Francop weapons seizure – What is in the boxes?

[JJackson]

Following the links in the news round-up, and elsewhere, it is obvious the Israel have found a sizeable load of weapons (54 tons in one report). Aljazeera are running news footage of some of the cache which is detailed enough to show exactly what much of it is as the stamps on the side of the boxes – down to the lot numbers – are visible and it is all in English. I do not have a military background but I am sure there are many here who could say what these weapons are, where they were manufactured and, given the lot numbers, who the manufactures supplied them to. Also I lack the legal knowledge to understand if Israel has any right to attack ships in international waters and force them into their ports and is so would it be OK for Syria to intercept a US shipment of weapons to Israel, as long as it was done in international waters? The reports say the shipment was bound for Syria and Israel is saying that it was destined for Hezbollah and claiming it originally came from Iran but I could not find any evidence for either of these claims apart from their being some Iranian containers onboard. It seems unlikely that Iran would covertly run embargoed arms in Iranian labelled containers when plain boxes are freely available.

Can anyone throw any light on any of this? Thanks.

P.S checkout the Timesonline (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6903092.ece) link, which I was shocked by. I expected something a little more balanced from a UK non-tabloid; this article reads like it was lifted from an Israeli tabloid. “Hamas, another Iranian proxy” etc most of the rest being inflammatory unsubstantiated claims by various Israeli officials.

Edit
This link is to the Aljazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/11/200911543526356307.html) online story which has some photos - but nothing like as clear as the video report. The rest of the story just muddies the picture further. Hezbollah say the weapons were not theirs, Syria says the ship was coming from - not going to - them, Israel says they have a document proving the weapons came from Iran but haven't produced it, they also say the ships master said it came from Egypt and an Israeli Rear Admiral says their are hundreds of tons of weapons.

It also seems that although there were Iranian shipping containers on board these were not the ones with weapons in them.

[William F. Owen]

Following the links in the news round-up, and elsewhere, it is obvious the Israel have found a sizeable load of weapons (54 tons in one report).


Aljazeera are running news footage of some of the cache which is detailed enough to show exactly what much of it is as the stamps on the side of the boxes – down to the lot numbers – are visible and it is all in English. I do not have a military background but I am sure there are many here who could say what these weapons are, where they were manufactured and, given the lot numbers, who the manufactures supplied them to.
I probably could if you show me some pictures. Saw what looked like an AT-14 on the News over breakfast.

Also I lack the legal knowledge to understand if Israel has any right to attack ships in international waters and force them into their ports and is so would it be OK for Syria to intercept a US shipment of weapons to Israel, as long as it was done in international waters? The reports say the shipment was bound for Syria and Israel is saying that it was destined for Hezbollah and claiming it originally came from Iran but I could not find any evidence for either of these claims apart from their being some Iranian containers onboard.
Well Israel has a perfect right to seize any weapons on any ship bound for it's enemies - and does so consistently. According to my sources, the ship was requested to stop. Did do, and was then searched. What's the big deal?

It seems unlikely that Iran would covertly run embargoed arms in Iranian labelled containers when plain boxes are freely available.
Sorry, I don't understand. So what?

Can anyone throw any light on any of this? Thanks. Don't know about light, but the wife and I cracked a few cold ones last night. Anything that keeps Iranian rockets off our town is a plus!

[M-A Lagrange]

Also I lack the legal knowledge to understand if Israel has any right to attack ships in international waters and force them into their ports and is so would it be OK for Syria to intercept a US shipment of weapons to Israel, as long as it was done in international waters? The reports say the shipment was bound for Syria and Israel is saying that it was destined for Hezbollah and claiming it originally came from Iran but I could not find any evidence for either of these claims apart from their being some Iranian containers onboard.

Well Israel has a perfect right to seize any weapons on any ship bound for it's enemies - and does so consistently. According to my sources, the ship was requested to stop. Did do, and was then searched. What's the big deal?

The big deal, which is not a real big deal, is that it was in international waters. In Israeli waters, Israel has all the rights of the world to conduct such operations. In international waters it may (but will not) be compared to piracy as a group of armed men used force to stop and search a private property (the vessel and the cargo).

