Report: Israeli Spy Satellites Spot Iranian Ship Being Loaded With Rockets For Gaza

[Purveyor]

Source: HAARETZ

Israeli spy satellites have spotted an Iranian ship being loaded with missiles that analysts say may be headed for Gaza, The Sunday Times reported.

According to the report, the cargo may include Fajr-5 rockets, like those that were fired by Hamas toward Israel and the stockpiles of which the Israel Defense Forces depleted during the recent round of fighting across the Gaza border, in addition to Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, which could be stationed in Sudan to pose a direct threat to Israel.

“With a lot of effort, Iran has skillfully built a strategic arm pointing at Israel from the south,” an Israeli source was quoted as saying.

The cargo would travel via the Red Sea, Sudan and Egypt, following a well-established route used by Iran to smuggle arms into Gaza, the Times reported.

Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-israeli-spy-satellites-spot-iranian-ship-being-loaded-with-rockets-for-gaza-1.480303

[glacierbay]

1. And the beat goes on. nt.

[Coyotl]

67. The drum beat of war

Haaretz.com, the online edition of Haaretz Newspaper in Israel

[glacierbay]

68. Maybe if Hamas would quit shooting rockets into Israel

and Iran would quit supplying rockets to a terrorist org, there wouldn't be war.
Just sayin'

[kelliekat44]

97. Smacks of sluminum tubes and WMDs. nt

[Ash_F]

2. The President and the UN need to put pressure on Iran

to quit funneling arms into the conflict while putting pressure on Israel to reverse its deplorable human rights policies. Both things can happen at the same time.

[naaman fletcher]

16. meh...

Nobody says anything when ships with American arms get sent all over the world to kill people.

[Ash_F]

21. Indeed there are a lot of things the US should do differently. /nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

51. Actually, the U.S. isn't smuggling those arms. They sell them openly.

Arms smuggling is illegal.

[naaman fletcher]

55. not true

The US smuggles all the time... to libyan reb els... syrian rebels, etc.

[Agnosticsherbet]

57. Actually, on the worlds arms market, it isn't smuggling.

There was no recognized embargo on smudging to Libyan rebels. We were supplying them with arms. There was an embargo with the Libyan government at the time, so giving them weapons would have been smuggling.

The gaza is under a recognized and published embargo, so moving weapons into that region is illegal.

That may be splitting legal hairs, but that is as it is.

[RedFury]

75. Likely the biggest...

....arms smuggling operation in the world is happening right under your nose. Where do you think the Mexican drug cartels get their weapons? In fact did you ever hear of the ATF's (in)famous operation Fast & Furious?

[blm]

102. You mean the one started by Bush ATF called Wide Receiver that was resurrected by same ATF agents

who Issa was uninterested in questioning?

[Comrade_McKenzie]

3. If Israel is allowed load back up after this latest conflict... then so should Gaza. nt

[SamHarris2012]

4. I have a question

Why didn't Israel bomb the ship? Seems to me its better to bomb the ship than to bomb women and children after the fact.

[Ash_F]

5. They still might.

Bombing an Iranian ship would be a big deal. And risky if escorts have anti-air weapons. Making this public is a probably a 'line in the sand' warning for the Iranians not to cross.

[glacierbay]

6. They or the US should intercept the ship

and examine the contents and if found with rockets, seize it or sink it.
We all know where these rockets would be headed for and it's not in the interests of the cease fire for them to get to Hamas in the Gaza strip.

[mitchtv]

10. the US should not be interfering with Iranian shIps on the high seas

sounds like an act of war.Let Isreal commit her own acts of war , and leave US out

[glacierbay]

12. If they're in Intl. waters

we have every right to intercept and examine the cargo that may be headed towards a terrorist org. which Hamas is.

[mitchtv]

17. SINCE WHEN?

[enlightenment]

23. Would you care to cite the relevant international law that would allow us

or Israel or any other nation to do that?

Let me help. Here is the relevant international law. Please copy and paste the section within that law that would allow the US, Israel, or any other nation to 'intercept and examine the cargo.'

