Israeli military boards ship in Gaza flotilla

[HalcyonDays]

Well, S13 has said that next time they won´t be as gentle, I interpret it, no non-lethal guns but live ammo from the start.
9 dead, 8 turkish and 1 US citizen, guess the economical downturn is on the turkish side,
511k Israeli tourists visited Turkey in 2008, many gamble a lot on the casinos since casinos are banned in Israel.

I think Turkey is playing a much longer strategic game than worrying about the loss of a few tourists.

[EconomyClass]

Anyone know how far out Israel is claiming territorial waters? I'm asking because I can't quite understand why they boarded outside territorial waters.

[EconomyClass]

Gaza was an integral part of Israel the way Arizona was an integral part of the USA when the Mexican-American War broke out. Lotta commonality between American and Israeli history. One might even find that America inspired Zionism just as American treatment of Indians inspired Hitler's treatment of Jews and Slavs.

[AirRabbit]

I think that if you check you will find that when a country is conducting a blockade and they notify approaching vessels that their destination is being blockaded and the proposed penetrators proceed in an attempt to “run the blockade,” they do so at their own risk. That was the situation here. Recall the Cuban blockade mounted by the United States keeping Russian ships from reaching Cuba? Same story. Both places. Israel was within their legal maritime rights. Additionally, the Israeli commanders broadcast a notification not only of the existence of the blockade, but offered an alternative port at which the “relief supplies” could be off-loaded and transported across established Gaza entry/exit points, and then allowing all the occupants of the “relief vessels” to re-board their own ships and go about their business. The “relief vessels” declined the offer and indicated that their destination was Gaza. No doubt in my mind that they got what they wanted … and if they try it again, they’ll get the same thing – only a bit smarter and a bit more directed.

[Petertenthije]

I think that if you check you will find that when a country is conducting a blockade and they notify approaching vessels that their destination is being blockaded and the proposed penetrators proceed in an attempt to “run the blockade,” they do so at their own risk. That was the situation here. Recall the Cuban blockade mounted by the United States keeping Russian ships from reaching Cuba? Same story.

A blockade has no legal basis. There is no article in maritime law that permits a unilateral blockade. A blockade is only allowed when sanctioned by the UN Security Council. In essence a blockade is a game of high stake bluff poker.

In the case of a blockade there are three options:

1) The runner is allowed through, end of bluff poker. This happened for instance during the Berlin airlift.
2) The runner is boarded and sent back. The act of boarding a vessel is already enough to be interpreted as an act of war.
3) The runner does not risk it, and returns home. For instance the Cuban blockade you mentioned.

Everyone always says that the Cuba missile crisis was the moment the world stood closest to nucealr armageddon. In the case of the Cuban blockade the USSR caved in since they knew that at best the result would be a draw (nuclear war leaves no winners).

In the case of the Gaza blockade the protestors probably figured the IDF would not shoot at civilians. But since Israel believes they can get away with anything as long as the USA continues their unconditional support, they still went in.

[AirRabbit]

A blockade has no legal basis. There is no article in maritime law that permits a unilateral blockade. A blockade is only allowed when sanctioned by the UN Security Council. In essence a blockade is a game of high stake bluff poker.

In the case of a blockade there are three options:

1) The runner is allowed through, end of bluff poker. This happened for instance during the Berlin airlift.
2) The runner is boarded and sent back. The act of boarding a vessel is already enough to be interpreted as an act of war.
3) The runner does not risk it, and returns home. For instance the Cuban blockade you mentioned.

Article 11 paragraph 1 of the Covenant of the League of Nations states-

(in the event of war or threat of war the League should) take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations.

Article 42 of the UN Charter states:

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 51 of the UN Charter states:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Under international law, a maritime blockage is recognized as a legitimate tool during a time of armed conflict. Certainly no one would argue that a "state of armed conflict" exists between Israel and those representing themselves as "Palestinians." As such, a blockade may be imposed at sea, including international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states. International maritime law clearly states that when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats - including both civilian and enemy - can enter the blockaded area. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured over even attacked under international law.

