-------
Is Israel's blockade legal?
BBC Today Program
01/06/2010
Maritime lawyer Douglas Guilfoyle, Lecturer in Law at UCL, was asked on the Today Programme about the legality or otherwise of Israel's actions over the blockade of ships carrying aid into Gaza, involving landing commandos on ships in international waters. I summarise his response here, but it's only 3'31", so you might as well go listen yourself:
Legality of blockade - Guilfoyle says:
- A naval blockade does have a legal status, it is a recognised instrument of warfare
- However it should not be implemented or continued 'if the damage to the civilian population is going to be excessive in relation to the military advantage'.
Guilfoyle's answer: Yes, there's a document called the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 about enforcing blockade on high seas, which permits what Israel did, as long as the blockade is legal. The controversy is about whether insufficient aid is getting through, thus whether the blockade is legal in the first place
Davis then asked about the proportionality of the Israeli response.
Guilfoyle's answer: A legal blockade give you right to intercept vessel, but actions must be necessary & proportionate. There are two separate issues:
1. Is the act of putting soliders on a boat to try to turn it round proportionate?
Guilfoyle gave the answer 'normally it would be'.
2. Was the degree of force used proportionate?
Guilfoyle says the answer to this hinges on whether there was a deliberate use of force to stop vessel, or whether it was a case of actual or mistaken self-defence. This latter is Israel's (and to some extent the protestors') version of events. Once you invoke self-defence, it's a different legal defence. Even with this defence the use of force could be excessive and thus unlawful, but this is no longer a question about the law of blockade, but one about the law of self-defence.
28 comments:
Israel Falls into the Trap
31/05/2010
Der Spiegel
Depressingly similar analysis from Statfor.
--------
Flotillas and the Wars of Public Opinion
Stratfor
May 31, 2010
By George Friedman
On Sunday, Israeli naval forces intercepted the ships of a Turkish nongovernmental organization (NGO) delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Israel had demanded that the vessels not go directly to Gaza but instead dock in Israeli ports, where the supplies would be offloaded and delivered to Gaza. The Turkish NGO refused, insisting on going directly to Gaza. Gunfire ensued when Israeli naval personnel boarded one of the vessels, and a significant number of the passengers and crew on the ship were killed or wounded.
Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon charged that the mission was simply an attempt to provoke the Israelis. That was certainly the case. The mission was designed to demonstrate that the Israelis were unreasonable and brutal.
…
A logical Israeli response would have been avoiding falling into the provocation trap and suffering the political repercussions the Turkish NGO was trying to trigger. Instead, the Israelis decided to make a show of force. The Israelis appear to have reasoned that backing down would demonstrate weakness and encourage further flotillas to Gaza, unraveling the Israeli position vis-à-vis Hamas. In this thinking, a violent interception was a superior strategy to accommodation regardless of political consequences. Thus, the Israelis accepted the bait and were provoked.
...
Internationally, there is little doubt that the incident will generate a firestorm. Certainly, Turkey will break cooperation with Israel. Opinion in Europe will likely harden. And public opinion in the United States — by far the most important in the equation — might shift to a “plague-on-both-your-houses” position.
While the international reaction is predictable, the interesting question is whether this evolution will cause a political crisis in Israel. Those in Israel who feel that international isolation is preferable to accommodation with the Palestinians are in control now. Many in the opposition see Israel’s isolation as a strategic threat. Economically and militarily, they argue, Israel cannot survive in isolation. The current regime will respond that there will be no isolation. The flotilla aimed to generate what the government has said would not happen.
The tougher Israel is, the more the flotilla’s narrative takes hold. As the Zionists knew in 1947 and the Palestinians are learning, controlling public opinion requires subtlety, a selective narrative and cynicism. As they also knew, losing the battle can be catastrophic. It cost Britain the Mandate and allowed Israel to survive. Israel’s enemies are now turning the tables. This maneuver was far more effective than suicide bombings or the Intifada in challenging Israel’s public perception and therefore its geopolitical position (though if the Palestinians return to some of their more distasteful tactics like suicide bombing, the Turkish strategy of portraying Israel as the instigator of violence will be undermined).
Israel is now in uncharted waters. It does not know how to respond. It is not clear that the Palestinians know how to take full advantage of the situation, either. But even so, this places the battle on a new field, far more fluid and uncontrollable than what went before. The next steps will involve calls for sanctions against Israel. The Israeli threats against Iran will be seen in a different context, and Israeli portrayal of Iran will hold less sway over the world.
And this will cause a political crisis in Israel. If this government survives, then Israel is locked into a course that gives it freedom of action but international isolation. If the government falls, then Israel enters a period of domestic uncertainty. In either case, the flotilla achieved its strategic mission. It got Israel to take violent action against it. In doing so, Israel ran into its own fist.
