Israel, Egypt 'block Turkey from airlifting Gaza wounded protesters for emergency treatment'

[Trango Towers]

What has happened to Egypt ? they have also become a slave to evil ?

Why did this post get a negative rating

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I don't believe this is correct. Can you link the law that pertains to that?

From what I understand, this is a closed blockade (not distant or loose) and any entering ship is subject to inspection by the Israeli navy. Any other navy cannot get permission to enter the blockaded zone and the only permission allowable is a full inspection of the entering vessel by the blockading country's navy, and that's even if they allow it to enter which I'm sure the Israelis wouldn't. They would demand the ship to dock in an Israeli port and then unload all cargo for inspection and then be transported by land into Gaza. This is how it's been done since the blockade took effect and why no one has ever attempted it and we all know how the Mavi Marmara turned out.



Most of the younglings on this forum are oblivious to this fact and those who actually do recognize it still pretend it's not the case for same reason, self promotion and the chastising of others. It's pretty obvious what's going on.

Your understanding is wrong. What you describe is the rules for ships that are not escorted by Navy. It is all in the San Remo manual governing warfare at sea. Google for it

The rule I am referring to is only applicable to neutral countries. Belligerent countries have no such rights. Turkey, while not friendly, would not be considered a belligerent country.

If Turkey had understood International Law, they would not have screwed up as they did during and after the Ships to Gaza affair.
According to the San Remo Manual, a blockading country can either inspect or ask the ship to divert to a specified port for inspection.
This can always be done inside the blockaded area. If a ship announces in advance, its plan to enter the blockaded area, it can also be stopped and inspected on international waters.
It cannot be stopped and inspected on the territorial waters belonging to another nation.

Obviously, if a country guarantees a shipment by escorting it with its Navy, they are also liable for any violations, and can be prosecuted for war crimes if it can be proved that the shipment contains contraband.

 

[TOPGUN]

Why did this post get a negative rating

It wasn't my post but a post from a disrespectful member who has no respect for other members nor for the holy month of Ramadan anyhow lets stick to the topic.

 

[damm1t]

Are you on drugs and on your period jerk ? grow up and show respect its Ramadan.

I didn't say anything disrectful from the beginning, its you who behaves like a teen college girl who cheated by her boyfriend. Your NR gun has no effect on me, lol.

 

[Gomig-21]

Your understanding is wrong. What you describe is the rules for ships that are not escorted by Navy. It is all in the San Remo manual governing warfare at sea. Google for it

I looked it up and found nothing of the sort. Besides, with all due respect, the burden of proof is on you to provide the specific source and not me to look it up since you made the claim.

The San Remo manual goes into all sorts of details as to the legality of a blockade based on International Armed Conflicts and whether the conflict between Israel and Hamas is considered an IAC or not and taking into account civilians suffering etc. I found nothing pertaining to naval warships escorting merchant ships to have direct access through a naval blockade. You'll have to show that.

If Turkey had understood International Law, they would not have screwed up as they did during and after the Ships to Gaza affair.

Here's the odd part of that comment: what you're suggesting is that you understand the maritime code regarding a naval blockade better than the Turkish navy which is arguably the largest and strongest in the entire Mediterranean Sea and one of the top 10 in the world. Your knowledge and experience notwithstanding, doesn't that seem a bit strange to you?

And BTW, Erdogan did announce that Turkish warships would escort merchant ships and flotillas to Gaza in 2011 post the Flotilla incident but why hasn't he done it yet and since then? Most likely because it would be against the basis of a naval blockade which in this case is fraught with ambiguity as to its legality because of the whole Hamas vs Israel concept of IAC. That goes back to the rules of the naval blockade and that it would be considered a violation or breach and that Israeli-imposed blockade and that the Israelis more than likely would not hesitate to stop it which could turn ugly and basically start a war between Turkey and Israel.

So you're saying Erdogan and the Turkish navy don't know the rules of naval blockades despite being the largest and most powerful navy in the Mediterranean Sea but you do yet Erdogan did say Turkish warships would accompany Turkish aid ships to Gaza but has never done it since 2011. What's wrong with this picture?

Turkish warships will escort aid vessels to Gaza: Erdogan
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...vessels-to-gaza-erdogan-idUSTRE78765F20110908

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I looked it up and found nothing of the sort. Besides, with all due respect, the burden of proof is on you to provide the specific source and not me to look it up since you made the claim.

The San Remo manual goes into all sorts of details as to the legality of a blockade based on International Armed Conflicts and whether the conflict between Israel and Hamas is considered an IAC or not and taking into account civilians suffering etc. I found nothing pertaining to naval warships escorting merchant ships to have direct access through a naval blockade. You'll have to show that.



Here's the odd part of that comment: what you're suggesting is that you understand the maritime code regarding a naval blockade better than the Turkish navy which is arguably the largest and strongest in the entire Mediterranean Sea and one of the top 10 in the world. Your knowledge and experience notwithstanding, doesn't that seem a bit strange to you?

