Talk:Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tag[edit]

This edit re-inserting the non-applicable tag made no sense, and I would encourage the editor to revert himself. That tag applied -- by its very terms -- to the article as a whole, when the whole article was quite different than the one we have now (as this section of the Gaza raid article has been excised from the main article). It is therefore wholly non-sensical to revert my deletion of it, now that this is a stand-alone article.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summaries of the edits that added or moved the tag indicate that the authors have been concerned with the relative weight given to legal assessments, not with the weight given to the aspect with regard to the overall article.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read what the tag says. It was inapplicable -- by its very terms -- once moved (presuming it was applicable in the first place, which is questionable).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the wording of the tag from "section" to "article" shortly after I have inserted the text from the respective section of Gaza flotilla raid to this page, thereby creating this subarticle. Your assumption that the tag would not express a concern about the test of this article is not consistent with the edit history of the text.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closure vs. Blockade[edit]

There are technically two separate aspects of the "blockade": The naval blockade, and the border closure. They are tightly related to one another in that the naval blockade is intended to support the border closure, but they are technically different things. Some agencies have singled out the border closure for criticism (ICRC) while others have essentially blurred the distinction between the naval blockade and the border closure (Goldstone). Still others have dealt with them as separate but related (the UN HCR flotilla inquiry).

It's important that the wiki article choose its words carefully and make it clear whether a legal opinion refers to the border closure, or to the naval blockade, or to both. This is challenging because some commentators use the word "blockade" generally without clarifying whether it means the naval blockade, the border closure, or both together.

The significance is that Israel has claimed that it has lifted the border closure while maintaining the naval blockade, allowing unlimited goods into Gaza while still diverting all ships for inspection. Moreover in legal cases, say at the ICC, Israel could argue that it was entitled to maintain the naval blockade for weapons inspections, despite the illegality of the border closure. Thus it's likely to matter what specific concept is being referred to in each case.

The wiki page should be audited to confirm that each use of the word "blockade" or "closure" is correct. I spotted one error on a brief inspection of the page, where the ICRC's explicit condemnation of "closure" was mis-described as a condemnation of "blockade". It isn't clear what ICRC's position on the naval blockade is, what is clear is that ICRC has described the border closure as a crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.61.159 (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea. Any sources on it? Sol (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legal opinon / reference[edit]

This reference is from an international law expert going through the ins and outs of international law and flotilla, including likelihood of prosecution - looking at both international and criminal law. I'm a bit too busy at the moment to incorporate it, but would be grateful if someone could have a look at it and extract out anything worthy. Associate Professor Ben Saul in The Age; co-director of the Sydney Centre for International Law, Cheers, Clovis Sangrail (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Professor em. of Intnl. Law Ove Bring's opinions have since been contested by Prof. em. of Intrnl. Law Göran Lysén, Uppsala University, who states that Israel has a strong case arguing for a state of war. According to Lysén, "Bring has a tendency to making statements in fashions that lead to the suspiscion of sheer opportunism. In cases like that judicial argumentation often fails." He goes on to call Bring's argumentation "flimsy". "Israel kan hävda krigstillstånd" Publicerad: SvD, 2 June 2010; http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/israel-kan-havda-krigstillstand_4808411.svd I would myself like to add that, under conditions of war, stopping a "neutral" ship with destination to an enemy port, is not only legal, but best done (and in practice the most practised, since neutral ships with contraband seldom cross the inspecting states territorial waters) in international waters, before the ship enters one's own (or the enemy state's) territorial waters. If you allow a outspokenly hostile ship over the border into your territorial waters in a state of war, you are in in effect sending the signal to the "neutral" ship that it is about to be attacked and sunk. Boarding the ship then would be very hazardous to everyone. As long as you are on international waters, you are instead sending the signal that a boarding of the ship will follow customs of peace despite the de facto situation of war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.151.70 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I would like to point out is that, the article claims this incident occurred in international waters. While that may be so, it did happen within Israel's Contiguous Zone (44 km) in which according to another Wikipedia article, "a state could continue to enforce laws in four specific areas: pollution, taxation, customs, and immigration." Not sure 100% on international law and what that means, but it seems to me that it IS worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Familyguydude (talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Reuters reference - first sentence in the Arguments supporting legality of high seas enforcement section - restates an unattributed opinion from the article: "Legal experts say..." Given that the legal experts are not identified and that other legal experts hold the opposite opinion, I think that this line should either be removed or properly sourced.--Gobbleblotchit (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The views of Kumar Chitty, a former UN assistant secretary-general and registrar of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (LOS), and John Quigley, professor of international law at Ohio State University, as expressed to the Inter Press Service.     ←   ZScarpia   01:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

A number of images are unrelated to the text. I'll remove them per WP:SYNTHESIS, pending any discussion here.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every single image relates to the text, I believe. Please do not delete any prior to further discussion, as I don't believe your premise is correct. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The version that included all the images can be found here.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rational for some of the images seems to be "Look, everyone does blockades once in a while, therefore Israel had the right to enforce the blockade." Creating that impression is not consistent with presenting a neutral point of view, and it also does not reflect accurately the arguments of third parties that are being presented, as these are more varied. In addition, a staged photo of the signing of the Oslo agreement does not help the reader to understand the issues here, and it also draws undue attention to a very minor aspect of the arguements put forward in defense of Israel's action. Rather, the rational seems to be: "Look, there are peaceful people, so a blockade of the bad guys is fine."  Cs32en Talk to me  06:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The rationale for the images is the classic Wikipedia rationale for using images -- it provides visual representation of what is discussed in the text. As part of the discussion by various professors, other blockades are cited. If you don't like that, you're entitled to your POV, but that's no reason to either delete their statements or to delete the photographs. That would be classic POV-pushing. If you have more photos that further represent other statements in the text, by other side, please feel free to add them. As a last point, your interpretations of the Oslo ceremony is odd -- one with a POV opposite of yours might take the photo to show -- look, these are a peaceful people, why should they be blockaded. You really need to do a better job of parking your POV at the door, and not embellish the photo with what your POV suggests it means. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The images are placing undue emphasis on one aspect of the arguments that are being presented in the article. You should know that introducing POV can be done by adding things as well as by leaving things out. Furthermore, you cannot place the burden on other to correct bias that you are introducing into the text, even if it were the case that none of your additions would need to be removed to achieve this. The Gaza-Jericho agreement has been cited as a legal basis for the blockade, and of course it was not Hamas who has signed the agreement, as we both know. You still need to explain how this picture contributes to the understanding of the article's content.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say that I am as non-religious as they come and do not come to this article with any prejudice one way or another about Muslim vs. Jews, etc. etc. ad-nauseam. Having said that, I must say I can’t fathom your reasoning CS32en. It appears the two images at issue are the “Oslo Accords” and the “ Operation Sharp Guard” pictures, seen in this version. At first you cited A number of images are unrelated to the text but that reasoning clearly fails even the most cursory of inspection; the images were imbedded right there in text discussing those very issues. Then, when pinned down, you slid all sideways, changed your argument and cited “undo emphasis.” Well… that one (undo emphasis) is a bit more of a gray area; much as one man’s “freedom fighter” can be another man’s “terrorist.” I evaluate things like this using a simple tool: an abundance of WP:COMMONSENSE. I ask “Do the illustrations, the topics they illustrate, their placement, and their size seem appropriate, fair, and balanced and have an encyclopedic effect?” I think that is clearly the case and the way the article is illustrated strikes me as just the sort of thing I would expect to see in a 16-page Newsweek special on the subject. Taking words right out of your mouth (or fingers): The Gaza-Jericho agreement has been cited as a legal basis for the blockade… (stop right there). That’s the point, Cs32en. It doesn’t matter whether Hamas was a signatory to that agreement. The point is the Gaza-Jericho agreement is being cited as a legal basis and the accompanying picture encyclopedically shows three very important historic figures shaking hands over that agreement. Your deletion of those two pictures reminds me of the Soviet Union and Russia photo-editing Russian generals out of old black & white photographs: if you don’t like the history and its implications, just delete General Inkonvenienski from the history books. Please don’t delete them again. Greg L (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it doesn't matter that Hamas was not a signatory to the agreement. Could you explain how the picture of the three important historic figures helps to understand the legal argument related to the Gaza-Jericho agreement?  Cs32en Talk to me  05:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The text explains it all:

Abbas Al Lawati, a Dubai-based Gulf News journalist on board the flotilla, opined that Israel is likely to cite the Gaza–Jericho Agreement (Annex I, Article XI) which vests Israel with the responsibility for security along the coastline and the Sea of Gaza.

Professor Wedgwood opined that the goal of the flotilla was to: "denude Israel of what it thinks it was guaranteed in the 1993 Oslo Accords which preceded the Gaza-Jericho Agreement, which is the control of the external borders of Gaza and West Bank.... The problem ... is that you could easily have a rearming of Hamas, which caused a terrible conflict."

This article is about the legal arguments being bandied about. There are two sides to every story. In this case, a knowledgeable expert opined about the goals of the flotilla, which was to “denude Israel of what it thinks it was guaranteed in the 1993 Oslo Accords.” As the Oslo Accords are thought to be an important legal foundation Israel is using to justify its actions, it is A) important to have that verbiage in the article, and B) it is entirely appropriate to illustrate a central tenet underlying Israel’s actions. Greg L (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation about how the Gaza-Jericho agreement is related to the legal arguments. Also, I fully agree that that it is appropriate to illustrate "a central tenet underlying Israel's action", as you characterize it. I have asked you, however, to explain how the picture that is being used helps to understand the legal argument that is being made in relation to the agreement.  Cs32en Talk to me  05:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yitzhak Rabin, Bill Clinton, and Yasser Arafat at the Oslo Accords signing ceremony in 1993
Clearly the photograph doesn’t “explain the legal argument”, any more than my CG illustration of the IPK at the top of Kilogram “explains” the nature of mass. Photos enhance articles in many ways. Here, the photo clearly conveys (to me anyway) that the Oslo Accords was a ‘big deal’ that was subject to pomp and ceremony and smily faces on big-wigs. I think it is quite clear that the image conveys that the Oslo Accords are regarded as an important thing to Israel; that’s slick Willy in the center there as mortal enemies apparently get over their fear of ‘getting cooties from the other.’ (*sigh*)

Are we done here now? These photographs don’t seem to be anywhere near a gray area and none of this is complex. Greg L (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that many of the images used here are of minimal relevance to this article. I am going to remove some of the ones I find most egregious. Unomi (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Material used[edit]

The side supporting legality is quoted here at length with arguments that usually

  • compare the incident with incidents occuring before current international law was effective and/or
  • legitimize actions by one party with the verdicts of courts by the same party.

That's some highly dubious reasoning that I think is given too much weight here. When talking about the Oklahoma City Bombing we don't elaborate at length on McVeighs justification of his actions either. That the author of a given action believes they are perfectly legal is not uncommon... --84.46.18.250 (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The weight does not follow the level of credibility, but the level of relative notability. Having said this, illustrating the arguments with pictures tends to convey the impression that WP would endorse them, and changing the sequence of the presentation, i.e. putting the arguments against the legality of the action first, would be appropriate.  Cs32en Talk to me  09:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Perhaps it could be made clearer, but a number of professors have pointed out that more recent written codifications of the law of the sea simply codify what has long been the law of the sea as reflected in practice and legal decisions; 2) courts of a party in the western world often review and often change the practices of the other branches of the government -- that is not at all unusual in the West (think Guantanamo Bay), though it is unusual outside the West; 3) If McVeigh had notable professors saying what he did was legal, let's hurry up and reflect that in that article; 4) the order was decided before I arrived at this section, but I don't see why it should be changed -- temporally, the rationale for the blockade preceded the blockade, and the rationale against it followed it being instituted, and the Israeli decision followed; 5) there were more pix for the middle section which have been deleted--feel free to add those if appropriate, or others, to that section.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that a number of the sources are questionable as to RS-hood ... others might take a look at this as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Think Guantanamo Bay" is precisely the wrong argument. The US quite regularly snubs international courts. That doesn't mean that extending one's own jurisdiction outside one's own territory is something at is "not at all unusual in the West". US courts receive their jurisdiction from the US constitution. As the US constitution doesn't apply to territories not belonging to the US, a US judge has as much authority as a local plumber on purely legal ground. His main authority under such circumstances comes from a bunch of guns willing to enforce what he says - not from jurisdiction. The same applied to Israeli courts. The ships is territory of the nation it is registered at. Israeli judges have less authority than the captain of the ship there. Oh, and suggesting that "more recent codifications of the law of the sea" simply codify what had been practice since the time of the US civil war (as that was used as an example) is original, but not really credible. --84.46.79.95 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Under wp:notaforum, rather than engage in a discussion as to the points on which I disagree (but which are irrelevant to the article, and as to my view of the German approach to international law--which is actually a shame, as I have some great stories that I expect you would enjoy from a few decades of experience negotiating with German lawyers), I'll simply say that the decision is widely quoted by RSs in regard to legal analysis of the instant legal issues, and is appropriate for this article. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice claim but unfortunately doesn't qualify as evidence. The fact that you're bringing the nation of origin of IPs into the discussion demonstrates pretty solidly you're grasping for any straw and throw both logic and common sense, let alone WP:RS overboard. What you're doing is simply bashing, not citing reliable sources. That, and trying to sell jingoism as reliable encyclopedic work. --84.46.72.146 (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commentors[edit]

Alan Dershowitz is author of The Case for Israel and long time supporter of Israeli military actions. Why does the comments start with him while he is a firm supporter of 1 side of the clash. Kasaalan (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the authors have backgrounds that we could go into if we were to go that way, but it would distract. Dershowitz is a Harvard Law School professor (and a chaired one at that). Harvard within the U.S. is probably considered the best of the law schools mentioned, though Chicago is often also considered top-5. Dershowitz is also quite notable (some of those mentioned are not at all, and don't even have wiki articles. And Dershowitz is a lawyer (some involved are not). Seems appropriate enough to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's a criminal defense lawyer, which is completely irrelevant to the case as US criminal law has no bearing on the case whatsoever. He's certainly not a RS when it comes to this article. The fact that you once again fail to note that "within the U.S." already invalidates your case, as the US and US law is not at issue underscores that you're cherrypicking the sources to produce a desired outcome. It is the hallmark of good scholarship on international issues that there are experts worldwide who agree on it. --84.46.72.146 (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better ask WHO put Dershowitz first...Because Dershowitz is NOT an expert in maritime or international law. Moreover, his ethical outlook is not exactly favorable, as he called Goldstone: ' a traitor to the jewish people', and advocates torture(presumably for non-jews), and who is a known anti arab antisemite who seeks the destruction of the palestinian people, hes hardly Unbiased! His 'judgement' is useless. He should not be quoted at all. Indeed, to quote him show the weakness of the zionist case. Try someone a bit more independent and conversant with maritime and international law. Quoting him makes Wikipedia even more of a mockery rather than an encyclopedia Jalusbrian (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this affair as in any concerning Israel's external relations, I think that it's doubtful that Alan Dershowitz would venture a legal opinion (or any other for that matter) other than one arguing in defence of Israel. A notable opinion? Yes. A neutral opinion? No (but he is not being used as a reliable source). So long as he is not being presented as neutral, I don't think that it matters where he appears in the list of people who have given a favourable opinion.     ←   ZScarpia   13:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Murray - as reported in Veterans Today[edit]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/06/05/gordon-duff-international-law-requires-turkish-investigation-prosecution-for-war-crime/

A word on the legal position, which is very plain. To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare.

Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean however that international law is the only applicable law. The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place

on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody’s territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory.

... In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.”

He is attributed with:

Craig Murray is a former British Ambassador. He is also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He negotiated the UK’s current maritime boundaries with Ireland, Denmark (Faeroes), Belgium and France, and boundaries of the Channel Islands, Turks and Caicos and British Virgin Islands. He was alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the UN Preparatory Commission on the Law of the Sea. He was Head of the FCO Section of the Embargo Surveillance Centre, enforcing sanctions on Iraq, and directly responsible for clearance of Royal Navy boarding operations in the Persian Gulf.

I am planning to introduce material from this, someone else can do so before me if they wish. Unomi (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Murray's opinion is already included in the article. --Dailycare (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it is :) cheers. Unomi (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we have it. Some thoughts -- 1) Veterans Today may not be an RS, though that doesn't matter since we don't source it to that. 2) We source it to his blog, which I believe is fine as long as he is notable. 3) Does anyone know if he is a lawyer, or instead is a non-lawyer giving a legal analysis? He headed a maritime office, but if he is not as a lawyer it would have been in a non-legal capacity.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is irrelevant, given that he is more likely to have the necessary legal expertise as a diplomat for whose work the issues have direct impact than as a US criminal defense lawyer who maybe decades ago heard one professor's opinion on such issues. --84.46.72.146 (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is most definitely not an attorney - nor is he qualified to comment on the legal issues. Rklawton (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpinioJuris post on the matter[edit]

http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/why-is-israels-blockade-of-gaza-legal/

Regarding the applicability of blockades on non-state actors and Israels denial of being involved in a 'belligerent occupation'. Unomi (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please reorganize[edit]

Pro- and anti- arguments should be interspersed, not separated. The first step would be to move the subsections:

  • Legality of the blockade
    • anti
    • pro
  • Enforcing on the high seas
    • pro
    • anti
  • Use of force
    • pro
    • anti
  • piracy
    • anti
    • pro

Note the APPA pattern of who goes first - this (along with of course it's converse, PAAP) is the fairest way to take turns going first, especially because there are 4 subsections. Homunq (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did that first step. Please help continue the process. Homunq (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/interspersing. That was a good call, as it aids readability in this case. The mixing up pro/anti order is confusing, however, and detracts from ability to follow. Since this relates to actions, and the act is done w/a rationale, that logically is the first step, with the rationale of the critic of the action following.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's confusing. The right way to handle this, in the long term, is to actually present arguments and counterarguments in coherent prose, presenting both sides within each given paragraph. However, that takes work, and will not settle into a consensus without several iterations.
But meanwhile, taking turns going first is the only defensible compromise. You can say that rationale comes first; another person could argue that the notability of this event is precisely the controversy, and so the "illegal" opinion should come first. There's no NPOV way of resolving that question except to compromise. And on a key article like this, I very strongly feel that NPOV has to take priority over avoiding the minor confusion of an alternating order. (Many people do not read wikipedia articles directly from start to finish, anyway; for those who skip from section to section, the ordering is hardly an issue.)
So, I'm re-alternating the order. To show that I don't care who goes first overall, I'm doing PAAP this time.Homunq (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other legal (criminal) aspects[edit]

Beyond the questions of the blocakde's legality and the legality of boarding / the piracy or war crime question, would it not be proper to address the more "common criminality" aspects:

  • Kidnapping (of 700 people!), as noted particularly by Ireland - even if the boarding was legal, the ships should have been allowed sail off
  • Theft - in international waters, and with nothing to do with blockade, but purely to manage the publicity around the event, the IDF stole cameras, phones, laptops, memory cards and even clothing, and the cameras / phones at least were not returned - this is no different from a mugger on a city street
  • Assault / inhumane treatment - there are multiple reports of passengers beaten, restrained for periods of 3-8 hours in extreme discomfort, refused access to toilets, all of which would constitute at least assault in many countries
  • Coercion - the Israelis do not deny that they tried to get the passengers to sign documents "admitting" to entering Israel illegally, even though they were only in Israel because of the previous kidnapping, and had had no intention of entering that state

All of these are rather obviously simple but serious illegal acts, most in breach of Israel's own laws, as well as those of Turkey and the other flag vessels, and as Israel is not at war with Turkey, the USA, etc., the soldiers cannot use the laws of war to evade responsibility. 178.178.68.142 (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you (or anyone else) have reliable sources where these concerns are stated, please, add them to the article. If not, there's nothing to be done. Homunq (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Homunq hit it on the head.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Related: 2004 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel and 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. Controversy about whether the captures took place in Iranian waters, or outside of them (in this case, Iraqi waters, not international). 2601:600:8500:B2D9:999:8F64:23F7:4FEC (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDO[edit]

This article has some pretty heavy hitters on one side of the argument and some seriously biased and/or fringe groups on the other side. This amounts to a pretty clear case of UNDO. We really need to limit each side to only well respected legal experts and authorities. Per WP:UNDO we really should not give equal weight/space to a fringe group simply because they have a different opinion. Rklawton (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also[edit]

Removed a word "also" in terms of stating that the confederate was also a non state, as Palestine is recognized by any countries. The current form therefore simply is ambigious and neutral in whether or not Palestine is considered a state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.9.74.137 (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balance problem[edit]

I don't have the time to investigate this right now and fix the article if I am right, but it appears to me that it probably has the following balance (i.e. POV) problems:

  • Asking the wrong question: Is a blockade of Gaza legal, rather than is this blockade of Gaza (transparently targeted against the civil population, with severe impact on Gaza's health system etc.; even widespread malnutrition of babies has been reported) legal?
  • More than half the expert statements I have seen said that the blockade is not legal in the form it is being executed. You wouldn't believe that if you go by the selection of experts quoted in the article. Perhaps there is a connection with the fact that most quoted experts are Americans? Those I remember seemed to be mostly from Europe and elsewhere.

Hans Adler 15:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. No one appears to be challenging the legality of blockades in general, just the legality of this blockade. It's like having a section devoted to the legality of police forces in the Waco raid article; it's not the device that's controversial it's the execution. Sol Goldstone (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The commentators are giving their legal comments on the Gaza flotilla blockade. If you don't like what their comments are, please note notaforum.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the material used in the "support" section are upholding the legality of blockades, something not in question. It's not a matter of liking or disliking what they are saying. The sources show they are talking directly to the flotilla situation so I don't think it's violated any policy. Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My main point was that for me as a European this article appears to break WP:NPOV by giving a lot more weight to pro-blockade, pro-violent enforcement comments than can be seen in the European press. Hans Adler 18:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It reflects what is in the English press weight-wise; we don't limit ourselves to the European press. But feel free to add other material that is in the press that is missing, if that is what you are suggesting.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One to add: Turkel Commission[edit]

The Turkel Commission, established by the Israeli government to investigate the flotilla raid, has now reported and concluded that it was legal. See[1]. That's probably worth adding to this article - even if it's just one view among many, it represents the official Israeli point of view. Robofish (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When should the new UN report be added?[edit]

The new UN investigation report has said that the blockade is legal, and that Turkey takes the majority of responsibility and blame. Will it be added when it is officially released to the public? Because this report is on the Gaza Blockade article among other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightmare72589 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely critical information to add to this article. However, I'm a bit skeptical of the idea of editing these articles based on what RS say that the report will say. It should be out in the coming days or weeks, and then this and a bunch of other articles will need to be updated. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major misunderstanding[edit]

This article deals a lot with the legality of a Naval Blocade. A number of experts gives different opinion, refer to non-ratified dokuments and seems to overlook the fact that that a Naval blockade is an act of War between belligerents. The International Laws on War at sea gives no support for attacking a Neutral ship anywhere. On the contrary [2]Section VIII Art 2 says:”It is forbidden to lay automatic contact mines off the coast and ports of the enemy, with the sole object of intercepting commercial shipping”.

An attack on a neutral ship is an act of war against its flag nation, which can lead to war with that country.

For example during the Vietnam War#Other countries' involvement, Soviet Union cargo ships transported goods (also war materiel) to North Vietnam without that the United States Navy could prevent it, as they were protected by their neutral flag. 84.218.2.80 (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to the lead[edit]

@Cdoebbler: I agree with you that the earlier version of the lead was quite misleading, and your version is an improvement in many respects. I had tinkered around with your edit a bit, removing some WP:OR, then LoveFerguson then finally reverted it entirely, (a decision which I don't agree with, but that is not relevant here). You have now restored your original edit. While you may or may not be an expert on the topic, please read WP:EXPERT. Wikipedia works by consensus, and experts have no more powers than non-experts here, though experts can of course add their perspective. Since I believe your edit was constructive, I will try to argue for adding a significant part of it. You are welcome to join the discussion on the talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on legal assessments[edit]

The article suffers from a lot of weaknesses, primarily that few scholars are quoted, and a lot of it is driven by newspaper coverage. Some of the sources given here should be used. The relevant sources are:

  • Kraska, James. "Rule selection in the case of Israel's naval blockade of Gaza: law of naval warfare or law of the sea?" in Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 13, 2010, pp. 367-395
  • Sanger, Andrew. The contemporary law of blockade and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law , Vol. 13, 2010, pp. 397 -446.
  • Yihdego, Zeray. The Gaza mission: implications for international humanitarian law and UN fact- finding ’ ,in Melbourne Journal of International Law , Vol. 13, no. 1, June 2012, pp. 1 – 59
  • Erakat, Noura. It’s not wrong, it's illegal: situating the Gaza blockade between international law and the UN response ,in UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law , Vol. 11, 2011 - 2012, pp. 37 – 84

This is a start, more can be added. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What specific changes to you propose? I think some of the changes by Loveferguson were good, others bad, and the same goes for Cdoebbler. Byutiful Kampus (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defining blockade as land or sea[edit]

First, I note that Blockade of the Gaza Strip defines it as "a land, air, and sea blockade on the Gaza Strip". However, regarding the subject of this article (the raid on the first Gaza Freedom Flotilla), the assertion was made, and the UN accepted, that the blockade only existed from 2009—that is, that it was purely a naval blockade. This was an important point in the argument that the blockade was a direct response to aggression, and made in "self defense", therefore justified (in the short term, until the UN Security Council can take action) by the UN Charter. If the definition of "the blockade" expands to include the restrictions on land commerce and travel, this argument is no longer valid. Wikipedia does not define politics, and the definition in the other article doesn't include a reference, but here is one saying that Egypt maintains a blockade of Gaza, and implicitly that the border restrictions on land constitute a blockade: http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/UNCTAD-Coordinator-to-Jpost-Lift-blockade-reconnect-gaza-to-the-world-415010 This might not be a reliable source, however. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:999:8F64:23F7:4FEC (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undo dovidroth's revert[edit]

I suggest we undo @Dovidroth's revert since it removed valuable content. DMH43 (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth noting that Dovidroth has been banned from the Palestine/Israel Conflict topic for 90 days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dovidroth#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction
this is Dovidroth's revert. DMH43 (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legal_assessments_of_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=1208134582"