Ships to Gaza incident

[Wernazuma III]

It's almost like the Israelis wanted to sink themselves, PR-wise speaking.

Fixed.

If I were Israel, I'd sack the incompetent responsible for the executive action, putting 100% of the blame on him. He deserves it, for letting this happen yet in international waters, and for stepping into the trap like a fool.


By this, Israel did the Palestinians the favor to make it incredibly easier for them to claim that they Israelis are the badasses they are being portrayed as, great job.
This stupid action eventually opened up Gaza borders from Egypt, excellent. (which, in my view, is not a sarcastic excellent).

My conviction that the Israelis, despite the fact that I don't support much of their policy, are at least professional, smart and efficient, has vanished in a big blow. This tops Japan scoring two own goals.


To all who support Israel in this particular case: How stupid is it to claim
a) that Israel was sure beforehand that these were "terrorist supporters" with the aim of provocation and
b) the IDF was not expecting resistance when boarding the ship at night from a heli?

Explain the rationale to me why boarding the ship at night from a heli in international waters leaving that poor Israeli soldiers alone among a hoard of furious people with rods, weakening Israel's international stance even further was the superior strategy to closing by the ship at daylight after having entered Israeli waters, documenting the continuous promts to allow for a search, then entering the ship in a controlled way.

[Ellestar]

And yet no answer.

There is one in post #325

[Robert]

See post 325. Or read article 102 of that same document.

You doubt (according to your reference to article 102) that the blockade is illegal. That's another subject. And if it is then it's way more effective to fight the blockade based on article 102.

I do not believe, btw, that the blockade is illegal b/c of article 102. The people of Gaza are starving b/c of Hamas. not b/c of the blockade.

That relates to the question of cement for bunkers too, because even if Hamas takes some of it to use for military purposes the blockade will still be illegal if it disproportionally affects the civilian population. The ban on 'disproportionate' responses is supported in the 4th Geneva Convention too.

Israel allows cement to enter Gaza under conditions.

[BeBMan]

Here you go:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce

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;

Afaik the situation is much more complex, the rule above applies in armed conflicts, in which Israel could indeed act like described in intl waters. Otoh in an 'armed conflict' nobody should wonder about resistance.

However, it is not really clear if we have an 'armed conflict' here, unless Israel maintains the last war against Hamas is still going on.

And it's not the same as in anti-piracy ops because piracy is generally illegal and it's a (in intl law defined) duty to fight it plus (in case of Somalia) there's a clear mandate of the 'intl community' to do exactly this.

[Ellestar]

Here you go:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce

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;

Well, russian government says that "use of weapons against citizens and the seizing of ships in open waters with no legal grounds a gross violation of commonly accepted international legal norms." I bet russian foreign relations ministry knows international legal norms better than you.

P.S. I found a direct link to the statement:

http://www.mid.ru/Brp_4.nsf/arh/D383242A209FAA29C325773500293C15?OpenDocument

PRESS RELEASE

Incident with “Humanitarian Convoy” for Gaza


752-31-05-2010

At the initiative of one of Turkish NGOs there was formed a flotilla of six small-tonnage ships with the stated aim of breaking the blockade of the Gaza Strip and delivering humanitarian aid (about 10,000 tons, mainly medicines, foodstuffs, construction materials) to the people of the enclave. On board were up to 600 human rights defenders and activists of pro-Palestinian nongovernmental organizations, mainly from Turkey and several European countries.

On the morning of May 31 the vessels, which were reportedly on the high seas off the coast of the Gaza Strip, were stopped by Israeli Navy ships demanding to head for an Israeli port for the cargo’s inspection. After refusal to comply, the Israeli commandos who had boarded the ships used force by firearms and special equipment. As a result, according to various sources, more than 10 people were killed and about 50 received injuries of varying degrees of severity.

Moscow voices condemnation and profound concern in this connection, especially in view of the deaths and injuries among the “humanitarian convoy” participants. There is a need for clarification of all the facts of what happened. Obviously, the use of arms against civilians and the detention of the vessels on the high seas without any legal grounds constitute a gross violation of generally accepted international legal norms.

At the same time we consider the incident as confirmation of the need for an early end to the siege of Gaza by Israel and for the implementation of real steps to alleviate the humanitarian and social situation for the people of the Strip.


May 31, 2010

[BeBMan]

True, government positions are the best arguments here. Let's hear what Israel says.

