Iran is preparing to dispatch a navy hospital ship for the people of Gaza.

Run_to_da_hills

This is a good move for the people of Gaza who cannot get access adequate medical treatment and supplies across the dividing wall.

It will also be an interesting PR challenge for the Israel authorities to try and stop this boat particularly if it is anchored in international waters.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=129349&sectionid=351020101

jill_valentine

This is the last thing anybody needed.

helimachoptor

jill_valentine wrote: »

This is the last thing anybody needed.

Yep, and will be quite interesting if it decides to head towards the coast.

Atlantic Dawn

If the UN can inspect the cargo I see nothing wrong with this, also cement required to rebuild should never be on an Israeli banned list seeing as they are in possession of US supplied bunker busting bombs.

Run_to_da_hills

jill_valentine wrote: »

This is the last thing anybody needed.

Last thing needed for those that are in good health, yes I would agree with you.

But unfortunately this is not the case in Gaza where thousands are still suffering malnutrition, disease and serious injuries caused by this illegal blockade.

concussion

Cheeky buggers - they don't miss a trick. Under the San Remo manual, enemy medical ships, in international waters, may be inspected and can lose their protected status if they do not submit to a search. Interestingly, there is no mention of neutral med ships in the Manual, it will be interesting to see how this one will turn out.

Manic Moran

I'm thinking that's along the same lines of the Irish naval hospital ship that the Irish government suggested sending to Haiti a couple of months ago.

I don't see this Iranian hospital ship bid being any more successful, unless they do what the aid ships are planning on doing, which is going via the Egypt land crossing.

NTM

xflyer

Run_to_da_hills are you actually naive or deliberately ignoring the real reason for this 'humanitarian' gesture? I don't think you're naive. This is designed to provoke Israel. The Iranians want to instigate an incident just like the one deliberately provoked by the flotilla.

They don't give a damm about the people of Gaza. This is sabre rattling by a despotic regime who have a vested interest in keeping going the myth of an external enemy in order to divert their citizens from rising up and slitting their clerical throats. They want conflict.

iceage

Iranian solution to Israeli boarding vessel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3WveEZykJ8

jill_valentine

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Last thing needed for those that are in good health, yes I would agree with you.

But unfortunately this is not the case in Gaza where thousands are still suffering malnutrition, disease and serious injuries caused by this illegal blockade.

I absolutely oppose the blockade, and I furiously object to Israel's treatment of the flotilla activists - but realistically, this gesture won't achieve anything for the people of Gaza, it wasn't meant for their benefit, and Iran's stamp of approval on anything only serves to discredit it on the world stage. It's a cynical and spiteful move by Iran, and it's hugely damaging to a movement I support.

Glenshane Pass

xflyer wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills are you actually naive or deliberately ignoring the real reason for this 'humanitarian' gesture? I don't think you're naive. This is designed to provoke Israel. The Iranians want to instigate an incident just like the one deliberately provoked by the flotilla.

They don't give a damm about the people of Gaza. This is sabre rattling by a despotic regime who have a vested interest in keeping going the myth of an external enemy in order to divert their citizens from rising up and slitting their clerical throats. They want conflict.

Are you naive?

Iran might be provoking a conflict, for a reason. That reason is the liberation of Palestine, while the rest of the Arab world sits back or lends a helping hand in the blockade and oppression.

BlaasForRafa

xflyer wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills are you actually naive or deliberately ignoring the real reason for this 'humanitarian' gesture? I don't think you're naive. This is designed to provoke Israel. The Iranians want to instigate an incident just like the one deliberately provoked by the flotilla.

They don't give a damm about the people of Gaza. This is sabre rattling by a despotic regime who have a vested interest in keeping going the myth of an external enemy in order to divert their citizens from rising up and slitting their clerical throats. They want conflict.

He spammed the Politics board with a similar type thread http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055932732 and just like that, this is rabble-rousing bulll****.

BlaasForRafa

Glenshane Pass wrote: »

Are you naive?

