Swedish climate and human rights activist Greta Thunberg departed Israel on a flight to France after being detained by Israeli forces aboard an aid ship bound for Gaza.
It’s not like Israel boarded a ship that just happened to be in the area,
That’s exactly what happened, blockade borders have to be announced and ships have to be allowed time to leave the area. Israel left their blockade and kidnapped people aboard a ship they did not allow to leave an area they weren’t in.
these freedom flotilla yahoos very publicly declared they were bound for Gaza, which under Maritime Law permits Israel to board it.
Once they breach the blockade yes arguably though with only aid that gets more complex. Essentially aid entry is allowed so long as you agree to security arrangements that are both reasonable and lawful. That could mean Israel could board and search, or doesn’t mean they can blockade all aid to starve a population which is specifically and in multiple very very illegal.
Their sources section is awash with good relevant information and specifically findings on the last Israeli famous Israeli blockade and subsequent boarding (and death of iirc 9) which was found to be a legal blockade so long as the purpose was not starvation and aid could enter with security arrangements.
An operation involving naval and air forces by which a belligerent completely prevents movement by sea from or to a port or coast belonging to or occupied by an enemy belligerent. To be mandatory, that is, for third States to be obliged to respect it, the blockade must be effective. This means that it must be maintained by a force sufficient to prevent all access to the enemy coast.
So… according to the link you’ve provided Israel is actually required to board the ship or they can no longer prevent shipments of weapons coming from Iran?
Essentially aid entry is allowed so long as you agree to security arrangements that are both reasonable and lawful.
Has there been any indication these flotilla activists attempted to make such security arrangements with Israel?
Correct to an extent, the accepted meaning is that they must agree to security measures to pass through. It is not and never has been a way to willfully prevent aid and aide staff into combat zones.
They weren’t in a blockaded zone as far as I’m aware, Israel only says they were approaching and providing intented destination as you must when attempting to pass through a blockade.
Even ignoring that they must be allowed to leave even if they enter the blockaded area without permission, it isn’t a seize your property and imprison your crew for being in the general area openly providing intent kinda thing.
Correct, they hadn’t entered the area yet though so they technically heeded their warning.
Stolen, if you take something from someone and dispense it as your own you’re guilty of theft and conversion something they say Hamas does with aid. And moreover delivering aid doesn’t negate the whole unlawful boarding, seizure and forcible human trafficking thing.
You do actually. They need pc for arrest, they need reasonable articulable suspicion to detain, your simply confusing or conflating the two. Similarly a police officer needs jurisdiction, Israel doesn’t have jurisdiction outside of the blockade or territorial waters.
To run a blockade you actually need to enter it, at anchor in international water after declaring your intent is quite literally the textbook reaction to a blockade and specifically to enter one legally.
Israel also says it’s ok to run over people with tanks so maybe Israel is full of shit and you should trust third parties over the most active belligerent. FYI Hitler tried to say invading Poland for security reasons was legal, turns out no but Israel decided to quite literally pull a Hitler.
Outside the blockade area and on the high seas,34 belligerents relied on the practice of "visit and search"3s to stop vessels suspected of carrying “con-traband” to the enemy.36 A belligerent warship sailing on the high seas had the right to visit and search all merchant vessels. Merchants found carrying enemy contraband were captured and escorted to the belligerent’s nearest home port. The belligerent nation’s prize court then determined the fate of the captured ship and cargo.37 In cases where merchants resisted either capture or visit and search, the blockading force was entitled to pursue and, if neces-sary, damage or destroy the vessel to force the ship to submit.
Page 901
belligerents today continue to enforce blockades from long distance or through blockade zones. They do so because of three twentieth-century developments in maritime warfare: first, the growing importance to belligerents of conducting economic warfare in conjunction with armed con-flict;s3 second, the introduction of a large array of new weapons to the maritime battlefield; and third, the proliferation of modern weapons to less powerful nations incapable of conducting traditional blockade. In combination, these three developments have forced states to replace traditional blockade form with long-distance blockade or blockade zones.
That’s exactly what happened, blockade borders have to be announced and ships have to be allowed time to leave the area. Israel left their blockade and kidnapped people aboard a ship they did not allow to leave an area they weren’t in.
Once they breach the blockade yes arguably though with only aid that gets more complex. Essentially aid entry is allowed so long as you agree to security arrangements that are both reasonable and lawful. That could mean Israel could board and search, or doesn’t mean they can blockade all aid to starve a population which is specifically and in multiple very very illegal.
https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/blockade
Their sources section is awash with good relevant information and specifically findings on the last Israeli famous Israeli blockade and subsequent boarding (and death of iirc 9) which was found to be a legal blockade so long as the purpose was not starvation and aid could enter with security arrangements.
So… according to the link you’ve provided Israel is actually required to board the ship or they can no longer prevent shipments of weapons coming from Iran?
Has there been any indication these flotilla activists attempted to make such security arrangements with Israel?
Correct to an extent, the accepted meaning is that they must agree to security measures to pass through. It is not and never has been a way to willfully prevent aid and aide staff into combat zones.
They weren’t in a blockaded zone as far as I’m aware, Israel only says they were approaching and providing intented destination as you must when attempting to pass through a blockade.
Even ignoring that they must be allowed to leave even if they enter the blockaded area without permission, it isn’t a seize your property and imprison your crew for being in the general area openly providing intent kinda thing.
Israel has told the flotilla repeatedly they can deliver the aid through the proper channels and the port of Ashdod.
The small amount of captured aid from the freedom flotilla is being delivered to Gaza by Israel at the moment.
Correct, they hadn’t entered the area yet though so they technically heeded their warning.
Stolen, if you take something from someone and dispense it as your own you’re guilty of theft and conversion something they say Hamas does with aid. And moreover delivering aid doesn’t negate the whole unlawful boarding, seizure and forcible human trafficking thing.
You don’t need to actually rob someone for the police to arrest you, if you loudly proclaim your intent and don’t stop.
Confiscating ship and cargo, and holding the crew is perfectly legal under international maritime law for blockade runners.
Israel said the tiny amount of aid the flotilla brought would be delivered on to Gaza.
You do actually. They need pc for arrest, they need reasonable articulable suspicion to detain, your simply confusing or conflating the two. Similarly a police officer needs jurisdiction, Israel doesn’t have jurisdiction outside of the blockade or territorial waters.
To run a blockade you actually need to enter it, at anchor in international water after declaring your intent is quite literally the textbook reaction to a blockade and specifically to enter one legally.
Israel also says it’s ok to run over people with tanks so maybe Israel is full of shit and you should trust third parties over the most active belligerent. FYI Hitler tried to say invading Poland for security reasons was legal, turns out no but Israel decided to quite literally pull a Hitler.
Stop cucking for authoritarians bud.
Page 898
Page 901
Keywords warship and belligerent. They’re neither a belligerent nor is it a warship.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod