Hypothesis: No Hamas = No More Problems. For anyone. - by SubJeff
Brian The Dog on 31/5/2010 at 20:47
Quote Posted by SD
The video is moot. The vessel was (a) in international waters and (b) flying the Turkish flag. This means the ship is Turkish territory and the soldiers had no business boarding that vessel. Attacking that vessel constitutes an act of war.
Far-be-it for me to speak for the Israeli Defense Force, but I'm guessing they thought of it as a customs check, since they're so worried about arms smuggling to Hamas - they happily let the other 5 boats dock, after all. This is why I'm confused it happened in international waters.
Calling it "war" is also over the top - to declare war on someone, you send formal papers to their embassy. Even Japan did that to America when Pearl Harbour happened. They weren't trying to sink the ship or kill the people onboard, they either wanted to do a customs check or take control of the vessel after being denied boarding access.
Edit - OK, Pearl Harbour technically occurred before the declaration of war, but that was because they cocked up the timing more than anything else :(
Wille on 31/5/2010 at 20:52
Quote Posted by SD
The Israelis just committed an illegal act of war against Turkey
Not necessarily. Here's what(
http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument) San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 says about blockades:
Quote:
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.
Notice the point 98 especially. Then again there's point 104 which could also be used in this situation so it's all very muddy I'm afraid.
SD on 31/5/2010 at 20:58
Quote Posted by Brian The Dog
Calling it "war" is also over the top - to declare war on someone, you send formal papers to their embassy.
Nobody formally declares war any more. War only needs a
causus belli, and invading a Turkish ship on the high seas is exactly that.
Quote Posted by Wille
Not necessarily.
Clear as mud is about right. But regardless of whether or not the flotilla was approaching Gaza, the UN has called the blockade illegal, so laws on blockades do not apply here.
Malleus on 31/5/2010 at 21:02
Quote Posted by SD
The video is moot. The vessel was (a) in international waters and (b) flying the Turkish flag. This means the ship is Turkish territory and the soldiers had no business boarding that vessel. Attacking that vessel constitutes an act of war.
for being in international waters
(
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce)
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.
(
http://www.lawofwar.org/naval_warfare_publication_N-114M.htm)
7.7.4 Breach and Attempted Breach of Blockade. Breach of blockade is the passage of a vessel or aircraft through a blockade without special entry or exit authorization from the blockading belligerent. Attempted breach of blockade occurs from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port or airfield with the intention of evading the blockade, and for vessels exiting the blockaded area, continues until the voyage is completed. Knowledge of the existence of the blockade is essential to the offenses of breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade. Knowledge may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification provided to affected governments. It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of interception bound for neutral territory, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area. There is a presumption of attempted breach of blockade where vessels or aircraft are bound for a neutral port or airfield serving as a point of transit to the blockaded area. Capture of such vessels is discussed in paragraph 7.10.
EDIT: Damn, Wille beat me to it...
...besides, I start to think it was a well organised PR stunt against Israel. It was just a lose-lose situation for the jewish state. If they let them reach Gaza, obvious PR defeat. If they board the ship, brawl ensues, people die, IDF is evil, PR defeat.
Wille on 31/5/2010 at 21:10
Quote Posted by SD
Nobody formally declares war any more. War only needs a
causus belli, and invading a Turkish ship on the high seas is exactly that.
And when we think who probably is the mastermind behind this flotilla ((
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recep_Tayyip_Erdo%C4%9Fan) Mr. Erdoğan) we can make a simple connection and see what all this is about. Nothing more than power play where foreign activists are fooled and used to make a futile trip like this to stirr the volatile pot.
Still, all things considered this operation was FUBAR by the Israelis. They clearly underestimated what kind of activists they were facing and landed straight to the deck without cover like teargas or smoke which led to a chaotic situation and in the end, casualties.
Jason Moyer on 31/5/2010 at 21:22
I think disbanding Hamas is a great idea. Shipping all the "Palestinians" back to the countries who dumped them on Israel (i.e. Egypt and Jordan) would probably work too.
Namdrol on 31/5/2010 at 21:39
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
...and the expulsion of all Gazans and the reclamation of the land in totality.
Reclaim land?
I assume your use of the word, reclaim, means that this was land originally owned by the state of Israel.
When was that?
Are we talking the biblical borders or the borders laid down by the United Nations at the end of the British Mandate?
Epos Nix on 31/5/2010 at 22:04
Kind of interesting that a staunch atheist would so strongly support Israel's claim that God promised them that land, minus those damned Palestinians.
Or more likely: he has absolutely no clue as to what history has taken place between the Israeli's and Palestinians in that area, including how that land was 90% Palestinian prior to WWII.
hopper on 31/5/2010 at 22:06
Quote Posted by SD
The video is moot. The vessel was (a) in international waters and (b) flying the Turkish flag. This means the ship is Turkish territory and the soldiers had no business boarding that vessel. Attacking that vessel constitutes an act of war.
Yeh, but you gotta love the way they are already framing the debate towards "we only boarded the boat to persuade them nicely to come with us, and then they started beating us with sticks and whatnot, so they are really the aggressors here, see".
Edit: Reading Paragraphs 102-104, it seems quite dubious whether Israel was within their right to attack the ship, but who's going to be the judge? Also, we don't know whatever the ship might carry besides food, medicine, etc., which the Mossad might have a pretty good lead on.
Swiss Mercenary on 31/5/2010 at 22:19
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
I think disbanding Hamas is a great idea. Shipping all the "Palestinians" back to the countries who dumped them on Israel (i.e. Egypt and Jordan) would probably work too.
While we're at it, let's not forget to ship all the Israelis back to Europe, too.
