Pirate state of Israel

[darmanad]

A word on the legal position, which is very plain. To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare.

Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean however that international law is the only applicable law. The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place
on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody's territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory.

There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.

Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.

Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.

In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.

Craig Murray is a former British Ambassador. He is also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/05/the_legal_posit.html

There is a 3rd clear legal possibility. The actions were not illegal.
See the Helsinki Principles quoted above. A naval blockade is defined in Article 7.71 of the U.S. Naval Handbook as “a belligerent operation to prevent vessels and/or aircraft of all nations, enemy as well as neutral, from entering or exiting specified ports, airfields, or coastal areas belonging to, occupied by, or under the control of an enemy nation.” It is designed to stop ships from crossing a cordon separating the enemy’s coast from the high seas. It is therefore''' often enforced in what would otherwise be international waters approaching, but not necessarily inside, the territorial sea of the blockaded party'''.
So even if this event technically took place in international waters, it was a legal action, consistent with international maritime rules of war. You want to argue the legality of the blockade? Not sure BBwolf would allow that.

 

[bigbadwolf]

More to follow.

I just lost a lengthy reply. First of all, difficult to respond to your "points" as they are embedded in my post and don't get reproduced when I quote.

Who and what you are is immaterial on an online forum like this; only the quality of your arguments matter.

Turkey has had close relations with Israel. They're a major buyer of Israeli arms. And Turkey has even allowed the Israeli air force to use its air space for training purposes. Earlier this year the Turkish PM twisted Netanyahu's arm to force Ayalon to make a public apology for humiliating the Turkish ambassador. It is clear that Turkey has traction with Israel and that the Israelis will tend to believe them if they say they have checked the ships.

The armed conflict will be between sovereign powers like Israel, Iran, Syria and (possibly) Turkey.

To say that the Palestinians and Israeli are belligerents is as disingenuous as saying that the US is "at war" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Palestinians are a subjugated population. I tend to agree with Moshe Machover:

It amounts to this: protected by a Western empire, you colonize a part of the world, ethnically cleanse as many of its indigenous people as you can, and confine the remainder to stew in a series of besieged reservations, which are in effect open prisons. And when the victims try to resist, you depict them as "savages" and "terrorists"; and present yourself, the colonizer, as acting in "self-defence". Similarly, when humanitarian sympathizers of the colonized try to provide them with some help.

For what is allowed into Gaza, this Haaretz piece gives us an idea:

Gaza merchants are forbidden to import canned goods, plastic sheeting, toys and books, although the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and other aid organizations are permitted to bring them into the strip.


The few items merchants are allowed to trade in are divided into three categories: food, medicine and detergent. Everything else is forbidden - including building materials (which are necessary to rehabilitate Gaza's ruins and rebuild its infrastructure), electric appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines, spare machine and car parts, fabrics, threads, needles, light bulbs, candles, matches, books, musical instruments, crayons, clothing, shoes, mattresses, sheets, blankets, cutlery, crockery, cups, glasses and animals. Many of the banned products are imported through the tunnels and can be found in Gaza's markets.
Pasta, which had been forbidden in the past, is now allowed, after U.S. Senator John Kerry expressed his astonishment at the ban during a visit to Gaza in February. But tea, coffee, sausages, semolina, milk products in large packages and most baking products are forbidden. So are industrial commodities for manufacturing food products, chocolate, sesame seeds and nuts.

But don't allow any of these facts or points of view to disturb you. Just continue blithely with your disinformation.

 

[darmanad]

The Latin American response seems to have been fairly vigorous -- ignoring US vassals and puppet states like Colombia, Guatemala and Costa Rica, if this piece is any indicator:
... Although in the past the Brazilian government has rarely engaged in strong criticism of Israel, in this case it has issued a scathing statement that "vehemently condemns the Israeli action, since there is no justification for a military intervention against a peaceful convoy of a strictly humanitarian nature." The foreign ministry release goes on to state that Israel's action "is further aggravated by having taken place, according to available information, in international waters" and calls for an "independent investigation" and the immediate lifting of the Gaza embargo.

