Report: Israel attacks flotilla, 10 die - Page 35

Dowly · 06-03-10, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

There's another ship heading in. The Rachel Corrie.
This will not end well...

And seemingly the Irish PM has demanded that Israel leaves the ship alone.

Oberon · 06-03-10, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

And seemingly the Irish PM has demanded that Israel leaves the ship alone.

Well, that'll scare Tel Aviv!

Safe-Keeper · 06-03-10, 06:46 PM

They have taken to singing, now.

Everybody be seated, get out your popcorn, and turn off your cell phones!

06-03-10, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

They have taken to singing, now.

Everybody be seated, get out your popcorn, and turn off your cell phones!

Original but doesn`t change anything. Politicians decided to bring this world into a dark age instead of going forward

MH · 06-03-10, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.T

I love the "good vs bad" angle....

¨why.....because there is only 1 bad one and its all us humans....

I love the "Islam is bad".....

why....because Saladin the great alowed the cristians to leave Jerusalem...then our western great king named Richard comes around and slaugters any muslim he can find...

We westerners are so good and have the right to judge others....

We dont keep people in camps and abuse them

We dont "kidnap" people to fly them to interigation

We dont ocupy other countrys

We have a effective UN that realy help out in the 3rd world...

If we dont get something we dont give something. Half the damn world looks by when populations are suffering. How many of us are living in a place where you are occupied by another nation. Look at what land you have are being build on by those who occupys it.

No one helps you, you are left alone. How do you fight a konventional army with freedomfighters, how do you get the message out to the world. I will not accept terrorism, but that dont meen that i cant understand it...

You live in a world where everytime someone tryes to do something a big nation puts in a veto. You are fighting one that are buing weapons to kill you from that big country, again money...

Now you are weak, and confused about how to fight. Then a man with a beard comes and say, give your life for the profet and the people, show the world that you will fight an die..

When you dont live in a country where everyday is a fight its damn easy to sit down and throw everyone in the same basket...

Kids throwing stones at tanks oooh let us help them. When the kids get some guns they are terrorists lets kill them...

Im fed up with westerners sitting behind there computers and judging around 70% of the global population because of the actions of few. There are terrorists, but there are also those who just fight for the right to live on a small piece of land, but noooo they are all bad people.

And half the bloody terrorists got there freaking traning from instructors of western countrys......maby it is time to think that us pride world westerners maby is the cause for a great deal of the trouble because of national egos and money...

I like sven as much as i like Ali, i dont judge people from skin colour or there religion. If Ali respect me i will respect him. As long we treat others "national or international" as second rate people we will have to fight...

Have anyone of you had the thought that what if the Arab leage gets enough of the pasitivity in the UN and deside its enough??...and how can you blame them.

We ad so much fuel to the fire that the terrorists come from because we dont do **** when one of "us" steps out of line...

A man said at some time ago, that you cant put a price on a humans life, well that is what we do every day. Who cares about that woman killed in the middle east, the weapon and ammo used give us 2 jobs and some export benefits....But that womans children and husbond will look at who to blame, first there is those using the guns and then they look at the one giving the users there guns....becuase the one giving the guns are not doing anything to make sure that the user of the gun dont use it to kill those not fighting the occupants...

L.T

Good points....
But...
Westerners don't usually call for jihad when someone draws caricature of Jesus...
Westerns don't usually are ready o commit suicidal attack in the name of Jesus. They dont crash 747 in Mecca.
Or USA or Israel isn't calling for total destruction of let say Iran.

When you blow up a bus full of civilians in middle of Jerusalem because you don't want to compromise but only deepen the hatred you are terrorist.
When you pay a kid 50$ to throw a stone on a tank what that this make you?
When you pay a family 50000$ for her son to commit suicidal bombing what is that?
What kind of mentality is that when the same family is celebrating her son death as he became a shahid in heaven.
When you fire 100$ missile to center of Israeli town and then cry out loud when you get back million$ half ton laser guided bomb you are peace activist?-Please shoot something smaller and cheaper its not fair.
When you call in mosque for destruction of country you live in and you emigrated into willingly what that you make you?