Iran might be provoking a conflict, for a reason. That reason is the liberation of Palestine, while the rest of the Arab world sits back or lends a helping hand in the blockade and oppression.

Point 1 - Iranians aren't Arabs.

Point 2 - The Iranians don't actually give a sh*t about the Palestinians, they just want to put some heat on Israel to distract world attention away from their nuclear programme.

And try laying off the hyperbole next time.

Run_to_da_hills

xflyer wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills are you actually naive or deliberately ignoring the real reason for this 'humanitarian' gesture? I don't think you're naive. This is designed to provoke Israel. The Iranians want to instigate an incident just like the one deliberately provoked by the flotilla.

They don't give a damm about the people of Gaza. This is sabre rattling by a despotic regime who have a vested interest in keeping going the myth of an external enemy in order to divert their citizens from rising up and slitting their clerical throats. They want conflict.

If the wealthy state if Israel did not treat over 1.5 million of its neighbouring citizens like vermin confined in a concentration camp perhaps there would not be any need for any incoming relief. :rolleyes:

Maybe Iran getting involve will get other Arab nations to start pulling the finger out to help end this illegal blockaid.

Maybe Iran getting involve might get Israel to get down off its high horse and let the UN police the Gaza coastline so that the Palestinians can have some dignity and Independence.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

He spammed the Politics board with a similar type thread http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055932732 and just like that, this is rabble-rousing bulll****.

Yes Spam to the apologists. :rolleyes:

Main stream media topics to others.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/06/gaza-blockade-iran-aid-convoy

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

jill_valentine wrote: »

This is the last thing anybody needed.

You mean, this is the last thing the US, Israel and the rest of the selfish world needs...

If this ship can provide medical attention to those who need it, if Iran or any other country can better the lives of those in Gaza, then it's all good. Iran may have other reasons for sending this ship, that's fair enough, but I don't think the people of Gaza will mind too much, do you think?

xflyer

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

He spammed the Politics board with a similar type thread http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055932732 and just like that, this is rabble-rousing bulll****.

Huh? For a second I thought you meant I was spamming the politics board. I see what you mean. Maybe he is naive after all. Doesn't seem to have a grasp of realpolitik. Like one or two others here:rolleyes: Anyone who thinks Iran has the best interests of the Palestinians at heart is particularly naive.

While I don't agree with Israel's blockade of Gaza, it is wrong and Israel's actions in recent years are sometimes indefensible. They have the lost their way a bit and have not helped their cause with their actions. However they are entitled to defend themselves.

The Iranians with their proxy Hamas are stirring this up aided by well meaning activists (some not so well meaning) in the west. The hospital ship idea is simply another provocation. It's convenient for Iran that they don't share a border with Israel. So war would be a difficult proposition. A lot of this is actually for the benefit of the Iranian people. If they're worried about Israel they won't be thinking of overthrowing the Mullahs who like to fix elections and oppress their own people. This is all about Iran. They care nothing for the Palestinians in Gaza.

jill_valentine

Mario Flat Tongue wrote: »

You mean, this is the last thing the US, Israel and the rest of the selfish world needs...

If this ship can provide medical attention to those who need it, if Iran or any other country can better the lives of those in Gaza, then it's all good. Iran may have other reasons for sending this ship, that's fair enough, but I don't think the people of Gaza will mind too much, do you think?

I don't believe for a second they'll get the chance to avail of any medical services from the ship, and I don't believe Iran do either. This is just supposed to be a giant, floating middle finger pointing at Tel Aviv. And as vehemently as I object to Israel's absurdly cavalier use of force against civilian populations, Iran makes them look like enthusiastic weekenders in the field. They don't exactly have sterling form as champions of humanitarian causes, and any overture they make in that regard should be treated with extreme skepticism. Iran are looking to score a few cheap points against Israel, and they're looking to do it very much at Gaza's expense, nobody should be under any illusions about that.

Aside from the hugely irresponsible escalation of political tension this could bring to a very delicate situation, having Iran associated with Gaza in any way in the international public consciousness will be nothing short of disastrous for the pro-Gazan movement's credibility for years to come. I don't know if you've been reading the same multiple-hundred-post threads about the flotilla as I have, but enough people still keep trotting out discredited and dangerous old misinterpretations and misinformation - from both sides - before you start throwing Iran into the equation too. Once their name is introduced, you'll never quite shake it out of the conversation again.

Nobody in their right mind can think that this will have any positive consequences to the people trying to live behind the walls, and in the long term it will only serve to devalue any moral currency that people have died trying to secure. This is a recklessly cynical move by Iran that isn't intended to benefit anybody, and it's an extremely alarming development.

syklops

Mario Flat Tongue wrote: »

You mean, this is the last thing the US, Israel and the rest of the selfish world needs...

If this ship can provide medical attention to those who need it, if Iran or any other country can better the lives of those in Gaza, then it's all good. Iran may have other reasons for sending this ship, that's fair enough, but I don't think the people of Gaza will mind too much, do you think?

If an irish ship was not allowed to sail to Gaza, what makes you think that an Iranian hospital ship will make it? Remember a hospital ship is still a Naval vessel. It will still have arms on board, which Israel will want to prevent getting to Gaza.

Israel will tell Iran not to send the ship, Iran will anyway. Israel will threaten to board it, Iran will say it will consider any boarding of its ship in International waters to be an act of war, Israel will board the ship, and Iran will respond by declaring war on Israel.

That wont be good for anyone.

ART6

jill_valentine wrote: »

I don't believe for a second they'll get the chance to avail of any medical services from the ship, and I don't believe Iran do either. This is just supposed to be a giant, floating middle finger pointing at Tel Aviv. And as vehemently as I object to Israel's absurdly cavalier use of force against civilian populations, Iran makes them look like enthusiastic weekenders in the field. They don't exactly have sterling form as champions of humanitarian causes, and any overture they make in that regard should be treated with extreme skepticism. Iran are looking to score a few cheap points against Israel, and they're looking to do it very much at Gaza's expense, nobody should be under any illusions about that.

Aside from the hugely irresponsible escalation of political tension this could bring to a very delicate situation, having Iran associated with Gaza in any way in the international public consciousness will be nothing short of disastrous for the pro-Gazan movement's credibility for years to come. I don't know if you've been reading the same multiple-hundred-post threads about the flotilla as I have, but enough people still keep trotting out discredited and dangerous old misinterpretations and misinformation - from both sides - before you start throwing Iran into the equation too. Once their name is introduced, you'll never quite shake it out of the conversation again.

Nobody in their right mind can think that this will have any positive consequences to the people trying to live behind the walls, and in the long term it will only serve to devalue any moral currency that people have died trying to secure. This is a recklessly cynical move by Iran that isn't intended to benefit anybody, and it's an extremely alarming development.

This is one of the few sensible and reasoned posts I have read in this subject. I hold no brief for Israel, but I do wonder how I would feel if another state kept lobbing munitions into my country indiscriminately with the intention of killing my people. If I had the military power, as does Israel, I think I might just declare war on them and eliminate the problem.

Israel has not done that. It could easily eliminate Hamas, but instead it has
blockaded them in an attempt to prevent Iran supplying arms to them. Blockades are, however, blunt weapons, as are sanctions. They hit the vulnerable much harder than the perpetrators. Those who wanted to deliver humanitarian aid could perfectly easily have accepted Israeli searches before being allowed to go on their way, but did they? Did they hell. They wanted to score points, and points scoring is most certainly what the Palastinians don't need. It's playing cheap politics with human desperation.

Iran is simply being opportunistic, jumping at the chance to embarass and wrong- foot the USA and the West and to cause confrontation in their ongoing war of attrition to destroy the state of Israel. Given the endless rantings of their president, how can any reasonable person think differently?

