Turkey’s last offer to Israel: Three options on table

[Jigs]

Yeah, right...I have been to Turkey. I know better.

I have lived and grew up in turkey. Move along sir you just went to Incirlik as you claim. Plus from the example you gave the only thing i took from it is what kind of personality you possess. There is a big difference being stationed overseas and actually living their.

I won't be replying to anything else as i have been around long enough to see someone trolling.

 

[Jigs]

In the chain of human events, NOTHING is uncaused. You cherry picked one event in the middle of the chain to try to portray Hamas as the innocent party forced into a situation not of its own creation. The naval blockade by Israel and the land blockade by Egypt of Gaza is not uncaused. Convenient that you would ignore Egypt's participation in creating and maintaining this so-called 'concentration camp' hyperbole.

Egypt is a tool note how only after Turkey did something did they have the balls to lift the blockade.

 

[gambit]

Egypt is a tool note how only after Turkey did something did they have the balls to lift the blockade.

That is a laugh. Egypt did a conditional relief of its land blockade of Gaza. Egypt will do a 'technicality' by saying that Rafah is for foot travelers only. Too small for large items like raw materials that could be co-opted by Hamas to use for war waging purposes. Egypt did so not because the Egyptians have any 'balls' but because they are embarrassed that Egypt was exposed to be complicit in creating and maintaining this so-called 'concentration camp' hyperbole.

 

[Thomas]

Since the blockade is illegal and against Human rights it makes perfect sense not to listen as the aid was not for Israel but for Gaza.

Actually according to international law the blockade is perfectly legal.

Reuters
Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal? | Reuters

By Jonathan Saul
LONDON | Wed Jun 2, 2010 9:16am EDT

Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal?

(Reuters) - Israel has said it will continue a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip despite growing global pressure to lift the siege after a navy raid on a Turkish ferry carrying aid killed nine activists this week.

What is the legality of the blockade and did Israel's intervention breach international law? Below are some questions and answers on the issue:

CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?

Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognized document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea."

Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.

"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.

WHAT ARE INTERNATIONAL WATERS?

Under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea a coastal state has a "territorial sea" of 12 nautical miles from the coast over which it is sovereign. Ships of other states are allowed "innocent passage" through such waters.

There is a further 12 nautical mile zone called the "contiguous zone" over which a state may take action to protect itself or its laws.

"However, strictly beyond the 12 nautical miles limit the seas are the "high seas" or international waters," Roche said.

The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters.

Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.

CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS?

Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship.

"If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.

Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defense after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons.

Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives.

"But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said.

The use of force may also have other repercussions.

"While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments.

"However, not every operation that the law permits is necessarily prudent from the strategic point of view."

OPPONENTS HAVE CALLED ISRAEL'S RAID "PIRACY." WAS IT?

No, as under international law it was considered a state action.

"Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest," Kraska said.

HAVE THERE BEEN ANY SHIPPING DISRUPTIONS AFTER THE RAID?

None so far but the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), an association which represents 75 percent of the world's merchant fleet, has expressed "deep concern" over the boarding by Israeli forces, arguing that merchant ships have a right to safe passage and freedom of navigation in international waters.

"These fundamental principles of international law must always be upheld by all of the world's nations," the ICS said.

 

[blain2]

Comical really the flimsy defence.

Let me quote the very obvious and the "basis" of the real issue on hand.

1. Gaza by International Law is an occupied territory – Its neither a territory nor a state. Israeli soldiers leaving it physically from time to time does not qualify it to be "not occupied." The Israelis retain all control over who is allowed in and out, what can go in and out, none of these characteristics demonstrate a viable, independent entity capable of running its affairs within the Gaza strip which could be considered an independent state and thus not occupied.

2. Even if it was a state, you would need to declare a state of war or belligerence. Neither were declared or made by the Israeli government.

3. In the absence of a declaration of war or a state of belligerence, the action of Israel is considered civil… that it is the persons who organized the raid, and those who took part in it are subject to the International Maritime Law… just the same as most of Israel politicians are subject to common criminal laws in Europe, today, for example.

Israel’s blockade of Gaza is illegitimate; this is not up for dispute. Gaza is not a state and therefore the provisions you cite do not apply to the situation.

Getting to the flotilla itself, the San Remo Manual requires military forces to distinguish between civilians and enemy soldiers before opening fire. The IDF did not do that. Furthermore, a military unit cannot invade a civilian vessel in international waters and then claim self-defense at a subsequent time. Under law, they are the aggressors.

To the very last part, they are not just aggressors, they are bloody pirates. No different than the khat chewing ones running amok along the coast of Somalia.

 

[gambit]

Comical really the flimsy defence.

Let me quote the very obvious and the "basis" of the real issue on hand.



To the very last part, they are not just aggressors, they are bloody pirates. No different than the khat chewing ones running amok along the coast of Somalia.

Would be nice if you provide the source for that...

But...

1. Gaza by International Law is an occupied territory – Its neither a territory nor a state. Israeli soldiers leaving it physically from time to time does not qualify it to be "not occupied." The Israelis retain all control over who is allowed in and out, what can go in and out, none of these characteristics demonstrate a viable, independent entity capable of running its affairs within the Gaza strip which could be considered an independent state and thus not occupied.

Hamas considered Israel itself as an 'occupier' of the greater Palestine region. But since you brought up 'international law', here is the proper 'international law' regarding the accepted definition and context of what is an 'occupied territory'...

The Avalon Prject - Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907

Art. 42.

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.

When Israel withdrew from Gaza back in '05 and there was no blockade, Gaza effectively a free territory regardless of whether or not there would be a successive authority after Israel. A free territory is not an occupied territory.

2. Even if it was a state, you would need to declare a state of war or belligerence. Neither were declared or made by the Israeli government.

Bunk. By that argument, as long as a non-state actor remain unaffiliated, he can commit all sort of atrocities against a state and that state is legally bound to no response because only a state can go to war against another state and that there must be a formal declaration of war? I would like to see any attorney argue that in the court of common sense.

3. In the absence of a declaration of war or a state of belligerence, the action of Israel is considered civil… that it is the persons who organized the raid, and those who took part in it are subject to the International Maritime Law… just the same as most of Israel politicians are subject to common criminal laws in Europe, today, for example.

Israel’s blockade of Gaza is illegitimate; this is not up for dispute. Gaza is not a state and therefore the provisions you cite do not apply to the situation.

Good...The terrorists of the world can rest easy now that they can stretch that logic to be that since they are not affiliated with any military, the accepted laws and customary understanding of war can be ignored.

Getting to the flotilla itself, the San Remo Manual requires military forces to distinguish between civilians and enemy soldiers before opening fire. The IDF did not do that.

How can any military force distinguish soldiers from civilians when there are none? By that logic, anyone can be a combatant simply by not dressing as a soldier and the real soldier have to accepted his fate? Give us a break. This is an insult to ALL of us who actually have spent time in uniform.

Furthermore, a military unit cannot invade a civilian vessel in international waters and then claim self-defense at a subsequent time. Under law, they are the aggressors.

Wrong...

Crimes Under Flags of Convenience | YaleGlobal Online Magazine

In June, 2002, French commandos boarded the Cambodian-registered freighter Winner in international waters in the Atlantic amid an exchange of gunfire that injured one of the 12 crew members. The troops seized more than one tonne of Colombian cocaine worth well over $100 million in a cargo that was registered as scrap iron destined for Bilbao in Spain. Officials said that the raid was the result of 15-months of surveillance involving U.S., French, Spanish and Greek authorities.

 

[theboss]

Jews love the money and if all Islamic countries can build a common economic counsel for Israeli trade, then the can use the "economy" factor to force israeli decision. Also israel is a cheap source of sophiscated technology and will sell anything even if it was banned by USA. There is a lot to benefit economically and technologically from Israel than lose and may put an end to violence agaisnt Palestiean even if not a palestineans statehood solution in near future. This is called pointing enemy weapon towards itself.

All can be done while still maintain strict Israeli visit policies and baring average citizen from having a holiday ride to stop infiltration by Mossad spies.

 

[lhuang]

Furthermore, a military unit cannot invade a civilian vessel in international waters and then claim self-defense at a subsequent time. Under law, they are the aggressors.

Under maritime law, THEY CAN. I can cite this too.

 

[Solomon2]

lhuang. gambit, Thomas, all these arguments don't matter to the Pakistanis. What matters to them is that they can never acknowledge that a Muslim killing, maiming, or kidnaping an Israeli soldier could be a sin and thus for that Muslim to be killed in turn by an Israeli is a good deed that can and should be praised by other Muslims. It is both a matter of bigotry and the deep fear that if they came out as an Israel advocate their throats or those of their families "would be slit twenty minutes later", as one person with extensive experience doing business in Pakistan put it to me. They live under a terror they scarcely if at all acknowledge. I'm not even sure they WANT to change this.

