RSS

June 2, 2010

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (522)

Israel's use of deadly force appears to have been an overreaction.

However, what is striking to me is the fact that no one can deny that the Israeli commandos were attacked first. Interestingly, it was only on the one boat (out of I think 5 or 6) that actually violently resisted, which clearly raises the question as to whether there was an intent to create the circumstances from which such an "international incident" could emerge.

In other words, Israel may have taken the bait and acted contrary to their interets, but it does not appear that the other side was exactly innocent in this situation and may well have instigated this entire situation in order to achieve a propaganda victory.

Clearly, if the Israeli blockade of Gaza is broken, there is an excellent opportunity for arms to be smuggled to Hamas under the purported guise of "humanitarian" missions. This is a legitimate fear that Israel lives with on a consistent basis. Simply allowing these flotillas through will open the door to a serious security dilema for Israel.

Another interesting point concerns the hyperventilating international condemnation of Israel. There is little condemnation of other extreme acts (like rocket attacks of Israeli cities) and what little gets mustered after those events doesn't rise to even one quarter of the outrage sparked by raid. Does this seem fair?

Again, it can certainly be argued that Israel went too far and deserves some level of opprobrium, but the scope of international outrage sparked by this incident far exceeds what is warranted when the entire context is examined and simplistic emotionalism trumped by more sober reflection.

June 2, 2010

Lior Petek, University of St. Gallen, Platinum Contributor (216)

This article is just unbelievable and ridiculous brainwashing by stating as a fact what is an unsupported opinion, by selectively omitting facts that contradict one’s opinion and by even outright lying.

Mr. Kutlay claims that the Israeli raid violated international law without elaborating in any substantial way on which laws exactly were violated nor on how he came up with the assessment that they were violated. Worse, he even tells us “experts” claim so (I say worse, because I would expect an analyst with such a strong opinion to have the intellectual competence to check for himself instead of blindly relying on “experts”, whatever he means by that term).

I suggest he means by “experts” journalists and government officials in Europe. Therefore, I assume that when he talks about a “clear breach of the human rights and international law” he refers to the fact that the Turkish ship was in international waters when it was boarded by Israeli soldiers. Well, I do not know on what Mr. Kutlay and his “experts” base their judgment of violation of international law, but I for one will base my opposite judgment on – wait for it – international law! The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea of 12 June 1994 (for Mr. Kutlay and his “experts”, the treaty can be easily found on the website of the International Red Cross Committee, that is, if they really care about international humanitarian law). Article 96 says: “The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements”. So Israel has the right to impose its blockade even in international waters. It does not need to be stationed in the immediate range of enemy territory (i.e., the Gaza Strip) to allow itself to be attacked by Hamas. Also, article 98 states: “Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels, which after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.” Since the vessels made clear their intention to continue their course to the Gaza Strip after prior warning by the Israeli navy, Israel had the right to sink the ship. But it did not! Why? Because it would not have been proportional!

The Israeli navy reasoned that boarding the ship would lead to less loss of life than simply sinking it. Since Mr. Kutlay and his “experts” have a twisted understanding of the principle of proportionality, I shall elaborate on it, too (as Mr. Kutlay and his “experts” are apparently unwilling or lazy when it comes to looking up international law, I will stay within the San Remo Manual to put forth the definition of proportionality). Article 4 states: “The principles of necessity and proportionality apply equally to armed conflict at sea and require that the conduct of hostilities by a State should not exceed the degree and kind of force, not otherwise prohibited by the law of armed conflict, required to repel an armed attack against it and to restore its security [emphasis added].” The key word is “required”. The fact that nine activists died does not tell us anything about whether their killing was required. So the question then becomes: Could the ship only be captured by using life fire? Well, all except for one (the Marmara) could be boarded and steered relatively peacefully to the port of Ashdod. This shows you that the violence aboard the Marmara ship originated with the “peace” activists. Therefore, the answer to the question of whether the Israeli use of force was proportional is threefold. For all but one ship it was clearly proportional: Prior warnings failed, making the boarding of the ships necessary, while no loss of life occurred. The Israeli use of force aboard the Marmara was proportional given prior intelligence and experience on the relative peacefulness of the activists: Israeli soldiers coming down the ropes from helicopters were greeted one by one with hooligans (to use the mildest term for those “peace” activists aboard that particular ship) using bats, metal pipes, knives, and apparently also live fire (the videos available show how those activists could not be controlled without using live ammunition); of course, had the Israeli navy known that it were to deal with violent lunatics instead of peace activists, they would have brought in more soldiers to capture the ship, thus reducing the risk to Israeli soldiers and the need to use live fire. I for one forgive the Israeli navy for (naïvely?) assuming that the people aboard that ship were peace activists instead of blood-thirsty hooligans. By the way, it is telling that Mr. Kutlay says that “The professional Israeli armed forces attacked civilians, who had no guns, no rockets, not even knives.” While the Israeli claim of activists using guns (and even rifles) against the soldiers cannot be independently confirmed, the fact that those “peace” activists used knives is obvious to anybody who is willing to see the pictures and videos available (by the Israeli navy, the activists, and the media).

People interested in international law and not in being brainwashed by Mr. Kutlay and his “experts” might then further ask: But what about the humanitarian assistance? The San Remo Manual provides the answer in Article 103: “If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to: (a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and (b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.” As mentioned above, Israel has established “technical arrangements” whereby all humanitarian assistance can be unloaded in Ashdod, where it will be inspected and then supplied to the Gaza Strip via land transport. The UN uses this mechanism all the time.

In conclusion, I therefore disagree when it comes to the policy recommendation for the EU. I think the EU should follow Obama’s policy. He rightly states that only an Israel that feels secure and that its right to self-defense is granted will be willing to take risks for peace. Against the background of the experience after ending the occupation of Southern Lebanon in exchange for peace (with the result of an even stronger Hezbollah, which poses now a bigger threat than ever to Israel) and the ending of the occupation of the Gaza Strip in exchange for peace (with the result of an even stronger Hamas, which poses now a bigger threat than ever to Israel) Israel has become deeply skeptical about the extent on which it can count on the commitment of the international community and the EU in particular to Israel’s interests. Unsubstantiated condemnations and actions will only push Israel into more unilateralism and further encourage the extremist forces in the Middle East. I hope for all the moderates in the Middle East that the EU recognizes this.

June 2, 2010

Olga Kolesnichenko, freelance journalist, Gold Contributor (124)

I very deep regret of casualties during this incident. I think we all very clear were the witness of absolutely broken Trust and patience between Palestinians and Israelites, or between in that local case Muslim world and European world. We saw zero level of trust and over 100 per cent of distrust, misunderstanding and suspicions. So it is the Great Failure of all previous negotiation processes. All actors of the Quartet on the Middle East - UN, EU, USA and Russia can congratulate theireself with this 'result'.
But even in condition with lack of trust or whole absence of trust the marriage must be. Each part of conflict - the simple Palestinian and Israelite citizens can't afford to living separate. They have common territory - even land of the Covenant - and both live side by side. So we all pray that this hysterical distrust and paranoia's suspicions from both side won't grow to big fire with more and more deaths. International Community should provide Public Diplomacy 'trust approach' to grow trust without fire.

June 2, 2010

David Foster, Henry Jackson Society, Silver Contributor (39)

First we were told that the Islamists were unarmed. It turned out that they had white weapons.

Then we were told that the Islamists were attacked during their sleep. It turned out that they assaulted the Israeli troops.

Then we were told that there were 14, 15 and 19 dead. Now it turned out to be 9.

We were told that the Islamists were only concerned that they were in a humanitarian mission, and yet they were chanting Intifada calls to kill Jews and vowing to reach Gaza or achieve martyrdom.

June 3, 2010

Member deleted

Dear TAC Fellows,

There is the law on the one hand and on the other there is a political-emotional statement. However there is a field between the right thought and the wrong one and we will meet in-between.