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm

[Ash_F]

40. Well I'll be damned, it's not in there.

[EX500rider]

45. Sure...

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803 allows for stopping and inspecting cargo on Iranian shipping

Also United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 recommended that states inspect Iranian cargo.

[enlightenment]

50. Nice try, but UN resolutions are recommendations, not enforceable law,

since they come out of committees and do not have the vote of the majority body of the UN (as in Conventions, like the Law of the Sea).

Further, even if the US or Israel were to take the recommendation, they would be limited by the language, which in your first example, reads:

Calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint regarding the entry into or transit through their territories of individuals who are engaged in, directly associated with or providing support for Iran’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, and decides in this regard that all States shall notify the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 18 of resolution 1737 (2006) (herein “the Committee”) of the entry into or transit through their territories of the persons designated in the Annex to resolution 1737 (2006), Annex I to resolution 1747 (2007) or Annex I to this resolution, as well as of additional persons designated by the Security Council or the Committee as being engaged in, directly associated with or providing support for Iran’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, including through the involvement in procurement of the prohibited items, goods, equipment, materials and technology specified by and under the measures in paragraphs 3 and 4 of resolution 1737 (2006), except where such entry or transit is for activities directly related to the items in subparagraphs 3(b) (i) and (ii) of resolution 1737 (2006);

The important words in that recommendation are "regarding the entry into or transit through their territories".

In other words, if Iranian shipping is within the territorial waters of a nation, that nation should exercise due diligence. NOT in international waters.

In your second example, there is nothing specific beyond the broad recommendation - but there is a very specific reminder about the law of the sea:

Recalling that the law of the sea, as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), sets out the legal framework applicable to ocean activities,

Would you like to try again? Nothing you've cited in any way allows any nation to stop a ship on the high seas.

[EX500rider]

73. Except that...

...vessels get stopped and searched all the time in international waters, examples: suspected pirate mother ships off Somalia, suspected drug smuggling vessels anywhere in the Caribbean or off Cenrtal America on either side.

[One_Life_To_Give]

85. With the explicit permission of the flag state

They are very careful not to violate international law when executing a search on a suspected drug runner or pirate vessel. Notifications to the flag state are routine prior to stopping a vessel. Except in the case of pirates where by definition the flag state does not exist.

[EX500rider]

103. While nice in theory, in practice..

....the US Coast Guard stops and searches "go fast" type cigarette boats on the high seas with no flag showing and even use gun fire to disable the engines if they don't stop. (not that that's relevant to a Iranian flagged vessel)

[One_Life_To_Give]

105. Unflagged is a Pirate Vessel by definition

I think you will find the USCG is very aware of National and International Law and Treaties. You may not like the practice but their operational policy has probably been extremely vetted by both admiralty lawyers and the state department.

[enlightenment]

87. If you would bother to read the Law of the Sea,

you would see that piracy and drug trafficking interdiction are covered. Further, the US Coast Guard does abide by what the treaty says:

U.S. Coast Guard boardings of vessels at sea have been an effective tool in both the deterrence of traffickers and the interdiction of drugs at sea. When the Coast Guard suspects a non-U.S. vessel of drug trafficking activity, the U.S. Coast Guard contacts the flag state of the vessel and requests permission to board the vessel, search it, and enforce either U.S. law or, alternatively, the law of the flag state. (Under international law, only the flag state may issue such permission.) All U.S. Coast Guard communications with the flag state are done strictly on a government-to-government basis via established diplomatic channels.

We're not talking about drug trafficking, piracy, slavery, or - even - transportation of weapons of mass destruction.

To reiterate: neither the US nor Israel (nor any other nation) has a right to halt/board/search an Iranian cargo ship that is NOT suspected of carrying WMD/piracy/drugs trafficking/slavery/etc. while it is in international waters. Even if it were suspected of doing so, the nations that chose to carry out an interdiction would have to abide by international law. This is not the wild west or the eighteenth century.

[obxhead]

41. Does that mean Iran has the right to intercept US ships heading to

Israel to restock their armaments?

