[Closed] Petition to send Hospital ship to Gaza

Signed and shared

Sounds good to me. Signed and put on FB

Signed.

lol if you think an RFA vessel would get sent to Gaza

lol if you fail to understand the purpose of a petition.

There has been a very noticeable change over the past month in the UK government's attitude towards Israel's behaviour.

The reason for this change of attitude has nothing to do with Israel's actual behaviour and everything to do with unprecedented British public opinion critical of Israel's behaviour.

Being bombarded with petitions is part of the way that the government and politicians assess public attitudes and reactions.

So while no petition is likely to fully achieve its stated objectives it is possible for it to help influence government policy.

For example, one petition called for a total ban on arms sales to Israel, a very unlikely possibility. However the government is considering a “tougher approach” to arm sales to Israel :

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gaza-conflict-government-considering-ban-on-arms-sales-to-israel-9655296.html ]Gaza conflict: Government considering ban on arms sales to Israel[/url]

A petition demanding humanitarian assistance to the suffering people of Gaza is likely to help put pressure on the government. Petitions need specifics, that's how they work, but falling short of the stated aim does not mean that they have had no effect.

HTH

The hospital ship RFA Argus is moored in Falmouth. She is uniquely designed for this type of situation.

I'll have to correct you on a couple of points there - the Argus isn't (in fact or in maritime law) a hospital ship, as she is armed (albeit with a couple of 30mm AA guns), nor is she 'uniquely designed for this' as she is a converted container ship.

This is a hospital ship:

[url= http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/USNS_Mercy_leaving_San_Diego_Bay.jpg/300px-USNS_Mercy_leaving_San_Diego_Bay.jp g" target="_blank">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/USNS_Mercy_leaving_San_Diego_Bay.jpg/300px-USNS_Mercy_leaving_San_Diego_Bay.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

lol if you fail to understand the purpose of a petition.

Correct me if I've got this wrong, but isn't a petition, especially an electronic one, something the Government uses to create the illusion of engaging with the public, but actually completely ignores?

Correct me if I've got this wrong, but isn't a petition, especially an electronic one, something the Government uses to create the illusion of engaging with the public, but actually completely ignores?

You are wrong. Try reading the rest of Ernie's post for further insight.

Argus is a "Primary Casualty Receiving Ship" subtly different from a hospital ship.

It is also a Fleet Auxiliary and sending it into anyones waters could be considered as an act of war.

It also only has 100 beds, not going to make a massive difference.

Although I understand the sentiment, it is a ridiculous proposal in reality.

What about sending it to Afganistan

Good luck with that!

gobuchul - Member
What about sending it to Afganistan
Good luck with that!

You sir lack ambition! 😉

Signed, not because it will happen but it does, in some small way, register my disgust at the situation.

sending it into anyones waters could be considered as an act of war.

I'm sure that the Gazans would not see a ship entering Gazan territorial waters to offer humanitarian assistance as an act of war.

Or are you suggesting that Gaza is under foreign military occupation ?

Well we are sending nhs staff out to help.

Or are you suggesting that Gaza is under foreign military occupation ?

As there is an ongoing war/conflict the IDF is entitled to blockade Gaza and stop any ship entering Gazan waters. Sending the ship would be a pointless bit of posturing.

I'm sure that the Gazans would not see a ship entering Gazan territorial waters to offer humanitarian assistance as an act of war.

Or are you suggesting that Gaza is under foreign military occupation ?

Fair point.

There is however, a naval blockade of the waters by our closest military ally in the region. Do you really think that we will break that blockade?

Rightly or wrongly that is the current state of affairs.

The practicalities of this idea have not been thought out.

Is it ready to go? It will probably need to mobilise additional crew and equipment, say 5 days, then a couple of weeks to get there. So about 3 weeks before it could get there at the earliest.

Where would the Argus berth? It would have to anchor off the very small port and casualties would have be transferred by small boat. As Hamas are still chucking their rockets about, I don't think anyone would be flying helicopters.

The the 100 beds would be full very quickly. Or do you patch people up and put them back in boats to go back ashore?

I agree with the sentiment but this is a waste of time. The MoD could dismiss it as completely impractical without even going near the political issues.

Put the effort towards something more sensible. (Like sending it to Afghanistan). 🙂

There is however, a naval blockade of the waters by our closest military ally in the region. Do you really think that we will break that blockade?

The blockade is illegal. Britain has a duty to uphold international law.

[url= http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/08/14/un-human-rights-chief-israel-blockade-gaza-strip-is-illegal/ ]U.N. Human Rights Chief: Israel's Blockade of Gaza Strip Is Illegal[/url]

[i]...the Gaza blockade amounts to collective punishment of civilians, which is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare and occupation.[/i]

The blockade is illegal. Britain has a duty to uphold international law.

So you are suggesting that we basically declare war on Israel?

That is very sensible.

Also, the illegality is the opinion of a report and debatable.

you describe Israel as the UK's biggest military ally in the region. how so?

What about sending it to Afganistan,

So you are suggesting that we basically declare war on Israel?

That is very sensible.