Relevant to the "legality of the blockade" issue with which I started. Doesn't seem to be a very good blockade!
-----------
Gaza looks beyond tunnel economy
Financial Times
May 23 2010
...
For close to three years, the tunnels below Rafah have offered a unique lifeline to Gazans, who are otherwise deprived of all but the most basic humanitarian supplies. They have also allowed Hamas, the Islamist group that controls the strip, to replenish its coffers and rebuild its military arsenal, making the tunnels a target for Israel.
Today, however, Nasim is more worried about the decline in business than he is about Israeli air raids. He says that Hamas – whose security officers can be seen in the tunnel area – is taking an ever greater cut of the operators' profits. Moreover, the prices of many smuggled goods have fallen in recent months, thanks to a supply glut that is on striking display across the strip.
Some argue that Gaza’s tunnel economy is becoming a victim of its own success. Hundreds of tunnels have shut down over the past year as a result of greater Egyptian efforts to stop the flow of goods – and weapons – into the strip. But the remaining tunnels, about 200 to 300 according to most estimates, have become so efficient that shops all over Gaza are bursting with goods.
Branded products such as Coca-Cola, Nescafé, Snickers and Heinz ketchup – long absent as a result of the Israeli blockade – are both cheap and widely available. However, the tunnel operators have also flooded Gaza with Korean refrigerators, German food mixers and Chinese air conditioning units. Tunnel operators and traders alike complain of a saturated market – and falling prices.
“Everything I demand, I can get,” says Abu Amar al-Kahlout, who sells household goods out of a warehouse big enough to accommodate a passenger jet.
...
Oliver Kamm on the Gaza aid flotilla:
"Steven A. Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations notes:
"The Israelis clearly found themselves in an extraordinarily difficult circumstance. By all reports, the Free Gaza flotilla cargo was strictly humanitarian. Still, Israel was concerned that if the flotilla were allowed to enter Gaza's water, effectively breaking the blockade, Hamas and other violent groups would have a new corridor for weapons smuggling to exploit. One option now is for Israel to shift its policy from a blockade to a quarantine in which it would allow ships to pass after boarding and searching them. This would have the dual benefit of allowing critical goods into Gaza while relieving some of the international pressure on Israel. It is important to note that the Israelis offered to off-load the flotilla's cargo in the port of Ashdod, located along Israel's Mediterranean coast to the north of Gaza, and transfer it via the UN to Gaza. The Free Gaza activists rejected that option."
All this is true and important. Yet you can't get round incredulity and horror that Israel's remarkable commando units failed to anticipate what would happen when they boarded and that they then exercised lethal force.
This is more significant than a setback to a negotiated peace and to Israel's diplomatic relations. I'm proud to be a friend of Israel, which I support not because it's a Jewish state but because it upholds democratic and secular values in a region where these are scarce. I believe not just - in the demeaning phrase - in Israel's right to exist, but in Israel's right to sovereignty and independence. That right is not conditional upon (though I support also) the creation of a Palestinian state. But as happened with Bloody Sunday, a democratic state - doubtless through panic and ill judgement, but without extenuation - appears to have launched an assault that ought to be described as murderous. It's a terrible outcome, for which Binyamin Netanyahu's government must give a proper account."
Peter Hitchens on the Gaza 'Aid' Flotilla here
Hitchens article superb, go read.
Some interesting video & analysis of the botched commando raid here:
Special Alert: Boats, Bias and Big Lies
Honest Reporting
02/06/2010
Israel's left leaning newspaper Haaretz on the flotilla deaths:
"In the case of the flotilla, Barak is responsible for the failure. Barak did not understand that Israel must not endanger the strategic alliance with Turkey and must not be seen as a terrorist state, operating as a pirate in international waters. Barak did not understand that undermining Israel's legitimacy is a fatal blow to Israeli security. After the flotilla failure, I wonder if Barak is indeed the brilliant strategist he is meant to be. I have lost my faith in his judgment.
The prime minister said behind closed doors that he will rescue Israel from the Iranian threat. I don't believe him. I respect Benjamin Netanyahu's understanding of history and his love for his country and people. But I see that Netanyahu is actually deepening the Iranian threat. Netanyahu is undermining Israel's international standing - he is isolating it and making it hated. He is not calming any of the fronts, only firing them up.
Instead of rallying the Palestinians, Syrians and Turks against Iran, Netanyahu is pushing them toward Iran. Instead of rallying the Europeans and Americans in Israel's favor, he is inciting them against Israel. The process reached a frenzied peak with the flotilla. Netanyahu insisted on a forceful action in a nonessential arena, and thus proved that his view of reality is flawed. Since the prime minister does not understand the essence of the campaign against Iran, he is losing it. After the flotilla failure, I doubt his ability to deal with our existential challenge."
Another Haaretz article on the Flotilla:
"The failure of the flotilla operation is less troubling than the national “jonesing” that has followed it: the frenetic flitting between the poles of reflexive victimhood − Oy oy oy they resisted, they had knives, swords and other weapons, the activists who were killed were “big-bodied” − and of inert heroism (praise for the restraint and sensitivity that resulted in only nine and not 600 deaths; the desperate attempt to cling to the vestiges of the myths of military prowess and the increased stifling of criticism with the slogan “Quiet, we’re saluting”). All of these, together with a great sense of missed opportunity: the illusion that a “successful” operation − difficult to define and to imagine in any event − would have relieved, even temporarily, a certain existential angst.
All these responses were more intense this week, although in fact they are constant. They are the responses of addicts who are repeatedly denied their fix: the perfect IDF “operation,” or the decisive war, which will stifle any question and complaints (and any need for statesmanship).
Some point to a sea change in the Palestinian, and even the Hamas, leadership, saying that they have finally discovered the advantages of propaganda and statesmanship over violence and terror. Instead of encouraging and wholeheartedly adopting this approach, Israel, which hasn’t changed its thought patterns for decades, is “caught by surprise” and even dismayed. (Recently an intelligence official actually called the absence of Palestinian terror a “propaganda problem”). In the absence of statesmanship, all Israel can offer is another clumsy operation in which it comes off looking like some relic from the 1970s and ‘80s with a commando knife between its teeth. Even worse: It looks like Avigdor Lieberman, Eli Yishai, Moshe Ya’alon and all the rest.
Israel has always complained, condescendingly, that the neighbors it is forced to deal with are Arabs rather than “Norwegians and Swedes.” Now, when it is dealing with Europeans and the entire world, Israel can see how it itself is perceived − and to blush furiously. If it still can."
Turns out that Sarah Colborne, Director of Campaigns Operations at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, was on the Flotilla vessel where the people were killed.
Now I think even supporters of Israel such as myself acknowledge the disastrous propaganda effect of this furore. For the first time I can reveal a massive propaganda VICTORY for Israel, and it is to simply listen to Colborne's interview on the Today Programme. She is virtually in tears at some points as a result of the stress of blatantly & obviously lying and evading live on national radio.
Interview - 'Unprovoked' attack on Gaza bound ship: Sarah Colborne's eyewitness 'report'
Today Programme
04/06/2010
All 34 of the Britons on board the Gaza flotilla have now been accounted for. Sarah Colborne talks of her experiences on the ship Mavi Marmara where 9 people were killed during the Israeli raid when it was carrying aid to Gaza.
-------
Meanwhile Turkish newspapers are reporting how some of those killed wanted to be martyrs:
Dead activists' 'martyr' hopes
Straits Times
02/06/2010
ANKARA - THREE of the four Turks killed in an Israeli raid on aid ships bound for the Gaza Strip were devout Muslims who wanted to be 'martyrs,' relatives and friends were quoted as saying on Wednesday. The names of the victims have not been officially released, but the media identified them on Wednesday as four men, all involved in Islamic movements or charities.
One of them, Ali Haydar Bengi was described as a 39-year-old father of four who studied at Egypt's Al-Azhar University, a prominent centre of Islamic learning, and ran a telephone repair shop in Diyarbakir, in Turkey's mainly Kurdish south-east. Bengi 'was helping the poor and the oppressed. For years, he wanted to go to Palestine. And he constantly prayed to become a martyr,' Bengi's wife, Saniye, told the Vatan daily. 'Before embarking on the journey, he said he desired to become a martyr. He wanted to be a martyr very much,' Bengi's friend, Sabir Ceylan, told the Milliyet newspaper.
Another victim, Ali Ekber Yaratilmis, 55, was described as an Ankara-based retired worker and father of five, who was a volunteer for the Foundation of Humanitarian Relief (IHH), the Turkish Islamist charity that spearheaded the campaign to break the blockade of Gaza. 'He devoted his life to charity work... That's why he boarded the ship. He always wanted to be a martyr,' the Sabah daily quoted a friend, Mehmet Faruk Cevher, as saying.
The third victim, retired engineer Ibrahim Bilgen, 61, was a father of six and a supporter of the Islamist Felicity Party in the south-eastern city of Siirt, Anatolia news agency reported. 'He was an exemplary man, an exemplary philanthropist. That's why martyrdom suited him very much. Allah gave him a death he desired,' Bilgen's brother-in-law, Nuri Mergen, told Anatolia.