I couldn't let this Lula hominage go by without a comment as I have lived most of the last 8 years in Brasil. Like GW Bush, Lulu is an incompetent boob who can hardly speak his own language correctly. Unlike Bush, he enjoys a high popularity rating principly because Brasil has heretofore avoided war and has experienced economic growth, a growth based mostly on natural resources (incl oil) and the sound economic programs instituted by Lula's predecessor, Fernando Enrique Cardoza (who was an extremely capable guy). Lula is the darling of the largely poorly informed lower and middle classes in his country, but if you ask an educated Brasilian what they think of him, they will roll their eyes and keep their fingers crossed until he is out of office. He so likes dictators (benevolent or otherwise) like Castro, Chavez and soon Morales that he probably discusses how he might go about staying in office perputally like they do.
p.s. The Agreement among Iran, Brasil and Turkey allowed Iran to continue to uncontrollably enrich about 1/2 of its Uranium supply - contrary to its prior agreements with the IAEC. What's the big deal aside from another public relations coup for the self aggrandizing Lula and the anti-democratic Shiite madman?

 

[orwellian]

Great, was just waiting for a Zionist to chip in. And what a poor attempt at that. You managed to find some passages out of a marine law which you quote out of context.
Obviously you haven't read the actual document because then you would have seen this:

5.3 Relief
A blockade may not be used to prevent the passage of relief consignments which has to be free according to the applicable rules of international humanitarian law, in particular those contained in Articles 23, 59 and 61 of the Fourth Geneva Convention or Articles 69 and 70 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions.

5.1.2 Protection against attacks
(5) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State and carrying only civilian passengers, e.g., liners, may not be attacked but must be diverted to an appropriate port to complete capture, unless they are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system.

5.1.3 Precautions in attacks
In conducting attacks by whatever means, the armed forces of a party to the conflict must take all feasible precautions in order to avoid that
- the attack is directed against a neutral vessel or aircraft ...

And you claim that Israel is in state of war with Gaza.
Allow me for to let Craig Murray explain it to you. Surely you must admit that a former British Ambassador, former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and former alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the UN Preparatory Commission on the Law of the Sea, knows more than you on this issue.

Israeli apologists have gone on to say they are in a state of armed conflict with Gaza.

Really? In that case, why do we continually hear Israeli complaints about rockets fired from Gaza into Israel? If it is the formal Israeli position that it is in a state of armed conflict with Gaza, then Gaza has every right to attack Israel with rockets.

But in fact, plainly to the whole world, the nature and frequency of Israeli complaints about rocket attacks gives evidence that Israel does not in fact believe that a situation of armed conflict exists.

Secondly, if Israel wishes to claim it is in a state of armed conflict with Gaza, then it must treat all of its Gazan prisoners as prisoners of war entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. If you are in a formal state of armed conflict, you cannot categorise your opponents as terrorists.

But again, it is plain for the world to see from its treatment and description of Gazan prisoners that it does not consider itself to be in a formal position of armed conflict.

Israel is seeking to pick and choose which bits of law applicable to armed conflict it applies, by accepting or not accepting it is in armed conflcit depending on the expediency of the moment.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/06/why_san_remo_do.html

It's funny how you are completely incapable of even entertaining the fact that Israel could have done something wrong.

 

[orwellian]

Don't forget Orwellian chiming in with his usual diatribe, starting by calling you names and talking shit that would get him knocked the fuck out if he acted the same way in real life. Its really pointless to carry on any conversation with these guys.

You hypocrite. I don't see you accusing others when they name call an adversary of yours.
And threatening people over the Internet is lame.

 

[darmanad]

I just lost a lengthy reply. First of all, difficult to respond to your "points" as they are embedded in my post and don't get reproduced when I quote.

Who and what you are is immaterial on an online forum like this; only the quality of your arguments matter.

Turkey has had close relations with Israel. They're a major buyer of Israeli arms. And Turkey has even allowed the Israeli air force to use its air space for training purposes. Earlier this year the Turkish PM twisted Netanyahu's arm to force Ayalon to make a public apology for humiliating the Turkish ambassador. It is clear that Turkey has traction with Israel and that the Israelis will tend to believe them if they say they have checked the ships.

