• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Legality of the Israeli raid

StevenA59

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
111
Reaction score
30
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
And here:

The vast majority of the supplies on the all ships was humanitarian aid. They were vessels that were innocently employed in their role of providing humanitarian aid to a place in a humanitarian classes, thus classifying it as a vessel exempt from attack.

The stated intent of the flotilla, later confirmed by Hamas, was a political one: to run the Israeli blockade.

humanitarian classes

I apologize. I didn't realize English is your second language.
 

Degreez

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Exactly what are you basing your conclusions on?
International law.

You believe that this was a humanitarian ship that was entirely innocent in its purpose. If Israel disagrees, what authority do you have to say that they're wrong?
If Israel disagrees, then it should have contacted the flag State of the ship. Legal jurisdiction of a ship flying the flag of a neutral State in international waters belongs to that neutral State.

When it's enforcing a blockade it does.
Why don't you actually take the time to read what San Remo says about when a blockade is legitimate:
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.
Some questions for you:

- When Israel declared their intent to blockade Gaza, did they declare the duration?
- Is the blockade effective? This is a question of fact. Has the blockade stopped the capability of militants to fire rockets into Israel?
- Is the damage to the civilian population of Gaza excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage gained from the blockade?


So your theory is that this would have been perfectly legal had it not turned into violence?
No, where did I say it would be perfectly legal?
(d) the collateral casualties or damage will not be disproportionate to the military advantage gained or expected.
What direct military advantage gained from stopping a humanitarian vessel is equal to the lives of 9 civilians outside Israeli jurisdiction?

And again, what exactly gives you (or anyone else) the authority to decide whether or not those criteria have been satisfied? Simply saying "oh, this isn't one of those cases because I don't think it is" doesn't quite cut it.
... You were the one who brought up the Caroline Affair. Do you know who Abraham Sofaer is? Do you know what the justifications for preemption are under the preemptive war doctrine? Have you heard anything about Peremptory norm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?

Another Article 6? Which Article 6 might that be? The only one I see makes explicit reference to a offenses that are violations of Article 3, much like Article 10.
I clearly said another article with 6 in parentheses, there is no need to be obtuse.

Is that what I said? No. I said they've been maintaining a blockade for years and have maintained a firm position on this issue.
No, you stated that they maintained a blockade and asked why they would sign a Convention that would make what they were doing a crime. You didn't state what it was they were doing so I inferred.
What you think they should have done is irrelevant to the question of what they had the legal authority to do.
Nah, it's just merely irrelevant to your opinion on the legality of the forceful boarding.

I'm not the one who said San Remo applies. I'm merely responding to the claims in the OP.
You are still using San Remo as a defense for what Israel did. Why use it as a defense if it does not apply?
Where exactly did I mention a merchant vessel?
When you paraphrased the article that allows for boarding of merchant vessels.

According to what?
The vessels that 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;

Again, interdicting a boat that is about to run a blockade is not the same as asserting total sovereignty.
No said anything about total sovereignty.

No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.

What part of any part don't you understand?
 

Degreez

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
And here:
The stated intent of the flotilla, later confirmed by Hamas, was a political one: to run the Israeli blockade.
What Hamas says is irrelevant. They did not organize this flotilla. The stated intent of the passengers was to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. That is all that matters.
I apologize. I didn't realize English is your second language.
Nice attempt at a snide comment (from something as foolish as a typo). FYI, though, English is my third language. Urdu was my first langauge, followed very closely by French. Spanish I picked up by myself, and I learned some Italian while I was doing my undergraduate.

What languages do you speak?
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Nice attempt yourself. At any rate, your English is great. However your claims about sovereignty are absurd and inapplicable.
I am CITING you the law that deals with this.

Ironic that it took them over a WEEK to find these things and that we have nothing aside from the Israeli's word that they were actually found on board.

I also find it difficult to accept the claim because the Israelis were watching the ships during the attack and none of them said anything about weapons being thrown overboard until now. Since they reported hearing gunshots and cited them as a reason they shot nine people, the weapons they allegedly heard must've been on board during the raid yet no video of the attack shows someone running to the side and throwing something overboard nor have the Israelis mentioned it until now.

I call BS
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What I want to know is...

If the ship contained weapons or there was violence, ok, Israel had a legit reason to take action... but once the proceedings were over, why not allow the supplies into Gaza?

There is a new ship on the way containing hundreds of tonnes of food, medical supplies, and cement for buildings. Israel should inspect it thoroughly or take control of the ship if necessary, and distribute the supplies itself.

If it wants to ensure good faith then this is the only way.
 

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,230
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
What I want to know is... If the ship contained weapons or there was violence, ok, Israel had a legit reason to take action... but once the proceedings were over, why not allow the supplies into Gaza?
The ships docked in the Israeli port of Ashdod and the cargo was inspected by x-ray scans and dogs trained to detect explosives. The cargo is being transferred to an estimated 20 trucks. Eight of these trucks arrived at the Kerem Shalom crossing point on Thursday, and Hamas refused to accept delivery. Hamas demands that all delivery trucks arrive at one time, that Turkey first give permission to transfer the goods, and that all activists be released. I believe at this time that some wounded remain in a hospital awaiting a medical release, and three activists remain in custody. All other activists have already been deported.

Hamas blocking entry of flotilla aid into Gaza - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

There is a new ship on the way containing hundreds of tonnes of food, medical supplies, and cement for buildings. Israel should inspect it thoroughly or take control of the ship if necessary, and distribute the supplies itself. If it wants to ensure good faith then this is the only way.
With this flotilla - as with all previous flotilla's - both Israel and Egypt have stated that all ship cargo will be transferred to Gaza after it has been inspected in one of their ports. They will absorb all overland transfer costs. All such offers by Israel and Egypt were rejected by the flotilla numerous times. This isn't about delivery of the goods. That is easily enough accomplished.

What the activists actually seek is the ability to sail and dock directly at Gaza with no Israeli or Egyptian cargo inspections whatsoever. Without such inspections, there exists the very real possibility of clandestine weapon transfers. To satisfy their security concerns, both countries insist that all ship cargo be inspected in one of their ports before delivery to Hamas.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
20,360
Reaction score
6,407
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
What I want to know is...

If the ship contained weapons or there was violence, ok, Israel had a legit reason to take action... but once the proceedings were over, why not allow the supplies into Gaza?

There is a new ship on the way containing hundreds of tonnes of food, medical supplies, and cement for buildings. Israel should inspect it thoroughly or take control of the ship if necessary, and distribute the supplies itself.

If it wants to ensure good faith then this is the only way.

Israel is doing exactly what you've said, and that you weren't aware of it is something I find disturbing.
It's not against you in person, but against the media that didn't make you aware of that fact.
 

StevenA59

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
111
Reaction score
30
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
When did I make any claims about sovereignty?

Who posted this?

No said anything about total sovereignty.

No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.

What part of any part don't you understand?

Stopping a vessel suspected of smuggling arms is not exerting sovereignty, in part or in whole.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Thanks Tashah for the info... this is the reason why I also can't stand Hamas.

Apoc, it's not that the media isn't doing their job, it's that I'm not really paying attention. The whole Israel-Palestine conflict is annoying and I can't stand either side, to be honest. Every month there is some new drama and every month the same band of apologists for both sides comes out and tries to defend why indefensible actions are okay. I just can't seem to care anymore. :shrug:
 

Degreez

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Who posted this?
Stopping a vessel suspected of smuggling arms is not exerting sovereignty, in part or in whole.

It is if it's in international waters, outside the jurisdiction of a sovereign state. A vessel that is suspected of smuggling arms while sailing the high seas lies in the jurisdiction of the flag State.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What I want to know is...

If the ship contained weapons or there was violence, ok, Israel had a legit reason to take action... but once the proceedings were over, why not allow the supplies into Gaza?
To be fair, Israel has said that's what it intends to do. However there are some restricted items that may not make it through such as concrete and steel for building.

With this flotilla - as with all previous flotilla's - both Israel and Egypt have stated that all ship cargo will be transferred to Gaza after it has been inspected in one of their ports. They will absorb all overland transfer costs. All such offers by Israel and Egypt were rejected by the flotilla numerous times. This isn't about delivery of the goods. That is easily enough accomplished.

