EDIT: Kidnapping. The word you’re ignoring in the title is kidnapping.
It’s not kidnapping if Israel does it apparently 🤨
It’s only sparkling detention
When the UN doesn’t stop the Israeli’s from declaring it a conflict zone. It’s technically not kidnapping. Just like how the US abducted people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No. They never entered anywhere Israel is legally allowed to exclude even in war It being full of aid and verifiable non combatants.
It’s kidnapping.
Just like how the US abducted people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Your example is also kidnapping but even excluding that bit of nuance the key word is “in” they never entered territorial waters and thus were never “in” Israel or Palestine. Israel can declare 1500mi of the coast of Somalia an exclusion zone then kidnap people there and that would make just as much sense in a legal view.
Doesn’t Israel delegate 200 miles off the coast as a no go zone?
Illegally
Something like that but the important thing is Israel is not claiming they entered the exclusion zone and similarly they even if they did the result is supposed to be being forcibly turned away not kidnapping and property theft.
The flotilla was told several times to turn around or be detained. They decided to not turn around and continued on their intended course to breach the naval blockade.
According to international maritime law Israel can intercept and detain before they enter.
Notice you never said they did breach the blockade which btw by international law they have to be given time and allowed to leave even if they enter without permission which they didn’t do nor is Israel claiming they did.
Intercept and detain yes, board, seizur, deport and treat as their own… No because duh.
Just like police can arrest you before you commit a crime, if you loudly and repeatedly proclaim the intention to commit it.
They were asked repeatedly to change course and refused.
Boarding, capturing the ship, confiscating cargo, and holding crew is exactly what international maritime law says is legal and customary in such situations like a blockade.
Gaza is under a declared blockade, Maritime Law (the oldest of international law) allows detaining any ship bound for a blockaded port. It’s really cut and dry, they very publicly declared they were bound for a blockaded port. It’s not like Israel boarded a ship that just happened to be in the area, these freedom flotilla yahoos very publicly declared they were bound for Gaza, which under Maritime Law permits Israel to board it.
International law is an agreement between nations and doesn’t actually restrict nations from doing things that will hurt your feelings. You’re going down the sovcit path when you pretend international law is whatever you want it to be.
It’s not like Israel boarded a ship that just happened to be in the area,
That’s exactly what happened, blockade borders have to be announced and ships have to be allowed time to leave the area. Israel left their blockade and kidnapped people aboard a ship they did not allow to leave an area they weren’t in.
these freedom flotilla yahoos very publicly declared they were bound for Gaza, which under Maritime Law permits Israel to board it.
Once they breach the blockade yes arguably though with only aid that gets more complex. Essentially aid entry is allowed so long as you agree to security arrangements that are both reasonable and lawful. That could mean Israel could board and search, or doesn’t mean they can blockade all aid to starve a population which is specifically and in multiple very very illegal.
https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/blockade
Their sources section is awash with good relevant information and specifically findings on the last Israeli famous Israeli blockade and subsequent boarding (and death of iirc 9) which was found to be a legal blockade so long as the purpose was not starvation and aid could enter with security arrangements.
An operation involving naval and air forces by which a belligerent completely prevents movement by sea from or to a port or coast belonging to or occupied by an enemy belligerent. To be mandatory, that is, for third States to be obliged to respect it, the blockade must be effective. This means that it must be maintained by a force sufficient to prevent all access to the enemy coast.
So… according to the link you’ve provided Israel is actually required to board the ship or they can no longer prevent shipments of weapons coming from Iran?
Essentially aid entry is allowed so long as you agree to security arrangements that are both reasonable and lawful.
Has there been any indication these flotilla activists attempted to make such security arrangements with Israel?
Correct to an extent, the accepted meaning is that they must agree to security measures to pass through. It is not and never has been a way to willfully prevent aid and aide staff into combat zones.
They weren’t in a blockaded zone as far as I’m aware, Israel only says they were approaching and providing intented destination as you must when attempting to pass through a blockade.
Even ignoring that they must be allowed to leave even if they enter the blockaded area without permission, it isn’t a seize your property and imprison your crew for being in the general area openly providing intent kinda thing.
Israel has told the flotilla repeatedly they can deliver the aid through the proper channels and the port of Ashdod.
The small amount of captured aid from the freedom flotilla is being delivered to Gaza by Israel at the moment.
Maritime Law (the oldest of international law)
Source?
freedom flotilla yahoos […] doing things that will hurt your feelings. […] sovcit […] pretend
Ew.
Page 898
Outside the blockade area and on the high seas,34 belligerents relied on the practice of "visit and search"3s to stop vessels suspected of carrying “con-traband” to the enemy.36 A belligerent warship sailing on the high seas had the right to visit and search all merchant vessels. Merchants found carrying enemy contraband were captured and escorted to the belligerent’s nearest home port. The belligerent nation’s prize court then determined the fate of the captured ship and cargo.37 In cases where merchants resisted either capture or visit and search, the blockading force was entitled to pursue and, if neces-sary, damage or destroy the vessel to force the ship to submit.
