Israel Attacks Aid Ship in Int'l Waters.

[PaperBagHead]

Appalling.

[picard102]

Israel is a terrorist state as far as I'm concerned.
Backed by the US unfortunately they'll never be held responsible for it's actions.
Shame someone can't go in and remove some of the more dangerous weaponry they've been given.

[PaperBagHead]

Israeli Response:



Wether or not the commandos were attacked is not the issue, the boarding of the ship in the first place is clearly in violation of international law and classified as an attack. There weren't even any weapons on board.

[John Galt]

You've got two different lines of discussion here, but you're acting as if they are the same thing.

First of all, Israel may or may not be a terrorist state ... we could debate that issue. Interesting that they were formed as a modern state by an international body, something which a very few countries could say. At the end of the day, everybody is living on somebody else's old land.

Second, according to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994:

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

NOTE: the San Remo Manual is not a treaty, but considered by the ICRC to be reflective of customary law.

Israel's boarding of the Gaza flotilla was certainly an example of #67 section A. The Captain of one of the boats told the IDF that they intended to "run the blockade" And the video evidence shows that Israel did indeed give the flotilla a warning and asked them to re-route to an Israeli port.

Also, on piracy: the definition of piracy under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, section 101, is clear that piracy can only occur where there are “illegal acts of violence or detention” that are “committed for private ends.” Israeli actions were legal under the law of armed conflict (as evidenced by the San Remo Manual) and in any event, were not committed for private ends. Anyone using the term piracy to describe the Israeli action is clearly not aware of international law on the subject.

So really, Israel didn't have to offer them another alternative to get where they "wanted to go." They followed the law as it is currently written. You can disagree with them, or argue that the law should be changed. Still, their actions were more legitimate by law that the US invasions of Vietnam, Grenada, and Iraq. So throw some stones if you care to.

By the way, if you're writing from outside the US, you might want to look up whether or not your country participated in 2/3rds of those "conflicts."

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by spooky

True or false:
The blockade exists.


I feel like people are getting caught up in the morality of something and donning blinders to the reality of the situation. In my mind, the blockade exists, like it or not, fair or not.

Given that fact, the way the blockade is being handled, which is what the whole thing is supposed to be about, seems fairly measured and properly handled by the guys on the ground(or in the water). Their job is to enforce the blockade, and as far as I can tell, they seem to be doing their jobs. The thread is about that, I'm asking where they fucked up, why the outrage, and everyone ducks the question, deflecting to the larger political issues.

Obviously, there are many people who pretend to not know what that word means, "Israel", they certainly do not acknowledge it exists. And I suppose if you say that, you also say the blockade doesn't exist, and then these guys become pirates. Sort of. Pirates with a list of things not allowed that pass the legal stuff through a bureaucracy to the intended consumer and don't look to directly profit from the process.

In short, I don't give a shit what your politics are on the situation, tell me how the blockade, assuming it exists, was improperly enforced.

They can't, because it wasn't ...

Originally Posted by John Galt

You've got two different lines of discussion here, but you're acting as if they are the same thing.

First of all, Israel may or may not be a terrorist state ... we could debate that issue. Interesting that they were formed as a modern state by an international body, something which a very few countries could say. At the end of the day, everybody is living on somebody else's old land.

Second, according to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994:

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

NOTE: the San Remo Manual is not a treaty, but considered by the ICRC to be reflective of customary law.

Israel's boarding of the Gaza flotilla was certainly an example of #67 section A. The Captain of one of the boats told the IDF that they intended to "run the blockade" And the video evidence shows that Israel did indeed give the flotilla a warning and asked them to re-route to an Israeli port.

Also, on piracy: the definition of piracy under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, section 101, is clear that piracy can only occur where there are “illegal acts of violence or detention” that are “committed for private ends.” Israeli actions were legal under the law of armed conflict (as evidenced by the San Remo Manual) and in any event, were not committed for private ends. Anyone using the term piracy to describe the Israeli action is clearly not aware of international law on the subject.

So really, Israel didn't have to offer them another alternative to get where they "wanted to go." They followed the law as it is currently written. You can disagree with them, or argue that the law should be changed. Still, their actions were more legitimate by law that the US invasions of Vietnam, Grenada, and Iraq. So throw some stones if you care to.

By the way, if you're writing from outside the US, you might want to look up whether or not your country participated in 2/3rds of those "conflicts."

[spooky]

Well, after nine pages, I think I will cast my vote to support the blockade.

Sure, it's a vote based in ignorance, I have little knowledge of the whole thing, but I can smell bullshit when someone is trying to feed it to me, and this whole thing has the odor of a quad processed bolus.


Why did this even make the news? Someone call me when something noteworthy happens.

[spooky]

Originally Posted by PaperBagHead

Wether or not the commandos were attacked is not the issue, the boarding of the ship in the first place is clearly in violation of international law and classified as an attack. There weren't even any weapons on board.

First, I don't have a horse in this race, and I'm pretty ignorant about what is going on.

That said, the ship intended to break the blockade, it wasn't hiding that fact, right?

If a terrorist was headed to shore with a nuclear bomb, do you have to wait until it is in your waters to attack, or is imminent threat enough justification for nabbing it before it gets in range? If imminent threat is enough, how were the Israelis to know for sure what was on that ship?

Do we know for sure that the ship was in international waters? Do we know for sure that the ship never left international waters?

Initially, the Israelis were using non lethal force, were they not? Why and when did they escalate?

I'd like these questions answered before I start taking sides.

[BrianAlt]

Please Mr. Galt, don't ruin funsie polls with facts!

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by BrianAlt

Please Mr. Galt, don't ruin funsie polls with facts!

You're right, BA. I support the wholesale production and distribution of hummus, tabouli, and lamb muchentuchen. Why can't the people who make these yummy foods just get along?

[PaperBagHead]

First of all, am I seriously supposed to believe that the armed Israeli commandos were somehow overpowered by the civilians on-board the ship? And thrown off the ship?

The attack was confirmed by the Israeli government to have occurred on international waters, 65 km off the coast of Gaza.

Avital Leibovich, an Israeli military spokeswoman, confirmed that the attack took place in international waters, saying: "This happened in waters outside of Israeli territory, but we have the right to defend ourselves."

I don't know much about maritime law but the fact that Israel attacked the ship on international waters is technically illegal. Or am I mistaken? Or is Israel above the law and should be left alone because it had no way of knowing what was on that boat.

The ship was clearly there to deliver aid supplies. Among the people on-board were old men, women and children.

Even if the boarding was not illegal, and as you say Israel needed to protect itself as it had no idea of what was actually on the ship, were 10 (at least) casualties really necessary? Was there no other way to check or divert the boat?