Israel's International Crisis (escalation #1)

[icedagger]

It was completely illegal what Israel did. Like, it's an act of war and Turkey can technically use this to start a war and ask Nato for help. Boarding ships in international waters who fly under another nations flag is illegal.

Turkey could technically use anything they like to unilaterally start a war, I doubt it's a causus belli that would be accepted by Nato though. I'm not disputing what israel did was illegal, but it doesn't follow that the people on the ship had the right to shoot at and stab the Israeli sailors.

You don't understand, having your boat boarded in international waters is an accepted casus belli for Nato. That doesn't mean they will start a war, or that Nato members will support them, but it does mean that they're fully in their rights to start a war.

I don't think Nato would recognise it as an attack, so the mutual defence clause wouldn't be activated. Nato doesn't have an "accepted causus belli", other than a nation being attacked- it's just a mutual defence pact.

Also, you absolutely do have the right to shoot soldiers who are entering your boat illegally. You can shoot pirates too. (That doesn't mean you should or that it's morally the correct thing to do always, but you won't get prosecuted for it.) It's selfdefense. Not being allowed to would make the law about international waters pointless.

It's not self defence if you aren't attacked. To paraphrase you:

If I break into your house and you wave a gun in my face (or run at me with a baseball bat) I'm not allowed to [attempt to] kill you.

[2dimes]

She ends up on the wrong side of a plethora of arguments huh?

Jefe, what is a plethora?

[Snorri1234]

It was completely illegal what Israel did. Like, it's an act of war and Turkey can technically use this to start a war and ask Nato for help. Boarding ships in international waters who fly under another nations flag is illegal.

Turkey could technically use anything they like to unilaterally start a war, I doubt it's a causus belli that would be accepted by Nato though. I'm not disputing what israel did was illegal, but it doesn't follow that the people on the ship had the right to shoot at and stab the Israeli sailors.

You don't understand, having your boat boarded in international waters is an accepted casus belli for Nato. That doesn't mean they will start a war, or that Nato members will support them, but it does mean that they're fully in their rights to start a war.

I don't think Nato would recognise it as an attack, so the mutual defence clause wouldn't be activated. Nato doesn't have an "accepted causus belli", it's just a mutual defence pact.

Why wouldn't they recognise it as an attack? It is an attack. A boat in international waters is under jurisdiction of their flag state, attacking it is basically the same as an attack or another country. That's why it's such a big deal.

Also, you absolutely do have the right to shoot soldiers who are entering your boat illegally. You can shoot pirates too. (That doesn't mean you should or that it's morally the correct thing to do always, but you won't get prosecuted for it.) It's selfdefense. Not being allowed to would make the law about international waters pointless.

It's not self defence if you aren't attacked. To paraphrase you:

If I break into your house and you wave a gun in my face (or run at me with a baseball bat) I'm not allowed to [attempt to] kill you.

Boarding a boat in international waters without permission is an attack.

Right of visit

1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:

(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;

(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;

(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;

(d) the ship is without nationality; or

(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.

2. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1, the warship may proceed to verify the ship's right to fly its flag. To this end, it may send a boat under the command of an officer to the suspected ship. If suspicion remains after the documents have been checked, it may proceed to a further examination on board the ship, which must be carried out with all possible consideration.

3. If the suspicions prove to be unfounded, and provided that the ship boarded has not committed any act justifying them, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained.

4. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft.

5. These provisions also apply to any other duly authorized ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service.

[thegreekdog]

Snorri, those rules outlined here do not indicate that the unauthorized boarding of a ship is an attack. They simply indicate the permissible ways in which one warship may board another ship.

So, as an example, if the police come to my house for no reason, break down the door, and enter, they don't have a legal justification for doing so (and should be punished accordingly). However, I do not have a right to shoot them in the face.

[icedagger]

It was completely illegal what Israel did. Like, it's an act of war and Turkey can technically use this to start a war and ask Nato for help. Boarding ships in international waters who fly under another nations flag is illegal.

Turkey could technically use anything they like to unilaterally start a war, I doubt it's a causus belli that would be accepted by Nato though. I'm not disputing what israel did was illegal, but it doesn't follow that the people on the ship had the right to shoot at and stab the Israeli sailors.

You don't understand, having your boat boarded in international waters is an accepted casus belli for Nato. That doesn't mean they will start a war, or that Nato members will support them, but it does mean that they're fully in their rights to start a war.

I don't think Nato would recognise it as an attack, so the mutual defence clause wouldn't be activated. Nato doesn't have an "accepted causus belli", it's just a mutual defence pact.

Why wouldn't they recognise it as an attack? It is an attack. A boat in international waters is under jurisdiction of their flag state, attacking it is basically the same as an attack or another country. That's why it's such a big deal.

They wouldn't recognise it as an attack because they have no interest in supporting a war against Israel. They therefore have no motivation to take the strict legal line that israeli troops on a turkish ship = an attack on turkish soil. They would take into account the ships' stated intention to enter Israeli waters without permission, and that the Israelis were trying to divert the ships from doing this. This is fricking Nato, they're not going to support a war against Israel (and recognising it as an attack would necessitate doing so) over something like this.

Also, you absolutely do have the right to shoot soldiers who are entering your boat illegally. You can shoot pirates too. (That doesn't mean you should or that it's morally the correct thing to do always, but you won't get prosecuted for it.) It's selfdefense. Not being allowed to would make the law about international waters pointless.

It's not self defence if you aren't attacked. To paraphrase you:

If I break into your house and you wave a gun in my face (or run at me with a baseball bat) I'm not allowed to [attempt to] kill you.

Boarding a boat in international waters without permission is an attack.

Right of visit

That's nice, but as I said previously I'm not disputing what the Israelis did was illegal. I'm saying it doesn't give the people on the boat the right to shoot at and stab the Israeli sailors.

[Snorri1234]

Snorri, those rules outlined here do not indicate that the unauthorized boarding of a ship is an attack. They simply indicate the permissible ways in which one warship may board another ship.

So, as an example, if the police come to my house for no reason, break down the door, and enter, they don't have a legal justification for doing so (and should be punished accordingly). However, I do not have a right to shoot them in the face.

That's because police have jurisdiction over your house. If foreign soldiers broke into your house you'd be allowed to defend yourself against them.

[Woodruff]

Snorri, those rules outlined here do not indicate that the unauthorized boarding of a ship is an attack. They simply indicate the permissible ways in which one warship may board another ship.

So, as an example, if the police come to my house for no reason, break down the door, and enter, they don't have a legal justification for doing so (and should be punished accordingly). However, I do not have a right to shoot them in the face.

Are you sure about that? (The right to shoot them in the face, I mean) I ask because if you reasonably believe your life is in jeopardy, I think that is accepted as justification for self-defense. And if you don't recognize that it's the police breaking down your door, you very well may believe that your life is in jeopardy.

[Snorri1234]

They wouldn't recognise it as an attack because they have no interest in supporting a war against Israel. They therefore have no motivation to take the strict legal line that israeli troops on a turkish ship = an attack on turkish soil. They would take into account the ships' stated intention to enter Israeli waters without permission, and that the Israelis were trying to divert the ships from doing this. This is fricking Nato, they're not going to support a war against Israel (and recognising it as an attack would necessitate doing so) over something like this.

Turkey isn't going to start a war obviously. Recognising it as an attack doesn't necessitate a war though because Israel works with Nato so there are other diplomatic options. Besides there is plenty of vetoing and arguing about procedures which will happen so even a recognition is not enough. (if the US says they won't help for numerous reasons, nothing happens)

But it doesn't matter because it's still an attack according to the law.

That's nice, but as I said previously I'm not disputing what the Israelis did was illegal. I'm saying it doesn't give the people on the boat the right to shoot at and stab the Israeli soldiers.

Yes it does. It would be crazy to suggest that you don't have the right to defend yourself against foreign soldiers who are acting illegally.

[Woodruff]

That's nice, but as I said previously I'm not disputing what the Israelis did was illegal. I'm saying it doesn't give the people on the boat the right to shoot at and stab the Israeli sailors.

It sounds as though you're advocating for someone not being able to defend themselves against piracy. (I am NOT saying what the Israelis did was piracy.)

[PLAYER57832]

There is one definite problem with the Israeli position, specifically that they took this action in international waters.

The second issue is who shot first. There are many conflicting reports, of course.

The other issue is the validity of the blockage and the manner in which it has been implemented. Many in the international community feel this is not at all about "containing" Gaza, but is about grinding Israels heels on their heads.

We might find the truth in about 50 years.

[thegreekdog]

Snorri, those rules outlined here do not indicate that the unauthorized boarding of a ship is an attack. They simply indicate the permissible ways in which one warship may board another ship.

So, as an example, if the police come to my house for no reason, break down the door, and enter, they don't have a legal justification for doing so (and should be punished accordingly). However, I do not have a right to shoot them in the face.

Are you sure about that? (The right to shoot them in the face, I mean) I ask because if you reasonably believe your life is in jeopardy, I think that is accepted as justification for self-defense. And if you don't recognize that it's the police breaking down your door, you very well may believe that your life is in jeopardy.

Well, yes, you are right. If I don't recognize that it's the police, I may have justification.

However, in the context of the incident here, it appears very likely that the boardees knew that the boarders were not pirates.

[icedagger]

The Nato thing is going off on a tangent a bit, and of course Turkey aren't going to declare war on israel. You're the one who brought up the hypothetical though:

Turkey can technically use this to start a war and ask Nato for help

My point is that Nato would be very unlikely to provide help if this was to happen.

Yes it does. It would be crazy to suggest that you don't have the right to defend yourself against foreign soldiers who are acting illegally.

They weren't defending themselves. The Israelis were breaking the law by boarding their ship, but that doesn't magically turn the people on the ship into vigilantes with the power to enforce international law via lynch mob. If the Israelis attacked one of the people on the ship, they would have the right to defend themselves clearly. There's no evidence this happened though.

[icedagger]

That's nice, but as I said previously I'm not disputing what the Israelis did was illegal. I'm saying it doesn't give the people on the boat the right to shoot at and stab the Israeli sailors.

It sounds as though you're advocating for someone not being able to defend themselves against piracy. (I am NOT saying what the Israelis did was piracy.)

Piracy implies violence, kidnapping and theft. Israel had no intention to commit any of these acts.They were enforcing their territorial waters in an area where they didn't have the right to do so, in the knowledge that the ships would be breaching their waters in a matter of hours. Illegal yes, but not even close to piracy.

If the people on the ship could reasonably think they were under pirate attack, they would be entitled to defend themselves. In fact they knew exactly what was happening, having been warned multiple times, and chose to escalate the situation.

[Snorri1234]

The Nato thing is going off on a tangent a bit, and of course Turkey aren't going to declare war on israel. You're the one who brought up the hypothetical though:

Turkey can technically use this to start a war and ask Nato for help

My point is that Nato would be very unlikely to provide help if this was to happen.

I said it to point out how illegal this was.

Yes it does. It would be crazy to suggest that you don't have the right to defend yourself against foreign soldiers who are acting illegally.

They weren't defending themselves. The Israelis were breaking the law by boarding their ship, but that doesn't magically turn the people on the ship into vigilantes with the power to enforce international law via lynch mob. If the Israelis attacked one of the people on the ship, they would have the right to defend themselves clearly. There's no evidence this happened though.

The thing is is that it's still allowed. Technically the Israel soldiers were invading Turkish soil. Foreign soldiers invading your home don't have to attack you before you're allowed to defend.

It goes the same for piracy; just because they haven't shot at you yet doesn't mean you're not allowed to use force to stop them from boarding.

[icedagger]

The Nato thing is going off on a tangent a bit, and of course Turkey aren't going to declare war on israel. You're the one who brought up the hypothetical though:

Turkey can technically use this to start a war and ask Nato for help

My point is that Nato would be very unlikely to provide help if this was to happen.

I said it to point out how illegal this was.

Ok. As long as we're agreed that it's illegal enough for turkey to have the right to ask Nato for assistance, but not so illegal that Nato would seriously consider actually giving said assistance

The thing is is that it's still allowed. Technically the Israel soldiers were invading Turkish soil. Foreign soldiers invading your home don't have to attack you before you're allowed to defend.

With what could amount to deadly force? Do you have proof?

[Phatscotty]

well this is what the israelis are showing...

http://www.youtube.com/user/hetvrijevol ... vS9PXZ3RWM
http://www.youtube.com/user/hetvrijevol ... YjkLUcbJWo
http://www.youtube.com/user/hetvrijevol ... uzOWKxN2co

the palestinean boat was wrong, smuggling weapons and also using violence, if they would have done nothing and peacefully let the israelis take over the boat they would have better proven their point, now its just a case of u asked for it.