[glacierbay]

47. Let Iran try. nt.

[RedFury]

76. So...

...this has little to do with law or justice as much as The Big Dog Theory. Thought so.

[glacierbay]

78. No

The US isn't smuggling arms and munitions to Israel so if Iran tried to intercept a US flagged ship, the US would be justified in sending any Iranian ship to the bottom of the sea.
Iran is smuggling arms and munitions to a terrorist org, Hamas which then shoots them into Israel.

[RedFury]

83. Re: Hamas. Depends on who you ask.

[glacierbay]

84. Just going by what our State Dept. says

and they say that Hamas is a terrorist org., but, yeah, I guess it's who you ask.

[RedFury]

90. Indeed.

Who legally represented The Palestinians in the cease fire negotiations? I certainly don't recall seeing anyone from the PLO there, much less Mahmoud Abbas.

[glacierbay]

91. Good question

Hadn't thought about that. You raise an interesting point.

[obxhead]

93. It's a matter of perspective

We can claim that any organization is a terrorist and a threat to the world.

From Iran's perspective Israel is a violent disturbance to their security.

The problem is we're both right.

Now, you claim we have a RIGHT to sink an Iranian ship, yet they have no RIGHT to do the same thing, for the exact same reasons in the end.

Iran is a sovereign country. Regardless of your very simple thoughts on the situation, we don't have the right to do as you say we do.

[aquart]

15. Does nobody take International Relations in school, anymore?

We fought the war of 1812 because the British were boarding our ships.

By the way, it's adorable how you want to risk American lives in this piracy-on-the-high-seas adventure. The Iranians would never think to defend themselves with deadly force, of course.

The time to get the rockets is ten minutes after the Iranian ship reaches international waters AFTER unloading the rockets in Gaza. Then nobody will give a damn. (Yeah, yeah, protests, marches, denunciations in the UN, editorials...big deal. Giving a damn is gearing up factories and re-instituting the draft. And we ain't doing that for Gaza.)

[byeya]

38. Zionists are always willing to sacrifice American lives and American prestige as

well as keeping on cashing American checks. We all know that.

[King_David]

44. Zionists eh ? nt

[glacierbay]

48. Zionists?

Spoken like a true anti Israel person.

[byeya]

74. Herzl called himself a Zionist and it's been used by those wanting a Jewish state

so what term is more appropriate do you think? Eh?

[Purveyor]

58. You should have said 'jews' so the flying monkeys could have set on the alert button and spun. nt

[leftynyc]

62. Zionists...always?

I see the stupid and ignorance is still strong on this subject.

[snooper2]

99. Zionist

The multi-national, worldwide Zionist movement is structured on representative democratic principles. Congresses are held every four years (they were held every two years before the Second World War) and delegates to the congress are elected by the membership. Members are required to pay dues known as a shekel. At the congress, delegates elect a 30-man executive council, which in turn elects the movement's leader. The movement was democratic from its inception and women had the right to vote.

Until 1917, the World Zionist Organization pursued a strategy of building a Jewish National Home through persistent small-scale immigration and the founding of such bodies as the Jewish National Fund (1901 — a charity that bought land for Jewish settlement) and the Anglo-Palestine Bank (1903 — provided loans for Jewish businesses and farmers). In 1942, at the Biltmore Conference, the movement included for the first time an express objective of the establishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel.

The 28th Zionist Congress, meeting in Jerusalem in 1968, adopted the five points of the "Jerusalem Program" as the aims of Zionism today. They are:[18]

Unity of the Jewish People and the centrality of Israel in Jewish life
Ingathering of the Jewish People in its historic homeland, Eretz Israel, through Aliyah from all countries
Strengthening of the State of Israel, based on the prophetic vision of justice and peace
Preservation of the identity of the Jewish People through fostering of Jewish and Hebrew education, and of Jewish spiritual and cultural values
Protection of Jewish rights everywhere
Since the creation of modern Israel, the role of the movement has declined and it is now a peripheral factor in Israeli politics, though different perceptions of Zionism continue to play a role in Israeli and Jewish political discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionists

[Ash_F]

18. I wouldn't go that far

People got killed when the IDF boarded that Turkish ship a while back, and it turned out to be just food and necessities, many of which are still inexplicably and inexcusably banned from use by Palestinians. Again we are reminded of Israel's deplorably racist regulations.