-------
And if you're interested in some of these other activists, pick your fave from this gruesome lot, which includes a bunch of Muslim Brotherhood, and a Syrian woman who wants to go to Sheikh Yassin's home in Gaza and "inhale the scent of the place where he lived":
Arab Media Reports on Flotilla Participants: Writing Wills, Preparing for Martyrdom, Determined to Reach Gaza or Die
Memri
June 1, 2010
More Peter Hitchens on the Flotilla incident:
"I view Israel’s assault on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara as a textbook example of incompetence. These people are not as brilliant as they like to claim.
The ship, despite its supercargo of PC, anti-Israel, Left-wing suckers, dupes and sandal-wearers, was also seething with militant and far-from-pacifist full-time Israel-haters.
If the Mossad secret service types had lived up to their legend, they would have known this.
So why lower troops, one by one, into the midst of a mob of foes? Why equip them with feeble paintball guns, shroud their hands in gloves so they can’t reach their sidearms, and order them not to open fire until things get out of hand?
They did this because the Israeli military let their civilised, law-governed instincts get the better of sensible cynicism.
The gullibility of the reporting on this issue defies belief. This wasn’t a humanitarian convoy. The Israelis were quite willing to send on the supplies, after searching them for contraband.
Masses of humanitarian supplies get through from Israel to Gaza all the time, though you wouldn’t think it to listen to the BBC.
And Egypt’s Gaza border is even more restricted than Israel’s, which rather contradicts the propaganda.
The people on the ships weren’t ‘activists’ but campaigners against Israel, intent on provoking a clash (I wonder if the enemies of the Jewish state, now parading their outrage all over the place, would have been more pleased, or less pleased, if nobody had died in this event?).
As for poor Gaza, who really cares about its people, pawns in a savage game since 1948? The Israelis have not behaved well, and should never have seized Gaza from Egypt (which occupied the Strip illegally from 1948 to 1967, without anyone protesting).
But the Iranian-backed fanatics of Hamas are far more interested in the destruction of Israel than they are in the welfare of the Gazans. And it is the cause of Iran and of Hamas that has been helped by Western public opinion in the past few days."
PH bang on, 100% agree.
Kuwaiti Journalist: The Flotilla Was Violent; Israel Has a Right to Defend Itself
Memri
08/06/10
Amongst other things mentioned by the journo, writing in the daily Al-Watan, was the warning given to the flotilla by the Israeli navy, which in full reads: "You are approaching an area of hostilities, which is under a naval blockade. Gaza coastal area and Gaza Harbor are closed to maritime traffic. The Israeli government supports delivery of humanitarian supplies to the civilian population in Gaza Strip and invites you to enter Ashdod port. Delivery of supplies will be in accordance with the authorities' regulations and through the formal land crossing to Gaza and under your observation, after which you can return to your home ports." The reply was: "Negative, negative. Our destination is Gaza."
A blogger who goes by the name of 'working class tory' on Israelis banned from gay pride march
Norman Tebbit's started blogging. Here's his comment on the flottila:
"Not for the first time I find myself in agreement with Charles Moore. Like him, I am neither an apologist nor a spokesman for the Israelis, but I know that if I had to choose whether to live in Israel or one of its enemy states it would not take long for me to decide. And if I were a woman it would take even less time.
Unhappily, the present generation of Israeli leaders cannot resist the temptation to fall slap bang, face down into just about every heffalump trap set for them by their enemies.
I am afraid that, despite all his bluster, Mr Netanyahu is no Golda Meir. Nor do the generals possess even half the stature of Moshe Dayan or the great General Weitzman. I remember to this day Ezer Weitzman, a fighter ace of the second world war, later President of Israel, leaning across a dinner table, jabbing his finger to emphasise the words as he accused me of being “soft, wet, left, pink”. The late Robert Carr, Ted Heath’s Labour Minister, all but swallowed his spoon. There are not many men from whom I would have taken that, but Weitzman… well, I could hardly protest.
The present Israeli leadership imbibed the tales of the brilliant strike against the Entebbe hijackers, the 1948 War and the extraordinary victory of the Six Day War with their mothers’ milk. They are not so much “soft, wet, left, pink” as possessed of an extraordinary blend of macho self-righteous victimhood, lacking the cold judgment of Mrs Meir and the men around her.
As Charles Moore asks, why on earth did they not launch a media campaign to persuade the uncommitted world to ask why the flotilla bound for Gaza needed to be manned by so many of that most aggressive species of mankind, or womankind, “peace activists”? Could they not have seen the attraction of fouling the lead ship’s propellors to disable it, then to rescue it and take it into Alexandria? Did no one see a public relations disaster in the making?'
