# Turkish flagged vessel attack \[What if?--becomes What now?\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765 "2010-05-25T23:32:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/201 "2010-05-31T20:24:44Z")
> [@Gukumatz](#): > > It’s interesting to see how the news coverage portrays this. > > In Norway, the story goes something like this: > > - Independent flotilla of ships with aproximately 600 activists & crewmembers and aproximately 10.000 tons of aid & relief materiell are heading to Gaza to bypass the Israeli blockade. > > - In international waters, IDF soldiers board and occupy several ships from helicopters and attack boats. It is emphasized that this is strictly and very illegal and counts as hijacking in international waters, which the Israeli embassy in Norway has confirmed, citing a need to “still defend themselves, even in International Waters.” I’ve seen this claim made a couple of times. Is there any analysis as to exactly how the interception of the blocade-runners is “… very illegal and counts as hijacking in international waters”? > [@](#): > > - Most of the boats and ships surrender. In one (or several, I haven’t been able to find a number yet) of the boats, however, the crew and activists attack the boarding IDF forces. They attack with anything they have at hand - metal poles, knives, crowbars and bottles. > > - This, for some reason, takes the IDF forces by surprise and a number of them are injured or incapacitated before they decide to start opening fire. (Their decision to drop forces _one-by-one_ on to the ships must be seen as phenomenally stupid.) It probably “took them by surprise” because they had previously boarded several other ships in the flotila without resistance. > [@](#): > > - After opening fire, IDF forces take control of the situation. IDF numbers suggest that aproximately 10 activists were killed with an unspecified number of injuries, and 7 injured IDF personell, of which two were serious. Israeli Channel 10 claims 19 activists were killed and 36 are injured. However, since Israel has put a heavy-handed moratorium on information regarding the attack, we can’t verify either of those numbers. > > - Reports that the activists opened fire in return appear to have stemmed from two handguns the activists wrestled away from the IDF forces. The pistols were found with empty clips, so this appears to be true; activists did return fire on IDF forces. However, it also disproves that the ships were carrying weapons as contraband, or at least that the activists made any use of them. > > What really gets me is the following: > > - IDF forces claiming they fired their guns in “self defence” after boarding sovereign ships in clearly international waters. Your claim to self defence goes away when you’re the agressor in the first place. Again, it seems the whole thing comes down to an allegation that the boarding is ‘illegal’. Yet so far, no-one has cited exactly how it is “illegal”. Moreover, even if in fact the actions of the Israeli government in ordering the soldiers to board happens to have been "illegal’ under international law, I don’t see that as acting as an open season on beating Israeli soldiers to death. > [@](#): > > - IDF forces being surprised by meeting resistance after essentially invading another country’s sovereign territory. > - IDF forces being unable to tackle untrained activists without using lethal force. These are the Krav Maga trained elite commandos that garner so much respect in the international military community? > - The umbrage at the activists actually fighting to _repel an illegal boarding_. Yes, they could have surrendered when the troops came aboard and have lived to tell the tale, but they were well within their rights to defend themselves. If anything, the IDF forces should have surrendered when it became obvious that the resistance was stiffer than they had prepared for. Again, your analysis hinges on the boarding being “illegal”. What’s your source for that? Are you willing to state that, if the boarding was “legal”, the activists were totally in the wrong? > [@](#): > > There are, of course, other things. > > - Why couldn’t anyone have asked the EU to check the ships for contraband? Wouldn’t that have been a perfect middle ground? Israel gets its’ assurance that the ships doesn’t contain contraband and the ships get to carry much-needed relief supplies to Gaza. > - How high up was this attack approved? Is this another Lillehammer Affair? > - Why didn’t the IDF wait until the ships reached the blockade instead of moving to intercept in what was clearly international waters? This wouldn’t have garnered the outrage it has if they had just waited until the ships attempted to actually bypass the blockade. I seriously doubt the last. If this happened within Israeli territorial waters, I suspect it would have created just as much “outrage”. ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_Ellis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Michael\_Ellis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_Ellis)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/202 "2010-05-31T20:24:49Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > The Goldstone Report itself was based [on numerous errors.](http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1736) And of course your cite has no bias whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/203 "2010-05-31T20:25:15Z")
> [@Michael\_Ellis](#): > > Not especially. I would. I’d probably be a stone-thrower if I lived in Gaza, too. ---
