Nonsense. Israel's claims of following the law are ridiculous since the siege/blockade of Gaza is in itself illegal. Attacking ships on international waters is illegal. Murdering people is illegal. No matter what the Israeli propaganda says, and most of it has been proven outright lies, some of them even admitted by Israel itself, this was an act of outright murder by IDF - here is a vid that shows the side IDF didnt want shown when their propaganda blast hit the airwaves:
Israeli commandos at their best....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlElXOJV4CA&feature=player_embedded
Sieg heil ziomuppets.
The UN can't do shit to rectify Israel's gross violations of international law because US veto power over the UNSC is exploited to prevent anything of the sort.
...
I spent quite a bit of time reviewing the illegitimacy of the blockade.
wrong again... while "Humanitarian ships" are listed in paragraph 47 of the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea -- which, btw, is the current law governing such blockades -- paragraph 48 goes on to state:Rather, you've a compulsion to obfuscate, which causes you to post an article which argues around the fact that blockading humanitarian aid is flagrantly illegal under international law.
An opinion is not a legal finding.
Where is the legal finding that the blockade is illegal.
If you have been reviewing such - where is the legal finding?
[/B][/I][/INDENT]So, you were saying...?
Wrong...yet again. The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea is what is currently used to determine the legality of any such blockade.Illegal blockade. San Remo applies to countries at war with legal blockades.
The UN official issued an opinion. Nothing that is legal binding.Where is the legal finding that the blockade is legal? Without that I guess you have nothing.
They were warned that it was illegal by the UN.
The BBC link refers to the UN Charter on the Law of the Sea. Israel is not a signatory to that charter and thus is not bound by it.
Let's review actual international law as it applies to blockade and its practice.
Here is an interesting extract from a lecture on international law that describes blockade and attendant obligations...
NAVAL OR MARITIME BELLIGERENCY.
International Law Lecture by Henry Maine
Yale Law School
...It will be seen from the text of the Declaration of Paris, which is set forth above, that its rules do not apply in two cases: first, where contraband of war is carried in a ship; and next, in the case of a ship endeavouring to obtain entrance to a blockaded town. Therefore the law of contraband of war and the law of blockade are not touched by the reform under the Declaration of Paris, except so far as a principle long contended for is applied to blockades.
From the very beginning of International Law a belligerent has been allowed to prevent a neutral from supplying his enemy with things capable of being used immediately in war. Such things are called technically 'Contraband of War,' and may be condemned independently of all question as to the neutrality of the owner. The ship and cargo are taken into a port of the captor; the contraband is condemned in a prize court, but the fate of the ship itself varies. If the ship belongs to the owner of the contraband, or if the owner of the ship is privy to the carriage of the contraband, the ship is condemned; but not so if the ship belongs to a different owner, who knows nothing of the destination of the contraband commodities. This branch of International Law is complex and difficult, but it owes its intricacy and difficulty to one special question: what are the articles stigmatised as contraband? From the very first, Grotius had laid down that things directly used in war -- for example, weapons -- were contraband. He also ruled that things useless in war, articles of luxury as he described them, were not contraband. But outside these categories there were a great number of things capable of employment both in war and peace -- res ancipitis usus -- and it is in regard to these that innumerable questions have arisen. Are articles of naval construction -- for example, the raw materials of sails and cordage -- contraband? Do they become so at any particular stage of manufacture? Are iron, brass, steel, etc. contraband? Are coals and horses? Are provisions contraband? To these questions all sorts of answers have been given. In many special treaties the list of contraband and non-contraband commodities is given, and the practice of states is extremely various. On the whole the most general rule which can be laid down is that, with the exception of weapons or munitions of war, the contraband, or non-contraband, character of the cargo must depend on its destination, and on the nature of the particular war which is going on. The commodity most recently sought to be brought into the list as contraband is coal. England, the great exporter of coal, refused to admit its being necessarily contraband; but in the war of 1870 the English Government declined to allow British coal to be carried to a French fleet that was lying in the North Sea. The most vehement of the disputes has been, perhaps, that about provisions. At the end of the last century, when the great war of the Revolution had beam, English statesmen believed the French population to be on the point of starvation; and that the French were suffering great distress from scarcity of food is now most fully established. The English Government therefore seized all ships bound to a French port which were laden with provisions. As their enemy was believed by them to be on the point of abandoning the contest through want of provisions, they refused to allow the stock of provisions to be increased. Just at the same moment the United States had become the great neutral Power enjoying the advantages of the carrying trade, and the Government of the United States issued a series of vehement protests against the assumption of the contraband character of provisions in any circumstances. It is probable that in future provisions will only be contraband when destined for a port in which an enemy's fleet is lying. The point on which I desire to fix your attention is that the test of articles which are contraband of war is not yet settled.
