Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Israel’s Actions: Entirely Lawful Alan M. Dershowitz
Frontpagemagazine ^ | 6-2-10 | Alan M. Dershowitz

Posted on 06/02/2010 5:49:47 AM PDT by SJackson

While the international community has, once again, ganged up on Israel, one thing is for certain: the legality of Israel’s actions in stopping the Gaza flotilla is not open to question. What Israel did was entirely consistent with both international and domestic law. In order to understand why Israel acted within its rights, the complex events at sea must be deconstructed:

First, there is the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which included a naval blockade. Recall that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, it did not impose a blockade. Indeed it left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area. Instead Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare against Israel. These acts of warfare featured anti-personnel rockets, nearly 10,000 of them, directed at Israeli civilians. This was not only an act of warfare, it was a war crime. Israel responded to the rockets by declaring a blockade, the purpose of which was to assure that no rockets, or other material that could be used for making war against Israeli civilians, was permitted into Gaza. Israel allowed humanitarian aid through its checkpoints. Egypt as well participated in the blockade. There was never a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, merely a shortage of certain goods that would end if the rocket attacks ended.

The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This, despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerency against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.

The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security.

Third, were those on board the flotilla innocent non-combatants or did they lose that status once they agreed to engage in the military act of breaking the blockade? Let there be no mistake about the purpose of this flotilla. It was decidedly not to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza, but rather the break the entirely lawful Israeli military blockade. The proof lies in the fact that both Israel and Egypt offered to have all the food, medicine and other humanitarian goods sent to Gaza, if the boats agreed to land in an Israeli or Egyptian port. That humanitarian offer was soundly rejected by the leaders of the flotilla who publicly announced:

“This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it’s about breaking Israel’s siege on 1.5 million Palestinians.” (AFP May 27, 2010.)

The act of breaking a military siege is itself a military act, and those knowingly participating in such military action put in doubt their status as non-combatants.

It is a close question whether “civilians” who agree too participate in the breaking of a military blockade have become combatants. They are certainly something different than pure, innocent civilians, and perhaps they are also somewhat different from pure armed combatants. They fit uncomfortably onto the continuum of civilianality that has come to characterize asymmetrical warfare.

Finally, we come to the issue of the right of self defense engaged in by Israeli soldiers who were attacked by activists on the boat. There can be little doubt that the moment any person on the boat picked up a weapon and began to attack Israeli soldiers boarding the vessel, they lost their status as innocent civilians. Even if that were not the case, under ordinary civilian rules of self defense, every Israeli soldier had the right to protect himself and his colleagues from attack by knife and pipe wielding assailants. Less there be any doubt that Israeli soldiers were under attack, simply view the accompanying video and watch, as so-called peaceful “activists” repeatedly pummel Israeli soldiers with metal rods. (http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk) Every individual has the right to repel such attacks by the use of lethal force, especially when the soldiers were so outnumbered on the deck of the ship. Recall that Israel’s rules of engagement required its soldiers to fire only paintballs unless their lives were in danger. Would any country in the world deny its soldiers the right of self defense under comparable circumstances?

Notwithstanding the legality of Israel’s actions, the international community has, as usual, denounced the Jewish state. In doing so, Israel’s critics have failed to pinpoint precisely what Israel did that allegedly violates international law. Some have wrongly focused on the blockade itself. Others have erroneously pointed to the location of the boarding in international waters. Most have simply pointed to the deaths of so-called peace activists, though these deaths appear to be the result of lawful acts of self-defense. None of these factors alone warrant condemnation, but the end result surely deserves scrutiny by Israeli policy makers. There can be little doubt that the mission was a failure, as judged by its results. It is important, however, to distinguish between faulty policies on the one hand, and alleged violations of international law on the other hand. Only the latter would warrant international intervention, and the case has simply not been made that Israel violated international law.


TOPICS: Editorial; Israel
KEYWORDS: alqaedainturkey; blockade; gazablacade; israel; mavimarmara; navalblockade; terrorflotilla; turksinalqaeda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
To: hennie pennie
Israel was acting within the law. I wish Dersh would have quoted these.

