Israel

[Torurot]

It suits Israel to sabatage any possible peace process.

"We have to set up a dynamic state bent upon expansion," David Ben Gurion famously stated. And peace, stability and diplomacy are obstacles to Zionism's tenets of land acquisition and subjugation of indigenous peoples.

[f0xxee]

(Torurot @ Jun. 05 2010,06:11) How many of this lists skimmers and the reading challenged  are working at Nato Headquaters (don't out yourselves) and know ANYTHING about Law of the Sea?

attack by Israel on a NATO member flagged ship in international waters is an event to which NATO is obliged - legally obliged, as a matter of treaty - to react.

NATO is obliged to do something robust to defend Turkey.

Mutual military support of each other is the entire raison d'etre of NATO.

to the NATO military the freedom of the high seas guaranteed by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is a vital alliance interest which officers have been conditioned to uphold their whole career.

I know just a little of Maritime law.

NATO aside, if it happened on the high seas it can be termed Piracy.... IF and big IF... it is an act of violence against a vessel who is engaged in "innocent passage".
The Right of Innocent Passage allows ships to navigate through territorial waters unhindered. It is conventional to announce your arival and depature from territorial waters.
See the problem is its hard to say the vessel was engaged in "innocent passage" when it's destination was restricted by Israel.
Whether right or wrong, the vessel cannot claim to be merely passing through (the right of innocent passage) in this instance.

[guydesavoy]

Thank you your honour

Practically speaking, what are NATO going to do anyway ? That ship has sailed

[f0xxee]

No worries. I try for an intelligent word and an intelligent argument on a monthly basis... which means the next 25 days will be filled with my normal drivel.

Practically speaking NATO doesn't come into it, nor any maritime conventions. Israel (it seems to this humble writer) had a right to board the vessel, as it could not be said to be engaged in innocent passage.
What happened after boarding is another matter and one I see no point in commenting on. Did they go to far? Probably. Did they have reasons to go to far? Probably. Who will ever know?

[Lefty]

Who is to decide what is or isn't innocent passage then? Can Israel or any country just do as they damned well please as long as they arbitrarily decide a ship isn't engaged in innocent passage? Ships bringing humanitarian aid aren't engaging in innocent passage because Israel decided all ships were guilty until proven innocent?

I suppose that was what those bastards decided too back when they attacked the USS Liberty. We should have retaliated much more severely, but that worthless scum sucking LBJ was a pussy puppet for Israel.

Fuck Israel and fuck LBJ's rotting corpse.  

[guydesavoy]

Quite right. The other 'difficulty' is that whatever the Law of the Sea says, once it strays into that nebulous area known as International law, it's the biggest fudge-fest in town

Maybe you need a countdown clock for the next 25 days. It might be fair to warn the younguns

[Lefty]

What am counting down for? Or was that meant for someone else?

[f0xxee]

(Lefty @ Jun. 05 2010,11:56) Who is to decide what is or isn't innocent passage then? Can Israel or any country just do as they damned well please as long as they arbitrarily decide a ship isn't engaged in innocent passage? Ships bringing humanitarian aid aren't engaging in innocent passage because Israel decided all ships were guilty until proven innocent?

I suppose that was what those bastards decided too back when they attacked the USS Liberty. We should have retaliated much more severely, but that worthless scum sucking LBJ was a pussy puppet for Israel.

Fuck Israel and fuck LBJ's rotting corpse.    

Hi Lefty,

You are eating into my luchtime sleep/wank period, but as you are a pleasant and friendly chap allow me to go deeper:

The United Nations Convention (III) on the Laws of the Sea defines Right of Innocent Passage thus:

"Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security."

So I am affraid the Isrealis, love or loathe them could refer to the above and justifiably board the vessel.

[Stewart]

(f0xxee @ Jun. 05 2010,12:09)
Hi Lefty,
You are eating into my luchtime sleep/wank period, but as you are a pleasant and friendly chap allow me to go deeper:
The United Nations Convention (III) on the Laws of the Sea defines Right of Innocent Passage thus:
"Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security."
So I am affraid the Isrealis, love or loathe them could refer to the above and justifiably board the vessel.

