Ireland asks Israel to allow ship to Gaza

[Dale_M]

The news reports at this point are mixed. Some say that the MV Rachel Corrie will not resist the Israeli blockade, but others say the opposite.

The Israeli foreign ministry said it had “no desire for confrontation” and would assure the boat safe passage to the port of Ashdod, in Israel.

But passengers issued a defiant message through the Free Gaza Movement website: “Communication is difficult and sometimes impossible and there are many rumours out there started by Israeli authorities, but there is no way we are going to Ashdod,” they said in a joint statement.

guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-mv-rachel-corrie

Irish Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan said the group would offer no resistance if Israeli forces boarded their ship.

“We will sit down,” she said. “They wll probably arrest us … But there will be no resistance.”

Yossi Gal, the director of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, said that if the ship diverted to Ashdod, all cargo with the exception of weapons or weapons components would be transferred to Gaza.

Israel has “no desire to board the ship,” said Mr Gal.

However Ms Corrigan said the activists would “not be diverted anywhere else.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7144619.ece

 

[Yellow_Belle]

Israeli navy seizes ‘Rachel Corrie’ close to Gaza shore

 

[Muzhik]

Got this in the mail this morning. It’s from Latma TV, Israel’s version of Saturday Night Live:

The Tribal Update 53 - ENGLISH SUBTITLES

Yeah. I had a cat like that once, too…

 

[Yellow_Belle]

I may be jinxing this, but… I think when the Israelis board them they will be non-violent. Coming from Ireland, they will have a history of non-violent confrontation, following the example of Martin Luther King.

Nice try!

 

[Argh]

“Blockades” are acts of war, which is why this isn’t called a “blockade.”

If that sounds confusing, the reason the quarantine of Cuba was called a “quarantine” because to declare a blockade would mean war.

 

[donsnow]

Ireland asks Israel to allow ship to Gaza

Here’s a question for all you armchair lawyers out there: Ireland has asked Israel for permission to allow The “Rachel Corrie,” an Irish owned ship flying under the Irish flag, to enter the blockade zone. I’m assuming that if the ship agrees to allow Israel to inspect the ship and the cargo, and for the Israeli Navy to pilot the vessel, it’s possible that permission would be granted.

But what if the ship’s crew refuses to allow inspection, etc. Right now it looks like it’s just one ship, so after being warned, it could be allowed to approach the blockade zone. (The IDF boarded the Gaza flotilla where it did because with 6 ships it was not possible to peaceably interdict all the ships at the 20-mile border.) Once it enters the blockade zone, after being warned, etc., the IDF boards the ship, sails it to Ashdod where the cargo and passengers are offloaded. The Rachel Corrie is then sailed 100 miles out to sea and sunk.

The IDF then announces that this will be the policy from now on: any ship that is used to attempt to break the blockade will be considered spoils of war and will be destroyed. I imagine the outcries will be horrendous. I also imagine the number of vessels being volunteered for these blockade missions will drop dramatically.

In my own mind and from my own (admittedly limited) readings of international law, this would be a perfectly legal thing to do. What do YOU think?

Hi, Muzhik,

Unless International sea laws have changed, then to my limited knowledge, a captured ship is a prize of war, because Hamas is in a state of war with Israel. An Irish flag ship steaming into the middle of that would be in a war zone. Once captured, the Israelis can do anything with it, from ransom it, exchange it, outfit for their own Merchant Marine or sink it.
I’ve had thoughts along this line, myself. And, I concur, were the Israelis to adopt this plan, it sure should reduce volunteers to run the blockade. As far as world opinion, a lot of the world hates Israel already, so what have they to lose?

 

[donsnow]

Thank you, for this update.

Both Ireland and Israel are dear to my heart. Ireland by ancestral blood, Israel by God’s spirit.
I really appreciate this report, which indicates there was no bloodshed, this time.
See? When activists are peaceful, nobody gets hurt.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Once captured, the Israelis can do anything with it, from ransom it, exchange it, outfit for their own Merchant Marine or sink it.
I’ve had thoughts along this line, myself. And, I concur, were the Israelis to adopt this plan, it sure should reduce volunteers to run the blockade. As far as world opinion, a lot of the world hates Israel already, so what have they to lose?

Nope - They might like to believe they can - but they cant. Well, not lawfully anyhow, but since when did that matter:

1. The destruction of captured neutral passenger vessels carrying civilian passengers is prohibited at sea. For the safety of the passengers, such vessels shall be diverted to an appropriate port in order to complete capture provided for in paragraph 146.
2. Subject to paragraph 152, a neutral vessel captured in accordance with paragraph 146 may, as an exceptional measure, be destroyed when military circumstances preclude taking or sending such a vessel for adjudication as an enemy prize, only if the following criteria are met beforehand:

(a) the safety of passengers and crew is provided for; for this purpose the ship’s boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured in the prevailing sea and weather conditions, by the proximity of land, or the presence of another vessel which is in a position to take them on board;
(b) documents and papers relating to the captured vessel are safeguarded; and
(c) if feasible, personal effects of the passengers and crew are saved.

Every effort should be made to avoid destruction of a captured neutral vessel. Therefore, such destruction shall not be ordered without there being entire satisfaction that the captured vessel can neither be sent into a belligerent port, nor diverted, nor properly released. A vessel may not be destroyed under this paragraph for carrying contraband unless the contraband, reckoned either by value, weight, volume or freight, forms more than half the cargo. Destruction shall be subject to adjudication.

 

[Muzhik]

Guy, what is the source of your quote? Is it available online?

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Guy, what is the source of your quote? Is it available online?

My apologies - as I referred earlier to the San Remo Manual I thought it was clear - apologies - Im quoting from the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994) article 6 - which deals with the capture of neutral merchant vessels and goods - it’s available online here:

icrc.org/IHL.nsf/WebART/560-24?OpenDocument

 

[Muzhik]

My apologies - as I referred earlier to the San Remo Manual I thought it was clear - apologies - Im quoting from the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994) article 6 - which deals with the capture of neutral merchant vessels and goods - it’s available online here:

icrc.org/IHL.nsf/WebART/560-24?OpenDocument

Thanks. My first thought was to go study this document; then I realized that this is why G_D made lawyers. I’m sure the Israeli government has one or two of those laying around.

Although the part you highlighted is interesting. Assuming each Sahib-3 missile costs $100,000, if the ship is carrying $500,000 worth of baby formula and diapers and six missiles, then they could destroy it; but if it’s only carrying five missiles they can’t.

 

[donsnow]

Everything.

Every time Hamas launches a rocket into Israel, that’s a declaration of war. Which makes those waters a war zone. The MV Rachel Corrie looks for trouble, steaming into a war zone instead of going to Ashdod, a safe harbor.

Simple.

 

[donsnow]

Nope - They might like to believe they can - but they cant. Well, not lawfully anyhow, but since when did that matter:

1. The destruction of captured neutral passenger vessels carrying civilian passengers is prohibited at sea. For the safety of the passengers, such vessels shall be diverted to an appropriate port in order to complete capture provided for in paragraph 146.
2. Subject to paragraph 152, a neutral vessel captured in accordance with paragraph 146 may, as an exceptional measure, be destroyed when military circumstances preclude taking or sending such a vessel for adjudication as an enemy prize, only if the following criteria are met beforehand:

(a) the safety of passengers and crew is provided for; for this purpose the ship’s boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured in the prevailing sea and weather conditions, by the proximity of land, or the presence of another vessel which is in a position to take them on board;
(b) documents and papers relating to the captured vessel are safeguarded; and
(c) if feasible, personal effects of the passengers and crew are saved.

Every effort should be made to avoid destruction of a captured neutral vessel. Therefore, such destruction shall not be ordered without there being entire satisfaction that the captured vessel can neither be sent into a belligerent port, nor diverted, nor properly released. A vessel may not be destroyed under this paragraph for carrying contraband unless the contraband, reckoned either by value, weight, volume or freight, forms more than half the cargo. Destruction shall be subject to adjudication.

Those paragraphs do also dictate the conditions under which a capture may be destroyed.
If the concrete in the Rachel Connie’s holds makes more than half the cargo by weight or volume, the Israeli’s can take her out of Ashdod after off loading passengers, baggage and papers, steam her out to sea with a prize crew, off load prize crew and sink her.

Man, the Israelis are fighting for their survival as a nation against people who want to do genocide to Jews. You have never been in their shoes, so don’t judge them too harshly.

 

[Muzhik]

Those paragraphs do also dictate the conditions under which a capture may be destroyed.
If the concrete in the Rachel Connie’s holds makes more than half the cargo by weight or volume, the Israeli’s can take her out of Ashdod after off loading passengers, baggage and papers, steam her out to sea with a prize crew, off load prize crew and sink her.

Man, the Israelis are fighting for their survival as a nation against people who want to do genocide to Jews. You have never been in their shoes, so don’t judge them too harshly.

Good point! I wasn’t thinking of the concrete as “contraband”, although it is on the list of stuff that you need special permission to bring into Gaza.

My whole point in suggesting the scuttling is to remove companies’ incentives in supporting terrorist organizations. If the “Rachel Connie” is renamed and used in Israel’s Merchant Marine, then it could conceivably be returned (eventually) to the original owner through lawsuit.

Destroying the ship is permanent – no amount of legal wrangling will bring it back. My guess is the owners would first sue Israel while attempting to get the insurance company to pay for the loss of the ship. The insurance company would balk, saying the insurance policy doesn’t cover acts of war. Any lawsuit against Israel would have to be settled before any determination of insurance could be made, and in fact the insurance company would probably work WITH Israel in this matter: if the courts rule it was an act of war, the company doesn’t have to pay out. In the meantime, the Irish government (and other governments) issue directives prohibiting ships flying under their flags from being used to attempt to break the blockade, until the lawsuits are settled.

OF course, since the law says that the destruction needs to be adjudicated (i.e., a neutral 3rd party has to rule that there is just cause for the destruction), it’s going to take some time for the actual destruction to take place. The simple fact that Israel would be going through the process of adjudication would be signal enough that they are serious in this matter.

 

[donsnow]

Good point! I wasn’t thinking of the concrete as “contraband”, although it is on the list of stuff that you need special permission to bring into Gaza.

My whole point in suggesting the scuttling is to remove companies’ incentives in supporting terrorist organizations. If the “Rachel Connie” is renamed and used in Israel’s Merchant Marine, then it could conceivably be returned (eventually) to the original owner through lawsuit.

Destroying the ship is permanent – no amount of legal wrangling will bring it back. My guess is the owners would first sue Israel while attempting to get the insurance company to pay for the loss of the ship. The insurance company would balk, saying the insurance policy doesn’t cover acts of war. Any lawsuit against Israel would have to be settled before any determination of insurance could be made, and in fact the insurance company would probably work WITH Israel in this matter: if the courts rule it was an act of war, the company doesn’t have to pay out. In the meantime, the Irish government (and other governments) issue directives prohibiting ships flying under their flags from being used to attempt to break the blockade, until the lawsuits are settled.

OF course, since the law says that the destruction needs to be adjudicated (i.e., a neutral 3rd party has to rule that there is just cause for the destruction), it’s going to take some time for the actual destruction to take place. The simple fact that Israel would be going through the process of adjudication would be signal enough that they are serious in this matter.

Ah, Israel, by obeying the law and seeking adjudication about destroying the Rachel Connie…and subsequent blockade runners, could tie up a lot of shipping. And,peacefully accomplish the same as sinking them…ship owners can’t afford to have shipping sitting still.
Oh, Muzhik, you have brought up a beautiful point.

 

[Kadaveri]

Man, the Israelis are fighting for their survival as a nation against people who want to do genocide to Jews. You have never been in their shoes, so don’t judge them too harshly.

I still haven’t found that law saying because of what happened to the Jews in WWII Israel has an unlimited amount of get away with massacres and war crimes cards.

 

[scipio337]

I still haven’t found that law saying because of what happened to the Jews in WWII Israel has an unlimited amount of get away with massacres and war crimes cards.

And I haven’t found any law outside of the Qu’ran that states Muslims have unlimited license to military expansion, or that once a land is declared Islamic, it will always be Islamic (see al-Andalus).

 

[Kadaveri]

Yes because the 8th Century conquest of Spain is really relevant to this issue.

 

[scipio337]

Yes because the 8th Century conquest of Spain is really relevant to this issue.

It is, when discussing Islamists. Different region, same jurisprudence. Shall I quote the (U.S., E.U., and Canada terrorist designated) Hamas covenenant stating such?

 

[Guyonthestreet]

or that once a land is declared Islamic, it will always be Islamic (see al-Andalus).

Much like once a land is occupied, the then inhabitants displaced and made landless and homeless and declared a jewish homeland, it will always be a jewish homeland.