Why is Israel So Successful Against Arab Armies

[EpiiC]

Why would you want Arabs to go to war against Israel? You have access to plenty of knowledge informing you that the anti-Zionist Arabs are the guys who seek to carry out murder, theft, and genocide, whereas Israel is a decent country and its Jews mostly decent people, tolerant of peace-minded minorities like themselves.

I don't want them to go to war with Israel I am saying that they cannot as of now defeat Israel, they are too weak to do so.

 

[Ceylal]

I'd be asking your asking your mother why your so retarded. Tell her not to make anymore kids.

Thanks for answering the question, which is a big fat no they haven't had a conflict. Now get back on topic trolllll.

Because I am talking to freaking mule! My grand father has done all your family women fox, when he saw your grand ma, he waived her away..she had the clap...and it shows in one her descendant..Before his death, he told me to look for her broods..And I found you..This Friday, I am going to his grave , and will inform him that the mission was accomplished, I found one of her quadrupede living in England selling zlabiya!

Weird logic you have there.

Same can be logic can be applied to Turkey downing Russian jet and can be said Turkey "dressed down" Russia.

Bullshit! Two separates events, the first took place in international water...and the second on the edge on your borders. You cannot equate a deliberate assassination of unarmed civilians in international waters to a dawning of a jet that may have been seen as a threat..

 

[MastanKhan]

W whereas Israel is a decent country and its Jews mostly decent people, tolerant of peace-minded minorities like themselves.

Hi,

It is more like rascist bigoted murdering people.

 

[Brutas]

The objective of the troops in the Middle East is primarily to get rid of ISIS.
I guess You are very annoyed that ISIS are not successful in uniting the Middle East
under a Caliph, murdering everyone that does not share their particular brand of Islam.

Your pathetic, idiotic response shows your utter ignorance. Swedes commenting on EU, funny ! Go learn more about EU. What makes you think are the only one living there !
Troops had been there in Mid East since the end of cold war, long before any trouble. Go educate.
EU is not a power. It will never be. Russia is and it will remain so even if you don't like it !

 

[Oghuz Turk]

Because They've been inbreeding for over a thousand years, Any group of Non-arab men trained as a millita for a few weeks could defeat an Arab army just because of this.
This is why Israel has it so easy: They are fighting Arabs. Any of us could band together and go to the middle-east and carve out a bit of territory off Arabs, they are that shit-tier and incompetant.

 

[Riea]

I used to play medevil 2 total war. With my overly experienced 10 star ottoman general I would ravage the byzantyn and italian city and states. Then my general died and I was left with this 2 star inexperienced general who was in command of my Battle hardend army. To my surprise that army was soon crushed by Milan and I was like what the heck dude I bet the same logic might apply here in real life. Long story short it's the leaders that inspire the masses not some jackal who only cares about money.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Your pathetic, idiotic response shows your utter ignorance. Swedes commenting on EU, funny ! Go learn more about EU. What makes you think are the only one living there !
Troops had been there in Mid East since the end of cold war, long before any trouble. Go educate.
EU is not a power. It will never be. Russia is and it will remain so even if you don't like it !

 

[-SINAN-]

Bullshit! Two separates events, the first took place in international water...and the second on the edge on your borders. You cannot equate a deliberate assassination of unarmed civilians in international waters to a dawning of a jet that may have been seen as a threat..

Yeah, i thought that you would interpret the incidents to your liking.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

...
Bullshit! Two separates events, the first took place in international water...and the second on the edge on your borders. You cannot equate a deliberate assassination of unarmed civilians in international waters to a dawning of a jet that may have been seen as a threat..

"Armed Combatants" is not spelled "unarmed civilians"

This is the status of the crew, once they fail to follow the legal request to divert the
ship for inspection, and resist the legal takeover of the ship.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/560?OpenDocument


VISIT AND SEARCH OF MERCHANT VESSELS
SECTION II : VISIT AND SEARCH OF MERCHANT VESSELS

Basic rules

118. In exercising their legal rights in an international armed conflict at sea, belligerent warships and military aircraft have a right to visit and search merchant vessels outside neutral waters where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are subject to capture.

119. As an alternative to visit and search, a neutral merchant vessel may, with its consent, be diverted from its declared destination.

Merchant vessels under convoy of accompanying neutral warships

120. A neutral merchant vessel is exempt from the exercise of the right of visit and search if it meets the following conditions:

(a) it is bound for a neutral port;
(b) it is under the convoy of an accompanying neutral warship of the same nationality or a neutral warship of a State with which the flag State of the merchant vessel has concluded an agreement providing for such convoy;
(c) the flag State of the neutral warship warrants that the neutral merchant vessel is not carrying contraband or otherwise engaged in activities inconsistent with its neutral status; and
(d) the commander of the neutral warship provides, if requested by the commander of an intercepting belligerent warship or military aircraft, all information as to the character of the merchant vessel and its cargo as could otherwise be obtained by visit and search.