 

[Solomon2]

Report: Israel holds captured flotilla ships
By YAAKOV KATZ AND JPOST.COM STAFF
07/20/2010 20:34

Foreign Ministry requests assurances vessels will not attempt further blockade runs; Israel Counter-Terrorism Bureau lifts travel restriction on Turkey.

Israel is seeking written assurances from Turkey that the three IHH ships which it has in its possession, captured during the May 31 Gaza-bound flotilla incident, will not be used for another blockade-running attempt before it agrees to send them back to Turkey, reported Turkish daily Hurriyet Tuesday.

The IHH, which organized the ships of the flotilla, is demanding that Israel provide tug boats to tow the ships back to Turkey, according to Hurriyet. The Israeli Foreign Ministry has yet to respond to the complaint IHH lodged at the Embassy in Tel Aviv.

“Israel has long been dragging its feet and made public that it will not give the ships back unless the commission inquiry is concluded. I think the process will last four or five months,” said Salih Bilici of the IHH.

“We are only an NGO and how influential can we be? Turkey at every occasion demands the return of the vessels,” Bilici told Hurriyet.

Hurriyet reported that in past cases, Israel has required assurances only from the organizers which send ships to Gaza, but this time Israel is asking for assurances from Turkey.

Counter-Terrorism Bureau lifts Turkey travel advisory

The Prime Minister’s Office Counter-Terrorism Bureau on Tuesday lifted a travel advisory which recommended that Israelis refrain from visiting Turkey.

The advisory was issued after fears that Israelis would be the victims of negative reactions to the botched raid on the Turkish flotilla.

The bureau released a statement on Tuesday saying that the situation in Turkey has eased up and that as a result Israelis were no longer in direct danger.

The bureau recommended however that Israelis stay away from political demonstrations in the country.

The advisory initially came as a response to unrest in Turkey, where protesters tried to storm the Israeli Consulate in Istanbul over an IDF raid on the “Free Gaza” ships.

Israelis were warned against traveling until the situation became clear.

Israelis that were located in Turkey were advised to remain in their places of residence and avoid city centers.

 

[BATMAN]

Under maritime law, THEY CAN. I can cite this too.

would be nice if you provide the link to your source.

 

[Ras]

Great point which leads me to ask what are the grounds for intercepting cargo headed for a "free" territory? Secondly, how can Israel carry on with this unilaterally imposed embargo of Gaza?

The initial point is that Israel enters, leaves Gaza as and when it wants to like any occupation force. It occupies the masses by controlling even the basics into the blockaded territory.

Had we (you and I alike) been on the receiving end, what Israel does would look more like running a concentration camp, however I'd think that any sane Israeli would like to think of himself and his country as being better than the Nazis. Yet allowing similar behaviour is outright shameful. This is beyond nationalism and religion. Its a question of basic human decency.

The agreement with the PLO under which Gaza under which Israeli forces withdrew explicitly mentioned that Israel has sovereignty over the seas adjoining Gaza. The Palestinians gave away the right to the sea themselves.

 

[somebozo]

Sooner or later Turkey will give up its ambitions when it realize that foolish arabs are their own biggest enemies. Downgrade of Turkey - Israel releation has a lot loose for Turkey economically and intellactualy and very little for Israel.

 

[The Malik]

Sooner or later Turkey will give up its ambitions when it realize that foolish arabs are their own biggest enemies. Downgrade of Turkey - Israel releation has a lot loose for Turkey economically and intellactualy and very little for Israel.

Erm.....Turkey is a NATO member and in a few years time will have the 9th largest economy. It is/was Israels only Muslim ally. Trust me, Turkey is not in the mood for any more BS from Israel and is cleverly making itself a lot of friends in the region.

 

[turkaholic]

The agreement with the PLO under which Gaza under which Israeli forces withdrew explicitly mentioned that Israel has sovereignty over the seas adjoining Gaza. The Palestinians gave away the right to the sea themselves.

How did they give that right to Israel exactly? Don't make me laugh man. You guys are trying so damn hard to cover up their insanity and cruelty. It is just unbelievable. Do you guys also tuck each other at night, and kiss good night as well?