Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

Additionally, José María Ruiz Soroa, a Spanish expert in Admiralty law, said that Israel is not entitled according to International Law to constrain the freedom of navigation of any ship on the high seas, except in a number of situations that do not apply to the Gaza flotilla case. Blockade is not a valid reason as it is a concept only applicable to war situations. He also mentioned that Israel's action is a breach of the UN International Maritime Organization Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA), which was signed by Israel in April 2009. According to the article 6.1 of the SUA, the jurisdiction over the offences that a ship might have committed lays in the State whose flag the ship is flying (in this situation, Turkey).

Click to expand...

Article 14

Any State Party having reason to believe that an offence set forth in article 3 will be committed shall, in accordance with its national law, furnish as promptly as possible any relevant information in its possession to those States which it believes would be the States having established jurisdiction in accordance with article 6.

Click to expand...

Article 6

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 3 when the offence is committed:

(a) against or on board a ship flying the flag of the State at the time the offence is committed;

Click to expand...

reefedjib said:

So you admit that it was illegal for the ships to attempt to break the blockade?

Click to expand...

reefedjib said:

What starving?

I think Israel should deport all Palestinians from Gaza to the West Bank and raze it to the ground and build settlements.

Click to expand...

kaya'08 said:

Is that your justification? Weak argument. Israel should not have intervened in international waters. Simple.

Click to expand...

GWEN IFILL: Was the ship in international waters?

MICHAEL OREN: It was.

GWEN IFILL: Is that -- was that breaking the law for the Israeli military to board the ship in international waters, what so many people at the U.N. were saying that today?

MICHAEL OREN: It is not.

Under international law, when there's a case of a military blockade against a hostile entity -- and we are talking about a hostile entity -- this is -- this is Hamas in Gaza, a country under Article 51 of the United Nations charter, the right to self-defense, has a right to defend itself self.

By the same articles of war, the United States blockaded Germany during World War II in the open seas. Israel was well within its international rights.

Click to expand...

reefedjib said:

What starving?

I think Israel should deport all Palestinians from Gaza to the West Bank and raze it to the ground and build settlements.

Click to expand...

bhkad said:

Israeli Ambassador: Soldiers Had 'No Choice But to Defend Themselves' | PBS NewsHour | May 31, 2010 | PBS

Click to expand...

bhkad said:

Israeli Ambassador: Soldiers Had 'No Choice But to Defend Themselves' | PBS NewsHour | May 31, 2010 | PBS

Click to expand...

kaya'08 said:

You mean swollen stomachs from malnutrition right?
Im not saying Israel has every right to kill and destroy every Hamas son of a bitch there is. Hell, id support them all the way. But the jews are becoming too damn trigger happy, its hurting there international relations, they are becoming an American foriegn policy burden....they need a new approach to Gaza. They need to end the complete blockade and revise a new solution. Starving them out isn't working.

Click to expand...

MICHAEL OREN: Well, certainly to provoke, not to provide humanitarian aid.

Over the past several days, Israel has been engaged in intense diplomacy to try to convince the participants in the flotilla to transfer the humanitarian aid in their cargo holds to Israel. And Israel vowed to transfer that aid to Gaza. About 100 trucks of humanitarian aid, food and medicine go into Gaza every day. There's no shortage of food in Gaza. There's no shortage of immediate in Gaza. This would have been additional aid.

And we would have been happy to transfer it on. But the purpose of this flotilla wasn't to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza. It was to make a political statement and to provoke Israel into blockading the flotilla from arriving to Gaza.

The -- if they had wanted really to aid the people of Gaza, they would have given us the humanitarian aid.

Click to expand...

Degreez said:

Nice to know you think Israel should violate the Geneva Conventions. Every great idea starts off with violating international law. Keep up the great work.

Click to expand...

Degreez said:

Un ilícito internacional · ELPAÍS.com
Blockade is not a valid reason as it is a concept only applicable to war situations.

Click to expand...

kaya'08 said:

This ship came from Greek Cyprus, not bloody Syria. There where no weapons, there was no guns. The footage shows no proof of any of your claims. There where 2 british journalists on the ship who got killed. One german man also gave a first hand account on the violent approach and technique of the IDF on the ship to the BBC. I find it hard to believe a collective group of journalists and activists are lying, but i find it very believable the IDF, a government institution is waffling. The same institution which denies any existence of nuclear bombs and the stealing of western passports even though impartial investigations in the West have seen various Israeli diplomatics removed.

Click to expand...

Degreez said:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...a-flotilla-says-hamas-103.html#post1058784226

Click to expand...

Degreez said:

Un ilícito internacional · ELPAÍS.com
Blockade is not a valid reason as it is a concept only applicable to war situations.

Click to expand...

kaya'08 said:

Thats right, the aid flotilla is making a political statement. That statement is, the gaza strip cannot be blocked out, isolated or forgotten about forever. The international community wants it removed, and what a great way to challenge this blockade. It may have failed but it sure as hell lifted a few eyebrows and shifted people's attention. There where protests in Turkey, Greece, UK and so on. They got what they wanted, and the consquences of Israel's actions will become clear in the coming days. There's no shortage of rations in gaza, by the way. Not proper food. The blockade has unfortunately completely improvished the region. Is it any wonder they have turned to psychotic jihadist governments?

Click to expand...

Infinite Chaos said:

I'm aware of the point of view that none of the bodies have any authority - however what I want is examples of actual resolution that show bias against Israel. Any explanation (I know I'm asking a lot) of why the resolutions show bias would help.

