Israel's New Initiative: Barbarism and Piracy at Sea

Stephen Lendman: On May 31, under cover of darkness, Israeli commandos conducted a premeditated act of state terrorism against civilian aid activists trying to deliver thousands of tons of essential to life aid to besieged Gazans. Israeli radio reported that 19 were slaughtered, dozens more injured, and according to Earth Times.org: 

"About 480 foreign activists who were stopped by Israel on the high seas while sailing to Gaza were transfered overnight to a prison in the southern city of Beersheba, Israeli Radio reported (June 1)." About 48 others were deported. Other reports had over 600 arrested and an Israeli-imposed news blackout.

Those held now face grueling interrogations, followed either by deportation or detainment ahead of prosecution, Israel's customary practice - blaming  victims, absolving state terrorism, repeatedly committed, claiming it's to safeguard national security. 

Or by Israeli logic, its attack was self-defense. Linked to "global Jihad, Al Qaeda and Hamas," humanitarian activists were an "armada of hate and violence (engaging in a) premeditated and outrageous provocation," according to Israel's deputy defense minister, Danny Ayalon. 

Not according to Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Canceling scheduled military exercises with Israel and recalling his ambassador, Oguz Celikkol, he said:

"It is no longer possible to cover up or ignore Israel's lawlessness....This action, totally contrary to the principles of international law, is inhumane state terrorism. Nobody should think we will keep quiet in the face of this."

Nor should anyone let Israel get away with a crime this grave, its latest example of lawlessness, this time in international waters in violation of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas and 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Relevant International Law 

Under UNCLOS' Article 101, maritime piracy includes   "any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation....against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State (and) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating (such) an act."

Usually it refers to robbery or criminal violence committed by private parties. Broadly interpreted, it can apply to states committing lawless acts. UNCLOS lets them interdict at sea to prevent illegal arms and drug smuggling, the slave trade or terrorist activities - not applicable to Flotilla activists despite Israel's accusations.

Its mission was humanitarian. Inspected before departure, its cargo included food, medicines, educational, construction, and other materials, not weapons, munitions or anything threatening Israel. Under UNCLOS, its commandos had no right to interdict  or attack activists on board, especially in international waters.

Under customary maritime law, ships have "innocent passage" rights through all international and coastal area waters, subject to certain restrictions. 

UNCLOS defines "innocent passage" as expeditious, continuous passage through waters in ways not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of a coastal state.

America's Defense Department defines it as:

"The right of all ships to engage in continuous and expeditious surface passage through the territorial sea and archipelagic water of foreign coastal states in a manner not prejudicial to its peace, good order, or security. Passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only if incidental to ordinary navigation or necessary for force majeure (a natural or unavoidable catastrophe) or distress, or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships, or aircraft in danger of distress."

Israel's brazen slaughter constituted a crime of war and against humanity, punishable under international law. Claiming it an act self-defense is bogus, reprehensible and laughable on its face.

The Legitimate Right of Self-Defense

As reported on Ma'anNews.net, Mahmoud Abu Rahma, the Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights in Gaza, explained that:

"In international waters, the crew of a ship has the right to prevent others from boarding their ship without their permission, including by resorting to violence," if, in fact, it was used by whatever means activists managed to employ.

Further, states may only act within its 12 nautical mile limit, not in international waters for any reasons other than what UNCLOS permits, with verifiable evidence to prove it.

Abu Rahma also raised other considerations, including "whether Gaza is occupied or not. If not, then Israel has absolutely no right to act inside or outside its nautical jurisdiction," but in either case, the right of self-defense applies.

As for Israel claiming it, the UN Charter's Article 51 is clear. It's allowed against an attack or an impending one "until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security." In other words, justifiable self-defense is permissible. Charter Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit any unilateral threat or use of force not specifically allowed under Article 51 or authorized by the Security Council.

Three General Assembly resolutions concur, absolutely prohibiting "non-consensual military intervention," precisely what Israel used.

Abu Rahma also said that "Military or police forces may not use force except to the extent necessary to deal with a certain situation, (but) given the very high number of casualties and injuries," clearly extreme lethal measures was used.

A final issue pertains to the rights and sovereignty of states "under whose flags the ships were sailing when they were attacked," particularly since the incident was in international waters.