**Author:** ![Gukumatz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/74df32/32.png) [@Gukumatz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gukumatz)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/204 "2010-05-31T20:28:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s pretty clear that what’s needed is for Obama to sit down and have a beer with Netanyahu and Erdoğan. I’m trying to imagine that scene. Since I think I heard Obama prefers Bud, none of them actually drink beer! OK, I’ll stop being a snotty European now.😛 ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/205 "2010-05-31T20:28:14Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > It probably “took them by surprise” because they had previously boarded several other ships in the flotila without resistance. Did they use the same method of boarding every time? How many other boardings did they make outside their own territorial waters altogether? What was so different about this ships crew than the others, to make them act so violently, do you suppose? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/206 "2010-05-31T20:28:38Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > … Again, I’m assuming that this was not a suicide mission; otherwise, I’ll reverse my initial designation of you as a moral coward and will assign it to myself. Fair enough. However, be advised that I am not known around here, to be any sort of “apologist” for Israel. If I find out I was wrong, I am more than capable of joining the pile up against them. ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_Ellis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Michael\_Ellis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_Ellis)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/207 "2010-05-31T20:29:57Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I note that you’re grasping at rationalizations that don’t support your claim. The Gaza blockade is not starving the populace nor denying them goods essential for their survival And yet the WHO disagrees: [ > [@BBC](#): > > **The World Health Organization says the blockade has lead to a general “worsening of the health conditions of the population” and “accelerated the degeneration” of the health system.** > Israel generally allows medicines into Gaza. The WHO says that shortages of drugs are a problem, with 15-30% of essential drugs out of stock over 2009. But it blames problems in the supply chain, including the rift between Fatah and Hamas. > **However it says the blockade is a major factor in the “dire state” of much of Gaza’s medical equipment, with delays in approval of machines and spare parts, and engineers denied access to fit them.** > The medical system has also struggled with lack of spare parts and, at times, fuel for back-up generators, and lack of building work because of the shortage of materials. > Before Operation Cast Lead, Gaza had only 133 hospital beds per 100,000 population, compared to 583 in Israel, and it lost some of that capacity in the fighting. > Six hospitals suffered damage, including one that had a new building completely destroyed, another lost two whole floors. > Gaza is simply not equipped to treat many severe cases. > According to Israeli figures, 10,544 patients and their companions left the Gaza Strip for medical treatment in Israel in 2009. > **But the WHO says that in December 2009, permission for 21% of patients was denied or delayed, and 27 patients in total died during the year while waiting for referrals to Israel.** > The Rafah crossing into Egypt has been closed since June 2007, although special medical cases are sporadically allowed to pass through it. > Israel says extensive security screening is necessary, as it says three people with permits to leave for medical reasons have been found to be planning attacks in Israel. > It also says it has offered to facilitate passage through Israel to Jordan for Palestinians it refuses permits to on security grounds. ]([BBC News - Guide: Gaza under blockade](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7545636.stm)) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/208 "2010-05-31T20:33:47Z")
> [@Michael\_Ellis](#): > > And yet the WHO disagrees: > [url=[BBC News - Guide: Gaza under blockade](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7545636.stm)] I don’t understand what you are claiming. Are you saying, based on this cite, that the “sole purpose” of the Gaza blocade is to degrade the medical capacity of the Gazan healtcare system? ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_Ellis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Michael\_Ellis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_Ellis)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/209 "2010-05-31T20:37:00Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I don’t understand what you are claiming. Are you saying, based on this cite, that the “sole purpose” of the Gaza blocade is to degrade the medical capacity of the Gazan healtcare system? I’m saying the blockade is “denying them goods essential for their survival”. If working medical equipment doesn’t qualify as “goods essential for their survival”, what on Earth does? Also, one more question about the search, related to the following: > [@](#): > > 1. In order to avoid the necessity of visit and search, belligerent States may establish reasonable measures for the inspection of cargo of neutral merchant vessels and certification that a vessel is not carrying contraband. Does a late night helicopter raid by commandos really count as “reasonable measures for inspections”? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/210 "2010-05-31T20:42:54Z")
> [@Michael\_Ellis](#): > > And of course your cite has no bias whatsoever. I take it that by avoiding the factual issues at work, you are tacitly conceding the fact that the GR got many vitally important details wrong? > [@Michael\_Ellis](#): > > And yet the WHO disagrees: > [url=[BBC News - Guide: Gaza under blockade](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7545636.stm)] If they do, then you still haven’t provided a cite for that. The cite you just provided says nothing about a campaign to starve the Gazans to death nor that good necessary for the very survival of the population are not being let through the cordon. > [@Michael\_Ellis](#): > > Does a late night helicopter raid by commandos really count as “reasonable measures for inspections”? Considering that they’d announced ahead of time that they planned on breaking the blockade? Yah. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/211 "2010-05-31T20:44:44Z")
> [@Michael\_Ellis](#): > > I’m saying the blockade is “denying them goods essential for their survival”. If working medical equipment doesn’t qualify as “goods essential for their survival”, what on Earth does? Section 102 applies to judge the validity of the blocade. It has two parts: a blocade is prohibited where the purpose is starvation (part a) or where the damage to civilians may be excessive (part b). I gather you are not arguing this clause. > [@](#): > > 1. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if: > > (a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or > (b) 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. Section 103 applies to the passage of objects essential for survival. Note that it is “subject to” the right of search: > [@](#): > > 1. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to: > > (a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and > (b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. Thus, the Israelis have every right, under international law, to search these ships. > [@](#): > > Also, one more question about the search, related to the following: > > Does a late night helicopter raid by commandos really count as “reasonable measures for inspections”? The “reasonable measures” section is discretionary. A state “may” establish them “… to avoid the necessity” of a visit and search. Not really applicable in this situation. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/212 "2010-05-31T20:47:02Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Fair enough. However, be advised that I am not known around here, to be any sort of “apologist” for Israel. If I find out I was wrong, I am more than capable of joining the pile up against them. I did not say you are “apologist” for Israel, please! I merely commented on your stance on the event in which you accused the victims. And for me, every time someone blames the victims for what happened to them I tend to call such an accuser a moral coward. And it is not piling, it is just a reasonable and very restrained, at moments surely sarcastic, discussion on the subject where if it were any other country – and I mean ANY OTHER country doing this – you wouldn’t be able to breathe from the tsunami it would create. I mean, I can understand 10 Palestinians; nowadays, that’s what you would call piling. But today it is 10 probably foreign nationals brazenly killed by the most trained wing of the army and we still… discuss? Ah, well, I heard Wall Mart rolled prices again… ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/213 "2010-05-31T20:48:40Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > – underlining mine. > […] > Should have thought of it sooner. Wonderful, now you’re not only supporting violating the 4th Geneva Convention, but evidently Turkey possibly starting a war in order to violate the 4th Geneva Convention is a good thing. Wonderful. Let’s see a war between Israel and Turkey, that’ll really prove the strength of your political ideology. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/214 "2010-05-31T20:54:11Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Thus, the Israelis have every right, under international law, to search these ships. In international waters? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/215 "2010-05-31T20:56:46Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > In international waters? Already cited: [ > [@](#): > > SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE > > Blockade > > 1. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States. > > 2. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline. > > 3. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact. > > 4. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements. > > 5. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document. > > 6. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked. > […] > > 7. 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: > […] > (f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade. > […] > Neutral merchant vessels > > 8. 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; ]([http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce)) It’s pretty clear that they were going to be breaking the blockade and that the force maintaining the blockade is stationed at a distance determined by military requirements. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/216 "2010-05-31T20:57:32Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > In international waters? You tell me. I haven’t seen yet any citation of a rule applicable to the situation which differentiates between international waters and elsewhere for the purposes of searching suspected blocade-runners. Edit: my mistake, I missed the above. ---
**Author:** ![Gukumatz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/74df32/32.png) [@Gukumatz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gukumatz)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/217 "2010-05-31T21:06:40Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Again, your analysis hinges on the boarding being “illegal”. What’s your source for that? Firstly, I’ll try to establish that the IDF acted - knowingly - in International Waters, outside the Israeli territorial waters. Avital Leibovich, a spokeswoman for the Israeli military spokeswoman, acknowledges as much in [this interview](http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053133047995359.html) with Al Jazeera. Salient quote: > [@](#): > > Avital Leibovich, an Israeli military spokeswoman, confirmed that the attack took place in international waters, saying: “This happened in waters outside of Israeli territory, but we have the right to defend ourselves.” Secondly, I’ll cite professor Geir Ulfstein, professor in common law and ocean rights’ expert at the University of Oslo from [this article](http://www.dagbladet.no/2010/05/31/nyheter/utenriks/israel/gaza/11942533/). I am afraid the article is in Norwegian, but I hope you’ll accept my translation for the sake of the argument. If not, I could probably page some other Norwegian dopers to vouch for it. Here’s the relevant quote. > [@](#): > > Regelen er at i internasjonalt farvann kan kun flaggstater gripe inn ovenfor skip som seiler under deres flagg.