Click to expand...

Basically, we're saying the same thing but from different viewpoints. The flotilla organisers have no interest in the tunnels along the Gaza border with Egypt – also that would involve Hamas which is counterproductive. And as I said in earlier posts, it's not possible to bring in the aid required in quantity required through the tunnels.

Click to expand...

kaya'08 said:

According to Israel which is highly irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Degreez said:

Un ilícito internacional · ELPAÍS.com


Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (Rome 1988)

The appropriate response would have been to contact the Turkish governmnent and request to board by providing credible evidence. They did not do this, despite signing this same Convention last year.

Click to expand...

That convention is entirely inapplicable here. Not only is it designed to target individual non-state actors, but you're missing a key provision:

Article 3
1. Any person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and intentionally:...

Click to expand...

The Convention doesn't create any new crimes, it simply creates a remedy for things that are already crimes under international law. Citing this convention as proof that the action was illegal is circular reasoning.

Click to expand...

kaya'08 said:

When the blockade is deemed illegal by the international community, the rules change boyo.

Click to expand...

reefedjib said:

What starving?

I think Israel should deport all Palestinians from Gaza to the West Bank and raze it to the ground and build settlements.

Click to expand...

RightinNYC said:

My understanding is that Israel allows all sorts of aid materials to enter Gaza via land. Someone cited 100 trucks/day, though I'm not sure of the details on that.

Click to expand...

MICHAEL OREN: Well, certainly to provoke, not to provide humanitarian aid.

Over the past several days, Israel has been engaged in intense diplomacy to try to convince the participants in the flotilla to transfer the humanitarian aid in their cargo holds to Israel. And Israel vowed to transfer that aid to Gaza. About 100 trucks of humanitarian aid, food and medicine go into Gaza every day. There's no shortage of food in Gaza. There's no shortage of immediate in Gaza. This would have been additional aid.

And we would have been happy to transfer it on. But the purpose of this flotilla wasn't to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza. It was to make a political statement and to provoke Israel into blockading the flotilla from arriving to Gaza.

The -- if they had wanted really to aid the people of Gaza, they would have given us the humanitarian aid.

Click to expand...

donsutherland1 said:

Unlike inspecting the flotilla, mass deportation/transfer of Gaza's population would be illegal under international law. Aside from the requirements of international law, it would not be practical for Israel to attempt to deport some 1.6 million people. Furthermore, such a move could destabilize Jordan, which is at peace with Israel.

Click to expand...

bhkad said:

Michael Oren says that Gaza's ruling party, Hamas, is a hostile entity and under that interpretation the blockade and the flotilla boarding was legal. It's the law that made it legal for us to blockade and board ships bound for Germany in WWII.

Click to expand...

RightinNYC said:

This has been addressed in another thread. Read Art. III of the convention.

Click to expand...

Article 3

1. Any person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and intentionally:

(a) seizes or exercises control over a ship by force or threat thereof or any other form of intimidation; or

(b) performs an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or

(c) destroys a ship or causes damage to a ship or to its cargo which is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or

(d) places or causes to be placed on a ship, by any means whatsoever, a device or substance which is likely to destroy that ship, or cause damage to that ship or its cargo which endangers or is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or

(e) destroys or seriously damages maritime navigational facilities or seriously interferes with their operation, if any such act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of a ship; or

(f) communicates information which he knows to be false, thereby endangering the safe navigation of a ship; or

(g) injures or kills any person, in connection with the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offences set forth in subparagraphs (a) to (f).

2. Any person also commits an offence if that person:

(a) attempts to commit any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1; or

(b) abets the commission of any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1 perpetrated by any person or is otherwise an accomplice of a person who commits such an offence; or

(c) threatens, with or without a condition, as is provided for under national law, aimed at compelling a physical or juridical person to do or refrain from doing any act, to commit any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1, subparagraphs (b), (c) and (e), if that threat is likely to endanger the safe navigation of the ship in question.

Click to expand...

Degreez said:

That is exactly what the Israeli commandos did, so you seem to be confused about the applicability of Article 3.

Click to expand...

1. Any person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and intentionally:

(a) seizes or exercises control over a ship by force or threat thereof or any other form of intimidation; or

Click to expand...

And to say this Convention is inapplicable is laughable. This Convention will always apply to State signatories who conduct naval actions in the high seas.

Click to expand...

Degreez said:

Incorrect. Go reread the additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions which prohibit collective measures that do not distinguish between civilian and military. The blockade is a collective measure on the inhabitants of Gaza, where it doesn't matter if you are civilian or Hamas, there is no distinction.

Click to expand...

RightinNYC said:

Reread what you just posted.

(a) is a subpart of heading 1. That means that the language in heading 1. applies to all following letters. The only way that (a) applies is if the conditions in 1. are met. Since 1. requires "unlawful" action, the only way that this convention applies is if illegality is proved in some other fashion.

It's a Convention designed to provide a remedy, not to create new crimes. It's relatively common.

It's certainly applicable in situations where its conditions are met. This is not one.

Click to expand...

Article 14

Any State Party having reason to believe that an offence set forth in article 3 will be committed shall, in accordance with its national law, furnish as promptly as possible any relevant information in its possession to those States which it believes would be the States having established jurisdiction in accordance with article 6.

Click to expand...

Article 6

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 3 when the offence is committed:

(a) against or on board a ship flying the flag of the State at the time the offence is committed; or

Click to expand...