The armed conflict will be between sovereign powers like Israel, Iran, Syria and (possibly) Turkey.

To say that the Palestinians and Israeli are belligerents is as disingenuous as saying that the US is "at war" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Palestinians are a subjugated population. I tend to agree with Moshe Machover:



For what is allowed into Gaza, this Haaretz piece gives us an idea:
But don't allow any of these facts or points of view to disturb you. Just continue blithely with your disinformation.

But don't allow any of these facts or points of view to disturb you. Just continue blithely with your disinformation.[/quote]

BBwolf,
I, too, just lost a lengthy reply so I can commisserate with you at least to that extent. I also agree that it is the quality of one's argumants that matters and not "who and what you are" - whatever that means. However, it is also telling when someone consistenty abuses other posters with pompous invective and I have observed that many of your posts do just that with those who have opposing views. Ergo, my glass house remark.
As to the substance of this debate, i.e. the attack by Isreal on the Marmara, I can only reiterate my prior points that according to international maritime law the IDF actions were legal if one posits that the blockade is legal.
Frankly, I am disturbed by the severity of the blockade, just as I am disturbed by Israel's obnoxious refusal to reexamine its position on settlements. In my view this conduct is a strategic error quite apart from the suffering it creates. Israel's truculence provides great propaganda for the opposition who would love to see the state of Israel eliminated; however, it is my current understanding that simply because a blockade is effective and works a great hardship on the enemy, it is not per se illegal. (I am trying educate myself more on this point, but my computer jams on video). Obviously, this a critical issue, which like so many other issues is simply not considered by the anti Israelis who engage in inflammatory rhetoric such as Machover does in the piece you posted. Accusations of ethnic cleansing and genoocide on the part of Isreal are absurd hyperbole. In my view this kind of argument undermines the credibility of those who support ther Palestinian positions.
By the way, when did the blockade commence? Was it when Israel voluntarily left Gaza? Or was it sometime later when Hamas started lobbing missles at Israeli civilians?

Orwel,
Gee, your use of the word "Zionist" seems to equate it with something menacing. If a Zionist is one who supports the right of the state of Israel to exist as a national homeland for Jews, I plead guilty. But wasn't the creation of Israel sanctioned by the UN? I mean, it is a legal state, isn't it? So why would somone who supports its continued existence be menacing?

With respect to your argument that the attack on the Marmara was illegal, do you contend that Israel did not have a right to inspect the cargo to confirm it was not prohibited war materiel? Do you contend that if it does have a right to do so and the ship refuses it can not be inspected by force? Nothing you write defines Israel's rights when the ship refuses to be inspected.

With respect to Mr Murray statements, I am confess I am confused. As to his first point, even if Israel and Gaza are at war (I agree they are) it is not okay for Hamas or other Gazans to randomly fire missles into civilian populations. That is a violation of the rules of war. Israel's complaints are well founded since no one denies those are the facts. It would be doubly evil if such violations occured during a peace truce. In any case, it is absurd to argue that one should not condemn random shelling of purely civilian populations.
As I understand the Geneva Conventions, not all enemy combatants are entitled to the prisoner of war protections established by the Geneva Accords. There are unlawful enemy combatants e.g. those who disguise themselves as civilians. I do not believe unlawful enemy combatants aka terrorists are entitled to be treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva Accords. Mr Murray seems to disregard this distinction between lawful enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants. His arguments are utterly unconvincing.

 

[cabrera]

Don't forget Orwellian chiming in with his usual diatribe, starting by calling you names and talking shit that would get him knocked the fuck out if he acted the same way in real life. Its really pointless to carry on any conversation with these guys.

Your point is BS? Its clear that your propaganda war that you are playing through the internet with 10000s of thousands of your helpers has been lost and most of the public opinion is against Israel and its brutal policies. There is absolutely no justification for the murder of 10 or more civilians in international waters .

Israel like most other countries has stunguns and other technologies to suppress any dissent meaning that the murder of these civilians in international waters was completly unjustified.