[Scuba]

59. "We all know where these rockets would be headed..." No, we don't.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Probably not an excellent idea to do it in a harbor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion

Ignoring of course, the question of whether it's legal to do so at all.

[aquart]

8. International ACT OF WAR against a sovereign nation.

But I truly appreciate your eagerness to start World War III and obliterate Israel. And millions of the rest of us.

In case you were wondering, GAZA IS NOT A SOVEREIGN NATION.

[freshwest]

49. I've tried hard to stay away from this, but your statement is making me ask this...

Is Gaza a part of Israel or of Egypt?

I thought the land was originally part of Egypt, taken in a war by Israel, who then moved out some years back.

If it was given back to Egypt (IIRC in the first place) isn't this a matter between those two governments?

I thought they had a peace treaty, too.

Are we talking about a situation like the cartels in Mexico, who their government don't seem capable of controlling?

If so, maybe the two governments could work out something between each other rather than an all-out war.

[JackRiddler]

82. Gaza currently is no-man's land, occupied territory, and mass civilian prison.

All in one. Egypt doesn't want it and despite revolutions and springs still basically upholds the Israeli blockade on its side. This little territory is surrounded and blockaded on all five sides (the fifth "side" would be that they have no control of air space) and subject to Israeli military incursion at any time, which means it's de facto still occupied territory -- but without any obligations accepted by the Israeli state, who claim to have vacated it back in 2005.

Another word for it is hell.

[freshwest]

86. Is that the UN classification for it, a war-torn territory? Why not UN troops?

I don't buy the 'territory' notion generally. If it is blockaded, someone is feeding and supplying them. That someone is responsible for resolving this peacefully, maintaining the population. I never buy the overwhelming evil Eye of Sauron routine being projected by both sides.

There is something propping up both sides, from the Israeli side, most likely the US Treasury, arms manufacturers or both. We see these news stories, there are so many variables in them. The OP seems uncertain, but it's likely to scare those in this country who fear/hate Iran, as well as those who don't. Same as far as the feelings about Israel, Palestine, Gaza, etc.

Someone is benefitting from this state of affairs on both sides. Perhaps it is the oil industry on both sides of the conflict, as many of the Middle Easterners with great wealth from the oil business and Muslims around the world hold these people in the same regard the American Taliban hold the fetus, precious beyond measure of law and logic, yet not going to help the mother or child otherwise. I find this disturbing.

And an open air torture chamber you describe as hell is not an economic asset to anyone. I'm not seeing enough data to convince me that it is. Who benefits from this public relations and human rights disaster, on either side?

[JackRiddler]

94. You should read up on this...

Last edited Tue Nov 27, 2012, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Gaza is very much dependent on UN aid through UNRWA:

http://www.unrwa.org/

The Israelis have a policy of letting in just enough for a survival diet.

I haven't found a UN position on the current legal status of Gaza under international law, but if it's surrounded and blockaded and subject to incursion and has no air rights, that's an occupation in fact, regardless of what either Israel or Hamas claim (for different reasons).

There doesn't have to be a real "benefit." Some motivations are irrational. Most Israelis including the present establishment (not just Likud) see their benefit in keeping and expanding settlements in the West Bank and shrinking the Palestinian areas into isolated bantustans behind high walls. They perceive a mortal threat, even if they have 99 percent of the power and the Palestinians have 1 percent. Planners have contemplated mass expulsion but this would mean a general war. Tiny Gaza is a pain, they don't want that land, they can't get rid of it, they can't depopulate it without a war, and they can't tolerate development there because they don't want a stronger Palestine, which would be considered a threat. They want to forever punish the Gazans for voting for Hamas in 2005 (though of course Israel once supported Hamas as a strategy to weaken the PLO). I believe they use Gaza for making demonstrations of their ability and will to commit violence, and thus send a message to the rest of the world that Israel is never to be fucked with because they will go mad dog, etc. etc. As if anyone really needed it.