The other portion of the older law which is not affected by the Declaration of Paris is Blockade. Blockade is defined as the interruption by a belligerent of access to a place, or to territory, which is in possession of an enemy. Blockade is probably confined to maritime hostilities; but it has considerable external resemblance to a siege by land, and the law of the one acting by land has visibly affected the law of the other acting by sea. But as a matter of fact the objects of blockade and siege are not the same. The aim of a siege is the capture of a strong place or town beset. The aim of a blockade is to put stress on the population of a port, or on the population behind it, through denying it communication, commercial or otherwise, with the rest of the world accessible to it only by sea. This it effects by the rules of International Law, which permit blockading ships to capture ships of the other belligerent which attempt to enter the blockaded port, or to come out of it, or which may reasonably be suspected of having this intention.
There are two main conditions of the capture of neutral vessels by a blockading squadron. One is that they must be warned of the existence of the blockade. The mode of giving this notice required by law varies in different countries. France and certain other countries give notice to each ship individually, their cruisers stopping it, and seeing that the stoppage is notified on the ship's papers. England and the United States make public notice in their own territory, and communicate the fact of the blockade to foreign Powers. Under modern circumstances, where information is conveyed over the civilised world by newspapers and the electric telegraph, it certainly seems that the English and American practice is sufficient. It is hardly possible that there should be ignorance nowadays of the existence of an established blockade.
The second condition is that mentioned in the Declaration of Paris: the blockade must be effective; that is, it must be maintained by a naval force strong enough to prevent access to the blockaded coast. It is the act of secretly evading a force on the whole adequate which constitutes the offense that subjects a neutral ship to capture -- what is called 'running the blockade.' The stress laid on the sufficiency of the blockade is a legacy from the last century. Hardly any country has not been at some time or other accused of establishing what is called a 'paper blockade;' that is to say, publicly announcing the blockade of a particular portion of the coast, but not supporting it by a sufficient force of ships. It is justly thought that such a blockade gives the maximum of annoyance to honest neutrals, but allows a maximum number of dishonest neutral adventurers to penetrate the line. Nothing can justify the absolute interdiction of a portion of the coast to neutral commerce except a method likely on the whole to secure that end. A blockade must as a general rule be continuously maintained, but an exception is allowed in the case of ships driven away by storm and stress of weather.
So, now that we have an opinion by a legal expert and not a forum hack, let's see what Israel has done to be in compliance with international legal standards for blockade -
So, the Israelis did everything that was required of them and more to make it legal according to applicable international law conventions.
The Gaza flotilla and the maritime blockade of Gaza - Legal background
Israel Ministry Of Foreign Affairs
31 May 2010
A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. It has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza.
1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.
2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.
3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states.
4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.
5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.
6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.
7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.
8. A state may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.
9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.
10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.
11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.
12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.
They say they follow the same rules as the U.S. Navy. Let's see if that is so...
Would the U.S. Navy do something different? Doesn't appear so based on the instructions found in the US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations.
7.7 BLOCKADE
7.7.1 General
Blockade is a belligerent operation to prevent vessels and/or aircraft of all nations, enemy as well as neutral, from entering or exiting specified ports, airfields, or coastal areas belonging to, occupied by, or under the control of an enemy nation. While the belligerent right of visit and search is designed to interdict the flow of contraband goods, the belligerent right of blockade is intended to prevent vessels and aircraft, regardless of their cargo, from crossing an established and publicized cordon separating the enemy from international waters and/or airspace.
7.7.2 Criteria for Blockades
To be valid, a blockade must conform to the criteria in the following paragraphs.
7.7.2.1 Establishment
A blockade must be established by the government of the belligerent nation. This is usually accomplished by a declaration of the belligerent government or by the commander of the blockading force acting on behalf of the belligerent government. The declaration should include, as a minimum, the date the blockade is to begin, its geographic limits, and the grace period granted neutral vessels and aircraft to leave the area to be blockaded.
