On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 08:40:29 +0300 Victor Friedlander
<victor at kfar-hanassi.org.il> writes:
> Let me preface my remarks by stating that I am not the least bit
> sympathetic
> with Israel's current policies regarding settlements in the
> conquered
> territories in the West Bank nor of the manner by which the state
> manages
> control of movement of goods between Gaza and Israel. However, the
> flotillas phenomenon is a red herring if there ever was one.
>
> Do you know that Gaza is not a sovereign state? Do you know that
> despite the
> withdrawal of the military presence and expulsion of the Jewish
> settlers
> from the Gaza region, Israel remains the sovereign authority in
> Gaza? It
> appears that even the Israeli government is confused, citing the San
> Remo
> Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea
> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument (1994) as the
> legal basis
> for their action. In truth the San Remo Manual is irrelevant in
> this case.
Apparently, as you say, Israel is very much confused about its status in regards to Gaza, or to put it less charitably, they seem to want have things both ways. They want all the rights and privileges that they are entitled to as the sovereign authority in Gaza, but they also want to be able to treat Gaza as a hostile power with which they are at war with, but on the other hand they do not wish to treat the Gazans as having the rights that belligerents would ordinarily have under international law.
> As the ruling sovereign power over Gaza, Israel has the obligation
> to
> enforce customs and other standard inspections of all goods destined
> for
> Israel, including Gaza. Attempts to bypass customs is of course
> pure and
> simple smuggling, an ancient and well known criminal activity that
> is
> punishable by law etc. etc.
>
Here's Jewish Voice For Peace's take on the legalities of the Israeli attack on the flotilla. ---------------------------------------
from Jewish Voice For Peace - jpn at jewishpeacenews.net
I've been listening to, and reading various items in which Israeli
officials and its PR people have tried to explain how and why what Israel
did when it attacked the Gaza Freedom Flotilla was legal and appropriate.
Here is a short essay by Lynda Brayer - a human rights lawyer who
specializes in the laws of war and international law in representing
Palestinians and who lives in Haifa - which puts the lie to any such claims.
Racheli Gai.
Lynda Brayer: The Legal Framework of International Law
The Attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla by Israeli Navy Commandos
on May 31, 2010
Crimes against the Peace and
Crimes against Humanity
During the pre-dawn hours of May 31, 2010, the Israeli Navy attacked the
six civilian vessels of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. The attack took place in
international waters against ships flying under national flags of countries
with which Israel is not at war, namely Turkey, Greece and the United
States. The ships were carrying civilians from more than sixteen countries.
Salient points:
Since no state of war existed at the time, the attack on these vessels
constitutes an act of war against those governments under whose flags the
vessels were sailing.
The attack falls within the purview of the ius ad bellum, those laws which
govern the resort to armed conflict. Israel’s action does not fall into the
category of the ius in belloor the laws which govern the actual conduct of
war.
Because this attack was carried out in international waters, the status of
the relationship between Hamas, or any other Palestinian body, and the state
of Israel is of no relevance whatsoever. Likewise, neither the blockade of
Gaza nor Israel’s claims and legal interpretations regarding it has any
bearing on its acts of aggression in international waters.
This is not an act of piracy. Piracy is an act of aggression carried out in
international waters by individuals and not by states.
The following internationally binding treaties, charters, and agreements
are relevant to the attack by Israel:
1. Article 6 of the Charter Provisions of the Nuremburg Trials
(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation, or
waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international
treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or
conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(3) Crimes against Humanity: namely murder…deportation, and any other
inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during
the war...in execution of or in connection with any crime…whether or not in
violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
2. 1907 Hague Regulation Convention (XI) Relative to Certain Restrictions
with Regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War
Chapter II – The Exemption from Capture of Certain Vessels
Article 4. Vessels charged with religious, scientific, or philanthropic
missions are likewise exempt from capture.
Salient points:
The standard for judging the Israeli acts is objective and not subjective.
It is irrelevant what Israeli ministers, generals, admirals, or soldiers
thought or intended. The test is in what they did.
What they did was engage in acts of war using weapons of war in
international waters against vessels that are protected not only in
peacetime but also in times of war.
Israel has therefore committed both crimes against the peace and crimes
against humanity.
These are crimes that have international jurisdiction. Israeli political
and military personnel can be named in trials held in any and all countries
of the world. If the Israelis do not attend the trials, they can be tried in
abstentia, and those decisions in which the Israelis are found guilty can be
executed anywhere in the world.
Because unarmed civilians were murdered by a preplanned military attack,
capital crimes have been committed. While it would appear that the
international community no longer finds capital punishment civilized, the
punishments for these capital crimes can be multiple life sentences.
These crimes give rise to damage claims for huge sums of money and Israeli
accounts can be blocked using decisions finding them guilty.
The unarmed vessels were on a philanthropic mission, carrying civilians and
humanitarian supplies. Even if Israel were in a state of war with any of
these countries, it would be prohibited from capturing the vessels according
to the terms of the Hague Convention of 1907.
Conclusion:
It follows, therefore, that Israel was first of all not allowed to attack
these vessels militarily, and then not to board these vessels by force,
capture these vessels, attack the passengers, imprison them on the vessels,
forcibly remove them from the vessels, and steal their private property in
the form of cameras, computers, clothes, etc.
Every single act carried out by the Israeli military forces in
international waters no May 31, 2010, are unqualifiedly and absolutely
violations of international law.
--------------------------------------
Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant ____________________________________________________________ 3200% Penny Stock Gains? Our last pick exploded 3200%! Join our newsletter for free picks! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c0f891bacc7577d6em03vuc