Lieberman: "There is no humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip"

MiddleMan · Jun 3, 2010

LScolaDominates said:

Revealing interview with one of the flotilla activists (starts around the 15 minute mark):

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.democracynow.org/embed_show_v2/300/2010/6/3/story/huwaida"></script>
Click to expand...

Franchise Blade I was referring to the female activist account about the incident. She starts talking around the 15 minute mark, they were aware of the situation on hand and still prevented the soldiers to board the ship. Even though no incident happen in the previous 3 or 4 ships.

Hydhypedplaya · Jun 3, 2010

madmonkey37 said:

I don't know and I never said anything about radioing ahead. But I can make a guess, Israel was probably crossing all it Ts and dotting all its i's before taking an incredibly controversial action. I think international law requires an advance warning before ships can be boarded, but I'm not completely sure. Overall I don't think it has much significance as everyone on the MV Mavi Marmara knew the Israelis were coming to board their ship.
Click to expand...

International law stipulates that in international waters, jurisdiction belongs to the State on the flag that is flying with the ship. The Mavi Marmara was flying the Turkish flag, and the appropriate procedure for Israel would have been to contact the Turkish embassy requesting to board with credible evidence. This is actually a requirement under the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/conven/suppression1988.html). This is also a Convention that Israel became a signatory to just last year.

madmonkey37 · Jun 3, 2010

Hydhypedplaya said:

International law stipulates that in international waters, jurisdiction belongs to the State on the flag that is flying with the ship. The Mavi Marmara was flying the Turkish flag, and the appropriate procedure for Israel would have been to contact the Turkish embassy requesting to board with credible evidence. This is actually a requirement under the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/conven/suppression1988.html). This is also a Convention that Israel became a signatory to just last year.
Click to expand...

Central to the criticism of Israel were questions about the legality of its actions. The raid took place on a ship that was apparently unarmed, in international waters. But Allen Weiner, a former State Department lawyer and legal counsel at the U.S. Embassy at The Hague, said Israel was technically operating legally.

"Israel claims to be in a state of armed conflict with a nonstate group, with Hamas in Gaza. Under the laws of war, a blockage is legal," said Weiner, who teaches at Stanford Law School. "That includes operating on the high seas. You don't have to wait until you are on territorial waters."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012006956_israel02.html
Click to expand...

The legality of Israels actions are quite unclear as there isn't a consensus among legal experts, though this Allen Weiner guy does have some excellent credentials. I could also post the clause from the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea that applies, but you're just going to dismiss it and counter with some irrelevant clause.

Mathloom · Jun 3, 2010

Deji said:

Under U.S. pressure, Netanyahu may ease Gaza siege
source:HaAretz
Click to expand...

That's nice, but look what these idiots went and did:

Four Qassam rockets fired from Gaza towards Israel
Two Qassams land in Ashkelon area, one near Sderot and one within the Gaza Strip; tensions on border remain high following IDF raid on Gaza-bound flotilla.

Idiots. Stupid idiots.

glynch · Jun 3, 2010

Ottomaton said:

If I believed in God, I'd think your inability to make words appear despite repeated effort was a sign from on high.
Click to expand...

Perhaps your view of Palestinian/Israeli history is informed by similar theological musings?

My schadenfreude at your missteps aside, glynch, of course when you hand select ideologically motivated literature professors pretending to be historians like Edward Said who say that by even talking about Palestine, you and I are both being cruel imperialists, then yes, you can make a pretty good history where Jews eat Palestinian babies, twirl their mustaches and laugh maniacally.

If you don't like consensus history, get some people who think like you do to rewrite the narrative for you. That seems to have worked out so well during the Bush administration, though I appreciate that you could never conceive that you are anything like them.
Click to expand...

Your consensus history about the founding of Israel has been debunked by recent historical scholarship, Israeli and others, now that documents have been declassified. I'll assume you are sophisticated enough to know that there have been many cases in which "consensus history" has been mistaken or even a deliberate lie that has been recognized in later years.

For instance I would suggest you read scholarship from the last fifty years if you wished to inform yourself about the Alamo or Native American history and also read scholarship from the last 30 years or so about the founding of Israel.

Hydhypedplaya · Jun 3, 2010

madmonkey37 said:

The legality of Israels actions are quite unclear as there isn't a consensus among legal experts, though this Allen Weiner guy does have some excellent credentials. I could also post the clause from the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea that applies, but you're just going to dismiss it and counter with some irrelevant clause.
Click to expand...