As for Palestinians they are just a tool and means of a war to discredit and bring down Israel.
Some Arab nations will do all they can to keep this conflict going...when Gaza runs out of stones they will try to ship them in ...
When they catch wind of Israeli Palestinian agreement they will intensify terror not caring for simple citizens since they are shahids in the holly fight.

Im not saing that Islam is bad but it is corrupted.

Dowly · 06-03-10, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

They have taken to singing, now.

Everybody be seated, get out your popcorn, and turn off your cell phones!

ROFL!!

06-03-10, 07:23 PM

Quote:

I love the "good vs bad" angle....

Yep, its used by those who don't think and don't want to think.

Quote:

And seemingly the Irish PM has demanded that Israel leaves the ship alone.

Well I hate to say it, but for once that fat biffo isn't completelty wrong.
Though of course he cannot demand that Israel leaves the ship alone once it enters the rather narrow strip of waters where Israel has jurisdiction as that would be a customs issue.
So the question is will Israel have learnt anything or will they stupidly be playing pirates again while ridiculously claiming to be acting within the law?

MH · 06-03-10, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

They have taken to singing, now.

Everybody be seated, get out your popcorn, and turn off your cell phones!

Dowly · 06-03-10, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So the question is will Israel have learnt anything or will they stupidly be playing pirates again while ridiculously claiming to be acting within the law?

It is my understanding that Israel will be boarding this ship aswell if it keeps on heading towards Gaza (which it will as it was to be part of the Monday's flotilla but due to it's slow speed it was left out). Tho, this time the activists have said that they'll play it cool, but who knows. Guess we find out when the ship arrives on Saturday.

MH · 06-03-10, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yep, its used by those who don't think and don't want to think.

Look at History-Chamberlain thought too mutch...
European Jews thought too much.
We Israeli/Jews thought too much making Oslo agreements.
You can reason with someone who is speaking your language of reason.
But there are some who will just exploit your high standards just because you think they never would.
Well...if you know what i mean.

06-03-10, 07:53 PM

Quote:

It is my understanding that Israel will be boarding this ship aswell if it keeps on heading towards Gaza.

Thats fine, as long as they wait until its legitimate this time.

Quote:

Look at History-Chamberlain thought too mutch...
European Jews thought too much.

Apart from the fact that that makes very little sense, there is still no excuse for not thinking, which is precisely what you did when you approached this topic.

MH · 06-03-10, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Apart from the fact that that makes very little sense.....

Was afraid it would....sorry for that.

06-03-10, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Was afraid it would....sorry for that.

Its really the opposite of what you said.
Chamberlain didn't think enough and many European Jews didn't think enough

Bilge_Rat · 06-03-10, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

"Aid mission" in Turkish understanding:

Great video. Finally had a chance to see it. Glad to see some people have an objective viewpoint.

Stealth Hunter · 06-03-10, 09:34 PM

148. Contraband is defined as goods which are ultimately destined for territory under the control of the enemy and which may be susceptible for use in armed conflict.

149. In order to exercise the right of capture referred to in paragraphs 146(a) and 147, the belligerent must have published contraband lists. The precise nature of a belligerent's contraband list may vary according to the particular circumstances of the armed conflict. Contraband lists shall be reasonably specific.

150. Goods not on the belligerent's contraband list are 'free goods', that is, not subject to capture. As a minimum, 'free goods' shall include the following:

(a) religious objects;
(b) articles intended exclusively for the treatment of the wounded and sick and for the prevention of disease;
(c) clothing, bedding, essential foodstuffs, and means of shelter for the civilian population in general, and women and children in particular, provided there is not serious reason to believe that such goods will be diverted to other purpose, or that a definite military advantage would accrue to the enemy by their substitution for enemy goods that would thereby become available for military purposes;
(d) items destined for prisoners of war, including individual parcels and collective relief shipments containing food, clothing, educational, cultural, and recreational articles;
(e) goods otherwise specifically exempted from capture by international treaty or by special arrangement between belligerents; and
(f) other goods not susceptible for use in armed conflict,

Under the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928, adopted by the League of Nations and passed on to the United Nations, the neutral merchant vessels may be stopped if they are within national waters of the respective nation. (see "The Record of the Assembly", Vol. 69, February 16, 1928, p.3174) The problem is, the flotilla was not within the Coastal Shelf Zone near Israeli waters, hence they were exempt from even being required to submit for inspection. This was set down by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, under Article 76.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/conventi...clos/part2.htm

Articles 77 to 81 define the rights nations have within the Continental Shelf Zone. The only rights they have can be summed up best as this: "A coastal nation has control of all resources on or under its continental shelf, living or not, but no control over any living organisms above the shelf that are beyond its exclusive economic zone. This gives it the right to conduct petroleum drilling works and lay submarine cables or pipelines in its continental shelf."

The only rights they have over it pertain to resources, not boarding neutral merchant ships should they be defined as that. They can't stop and board ships to inspect them here, as it is. Even within national waters, they are required to give notice to the crew of the respective ship of their intentions to board. This practice can be dated back to the German government during World War I.

As you may or may not be aware, Alfred von Tirpitz was appointed during the "Place in the Sun" Decision of June, 15, 1897, by Wilhelm II and Prinz von Hohenloe, to the position of Secretary of State of the German Imperial Naval Office (he was selected over Admiral Friedrich von Hollmann).

Anyway, he helped to draft up, along with the elder statesman Count Otto von Bismarck (who had previously been the Chancellor of the Reichstag), the Naval Bill of 1898 (Bismarck died later that same year). Asides from commissioning 16 battleships within the next 3 years, the bill also required the acceptance of the major powers in Europe of the time to be ratified, as per the Naval Defense Act of 1889. The designated powers of the high seas under the aforementioned were: Great Britain, France, Russia, the United States, the Netherlands, and Japan (the Germans had territories in the Pacific, as did the Netherlands; this led to them being included, along with Japan which is, of course, located in the Pacific and had conflicts with Russia over who owned the region- France being part of the Entente Alliance with Russia at this time having territory in what is now Vietnam; the Americans did too in Hawaii, Guam, the Philippine Islands, and later Samoa).

During World War I, he helped to develop the "Risk Theory" (now part of the "Game Theory"), which led to the creation of the Fleet-in-Being Doctrine. In short: the concept of keeping the surface fleet in port. This doctrine was implemented after the Battle of Jutland, for the record, although von Tirpitz resigned his post in March 1916, and replaced by Admiral Eduard von Capelle; Jutland was of course on May 31st-June 1st.

Von Tirpitz realized that there was no way the Hochseeflotte fighting the British Grand Fleet in open conflict would achieve anything, other than getting a lot of men killed and ships sunk. Hence, he advocated the Unrestricted Submarine Warfare Doctrine at the outbreak of the war in 1914. However, in May 1915, following the sinking of the RMS Lusitania by U-20 commanded by Kptlt. Walther Schwieger, a passenger liner carrying ammunition and weapons to Great Britain, these tactics were officially called off by Wilhelm II himself after the Germans received a great amount of criticism over it.

Von Tirpitz continued to ask him for his approval to resume it following actions with Russia in September and October 1915. The Kaiser was reluctant to do so, and the Reichstag, as I previously mentioned, eventually forced von Tirpitz to resign his post in March 1916. It was not until February 1917 that the Unrestricted Submarine Warfare Doctrine would be implemented again, following the attempted blockade of Germany by the British.

Under von Capelle, it was required that, before a merchant be sunk, it must first be established that it be transporting supplies to aid the enemy nation it was sailing for. A warning was required to be sent out first, the uboat or torpedo boat had to be clearly visible, and the ship must stop. If it did not, they were permitted to fire a warning shot. If it still did not stop, they were permitted to fire a shot on the funnel or any visible cargo crates, down below the waterline, etc. so long as they did not have the intent on killing anyone. There was never an instance where a merchant continued to sail after being fired upon by this method.

