Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, June 03, 2010

Slightly good news from the US at the UN

An interesting paragraph in a good story by Daniel Henninger in today's Wall Street Journal:

To its credit, the U.S. delegation on duty at the U.N. Monday managed to dilute the language that a somewhat unhinged Turkey demanded from the Security Council. (Amusingly, what the Turks called the U.S.'s "delays" caused the negotiations to slip past midnight into Tuesday morning when, like Cinderella's pumpkin, Lebanon's presidency of the Security Council expired and passed to less invested Mexico.)

Even though there has been some very good criticism against the US ineffectually joining the UNHRC, this sounds like a smart move on the US' part at the UN.

San Remo, again (updated)

Sshender in the comments quotes a response to the many articles that show that Israel's actions were legal (no link, sorry.) However, it does not contradict what Israel did in the least:

39. Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians or other protected persons and combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and military objectives.

41. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document.

See Section II Methods of Warfare section.

42. In addition to any specific prohibitions binding upon the parties to a conflict, it is forbidden to employ methods or means of warfare which:
(a) are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; or
(b) are indiscriminate, in that:
(i) they are not, or cannot be, directed against a specific military objective; or
(ii) their effects cannot be limited as required by international law as reflected in this document.

Israel did this. This was the legal enforcing of a blockade, with warning given. Part of that enforcement is the allowance for the blockading party to board and inspect the vessel - and even to tow it to port to inspect it. This is quite clear.

When people start attacking the soldiers legally inspecting the vessel, they lose their status as civilians and turn into combatants. At this point the commandoes must adhere to the laws of combat - mainly distinction and proportionality.

SECTION II : PRECAUTIONS IN ATTACK

46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
(a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack;
(b) in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives;
(c) they shall furthermore take all feasible precautions in the choice of methods and means in order to avoid or minimize collateral casualties or damage; and
(d) an attack shall not be launched if it may be expected to cause collateral casualties or damage which world be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole; an attack shall be cancelled or suspended as soon as it becomes apparent that the collateral casualties or damage would be excessive.

This was all done.

SECTION III : ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT EXEMPT FROM ATTACK
Classes of vessels exempt from attack
47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;

The flotilla organizers themselves admit that their primary goal was not humanitarian but political. Their supplies were clearly not indispensable, as we have seen. No one has starved in Gaza.

(UPDATE): More importantly, the person quoting paragraph 47 ignored paragraph 48 which explicitly excludes 47 even if the aid was legitimate: (h/t anarchofascist)

Conditions of exemption

48. Vessels listed in paragraph 47 are exempt from attack only if they:

(a) are innocently employed in their normal role;

(b) submit to identification and inspection when required; and

(c) do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required.

How much more explicit could San Remo be that Israel was allowed to stop and inspect the ship - and that the "peace activists" had zero right to resist?

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;

This is pretty clear!

69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it.
Agreed - it was that they were breaking a legal blockade.

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE
Blockade

Let's quote the entire relevant blockade section, not just a part of it. The quoted text was very misleading, especially the end of paragraph 103. I am italicizing the quoted part by Israel's detractors so you can see their deception:

Section II : Methods of warfare

Blockade

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or

(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and

(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

This is the essential section that describes Israel's rights to search and stop the flotilla. The part that the critic left out undercuts his case completely, even if you accept the untenable position that this was an aid flotilla and that the aid was essential - both clearly not true.

Israelis know their stuff in international law and conflicts (as sshender noted earlier) . The IDF does not make a move without a team of lawyers approving it ahead of time. In this case, just reading the San Remo doc shows that Israel was perfectly within its legal rights.

Time to breathe, open thread

I've blogged a lot over the past few days - 57 posts since Monday, in fact.

And I've gotten a lot of hits, too - 26,000 or so since Monday morning. In fact, my total number of page views has passed 1.5 million today.

Not to mention that the YouTube video of the IDF officer being stabbed has passed 150,000 views. (YouTube even asked me if I want to put ads on it. I politely declined.)

The post where I translated the Danish reporter's article looking for Gaza's "humanitarian crisis" (h/t Suzanne) has been getting more and more readers, establishing itself as a bona-fide meme as it gets spread to lots of web pages and articles. The "Daniel in the lion's den" video is close behind.

Memeorandum, a site that follows major news stories by how they are followed by blogs, has linked to my posts at least a half-dozen times over the past two days.

About a hundred new people follow me on Twitter and a couple of dozen have joined the blog, to take advantage of incredible benefits that I still cannot quite articulate.

And my total earnings from my feeble attempts to monetize the blog without intruding on the blog experience is still stuck at 62 cents.