Erm, I haven't suggested that we declare war on anyone, but you've pretty much suggested that Israel would declare war on Britain if we dare to upset them, how sensible do you think that suggestion is ?

Erm, I haven't suggested that we declare war on anyone,

So sending a warship to break their blockade isn't an act of war?

I'm not an expert in these matters but I can think of one good reason why a hospital ship couldn't be sent to Afghanistan (you numpty).

Read the whole thread you numpty. I was not the one to suggest sending it to Afgan. Also, I would of thought the smiley would of been a clue. 🙄

Besides the political problems, no-one has suggested how the practical problems could be solved.

I will say again, if you want to do some good, direct your energy elsewhere. This is a ridiculous idea.

I think the effort of trying to send it to Afghanistan would probably be enough to stop the fighting 😀

I think the effort of trying to send it to Afghanistan would probably be enough to stop the fighting

Maybe we could pick it up with lots of chinooks?

So sending a warship to break their blockade isn't an act of war?

Well the blockade itself is an act of war, but in this case the blockade is illegal anyway as it amounts to collective punishment.

But anyway, firstly I think its stretching it a bit to claim that if Britain were to send a ship on a humanitarian mission it would be equal to declaring war on Israel, and secondly Britain doesn't have a history of worrying about such matters, specially since the foreign policy doctrine of "humanitarian intervention" now seems apparently firmly established.

the foreign policy doctrine of "humanitarian intervention" now seems apparently firmly established.

So you agree with that principle?

send a ship on a humanitarian mission

To do what? Please explain what practical use the Argus will be in this scenario?

I'll tell you what gobuchul, I think it's probably best that you don't sign the petition, you seem to have too many doubts.

I'll tell you what gobuchul, I think it's probably best that you don't sign the petition, you seem to have too many doubts.

Ernie - As I said earlier.

I will say again, if you want to do some good, direct your energy elsewhere. This is a ridiculous idea.

What are you actually petitioning for? For the UK to send a warship into a very unstable area, which could achieve very little in way of practical humanitarian aid, with potentially serious political outcomes?

I'll ask you again, how will you overcome the practical problems?

Am I the only one old enough to remember the being taught about the Berlin Airlift?
As I recall there was a significantly bigger bully involved with much bigger toys, but the US & UK saw fit to deliver food and aid to those in East Berlin.

Where there is a will there is a way - it may not be a hospital ship to Gaze or deploying a naval task force to Afghanistan - it's just that the the political motivation is simply not there.

deploying a naval task force to Afghanistan

I'm all for that option
It make take a bit of dredging though

Read the whole thread you numpty. I was not the one to suggest sending it to Afgan. Also, I would of thought the smiley would of been a clue.

you describe Israel as the UK's biggest military ally in the region. how so?

The blockade is illegal. Britain has a duty to uphold international law.

U.N. Human Rights Chief: Israel's Blockade of Gaza Strip Is Illegal

...the Gaza blockade amounts to collective punishment of civilians, which is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare and occupation.

That wasn't the finding of the later Palmer report (the UN Secretary Generals panel of inquiry into the events of the 2010 flotilla incident) though, was it?

In fact it specifically ruled the Naval blockade legal:

[i]Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.
[/i]

So Ernie, why don't you stop cherry picking the reports that suit your stance?

As an aside: I once woke up aboard RFA Argus, after an epic session in Liverpool. I can vouch for it being a very agreeable place to spend the night, and they treat their casualties extremely well 😀

Thats an impressive night out Binners, though I thought they'd dropped the press gang some years ago - did you get signed in as 'Harry Shyters'?

You can ponder that while you're pondering the question asked of you before:

I'll answer that and sign the petition once somebody can explain to me what practical use it will be.

So Ernie, why don't you stop cherry picking the reports that suit your stance?

You mean like you just have Z-11 ?

From your own quote : [i]"in order to prevent weapons"[/i]

The blockade is not to prevent weapons entering, although obviously the Israelis who constantly violate international law use it as an excuse in an attempt to make it appear legal, the Gazans aren't waiting for a back order of weapons you know.

The illegal blockade is there to control and restrict everything that enters Gaza, including of course completely non-lethal items. The Israelis have even called it "putting the Palestinians on a diet" and have gone as far as counting and limiting the calories entering Gaza, I kid you not. Calories are not weapons, Palestinians cannot use food to kill Israelis.

So the blockade amounts, without any doubt whatsoever, to the collective punishment of civilians, which is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare and occupation, ie, it's illegal.

In fact only two days ago the UN reiterated that the blockade of Gaza by Israel was [u]illegal.[/u]

In a statement to UN General Assembly the Commissioner-General said, quote :

[i]To be sure, Israel has legitimate security concerns that must be addressed. At the same time, [u]the illegal blockade of Gaza must be lifted[/u]. Until and unless that happens, Gaza – and for that matter the West Bank under occupation - will remain perpetually dependent on humanitarian assistance. As is all too well known, nowhere in the world does humanitarian assistance alone make up for the denial of dignity and rights. [/i]

[url= http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/47d4e277b48d9d3685256ddc00612265/4e1d81ed5803f04285257d2d00488f1c?OpenDocument ]STATEMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER-GENERAL TO THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
ON THE SITUATION IN THE GAZA STRIP[/url]

At the bottom of the page is both the mobile and office phone number of UNRWA Spokesperson, if you've got any questions.

