Turkish flagged vessel attack [What if?--becomes What now?]

[Marmite_Lover]

John Ging the head of United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in the Gaza Strip asked for the world to send aid ships to the shores of Gaza earlier this year.

Turkey is leading a flotilla. At each stage the cargo of food, toys, medicine, cement etc will be checked to make sure that no contraband is on board.
One cargo ship the ‘Linda’ from Phnom Penh has been renamed the Rachel Corrie in memory of the young American girl murdered when she was run over by the Israeli bulldozer as she tried to prevent a Palestinian home being demolished.

The flotilla is is on it’s way now to Gaza.

Israel has threatened to stop the flotilla. It has said it will use military means if necessary to stop the ships from docking and offloading any aid. This would be a violation of International Maritime Law and an act of piracy.

The fllotilla includes international aid workers, volunteers, doctors, politicians, nurses, etc, all civilians from more than 40 countries.

They will be flying their own countries flags one of them being Turkey.

Turkey is a member of NATO. One of 28 countries. The Gaza shore is in International waters in the Mediterranean.

The IDF have previously attacked various aid ships in the Mediterranean. Ramming them and firing shots at them.

Article 5 on the NATO treaty says that …an attack one one NATO member is considered an attack against them all…will assist the parties being attacked…

Since Israel is not a member of NATO.
What do you think will happen if the Israeli IDF attack a Turkish civilian cruise ship flying the Turkish flag?

What if they sink one of the ships ?

This flotilla is sailing at the request of a UN representative let’s not forget.

It’s just a few days from Gaza.

Will NATO keep to it’s obligations if the IDF attack it?

[FinnAgain]

@Marmite_Lover

This would be a violation of International Maritime Law and an act of piracy.

Wrong.
International waters do not extend to Gaza’s shores (rather obviously). Even ignoring Israel’s control over the area, territorial rights extend roughly 22 km from a nation’s land. Gaza is, at its widest, about 12 km.

Likewise, you are championing the violation of the 4th Geneva Convention.

[

Art. 23. Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases.

The obligation of a High Contracting Party to allow the free passage of the consignments indicated in the preceding paragraph is subject to the condition that this Party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons
for fearing:

(a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination,
(b) that the control may not be effective, or
(c) that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy through the substitution of the above-mentioned consignments for goods which would otherwise be provided or produced by the enemy or through the release of such material, services or facilities as would otherwise be required for the production of such goods.

The Power which allows the passage of the consignments indicated in the first paragraph of this Article may make such permission conditional on the distribution to the persons benefited thereby being made under the local supervision of the Protecting Powers.

Such consignments shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible, and the Power which permits their free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed.

](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5)

[Grumman]

@Marmite_Lover

One cargo ship the ‘Linda’ from Phnom Penh has been renamed the Rachel Corrie in memory of the young American girl murdered when she was run over by the Israeli bulldozer as she tried to prevent a Palestinian home being demolished.

Murdered? Really? Personally, I’d say she’s a young American woman who killed herself by deliberately putting herself in the path of a moving vehicle with poor visibility without making sure the driver knew she was there. The fact that she was going for a Tank Man stunt doesn’t change the fact that she only died because she was a bloody moron.

[FinnAgain]

Oh, and you are rather glaringly incorrect on the nature of the NATO charter. It deals with attacks against member nations, not attacks against any citizens of any member nations.
That’s the reason, for example, that NATO didn’t declare war against the Palestinians after PLO agents hijacked the Achille Lauro.

[Squink]

Israel Won’t Allow International Aid Ships to Reach Gaza Strip

“While they have wrapped themselves in a humanitarian cloak, they are engaging in political propaganda and not in pro-Palestinian aid,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said today in a telephone interview from Jerusalem.

Seems to me that Palmor ignores the possibility that they could be engaging in both propaganda and pro-Palestinian aid. His implicit anti-Palestinian stance has delivered the Palestinian Authority an excellent opportunity to air their grievances, even in the American press:

The Palestinian Authority condemned Israel’s decision to stop the ships.

