Turkey wants unrestricted access to Gaza from Israel

[Falcon29]

Just my exprience, not even my personal views.

I have friends that are Israelis and friends that are Palestinians, but lately just Israelis and not Palestinians because I'm not a teenager anymore and try not to associate with aggressive trouble makers.

Israelis I met are more like westerners calm and think first, while the Palestinians I've met are more like arabs and kurds, they are aggresive people that act before they think.

Aha, okay kiddo.

Believe me, if we want to kill you in masses , you were not there, we do everything possible to save the lives of our citizens as you are willing to sacrifice the lives of your people to kill Israelis or Jews.
the difference between us is that we sanctify life as you sanctify Death!

Israeli's don't intent to kill masses, they intent to expel/terrorize and that's exactly what they did. Yes Jews sanctify life only for them selves, for non-Jews they butcher them. Just like they sent Jesus to his death.

 

[TurkeyForever]

Just like they sent Jesus to his death.

That was 2000 years ago, what would you palestinians do if today a palestinian were to stand in a crowded place and shout out "I have a new religion and it is not islam come follow me"...

Yes thats correct you would stone him to death... same mentality but 2000 years LATE!

 

[19887]

Aha, okay kiddo.


Israeli's don't intent to kill masses, they intent to expel/terrorize and that's exactly what they did. Yes Jews sanctify life only for them selves, for non-Jews they butcher them. Just like they sent Jesus to his death.

So now Israel don't intent to kill masses...
Jews are commended to save others lives like their own.
Jews fought for the armies of the countries they lived in.
Israel help to people all around the world.
A few examples:
Guatemala mudslide
Refugees in Greece&Serbia
Floods in Myanmar
Civil war south Sudan
Ebola in Africa
Taiwan water park explosion
Chile mudslides
Nepal earthquake
Madagascar storms
Vanuatu cyclone
Kurdistan war
Philippines typhoon
Haiti earthquake
Turkey earthquake
Japan tsunami
Paraguay floods
And more and more...

That was 2000 years ago, what would you palestinians do if today a palestinian were to stand in a crowded place and shout out "I have a new religion and it is not islam come follow me"...

Yes thats correct you would stone him to death... same mentality but 2000 years LATE!

You mostly right and I respect you,but Jews were not killed Jesus,it's the Romans.

 

[TurkeyForever]

You mostly right and I respect you,but Jews were not killed Jesus,it's the Romans.

I think it was indirectly, where the Jews went and told the Roman ruler of the area about Jesus.

Probably best to ask a christian that knows more about the bible.

I don't care about such history myself, I take all historical text with a grain of salt. I'm sure not all is 100% correct history.

If you say something to me and I pass it on, by the time the 10th person passes the information along it is totally different than the original one.

I respect all religion and believe in God myself (not religion just God) but all that historical stuff I'm not so sure about. Ataturk, Hitler, Alexander the great and many others had the intelligence/talent to manipulate the masses, so my guess is in that direction when it comes to historical religious figures.
I might be wrong but it's tilting that way heavily just using common sense and logic.

 

[19887]

I think it was indirectly, where the Jews went and told the Roman ruler of the area about Jesus.

Probably best to ask a christian that knows more about the bible.

Indirectly yes,judah(yehuda ish krayot)told the Romans where they can find Jesus,but not all the Jews,just one who help the government.

 

[TurkeyForever]

Indirectly yes,judah(yehuda ish krayot)told the Romans where they can find Jesus,but not all the Jews,just one who help the government.

Yeah well that makes sense people are like that, even in todays world if you have 10 friends there is a big chance at least 20% will turn on you for money/power, loyalty is hard to find.

 

[TurkeyForever]

After reading about the incident: it states that in January 2010, the Free Gaza Movement and İHH announced a joint venture to send ten vessels to the Gaza strip in the spring of 2010 and IHH involved in funding operations and contacts with HAMAS (a terrorist organization). Isreal has every right to defend itself.

IMO : no need for any paying compensation to the families of the Mavi Marmara victims ( they knew what they were getting into)

and as for removing the blockade on Gaza : its Israel's call.

Looking at the map of Gaza I see it's by the water, don't they have their own port?