[Petertenthije]

Article 11 paragraph 1 of the Covenant of the League of Nations states-
(in the event of war or threat of war the League should) take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations.

It is not up to inidividual member states (Israel) to impose blockades. It's up to the league, ergo the UN Security Council. When the UNSC gives their approval, any UN member state, including Israel, can join the party.

Article 42 of the UN Charter states:
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

In clearly states that a blockade, or other military action, is valid if the UN Security Council gives its approval. That's why the blockade of Korea was valid, it was a UN approved operation.

[AirRabbit]

Petertenthije:

The reference you quoted allows the UN to set up a blockade if they decide that is in the best interests of the area. It does not, however, negate the content of Article 51. I respectfully suggest you re-read Article 51 of the UN Charter ... specifically where it says " Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack ocurs against a Member of the United Nations..." With respect, that means Israel (a member of the UN) had, and continues to have, every legal right, under the UN Charter (even IF the UN is NOT the ultimate authority for the world) to establish, and maintain, a blockade of Gaza. Additionally, the Israeli forces offered those who intended to "run" the blockade an alternative port where they could unload their cargo and Israel would allow non-military goods to freely pass into Gaza through established entry points. This offer was refused.

[Petertenthije]

You've got a point, but still it's a mayor grey area.

For starters, neutral ships have free passage. Blockade or not. Take for example WW2 prior to the USA entering the battle. Ships from the USA could sail to the UK without problems. German submarines could not touch them. They did shoot a few US vessels from time to time, but these where always followed by (political) response from the USA. At the time the USA was not willing/ready to join the war so no war was declared, but the option was open to them. Likewise, ships flying the Swiss flag (yes, landlocked Switerzerland!) sailed freely in and out of occupied Europe.

It is well documented that the US vessel carried weapons to the UK. Likewise the Swiss and other neutral parties probably carried shipped weapons as well. But unless there was proof in advance there was not much the Kriegsmarine could do. Much the same as how a police officer can't barge into your house unless they got a search permit (in this context comparable to UNSC approval).

The ships bringing the supplies to Gaza where from neutral to openly Israeli friendly countries. Turkey, Denmark, Ireland; a few more. Not from openly hostile countries towards Israel. It could perhaps be debated if the organisation(s) that chartered the ships are openly hostile. I don't know enough about them to go into that.

Be that as it may, I've read the whole of chapter seven and basically it says that Israel can do whatever it wants until the UN says they will take steps to secure the peace. The UNSC should do so in a timely manner, although what their definition is of timely has been left out (typical bureaocrats!). So consider this my official admission that a blockade in itself is a temporary lawful tool as long as neutral vessels are allowed passage.

The blockade in general has been condemned and thus declared unlawful. Please refer to the below UN statement:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33334&Cr=gaza&Cr1

Should that not be sufficient I would like to point you to below UN resolution A/HRC/RES/14/1 (note, opens as word document). Particulary point 5 and 6.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/RES-14-1.doc

This should pretty much mean the end to the blockade. But considering that Israel is still stopping ships, cars, trucks, donkey-carts etc, they probably did not get the message.

[Highkeas]

............... Take for example WW2 prior to the USA entering the battle. Ships from the USA could sail to the UK without problems. German submarines could not touch them. They did shoot a few US vessels from time to time, but these where always followed by (political) response from the USA. At the time the USA was not willing/ready to join the war so no war was declared, but the option was open to them. .......................................

According to the US merchant marine 17 ships were sunk (most by torprdo) prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and at least 243 mariners were killed.
http://www.usmm.org/casualty.html

[Gabriel]

The thing is... all the countries (Iran, Korea, China, UK, USA... and Israel) give a shit about what the UN charter, the security council, the decolonization council, or whoever says if that's against their interests, especially if they feel that no effective action against them will be taken.

As I said before I don't like how Israel is managing the issue in the long term. But given the situation it finds itself (and Israel is the major responsible for being in this situation), there is not much else that it could do in the short term.