The clause that Allen Weiner is citing deals with merchant vessels. The ships in flotilla were not merchant vessels because they were operating under non-commercial use. Read the San Remo Manual again, and find the part that states which types of vessels are exempt from attack:

SECTION III : ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT EXEMPT FROM ATTACK

Classes of vessels exempt from attack

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;
(d) vessels engaged in transporting cultural property under special protection;
(e) passenger vessels when engaged only in carrying civilian passengers;
(f) vessels charged with religious, non-military scientifc or philanthropic missions, vessels collecting scientific data of likely military applications are not protected;
(g) small coastal fishing vessels and small boats engaged in local coastal trade, but they are subject to the regulations of a belligerent naval commander operating in the area and to inspection;
(h) vessels designated or adapted exclusively for responding to pollution incidents in the marine environment;
(i) vessels which have surrendered;
(j) life rafts and life boats.
Click to expand...

First and foremost, facts.

1. The attack happened in international waters.
2. No firearms or other munitions were found on-board any ship.
3. Activists were shot and killed.
4. The flotilla was an announced convoy bringing humanitarian aid.

These are facts un-disputed by either side.

Now, was it legal or illegal according to international law for Israel to attempt to stop and search or seize the flotilla?

Territorial waters extend 12 miles outside the shoreline of a country whereby they may enforce any of their own laws. A further 12 mile limit was established by UNCLOS III in which a state could continue to enforce laws in four specific areas: pollution, taxation, customs, and immigration. The attack took place 40 miles offshore of Israel and was thus in international waters.

Under the San Remo Convention of 1994 , merchant vessels attempting to breach a blockade MAY be seized by the authority maintaing the blockade. However, convoys carrying humanitarian aid are not merchant ships.

Under Section 3
47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
"(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;"

Now the problem is San Remo is generally used to dictate naval warfare between sovereign states, not the kind of situation that exists in Gaza and Hamas has not attacked Israeli vessels at sea (that I know of). However the language of San Remo is such that it can be applied to "armed parties at sea"

Another consideration is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Article 90 states that "No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty." Which Israel did when it attempted to enforce it's own laws in international waters.

The flotilla falls under Article 19, Innocent Passage

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:

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;

any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;

any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

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;

any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;

any fishing activities;

the carrying out of research or survey activities;

any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;

any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

Article 45 forbids any restriction of innocent passage

1. The regime of innocent passage, in accordance with Part II, section 3 shall apply in straits used for international navigation:
excluded from the application of the regime of transit passage under article 38, paragraph 1; or
between a part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and the territorial sea of a foreign State.
2. There shall be no suspension of innocent passage through such straits.

Under Article 25, Israel does have the right: "The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent." However that is only in TERRITORIAL waters, not international.

A further consideration is the UN International Maritime Organization Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, which Israel did sign and agree to abide by. This was updated in 2005 with the following:

"A new Article 8bis in the 2005 Protocol covers co-operation and procedures to be followed if a State Party desires to board a ship flying the flag of a State Party when the requesting Party has reasonable grounds to suspect that the ship or a person on board the ship is, has been, or is about to be involved in, the commission of an offence under the Convention.

The authorization and co-operation of the flag State is required before such a boarding. A State Party may notify the IMO Secretary-General that it would allow authorization to board and search a ship flying its flag, its cargo and persons on board if there is no response from the flag State within four hours. A State Party can also notify that it authorizes a requesting Party to board and search the ship, its cargo and persons on board, and to question the persons on board to determine if an offence has been, or is about to be, committed."

There is also the Geneva Convention on the High Seas.

Here, again, Article 2 states "The high seas being open to all nations, no State may validly purport to
subject any part of them to its sovereignty." Which, again, Israel did by attempting to enforce it's law in international waters.

The move has also been condemned by countless foreign governments, human rights organizations, and the UN
Human Rights Council Continues Urgent Debate on Israeli Raid on Humanitarian Aid Flotilla - UNOG Press release (Excerpts) (2 June 2010)

There is also an overwhelming opinion of the legal community that this DOES violate international maritime law
Gaza flotilla raid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Even though I doubt you will read all this... here is the most important one (from the Laws of Sea), which regulate when a ship may be visited in international waters:

Article 110
Right of visit
1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:

1. the ship is engaged in piracy;
2. the ship is engaged in the slave trade;
3. the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;
4. the ship is without nationality; or
5. though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.

2. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1, the warship may proceed to verify the ship's right to fly its flag. To this end, it may send a boat under the command of an officer to the suspected ship. If suspicion remains after the documents have been checked, it may proceed to a further examination on board the ship, which must be carried out with all possible consideration.

3. If the suspicions prove to be unfounded, and provided that the ship boarded has not committed any act justifying them, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained.

4. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft.

5. These provisions also apply to any other duly authorized ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service.
Click to expand...

The intent to break a blockade does not give Israel permission to extend its jurisdiction beyond its sovereign territory.

Ottomaton · Jun 3, 2010

glynch said:

Your consensus history about the founding of Israel has been debunked by recent historical scholarship,
Click to expand...

Scholarship by Literature professors and Ward Churchill. Good luck with that. Your "new scolarship" was and still is the same old fringe ideologues.

glynch · Jun 3, 2010

Deji said:

Most of the Jewish people in Israel are not of European origin. It's a small majority, admittedly, but still. Many are originally from Iran, Yemen, Turkey, North Africa (esp. Morocco), and Iraq. When most immigrated here in the 50's they were Ladino and Arabic speakers.

Most AMERICAN Jews are Ashkenazi, but that's not the case here. Askenazi Jews are 47.5% of the population, 20.9% of them Russians, who in many cases don't often even identify as being Jewish.

The ethnic division of The Jewish population of Israel (including non Halackic Russians) as of 2008 is as follows.

Ethnic Makeup of Jewish Population of Israel[citation needed]
TOTAL 5,818,000 100%
Mizrahi Jews and Sephardic Jews 2,921,000 50.2%
Morocco 800,000 15.2%
Iraq 404,000 7.7%
Yemen 295,000 4.9%
Iran 236,000 4.0%
Algeria/Tunisia 224,000 3.8%
Other Asia 150,000 2.5%
Turkey 147,000 2.5%
Libya 136,000 2.3%
Egypt 112,000 1.9%
Other Asia 200,000 1.7%
India/Pakistan 76,000 1.3%
Latin America 25,000 0.04%
Other Africa (Not South Africa) 3,000 0.05%
Beta Israel 130,000 2.2%
Ethiopia 130,000 2.2%

Ashkenazi Jews 2,767,000 47.5%
Russia 1,018,000 20.9%
Poland 400,000 8.3%
Romania 351,000 7.6%
Other Europe 168,000 3.7%
North America (Including 4,000 African American Black Hebrews) 165,000 2.8%
Germany/Austria 160,000 2.7%
Latin America 82,000 1.4%
Bulgaria/Greece 97,000 1.9%
Hungary 63,000 1.3%
Czechoslovakia 60,000 1.2%
South Africa 20,000 0.4%

source: wikipedia

Ashkenazi Jews figured prominently in the early development of the state during the Mandate period and in the major political parties, etc, and still occupy most positions of power. Much of the reason Likud gained momentum under Begin in the 70's and turned the country ever rightward was because he exploited the race issue, and got the Mizrachi/Sephardi votes.

The country is divided in many different ways and it would be a great mistake to presume that the demographics of the place resemble a Jewish neighborhood in the US.

I disagree. What it means is that the hardliners become the only voice, because younger people are removing themselves from the equation. In Israel it's the same -- the Zionist left is nearly dead. No alternative has replaced it in any meaningful way, so Zionism, which used to be inclusive of secularists, socialists, intellectuals, and one-staters no longer is, and has become the sole domain of religious extremists and nationalists who have no respect for democracy.

The Zionism of Herzl, Buber or even Ben-Gurion has no place in the Israel (or the Unites States for that matter) of today.

Choosing not to identify with Zionism and the State of Israel means succumbing to apathy and letting the most extreme elements define it. Those who advocate peaceful co-existence and the rule of law become increasingly invisible and stop caring, stop voting and let the authoritarian culture creep bit by bit.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the interesting demographic data.

