with a knife, you call the police now, don't you?
2010-06-06 16:44:01 補充：
Ok, first thing first. Something about the blockade
The Naval Blockade was a produce after 2006-2007 Economic economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority.
The sanction is established via Israel and Quartet on the Middle East.
2010-06-06 16:45:08 補充：
Quartet on the Middle East contain :
United Nation
United States
European Union
Russia and
United Kingdom
2010-06-06 16:45:58 補充：
2006–2007 economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority
Reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006%E2%80%932007_economic_sanctions_against_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip
2010-06-06 16:46:23 補充：
Quartet on the Middle East
Reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartet_on_the_Middle_East
2010-06-06 16:48:18 補充：
As the Sanction was terminated on June 2007, it was replaced by a stricter Naval Blockade after the battle of Gaza after the Hamas violate the international laws regarding law of peace in Gaza Stripes.
2010-06-06 16:50:15 補充：
In legality, the blockade is validate by the UN sanction on 2007, unfortunately, i cannot quote the Resolution but i did quote all the necessary reference. You can probably spend some time to read them.
2010-06-06 16:51:56 補充：
Look, i am not trying to defend Israeli Action, i just want to point out the fact via the aspect of law.
As none of us were in the ship that day, we cannot say for sure wether or not the israeli open fire on unarmed civilian, violent crowd or Armed individual
2010-06-06 16:52:41 補充：
No way we can know if the action of Israeli navy was right, but the action of boarding is justified, by the maritime court and apporiate law.
2010-06-06 16:55:13 補充：
Also, i just want to point out that in most of the case, UN human right affair were almost always object to every decision UN Security Council made.
2010-06-06 16:55:19 補充：
Just look up 1993 Somalia Crisis and 2009 North Korea Sanction (UNSCR1874) both sanction by Security Council were objected by the Human Right affair....
2010-06-06 16:57:46 補充：
And finally the naval blockade was not only erect by israel, Egypt wqere also imposing blockade on their size of Gaza. Incooperate with the israeli
2010-06-09 17:17:37 補充：
Normally, i would just stop agruing as you are not being subjective enough, as it will just waste my time. But i will just do this one more time
2010-06-09 17:19:10 補充：
反對歸反對，如果封鎖是ＵＮ通過的決議案，聯合國的人權事務專員絕對不會說是非法！
Well, you need to know, UN have many department, not all of them involve Legalise sanctioning action. Nor will they have any comment can impact on UN sanction actions.
2010-06-09 17:20:02 補充：
my wife used to work for UNICHEF she is an official UN worker (Have both UN passport and ID) and she is almost always object to any UNSCR while she is working for the UN.....
2010-06-09 17:25:33 補充：
Let me quote you an example, ISAF (International Security Assistance Force)
It is a UN Security Mandated Operation thru UNSC-
S/RES/1386, S/RES/1413, S/RES/1444, S/RES/1510, S/RES/1563, S/RES/1623, S/RES/1659, S/RES/1707, S/RES/1776(2007)
2010-06-09 17:26:27 補充：
The same person you quote on the question have address an official objection after the Civilian Bombing in 2002.
2010-06-09 17:28:00 補充：
And the Fact to the matter is, while the 2007 UN Economic Sanction is Terminated (Keyword: Notice it was TERMINATED not LIFTED) Since the Resolution is not lifted AND there are no counter Measure to lift the blockade.
2010-06-09 17:28:43 補充：
Under the international law, the blockade isstill in effect, and is still legal as the STATUS HAS NOT BEEN LIFTED BY THE UN
This is the legal status as of 2010.
2010-06-09 17:32:12 補充：
UN resolution does not expire, unless it have introduced a counter resolution to overceed the previous one.
Example: UNSC Resolution 794 is to introduce UNOSOM II which insert the multinational force in somalia
2010-06-09 17:32:49 補充：
To finished the UNOSOM UN need to introduce a Resolution to finish the Deployment, which is UNSC Resolution 954
2010-06-09 17:36:13 補充：
Since there are no UN resolution to counter the 2006-07 resolution, the operation is not expired.
2010-06-09 17:40:02 補充：
And by the way, WHat i said was only limited to the legality of Israeli boarding the ship, NOT WHAT THEIR ACTION AFTERWARD.
As i said it 3 times here, Boarding the ship is legal, I don't know wether firing is justified as i was not there, they may or may not had taken fire.
2010-06-09 17:42:24 補充：
Simply speaking, Israeli, as a nation's navy can board any ship bound in international water if they suspect the questioned ship is a pirate. You can board them, but if you are not at threat, you cannot fire at them.
2010-06-09 17:44:14 補充：
You can quote whoever said anything in the internet, it does not mean it is true, but if you can quote an example on why the blockade is illegal, only that will counted as something.
2010-06-15 17:13:07 補充：
to be honest, from the surface evidence (Including the video regrading the Ship crew beating up Israeli soldier) The Israeli action should be over approiate, which should be illegal, if that is all the evidence Israeli can give, then the case should have a high chance to rule against Israeli.
2010-06-15 17:16:18 補充：
The key points again is, there is no order or no action to order israeli to lift the blockade BEFORE the incident. Technically, the boarding is still under UN sanction.
2010-06-15 17:16:26 補充：
Again, when you see someone sitting outside your door in the public walkway, you will not try to charge the man itself, you will call the cops. This is exactly what the ship's crew did, they charge the blockade wether or not the blockade is legal, but the action itself should be reprimanded,
2010-06-15 17:17:17 補充：
I will have to say, both side is responsible for the incident
Is the Israeli bording legal?
According to interational law of water, any ship can be boarded in international water as long as either the following 2 requirments are fulfilled.
1.) The suspection of conducting piracy.
Navies of any nation can conduct boarding search on such vessel if the vessel are suspected to conduct piracy in international water. Example includes Somalian Pirate exclusion zone established in 2006 (Combine Task Force 150)
2.) The vessel bounded for zone of military action.
When a ship trying to break though a militarised naval zone which were established prior in international water (Which include naval exercises, military blockade, search and rescue zone and economic exclusion zone.) The navy or navies conducting military operation in those area can freely board such vessel.
Example include, US naval blockade to iran, Soviet Naval Blockade to Afghanistan, Chinese Naval Blockade to Taiwan outter island.
According to those international law, Israel can legally board those vessel even they are in international water as per Israel Naval Blockade to Gaza 2007. This is a UN Sanctioned Naval Blockade, which give the Israel right to board any ship apporach the Gaza Blockade.
Is the Israeli legally open fire?
For self defence, the act of self defend must be apporiate to the threat that preceived, an inapporiation of reaction is not consider as a self defence.
Unless Israel can show proof that their boarding crew were fire upon, then open fire on an otherwise non-lethal violent crowd is not legal in this sense.
Then again, none of us were there, as a result, we cannot really say who's at fault or what, i am just trying to explain the incident in a legal aspect
2010-06-06 05:56:24 補充：
to 003:
Someone say something is illegal does not mean that things is illegal in term of law. If you think that's illegal blockade, file a compaint to either The Hague Maritime Court and UN Security Council. They will revoke the blockade if the Blockade iturns outto be Illegal AFTER TRIAL.
2010-06-06 05:57:35 補充：
When the blockade was passed from the UN, then it's legal, if you think otherwise challege it in court, not to break the blockade yourselve.
2010-06-06 05:58:37 補充：
When you see someone blocking your access road, you don't go charge them with a knife, you call the police now, don't you?
2010-06-06 16:44:01 補充：
Ok, first thing first. Something about the blockade
The Naval Blockade was a produce after 2006-2007 Economic economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority.
The sanction is established via Israel and Quartet on the Middle East.
2010-06-06 16:45:08 補充：
Quartet on the Middle East contain :
United Nation
United States
European Union
Russia and
United Kingdom
2010-06-06 16:45:58 補充：
2006–2007 economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority
Reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006%E2%80%932007_economic_sanctions_against_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip
2010-06-06 16:46:23 補充：
Quartet on the Middle East
Reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartet_on_the_Middle_East
2010-06-06 16:48:18 補充：
As the Sanction was terminated on June 2007, it was replaced by a stricter Naval Blockade after the battle of Gaza after the Hamas violate the international laws regarding law of peace in Gaza Stripes.
2010-06-06 16:50:15 補充：
In legality, the blockade is validate by the UN sanction on 2007, unfortunately, i cannot quote the Resolution but i did quote all the necessary reference. You can probably spend some time to read them.
2010-06-06 16:51:56 補充：
Look, i am not trying to defend Israeli Action, i just want to point out the fact via the aspect of law.
As none of us were in the ship that day, we cannot say for sure wether or not the israeli open fire on unarmed civilian, violent crowd or Armed individual
2010-06-06 16:52:41 補充：
No way we can know if the action of Israeli navy was right, but the action of boarding is justified, by the maritime court and apporiate law.
2010-06-06 16:55:13 補充：
Also, i just want to point out that in most of the case, UN human right affair were almost always object to every decision UN Security Council made.
2010-06-06 16:55:19 補充：
Just look up 1993 Somalia Crisis and 2009 North Korea Sanction (UNSCR1874) both sanction by Security Council were objected by the Human Right affair....
2010-06-06 16:57:46 補充：
And finally the naval blockade was not only erect by israel, Egypt wqere also imposing blockade on their size of Gaza. Incooperate with the israeli
2010-06-09 17:17:37 補充：
Normally, i would just stop agruing as you are not being subjective enough, as it will just waste my time. But i will just do this one more time
2010-06-09 17:19:10 補充：
反對歸反對，如果封鎖是ＵＮ通過的決議案，聯合國的人權事務專員絕對不會說是非法！
Well, you need to know, UN have many department, not all of them involve Legalise sanctioning action. Nor will they have any comment can impact on UN sanction actions.
2010-06-09 17:20:02 補充：
my wife used to work for UNICHEF she is an official UN worker (Have both UN passport and ID) and she is almost always object to any UNSCR while she is working for the UN.....
