The State of Israel has Seized the British Flagged Yacht Maureen in International Waters as it Sailed Towards Gaza.

[JMB1911A1]

Greta is a loon.

That is an insult to loons everywhere.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Israel’s post on this was awesome.

The ‘selfie yacht’ is safely making its way to the shores of Israel. The passengers are safe and were provided with sandwiches and water, and are expected to return to their home countries.

The tiny amount of aid that wasn’t consumed by the “celebrities” will be transferred to Gaza through real humanitarian channels.

 

[Sweden]

But the ship wasn't attempting to illegally enter waters. It's not illegal to enter Palestinian water.

No such thing as ''Palestinian water'.

 

[Aristaeus]

No such thing as ''Palestinian water'.

Wrong

 

[NWRatCon]

Wrong

Yes, but it's perfectly legitimate for right wing ideologues to post nonsense and you're not supposed to "fact" check it. Facts are inconvenient to their propaganda. (And it's hilarious when they don't even bother to read the cites they claim support their position. Pathetic, but hilarious.)

 

[reinaert]

Wrong

Maybe he means something like the subhumans, being subhuman, cannot ever be human enough to have their own waters?

 

[Apocalypse]

But the ship wasn't attempting to illegally enter waters. It's not illegal to enter Palestinian water.

Also the San Remo manual specifically states that food and medicine for civilians can't be used as justification for intercepting.

Well that's just wrong. There is no such thing as 'Palestinian water'. They have no sovereignty, otherwise people wouldn't be blubbering about a two-state solution.

Also, the moment they declared their intention is to breach the blockade on the terrorists-run territory, Israel could intercept their ship.

 

[Apocalypse]

Your linked article does not say that and the video is just one person's an opinion untested in international courts. So no, piracy is the better option until the courts accept this new doctrine.

What does international law say on it though?

The short answer is yes. Indeed, if there is a reasonable belief that a vessel intends to breach the blockade, then it can be interdicted even at a great distance. One might describe this as an “attempt” to breach a blockade. The Newport Manual describes situations of “attempt” to include where “a vessel sails towards the blockaded area with the intention of breaching the blockade” (para. 7.4.7(3)). That is, while the vessel did not actually breach the blockade (as Israel intercepted the vessel before it reached the blockade “line”), the Conscience was liable to interdiction and disruption due to its clearly stated intent.

Attack on the MV Conscience: Issues Related to Blockade Law - Lieber Institute West Point

The attack on the Conscience on the High Seas near Malta was unlawful if based on a blockade enforcement justification.

lieber.westpoint.edu

 

[Ganondagan]

Yes, that's very nice.

What does it have to do with Israel seizing ships in international waters?

So have the UN General Assembly pass another one of their toothless resolutions. Yawn, business as usual.

 

[Hamish Howl]

So have the UN General Assembly pass another one of their toothless resolutions. Yawn, business as usual.

View attachment 67573996

Or Britain gets a case of the ass and does something quiet and nasty. It would hardly be the first time.

I'm sorry you support piracy, though.

 

[Felis Leo]

So have the UN General Assembly pass another one of their toothless resolutions. Yawn, business as usual.

View attachment 67573996

Unfortunately for Israel, you are part of a steadily-dwindling minority of Americans, Ganondagan. I too was an Israel supporter. And not just a mere sentimentalist. I used to be a full on Zionist apologist on this board. No longer. So if a fairly staunch Zionist like myself could be moved to disgust with Israel and its actions and renounce them, I can only imagine what people whose sentiments were built on less-strong foundations might feel.

 

[NWRatCon]

What does international law say on it though?

Attack on the MV Conscience: Issues Related to Blockade Law - Lieber Institute West Point

The attack on the Conscience on the High Seas near Malta was unlawful if based on a blockade enforcement justification.

lieber.westpoint.edu

It's clear that you didn't read the article, but took something out of context from an article that clearly reaches the opposite conclusion. How unsurprisingly dishonest and detestable.