The folks who set this whole mess in progress were Europeans Jews and not Jews from Asian or Middle East countries. One could argue that the Jews who have come from countries not affected by the Holocaust and who suffered little discrimination until the European Jews started Zionism and invaded Palestine, have even less of a right to take Palestinian land,

There is no doubt that Israel is being defined by its extreme elements. According to at least one source I read there is starting to be increased emmigration by liberal Jews who are tired of what Israel is becoming as it sinks further and further into apartheid.

glynch · Jun 3, 2010

Ottomaton said:

Scholarship by Literature professors and Ward Churchill. Good luck with that. Your "new scolarship" was and still is the same old fringe ideologues.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are simply unaware , so here is a link for your edification.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The New Historians (Hebrew: ההיסטוריונים החדשים‎, HaHistorionim HaHadashim) are a loosely-defined group of Israeli historians who have challenged traditional assumptions about Israeli history, including its role in the Palestinian Exodus in 1948 and Arab willingness to discuss peace. The term was coined in 1988 by one of the leading New Historians, Benny Morris.[1]

Much of the primary source material used by the group comes from declassified Israeli government papers, in part because Arab institutions' archives are not available. Morris, Ilan Pappé, Avi Shlaim, Tom Segev, Hillel Cohen and (retrospectively) Simha Flapan are counted among them. Many of their conclusions have been incorporated into the political ideology of post-Zionists. The political views of the group vary, as do the periods of Israeli history in which they specialize.

more....

Ottomaton · Jun 3, 2010

glynch said:

Perhaps you are simply unaware , so here is a link for your edification.
Click to expand...

I know entirely who they are. But they aren't the people quoted in the relevant parts of your Edward Said article. The parts in that article that are by Benny Morris have nothing to do with anything relevant that we were talking about. I agree 100% that the '47 war had a lot of people displaced forcefully. Like I said, lots of injustices happen in war. I'm not sure where you think I said otherwise.

There was a point in '46 before the UN declared Israel a state (as opposed to your article which claims that Israel did it themselves) when there was a bunch of Jewish owned enclaves purchased from Turks who didn't like the change in government. Now, after the Arabs collectively tried to kill the Israelis, they could no longer really hang out together in a mutual country, and the stronger group kicked the weaker group out. It sucks. But if you try to drive me off my land, and instead drive you off yours, I have very little sympathy for you and your claims about "what is fair and just" are pretty hollow.

Pharaoh King · Jun 3, 2010

Robert Fisk nails it again, emphasis on bolded parts

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...too-cowardly--to-help-save-lives-1987989.html

Western Leaders are too Cowardly to Help Save Lives

By Robert Fisk

June 01, 2010 "The Independent" -- -Has Israel lost it? Can the Gaza War of 2008-09 (1,300 dead) and the Lebanon War of 2006 (1,006 dead) and all the other wars and now yesterday's killings mean that the world will no longer accept Israel's rule?

Don't hold your breath.

You only have to read the gutless White House statement – that the Obama administration was "working to understand the circumstances surrounding the tragedy". Not a single word of condemnation. And that's it. Nine dead. Just another statistic to add to the Middle East's toll.

But it's not.

In 1948, our politicians – the Americans and the British – staged an airlift into Berlin. A starving population (our enemies only three years before) were surrounded by a brutal army, the Russians, who had erected a fence around the city. The Berlin airlift was one of the great moments in the Cold War. Our soldiers and our airmen risked and gave their lives for these starving Germans.

Incredible, isn't it? In those days, our politicians took decisions; our leaders took decisions to save lives. Messrs Attlee and Truman knew that Berlin was important in moral and human as well as political terms.

And today? It was people – ordinary people, Europeans, Americans, Holocaust survivors – yes, for heaven's sake, survivors of the Nazis – who took the decision to go to Gaza because their politicians and their statesmen had failed them.

Where were our politicians yesterday? Well, we had the ridiculous Ban Ki-moon, the White House's pathetic statement, and dear Mr Blair's expression of "deep regret and shock at the tragic loss of life". Where was Mr Cameron? Where was Mr Clegg?

Back in 1948, they would have ignored the Palestinians, of course. It is, after all, a terrible irony that the Berlin airlift coincided with the destruction of Arab Palestine.

But it is a fact that it is ordinary people, activists, call them what you will, who now take decisions to change events. Our politicians are too spineless, too cowardly, to take decisions to save lives. Why is this? Why didn't we hear courageous words from Messrs Cameron and Clegg yesterday?

For it is a fact, is it not, that had Europeans (and yes, the Turks are Europeans, are they not?) been gunned down by any other Middle Eastern army (which the Israeli army is, is it not?) there would have been waves of outrage.

