• 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!

Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

Alexa,

The situation will need to be investigated. All evidence will need to be examined.

Under 48(b), all that would be required is for Israel to be able to demonstrate that the ship's crew resisted the inspection. Medical records relating to the soldiers' injuries should help provide sufficient evidence. The International Red Cross can potentially assist on that front. When the individuals responsible for the violence are prosecuted, as they should be, additional information could be revealed.

What was found on the ship could address 48(a).

But only one of those conditions need to be satisfied.

In the meantime, a measure of patience will be required. One cannot immediately know all the facts.

Your sincerity is never in any doubt with me. I have misgivings. My misgivings come from the time when soldiers complained about how things that happened in the 2009 Gaza war and they were discredited and other such things.

In addition because the law on whether they could board or not seems to be very questionable, it will be Israel deciding.

Also Israel took over the ship.......I am sorry but for me unless there is really proof, I will take the inquiry with a pinch of salt.

If there is proof, then it will be different.

But hey, I am always like that. People are always innocent with me till proven guilty. One I can remember was a school caretaker arrested for the murder of two young girls here. He was not guilty to me but as the trial went on he definitely became guilty to me, as indeed he was.
 
Last edited:
The standard applies to "neutral waters." Neutral waters are defined as "the internal waters, territorial sea, and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of neutral States." Was the flotilla in Lebanese or Egyptian waters at the time of the incident? There is no evidence that it was in the waters of any other state. Hence, the visit/inspection was lawful.

They can't invoke international law if they haven't signed the treaty that defined the law.
 
So you're telling me that if this scenario had played out identically, but 24 miles from Israel's coast, you and everyone else who's up in arms about this would have no problem with what happened?

Somehow I doubt that it's the distance from shore that is causing all the agitation.

It's not just the fact that it was done in international waters, away from Israeli jurisdiction. It's the fact that they even attempted to forcefully board a humanitarian ship instead of rerouting it. There were half a dozen choices that could've been made. Don't blame me because Israel chose the most stupid one.
 
They can't invoke international law if they haven't signed the treaty that defined the law.


This isn't really an argument against what happened. If I refuse to sign a treaty that would limit my actions, that doesn't mean that I can't continue to do everything that I was able to to in the absence of the treaty.

Unless you can show that this treaty gave additional authority to those who signed it, then the fact that Israel didn't sign this treaty doesn't mean much of anything.
 
It's not just the fact that it was done in international waters, away from Israeli jurisdiction. It's the fact that they even attempted to forcefully board a humanitarian ship instead of rerouting it. There were half a dozen choices that could've been made. Don't blame me because Israel chose the most stupid one.

I'm not blaming you for anything.

How exactly should they have rerouted it? I'm under the impression that they told the convoy repeatedly that it would not be able to enter and that the convoy repeatedly told them to sit and spin. Everyone involved knew that they were not going to let themselves be rerouted except through the use of force, which is exactly why I have little sympathy for these people. They fully anticipated this type of incident.
 
This isn't really an argument against what happened. If I refuse to sign a treaty that would limit my actions, that doesn't mean that I can't continue to do everything that I was able to to in the absence of the treaty.

I realize it's not an argument against what happened. It is an argument against stating that Israel acted according to international law. In this case at least, since they didn't sign the treaty, they can't act according to international law. That's all I'm trying to say, that and the fact that they can't call upon international law to in any way legitimize what they did.

Unless you can show that this treaty gave additional authority to those who signed it, then the fact that Israel didn't sign this treaty doesn't mean much of anything.

The treaty is designed to authorize certain types of behavior and limit or eliminate others.

Israel, apparently not wanting to be bound by the treaty, didn't sign it. That's their right. They cannot, however, act as if their actions are legitimized by the treaty they haven't signed.
 
But hey, I am always like that. People are always innocent with me till proven guilty. One I can remember was a school caretaker arrested for the murder of two young girls here. He was not guilty to me but as the trial went on he definitely became guilty to me, as indeed he was.

Then why do you not assume the innocence of the Israelis?
 
I realize it's not an argument against what happened. It is an argument against stating that Israel acted according to international law. In this case at least, since they didn't sign the treaty, they can't act according to international law. That's all I'm trying to say, that and the fact that they can't call upon international law to in any way legitimize what they did.



