Mavi Marmara Raid

[jmm99]

I'd be remiss to my maternal Finnish ancestry if I omitted reference to the International Law Association's (1998) Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality.

Some of the more relevant principles (most all of the Helsinki Principles bear on this case to some extent):

5.1.2(3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they 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, capture or diversion.

5.1.2(4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they:

(a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;

(b) act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces;

(c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system;

(d) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or

(e) 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.

5.2.1 Visit and search. As an exception to Principle 5.1.2. paragraph 1 and in accordance with Principle 1.3 (2nd sentence), belligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.

5.2.10 Blockade. Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.

5.3 Relief. A blockade may not be used to prevent the passage of relief consignments which has to be free according to the applicable rules of international humanitarian law, in particular those contained in Articles 23, 59 and 61 of the Fourth Geneva Convention or Articles 69 and 70 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions.

The Helsinki Principles (as also the San Remo Manual) are based in part on the 1977 Additional Protocols, not ratified by either Israel or Turnkey.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

Israel considers itself engaged in an armed conflict with Hamas, which occupies Gaza.

The Int Law status of "Palestine" itself is obscure.

See these Wikis for an overview:

List of states with limited recognition

Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority

Hamas

The Gaza-Hamas situation with Israel is similar to the AQ-Taliban situation with the US (where Common Article 3 of the 1949 GCs is the controlling law). But, how another nation will view it depends on its own ratifications or not of the various post-1949 conventions, and its own policy on recognition of nation-states and diplomatic recognition of governments.

Regards

Mike

[Rex Brynen]

It seems to me that there is likely a difference between the legality of 1) the naval blockade, and 2) the legality of the blockade/embargo as a whole (which arguably comprises, in its present form, collective punishment of the civilian population of Gaza, and in its sweeping extent is disproportionate to any military advantage gained).

Some of this hinges on whether the Gaza is still considered "occupied territory." Israeli ground forces and settlers withdrew in 2005, but the IDF has full control of Gaza's air and sea space, most of its borders, and can enter the much of the area at will. The US, EU, UN, and ICRC continue to describe Gaza as "occupied territory" (which has clear legal implications under the 4th Geneva Convention). Israel argues that Gaza is a hostile, not occupied, territory.

Final note: Gaza has no seaport. It has a small fishing harbour/breakwater, and that's it (picture below, taken on my last visit).

[jmm99]

Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (1995), and its Annotated Supplement (1997), covered the US view toward Neutrality in general (chap 7) and Blockades in particular (Section 7.7).

The Commander's Handbook was updated in July 2007 (same chap and section refs); and that update can be found at the Naval War College (MCWP 5-12.1 in Marine indexing). The 1997 Annotated Supplement has not been updated.

---------------------------
Perhaps, Rex, there is something to this:

from Rex
It seems to me that there is likely a difference between the legality of 1) the naval blockade, and 2) the legality of the blockade/embargo as a whole (which arguably comprises, in its present form, collective punishment of the civilian population of Gaza, and in its sweeping extent is disproportionate to any military advantage gained).

although I haven't thought enough about Gaza issues to pontificate.

Most all blockades, embargoes and sanctions are de facto "collective punishments" of the civilian populations at which they are aimed - regardless of their status de jure. They also do the most damage to the "least of us" - and the "Powers That Be" rarely suffer. Thus, I find these so called "less than war operations" to be often less humanitarian than outright military incursions.

As to "occupied" or not, our FM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, has these statements re: occupation:

351. Military Occupation

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. (HR, art. 42.)

and

355. Occupation as Question of Fact

Military occupation is a question of fact. It presupposes a hostile invasion, resisted or unresisted, as a result of which the invader has rendered the invaded government incapable of publicly exercising its authority, and that the invader has successfully substituted its own authority for that of the legitimate government in the territory invaded.

and (emphasis added by me)

360. Maintenance of Occupation

Occupation, to be effective, must be maintained. In case the occupant evacuates the district or is driven out by the enemy, the occupation ceases. It does not cease, however, if the occupant, after establishing its authority, moves forward against the enemy, leaving a smaller force to administer the affairs of the district. Nor does the existence of a rebellion or the activity of guerrilla or para-military units of itself cause the occupation to cease, provided the occupant could at any time it desired assume physical control of any part of the territory. If, however, the power of the occupant is effectively displaced for any length of time, its position towards the inhabitants is the same as before occupation.

361. Termination of Occupation

The law of belligerent occupation generally ceases to be applicable under the conditions set forth in paragraphs 353 [JMM Note: 353 is annexation of the occupied territory] and 360. However, with respect to the provisions of GC alone, Article 6 of that Convention provides:

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention; 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.

Protected persons whose release, repatriation or re-establishment may take place after such dates shall meanwhile continue to benefit by the present Convention. (GC, art. 6, 3d and 4th pars.)

Of course, reasonable persons can argue about questions of fact until the cows come home (or the horses come back to the beach). My own IMO is that Israel has a good argument for no occupation by Israel (and for occupation by Hamas) following the lines of FM 27-10.

Cheers

Mike

[davidbfpo]

From an Israeli source, with details on the activists from the IHH aboard the ship, photos of weapons and more. Yes some information gained from those detained and released.

Link: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/mal...hamas_e110.htm

[tequila]

The most interesting thing in that Israeli-sourced article to me is the emphasis on blaming Erdogan and the Turkish government. Seems to me like the Israeli-Turkish alliance is definitively over, and the Israeli right wing views Turkey as no different than Iran or Syria.