If Israel is blocking Gaza's own territory by the water then that is wrong. Nobody has the right to block someone elses territory.

If Israel wants to deal with it they can go to a full out war (invasion) with Gaza, I actually thought Gaza was the area of palestine that was landlocked.

I'm all for a major Israeli / Palestine all out war. Let them settle it once and for all, I'm getting sick of reading about this issue in the newspaper all the time, I want to see other news for a change, like Pamela Anderson and her hepatitis.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Israeli Jews aren't migrants, they're illegal aliens that staged terrorist attacks and insurgencies. No different than ISIS. Israeli's executed children in masses and bombed villages with intent of expelling residents.

Just prove my point.
You are blaming ALL jews for the actions of Irgun and the Stern Gang.
According to Your logic, ALL Muslims should be blamed for the terrorist acts performed by
some madmen like ISIS.
Israeli terrorists, are now dealt with by the law, like other criminals.
Was not always the case, since the original terrorists were never punished.

Fact is that Your views matches closely that of our RACIST parties that are shunned by civilized people.
It is pretty clear from multiple postings at PDF that not even Arabs like Palestinians.
Many Arabs have shed blood for You, and You show zero gratitude.

As for beeing illegal, many Jews entered the area legally under first the Ottoman Empire,
then under the British Mandate. Great Britain then tried to put a stop to the immigration,
and surely a number of Jews entered illegally.
After the LEGAL creation of the state of Israel, their entry was legalized and Jews everywhere
are welcome, so after 1949, ALL Jews in Israel are there legally.

Your view, which I bet is shared by a lot of Palestinians is one of the main obstacles to Peace in the region.

 

[TurAr]

Israel killed 10 enemy combatants, when the Mavi Marmara, in violation of International law, refused the request to redirect the vessel to an Israeli harbour for inspection of the cargo,
to ensure no contraband was present. Any legal goods in the cargo was then to be shipped to Gaza by land.

If the Mavi Marmara crew had followed International Law, then noone
would have been killed, and all legal goods onboard would have ended up in Gaza.
They have 100% of the responsibility of the end result.

International Law states that a vessel can be boarded in INTERNATIONAL WATERS,
as soon as they announce the destination to be a blockaded port.
Israel is REQUIRED to inspect the cargo before it reaches the destination.
Israel has the right to redirect to an Israeli harbour.

Mavi Marmara has NO right to refuse the inspection according to International Law.
The crew resisting the inspection are war criminals.

Violent resistance of the crew, when boarded, according to International Law,
AUTOMATICALLY reclassifies the crew, so they can be treated as enemy soldiers
in a combat situation. I.E: killed.

Obviously, there is a political price to be paid, regardless if Israel is right or not.
Israel may choose to pay compensation, even to relatives of the war criminals killed,
if it is in Israels interest to maintain relations with Turkey.

If Turkey has no intention to ship anything but legal goods, then International Law
gives them the option to let the Turkish Navy escort the ships.
When Israel wants to inspect the ships, the escort simply states that they are under
the protection of the Turkish Navy and gives guarantees the the cargo is legal.
Then the Israeli Navy has no longer any rights to inspect the ships,
and will not even attempt to do so.

Should the cargo contain contraband, then the Turkish Navy are war criminals,
and Turkish military/political leadership can be prosecuted.

The fact that Turkey has not escorted the ships is speaking for itself.
Turkey either does not understand the boundaries of International Law,
or they want to ship contraband, without risking prosecution.

Are you on some kind of psychedelic trip or something? Enemy combatants? It was carrying activists form 50 differents nations. There were even priests, journalists and members of parliaments among them. Besides, they didn't find anything illegal on the ship. Then they tried to compensate it by showing some kitchen knifes and ripped guardrails, which could be found pretty much in any household to show the world how 'malicious' the activists were.

Spare me from your silly reinterpretations of the international law. The funny thing is that you are essentially reimagining the international law in order to support one of its worst violators.

You can't fvcking drop commandos from helicopters on the civillian ships in internatinal waters over the intelligence you think you have, then expect to be greeted with flowers. Are you out of your freaking mind? You will face with resistance. Let me dumb it down a little for you, if you break into someone's home by using violence, then you can't blame the owner of the house with being a "war criminal" if he tries to stop you with violence. Does it make any sense? No?..