It's not smuggling weapons when it's shit you would normally find on a boat. Claiming that any of those things are weapons is just isanity or paranoia.

Have you ever even been on a boat?

has your nearest corner market ever been suicide bombed?

[Phatscotty]

Thanks Dimes. Yeah there are protests all over the world, most notably in Turkey, which is a muslim country that has enjoyed a great relationship with Israel. That's why this will be an international crisis...

Agreed...Turkey's being this upset is a very bad thing for Israel, and really shows that they probably fucked this one up pretty badly. There were so many ways they could have handled this better.

I don't know. I mean yes for sure it's not good. Also, the people on the boat could have handled it better and not thrown one soldier overboard and severely injured in the head another soldier. Also, the boat could have heeded the warning, like the other 5 boats that were with it did.

[Phatscotty]

Snorri, those rules outlined here do not indicate that the unauthorized boarding of a ship is an attack. They simply indicate the permissible ways in which one warship may board another ship.

So, as an example, if the police come to my house for no reason, break down the door, and enter, they don't have a legal justification for doing so (and should be punished accordingly). However, I do not have a right to shoot them in the face.

[PLAYER57832]

Except does Israel even have the right to conduct this blockade. THAT is the other question.

[Phatscotty]

Except does Israel even have the right to conduct this blockade. THAT is the other question.

Well, before we get into that, is it ok to examine exactly who or what is in charge of pronouncing what rights israel has and does not have?

[PLAYER57832]

Except does Israel even have the right to conduct this blockade. THAT is the other question.

Well, before we get into that, is it ok to examine exactly who or what is in charge of pronouncing what rights israel has and does not have?

Politically, there is no answer. As for the religious answer.. ask someone else.

[Phatscotty]

Except does Israel even have the right to conduct this blockade. THAT is the other question.

Well, before we get into that, is it ok to examine exactly who or what is in charge of pronouncing what rights israel has and does not have?

Politically, there is no answer. As for the religious answer.. ask someone else.

well, you brought it up. the concept itself was what I was puzzled by, not your opinion on it. I know your opinion on every issue. The concept of "if" israel has the right to conduct the blockade. If you are for taking away Israels rights to conduct blockades, then just come out and say so.

[bradleybadly]

I actually agree somewhat with player. There's no hope for a political solution to this.

I hate war and know this will sound horrible, but in this case I think the only way anything will be decided is for one side to decimate the other in armed conflict. The outcome will have to be completely decisive.

[PLAYER57832]

Except does Israel even have the right to conduct this blockade. THAT is the other question.

Well, before we get into that, is it ok to examine exactly who or what is in charge of pronouncing what rights israel has and does not have?

Politically, there is no answer. As for the religious answer.. ask someone else.

well, you brought it up. the concept itself was what I was puzzled by, not your opinion on it. I know your opinion on every issue. The concept of "if" israel has the right to conduct the blockade. If you are for taking away Israels rights to conduct blockades, then just come out and say so.

Well, does Mexico have the right to blockade us? Or vice-versa?
the problem with this is that Israel basically wants it both ways. On the one hand, they act as if they are at war with Palestine, on the other hand they deny there is such a thing as Palestine or Palestiniens, that they are "just Arabs" and that the whole concept of Palestiniens is just an invention of the other Arab nations. Then, at the same time, they are and occupier and have ruled Palestine for over 50 years.

They don't operate under the Geneva conventions, don't operate as occupiers of another country are mandated to do.

We were attacked by Japan, but did we turn their whole nation into a prison camp and declare they are just Chinese with funny accents? What of Germany. Most Isrealis have plenty of reason to want retribution against Germany. Yet Germany doesn't get their ire, its Palestine that does. All the Palestinien people have said, over and over is "dont' take our land" and "we will fight you if you try".

You talk about the Mexican illegals who are coming here, and put up a maps saying "ours" and "not ours". Palestine is denied anything close to that right by the simple expedience of Israel denying there is such a thing as Palestinien culture, Palestiniens, etc.

[PLAYER57832]

I actually agree somewhat with player. There's no hope for a political solution to this.

I hate war and know this will sound horrible, but in this case I think the only way anything will be decided is for one side to decimate the other in armed conflict. The outcome will have to be completely decisive.

I am afraid you are right. I also think that if Israel does completely obliterate all of Palestine, then we will have another true World War.