The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #129840 Message #2918897
Posted By: Emma B
02-Jun-10 - 05:22 AM
Thread Name: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
Ed asks....
"So if you separate out (and ignore) all those with pre-set (vested) opinions (such as countries, journalists, media outlets and individuals who have strong and committed views one way or the other on Israel, Palestine and palistinian political causes, and add in vested interests like arabs, Iranians, muslims, jews) who do you have left to listen to? "
May I suggest that you could do worse than listen to University of Sydney law professor Ben Saul – a man with a history of challenging human rights abuses – writing this week about the attack on the flotilla in International waters..................
"Israel's response to the Gaza flotilla is another unfortunate example of Israel clothing its conduct in the language of international law while flouting it in practice.
Israel claims that paragraph 67(a) of the San Remo Manual on Armed Conflicts at Sea justified the Israeli operation against the flotilla. (The San Remo Manual is an authoritative statement of international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea.)
Paragraph 67(a) only permits attacks on the merchant vessels of neutral countries where they "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".
Israel argues that it gave due warnings, which were not heeded.
What Israel conveniently omits to mention is that the San Remo Manual also contains rules governing the lawfulness of the blockade itself, and there can be no authority under international law to enforce a blockade which is unlawful. Paragraph 102 of the Manual prohibits a blockade if "the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade".
The background to that 'proportionality' rule is the experience of past world wars where naval blockades had devastating effects on civilian populations.
There is little question that Israel's blockade of Gaza is disproportionate in legal terms.
The proportionality rule requires an assessment of the military advantage against the harmful effects on civilians. Israel claims that the blockade is necessary to prevent Hamas from mounting indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.
The proportionality principle requires, however, that Israel's security cannot come at any price. A balancing of interests is necessary to ensure that civilians should not pay too dearly for the security needs of others.
Safeguarding the precious lives of innocents and respecting their dignity as fellow humans is the necessary burden that international law imposes on war.
That is why Israel reveals its contempt for international law when, for example in the past, its leaders have pledged to "destroy 100 homes for every rocket fired".
The harmful effects of the blockade on Gazan civilians have included the denial of the basics of life, such as food, fuel and medicine, as well widespread economic collapse.
The UN agency on the ground, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), has described a "severe humanitarian crisis" in Gaza in relation to human development, health, education, "the psychological stress" on the population, high unemployment (at 45 per cent) and poverty (with 300,000 people living beneath the poverty line), and the collapse of commerce, industry and agriculture.
Disrupting wildly inaccurate rockets from being fired at relatively underpopulated areas of southern Israel cannot possibly justify the acute disruption of the daily lives and livelihoods of more than one million Gazans. Nor is it lawful to seek to pressure Hamas by instrumentally impoverishing its civilian supporters.
Israel has further argued that it offered the Gaza flotilla an opportunity to deliver aid through the proper Israeli channels.
It is very difficult to regard that offer as sincere given Israel's track record. Israel's practices concerning the transit of goods through Israeli entry points has been arbitrary at best and deliberately obstructive at worst.
The UN notes that everything from crayons to soccer balls to musical instruments has been denied entry into Gaza – hardly rocket components.
Goods sit idle for months or are never delivered at all. In such circumstances, no-one could have any confidence that the goods would ever reach Gaza.
As yet, it is still unknown exactly what happened on board the flotilla vessels boarded by Israeli forces. Even at this early stage, however, some international law matters are fairly clear.
First, absent any intention by the flotilla to attack Israel, or any suspicion of piracy, it was unlawful for Israel to forcibly board foreign merchant vessels in international waters.
Secondly, such action amounted to an unlawful interference in the enforcement jurisdiction of the "flag-States" (countries of registration) of those vessels, such as Turkey.
Thirdly, it violated the fundamental principle of freedom of navigation on the high seas, codified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982.
Fourthly, under international human rights law, the apprehension and detention of those on board the vessels likely amounts to arbitrary, unlawful detention, contrary to article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, since there is lawful basis for detention.
Fifthly, if Israeli forces killed people, they may not only have infringed the human right to life, but they may also have committed serious international crimes. Under article 3 of the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 1988, it is an international crime for any person to seize or exercise control over a ship by force, and also a crime to injure or kill any person in the process.
In such cases, any claim of self-defence by Israeli forces is irrelevant. The treaty necessarily adopts a strict approach.
One cannot attack a ship and then claim self-defence if the people on board resist the unlawful use of violence.
Legally speaking, government military forces rappelling onto a ship to illegally capture it are treated no differently than other criminals.
The right of self-defence in such situations rests with the passengers on board: a person is legally entitled to resist one's own unlawful capture, abduction and detention
Israel has become its own worst enemy. It prioritises its own interests with a callous lack of empathy for others. It is simply unable to imagine the suffering it inflicts upon others, and treats harm to Israelis as the only game in town.
Its absolutism of mind and politics has crushing consequences for Palestinians.
Far from ensuring its own security, Israel is unravelling it: no-one should be surprised if Israel has just succeeded in recruiting the next generation of martyrs keen to attack it.
Absolutism, violence, and the evaporation of peace in the region will continue as long as the international community continues to handle Israel with kid gloves."