7.7.2.2 Notification
It is customary for the belligerent nation establishing the blockade to notify all affected nations of its imposition. Because knowledge of the existence of a blockade is an essential element of the offenses of breach and attempted breach of blockade (see paragraph 7.7.4), neutral vessels and aircraft are always entitled to notification. The commander of the blockading forces will usually also notify local authorities in the blockaded area. The form of the notification is not material so long as it is effective.
7.7.2.3 Effectiveness
To be valid, a blockade must be effectivethat is, it must be maintained by a surface, air, or subsurface force or other legitimate methods and means of warfare that is sufficient to render ingress or egress of the blockaded area dangerous. The requirement of effectiveness does not preclude temporary absence of the blockading force, if such absence is due to stress of weather or to some other reason connected with the blockade (e.g., pursuit of a blockade runner). Effectiveness does not require that every possible avenue of approach to the blockaded area be covered.
7.7.2.4 Impartiality
A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels and aircraft of all nations. Discrimination by the blockading belligerent in favor of or against the vessels and aircraft of particular nations, including those of its own or those of an allied nation, renders the blockade legally invalid.
7.7.2.5 Limitations
A blockade must not bar access to or departure from neutral ports and coasts. Neutral nations retain the right to engage in neutral commerce that does not involve trade or communications originating in or destined for the blockaded area. A blockade is prohibited if the sole purpose is to starve the civilian population or to deny it other objects essential for its survival.
7.7.3 Special Entry and Exit Authorization
Although neutral warships and military aircraft enjoy no positive right of access to blockaded areas, the belligerent imposing the blockade may authorize their entry and exit. Such special authorization may be made subject to such conditions as the blockading force considers to be necessary and expedient. Neutral vessels and aircraft in evident distress should be authorized entry into a blockaded area, and subsequently authorized to depart, under conditions prescribed by the officer in command of the blockading force or responsible for maintenance of the blockading instrumentality (e.g., mines). Similarly, neutral vessels and aircraft engaged in the carriage of qualifying relief supplies for the civilian population and the sick and wounded should be authorized to pass through the blockade cordon, subject to the right of the blockading force to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which passage is permitted.
7.7.4 Breach and Attempted Breach of Blockade
Breach of blockade is the passage of a vessel or aircraft through a blockade without special entry or exit authorization from the blockading belligerent. Attempted breach of blockade occurs from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port or airfield with the intention of evading the blockade, and for vessels exiting the blockaded area, continues until the voyage is completed. Knowledge of the existence of the blockade is essential to the offenses of breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade. Knowledge may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification provided to affected governments. It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of interception bound for neutral territory, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area.
There is a presumption of attempted breach of blockade where vessels or aircraft are bound for a neutral port or airfield serving as a point of transit to the blockaded area. (Capture of such vessels is discussed in paragraph 7.10.)
7.7.5 Contemporary Practice
The criteria for valid blockades, as set out above in paragraph 7.7.2, are for the most part customary in nature, having derived their definitive form through the practice of maritime powers during the nineteenth century. The rules reflect a balance between the right of a belligerent possessing effective command of the sea to close enemy ports and coastlines to international commerce, and the right of neutral nations to carry out neutral commerce with the least possible interference from belligerent forces. The law of blockade is, therefore, premised on a system of controls designed to effect only a limited interference with neutral trade. This was traditionally accomplished by a relatively close-in cordon of surface warships stationed in the immediate vicinity of the blockaded area.
The increasing emphasis in modern warfare on seeking to isolate completely the enemy from outside assistance and resources by targeting enemy merchant vessels as well as warships, and on interdicting all neutral commerce with the enemy, is not furthered substantially by blockades established in strict conformity with the traditional rules. In World Wars I and II, belligerents of both sides resorted to methods which, although frequently referred to as measures of blockade, cannot be reconciled with the traditional concept of the close-in blockade. The so-called long-distance blockade of both world wars departed materially from those traditional rules and were premised in large measure upon the belligerent right of reprisal against illegal acts of warfare on the part of the enemy.
Moreover, developments in weapons systems and platforms, particularly submarines, supersonic aircraft, and cruise missiles, have rendered the in-shore blockade exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to maintain during anything other than a local or limited armed conflict. Accordingly, the characteristics of modern weapon systems will be a factor in analyzing the effectiveness of contemporary blockades.
Notwithstanding this trend in belligerent practices (during general war) away from the establishment of blockades that conform to the traditional rules, blockade continues to be a useful means to regulate the competing interests of belligerents and neutrals in more limited armed conflict. The experience of the United States during the Vietnam conflict provides a case in point. The closing of Haiphong and other North Vietnamese ports, accomplished by the emplacement of mines, was undertaken in conformity with traditional criteria of establishment, notification, effectiveness, limitation, and impartiality, although at the time the mining took place the term blockade was not used.
