"Thru the centuries of siege warfare, there were never a UN and international laws protecting innocent civilians"(Ron post #102) But that's NOT what you said before, Ron. This is what you said in your #91: "Historically international law has called blockades only legitimate objective is to weaken military forces of the enemy"(Ron Post #91) ... So I just had to correct your misconception. Now, about International law: I am all for it, as long as you don't try to apply it selectively, which you seem to want to against Israel. Once again, there is NOTHING in international law which prohibits any country from defending it's citizens. And that includes the use of siege warfare. So Israel is well within it's rights to restrict supplies to a people (Gazans) who decided to pursue armed struggle instead of settling their differences with Israel through negotiations. Of course if the blockade causes discomfort to the Gazans, they can stop their rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and start serious peace negotiations with Israel (NOT involving the demand for Israel's destruction). Those are Israel's ONLY conditions for the cessation of the blockade. Does that seem unreasonable to you Ron ....?
Law expanding definition of terrorist activity passes first Knesset reading (Haaretz)
from the article: Response / Henry Siegman on Burston and 'Israel's pathology'