And what does this say about Israel? Isn't Turkey a close ally of Israel? Is this what the Turks can expect? Now Israel's only ally in the Muslim world is saying this is a massacre – and Israel doesn't seem to care.

But then Israel didn't care when London and Canberra expelled Israeli diplomats after British and Australian passports were forged and then provided to the assassins of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. It didn't care when it announced new Jewish settlements on occupied land in East Jerusalem while Joe Biden, the Vice-President of its erstwhile ally, the United States, was in town. Why should Israel care now?

How did we get to this point? Maybe because we all grew used to seeing the Israelis kill Arabs, maybe the Israelis grew used to killing Arabs. Now they kill Turks. Or Europeans. Something has changed in the Middle East these past 24 hours – and the Israelis (given their extraordinarily stupid political response to the slaughter) don't seem to have grasped what has happened. The world is tired of these outrages. Only the politicians are silent.

Diplomatic storms

*Goldstone report, November 2009

Israel launched Operation Cast Lead in December 2008 with the declared aim of halting rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. More than 1,400 Palestinians were killed in the three-week conflict along with 13 Israelis. The South African jurist Richard Goldstone's report into the conflict found both Israel and the Hamas movement that controls the Strip guilty of war crimes, but focused more on Israel. Israel refused to co-operate with Goldstone and described his report as distorted and biased.

* The al-Mabhouh assassination, January-May 2010

Britain and Australia expelled Israeli diplomats after concluding that Israel had forged British and Australian passports used by assassins to kill a Hamas commander in Dubai. Israel has neither confirmed or denied a role in the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in his hotel room in January. Britain said such misuse of British passports was "intolerable". Australia said it was not the behaviour of "a nation with whom we have had such a close, friendly and supportive relationship".

*Settlements row, March 2010

Israel announces plans, during visit by US Vice-President Joe Biden, to build 1,600 homes for Jews in an area of the West Bank annexed by Israel. The announcement triggers unusually harsh criticism from the United States. Washington said it damaged its efforts to revive the Middle East peace process. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the project was an insult. Netanyahu said he was blindsided by planning bureaucrats and apologised to Biden. Today's meeting with Barack Obama at the White House, called off by Mr Netanyahu so he could return home to deal with the flotilla crisis, was supposed to be another part of the fence-mending between the two allies.

*Nuclear secrecy, May 2010

Israel, widely assumed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, has faced renewed calls to sign a global treaty barring the spread of atomic weapons. Signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) last week called for a conference in 2012 to discuss banning weapons of mass destruction throughout the Middle East. The declaration was adopted by all 189 parties to the NPT, including the US. It urged Israel to sign the NPT and put its nuclear facilities under UN safeguards.
Click to expand...

rhadamanthus · Jun 3, 2010

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0cQ69oKFtVg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0cQ69oKFtVg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Another link with an account from someone actually there.

Courtesy Glenn Greenwald.

CometsWin · Jun 3, 2010

AroundTheWorld said:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HZlSSaPT_OU&hl=de_DE&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HZlSSaPT_OU&hl=de_DE&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Click to expand...

Do you have the video of the Israeli commandos arming themselves and gearing up with night vision prior to attacking an aid ship in international waters or is Israel not putting that one out for everyone to see?

AroundTheWorld · Jun 3, 2010

CometsWin said:

Do you have the video of the Israeli commandos arming themselves and gearing up with night vision prior to attacking an aid ship in international waters or is Israel not putting that one out for everyone to see?
Click to expand...

I don't have that one. I got the one you quoted because a friend of mine posted it on Facebook. I didn't actively search for anything.

I think both sides are at fault here, but it seems to me that the reaction of the Israeli military was excessive, and stupid.

LScolaDominates · Jun 3, 2010

MiddleMan said:

Franchise Blade I was referring to the female activist account about the incident. She starts talking around the 15 minute mark, they were aware of the situation on hand and still prevented the soldiers to board the ship. Even though no incident happen in the previous 3 or 4 ships.
Click to expand...

I still don't see how this means that her plan backfired...

madmonkey37 · Jun 3, 2010

Hydhypedplaya said:

The clause that Allen Weiner is citing deals with merchant vessels. The ships in flotilla were not merchant vessels because they were operating under non-commercial use. Read the San Remo Manual again, and find the part that states which types of vessels are exempt from attack:
Click to expand...

