All the provisions Ms Brayer cited refer to international conflicts between belligerent states. Gaza is not a sovereign state but only a break-away district of the State of Israel. I believe I wrote earlier that this is a unique case and hence one that is not covered by any conventions of war. There is, or rather was, an even more serious incident of this sort in the first year of the American Civil War (1861):
The *Trent Affair*, also known as the *Mason and Slidell Affair*, was an international diplomatic incident that occurred during the American Civil War </wiki/American_Civil_War>. On November 8, 1861, the USS *San Jacinto* </wiki/USS_San_Jacinto_%281850%29>, commanded by Union</wiki/Union_%28American_Civil_War%29>
Captain Charles Wilkes </wiki/Charles_Wilkes>, intercepted the British mail packet </wiki/Packet_ship> *Trent </wiki/RMS_Trent>* and removed as contraband of war two Confederate diplomats, James Mason</wiki/James_Murray_Mason>
and John Slidell </wiki/John_Slidell>. The envoys were bound for Great Britain </wiki/The_United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland> and France</wiki/France>
to press the Confederacy’s case for diplomatic recognition by Europe.
The initial reaction in the United States </wiki/United_States> was a rally around the flag, but many American leaders had doubts as to the wisdom and the legality of the act. In the Confederate States</wiki/Confederate_States_of_America>, the hope was that the incident would lead to a permanent rupture in Anglo-American relations </wiki/United_Kingdom_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations>, diplomatic recognition by Britain of the Confederacy, and, ultimately, Southern independence. In Britain, the public expressed outrage at this apparent insult to their national honor. The British government demanded an apology and the release of the prisoners while it took steps to strengthen its military forces in Canada </wiki/British_North_America> and the Atlantic.
After several weeks of tension during which there was loose talk of war, the crisis was resolved when the Lincoln </wiki/Abraham_Lincoln> administration released the envoys and disavowed Captain Wilkes's actions. No formal apology was issued. Mason and Slidell resumed their voyage to England but failed in their goal of achieving diplomatic recognition. cited from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair
The U.S. government eventually disavowed Captain Wilkes's actions and sent the diplomats on their way. But, significantly, no formal apology was given to the British government for the search and seizure of the Confederate diplomats. Equally significant, the British government dropped their demands for an apology and rejected the appeal of the Confederate diplomats to the British government for recognition of the CSA as a sovereign state.
Actually, the confusion regarding the status of Gaza is no less a problem for Hamas then it is for the State of Israel. The Hamas leadership enjoys a base for attacks on Israel yet bears no responsibility for the material welfare of the inhabitants of Gaza. From 1988 to 2008 the Hamas government insisted that the independent state of Palestine could only be realized with the replacement of the State of Israel by a Palestinian state, thereby precluding progress towards the completion of the process of terminating Israeli authority over the district. In 2008 J. Carter managed to persuade the Hamas leadership to agree to a two-state solution provided this was ratified by a Palestinian plebiscite.
Unfortunately for everyone in the region the 20 years of conflict saw a definite movement of Israeli public opinion towards what is called here to the right, not least of all because of the Intifada al Aksa and the incessant rocketing of civilian communities in the Northwestern Negev. The last twenty years of armed struggle for an independent Palestine also provided ample opportunity for the largely religious - messianic - territorial maximists to consolidate and extend their settlements in the Conquered territories to the point at which any reasonable settlement of the area's conflicts would be accompanied by domestic tensions that would make the internal crises of the mid 1990's look like child's play.
In conclusion, since Ms Brayer's citations all concern international law they are irrelevant to the issue at hand. It is however interesting that she fails to cite the Declaration of London http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1909b.htm Chapters I -III or the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea Section II articles 92 to 108http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocumentwhich deal specifically with Naval blockades. I guess we'll have to go to court on this one. I also fail to understand why she didn't find some interesting quotes from the bible...
Ah yes my new version of modal logic. Why not "probably necessary" It's a close cousin to the existential "some" of Predicate Calculus.
Highest regards,
On 9 June 2010 15:27, Jim Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> This mail was received via Mail-SeCure System.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> This mail was received via Mail-SeCure System.
>
>
>
>
-- Victor Friedlander