What the activists actually seek is the ability to sail and dock directly at Gaza with no Israeli or Egyptian cargo inspections whatsoever. Without such inspections, there exists the very real possibility of clandestine weapon transfers. To satisfy their security concerns, both countries insist that all ship cargo be inspected in one of their ports before delivery to Hamas.
That's a reasonable request, however I dont see what attacking and seizing the ships on the high seas has to do with enforcing that request.

Who posted this?
I did

Stopping a vessel suspected of smuggling arms is not exerting sovereignty, in part or in whole.
Yes, yes it is. You are attempting to enforce your own laws against the smuggling of arms against a ship that does not fly your flag. ONLY the flag state may enforce it's laws aboard ships in international waters that fly their flag. Otherwise, the ships are off-limits except in circumstances of human trafficking, drug smuggling, and terrorism however you still need to notify and receive permission from the flag state to stop the ship.
 
Last edited:

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,230
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yes, yes it is. You are attempting to enforce your own laws against the smuggling of arms against a ship that does not fly your flag. ONLY the flag state may enforce it's laws aboard ships in international waters that fly their flag. Otherwise, the ships are off-limits except in circumstances of human trafficking, drug smuggling, and terrorism however you still need to notify and receive permission from the flag state to stop the ship.
IIRC, the ship was actually flagged under the Comoros Islands which does not interfere in cargo concerns, as long as it receives the flagging fee. But to address your particular issue, Turkey obviously knew of and approved of the flotilla and rejected all pre-sail requests by Israel to have the ship dock at Ashdod for cargo inspection. The San Remo Treaty addresses blockades and ship inspections in territorial waters and the high seas. As long as a belligerency exists between Israel and the government of Gaza (it does), Israel has every right to inspect ships headed towards the enemy port.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I should hasten to point out that this convoy was KNOWN to be carrying humanitarian aid. That makes a difference as far as the law is concerned.

And Israel has a valid argument that the ship was not purely humanitarian, on the grounds that it had announced its intention to violate a military blockade, was operating at least somewhat for propaganda purposes, and was planning to violate Israel custom laws.

Article 90 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 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.

And as I noted above, that's obviously not an absolute and all-encompassing proposition, given that there are dozens if not hundreds of acknowledged exceptions.

Furthermore, under San Remo, 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;"

Again, the convoy was KNOWN to be carrying humanitarian aid and supplies which means the Israelis did not have the right to attack the convoy and doubly so in international waters.

And as I noted in my first post, see article 48.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
IIRC, the ship was actually flagged under the Comoros Islands which does not interfere in cargo concerns, as long as it receives the flagging fee.
Regardless, the Israelis are required to inquire with the flag nation if they have intentions of stopping a vessel in international waters.

But to address your particular issue, Turkey obviously knew of and approved of the flotilla and rejected all pre-sail requests by Israel to have the ship dock at Ashdod for cargo inspection.
Do we know that they did?

The San Remo Treaty addresses blockades and ship inspections in territorial waters and the high seas. As long as a belligerency exists between Israel and the government of Gaza (it does), Israel has every right to inspect ships headed towards the enemy port.
The belligerency must exist between two soverign powers. Hamas is not recognized as such and so this warrants a different legal classification. Similar to how Vietnam was a "police action" because we were fighting against an insurgent group, the Viet Cong, not a recognized government.

And Israel has a valid argument that the ship was not purely humanitarian, on the grounds that it had announced its intention to violate a military blockade, was operating at least somewhat for propaganda purposes, and was planning to violate Israel custom laws.
There were no indications that any violence was planned or advocated and as such that there would be any firearms on board. If Israel had stopped the ship in their territorial waters, this would be an ENTIRELY different conversation.

And as I noted above, that's obviously not an absolute and all-encompassing proposition, given that there are dozens if not hundreds of acknowledged exceptions.
Such as?

I should point out that San Remo lays out the "rule of thumb" for the sea.

And as I noted in my first post, see article 48.
Ships in international waters are not required to submit to inspections unless authorized by their flag state.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
International law.

You're missing my point. Who is authorized to determine whether or not these criteria have been satisfied? What have they said about it?

