Helsinki Principles: Israel Was in the Right

Click the link to read more.

clipped from www.israelnationalnews.com A perusal of  The Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality, a basis for international law on the subject, shows that Israel was well within its prescriptions in forcibly stopping the Gaza-bound flotilla. The relevant clauses in the Helsinki Principles read as follows: 5.1.1 Neutral ships in belligerent ports A neutral ship in a belligerent port enjoys the same protection against attacks as civilian objects in land warfare… Neutral warships in belligerent ports retain their right of self-defense. 5.1.2 Protection against attacks (3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they 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, capture or diversion. (4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they

Related articles by Zemanta

• Op-Ed Contributor: An Assault on Israel, Cloaked in Peace (nytimes.com)
• We are no longer defending Israel. We are now defending the siege, which is itself becoming Israel's Vietnam. (3quarksdaily.com)
• More bad advice from the U.S. to Israel (powerlineblog.com)
• Israel deports Gaza activists (theworld.org)
• Obama's Support of Israel a "Gamble" (patspapers.com)
• Israel to reject UN call for flotilla raid probe (cbc.ca)

Israel's right to self-defense: Strange effects | Editorials | Jerusalem Post

Image via Wikipedia

• Israel's right to self-defense: Strange effects | Editorials | Jerusalem Post

  "There is something about the Arab-Israeli conflict that does strange things to people. Even otherwise distinguished personalities, who in every other context are rational, sensible thinkers, become unrecognizable. The international law of self-defense is a case in point. United Nations. United Nations. Photo: AP [file] It is trite to say that the first and most basic human instinct is that of self-preservation. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which enshrines "the inherent right" of self-defense, emanates from this. The occurrence of "an armed attack" triggers the right. In the context of Israel's incursion into Gaza last year, in response to several thousand rockets which had been fired from there into Israel over a period of years, a letter appeared in The Times of London, exactly a year ago today, signed by 31 lawyers. The lead signatory was Sir Ian Brownlie, professor emeritus of public international law at Oxford University, undoubtedly one of the world's preeminent international law authorities. The letter asserted, in so many words, the astonishing proposition that the thousands of rockets which landed in Israel (and were aimed at civilian populations and centers) "do not, in terms of scale and effect, amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defense." "

  tags: selfdefense, Muslim, Islam, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Freedom, Government, UN

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Israel to Pay U.N. $10.5 Million for Gaza (online.wsj.com)
• Event: Israel and the Global Economic Crisis (vccafe.com)
• U.S. Envoy's Comments Spark Israel Uproar (abcnews.go.com)
• Israel to pay UN compensation of US $10m (angryindian.blogspot.com)