At last a couple of posts based on logic and reason, and not emotion and ignorance!

A more strategic view from Stratfor, with an interesting historical comparison - sorry for the length of post.

Flotillas and the Wars of Public Opinion
May 31, 2010

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. The hope was that Israel would be provoked to extreme action, further alienating Israel from the global community and possibly driving a wedge between Israel and the United States. The operation's planners also hoped this would trigger a political crisis in Israel.

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.

The €˜Exodus' Scenario

In the 1950s, an author named Leon Uris published a book called "Exodus." Later made into a major motion picture, Exodus told the story of a Zionist provocation against the British. In the wake of World War II, the British €” who controlled Palestine, as it was then known €” maintained limits on Jewish immigration there. Would-be immigrants captured trying to run the blockade were detained in camps in Cyprus. In the book and movie, Zionists planned a propaganda exercise involving a breakout of Jews €” mostly children €” from the camp, who would then board a ship renamed the Exodus. When the Royal Navy intercepted the ship, the passengers would mount a hunger strike. The goal was to portray the British as brutes finishing the work of the Nazis. The image of children potentially dying of hunger would force the British to permit the ship to go to Palestine, to reconsider British policy on immigration, and ultimately to decide to abandon Palestine and turn the matter over to the United Nations.

There was in fact a ship called Exodus, but the affair did not play out precisely as portrayed by Uris, who used an amalgam of incidents to display the propaganda war waged by the Jews. Those carrying out this war had two goals. The first was to create sympathy in Britain and throughout the world for Jews who, just a couple of years after German concentration camps, were now being held in British camps. Second, they sought to portray their struggle as being against the British. The British were portrayed as continuing Nazi policies toward the Jews in order to maintain their empire. The Jews were portrayed as anti-imperialists, fighting the British much as the Americans had.

It was a brilliant strategy. By focusing on Jewish victimhood and on the British, the Zionists defined the battle as being against the British, with the Arabs playing the role of people trying to create the second phase of the Holocaust. The British were portrayed as pro-Arab for economic and imperial reasons, indifferent at best to the survivors of the Holocaust. Rather than restraining the Arabs, the British were arming them. The goal was not to vilify the Arabs but to villify the British, and to position the Jews with other nationalist groups whether in India or Egypt rising against the British.

The precise truth or falsehood of this portrayal didn't particularly matter. For most of the world, the Palestine issue was poorly understood and not a matter of immediate concern. The Zionists intended to shape the perceptions of a global public with limited interest in or understanding of the issues, filling in the blanks with their own narrative. And they succeeded.

The success was rooted in a political reality. Where knowledge is limited, and the desire to learn the complex reality doesn't exist, public opinion can be shaped by whoever generates the most powerful symbols. And on a matter of only tangential interest, governments tend to follow their publics' wishes, however they originate. There is little to be gained for governments in resisting public opinion and much to be gained by giving in. By shaping the battlefield of public perception, it is thus possible to get governments to change positions.

In this way, the Zionists' ability to shape global public perceptions of what was happening in Palestine €” to demonize the British and turn the question of Palestine into a Jewish-British issue €” shaped the political decisions of a range of governments. It was not the truth or falsehood of the narrative that mattered. What mattered was the ability to identify the victim and victimizer such that global opinion caused both London and governments not directly involved in the issue to adopt political stances advantageous to the Zionists. It is in this context that we need to view the Turkish flotilla.

The Turkish Flotilla to Gaza

The Palestinians have long argued that they are the victims of Israel, an invention of British and American imperialism. Since 1967, they have focused not so much on the existence of the state of Israel (at least in messages geared toward the West) as on the oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Since the split between Hamas and Fatah and the Gaza War, the focus has been on the plight of the citizens of Gaza, who have been portrayed as the dispossessed victims of Israeli violence.

The bid to shape global perceptions by portraying the Palestinians as victims of Israel was the first prong of a longtime two-part campaign. The second part of this campaign involved armed resistance against the Israelis. The way this resistance was carried out, from airplane hijackings to stone-throwing children to suicide bombers, interfered with the first part of the campaign, however. The Israelis could point to suicide bombings or the use of children against soldiers as symbols of Palestinian inhumanity. This in turn was used to justify conditions in Gaza. While the Palestinians had made significant inroads in placing Israel on the defensive in global public opinion, they thus consistently gave the Israelis the opportunity to turn the tables. And this is where the flotilla comes in.

The Turkish flotilla aimed to replicate the Exodus story or, more precisely, to define the global image of Israel in the same way the Zionists defined the image that they wanted to project. As with the Zionist portrayal of the situation in 1947, the Gaza situation is far more complicated than as portrayed by the Palestinians. The moral question is also far more ambiguous. But as in 1947, when the Zionist portrayal was not intended to be a scholarly analysis of the situation but a political weapon designed to define perceptions, the Turkish flotilla was not designed to carry out a moral inquest.

Instead, the flotilla was designed to achieve two ends. The first is to divide Israel and Western governments by shifting public opinion against Israel. The second is to create a political crisis inside Israel between those who feel that Israel's increasing isolation over the Gaza issue is dangerous versus those who think any weakening of resolve is dangerous.

The Geopolitical Fallout for Israel

It is vital that the Israelis succeed in portraying the flotilla as an extremist plot. Whether extremist or not, the plot has generated an image of Israel quite damaging to Israeli political interests. Israel is increasingly isolated internationally, with heavy pressure on its relationship with Europe and the United States.

In all of these countries, politicians are extremely sensitive to public opinion. It is difficult to imagine circumstances under which public opinion will see Israel as the victim. The general response in the Western public is likely to be that the Israelis probably should have allowed the ships to go to Gaza and offload rather than to precipitate bloodshed. Israel's enemies will fan these flames by arguing that the Israelis prefer bloodshed to reasonable accommodation. And as Western public opinion shifts against Israel, Western political leaders will track with this shift.

The incident also wrecks Israeli relations with Turkey, historically an Israeli ally in the Muslim world with longstanding military cooperation with Israel. The Turkish government undoubtedly has wanted to move away from this relationship, but it faced resistance within the Turkish military and among secularists. The new Israeli action makes a break with Israel easy, and indeed almost necessary for Ankara.

With roughly the population of Houston, Texas, Israel is just not large enough to withstand extended isolation, meaning this event has profound geopolitical implications.

Public opinion matters where issues are not of fundamental interest to a nation. Israel is not a fundamental interest to other nations. The ability to generate public antipathy to Israel can therefore reshape Israeli relations with countries critical to Israel. For example, a redefinition of U.S.-Israeli relations will have much less effect on the United States than on Israel. The Obama administration, already irritated by the Israelis, might now see a shift in U.S. public opinion that will open the way to a new U.S.-Israeli relationship disadvantageous to Israel.

The Israelis will argue that this is all unfair, as they were provoked. Like the British, they seem to think that the issue is whose logic is correct. But the issue actually is, whose logic will be heard? As with a tank battle or an airstrike, this sort of warfare has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with controlling public perception and using that public perception to shape foreign policy around the world. In this case, the issue will be whether the deaths were necessary. The Israeli argument of provocation will have limited traction.

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.

[f0xxee]

That is as good a summary of what appears to have happened that I have seen. The Historical background alone was invaluable to me, as the other day I was asking how did the Zionists uproot and remove the British? Now I know.

Thanks for presenting it Stewart, well worth the read.

[Torurot]

Stratfor, while having worthwhile articles frequently backs the Israeli position on everything. The above came from
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly....opinion


Another opinion:

It's worth reflecting briefly below on just what international legal agreements have to say on Israel's Flotilla attack.  After undertaking this analysis, it should be clear that the legal justification made by Israeli officials is unconvincing and self-serving.

Key Legal Points Regarding the Flotilla Assault

   *

     The U.N. Security Council has already weighed in on the blockade (of which the flotilla attack is one part), attacking it in Resolution 1860 for collectively punishing the people of Gaza.  The resolution calls for "the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including food, fuel, and medical treatment."  The criticism of the embargo as illegal is heavily rooted in the logic of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 3 of which mandates that states take all possible steps (even when formal wars have not been declared between two states) to protect noncombatants.  Behavior that is expressly prohibited includes any actions that are a threat to individual life (9 civilian activists were killed in the flotilla attack).  The taking of hostages (including the more than 660 seized by Israel) for political or military purposes is also prohibited.  The blockade is illegal in that it violates the legal principles behind the Geneva Conventions, which were created for the general purpose of prohibiting states from engaging in collective punishment against civilians during times of conflict.  Israel's collective attack on the civilians of Gaza (and its refusal to even acknowledge that they are under assault) represents a clear violation of the spirit and letter of the Geneva Conventions.
   *

     The U.N. Charter is quite explicit that use of force is only allowed under two conditions: in the case of immediate self defense against an ongoing attack (not a theoretical one) or in the case of Security Council authorization.  Israel could claim neither of these (for more details on the U.N. Charter and limits on the use of force, see my recent piece, "War Takes No Holiday."  Any attacks against the flotilla have not been convincingly linked in any way to previous military conflicts between Hamas and Israel.  Apologists for Israeli aggression like to argue that international law outlaws the use of force (outside of the two conditions listed in the U.N. Charter and discussed above), while also arguing that the U.N. Charter allows states like Israel to annex land in the West Bank and to control of Gaza's territorial space, in light of the fact that the Occupied Territories are not formally states.  Under this line of thinking, since the West Bank and Gaza Strip do not formally constitute a state, they are not parties to the U.N. Charter €“ hence Israel is not bound by to respect their sovereignty.  There's little reason to take these objections seriously.  The U.N. Security Council has long deemed Israel's occupation and control of Palestinian lands and territorial space as illegal under international law, despite the fact that Palestine is formally a nation, rather than a state (see Security Council resolutions 242, from 1967, and 338, from 1973, which declared the inadmissibility of occupying or annexing land by force).  
   *

      The U.N. Charter's restrictions on the use of force are relevant in their relation to Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, Israel's longstanding efforts to demolish prospects for Palestinian sovereignty (in this case through the embargo and attacks on civilians), and Israel's belligerence against foreign nationals who were assaulted on May 31st.  The blockade and the attack on the flotilla are an integral part of Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and its unauthorized control over their airspace, waters, and borders.  The Security Council's condemnations of Israeli behavior must be understood in light of the country's illegal 40-year campaign to deny Palestinian sovereignty (Israel has violated more than 90 Security Council resolutions in relation to its behavior in the Occupied Territories).  Furthermore, Israel's attack on the flotilla can be understood as an informal declaration of war against states such as Turkey, whose own nationals were on board the attacked ships.

   *

     The much cited San Remo agreement, used by Israel to justify its attacks on the flotilla, is a non-starter as a legal permission slip.  There is nothing in the San Remo agreement that allows a belligerent state to target and kill civilians who are known to be on a non-violent mission in international waters, especially when they are dedicated to opposing an illegal embargo.  The San Remo agreement allows for countries to stop "merchant vessels" in international waters under the following conditions:
         o If the vessels "are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture."
         o If the vessels "engage[s] in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy"
         o If vessels are "act[ing] as auxillaries to the enemy's armed forces"
         o If vessels "are incorporated into or assist the enemy's intelligence system"
         o If vessels "sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft"
         o Or if vessels "otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy's military action."

There is no legitimate basis for invoking the San Remo agreement in regards to humanitarian shipments from the flotilla.  There is no reason to believe the ships were contributing to Hamas' military power; rather they were being provided needed relief to civilians targeted by Israel's illegal siege strategy.  This basic reality means that five of the six provisions above (B, C, D, E, and F) are inapplicable in terms of authorizing the Israeli flotilla attack.  The only provision left, point "A," does not justify actions undertaken under an illegal embargo.

In the case of the Israeli flotilla attack, and as mentioned above, the legality of the blockade itself is clearly in question, as it represents a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions' protections of civilians during wartime.A more relevant international treaty in the case of this attack is the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty.  This agreement allows for the "innocent passage" of ships in international waters if their behavior is not deemed "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the respective coastal state.  The Israeli attack took place 80 miles offshore, clearly outside of Israel's sovereignty (which extends no further than 12 miles from Israel's coast), and in a zone where the Law of the Sea Treaty is clearly applicable.  Furthermore, it's difficult to make an argument that humanitarian supplies sent to a population under an illegal siege are a threat to the national security of Israel €“ unless national security is defined through illegal aggression, illegitimate land expansion, and the terrorizing of civilians.