Once the ship had stopped, the German sailors would simply board it and check to see if anything illegal were on board. If not, they would leave and the ship would go about its business. If so, they would give the crew 15 minutes to abandon it, they would return to their submarine or torpedo boat, and they would sink the merchant. They would then send out a message to all passing ships on the international frequency detailing where the ship was sunk out, how many boats there were, etc. for the evacuated crew. Sometimes, they'd even take them on board and ferry them to land!

As the war progressed, this tactic was abolished, because the British didn't like that they were losing so many merchants bringing in supplies and decided not to play by the rules. They began arming their vessels with guns, concealing them until the uboats or torpedo boats got close, then they'd fire on them. Sometimes they'd wait until they were on board and jump them, taking them prisoner.

Following the end of the war and the establishment of the League of Nations, such practices as this were agreed upon to be necessary amongst participating countries to preserve at least some grace and dignity and human rights within warfare. In the Record of the Assembly, Vol. 69, I sourced above it was agreed upon by them to set down not only rules about WHERE one may board, but WHAT must be done for one to board and HOW one must do it. The practices the Germans had used were ratified and adopted by them. This, still being valid today since the League of Nations was merely the beta to the United Nations following its dissolution (the United Nations continues using the laws the League of Nations set down, so long as they have not been overruled because of the times, and indeed these articles of naval law have not been deemed so), binds the Israelis to follow through with the exact same protocols in accordance with everyone else as a member of the United Nations.

This incident, taking place outside their national zone (12 nautical miles is the allotted maximum distance at which the zone may be established, and this is indeed what Israel, along with most of it's neighbors, has agreed to use), was not within their jurisdiction to even question. Again, it was taking place of the Continental Shelf Zone. While that part of the zone DOES belong to them, their ability to seize merchant ships (neutral or otherwise) and even inspect them is nonexistent, because the United Nations' 1982 Convention that I linked to earlier points out that the only rights any nation has within its Continental Shelf Zone relate to the management and maintaining of the habitat and resources (nothing about ships).

Furthermore, UN protocol was not followed through. They were required to send a warning that the ship was about to be boarded before they boarded it. This, according to CNN's video reports, did not happen, ergo no legal boarding had it of even taken place within their 12 nm zone to begin with. This website explains a lot of it (use translate; it's Hurriyet, a popular Turkish news broadcaster).

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/14919508.asp?gid=373

While the intentions were well within their rights as a nation, they did not do it within their jurisdiction nor did they follow through with the required legal protocol, making it a legal violation on several points mentioned already.

Only if they're in your national waters may you even be allowed to make a request to inspect their goods or board them like this should they refuse; the incident took place outside this right of the Israeli navy, however, in the Continental Shelf Zone. Boarding rights and inspection rights do not pertain to ships there. Furthermore, you can, as you said, only capture and arrest the crew/detain them if they perform an illegal action in your waters (in this case, as you pointed out, if they broke the blockade or started to break the blockade).

The law furthermore dictates the Israelis have no right to capture the cargo as it's not contraband and represents "free goods".

On the question of is the blockade legal, blockades certainly are during times of war or armed conflict between sovereign states. However, Gaza is not a sovereign state, and is not a part of Israel or of any other state within the region. Its status is that it is not recognized by the United Nations nor any other organization as its own independent land with a government, although it is recognized as an independent land. The nature of the only official armed conflict is that it is currently in existence there is between Israel and Hamas, not the people of the Gaza Strip. Israel has the right to blockade Gaza, but not the legal authorization to. Because the effects of the blockade are found to be violations of human rights by the United Nations Human Rights Council and recognized as direct effects of the manner in which the blockade has been implemented, it is not legal. Because the actions of the Israeli navy as part of the blockade have resulted in the deaths of at least 10 people in this incident alone, and because the boarding was improperly conducted as a result of the blockade's intentions outside of legal Israeli jurisdiction for these methods, the legality of it is once again in question as several officials in the UN have pointed out it is a violation of the 1982 Convention I posted above's article about the free travel of the high seas right.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies...ingMission.htm

Even were it legal, the vessels could be denied entry to the port or even the right to dock anywhere, but not captured as they are officially on a delivering humanitarian aid mission and are not carrying contraband or goods which may be actually utilized in armed combat (ammunition, bayonets, etc.).