If Israel disagrees, then it should have contacted the flag State of the ship. Legal jurisdiction of a ship flying the flag of a neutral State in international waters belongs to that neutral State.

You keep citing this, but it's not right. The Convention for the SUA does not apply here.

Why don't you actually take the time to read what San Remo says about when a blockade is legitimate:

Some questions for you:

- When Israel declared their intent to blockade Gaza, did they declare the duration?

I'm assuming they said it was in effect until the situation was resolved.

- Is the blockade effective? This is a question of fact.

And who is authorized to make that determination? What have they concluded?

- Is the damage to the civilian population of Gaza excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage gained from the blockade?

And who is authorized to make that determination? What have they concluded?

No, where did I say it would be perfectly legal?

You're premising the illegality under this section on the fact that in the end, you believe the result was disproportionately harmful. The obvious corollary to that is that had it not turned into what you consider disproportionate violence, it would not be illegal (under this section).

What direct military advantage gained from stopping a humanitarian vessel is equal to the lives of 9 civilians outside Israeli jurisdiction?

Who says its not? Who makes that determination?

... You were the one who brought up the Caroline Affair. Do you know who Abraham Sofaer is? Do you know what the justifications for preemption are under the preemptive war doctrine? Have you heard anything about Peremptory norm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?

And once again, you're missing my point. I brought up the Caroline Affair to detail the standard by which this could be judged, but it also doubles as a perfect example of what we're talking about as a whole. In that case, the two sides eventually developed a standard for when preemptive self-defense would be permitted. Despite agreeing on the standard, they never agreed on whether that standard had been met in that case. The end result was that absolutely nothing happened. The same has happened in the vast majority of controversial cases since then.

Even if you and I agree on what the underlying standards are in this case, those standards have to be applied. My point, which you keep on ignoring, is that in the cases where no body is empowered to make these determinations, there can be no real violation of international law. This is why international law (as relates to the general use of force) has not developed much past Art. II(4) of the UN charter. Unless a convention clearly precludes something and provides an international body with authority to regulate violations, we're essentially in "might makes right" territory.

I clearly said another article with 6 in parentheses, there is no need to be obtuse.

And which article is that?

No, you stated that they maintained a blockade and asked why they would sign a Convention that would make what they were doing a crime.

And you've yet to offer an explanation.

Nah, it's just merely irrelevant to your opinion on the legality of the forceful boarding.

And now you're seeing my point. Your opinion on whether something violates a convention is irrelevant. For something to be illegal, someone with authority to enforce/apply/interpret the law must say it is. I'm still waiting for you to offer any evidence of this.

You are still using San Remo as a defense for what Israel did. Why use it as a defense if it does not apply?

Again, I'm not using San Remo as a defense for anything. I'm responding to the claim that it precludes it. As I mentioned above, the default rule is that everything not explicitly precluded is okay.

When you paraphrased the article that allows for boarding of merchant vessels.

I'm still not sure what you're referring to, as nothing in my statement that you quoted made any reference, explicit or implied, to any language dealing with merchant vessels.

The vessels that 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;

And once again, read Art. 48.

No said anything about total sovereignty.

No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.

Like several parts of my post, I've addressed this already.

"You're reading far too much into this language. The Convention simply says that no state may subject the seas to its sovereignty, which is best read as a default rule directed at attempts to claim total control of swaths of international water, not as an absolute rule forbidding all actions on international water not listed in the Convention.

This reading is bolstered by the many, many treaties and conventions that have set forth ground rules for the interactions of ships in international water, several of which have been mentioned here. If the GCHS had truly meant to preclude any state from taking any action in international water, then there would have been no need for any of these treaties to discuss international waters, as the issue would have been resolved.

In addition, decades of practice have made it exceedingly clear that the Convention should be read in this fashion. The Convention was drafted in 1958. Since then, there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of situations where one nation took an action that interfered with another ship while in international waters. That alone is insufficient to constitute a violation of the Convention."
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
There were no indications that any violence was planned or advocated and as such that there would be any firearms on board.

That's not the standard listed in Art. 48.

If Israel had stopped the ship in their territorial waters, this would be an ENTIRELY different conversation.