@Greg
"Again, it can certainly be argued that Israel went too far and deserves some level of opprobrium, but the scope of international outrage sparked by this incident far exceeds what is warranted when the entire context is examined and simplistic emotionalism trumped by more sober reflection."

Correct, lets wait and see... Do you US guys have a channel to a close look satellite video footage from the beginning to the end?

@Lior
You start with Article 96, however, the definition of war and legal military action that stand prior in - and to - the book you refer to, has been nullified already. The blockade is illegal and its "legitimation" a political/military assessment. Same to the wall in the West Bank, isn't it?

@David: Wait for statistics on religious affiliation. However as your US-leaning a discrimination on religious levels, such 'the Islamists', appears to be biased to me. Lets keep it enlightened...
I think the media is selling its footages and advertisement... the winners are Hamas and already well fed lobbyists from all sides... Hope they gonna burst ;-)

Nevertheless, you are right that political Islam is gaining momentum increasingly.

@Mustafa: "The EU should show her unequivocal resistance to the violation of international law by condemning Israel." I think this will happen based on numerous assumptions...

@Olga: Thank you one more time :-)

June 3, 2010

Jeremy Wysakowski-Walters, University of Łódź, Gold Contributor (84)

@Samir, you say that the blockade is illeagal and thus the treaty is nullified. How do you come to such an opinion? As we have no two state solution, the IDF are responsible for border security for the whole of Isreal (including the Gaza Strip) and thus have the right to stop and search and vessel wishing to enter its waters. This is normal procedure. Admittedly sinking it would have been outside their remit but their actions amounted to standard behaviour.

@Mustafa, your comparrison with the Gaza operation in 2009 is a little misleading, firstly you mention various heads of state of european countries and atribute to them the ability to speak for the EU. Only in Dec 2009 did this ability even exist as an entity in the form of he High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union (EU) and Catherine Ashton was appointed. Your very title is politically motivated rubbish. If the IDF had wished to attack the ship, then that ship would now be at the bottom of the Mediterranean.

@David, What's a white weapon?

The IDF's operation against the flottilla was the same as any other country would have done. When a collosal ship capable of carring many tonnes of weaponry sails towards a terrorist enclave* then any normal state power would wish to stop it and have a look inside.




* before you complain, yes I know that there are many innocents in Gaza, but this does not dispute the fact that the regime there is a self-confessed terror group: Hamas.

June 3, 2010

David Foster, Henry Jackson Society, Silver Contributor (39)

Just to inform:
Jeremy a white weapon is a non-fire arm weapon [knives, swords, machetes, clubs, sticks, etc.etc.]

Samir. I can agree that I have use black propaganda, but who does not. You even said about 'my US Leaning discrimination'. That too is black propaganda. I could take my information from sources in the US, UK, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Israel, Syria, Russia, or China. The way I interpret them is my own and they are leaning my way and not any other. Now this charity is a recognised to have Islamist orientation and affiliation. Should I have used the word 'activist' rather than 'Islamist', perhaps. Now Samir I have to say that you made a mistake or appear to be making a mistake that many are doing. Moslem and Islamist is not the same. Not all Moslems are Islamist and not all Islamists are Moslem [yep, very rare but there are strange cases]. So it is not fair to label Islamism as a religious affiliation but rather a political one, which is the problem that many face, especially Turkey.
I calculate that your concern was using the word 'activist' rather than 'Islamist'. But I have to say that rest was very misleading.

June 3, 2010

David Foster, Henry Jackson Society, Silver Contributor (39)

Just to inform:
Jeremy a white weapon is a non-fire arm weapon [knives, swords, machetes, clubs, sticks, etc.etc.]

Samir. I can agree that I have use black propaganda, but who does not. You even said about 'my US Leaning discrimination'. That too is black propaganda. I could take my information from sources in the US, UK, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Israel, Syria, Russia, or China. The way I interpret them is my own and they are leaning my way and not any other. Now this charity is a recognised to have Islamist orientation and affiliation. Should I have used the word 'activist' rather than 'Islamist', perhaps. Now Samir I have to say that you made a mistake or appear to be making a mistake that many are doing. Moslem and Islamist is not the same. Not all Moslems are Islamist and not all Islamists are Moslem [yep, very rare but there are strange cases]. So it is not fair to label Islamism as a religious affiliation but rather a political one, which is the problem that many face, especially Turkey.
I calculate that your concern was using the word 'activist' rather than 'Islamist'. But I have to say that rest was very misleading.

