Israel's deadly attack on the Gaza "Freedom Flotilla" was flagrantly illegal. The flotilla, carefully searched for arms before disembarkation, enjoyed the right of free navigation in international waters, and Israel had no legal justification to interrupt its peaceful mission.
"Mainstream politicians, civic leaders, university presidents and others in this country routinely express their support for Israel as a Jewish state, despite the fact that such a state only could have been created in a multicultural land by ethnically cleansing it of as many non-Jews as possible. Today, Israel is only able to maintain its Jewish identity because it has established an apartheid regime, both in the occupied territories and within its own borders, and because it continues to reject the Palestinian right of return.
Where is the outrage about that?
Where was the outrage in 1983 when Israeli Gen. Rafael Eitan looked forward to the day that Jews had fully settled the land, because then "all the Arabs will be able to do about it is scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle"? Or when Alan Dershowitz suggested in 2002 that Israel summarily empty and then bulldoze an entire Palestinian village as a punitive measure each time it was attacked? Or when New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman claimed in 2006 to have discovered a "pathology" that caused some Arabs to "hate others more than they love their own kids"? Or when Avigdor Lieberman (who now serves as Israel's foreign minister) said in 2004 that Palestinian citizens of Israel should "take their bundles and get lost"? Or when Israeli professor Arnon Sofer, one of the country's leading demographic alarmists, said that to preserve the Jewish state, Israel should pull out of Gaza, though that would require Israel to remain at the border and "kill, and kill, and kill, all day, every day"?
An endless deluge of statements of support for the actual, calculated, methodical dehumanization of Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular goes without comment; whereas a single offhand comment by an 89-year-old journalist, whose long and distinguished record of principled commitment and challenges to state power entitles her to respect — and the benefit of the doubt — causes her to be publicly pilloried.
To accept this appalling hypocrisy is to be complicit in the racism of our age."
"With all due respect to Helen Thomas and her illustrious career, she was merely a columnist, with no political power and a relatively small readership. When she adopted opinions or arguments that contradicted the facts or were morally problematic, they were easily rebutted in the public sphere.
Charles Schumer, however, is an extremely powerful senator who serves on some of that body's most powerful committees, such as banking and judiciary.
Moreover, through his representation of New York, the state with the largest Jewish population in the US, he is a leading pro-Israel voice in congress who has the ability directly to impact the nature of US policy towards Israel and the Middle East more broadly.
In other words, what Senator Schumer says actually can cost people - Palestinians, Israelis, Americans - their livelihoods and even their lives, not to mention help prolong or alleviate one of the world's most intractable conflicts. And yet no one in official Washington even blinked."
"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has described Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip as a violation of the Geneva Conventions and called on the Israeli government to lift it."
"Given the increasingly negative news that has come out of Afghanistan - and of U.S. strategy there - some analysts believe the front-page article is designed to reverse growing public sentiment that the war is not worth the cost."
Anthony DiMaggio on UN 1860:The International Committee of the Red Cross has declared for the first time Israel’s blockade of Gaza to be illegal under the Geneva Conventions. In a statement, the Red Cross said, "The whole of Gaza’s civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law." The Red Cross said more than 100 essential medicines and many basic medical supplies are no longer available in Gaza due to the blockade. A new report by the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem says the blockade has led to economic collapse in Gaza: 95 percent of Gaza’s factories have closed, 98 percent of residents suffer from blackouts, and 93 percent of Gaza’s water is polluted. On Sunday, Arab League chief Amr Moussa visited the Gaza Strip and called for an end to Israel’s blockade of the Palestinian territory.
Amr Moussa: "Taking the mayonnaise and tomato sauce and shaving cream out of the list is no relaxation. This is trivial, and it leads to many of us laughing during the day about this kind of attitude, which we do not consider serious or serious enough to have us deal with such a relaxation. Relaxation means a totally different thing, and relaxation should be on the road or as a step towards the total lifting of the siege."
Here in the United States, Democratic Senator Charles Schumer praised Israel’s efforts to economically strangle the people of Gaza.
Sen. Schumer: “And to me, since the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas, while certainly there should be humanitarian aid, people not starving to death, to strangle them economically until they see that that’s not the way to go makes sense."
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 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:
- 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.”
- If the vessels “engage[s] in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy”
- If vessels are “act[ing] as auxillaries to the enemy’s armed forces”
- If vessels “are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system”
- If vessels “sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft”
- 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.
To leading Democratic lawmakers, such as Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), however, "this flotilla was more about creating an incident than helping people." Similarly, Mikulski insisted that the activists "cared more about inciting a confrontation that they did about delivering aid."These lawmakers seem to have forgotten, however, the longstanding tradition of strategic nonviolent direct action to "create an incident." The four African-American students who sat at the Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro back in 1960 weren't just interested in a cup of coffee. Similarly, when civil rights activists protested in downtown Birmingham in 1963, there was reason to suspect that Sherriff Bull Connor would use force to break up the demonstrations.
When people struggle nonviolently for justice against an oppressive state apparatus, there is no contradiction between helping people and creating an incident.