Some will say "This really goes down onto what a nation defines as contraband" as far as the capturing part goes. "There is no absolute universal definition of what contraband is but rather it is what is what the blockading nation defines as contraband. So if a nation defines 100% Wisconsin aged (for exactly 3 years) cheddar cheese as contraband, then it is contraband". Let me reiterate: this is not the case. Contraband is defined by the UN as:

148. Contraband is defined as goods which are ultimately destined for territory under the control of the enemy and which may be susceptible for use in armed conflict.

This refers to weapons and ammunition and weapon accessories and the like. Medicine, blankets, wheelchairs, food, water, etc. are exempt, especially when this is taken into conjunction with the fact that they are part of a humanitarian aid mission and are protected from being captured as it stands.

06-03-10, 06:46 PM	#513
Safe-Keeper Ocean Warrior Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Norway Posts: 3,234 Downloads: 11 Uploads: 0	They have taken to singing, now. Everybody be seated, get out your popcorn, and turn off your cell phones! __________________ First Strike Mod tester. Hardcore sub skipper.

06-03-10, 09:34 PM	#525
Stealth Hunter Silent Hunter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Y'ha-Nthlei Posts: 4,262 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	148. Contraband is defined as goods which are ultimately destined for territory under the control of the enemy and which may be susceptible for use in armed conflict. 149. In order to exercise the right of capture referred to in paragraphs 146(a) and 147, the belligerent must have published contraband lists. The precise nature of a belligerent's contraband list may vary according to the particular circumstances of the armed conflict. Contraband lists shall be reasonably specific. 150. Goods not on the belligerent's contraband list are 'free goods', that is, not subject to capture. As a minimum, 'free goods' shall include the following: (a) religious objects; (b) articles intended exclusively for the treatment of the wounded and sick and for the prevention of disease; (c) clothing, bedding, essential foodstuffs, and means of shelter for the civilian population in general, and women and children in particular, provided there is not serious reason to believe that such goods will be diverted to other purpose, or that a definite military advantage would accrue to the enemy by their substitution for enemy goods that would thereby become available for military purposes; (d) items destined for prisoners of war, including individual parcels and collective relief shipments containing food, clothing, educational, cultural, and recreational articles; (e) goods otherwise specifically exempted from capture by international treaty or by special arrangement between belligerents; and (f) other goods not susceptible for use in armed conflict, Under the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928, adopted by the League of Nations and passed on to the United Nations, the neutral merchant vessels may be stopped if they are within national waters of the respective nation. (see "The Record of the Assembly", Vol. 69, February 16, 1928, p.3174) The problem is, the flotilla was not within the Coastal Shelf Zone near Israeli waters, hence they were exempt from even being required to submit for inspection. This was set down by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, under Article 76. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/conventi...clos/part2.htm Articles 77 to 81 define the rights nations have within the Continental Shelf Zone. The only rights they have can be summed up best as this: "A coastal nation has control of all resources on or under its continental shelf, living or not, but no control over any living organisms above the shelf that are beyond its exclusive economic zone. This gives it the right to conduct petroleum drilling works and lay submarine cables or pipelines in its continental shelf." The only rights they have over it pertain to resources, not boarding neutral merchant ships should they be defined as that. They can't stop and board ships to inspect them here, as it is. Even within national waters, they are required to give notice to the crew of the respective ship of their intentions to board. This practice can be dated back to the German government during World War I. As you may or may not be aware, Alfred von Tirpitz was appointed during the "Place in the Sun" Decision of June, 15, 1897, by Wilhelm II and Prinz von Hohenloe, to the position of Secretary of State of the German Imperial Naval Office (he was selected over Admiral Friedrich von Hollmann). Anyway, he helped to draft up, along with the elder statesman Count Otto von Bismarck (who