Israel kills to Maintain Blockade

[Andres]

if it turns out that the above stipulations don't cover this particular situation, then fair enough.

I think it's very obvious they don't.

[Furunculus]

The point being?

Your quote:



Pray, tell me, which sovereign rights to "explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources" in the EEZ were being exercised by Israel when they boarded the ship? Are ships carrying humanitarian aid a danger for the species living in Israels (some might argue that it's not Israels EEZ, but Gaza's...) EEZ? Were the humanitarian ships buildling an oil platform? Where the Israeli commando's entering the ships armed an all geared up because they saw the activists fishing?



If you're going to quote, then make sure you read the entire text, not just the part you want to read. Contrary to what you seem to imply, "may take such measures, including boarding" is not what is written there.

my point; the situation is not clear cut, as Saemus rightly questioned this is not a cut-n-dried case of international waters.

[Furunculus]

Another detail we come to see thanks to the thread:

Warmonging before your gaming consoles is the new hobby of the gym-pumped rifle-poser softie.

Teach Turks a lesson ! AIIEEEEEEEYAY !

First of all, such a scenario ends up a war of worldwide scale since the "starring" actors are the flag carriers of the silent polarization that inherits cold-war era stances as well as the newly developed religiously-devoted yet actually political-oriented anti-american and anti-zionist movement.

It's no wonder how our luvley unkle gets himself trapped in mud over and over 'cause apparently it somehow maintains an endless stream of warmongers. Intellectuality has nothing to do with level of welfare over there across this continent. Somebody out there is still wishing for his very own citizens to get choked in Middle East just as they did in Vietnam and Iraq.

Sorry to disappoint you but the people this surrounding has raised are so hard-skinned -ridiculously, thanks to G8 meddlings here- that they may be failing at everything else but they fight well. If they can't do it, they can blow themselves up. Bitter fact about ones that ain't got much to lose.

Anyway, even the "I'm-so-neutral"ists were looking for an excuse to turn their pro-in-advance faces on. As soon as we got shots of Israeli troops landing on the civilian ship in international waters, "oh look how they deserve to die" monging popped up.

Is this how your lovely democracies were rubbed in face of us in the very first chance ? Is this the first time on earth some professional and organized security force encounters an angry mob ? Have we re-furnished your understanding of humanism with "go for the kill if they're angry" kind of handling ? If professionals act so, and out of their national waters, what can you expect out of ones in the streets ? Looking out of your window (ref: "what did you expect Israel to do ?"): Seriously, what kind of reaction did you expect to see when those people saw Israeli troopers being offloaded onto their ships ?

Keep it honest please. If you're pro-Israel, you don't have to hide behind the curtain, 'cause your Israel flag slippers can still be seen.

You've lost your sense for value of human life. But I say, screw it, you got your God of War 4 on PS3 coming anyway. We will keep on suffering your neo-connazi-run governments' policies. Bonus: A lot of your citizens included in the suffering.

i am very much pro-turkey, so be careful where you swing your blunt and cumbersome accusations.

[Andres]

my point; the situation is not clear cut, as Saemus rightly questioned this is not a cut-n-dried case of international waters.

But it is.

The problem is that if they admit it, Israel (and its' allies) will also have to admit that Israel breached international law. So now, they wringle and twist simple enough facts, claiming that "it needs to be investigated and examined first", to buy time, in the hope the press and the international community gets bored with the story after a week or so and everything can be wiped quickly under the carpet; in the meanwhile doing nothing and giving Israel a free pass.

Meh.

[Furunculus]

But it is.

your opinion, not mine.

[Subotan]

It is "find a borderline related story and then write an inaccurate title about it" day?

Having read the article, it talks about a fight breaking out where people were injured. A british officer said it could have been worse - teargas might have been required! Isralis went in with stun grenades, teargas and live ammo...

Seeing how important a symbol the Exodus remains to this day, you would have thought the Israelis would have thought twice about reprising the role of the British, especially a more violent one.

[LeftEyeNine]

i am very much pro-turkey, so be careful where you swing your blunt and cumbersome accusations.

This is about being pro-Israel, not pro-Turkey, for which I don't care actually. Respect is earnt, not demanded, if that's your point.

Also whole paragraph was not only about you. But I'm glad the message got delivered, live with it.

[Kralizec]

my point; the situation is not clear cut, as Saemus rightly questioned this is not a cut-n-dried case of international waters.

