Israel attacks aid ship

[mathepac]

... What would you do?

I'd send out Willie O'Dea. He's perfectly qualified in so many ways :

• Former Minister for Defence, so reverting to being highly offensive isn't a radical move (or without precedent)
• A lawyer, so he knows the loopholes & which transgressions carry the smallest penalties. Besides, if the worst comes to the worst, isn't he's great pals with all the judges, getting locked with them regularly at law library dinners etc?
• A trained, deadly gun-man with ready access to a huge arsenal of fire-arms in his constituency
• A very bad case of small-man's disease, so he punches well above his weight and is very aggressive
• Disposable, so if he doesn't come back our losses are minimal and maybe it gets another lawyer off the dole queue
• Incomprehensible speech even before a law library dinner, so he can always claim he gave appropriate warnings before opening fire on innocent bystanders

All in all, perfect. Do the Israelis want him I wonder?

I hope my response is seen as apportioning the correct level of seriousness to the question posed, rather than the issues at hand.

 

[csirl]

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.

The israelis claim that only 5 of the 6 ships had humanitarian aid - that the one that was boarded had terrorists intent on violence.

 

[Purple]

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 San Remo Manual is not an international treaty, it is a manual which seeks to establish common points of agreement around armed conflict at sea since the last comprehensive treaty on the matter pre-dates the First World War. I am not aware that a declaration of war is necessary for countries to be covered by international treaties as many conflicts take place between states without such declarations being made (The Falkland Island Conflict springs to mind).

The UN Convention on the Law of Sea is the only law applying in this circumstance.

Is this convention binding and has everyone signed up to and ratified it? (Ireland has failed to ratify many UN conventions).

The only possible legal route for Israel with the confirmed information we have was to seek permission from Turkey. Did they?

Why would they seek permission from Turkey? The fact that Turkish citizens were on board is irrelevant, as is the ships last port of call. If the ship is Cambodian registered then they are the only relevant authority.

I’m not by any means saying Israel did the right thing but there’s a whole load of legalistic statements being made here and I would love to see them cleared up since I don’t know what the full facts are either. It was my understanding that the San Remo discussions were started precisely because this was such a grey area with so many contradictory conventions, laws and provisions.

 

[Sunny]

The israelis claim that only 5 of the 6 ships had humanitarian aid - that the one that was boarded had terrorists intent on violence.

Terrorists? Seriously not even Israel is attempting to call them that. Strongest word they have used is activists. Lets see how many of these terrorists get charged with terrorism offences.

 

[Latrade]

I’m not by any means saying Israel did the right thing but there’s a whole load of legalistic statements being made here and I would love to see them cleared up since I don’t know what the full facts are either. It was my understanding that the San Remo discussions were started precisely because this was such a grey area with so many contradictory conventions, laws and provisions.

+1 to the that. My issue with the San Remo is that as I understand it, it is only applied to actual conflict situations. Like when trying to get the UN to agree to genocide, to be a conflict, there has to be some form of official declaration which has a specific definition (IIRC).

My only reference on this is we have the information supplied by Israel, and none of that seems to really suggest there was bone fide suspicion of terrorism or threat. Plus there are 5 International and Maritime Law "experts" who have absolutely stated there is no remit for the boarding, a 6th has also stated the same (Avigdor Feldman, who's an Israeli), but only one stating it is legitimate and he's from the Israeli government (they mentioned the San Remo argument).

On the UN Law, as we know with most of these it isn't ratified by all parties. This one's widely quoted, but isn't ratified by Israel (or US and some others), but then that weakens their argument over territory.


The boat is flagged as Comoros, but its home port is Istanbul, I think the latter means the discussion and permission should be through Turkey (also as it was a Turkish delegation of sorts).

 

[Sunny]

Just to show that there another side and none of us know the real story because of the blackout.

From CNN:

Hanin Zoabi, a member of the Israeli parliament, was on board the Miva Marmara, the ship that was the scene of the confrontation between activists and Israeli soldiers. The Israeli Navy fired on the ships five minutes before commandos descended from ropes that dangled from helicopters, Zoabi said during a news conference in Nazareth, Israel. She said passengers on board the ship were unarmed.

 

[csirl]

The boat is flagged as Comoros, but its home port is Istanbul, I think the latter means the discussion and permission should be through Turkey (also as it was a Turkish delegation of sorts).

The flag is all that is relevant (incidently a ships "home port" must be within the country it is registered, so it cannot be Istanbul). Officially the ship is from the Comoros Islands. The fact that the Government of the Comoros has said nothing suggests that they have no problem with the Israeli actions. If the Comoros Islands are ok with it, then all complaints from third parties are irrelevant and an insult to Comoros sovereignty.

 

[Sunny]

The flag is all that is relevant (incidently a ships "home port" must be within the country it is registered, so it cannot be Istanbul). Officially the ship is from the Comoros Islands. The fact that the Government of the Comoros has said nothing suggests that they have no problem with the Israeli actions. If the Comoros Islands are ok with it, then all complaints from third parties are irrelevant and an insult to Comoros sovereignty.

Considering it is an Islamic Country, I think it is more likely that nobody has bothered to ask them!

But you are right. 10 people dead. Sorry. 10 terrorists dead. Lets move on and not ask any questions because we are insulting the Comoros Sovereignty. You really have come out with some classics today!

 

[DublinTexas]

The flag is all that is relevant (incidently a ships "home port" must be within the country it is registered, so it cannot be Istanbul). Officially the ship is from the Comoros Islands. The fact that the Government of the Comoros has said nothing suggests that they have no problem with the Israeli actions. If the Comoros Islands are ok with it, then all complaints from third parties are irrelevant and an insult to Comoros sovereignty.

I’m still confused on what flag of convenience the Miva Marmra was actually flying, the international shipping register claims it’s Turkey, some reports claim its Cambodia, others Comoros and the video shows it’s flying both the Turkish and the Palestinian flag with no Cambodia/Comoros flag in sight.

 

[mathepac]

The legalities of boarding a ship in international waters are covered by the San Remo Manual. ...

That manual applies only to armed conflict at sea, as a consequence of a declaration of war. It may be adopted by anyone, but it is binding on no-one and merely lists areas of agreement between the academics and government officials of the 20+ countries participating in the plenary sessions. It and its explanatory and expansion documents are IIRC still in draft form. It is being developed under the auspices of the ICRC.

... If the Comoros Islands are ok with it, then all complaints from third parties are irrelevant and an insult to Comoros sovereignty.

What utter nonsense. If Irish citizens were (are) involved then I would expect our Minister and or Diplomats to have plenty to say - much more than they appear to saying right now.

 

[Purple]

That manual applies only to armed conflict at sea, as a consequence of a declaration of war.

Are you sure about that last bit? It doesn't seem clear to me. Many armed conflicts start and end without a declaration of war. For example US and NATO troops in Iraq are covered by international conflict laws but they are not at war.

 

[Sunny]

Think the legalities will have to be sorted out by people alot better qualified than us...

I am going to finish up by repeating that in my opinion there is no justification whatsoever for Israels actions. I would also like to clarify that I am not a Hamas/Terrorist supporter, I believe Israel had a right to exist and to defend itself and that the Middle East is full of absolute nutters and I am glad I don't live there!

Now, I am off to start a public sector/private sector debate on another thread.

 

[csirl]

I think some of the pro-Palestine supporters are taking everything that the organisers of the flotilla say at face value without hearing both sides of the arguments. Just because they call their cargo humanitarian aid, it doesnt mean that this is true. Israeli news reports are claiming that this was a premeditated ambush and that the ship contained parts which are used to manufacture rockets.

There are two things which give this vessel away. Firstly, it is very clear from the footage shown on the news this morning that the occupants were only interested in attacking and killing the Israeli soldiers. There were no efforts to discuss, peacefully resist etc. They were attacked the moment they stepped foot on the boat. The other thing I cant get my head around is why, what is a relatively small convey, needed 600 plus people, most of whom are not crew members, to deliver the aid?

 

[RonanC]

The Irish Government has told Israel to allow the Rachel Corrie to complete its voyage to Gaza without any interference. What does this tell you about the illegal blockade?? Brian Cowan also said that there would be serious consequences if any Irish person was harmed. I'm delighted to hear this from our Government, finally they grew a pair and are not afraid to stand up to another state.

 

[DublinTexas]

The Irish Government has told Israel to allow the Rachel Corrie to complete its voyage to Gaza without any interference. What does this tell you about the illegal blockade?? Brian Cowan also said that there would be serious consequences if any Irish person was harmed. I'm delighted to hear this from our Government, finally they grew a pair and are not afraid to stand up to another state.

I’m sure Brian Cowan is only too happy to play it hard so that he can divert away from national issues, but that’s beside the point.

I hope the IDF learned from this and only stops the ships once they are inside 20 nautical miles because there the IDF has the right to stop/search such vessels there and not even Mr Cowan from Zanu FF has the right to tell Israel otherwise.

The right thing to do is to not play into the hands of a terrorist organisation, after all the IHH which is behind these attempts is an organisation that supports suicide bombings.

Divert to Ashdod, offload the cargo, get it inspected and then ferried over to Gaza. Goal archived, Gaza residents helped, no fuzz, just like the other 15,000 tonnes of aid every week.

Certainly Israel needs to allow more aid into Gaza but at the same time they have the right to ensure that only those things go into Gaza that are really aid and not stuff that will be used by Hamas to attack Israel. So having Israel ferry it over is the sensible solution.

 

[Betsy Og]

Just because they call their cargo humanitarian aid, it doesnt mean that this is true. We'll find out soon enough.

Israeli news reports are claiming that this was a premeditated ambush This is hilarous - must be the first "ambush" in history when those ambushed chose to descend from a helicopter armed to the teeth. and that the ship contained parts which are used to manufacture rockets. Again we'll see.

There are two things which give this vessel away. Firstly, it is very clear from the footage shown on the news this morning that the occupants were only interested in attacking and killing the Israeli soldiers. ...who were attacking the occupants.... There were no efforts to discuss ..soldiers storming a ship are ordered to do a job, not to commence dialogue..., peacefully resist etc. They were attacked the moment they stepped foot on the boat. The other thing I cant get my head around is why, what is a relatively small convey, needed 600 plus people Yes, this is puzzling, but presumably if they were all militants/terrorists they'd have charged the deck in greater numbers, maybe they are family members of those in Gaza, doctors, nurses, journalists etc. etc., I dont think it obviously indicates anything in particular , most of whom are not crew members, to deliver the aid?

..

 

[Latrade]

The flag is all that is relevant (incidently a ships "home port" must be within the country it is registered, so it cannot be Istanbul). Officially the ship is from the Comoros Islands. The fact that the Government of the Comoros has said nothing suggests that they have no problem with the Israeli actions. If the Comoros Islands are ok with it, then all complaints from third parties are irrelevant and an insult to Comoros sovereignty.

Are you 100% sure of this or is it just your opinion?

I think some of the pro-Palestine supporters are taking everything that the organisers of the flotilla say at face value without hearing both sides of the arguments. Just because they call their cargo humanitarian aid, it doesnt mean that this is true. Israeli news reports are claiming that this was a premeditated ambush and that the ship contained parts which are used to manufacture rockets.

Seriously, the irony here is just too much. The only source you've quoted is the Israeli military and media, that's really looking at both sides. The other and possibly the biggest irony is that we can't get both sides because the Israeli government has a communication blackout on. Give us a chance!

Again, this went from they were justified to stop the ships because they were heading to Gaza and the blockade to oh and while we were there we found lots of bomb making stuff. I don't buy it.

But here's my deal, I'm prepared when ALL accounts are out to look at it then and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I just believe given that this act was committed by Israel it is for them to prove they had reason to be on board and they acted with reasonable provocation. But I can only do that when they remove the blackout and release the footage of those on board.

The thing I very much doubt is that if the evidence is to the contrary that you will admit Israel acted wrong.

Cease with all this "palestine supporters" Hamas supporters or whatever other name calling you want to throw across. You don't have to be half way to strapping a bomb to your chest and hoping for an eternal life with your pick of 70 virgins to look at this and feel it just doesn't ring right, moral, ethical or even legal.

I believe in a state's right to defend itself, outside of your average episode of 24, I do not believe that right extends to any act under any circumstances.

 

[colin79ie]

Although the incident was in international waters, if the Isreaelis had waited, then perhaps it would not have been such a disaster for them when the ships entered their territorial waters. UNCLOS gives every ship the right of passage through another state's territorial waters. However, this passage must be innocent. Passage is not innocent if the ship enagages in: Threat or use of force against the state, the use or practice of any weapon, intelligence gathering, adverse propoganda, pollution, fishing, etc.

But attacking a ship not belonging to the state, in international waters is a act of piracy.

 

[ninsaga]

from Brian Cowen today

Mr Cowen also said that the Government is "very unhappy" with the current situation, and that the Israeli government hasn't "a leg to stand on" in their detention of Irish citizens, who he says must be released immediately.

"If any harm comes to any of our citizens, it will have the most serious consequences," said the Taoiseach

....now thats all we need - lets wage war on Isreal - lets get the LE Eithne on route and launch the attack!

Then again - he did make that comment after it was established that no irish citizens were actually harmed - close call there - lets hope one of them doesn't rip & fall when getting on the plane home or Cowen will have to live up to his word!

 

[mathepac]

"If any harm comes to any of our citizens, it will have the most serious consequences".

Trans:

I'll sail to Haifa and jump up and down on the sea-wall dressed only in me jocks. Signed: Biffo McFlubber.