 

[cabrera]

Israel keeps talking about its soldier in Palestinian jail Gilat Shalit . One person and I will stress again one Israeli citizens is in Palestinian jails .

Do you guys know how many Palestinians are in Israeli jails over 8000 are rotting in your jails and you have the hide to talk about justice and human rights

http://ifamericansknew.org/stats/prisoners.html

 

[darmanad]

I used to have a sign on the wall in my law office to the effect: We appreciate the chance to discuss your problems. We have not succeeded in answering all of your questions. In some ways we are still confused as ever, but we believe we are now confused on a higher level and about more important things.

Regarding naval blockades per se, the applicable law is codified in the San Remo Armed Conflicts at Sea manual; http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument.

For Alan Dershowitz's (Jewlover, Zionist pig that he be) analysis of the legality of the attack on the flotilla and the actions of the IDF at sea: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/israel_s_actions_were_entirely

For a detailed discussion of the legality of the blockade in general:
http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/why-is-israels-blockade-of-gaza-legal/ and especially the comments/notes.

At this point I am persuaded that the blockade of Gaza is legal from a purely technical point of view because it is part of an Internatiional Armed Conflict (AIC) as opposed to an Non-International Armed Conflict (NAIC). See above opiniojuris article for discussion. Moreover, it appears from historical precedents that even if it were considered an NAIC, a blockade would be legal.
There are those who would argue that even if a blockade of Gaza would be permitted under the rules of war, the severe manner in which Israel is conductng it makes it nevertheless unlawful. That is because it results in a disproportionate harm to the enemy population. This proportionality argument is the same kind of principle that governs the use of fire power during combat and about which there is lots of heated debate. Personally, I believe the proportionality argument is not convincing for a number of reasons.
However one comes down on this issue, what should be keot in mind is that ultimately proportionality rests upon what is "reasonable" under the totality of the circumstances. As a former trial lawyer I can assure you reasonable people of good faith can disagree when it comes to deciding what is or is not reasonable under the circumstances. Jurors are called upon to do it every day in all kinds of court cases. The concept of reasonableness is at the heart of ours and many legal systems so it should come as no surprise it is the ultimate standard in international law, too.
That being the case it seems to me that those who hysterically shout that Israel has committed piracy, that the IDF actions on the Marmara were criminal, that the blockade is a war crime need to tone down their rhetoric. As I mentioned above the supporters of the Palestinians lose credibility when they accuse Israel of war crimes and genocide. People of good faith can argue the proportionailty case, but at least all should acknowledge that it is not a simple black and white issue. No one wants to see the Gazans suffer and it is hoped their leadership will reform its constitution calling for the total elimination of Israel. Maybe then Israel will be able to negotiate realistically with Hamas.

 

[bigbadwolf]

As I mentioned above the supporters of the Palestinians lose credibility when they accuse Israel of war crimes and genocide. People of good faith can argue the proportionailty case, but at least all should acknowledge that it is not a simple black and white issue. No one wants to see the Gazans suffer and it is hoped their leadership will reform its constitution calling for the total elimination of Israel. Maybe then Israel will be able to negotiate realistically with Hamas.

I'm not a lawyer. I find my position analogous to that of the jurors in the film "The Verdict" (with Paul Newman): not knowing the subtle intricacies of the law, but having some feeling for what is right, what is wrong, where some injustice has been committed. Even if some interpretation of the law gets the Israelis off the hook, I doubt many people will be persuaded of the rightness of their actions. In the court of public opinion the Israelis have lost. It's like getting O.J. Simpson off the hook on some technicality while most people kept on thinking he was guiltier than sin.

I don't know why this point of Hamas recognising Israel is trotted out again and again. They have agreed to Israeli ceasefires time and again. It is Israel that does not recognise them, does not want to negotiate. The Israeli government wants to buy time. It goes through the motions of negotiating to make it appear it's interested in compromise, in "dialogue." And seen from their point of view, why should they negotiate? They are in a position of power. The disparity between their power and that of the Paelstinians is so great that a negotiated settlement makes no sense for the Israelis.