And BTW, Erdogan did announce that Turkish warships would escort merchant ships and flotillas to Gaza in 2011 post the Flotilla incident but why hasn't he done it yet and since then? Most likely because it would be against the basis of a naval blockade which in this case is fraught with ambiguity as to its legality because of the whole Hamas vs Israel concept of IAC. That goes back to the rules of the naval blockade and that it would be considered a violation or breach and that Israeli-imposed blockade and that the Israelis more than likely would not hesitate to stop it which could turn ugly and basically start a war between Turkey and Israel.

So you're saying Erdogan and the Turkish navy don't know the rules of naval blockades despite being the largest and most powerful navy in the Mediterranean Sea but you do yet Erdogan did say Turkish warships would accompany Turkish aid ships to Gaza but has never done it since 2011. What's wrong with this picture?

Turkish warships will escort aid vessels to Gaza: Erdogan
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...vessels-to-gaza-erdogan-idUSTRE78765F20110908

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/appl...t&documentId=DA0EAC2EBDF34537C12563FB0049E4BF

120. A neutral merchant vessel is exempt from the exercise of the right of visit and search if it meets the following conditions:

(a) it is bound for a neutral port;
(b) it is under the convoy of an accompanying neutral warship of the same nationality or a neutral warship of a State with which the flag State of the merchant vessel has concluded an agreement providing for such convoy;
(c) the flag State of the neutral warship warrants that the neutral merchant vessel is not carrying contraband or otherwise engaged in activities inconsistent with its neutral status; and
(d) the commander of the neutral warship provides, if requested by the commander of an intercepting belligerent warship or military aircraft, all information as to the character of the merchant vessel and its cargo as could otherwise be obtained by visit and search.

There is a lot of politicians/military men which has no clue about the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Gomig-21]

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/appl...t&documentId=DA0EAC2EBDF34537C12563FB0049E4BF

120. A neutral merchant vessel is exempt from the exercise of the right of visit and search if it meets the following conditions:

Thanks for providing that.

(a) it is bound for a neutral port;

Would a port in Gaza would be considered a "neutral port"? How could a port in the blockaded strip itself be considered "neutral"?

And BTW, the "belligerent" party in this case is actually considered Israel, just for the sake of clarification. When you mentioned earlier that while Turkey might not be considered "not friendly," it's not belligerent but that term refers to the blockading state in this whole context of a blockade.

(d) the commander of the neutral warship provides, if requested by the commander of an intercepting belligerent warship or military aircraft, all information as to the character of the merchant vessel and its cargo as could otherwise be obtained by visit and search.

If in fact what they define as a "neutral port" is considered a port in Gaza, then in this case I guess you are correct. But what is considered a nuetral port? It doesn't seem like that would be one in Gaza in this case, but another one outside the blockaded area, no?

There is a lot of politicians/military men which has no clue about the Geneva Conventions.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse and despite how I feel towards Turkey, I could never fathom any scenario where there would be the slightest possibility that the historical, powerful and advanced Turkish navy wouldn't be completely aware and fully knowledgeable of every single detail pertaining to international naval rules and regulations. Especially when Erdogan himself, in 2011 said that Turkish warships would accompany aid vessels to Gaza. Why hasn't he done it yet?

 

[OldTwilight]

Arabs here dont want to see this news..

You are putting foot into a path that we are in it for 40 years ...
in the end , Arabs will side with their cousins ...

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Thanks for providing that.



Would a port in Gaza would be considered a "neutral port"? How could a port in the blockaded strip itself be considered "neutral"?

And BTW, the "belligerent" party in this case is actually considered Israel, just for the sake of clarification. When you mentioned earlier that while Turkey might not be considered "not friendly," it's not belligerent but that term refers to the blockading state in this whole context of a blockade.



If in fact what they define as a "neutral port" is considered a port in Gaza, then in this case I guess you are correct. But what is considered a nuetral port? It doesn't seem like that would be one in Gaza in this case, but another one outside the blockaded area, no?



I don't mean to beat a dead horse and despite how I feel towards Turkey, I could never fathom any scenario where there would be the slightest possibility that the historical, powerful and advanced Turkish navy wouldn't be completely aware and fully knowledgeable of every single detail pertaining to international naval rules and regulations. Especially when Erdogan himself, in 2011 said that Turkish warships would accompany aid vessels to Gaza. Why hasn't he done it yet?

The conditions should not be read as AND.
When I reread it, I was also a bit confused.

It is enough to have a neutral port as a destination.
Israel may not inspect a ferry between Japan and South Korea
just because it does not have a naval escort.
If it was for some reason accompanied by a Navy Vessel, why should the captain
of that vessel have to guarantee that the ferry does not contain contraband?
Japan may ferry tanks to South Korea, and its not the business of Israel to protest.

The Ships to Gaza announced beforehand, that their intention was to sail to Gaza,
which means that this condition does not apply. They are not destined to a neutral port.

That is when the other conditions become applicable.
Only when a Ship is going into a blockaded territory, there is a reason to guarantee that the ship does not contain contraband.

Everyone knows that the purpose of the Ships to Gaza was not to provide aid.
The purpose was to create an incident.
Israel diverted the ships to Ashdod, and when they tried to ship the inspected goods,
Hamas was not interested, unless the contraband on the ships were included.

Turkey may not want to risk their status by having anarchistic elements including contraband into shipments guaranteed to be clean by Turkey.

There are plenty of occasions where people fails to see the whole picture.

Europe has a problem with ISIS recruits returning, and have no clue what to do with them.
It is hard to prove any crimes, because you have no evidence.
The easiest thing would simply to consider them to be POW, and lock them up until the War on Terror is won aka lifetime imprisonment.

Proving that they were fighting for ISIS is a lot easier than proving any specific crime.

 

[Dai Toruko]

Satanic Talmud violations of international law....

 

[bdslph]

those best friends are disagree that dont look nice

 

[Gomig-21]

The conditions should not be read as AND.
When I reread it, I was also a bit confused.

What's confusing is whether a port in Gaza itself is considered a nuetral port. It doesn't make any sense that it would be, considering it's THE blockaded entity. How could it be nuetral in that case? Hence accompanying warships and evacuating wounded etc. is moot.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

What's confusing is whether a port in Gaza itself is considered a nuetral port. It doesn't make any sense that it would be, considering it's THE blockaded entity. How could it be nuetral in that case? Hence accompanying warships and evacuating wounded etc. is moot.

No, it is not a neutral port.

If a ship is destined to a neutral port, the blockading country does not have the right to inspect.
If the ship is destined to a blockaded port, the blockading country not only have the right to inspect, they have a duty to inspect - or divert to a harbour for inspection.
If a ship has a neutral country as its destination, but secretly plan to go to a blockaded port, the blockading country may not inspect the ship until it enters the blockading area.
If the ship announces its plan to sail to a blockaded port in advance, the blockading country may inspect or divert the ship also on international waters, but not in the territorial waters of another neutral country. The right to inspect or divert does not include vessels escorted by a neutral Navy, assuming the commander of the escorting vessel guarantees they are clean.

 

[Gomig-21]

No, it is not a neutral port.

Well then, there you go. This is what I've been saying since the beginning, that Turkish warships cannot navigate into blockaded Gaza and be protected from search and seizure by Israel under these San Remo International blockading rules since it's not a neutral port, hence why the Israeli navy would intercept them and it would probably get ugly. So your theory that if Turkey understood international law and they could've used Turkish navy ships to escort merchant aid vessels into Gaza, then on their way out take a bunch of wounded Palestinians with them instead of relying on and blaming Egypt and Israel for not allowing their ports is not applicable.

If a ship is destined to a neutral port, the blockading country does not have the right to inspect.
If the ship is destined to a blockaded port, the blockading country not only have the right to inspect, they have a duty to inspect - or divert to a harbour for inspection.

So they can't do what you said, since Gaza is a blockaded port and is NOT a neutral port lol. Am I missing something?

If the ship announces its plan to sail to a blockaded port in advance, the blockading country may inspect or divert the ship also on international waters, but not in the territorial waters of another country.

So what are you're saying is, that they would have to high-tail it into Gaza territorial waters without being intercepted in outside international waters and then the Israelis can't touch them? Is that what you're saying? If so, it's still a violation of that International law you sited since Gaza is not considered a neutral port.

The right to inspect or divert does not include vessels escorted by a neutral Navy, assuming the commander of the escorting vessel guarantees they are clean.

Well there's several problems with that: 1) we've already determined and agreed that any port in Gaza is not considered neutral so that's out the door. 2) Is Gaza considered and recognized as another country ? Of course not since it's ports are not considered neutral and neither is the territory. It does not have complete sovereignty to be considered "another country".

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Well then, there you go. This is what I've been saying since the beginning, that Turkish warships cannot navigate into blockaded Gaza and be protected from search and seizure by Israel under these San Remo International blockading rules since it's not a neutral port, hence why the Israeli navy would intercept them and it would probably get ugly. So your theory that if Turkey understood international law and they could've used Turkish navy ships to escort merchant aid vessels into Gaza, then on their way out take a bunch of wounded Palestinians with them instead of relying on and blaming Egypt and Israel for not allowing their ports is not applicable.



So they can't do what you said, since Gaza is a blockaded port and is NOT a neutral port lol. Am I missing something?



So what are you're saying is, that they would have to high-tail it into Gaza territorial waters without being intercepted and then the Israelis can't touch them? Is that what you're saying? If so, it's still a violation of that International law you sited since Gaza is not considered a neutral port.



Well there's several problems with that: 1) we've already determined and agreed that any port in Gaza is not considered neutral so that's out the door. 2) Is Gaza considered and recognized as another country ? Of course not since it's ports are not considered neutral and neither is the territory. It does not have complete sovereignty to be considered "another country".

You are interpreting the conditions, like all conditions have to be fulfilled.
That is the problem. Put an ”OR” between the clauses, and you understand.
From You interpretation it follows that ships between Japan and South Korea must be escorted by Navy ships, or Israel has the right of inspection because they are blockading Gaza.