The Mavi Marmara incident.
- Thread starter Mega
- Start date
Ranko
I'll shoot the gunner first!
I think it's piracy only in international waters. As for the territorial waters (area up to 12 nautical miles away from the coast), foreign ships do have the right of innocent passage, but under certain conditions:
The right of all ships to engage in continuous and expeditious surface passage through the territorial sea and archipelagic waters of foreign coastal states in a manner not prejudicial to its peace, good order, or security. Passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only if incidental to ordinary navigation or necessary by force majeure or distress, or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships, or aircraft in danger or distress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_passage
Also, territorial waters are considered sovereign territory (i.e. just like the land territory) and the state has full jurisdiction over it. So I guess that stopping a boat within territorial waters wouldn't be considered unjustified or illegal, as opposed to what they're actually doing in international waters.
The right of all ships to engage in continuous and expeditious surface passage through the territorial sea and archipelagic waters of foreign coastal states in a manner not prejudicial to its peace, good order, or security. Passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only if incidental to ordinary navigation or necessary by force majeure or distress, or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships, or aircraft in danger or distress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_passage
Also, territorial waters are considered sovereign territory (i.e. just like the land territory) and the state has full jurisdiction over it. So I guess that stopping a boat within territorial waters wouldn't be considered unjustified or illegal, as opposed to what they're actually doing in international waters.
Mega
Ancient Mariner
I don't get this law.
I mean, this boat is coming here with a clear purpose: violating the blockade on gaza.
Why can't we take counter measures enough time before is happens?
I mean, if we waited for a fleet of warships to cross our sea borders, and only then attack, we would put thousends of lives on the line.
Of course it's not the case here but it just as well might be!
I mean, this boat is coming here with a clear purpose: violating the blockade on gaza.
Why can't we take counter measures enough time before is happens?
I mean, if we waited for a fleet of warships to cross our sea borders, and only then attack, we would put thousends of lives on the line.
Of course it's not the case here but it just as well might be!
Invader
Ancient Mariner
A state only has sovereignty inside its own borders. If the boat was crossing the Atlantic with the same intentions, could you take action even then? Intentions or purposes can't be punished. Israel can't tell others what to do in international waters, because international waters don't belong to Israel. I will admit that I'm not very familiar with the subject of international law, but common sense works pretty well too. Everyone has the right to free passage inside international waters (I think). Israel does not have the right to contest that.Mega said:
As for your parallel to war ships, I believe the case is completely different in actual war, and different laws apply. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
LC would know best, but I believe that once war has been declared, any of the countries ships are 'open for business' wherever they are. However, without a declaration of war, operating outside one's boundaries isn't legal.
Honestly, Mega, I feel for your country, being in the middle of a hornets nest. However, they have 12 miles with which to deal with 'blockade runners'. These ships aren't carrying missiles to shoot at you in those waters, so they need to wait, be legal over it, and stop the ships inside the limit. Otherwise it's anarchy. How would Israeli ships feel if they were heading for some port in the UK, and a Turkish war-ship stopped them in the middle of the ocean? Same thing. As Invader said, intentions are one thing, actions are another.
Personally, I think that either Israel either needs to pony up the man power to stop ships within their legal limit, or, if they don't have that manpower, give up.
Honestly, Mega, I feel for your country, being in the middle of a hornets nest. However, they have 12 miles with which to deal with 'blockade runners'. These ships aren't carrying missiles to shoot at you in those waters, so they need to wait, be legal over it, and stop the ships inside the limit. Otherwise it's anarchy. How would Israeli ships feel if they were heading for some port in the UK, and a Turkish war-ship stopped them in the middle of the ocean? Same thing. As Invader said, intentions are one thing, actions are another.
Personally, I think that either Israel either needs to pony up the man power to stop ships within their legal limit, or, if they don't have that manpower, give up.
Wasted's pretty much right. Because the group approaching Israel is a non-governmental organization with which Israel is not at war, there is no legal precedent to board or interdict the vessels outside of their 12 mile limit.
If the ships were Palestinian flagged, or Hamas flagged, then it would be entirely different (although this is unlikely, considering neither Palestine nor Hamas is a state at this time, with the full legal protection granted to it). But it's not. It's Irish. Crewed and commanded by people with the blessing of the Government of Ireland, much as the previous vessel was crewed and commanded by Turks.