According to the San Remo Manual that governs international humanitarian law, it is permissible under rule 67(a) to attack neutral vessels on the high seas when the vessels “are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning the... intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or ...intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture.”

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea 1994

Prepared by International Lawyers and Naval Experts. Convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law. Adopted in June 1994.

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMSU#4See More www.icrc.org

And per Olso...

Gaza-Jerico of 1994, Agreement annex 1, Sec 1.b paragraph 4

As part of Israel's responsibilities for safety and security within the three Maritime Activity Zones, Israel Navy vessels may sail throughout these zones, as necessary and without limitations, and may take any measures necessary against vessels ... suspected of being used for terrorist activities or for smuggling arms, ammunition, drugs, goods, or for any other illegal activity. The Palestinian Police will be notified of such actions, and the ensuing procedures will be coordinated through the Maritime Coordination and Cooperation Center.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Gaza-Jericho%20Agremeent%20Annex%20I

21 posted on 06/02/2010 7:59:48 AM PDT by blasater1960 ( Dt 30, Ps 111, The Torah is perfect, attainable, now and forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Would any country in the world deny its soldiers the right of self defense under comparable circumstances?

Actually, don't our rules of engagement in Afghanistan prohibit our soldiers from defending themselves with lethal force?

22 posted on 06/02/2010 8:00:08 AM PDT by Real Cynic No More (The mighty zero, obama,does not warrant the respect necessary for his name to be capitalized.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

The article states.....”the fact that both Israel and Egypt offered to have all the food, medicine and other humanitarian goods sent to Gaza, if the boats agreed to land in an Israeli or Egyptian port. That humanitarian offer was soundly rejected by the leaders of the flotilla who publicly announced:.............“This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it’s about breaking Israel’s siege on 1.5 million Palestinians.” (AFP May 27, 2010.)

The act of breaking a military siege is itself a military act,........ and those knowingly participating in such military action put in doubt their status as non-combatants.

It is a close question whether “civilians” who agree too participate in the breaking of a military blockade have become combatants. They are certainly something different than pure, innocent civilians, and perhaps they are also somewhat different from pure armed combatants. They fit uncomfortably onto the continuum of civilianality that has come to characterize asymmetrical warfare.”

I agree completely with this....further those supplying the ships carry responsibility if they knew these ships were going to bypass the blockade...which they would have had to know this.


23 posted on 06/02/2010 9:05:56 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Did we kill a few Somali's in international waters? other nations? This is getting so bad once agin i have the sinking feeling that though this essay and others are so good, in the back of my mind I hear evil laughter echoing,"ha ha who's going to believe an infidel Jew pig? Time to put stars on them for their safety Bwahahahahahaha"

Sorry not schizo, just sadly feel the past is fast upon us....G!d will it ever end?

24 posted on 06/02/2010 2:16:22 PM PDT by Karliner ("Things are more like they are now than they ever were before."DDE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Turkey’s hypocrisy is utterly amazing. Prepare to be stunned if you Goggle PKK, incursion an Iraq.


25 posted on 06/02/2010 2:39:14 PM PDT by Red Dog #1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
this man is an enigma. or he has he turned around. I still bet he voted for zer0bambam.

He's not an enigma. He's always been good on Israel and our defense. And he's a committed social liberal. Who believed Obama. There are millions of them out there. Not turned around, his eyes have simply been opened on a couple of issues.

26 posted on 06/02/2010 4:25:41 PM PDT by SJackson (Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided, Barack Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hennie pennie; AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; ...
Thanks hennie pennie. Not a fan of Dersh, apart from his legalistic and yeah-but support for Israel, which far exceeds the support given by most Jews in America. Israel was acting lawfully, Turkey was NOT.
27 posted on 06/02/2010 4:33:00 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Real Cynic No More
Actually, don't our rules of engagement in Afghanistan prohibit our soldiers from defending themselves with lethal force?

It's my understanding that in some cases, yes, the rules are similar.

28 posted on 06/02/2010 4:33:53 PM PDT by SJackson (Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided, Barack Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson