Ships to Gaza incident

[C0ckney]

all the doublespeak bull**** we've heard from the pro-israel folks here put to music. nice

[BlackCat]

I must admit that it has been a bit weired to read this thread. "Isrealis on killing rampage" and they only mangage to kill nine Honestly, Mobby and other like his ilk, if they (the israelis) had wanted to kill people, they certainly are way better, so it's obvious that it was out of sheer nessecity that that there was any deaths at all.

[KrazyHorse]

I'd say there's some daylight between "murderous rampage" and "absolute necessity"....

[Sirotnikov]

Well here's a first cost of the conflict.
I've been leaving comments under the name "siro" on HuffingtonPost, and my (massively popular) youtube video is published under "sirotnikov".

Suddenly in the last two hours I've been getting lots of "password recovery" mails from HuffingtonPost. Stupid eggs heads don't have a "I haven't asked for this" link to report abuse.

This lead to a very rushed replacing of my passwords on a gazillion sites.

[Sirotnikov]

You are invalidly assuming otherwise.

Innocent until proven guilty, have you heard of that principle?

I'd like to see your proof that the 9 people killed were breaking ANY laws at the time of their deaths, or prior to.

The US congress has no bearing on the situation. The incidents occurred well beyond US borders and jurisdiction. The only people who matter here are the UN and The Hague.

The 9 people killed were attacking a military force and become hostile.

The law does not allow the vessels to employ any resistance against a force enforcing a blockade. They are in fact required to submit to inspection, and not hamper the military force in any way.

Resisting the military force makes them lose protected civilian status. They not only resisted, but actually threatened the lives of several soldiers which means the take an active part in hostilities, and legal targets for the IDF.

[Sirotnikov]

You can't convict someone of a crime because you believe they may commit it in the future. It doesn't matter what the indicators were.

It's not a pedantic point, it's a major point. And one that should be common sense.

Good on you for waiting for me to state the obvious, and good on you for missing the point.

Being major or not, it is completely besides the point.

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d14de6160e0c12563da005fdb1b/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce!OpenDocument

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;

The ship announcing they would be breaching the blockade is good enough for "reasonable grounds".
Their resistance to visit, search and capture makes another good reason for attack.

this too:

SECTION VI : CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS

146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters [b]if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67[/b[ or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:

[...]
(e) are violating regulations established by a belligerent within the immediate area of naval operations; or
(f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.

Here too, the ships admission of intending to breach the blockade is reason enough for their capture in international waters.

[MOBIUS]

God, for an Israeli damage control operative who's supposed to be sweeping this under the carpet, you really are a putz...

Everyone had forgotten about it, like they do every time Israel murders a bunch of innocent civilians - that's why Israel gets away with it. And yet here you are bringing it up again!

The 9 people killed were attacking a military force and become hostile.

No. The military force attacked the boat! Are you trying to tell me this boat went looking for an Israeli military helicopter in the middle of the night in an attempt to attack it with sticks whilst it was in flight!?

The law does not allow the vessels to employ any resistance against a force enforcing a blockade. They are in fact required to submit to inspection, and not hamper the military force in any way.

Link please. Unless you are talking about the 'Israeli Rules of Engaging Inferior Races: If you only murder a few at a time, nobody really cares' clause?

Resisting the military force makes them lose protected civilian status. They not only resisted, but actually threatened the lives of several soldiers which means the take an active part in hostilities, and legal targets for the IDF.

Look, nobody believes your bull**** and lies - it just makes you look like a total dick that you even bother going through the motions of this propaganda bull****...

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't think you understand how the world works if you think the US has any role here at all.

God, if only the US could avoid being involved in all the **** that issues from Israel/Palestine...

[MOBIUS]

[Asher]

The 9 people killed were attacking a military force and become hostile.

You've got it backwards, the military force were attacking them. They were defending.

How many protestors were killed? How many soldiers?

Resisting the military force makes them lose protected civilian status. They not only resisted, but actually threatened the lives of several soldiers which means the take an active part in hostilities, and legal targets for the IDF.

So you have proof that the 9 specific individuals killed did anything untoward, they weren't killed by stray bullets fired from the soldiers, etc?

No? Well then. **** off.

[Asher]

Being major or not, it is completely besides the point.

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d14de6160e0c12563da005fdb1b/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce!OpenDocument

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;

The ship announcing they would be breaching the blockade is good enough for "reasonable grounds".
Their resistance to visit, search and capture makes another good reason for attack.

this too:

SECTION VI : CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS

146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters [b]if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67[/b[ or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:

[...]
(e) are violating regulations established by a belligerent within the immediate area of naval operations; or
(f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.

Here too, the ships admission of intending to breach the blockade is reason enough for their capture in international waters.

I find it fascinating you cite a documented hosted by the International Red Cross which works off the assumption that this was a legal blockade, when last I checked the International Red Cross didn't think it was a legal blockade and demanded it stop...

[Gibsie]

God, for an Israeli damage control operative who's supposed to be sweeping this under the carpet, you really are a putz...