“This is part of the Israeli policy of suffocating Gaza’s population of 1.5 million people by tightening the blockade,” spokesman Ghassan Khatib said in a telephone interview from Ramallah in the West Bank.

Along with medical and school supplies, the ships this time are carrying cement, iron rods and other construction material that Israel has banned from entering Gaza, and that are needed to rebuild homes and other buildings destroyed in the war, Feiler said.

[Peremensoe]

@FinnAgain

Wrong.
International waters do not extend to Gaza’s shores (rather obviously). Even ignoring Israel’s control over the area, territorial rights extend roughly 22 km from a nation’s land. Gaza is, at its widest, about 12 km.

Wait, are you saying that the waters immediately off the Gaza shore is Israeli territory because the 22km subsumes Gaza itself?

That’s not how it works. Territorial waters begin at a nation’s own shore (low water mark)–if the Gazan beach wasn’t itself Israeli territory, none of “its” waters could be. There’s no such thing as national waters when the waters don’t meet the nation.

Gaza, of course, isn’t quite a nation.

[Peremensoe]

And. it turns out, neither Israel nor Palestine is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, so there is no internationally-recognized maritime territoriality here, for either side.

[Tristan]

NATO is not going to attack Israel, even if they board or sink a Turkish flagged ship.

To think they are going to do so is rediculously dumb.

[FinnAgain]

@spark240

And. it turns out, neither Israel nor Palestine is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, so there is no internationally-recognized maritime territoriality here, for either side.

Eh… the US didn’t ratify the convention, we have territorial waters.

As for the fact that the baseline for determining territorial waters comes from a nation’s shores you are correct, I was gong off of memory about the geography and mangled it a bit (I thought there was a significant curve to the shoreline there and it turns out it’s rather mild). Checking a map it does seem that a line drawn perpendicular to Gaza’s coast would be beyond Israeli or Egyptian waters in certain places. The fact that Hamas has repudiated all previous deals which granted Gaza territorial waters is another kink in the situation, of course.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

Even though an attack on these boats has nothing to do with NATO, it looks like we get to see about the “what if” portion of Marmite Lover’s OP:
Up to 16 were killed on the Turkish vessel headed to Gaza.

Looks pretty disgusting from where I am sitting. I doubt the people on the boat were armed with anything at all as Israeli Army Radio is reporting, but I may be surprised since I certainly never thought the IDF would just storm one of the ships and harm the passengers.

Thus far the response to the reality of the attack on the Turkish vessel is strong condemnation and a warning that relations between the countries may get worse.

Of all the quotes I’ve read so far, it looks like Ismail Haniya has it right: “Barbaric”.

[Alessan]

I see no reason to disbelieve Israeli reports.

According to them, the takeover went smoothly on five of the ships; on the sixth, the soldiers were attached by men with crowbars and knives, and one of them had his weapon taken, forcing the others to employ lethal force. Several soldiers were also wounded.

Logically, that makes the most sense: Israel certainly - from a PR point of view - wanted to end this thing with no casualties at all, and the troops taking the ships were naval commandos, among the best-trained soldiers in the entire world. If they were ordered to take the ships without casualties (which they clearly were, otherwise why bother boarding?), they would not have fired unless their lives were in danger. To do otherwise would be unprofessional.

I’m sure we’ll get a clearer picture as the day goes on.

[Michael_Ellis]

I’m not really sure the Israelis (or at least the government who ordered the raid) cared much about the PR effects of forcibly stopping the ships in the first place, so them being concerned about the resulting deaths smacks of being a bit of a disingenuous argument.

I can’t really see much justification for stopping those ships in the first place, although I haven’t been following the story closely.

[Alessan]

@Michael_Ellis

I can’t really see much justification for stopping those ships in the first place, although I haven’t been following the story closely.