[Rex Brynen]

Iranian aid ships head for Gaza
Reuters
14 Jun 2010 09:27:23 GMT

* First ship left Iran Sunday, another leaves this week
* Iran says will continue until Gaza blockade lifted
* 100,000 Iranians volunteer to crew ships - report

TEHRAN, June 14 (Reuters) - Iran is sending aid ships to blockaded Gaza, state radio said on Monday -- a move likely to be considered provocative by Israel which accuses Tehran of arming the Palestinian enclave's Islamist rulers, Hamas.

One ship left port on Sunday and another will depart by Friday, loaded with food, construction material and toys, the report said. The boats would be part of international efforts to break Israel's isolation of the Gaza Strip.

"Until the end of the Gaza blockade, Iran will continue to ship aid," said an official at Iran's Society for the Defence of the Palestinian Nation.

...

[The Cuyahoga Kid]

US urges ships from Lebanon to send aid to Gaza overland

Wed Jun 23, 2:58 pm ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States on Wednesday urged aid ships from Lebanon to Gaza to "behave responsibly" and avoid clashes by having the aid delivered via established land routes from Israel.

"Direct delivery by sea is neither appropriate nor responsible, and certainly not effective, under the circumstances," the State Department said when asked if Washington has discussed Gaza-bound aid shipments from Lebanon.

"We, along with our partners in the Quartet, urge all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected and transferred via land crossings into Gaza," the statement said.

The statement referred to the Diplomatic Quartet of the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union.

"There is no need for unnecessary confrontations, and we, along with our partners in the Quartet, call on all parties to act responsibly in meeting the needs of the people of Gaza," the statement said.

In defiance of Israeli warnings to Lebanon, organizers are planning to transport aid by sea along with dozens of Lebanese and foreign journalists to the Hamas-controlled territory.

Organizers in Beirut said one of two aid boats planning to sail to Gaza from Lebanon has received the green light to depart for Cyprus on the first leg of a trip that aims to break Israel's blockade.

While the vessel would also need Cypriot authorization to depart for Gaza from its shores, organizers have said they may change course before reaching the island and head straight towards the Palestinian territory.

In Cyprus, there was no official comment on Monday on the planned trip.

A second ship, the "Mariam," also plans to carry aid to Gaza in another attempt to break the four-year-old siege of Gaza with some 50 women-only activists on board, including 30 Lebanese.

The "Mariam" has not yet been given permission to sail.

Israel came under international censure over its May 31 seizure of a six-ship aid fleet bound for Gaza, in which nine Turkish activists were shot dead by Israeli naval commandos in clashes on the lead boat.

Using an all female crew is pretty clever of the Lebanese.

[JMA]

From an Israeli source, with details on the activists from the IHH aboard the ship, photos of weapons and more. Yes some information gained from those detained and released.

Link: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/mal...hamas_e110.htm

I thought the Israelis were more savvy than that. Man did they fall for that one. Wonder when then heads will start to roll?

[RJ]

Bottom line - The fast rope of 14 troops on to a boat that had at least 100 trained islam fanatics surrounded by 500 peace protesters was, with hindsight all over this comment, criminal. I watched the pipes swinging hard at the Israeli's even before they ade it to the deck.

The commanders who set this action up need to be courts martialed.

There were dozens of other options.

Just a thought! How many of the dead could have been killed by the trained muslims aboard, to raise the "Oh the Humanity" reflex. Acouple of western journalist who were covering the story from the boat went missing after the attack. Did they or their bodies ever surface?

The Turks and Iran are deeply in each others pockets on this one. The ambush reeks of a well planned attack that shows the incompetents of the Israeli planners and the rage of muslims defending themselves against Jewish attackers.

Someone said earlier that the pattern of attacks that are most effective is the unusual place using unusal wepons.

JMHO as well!

A group of International Maritime Law experts, including a very high ranking Canadian military leader are part of the group that will be studying this incident.

[Rex Brynen]

International Committee of the Red Cross
14-06-2010 News release 10/103

Gaza closure: not another year!

Geneva/Jerusalem (ICRC) - The hardship faced by Gaza's 1.5 million people cannot be addressed by providing humanitarian aid. The only sustainable solution is to lift the closure.

The serious incidents that took place on 31 May between Israeli forces and activists on a flotilla heading for Gaza once again put the spotlight on the acute hardship faced by the population in the Gaza Strip.

As the ICRC has stressed repeatedly, the dire situation in Gaza cannot be resolved by providing humanitarian aid. The closure imposed on the Gaza Strip is about to enter its fourth year, choking off any real possibility of economic development. Gazans continue to suffer from unemployment, poverty and warfare, while the quality of Gaza's health care system has reached an all-time low.

The whole of Gaza's civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law.

"The closure is having a devastating impact on the 1.5 million people living in Gaza", said Béatrice Mégevand-Roggo, the ICRC's head of operations for the Middle East. "That is why we are urging Israel to put an end to this closure and call upon all those who have an influence on the situation, including Hamas, to do their utmost to help Gaza's civilian population. Israel's right to deal with its legitimate security concerns must be balanced against the Palestinians' right to live normal, dignified lives."

The international community has to do its part to ensure that repeated appeals by States and international organizations to lift the closure are finally heeded.

Under international humanitarian law, Israel must ensure that the basic needs of Gazans, including adequate health care, are met. The Palestinian authorities, for their part, must do everything within their power to provide proper health care, supply electricity and maintain infrastructure for Gaza's people.

Furthermore, all States have an obligation to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of all relief consignments, equipment and personnel.

Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit is about to enter his fifth year in captivity. Hamas has continued to rebuff the ICRC's requests to let it visit Gilad Shalit. In violation of international humanitarian law, it has also refused to allow him to get in touch with his family. The ICRC again urges those detaining Gilad Shalit to grant him the regular contact with his family to which he is entitled. It also reiterates that those detaining him have an obligation to ensure that he is well treated and that his living conditions are humane and dignified.

...