If Israel was indeed acting in self defence, its political price would NEVER EVER be as expensive as an apology. Turkey shall never extend an apology to Russia over the downed Jet despite any political and economic repercussions since it was a self defence in one of its purest form

Your call for Turkish Navy escort alone tells how cluless you are on the issue. You can't even predict its posible outcomes and how it would mean a major escalation which could result even in a war. Besides, I don't see how a Navy escort could be suitlbe option to prevent the entry of contrabands into Gaza. In case of such an agreement between Turkey and Israel, some mechanisms and procedures in order to guarantee Israel's safety would surely be implemented anyway.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Looking at the map of Gaza I see it's by the water, don't they have their own port?

If Israel is blocking Gaza's own territory by the water then that is wrong. Nobody has the right to block someone elses territory.

If Israel wants to deal with it they can go to a full out war (invasion) with Gaza, I actually thought Gaza was the area of palestine that was landlocked.

I'm all for a major Israeli / Palestine all out war. Let them settle it once and for all, I'm getting sick of reading about this issue in the newspaper all the time, I want to see other news for a change, like Pamela Anderson and her hepatitis.

A blockade is an Act of War, and any of the parts of a conflict may set up a blockade.
There are rules according to International Law that has to be followed.
One of the rules (which Israel did not follow initially) is that there must be a list of what
materials is under blockade.
This list must not contain certain things like medical supplies, and enough food must be
let through to prevent starvation.
Dual use materials, like concrete, can be on the list.

War is certainly not a solution to the problem.
A political settlement is needed, but that is not going to happen
until the Palestinians get a leadership that is interested in the welfare
of the Palestinians, and it is not going to happen with the current
Israeli government.

Are you on some kind of psychedelic trip or something? Enemy combatants? It was carrying activists form 50 differents nations. There were even priests, journalists and members of parliaments among them. Besides, they didn't find anything illegal on the ship. Then they tried to compensate it by showing some kitchen knifes and ripped guardrails, which could be found pretty much in any household to show the world how 'malicious' the activists were.

Spare me from your silly reinterpretations of the international law. The funny thing is that you are essentially reimagining the international law in order to support one of its worst violators.

You can't fvcking drop commandos from helicopters on the civillian ships in internatinal waters over the intelligence you think you have, then expect to be greeted with flowers. Are you out of your freaking mind? You will face with resistance. Let me dumb it down a little for you, if you break into someone's home by using violence, then you can't blame the owner of the house with being a "war criminal" if he tries to stop you with violence. Does it make any sense? No?..

If Israel was indeed acting in self defence, its political price would NEVER EVER be as expensive as an apology. Turkey shall never extend an apology to Russia over the downed Jet despite any political and economic repercussions since it was a self defence in one of its purest form

Your call for Turkish Navy escort alone tells how cluless you are on the issue. You can't even predict its posible outcomes and how it would mean a major escalation which could result even in a war. Besides, I don't see how a Navy escort could be suitlbe option to prevent the entry of contrabands into Gaza. In case of such an agreement between Turkey and Israel, some mechanisms and procedures in order to guarantee Israel's safety would surely be implemented anyway.

Under International Law (the San Remo Manual, which governs warfare at sea), International Waters
do NOT have any special protection for civilian ships.
Any civilian ship may not be boarded there, but a civilian ship which has STATED ITS INTENT
to attempt to break the blockade, may be boarded on International Waters.
Resisting boarding, is equivalent to resisting the Police when they enter Your house
with warrant to search through it.
Even if you do not have any illegal items at home, violent resisting will make You a criminal,
and in severe cases, You may be legally shot.
International Laws have similar clauses about resisting legal boarding.
If you resist the boarding, you are by definition an enemy combatant and can be shot.

I think You better read up on International Law, instead of just reading the articles of
sloppy Journalists, which established the MYTH, that International Waters give some kind
of protection.

Paragraph 67 of the Manual states that it is permitted for belligerents to attack merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States outside of neutral waters if they "are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and if after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture". Paragraph 146 states that it is permitted to capture neutral merchant vessels outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67. The term neutral waters is defined in paragraph 14: "Neutral waters consist of the internal waters, territorial sea, and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of neutral States."