Talking of Tebbit he has a barbed comment on Obama and BP:
"At least on the other side of the Atlantic the conduct of President Obama over the great oil spill is explicable, even if despicable. The whole might of American wealth and technology is displayed as utterly unable to deal with the disastrous spill – so what more natural than a crude, bigoted, xenophobic display of partisan political presidential petulance against a multinational company?
It is time that our American friends were reminded that they sang a different tune when the American company Union Carbide killed many thousands of Indians at Bhopal. Not to mention when the American company Occidental killed 167 people on a North Sea oil rig in 1988.
At the very least, the president might acknowledge that the company directly responsible for the Gulf disaster was American, not British. He may be holding on to some Democratic Party votes, but he is storing up a great deal of ill will that he might regret at some time.
Perhaps BP may be reluctant to say much about that because it would highlight the fact that the company now lacks not just the technical expertise to operate drilling rigs or refineries, but almost anyone in the company competent to assess and monitor the competence of its contractors. The much acclaimed strategy of getting out of the dirty and difficult jobs of exploration, extraction and refining in favour of branding, distribution and sales now seems to be rather less clever than when Lord Browne was riding high as the boss of BP.
It would be unwise to think that BP’s run of expensive accidents is just bad luck, or even individual manegerial failure. It may be that the strategy, while no doubt both New and Modern, is inherently dangerous, as the management is no longer in control of actions for which it has to take responsibility."
How sad is this comment from Andy's "working class Tory" blogger:
Israel, the only nation in the Middle-East to hold an annual gay pride parade, is stopped from appearing at a European gay pride parade because of "pro-Palestinian groups"
Unparodiable, but true :-(
Bloody blogger's comment limits won't let me post this debate summary, but well worth reading
Israel's flotilla attack was entirely justified
I2 Debate
07 Jun 2010
Agree
* Israeli action was legal
* The commandos were defending themselves
* The vessels had terrorists on board
* ...the genuine peace activists were duped and used
* Israel is losing the symbolic war, but that doesn't put it in the wrong
* ... there's a prevalent sense in the global media that Israel can do no good, ever
* And even if this boat was harmless, the blockade had to be protected
Disagree
* It wasn't legal
* ... and the blockade is illegitimate
* The violence was entirely disproportionate
* Israel is guilty of stupidity at best
* ... and naivety about symbolic war in the modern media
* Israel is unpopular because this sort of action makes the world less safe
* It is worrying to see Israel giving up even trying to be the good guys
* Israel's misguided blockade is at the bottom of all this
The New Republic on the Gaza flotilla:
"There once was a very successful campaign in Israel for road safety. Its slogan was, “On the road, don’t be right, be smart." The day after the flotilla raid last week, more than one pundit in the Israeli press brought up the slogan. We’re right, they said, but why can’t we also be smart?
The raid was by no means smart. Israel blindly stepped into a p.r. campaign orchestrated by Turkey and Hamas, doing enormous damage to its own international image and credibility. But the raid was not an isolated incident. Rather, it is only the latest example of how Benjamin Netanyahu’s prime ministership is steadily eroding Israel’s legitimacy."
[...]
"Israelis have been plagued of late by a creeping fear that their leadership is incompetent—that Netanyahu and Barak just don’t understand the basic parameters of the political map. For a country that’s so small, in the midst of a huge and hostile region, this is no niggling fear. Now, the flotilla incident has confirmed that, under its current leadership, Israel indeed faces a deep crisis of power and perception. The problem isn't just that Netanyahu and Barak failed to see the meaning of a Turkey and Hamas p.r. stunt; it is that they have failed to see the larger picture."
"Settlements, clearly, are the keys to all this. Further settlement is what energizes the campaign to delegitimize Israel. And, for the first time since its war of independence, Israel is in real danger of destruction. Zionism’s success depended, as Theodore Herzl understood, on international recognition. It will not survive without it. If Israel clings to its settlement policy, it will sink along with its West Bank occupation."
This was not a humanitarian voyage
Theodore Dalrymple
Globe and Mail
June 2010
By chance arriving in Turkey the day after the Israelis intercepted the flotilla bound for Gaza, I was able to read the Turkish English-language press reaction. A rather obvious consideration escaped all the writers: That is, that it does not take more than 600 people to deliver humanitarian aid to isolated enclaves.
I was once on a humanitarian voyage to deliver all the sustenance for the city of Monrovia, Liberia, cut off from the rest of the world as it was by Charles Taylor’s insurrection. I was not on a boat from the Ivory Coast to express my solidarity with the people of Monrovia; I was going there to write a book. The ship’s captain was not a humanitarian, either; he was paid a huge fee by the international “community” for delivering goods in very dangerous circumstances.