I'm glad you acknowledge this, but do you see why it doesn't make much sense to predicate your opposition to the boarding on this issue? The ship was just hours away from crossing into their territory, and had already declared its imminent intention to violate the blockade. In addition, Apocalypse has pointed out several reasons of military necessity to enforce the blockade where they did.


Such as the conventions and practice that involves ships being intercepted in international waters. If the UNCLOS really created an absolute rule that no state could take any action in open water, then there would be no need for so many other conventions dealing with international water.

I should point out that San Remo lays out the "rule of thumb" for the sea.

And I'm pointing out for the 15th or 20th time that San Remo has nothing to do with this situation, as its a remedial convention. Art. III does not apply without extrinsic proof of illegality.

Ships in international waters are not required to submit to inspections unless authorized by their flag state.

What are you basing this on? If it's San Remo, it doesn't apply.
 

Degreez

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
You're missing my point. Who is authorized to determine whether or not these criteria have been satisfied? What have they said about it?
The International Court of Justice. They haven't said anything because this is still a current event and Israel has rejected all requests for an impartial, independent investigation that may subsequently lead to the ICJ.
You keep citing this, but it's not right. The Convention for the SUA does not apply here.
Give me one reason why SUA does not apply. Have you even read the introduction? The whole point of Conventions and Treaties are so that States could cooperate better. Not for them to be ignored and used only as a defense. SUA applies because the flag State of the ship was not an Israeli vessel. SUA applies because a foreign vessel was forcefully boarded in international waters. The fact that it was a military commission does not change the fact that jurisdiction of a ship in international waters belongs to the flag State. What part of "no State may subject the high seas to its sovereignty" do you not understand?
I'm assuming they said it was in effect until the situation was resolved.
That is a disingenuous answer at best.
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
And who is authorized to make that determination? What have they concluded?
The ICJ. They have already issued an advisory opinion stating the blockade was illegal. Israel was lucky it was only an advisory opinion thanks to the US.
And who is authorized to make that determination? What have they concluded?
The ICJ. They have already issued an advisory opinion stating the blockade was illegal. Israel was lucky it was only an advisory opinion thanks to the US.
You're premising the illegality under this section on the fact that in the end, you believe the result was disproportionately harmful. The obvious corollary to that is that had it not turned into what you consider disproportionate violence, it would not be illegal (under this section).
I want you to tell me if the collateral damage from boarding these ships was proportional to the direct military advantage Israel gained from this. A cache of bulletproof vests, night vision goggles, and gas masks (all of which Israel has provided no evidence for) was proportional to killing 9 people (some of whom look like they were executed). Agree or disagree?
Who says its not? Who makes that determination?
Is that all you can say? The questions are for yourself, since you are the person I am engaged in a debate with. Either you are trying to be obtuse, or you just know that answering the questions will be harmful to your argument.
And once again, you're missing my point. I brought up the Caroline Affair to detail the standard by which this could be judged, but it also doubles as a perfect example of what we're talking about as a whole. In that case, the two sides eventually developed a standard for when preemptive self-defense would be permitted. Despite agreeing on the standard, they never agreed on whether that standard had been met in that case. The end result was that absolutely nothing happened. The same has happened in the vast majority of controversial cases since then.

