Posted on 06/02/2010 5:49:47 AM PDT by SJackson
According to the San Remo Manual that governs international humanitarian law, it is permissible under rule 67(a) to attack neutral vessels on the high seas when the vessels “are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning the... intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or ...intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture.”
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea 1994
Prepared by International Lawyers and Naval Experts. Convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law. Adopted in June 1994.
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMSU#4See More www.icrc.org
And per Olso...
Gaza-Jerico of 1994, Agreement annex 1, Sec 1.b paragraph 4
As part of Israel's responsibilities for safety and security within the three Maritime Activity Zones, Israel Navy vessels may sail throughout these zones, as necessary and without limitations, and may take any measures necessary against vessels ... suspected of being used for terrorist activities or for smuggling arms, ammunition, drugs, goods, or for any other illegal activity. The Palestinian Police will be notified of such actions, and the ensuing procedures will be coordinated through the Maritime Coordination and Cooperation Center.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Gaza-Jericho%20Agremeent%20Annex%20I
Actually, don't our rules of engagement in Afghanistan prohibit our soldiers from defending themselves with lethal force?
The article states.....”the fact that both Israel and Egypt offered to have all the food, medicine and other humanitarian goods sent to Gaza, if the boats agreed to land in an Israeli or Egyptian port. That humanitarian offer was soundly rejected by the leaders of the flotilla who publicly announced:.............“This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it’s about breaking Israel’s siege on 1.5 million Palestinians.” (AFP May 27, 2010.)
The act of breaking a military siege is itself a military act,........ and those knowingly participating in such military action put in doubt their status as non-combatants.
It is a close question whether “civilians” who agree too participate in the breaking of a military blockade have become combatants. They are certainly something different than pure, innocent civilians, and perhaps they are also somewhat different from pure armed combatants. They fit uncomfortably onto the continuum of civilianality that has come to characterize asymmetrical warfare.”
I agree completely with this....further those supplying the ships carry responsibility if they knew these ships were going to bypass the blockade...which they would have had to know this.
Sorry not schizo, just sadly feel the past is fast upon us....G!d will it ever end?
Turkey’s hypocrisy is utterly amazing. Prepare to be stunned if you Goggle PKK, incursion an Iraq.
He's not an enigma. He's always been good on Israel and our defense. And he's a committed social liberal. Who believed Obama. There are millions of them out there. Not turned around, his eyes have simply been opened on a couple of issues.
It's my understanding that in some cases, yes, the rules are similar.
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.