Israel cannot inspect the vessel inside Turkish (or other territorial) waters, but pretty much anywhere else. The INTENT to break the blockade is enough to allow inspection.
Not having any contraband does not give protection against beeing inspected,
so what materials were actually found on the ships is irrelevant.

Accompanying the vessel with a Navy Escort is fully regulated by International Law,
and cannot be questioned by Israel, and will surely not lead to war, if Turkey acts
responsibly and gives advanced warning to Israel about its intent,
to give IDF a chance to educate the Navy.

This means that Turkey takes FULL responsibility for the cargo and the ships should be inspected by Turkey, and not by Israel.
If a Turkish citizen brings a gun, without the knowledge of their superiors, they are STILL
responsible for breaking International Law, so it is not something that should be taken lightly.

The reason You do not understand these things is that You have not done any research
like actually reading the neccessary parts of International Law.

 

[Mahmoud_EGY]

never gonna happen turks

 

[TurAr]

Under International Law (the San Remo Manual, which governs warfare at sea), International Waters
do NOT have any special protection for civilian ships.
Any civilian ship may not be boarded there, but a civilian ship which has STATED ITS INTENT
to attempt to break the blockade, may be boarded on International Waters.
Resisting boarding, is equivalent to resisting the Police when they enter Your house
with warrant to search through it.
Even if you do not have any illegal items at home, violent resisting will make You a criminal,
and in severe cases, You may be legally shot.

I think You better read up on International Law, instead of just reading the articles of
sloppy Journalists, which established the MYTH, that International Waters give some kind
of protection.

Paragraph 67 of the Manual states that it is permitted for belligerents to attack merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States outside of neutral waters if they "are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and if after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture". Paragraph 146 states that it is permitted to capture neutral merchant vessels outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67. The term neutral waters is defined in paragraph 14: "Neutral waters consist of the internal waters, territorial sea, and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of neutral States."

Israel cannot inspect the vessel inside Turkish (or other territorial) waters, but pretty much anywhere else.

No you better read it as a whole instead of reading it through the sloppy journalists who fed you with the "best" parts which suit the best for your so called "liberal" appetite.

From wher you left off:

• 
  68. Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.
  
  69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it.

• 
  SECTION I : BASIC RULES

• 
  38. In any armed conflict the right of the parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.
  
  39. Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians or other protected persons and combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and military objectives.
  
  40. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
  
  41. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document.
  
  42. In addition to any specific prohibitions binding upon the parties to a conflict, it is forbidden to employ methods or means of warfare which:
  
  (a) are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; or
  (b) are indiscriminate, in that:
  (i) they are not, or cannot be, directed against a specific military objective; or
  (ii) their effects cannot be limited as required by international law as reflected in this document.
  
  43. It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis.
  
  44. Methods and means of warfare should be employed with due regard for the natural environment taking into account the relevant rules of international law. Damage to or destruction of the natural environment not justified by military necessity and carried out wantonly is prohibited.
  
  45. Surface ships, submarines and aircraft are bound by the same principles and rules.
  
  • 
    SECTION II : PRECAUTIONS IN ATTACK
    
    46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
    
    (a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack;
    (b) in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives;
    (c) they shall furthermore take all feasible precautions in the choice of methods and means in order to avoid or minimize collateral casualties or damage; and
    (d) an attack shall not be launched if it may be expected to cause collateral casualties or damage which world be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole; an attack shall be cancelled or suspended as soon as it becomes apparent that the collateral casualties or damage would be excessive.

Accompanying the vessel with a Navy Escort is fully regulated by International Law,
and cannot be questioned by Israel, and will surely not lead to war, if Turkey acts
responsibly and gives advanced warning to Israel about its intent,
to give IDF a chance to educate the Navy.

This means that Turkey takes FULL responsibility for the cargo and the ships should be inspected by Turkey, and not by Israel.

Israel has proven many times before that it has little respect for international law. And given the fact that Turkish Navy wouldn't sit idle if Turkish citizens were under attack, a war, or at the very least a limited conflict until US intervention would have a high chance to occurt.

The reason You do not understand these things is that You have not done any research
like actually reading the neccessary parts of International Law.

lol. Please shoo away.