Apart from the small crew, the only other people on board were a French adventurer, who hoped to get a contract to train a Liberian militia, and an ex-U.S. marine called Rambo, who spent his days on the lookout for an eagerly anticipated attack by pirates so he could make use of his training. It never happened.
We arrived at Monrovia and the boat was unloaded. No peace activists were necessary to do so. Indeed, 600 of them would have imposed a considerable burden on the fragile resources of the city. The 600 or so aboard the flotilla, then, were not humanitarians, any more than was I: They were propagandist adventurers.
On June 2, Today’s Zaman, the English-language version of a Turkish newspaper, carried a photograph of a woman, Nilufer Cetin, who had travelled with the flotilla, and who had been returned to Turkey via Israel. In her arms was a one-year-old child, Kaan Turker Cetin, with a soother in his mouth, who had also been on board.
There was no commentary on the exposure of a child so young to a hazard such as his mother had deliberately exposed him to. On the contrary, the photograph was intended to illustrate the peaceful nature of the “peace activists.” The propagandists hoped that, in the event of a disturbance, the public would fall for the following false syllogism:
Children aged 1 are innocent.
Children aged 1 were on the flotilla.
Therefore the flotilla was innocent.
The ploy probably worked. But this psychological transfer of the innocence of children to the innocence of the activities on which they are deployed by their parents is horrible, partaking equally as it does of the mirror-image qualities of sentimentality and brutality.
The “peace activists” are not, of course, the only ones to enlist children in their cause. It is common practice to do so. In democratic countries, for example, politicians often parade their children on platforms, as if the freshness and innocence of the children were somehow evidence of their own freshness and innocence.
How many vile dictators have had themselves portrayed as the friends of children? We all know the pictures of Hitler receiving flowers from pretty little girls, who cannot possibly know the nature of the man they are giving them to. Indeed, the juxtaposition of child and politician is much more likely to be a sign of utter lack of scruple and of ruthlessness than it is of the reverse.
Whenever, then, I see a demonstration, even in a cause to which I might otherwise be sympathetic, in which demonstrators have children on their shoulders, I am appalled. My objection is not just at the emotional kitschiness of it, but at the lack of serious moral reflection by those who do it.
…
Be this as it may, by no means every Turk fell for the transferred innocence from child to cause. Many understood that the whole episode was a put-up job for internal political purposes, among other things to bind the ardently secularist Turkish military to the non-secularist government. Little Kaan Turker Cetin was but a pawn in this game.
Not an analogy I'm keen on - unless Cameron is planning to allow residents of UK prisons to fire rockets over the prison walls, and Taliban clones to take over the governorships.
David Cameron: Israeli blockade has turned Gaza Strip into a 'prison camp'
Guardian
Tuesday 27 July 2010
Cock.
------
Ed Miliband's Gaza Views May Infuriate Israel
Sky News
September 28, 2010
...
On the Middle East his criticism of Israel went far further than Tony Blair or Gordon Brown have ever gone.
"As Israel ends the moratorium on settlement building, I will always defend the right of Israel to exist in peace and security. But Israel must accept and recognize in its actions the Palestinian right to statehood. "That is why the attack on the Gaza Flotilla was so wrong. And that is why the Gaza blockade must be lifted and we must strain every sinew to work to make that happen," he said.
That passage will infuriate the Israelis as there is no mention of the violent actions of those aboard one of the vessels making up the flotilla, nor is there an acknowledgment that the blockade has been considerably lifted in the past three months.
His words leave the impression he has little truck with the Israeli argument that the, now partial, blockade, is in any way justified. He has left out the usual western politicians condemnation of the rocket fire into Israel. The Israelis will be asking if that was deliberate.
Turkel C'tee: Marmara raid was in accordance with int'l law
JPost
23/1/11
The four Israeli members and two international observers who composed the Turkel Commission to investigate the flotilla incident on May 31 unanimously agreed that Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip and its overland import restrictions, as well as its military actions in capturing the Mavi Marmara were in accordance with international law.
...
The first report addressed the the question of whether or not the naval blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip by Israel conformed with the rules of international law. This included an assessment of the actions taken by the IDF to enforce the naval blockade and of the actions taken by the organizers of the flotilla and its participants and their identity.
Regarding the legality of the operation itself, the commission reached the conclusion that the Israeli armed forces' interception and capture of the Gaza Flotilla vessels – including having the Shayetet 13 naval commandos board from the Morena speedboats and fast-rope from helicopter onto the roof of the vessels – was consistent with established international naval practice.
...
"The force used against civilians on board the flotilla was governed by the principles of "necessity" and use of "proportionate force" associated with human rights based law enforcement norms. However, the IHH activists lost the protection of their civilian status for such time as they directly participated in the hostilities. The use of force against these direct participants in hostilities is governed by the applicable rules of international humanitarian law," the report said.