June 3, 2010

Member deleted

Hey David,

it is the imminent identity of the people of the United States of America do denounce any racial or religious discrimination. This is what I meant ;-)

I am also US leaning...

Actually everything is misleading... I still wait for facts by the way... definition on international waters aso.

Read this by the way:

https://www.xing.com/net/pria1e0c0x/libinter/middle-east-levant-by-...

June 3, 2010

Lior Petek, University of St. Gallen, Platinum Contributor (216)

Dear Samir,

I am not sure I understood you, but are you claiming that international law concerning naval warfare (as incarnated most recently and comprehensively by the San Remo Manual) is not applicable here and that therefore Israel’s naval blockade is illegal?

If so, why would international law concerning naval warfare not be applicably here? The introduction to the Manual clearly states that “The San Remo Manual was prepared during the period 1988-1994 by a group of legal and naval experts participating in their personal capacity in a series of Round Tables convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law. The purpose of the Manual is to provide a contemporary restatement of international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. […]. A contemporary manual was considered necessary because of developments in the law since 1913 which for the most part have not been incorporated into recent treaty law, the Second Geneva Convention of 1949 being essentially limited to the protection of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea. In particular, there has not been a development for the law of armed conflict at sea similar to that for the law of armed conflict on land with the conclusion of Protocol I of 1977 additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. […]. In conformity with its mandate to prepare developments in international humanitarian law, the International Committee of the Red Cross supported this project throughout.” Part IV of the Manual is titled “Methods and Means of Warfare at Sea”, Section II of it is titled “Methods of Warfare”, and the first topic of it is titled “Blockade”. So on what grounds exactly do you suggest would the most comprehensive and recent legal source on international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea, which explicitly deals with the topic of blockades, be nullified?

Second, assuming for whatever strange reason you had in mind that international law concerning naval warfare is not applicable to Israel’s naval blockade, well, then by definition it cannot be illegal as there would be no international laws to be violated. The contradiction in your logic indicates that you have a prejudiced opinion and are not sincerely interested in international law.

But if I misunderstood your argument, then please provide your legal sources for claiming that Israel’s naval blockade is illegal. Apparently, I am not the only one at AC that does not lend itself to being brainwashed as also Jeremy wants to know “How do you come to such an opinion?” Note also that he understood your argument differently than I did (“@Samir, you say that the blockade is illegal and thus the treaty is nullified.”), which may further indicate the weak logic of your argument.

June 3, 2010

Member deleted

Well Lior, the logic I use is easy:

There is no war but an occupation! However incoming goods to Gaza are restricted that much that civilians are lacking basic medical supplies and foodstuff but Hamas has everything money can buy throug the use of smuggeling tunnels. Israel has frequently been asked by the UN to change its restrictions and/or lift the blockade, hence to live up to its obligations under international law.

The convoy tried to reach those people, Israel stopped it/captured it, therefore it is an act of piracy.

And if you label me brainwashing and having a strange logic you have left the sphere of think tanks towards, in my opinion, this ugly media coverage that surfs on blood of innocent civilians. Therefore the discussion should be postponed until the heat has gone.

Personally I regret this very much as we created acceptable (but for me painful) results at AC once.

In summary the use of the word "white wheapons" is a shame. If somebody attacks my ship illegally I gonna defend myself using the next stick available. Thats what the people on board obviousely thought. Therefore I still wait for an independent analysis on "international waters"...

LET US GIVE THE LEAD TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL and Turkey for the foremost as its citicens have been shot... Islamists, activists or whatever, they were civilians.

By the way David: The informations you provided on casualties (15) in your first statement were reported by Israel's Cannel 10, therefore....

WE LACK TRANSPARENCY

So I think we should wait.

June 3, 2010

David Foster, Henry Jackson Society, Silver Contributor (39)

It is a shame!!! It is the term. Sticks, Knives, Clubs, Lances, they are all weapons wether used offensively or defensively.
It was not 'somebody', they were Israeli Forces. They are not anybody or somebody, they are Israel's military units, not a Tom, Dick or Harry that came along.

Ps., Therefore ... WHAT, therefore what. An Israeli channel reported 15 casualties, so did a Spanish newspaper, and a German one, and a Turkish one, and a French one. Therefore ... what. Not all Israeli newspaper were supportive of their troops and not all of them were critical of them.

I am afraid to say but Mr. Samir, you generalise continuously.

June 3, 2010

Lior Petek, University of St. Gallen, Platinum Contributor (216)

Dear Samir,

You claim that you are not engaged in brainwashing, yet you continue to state your opinions as legal facts without elaborating on your legal sources and that is the definition of brainwashing: Trying to divert people from seriously and independently thinking about an issue. So I urge you to prove all of your legal statements with legal sources (by the way, the UN is not a legal source, to the most part only international conventions/treaties and the resolutions of the UNSC are as anybody knows who is sincerely interested in the adherence to international law). Before you do that you lack in my view any intellectual credibility.

“There is no war only an occupation”. And, of course, since you are a self-proclaimed expert on international law and intellectually honesty, you stated the legal definitions and legal sources for your assessment. Oh wait, you didn’t! To spare you the headache of searching international law, especially since it might disprove your judgment, I was so kind and did that for you.

It is hard to argue that the Gaza Strip is under occupation since occupation in the Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Civilian Persons in Times of War (note: this actually blurs your distinction between war and occupation) is described in Article 6 as “[E]xercis[ing] the functions of government in such [meaning occupied] territory”. As the introduction to that Convention states that it does not invalidate the Hague Regulations of 1907 but supplements them, Article 42 of the The Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land also claims: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” I guess no guess no sane person can claim that Israel’s army is governing the Gaza Strip. Israel withdrew all its military forces in 2005, Hamas won the Parliamentary election in 2006, and Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in a coup against Fatah and the Palestinian Authority in 2007. In sum, Hamas is the government of the Gaza Strip and no Israeli blockade and control of airspace substantially changes anything about it (as there are no people to be governed in the air and on the sea).

Your statement that Israel and Hamas (ruling the Gaza Strip) are not in a state of war is also pure distortion of reality. You mean Hamas did revise its charter to not include any more the destruction of Israel as its goal and that Israel and Hamas have signed a peace agreement?! Come on! Article 1 of the San Remo Manual clearly states: “The parties to an armed conflict at sea are bound by the principles and rules of international humanitarian law from the moment armed force is used.” It is about armed conflict and the use of armed force. Do you seriously suggest that Hamas and Israel have not been using force against each other?! You mean in your eyes Hamas firing rockets on Israeli territory is considered a verbal attack?! Come on!

Also when you used the term “piracy” you were absolutely not brainwashing but justified your assessment that Israel’s raid was an act of piracy by citing the relevant legal source, right? Let me tell you how international law defines piracy. Article 101 (Definition of Piracy) of the United Nation Convention of the Law of Sea states: “[A]ny illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft”. Well, the Israeli raid did surely not serve “private” ends and was certainly not carried out from a “private” ship. And as mentioned above, it is anyway not an illegal act as it conforms to the San Remo Manual.

“And if you label me brainwashing and having a strange logic you have left the sphere of think tanks”

Yeah, right! It is me who has left the sphere of think tanks, me who goes to great lengths to support his judgment with legal sources and challenges anybody with a contrary judgment to support it and to stop acting like he is the only one on this planet (of course, together with all those who agree with his opinion) who is able to see the truth. How unscholarly and intellectually twisting on my part!

So if you want me to stop calling your comments brainwashing, then start taking a look at international law and quote legal sources before you claim to be a legal authority that absolutely and exclusively knows when wars, occupations, piracies, breaches of international law, etc. exist.