Diversion for the purpose of visit and search

121. If visit and search at sea is impossible or unsafe, a belligerent warship or military aircraft may divert a merchant vessel to an appropriate area or port in order to exercise the right of visit and search.

Measures of supervision

122. In order to avoid the necessity of visit and search, belligerent States may establish reasonable measures for the inspection of cargo of neutral merchant vessels and certification that a vessel is not carrying contraband.

123. The fact that a neutral merchant vessel has submitted to such measures of supervision as the inspection of its cargo and grant of certificates of non-contraband cargo by one belligerent is not an act of unneutral service with regard to an opposing belligerent.

124. In order to obviate the necessity for visit and search, neutral States are encouraged to enforce reasonable control measures and certification procedures to ensure that their merchant vessels are not carrying contraband.

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994
CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS
SECTION VI : CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS

146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:

(a) are carrying contraband;
(b) are on a voyage especially undertaken with a view to the transport of individual passengers who are embodied in the armed forces of the enemy;
(c) are operating directly under enemy control, orders, charter, employment or direction;
(d) present irregular or fraudulent documents, lack necessary documents, or destroy, deface or conceal documents;
(e) are violating regulations established by a belligerent within the immediate area of naval operations; or
(f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.

Capture of a neutral merchant vessel is exercised by taking such vessel as prize for adjudication.

147. Goods on board neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture only if they are contraband.

148. Contraband is defined as goods which are ultimately destined for territory under the control of the enemy and which may be susceptible for use in armed conflict.

149. In order to exercise the right of capture referred to in paragraphs 146(a) and 147, the belligerent must have published contraband lists. The precise nature of a belligerent's contraband list may vary according to the particular circumstances of the armed conflict. Contraband lists shall be reasonably specific.

150. Goods not on the belligerent's contraband list are 'free goods', that is, not subject to capture. As a minimum, 'free goods' shall include the following:

(a) religious objects;
(b) articles intended exclusively for the treatment of the wounded and sick and for the prevention of disease;
(c) clothing, bedding, essential foodstuffs, and means of shelter for the civilian population in general, and women and children in particular, provided there is not serious reason to believe that such goods will be diverted to other purpose, or that a definite military advantage would accrue to the enemy by their substitution for enemy goods that would thereby become available for military purposes;
(d) items destined for prisoners of war, including individual parcels and collective relief shipments containing food, clothing, educational, cultural, and recreational articles;
(e) goods otherwise specifically exempted from capture by international treaty or by special arrangement between belligerents; and
(f) other goods not susceptible for use in armed conflict,

151. Subject to paragraph 152, a neutral vessel captured in accordance with paragraph 146 may, as an exceptional measure, be destroyed when military circumstances preclude taking or sending such a vessel for adjudication as an enemy prize, only if the following criteria are met beforehand:

(a) the safety of passengers and crew is provided for; for this purpose the ship's boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured in the prevailing sea and weather conditions, by the proximity of land, or the presence of another vessel which is in a position to take them on board;
(b) documents and papers relating to the captured vessel are safeguarded; and
(c) if feasible, personal effects of the passengers and crew are saved.

Every effort should be made to avoid destruction of a captured neutral vessel. Therefore, such destruction shall not be ordered without there being entire satisfaction that the captured vessel can neither be sent into a belligerent port, nor diverted, nor properly released. A vessel may not be destroyed under this paragraph for carrying contraband unless the contraband, reckoned either by value, weight, volume or freight, forms more than half the cargo. Destruction shall be subject to adjudication.

152. The destruction of captured neutral passenger vessels carrying civilian passengers is prohibited at sea. For the safety of the passengers, such vessels shall be diverted to an appropriate port in order to complete capture provided for in paragraph 146.

 

[Fenasi Kerim]

Because I am talking to freaking mule! My grand father has done all your family women fox, when he saw your grand ma, he waived her away..she had the clap...and it shows in one her descendant..Before his death, he told me to look for her broods..And I found you..This Friday, I am going to his grave , and will inform him that the mission was accomplished, I found one of her quadrupede living in England selling zlabiya!

No that didn't happen troll, stop dreaming.

Your from Algeria, how many French ran over your mother thats more realistic then your fantasies, she must have crapped you out instead of giving birth, confirmed by multiple members your a retard.

Ill make it more simple for you, have the Turkish military and the Israeli military had a conflict? simple yes or no?

Yeah, i thought that you would interpret the incidents to your liking.

Dont feed the troll bro, his part of the coalition that lost the October war, so wants take the limelight off by comparing military defeats to diplomatic incidents involving civilians.

Because They've been inbreeding for over a thousand years, Any group of Non-arab men trained as a millita for a few weeks could defeat an Arab army just because of this.
This is why Israel has it so easy: They are fighting Arabs. Any of us could band together and go to the middle-east and carve out a bit of territory off Arabs, they are that shit-tier and incompetant.

I would go further and say group of COD players could defeat an Arab army LOL but that is pushing it.

 

[-SINAN-]

118. In exercising their legal rights in an international armed conflict at sea, belligerent warships and military aircraft have a right to visit and search merchant vessels outside neutral waters where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are subject to capture.

121. If visit and search at sea is impossible or unsafe, a belligerent warship or military aircraft may divert a merchant vessel to an appropriate area or port in order to exercise the right of visit and search.

Invalid because of the 118. section.

146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:

(a) are carrying contraband;
(b) are on a voyage especially undertaken with a view to the transport of individual passengers who are embodied in the armed forces of the enemy;
(c) are operating directly under enemy control, orders, charter, employment or direction;
(d) present irregular or fraudulent documents, lack necessary documents, or destroy, deface or conceal documents;
(e) are violating regulations established by a belligerent within the immediate area of naval operations; or
(f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.

We need to determine if the blockade was legal under the international laws.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Invalid because of the 118. section.


We need to determine if the blockade was legal under the international laws.

There are plenty of lawyers that has studied this issue, and they agree that Israel
except for minor issues followed the intention of International Law.

http://webjcli.org/article/view/207/277#_Toc347583517

The only big issue is whether the blockade is proportional or not.

As the effect of the naval blockade is merely a delay of a few days.
The blockade will divert the ships to an Israeli harbour for inspection,
and all non contraband are then shipped to Gaza.

In this particular case, Hamas was not even interested in the goods, only in the contraband.

Now we can judge the result of the blockade.
How many Gazans have starved to death as a result of the blockade?

 

[-SINAN-]

There are plenty of lawyers that has studied this issue, and they agree that Israel
except for minor issues followed the intention of International Law.

http://webjcli.org/article/view/207/277#_Toc347583517

This is interesting.

The Palmer Report finds that the circumstances of the Gaza Strip are unique and that both it and Israel are “distinct territorial and political areas”. (271) It maintains that the conflict should be treated as an international conflict for the purposes of the law of the blockade and finds that the naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure, (272) exercised by Israel pursuant to its right to self-defence.

"It is interesting that in reaching this relatively unsubstantiated conclusion, the Palmer Report appears to disregard the findings of the ICJ and various organs of the UN which have stated unequivocally that the Gaza Strip is an occupied territory and as such, Article 51 of the UN Charter does not apply."

So, maybe with a different set of lawyers Palmer report's findings would have been different.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

This is interesting.

The Palmer Report finds that the circumstances of the Gaza Strip are unique and that both it and Israel are “distinct territorial and political areas”. (271) It maintains that the conflict should be treated as an international conflict for the purposes of the law of the blockade and finds that the naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure, (272) exercised by Israel pursuant to its right to self-defence.

"It is interesting that in reaching this relatively unsubstantiated conclusion, the Palmer Report appears to disregard the findings of the ICJ and various organs of the UN which have stated unequivocally that the Gaza Strip is an occupied territory and as such, Article 51 of the UN Charter does not apply."

So, maybe with a different set of lawyers Palmer report's findings would have been different.

If You ask any individual (which does not have an agenda), if there is an armed conflict between
Hamas and Israel, You are going to get a Yes.
If You ask the same individual if the incident occurred at sea, you also get a Yes.
The concept that you "occupy" an area where You have no troops, and where there is a border
(to Egypt) where Israel has no control, is ludicrous.

You can continue and ask the crew:
"There is a possibility that the blockade is legal,
and that refusing Inspection in this case makes You a combatant.
What is the sensible thing to do?
Allow inspection, with the goods delayed 1-2 days, or create an international
incident with a risk of casualties."

The Ships to Gaza crew engaged in reckless behaviour and suffered the consequences
they were looking for.

 

[Solomon2]

"It is interesting that in reaching this relatively unsubstantiated conclusion, the Palmer Report appears to disregard the findings of the ICJ and various organs of the UN which have stated unequivocally that the Gaza Strip is an occupied territory and as such, Article 51 of the UN Charter does not apply.".

The ICJ did not issue a "finding" that "stated unequivocally that the Gaza Strip is an occupied territory."

What the ICJ did in 2004 was issue an advisory opinion on the subject by request, with the U.N. instructing that U.N. General Assembly Resolutions be treated as if they were law. - including the recent resolution that ordered Gaza to be renamed as "Occupied Territory" in U.N. documents.

The ICJ was perfectly aware that Gaza does not meet the requirements for "occupied territory" under international law, nor does the U.N. have the power to make an exception - but the ICJ nonetheless considered itself obligated to fulfill such a request. Of course, the product of an advisory opinion - especially a hypothetical one, as in this example - is not a legal determination and citing it as such is nothing other than ignorance - or deceit.