The comatose political debate over Israel's actions is hardly surprising to those who critically follow U.S. public discourse on the Middle East.  American narratives have long privileged Israel over its Arab neighbors, and this case is no exception.  Still, the growth of domestic or international pressure may play a positive role in pushing the U.S. to take a more critical stance toward Israel.  Whether this will happen, however, remains to be seen.

Anthony DiMaggio http://counterpunch.org/dimaggio06042010.html

[guydesavoy]

(Lefty @ Jun. 05 2010,12:07) What am counting down for?   Or was that meant for someone else?

Sorry Lefty, that was for His Honour Foxxee...you posted before I caught it...

The Sratfor piece is more of a balanced political anlaysis whereas DiMaggio's is peppered with emotive language and characterisation.

[Lefty]

(f0xxee @ Jun. 05 2010,12:09)

(Lefty @ Jun. 05 2010,11:56) Who is to decide what is or isn't innocent passage then? Can Israel or any country just do as they damned well please as long as they arbitrarily decide a ship isn't engaged in innocent passage? Ships bringing humanitarian aid aren't engaging in innocent passage because Israel decided all ships were guilty until proven innocent?

I suppose that was what those bastards decided too back when they attacked the USS Liberty. We should have retaliated much more severely, but that worthless scum sucking LBJ was a pussy puppet for Israel.

Fuck Israel and fuck LBJ's rotting corpse.    

Hi Lefty,

You are eating into my luchtime sleep/wank period, but as you are a pleasant and friendly chap allow me to go deeper:

The United Nations Convention (III) on the Laws of the Sea defines Right of Innocent Passage thus:

"Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security."

So I am affraid the Isrealis, love or loathe them could refer to the above and justifiably board the vessel.

Thanks Foxee, but to me that is just another way of saying what you'd said in your previous post.

Israel, (in this case), can just use any justification they want to detain ships in international waters, if they say their national security is at stake? I'm not as well versed on the topic as you are, but it just seems to me that while the flotilla were still in international waters, they had as much right as Israel to be there. Gaza isn't supposed to belong to or be controlled by Israel are they? Wasn't there a treaty they all agreed to long ago that Gaza was for the Palestinians? It seems to me that if a ship is in intl waters and heading directly to Gaza, it should not be Israel's right to detain them.  Your quoted article said that nations (Israel in this case) has the right of detaining in territorial seas. International cannot by definition be the same as territorial, in this instance can it? Then too, your quoted article says "essential to national security." Heck, they could stop any ship anytime, anywhere, from what it seems to me you are saying, if they just cry that it was for their national security.

[f0xxee]

LEFTY: "Heck, they could stop any ship anytime, anywhere, from what it seems to me you are saying, if they just cry that it was for their national security. "
Yes they can, as can any nation whose coastline is being approached. Its not so different anywhere else in the world. Sail through Indo and there are Prison islands that are off limits. The US has the Coast Guard who think not twice about detaining vessels. This is a fact of maritime life, and well known.

You say the ship was heading for Gaza: yes correct it was. They were ordered to berth in Israel. They chose not to. So they were boarded by Israeli commandos, as is the right of Israel as the soverign state. As stated before: what happened after boarding I will not pass judgement on. But did Israel have the right to board? Yes.

Do you think the US or Australia or the UK or France or any country allows a known "enemy" to reach their waters before detaining them? Think again. The combined forces against Piracy off Somalia act in International waters....

Its how it is.

Claim national security and who can argue?

[Bumpa STIKKA]

Of course this is nothing to do with the urgent need for aid destined for Gaza. If it was then a true aid worker would have done it properly and legally over land knowing full well that there is a blockade in place for water landings.

It's all about some dreamy eyed liberals wanting to have something to tell their grand kids. This is their Woodstock. Kind of sad really.

Now every pub in England is gonna have one of these annoying cunts telling anyone (who doesn't actually punch them) about what it was like...