They controlled Gaza.
Then they left Gaza (including expelling their own people by force).
And then commandos entered and kidnapped soldiers.
And then hundreds of rockets were launched (rockets that entered Gaza somehow), during months and years.
And the Gaza government did nothing to prevent of stop that. In fact they were the ones behind it.
And neither did the UN to stop thart.
And then Israel enters by force and, after killing thousands and destroying lots of infraestructure and depots, controls the situation again (in the sense that it stops the rain of rokets).
And Gaza is still ruled by the same "political" (?) group that says that its objective is to wipe Israel from the map.

In that situation, if I have the power to enforce it, I'd give a shit at whether the UN likes it or not. Nothing enters Gaza if I don't see it first.

And again, this is not an acceptable solution to me. But an unavoidable short term containment action until a solution is found.

What I don't like is that I don't see Israel working hard to get to a long term solution.

[AirRabbit]

The blockade in general has been condemned and thus declared unlawful. Please refer to the below UN statement:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...34&Cr=gaza&Cr1
Should that not be sufficient I would like to point you to below UN resolution A/HRC/RES/14/1 (note, opens as word document). Particulary point 5 and 6.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies...n/RES-14-1.doc
This should pretty much mean the end to the blockade. But considering that Israel is still stopping ships, cars, trucks, donkey-carts etc, they probably did not get the message.

Again, just pointing out the facts, the two documents you cite are from an inter-governmental body operating from within the United Nations System, known as Human Rights Council, which cannot be considered as being “from the United Nations.” According to other human rights groups, the council is controlled by a bloc of Islamic and African states, backed by China, Cuba and Russia, who protect each other from criticism. UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and former High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson have criticized the council for acting according to political considerations as opposed to human rights. Specifically, Secretaries General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon, the council's president Doru Costea, the European Union, Canada and the United States have accused the council of focusing disproportionately and negatively on Israel. This, after Israel had attempted, for a number of years, to exchange land for peace (via the Oslo Accord). However, this unilateral withdrawal of all Israeli soldiers did not achieve the peace that was promised. Palestinian militants increased their attacks on Israeli cities and towns via suicide bombers (primarily from Hamas and Jihad Islamic movements) and indiscriminate launching of rockets into Israel. European Union monitors fled the Rafah Border Crossing, on the Gaza–Israel border, for fear of being kidnapped or harmed, and both Israel and Egypt closed their border crossings with Gaza. I believe they both remain closed today. All this sounds like really good reasons for stopping all traffic to ensure that militant goods are not delivered into an area that is positioned in such proximity to Israeli citizens.

[Alessandro]

The thing is... all the countries (Iran, Korea, China, UK, USA... and Israel) give a shit about what the UN charter, the security council, the decolonization council, or whoever says if that's against their interests, especially if they feel that no effective action against them will be taken.

As I said before I don't like how Israel is managing the issue in the long term. But given the situation it finds itself (and Israel is the major responsible for being in this situation), there is not much else that it could do in the short term.

They controlled Gaza.
Then they left Gaza (including expelling their own people by force).
And then commandos entered and kidnapped soldiers.
And then hundreds of rockets were launched (rockets that entered Gaza somehow), during months and years.
And the Gaza government did nothing to prevent of stop that. In fact they were the ones behind it.
And neither did the UN to stop thart.
And then Israel enters by force and, after killing thousands and destroying lots of infraestructure and depots, controls the situation again (in the sense that it stops the rain of rokets).
And Gaza is still ruled by the same "political" (?) group that says that its objective is to wipe Israel from the map.

In that situation, if I have the power to enforce it, I'd give a shit at whether the UN likes it or not. Nothing enters Gaza if I don't see it first.

And again, this is not an acceptable solution to me. But an unavoidable short term containment action until a solution is found.

What I don't like is that I don't see Israel working hard to get to a long term solution.

One soldier was taken hostage, rockets or mortars where made in Gaza, by swedish sponsored landposts among other things.
1960 Sweden had a UN force in Gaza, Egypt told them to leave, I think it´s time to send
another UN mission there.