This is standard Israeli procedure, you realise. Whenever something happens involving Israel, whether right or wrong, their officials come on TV and start getting aggressive, refusing to answer questions, and often just lying through their teeth. The interviewer asks questions like "Do you think your troops did the right thing and the activists/journalists/refugees/children deserved to die?" and the response will be something ridiculous like, "Well I don't know, what would your soldiers do if terrorists were about to shoot THE QUEEN or blow up Big Ben? Would they just let them go, or would they stop them? Answer my question first! These people were criminals, enemies of the free world. They attacked US. The Arabs want to destroy the Israeli state, and you defend them?"... and it's frankly gobsmacking that these are diplomats who think they are defending themselves and their country by launching into these bombastic counterattacks on news shows, where with a little bit of candour and honesty, and we'd probably otherwise think they were making a decent point. Look up Mark Regev as a good example. It's no wonder that a good little soldier like Sirotnikov will repeat the same claptrap that his superiors push on him.

[Heresson]

I am supporter of Palestinians, in general, but I side with Israel in this case. The ship in question was full of fundies hoping to die in a clash with Israelis (videos available online) and "useful idiots" who helped them to present themselves as victims.

The abordage itself was legitimate, as was the use of violence against whoever tried to kill their soldiers. Perhaps they've overdone it, but they were clearly provoked. What could they do.

It doesn't mean that creation of Israel and ethnic clearsing of Palestine that followed, as well as current politics of Israel are something I approve of.

[BlackCat]

It doesn't change the fact that creation of Israel and ethnic clearsing of Palestine that followed, as well as current politics of Israel are something I approve of.

Are you sure ?

[Sirotnikov]

I find it fascinating you cite a documented hosted by the International Red Cross which works off the assumption that this was a legal blockade, when last I checked the International Red Cross didn't think it was a legal blockade and demanded it stop...

i find it fascinating how you avoid my response to the original issues you raised, because you were pwned, and change your position to a "more promising" venue of argument.

Assuming you're familiar with basic logic, it is now basically established that if one proves that the blockade is legal, my contentions that the boarding and resulting attack by IDF on Mavi Marmara are legal would hold.

You are now changing the argument to whether the naval blockade is legal in the first place. But I'll bite, just to appease you, and its a discussion worth having.

Worth noting that the fact the ICRC hosts the document does not make it the legal authority to interpret it, or declare blockades illegal.

Sadly for you, there is no ICRC statement specific to the naval blockade. There is however the ICRC statement on the Gaza "closure":

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine-update-140610

This statement does not limit itself to the naval blockade and mainly deals with the land imposed sanctions on import into Gaza. This is actually a different matter on which I'm of an opinion closer to yours (I believe sanctions should be lifted for the most part), even though for different reasons.

The legality of the Israeli imposed closure is challenged on the following arguments:

(1) the closure constitutes collective punishment upon the Gaza population
(2) Israel's security concerns must be balanced against the Palestinians' right to live normal, dignified lives

The first argument is easily challenged by the fact that it actually conflicts with the current precedents and international laws. To the best of my knowledge, neither naval blockades nor economical sanctions have been legally challenged as 'collective punishment' in any other case.

The original clause cited by the ICRC about collective punishment was originally intended to deal with issues like mass executions or mass incarcerations. Blockades and sanctions are in fact legal, always have been., and are still widely used in conflicts around the world.

Following the ICRC's first argument to its logical conclusion would make any and all blockades or sanctions by any belligerent illegal.

The 2nd argument actually holds more water, and is more convincing.
It has two faults:

(1) it does not address the fact that Israel is not the only state sharing a border with Gaza, nor is it the only state imposing a closure which includes harsh economical sanctions. Egypt is a key factor in this.

The Egyptian border and the sanctions and blockade imposed by Egypt mean that Israel does not bear the sole responsibility for the well being of the people in Gaza, contrary to the claim of the ICRC press release.

Each and every item blocked for delivery through the Israeli imposed sanctions could be delivered via the Egyptian border with Gaza. Yet there is oddly absolutely no reference to Egypt's role in the blockade or the even harsher economical sanctions which it imposes (most of the time).

(2) The original letter of the law on blockades demands that:

the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

It is odd that the ICRC makes absolutely no attempt at discussing the Israeli security concerns (which it briefly mentions), what is the Israeli military advantage from the blockade, or what would constitute a proper balance.

Notice the call to lift the blockade is not even balanced with a the slightest responsibility for the Hamas government to stop rocket attacks (and other threats) against Israeli civilian population on the Israeli side of the Gaza border.

Since obviously blockades and sanctions are legal in other cases (not mentioned in the report), is it really logical that the proper balance between the Israeli security concerns (namely - thousands of rockets launched at civilian population) would weigh completely towards an absolute lift of the blockade?


Despite these two reservations, there is indeed a discussion in Israel on whether the import sanctions (not the naval blockade) are indeed balanced in relation to the advantage from them. There is a majority supporting it, but a strong minority voice exists.

Given the Egyptian import option, I think the sanctions are not illegal (they would be, in my understanding, if Israel controlled the Gaza-Egypt border). But I do think the sanctions' current effect is excessive, and would have most of them lifted, keeping in place more focused sanctions on the Hamas government and weapons / defenses building capabilities.

So I find the 2nd argument as a convincing reason to lift most of the economic sanctions.

This however does not affect the legality of the naval blockade which exists to ensure no weapons are imported into Gaza.

Given that your original issue about the legality of the Israeli raid depends only on the naval blockade aspect (and not the import sanctions in general) I think the naval blockade is clearly legal, and justified.

This makes the IDF demand to capture and redirect the ship to enforce the blockade perfectly legal within the framework of the law.