EXODUS part 2 ???

[mmx1]

Unless we are talking about fishing or drilling for oil, whether or not it was in the EEZ has no bearing on it. It's a canard; this didn't happen in Israeli territorial waters.

From what I understand, E-MIO is on a grey area as far as non-consentual boarding. We are on pretty strong ground in claiming self-defense with regard to boarding vessels suspected of harboring or supplying weapons to Al Qaeda or its affiliates, but the weaker the connection, the more tenuous our grounds for boarding. Do we conduct non-consensual boardings without such suspicion?

The blockade would be much more defensible if it were strictly about arms, but it is apparent that Israel is using it to hurt and weaken Hamas. You can make a good case that it is in fact counterproductive in the latter. This particular seizure was not predicated on any such suspicion but merely to assert its ability to control the flow of goods into Gaza. Given the ends, the means appear disproportionate.

This whole tale should be familiar to Israelis; they used a similar strategy to wage a propaganda war against the British:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100531_flotillas_and_wars_public_opinion
And many of them, while unsympathetic to the flotilla, are equally displeased with their leadership for playing right into the activists' hands. They may not agree with the outrage, but they definitely understand it and how it amounts to a political loss for the Israelis.
http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-general-everybody-thinks-were-bananas/57514/

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Turkey, formerly an ally of Israel, vouched for the cargo. That's the biggest development of this, that Israel-Turkey relations are tanking. They are rumored to be sending a naval escort for the next convoy. That'll get.....interesting.

Interesting? What the hell are you talking about? So you think Turkey is suddenly going to pick a fight with Israel? Come on now.

 

[scoolbubba]

From what I understand, E-MIO is on a grey area as far as non-consentual boarding. We are on pretty strong ground in claiming self-defense with regard to boarding vessels suspected of harboring or supplying weapons to Al Qaeda or its affiliates, but the weaker the connection, the more tenuous our grounds for boarding. Do we conduct non-consensual boardings without such suspicion?

Yes. Every drug shakedown.

 

[mmx1]

Interesting? What the hell are you talking about? So you think Turkey is suddenly going to pick a fight with Israel? Come on now.

It was reported by CNN's Indian affiliate. Likely to come about, no. But Turkey has been laying the political muscle pretty hard and this threat fits the rest of their rhetoric so far; they got Israel to drop plans to prosecute the crew of the flotilla. Whatever set them off, the Turks are picking a fight over this issue.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/turkey-threatens-action-israel-on-alert/116743-2.html

Yes. Every drug shakedown.

Which are legitimated by agreements with signatories of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psycotropic Substances and of course, suspicion of illicit activity covered by these agreements.

 

[Mos]

While I don't wish to rush to conclusions about this incident before more facts are known, I'm particularly curious about the legal aspects of the boarding.

As I understand it, one can make a case for it based on international law. Israel has declared and has been enforcing a blockade. Is the blockade legal? The challenges to it seem to be 1) how does the ambiguous status of Gaza effect the status of the blockade, 2) whether the blockade is legal without a state of war declared, and 3) how far out to sea does a blockade extend.

In number 1, I notice mmx argued that Israel doesn't have the jurisdiction necessary to be inspecting cargo incoming to Gaza if they relinquished control of the territory. Relinquishing control is precisely why they argue for justification of the blockade, as it is supposedly now a foreign entity. And from what arguments I've heard, this is one reason why critics consider the blockade questional; not everyone is clear on whether Gaza is a foreign territory that could be blockaded, or domestic territory that cannot be blockaded.

In point 2, the laws of blockade based on the Treaty of Paris and Declaration of London defined blockade as an act of war, so where does that leave Israel in this situation? One argument I've heard is based on historic precedent: the U.S. enforced its "quarantine" of Cuba to prevent arrival of nuclear arms shipments, but no state of war was declared. Of course, we didn't call it a blockade, whereas Israel does.

In point 3, I understand that many countries have tended to limit blockade to the 12 mi territorial limit. But the laws on blockade aren't explicit on the distance, are they? Moreover, while many lay jurists like to focus on the importance of mare liberum, freedom on the high seas, there is also the importance of innocent passage, which entails navigation for purposes that aren't prejudicial to peace. The territorial sea seems to be the prime area where innocent passage is explicitly defined and assured; but are the high seas free of the limitations of innocent passage? I should think not, given the rights of visit conditions stipulated in UNCLOS Part VII. Unfortunately, I couldn't say with certainty that these conditions explicitly apply in this boarding by the Israelis. So my guess is that one would have to appeal to an interpretation of the blockade treaties as an "exception" noted in the UN convention.

These are just the thoughts that I've been tossing around. I'm wondering if someone here with more experience with the law of the sea, and with experience on the high seas might be able to shed some light?

On a related note, I've been in discussions with someone who seems to think that the Israelis were committing piracy with this act (and in fact, there are many critics out there that are publically decrying this as piracy on the high seas). I'm pretty sure that is a very incorrect and unsophisticated view. Piracy is, and has long been defined as an act by non-state actors in international maritime law. The use of the word by Theodore Roosevelt after the sinking of the Lusitania by a German submarine was hotly contested in 1915 for this reason. Oddly enough, even after pointing out that the Israeli raid cannot legally be considered piracy under the UNCLOS, my friend still insisted that they were pirates because of the heinousness of their actions and all of the oppressive measures that have been taken against the Palestinians in recent years. Pretty disturbing how powerful peoples' bias and hatred against Israel can be.