had previously been the Chancellor of the Reichstag), the Naval Bill of 1898 (Bismarck died later that same year). Asides from commissioning 16 battleships within the next 3 years, the bill also required the acceptance of the major powers in Europe of the time to be ratified, as per the Naval Defense Act of 1889. The designated powers of the high seas under the aforementioned were: Great Britain, France, Russia, the United States, the Netherlands, and Japan (the Germans had territories in the Pacific, as did the Netherlands; this led to them being included, along with Japan which is, of course, located in the Pacific and had conflicts with Russia over who owned the region- France being part of the Entente Alliance with Russia at this time having territory in what is now Vietnam; the Americans did too in Hawaii, Guam, the Philippine Islands, and later Samoa). During World War I, he helped to develop the "Risk Theory" (now part of the "Game Theory"), which led to the creation of the Fleet-in-Being Doctrine. In short: the concept of keeping the surface fleet in port. This doctrine was implemented after the Battle of Jutland, for the record, although von Tirpitz resigned his post in March 1916, and replaced by Admiral Eduard von Capelle; Jutland was of course on May 31st-June 1st. Von Tirpitz realized that there was no way the Hochseeflotte fighting the British Grand Fleet in open conflict would achieve anything, other than getting a lot of men killed and ships sunk. Hence, he advocated the Unrestricted Submarine Warfare Doctrine at the outbreak of the war in 1914. However, in May 1915, following the sinking of the RMS Lusitania by U-20 commanded by Kptlt. Walther Schwieger, a passenger liner carrying ammunition and weapons to Great Britain, these tactics were officially called off by Wilhelm II himself after the Germans received a great amount of criticism over it. Von Tirpitz continued to ask him for his approval to resume it following actions with Russia in September and October 1915. The Kaiser was reluctant to do so, and the Reichstag, as I previously mentioned, eventually forced von Tirpitz to resign his post in March 1916. It was not until February 1917 that the Unrestricted Submarine Warfare Doctrine would be implemented again, following the attempted blockade of Germany by the British. Under von Capelle, it was required that, before a merchant be sunk, it must first be established that it be transporting supplies to aid the enemy nation it was sailing for. A warning was required to be sent out first, the uboat or torpedo boat had to be clearly visible, and the ship must stop. If it did not, they were permitted to fire a warning shot. If it still did not stop, they were permitted to fire a shot on the funnel or any visible cargo crates, down below the waterline, etc. so long as they did not have the intent on killing anyone. There was never an instance where a merchant continued to sail after being fired upon by this method. Once the ship had stopped, the German sailors would simply board it and check to see if anything illegal were on board. If not, they would leave and the ship would go about its business. If so, they would give the crew 15 minutes to abandon it, they would return to their submarine or torpedo boat, and they would sink the merchant. They would then send out a message to all passing ships on the international frequency detailing where the ship was sunk out, how many boats there were, etc. for the evacuated crew. Sometimes, they'd even take them on board and ferry them to land! As the war progressed, this tactic was abolished, because the British didn't like that they were losing so many merchants bringing in supplies and decided not to play by the rules. They began arming their vessels with guns, concealing them until the uboats or torpedo boats got close, then they'd fire on them. Sometimes they'd wait until they were on board and jump them, taking them prisoner. Following the end of the war and the establishment of the League of Nations, such practices as this were agreed upon to be necessary amongst participating countries to preserve at least some grace and dignity and human rights within warfare. In the Record of the Assembly, Vol. 69, I sourced above it was agreed upon by them to set down not only rules about WHERE one may board, but WHAT must be done for one to board and HOW one must do it. The practices the Germans had used were ratified and adopted by them. This, still being valid today since the League of Nations was merely the beta to the United Nations following its dissolution (the United Nations continues using the laws the League of Nations set down, so long as they have not been overruled because of the times, and indeed these articles of naval law have not been deemed so), binds the Israelis to follow through with the exact same