Report: Turkey navy to escort aid ships to Palestinians in Gaza

Turkish officials tell Hurriyet Daily News that Turkish navy will strengthen presence in eastern Mediterranean Sea to stop Israeli 'bullying'.

By Barak Ravid

The Turkish navy will significantly strengthen its presence in the eastern Mediterranean Sea as one of the steps the Turkish government has decided to take following the release of the UN Palmer report on the 2010 Gaza flotilla, Turkish officials told the Hurriyet Daily News.

"The eastern Mediterranean will no longer be a place where Israeli naval forces can freely exercise their bullying practices against civilian vessels," a Turkish official was quoted as saying.

As part of the plan, the Turkish navy will increase its patrols in the eastern Mediterranean and pursue "a more aggressive strategy".

According to the report, Turkish naval vessels will accompany civilian ships carrying aid to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Another goal of the plan is to ensure free navigation in the region between Cyprus and Israel. The region includes areas where Israel and Cyprus cooperate in drilling for oil and gas.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-turkey-navy-to-escort-aid-ships-to-palestinians-in-gaza-1.382305

Be interesting if Turkey decides to try and run it.

They will be outside of the range of their aircover

I don't want to see hostilities take place between the two countries.

Having lost at the UN, they are going to the ICJ, which lacks authority of naval blockades.

I'm finding it a bit strange that you'd claim that the ICJ has no jurisdiction or authority while claiming the Palmer Report does. Have I read yr post wrong, maybe?

Here's what the Palmer Report said:

6. In particular, the Panel’s means of obtaining information were through diplomatic
channels. The Panel enjoyed no coercive powers to compel witnesses to provide
evidence. It could not conduct criminal investigations. The Panel was required to obtain
its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel,
and other affected States. The position is thoroughly understandable in the context of the
Panel’s inquiry but the limitation is important. It means that the Panel cannot make
definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its view.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Palmer-Committee-Final-report.pdf


As for the supposed lack of authority of the ICJ, where do you get that from? Why would they have no authority when it comes to naval blockades? Is it because you say so, or is there something on the ICJ site that states that? Because I wasn't able to find anything on the site. I did find cases where they have ruled on naval matters, though...

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=367&code=nus&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&k=66&p3=5

It got petulant when it did not. They are acting like they lost face if nothing else.

No UN Report has any real authority, legal or moral. This one is no different. It too will get tossed in the same pile as its predecessors, including the Goldstone one.

I addressed the ICJ comment in another post. I am not claiming the ICJ doesn't have jurisdiction, I am unsure that they do. The common view on its role, procedures and jurisdiction is often wrong.

And taking the issue to the ICJ is in no way petulant. The court exists for issues like this, and many countries make use of it. If you want to see petulance, look at the way Lieberman has carried on. I'm not sure myself what the legal standing of the naval blockade is, though if it does go to the ICJ, whichever way they rule will be what carries massive weight.


No UN Report has any real authority, legal or moral. This one is no different.

My objection to what you'd posted was that you were making out that the Palmer Report carries legal authority when the report itself states that it doesn't. As for moral authority, who makes the call on that? Isn't that just a different way of saying that if someone disagrees with any particular report, they can write it off as not having moral authority?

I addressed the ICJ comment in another post. I am not claiming the ICJ doesn't have jurisdiction, I am unsure that they do. The common view on its role, procedures and jurisdiction is often wrong.

If the ICJ accepts the case it means it does have jurisdiction to rule on it. As for the 'common view', I'd point people to the ICJ site where they very clearly state what their role and jurisdiction is.

http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en

- Neither Turkey nor Israel has recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court
http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=2
http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3

- The court does not claim jurisdiction over San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea or its predecessor the The 1909 Declaration Concerning the Laws of Naval War (the London Declaration).
http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=4

Again, there are a lot of technicalities involved, so I am content to wait and see. I find it amusing when a nation that has not recognized the ICJ in the past goes running to it when a UN report did not come out to their liking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=362024&mesg_id=362254

Um, you do realise that Turkey is an original member of the ICJ, don't you?

From http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/29.full#xref-fn-3-1

Under Art.35(1) of the Statute, the Court “shall be open to all states parties to the present Statute”. To become a party to the Statute, a State must either be a member of the United Nations or accept the conditions specified in Art.93(2) of the Charter. States that are not parties to the Statute may still consent that the Court be open to them by accepting the conditions specified by the Security Council under Art.35(2) of the Statute.