"Conclusion

On the facts available at this point, the attack on the Conscience on the High Seas near Malta was unlawful if based on a blockade enforcement justification. This is because the required preliminary step in enforcing a blockade against a vessel that has clearly indicated an intention to cross the blockade line is to first call upon it to heave to and subject itself to visit, or to comply with a diversion order.

Following this, the vessel and cargo in question would normally be subjected to prize jurisdiction to assess the validity of the capture and to determine condemnation (i.e., transfer of ownership to the capturing belligerent State). In terms of blockade law, a vessel’s clear refusal of an order to stop—as seems to be missing in the Conscience’s case—is necessary before the vessel’s status can shift to that of a military objective, at which point the blockading State has the option to attack."

For that, and the many other reasons outlined in the article*, the Israeli attack on, and kidnapping the crew of, the ship was unlawful. In short, piracy AND a war crime.

Add it to a very, very long list of other illegal activities and war crimes.

_____
*For example, inter alia, "If the naval blockade is (1) as comprehensive as the 2025 tightening seems to suggest, and (2) there is no rule mandating passage of humanitarian aid, and (3) the Israeli government’s 2025 statements are understood as imposing a policy depriving the civilian population of items essential to its survival as a way to secure the release of hostages, then the issue of “primary purpose” may render the naval blockade unlawful."

 

[Felis Leo]

Siege warfare is legal in international law, and it is aimed at Hamas not at the Gazan population as the fact that Israel seeks ways to get aid to civilians bypassing Hamas demonstrates. Try harder.

Israel is not engaged in siege warfare. There is no warfare. There is a shattered armed criminal gang with a few hostages and bodies left and a couple million civilians that Israel is continuing to starve and murder at random with the United States' support and blessing.

 

[Ganondagan]

Or Britain gets a case of the ass and does something quiet and nasty. It would hardly be the first time.

I'm sorry you support piracy, though.

I support Israel.

 

[Apocalypse]

Israel is not engaged in siege warfare. There is no warfare. There is a shattered armed criminal gang with a few hostages and bodies left and a couple million civilians that Israel is continuing to starve and murder at random with the United States' support and blessing.

Hamas propaganda nonsense, of course Israel engages in warfare, it defends itself against terrorists who are still holding hostages and has every justification in eliminating Hamas.

 

[Ganondagan]

Unfortunately for Israel, you are part of a steadily-dwindling minority of Americans, Ganondagan. I too was an Israel supporter. And not just a mere sentimentalist. I used to be a full on Zionist apologist on this board. No longer. So if a fairly staunch Zionist like myself could be moved to disgust with Israel and its actions and renounce them, I can only imagine what people whose sentiments were built on less-strong foundations might feel.

I do have strong foundations, you just disagree with them. Unfortunately anti-Israel participants on this forum still fail to understand the nature of this battle. I support Israel 100%

 

[Apocalypse]

It's clear that you didn't read the article, but took something out of context from an article that clearly reaches the opposite conclusion. How unsurprisingly dishonest and detestable.

"Conclusion

On the facts available at this point, the attack on the Conscience on the High Seas near Malta was unlawful if based on a blockade enforcement justification. This is because the required preliminary step in enforcing a blockade against a vessel that has clearly indicated an intention to cross the blockade line is to first call upon it to heave to and subject itself to visit, or to comply with a diversion order.

Following this, the vessel and cargo in question would normally be subjected to prize jurisdiction to assess the validity of the capture and to determine condemnation (i.e., transfer of ownership to the capturing belligerent State). In terms of blockade law, a vessel’s clear refusal of an order to stop—as seems to be missing in the Conscience’s case—is necessary before the vessel’s status can shift to that of a military objective, at which point the blockading State has the option to attack."

For that, and the many other reasons outlined in the article*, the Israeli attack on, and kidnapping the crew of, the ship was unlawful. In short, piracy AND a war crime.

Add it to a very, very long list of other illegal activities and war crimes.