A state of war changes things. Vessels flagged under the jack of a combatant nation may be engaged by vessels of a non-combative nation. However, Israel does not exist in a state of war with Turkey or Ireland or the other countries, and as a result, is bound to respect the laws of ocean navigation. Acting outside of their 12 mile limit without a UN mandate to do so is 100% illegal and technically piracy. US folk may recall the RMS Lusitania as the beginning of American sympathies towards the Allies in World War I; similarly, the German resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in violation of international law with non-combatants led directly to US intervention in the war and the eventual Allied victory. It's similar to that (though not exactly the same). Basically, ships that are not part of a declared war can do anything they want in international waters that doesn't violate other treaties.
Basically, the ship may have a clear purpose, but until it is in Israel's waters, it is NOT violating the blockade. The second it is in the limit, Israel can grab the ship and fuck it up the ass if it wants. Israel are pirating ships right now, and I wish the international community would tell them to fuck right off.
If the ships were Palestinian flagged, or Hamas flagged, then it would be entirely different (although this is unlikely, considering neither Palestine nor Hamas is a state at this time, with the full legal protection granted to it). But it's not. It's Irish. Crewed and commanded by people with the blessing of the Government of Ireland, much as the previous vessel was crewed and commanded by Turks.
A state of war changes things. Vessels flagged under the jack of a combatant nation may be engaged by vessels of a non-combative nation. However, Israel does not exist in a state of war with Turkey or Ireland or the other countries, and as a result, is bound to respect the laws of ocean navigation. Acting outside of their 12 mile limit without a UN mandate to do so is 100% illegal and technically piracy. US folk may recall the RMS Lusitania as the beginning of American sympathies towards the Allies in World War I; similarly, the German resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in violation of international law with non-combatants led directly to US intervention in the war and the eventual Allied victory. It's similar to that (though not exactly the same). Basically, ships that are not part of a declared war can do anything they want in international waters that doesn't violate other treaties.
Basically, the ship may have a clear purpose, but until it is in Israel's waters, it is NOT violating the blockade. The second it is in the limit, Israel can grab the ship and fuck it up the ass if it wants. Israel are pirating ships right now, and I wish the international community would tell them to fuck right off.
Ranko
I'll shoot the gunner first!
Well, this is not a fleet of warships, they're carrying humanitarian aid. Your country's boats outgun them and outnumber them, making them stop shouldn't be a problem to them. I really don't see why Israeli government decided to do it this way, as it will only attract negative publicity.Mega said:
Edit: Ah, I posted this at the same moment you posted your second reply, we're basically in agreement.
Mega said:
I also don't understand. As I have said, there are any number of reasons to object to the blockade of Gaza, but Israel doesn't need to bring more down on itself by breaking the law and killing people in doing so. It just seems foolish and defiant in a way it doesn't need to be.
Also, I wanted to note that some people in the US are still very supportive of Israel. Liz Cheney called the blockade runners part of the "Syrian-Turkic-Iranian axis" who are supporting terrorism. It seems to me that calling out a NATO ally like that is very fucking stupid.
Mega
Ancient Mariner
Nah, turkey are only trying to look good in the eyes of their muslim friends. I've been telling people for years not to go there but the dumbass israelis keep going there for vacations.
Anyway, I want to make sure that you understand that that boat was not a humanitarian aid boat.
I mean, look at the recent boat: they surrendered in 5 minutes, and we will ship whatever items they have that are legal to gaza. Now that's a humanitarian boat. I don't agree with them, but they are not violant and they don't seek to harm us.
Also, I don't think that the loss of lives could have been prevented if we waited a little bit. Heck, I think if we did we could've had casualties on our side as well.
What I do have a problem with is why taking over this ship in international waters as well. The people on this boat said that they will welcome our soldiers, so their intent was clear and we didn't have to rush into international waters.
Anyway, I want to make sure that you understand that that boat was not a humanitarian aid boat.
I mean, look at the recent boat: they surrendered in 5 minutes, and we will ship whatever items they have that are legal to gaza. Now that's a humanitarian boat. I don't agree with them, but they are not violant and they don't seek to harm us.
Also, I don't think that the loss of lives could have been prevented if we waited a little bit. Heck, I think if we did we could've had casualties on our side as well.
What I do have a problem with is why taking over this ship in international waters as well. The people on this boat said that they will welcome our soldiers, so their intent was clear and we didn't have to rush into international waters.
