Announcement

**bigross86** · 24 Jun 11,, 09:29

And let's not forget what Mr. Alan Dershowitz said last year:

And, of course, the great Alan Dershowitz covering the legal side of things:

Alan Dershowitz: Israel's Actions Were Entirely Lawful Though Probably Unwise

Israel's Actions Were Entirely Lawful Though Probably Unwise

Although the wisdom of Israel's actions in stopping the Gaza flotilla is open to question, the legality of its actions is not. What Israel did was entirely consistent with both international and domestic law. In order to understand why Israel acted within its rights, the complex events at sea must be deconstructed.

First, there is the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which included a naval blockade. Recall that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, it did not impose a blockade. Indeed it left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area. Instead Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare against Israel. These acts of warfare featured anti-personnel rockets, nearly 10,000 of them, directed at Israeli civilians. This was not only an act of warfare, it was a war crime. Israel responded to the rockets by declaring a blockade, the purpose of which was to assure that no rockets, or other material that could be used for making war against Israeli civilians, was permitted into Gaza. Israel allowed humanitarian aid through its checkpoints. Egypt as well participated in the blockade. There was never a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, merely a shortage of certain goods that would end if the rocket attacks ended.

The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This, despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerency against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.

The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security.

Third, were those on board the flotilla innocent non-combatants or did they lose that status once they agreed to engage in the military act of breaking the blockade? Let there be no mistake about the purpose of this flotilla. It was decidedly not to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza, but rather the break the entirely lawful Israeli military blockade. The proof lies in the fact that both Israel and Egypt offered to have all the food, medicine and other humanitarian goods sent to Gaza, if the boats agreed to land in an Israeli or Egyptian port. That humanitarian offer was soundly rejected by the leaders of the flotilla who publicly announced:

"This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians." (AFP, May 27, 2010.)

The act of breaking a military siege is itself a military act, and those knowingly participating in such military action put in doubt their status as non-combatants.

It is a close question whether "civilians" who agree too participate in the breaking of a military blockade have become combatants. They are certainly something different than pure, innocent civilians, and perhaps they are also somewhat different from pure armed combatants. They fit uncomfortably onto the continuum of civilianality that has come to characterize asymmetrical warfare.

Finally, we come to the issue of the right of self-defense engaged in by Israeli soldiers who were attacked by activists on the boat. There can be little doubt that the moment any person on the boat picked up a weapon and began to attack Israeli soldiers boarding the vessel, they lost their status as innocent civilians. Even if that were not the case, under ordinary civilian rules of self defense, every Israeli soldier had the right to protect himself and his colleagues from attack by knife and pipe wielding assailants. Less there be any doubt that Israeli soldiers were under attack, simply view the video and watch, as so-called peaceful "activists" repeatedly pummel Israeli soldiers with metal rods. Every individual has the right to repel such attacks by the use of lethal force, especially when the soldiers were so outnumbered on the deck of the ship. Recall that Israel's rules of engagement required its soldiers to fire only paintballs unless their lives were in danger. Would any country in the world deny its soldiers the right of self-defense under comparable circumstances?

But the questions remain:

A - What will the IDF do this time?
B - How will the Israeli government and PR machine handle it this time around?
C - How quickly will the world condemn Israel, even though UN leader Ban Ki-moon and other world leaders have warned their citizens against embarking on this flotilla?

**Doktor** · 24 Jun 11,, 09:35

Where was the last ship stopped? International waters?

How would you feel if Israeli merchant ship is stopped by Iranian navy in international waters?

**bigross86** · 24 Jun 11,, 09:44

If Iran legally had a reason to search the ship, Israel would protest, but there would be nothing much we could do about it. If Iran boarded an Israeli ship that openly and publicly declared it's intent to the world on bypassing Iranian border control and customs and giving medical aid and foodstuffs to Kurdish rebels or to pro-democracy activists, then I would say "serves them right". If Iran boarded a random Israeli ship and neither of the first two options apply, then it is piracy

**Doktor** · 24 Jun 11,, 10:00

Border patrol means patrol on the border, not outside of it ;)
You would hardly enter Jordanian territory to control a truck with West bank as final destination, would you?

Giving food and medical aid to whomever should not be banned.

I didn't got it last time, I still don't get it. From what I remember they were heading towards Gaza, when denied entry they wanted to go to Egypt, but your guys stormed the ship, then guided it to one of your ports. Or not?

As for this year, it all depends on how the Turks will approach the problem.
If I was a Turk and wanted to piss you off I would've escorted those merchant ships with my navy and would love to see you do what you did last year, so be it.
If I was Turk looking for Palestinians to receive the aid, I'd go to behind the doors diplomacy, as you had good relations once.

**bigross86** · 24 Jun 11,, 10:15

Border patrol when running a blockade means that blockade runners can be boarded anywhere on open seas. If Israel had waited until the 12nm line, some of the ships would have reached shore, plus there would have been a lot more interference and casualties on both sides.

