He notes that armed stop and seize operations in international waters have always been legal, they are routine operations in US anti-drug operations, for example, and Israel had declared a blockade, and a blockade area:
Under international law, the consensus of the maritime attorney's I have spoken to is that the boarding operation by Israel was legal. The coast of Gaza has been under maritime blockade by Israel, a blockade that was well known - indeed running the maritime blockade for political purposes was the specific intent of the protesters. It is why the press had been reporting all week that the situation was likely leading towards a confrontation. Is anyone surprised that Israel had an established maritime blockade and enforced that maritime blockade? I'm certainly not, Israel made clear all week that the flotilla would not be allowed to pass.(emphasis mine)
The maritime blockade is a result of the war between Israel and Hamas. Ones political position on that ongoing war is completely irrelevant to the reality that the maritime blockade was established. Knowledge of the maritime blockade by the protesters is also not in debate, and neither is knowledge the flotilla intended to violate the blockade - they made this clear themselves in the press. Once the flotilla made it clear in the press they intended to run the maritime blockade, according to international law, and even US law, the flotilla was considered to be in breach by attempting to violate the blockade.
………
The truly scary part is that under international laws governing maritime blockades, Israel could have outright sank the ship instead of board it as an alternative enforcement of the maritime blockade, and Israel still been within their rights under international law. Such an action could have led to war with Turkey, but even if the ship would have been sunk, Turkey would still be on the wrong end of international law in this situation. Turkey will likely find plenty of populist political support in NATO countries over these events, but if they attempt to escalate they may find that support is fleeting among their NATO allies.
It is that last paragraph that makes it clear just how f%$#ed up everything is.
You can argue over whether the blockade is an illegal mass punishment of the population (illegal), or an attempt to deny war materiel to Hamas (legal), but the execution of a stop/search/seize order in a declared blockade zone even if that zone includes international waters, is clearly legal.
6 comments :
This is vile nonsense. I will not delve into various absurd details of the argument (e.g., the impossibility of having a war with a non-entity such as the Gaza strip or Hamas, the fact that if we accept this argument, any country powerful enough could "legally" attack any vessel traveling to an enemy country, or that this doctrine is in obvious contradiction to principles about the illegality of aggressive war and protection of civilian targets).
All those details are beside the point. The important point is that all this quibbling about the fine points of international law are the usual apologetics for activities that any person sees as crimes, and that would be treated as crimes by any official and any mainstream media outlet in this country if the perpetrator was not an ally.
Do you think all those "maritime attorneys" would be coming out of the woodwork if the perpetrator was Iran? In that case, would they or you be calling this act "stupid" as if the main problem here is the bad PR rather than the terrorism resulting in the killing and wounding of dozens?
Sorry: this is not a rational discussion, it is pure hypocrisy.
Actually, the details are the point.
The Israelis explicitly stated that they would intercept, and seize the ships if they attempted to do so.
Hamas is the government, albeit not a particularly legitimate one, of Gaza at the moment.
The goals of the "Free Gaza Movement," were explicitly to provoke an incident and break the blockade.
Their statements before the fact are clear on this.
This is, by definition, provocative.
Note here that "provocative", does not necessarily equal wrong, see the Pettus Bridge.
But the consequences were forseeable on both sides, and the "Free Gaza Movement," accomplished its goals, which were to damage Israel and to create pressure to stop the blockade, and the Israeli government failed to consider the potential consequences or their interests, which is a major fuckup, which is why I quoted Joseph Fouché, "It is worse than a crime: it is a mistake."
Again, this kind of apologetics is empty sophistry. You seem to rely on some legal opinions as if they reflect an unbiased expert opinion. This is not the case - legal opinions are political opinions, not objective facts. Bush and Obama, for example, have no difficulty finding legal experts who provide support for any "right" they assert.
Saying that a declaration of a blockade grants the declarer a legal right to attack civilians engaged in "provocative activities" in arbitrary areas in the world is asserting that one crime grants you the legal right to carry out other crimes. This is absurd and contradicts any reasonable interpretation of legality.
A reasonable Israeli response (given its illegal blockade) would have diverted the ships from their course to Gaza once they have entered Israeli waters, without creating a violent incident. Surely, with its great power and sophistication, such a response is not beyond Israel's ability.
Well, first, how would the Israelis divert these ships without a boarding party?
The only other ways that come to mind are naval gunfire or ramming, which would have ratcheted up the casualties significantly.
Second, the location of the ship is irrelevant.
There is no legal requirement for a blockade to cover only the territorial waters of the target.
A blockade must be:
* Declared.
* Cover a specific target.
* Enforced.
We both disagree with the actions taken (Netanyahu is a bigger threat to the safety and securuity of Israel than Nasser ever was), our difference is over a narrow bit of law: Specifically how far out to sea can a blockade be enforced.
The important question here is what is the best way for Israel to ensure that aid makes its way to the people of Gaza without it being hijacked in some way by Hamas without killing people.
Unfortunately, Bibi, much like George W., thinks that other people dying makes him tough.
> Well, first, how would the Israelis divert these ships without a boarding party?
Poor Israel - it can develop nuclear weapons, it can assassinate it enemies all over the globe, it can identify and bomb targets hundreds or thousands of kilometers away - but it cannot stop a few merchant ships from reaching its shore without spilling blood.
How about, say, disabling the ship's propeller? Or maybe just blocking the activists on the shore?
Maybe someone at the IDF should be brushing up on their history - somehow the British managed to stop the Jewish immigrants on the Exodus with less bloodshed 63 years ago. (Funny, BTW, how the Wikipedia entry says, matter of factly, "the ship was in international waters where the Royal Navy had no jurisdiction" - no quibbles about blockades and legality here.)
> our difference is over a narrow bit of law: Specifically how far out to sea can a blockade be enforced.
Far from it - the difference is between seeing the incident as a PR disaster and seeing it as an act of terror.
> The important question here is what is the best way for Israel to ensure that aid makes its way to the people of Gaza without it being hijacked in some way by Hamas without killing people.
Have you got this thing backwards! Israel (backed by the US) is the one who is "putting the Palestinians on a diet", while the Hamas are the ones who are trying to break Israel's stranglehold.
Update to this discussion: the UN report finds that the blockade is illegal, the attack on the flotilla was illegal, the Israelis used live ammunition before ever setting foot on the boat, and that the Israelis deliberately murdered at least six of the people killed on the boat.
Post a Comment