As for what was done on the flotilla's end, I'm fairly certain that their motivations are more than what is being popularized. Some video: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2489.htm

 

[JollyGood]

In point 3, I understand that many countries have tended to limit blockade to the 12 mi territorial limit. But the laws on blockade aren't explicit on the distance, are they? Moreover, while many lay jurists like to focus on the importance of mare liberum, freedom on the high seas, there is also the importance of innocent passage, which entails navigation for purposes that aren't prejudicial to peace. The territorial sea seems to be the prime area where innocent passage is explicitly defined and assured; but are the high seas free of the limitations of innocent passage? I should think not, given the rights of visit conditions stipulated in UNCLOS Part VII. Unfortunately, I couldn't say with certainty that these conditions explicitly apply in this boarding by the Israelis. So my guess is that one would have to appeal to an interpretation of the blockade treaties as an "exception" noted in the UN convention.

Just to expand on innocent passage, it can be defined not just as prejudicial to peace but as prejudicial to "peace, good order and security."

http://www.globelaw.com/LawSea/ls82_1.htm

Specifically for this flotilla, passage of a ship is not innocent if: "(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State," so you can claim that the raid was defensible or justifiable to an extent.

That is the way I view it, but I have very limited experience with this.

 

[JollyGood]

Article discussing the legality of the raid:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/israels-actions-were-enti_b_596285.html

 

[eas7888]

Article discussing the legality of the raid:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/israels-actions-were-enti_b_596285.html

Regardless of what the article states, anything coming from the Huffington Post is about as reliable as Wikipedia in my opinion.

 

[dephyler]

Regardless of what the article states, anything coming from the Huffington Post is about as reliable as Wikipedia in my opinion.

It's worse. It's a bulletin board of opinions for hollywood's most vocal. Nothing good comes from it. At least Wikipedia lists sources.

I'd like someone to point out what actual laws were broken by this "illegal" boarding. Followed by pointing out who it is that will prosecute said broken law.

IMO, the resistance on the boat is akin to the anti-war and anti-WTO rioters. They're merely a front for militant anarchist/communist groups that believe in the destruction of western democracy. The Palestinian flag has become a symbol for these groups. They baited the Israeli Navy from day 1 and got what was coming.

 

[eddie]

Regardless of what the article states, anything coming from the Huffington Post is about as reliable as Wikipedia in my opinion.

I was under the impression Wikipedia is just as inaccurate as Britannica.


While I believe the Israeli's are likely more justified in this situation than the boat clowns, it appears they have played right into the hands of their detractors. This does not surprise me, and will probably end poorly for everyone involved.

 

[JollyGood]

It's worse. It's a bulletin board of opinions for hollywood's most vocal. Nothing good comes from it. At least Wikipedia lists sources.

I'd like someone to point out what actual laws were broken by this "illegal" boarding. Followed by pointing out who it is that will prosecute said broken law.

IMO, the resistance on the boat is akin to the anti-war and anti-WTO rioters. They're merely a front for militant anarchist/communist groups that believe in the destruction of western democracy. The Palestinian flag has become a symbol for these groups. They baited the Israeli Navy from day 1 and got what was coming.

As I normally do not see anything written by The Huffington Post as credible, I felt this article brings a few points to the table especially the last paragraph which does beg the question "what laws were broken?"

I agree with this point and am waiting for someone to show what laws were broken by illegal boarding. From what I have found coupled with my previous experience, Israel has not acted illegally and the backlash is EXACTLY how the flotilla leaders wanted it to go down. They knew how the Israeli government was going to react and planned accordingly, so what if a few activists had to die.

 

[Mos]

Just to expand on innocent passage, it can be defined not just as prejudicial to peace but as prejudicial to "peace, good order and security."

http://www.globelaw.com/LawSea/ls82_1.htm

Specifically for this flotilla, passage of a ship is not innocent if: "(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State," so you can claim that the raid was defensible or justifiable to an extent.

That is the way I view it, but I have very limited experience with this.

I hear ya, that's the UNCLOS article I had in mind with regard to innocent passage. The problem, however, is that innocent passage is placed under the part on the territorial sea, so one might argue that would apply only to Israel's territorial waters. The high sea laws do have article 110 authorizing "right of visit" (boarding and detaining), but the only grounds that would seem acceptable in this case to exercise that right would be "Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty". Again, I don't have much experience with it, so not sure how they can be interpreted, other than literally.

 

[Gus Gorilla]

I agree with this point and am waiting for someone to show what laws were broken by illegal boarding. From what I have found coupled with my previous experience, Israel has not acted illegally and the backlash is EXACTLY how the flotilla leaders wanted it to go down. They knew how the Israeli government was going to react and planned accordingly, so what if a few activists had to die.

Agreed.
Israel, an independent nation, deemed it important to the safety of their country and citizens to setup this blockade. It's saying to the world "This place is impassable. If you would like to pass we want to search your cargo. If we cannot search your cargo then put up your dukes". It wasn't a shady secretive raid at night planning on killing people on an innocent ship. They wanted to poke around a little. Could have been a no-harm no-foul type of search but they were obviously baited into this current situation.

 

[A4sForever]

While the sea lawyers amongst us are splitting hairs & Huffin(gton) and puffin' about details that ... just ... don't ... matter .................... were it YOUR survival as a nation that was potentially at stake, here's a timely and interesting F.Y.I. article from the USNI Blog:

HERDING CATS Off the ISRAELI COAST

 

[Fog]

http://www.flix.co.il/tapuz/showVideo.asp?m=3423928

This was sent me by a friend & retired jet-engine engineer at P&W. Apparently, the Israelis have found a few more things than electric scooters & baby milk on the captured Turkish vessel they brought into harbor last week. I, of course, am truly shocked. Offered FWIW.


note: this may be fraudulent, as I noticed a date of 04.11.09 on the video when it began to run. This is what happens when you get in a hurry w/ something.