Israel Sued In International Court—Finally

[Kondor3]

The alleged motive for running a blockade doesn't do shit to "legitimize" the running of a blockade.

That's right. You don't need a reason to run the blockade, because the blockade itself is illegal, immoral and a war crime.

Blockades in general are illegal, immoral and a war crime?

Or just the Blockade of Gaza specifically?

 

[Billo_Really]

"...Israel wasn't defending itself, it committed an act of piracy."

The flip side of that coin is...

Ultimately, Israel imposed a naval blockade upon Gaza as a matter of self-defense; to deny Hamas military aid which had previously been transiting to Gaza by sea. It was conducting extra-territorial operations in pursuit of that Blockade, in connection with a ship that had previously announced its intention to run the Blockade, and which was stopped when it was 'in the neighborhood' but still far enough out at sea so as to ensure that it did not succeed in penetrating the Blockade even if the ship held surprises for the interdicting force.

That's not the reason for the blockade.

Israel started the blockade in order to punish Gazan's for voting for Hamas in a legal, democratic election.

The blockade punishes 1.5 million Gazan's and therefore, is considered "collective punishment", which is a war crime.

BTW, what's wrong with Hamas having weapons? Don't they have a right to defend themselves? Well, you need weapons to do that! It's none of Israel's fuckin' business whether Hamas has weapons or not.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Billo's navy.

Gotta love those Alternate Universe types... always good for a chuckle.

So are people who claim to be American's that support piracy on the open seas.

Arrrggghhh, avast and shiver-me-timbers, matey!

The analogy only holds true if one accepts it as true.

The United States did not gauge the Blockade nor operations thereunder to be an act of piracy on the high seas.

Nor did any other competent authority with any jurisdiction in the matter.

That's good enough for me.

 

[Billo_Really]

Blockades in general are illegal, immoral and a war crime?

Or just the Blockade of Gaza specifically?

This one is.

Name another one and I'll comment on that.

 

[Kondor3]

Blockades in general are illegal, immoral and a war crime?

Or just the Blockade of Gaza specifically?

This one is.

Name another one and I'll comment on that.

The US blockade of Cuba in October 1962.

 

[Billo_Really]

The analogy only holds true if one accepts it as true.

The United States did not gauge the Blockade nor operations thereunder to be an act of piracy on the high seas.

Nor did any other competent authority with any jurisdiction in the matter.

That's good enough for me.

International maritime law prohibits the boarding of any vessel flying under the flag of a sovereign nation in international waters.

The ship was flying under the flag of Turkey and was boarded in international waters.

Do the math!

 

[Billo_Really]

The US blockade of Cuba in October 1962.

Legal.

Next question?

 

[Kondor3]

The US blockade of Cuba in October 1962.

Legal.

Next question?

No further questions.

Thanks.

That tells me that you don't necessarily view ALL blockades as illegal, immoral and war-crimes.

But you view THIS one in that fashion.

We disagree about the motives (weapons-interdict vs. punishment for vote-results).

We disagree about the legality and morality as well.

At the macro-level (the 5,000-foot view), that's sufficient to the day.

 

[Kondor3]

The analogy only holds true if one accepts it as true.

The United States did not gauge the Blockade nor operations thereunder to be an act of piracy on the high seas.

Nor did any other competent authority with any jurisdiction in the matter.

That's good enough for me.

International maritime law prohibits the boarding of any vessel flying under the flag of a sovereign nation in international waters.

The ship was flying under the flag of Turkey and was boarded in international waters.

Do the math!

And what is the effect (with an eye towards negating or ameliorating or softening or altering) on International Law of a blockade operating in International Waters?

I'm guessing that there is a convenient loophole-interpretation or two to be had there.

I don't know, myself, but that's probably a decent first-guess.

 

[Billo_Really]

No further questions.

Thanks.

That tells me that you don't necessarily view ALL blockades as illegal, immoral and war-crimes.

But you view THIS one in that fashion.

We disagree about the motives (weapons-interdict vs. punishment for vote-results).

We disagree about the legality and morality as well.

At the macro-level (the 5,000-foot view), that's sufficient to the day.

If Russia was putting nuclear-tipped ICBM's in Gaza, then I would say the blockade would be legal.

 

[Billo_Really]

And what is the effect (with an eye towards negating or ameliorating or softening or altering) on International Law of a blockade operating in International Waters?

I'm guessing that there is a convenient loophole-interpretation or two to be had there.

I don't know, myself, but that's probably a decent first-guess.

You can't have a blockade in international waters.

 

[Kondor3]

"...If Russia was putting nuclear-tipped ICBM's in Gaza, then I would say the blockade would be legal."

