Correct to an extent, the accepted meaning is that they must agree to security measures to pass through. It is not and never has been a way to willfully prevent aid and aide staff into combat zones.
They weren’t in a blockaded zone as far as I’m aware, Israel only says they were approaching and providing intented destination as you must when attempting to pass through a blockade.
Even ignoring that they must be allowed to leave even if they enter the blockaded area without permission, it isn’t a seize your property and imprison your crew for being in the general area openly providing intent kinda thing.
Correct, they hadn’t entered the area yet though so they technically heeded their warning.
Stolen, if you take something from someone and dispense it as your own you’re guilty of theft and conversion something they say Hamas does with aid. And moreover delivering aid doesn’t negate the whole unlawful boarding, seizure and forcible human trafficking thing.
You do actually. They need pc for arrest, they need reasonable articulable suspicion to detain, your simply confusing or conflating the two. Similarly a police officer needs jurisdiction, Israel doesn’t have jurisdiction outside of the blockade or territorial waters.
To run a blockade you actually need to enter it, at anchor in international water after declaring your intent is quite literally the textbook reaction to a blockade and specifically to enter one legally.
Israel also says it’s ok to run over people with tanks so maybe Israel is full of shit and you should trust third parties over the most active belligerent. FYI Hitler tried to say invading Poland for security reasons was legal, turns out no but Israel decided to quite literally pull a Hitler.
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.
A. Where do you see detain, seize, kidnap and deportation from a state they never intended to enter? Nowhere? Because it isn’t legal.
B. Yes Israel is the warship. No they’re a humanitarian ship which is specifically allowed by international law so long as they agree to security measures like… A visit and search. As an aside a merchant is involved in commerce ie. Trade. Humanitarians are the ideological antithesis of Marchants.
C. You seem to think they can exert a total blockade which is illegal, your own source cites the 2019 decision that the 2019 blockade was legal specifically because it did not bar aid.
Correct to an extent, the accepted meaning is that they must agree to security measures to pass through. It is not and never has been a way to willfully prevent aid and aide staff into combat zones.
They weren’t in a blockaded zone as far as I’m aware, Israel only says they were approaching and providing intented destination as you must when attempting to pass through a blockade.
Even ignoring that they must be allowed to leave even if they enter the blockaded area without permission, it isn’t a seize your property and imprison your crew for being in the general area openly providing intent kinda thing.
Israel has told the flotilla repeatedly they can deliver the aid through the proper channels and the port of Ashdod.
The small amount of captured aid from the freedom flotilla is being delivered to Gaza by Israel at the moment.
Correct, they hadn’t entered the area yet though so they technically heeded their warning.
Stolen, if you take something from someone and dispense it as your own you’re guilty of theft and conversion something they say Hamas does with aid. And moreover delivering aid doesn’t negate the whole unlawful boarding, seizure and forcible human trafficking thing.
You don’t need to actually rob someone for the police to arrest you, if you loudly proclaim your intent and don’t stop.
Confiscating ship and cargo, and holding the crew is perfectly legal under international maritime law for blockade runners.
Israel said the tiny amount of aid the flotilla brought would be delivered on to Gaza.
You do actually. They need pc for arrest, they need reasonable articulable suspicion to detain, your simply confusing or conflating the two. Similarly a police officer needs jurisdiction, Israel doesn’t have jurisdiction outside of the blockade or territorial waters.
To run a blockade you actually need to enter it, at anchor in international water after declaring your intent is quite literally the textbook reaction to a blockade and specifically to enter one legally.
Israel also says it’s ok to run over people with tanks so maybe Israel is full of shit and you should trust third parties over the most active belligerent. FYI Hitler tried to say invading Poland for security reasons was legal, turns out no but Israel decided to quite literally pull a Hitler.
Stop cucking for authoritarians bud.
Page 898
Page 901
Keywords warship and belligerent. They’re neither a belligerent nor is it a warship.
Israel‘s Navy is the belligerent warship. Flotilla is the merchant.
A. Where do you see detain, seize, kidnap and deportation from a state they never intended to enter? Nowhere? Because it isn’t legal.
B. Yes Israel is the warship. No they’re a humanitarian ship which is specifically allowed by international law so long as they agree to security measures like… A visit and search. As an aside a merchant is involved in commerce ie. Trade. Humanitarians are the ideological antithesis of Marchants.
C. You seem to think they can exert a total blockade which is illegal, your own source cites the 2019 decision that the 2019 blockade was legal specifically because it did not bar aid.