Ships to Gaza incident

[Asher]

The Israelis....

This was international waters. What right did they have to board the ship?

No UN mandate, nothing.

but but but! They have the right to drill for oil in the water. It's in the EEZ.

[notyoueither]

See my following post.

Under what authority did Israel act under in international waters?

I don't know the legal basis for blockades, but I imagine that would be it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/anger-mounts-after-deadly-gaza-aid-flotilla-strike/article1586180/

Reports from on board the ships indicate that the boats were contacted by the Israeli navy and asked who they were and where they were going.

“Our reply was that we were part of a flotilla and we were going to Gaza to deliver humanitarian supplies,” a spokesman for the flotilla said.

...

Israel was justified in enforcing the blockade of Gaza, that “unfortunately” ended in violence, said Danny Ayalon, Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister.

He described the humanitarian convoy as working “in aid of the terrorist organization, Hamas.”

“According to maritime law we have the right to do this,” Mr. Ayalon said. If the corridor was allowed to be opened, it would lead to the smuggling of weapons into Gaza and “the deaths of thousands of people.”

“No sovereign country would allow this to happen,” he told reporters in Jerusalem.

[Wezil]

NYE - That argument would hold more weight if they were actually intercepted in Israeli waters.

[Wezil]

In fact, I would proboably be on the other side of the argument were that the case.

[Asher]

I don't know the legal basis for blockades, but I imagine that would be it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/anger-mounts-after-deadly-gaza-aid-flotilla-strike/article1586180/

It's my understanding that the UN needs to grant it to be legal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter...ations_Charter

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

[notyoueither]

NYE - That argument would hold more weight if they were actually intercepted in Israeli waters.

I have not heard of many blockades that happen in the waters of the blockading power.

That's the point of them, to stop shipping going into foreign ports.

[Wezil]

Asher - The most recent example of that was the NK embargo from a year or so ago iirc. UN sanctioned.

[notyoueither]

It's my understanding that the UN needs to grant it to be legal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter...ations_Charter

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Your citation does not say that. It says the UN may use blockades. It does not say that other sovereign powers may not.

[Wezil]

I have not heard of many blockades that happen in the waters of the blockading power.

That's the point of them, to stop shipping going into foreign ports.

So are you arguing Turkey should be blockaded because the ship was heading to Gaza?

[Asher]

Your citation does not say that. It says the UN may use blockades. It does not say that other sovereign powers may not.

Israel is only citing its own actions and maritime law as the reasoning for it.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal+Issues+and+Rulings/Gaza_flotilla_maritime_blockade_Gaza-Legal_background_31-May-2010.htm

[notyoueither]

So are you arguing Turkey should be blockaded because the ship was heading to Gaza?

Don't be dense.

[Wezil]

I'm trying to understand your position.

Do you consider Gaza to be "foreign ports"? They aren't a nation.

[notyoueither]

Israel is only citing its own actions and maritime law as the reasoning for it.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government...1-May-2010.htm

I'm thinking that nations have the ability to use military force in a conflict.

The stated aim of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. Hamas is in power in Gaza. A blockade of Gaza by Israel is not unreasonable, and I would be surprised if it were illegal under international law.

[Asher]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/698c8b84-6cc0-11df-91c8-00144feab49a.html

Is the blockade legal?

Israel insists that under international law, it gets to say what goes in and out of its borders, and has a sovereign right to decide whether to impose economic sanctions on any enemy state or entity. But Sari Bashi, a lawyer and executive director of the human rights group Gisha, calls the restrictions illegal. Ms Bashi says that Israel – despite its withdrawal of civilians and soldiers from Gaza in 2005 – still controls the strip because it dictates who and what goes in and out, and is violating international humanitarian law by punishing civilians under its control for acts committed by militants.

[notyoueither]

I'm trying to understand your position.

Do you consider Gaza to be "foreign ports"? They aren't a nation.

Semantics? Gaza is foreign to Israel.