Even if you and I agree on what the underlying standards are in this case, those standards have to be applied. My point, which you keep on ignoring, is that in the cases where no body is empowered to make these determinations, there can be no real violation of international law. This is why international law (as relates to the general use of force) has not developed much past Art. II(4) of the UN charter. Unless a convention clearly precludes something and provides an international body with authority to regulate violations, we're essentially in "might makes right" territory.
Then using the Caroline Affair is a horrible example for you to use because it only details why Israel was wrong with its preemptive self-defense. Was there no moment of deliberation while the ships were in the high seas? Their threat to Israel's sovereignty was imminent? The boarding of the ship was a necessity that could not be resolved through alternative means? Preemptive doctrine has requirements as well.
And which article is that?
Article 6. Jesus...
And you've yet to offer an explanation.
Forcefully boarding a humanitarian vessel engaged in a humanitarian relief mission in international waters is not something that Israel does regularly.
And now you're seeing my point. Your opinion on whether something violates a convention is irrelevant. For something to be illegal, someone with authority to enforce/apply/interpret the law must say it is. I'm still waiting for you to offer any evidence of this.
This is a current event. Israel has rejected all requests for an impartial investigation. Even requests from the UNSC. You are asking for something that won't reasonably happen for months or even years. That does not change the fact that this is still a discussion board and that this thread discusses the legality of the Israeli raid. We can still discuss the legality of the boarding/blockade without having to discuss if any of it will be enforced.
Again, I'm not using San Remo as a defense for anything. I'm responding to the claim that it precludes it. As I mentioned above, the default rule is that everything not explicitly precluded is okay.
That is not true. Mind showing where this "default rule" you mentioned comes from? Is it a standard that is derived from international law? It sure is hell isn't.
I'm still not sure what you're referring to, as nothing in my statement that you quoted made any reference, explicit or implied, to any language dealing with merchant vessels.
Short term memory loss?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...6-legality-israeli-raid-3.html#post1058788247
The very first thing you discuss is the seizure of ships that are intent on running a blockade. First thing I told you was that it is not any ship, it is only enemy merchant vessels. Next thing I said was that the vessel was not a merchant vessel as it fell under the class of a humanitarian vessel engaged in a humanitarian relief mission. Last thing I noted was that San Remo applies to a state of armed conflict. If it uses San Remo as a defense, it is a stating that the flag State of the ship is an enemy and is part of this state of armed conflict. This has been brought up numerous times in many of the publications that have highlighted this current event very recently.
And once again, read Art. 48.
Once again, provide proof that a humanitarian vessel must be required to submit to inspection on the high seas.
Like several parts of my post, I've addressed this already.

"You're reading far too much into this language. The Convention simply says that no state may subject the seas to its sovereignty, which is best read as a default rule directed at attempts to claim total control of swaths of international water, not as an absolute rule forbidding all actions on international water not listed in the Convention.

This reading is bolstered by the many, many treaties and conventions that have set forth ground rules for the interactions of ships in international water, several of which have been mentioned here. If the GCHS had truly meant to preclude any state from taking any action in international water, then there would have been no need for any of these treaties to discuss international waters, as the issue would have been resolved.

In addition, decades of practice have made it exceedingly clear that the Convention should be read in this fashion. The Convention was drafted in 1958. Since then, there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of situations where one nation took an action that interfered with another ship while in international waters. That alone is insufficient to constitute a violation of the Convention."
Again with the default rule nonsense. No where does the article mention anything about total control of swaths of international water. In fact, the article is very clear in its meaning when it says any part of the high seas.

The fact that there have been incidents before dealing with vessels boarded/attacked/harrassed in international waters does not change the specific details of this event. There is no precedent where a humanitarian vessel of a nuetral State was boarded in international waters.`
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The International Court of Justice. They haven't said anything because this is still a current event and Israel has rejected all requests for an impartial, independent investigation that may subsequently lead to the ICJ.

Can you link me to the part of the San Remo Manual that gives the ICJ jurisdiction over this dispute? I'm looking and looking and I must be missing it.

Give me one reason why SUA does not apply.

I have explained this over and over and over and over and you just ignore it. This is it.

The rest of the SUA only applies where there is a violation of Art. III. Art. III requires illegality. The rest of the statute cannot satisfy an element of the statute.

The ICJ. They have already issued an advisory opinion stating the blockade was illegal. Israel was lucky it was only an advisory opinion thanks to the US.

The ICJ. They have already issued an advisory opinion stating the blockade was illegal. Israel was lucky it was only an advisory opinion thanks to the US.

Can you also link me to the provision that gives the ICJ jurisdiction over this case? Thanks.

I want you to tell me if the collateral damage from boarding these ships was proportional to the direct military advantage Israel gained from this.

I'm telling you that it doesn't matter one eensy bit whether you think it's proportional, because you're not a sovereign state. Israel is, and they believed it was necessary. Who has the authority to say they were wrong? Can you provide me a link?

Then using the Caroline Affair is a horrible example for you to use because it only details why Israel was wrong with its preemptive self-defense. Was there no moment of deliberation while the ships were in the high seas? Their threat to Israel's sovereignty was imminent? The boarding of the ship was a necessity that could not be resolved through alternative means? Preemptive doctrine has requirements as well.