[RedFury]

96. The International Committee of the Red Cross...

...is the de-facto organization that rules on humanitarian law. They've made their position quite clear: ICRC says Israel's Gaza blockade breaks law

This is backed by a number of statements concerning the situation in Gaza in the latest UN resolution on the conflict, once again vetoed by the US: 65/16. Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine

[oldhippydude]

9. that would be a direct attack on Iran

quite an escalation based on the "May" used in the article.. it would be an expansion of the conflict..

[Viva_La_Revolution]

19. whole lot of 'mays' in that article. nt

[oldhippydude]

24. a "mayzing" article......

par for the course at yahoo..

[JDPriestly]

34. I interpret Israel's announcement as a warning to Iran.

[Agnosticsherbet]

54. Bombing a ship on the high seas outside a warzone or a recognized blockade, is an act of war.

According to the article, the ship will never enter the area Israel has set up off the Gaza Strip. So they have no legal right to bomb the ship, and to do would likely start a war with Iran, and perhaps the Sudan (one of the cargo's destinations) as well as Egypt, the other destination.

They have shown clearly that Iran is arming a terrorist state with weapons used exclusively to attack civilian targets. Perhaps they hope the U.S., which is running a very successful economic embargo on Iran will board the ship and impound its cargo.

[Sirveri]

61. I always wondered what would happen if they hit it with a submarine.

Can't really track those easily, would be curious to see what kind of fallout would happen from that.

[Agnosticsherbet]

64. Any investigations afterwards would reveal that the ship was hit with a torpedo, not destroyed from

some unforeseen disaster. If id didn't destroy the ship outright, their own transmissions for help would spill the beans, because they could figure out from the first explosion that it was an attack not an accident.

Iranians also have submarines, and if they are following the ship to give it protection because it is in their vital national interest to support Gaza, then they would know and would tell the world.

If Israel destroys the ship, then they will get the blame for piracy and an act of war.

I think this was revealed more to put pressure on the various states allowing the movement through their territories.

[snooper2]

98. because this is a "news" piece to whip up public opinion for them to continue their harassment

and warmongering

[dipsydoodle]

11. headline. says "are"

and narrative says " may be "

[JackRiddler]

13. Does it have aluminum tubes? Vials of anthrax? Rape rooms?

Are they bbquing babies on bayonets?

Hurry, hurry! Drop the bomb! Exterminate the brutes!

[glacierbay]

14. Exterminate who? nt.

[Paulie]

26. You must have been born in the 1990s.

No dis, just saying.

[glacierbay]

46. Nope

born in the late 40's and no dis taken.

[JackRiddler]

52. It is a line from Joseph Conrad's novella...

"Heart of Darkness," and from the loose film adaptation by FF Coppola, "Apocalypse Now."

[glacierbay]

56. Haven't heard of Heart of Darkness

and I refuse to watch anything having to do with the Vietnam war, don't need to, I lived it.

[whatchamacallit]

22. +1 n/t

[jeggus]

29. I heard they were throwing..............................

Premature babies out of incubators.....................wait a minute, that was a lie too! Nevermind!

[Unknown Beatle]

20. Bullshit!

I don't believe that for one moment. Another propaganda piece by Israel.

[leftynyc]

63. Of course you don't

Those were marshmellows falling from the sky - they only blew up like rockets. The people running hamas are harmless like kittens. This news is coming from the most liberal paper in Israel.

[and-justice-for-all]

25. you can discern where something is going from a satillite

if its not even moving?? "Iranian ship being loaded with missiles that analysts say may be headed for Gaza"... Yeah, HAARETZ keep stirring the pot. I do not trust that source at all.

[Chef Eric]

30. Hence the word "may." nt

[Earth_First]

69. Hence this is bullshit and pure speculation. n/t

[FourScore]

27. BREAKING!!! North Vietnamese Torpedo Boats Fired on USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin!!!!! n/t

[musical_soul]

28. I guess ceasefire really does mean reload.

[Sophiegirl]

37. NOOOOO!!!!!

I just had a Palin flashback!!!

