Israel attacks aid ship

Sunny said:
I just don't see how anyone can't that understand that any Country launching a military operation and boarding a civillian ship in International waters is setting a very dangerous precedent.
Click to expand...

So when in April this year the Irish Navy boarded a Spanish vessel in international waters (not the EEZ) and escorted them into Castletownbere you would have supported the Spanish if they would have taken metal bars and hit the Irish Sailors, after all they were in international waters?

What are your criteria for outcry here? Its fine for the Irish to board a Spanish Vessel in international waters if they suspect it of fishing violations but it’s not fair for Israel to board a vessel that is trying to break a blockade?
 


It is an illegal blockade put in place by Israel not by any form of international law.
 
DublinTexas said:
Once it was clear that there were militants on board they should have either stopped trying to board or use other measurements to neutralize the militants.
Click to expand...

I dont know that there were "militants" as such on board. Ok they put up some resistance against armed intruders - and the repeated beating of someone on deck was disturbing (albeit I presume the soldier had a gun & those attacking might have been justifyably in fear of their lives). But its not like there was an Al Quaida cell or a Hamas troop on board, all armed to the teeth and lying in wait - just wasnt the case so I think the word militant is giving a misleading impression.

You'd imagine they could have blocked the ships without storming them - if the films are to be believed then you only storm something in an effort to prevent deaths of hostages or some other worse calamity- in this case no-one was in mortal danger until soldiers storm the ship under cover of darkness. Complete balls up on every level by the Israeli's.
 
RonanC said:
That is unreal !! I really doubt anyone in Ireland who supports the Palastinian struggle gives any support at all to Hamas. Show me one example of genuine support for ordinary palastinians and Hamas also.
Click to expand...

I have a problem with Irish people who claim to sympathise with the Palestinian people but direct their ire at Israel instead of Jordan, Syria and Egypt. What I hear from most of them is simpleminded “won’t somebody please think of the children!” type drivel instead of a logical discussion about what has caused the problem, who is prolonging it and, most importantly, whose interest the whole conflict serves.

People who put the whole blame, or even most of the blame, at the feet of Israel are morons, well meaning maybe but morons none the less.
 


Do you have a link? Did they try escaping into international waters? I doubt the Irish Navy just ventured into international waters, found a ship and then boarded it.

Your question should say breaking an illegal blockade.....
 
Sunny said:
There is nothing under PSI agreement that justifies the stopping and searching of these vessels. Show me where in the agreement, it allows it.
Click to expand...

You'll find the text here:

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c27726.htm

"(2) to enforce conditions on vessels entering or leaving their ports, internal waters or territorial seas that are reasonably suspected of carrying such cargoes, such as requiring that such vessels be subject to boarding, search, and seizure of such cargoes prior to entry."


The phrase "prior to entry" is the important one in this case - they do not have to wait until the vessel enters their territory to conduct a search. All that is needed is a reasonable assumption that the vessel is intending to enter. Nobody disputes that this vessel was intending to enter waters controlled by Israel.

Other sections of the PSI that may be relevant are as follows:

"1. Undertake effective measures, either alone or in concert with other states, for interdicting the transfer or transport of WMD, their delivery systems, and related materials to and from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern. "

Palestine/Hamas would be considered a "non-state actor of proliferation concern."

"c. To seriously consider providing consent under the appropriate circumstances to the boarding and searching of its own flag vessels by other states, and to the seizure of such WMD-related cargoes in such vessels that may be identified by such states."

We know that at least one of the ships was registered in Cambodia. We dont know and will probably never find out if Cambodia gave its consent to Israel to intercept the ships - this information will always be kept confidential.

Also, there is an over riding principal that a ship who is not displaying a flag or displaying mutliple or incorrect flags is fair game for anyone, even in International waters. I understand that the ship that was boarded was displaying Palestinian flags, but wasnt registered in Palestine.

Whether you agree or disagree with the PSI is immaterial - its the Law.
 

Seriously I am not getting into a discussion whether the PSI agreements permit this action. It's ridiculous in the extreme that you use some agreement that covers the illegal transit of nuclear material and weapons of mass destruction to try and justify the actions of Israel. Even Israel have not got that desperate in trying to justify it.

As for boarding boats in international waters, apparently this is the story

Under International Maritime law, a navy can board a vessel flying their national flag on the high seas (i.e. international waters). The only place a navy can't board it's own flagged vessels are in the territorial waters of another country.

Under International Maritime Law, if a vessel is not flying it's flag of registry on International waters, one can then make the assumption that it is flagged in your country & board it. This is primarily how the USN, USCG & UKRN board vessels outside of their territorial waters & contiguous zones.

If you know the flag of the vessel that is suspect, it's country can be contacted and permission can be sought from their Dept of Foreign Affairs to board it.

As far as I know the ship was under a Turkish flag.
 
If the ship is registered in Cambodia then it had to fly a Cambodian flag.
 

When did Israel say they suspected the presence of WMD? It wasn't reasonable to assume so.

Palestine/Hamas aren't states. Flying the Palestine flag, isn't flying the flag of another country or state or agent.

I disagree with the PSI and it isn't law, it's been applied as if it were by some states, but it doesn't have a binding agreement to make it international law.

even if it were, why didn't Israel say this at the start when it kicked off yesterday? Why talk about approved aid and illegal aid such as fruit juice and concrete? Why didn't they just say we were led to believe there was WMD present. End of story then.
 

I agree. It's like people abroad used to discuss Northern Ireland. Always simplistic soundbites.

I wouldn't even try to understand, never mind solve the problems in the Middle East!
 
Well, I presume the Israeli SWAT team are public servants ?

If they'd used a private sector SWAT team .. !
 
I think you're grasping at your last straw in your attempts to justify Israeli terrorism, but I believe this straw is actually a nettle.

There are fundamental differences between :

  • Territorial waters
  • The EEZ (you keep mentioning this but clearly still don't understand it)
  • Irish Fisheries Limits
All are different, all serve different purposes, and are administered differently from a legal perspective. Another poster has explained EEZ; this link might help with your understanding of Irish Territorial Waters and Irish Fisheries Limits.

The arrest you mention above might have a connection with fish species quotas, mis-recording of catches or fish sizes; you'll need to check, but there is no evidence that the arrest and detention of the vessel in question was illegal - AFAIK illegality of the arrest and detention never came up in court. As there was no illegality about the arrest of the Spanish vessel I can't see the connection with this and the illegal Israeli acts of piracy and murder.
 
A question for those who disagree with the Israeli approach:

If you were in charge of the Irish defence forces, what would you do if your attention was drawn to a vessel heading for Ireland, with undetermined cargo, and 600-700 activists shouting "death to Ireland"? And refusing to allow requested inspections. What would you do?
 

The cargo was determined though, point to where Israel even suggested it wasn't. All they point to is the route the people were taking. Where is it confirmed that there were 700 people shouting "death to Israel"? There's a communication blackout, we don't know what they were shouting or saying up until that point.

Look, there are legitimate reasons to take action. Stuff that actually is international law allows a State to defend itself against a legitimate threat. That's not law made up by the US to get at North Korea, it's actual law. But the problem for Israel is that it doesn't appear that any of the circumstances surrounding this incident meet that criteria.

The PSI doesn't apply. The San Remo doesn't apply (because to do so Israel would have to explicitly state it is at war and then remove the blockade as a result of that declaration).

The UN Convention on the Law of Sea is the only law applying in this circumstance. The only possible legal route for Israel with the confirmed information we have was to seek permission from Turkey. Did they?
 

Well first off the better analogy would be that they were sailing to Northern Ireland. The fact that they didnt acceed to our illegal demands and verbally abused us was hardly sufficient excuse to kill 10 people. Unless and until it is shown that the ships had arms then how can you interpret Israel's action as anything other than denying ordinary people legitimate aid.

I dont genuinely think the Israeli's were in any doubt what the cargo was - isnt that what their famed intelligence service is supposed to do. Is is credible that 2 Irish senators are just Islamic gun runners? Giz a break.

Its ok to say that simple people dont get the full picture - when you are talking about a negotiated settlement or something - but I think the onus of proof is on those "in the know" to explain how or why the recent actions are legal or justified, if theres such clear logic to put us simpletons in our place then why arent we hearing it??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register