[Wezil]

Nonsense. Turkey, not even the current Islamist government,would not go to war over a civilian ship violating international law which was manned by extremists.

Can you tell me what law that would be or is this just more made up Oerdin ****?

[Wezil]

Nevermind Oerdin. I caught up with the rest of the thread and I see your "illegality" is still the Benaverse argument that the flotilla was in Israeli waters.

Like Ben, you can be told but you won't listen.

[DinoDoc]

I bet russian foreign relations ministry knows international legal norms better than you.

Doubtful given the government he works for.

[Robert]

Wezil: the one I quoted a couple of posts earlier.

BeBro: Afaik the situation is much more complex, the rule above applies in armed conflicts, in which Israel could indeed act like described in intl waters. Otoh in an 'armed conflict' nobody should wonder about resistance.

I don't think that Israel is complaining about resistance.
And especially this kind of resistance, which leads to no civilian losses.
It's a brave way of resistance.

(of course till the moment that they started to use extreme violence)

However, it is not really clear if we have an 'armed conflict' here, unless Israel maintains the last war against Hamas is still going on.

Well, the armed conflict has of course never ended.
There's no peace treaty, and I think there's not even a cease fire.
If it would be over, there would not be a blockade.

And it's not the same as in anti-piracy ops because piracy is generally illegal and it's a (in intl law defined) duty to fight it plus (in case of Somalia) there's a clear mandate of the 'intl community' to do exactly this.

Yes, of course.
I just tried to draw the image that it's not uncommon that marines enter ships the way the IDF did.
The proper response would be: no violence, accept the situation.

But the 'activists' wanted to become martyrs. That's why attacked the IDF.
They in fact got what they wanted. Unfortunately the IDF restrained themselves a lot. (an the goods are still being delivered to Gaza!!)

Well, russian government says that "use of weapons against citizens and the seizing of ships in open waters with no legal grounds a gross violation of commonly accepted international legal norms." I bet russian foreign relations ministry knows international legal norms better than you.

I don't think that the Russians are a very good source for moral explanation of international laws. (I never understand why sane rational western people want to be in the same camp as China and Russia, but ok.) (btw. if Russia is such a good moral source, then I do not understand either why you guys are not protesting a lot more against Russian actions in past and present.)

Bottom line is that the Russian response is a political response. It's as worthless as a source for legal information as the American response is.

but anyway, as a matter of fact the IDF was not seizing the ship, it was entering the ship to search it.
Only after the crowd started to lynch the marines, they had to use violence to seize the ship.

And I think that self defense is a proper response.
Self defense was clearly the case here. (like the entire blockade is self defense)

[Robert]

@Wezil, in post 340 and 348 I address the "international waters" issue.

[Asher]

The general consensus from the experts was it was not legal, Plomp. Only ones actually saying it was legal are Israelis or people who defend Israelis "on principle".

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/israel-defends-actions-turns-attention-to-weakened-blockade/article1588812/

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman insisted Israel was within its rights to board the vessels. “This is not the first time Israel has stopped ships in international waters,” he said. “When a ship refuses to accede to warnings and obey instructions, we have the right to board it [under] international law.”

Not necessarily, says Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia, who notes that the only justification for forcibly boarding a ship on the high seas is self-defence. Even then, the action taken must be “necessary and proportionate.” Given what is known about Israel’s boarding of the aid flotilla, “the action does not appear to have been necessary, in that the threat was not imminent,” Prof. Byers said.

Danny Ayalon, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister, argued that allowing the flotilla to reach Gaza would have opened “a corridor of arms-smuggling.” The blockade, he said, is “aimed at preventing the infiltration of terror and terrorists into Gaza.”

That may be, but it doesn’t qualify as legal self-defence, says Prof. Byers. “To say that this blockade would be jeopardized by the flotilla and that some time down the road weapons might come into Gaza as a result, and thereby pose a threat to Israel, is to stretch the definition of self defence way further than anyone ever countenanced,” he said.

[Wezil]

@Wezil, in post 340 and 348 I address the "international waters" issue.

Yes, it wasn't legal. That seems to be the consensus. Thanks.

[Wezil]

When you become what you are fighting against you have lost.

Israeli's celebrating the deaths.

[MOBIUS]

Only ones actually saying it was legal are Israelis or people who defend Israelis "on principle".

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1588812/

It's as if people like Plompie and Oerdin have had a chip inserted into the their brains and are remote controlled by Israeli operators...

I'm just trying to figure out which one Siro has control over...