[AnOhioan]

31. Uh huh....right....and of course Israel would NEVER employ propaganda.

[Canuckistanian]

32. Are they sure it's not aluminum tubes for centrifuges?

Notice the report says "the cargo MAY include Faj-5 rockets"

I trust Israeli intelligence as far as I could throw them.

[elbloggoZY27]

33. Iran

Obviously Iran is a rogue state and not just an enemy of Israel but also of the Middle East in general. Since this ship is carrying WAR Supplies it should not be allowed to arrive at its destination. International Law applies and Israel has a right to take whatever action it deems appropriate.

Also, those who live in GAZA are being used by HAMAS and its supporters like IRAN.

Iran needs to be isolated.

[A Simple Game]

35. Damn right!!!! Let's sink all ships with war supplies. I say we

should even up that! Shoot down all planes carrying war supplies.

That would never affect the United States would it?

Be careful what you ask for.

[Marrah_G]

65. I wonder- do you feel the same way about military equipment shipped from the US?

How about your tax dollars that go to fund Israel's military?

[nineteen50]

36. America

needs to stop shipping all that warfare welfare to Israeli enabling them to act belligerent. We are only making them weaker by bailing them out they need to go to work and be responsible for themselves.

[railsback]

39. Israeli Spy Satellites Spot Iranian Ship Being Loaded With Rockets For Gaza

Pretty damning headline.... and then it says 'might be', 'could be', 'may be'....

Whatever.

[trouble.smith]

42. what are they waiting for then? sink it.

[uppityperson]

43. "May" be headed, "may" include "like" those.....Too many qualifiers to make this mean anything.

[JackRiddler]

53. No satellite photo necessary: US ship being loaded with rockets for Israel.

[Scuba]

60. +1

[glacierbay]

66. Difference is

that those rockets are used defensively, as in to shoot down Hamas rockets being fired into Israel.

[JackRiddler]

70. Some defense.

Start the hostilities. Kill the guy to whom you just gave your cease-fire proposal while he's thinking about it. Bomb a densely-populated sealed-off, blockaded patch of land, from the air. Level blocks in Gaza. Kill 150 people - defensively.

And the real difference? That American taxpayers are paying for it.

[glacierbay]

72. Sorry but Hamas started this

they've been shooting rockets into Israel for months on end and Israel finally had enough and retaliated.

[RedFury]

79. Suuuure....

Pull the other one: Israel's 'Right To Self-Defense' - A Tremendous Propaganda Victory

[glacierbay]

80. You've got your opinions

I've got my opinions, and my opinion is that Israel is defending itself from Hamas rocket fire, deal with it.

[RedFury]

92. You are certainly...

...allowed to have your own opinion, but not make-up your own facts.

Read the article for the latter.

[harun]

77. +1, Iran's just contributing to a balance of power. A good thing.

[JackRiddler]

81. I wouldn't go that far.

We should be working for disarmament of all militaries.

National militaries, wars, arms trade and weapons development have all become an absurdity on this small planet. Overdetermining our general tendency to species suicide over the next few decades. War has always been a crime, nowadays it's obsolete and unwinnable. No one should be arming anyone, especially in the Middle East.

But as you say, long as the US and west so heavily arm and protect one side, the other will get its arms where it can.

[KansDem]

71. Yeah, and analysts said Saddam had WMDs...

This shit's getting old...

[olddad56]

88. Has any Israeli spy satellites spotted any American ships being loaded with missiles ...

that analysts say may be headed for Israel?

[clbinepa]

95. spy satellites

very good question

[hrmjustin]

100. Welcome to DU!

[olddad56]

89. more relevant than ever, Jackson Browne's Lives in the Balance.

[jeggus]

101. Yes and the photos show the warheads for these rockets look suspiciously............................

like the Wile E Coyote Acme bomb that Netanyahu drew in front of the UN. If Bibi had not given the Iranians this drawing they would still be in the planning stages!

[Purveyor]

104. LOL. Here ya go...