A breach of their military blockade by these ships was imminent. How else could the ships have been prevented from passing other than by boarding? It seemed to work perfectly well on 6 of the 7 ships that have tried.

Article 6. Jesus...

:shock:

Yes, I'm aware that you're referring to an Article 6. I'm asking you which Article 6 you're referring to, because the one in the SUA doesn't apply, as I've explained a dozen times.

This is a current event. Israel has rejected all requests for an impartial investigation. Even requests from the UNSC. You are asking for something that won't reasonably happen for months or even years. That does not change the fact that this is still a discussion board and that this thread discusses the legality of the Israeli raid. We can still discuss the legality of the boarding/blockade without having to discuss if any of it will be enforced.

How exactly do you propose we decide whether the law was broken if there is no body authorized to make a determination or enforce the law? You'll say that you think it was broken and I'll say that I think it wasn't, and the world will go on without giving a ****. That's about as productive as this discussion.

That is not true. Mind showing where this "default rule" you mentioned comes from? Is it a standard that is derived from international law? It sure is hell isn't.

Yes, yes it is. States are sovereign actors. The default rule, going back into the beginning of history, is that states can do whatever they want. Since then, states have signed various treaties that limit their actions. In that absence of limitations, those states operate in a state of nature.


Short term memory loss?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...6-legality-israeli-raid-3.html#post1058788247
The very first thing you discuss is the seizure of ships that are intent on running a blockade. First thing I told you was that it is not any ship, it is only enemy merchant vessels. Next thing I said was that the vessel was not a merchant vessel as it fell under the class of a humanitarian vessel engaged in a humanitarian relief mission.

Oy vey.

I'm not talking about merchant vessels. I have not mentioned merchant vessels once. The only part of the San Remo Manual that I'm referring to is Art. 47/48 which deals with humanitarian vessels, as that's what you're claiming they are. The fact that you say it is protected under Art. 47 does not mean that it cannot be interfered with ever.

Last thing I noted was that San Remo applies to a state of armed conflict. If it uses San Remo as a defense, it is a stating that the flag State of the ship is an enemy and is part of this state of armed conflict. This has been brought up numerous times in many of the publications that have highlighted this current event very recently.

For the last time, I'm not saying San Remo applies. I'm merely responding to the OP's claim.

Once again, provide proof that a humanitarian vessel must be required to submit to inspection on the high seas.

That's not the right argument. Provide proof that all such vessels are immune from inspection regardless of where it goes simply because the people on board claim that it constitutes humanitarian aid (Note: Citing Art. 47 is not a response to this)

Again with the default rule nonsense. No where does the article mention anything about total control of swaths of international water. In fact, the article is very clear in its meaning when it says any part of the high seas.

The fact that there have been incidents before dealing with vessels boarded/attacked/harrassed in international waters does not change the specific details of this event.

Yea, it does. That's what international practice is comprised of: international practice.

There is no precedent where a humanitarian vessel of a nuetral State was boarded in international waters.

And for the last time, the fact that you say that you would classify this ship as humanitarian aid does not change the fact that Israel believes it did not qualify.
 