[…] Dersom skipene befant seg i internasjonalt farvann da israelske soldater gikk om bord, så har Israel brutt denne havrettslige hovedregelen.[…]Spørsmålet blir om de hadde lov til å gå om bord i det hele tatt. I internasjonalt farvann har ikke Israel rett til å gjøre noe som helst mot et skip med annet lands flagg. > > **Translated:** The rule is that in international waters, only flag states can act upon ships sailing under their flags. […] If the ships were in international waters when Israeli soldiers boarded, then Israel has violated the ocean rights’ cardinal rule.[…] The question is if they had anything to do aboard those ships in the first place. In International Waters Israel has no rights to do anything about a ship flying another country’s flag. I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll have to wait until the actual lawyers start dragging out paragraphs for pros and cons, but I don’t have any reason to disbelieve Ulfstein’s analysis. The implication in the other articles is that the breach of ocean rights’ convention means the IDF attack pretty much equals piracy at best and a clear violation of another nation’s sovereign territory at worst. (In this case Turkey, who has responded to this effect, threatening “unprecedented responses.”) > [@Malthus](#): > > Are you willing to state that, if the boarding was “legal”, the activists were totally in the wrong? Yes, I am. I’ll say the following; if the event had happened in Israeli territorial waters, I would count the IDFs response as proportional self defence after being attacked by melée weapons and having shots fired at them. This would be dependant on: - The event happening in Israeli proven, territorial waters. - The ships having refused orders to stand down and admit search parties. - Civilians attacking first; as it is, it’s not entirely clear “who shot first.” (As in, did the IDF bring a gun to a knife fight, or did the activists start shooting with the captured pistols first.) ETA: I see the actual rules are starting to be cited. I’m withholding judgement until someone in the know makes it obvious that an established blockade can act within it’s rights even in International Waters. In that case, I’ll retract my three previous statements. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/218 "2010-05-31T21:18:19Z")
> [@Gukumatz](#): > > Firstly, I’ll try to establish that the IDF acted - knowingly - in International Waters, outside the Israeli territorial waters. > > Avital Leibovich, a spokeswoman for the Israeli military spokeswoman, acknowledges as much in [this interview](http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053133047995359.html) with Al Jazeera. Salient quote: > Secondly, I’ll cite professor Geir Ulfstein, professor in common law and ocean rights’ expert at the University of Oslo from [this article](http://www.dagbladet.no/2010/05/31/nyheter/utenriks/israel/gaza/11942533/). I am afraid the article is in Norwegian, but I hope you’ll accept my translation for the sake of the argument. If not, I could probably page some other Norwegian dopers to vouch for it. > > Here’s the relevant quote. > I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll have to wait until the actual lawyers start dragging out paragraphs for pros and cons, but I don’t have any reason to disbelieve Ulfstein’s analysis. The implication in the other articles is that the breach of ocean rights’ convention means the IDF attack pretty much equals piracy at best and a clear violation of another nation’s sovereign territory at worst. (In this case Turkey, who has responded to this effect, threatening “unprecedented responses.”) > > Yes, I am. I’ll say the following; if the event had happened in Israeli territorial waters, I would count the IDFs response as proportional self defence after being attacked by melée weapons and having shots fired at them. This would be dependant on: > > - The event happening in Israeli proven, territorial waters. > - The ships having refused orders to stand down and admit search parties. > - Civilians attacking first; as it is, it’s not entirely clear “who shot first.” (As in, did the IDF bring a gun to a knife fight, or did the activists start shooting with the captured pistols first.) It is not disputed that the event took place outside of territorial waters. What is disputed is whether a legal search of alleged blocade-runners can take place outside of territorial waters. Well, I’m not qualified to argue legal points in Norwegian, but even in your paraphrase the quote from the expert is short on substance - and contradicted by the express terms cited above, which purport to be an authoritative restatement of customary international law directly on point (the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994). Under those rules, searching of a suspected blocade-runner is an _exception_ to the general rule that one cannot interrupt a national vessel in international waters. Thus, assuming that the _San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea_ correctly states the applicable law, the Israeli search was legal. If the Israeli search was legal, then civilians using force to contest it was not. Edit: I just saw your edit. Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/219 "2010-05-31T21:33:53Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Wonderful, now you’re not only supporting violating the 4th Geneva Convention, but evidently Turkey possibly starting a war in order to violate the 4th Geneva Convention is a good thing. > > Wonderful. Let’s see a war between Israel and Turkey, that’ll really prove the strength of your political ideology. :smack: Fuck with the bull, don’t be surprised if you get the horns. Meanwhile, keep making up apologies for this slaughter. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/220 "2010-05-31T21:35:54Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > It is not disputed that the event took place outside of territorial waters. What is disputed is whether a legal search of alleged blocade-runners can take place outside of territorial waters. Of course one can also question the legality of the blockade. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765.md?page=12)