Israel kills to Maintain Blockade

[HoreTore]

section V makes no such stipulation, mate:

and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture

How did you miss that one?

[Furunculus]

and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture

How did you miss that one?

i didn't, they were told not to go, and they certainly resisted visit, search and capture, and seeing as they had searched the other six vessels i find it hard to believe there was not prior warning which must have been followed by a stop.

where do you want to take this one now chuckles?

[HoreTore]

i didn't, they were told not to go, and they certainly resisted visit, search and capture, and seeing as they had searched the other six vessels i find it hard to believe there was not prior warning which must have been followed by a stop.

where do you want to take this one now chuckles?

....According to the Israeli army, perhaps. I intend to hear the other side of the story before I make claims like that.

[Furunculus]

....According to the Israeli army, perhaps. I intend to hear the other side of the story before I make claims like that.

hmmm, that's not the same tone of righteous indignation you used in your previous post:

and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture

How did you miss that one?

realigning your position much?

---------------------------------------------------------

[edit]

hmmm, after a rash of demands for an explanation on why i believed the EEZ significant in the hour preceding my response, it is interesting to note the silence in the hour and a half since that response...........

[/edit]

[LeftEyeNine]

So-called "weapons" captured on the head ship, Mavi Marmara, released by IDF:

http://video.ntvmsnbc.com/mavi-marma...-silahlar.html

[Furunculus]

So-called "weapons" captured on the head ship, Mavi Marmara, released by IDF:

http://video.ntvmsnbc.com/mavi-marma...-silahlar.html

they resisted a boarding with violent attack, using firebombs, clubs, knives, tools, and slingshots. i am still failing to sympathise.

[LeftEyeNine]

they resisted a boarding with violent attack, using firebombs, clubs, knives, tools, and slingshots. i am still failing to sympathise.

That's a failure indeed then. Whatever.

[Meneldil]

So-called "weapons" captured on the head ship, Mavi Marmara, released by IDF:

http://video.ntvmsnbc.com/mavi-marma...-silahlar.html

Though I think Israel handled this story rather poorly (actually, they could only have made it worse by sinking the ship), I'm kind of baffled that people go around, show this video and say "See, they didn't have any weapon!" when said video clearly shows the 'peaceful' protesters actually carried weapons.

Last I know, slings are weapons. Ridiculous ones when you're fighting a modern army, but still. A weapon. Now the real question is "why did these peaceful protesters have so many weapons in their ship?". My answer is because from the get-go, this attempt to overcome the blockade was a suicide mission meant to make Israel look bad. The crew probably is of the kind that yells "Death to Israel" every once in a while. They clearly don't get my sympathies.

That being said, Israel clearly breached international laws, as usual, and caused the death of innocents - though dumb - civilians. It's about time the world says something about it.

[Brenus]

So, the Israelis soldiers had to defend themselves in killing people who wanted to throw them in the water because they (the Israeli soldiers) boarded some boats in international waters to arrested and put in jail the crew members that refused to be jailed without protest.
These terrorists have no manners…

[LeftEyeNine]

Though I think Israel handled this story rather poorly (actually, they could only have made it worse by sinking the ship), I'm kind of baffled that people go around, show this video and say "See, they didn't have any weapon!" when said video clearly shows the 'peaceful' protesters actually carried weapons.

Last I know, slings are weapons. Ridiculous ones when you're fighting a modern army, but still. A weapon. Now the real question is "why did these peaceful protesters have so many weapons in their ship?". My answer is because from the get-go, this attempt to overcome the blockade was a suicide mission meant to make Israel look bad. The crew probably is of the kind that yells "Death to Israel" every once in a while. They clearly don't get my sympathies.

That being said, Israel clearly breached international laws, as usual, and caused the death of innocents - though dumb - civilians. It's about time the world says something about it.

Mugs, forks, chairs, bottles are of the same category if slings are counted as weapons against army with modern weaponry. Come on. Everybody in this conflict who their "enemies" were and what they possessed.

Moreover, having seen the boarding of the ship, I'm getting increasingly concerned over the method Israeli army used. Doesn't it look utterly amateurish ?

