Swedish climate and human rights activist Greta Thunberg departed Israel on a flight to France after being detained by Israeli forces aboard an aid ship bound for Gaza.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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.