Posted on 05/31/2010 3:06:20 PM PDT by SJackson
Ministry of Foreign Affairs 31 May 2010 - distributed May 31, 2010 5:18 PM
A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. It has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza.
1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.
2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.
3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states.
4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.
5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.
6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.
7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.
8. A state may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.
9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.
10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.
11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.
12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 , my bold
SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
68. Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.
69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
I decided to post this as a thread since the issue seems to be coming up elsewhere. And yes, the flotilla was warned.
I heard the buffoons at the U.N. have called an emergency meeting. LOL! We better keep a close eye on that Cap’n Tax bill tormorrow.
Thanks for posting this. Until now, I had been a little confused as to what the hell actually happened. This clears it up substantially.
In the words of one trooper, We went into war, and all we had were toys.
I assume this will be conveniently ignored by our administration, and of course the U.N. knuckleheads.
You’re right, but he’s out, and I doubt anyone with common sense has his ear. That’s a risk for other Security Council members too, but they’re smart enough to recognize the rules that apply to Israel will never apply to them.
UN yes, our administration, we’ll see. I’m not optomistic.
bm
Where were the terrorist supporting ships, 500 miles offshore and what international law will the terrorist loving UN use to attack Israel with? The 500 kilometer off any coast law or something?
I’m sorry. Regardless of the details or the Rules of Engagement, I think this incident is regrettable. As I understand it, the Israelis stormed the boats and then were attacked with sticks et. al. However, they were hundred of miles from Gaza at the time of boarding.
Surely, there was no immediate need to board, and there were a wide variety of potential tactics that they could have used before the ship came anywhere near the Gaza shore. No matter how you look at it, 10 deaths is a black spot on the Israeli record. They didn’t have to take the aggressive actions that they did at the time when they performed them.
My how the world has changed, If hitler existed today the un, france, britin and America would be cheering him on.
These idiots were warned. Too bad, so sad they need to face the consequences of defying Israel. They were fairly warned.
bttt
ping
No “international law” forbids what they did. Only the court of public opinion, which is why this incident was planned by the anti-semitic left and muslims in the first place.
Either show weakness or stand fast and take the criticism. Israel's hand was forced, and they seem to have taken the best course available to them, IMO.
Allowing the “flotilla” to get closer to their blockade was pointless, and only put their forces in more danger from assistance available from belligerent states near their territory, so waiting until they were in “territorial” waters was not a viable option.
Thanks for the solid reporting.
You’ve done a better job than the entire “mainstream” media put together.
I'm sure he'd be more than happy to do that, undermine the US legal position that is. Whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Even al Jazera is only claiming 60km, about 30 nautical miles. Not hundreds. 3 hours at 10 knots. 6 hours at 5 knots.
I'll wager it was even less than 60 km.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.