protocols in accordance with everyone else as a member of the United Nations. This incident, taking place outside their national zone (12 nautical miles is the allotted maximum distance at which the zone may be established, and this is indeed what Israel, along with most of it's neighbors, has agreed to use), was not within their jurisdiction to even question. Again, it was taking place of the Continental Shelf Zone. While that part of the zone DOES belong to them, their ability to seize merchant ships (neutral or otherwise) and even inspect them is nonexistent, because the United Nations' 1982 Convention that I linked to earlier points out that the only rights any nation has within its Continental Shelf Zone relate to the management and maintaining of the habitat and resources (nothing about ships). Furthermore, UN protocol was not followed through. They were required to send a warning that the ship was about to be boarded before they boarded it. This, according to CNN's video reports, did not happen, ergo no legal boarding had it of even taken place within their 12 nm zone to begin with. This website explains a lot of it (use translate; it's Hurriyet, a popular Turkish news broadcaster). http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/14919508.asp?gid=373 While the intentions were well within their rights as a nation, they did not do it within their jurisdiction nor did they follow through with the required legal protocol, making it a legal violation on several points mentioned already. Only if they're in your national waters may you even be allowed to make a request to inspect their goods or board them like this should they refuse; the incident took place outside this right of the Israeli navy, however, in the Continental Shelf Zone. Boarding rights and inspection rights do not pertain to ships there. Furthermore, you can, as you said, only capture and arrest the crew/detain them if they perform an illegal action in your waters (in this case, as you pointed out, if they broke the blockade or started to break the blockade). The law furthermore dictates the Israelis have no right to capture the cargo as it's not contraband and represents "free goods". On the question of is the blockade legal, blockades certainly are during times of war or armed conflict between sovereign states. However, Gaza is not a sovereign state, and is not a part of Israel or of any other state within the region. Its status is that it is not recognized by the United Nations nor any other organization as its own independent land with a government, although it is recognized as an independent land. The nature of the only official armed conflict is that it is currently in existence there is between Israel and Hamas, not the people of the Gaza Strip. Israel has the right to blockade Gaza, but not the legal authorization to. Because the effects of the blockade are found to be violations of human rights by the United Nations Human Rights Council and recognized as direct effects of the manner in which the blockade has been implemented, it is not legal. Because the actions of the Israeli navy as part of the blockade have resulted in the deaths of at least 10 people in this incident alone, and because the boarding was improperly conducted as a result of the blockade's intentions outside of legal Israeli jurisdiction for these methods, the legality of it is once again in question as several officials in the UN have pointed out it is a violation of the 1982 Convention I posted above's article about the free travel of the high seas right. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies...ingMission.htm Even were it legal, the vessels could be denied entry to the port or even the right to dock anywhere, but not captured as they are officially on a delivering humanitarian aid mission and are not carrying contraband or goods which may be actually utilized in armed combat (ammunition, bayonets, etc.). Some will say "This really goes down onto what a nation defines as contraband" as far as the capturing part goes. "There is no absolute universal definition of what contraband is but rather it is what is what the blockading nation defines as contraband. So if a nation defines 100% Wisconsin aged (for exactly 3 years) cheddar cheese as contraband, then it is contraband". Let me reiterate: this is not the case. Contraband is defined by the UN as: 148. Contraband is defined as goods which are ultimately destined for territory under the control of the enemy and which may be susceptible for use in armed conflict. This refers to weapons and ammunition and weapon accessories and the like. Medicine, blankets, wheelchairs, food, water, etc. are exempt, especially when this is taken into conjunction with the fact that they are part of a humanitarian aid mission and are protected from being captured as it stands.