[Vladimir]

Though I think Israel handled this story rather poorly (actually, they could only have made it worse by sinking the ship), I'm kind of baffled that people go around, show this video and say "See, they didn't have any weapon!" when said video clearly shows the 'peaceful' protesters actually carried weapons.

Last I know, slings are weapons. Ridiculous ones when you're fighting a modern army, but still. A weapon. Now the real question is "why did these peaceful protesters have so many weapons in their ship?". My answer is because from the get-go, this attempt to overcome the blockade was a suicide mission meant to make Israel look bad. The crew probably is of the kind that yells "Death to Israel" every once in a while. They clearly don't get my sympathies.

That being said, Israel clearly breached international laws, as usual, and caused the death of innocents - though dumb - civilians. It's about time the world says something about it.

You were doing so good until the last sentence. I thought we settled the issue about international law.

[HoreTore]

tone of righteous indignation

Then the interwebs failed to properly represent my mood.

[Furunculus]

Then the interwebs failed to properly represent my mood.

in that case you have my apologies. :)

[Ser Clegane]

hmmm, after a rash of demands for an explanation on why i believed the EEZ significant in the hour preceding my response, it is interesting to note the silence in the hour and a half since that response...........

Oh, I highly appreciate your backing up and clarifying your point with references to specific articles in conventions and treaties


I will try to take the time a check these references on my end (might take some time though) and will be happy to take your point should the situation indeed be at least unclear

[Furunculus]

Oh, I highly appreciate your backing up and clarifying your point with references to specific articles in conventions and treaties


I will try to take the time a check these references on my end (might take some time though) and will be happy to take your point should the situation indeed be at least unclear

my pleasure.

[Sigurd]

I might have overseen this:

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.

Neutral waters being:

SECTION I : INTERNAL WATERS, TERRITORIAL SEA AND ACHIPELAGIC WATERS

14. Neutral waters consist of the internal waters, territorial sea, and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of neutral States.

It could indicate that this is an allowance for attacking neutral ships attempting to breach a blockade of a nation at war outside neutral waters. Not specific enough for my taste though and a loophole for Israel.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082...25641f002d49ce

[Andres]

The San Remo Manual is applicable on international armed conflicts. If Israel deems itself to be engaged in an international armed conflict with Gaza, then does that mean they recognize the State of Palestine? Because, if the State of Palestine is not another country, but just part of Israel, then I fail to see how the blockade is part of an international armed conflict.

Also, form the manual, of which I'm not sure it is applicable in this case:

47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:

(a) hospital ships;

(b) small craft used for coastal rescue operations and other medical transports;

(c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:

(i) cartel vessels, e.g., vessels designated for and engaged in the transport of prisoners of war;
(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;

If enemy 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 exempt from attack, then clearly, a fortiori, neutral vessels are as well.

If a blockade doesn't allow humanitarian aid to be sent, then the blockade in itself is also a violation of international law.

Above the fact that boarding the ships was not permitted, there's also the issue of the disproportionate use of force. Even if boarding the ships was permitted (which it wasn't), the use of violence was excessive and completely disproportionate.

There's no way Israels' actions can be justified under international law. They screwed up. And now there are calls for "investigations" to buy time and think of an elegant solution (or buy time until people forget and the accident can be swept under the carpet).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Israel has declared a 100km zone as her defense security zone. The ships boarded were clearly within that zone. According to Israel, this means they were acting within the letter of the law since they had established the security zone (see 146(e) above) and that the continued voyage thus constituted a breach of 146(f). So, if you agree they have the right to establish such a security zone, then you believe they were within their rights to stop the convoy where they did. If you do not agree that they had the right to establish this security zone, then you must conclude that the Israelis committed an act of war against the nations whose ships comprised the convoy.

As a separate issue, it needs to be assessed whether or not the Israelis used an appropriate level of force response when their boarding operation met with resistance.

I strongly suspect that most posters in this thread will believe that Israel had no right to establish such a security zone, that it is not therefore a valid basis for the search and seizure conducted, and that excessive force was used.

Does this constitute a reasonable summary thus far?