Pretty much every news source I've seen has reported that the boarding took place outside Israel's territorial waters. Kukri's original question was, I thought, not unreasonable. But you immediately expected that it would turn out Israel hadn't done anything wrong, as evidenced by your statement that you'd be "surprised if israel made a mistake that elementary".

Personally I don't see how it would be surprising to anyone. It just shows that Israel will disregard international law when dealing with anyone that they consider hostile, wether they're Palestinians or citizens of (formerly) friendly countries

[rory_20_uk]

The only similarity is that then Jews were thwarted and here they were triumphant.

One might have thought making a large concentration camp would have unsettled the Israeli state, but it appears to be unphased.

Now Israel is saying it was provoked. The cry of the wife-batterer through the ages.

[Sigurd]

Enforcement of laws and regulations of the coastal State


Article 73

1. The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention.

2. Arrested vessels and their crews shall be promptly released upon the posting of reasonable bond or other security.

3. Coastal State penalties for violations of fisheries laws and regulations in the exclusive economic zone may not include imprisonment, in the absence of agreements to the contrary by the States concerned, or any other form of corporal punishment.

4. In cases of arrest or detention of foreign vessels the coastal State shall promptly notify the flag State, through appropriate channels, of the action taken and of any penalties subsequently imposed.

These rights apply only to fishing vessels, and if Israel suspects these for fishing illegally in the EEZ.

What the Israeli employed in this case can be found under Article 19 and applicable in the territorial waters which is within 12 nautical miles.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Meaning of innocent passage (territorial waters =< 12 nautical miles)


Article 19

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:
(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;
(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;
(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;
(h) any act of willful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;
(i) any fishing activities;
(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;
(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;
(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

[HoreTore]

The only similarity is that then Jews were thwarted and here they were triumphant.

One might have thought making a large concentration camp would have unsettled the Israeli state, but it appears to be unphased.

Now Israel is saying it was provoked. The cry of the wife-batterer through the ages.

So, if Gaza had the dinner ready when Israel came home from work, none of this would've happened?

[Furunculus]

i remain to be convinced that it is that simple.

[Beskar]

But it is.

The problem is that if they admit it, Israel (and its' allies) will also have to admit that Israel breached international law. So now, they wringle and twist simple enough facts, claiming that "it needs to be investigated and examined first", to buy time, in the hope the press and the international community gets bored with the story after a week or so and everything can be wiped quickly under the carpet; in the meanwhile doing nothing and giving Israel a free pass.

Meh.

This is where the Russians can be credited. At least when they do something, they don't squirm and twist it, trying to find loopholes and opt-out clauses. They just go ahead and do it, and it is a case of "oh, they did it". No need for pointless debates.

[Sigurd]

Having said international waters which is commonly understood to include the 200 mile zone, there is also the issue of Israel not having signed the convention of the law of the sea.
This indicates that they do not adhere to the convention and International courts can't do anythingand about it. Israel will claim immunity if a court case should appear in Turkey. Which leaves a court case in Israel...

[Ser Clegane]

i remain to be convinced that it is that simple.

Perhaps you could explain why you think that the articles on the EEZ might justify Israel's actions? (or what would convince you that they do not)

[rory_20_uk]

So, if Gaza had the dinner ready when Israel came home from work, none of this would've happened?

I think you're stretching the metaphor here but I'll try:

If Palestinians would just pack up their bags and depart to somewhere else (Egypt, Syria, Mediterranean ocean) there wouldn't be the need for this problem, would there? If Palestine would just cease to exist there would be no need to throttle it to death.

And now there are these people provoking Israel by providing aid. Very unreasonable behaviour.

[HoreTore]

I think you're stretching the metaphor here but I'll try:

I tried to make a funny, not build on your metaphor

[rory_20_uk]

Apologies. So bored. 2.5 hour commute to work. Nothing to do. Vitae being sapped from me...

[gaelic cowboy]

I generally tend to be Pro-Israeli but it's very hard to be pro anything when the Deputy Ambassodor come's on Irish telly last night claiming that the people on the boat had sophisticated weapons ie knives iron bars etc, the guns apparently were wrestled from the commandoes.

[Andres]

i remain to be convinced that it is that simple. I refuse to admit that I'm wrong

That's ok. This is the BR after all

[Ice]

All this talk about international law reminds me of what a Roman general once said:

"Stop quoting laws to us, we carry swords!"