The treaty is designed to authorize certain types of behavior and limit or eliminate others.

Israel, apparently not wanting to be bound by the treaty, didn't sign it. That's their right. They cannot, however, act as if their actions are legitimized by the treaty they haven't signed.

Treaties are not the foundations of international law, they are modifications to a pre-existing backdrop of customary law. The fact that a country refuses to sign treaties dealing with a particular field of law does not mean that it cannot act in accordance with international law - it can simply abide by those principles of customary law.

If Israel did not sign this treaty, it cannot say that its actions are legitimized by the treaty itself. However, I haven't seen anything to indicate that that's what they are claiming. Regardless of whether they signed the treaty, they can claim that their actions are in accordance with customary norms of international law. They can even refer to the treaty's language as a reference for what that customary law entails.
 
Then why do you not assume the innocence of the Israelis?

THat might require some real dedication to a principle rather than mere posturing.
 
The standard applies to "neutral waters." Neutral waters are defined as "the internal waters, territorial sea, and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of neutral States." Was the flotilla in Lebanese or Egyptian waters at the time of the incident? There is no evidence that it was in the waters of any other state. Hence, the visit/inspection was lawful.

The standard applies to international waters, not neutral waters.

UNCLOS and Agreement on Part XI - Preamble and frame index
Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).
 
They can't invoke international law if they haven't signed the treaty that defined the law.

The Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) is based on principles of international law that go as far back as the Hague Conventions. That Israel didn't sign the Convention does not mean that it lacks such jurisdiction as exists under international law. In short, while Israel cannot invoke the LOSC, it most definitely can invoke international law and the general principles relevant to the incident in question.
 
I'm not blaming you for anything.

How exactly should they have rerouted it? I'm under the impression that they told the convoy repeatedly that it would not be able to enter and that the convoy repeatedly told them to sit and spin. Everyone involved knew that they were not going to let themselves be rerouted except through the use of force, which is exactly why I have little sympathy for these people. They fully anticipated this type of incident.
By blocking their movement from entering Gaza's territorial waters. In international waters, they have no authority over them and cannot ask them to reroute.
 
Then why do you not assume the innocence of the Israelis?

I gave my reasons for my doubts over an Israel inquiry. Israel is the one making the accusations. I like to know more - the fuller story. I am quite good at judging when I hear everything. I have been quite right before about people who were indeed innocent and sent to jail but then years later got out on appeal.

Here is a picture where you can see someone swiping at a soldier with a metal bar
Israel releases footage of resistance to aid boat storming | News.com.au

but I also need to know why the person did this.
 
The standard applies to international waters, not neutral waters.

UNCLOS and Agreement on Part XI - Preamble and frame index

The standard you quote concerns only piracy. It does not concern the rights of states to inspect/visit ships. Enforcement of a blockade, even if one disagrees profoundly with the blockade, is not the same thing as piracy any less than a police officer's shooting a suspect who attacks him/her is not the same thing as a criminal's attacking a police officer.
 
This thread can only be summed up with one visual image.

brick.jpg
 
By blocking their movement from entering Gaza's territorial waters. In international waters, they have no authority over them and cannot ask them to reroute.

Once again, you're basing your objections on the fact that this happened in international waters, which is (IMO) not really the important issue.

Say that this entire incident had occurred 24 miles from Israel's border. Israel follows your advice and tries to prevent the ships from entering the water by blocking them or asking them to reroute. The ships refuse to be stopped and continue on their course.

How should they prevent them from going forward?
 
Treaties are not the foundations of international law, they are modifications to a pre-existing backdrop of customary law.

I'd agree with you if you said that treaties are not the foundations of international custom. If they aren't the foundations of international law, then what the devil is? I thought that treaties were agreements entered into by 2 or more nations, designed to define acceptable and unacceptable behavior on one or a range of subjects.

Where else could international law possibly come from?

If Israel did not sign this treaty, it cannot say that its actions are legitimized by the treaty itself. However, I haven't seen anything to indicate that that's what they are claiming. Regardless of whether they signed the treaty, they can claim that their actions are in accordance with customary norms of international law. They can even refer to the treaty's language as a reference for what that customary law entails.

My layman's understanding of international law in these circumstances is that the international law in question is defined by treaty. As such, to invoke the law is to invoke the treaty.

Israel's Foreign Minister has most certainly invoked international law to justify his nation's actions:

FM: 'boarding legal under int. law'
 
The Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) is based on principles of international law that go as far back as the Hague Conventions. That Israel didn't sign the Convention does not mean that it lacks such jurisdiction as exists under international law. In short, while Israel cannot invoke the LOSC, it most definitely can invoke international law and the general principles relevant to the incident in question.

What do you suppose Israel would say to any challenge to their behavior under international law as defined by a treaty which Israel didn't sign?

The United States, in a similar predicament, would give essentially the same response:

Kiss our ass.
 
This thread can only be summed up with one visual image.

Not sure why you think that, as the last few pages have primarily been populated with the most respectful and high-level debate I've seen here in a while.

"Sir, I would object to these actions on the grounds that they violated the UNCLOS Agreement"
"Sir, I do believe you are misapplying the principles of this treaty"

v.

"Nuh uh, PaliNAZI and her teabaggers don't understand how demcoracy works."
"lmao thats cuz were a REPUBIC, libtard!"
 
Not sure why you think that, as the last few pages have primarily been populated with the most respectful and high-level debate I've seen here in a while.

"Sir, I would object to these actions on the grounds that they violated the UNCLOS Agreement"
"Sir, I do believe you are misapplying the principles of this treaty"

v.

"Nuh uh, PaliNAZI and her teabaggers don't understand how demcoracy works."
"lmao thats cuz were a REPUBIC, libtard!"

The debate is good, but my point is that I don't feel that both sides can reconsile and come to an agreement on the subject.
 
Your sincerity is never in any doubt with me. I have misgivings. My misgivings come from the time when soldiers complained about how things that happened in the 2009 Gaza war and they were discredited and other such things.

IMO, it is in Israel's interest to be as transparent as possible when it comes to investigation(s) into the matter. To facilitate transparency, Israel could work with the International Red Cross, allow the EU/U.S. to examine the evidence, etc. It certainly would not require a lot of effort for Israel to allow the International Red Cross to obtain information concerning the soldiers' injuries, share forensic evidence with the EU/U.S., etc. Of course, like any sovereign state, they don't have to do so, but I believe it is very much in their interest to do so.

In addition because the law on whether they could board or not seems to be very questionable, it will be Israel deciding.

Under the San Remo Memorandum, not to mention customary international law, such visitations/inspections are legal. I highly doubt that any case on that issue will be heard by the International Court of Justice.
 
This thread can only be summed up with one visual image.

brick.jpg

That pretty much applies to any discussion regarding Israel.

Here you have the individuals upon a ship sponsored by an organization with direct ties to Al Qaeda attacking the Idf members who boarded it, and you have all the usual suspects lining up to show their solidarity with those on the ship.

Nothing at all surprising there.
 
I gave my reasons for my doubts over an Israel inquiry. Israel is the one making the accusations. I like to know more - the fuller story. I am quite good at judging when I hear everything.

Does the fact that the groups involved in the "humanitarian flotilla" consider themselves at war with Israel make a difference in your judging? That their stated intention was to cause an incident? That they were the ones with intent?
 
Once again, you're basing your objections on the fact that this happened in international waters, which is (IMO) not really the important issue.

Say that this entire incident had occurred 24 miles from Israel's border. Israel follows your advice and tries to prevent the ships from entering the water by blocking them or asking them to reroute. The ships refuse to be stopped and continue on their course.

How should they prevent them from going forward?

It is important in determining the legality of Israel's actions. There are several different questions to be answered about this incident.

Was it Legal? Probably.
Was it the boarding justified? Probably.
Was stopping the flotilla from reaching Gaza the right course? To my mind yes.
Was the boarding planned well? I suspect that it could have been done better.
Was Israel's use of force in the boarding appropriate? Dunno yet, not enough information.
Was the flotilla carrying weapons? Unknown.
Was the flotilla planned to create an incident? Almost certainly.

There are lots more.
 
Back
Top Bottom