The definition(from wikipedia) of a merchant vessel is a ship that transports cargo and passengers during peace time. It doesn't matter if its for commercial purposes or not. The MV Mavi Marmara is still a merchant vessel, its just operating under humanitarian purposes.

I see you conveniently left out these clauses.

Conditions of exemption

48. Vessels listed in paragraph 47 are exempt from attack only if they:

(a) are innocently employed in their normal role;
(b) submit to identification and inspection when required; and
(c) do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required.

All other categories of vessels exempt from attack
52. If any other class of vessel exempt from attack breaches any of the conditions of its exemption in paragraph 48, it may be attacked only if:
(a) diversion or capture is not feasible;
(b) no other method is available for exercising military control;
(c) the circumstances of non-compliance are sufficiently grave that the vessel has become, or may be reasonably assumed to be, a military objective; and
(d) the collateral casualties or damage will not be disproportionate to the military advantage gained or expected.
Click to expand...

First and foremost, facts.

1. The attack happened in international waters.
2. No firearms or other munitions were found on-board any ship.
3. Activists were shot and killed.
4. The flotilla was an announced convoy bringing humanitarian aid.

These are facts un-disputed by either side.

Now, was it legal or illegal according to international law for Israel to attempt to stop and search or seize the flotilla?
.......
.......
Click to expand...

I think ill trust the judgement of a legal professional and scholar with extensive credentials in international law over some random guy posting his opinion in another forum

Even though I doubt you will read all this... here is the most important one (from the Laws of Sea), which regulate when a ship may be visited in international waters:
Click to expand...

I was going to say this was irrelevant since Turkey is not a signatory, but the Mavi Marmara is flying a flag of convenience from the Comoros Islands (pretty stupid of them since it limits the actions Turkey can take against Israel). Anyways, I'm not exactly sure how this applies, since the San Remo manual deals with conflict on the high seas and the Law of the Seas deals with the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. Heres what a University of Toronto Professor had to say about this issue:

Accordingly, the accusation of piracy is inapt, since under both customary law and Article 101 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that applies only to acts done for private gain. Israel’s acts must be analyzed in terms of the law of naval warfare.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rolls-with-the-law-of-the-sea/article1589981/
Click to expand...

Lets just agree to disagree since both of us can't say with absolute certainty on whether or not the action was legal. Or maybe you can, but I dont see how since you have academics and law professionals arguing both sides of the international waters issue.

MiddleMan · Jun 3, 2010

LScolaDominates said:

I still don't see how this means that her plan backfired...
Click to expand...

Did they pass the Israel Blockade with no problem to deliver the aid without Israel searching through it?? So the whole plan was to challenge the blockade in which it failed.

pippendagimp · Jun 3, 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg

vlaurelio · Jun 3, 2010

MiddleMan said:

Did they pass the Israel Blockade with no problem to deliver the aid without Israel searching through it?? So the whole plan was to challenge the blockade in which it failed.
Click to expand...

isn't the ultimate goal to deliver humanitarian aid/supplies?

MiddleMan · Jun 3, 2010

They tried to prevent the boarding of the Israeli troops in which backfired since 9 activist were killed and many were injured.

Forums

Lieberman: "There is no humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip"

MiddleMan Member

Hydhypedplaya Member

madmonkey37 Member

Mathloom Shameless Optimist

glynch Member

Hydhypedplaya Member

Ottomaton Member
Supporting Member

glynch Member

glynch Member

Ottomaton Member
Supporting Member

Pharaoh King Member

rhadamanthus Member

CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

AroundTheWorld Member

LScolaDominates Member

madmonkey37 Member

MiddleMan Member

pippendagimp Member

vlaurelio Member

MiddleMan Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Lieberman: "There is no humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip"

MiddleMan Member

Hydhypedplaya Member

madmonkey37 Member

Mathloom Shameless Optimist

glynch Member

Hydhypedplaya Member

Ottomaton Member Supporting Member

glynch Member

glynch Member

Ottomaton Member Supporting Member

Pharaoh King Member

rhadamanthus Member

CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

AroundTheWorld Member

LScolaDominates Member

madmonkey37 Member

MiddleMan Member

pippendagimp Member

vlaurelio Member

MiddleMan Member

Share This Page

Ottomaton Member
Supporting Member

Ottomaton Member
Supporting Member