Who is right in the Gaza flotilla issue?

[garret]

According to general principles of international maritime law, Israel had no right to land on the "Mavi Marmara" vessel. The ship was in international waters and according an article I read in the German FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which is a high quality German newspaper), Israel had no right to search a ship or land on it in international waters.

http://www.faz.net/s/RubB30ABD11B91F41C0…

(sorry, in German)

Wikipedia says the following:

Ships sailing the high seas are generally under the jurisdiction of the flag state; however, when a ship is involved in certain criminal acts, such as piracy, any nation can exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of hostis humani generis.

Therefore, I changed my mind and considered the landing of the troops as a hostile act and what the activists did as an act of self-defense.

Yesterday, I came across another regulation:

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509…

Art. 67 says the following:

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.


Now, I'm confused.

Who is right now?

[fyfe]

I believe our Israeli friends here are morally and legally wrong, the above law applies only when two belligerent states are in war (international conflict) and both states have navy force. Gaza is not a even a state (the argument which Israel itself uses when they refuse to open borders with Gaza) and Palestinians in Gaza do not have navy force, only some fish boats which they are not allowed to use. You might find this link very useful:
http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/why-is-israels-blockade-of-gaza-legal/

A star for you *

[flannagain]

the whole world was aware that ships were comming to bring aid days before the incident. they knew what was going on...they also knew the ships werent arriving to attack anyone, just help. however they are used to issues they create to die down..so they didnt care and went for it and illegally boarded the ships.

turkey was a ally of theirs....so they had no reason to board the ships.
what really bothers me...is instead of admitting they were at fault...they are now pointing the finger at the other person..(everyone knows who has a lot of power in the media) . they have no humility!

[gilleabart]

You ask a difficult question.
Israel has some very good legal advisors so I assume, and I know it's a big assumption, that they received the legal OK to proceed with that plan.

Let's agree to some things:
(1) Israel has imposed a blockade over Gaza and the Gaza Strip. The official reason is to prevent the ruling Hamas, an organization that is on the list of terrorist organizations, from getting explosives, missiles, rockets etc. One can challenge the authority of Israel to impose such a blockade, but let's leave it for now.

(2) This flotilla was no surprise. Everybody knew it was coming. Israel offered the ships to dock nearby and all cargo to be transported to Gaza. That offer was declined. The aim of this flotilla was to raise awareness to the blockade and break it. They succeeded. Israel has warned, time and time again, that it would not let the ships reach Gaza.

(3) Israel sees the blockade of Gaza as a vital national interest. There is a lot of internal debate on this matter, but that is the official Israeli position. As the flotilla continued, Israel perceived it as a threat to its national interest and decided to stop it. Whether boarding it was the best strategy - that much is debatable. As Israel defines Hamas as a terrorist organization and since the flotilla's destination and objective were known, and since for all Israel had known, it could have carried weapons, I believe Israel had the right to stop the flotilla. Again, whether the way they chose to do it was the best one, I don't know, but they had the right.

(4) In matter of fact, the soldiers that boarded the boat were armed with side-arms and not assault weapons, and paint-ball guns. After they were greeted with clubs, crowbars, knives, axes - as well as live fire and grenades, they reacted. See the footage on the link before.

Article 67 which you quoted is very interesting, as it seems to give Israel all the legal grounds it needs. See it from Israel's POV:
67a - check - the flotilla was attempting to break a blockade and was warned several times before.
b - check - the flotilla was meant as aid to Hamas, Israel's enemy and a recognized terrorist group.
c - check - same as (b)
f - check.

In conclusion - I don't think there's an absolute right and wrong here, I do think Israel defended itself from what it perceived to be a threat to its national security and that it has that basic right. I also think Israel chose the wrong way to go about it, and caused more harm than good.

[seme22]

Bury it already.

[muireach]

My friend to be honest when the aid ship floated out they alreayd knew the Isrealis would not let them land it in Gaza. The option the Isrealis had offered was absurd bcos if they could land in ashdod then why the blockade at all?? It makes no sense. So my own opinion this was a win-win scenario for the flotilla aid workers: if they were able to land they would have been able to get vital aid to Gaza, but if as they already knew they wouldnt be able to land they would have defied Isreal and focused the world's attention on the Gaza strip.
In my opinion this was the absolute right thing to do - the blockade is illegal. The Gazans have suffered for two years - enough already. It should be clear even to isrealis now they arent going to break the spirit of the Gazans with this.They need to come to negotiating table.

[eorl]

My friend to be honest when the aid ship floated out they alreayd knew the Isrealis would not let them land it in Gaza. The option the Isrealis had offered was absurd bcos if they could land in ashdod then why the blockade at all?? It makes no sense. So my own opinion this was a win-win scenario for the flotilla aid workers: if they were able to land they would have been able to get vital aid to Gaza, but if as they already knew they wouldnt be able to land they would have defied Isreal and focused the world's attention on the Gaza strip.
In my opinion this was the absolute right thing to do - the blockade is illegal. The Gazans have suffered for two years - enough already. It should be clear even to isrealis now they arent going to break the spirit of the Gazans with this.They need to come to negotiating table.

I think the affair was staged by both sides..
There's some poor SAP..involved "up too his nose"..
I really don't see a propper image of law..just a phony--stage act.

[lathrop]

OK, for the confused Arab man my answer is:
I think you are DELIBERATELY confuse NEUTRAL Ship with ENEMY ship.
The name of the flotilla "FREE GAZA" says it all.
Israel is at war with gaza Muslim savages, who shoot missiles into Israel every day.
There is declared blockade of the Gaza savages.
And declared mission of the flotilla was to BREAK GAZA BLOCKADE.
There is no international waters for enemy ships. Particularly for the flagman turkish ship, that was a passenger ship carrying many suicidal Muslims.
Add to this military materials.
Yes, cement which will be used to built bunker to protect Hamas leaders are military materials.
That's true that cement could be used for housing. But it is also true that Nuclear energy could be used for peaceful purposes. All depends who will be using them. In case of Iran and Hamas I have no doubts how it will be used...