When the UN doesn’t stop the Israeli’s from declaring it a conflict zone. It’s technically not kidnapping. Just like how the US abducted people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No. They never entered anywhere Israel is legally allowed to exclude even in war It being full of aid and verifiable non combatants.
It’s kidnapping.
Just like how the US abducted people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Your example is also kidnapping but even excluding that bit of nuance the key word is “in” they never entered territorial waters and thus were never “in” Israel or Palestine. Israel can declare 1500mi of the coast of Somalia an exclusion zone then kidnap people there and that would make just as much sense in a legal view.
Something like that but the important thing is Israel is not claiming they entered the exclusion zone and similarly they even if they did the result is supposed to be being forcibly turned away not kidnapping and property theft.
The flotilla was told several times to turn around or be detained. They decided to not turn around and continued on their intended course to breach the naval blockade.
According to international maritime law Israel can intercept and detain before they enter.
Notice you never said they did breach the blockade which btw by international law they have to be given time and allowed to leave even if they enter without permission which they didn’t do nor is Israel claiming they did.
Intercept and detain yes, board, seizur, deport and treat as their own… No because duh.
Just like police can arrest you before you commit a crime, if you loudly and repeatedly proclaim the intention to commit it.
They were asked repeatedly to change course and refused.
Boarding, capturing the ship, confiscating cargo, and holding crew is exactly what international maritime law says is legal and customary in such situations like a blockade.
A. Jurisdiction.
B. You’re confusing ras with PC , you need pc for arrest you need ras to detain.
Because they don’t have to, they’re well outside the blockade and Israel doesn’t own the ocean.
No, international law says a ship entering a blockade illegally can be boarded and detained after they’ve been given a chance to leave the area… If they have to be given a chance to leave you can’t steal their property and kidnap their crew, that’s a crime.
Read the law and don’t double post the same thing to me please.
Gaza is under a declared blockade, Maritime Law (the oldest of international law) allows detaining any ship bound for a blockaded port. It’s really cut and dry, they very publicly declared they were bound for a blockaded port. It’s not like Israel boarded a ship that just happened to be in the area, these freedom flotilla yahoos very publicly declared they were bound for Gaza, which under Maritime Law permits Israel to board it.
International law is an agreement between nations and doesn’t actually restrict nations from doing things that will hurt your feelings. You’re going down the sovcit path when you pretend international law is whatever you want it to be.
It’s not like Israel boarded a ship that just happened to be in the area,
That’s exactly what happened, blockade borders have to be announced and ships have to be allowed time to leave the area. Israel left their blockade and kidnapped people aboard a ship they did not allow to leave an area they weren’t in.
these freedom flotilla yahoos very publicly declared they were bound for Gaza, which under Maritime Law permits Israel to board it.
Once they breach the blockade yes arguably though with only aid that gets more complex. Essentially aid entry is allowed so long as you agree to security arrangements that are both reasonable and lawful. That could mean Israel could board and search, or doesn’t mean they can blockade all aid to starve a population which is specifically and in multiple very very illegal.
Their sources section is awash with good relevant information and specifically findings on the last Israeli famous Israeli blockade and subsequent boarding (and death of iirc 9) which was found to be a legal blockade so long as the purpose was not starvation and aid could enter with security arrangements.
An operation involving naval and air forces by which a belligerent completely prevents movement by sea from or to a port or coast belonging to or occupied by an enemy belligerent. To be mandatory, that is, for third States to be obliged to respect it, the blockade must be effective. This means that it must be maintained by a force sufficient to prevent all access to the enemy coast.
So… according to the link you’ve provided Israel is actually required to board the ship or they can no longer prevent shipments of weapons coming from Iran?
Essentially aid entry is allowed so long as you agree to security arrangements that are both reasonable and lawful.
Has there been any indication these flotilla activists attempted to make such security arrangements with Israel?
Correct to an extent, the accepted meaning is that they must agree to security measures to pass through. It is not and never has been a way to willfully prevent aid and aide staff into combat zones.
They weren’t in a blockaded zone as far as I’m aware, Israel only says they were approaching and providing intented destination as you must when attempting to pass through a blockade.
Even ignoring that they must be allowed to leave even if they enter the blockaded area without permission, it isn’t a seize your property and imprison your crew for being in the general area openly providing intent kinda thing.
Correct, they hadn’t entered the area yet though so they technically heeded their warning.
Stolen, if you take something from someone and dispense it as your own you’re guilty of theft and conversion something they say Hamas does with aid. And moreover delivering aid doesn’t negate the whole unlawful boarding, seizure and forcible human trafficking thing.
So… according to the link you’ve provided Israel is actually required to board the ship or they can no longer prevent shipments of weapons coming from Iran?
Ah yeah it would be so bad if people who got starved and firebomb for 2 years could defend themself \s
they very publicly declared they were bound for a blockaded port.
Not illegal.
which under Maritime Law permits Israel to board it.
Not detain and seize, maritime law is very specific in that a blockade cannot block aid unreasonably. A super famous ship you’ve searched that’s filled solely with celebrities and aid is something you shouldn’t turn away so long as they accept security arrangements like boarding and searching. This isn’t star wars nor are they the trade union and total blockades like your implying are very illegal as defined by the law you’re sourcing.
Israel offers the option to deliver aid through its ports (Ashdod) and then land route. Exactly the place where the flotilla was brought to and their aid then continued on land by truck to Gaza.
Israel extends an empty gesture they have no intention of actually doing hence all the aid not coming in. Similarly even in a blockade aid is specifically allowed or the blockade is illegal, seizing an aid ship and deporting is crew is strong evidence it’s an illegal blockade which is why they allowed all this to happen. It’s gotta get to court somehow and doing this to white celebrities is bound to get more traction then some other group attempting the same.
The amount of aid getting into Gaza is constantly increasing and at more than 50 trucks per day. The whole supposed aid flotilla didn’t even bring a full truck of aid. It’s a political stunt, not about actually delivering aid effectively.
So Israel claims, they also claim they aren’t murdering people and yet there’s these piles of murdered people all over the place.
It’s a political stunt, not about actually delivering aid effectively.
Correct! The thing they announced was to draw attention and test it the blockade was legal in court like was done in 2019 was indeed to do exactly that! That said if you didn’t know in 2019 they boarded a ship and murdered 9 people it’s quite lucky nothing similar happened this time.
Outside the blockade area and on the high seas,34 belligerents relied on the practice of "visit and search"3s to stop vessels suspected of carrying “con-traband” to the enemy.36 A belligerent warship sailing on the high seas had the right to visit and search all merchant vessels. Merchants found carrying enemy contraband were captured and escorted to the belligerent’s nearest home port. The belligerent nation’s prize court then determined the fate of the captured ship and cargo.37 In cases where merchants resisted either capture or visit and search, the blockading force was entitled to pursue and, if neces-sary, damage or destroy the vessel to force the ship to submit.
Page 901
belligerents today continue to enforce blockades from long distance or through blockade zones. They do so because of three twentieth-century developments in maritime warfare: first, the growing importance to belligerents of conducting economic warfare in conjunction with armed con-flict;s3 second, the introduction of a large array of new weapons to the maritime battlefield; and third, the proliferation of modern weapons to less powerful nations incapable of conducting traditional blockade. In combination, these three developments have forced states to replace traditional blockade form with long-distance blockade or blockade zones.
A. The first quoted section is providing past practice not current.
B. They weren’t suspected of carrying contraband, they were boarded and none was found and yet their property was seized and they were then trafficked through multiple countries against their will.
B². Point to where it says they could seize a ship and take it as prize that was not caught with contraband.
C. Your second quoted section provides no relevant reason to capture a neutral humanitarian ship.
When the UN doesn’t stop the Israeli’s from declaring it a conflict zone. It’s technically not kidnapping. Just like how the US abducted people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No. They never entered anywhere Israel is legally allowed to exclude even in war It being full of aid and verifiable non combatants.
It’s kidnapping.
Your example is also kidnapping but even excluding that bit of nuance the key word is “in” they never entered territorial waters and thus were never “in” Israel or Palestine. Israel can declare 1500mi of the coast of Somalia an exclusion zone then kidnap people there and that would make just as much sense in a legal view.
Doesn’t Israel delegate 200 miles off the coast as a no go zone?
Illegally
Something like that but the important thing is Israel is not claiming they entered the exclusion zone and similarly they even if they did the result is supposed to be being forcibly turned away not kidnapping and property theft.
The flotilla was told several times to turn around or be detained. They decided to not turn around and continued on their intended course to breach the naval blockade.
According to international maritime law Israel can intercept and detain before they enter.
Notice you never said they did breach the blockade which btw by international law they have to be given time and allowed to leave even if they enter without permission which they didn’t do nor is Israel claiming they did.
Intercept and detain yes, board, seizur, deport and treat as their own… No because duh.
Just like police can arrest you before you commit a crime, if you loudly and repeatedly proclaim the intention to commit it.
They were asked repeatedly to change course and refused.
Boarding, capturing the ship, confiscating cargo, and holding crew is exactly what international maritime law says is legal and customary in such situations like a blockade.
A. Jurisdiction. B. You’re confusing ras with PC , you need pc for arrest you need ras to detain.
Because they don’t have to, they’re well outside the blockade and Israel doesn’t own the ocean.
No, international law says a ship entering a blockade illegally can be boarded and detained after they’ve been given a chance to leave the area… If they have to be given a chance to leave you can’t steal their property and kidnap their crew, that’s a crime.
Read the law and don’t double post the same thing to me please.
They were given plenty of warnings and chances to leave the area.
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/8684/43_101YaleLJ893_1991_1992_.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
No they can’t especially when the blockade is illegal
Gaza is under a declared blockade, Maritime Law (the oldest of international law) allows detaining any ship bound for a blockaded port. It’s really cut and dry, they very publicly declared they were bound for a blockaded port. It’s not like Israel boarded a ship that just happened to be in the area, these freedom flotilla yahoos very publicly declared they were bound for Gaza, which under Maritime Law permits Israel to board it.
International law is an agreement between nations and doesn’t actually restrict nations from doing things that will hurt your feelings. You’re going down the sovcit path when you pretend international law is whatever you want it to be.
That’s exactly what happened, blockade borders have to be announced and ships have to be allowed time to leave the area. Israel left their blockade and kidnapped people aboard a ship they did not allow to leave an area they weren’t in.
Once they breach the blockade yes arguably though with only aid that gets more complex. Essentially aid entry is allowed so long as you agree to security arrangements that are both reasonable and lawful. That could mean Israel could board and search, or doesn’t mean they can blockade all aid to starve a population which is specifically and in multiple very very illegal.
https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/blockade
Their sources section is awash with good relevant information and specifically findings on the last Israeli famous Israeli blockade and subsequent boarding (and death of iirc 9) which was found to be a legal blockade so long as the purpose was not starvation and aid could enter with security arrangements.
So… according to the link you’ve provided Israel is actually required to board the ship or they can no longer prevent shipments of weapons coming from Iran?
Has there been any indication these flotilla activists attempted to make such security arrangements with Israel?
Correct to an extent, the accepted meaning is that they must agree to security measures to pass through. It is not and never has been a way to willfully prevent aid and aide staff into combat zones.
They weren’t in a blockaded zone as far as I’m aware, Israel only says they were approaching and providing intented destination as you must when attempting to pass through a blockade.
Even ignoring that they must be allowed to leave even if they enter the blockaded area without permission, it isn’t a seize your property and imprison your crew for being in the general area openly providing intent kinda thing.
Israel has told the flotilla repeatedly they can deliver the aid through the proper channels and the port of Ashdod.
The small amount of captured aid from the freedom flotilla is being delivered to Gaza by Israel at the moment.
Correct, they hadn’t entered the area yet though so they technically heeded their warning.
Stolen, if you take something from someone and dispense it as your own you’re guilty of theft and conversion something they say Hamas does with aid. And moreover delivering aid doesn’t negate the whole unlawful boarding, seizure and forcible human trafficking thing.
You don’t need to actually rob someone for the police to arrest you, if you loudly proclaim your intent and don’t stop.
Confiscating ship and cargo, and holding the crew is perfectly legal under international maritime law for blockade runners.
Israel said the tiny amount of aid the flotilla brought would be delivered on to Gaza.
Removed by mod
Ah yeah it would be so bad if people who got starved and firebomb for 2 years could defend themself \s
Piece of shit
Removed by mod
Not illegal.
Not detain and seize, maritime law is very specific in that a blockade cannot block aid unreasonably. A super famous ship you’ve searched that’s filled solely with celebrities and aid is something you shouldn’t turn away so long as they accept security arrangements like boarding and searching. This isn’t star wars nor are they the trade union and total blockades like your implying are very illegal as defined by the law you’re sourcing.
Israel offers the option to deliver aid through its ports (Ashdod) and then land route. Exactly the place where the flotilla was brought to and their aid then continued on land by truck to Gaza.
Israel extends an empty gesture they have no intention of actually doing hence all the aid not coming in. Similarly even in a blockade aid is specifically allowed or the blockade is illegal, seizing an aid ship and deporting is crew is strong evidence it’s an illegal blockade which is why they allowed all this to happen. It’s gotta get to court somehow and doing this to white celebrities is bound to get more traction then some other group attempting the same.
The amount of aid getting into Gaza is constantly increasing and at more than 50 trucks per day. The whole supposed aid flotilla didn’t even bring a full truck of aid. It’s a political stunt, not about actually delivering aid effectively.
So Israel claims, they also claim they aren’t murdering people and yet there’s these piles of murdered people all over the place.
Correct! The thing they announced was to draw attention and test it the blockade was legal in court like was done in 2019 was indeed to do exactly that! That said if you didn’t know in 2019 they boarded a ship and murdered 9 people it’s quite lucky nothing similar happened this time.
Source?
Ew.
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/8684/43_101YaleLJ893_1991_1992_.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
Page 898
Page 901
A. The first quoted section is providing past practice not current.
B. They weren’t suspected of carrying contraband, they were boarded and none was found and yet their property was seized and they were then trafficked through multiple countries against their will.
B². Point to where it says they could seize a ship and take it as prize that was not caught with contraband.
C. Your second quoted section provides no relevant reason to capture a neutral humanitarian ship.
No, source for it being the oldest part.
Pretty sure the blockade laws of the sea weren’t intended to implement genocide, asshole.
This person is attempting the “try to include an insult in each of your comment” speedrun. Pretty funny to see.