Well, how about that! The Israeli blockade follows the U.S. legal and command policy for blockade exactly.
The Israeli blockade is therefore completely legal under applicable international law standards and all contention that it is not are false.
And what would the U.S. Navy do should they encounter blockade running ships like the Israelis did?
7.10 CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft are liable to capture by belligerent warships and military aircraft if
engaged in any of the following activities:
1. Avoiding an attempt to establish identity
2. Resisting visit and search
3. Carrying contraband
4. Breaching or attempting to breach blockade
5. Presenting irregular or fraudulent papers; lacking necessary papers; or destroying, defacing, or concealing papers
6. Violating regulations established by a belligerent within the immediate area of naval operations
7. Carrying personnel in the military or public service of the enemy
8. Communicating information in the interest of the enemy.
Captured vessels and aircraft are sent to a port or airfield under belligerent jurisdiction as a prize for adjudication by a prize court. Ordinarily, a belligerent warship will place a prize master and prize crew on board a captured vessel for this purpose. Should that be impracticable, the prize may be escorted into port by a belligerent warship or military aircraft. In the latter circumstances, the prize must obey the instructions of its escort or risk forcible measures.
(OPNAVINST 3120.32C, Standard Organization and Regulations of the U.S. Navy, Article 630.23 sets forth the duties and responsibilities of commanding officers and prize masters concerning captured vessels.)
Neutral vessels or aircraft attempting to resist proper capture lay themselves open to forcible measures by belligerent warships and military aircraft and assume all risk of resulting damage.
7.10.1 Destruction of Neutral Prizes
Every reasonable effort should be made to avoid destruction of captured neutral vessels and aircraft. A capturing officer, therefore, should not order such destruction without being entirely satisfied that the prize can neither be sent into a belligerent port or airfield nor, in his opinion, properly be released. Should it become necessary that the prize be destroyed, the capturing officer must provide for the safety of the passengers and crew. In that event, all documents and papers relating to the prize should be saved. If practicable, the personal effects of passengers
should also be safeguarded.
7.10.2 Personnel of Captured Neutral Vessels and Aircraft
The officers and crews of captured neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft who are nationals of a neutral nation do not become prisoners of war and must be repatriated as soon as circumstances reasonably permit. This rule applies equally to the officers and crews of neutral vessels and aircraft that assumed the character of enemy merchant vessels or aircraft by operating under enemy control or resisting visit and search. If, however, the neutral vessels or aircraft had taken a direct part in the hostilities on the side of the enemy or had served in any way as a naval or military auxiliary for the enemy, they thereby assumed the character of enemy warships or military aircraft and, upon capture, their officers and crew may be interned as prisoners of war.
Enemy nationals found on board neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft as passengers who are actually embodied in the military forces of the enemy, who are en route to serve in the enemys armed forces, who are employed in the public service of the enemy, or who may be engaged in or suspected of service in the interests of the enemy may be made prisoners of war. All such enemy nationals may be removed from the neutral vessel or aircraft whether or not there is reason for its capture as a neutral prize. Enemy nationals not falling within any of these categories are not subject to capture or detention.
Turkey and all foreign flag vessels, if the Israelis want to, they can keep your ships!
First off, I'm referring to the fact that blockading humanitarian aid in general is illegal, and Israel has been doing that by land and sea since long before they attacked this recent flotilla. Beyond that, you are citing a manual which doesn't provide any reference to any international law to back its claims....while "Humanitarian ships" are listed in paragraph 47 of the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea...
Rather, every nation has rights to defend themselves from the attacks which come from anywere, but only within the bounds of interntial law, which Israel's blocade of humantriarin aid to Gaza stands in flagrant violation of, as the UNHRC explained in Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories, section IV. A:Israel has every right to defend themselves from the attacks which come from a hostile Gaza...
During the reporting period, Israel continued its blockade[49] of the border crossings into Gaza, restricting severely all imports and exports. Insofar as it constitutes collective punishment of all persons in Gaza, including the civilian population, the blockade is itself a violation of international humanitarian law.[50]
...