[rory_20_uk]

Vae Victis.

[HoreTore]

All this talk about international law reminds me of what a Roman general once said:

"Stop quoting laws to us, we carry swords!"

Pompey was assassinated in egypt in the end though....

[Furunculus]

Perhaps you could explain why you think that the articles on the EEZ might justify Israel's actions? (or what would convince you that they do not)

because not only is the coastal state authorised to uphold laws and regulations with its EEZ (perhaps only fisheries related), but the intervening state is also obligated to uphold the laws and regulations of the coastal state within their EEZ (perhaps only fisheries related).

combined with the fact that a state can detain civilian craft if they engage in unlawful activity such as blockade-running:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/560-24?OpenDocument

could easily mean that Israel is able to use its EEZ to initate action against unlawful activities, deemed unlawful because they do not respect the laws and regulations of the coastal state.

it ain't cut-n-dried yet.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I thought that was utterly hilarious, HoreTore. Cruel, cynical, but hilarious. Et tu, Beskar - even if I thought you were completely serious.



The legality of the action seems to be a matter for experts of international law. The EEZ is not a point of consideration, but many other legal arguments are:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_fl...lity_of_action
Legal arguments for Israel's action

San Remo Memorandum Main article: International Institute of Humanitarian Law#San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994)
Mark Regev, spokesman for the Prime Minister of Israel, said:

"The San Remo memorandum states, specifically 67A, that if you have a boat that is charging a blockaded area you are allowed to intercept even prior to it reaching the blockaded area if you've warned them in advance, and that we did a number of times and they had a stated goal which they openly expressed, of breaking the blockade. That blockade is in place to protect our people."[80][81]

According to the non-binding decleration by International Institute of Humanitarian Law, paragraph 60 chapter (e) states: "refusing an order to stop or actively resisting visit, search or capture" may render merchant vessels military objectives. However paragraph 47 chapter (c) states: vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including: (ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations are classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack. [81][82]


Gaza Jericho Agreement According to Abbas Al Lawati, Dubai-based Gulf News journalist on board the flotilla, Israel is likely[83] to cite the Gaza-Jericho Agreement (Annex I, Article XI) which vests Israel with the responsibility for security along the coastline and the Sea of Gaza. The agreement stipulates that Israel may take any measures necessary against vessels suspected of being used for terrorist activities or for smuggling arms, ammunition, drugs, goods, or for any other illegal activity. [84]
Legality of action

Senior political analyst Marwan Bishara of the Arabic news network Al Jazeera has stated that "Attacking other nations' citizens in international waters because they resisted arrest is not only illegal, but serves to demean international legal norms".[85]
A group of Israeli lawyers, including Avigdor Feldman, petitioned the Israeli High Court charging that Israel had violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by capturing the boats in international waters. Robbie Sabel, the former legal adviser to the Israeli foreign ministry, told The Jerusalem Post that the state would almost certainly argue that the seizure of the vessels was an executive act with which the court was not authorized to intervene.[86]
The Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan declared that "this attack is state terrorism, violating international law."[87][88] Prominent Turkish jurists have characterized Israel's actions as a violation of international law and a "war crime." Dr. Turgut Tarhanlı of the University of Istanbul cited the concept of innocent passage, under which vessels are granted safe passage through territorial waters in a manner which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the state.[89]
Robin Churchill, a professor of international law at the University of Dundee in Scotland, said the Israeli commandos boarded the ship outside of Israel's territorial waters. "As far as I can see, there is no legal basis for boarding these ships," Churchill said.[90] Ove Bring, Swedish expert on public international law, said that Israel had no right to take military action.[91] That is also supported by Mark Klamberg at Stockholm University.[92] Hugo Tiberg, professor in maritime law, states that Israel had no right to attack the ships.[93] Canadian scholar Michael Byers notes that the event would only be legal if the Israeli boarding were necessary and proportionate for the country's self defence. Byers believes that "the action does not appear to have been necessary in that the threat was not imminent."[94]
The UK Times's defence editor wrote that "Israel may face problems justifying the legality of its decision", not least because "[U]nder the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the high seas are regarded as not belonging to any nation". While boarding a vessel is acceptable in some circumstances, Israel still needed to seek permission from Turkey.[95] Jason Alderwick, a maritime analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies of London, is quoted as saying that the Israeli raid did not appear to have been conducted lawfully under the convention.