_____
*For example, inter alia, "If the naval blockade is (1) as comprehensive as the 2025 tightening seems to suggest, and (2) there is no rule mandating passage of humanitarian aid, and (3) the Israeli government’s 2025 statements are understood as imposing a policy depriving the civilian population of items essential to its survival as a way to secure the release of hostages, then the issue of “primary purpose” may render the naval blockade unlawful."

Breaking new levels of irony with that silly attempt, perhaps you should read what you're commenting on.
The article I quoted is not dealing with the Maureen - which is the subject discussed here - but with a different case and a different vessel from some time ago, one that there is no evidence Israel engaged to stop.

The point the article helped making - hence it was quoted - is that stopping a vessel in international waters is entirely expected and legal when enforcing a naval blockade, since the vessel declared its intention to break it.

 

[Ganondagan]

Hamas propaganda nonsense, of course Israel engages in warfare, it defends itself against terrorists who are still holding hostages and has every justification in eliminating Hamas.

There are people here who don't understand what is going on in that part of the worls. This is not just a battle over a few acres of land and freedom for a couple of million Palestinians. This is an existential battle between good and evil. Israel is just the tip of the spear right now.

 

[NWRatCon]

Here is a very clear explication of the illegality of Israel's actions:

There are clear laws on enforcing blockades – Israel’s interception of the Madleen raises serious questions

There are clear laws on enforcing blockades – Israel’s interception of the Madleen raises serious questions

Blockades may be used in wartime, but only if they meet 5 legal conditions. Have Israel’s actions complied with the law?

theconversation.com

"Under the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994), a blockade may be used in wartime, but only if five legal conditions are met:

• it must be formally declared and publicly notified
• it must be effectively enforced in practice
• it must be applied impartially to all ships
• it must not block access to neutral ports or coastlines
• it must not stop the delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians.

If even one of these conditions is not met, the blockade may be considered illegal under customary international humanitarian law.

The fifth condition is especially important here. According to a comprehensive study of international humanitarian law conducted by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the parties to a conflict must allow the rapid and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian relief to civilians in need.

A blockade that prevents this could be in breach of international law.

Israel and Egypt have imposed a blockade of varying degrees on Gaza since 2007 when Hamas came to power. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz claims the purpose of the blockade is to “prevent the transfer of weapons to Hamas”. Critics say it amounts to collective punishment.

The Madleen was operating in compliance with three binding International Court of Justice orders (from January 2024, March 2024 and May 2024) requiring unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza.
....
This is not the first time Israel has stopped an aid ship and faced accusations of violating the law of the sea and humanitarian law.

In 2010, the Israeli military raided a flotilla of six ships organised by international activists aiming to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza and challenge the blockade.

Violence broke out on the largest vessel, the Mavi Marmara, resulting in the deaths of nine Turkish nationals and injuries to dozens of others. The incident drew international condemnation. Israel agreed to ease its blockade after the incident.

A fact-finding mission established by the UN Human Rights Council found that Israel violated a number of international laws and that its blockade was “inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population”.

This is not just a political or moral issue – it’s a legal one. International law lays out clear rules for when and how a country can enforce blockades, intercept vessels and treat civilians."

 

[NWRatCon]

There are, I note, a considerable number of posters who can discuss any number of topics intelligently, in detail, with citations and cogent argument. Then there are the propagandists. They are so wedded to their schtick they will lie, distort, misstate, belittle, defame, and generally bullshit and bully their way through a multitude of threads and disrupt a discussion with a flood of crap to try to prevent it from occurring. Discerning participants know the difference.

 

[Apocalypse]

Here is a very clear explication of the illegality of Israel's actions:

There are clear laws on enforcing blockades – Israel’s interception of the Madleen raises serious questions

There are clear laws on enforcing blockades – Israel’s interception of the Madleen raises serious questions

Blockades may be used in wartime, but only if they meet 5 legal conditions. Have Israel’s actions complied with the law?

theconversation.com

"Under the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994), a blockade may be used in wartime, but only if five legal conditions are met:

• it must be formally declared and publicly notified
• it must be effectively enforced in practice
• it must be applied impartially to all ships
• it must not block access to neutral ports or coastlines
• it must not stop the delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians.