...
The commission found that the conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip is an international armed conflict. It also found that Israel's "effective control" of the Gaza Strip ended when the disengagement was completed. The purpose of the naval blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip was primarily a military-security one. The commission also found that the naval blockade was imposed on the Gaza Strip lawfully, with Israel complying with the conditions for imposing it.
As part of the conclusions it was also found that Israel is complying with the humanitarian obligations imposed on the blockading party, including the prohibition of starving the civilian population or preventing the supply of objects essential for the survival of the civilian population and medical supplies. Israel also makes sure that the the damage to the civilian population is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.
"The imposition and enforcement of the naval blockade on the Gaza Strip does not constitute "collective punishment" of the population of the Gaza Strip," the report went on to say.
"International law does not give individuals or groups the freedom to ignore the imposition of a naval blockade that satisfies the conditions for imposing it and that is enforced accordingly, especially where a blockade satisfies obligations to neutral parties, merely because in the opinion of those individuals or groups it violates the duties of the party imposing the blockade vis-à-vis the entity subject to the blockade," continued the commissions conclusions.
The Turkel Commission is an inquiry set up by Israeli Government to investigate the Gaza flotilla raid, and the Blockade of Gaza.
It is led by Israeli retired Supreme Court Judge Jacob Turkel. The other initial members of the commission were former President of the Technion and military expert, Amos Horev, and professor of international law, Shabtai Rosenne, who died in September 2010.
The probe will be overseen by two International observers: Northern Irish former First Minister William David Trimble, and Canadian former military judge Ken Watkin.
Flotilla Report: BBC Plumbs the Depths
Honest Reporting
24/01/11
The Turkel Commission of inquiry into the events surrounding the May 31, 2010 Gaza flotilla has published its findings. Some of the main points include:
* The maritime blockade of Gaza complies with international law.
* Israel’s policies towards the Gaza Strip comply with international and humanitarian law.
* The takeover of the Mavi Marmara was carried out in compliance with international law.
* Israeli soldiers only took action in self-defense after being violently attacked by the ship’s passengers and their actions complied with international law.
The BBC’s coverage of the Turkel Report, however, graphically illustrates all that is wrong with its reporting of Israel.
Rather than address the actual findings of the report, which vindicated Israeli actions, the BBC immediately begins by attempting to discredit the report by focusing on Turkish criticisms.
The screenshot is indicative of the BBC’s anti-Israel bias:
* The headline, which sets the tone for the story, is about Turkish criticism and not the findings of the report itself.
* This focus continues in the opening paragraphs of the story, which also highlights a negative quote against Israel from the UN.
* The choice of photo and the accompanying caption – the photo fails to demonstrate any direct link to the story contents while the caption highlights that “one activist was shot four times in the head”.
* The article continues by extensively quoting Turkish PM Erdogan who states: “To my judgment there is no value, nor credibility to this report.”
* As if to drive the point home, the BBC article continues with a well-placed and visible sub-heading ‘Banditry and piracy’
The BBC is notorious not only for what it includes in its reports, but also for the vital context that it omits.
Referring to the makeup of the inquiry commission, the article simply states: The panel of inquiry was headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Jacob Turkel, working alongside five Israeli members and two international observers.
Were the BBC interested in providing relevant context, it would have included the information that those two international observers were:
* Lord David Trimble, the (joint) Nobel Peace Prize laureate of 1998 and a member of Britain’s House of Lords. …
* Brigadier-General (Ret.) Ken Watkin who served for 33 years in the Canadian army. His last position was Judge Advocate General; …
… Indeed, Trimble and Watkin publicly stated: “We have no doubt that the Commission is independent.” But since when did this stop the BBC from sowing the seeds of doubt?
Instead, readers are treated to an accompanying box of “Analysis:
The problem Israel is going to face is that many of its critics will see it as a whitewash. This was an Israeli government-commissioned inquiry and people will say it simply wasn’t balanced… The findings of this report were in stark contrast to the views of 600 pro-Palestinian activists aboard those ships.
Donnison and the article fail to mention that the “600 pro-Palestinian activists” included a number of well-organized and violent members of the Turkish Islamist IHH organization who were fully prepared to assault Israeli soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara. Despite the fact that the Israeli commission of inquiry was headed by a supreme court judge and included legal experts and independent observers, Donnison still presents the “views of 600 pro-Palestinian activists” as somehow the equal of the Turkel Report.
…. Not to mention that a number of these so-called “activists” were members of the Turkish Islamist IHH organization who came fully prepared to assault IDF soldiers – another piece of context omitted from the BBC report.