In fact, the real question is to whom did the weapons belong? Will the owner of the weapons recognise it was its property and prove it was not meant to illegally arm any one (even Syria or Iran has the right to buy weapons. But not Hezbollah, for Hamas that's tricky).

As long as it stays an illegal cargo claimed by no one... :rolleyes:

[Rex Brynen]

Iran is prohibited from exporting any sort of weapons to anyone, under the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1747 (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc8980.doc.htm) (2007):


5. Decides that Iran shall not supply, sell or transfer directly or indirectly from its territory or by its nationals or using its flag vessels or aircraft any arms or related materiel, and that all States shall prohibit the procurement of such items from Iran by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in the territory of Iran;

[JJackson]

Thank you all.

It seems the Israelis have accepted the crew were unaware of their cargo so they have unloaded the weapons moved them to an IDF weapons store and released the ship.

I was hoping the images of the weapons might throw some light on their origin as the rest of the story is, as usual, unsubstantiated claims and unverifiable denials. Also as usual media source don't seem to have done much to resolve the claims and counter claims with the J-post readers all being told these were "Hizbullah-bound weapons" & an "Iranian shipment of weapons" without any suggestion that this was anything but a hard verifiable fact.
I am not accusing one side or the other of fabricating evidence in this case but is difficult to see how any impartial observer is meant to understand what is going. As unsubstantiated claim seamlessly morphs into hard fact in the news sources for most people, who don't even try to get to the bottom of stories, there seems little chance of the understanding and trust needed for peace as each sides' realities vanish of towards opposing horizons. It is all very sad.
Israelis now know their brave commandos rescued them from facing Iranian weapons fired at them by the Hezbollah and Arabs know that Israel has committed another act of piracy on an innocent cargo vessel in international waters and I have no idea what just happened.

[Cavguy]

Wheel ... of ... fish!

KezvwARhBIc

[William F. Owen]

I am not accusing one side or the other of fabricating evidence in this case but is difficult to see how any impartial observer is meant to understand what is going. As unsubstantiated claim seamlessly morphs into hard fact in the news sources for most people, who don't even try to get to the bottom of stories, there seems little chance of the understanding and trust needed for peace as each sides' realities vanish of towards opposing horizons. It is all very sad.
Personally I am all for only very very few knowing the truth and using all necessary means to keep it that way. National defence is not a spectator sport.

Israelis now know their brave commandos rescued them from facing Iranian weapons fired at them by the Hezbollah and Arabs know that Israel has committed another act of piracy on an innocent cargo vessel in international waters and I have no idea what just happened.
Pick a side. It all becomes clear.

[Fuchs]

Well Israel has a perfect right to seize any weapons on any ship bound for it's enemies - and does so consistently. According to my sources, the ship was requested to stop. Did do, and was then searched. What's the big deal?

Well, pretty much every unarmed freighter captain would stop if asked so by a military, that doesn't tell anything.


To me, seizing a ship or its freight on open seas is piracy unless the alleged pirate has a valid legal justification.


Could you elaborate on the latter?
(I won't accept national law or national customs as legal justification.)


In other words; is Iran able to legally capture German ships moving military supplies to the U.S., a country that clearly threatens Iran?

Is Syria able to legally capture foreign ships that are en route to supply arms to Israel (no peace treaty!).

Is North Korea able to legally interdict U.S. ships supplying military wares to South Korea?

Is PR China able to legally interdict U.S. arms shipments to Taiwan?

I don't think so. Instead, I smell hypocrisy.
It's in light of its own border policy especially laughable that Israel claims to enforce U.N. resolutions.

It's one thing to exercise rule of force, but excusing it as rule of law is an unnecessary additional provocation (this applies to many Western hypocrisy cases).


The "big deal" is state piracy. This kind of outlaw behaviour is disastrous and extremely short-sighted grand strategy in my opinion.

One day, Turkey might destroy one or two Israeli ships that crossed the Rubicon for the n-th time - and Israel could not hit back without enabling Turkey to call for Article V support against an aggressor.



edit: Maybe it's better to discuss the issue in more general terms, let's say coloured country names.

[Old Eagle]

Preemptive self-defense.

God bless the Kearsarge.