Page 901
belligerents today continue to enforce blockades from long distance or through blockade zones. They do so because of three twentieth-century developments in maritime warfare: first, the growing importance to belligerents of conducting economic warfare in conjunction with armed con-flict;s3 second, the introduction of a large array of new weapons to the maritime battlefield; and third, the proliferation of modern weapons to less powerful nations incapable of conducting traditional blockade. In combination, these three developments have forced states to replace traditional blockade form with long-distance blockade or blockade zones.
No, source for it being the oldest part.
A. The first quoted section is providing past practice not current.
B. They weren’t suspected of carrying contraband, they were boarded and none was found and yet their property was seized and they were then trafficked through multiple countries against their will.
B². Point to where it says they could seize a ship and take it as prize that was not caught with contraband.
C. Your second quoted section provides no relevant reason to capture a neutral humanitarian ship.
they very publicly declared they were bound for a blockaded port.
Not illegal.
which under Maritime Law permits Israel to board it.
Not detain and seize, maritime law is very specific in that a blockade cannot block aid unreasonably. A super famous ship you’ve searched that’s filled solely with celebrities and aid is something you shouldn’t turn away so long as they accept security arrangements like boarding and searching. This isn’t star wars nor are they the trade union and total blockades like your implying are very illegal as defined by the law you’re sourcing.
Israel offers the option to deliver aid through its ports (Ashdod) and then land route. Exactly the place where the flotilla was brought to and their aid then continued on land by truck to Gaza.
Israel extends an empty gesture they have no intention of actually doing hence all the aid not coming in. Similarly even in a blockade aid is specifically allowed or the blockade is illegal, seizing an aid ship and deporting is crew is strong evidence it’s an illegal blockade which is why they allowed all this to happen. It’s gotta get to court somehow and doing this to white celebrities is bound to get more traction then some other group attempting the same.
The amount of aid getting into Gaza is constantly increasing and at more than 50 trucks per day. The whole supposed aid flotilla didn’t even bring a full truck of aid. It’s a political stunt, not about actually delivering aid effectively.
Y’all are delusional trying to make 'kidnapping" a thing 🤣
What would you call intercepting someone in international waters and taking them back to your country without their consent? If Somali pirates did that you’d have no qualms using the word ‘kidnapped’.
It’s a blockade for a war zone. Standard practice for centuries, unless they just shoot you which was the previous option for most of humanity.
Now let’s get pedantic and have someone screech that Israel doesn’t recognize Palestine and it’s not a war so no blockade 🙄
Israel does not recognise that there are civilian non-combatants in Gaza and therefore does not allow aid to enter. How about you?
Yeah it’s real typical for kidnappings to be publicly known, announced in advance and then the victim safetly returned promptly, entirely unharmed. Im sure you can fram it as a kidnapping with some backflips, but you just look like a whiny child. She was captured and held unlawfully sure, but if it was actually for humanitarian aid and not self publicity, i might have some sympathy.
So if somali pirates would just take the ship and send the crew back home it would all be good?
You’re having an interesting opinion here.
I mean, honestly it worked for privateers. Hold up a ship, steal their gold and liquor, leave a month’s rations, and sail on. Come to think of it, old school pirates probably had more empathy than Israeli leaders…
Inequivalent.
How so.
Can’t really agree with you on this one. I would welcome and fight for more people doing the right thing for personal benefit. Seems a lot better than the current circumstances.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, in my experience, backfires more often than not. It’s a dangerous gamble.
Yes. The only tatoo idea I have for myself involves dice, chains, and the words “Let’s tempt Fate.” While I would prefer an ideal situation, it’s taking too long. I will support any act that brings aid, supplies, or more notoriety to the plight of Gaza. Even Al-Capone had a soup kitchen for the hungry Chicagans of the Great Depression.
If you want this conflict to end the last thing you want to give it is more noteriety. The only reason this is still happening is because of outside influences.
Can you please elaborate on that connection from your perspective. I imagine there must be some context I am overlooking.
Willful ignorance of atrocities does not have any chance of stopping or slowing them. Source: Russian Gulags, North Korea, US native women murders/trafficking, Auschwitz.
All the shouting and “notoriety” just makes it worse. Turns it into a spectacle instead of actually fixing anything. Sometimes, less outside noise is exactly what’s needed for people to sort their own mess out. Wayne Dyer said, “Conflict cannot survive without your participation.”
Israel does not feel a need to hide their crimes because they believe any action they take is righteous because they are doing it and any action their enemies take is evil because they are doing it
Couldnt you say much the same for the other side?
Uncommonly fast for Israel.
Probably because they dont want to turn her into a martyr…
Alternatively its because killing a white western girl with a recognisable name is more difficult to justify over here and they are VERY aware of this
Didn’t stop them with this one. https://www.npr.org/2024/09/09/nx-s1-5106819/us-israel-american-woman-shooting-west-bank
Or this one in 2003: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie
She wasn’t internationally famous.