Again, it all boils down to acceptance of jurisdiction by both sides.

The Turkish ships would be operating beyond their effective air cover and in Israel's back yard. If they try to bust the blockade, considered legal by the UN, military force is authorized. Without air cover it would be a very one sided fight, dare I say a Turkey Shoot.

Turkey needs to back off the machismo on this one or risk a serious embarrassment and loss. I doubt the Israel will back down on this.

A UN sponsored panel, which had no mandate (nor authority) to make legal declarations, gave their unsolicited legal opinion on the blockade. Besides that, there are numerous reports and statements from legal and humanitarian organizations that have declared the blockade illegal, one of the most notable being the international committee of the red cross.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/update/palestine-update-140610.htm

The whole of Gaza's civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law.

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 is the governing document. All of its requirements have been complied with. The IDF has done it by the numbers. We may not like it, but they have followed the letter of the law and the blockade runners have not.

It's repeated a few times throughout the report.

6. In particular, the Panel’s means of obtaining information were through diplomatic
channels. The Panel enjoyed no coercive powers to compel witnesses to provide
evidence. It could not conduct criminal investigations. The Panel was required to obtain
its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel,
and other affected States. The position is thoroughly understandable in the context of the
Panel’s inquiry but the limitation is important. It means that the Panel cannot make
definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its view.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Palmer-Committee-Final-report.pdf

The purpose of the Panel was to examine events and come up with recommendations so that something like that never happens again.

When it comes to packing legal weight, the International Court of Justice will make a ruling one way or the other on the legality of the naval blockade.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14777558

Turkey has stated they will take the matter to the ICJ. It is not clear if they have technical jurisdiction.

After reading the report, I figured Turkey would reject the part on the blockade, and Israel would reject the parts on the deadly force used when boarding.

I'm not sure why you think the ICJ doesn't have jurisdiction over a matter like this. It appears to be exactly the sort of thing the ICJ was set up to deal with...

While your statement that "It appears to be exactly the sort of thing the ICJ was set up to deal with..." is correct at the lay level, there are strictures and restrictions on the ICJ authority. I am not clear if those will allow it to address the legality of the blockade or not. If it does have the authority why wasn't the issue taken there previously?

Again, not rejecting ICJ jurisdiction, just not wondering whether it has authority over the blockade.

'Having lost at the UN, they are going to the ICJ, which lacks authority of naval blockades.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x362024#362144

The ICJ site explains how it works and how it takes cases. I've not seen anything at all there saying why they'd be limited in the case of naval blockades.

If it does have the authority why wasn't the issue taken there previously?

I'd say because Israel hadn't pissed off another country so badly that they decided to do it. Now they have...

Its jurisdiction is arguable. I will wait to see what happens at a practical level.

I'd say because Israel hadn't pissed off another country so badly that they decided to do it. Now they have...

Turkey was quite pissed earlier as have been other nations. The Palmer report seems to have triggered Turkey.

Going to see how this one plays out. I expect it will be no different that previous ones

If a treaty has been ratified before the creation of the Court, then the Court has no right to rule on cases where a legal interpretation of that treaty is required? Can you point me to anywhere on the ICJ site that says that, because it sounds a bit ludicrous.

Going to see how this one plays out. I expect it will be no different that previous ones.

Than previous ones? Like what? fwiw, if it does go to the ICJ, I think it'd be a bit presumptuous of anyone to predict which way it'll likely go.

There is a list of treaties that are considered under the jurisdiction of the ICJ, the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea is not listed.
http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=4

Jurisdiction of the ICJ is at agreement of the nations in the dispute. Note that neither Turkey nor Israel is on the list of nations that have issued declaration recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court
http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3
http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=2

Under the circumstances, wondering about technical jurisdiction is a fair question at this point.

From the ICRC site...

'The Manual is not a binding document. In view of the extent of uncertainty in the law, the experts decided that it was premature to embark on diplomatic negotiations to draft a treaty on the subject. The work therefore concentrated on finding areas of agreement as to the present content of customary law, which were far more numerous than initially appeared possible. As a second step the experts discussed controversial issues with a view to reaching an agreed compromise on innovative proposals by way of progressive development. However, although the Manual was to contain provisions of this latter type, most of them were always meant to be an expression of what the participants believed to be present law. Thus in many respects the San Remo Manual was intentionally designed to be a modern equivalent of the Oxford Manual of 1913. The experts believed that the drafting of such a document would help clarify the law, thus removing the impression that there was such a degree of disagreement as to render its uniform development in customary law or eventual codification impossible.<5 > The experts particularly noted, when embarking on this project, that the result would be very helpful for dissemination purposes and would encourage the drafting of more national manuals.'

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jmst.htm

Here's the list of states entitled to appear before the Court. Both Israel and Turkey are there

http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en

I do kind of suspect that many folk who question the jurisdiction of the court would still be questioning it if the court takes the case, and will proceed straight to pooh-pooh mode if the court finds in Turkey's favour...

Which is what the ICRC and others are claiming about the blockade. Bear in mind that the 1909 Declaration Concerning the Laws of Naval War (the London Declaration) and most historical sea law predates the League of Nations and the UN. Maybe I should try and find my old copy of Rocks and Shoals.

You need to correct the icj link...

By all accounts, ICJ jurisdiction requires the permission of both parties, neither of which have given blanket or limited acknowledgment of jurisdiction. Depending on the source, about half the cases filed get bounced for lack of jurisdiction or limited to advisory opinions. I am surprised that more do not get squashed before filing, since those kind of stats make the ICJ look ineffective.

Overall this matter is quite technical and I don't expect it will get resolved any time soon, regardless of our opinions one way or the other.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/560?OpenDocument

Am I wrong in thinking that this is an updated version?

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:

(a) hospital ships;
(b) small craft used for coastal rescue operations and other medical transports;
(c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:
(i) cartel vessels, e.g., vessels designated for and engaged in the transport of prisoners of war;
(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;
(d) vessels engaged in transporting cultural property under special protection;
(e) passenger vessels when engaged only in carrying civilian passengers;
(f) vessels charged with religious, non-military scientifc or philanthropic missions, vessels collecting scientific data of likely military applications are not protected;
(g) small coastal fishing vessels and small boats engaged in local coastal trade, but they are subject to the regulations of a belligerent naval commander operating in the area and to inspection;
(h) vessels designated or adapted exclusively for responding to pollution incidents in the marine environment;
(i) vessels which have surrendered;
(j) life rafts and life boats.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument

from any interference and must be allowed to deliver its supplies to Gaza?

but once they have established that all the boat is carrying is wheelchairs and aspirin, they have to let it proceed.

It only applies to vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties.

Hamas has never made any such agreement.

There is some contention over the legitimacy/intent, but the details have been well followed. Hamas not so much

Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons #Section III : Occupied territories
ARTICLE 59

If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal.
Such schemes, which may be undertaken either by States or by impartial humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, shall consist, in particular, of the provision of consignments of foodstuffs, medical supplies and clothing.
All Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of these consignments and shall guarantee their protection.
A Power granting free passage to consignments on their way to territory occupied by an adverse Party to the conflict shall, however, have the right to search the consignments, to regulate their passage according to prescribed times and routes, and to be reasonably satisfied through the Protecting Power that these consignments are to be used for the relief of the needy population and are not to be used for the benefit of the Occupying Power.

You should remember that there was no trouble on any of the other ships in the flotilla.

it does not make it so.

;)

WASHINGTON—Turkey has agreed to station a high-powered U.S. radar on its territory as part of a missile defense system to protect NATO allies from the threat of long-range Iranian rockets.

The deal for Turkey to host the so-called X-Band radar at one of its military bases accelerates deployment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-backed early warning system.

The deal could also ratchet up tensions between Turkey and Iran, which sees the system as a threat.

Relations between Ankara and Tehran have deteriorated in recent months, particularly over differences over how to respond to Syria's violent crackdown on antiregime demonstrations. Turkey has condemned the violence and appears to be moving increasingly toward breaking with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=116x17828

I think at this point it is fair to say that the whole flotilla debacle last year has been successful in attacking and de-legitimizing the Gaza embargo, and correspondingly that Bibi has not handled the whole business well.

is strategically placed for US support operations.

The US may be forced to pick a side if Turkey threatens to kick out US military personnel.

logistics point for moving US supplied supplies in and out of Iraq.

For the moment I am just thinking of it as Turkey asserting itself, but that is pure speculation. Turkey does seem to be quite annoyed, and getting more annoyed as we go along.