Judging Israel

Mr. Winter, I am shocked at this article. Once again the word Hamas is used to skew the message promoted by an archbishop, Nobel Peace Laureate and many others who were taking aid that Israel prevents from entering GAZA. I do not understand the reasoning in the last paragraph. This is not characteristic of NCR reporting. Have you talked to any of those who were aboard?
The humanitarian activists were trying to bring attention to the illegal blockade that our country and others legitimize by their relationship with Israel.

I disagree. Breaking international law is not acting for "the cause of justice and human rights." Israeli troops acted as pirates; they had no right to board the Turkish ferry.
Most of us do not want to be in any prison, and given Israel's history of torture, I would not feel safer there than in Egypt or elsewhere. The point is that Israel has no right to hold people who were not breaking international law. Israel acted more than stupidly and rashly; the government acted illegally and immorally.

Better yet, ask yourself, if you were a human rights activists, would you prefer to be killed by Israelis, Hamas, Egyptians, whoever(?). You probably wouldn't care.

I realize there are people who will defend anything Israel does. In this case, were're even stretching the concept of "anything". These were Turkinsh nationals, for the most part, in international waters, boarded by, for all practical purposes, Israeli pirates. The blockade itself is a human rights violation and boarding this ship just added to the list of atrocities.

Israel's teatment of the Palestineans is what got Hamas elected in the first place. Actions like these only strengthen Hamas' hand in the region. If Israel really wanted peace, I imagine they're intelligent enough to think of more constructive things to do.

You make a number of unwarranted assumptions in this post. First, you assume that Israel is telling the truth when it says its soldiers were fired on. There is no independent confirmation of this and Israel cannot be trusted to tell the truth about its own actions. You also assume that Israel had a right to stop and board the FGM ships, in international waters where ships are theoretically free to travel without restriction. You also assume that Israel's blockade of Gaza is legal and just. Many, including the United Nations, say no and have been very critical of the blockade and the humanitarian damage it has wrought.

You are right when you say that the FGM was being deliberately provocative. They were using basic nonviolent strategy to force Israel to either let them go or to stop them. Israel could have avoided this whole thing by simply ignoring them. I guarantee that this would be a minor story at best if that had been the case. Instead, Israel chose to use violence and to use it without any reasonable justification. They have earned the scorn currently being heaped on them and much, much more.

So tell me just why this guy writes for the otherwise wonderful NCR?

Winters dissents disdainfully and fully from the Pope's more intelligent and objective statements, recorded here in the NCR that I know and love . . .

http://ncronline.org/news/global/vatican-deplores-israeli-assault-flotil...

Even as the killers admit they were wrong, winters springs up in defense.
What is he looking for, a ministry of propaganda position?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100601/ts_nm/us_israel_flotilla_tactics

This is NCR's take? Really? Good Lord, another reason the Church is in such trouble--it's allowed Zionist apologists to take over its official media organs.

Dramatic language cannot substitute for rational analysis of facts.

1. The government of Israel initiated an attack on a Turkish-flagged vessel in international waters.

2. Turkey and Israel were not at war at the time of the attack.

3. The Turkish vessel was not armed. Note: the kitchen utensils and (gasp) slingshots that the Israeli military trotted out for the photo-op can hardly be considered "arms" in a modern military engagement. Doubt that? Ok, picture yourself "armed" with said implements facing an enemy with automatic weapons, heavy ordinance, and air support. Still happy with your "arms"?

Taken together, Israel's attack on this humanitarian aid ship was not only a bone-headed diplomatic blunder and inexcusable waste of life, but also an act of war.

The Israeli's could easily have waited for the ship to reach its own territorial waters where Israeli law applies. In that instance the Turkish vessel would have been a blockade runner and the Israeli's would have had a legal leg to stand on. However, since the blockade itself is illegal the aid activists still would have been in the right. But at least it would have been a local problem. By "flexing their muscles" and totally blowing it again, (remember Lebanon?) the Israelis have shown themselves to be not only bullies, but incompetent bullies.

Worse, the Israeli's have committed an act of war on a NATO ally of the United States of America. When private citizens capture ships at sea it is piracy. When nations do it we call it war. At least we did in 1812.

Now, Mr. Winters, picture a U.S. aid flotilla heading for Somalia with medicine and building materials. Imagine that the local warlords, bent on crushing the local population, don't want that aid to arrive. Or substitute Afghan drug lords. After they fire on American-flagged vessels and kill several U.S. citizens should we respect their sovereignty?

I understand that many Americans don't like Hamas. Tough. Many Palestinians do. They were democratically elected in very open and fair elections monitored by the Carter Institute. Hamas is vilified in the west because they are effective at providing basic services for their people, unlike the thoroughly corrupt Fatah. No they are not a pacifist group in any way and many of their acts have been deplorable. So deplorable that they can be accurately compared to the IRA. Would Hamas be easier to accept if they were Irish Catholics?