2010-06-09 17:25:33 補充：
Let me quote you an example, ISAF (International Security Assistance Force)
It is a UN Security Mandated Operation thru UNSC-
S/RES/1386, S/RES/1413, S/RES/1444, S/RES/1510, S/RES/1563, S/RES/1623, S/RES/1659, S/RES/1707, S/RES/1776(2007)
2010-06-09 17:26:27 補充：
The same person you quote on the question have address an official objection after the Civilian Bombing in 2002.
2010-06-09 17:28:00 補充：
And the Fact to the matter is, while the 2007 UN Economic Sanction is Terminated (Keyword: Notice it was TERMINATED not LIFTED) Since the Resolution is not lifted AND there are no counter Measure to lift the blockade.
2010-06-09 17:28:43 補充：
Under the international law, the blockade isstill in effect, and is still legal as the STATUS HAS NOT BEEN LIFTED BY THE UN
This is the legal status as of 2010.
2010-06-09 17:32:12 補充：
UN resolution does not expire, unless it have introduced a counter resolution to overceed the previous one.
Example: UNSC Resolution 794 is to introduce UNOSOM II which insert the multinational force in somalia
2010-06-09 17:32:49 補充：
To finished the UNOSOM UN need to introduce a Resolution to finish the Deployment, which is UNSC Resolution 954
2010-06-09 17:36:13 補充：
Since there are no UN resolution to counter the 2006-07 resolution, the operation is not expired.
2010-06-09 17:40:02 補充：
And by the way, WHat i said was only limited to the legality of Israeli boarding the ship, NOT WHAT THEIR ACTION AFTERWARD.
As i said it 3 times here, Boarding the ship is legal, I don't know wether firing is justified as i was not there, they may or may not had taken fire.
2010-06-09 17:42:24 補充：
Simply speaking, Israeli, as a nation's navy can board any ship bound in international water if they suspect the questioned ship is a pirate. You can board them, but if you are not at threat, you cannot fire at them.
2010-06-09 17:44:14 補充：
You can quote whoever said anything in the internet, it does not mean it is true, but if you can quote an example on why the blockade is illegal, only that will counted as something.
2010-06-15 17:13:07 補充：
to be honest, from the surface evidence (Including the video regrading the Ship crew beating up Israeli soldier) The Israeli action should be over approiate, which should be illegal, if that is all the evidence Israeli can give, then the case should have a high chance to rule against Israeli.
2010-06-15 17:16:18 補充：
The key points again is, there is no order or no action to order israeli to lift the blockade BEFORE the incident. Technically, the boarding is still under UN sanction.
2010-06-15 17:16:26 補充：
Again, when you see someone sitting outside your door in the public walkway, you will not try to charge the man itself, you will call the cops. This is exactly what the ship's crew did, they charge the blockade wether or not the blockade is legal, but the action itself should be reprimanded,
2010-06-15 17:17:17 補充：
I will have to say, both side is responsible for the incident
參考: My brother was in the Navy and my wife is an international lawyer
2010-06-02 5:34 am
你應該先問這700名義工是什麼人,是來自多國的哈馬斯成員原籍巴勒斯坦人,船內亦有多次參予恐佈襲擊的首腦,船上的醫療物資有很多是過期的,
我每次看以巴的新聞報導失真都感到遺憾,新聞的价值觀是在乎收視率,哈馬斯恐佈襲擊的行為均受到全救支持,在歐洲遊行的全部是巴勒斯坦人和阿拉伯人,可能是多國政府包括歐盟亦不想得罪哈馬斯組織,因為他們的成員就像癌細包一樣散佈全救,亞洲地區亦有多,連中國的新彊亦受到哈馬斯的洗腦,他們不求和平但求統一全救信仰為回教"哈馬斯". 真正的回教是導人向善,哈馬斯可算是邪教,他們在巴勒斯坦的幼维園教小朋友用槍和恐佈襲擊.
* 在以色列有很多巴勒斯坦人是天主教徒,他們和以色列人都能夠和平共處地生活.
** 這是以軍登上第一首船的影片,看看船上的人怎樣對待以軍
www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk
我每次看以巴的新聞報導失真都感到遺憾,新聞的价值觀是在乎收視率,哈馬斯恐佈襲擊的行為均受到全救支持,在歐洲遊行的全部是巴勒斯坦人和阿拉伯人,可能是多國政府包括歐盟亦不想得罪哈馬斯組織,因為他們的成員就像癌細包一樣散佈全救,亞洲地區亦有多,連中國的新彊亦受到哈馬斯的洗腦,他們不求和平但求統一全救信仰為回教"哈馬斯". 真正的回教是導人向善,哈馬斯可算是邪教,他們在巴勒斯坦的幼维園教小朋友用槍和恐佈襲擊.
* 在以色列有很多巴勒斯坦人是天主教徒,他們和以色列人都能夠和平共處地生活.
** 這是以軍登上第一首船的影片,看看船上的人怎樣對待以軍
www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk
2010-06-02 5:09 am
這件事證明了以色列和美國的特色:霸道,衰又吾認
收錄日期: 2021-04-26 13:18:38
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100601000051KK00802