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”?
It probably “took them by surprise” because they had previously boarded several other ships in the flotila without resistance.
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.
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?
I seriously doubt the last. If this happened within Israeli territorial waters, I suspect it would have created just as much “outrage”.
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?
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 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:
Does a late night helicopter raid by commandos really count as “reasonable measures for inspections”?
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?
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.
Considering that they’d announced ahead of time that they planned on breaking the blockade?
Yah.
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.
Section 103 applies to the passage of objects essential for survival. Note that it is “subject to” the right of search:
Thus, the Israelis have every right, under international law, to search these ships.
The “reasonable measures” section is discretionary. A state “may” establish them “… to avoid the necessity” of a visit and search.
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?
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:
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.
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.
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 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. 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.)
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.
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.