June 3, 2010

Hans Reuther-Fix

As a start, above explanations of or justifications for the Israeli botched action is an insult to any skipper, officer and merchant marine travelling the high seas.

In the NEW York Times of June 2, 2010 an articel opined " Siege Fatigue and the Flotilla Mistake" and concluded".. it is profoundly disturbing, when the ( Israel) fatigued and isolated country itself has the means to strike pre-emptively and punishingly at its enemies, including in ways from which, realistically, there be no return..."
The author also wrote the book " The Secret War with Iran".
Is that what we can expect next.

As to the flotilla.........

It must be considered another botched Jewish military undertaking that went wrong.
Very unfortunate that so many and mainly Turkish people lost their lives.
Jewish intelligence knew all about the flotilla, even that there no weapons on board.
" shadowing" the convoy were Israeli subs.
-- Just the idea alone to sink the Turkish ship with all the passengers on board would have meant the end for Israel-----
So why not settle for a Sisyphean attempt to accommodate world opinion.
The scene: The Tuskish Flag Carrier Mia M.-- time 4 am,-- two choppers hovering over the passenger ship for about 45 minutes,-- the choppers' special bright lights illuminating
the ship--, no weapons on board, rather many cameras ready to film and witness the event of Israeli Special forces " hijacking" a foreign ( Turkish)ship. which was disobeying Israeli orders, in waters 124 km off Gaza.
As there was only one " fall-line" hanging from the chopper down to the ship, the commandos surely couldn't have expected a welcoming party.
When the first commando was thrown overboard, one must assume that his comrads on board the other chopper to have opened fire to protect and save their comrad.

Back to the NYT report......

Israel's fatigue and deep sense of ostracism is certainly unhealthy.
But it is" not the right thing to do"--- to not belong to the International Criminal Court in De Hague,---to use foreign passports for covert assassinations,--to not let the IAEA inspect Israel nuclear reactors,---to not sign up to NPT,---
It is deeply troubling, when Israel is threatened with annihilation.
The Balfour Declaration brought Israel where it is now and it is now up to the people of Israel, not its c itizens who live in America, to not let Israel implode, because of misguided ideas, which could keep Israel terminally isolated.

The author of the NYT report writes further on information he received prior to military
operations, "..... whatever we do, they'll be against us, they'll all condem us at the UN, and we'll be scolded. We might as well at least preserve our national dignity and maintain the blockade of Gaza..."

Quite sad.

HRF

June 4, 2010

Member deleted

The Gaza Flotilla is a model example of successful PR action to gain political aims.Already now it is possible to size up the Islamist manoeuvre as tactical success. The question from the very beginning was not the humanitarian aid, if it were then the sponsors of the flotilla would have worked with Israel and Egypt to bring in the aid by land after a requested inspection of the goods.

The Foundation for Human Rights, Liberties and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) played a central role in organizing the flotilla to the Gaza Strip, is a Turkish humanitarian relief fund with a radical Islamic anti-Western orientation. Earlier the Turkish investigators concluded this "charity" was sending jihadists to Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan. Now it has strong sympathy among Turkey's ruling party. Their charity work is described as "a type of cover-up" to infiltrate mujahideen into combat, get forged documents and smuggle weapons.

The peace activists especially on Mavi Marmaro vessel – the ship where violence took place - were more militant activists singing Islamic battle cry invoking killing of Jews. Video “Kill the Jews” about Gaza flotilla can be found here http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=676&fld_id=676&doc_id=2337
(Palestinian media watch/Al-Jazeera, 29.5.2010)

What EU can do? First EU could consider is the two-state solution an option any more, is it worth still waste time with this dead road map. Then EU among others and especially with local stakeholders could facilitate developing some new alternatives such as three-state option or similar. What EU should not do is to continue its hypocrisy based on manipulated media by political PR campaigns such as Gaza flotilla.

More in my article “Gaza Flotilla – a successful manoeuvre with win-win changes” in http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/gaza-flotilla-%e2%80%93-a...

June 4, 2010

Darrell Calvin Brown, City College of San Francisco/SFSU, Gold Contributor (130)

If these matters are those of International Law infringements, shouldn't it be the ICC and/or the ICJ who are to be petitioned concerning the matter ?