S

samsam

The honorable writer seems to be "an expert" in international law. But any discussion must be based on real facts. So the so call four opening "facts" that you mentioned must be challenged.
Fact 1: "the Attack"? Who decided that this was an attack by Israeli navy? Israeli navy call the flotilla on the radio as the naval procedures requires. The flotilla was on its way to Israeli security waters, accepted by international community including Egypt and NATO. The "friendly response from thr "mavi Marmara was :"Shut up, go back to Auschwitz, we are here to help Arabs, remember9/11". This is "purely according to the normal naval procedure in an area that few months ago a vessel carrying tons of weapons to Hizbulla/Lebanon was intercepted by the same navy. So the Marmara was not harmed by the navy, instead, soldiers came with paintball guns to avoid casualties. How attacked them? The "nurses" and "aid workers" that used knives (probably for medical intention to "cure" the Israeli soldiers) metal polls, stones and any other cold weapon they prepared in advance. So the attack by the organized mob of Turkes (the proof will be given shortly) indeed was in international waters.
Fact 2: No firearms? By testimony of a Turkish officer he saw weapons thrown to the sea after the "attack" on the way to Ashdod. Furthermore: remains of bullets, not from Israeli commando weapons were found on board the Mavi Marmara. Buy why bother with this facts? The mob, who by extreame violence seized few pistols from the beaten soldiers, shot the soldiers. How can you explain gunfire wounds Israeli soldiers suffered? But again, why bother with shooting: one can be killed, and some of the mob's people indeed declared on Iranian press, prior to sailing that they are here to fight and become "shahids" – martyrs. So they try to kill with knives, beating, strangling and throwing soldiers from the Upper deck on their heads. The "fact" that no firearms where not found do not mean that there were not used against the soldiers and is really not relevant when somebody, well trained in hand combat, tries to kill you.
Fact 3: Just read the paragraph above: when the operation started the soldiers use paintballs. Did you ever imagine that a commando is taking over a mob will be so restrained? Guns were used by the soldiers only when they came under life danger. When you fight mercenaries that do their utmost to kill you, you do not have a choice. How else can you explain that although it was against Israel's interest to kill the "peace activists", there were lethal casualties? It was only the in mob's interest that there will be dead on board to support the falsified claim of Israeli "aggression". I wrote "mercenaries": On each body of the so called "peace activists" that were killed by the soldiers, the soldiers found a similar envelope with the exact amout of 10K USD. If this is not a payment for participation in the orcastrated provocation, that what is it?
Fact 4: "Humanitarian"??? Fact 4A: on the "mavi Marmara there was nothing to deliver to the poor people of Gaza. Empty vessel, in terms of "humanitarian merchandize". On the other five vessels there is some humanitarian goods. But Hamas, the leaders of the "poor people in need in Gaza" refuse to take it. It seems that their claim about "humanitarian crisis" is a not very true. The amount of the goods on the five ships comes to one fifth of the daily goods delivered by Israel to Gaza. So there was nothing humanitarian in the flotilla. What was the flotilla purpose?
Brutal provocation to the end the Israeli control on goods brought to Gaza. This was clearly declared by the organizers. They refused to all offers by Israel to deliver the "humanitarian goods" after security checks. Why? Didn't they want to give some "humanitarian aid" to their fellow suffering in Gaza?
Now let's ask the next question: Why is Israel insisting on checking all merchandize coming to Gaza? Haven't you any idea about the thousand of rockets that Hamas launched towards Israeli civilians for eight years? Did you know about Hamas founding declaration that the first aim of this organization is to destroy the state of Israel (sorry – the Zionist entity, it is impossible to them to pronounce the word "Israel"). What would the honorable "international law expert" has to say about the right to defend yourself? About attacks directed specifically to kill and terrorize civilians?
Why did Israel tighten the closure? Here is another point to the so called "expert in international law": Hamas is holding for four years a prisoner of war (if I accept their version) or you can call it an hostage, in mafia style jail and terms. No visit of red-cross, no letter from and to his parents, few signs of life only as a bargaining card and a demoralization method. What can you say (or did you ever say something) about this fact?
Hamas, the flotilla and the Turkish government were not "innocent" at all in this case. The help from the Turkish authorities is part of a big plan by Turkey to join force with the axis of evil (Iran, Syria, Hamas) because of Islamic ideology. The took advantage of other innocent people that in some circumstances can be called "peace activists". But those activists that were on the other five ships did not behave in such a brutal way as the bunch of mobs on the Mavi Marmara. Even on this vessel, the real peace activists did not see the attack because the organized mob did not let them to move freely to the decks. Now those activists, who saw only the casualties and not what realy happened (they heard shots, they did not know that the first shots were from paintball guns) and now they will not testify against their original interest: To internationally embrace Israel.
And finally to your last requirement: to establish an inquiry by the UN human right committee. This committee is led by the democratic automatic majority of liberal state as Libya, Iran, North Korea, Sudan etc.. Most of the committee's decisions since it's establishment, were anti-Israeli in their nature. Most of the discussions are about Israel, as the are no human right violation in large scale in Sudan, China, Chechniya, Tibet, Iran, North Korea. So why should Israel accept an inquiry by this body?
Long live Israel!!!!
 
Top Bottom