49 In the period prior to Operation Cast Lead, imports into Gaza remained constrained to very basic food items and limited amounts of fuel, animal feed, and medical and hygiene supplies. See OCHA, The Humanitarian Monitor, No. 32, December 2008, p. 4. During Operation Cast Lead, a daily three-hour suspension of hostilities was introduced which temporarily eased the situation of the civilian population but which was not sufficient (OCHA, Protection of Civilians Report, 1-8 January 2009 and UNICEF, “During short ceasefire, some life-saving supplies delivered in Gaza”, 7 January 2009).
50 Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that “[n]o protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties ... are prohibited”. Article 50 of the Regulations of the Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (The Hague IV) of 18 October 1907 states that “[n]o general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible”. When Israel imposed the blockade on Gaza, it justified the blockade on security grounds, stating that in the absence of security personnel loyal to the PA on the Gaza side of the crossings, it could not permit the opening of the Karni or Rafah crossings (letter from Asaf Barhel, Coordination for Government Activities in the Territories (IDF) to Noam Peleg of the Israeli non-governmental organization (NGO) Gisha in relation to the High Court Proceeding, 15 July 2007; see Gisha, “Gaza Closure Defined: Collective Punishment”, (December 2008). However, in September 2007 Israel’s Security Cabinet declared Gaza a “hostile territory”, and as a result decided that sanctions would be placed on the Hamas regime in order to restrict the passage of various goods to the Gaza Strip; reduce the supply of fuel and electricity; and restrict the movement of people to and from the Gaza Strip. (“Security Cabinet declares Gaza hostile territory”, 19 September 2007, available at www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2007/Security+Cabinet+declares+ Gaza+hostile+territory+19-Sep-2007.htm).
First off, I'm referring to the fact that blockading humanitarian aid in general is illegal, and Israel has been doing that by land and sea since long before they attacked this recent flotilla. Beyond that, you are citing a manual[/a] which doesn't provide any reference to any international law to back its claims.
Wrong...yet again. The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea is what is currently used to determine the legality of any such blockade.
And, as far as your "warning from the UN" is concerned, that was one woman's opinion in August 2009 who presented that argument in a draft report. The report was then brought before the UNSC for "discussion" in September 2009. Since that time, the UN has NOT issued any finding on the legality of the blockade itself, or the legal merits of said report.
Deranged moron,Dear Hamas sock puppet...
Deranged moron,
I've no love for Hamas, but unlike you I do have respect for human rights and international law.
Dear Hamas sock puppet, a blockade can prevent all goods from transiting. That the Israelis continue to allow any goods to pass is solely their choice.
Please provide links to any post you have made criticizing Hamas and all that it stands for. Also please give us a running count of posts you have made criticizing Hamas, if any, versus the number of posts you have made attacking Israel.
The same challenge goes to all the other Hamas sock puppets that claim they have any kind of a "balance" in their attacks against Israel.
Dance, Hamas sock puppet, dance! :awe: LOL!
wow.. you dont read no good bubba.First off, I'm referring to the fact that blockading humanitarian aid in general is illegal, and Israel has been doing that by land and sea since long before they attacked this recent flotilla. Beyond that, you are citing a manual which doesn't provide any reference to any international law to back its claims.
A blog? Really?Wrong...yet again. San Remo applies to countries at war.
It doesn't work that way son.Therefore you have no basis for declaring it legal.
Next...
You are the dancing sock puppet here; falsely accusing me of supporting Hamas' crimes in a ridiculous attempt to defend Israel's crimes.Dance, Hamas sock puppet, dance!
The proper grammar is "read well" rather than "read good", and you are falsely projecting your problems on me.wow.. you dont read no good bubba.
A blog? Really?
That said, are you seriously basing your entire claim on the fact that Gaza is not a nation, therefore their own declarations of war are invalid?
Actions do not get "declared legal." Rather, they are found to be legal or illegal... in courts... after legal argument.
Most civilized nations operate under an assumption of innocence until guilt is proven by a court with proper jurisdiction. Therefore, it is up to you -- by way of some sort of international court with proper jurisdiction -- to prove criminal actions; or, in this case, the illegality of an action (the blockade).
Sure, like the ICJ did in regard to Israel's separation barrier built on Palestinian territory, but Israel has no regard for internal law, and US veto power over the UNSC keeps the world from doing anything to stop Israel's criminal acts....they are found to be legal or illegal... in courts... after legal argument.
lol... you need to get your sarcasm meter checked.The proper grammar is "read well" rather than "read good", and you are falsely projecting your problems on me.