If you want to spread my posts further, please place the ones you like on Reddit or one of the other popular bookmark sites. Occasionally, links from there catch on fire and get a ton of views. You can also feel free to link back to my posts in the comment threads of popular blogs and newspapers, which gets an entirely new audience exposed to what I would modestly characterize as a more truthful point of view than they are exposed to from the mainstream media.

But throughout all the craziness, I haven't put up any of the all-important open threads.

I intend to make up for that oversight right..........NOW.

Don't forget to read my tweets

I come across a number of items that I can't blog fully at the time I see them, but I often tweet them. Keep up to date by reading my tweets on the right sidebar, or using a Twitter client, or simply going to my Twitter page.

(I am not big on having Twitter conversations, so don't bother to ask me questions on Twitter. But by all means re-tweet items that you find interesting. I'm still seeing re-tweets from things I posted two days ago.)

Bibi's speech (updated with video)

As Barry Rubin writes, "It is so full of common sense and clear statements that the entire text should be read."

Once again, Israel faces hypocrisy and a biased rush to judgment. I’m afraid this isn’t the first time.

Last year, Israel acted to stop Hamas from firing thousands of rockets into Israel’s towns and cities. Hamas was firing on our civilians while hiding behind civilians. And Israel went to unprecedented lengths to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties. Yet it was Israel, and not Hamas, that was accused by the UN of war crimes.

Now regrettably, the same thing appears to be happening now.

But here are the facts. Hamas is smuggling thousands of Iranian rockets, missiles and other weaponry – smuggling it into Gaza in order to fire on Israel’s cities. These missiles can reach Ashdod and Beer Sheva – these are major Israeli cities. And I regret to say that some of them can reach now Tel Aviv, and very soon, the outskirts of Jerusalem. From the information we have, the planned shipments include weapons that can reach farther, even farther and deeper into Israel.

Under international law, and under common sense and common decency, Israel has every right to interdict this weaponry and to inspect the ships that might be transporting them.

This is not a theoretical challenge or a theoretical threat. We have already interdicted vessels bound for Hezbollah, and for Hamas from Iran, containing hundreds of tons of weapons. In one ship, the Francop, we found hundreds of tons of war materiel and weapons destined for Hezbollah. In another celebrated case, the Karine A, dozens of tons of weapons were destined for Hamas by Iran via a shipment to Gaza. Israel simply cannot permit the free flow of weapons and war materials to Hamas from the sea.

I will go further than that. Israel cannot permit Iran to establish a Mediterranean port a few dozen kilometers from Tel Aviv and from Jerusalem. And I would go beyond that too. I say to the responsible leaders of all the nations: The international community cannot afford an Iranian port in the Mediterranean. Fifteen years ago I cautioned about an Iranian development that has come to pass – people now recognize that danger. Today I warn of this impending willingness to enable Iran to establish a naval port right next to Israel, right next to Europe. The same countries that are criticizing us today should know that they will be targeted tomorrow.

For this and for many other reasons, we have a right to inspect cargo heading into Gaza.

And here’s our policy. It's very simple: Humanitarian and other goods can go in and weapons and war materiel cannot.

And we do let civilian goods into Gaza. There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Each week, an average of ten thousand tons of goods enter Gaza. There's no shortage of food. There's no shortage of medicine. There's no shortage of other goods.On this occasion too, we made several offers – offers to deliver the goods on board the flotilla to Gaza after a security inspection. Egypt made similar offers. And these offers were rejected time and again.

So our naval personnel had no choice but to board these vessels. Now, on five of the vessels, our seamen were not met by any serious violence and as a result, there were no serious injuries aboard those ships. But on the largest ship, something very different happened.

Our naval personnel, just as they landed on the ship – you can see this in the videos – the first soldier – they were met with a vicious mob. They were stabbed, they were clubbed, they were fired upon. I talked to some of these soldiers. One was shot in the stomach, one was shot in the knee. They were going to be killed and they had to act in self-defense.

It is very clear to us that the attackers had prepared their violent action in advance. They were members of an extremist group that has supported international terrorist organizations and today support the terrorist organization called Hamas. They brought with them in advance knives, steel rods, other weapons. They chanted battle cries against the Jews. You can hear this on the tapes that have been released.

This was not a love boat. This was a hate boat. These weren't pacifists. These weren't peace activists. These were violent supporters of terrorism.

I think that the evidence that the lives of the Israeli seamen were in danger is crystal clear. If you're a fair-minded observer and you look at those videos, you know this simple truth. But I regret to say that for many in the international community, no evidence is needed. Israel is guilty until proven guilty.

Once again, Israel is told that it has a right to defend itself but is condemned every time it exercises that right. Now you know that a right that you cannot exercise is meaningless. And you know that the way we exercise it – under these conditions of duress, under the rocketing of our cities, under the impending killing of our soldiers – you know that we exercise it in a way that is commensurate with any international standard. I have spoken to leading leaders of the world, and I say the same thing today to the international community: What would you do? How would you stop thousands of rockets that are destined to attack your cities, your civilians, your children? How would your soldiers behave under similar circumstances? I think in your hearts, you all know the truth.

Israel regrets the loss of life. But we will never apologize for defending ourselves. Israel has every right to prevent deadly weapons from entering into hostile territory. And Israeli soldiers have every right to defend their lives and their country.

This may sound like an impossible plea, or an impossible request, or an impossible demand, but I make it anyway: Israel should not be held to a double standard. The Jewish state has a right to defend itself just like any other state.

Looks like a real supporter of the peace activists, no?
And I'm sure that he is referring to the peaceful, introspective form of Jihad.

(But I'm sure he was just mistranslating it from the original Farsi.)

Another pro-peace flotilla protester, so Reuters feels compelled to inform us that it is a toy gun.

Obama gets off easy, comparatively.

The only reason his outreach to the Muslim world isn't working must be because of Israel - here is proof!

Nah, nothing anti-semitic about a sign with an ape wearing a black hat and peyos. All Zionists look that way.

And I'm sure that this sign is just an aberration, just one crazy person who hates Jews - it cannot possibly represent the vast majority of peaceful, moderate Muslims of Indonesia. Right?

Riiiiiight.

Received via email.

Anchorman disgusted by pro-Hamas bias on his station

From the Daily Caller:

What you’ re about to read is perfectly true. I came within a butterfly fart of firing this memo off to my boss this morning in a fit of real rage. But my wife, yet again, intervened.

“You’ve been whining like this for ten years. Just go get a new job,” she said.

“Don’t send that memo!”

She’s right.

I agreed not to push the send button, but only if she let me send the memo to The Daily Caller, minus the names. I hate writing anonymously. Readers who’ve criticized me for it are totally justified. One of these days I’ll reveal myself to readers of The Daily Caller, but until that new job comes, or I’m fired, which is increasingly likely, I don’t want to have to pull my kids out of college because of their father’s selfishness. Here’s the memo that I want to send but – under great duress – can’t.

Dear XXXX,

I’m writing for some clarification about how we are supposed to cover the Gaza flotilla story. If we, as a news organization, are supposed to be acting as a public relations arm of Hamas, or Hezbollah, both internationally recognized terrorist organizations, or if we are supposed to be jumping on the bandwagon of 1930’s style anti-Semitism that’s presently sweeping much of the world, then we are doing a fine job. If we are supposed to be acting as a news organization that covers the story objectively, then our coverage is a travesty and an embarrassment.

...In addition, remarkably, her piece made no mention – absolutely none — of the Israeli perspective in this story. For example:

The widely aired (though not here) video that clearly shows an IDF soldier being tossed over a railing, and others being beaten with sticks, was omitted.

The fact that bullet proof vests and night vision goggles were found among the “humanitarian aid” on the ship was omitted.

IDF video of confiscated knives and metal bars that were apparently used as weapons was omitted.

Information that Israeli soldiers were also wounded and injured was omitted.

Moreover, her piece included no background whatsoever on why Israel’s interception (“attack” as we called it ) of the flotilla would likely have passed muster in any court outside the thug-ridden United Nations.

Read the whole thing.

Local news typically doesn't have any experts on international affairs, so the media meme of Israel-as-aggressor becomes the easy narrative to cover stories that go beyond their own back yard. I saw Adam Shapiro on a local Fox station, answering the halfway decent question of whether he believes that Hamas should have the rights to import weapons, by saying "we are against all violence" - but the anchor didn't follow up to force a yes or no answer.

But Free Gaza and the other "humanitarian" groups of the flotilla are very clear that they want to see Gaza/Hamastan treated like a sovereign nation, which necessarily means the freedom for Hamas to import whatever weapons it desires. (Yesterday's interview with the Amnesty International official showed that this was pretty much their position as well. And this applies to the PA, too)

So we have an entire generation of people supposedly concerned about human rights who feel that the only moral thing that must be done is to have Israel just allow unlimited supplies - including weapons - into Gaza.

It might make them uncomfortable, but, hey, they aren't Hamas' targets.

UN Watch - a lonely voice against the world's hypocrites

Speech at the UN delivered by Hillel Neuer of UN Watch, 2 June 2010:

Mr. President, this debate turns on one question: Was the flotilla humanitarian, or not?

To answer this question, let us first examine the objective of the organizers, and then the means they used.

Evidence of the organizer’s objective can be found in the path they chose, and the path they rejected.

Israel, which in the past 18 months has delivered over 1 million tons of aid to Gaza, offered to receive the flotilla’s cargo in the nearby port of Ashdod, and, after inspection, to deliver it to Gaza. The organizers, however, rejected this offer. Because they wanted to create a political provocation; they were looking for a physical confrontation.

Mr. President, is this a humanitarian path?

Further evidence can be found in their state of mind, as demonstrated by their own words.

Before the ships sailed, supporters chanted “Intifada, Intifada,” and “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammed will return.” One of them declared that the aim of the flotilla was either of two “good things… achieving martyrdom or reaching Gaza.”

Mr. President, is this a humanitarian state of mind?

Let us also examine the means they used: metal bars, knives, axes, and even guns.

Mr. President, are these humanitarian means?

No. This operation was organized by an extremist group, the IHH, with extensive and documented ties to terrorist groups. Their objective and means had nothing to do with humanitarianism.

Now, seated around me here are representatives of some of the world’s leading humanitarian organizations, from the International Committee of the Red Cross, the UN Refugee Agency, and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Let us ask them: Are these the ways of humanitarians?

No, Mr. President, the resolution that is before us today — introduced by such countries as Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Sudan — is an insult to the world’s real humanitarians.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The Love Boat

Yesterday, Binyomin Netanyahu said that the Mavi Marama "was no "Love Boat."

Au contraire, Bibi:

(h/t EBoZ)

MJ Rosenberg's lies at HuffPo

When the Huffington Post publishes an article that seeks to expose "pro-Israel lies," you would think that they wouldn't want the article to be filled with lies itself.

But that's just what happened with MJ Rosenberg's latest post.

Just for starters:

The first thing you need to know about the Gaza flotilla disaster is that the intention of the activists on board the ships was to break the Israeli blockade. Delivering the embargoed goods was incidental.

In other words, the activists were like the civil rights demonstrators who sat down at segregated lunch counters throughout the South and refused to leave until they were served. Their goal was not really to get breakfast. It was to end segregation.

That fact is so obvious that it is hard to believe that the "pro-Israel" lobby is using it as an indictment.

The analogy to civil rights breakfasts is absurd. While it is true that when the activists speak amongst themselves they are very clear that they are not aid organizations nor humanitarian organizations - but rather one that supports terror and "resistance" - they presented themselves to the media as an aid flotilla, with 10,000 tons of humanitarian supplies that Gazans are lacking. These were pretty much all lies, with the exception of the cement (which, incidentally, Israel sent more of to Gaza last week than the entire flotilla was bringing.)

They were using the aid to gain respectability, because accurately calling themselves a political or resistance movement would not play well. If anything, the media's obsession with calling them "humanitarians" and "peace activists" shows how much their lies took hold in the press, quite contrary to his assertion that the media is now way too pro-Israel.

As for the Israeli argument that its soldiers were attacked, that is ridiculous. Israeli commandos were ordered to board a civilian ship in international waters and the government that sent them claims that the resisting passengers attacked them without provocation. This is like a carjacker complaining to the police that the driver bashed him with a crowbar that was under the seat. Neither carjackers nor hijackers should expect their victims to acquiesce peacefully.

Except that, under international law, Israel is perfectly within its legal rights to warn ships that are breaking a blockade. Even in international waters. The civilians on the ship have the legal right to attack the soldiers - but by doing so they are no longer considered civilians, but rather combatants, and the soldiers are allowed to fight back. People like Rosenberg love to throw out statements like these to imply that Israel's actions were obviously illegal, but it is just another lie. (And on the other five ships, the activists actually did keep their status as civilians - and no one was killed. Is Rosenberg saying that they were wrong to do so and they should have fought? That would be interesting.)

Rosenberg also conveniently ignores the role of IHH and its terror ties. I guess he realizes that he has no leg to stand on there, so better to ignore the fact that an organization that is known to have smuggled arms to, and recruited members for, terror groups is one of his heroic blockade-busters.

Hamas has repeatedly offered Israel an indefinite cease-fire in exchange for lifting the blockade. And, on a half dozen occasions, Israel accepted the deal but did not live up to its side of it.

Here he gives a link to an aid organization (a real one), but the link does not prove anything close to his claim. How many people assume that a link, like a footnote, actually proves something without checking it out?

The fact is that Israel did live up to its obligations during the cease fire, and the aid that went to Gaza was in exact inverse proportion to the rocket fire coming from Gaza during that weak truce.

In fact, the 2009 war began after Israel ignored its commitments under the Gaza cease-fire agreement, continued the blockade, and then provoked the resumption of attacks on Sderot through a series of targeted assassinations of Palestinians.

See above. Plus there was no "series of targeted assassinations" - in early November Israel killed a number of terrorists while they were building a tunnel into Israel for the purposes of kidnapping Israelis. Was Israel obligated to wait until someone was kidnapped before acting?

Even after the cease fire lapsed, Israel held off from real retaliation - and it was Hamas, not Israel, that started the Gaza war, with its declaration of Operation Oil Stain and its concurrent rocket barrage three days before Cast Lead.

Rosenberg's attempts to paint a rosy and moderate picture of Hamas is absurd and laughable. Its anti-semitic charter - which wants to see Rosenberg as dead as any Zionist - is still in force.

For a guy who is pretending to expose lies, Rosenberg sure seems to spout a lot of them himself.

A "peace activist" brags he wants to be a "shahid"/martyr

From the IDF YouTube channel:

In footage captured on the Gaza flotilla, a passenger describes how he has attempted in previous convoys to become a martyr and that "with god's luck" he will succeed on this flotilla. While the Gaza flotilla passengers had presented themselves as peace activists who would not act violently towards Israeli forces, this provides further evidence to the contrary.

It also proves that the motivations of people on the previous "humanitarian missions" was anything but humanitarian.

Anti-Israel freaks think they caught Israel lying! Too bad they are idiots.

Mondoweiss points to a breathless article that accuses the IDF of faking photos of the non-peaceful items found aboard the Mavi Marmara.

Their main evidence is that the EXIF information from the photographs indicate pictures taken in 2006, or 2003, not 2010.

The claim is absurd on the face of it - why would the IDF bother to fake pictures of bullet-proof vests or saws or pepper spray, when it would make more sense for them to fake pictures of handguns and stun grenades or more lethal weapons? It is far more likely that the digital cameras used to take the photos never had their date/time set - not that the anti-Zionist folks would ever admit to such a simple possibility.

But if you don't believe that explanation, you can see the IDF video of the exact same items, piled the same way, all on display, at the Ashdod port:

I guess that the IDF read the accusations and rushed to manufacture or obtain the items whose photos were taken years ago, to position them for the fake video shoot yesterday!

(h/t anon for the Mondoweiss link)

Correction on the cargo

I wrote that the aid from the flotilla fit in 28 Israeli trucks, and I estimated that this was less than 1500 tons, a far cry from the 10,000 tons that the flotilla organizers claimed.

Well, I was wrong - and I was right.

It turns out that this was only the first set of shipments. According to a COGAT briefing on Wednesday, there will be a total of 70-80 trucks of aid in the end, if Hamas agrees that Gaza actually needs the aid.

However, a commenter points out that because of the haphazard way that the flotilla aid was packed, each truck is almost certainly holding much less than it normally does when flatbeds use pallets. So instead of 25 tons per truck, it is probably closer to 10.

COGAT itself says that the total amount from the flotilla is about the same as one day's worth of aid from Israel, which would be less than 1500 tons anyway.

Either way, Free Gaza and their friends are once again proven to be liars.

Flotilla Fools' narrative falls apart - legal issues

Reuters asks some international law experts whether Israel acted legally, and on all aspects of the operation, they agree that Israel was on solid legal ground:

CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?

Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognized document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea."

Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.

"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.

WHAT ARE INTERNATIONAL WATERS?

Under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea a coastal state has a "territorial sea" of 12 nautical miles from the coast over which it is sovereign. Ships of other states are allowed "innocent passage" through such waters.

There is a further 12 nautical mile zone called the "contiguous zone" over which a state may take action to protect itself or its laws.

"However, strictly beyond the 12 nautical miles limit the seas are the "high seas" or international waters," Roche said.

The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters.

Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.

CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS?

Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship.

"If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.

Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defense after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons.

Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives.

"But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said.

The use of force may also have other repercussions.

"While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments.

OPPONENTS HAVE CALLED ISRAEL'S RAID "PIRACY." WAS IT?

No, as under international law it was considered a state action.

"Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest," Kraska said.

So every single argument by the Free Gaza folks about how illegal Israel's actions were are complete and utter lies.

Like pretty much everything else they say.

(h/t Omri)