Ships to Gaza incident

[Sirotnikov]

The Israelis have the right to search individual vessels within their waters, not board them outside as happened here. This is a major faux-pas by Israel diplomatically, and countries who have previously been sympathetic may have good cause to think otherwise.

Not according to my understanding of San-Remo

[Wezil]

Post the treaty.

I'm curious to see the actual text (complete).

It's my understanding it is non-binding.

[Sirotnikov]

someone should put together a highlights video, the guy getting dumped overboard was pretty funny.

lucky for you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaiMjAULWn0

[Chemical Ollie]

Lesson for violent activists: Don't bring a club to a gun fight

That said, the IDF shouldn't have been there in the first place. Technically speaking, they have hi-jacked the ships and kidnapped the passengers.

Among the prisoners are at least 3 Swedish celebrities: One member of Parliament (green party), one semi-famous priest and international best-selling thriller author Henning Mankel. Don't ask me what they were doing there, apart from being human shields.

[Sirotnikov]

Post the treaty.

I'm curious to see the actual text (complete).

It's my understanding it is non-binding.

Here

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.

and

SECTION VI : CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS

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

(a) are carrying contraband;
(b) are on a voyage especially undertaken with a view to the transport of individual passengers who are embodied in the armed forces of the enemy;
(c) are operating directly under enemy control, orders, charter, employment or direction;
(d) present irregular or fraudulent documents, lack necessary documents, or destroy, deface or conceal documents;
(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.

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

[Sirotnikov]

Lesson for violent activists: Don't bring a club to a gun fight

That said, the IDF shouldn't have been there in the first place. Technically speaking, they have hi-jacked the ships and kidnapped the passengers.

Among the prisoners are at least 3 Swedish celebrities: One member of Parliament (green party), one semi-famous priest and international best-selling thriller author Henning Mankel. Don't ask me what they were doing there, apart from being human shields.

IDF has a right to enforce its blockade.

Mind you I don't think we made a smart move at all. But it was legal non the less.

[Wezil]

Thanks Siro.

Leaving aside whether the blockade is even legal in the first place (the lack of Gaza's status as a nation combined with the requirements of section 102 (b))...

68. Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.

46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

(a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack;
(b) in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives;
(c) they shall furthermore take all feasible precautions in the choice of methods and means in order to avoid or minimize collateral casualties or damage; and
(d) an attack shall not be launched if it may be expected to cause collateral casualties or damage which world be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole; an attack shall be cancelled or suspended as soon as it becomes apparent that the collateral casualties or damage would be excessive.

Sub (d) looks problematic.

[Sirotnikov]

Thanks Siro.

Leaving aside whether the blockade is even legal in the first place (the lack of Gaza's status as a nation combined with the requirements of section 102 (b))...

68. Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.

46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

(a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack;
(b) in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives;
(c) they shall furthermore take all feasible precautions in the choice of methods and means in order to avoid or minimize collateral casualties or damage; and
(d) an attack shall not be launched if it may be expected to cause collateral casualties or damage which world be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole; an attack shall be cancelled or suspended as soon as it becomes apparent that the collateral casualties or damage would be excessive.

Sub (d) looks problematic.

Israel never expected collateral damage, or any resistance what so ever.
The ship's passengers presented themselves as innocent peace activists and aid workers. The commandos had freaking paint guns, as a stun weapon.

The original planned called for Israeli female navy soldiers dressed in white to greet the ships passengers.

IDF opened fire after several Israeli commandos were captured and lynched by the violent crowd, and after several personal handguns fell into the arms of the crowd.

[Wezil]

Israel never expected collateral damage, or any resistance what so ever.
The ship's passengers presented themselves as innocent peace activists and aid workers. The commandos had freaking paint guns, as a stun weapon.

The original planned called for Israeli female navy soldiers dressed in white to greet the ships passengers.

IDF opened fire after several Israeli commandos were captured and lynched by the violent crowd, and after several personal handguns fell into the arms of the crowd.

So why did they decide on the dropping from helicopters in the dark of night approach?

Something doesn't add up.

[Sirotnikov]

Thanks Siro.

Leaving aside whether the blockade is even legal in the first place (the lack of Gaza's status as a nation combined with the requirements of section 102 (b))...

Very questionable defense on the Gaza status as a nation. That's a loophole, not a defense per se.
Gaza has a de facto government which is Hamas unilaterally declared govt. after it had over-thrown the PA institutions in 2007.
Be it a nation or not, it is a self governing autonomy, which is violent and shares border with Israel.

Section 102 (b) is indeed problematic. Who's to say what is excessive?
Israel allows tons of necessary materials, but still blocks some. There is no concrete measurement of what is excessive.

Israel stated it is willing to let all the materials pass, assuming they undergo inspection for disallowed materials. The people would be blocked form passing though. Foreign political / aid activists are not in themselves a commodity which Israel must let pass.

[Sirotnikov]

So why did they decide on the dropping from helicopters in the dark of night approach?

Something doesn't add up.

Like many other stuff, despite being legal, this doesn't film well.
The raid wasn't a surprise. The forces paged the ships by radio hours in advance and using loudspeakers.

[Wezil]

Very questionable defense on the Gaza status as a nation. That's a loophole, not a defense per se.
Gaza has a de facto government which is Hamas unilaterally declared govt. after it had over-thrown the PA institutions in 2007.
Be it a nation or not, it is a self governing autonomy, which is violent and shares border with Israel.

Yeah, not an argument I'm into as I suspect we would agree on more than we differ.

Section 102 (b) is indeed problematic. Who's to say what is excessive?
Israel allows tons of necessary materials, but still blocks some. There is no concrete measurement of what is excessive.

Israel stated it is willing to let all the materials pass, assuming they undergo inspection for disallowed materials. The people would be blocked form passing though. Foreign political / aid activists are not in themselves a commodity which Israel must let pass.

The list of prohibited materials to Gaza is extensive and quality of life suffers. Some would argue such an extensive list is intended to be punitive.

[Kuciwalker]

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

This is an idiotic line of attack, given that the ship almost certainly would have entered Israeli waters had it not been intercepted outside them.

We're not talking about a case where the right to free navigation is actually infringed.

[Wezil]

Was it a speedboat Kuci?

[Kuciwalker]

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Obviously, however, what Israel did is far more relevant, morally, than the precise location thy did it.