While many Palestinians have called for a single, secular state a minority of Israeli citizens cling to the racist ideal of a pure "jewish state." This minority has hijacked the Israeli government and enacted policies and actions that are anathema to any western understanding of equality and basic human rights. They have also now committed an act of war on a NATO ally. Sadly, the choice between formal military ally and campaign contributor will go to the latter. So much for credibility.

for once the comments here are surprisingly unanimous

Editor-in-chief: PLEASE take note!

Thank you for the willingness to speak a counter word to the one leaping to blame Israel. There are numerous reports that Israel said it would allow all humanitarian aid to enter Gaza once the ships were inspected for weapons and other contraband. This was an offer of a peaceful solution that would have enabled those suffering to receive aid without giving support to the current regime that has threatened repeatedly to destroy Israel and refuses any peace negotiations. But the offer was rejected by the flotilla. It is no surprise what happened. It occurred as planned by those seeking to break the blockade. When Israeli soldiers were attacked, the violence ensured and the propaganda battle won by Hamas and their supporters.

A bit tendentious in style, but I agree with Winters' post.

Apparently, the aid products in these ships were thrown inside in a way that was not even legally legit to ship. There were expired medicines, things like electric wheelchairs that are not currently in short supply, and only about 1-day's worth of aid. Hamas is now using a pretext not even to let this aid in. The Red Cross doesn't want to get involved (it will mean trouble with Hamas). There doesn't seem to have been virtually zero aid on the ship where there was violence.

Truly astonishing is the degree of anti-semitism that exists within Catholicism.

I would highly recommend that folks claiming Israel violated international law in attacking the flotilla attempting to break the blockade take a look at Marty Peretz' post on the subject.

In particular, I would recommend reading to the end, where Peretz quotes the applicable maritime law principles. The short version is that the law is on Israel's side in the matter.

I would further recommend that those who doubt the veracity of the Israeli version of events view the widely-available video footage made available by the IDF, which clearly shows the activists on the ferry attacking the IDF soldiers with pipes, metal bars, chairs, etc., and throwing soldiers from one deck of the ship to another. The attacks were brutal and violent. If this is what passes for "peace activists" these days, I'm not sure what combatants would look like.

Finally, as a recent convert to the Catholic Church, I am ashamed to see my co-religionists insinuating that Israel cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and tossing around terms like "zionist" to dismiss their defenders. Does anti-semitism still flourish in the Church I love? If so, it is a shame and a sin.

I'm not suggesting it is not possible to disagree with Israel's actions without being an anti-semite. But why must some assume from the outset that Israel must be in the wrong, and scornfully attack one of the few willing to stand up and defend them as being unworthy to write for a Catholic news outlet?

Great article. This thoughtful article helps counterbalance many other "Catholic" articles. Thank you so much.

In fact, the blockade is quite legal. The United States and Britain were at war with Germany and Japan and blockaded them. I can't remember international lawyers saying those blockades were illegal—even though they took place on the high seas in international waters.

Here are the relevant passages from the Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality:

5.1.2 (3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if 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, capture or diversion.

5.1.2 (4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they (a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy; (b) act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces; (c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system; (d) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or (e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

5.2.1 As an exception to Principle 5.1.2. paragraph 1 and in accordance with Principle 1.3 (2nd sentence), belligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.

5.2.10 Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.

The law is on Israel’s side. Ethics and history are on Israel’s side. Those who are on the side of Hamas are actually enemies of civilization.

Thank you for this article. Your voice is strong and clear. This is especially important at a time when the anti-semitic freaks (see some of the talk-backs here) are starting to come out of the woodwork.

I am ashamed that a Catholic site has allowed such bigot to apologize for Israeli cruelty and barbarism. Let's say the truth: Israel holds open contempt about international law and does not care about whatsoever so-called human rights for Palestines.

If Jesus saw this in a modern world, what would he have said?

Thou loveth thyselves as I loved thee

John Allen is a journalist, adhering to professional ethics and standards of journalism
who what where when how and why
just the facts, ma'am with the valid, reliable and verifiable why

Winters is a failed political propagandist for minor political candidates.
His field is polemics
Facts only get in the way

"Now, Mr. Winters, picture a U.S. aid flotilla heading for Somalia with medicine and building materials. Imagine that the local warlords, bent on crushing the local population, don't want that aid to arrive. Or substitute Afghan drug lords. After they fire on American-flagged vessels and kill several U.S. citizens should we respect their sovereignty?"

- Doesn't exactly hold true. The Israelis had a military blockade up for ships and other means for aid to arrive. The ship was warned many times not to try to break the blockade. They knew exactly what would happen if they did, which is WHY they broke into the blockade. It wasn't about aid or trying to help people, it was about creating an international incident.