June 4, 2010

Member deleted

Published 13:35 04.06.10
Latest update 13:35 04.06.10
Israel’s commando complex


Recently an intelligence official actually called the absence of Palestinian terror a 'propaganda problem.'

By Doron Rosenblum
Tags: Gaza flotilla Gaza Hamas IDF

It’s impossible to understand or explain Israel’s passive-aggressive responses to the “flotilla crisis” without reference to the ground from which its current leaders emerged. Both the prime minister and the defense minister are dyed-in-the-wool “creatures of military operations.” Both were steeped in the instant-heroism mentality and the commando spirit − the ethos in which a military force shows up at the height of a crisis like a deus ex machina and in a single stroke slices through the Gordian knot.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s public image grew out of the 1972 rescue of a hijacked Sabena passenger plane, during which he was seen standing on the wing of the aircraft waving his pistol. And one cannot imagine the political career of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu without Operation Entebbe and the myth-cloaked death of his brother Yoni − a mission so glorious and electrifying that its inspiring charge alone could turn his brother into a star, both as “Mr. Terror” and as a veteran of Sayeret Matkal, the Israel Defense Forces general staff’s elite special-operations force.

Those 1970s rescue operations were seen as the continuation of the largest and most miraculous one of all, the Six-Day War. Although decades have passed since the moral “high” was injected into our veins our leaders have never stopped trying to reconstruct it in order to atone for their ineffectiveness as statesmen. And the greater the number of successive failed missions, the greater the longing for the next redemptive mission that would “heal” the trauma and the bad trip of its predecessor. The next “jackpot” always appeared to be around the corner: if not in Lebanon, then in Gaza; if not in Gaza, then in Iran.

Netanyahu and Barak came into power for the second time, despite each man’s record of failure, on the wings of two contradictory, or complementary, hopes: First, that in combination they would deliver the goods and create the redemptive “operation to end all operations,” the smartest one of all. Second, that they of all people − and not civilian leaders such as Ehud Olmert, Shimon Peres or Amir Peretz, who felt a need to overreact militarily − could gain the maturity necessary for an act of diplomatic courage. But so far they haven’t fulfilled either hope. They have demonstrated both a total absence of courage and inspiration in the diplomatic sphere and an absence of creativity in the use of force. So what’s left?

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.

June 6, 2010

Wojciech Z. Kornacki, Oxford University, Bronze Contributor (18)

By its actions, Israeli Navy provided more aid to Gaza than the entire humanitarian assistance flotilla could ever hope for. Current international reaction, including the U.N. Security Council calling for an investigation of the boarding of ships bringing humanitarian assistance to Gaza, indicates a strong opposition to Israeli tactics. Some international law experts point out that Israel is in a bind. If it blockades another country- than it recognizes that Gaza is independent. If it blockades a part of its own country, than it violates its domestic obligations under ICCPR to its own population.
Domestically, Israeli officials state that they did not expect such a reaction. The forced boarding of the humanitarian ships in international waters resulting in numerous deaths seems excessive and disproportionate, but may still be legal. The deaths, along with no showing of weapons smuggling into Gaza, show that the delivery of humanitarian assistance by sea to Gaza was an act of civil disobedience, rather than a terrorist act. The Israeli Navy unwittingly assisted the humanitarian assistance mission organizers by creating a political victory for the organizers of the flotilla who wanted to bring the attention to the situation in Gaza.

The tide may be shifting. Rocket attacks, and other terrorist actions originating in Gaza undermine Gaza and allow Israel to legitimately claim self-defense. The international community condemns such actions. However, this case is different. It appears that unarmed ships bring humanitarian assistance were attacked. Unintentionally, by forcefully boarding the ship, Israel allowed a simple act of civil disobedience to rally the international opinion against Israel. This is something that no terrorist attack could ever achieve. Just as much the international community condemns terrorist acts, the international community supports unimpeded access to humanitarian assistance for those in need.