The justification is that Israel wants to prevent weapons from arriving at Gaza. That’s the whole point of the naval blockade; that’s why the Israeli government offered to have the ships dock in Israel, examine the cargo and then ship all real humanitarian supplies to the Strip. If Israel allowed an unsupervised open trade route to Gaza, it’s likely that Iran would quickly equip Hamas with as many guns and missiles as they could, leading to who knows how many Israeli deaths. The Israeli government can’t allow that.

Now, seeing as Israel felt it *had *to stop the ships, it would be in its best interests - if only from a PR standpoint - to do it without any loss of life. After all, any dead civilian is bad PR for Israel and good PR for the Palestinians. Hence a commando takeover instead of just torpedoing the ships.

[Michael_Ellis]

That’s a concern, yes, but these ships weren’t from Iran, and had repeatedly been open to reporters to demonstrate there were no weapons aboard, IIRC.

[Alessan]

Were the reporters equipped with X-ray devices and bomb-sniffing dogs? Your average gun smuggler could hide a tank battalion from your average reporter.

If the U.S. military - or other trustworty agency - had offered to check the cargo, Israel would probably have let them through. Barring that, we can only trust ourselves.

[Grumman]

@Michael_Ellis

That’s a concern, yes, but these ships weren’t from Iran, and had repeatedly been open to reporters to demonstrate there were no weapons aboard, IIRC.

Of course. Who needs customs officers when we’ve got reporters? :rolleyes:

[Lantern]

@Alessan

The justification is that Israel wants to prevent weapons from arriving at Gaza.

Except that Israel’s policiesabout what to allow and not to allow are completely arbitrary and shrouded in secrecy. It’s reasonable to interpret the blockade as an attempt to collectively punish the Gaza civilian population for supporting Hamas. In any event Hamas is apparently managing to smuggle plenty of weapons through its tunnels. The primary effect of the blockade seems to be to increase civilian suffering and perversely make the population even more dependent on Hamas.

We don’t know exactly what happened in this particular incident but since I don’t consider the blockade legitimate in the first place, I think Israel bears the responsibility for any deaths caused by enforcing it.

[Michael_Ellis]

@Grumman

Of course. Who needs customs officers when we’ve got reporters? :rolleyes:

If Israel had sent customs officials instead of soldiers and warships, your :rolleyes: would mean something.

Of course, if it turns out that there were weapons on these ships I’ll laugh until my behind separates from the rest of me, but considering the lengths they went through to demonstrate that there weren’t, and putting a bunch of notable people including a Holocaust survivor aboard the ships, I really see no reason for doubt.

[Alessan]

@Michael_Ellis

If Israel had sent customs officials instead of soldiers and warships, your :rolleyes: would mean something.

Of course, if it turns out that there were weapons on these ships I’ll laugh until my behind separates from the rest of me, but considering the lengths they went through to demonstrate that there weren’t, and putting a bunch of notable people including a Holocaust survivor aboard the ships, I really see no reason for doubt.

The ships are currently undergoing screening by Israeli customs opfficials at Ashdod port (custom officials don’t usually work in the middle of the sea). Any legitimate humanitarian cargo will be sent to Gaza.

Even if there were no weapons on board, what about the ships due next week? Or the week after that? The stated purpose of the flotilla was to *break *the blockade. Once the blockade is broken - once a precedent is set - anything can come through.

[Michael_Ellis]

Or Israel could of shown a bit more subtlety and common sense, sent out some customs guys to check the ships in non-international waters (say, much closer to Gaza) instead of ordering them to go through the usual frogwalking at Ashdod, then either said “hah hah, we found contraband aboard instead of legitimate humanitarian aid” or “hey, we declare you to be not in violation of this blockade, go on through”, which would presumably undercut the idea that there was a total and illogical blockade going on.

But, instead, they used a bunch of commandos and things immediately went poorly for all involved.