As to who fired first, who was armed with what, I'm going to withhold judgment and wait for cooler heads to prevail in an investigation. Too many people claiming to 'know' what happened are running around chanting 'death to Israel!' or 'Death to Hamas!' right now.

"Note: the kitchen utensils and (gasp) slingshots that the Israeli military trotted out for the photo-op can hardly be considered "arms" in a modern military engagement."
- doesn't matter. If you shoot at a police officer with a pistol, or try to take him down with a wrist rocket, in either case, you're going to get tased (or shot) and arrested for assault.

A little common sense here, people.

I was pleasantly surprised to read the article supportive of Israel on the NCR Today -and then most dismayed to read the comments, not one of which supporter the origianl article. The ignorance displayed was also disturbing. I hope that people who are reading this blog will look at reports from those who are supporting Israel's right to defend herself as well as from those whom apparently would be just as happy were there no Israel at all.

5.1.2 (3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if 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, capture or diversion.
5.1.2 (4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they (a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy; (b) act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces; (c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system; (d) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or (e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
5.2.1 As an exception to Principle 5.1.2. paragraph 1 and in accordance with Principle 1.3 (2nd sentence), belligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.
5.2.10 Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.

Many of the posts assume that the Israeli actions were contrary to international law. That is not correct.

According to the Laws of Armed Conflict, a state party to an armed conflict has the right to establish a naval blockade on its enemy's coast for security reasons. A naval blockade means preventing the passage (entry or exit) of all vessels to or from the ports and coastal areas of the enemy, irrespective of the kind of cargo carried by these vessels.

The power to impose a naval blockade is well established under customary international law. It is a common practice, and even the Charter of the United Nations, when enumerating the different actions which can be taken by the Security Council in order to maintain or restore international peace and security, explicitly mentions the naval blockade among these measures (Article 42 of the Charter).

International law sets several conditions for a legal naval blockade (these conditions are reflected, for example, in the "San Remo Manual on International Law applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea" from 1994: hereinafter The San Remo Manual):

Public declaration - a blockade shall be publicly declared and notified to all States that might be affected by its establishment, in particular those states whose vessels are sailing or suppose to be sailing near the relevant area. The declaration shall specify, among other things, the commencement, duration (as far as it is known when the blockade is established) and geographical boundries of the blockade.

Effectiveness - no fictitious blockade shall be established. A State that declares a naval blockade must enforce it in practice. An ineffective blockade whould expire.

Impatiality - a blockade must be applied impartially to vessels of all States (including of those carrying the flag of the State which imposed it).

Access to neutral States - a naval blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

Passage of humanitarian assistance - a naval blockade is imposed for security reasons. Thus, the blockading party must provide for passage of humanitarian assistance for the civilian population of the blockaded area. This obligation is subject to the right of the blockading party to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which the passage is permitted, in order to make sure that no means are transferred to the benefit of the enemy, rather than to the civilian population, and that the humanitarian assistance is distributed under the supervision of a neutral party which prevents the abuse of humanitarian assistance by the enemy

The naval blockade imposed by the State of Israel on the Gaza strip, which was violated by the vessels participating in the current flotilla, is in conformity with the aforementioned rules of international law:

Public declaraion - on 03.01.2009, during operation "Cast Lead", the State of Israel declared a naval blockade on the Gaza strip, in the distance of 20 miles from the coast. The naval blockade was established for a clear military necessity - to prevent the military strengthening of Hamas by stopping the entry of terrorist elements and the smuggling of weapons into the Gaza strip, an aim supported also by the Security Council Resolution 1860. The establishment of the Naval blockade was published by the ordinary international channels. These publications detailed the geographical boundries of the blockaded area (by coordinates) and emphasized that the naval blockade shall be in force until a further notice. Before the current flotilla had begun, the State of Israel approached the States involved, by diplomatic channels, and the organizers of the flotilla were well aware of the blockade.

Effectiveness - the naval blockade on the Gaza strip has been effectively enforced by the State of Israel since its commencement. Indeed, before it was established, Israel allowed the entry of a vessel carrying humanitarian assistance into Gaza, but since the naval blockade was declared, no vessel was allowed in.

Impartiality - the naval blockade has been enforced on the vessels of all states, with no discrimination.

Access to neutral States - the naval blockade on Gaza has not affected, in any manner, the access of vessels to the ports or coasts of neutral States.

Passage of humanitarian assistance - the State of Israel allowed the passage of humanitarian assistance into the Gaza strip long before the naval blockade had been imposed. This assistance has entered Gaza through the crossing points between Israel and Gaza, subject to security check and in coordination with international organizations working in Gaza. The State of Israel openly declared that it will allow the enty of the humanitarian goods carried by the current flotilla into Gaza, after it is unloaded in Israel, in the port of Ashdod.