[Rex Brynen]

Whatever one might think about Israeli non-compliance with other aspects of international law, I think that stopping and searching a ship under Security Council resolution with the agreement of the captain is probably--dare I say it--kosher, especially when neither the German owners, nor the Cypriot operators, nor the Antiguan flag authorities have registered any complaint.

[William F. Owen]

To me, seizing a ship or its freight on open seas is piracy unless the alleged pirate has a valid legal justification.


I think what you meant to say was "unless the Navy of the Sovereign State has due legal justification."

a.) IIRC (JMM jump in please) any Navy on earth has the right to interdict arms shipments suspected of being intended for action against them. Israel is technically AT WAR with Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria (cease fires in place). - and regardless of the UN justification (See REX's post)
- plus what is the problem as the weapons appear to belong to no-one.
- Moreover it's pretty likely the Israelis knew which ship to stop and where.

b.) I seem to remember the Spanish stopping and boarding a North Korean ship a little while back. - so what?

[Fuchs]

Repeat:

In other words; is Iran able to legally capture German ships moving military supplies to the U.S., a country that clearly threatens Iran?

Is Syria able to legally capture foreign ships that are en route to supply arms to Israel (no peace treaty!).

Is North Korea able to legally interdict U.S. ships supplying military wares to South Korea?

Is PR China able to legally interdict U.S. arms shipments to Taiwan?

Now either we accept that we're hypocrites or we treat all the same and grant the same rights to others - no matter how unpleasant that would be.

This coin has two sides. It would be crazy to expect that it'll always flip to the side that we prefer.

[Rex Brynen]

Now either we accept that we're hypocrites or we treat all the same and grant the same rights to others - no matter how unpleasant that would be.

This coin has two sides. It would be crazy to expect that it'll always flip to the side that we prefer.

I agree that preemptive self-defence is a slippery-slope. Were Israel to argue that it had a right to intercept Iranian-Syrian weapons shipments on the basis of a state of war with Syria, the Syrians could certainly claim the same right.

In this particular case, however, Israel can argue that there is a mandatory UN weapons embargo on both Iranian exports (UNSCR 1747) and Hizbullah imports (UNSCR 1701). Moreover, while the former is rather vague on enforcement (it was extended by UNSCR 1803, but in a way that wouldn't have covered an Antiguan-flagged, German-owned ship in international waters), the latter is much clearer, since it calls upon states "take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft" any arms reaching Hizbullah. This places, one might argue, the ship's captain, owners, and operators under an obligation to cooperate in a search, and certainly to offload any weapons that were found.

In none of the example hypothetical examples that you raise is there a similar basis in UNSCR resolutions for search and seizure.

Of course, it would be nice to see similar regard for legal niceties in the case of, say, illegal settlement activity in the Palestinian territories :D

[Fuchs]

8. Decides that all States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the
supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from their territories or by their
nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft to, or for use in or benefit of, Iran,
and whether or not originating in their territories, of:

I read that Israel was empowered to act if the ship was under its flag or manned by its nationals. Neither was the case.
That makes sense, because there would otherwise have been a carte blanche to board just about every ship based on suspicions alone - a power that could have provoked new conflicts (which is against the U.N.'s purpose).
Similar language was in another related resolution as well.

There's the additional problem that the ship wasn't en route to Hizbollah; it was en route to a Syrian Harbour. It would have been Syria's job to stop the delivery (which shows again that the UNSC seat owners should exercise more humility and not write pointless resolutions).



By the way; it's pointless to attempt to prevent arms shipments. Iran can easily afford to send more shipments and the story of law enforcement against drugs clearly tells us that it's completely futile.

The attempt of a full blockade may at best win some time and at worst it's an indecisive marginal battlefield while defeat is accumulating at the decisive battlefield; the link to the Western World. To ignore the values and norms of the Western World and notoriously playing outlaw is no way to survive safely for generations if you're extremely dependent on friendship and support.
Just recall France's reaction in 1967.

I'm sure that this policy is extremely dumb, short-sighted and ill-guided grand strategy.

[Fuchs]

Oh, and I'd like to add that this is a general issue.

You can make yourself an outlaw and you may be big enough to get away with it superficially, but nothing is for free. There will be backlash sometime and you better be big enough to stand that one as well.

I've heard and read much disrespect for international law from nations of many Western countries. These people are under the impression that the lack of a strong and visible enforcement turns IL pointless.