Have signed the petition btw ?

gobuchul - Member
I'll answer that and sign the petition once somebody can explain to me what practical use it will be.

I can't see it doing anything other than be another touchpoint with the general masses that says we are not happy that the UK govt is indolent to the point of being obstructive and that we, the people who get to vote in the next election, are not happy about it. It may in some small way prick someone's conscience - got to be worth a try.

It may in some small way prick someone's conscience - got to be worth a try.

roger - Just reread my post and I can see that it isn't clear. The practicality I was referring to was the limitations of what that ship could actually do. It is completely unsuitable for the suggested job.

The secretary generals inquiry found the naval blockade legal

What more do you want Ernie?

You're repeatedly quoting its illegality as FACT when even the UN cant agree on the issue, the fact that the palmer report says the opposite to other reports means that you can't do this, the best you can do is claim that the legality of the blockade is a contentious and unsettled issue - the opinion of a UNRWA Spokesperson is not a court of law - until you can show an ICJ court decision that says otherwise, then the fact that even the UN can't agree a line means the jury is out.

What you can't get round, however much you whinge and whine about the poor Pals, is that if they stopped trying to ship in rockets and explosives to fire at Israeli civilians (which even they admit is illegal under international law), then there would be no need for the blockade!

What more do you want Ernie?

You keep banging on about the Palmer report but the UN quickly concluded that Palmer, a politician, was motivated by political considerations, and not legal ones, and was wrong to have done so.

What more do you want ?

[url= http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-un-gaza-rights-idUSTRE78C59R20110913 ]U.N. experts say Israel's blockade of Gaza illegal[/url]

With reference to the Palmer report :

[i]A panel of five independent U.N. rights experts reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council rejected that conclusion, saying the blockade had subjected Gazans to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."

"In pronouncing itself on the legality of the naval blockade, the Palmer Report does not recognize the naval blockade as an integral part of Israel's closure policy toward Gaza which has a disproportionate impact on the human rights of civilians," they said in a joint statement.

An earlier fact-finding mission named by the same U.N. forum to investigate the flotilla incident also found in a report last September that the blockade violated international law. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says the blockade violates the Geneva Conventions.

Richard Falk, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories and one of the five experts who issued Tuesday's statement, said the Palmer report's conclusions were influenced by a desire to salve Turkish-Israeli ties.

"The Palmer report was aimed at political reconciliation between Israel and Turkey. It is unfortunate that in the report politics should trump the law," he said in the statement.[/i]

It is absolutely clear that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is illegal under international law, both the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross say so.

But you want to claim that it's legal based on a discredited four year old report, and discredited by the UN itself no less, and despite the fact that since then the UN has repeatedly reiterated that the blockade is illegal.

The question is who to believe, an anonymous right-wing pro-zionist punter on a mtb forum, or the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN which as recently as two days ago once again stated that Israeli blockade of Gaza was illegal ?

A tricky one aye ?

BTW you still haven't said whether you've signed the petition ?

So Ernie, if its so clearly illegal, why don't the Palestinians take it to the ICC like they've been threatening to for years? They've been dithering round this again over the last few weeks, saying they were going to the ICC and then not doing it, saying they were in discussions but not actually committing to it.

Go on then? Why the reluctance? 😆

😆

Yes it's absolutely hilarious that Israel gets away with endlessly flouting international law 🙄

Have you signed the petition yet ?

Its absolutely hilarious that Hamas won't take it to the ICC, because by the Palestinians own admission they've been endlessly flouting international law themselves 😆

Why on earth would I sign a petition to put British naval and military crewmembers in harms way to help a bunch of terrorists?

I really don't think you get it Ernie - my position is simple, until the Gazans stop firing rockets, they can get ****ed!

Why on earth would I sign a petition to put British naval and military crewmembers in harms way to help a bunch of terrorists?

Don't forget that, as the Argus is an RFA, it's civilian-manned (apart from the embarked Naval personnel who run the PCRF & Ship's Flight).

"Petition to send Hospital ship to Gaza" - Guardian readers only, I presume?

Don't forget that, as the Argus is an RFA, it's civilian-manned

Not really. If it goes into a war zone the civilians become RN Reserves.
They are all "Sponsored Reserves" which means they carry RN ID's, dog tags, ranks and service numbers.

the poor Pals

500 kids and 200 women dead. Stay classy Ninfan.

3 billon USD per year on military aid from the US to Israel, so I guess relatively speaking, they are pretty poor.

And the smiley face at the end of your post....you must be some atrocious human being to treat this situation as an opportunity to play gobshite tennis.

Not really. If it goes into a war zone the civilians become RN Reserves.
They are all "Sponsored Reserves" which means they carry RN ID's, dog tags, ranks and service numbers.

That's interesting, and I stand corrected. It must be a recent change though, because I used to know a few RFA officers and it wasn't the case then (used to only apply to the Point class sealift vessels).