Of Mosques and Men: Reflections on the Ground Zero Mosque

Israel’s Maritime Blockade Explained

Link

This was written BEFORE the flotilla incident

June 1, 20101 comment

There’s been a lot of misinformation being reported about the nature of Egypt and Israel’s blockade of Gaza. While the casualties on both sides are a tragedy, Israel had no choice but to stop the flotilla from breaking the blockade – and international law. While Israel was forced to take action in international waters, its actions are supported by international maritime law.

Below, find 13 clear points which explain Israel’s maritime blockade, supported by international law.

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. This is directly stated in Section IV, Article 10 of the ICRC.

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. According to Section V, Article 67 (a) of the ICRC, merchant vessels flying a neutral flag may be intercepted if they are “breaching a blockade.”

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.

A sincere post on the flotilla incident

I read this on an online forum:

From an friend in Israel who would never vote for Netanyahu :

Now, I must say that many of us here in Israel are not proud about what happened on the vessel and are deeply troubled and concerned about the results. We are trying to understand the events, to analyze them and to learn from them. Surely practical and operational lessons must be learned.

For someone like me, who consistently holds the opinion (and more importantly, hope) that the conflict must be resolved as soon as possible by a two state solution (as an historic agreement), and that the two nations learn to appreciate each other and to cooperate, the events of the past few days (and of the past few years actually) have been very frustrating.

The Navy Seals' operation was conducted and structured under the false assumption that indeed we are dealing with Peace Activists. Take into consideration that the unit involved is one of the most effective and highly trained commando units in the world, Had they been seeking to cause injury and damage, you wouldn't have seen them sliding down ropes one by one without covering fire or use of snipers. The screw up lies exactly here: in actually believing that they were facing political activists asking to protest non-violently (most likely most of them were, but that's not good enough when terrorists are allowed to use the sail as a platform for violence).

Concerning the "Marmara ship" events, a few key points must be addressed:

1. It is clear that this was not a case of humanitian aid, but an international provocation meant at propoganda. Humanitarian aid has been coming in to Gaza in mass quantities throughout the blockade, unconditionally (medical supplies, food, etc.) The organizers of the sail were offered several practical solutions that would have allowed all supplies to come through, but refused all of them. It should be clear that their aims were purely political - a cynical act of disinformation.

2. Gazza has become one of the world's largest missile bases. Ammunition that would come in (by sea or otherwise) will ultimately be fired at civilians, as has been the case throughout the conflict. So there's no question about the need of the State to defend its citizens.

3. Please remember that the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who was abducted in 2006, remains captive, while humanitarian visits required under international law are not allowed.

4. So the strongest unit the IDF could send was directed not to use any fire arms and to avoid casualties. Paradoxically, they were armed with paint ball weapons. This has got to be an unprecedented phenomenon: Elite commandos armed with paint ball guns facing so called "peace activists" who attack them instantly with bats, knives, shock gernades, molotov cocktails, lynch them in attempt to injure or killl. One troop gets thrown off deck. Live fire is used and two soldiers are injured from gunshot. Then and only then the soldiers received permission to defend themselves and to take over the situation.

5. A group of thugs put the lives of all the other participants in jeopardy. They did so knowingly and intentionally. Yes, unfortunately for all, they succeded.

6. Paradoxically, the instigators are labelled as innocent victims. And Israel is singled out diplomatically.

It is not humanly possible to do right under such a crooked set of rules and double standards.

And the reactions to this event are merely an example of an untruthfull, post modern and cynical systematic approach.

The international community (or diplomacy) is wrong on another count: Resolution of the conflict requires good faith. Extreme and unfair pressure naturally tend to fuel nationalist sentiments and disbelief. They stengthen advocates of the hard line approach, politically.

I am one of many Israelis who continue to be hopeful and who voice themselves on the importance of pursuing Peace and a fair resolution of the historic conflict. However, this cannot be achieved through distortion of both facts and values.

The whole Flotilla Farce

This whole thing is a premeditated media stunt by these Muslims. While it is clear many won't bother with the facts, but here it is

1) This was never about the aid to the poor Palestinians

Hamas stops flotilla aid delivered by Israel

Israel has attempted to deliver humanitarian aid from an international flotilla to Gaza, but Hamas -- which controls the territory -- has refused to accept the cargo, the Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday.

Palestinian sources confirmed that trucks that arrived from Israel at the Rafah terminal at the Israel-Gaza border were barred from delivering the aid.

Ra'ed Fatooh, in charge of the crossings, and Jamal Khudari, head of a committee against the Gaza blockade, said Israel must release all flotilla detainees and that it will be accepted in the territory only by the Free Gaza Movement people who organized the flotilla.

2) This is a premeditated media stunt

This was reported on 6 May 2010
Turks Help Hamas Welcome Anti-Israel Ships

Pro-PLO organizations in Europe that have aligned themselves with Hamas are planning a flotilla of aid to the Gaza Strip. The coordinators of what some call the “ship intifada” want to avoid confrontation with Egypt, but appear to be seeking a confrontation with the Israeli navy, backed by media and diplomatic campaigns.

This past January, a senior Hamas operative in Britain named Muhammad Sawalha, who was involved in launching the previous flotilla, said the next convoy will avoid the type of confrontation that occurred the previous time with Egypt, and that next time, “the confrontation will be directly with the Zionist enemy itself on the high seas.”

3) The funders of this are by a recognised terrorist group

The Terror Finance Flotilla

4) These were NOT "peaceful protesters". They were looking for a fight


5) Israel acted within their rights even in international waters

From the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea:

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;

118. In exercising their legal rights in an international armed conflict at sea, belligerent warships and military aircraft have a right to visit and search merchant vessels outside neutral waters where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are subject to capture.

146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67

Israel had the right under international law to search that vessel which had publicly stated its intent to run the blockade and refused to stop. The fact that it was in international waters is irrelevant. They had the right to defend themselves when the blockade runners chose to actively resist the inspection with violence.

Conclusion:

After Pallywood incidents like the Al Dura incident, the Jenin and Gaza wars reporting, is it any wonder that I don't really believe any of the bullshit from the Muslim and liberal media? (If you haven't heard about any of the above, search the labels of this blog for more info)