This. While those deaths were notable and tragic, they weren’t “celebrity deaths”, which pains me to even say, but it is true.
Greta is essentially an international celebrity at this point, not just some noteworthy activist. Her death would be much more noticeable throughout the modern zeitgeist than a random activist who happened to be American.
Another reason would probably be she’s too old for IDF scumbags, murdering any child above 12 yo doesn’t do it for them.
I figured it was a North Korea / Blazing Saddles move.
There are plenty of right-wingers in the west (including several politicians) who would love to see her
unalived.killed.Killed. The word you’re looking for is “killed”.
This isn’t tiktok, we can use big boy language here.
Sorry. I didn’t wanna risk getting banned. But then this isn’t Reddit, either so I’m probably safe. I’ll fix it.
Probably wanted to get her gone fast before one of the many psychopaths in their army got to her and created an incident they’d have to transparently lie about, then ignore. It’s tough being the most moral army in the world.
100%
She is too high profile to have around the grunts, also is a very vocal woman who isn’t afraid to upset authority. One pissed off murderer that feels slighted ends up doing something to her and that’s a mountain which can’t be made into a mole hill like they have been doing.
Adalah, an Israel-based non-governmental legal organization that is representing some of the activists, said that those who remain are being held in Givon Prison in Ramleh, central Israel.
So grab the passengers of a boat in international wares and jail them in Israel. 😒
In a statement to CNN, Israel said that it “is preventing the entry of all vessels into the Gaza Strip, in accordance with international law.”
Is there a charitable interpretation that could make this statement true?
The ship was nowhere near Gaza. They were off the coast of Egypt in International waters. Israel just kidnapped a bunch of people. Also they only released Greta? What about the other people?
The others refused to be sent back to France, as they would have to agree to be permanently banned from Israel.
Greta is one of four activists that have been sent home. According to Israel only those four signed the papers neededfor it and the rest are expected to be sent home after a court have ruled they can. Basically the remaining 8 activists reportedly chose not to give Israel the easy way of getting rid of them. I don’t have any English news sources though, as I read it in a newspaper in my native language.
“It’s not safe to sail into an active genocide.”
but someone must
Is there a charitable interpretation that could make this statement true?
Since Gaza is an open air prison under the control of Israel and not recognized as an independent state we can blockade it all we want.
Best I got.
Really hard to justify genocide.
Palestine is not a recognized country in most of the western world, which in itself is a travesty, but you can probably infer a lot of bs from that.
Like claiming a certain religious group has no human rights bc they’re not recognized as humans.
Palestine is not a recognized country in most of the western world, which in itself is a travesty, but you can probably infer a lot of bs from that.
That’s not even true.
As of March 2025, the State of Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by 147 of the 193 member states of the United Nations, or just over 75% of all UN members. It has been a non-member observer state of the United Nations General Assembly since November 2012.
75% of the world recognizes Palestine as a sovereign state.
To be fair, they specified “western world”. If you look at the map of countries that recognize Palestine, it’s pretty glaring that a good chunk of Europe, Canada/US, and Australia/NZ don’t officially recognize it.
That’s almost a 1:1 map of the G8. Fun.
They were running a blockade. Being arrested was the point.
What an anemic headline. How did she become detained? By an act of piracy and kidnapping in international waters. CNN is a tool of the oligarchs.
Intercepting a ship that intends to run a blockade in international waters is legal according to international law. The flotilla had stated its intention repeatedly and were warned several times before being intercepted and finally boarded.
That assumes the blockade is legal though? Has an international court that is recognized by the ship’s flag country declared the legality of the blockade?
I don’t know of a court ruling. The UN‘s Palmer Report declared it Legal.
However as with lots of things regarding international law, there are different opinions.
By an act of piracy and kidnapping in international waters.
you might disagree with what’s happening but this was legal. Israel has a blockade there
It’s a really good example of how abuse and evil can often be legal while doing what’s right can often be illegal.
If you want to get food aid into Gaza, it might be best to smuggle it in using drones or cartel subs.
Or send Greta Thunberg on a decoy ship!
In a way sort of good news, no?
In the sense that they didn’t disappear her or murder her, yes.
deleted by creator
I hate that someone recorded this without her consent.
Wait… are we framing her as a kidnapped child or a POW? Gotta make sure everyone is on the same page when making propaganda about this.
She’s defintely an adult. But yeah apprehended in international waters, taken to a country that she didn’t chose to enter willingly, and then deported.
She intended to enter territorial waters and breach the blockade. That’s intention to enter.
Yeah obviously they were there to enter they said it over and over… how else would aid get in if actually getting in wasn’t the plan? Even if they weren’t there to enter, for some reason, the fact that they said they were going to enter so many times would be considered credible
The aid gets in through the official open crossings, Eretz for example. Not by breaching a naval blockade.
She’s not a child and shes not a POW according to article 4 of the third Geneva convention.