I think the Israelis probably view externally-manufactured surface-to-surface rockets and missiles, and the component-materials for making and fueling home-made ones, as well as automatic weapons and anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry, with a similar anxiety, given the postage-stamp size of the country and how quickly conventional rocketry can traverse the entire country.

 

[Kondor3]

And what is the effect (with an eye towards negating or ameliorating or softening or altering) on International Law of a blockade operating in International Waters?

I'm guessing that there is a convenient loophole-interpretation or two to be had there.

I don't know, myself, but that's probably a decent first-guess.

You can't have a blockade in international waters.

WE did in 1962.

And THAT one was perceived as Legal.

I'm not sure that positioning in International Waters is a sufficient argument in its own right.

 

[Kondor3]

Here's what I camne up with, doing a quick-and-dirty half-assed Google and Wiki-read...

"...Since 1945, the UN Security Council determines the legal status of blockades and by article 42 of the UN Charter, the Council can also apply blockades.[5] According to the not ratified document San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994,[6] a blockade is a legal method of warfare at sea but is governed by rules. The manual describes what can never be contraband. The blockading nation is free to select anything else as contraband in a list, which it must publish.

The blockading nation typically establish a blockaded area of water, but any ship can be inspected as soon as it is established that it is attempting to break the blockade. This inspection can occur inside the blockaded area or in international waters, but never inside the territorial waters of a neutral nation. A neutral ship must obey a request to stop for inspection from the blockading nation. If the situation so demands, the blockading nation can request that the ship divert to a known place or harbour for inspection. If the ship does not stop, then the ship is subject to capture. If people aboard the ship resist capture, they can be lawfully attacked...

Blockade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

========================================

Hmmmmm...

 

[Billo_Really]

Here's what I camne up with, doing a quick-and-dirty half-assed Google and Wiki-read...

"...Since 1945, the UN Security Council determines the legal status of blockades and by article 42 of the UN Charter, the Council can also apply blockades.[5] According to the not ratified document San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994,[6] a blockade is a legal method of warfare at sea but is governed by rules. The manual describes what can never be contraband. The blockading nation is free to select anything else as contraband in a list, which it must publish.

The blockading nation typically establish a blockaded area of water, but any ship can be inspected as soon as it is established that it is attempting to break the blockade. This inspection can occur inside the blockaded area or in international waters, but never inside the territorial waters of a neutral nation. A neutral ship must obey a request to stop for inspection from the blockading nation. If the situation so demands, the blockading nation can request that the ship divert to a known place or harbour for inspection. If the ship does not stop, then the ship is subject to capture. If people aboard the ship resist capture, they can be lawfully attacked...

Blockade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only with a nation you are formally at war with.

Gaza is not at war with Israel.

This is legally defined by the UN as a "belligerent occupation", not a war.

 

[Billo_Really]

WE did in 1962.

And THAT one was perceived as Legal.

I'm not sure that positioning in International Waters is a sufficient argument in its own right.

You proved that point in your following post.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Gaza is not at war with Israel..."

Disagree. Gaza is, indeed, engaged in an UNDECLARED war against Israel, with hostilities sporadically erupting then quieting-down again; asymmetrical warfare at its best (worst).

"...This is legally defined by the UN as a 'belligerent occupation', not a war."

I'm sure the Israelis see it differently, and act accordingly, but, more to the point, the Israelis had been operating their Naval Blockade of Gaza for years prior to UN Security Council intervention in 2010, so, until the Court of World Opinion influenced the Council, long after the incident-in-question, the Blockade had not yet been ruled Illegal by that body.

When you splice the Undeclared Assymetrical Warfare argument on top of the treatment accorded to the blockade by the UN Security Council at the time of the incident, the Legal Waters are one heckuva lot muddier than pro-Palestinian advocates would like to see.

 

[Trajan]

They are CONSIDERING opening an investigation.

That's not the same thing as actually opening an investigation.

What does any of this really mean though? what authority does this court have?

enough to bore Slobodan Milosavic to death after a 5 year trial.....its just the EU proving how broad minded they are again...nuthin't so see here.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Man, the truth is taking a beating on this thread:

1. The blockade is consistent with International Law.

2. The "activists" on the boat were not unarmed.

3. The "activists" on the boat attacked the Israeli soldiers.

Could Israel have used different tactics to achieve the goal of intercepting the boat that might have avoided the casualties? In hindsight, I'd say the answer is probably "yes." Israel did not anticipate the actions of the "activists" and, as a result, its soldiers were forced to defend themselves.

Its easy for armchair Generals to say they used "excessive force." Not so easy when you feel your life being threatened and you have the means to protect yourself.

The lesson learned is that, when you're dealing with people who have been taught that martyrdom is a virtue, you should expect anything and everything.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

THE case is at the ICC because Israels attack on the ship was a war crime. Having been attacked in an act of piracy, the victims of the attack had a lawful right to defend themselves.