 

[F-15I]

The most surprising thing however was how amateur the so called best of the best Shayatet 13 commandos were.

ok, let's say that they are amateur.
so how would react another unit instead of this amateurs? -let's say not much different, you know you cannot do much when people surrounding you with "kitchen knifes" and trying to kill & kidnap.
even if there was bordobereliler i'm sure they would kidnap them to and stab them then throw them to the sea as they did to the amateurs.

Let's just move on shall we?

believe me that i moved on and i'm happy that your government wants to normalize the relation i just tried to show you the another side of coin.
iyi gunler (nice day)

 

[TurAr]

ok, let's say that they are amateur.
so how would react another unit instead of this amateurs? -let's say not much different, you know you cannot do much when people surrounding you with "kitchen knifes" and trying to kill & kidnap.
even if there was bordobereliler i'm sure they would kidnap them to and stab them then throw them to the sea as they did to the amateurs.

I'm pretty sure Bordo Bereliler wouldn't be dropped one by one from helicopters in the middle of a mayhem where a crowd waiting to "welcome" them with iron bars, since they aren't expendables unlike the Shayatet 13, which was the very reason why I find their tactics and actions amateur.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Since Ships to Gaza refused to stop, they are by definition a military objective.

• SECTION II : VISIT AND SEARCH OF MERCHANT VESSELS
  
  Basic rules
  
  118. In exercising their legal rights in an international armed conflict at sea, belligerent warships and military aircraft have a right to visit and search merchant vessels outside neutral waters where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are subject to capture.
  
  119. As an alternative to visit and search, a neutral merchant vessel may, with its consent, be diverted from its declared destination.
  
  Merchant vessels under convoy of accompanyingneutral warships
  
  120. A neutral merchant vessel is exempt from the exercise of the right of visit and search if it meets the following conditions:
  
  (a) it is bound for a neutral port;
  (b) it is under the convoy of an accompanying neutral warship of the same nationality or a neutral warship of a State with which the flag State of the merchant vessel has concluded an agreement providing for such convoy;
  (c) the flag State of the neutral warship warrants that the neutral merchant vessel is not carrying contraband or otherwise engaged in activities inconsistent with its neutral status; and
  (d) the commander of the neutral warship provides, if requested by the commander of an intercepting belligerent warship or military aircraft, all information as to the character of the merchant vessel and its cargo as could otherwise be obtained by visit and search.
  
  Diversion for the purposeof visit and search
  
  121. If visit and search at sea is impossible or unsafe, a belligerent warship or military aircraft may divert a merchant vessel to an appropriate area or port in order to exercise the right of visit and search.
  
  Measures of supervision
  
  122. In order to avoid the necessity of visit and search, belligerent States may establish reasonable measures for the inspection of cargo of neutral merchant vessels and certification that a vessel is not carrying contraband.
  
  123. The fact that a neutral merchant vessel has submitted to such measures of supervision as the inspection of its cargo and grant of certificates of non-contraband cargo by one belligerent is not an act of unneutral service with regard to an opposing belligerent.
  
  124. In order to obviate the necessity for visit and search, neutral States are encouraged to enforce reasonable control measures and certification procedures to ensure that their merchant vessels are not carrying contraband.

• 
  SECTION VI: CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS
  
  146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:
  
  (a) are carrying contraband;
  (b) are on a voyage especially undertaken with a view to the transport of individual passengers who are embodied in the armed forces of the enemy;
  (c) are operating directly under enemy control, orders, charter, employment or direction;
  (d) present irregular or fraudulent documents, lack necessary documents, or destroy, deface or conceal documents;
  (e) are violating regulations established by a belligerent within the immediate area of naval operations; or
  (f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.
  
  Capture of a neutral merchant vessel is exercised by taking such vessel as prize for adjudication.
  
  147. Goods on board neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture only if they are contraband.

• 
  148. Contraband is defined as goods which are ultimately destined for territory under the control of the enemy and which may be susceptible for use in armed conflict.
  
  149. In order to exercise the right of capture referred to in paragraphs 146(a) and 147, the belligerent must have published contraband lists. The precise nature of a belligerent's contraband list may vary according to the particular circumstances of the armed conflict. Contraband lists shall be reasonably specific.
  
