site banner

Israel-Gaza Megathread #1

This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.

20
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Or you need 100 boats with 1000 person capacity if each one takes 10 trips. I'm shocked at your suggestion that the Palestinians are a bunch of terrorists, rather than innocent victims of Israeli oppression!

Who is paying for this, and in charge? Israel?

As I see it, Israel + USA.

Someone will have to take responsibility for the Iran destination, and that will prove quite contentious.

USA and Israel can certainly provide tons of Israeli/American flag branded food/water/etc, which Iran can distribute as they see fit.

Someone will have to take responsibility for the Iran destination, and that will prove quite contentious. Iran can reasonably blockade and/or refuse port.

Yes, Iran certainly does have the ability to shoot guns at boats full of Palestinian refugees while the cameras broadcast videos of innocent women and children dying to the world. How is showing Iran to be bloodthirsty killers of Arabs and getting rid of Palestinians not a huge win for Israel?

Iran could commandeer the ships and park them at the Port Authority of NY/NJ.

Getting from the Meditterranean to the Persian Gulf is a far simpler logistical problem than Persian Gulf to America, and Iran is far less capable of logistics than Israel or the US.

Yes, Iran certainly does have the ability to shoot guns at boats full of Palestinian refugees while the cameras broadcast videos of innocent women and children dying to the world.

And then what does the world do? Send a strongly-worded letter? Sanction them? Maybe try to stop their nuclear program?

Keep sending Palestinians until there are no more Palestinians, of course.

At some point after Iran has established they're going to shoot, I think Israel loses their plausible deniability. "oh no Iran shot them AGAIN? What are the odds?" probably wouldn't come off very well.

Assuming they don't run out of boats and/or Palestinians who would prefer to be shot by Iran than by Israel first, of course.

And then what does the world do? Send a strongly-worded letter? Sanction them? Maybe try to stop their nuclear program?

Just like the Palestinians, this isn't really Israel's problem anymore.

Or you need 100 boats with 1000 person capacity if each one takes 10 trips.

Multiple trips are not realistic. I'm happy to explain why, but that shouldn't be necessary.

As I see it, Israel + USA.

Good luck with gaining access to Iranian ports.

Yes, Iran certainly does have the ability to shoot guns at boats full of Palestinian refugees while the cameras broadcast videos of innocent women and children dying to the world.

Refusing port does not imply shooting guns.

Getting from the Meditterranean to the Persian Gulf is a far simpler logistical problem than Persian Gulf to America

The destination is rhetorical. Iran can perform the same maneuver at any port of their choosing.

Your reply here is mostly fantasy.

Multiple trips are not realistic. I'm happy to explain why, but that shouldn't be necessary.

Please, explain.

Good luck with gaining access to Iranian ports.

Wow, so Europe can stop illegal immigrants from taking boats across the Mediterranean simply by refusing a port pass? Why haven't they thought of this?

The destination is rhetorical. Iran can perform the same maneuver at any port of their choosing.

This sounds like a problem for Iran and Saudi Arabia/the UAE/Oman/Pakistan (ports that are reasonably accessible to Iran) to work out amongst themselves. Pretty sure Israel can work out ways to stop a Suez crossing in the reverse direction if they need to.

Wow, so Europe can stop illegal immigrants from taking boats across the Mediterranean simply by refusing a port pass? Why haven't they thought of this?

I dunno about a port pass, but yes, they can. They have thought of this.

It's sometimes referred to as "turnback policy" under international maritime law, as I understand.

Foreign vessels have a right of innocent passage in a state’s territorial sea (up to 12 miles from shore) under article 17 LOSC. If passage is not innocent, such as when domestic immigration laws are breached, states can take necessary steps to prevent passage. For seaworthy vessels, this is generally unproblematic. It may be that the UK government expects to rely on some iteration of this principle.

But if a vessel determines and justifies that it is in distress, it can enter the state’s territorial sea, according to an exception in article 18 LOSC. The duty to render assistance is also still applicable, even where the state believes that migration offences have been committed by those in peril.

For this same reasoning, multiple trips to Iranian port will be denied. And when the first trip is denied, the boat remains full and unable to take on additional migrants.

Israel can of course do the same thing that African migrants to Europe are doing: ensure that by the time the Palestinians are 11.9 miles from Iran, they are in boats capable of traveling only 30 miles (i.e. not enough to cross the gulf to reach Saudi Arabia).

The Iranians can shoot them out of the sea, let them land on the beach, or even render assistance.

Kind of strange how Europe is incapable of turning back migrants, but sending migrants to Iran is of course impossible.

Europe is certainly capable of turning back migrants. They choose not to.

Yes, Europe “can’t” stop the boats in part because it’s not the migrants’ boats landing in Europe, it’s the NGO boats that pick them up just offshore near North Africa that are landing, and those boats are in large part literally funded by European governments like those of Germany, and those boats say they have passengers in distress when they return with the migrants.