[Vladimir]

Sorry, I've skipped a few pages. Has anyone mentioned that the blockade of Gaza is a joint Egyptian/Israeli effort? Something to chew on.

Or has anyone speculated on how this represents a shift away from Israel by the Turkish government? Or placed it in context of the recent Turkey/Iran nuclear deal? Or that this tactic was used by Jews against the British in 1947? Or...I don't know; something that doesn't require the use of a lot of green script?

All I thought about when I heard the news this morning was the trouble the moderators were going to have with this one.

[Ser Clegane]

combined with the fact that a state can detain civilian craft if they engage in unlawful activity such as blockade-running:
could easily mean that Israel is able to use its EEZ to initate action against unlawful activities, deemed unlawful because they do not respect the laws and regulations of the coastal state.

From Article 73:
The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention

I did not see blockades mentioned anywhere in the Convention. What I did see mentioned is the right of free passage through the EEZ.

Leaving the Convention aside (and not directed at any particular contributor to this thread) - this topic reminds me of another one from three years ago and it is interesting (and has a nostalgic value) to compare views brought forward in this thread

[Furunculus]

From Article 73:
The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention

I did not see blockades mentioned anywhere in the Convention. What I did see mentioned is the right of free passage through the EEZ.

Leaving the Convention aside (and not directed at any particular contributor to this thread) - this topic reminds me of another one from three years ago and it is interesting (and has a nostalgic value) to compare views brought forward in this thread

your focussing on the wrong one:

Article58

3. In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.

The San Remo declaration i already mentioned above, does make mention of blockade-running.

[KukriKhan]

The legality of the action seems to be a matter for experts of international law. The EEZ is not a point of consideration, but many other legal arguments are:

Indeed, I expect international lawyers to have job security over this incident for the next 20 years (that is: if war isn't declared first).

I was just trying to determine "What were they (Israel) thinking?" in sending black-clad armed men in black helicopters in the middle of the night to a highly=publicized 'relief' ship. I mean: what could go wrong? Is that method of operation the best way to insure compliance with the blockade-inspection of supplies? Or, is it better to do this thing in broad daylight, fully announced in advance, cameras rolling.

"This is the Israeli Navy. Your have crossed over into Israeli waters. Cut your engines Heave to. Prepare for the boarding of inspection teams."

Protesters would protest, the ships would be boarded and inspected, then diverted to Israeli ports. No need for anyone to misunderstand the procedure. Authorized supplies would eventually make way to Gaza overland. Contraband would be identified, publicized, and returned or destroyed in situ. Lawyers could argue at the UN and ICC about borders and zones.

Why could it not have been thus? Was there intel saying there was bad stuff or bad people on-board? Who released the infrared overflight video's (had to be military intel) less than 24 hours after the incident?

We just don't know enough.

Yet people are dead. So we have to find out quickly.

[HoreTore]

Indeed, I expect international lawyers to have job security over this incident for the next 20 years (that is: if war isn't declared first).

I was just trying to determine "What were they (Israel) thinking?" in sending black-clad armed men in black helicopters in the middle of the night to a highly=publicized 'relief' ship. I mean: what could go wrong? Is that method of operation the best way to insure compliance with the blockade-inspection of supplies? Or, is it better to do this thing in broad daylight, fully announced in advance, cameras rolling.

"This is the Israeli Navy. Your have crossed over into Israeli waters. Cut your engines Heave to. Prepare for the boarding of inspection teams."

Protesters would protest, the ships would be boarded and inspected, then diverted to Israeli ports. No need for anyone to misunderstand the procedure. Authorized supplies would eventually make way to Gaza overland. Contraband would be identified, publicized, and returned or destroyed in situ. Lawyers could argue at the UN and ICC about borders and zones.

Why could it not have been thus? Was there intel saying there was bad stuff or bad people on-board? Who released the infrared overflight video's (had to be military intel) less than 24 hours after the incident?

We just don't know enough.

Yet people are dead. So we have to find out quickly.

Because macho-men with small penises thinks doing stuff like they have done will make their penises grow.

Yes, that really is the reason for all the worlds troubles. You know it is.

The San Remo declaration i already mentioned above, does make mention of blockade-running.

It says "Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters", ie. not in international waters. Sorry mate, Israel is still in the wrong with this one.