No, Turkey doesn't have many Muslim friends. Most of their ties are to the West, not east. They are a secular nation who is trying to join the EU. They are part of NATO. They are a very good friend to us, less to the rest of the Islamic world. They are legitimately upset because their ship was boarded in international waters.
Maybe the loss of lives would not have changed, but at the very least, it would have been a legal raid. And that would change the perception entirely.
Maybe the loss of lives would not have changed, but at the very least, it would have been a legal raid. And that would change the perception entirely.
Technically, that's grammar.
____no5
Free Man
Is the only one ever annoyed me here, so here I am. 
I've noticed it somewhere else in your previous posts, that's why I told you.
Yet I'm the last one to talk spelling here -someone from the moderators had to pm, in order to start paying attention
I wasn't sure, so I thought spelling would be more understandable
I've noticed it somewhere else in your previous posts, that's why I told you.
Yet I'm the last one to talk spelling here -someone from the moderators had to pm, in order to start paying attention
LooseCannon said:
I wasn't sure, so I thought spelling would be more understandable
Mega said:
The fact that they still come to Turkey and have great time proves that there is no enmity towards neither israeli people nor their religious beliefs as you may think. I hope you come to Turkey and experience it yourself. It may help you to change reframe your ideas. Don't think that a whole population of 80 million is fanatic altogether... even in Iran.
Mega said:
Try, keep trying as you're doing for days and you will fail. Because...
Mega said:
The embargo itself is ridiculous. Look at the list of some allowed and prohibited items:
http://www.economist.com/node/16264970
Everybody knows that what the embargo doesn't aim to stop the weapons to be smuggled. Fishing equipment and any type of food that can be stored for future consumption is forbidden. because Israel wants Palestinian people to barely survive, by controlling the amount of food, and keeping it at minimum. I don't want to say that, but this is what you do to dogs.
All the infrastructure is destroyed there. Sewer water flows in the streets. Israeli embargo not only forbids them to live in minimum humane conditions, but also prevents medical aid on top of it.
Even UN (whose offices were bombed last year, probably they were trying to destroy Israel I guess) noted that the allowed humanitarian aid was way lower than it is needed to keep a minimum humane life standard in Palestine.
This embargo will only breed hatred. and will require further measures... welcome to the endless loop of war.
Is this embargo legal? WHO CARES?
Mega said:
Have you ever heard of GreenPeace? not all peaceful protests and activities are submissive. They don't hurt anybody, but they don't submit as in the ideal world that states' and armies' dream. Because you can't stop ideas with bullets.
"Hey we want to help people! but let's help the way you want." naah... get real. Israel does not want to help Palestinian people. They want them to submit, by educating them with famine, pestilence and death.
Mega said:
I hope they do so.
Israel shouldn't wait until all the countries of the world turn their backs to it just like they did to South Africa until the fall of unjustifiable Apartheid regime.
Now after all this:
Do I support Turkish government in all its actions?
NO! I hate our prime-minister to death, and I think he is a real danger to our country. I do everything I can to prevent him to win next election. and I hate him to exploit the situation in Gaza whenever he can.
Do I support Hamas?
HELL NO! Our government says that Hamas is an organization that tries to defend its homeland and has legitimate public support through election. I say, that doesn't prevent them from using terrorist methods. If you kill civilians, you are terrorist. Period. Speaking of elections: Hitler was elected too. Democracy is not elections; it's the healthy debate that happens before elections where everybody can speak freely, respecting human rights.
Should we punish Palestinian people because they elected Hamas?
Well, it is like saying we should have killed all the german population because their majority was supporting Hitler.
Do I think Israel has to right to defend itself?
Of course. but not this way.
eddiesson, I want you to remember that all of Israel isn't responsible for what's going in in Palestine, the same as all of Turkey isn't in agreement with the government's stance on Hamas.
LooseCannon said:
Actually in all my posts you can find clues about how I make a clear distinction between governments and people, as well as people with different views in a country.
When I say Israel or Turkey, I think it was possible to guess what I mean from the context, but I will be more precise in my future posts.
Will-I-Am said:
This thread is not about him, turkish prime minister Erdogan. So I don't want to go into details. Let me just say that his despotic (even fascist) tendencies apparent in his speeches as well as his actions and methods are a threat to the county of Turkey, and to its population. at least that's my opinon an individual, as a Turkish citizen.
I would really like to hear your opinions about him and the reasons that makes you think so in another thread or through PM, and discuss.