In conclusion, the naval blockade imposed by the State of Israel on the Gaza strip is in accordance with international law.

Get your International Law straight before making arbitrary claims about what it has to say.
Any ship that attempts to go through a blockade, if, after warning, refuses to stop and subject itself to inspection is liable to attack. (Yes, international law recognizes the right to use Blockade as a tactic in armed conflict - such as the one that exists between Hamas and Israel).

To make claims about the status of international law and to arbitrary and sweepingly accuse people of violating it without being educated about the actual parameters of the law is deceitful, immoral, and irresponsible.

1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.

2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.

3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states.

4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.

5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.

6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.

7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.

8. A state may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.

9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.

10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel’s intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.

11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.

12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.

Actually, Mr. Winters is spot on. The blockade is not illegal according to international law, even if the UN dislikes it. Neither is boarding a ship in international waters if its stated intent is to violate a blockade. The organizers of the flotilla and many (not all) of its participants were hoping for confrontation and were ready for it. They were ready with knives and batons and other light weapons, which are, in fact, very effective since the Israelis originally boarded with only paintball guns in order to minimize injuries. They only resorted to live ammunition after they came under attack. And yes, the video shot on scene confirms this completely.
It's time for everyone to stop these knee-jerk reactions and think about the situation critically.

Good article. Thanks for some common sense when it comes to Israel.

too bad NCR censored the healthy and helpful conversation taking place here.

I got my renewal slip yesterday in the mail.

My subscription runs out in July.

Either Winters goes or I go.

Like the rest of this Saxon Church, you will not even notice I am gone, voting as so often said in these comments, with my pocketbook.

Sean,

I was pleased to see such a measured, intelligent post in pages of the NCR. The usual co-dependent attitude of the Left --and the usual selective indignation-- is well enough represented in the combox.

Regards

The Reverend Father Miguel D'Escoto, MM, during his honorable tenure as President of the United Nations General Assembly, worked very hard to bring resolution in peace and in justice to this painful and deadly situation for the suffering people of Palestine, but was blocked at every step by the Bush Administration.

And the killing continues.

God, Bless the Irish!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100604/wl_time/08599199429500

God keep Rachel Corrie!

Aid was sent to South African occupied people. If the SA govt had shot the aid bringers, would the US populace have objected? You bet. Even though the blacks were armed, communist, controlled cities and were dedicated to the eradication of the apartheid state. The US govt might not have objected, but the US populace would have made them take a stand against the SA govt.

The Israelis could have just disabled the ships, not attacked them massively in the night. Obviously the people on board were expecting some opposition from the Israelis. The Israelis do not own Gaza or the West Bank, so they have no right to blockade it.
If Hamas rejected the aid then they can take the bad PR that gives them among the people of Gaza. It is good for the people of Gaza to know that other people in the world care, not the propaganda that Hamas puts out that America hates them and only other Muslims care. The whole thing is psychological tactics on both sides.

The flotilla is wise not to have trusted Israel to deliver the aid, they could have asked for ngo's to do, but Israel is gutting the ngo's and de-legitimising their functions. If Israel really wanted to undercut Hamas they need to build up a non-corrupt, thriving civil society in the rest of the West Bank. Instead they have done everything they can to discredit and undermine the credibility of the govt in the West Bank, in addition to continuing to take over land and water and taxes from the occupied people. The US cannot support this any longer.

Karzai only had to look at Netanyahu thumbing his nose at us and continuing with the wall and settlements, on our money, because he thinks he is indispensable to us. Karzai, thinking he also has us by the nose, starts to say he could join the Taliban, implying if we don't come to hell and get off his back. Both government are undemocratic and becoming more authoritarian and right wing, while holding their hands out for US money. Neither is a very good ally, and Petraeus and others are right to say that Israeli and Karzai policies are hurting US long-term interests.

Very good, and fair article!

The Palestinian attack on the soldiers that landed on board in an attempt at keeping the peace can not be justified. The way Hamas keeps help from the Gaza strip, and the countless missile attacks on Israel everyday from regions with many civilians prove how the Arabs care nothing for human life. They have broken the cease fire so many times it's no coincidence. They don't want peace, they want Israel eradicated and the Jews exterminated.

I ceased to feel sympathy for the Palestinians when Israel gave them the Gaza strip, and they proceeded to demolish the homes they had just been given, and practically rape the land of anything valuable, instead of cultivating the land, and using it peacefully. Unfortunately, thanks to the Koran commanding the Muslims to take over the world through force if neccessary, until no non-believer exists, we won't see peace in any coming lifetime.

I pray I am wrong.