Iran is one of the most unstable, dangerous, and rabid states in the region, not just to Israel but the the peace of the Middle East. Given the suppression of women in their country and their barbaric and medieval approach to anything resembling human rights, in my view it is only a fanatic who can see it differently.

Already the attempts to force flotillas past the Israeli blockade has caused Egypt to open it's land border to Gaza. Egypt has lately been the voice of reason in the whole Palastine/Israel issue. Can any sensible person not realise that to the Iranians that is an opportunity to be exploited, because if Egypt can be brought back on side another war against Israel might be on the cards?

Netanyaho's (Sp) government is not helping by being aggressive, but I find it hard to blame them. As one of the Israeli government once said, the Arabs can afford to lose over and over again. Israel cannot afford to lose once.

Before anyone (!) decides to flame me as a Zionist or a racist, I have worked in those countries and tried to understand and accommodate their culture. Have you?

concussion

If Iran was an enemy belligerent, Israel could inspect an Iraninan Navy Hospital Ship in international waters, and, if such an inspection was refused, could capture or attack it. Neutral hospital ships are simply not covered by the San Remo Manual so I don't know what the default is.

Section 104, however, states

104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.


Incidentally, the actions taken against the 'Freedom Flotilla' were not an attack. They were interceptions follewed by visits which were violently resisted. Other actions allowed are search, diversion, capture and attack.

danbohan

xflyer wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills are you actually naive or deliberately ignoring the real reason for this 'humanitarian' gesture? I don't think you're naive. This is designed to provoke Israel. The Iranians want to instigate an incident just like the one deliberately provoked by the flotilla.

They don't give a damm about the people of Gaza. This is sabre rattling by a despotic regime who have a vested interest in keeping going the myth of an external enemy in order to divert their citizens from rising up and slitting their clerical throats. They want conflict.

OR
They don't give a damm about the people of Gaza. The murder of the humanitarian workers and the boarding of the ships in international waters is sabre rattling by a despotic regime who have a vested interest in keeping going the myth of an external enemy in order to continue their illegal occupation of Palestine lands and the annihilation of Palestine people. They want conflict.[/QUOTE]

Avgas

This is an Iranian naval ship....albeit a medical ship....but on their military list?

Under the law of the sea....Israeli's have some rights to refuse access to their territorial waters....it seems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea [hardly senior counsel's opinion but its better than nothing]

"Territorial waters
Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not “prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security” of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not “innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.

I think the Israeli could reasonably claim that this ship my damage their security, even if I also think they should massively relax the blockade.

Various people have posted that Israel is not a signatory to the UNCLOS but they can claim they apply it as an internationally recognized standard.....

My point?

The legalities are more complex than meets the eye in these situations, and my own preference would be that we all get back to discussing the bread and butter of the form...which are tactics, weapons, strategy......death....uniforms...WALT... ..oh.....and ...more weapons.....

To which my query now is...how on earth do you board and detain a vessel of a foreign power who is a potential enemy....but not a formally declared enemy...and how do you do that in an acceptably non-violent way?

Is the correct answer...

(a) Gabriel/Harpoon
(b) 533mm
(c) Play loud disturbing music to disorient/dissuade them further (Daniel O'Donnell CDs...etc.)
(d) Arrange for Kosher Happy McMeals to be delivered by bikini clad Jewish princesses on a flotilla of jet skis...freak them out/extreme asymmetric?
(e) None of the above?

Av.

concussion

Avgas wrote: »

To which my query now is...how on earth do you board and detain a vessel of a foreign power who is a potential enemy....but not a formally declared enemy...and how do you do that in an acceptably non-violent way?

From the San Remo Manual -

concussion wrote: »

Section 104, however, states

104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.

From Article 31 - Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Art 31. The Parties to the conflict shall have the right to control and search the vessels mentioned in Articles 22, 24, 25 and 27. They can refuse assistance from these vessels, order them off, make them take a certain course, control the use of their wireless and other means of communication, and even detain them for a period not exceeding seven days from the time of interception, if the gravity of the circumstances so requires.

They may put a commissioner temporarily on board whose sole task shall be to see that orders given in virtue of the provisions of the preceding paragraph are carried out.

Articles 22, 24, 25 and 27 include military hospital ships, Red Cross hospital ships, private hospital ships etc.

Glenshane Pass

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Point 1 - Iranians aren't Arabs.

Point 2 - The Iranians don't actually give a sh*t about the Palestinians, they just want to put some heat on Israel to distract world attention away from their nuclear programme.

And try laying off the hyperbole next time.

Yes, they do give a **** about Palestinians, that is why they might want a conflict with Israel. Otherwise, why would they bother with the issue at all?

Avgas

Concussion: From the San Remo Manual -etc

Well that's all just dandy.......

But your assuming that the San Remo Manual applies......to this situation.

One argument from Wikipedia which says it doesn't:

Anthony D'Amato, international law professor at Northwestern University School of Law, argued that the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea applies to a situation in which the laws of war between states are in force. He said the laws of war do not apply in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, which isn't even a state. He said the law of the Geneva Conventions would apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_assessments_of_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid

The fact that Hamas is not a recognized state actor makes the situation tricky....for what its worth.....I think logically there is as good a grounds to argue it actually does apply, however the wording of the Manual is littered with references to 'states' as parties......

My point is all this legal argumentation can be twisted around and around.

The question is whether the Iranian on this new ship, if indeed it actually appears, accept this San Remo gibberish....or won't.

In that case my practical and real world question still stands...if they won't heave to and accept an IDF boarding party, what happens next?

What is the IDF going do...sink it..... and quote the San Remo Manual.....?

concussion

Article 31 of the second Convention still stands however.

Article 1 of the Hague Convention of 1907 defines belligerents, the term used in both the San Remo Manual and the Geneva Conventions. I have not yet found a definition from the UN, but I'd expect it to be very similar, if not identical as it's repeated practically word for word in the first Geneva Convention.

SECTION I
ON BELLIGERENTS

CHAPTER I
The qualifications of belligerents
Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer
corps fulfilling the following conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Article 2 and 3 of the first Convention cover war of both an international and non-international nature - each 'side' is called a 'Party to the Conflict'. Belligerent is used further down without any introduction, so I think it can logically be used instead of 'Party to the Conflict'

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions

Precedent may be seen to have been set by the US's blockade on the Confederacy where the ships of both parties were, internationally, viewed as parties to the conflict.

Run_to_da_hills

Another theory according to this article is that Turkey is now robbing Iran of its roost over the Palestinian cause of which it had since 1979.

Gazans naming their kids after the Turkish PM.

Iran must now do something about this.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0608/Why-Iran-s-Revolutionary-Guard-wants-to-escort-new-Gaza-flotilla

Avgas

Yawn...............and once again read Article 1-3 of that Convention and note that it may not apply in this case as there is no formal war, and it could well be covered by article 3...an internal conflict, etc.

All four have a more less common article 3 clause, no?

Common Article 3
This article states that the certain minimum rules of war also apply to armed conflicts that are not of an international character, but that are contained within the boundaries of a single country. The applicability of this article rests on the interpretation of the term armed conflict.[7] For example it would apply to conflicts between the Government and rebel forces, or between two rebel forces, or to other conflicts that have all the characteristics of war but that are carried out within the confines of a single country. A handful of individuals attacking a police station would not be considered an armed conflict subject to this article, but only subject to the laws of the country in question."

The provisions of the entire Geneva Convention are not applicable in this situation, but only a limited list of provisions contained within the language of Article 3,[7] and additionally within the language of Protocol II. The rationale for the limitation is that many articles would otherwise conflict with the rights of a Sovereign State."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

Once again you can argue it, legally, all sorts of ways.

Brute politics and You Tube will decide.

concussion

Article 2 of the Second Convention

Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Avgas

"Precedent may be seen to have been set by the US's blockade on the Confederacy where the ships of both parties were, internationally, viewed as parties to the conflict.[/QUOTE]"

Funny that because ever accessible Wikipedia and its 100% utter reliability [:rolleyes:] point out just how legally confusing the blockade of the south by the north actually was...given that for one thing it could be interpreted as a recognition of the south as a separate state in international law by third parties....British and French...

"Some have contended that the announcement of a blockade carried de facto recognition of the Confederate States of America as an independent national entity since countries do not blockade their own ports but rather close them.[4] Under international law and maritime law, however, nations had the right to search neutral vessels on the open sea if they were suspected of violating a blockade, something port closures would not allow. In an effort to avoid conflict between the United States and Britain over the searching of British merchant vessels thought to be trading with the Confederacy, the Union needed the privileges of international law that came with the declaration of a blockade....
However, by effectively declaring the Confederate States of America to be belligerents—rather than insurrectionists, who under international law would not be legally eligible for recognition by foreign powers—Lincoln opened the way for European powers such as Britain and France to recognize the Confederacy. Britain's proclamation of neutrality was consistent with the position of the Lincoln Administration under international law—the Confederates were belligerents—giving them the right to obtain loans and buy arms from neutral powers, and giving the British the formal right to discuss openly which side, if any, to support."


So, now by quoting the San Remo Manual have Israel....
(a) recognized Hamas as a legitimate belligerent?
(b) that a state or war exists between Israel and Gaza....a state nobody else accepts exists....?

In the end the North won at sea because they had the means and willpower to sink vessels they found blockade running that would not stop-it was simple brutal naval power not legal fine points that decided matters. British declined to intervene but were probably very close at one or two points. And that would have changed the Game.....bigger Canada anyone?

concussion

I think I posted my previous while you were replying - I think it answers some questions but opens up others!

Avgas

And further to my point that the legalities of a blockade are very far from legally clear-cut...meaning IDF scope for action against an impending Iranian vistor, is also less than clear...do see

http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/why-is-israels-blockade-of-gaza-legal/

Bit better than Wikipedia has to be said.:rolleyes:

Not an anti-Israeli rant...its a legal scholarly piece teasing the thing out carefully.

Select quote:

"But what justifies a blockade in non-international armed conflict (NIAC)? ... Does the San Remo Manual justify it? The Manual is not a picture of clarity concerning when its rules apply, but it does not seem to contemplate non-international sea conflicts. Article 1 speaks of “the parties to an armed conflict at sea,” which does not seem to include NIAC, unless perhaps a rebel group has a navy. (Do any?) Article 2 parallels the Martens Clause in the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which only applies to IAC. Article 3 acknowledges the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, but — as Marko Milanovic has pointed out — that right is an exception to the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4), which only operates between states. And numerous articles in the Manual refer specifically to “belligerent States” (see, for example, 10, 20, 34)."

AND....

"Israel’s defense of the blockade thus appears to create a serious dilemma for it. Insofar as Israel insists that it is not currently occupying Gaza, it cannot plausibly claim that it is involved in an IAC with Hamas. And if it is not currently involved in an IAC with Hamas, it is difficult to see how it can legally justify the blockade of Gaza. "

You can see why Israel places more faith in Merkavas than Lawyers.:rolleyes:

Avgas

concussion wrote: »

I think I posted my previous while you were replying - I think it answers some questions but opens up others!

Yes...the bit about there being a formal declaration of war is rubbish by me..after checking.... there is no requirement for such...that is a red (hopefully Kosher/Hal-al) herring....I mistakenly threw in...

FORMAL KOW-TOW IS NOW PERFORMED

the applicability of Article 3 is less so, which means relying on the rest of the 2nd convention or San Remo is...you guessed it...moot.

I don't think international law is a strong point of either Iran or Israel.

We could be in for an interesting time.:)

concussion

Well, there is one line of thinking that we're ignoring. War has been carried out for centuries in barbaric fashion; it is only in the last few hundred years that serious though has been given to drawing up rules and a bare 61 since the drawing up of the Geneva Conventions. These exist to reduce suffering on all sides who agree to abide to them - in the absence of a relevant requirement, surely the default position of the non-binding San Remo Manual is preferential to the free-for-all that is the alternative?

Dyr

xflyer wrote: »

They don't give a damm about the people of Gaza. This is sabre rattling by a despotic regime who have a vested interest in keeping going the myth of an external enemy in order to divert their citizens from rising up and slitting their clerical throats. They want conflict.

In all fairness, the israeli's dont have clerics in government.. :pac:

Run_to_da_hills

Ties between Tel Aviv and Ankara further strain as Israel says the Turkish prime ministers' involvement in any aid convoys to the besieged Gaza Strip is a "declaration of war."

In an interview with an Israeli army radio, former deputy chief of general staff, Major General Uzi Dayan threatened to sink any ship that approaches the coastal strip, which is reeling under a three-year old blockade.

He said: If the Turkish prime minister joins such a flotilla, we should make clear beforehand this would be an act of war, and we would not try to take over the ship he was on, but would sink it.” :eek:

http://www.alalam-news.com/English/detail.aspx?id=105865

According to this next piece it looks as if Iran may be cooperating with Turkey on an official relief mission to Gaza, A coordinated mission would of course save time and potential conflict by traveling direct from Turkey and avoiding the Suez canal.

http://www.alalam-news.com/English/detail.aspx?id=105828

Show down should be interesting.

Manic Moran

In an interview with an Israeli army radio, former deputy chief of general staff, Major General Uzi Dayan threatened to sink any ship that approaches the coastal strip, which is reeling under a three-year old blockade.

Out of interest, what is his current posting, and does he have any involvement in creating policy? Or is he even still on active service?

NTM

pwd

There are reasons why Iran is the way it is. It used to have a democratically-elected government. In 1953 Britain and the USA overthrew this democratically-elected government and installed a dictatorship. The dictator maintained power with American weapons, and American-trained secret police until 1979, when there was a revolution and the current crazies got in. The current crazies attained and maintain their power thanks to the antipathy and distrust towards the USA.

Probably goes without saying that the 1953 coup was about oil.

BlaasForRafa

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

http://www.alalam-news.com/English/detail.aspx?id=105865

If you're going to post links from an Iranian site thats a mouthpiece for its government try digging a little further to get the full story.

http://israelinsider.ning.com/profiles/blogs/uzi-dayan-if-erdogan (originally was posted on Haaretz)

But another top defense official, Amos Gilad, who heads the defense ministry's policy unit, urged colleagues to tone down their denunciations of Erdogan rather than exacerbate the crisis with Turkey. "Precisely because there is a crisis, we need to act with judgment and avoid calling a democratically elected leader a terrorist," Gilad said.

Victor

Avgas wrote: »

"But what justifies a blockade in non-international armed conflict (NIAC)? ... Does the San Remo Manual justify it? The Manual is not a picture of clarity concerning when its rules apply, but it does not seem to contemplate non-international sea conflicts. Article 1 speaks of “the parties to an armed conflict at sea,” which does not seem to include NIAC, unless perhaps a rebel group has a navy. (Do any?)

An aside, but the Tamil Tigers had a naval force and there were quite a few naval battles with Sri Lankan government forces.

Uuuh Patsy

xflyer wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills are you actually naive or deliberately ignoring the real reason for this 'humanitarian' gesture? I don't think you're naive. This is designed to provoke Israel. The Iranians want to instigate an incident just like the one deliberately provoked by the flotilla.

They don't give a damm about the people of Gaza. This is sabre rattling by a despotic regime who have a vested interest in keeping going the myth of an external enemy in order to divert their citizens from rising up and slitting their clerical throats. They want conflict.

I think this exact statement can be applied to the Zionist Israeli Regime.
Incidentally, the 8th of June marked the anniversary of the sinking of the USS Liberty...

