Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Israel Offensive Force ando` PIRATANDO (2)

#_"...Notwithstanding all of that Israel have not ratified the UNCLOS 
agreement so the applicability is debatable."
_Qualcuno potrebbe portare qualche informazione nel NG, nel caso che la 
pirateria Somala abbia ratificato il trattato UNCLOS? (tzk!)
http://meanderingmammal.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/israel-attacks-on-civilian-shipping/
« Brompton Bicycle – The rider reviewService in the reserve forces 
»Israeli attacks on civilian shipping
31/05/2010 Much of the rhetoric around the alleged attacks by Israeli 
forces on an ”aid flotilla” today is strident and generally focussing on 
whether Israel was excessive or wrong to do so. Some are concentrating 
on the body that organised the flotilla and its links to Hamas and other 
organisations considered to be terrorists. To step back and look at it 
from a military perspective it appears that whilst Israel could 
reasonably justify interdiction of the convoy they have undermined their 
position by applying excessive force and engaging in that interdiction 
far too early.
I understand from media reporting that the interdiction took place in 
international waters, some 40 miles from the coast. Israel have imposed 
a long standing embargo on humanitarian aid into Gaza, handling the 
transfer of aid themselves. Various bodies recognise that some aid is 
getting through but assert that it is insufficient to meet the needs of 
the people of Gaza. The embargo is also counter to a UN Security Council 
resolution, but in the case of Israel and Palestine this resolution 
isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Israel is very aware that it can 
act with impunity in this domain.
The aid supplies included items that Israel have banned in Gaza, 
although it’s not clear what validity this ban has. The reported items 
are cement and building materials, it’s reasonable to assume that Israel 
also suspect munitions and materiel with military application.
Israel claim that the flotilla was offered a docking opportunity in 
Israel with an obligation to transfer aid to Gaza thereafter. There is a 
clear implication that some of the aid would not be transferred as it 
does not meet the Israeli definition of what would be acceptable.
Despite what some are suggesting the actions of the Israeli military are 
not piracy. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea states that Piracy 
is ”conducted for private gain”, clearly not an imperative for a state 
sanctioned military operation.
So, considering from the Israeli perspective, the flotilla have refused 
to head towards a port nominated by the Israeli security forces and 
there is known to be some embargoed materiel on board. There may be 
further evidence to suggest the nature of embargoed materiel that’s not 
available in the public domain. So Israeli forces can reasonably justify 
an interdiction, the question now becomes ”where and when”?
UNCLOS allows foreign civilian vessels to be boarded on the high seas in 
three circumstances; the vessel is thought to be engaged in piracy, the 
slave trade or identifying itself as foreign but actually holding the 
same nationality as the warship. I don’t see that any of these three 
criteria are met, so Israel did not have justification for interdiction 
on the high seas. There are clauses that apply to ”hot pursuit” but 
these wouldn’t apply with the flotilla heading towards Gaza, rather than 
leaving territorial waters.
UNCLOS does apply different rules for operations inside territorial 
waters and the contiguous zone, these essentially become constabulary 
actions and subject to the legal framework of the nation involved, in 
this case Israel. Within territorial waters, up to 12 miles from the 
coastal baseline, the sovereign state applies their own laws, in the 
contiguous zone four areas remain available to enforce, in this case 
customs and immigration can be enforced out a further 12 miles, so to 24 
miles from the baseline. Within the contiguous zone or territorial 
waters Israel could reasonably interdict the flotilla based on their 
knowledge and assumptions about the ”aid” being imported.
So Israel could reasonably have acted once the flotilla had crossed a 
line 24 miles from the coast. Instead they conducted the interdiction in 
international waters where they do not have appropriate jurisdiction. 
Israel appear to be taking the position that the interdiction was 
reasonable based on later interpretations of UNCLOS related to blockade 
running, but the arguments appear circular to me.
Notwithstanding all of that Israel have not ratified the UNCLOS 
agreement so the applicability is debatable.
The other issue is proportionality of the interdiction operation.There 
are reports of 10-15 dead, with the likelihood of more over the next 
couple of days as I’m sure there will have been critical injuries as 
well. So was the force applied proportionate?
It doesn’t appear so, however from experience it’s difficult to account 
for the decisions made on the ground. It’s easy to say from the comfort 
of my study that the actions of the interdiction force were 
unreasonable, and I’m very surprised that the embarkation force weren’t 
better equipped with non-lethal capabilities. Baton rounds, extending 
batons and pepper spray can still prove lethal, but they minimise the 
risk of collateral damage. The reports of the ”weapons” used by some of 
the civilians are far from lethal threats, and in the face of knives, 
catapults and slingshots it does strike me that there was either an 
intentional lethal response or a breakdown in leadership and control of 
the embarkation force. Any adequately trained ship protection number can 
defend against these without recourse to lethal response. There are 
reports of pistols being used, but these also appear to have been 
appropriated from the embarkation force, rather than having been on 
board already.
I would take the view that Israel were in a reasonable position to 
interdict the flotilla, however they should have waited until the ships 
were within the contiguous zone. I would, however, take the view that 
the force applied was disproportionate, these deaths should not have 
happened and non-lethal measures should have been preferred. The 
excessive force compounds the interdiction on the high seas and leaves 
Israel very vulnerable to sanction. Notwithstanding that any sanction 
has to come from the UN Security Council and with two influential 
friends on the UNSC Israel won’t suffer any real penalty for her actions

 pirateria Somala abbia ratificato il trattato UNCLOS? (tzk!)
a proposito di neolingua orwelliana per cui le potenze occidentali,
che attaccano il mondo intero, lo fanno con le loro forze di "difesa",
segnalo questa petizione di igiene linguistica:
http://www.firmiamo.it/ripristiniamo-il-ministero-della-guerra

 contro navi *dichiaratamente* disarmate.
#_Esatto!...
Riflettendoci, c'e`un conflitto di Persona Giuridica.
Come Stato, Israele si e` rifiutato di sottoscrivere il trattato UNCLOS; 
con questo rifiuto non puo` avvalersi IMO del beneficio di essere 
considerato come tale (Stato) e non come "privato", per non ricadere di 
conseguenza nell'atto di pirateria.
G.
UNCLOS - Part VII- HIGH SEAS
------------
Article 101
Definition of piracy
Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of 
depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of 
a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against 
persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside 
the jurisdiction of any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of 
an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act 
described in subparagraph (a) or (b).
------------
Article103
Definition of a pirate ship or aircraft
A ship or aircraft is considered a pirate ship or aircraft if it is 
intended by the persons in dominant control to be used for the purpose 
of committing one of the acts referred to in article 101. The same 
applies if the ship or aircraft has been used to commit any such act, so 
long as it remains under the control of the persons guilty of that act.