The question is if Israel will be able to prevent future humanitarian assistance flotillas from achieving the same amount of attention. The organizers promise to send more ships to Gaza. They also indicate that there are more and more organizations willing to join the flotilla. This is definitely something Israeli Navy did not consider when it boarded the ships. In opposing the humanitarian assistance flotillas, by force, Israel has more to lose than gain. This one humanitarian assistance flotilla has temporarily rallied the world opinion against Israel. It may be in Israeli interest to allow humanitarian assistance in, because opposing it means more world attention for Gaza.

June 13, 2010

David

Samir,

You are obviously biased and highly subjective in your assessment.

The only ship that had casualties was the one that offered armed resistance.

You do not find it strange that NONE of the other ships felt threatened and offered armed resistance. It is no coincidence that the only ship that offered armed resistance was the one flying the Turkish flag and carrying Turkish terrorists (IHH) who were there and prepared to fight, and NOT to deliver humanitarian goods. All other ships were taken peacefully and without incident and PROVES the peaceful intent of Israel to enforce its blockade. If Israel had intended harm to anyone, there would be more casualties and on all boats. Therefore, the mission of that lead ship was OBVIOUSLY to provoke an international incident. PERIOD.

The entire question, debate, and argument is currently clear regarding the legality of the blockade. Of course, Israel has its position, and the GAZA sympathizers have theirs. For this reason, it is a legitimate question, debate and argument. This question, debate and argument will not be resolved simply by who says it the most often and with the most emotion.

And certainly, this question, debate, and argument cannot be unilaterally decided by any group of sympathizers who simply decide to run an active blockade before the legality is determined if PROPERLY and INTELLIGENTLY challenged in the correct forum. Especially, they are fools for doing so when it is a universally known FACT that Israel has established a blockade based upon their interpretation of LOAC and international law AND complied with the required provisions of the LOAC (even if the interpretation of application is incorrect) to include notification of anyone heading to the blockaded area.

The FACT is that it is Israel who feels threatened enough to make such a blockade necessary. The FACT is that no other country or group of humanitarians can unilaterally move to invalidate Israel's security concerns and interpretation of International Law, especially when they are not even one of the belligerent parties.

As Israel is being continuously attacked from GAZA, Israel clearly has the right to inspect ships and cargo bound for GAZA to prevent the delivery of weapons and munitions. Anyone who argues differently is clearly delusional and there can be not rational debate with such an irrational person. All ships wishing to provide humanitarian aid to GAZA had 2 ports of choice: 1 in Israel and 1 in Egypt. There was not the choice to decide that neither was acceptable and to simply go to GAZA directly in order to by-pass valid security checks. This is what the flotilla attempted to do with the full knowledge of what the Israeli repsonse would be.

For those that say that there is not an armed conflict in the region, I would ask what do you call it when there are 2 or more belligerent parties in an area aiming and shooting weapons at each other???

The reality is that International Law and the LOAC was written before there was a need to consider such situations as exists in the region. It was written for clearly demarcated countries and regions and for where soldiers where uniforms of a readily identifiable Military. So, this adds another dilemma of applying Law that was not established for such scenarios.

June 15, 2010

Joe

These tortured rationalizations of what's law, and these transparently lame regrets over casualties are laughable. These theatrics play themselves out year after year after year. Do those so adamant to mourn and lionize those casualties do the same for the Palestinians that Hamas' political murders take out? DO they even ask themselves WHY they're being flunkies in an Iranian campaign to open up a weapons conduit into Gaza, which is effectively a client state?

How is their coercion so much more benign that anyone else's?

It's no different than anything else I've seen played out in one way or another for the last 30 years - childish moralism employing gullible Europeans looking for as simple fairy tale of good and bad to fill the empty holes of their lives with. It just keeps the region - the one I emigrated from - violent.

June 15, 2010

Joe

"Peace activists" indeed:

In response to a radio transmission by the Israeli Navy warning the Gaza flotilla that they are approaching a naval blockade, passengers of the Mavi Marmara respond, "Shut up, go back to Auschwitz" and "We're helping Arabs go against the US, don't forget 9/11".