Avgas

concussion wrote:

Well, there is one line of thinking that we're ignoring. War has been carried out for centuries in barbaric fashion; it is only in the last few hundred years that serious though has been given to drawing up rules and a bare 61 since the drawing up of the Geneva Conventions. These exist to reduce suffering on all sides who agree to abide to them - in the absence of a relevant requirement, surely the default position of the non-binding San Remo Manual is preferential to the free-for-all that is the alternative?

I'm not advocating we throw away the development of the laws of war from the time of Grotius.....what I'm saying is that one should be very careful in quoting a legal manual designed primarily for warfare between states....but with a bit of extra lee-way put in there by the drafters... that probably makes it applicable to this situation....

Legal interpretation is notoriously more of an art than a science...and one can't simply read off chunks of San Remo or the 2nd Convention and say..."debate over".....

Law seldom works like..even for traffic offences. If it did we wouldn't need lawyers.....(what a thought!:rolleyes:)

In fairness you've never presented those legal sources quite in that way Concussion...but my wider point is that the legalities issue is bandied about by pro-Israeli and anti-Israelis posters with almost equal certainty to close off further debate from the other side.

EG....

IDF are pirates...
Boarding in international waters is obviously and always illegal....
San Remo applies obviously......
2nd Convention applies....

All need careful handling. None are as obvious as they might first appear.

Yes, there has been a rise is the laws governing armed conflict..espeically after WW2 and again after the Cold War......BUT....the increase in civilian deaths in modern war is a dramatic development which changes the ethics and laws of war somewhat.

More and more it is civilians who are getting targeted and actual 'battlefield' casualties are getting rarer on a per capita basis, at least for most Post WW11 conflicts. Of course some of these civilians are anything but-they're guerrillas, but there is a trend away from neat battlefield bloodbaths...... to well..... Gaza 2009 and long attritional insurgencies......where civilians deaths are the primary feature.

I mean its all very well as a soldier.... if you know it is obviously wrong to shoot uniformed prisoners from a regular army who surrender....that is now so clear....and you'd expect to get done for shooting such prisoners (even though it has happened...and yes one culprit probably was the good old IDF....Mitla Pass battles 1956. and beyond..I think..prob. better to say it has been alleged rather than proven....:rolleyes:.).


But what are the laws of war for dealing with an entire hostile Pashtun village.....who are as clear as day sustaining and supporting insurgents ....is it lawful to arrest and concentrate them...which is what the British hit upon in the Boer war with pretty horrendous humanitarian results....and if that is not practicable......then how can they lawfully be punished... fine them...read them the Riot Act...burning their crops........can any force be used against them, and if so ...when? Against family homes where arms are being stored....target the house with a drone.... but with children playing inside.....

How far are we away from warrants for the arrest of individuals officers, pilots, gunners who use deadly force against civilians who later turn out to be innocent, all based on evolving international human rights norms? Such cases for now would be legally tenuous and there are measures which would protect serving personal in most countries, however, that could be the direction things are headed.

One reading of the Goldstone Report on Gaza 2009 is that it provides a basis to go after individual IDF officers for 'war crimes' if they ever set foot out of Israel on a holiday or something.........that is something many professional soldiers in other armies, even if they did not approve of CAST LEAD, would probably feel is a 'bridge too far'.....but is it?

The problem today is not too little law over armed conflict.....it is rather what are the sensible limits, if any, of law over armed conflict...what can be legally regulated and prohibited and what can't.......should Taliban insurgents be granted the same rights as proper state soldiers....should civilians be granted greater legal protections....etc.

20 years ago if you said anti-personnel mines would be banned, and cluster bombs as well...military professionals would have shrugged and laughed it off as a nutty idea.

Not anymore.

What will be banned in 20 years time....any use of WP whatsoever...or in any urban zone?

More rambling than as usual as old age, syphilis no doubt, and excessive coffee consumption all take their toll.:)