Jonathan Freedland: Palestine papers: Now we know. Israel had a peace partner
The classified documents show Palestinians willing to go to extreme lengths and Israel holding a firm line on any peace deal
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/23/palestine-papers-israel-peace-partner?INTCMP=SRCH
"the documents blow apart what has been a staple of Israeli public diplomacy: the claim that there is no Palestinian partner. That theme, a refrain of Israeli spokesmen on and off for years, is undone by transcripts which show that there is not only a Palestinian partner but one more accommodating than will surely ever appear again."
Now I don't know how this will turn out, but that anything touched by the UN at any stage offers anything other than a complete condemnation of everything that Israel does, says, or thinks, is astonishing.
-----
Rift Appears Over Gaza Flotilla Report
And more from the Turkish Press
AK Group
May 16, 2011
The U.N. panel investigating Israel's deadly raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla faces a major stalemate, with Turkey threatening to drop out over wording in a draft report that it sees as favoring the Israeli view.
Ankara's strong reaction to the draft wording, which falls short of saying Israel violated international law in the raid last year, has delayed the announcement of the panel's findings.
...
The panel is led by Geoffrey Palmer, the former prime minister of New Zealand and an expert in international maritime law.
...
The first draft of the panel's report, which was handed to both sides prior to making it public, infuriated Turkey, which threatened to disassociate itself from the report unless radical changes were made.
The panel seems to be operating from the premise that Israel's maritime blockade on Gaza does not breach international law, the Daily News has learned from diplomatic sources.
This premise weakens Turkey's argument that Israel violated international law by attacking the flotilla in international waters. There is ongoing debate in the international arena on whether Israel's blockade is lawful and the issue remains one of the most controversial dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
...
What They Don't Want You To Know About The Turkish Flotilla
Hudson NY
by Adam Daifallah
June 8, 2011
Brace yourselves: the Gaza flotilla is back for a repeat performance this summer. Political activists, led by Turkey's Islamist IHH, are in the midst of preparing "Freedom Flotilla 2," a convoy of ships intent on breaking through Israel's naval blockade of Gaza. The flotilla will be led by the same ship as last year – the Mavi Marmara – and will reportedly be joined by others, including one backed by a taxpayer-funded Canadian coalition.
There are five easy, safe and legal crossing-points in Israel through which to reach Gaza: the northern Erez crossing, the eastern Karni crossing (specifically designed for cargo), the southern Sufa crossing, the Kerem Shalom crossing and Rafah. If the flotilla's real intention were to deliver aid to Palestinians, it could be done wth no problem by passing through any of these points.
Items truly for humanitarian aid get through to citizens already. It is only those deemed as "dual-use" -- things like steel pipes, fertilizer and cement -- that are blocked. Some of the items on last year's flotilla included ballistic vests, gas masks, night-vision goggles and clubs. You can expect more of the same this time.
The timing is also questionable. The Middle East today looks a lot different than it did a year ago. Gaza is now as lavish as any place in the Middle East. There are appalling refugee camps in Gaza, but since for several years, it has been under the full control of its own government, Hamas, presumably these humanitarian crises should be laid wholly at the door of the Arabs. Why, therefore, are they not being held accountable? Further, these camos are perpetuated and presided over by the UN, why is the UN not being held accountable?
Egypt, which had re-opened its borders for a few days, making the transport of supplies to Palestinians easier, has now closed them again: Why is Egypt not being held accountable?
We may be headed for the same messy ending as last year – a violent one – which is exactly what these professional provocateurs want, and which would end up embarrassing Israel in the international media.
contd...
Turkey expels Israeli ambassador over Gaza flotilla row
BBC
02 Sep 2011
Turkey is to expel the Israeli ambassador after details emerged of a UN report into last year's deadly raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla. Officials in Ankara said it was also suspending all remaining military agreements with Israel. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said some of the report's findings, leaked to the New York Times, were unacceptable.
Turkey wants Israel to apologise for the raid but it has refused to do so.
Nine Turkish pro-Palestinian activists were killed when Israeli forces stormed the flotilla in May 2010.
The BBC's Jonathan Head, in Istanbul, says relations between Turkey and Israel have been frozen since last year's flotilla incident, but now they are being downgraded to the lowest possible level. A leaked copy of the United Nations report says Israeli forces did use excessive force when they intercepted the Turkish-led flotilla trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza. But the leaked report concludes that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is legal.
Turkey announced the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador hours before the report was expected to be published.
In the copy leaked to the New York Times, the report says: "Turkey and Israel should resume full diplomatic relations, repairing their relationship in the interests of stability in the Middle East and international peace and security".
Post a Comment