If even one of these conditions is not met, the blockade may be considered illegal under customary international humanitarian law.

The fifth condition is especially important here. According to a comprehensive study of international humanitarian law conducted by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the parties to a conflict must allow the rapid and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian relief to civilians in need.

A blockade that prevents this could be in breach of international law.

Israel and Egypt have imposed a blockade of varying degrees on Gaza since 2007 when Hamas came to power. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz claims the purpose of the blockade is to “prevent the transfer of weapons to Hamas”. Critics say it amounts to collective punishment.

The Madleen was operating in compliance with three binding International Court of Justice orders (from January 2024, March 2024 and May 2024) requiring unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza.
....
This is not the first time Israel has stopped an aid ship and faced accusations of violating the law of the sea and humanitarian law.

In 2010, the Israeli military raided a flotilla of six ships organised by international activists aiming to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza and challenge the blockade.

Violence broke out on the largest vessel, the Mavi Marmara, resulting in the deaths of nine Turkish nationals and injuries to dozens of others. The incident drew international condemnation. Israel agreed to ease its blockade after the incident.

A fact-finding mission established by the UN Human Rights Council found that Israel violated a number of international laws and that its blockade was “inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population”.

This is not just a political or moral issue – it’s a legal one. International law lays out clear rules for when and how a country can enforce blockades, intercept vessels and treat civilians."

Humanitarian aid (whatever was on that ship was called 'a symbolic amount' which amounts to almost nothing, which is expected when this was a political stunt) was routed through Ashdod port and into Gaza. The naval blockade on Hamas is in no violation, Israel's actions were legal and in compliance with international law (specifically the San Remo Manual).

 

[snakestretcher]

A silly 'look'at me' stunt by our national idiot, Greta Thunberg. The aid 'food aid' amount to less than half a truck load; over the last two weeks over a thousand trucks carrying food have entered Gaza from Israel.

It was a point of principle. She has the guts to make a point. When did you ever? Your claim of "over a thousand" trucks is a blatant lie-no doubt from an Israeli source.

Statement on WFP aid operations in Gaza | World Food Programme

Overnight, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) dispatched 59 trucks carrying life-saving food assistance intended for northern Gaza. The aid convoy, transporting 930 metric tons of wheat flour, was stopped along the way and offloaded by hungry civilians in critical need of food to feed...

www.wfp.org

 

[snakestretcher]

Humanitarian aid (whatever was on that ship was called 'a symbolic amount' which amounts to almost nothing, which is expected when this was a political stunt) was routed through Ashdod port and into Gaza. The naval blockade on Hamas is in no violation, Israel's actions were legal and in compliance with international law (specifically the San Remo Manual).

No. The ship was boarded in international waters, not Israeli territory. That is a crime; it's also a miracle the IDF didn't resort to shooting unarmed mariners as they did in 2010-also in international waters. Also a crime of piracy-and murder.

Israeli commandos kill activists on flotilla bound for Gaza

Ankara calls incident unacceptable as 10 members of aid convoy are killed during storming of Turkish ship in international waters

www.theguardian.com

 

[Sweden]

It was a point of principle. She has the guts to make a point. When did you ever? Your claim of "over a thousand" trucks is a blatant lie-no doubt from an Israeli source.

Statement on WFP aid operations in Gaza | World Food Programme

Overnight, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) dispatched 59 trucks carrying life-saving food assistance intended for northern Gaza. The aid convoy, transporting 930 metric tons of wheat flour, was stopped along the way and offloaded by hungry civilians in critical need of food to feed...

www.wfp.org

It takes guts for a posturing narcissist like Greta strike pose. She loves every minute in the spotlight.

 

[snakestretcher]

It takes guts for a posturing narcissist like Greta strike pose. She loves every minute in the spotlight.

Your opinion about someone you don't know and never met, is noted.