FM: 'boarding legal under int. law'

[Mosby]

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says the boarding of the ships in international waters was legal under international law. He described the Gaza flotilla as an attempt to undermine Israel's sovereignty.

Speaking to Channel 10 news on Monday night the FM said: "Israel is a sovereign state and cannot accept the undermining of its sovereignty. Israel has stopped ships in international waters before and when ships refuse to accede to warnings and obey instructions, we have the right to board them under international law."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?ID=177047

[WeDidIt]

1. They're just digging themselves deeper.

This will be the defining moment in the entire I/P situation and it's not looking good for Israel.

[Mosby]

2. Applicable law

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.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce

[anigbrowl]

9. No.

Clause 47-c-2 creates an exemption for ships on humanitarian missions. The bit you quote applies only to merchant (ie commercial) vessels...which this flotilla is definitely not. Attacks on humanitarian shipping are strictly forbidden.

[Mosby]

11. It's not that simple

were any of the ships carrying contraband?

More to the point Israel contacted the Free Gaza people days ago and indicated that they would be happy to off-load the goods the ships were carrying and take them into Gaza via land routes. The organizers declined this request - I suppose because delivering relief goods to Gazans was not the primary reason for the flotilla.

[WeDidIt]

13. Israel is the nation blocking humanitarian aid

They could never be trusted to transport the aid. The humanitarian crisis is a creation of Israel and a crime against humanity.

[Mosby]

28. Israel allowed 800,000 tons of goods

To be delivered to gaza in 2009 and in the first 1/4 of '10 let in 94,500 tons of supplies.

[DissedByBush]

34. Given these facts, there are only two rational reasons for refusale

1) They're carrying contraband.

2) They purposely wanted to provoke Israel. Given past incidents, they knew Israel would board.

[Mosby]

37. exactly. nt

[azurnoir]

17. well I am absolutely sure that there will be contraband

"found" now that Israel has had control of the ships for 12+ hours the only mystery here is will it be Syrian made or Iranian made

but at least you've come out supporting Avigdor Lieberman so at least your finally honest

[Mosby]

26. i don't think i have every expressed an opinion

About lieberman so for the record I think his brand of ultra-nationalism is racist and bigoted and he and his party are bad for Israel in every respect.

[JackRiddler]

31. Whereas your brand of ultranationalism is merely blinding.

[anigbrowl]

18. yes it is that simple.

Israel should have waited for it to enter territorial waters and then requested boarding for inspection. Intention of an unarmed ship in international waters is moot and no basis for action.

[Vinnie From Indy]

24. It is far simpler than your scenario

The fact is that there was ZERO guarantee that Israel would have ever allowed the humanitarian aid into Gaza had this mission unloaded it at an Israeli port. Your point is not credible at all.

[Mosby]

27. this is the second flotilla

The first one ended with the ships being towed to port, goods offloaded and shipped to gaza by truck. Not sure why you assume they would do something different this time, the IDF allows thousands of tons of goods into gaza every day.

[EFerrari]

30. Free Gaza has had other sailings, some of which reached Gaza

as I'm sure you know.

And per the UN, what Israel "allows" into Gaza is insufficient to the needs of the population.

[shaayecanaan]

35. this is the eight flotilla

five of which have reached Gaza without major incident.

[anigbrowl]

25. incidentally, who is Israel at war with under these rules of armed conflict at sea?

Like, for wartime rules to apply you have to be involved in a conflict and identified as a belligerent party by the security council.

[activa8tr]

29. I see you didn't get an answer to that question.

I wonder why.

[anigbrowl]

32. it would require admitting Palestine is a state.

Israel has put itself in a position of claiming Gaza is part of its domestic territory while at the same time asserting it is in an international conflict to invoke naval combat rules.

[shira]

36. Applicable law to all nations but Israel. Gotta love the hundreds of "illegal piracy" claims here.

[Barack_America]

3. Under international law according to Israel, perhaps.

Though we once again appear to be seeing how Israel's interpretation of "international law" disagrees with the standard the rest of the world adheres to.

:eyes:

[indepat]

5. Israel apparently disagrees with the rest of the world re non-proliferation in the Middle East: oh,

why is the rest of the world so out of step? :P

[Tripmann]

4. What a load of crap

A vessel in international waters by definition cannot be breaking a blockade

[Barack_America]

7. Excellent point.

[Mosby]

8. The whole point of the flotilla was to illegally enter Israeli waters

So one can reasonably infer that they were going to continue towards Gaza.

[Tripmann]

10. Bollocks

Thats like shooting a civilian half an hour before the curfew starts because you 'infer' he wouldn't get home in time.

The fact is the slaughter happened in international waters. The boarding was an act of piracy and the people on the boat were entitled to repel the people boarding illegally. For attempting to do this 19 of them were executed in cold blood.

[Arrowhead2k1]

14. Israel has no legal claim to the waters off of Gaza. nt

[LakeSamish706]

19. That was my next question. How in the hell does Israel claim waters off of Gaza anyway? n/t

[azurnoir]

15. so the waters off Gaza belong to Israel

is that what you are claiming?

[activa8tr]

23. I have heard some ridiculous claims by Israel, but this one is pretty much

out there, as one of the most ridiculous ever.

[EFerrari]

6. So, he admits that Israel has conducted illegal operations in international waters before.

[activa8tr]

12. After his term is up as Defense Minister of Isreal, I bet he could work for the

Somali pirates and Somalia's "sovereignty"!

Geeze!

[EFerrari]

20. Baghdad Bob seems to have a good agent, he still has work. n/t

[activa8tr]

21. I didn't know that. Where is he working? For the Republican Party? n/t

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[activa8tr]

22. I don't think the poster is SUPPORTING this insanity, merely

pointing out the absurd position of Israel.

[Ikonoklast]

33. That's his opinion.

Reality about what is exactly allowed under maritime law might be just a tad different from Israeli propaganda.

Israel screwed the pooch, and pretty soon the entire world will now finally realize what hypocrites they are.