  150. Goods not on the belligerent's contraband list are 'free goods', that is, not subject to capture. As a minimum, 'free goods' shall include the following:
  
  (a) religious objects;
  (b) articles intended exclusively for the treatment of the wounded and sick and for the prevention of disease;
  (c) clothing, bedding, essential foodstuffs, and means of shelter for the civilian population in general, and women and children in particular, provided there is not serious reason to believe that such goods will be diverted to other purpose, or that a definite military advantage would accrue to the enemy by their substitution for enemy goods that would thereby become available for military purposes;
  (d) items destined for prisoners of war, including individual parcels and collective relief shipments containing food, clothing, educational, cultural, and recreational articles;
  (e) goods otherwise specifically exempted from capture by international treaty or by special arrangement between belligerents; and
  (f) other goods not susceptible for use in armed conflict,
  
  151. Subject to paragraph 152, a neutral vessel captured in accordance with paragraph 146 may, as an exceptional measure, be destroyed when military circumstances preclude taking or sending such a vessel for adjudication as an enemy prize, only if the following criteria are met beforehand:
  
  (a) the safety of passengers and crew is provided for; for this purpose the ship's boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured in the prevailing sea and weather conditions, by the proximity of land, or the presence of another vessel which is in a position to take them on board;
  (b) documents and papers relating to the captured vessel are safeguarded; and
  (c) if feasible, personal effects of the passengers and crew are saved.
  
  Every effort should be made to avoid destruction of a captured neutral vessel. Therefore, such destruction shall not be ordered without there being entire satisfaction that the captured vessel can neither be sent into a belligerent port, nor diverted, nor properly released. A vessel may not be destroyed under this paragraph for carrying contraband unless the contraband, reckoned either by value, weight, volume or freight, forms more than half the cargo. Destruction shall be subject to adjudication.
  
  152. The destruction of captured neutral passenger vessels carrying civilian passengers is prohibited at sea. For the safety of the passengers, such vessels shall be diverted to an appropriate port in order to complete capture provided for in paragraph 146.

• 
  166. Nationals of a neutral State:
  
  (a) who are passengers on board enemy or neutral vessels or aireraft are to be released and may not be made prisoners of war unless they are members of the enemy's armed forces or have personally committed acts of hostility against the captor;
  (b) who are members of the crew of enemy warships or auxiliary vessels or military aircraft or auxiliary aircraft are entitled to prisoner-of-war status and may be made prisoners of war;
  (c) who are members of the crew of enemy or neutral merchant vessels or civil aircraft are to be released and may not be made prisoners of war unless the vessel or aircraft has committed an act covered by paragraphs 60, 63, 67 or 70, or the member of the crew has personally committed an act of hostility against the captor.
  
  167. Civilian persons other than those specified in paragraphs 162-166 are to be treated in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.
  
  168. Persons having fallen into the power of a neutral State are to be treated in accordance with Hague Conventions V and Xlll of 1907 and the Second Geneva Convention of 1949.

• 
  SECTION IV : OTHER ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT
  
  Enemy merchant vessels
  
  59. Enemy merchant vessels may only be attacked if they meet the definition of a military objective in paragraph 40.
  
  60. The following activities may render enemy merchant vessels military objectives:
  
  (a) engaging in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy, e.g., laying mines, minesweeping, cutting undersea cables and pipelines, engaging in visit and search of neutral merchant vessels or attacking other merchant vessels;
  (b) acting as an auxiliary to an enemy s armed forces, e.g., carrying troops or replenishing warships;
  (c) being incorporated into or assisting the enemy s intelligence gathering system, e.g., engaging in reconnaissance, early warning, surveillance, or command, control and communications missions;
  (d) sailing under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft;
  (e) refusing an order to stop or actively resisting visit, search or capture;
  (f) being armed to an extent that they could inflict damage to a warship; this excludes light individual weapons for the defence of personnel, e.g., against pirates, and purely deflective systems such as chaff ; or
  (g) otherwise making an effective contribution to military action, e.g., carrying military materials.
  
  61. Any attacks on these vessels is subject to the basic rules set out in paragraphs 38-46.