I assert that they're just blind to the enormous informal sanctions. The whole 9/11 & Afghanistan & Iraq & most of the Somalia mess became possible only because certain people believed that it's a good idea to be disrespectful to IL and weak nations.
8,000 dead, 10,000+ wounded and more than a trillion USD economic damage. The backlash was indeed far more terrible and real than any UNSC resolution could ever have been.

[davidbfpo]

An informative briefing, with photos and sources from an Israeli think tank: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/iran_e035.htm

Curiously the 122mm rockets are near the end of their shelf life and so not so predictable in terms of accuracy.

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

The Yemeni's seized 26th October an Iranian ship with arms aboard and intended for the rebels: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/iran_e035.htm and http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-28-voa31.cfm

Who will seize a suspect arms delivery vessel next?

davidbfpo

[Rex Brynen]

An informative briefing, with photos and sources from an Israeli think tank: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/iran_e035.htm

Interestingly, the report doesn't show anything of unusual significance on board, besides normal ammunition--no longer-ranged rockets, naval SSMs, MANPADs, other SAMs, etc.

[davidbfpo]

Interestingly, the report doesn't show anything of unusual significance on board, besides normal ammunition--no longer-ranged rockets, naval SSMs, MANPADs, other SAMs, etc.

Rex,

I'd say the crates of 107mm rockets and
About 700 122mm rockets, with a range of 20 km, or 12.42 miles...They were packed in crates labeled “replacement parts for bulldozers.were quite suffiecent to concern Israel. I leave aside legal arguments.

davidbfpo

[Rex Brynen]

Rex,

I'd say the crates of 107mm rockets and were quite suffiecent to concern Israel. I leave aside legal arguments.

davidbfpo

Oh, I don't disagree. However, it does raise the question why if Iran was going to the bother of shipping hundreds of tons of material to Hizbullah, it didn't ship anything that would have more strategic or military effect (such as couple of dozen MANPADS, or rockets capable of hitting Tel Aviv).

[William F. Owen]

Oh, I don't disagree. However, it does raise the question why if Iran was going to the bother of shipping hundreds of tons of material to Hizbullah, it didn't ship anything that would have more strategic or military effect (such as couple of dozen MANPADS, or rockets capable of hitting Tel Aviv).

The general opinion is that the overland smuggling routes have limited capacity, so you don't want to bulk out on 700 x 122mm rockets. In contrast you can pack an AT-14 firing post in the boot of a car.

Higher value items will have more discreet routes.

[JJackson]

David thanks for finding the pics.

Are Hezbollah known to have artillery that would use the 106mm shell? I would have thought that was fairly hard to hide and if you used it Israeli air power would quickly take it out of play.

[Rex Brynen]

David thanks for finding the pics.

Are Hezbollah known to have artillery that would use the 106mm shell? I would have thought that was fairly hard to hide and if you used it Israeli air power would quickly take it out of play.

The "106mm" shells would have likely been ammunition for the M-40 recoilless rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M40_recoilless_rifle) (which is actually 105mm, but commonly referred to as 106mm). The M-40 was used by Iran, LAF, the Lebanese Forces, and the IDF and has likely ended up in Hizbullah use one way or the other. Spain also uses them, which may explain the Spanish on the boxes.

(Hizbullah also likely uses B-11 107mm recoilless, but that doesn't explain the shipping markings.)

Because of their relative portability and accuracy, Hizbullah frequently used recoilless rifles (of various calibres) for direct fire support against SLA outposts (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1247512035) prior to the IDF withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000.

On a sidenote, this is my all-time favourite recoilless rifle employment (http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2006/12/mystery-photo-one-seriously-empowered.html) (by the French, in Indochina and Algeria) :eek:
http://re2.farm1.static.flickr.com/127/323360127_c3644536e4.jpg

[davidbfpo]

Are Hezbollah known to have artillery that would use the 106mm shell? I would have thought that was fairly hard to hide and if you used it Israeli air power would quickly take it out of play.

Yes, there are numerous open source references to Hezbollah using 106mm guns and rockets. As late as May 2009 (?) during clashes with the Druze. I also note the Lebanese Army used the 106mm.

davidbfpo