Your example is faulty, because between Jordan and Israel there is a massive touch sensitive fence with cameras, etc... I know, I spent almost half a year on that fence. The ocean has no fence, belongs to no one country, and there are conventions which specifically allow for boarding ships at sea, including the one I posted before.

Last time they refused to turn to Egypt or to Ashdod, claiming "Gaza or bust!". They got the "bust!" part of that equation. They even outright claimed last time that the aid was not the important part, the important part was running the blockade. It later turned out that two-thirds of the medical supplies had expired between half a year to 15 months before the flotilla even left, and then Hamas refused to accept the aid, anyway.

The IHH has announced that it's pulling out of this year's flotilla for "technical reasons". The world stage (hopefully) will be slightly different, because Israel has announced her intentions: We're gonna do the same thing we did last year, and whoever is on the flotilla is bringing his own fate on himself. But don't for a second believe that aid for the Palestinians is what's on these people's minds. After all, there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and the Rafah border crossing is open. Whatever they want they can transfer legally from Egypt. This flotilla is nothing but a provocation. Question is, who will be smart enough to see that?

**Doktor** · 24 Jun 11,, 11:47

This blockade of international waters/airspace may fall under customary law, at best.
Please cite me an verified international document supporting your claims that this is international law.

As for the border, it's not my example which is faulty. The fact that you didn't secured your naval borders like your land ones is your problem, not to those in international waters.

To be perfectly clear I don't support the way that ship was acting, but your military helped them big time and was kinda set-up. They were stupid enough to go in gun fight with knives and paintball guns

but your guys were stupid enough to kill 9 of them

I still think that no navy should have the right to do whatever to other ships in international waters.

**bigross86** · 24 Jun 11,, 11:57

I quoted it before, in my first post:

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea:

Article 67A clearly states:

67. 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;

They are immediately legally allowed to be boarded anywhere at sea by their own admission that they are breaching a blockade.

Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.:

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

The members of the Flotilla are mercenaries, being that they are heading into a blockade with intent to run the blockade, and are headed with full steam to participate in an armed conflict which they know the IDF will give them

**Doktor** · 24 Jun 11,, 12:15

I was meaning a document, signed treaty where it is stated how and when a blockade can be enforced.

**bigross86** · 24 Jun 11,, 12:25

International Humanitarian Law: - San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE

Blockade

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. 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.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. 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.

98. 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.

99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94.

102. 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.

103. 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.

104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.

Article 102 doesn't apply as there is no Humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Article 103 is applied in force, Israel transfers in hundreds of tons of foodstuffs and medical aid per month.

**bigross86** · 24 Jun 11,, 12:35

According to the Decaration of Paris of 1856, a blockade needs to fill one criteria:

4. Blockades, in order to be obligatory, must be effective — that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient to really prevent access to the coast of the enemy.

**Doktor** · 24 Jun 11,, 14:06

Yawn...

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994
Full text [Display Introduction] [Display articles]
PART I : GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION I : SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE LAW

1. The parties to an armed conflict at sea are bound by the principles and rules of international humanitarian law from the moment armed force is used.

Palestinians from Gaza have a navy?

**bigross86** · 24 Jun 11,, 14:13

First of all, yes

But that's irrelevant in this case. A blockade is still a naval action and falls under armed conflicts at sea

**Dreadnought** · 24 Jun 11,, 16:01

Would board them once before they approcach and make crystal clear if they attempt Gaza they will be reboarded, arrested and the ships confiscated and turned over to the Israeli navy for target practice or impound until the owners pay dearly for their return. Let them worry about how they get back to their home countries. Take the captains to court and charge them and jail them since they are the authority at sea and are knowingly hazzarding their ships and passengers in a declared Naval blockade.

Sell the ships on the open market if the owners cannot afford to pay the price for their return. No reason the Israeli's cant be compensated for their time and efforts over this nonsense.

**667medic** · 24 Jun 11,, 17:07

Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post

Would board them once before they approcach and make crystal clear if they attempt Gaza they will be reboarded, arrested and the ships confiscated and turned over to the Israeli navy for target practice or impound until the owners pay dearly for their return. Let them worry about how they get back to their home countries. Take the captains to court and charge them and jail them since they are the authority at sea and are knowingly hazzarding their ships and passengers in a declared Naval blockade.

Sell the ships on the open market if the owners cannot afford to pay the price for their return. No reason the Israeli's cant be compensated for their time and efforts over this nonsense.

Sir, all this can be done only after the boat has be secured by the Israelis. But the question is how can Israel take over the ship without any bloodshed as I am assuming that the people in the ship wouldn't be agreeable to surrender their ship. The best option would be to disable the rudder, tow the ship to international waters and set it free there.

Announcement

Gaza flotilla blind to Hamas

Gaza flotilla blind to Hamas

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment