Here in Northern New Mexico a series of local letters to the editor and editorials have appeared regarding the recent actions of Israel. In these several writers, sharing similar Points Of View, reference what they purport to be the “facts”. They then proceed to present a series of “half-truths”, speculations, rumors, and innuendos in support of their position. There are a few “facts” verifiable through minimal research which they fail to raise, which may be relevant if “truth” still holds any complementarity to the search for knowledge.
1. The killing of non-combatant civilians, in declared or undeclared war, “police action”, intervention, or even within a group of humans purporting membership in a “civilized” society, is MURDER, plain and simple. It cannot be re-defined as self-defense or “collateral damage”. Its fault cannot be re-directed to victims who “were in the wrong place at the wrong time”, or who happened to support a political party whose ideology is unpopular with others. All who kill or support the killing of the innocent, participate in a crime against humanity for which they, or those they represent, must be held accountable.
2. Recently, over six hundred human beings, in a publicly transparent international mission of peace, were searched and cleared of contraband by x-ray machines and metal detectors. They then boarded ships and set out to sea. These were avowed peace activists on a declared humanitarian mission. In darkness, and far out in international waters they were boarded by Israeli commandos after which at least nine civilians were dead, six were missing and another 48 wounded by gunshots. Calling them “terrorists”, extremists or insurgents, or even a lynch mob does not magically transform the nature or intent of their mission. One of the nine, a 60 year old man, was shot four times, once each in the temple, chest, hip, and back. Another, a 19 year old Turkish-American boy, was shot 5 times, once in the face, the head, twice in the legs and once in the back. All the civilian dead and wounded were shot by trained military commandos at close range. This is hardly a textbook description of “self defense.”
In another incident at sea in 1985, the Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro, was hijacked off the coast of Egypt, this time not by Israeli commandos but instead by four members of the Palestine Liberation Front. A disabled, Jewish – American passenger was killed and thrown overboard. In that instance the United States, Israel and the world were outraged, prompting the creation of:
Article 3 of the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 1988, stating it is an international crime for any person to seize or exercise control over a ship by force, and also a crime to injure or kill any person in the process.
Apparently the Rome convention overlooked the obvious fact that this international law was meant to apply only in cases where Palestinians attacked Israelis and not the reverse. Or so it would seem in the case of the deaths aboard the Mavi Marmara.
The one local author in his letter to the editor, made the claim, “A state, in a time of conflict, can impose an embargo and carry out embargo activities in international waters,” a statement which holds partial truth under “The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea 14 June 1994.” There are, however, 18 pages of guidelines for naval conflict among which are the ground rules for establishing a naval embargo or blockade. Within these guidelines, a blockade is considered “illegal” when: a.) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival or, b.) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.
Numerous reports by the United Nations, and internationally recognized humanitarian organizations such as Amnesty International, Red Cross, Oxfam, and UNICEF, CARE International, CAFOD, Christian Aid, Medecins du Monde, Save the Children and Trocaire, have taken the position that a humanitarian crisis exists in Gaza. Among the reasons which have led to their conclusions:
- Unemployment rates in Gaza of over 40% (with 70% of those gainfully employed before Operation Cast Lead now jobless),
- Over 4000 private residences destroyed with little or no access to materials for rebuilding (creating 20,000 homeless and 10,000 w/o access to drinking water),
- Non-availability dozens of basic medicines (World Health Organization),
- 1.1 million of a total 1.5 million residents are now completely dependent upon external aid for basic survival (65% of these being children).
Although as many as 10,000 truckloads of goods entered Gaza as recently as January of 2007, that number had decreased to 3000 by January of 2009. Contributing significantly to this worsening situation was Israel’s implementation of “Operation Cast Lead” against both the military and civilian populations of Gaza, destroying individual homes, small business’, hospitals, and sewage/water treatment facilities upon which residents were dependent (The latter resulting in 40-50 million liters of raw sewage being dumped into the sea daily). Lack of access to necessary materials has meant that much of the damage incurred by Israel’s attack has to date not been repaired.
- Basic necessities deemed by Israel to be legitimate definitions of “humanitarian aid” consist of a list of roughly 81 items, subject to daily reclassification and change. As Israel will not publicly release the guidelines for classification, the list of items which in the past have been designated as “contraband” under an increasingly implausible banner of Israeli “self defense” can give some indication as to what types of international “aid” would not be allowed to enter Gaza. The following is a partial listing of these items:
Musical Instruments – Light Bulbs – Sheets – Mattresses – Cutlery – Crockery – Glasses – Electric Wheelchairs – Cancer Treatment Medicine – Dentistry tools – Plastic Toys – School Desks – Blackboards – Pencils- Chalk – Paper – Books – Jam – Nuts – Canned Fruit – Dried Fruit – Candy – Spare Parts for cars and other machines – Refrigerators – Washing Machines – Plaster – Paint – Tires – Glue – Floor Tiles – Book Bags – Crayons – Sports Equipment – Carpeting – Curtains – Textiles – Thread – Needles – Chocolate – Fruit Juice – Water Filtration equipment – Fabric for Clothing – Wood for Furniture –Wood for Construction – Furniture – PVC pipe – Solar Panels – Cement – Generators – Fresh Meat – Coriander – Ginger – Nutmeg – Seeds – Fishing Rods – Ropes for Fishing – Donkeys – Horses – Goats – Cattle – Chicken Hatcheries – Chickens – Newspapers – Macaroni – Tomato Paste – Lentils- Empty cans for Canning – Margarine – Vinegar – Honey
- Goods designated by the San Remo Manual, (governing legal embargo) lists as “free goods” (therefore not subject to capture) the following:
a.) religious objects
b.) articles intended exclusively for the treatment of the wounded and the sick and for the prevention of disease
c.) clothing, bedding, essential foodstuffs, and means of shelter for the civilian population in general, and women an children in particular, provided there is not serious reason to believe that such goods will be diverted to other purpose, or that a definite military advantage would accrue to the enemy by their substitution for enemy goods that would thereby become available for military purposes.
d.) items destined for prisoners of war, including individual parcels and collective relief shipments containing food, clothing, educational, cultural and recreational articles;
e.) goods otherwise specifically exempted from capture by international treaty or by special arrangement between belligerents; and
f.) other goods not susceptible for use in armed conflict
Immediately evident is the fact , that were independent flotillas of ships allowed direct access to the Ports of Gaza, many of the goods and materials international law deems “essential” would fall among those items Israel has arbitrarily classified as luxury, contraband or nonessential. There is a perverse irony inherent in the fact that goods “destined for prisoners of war” ((d.) above) are denied to a civilian population which Israeli propagandists have claimed to be free of even the restraint of “occupation.”
Numerous alternatives to the commando assaults of the recent weeks exist within international law. Under embargo, Israeli inspections could be or have been made of the cargoes of neutral aid ships (such as Turkey, Ireland, or the United States) in their ports of origin. Another option would be that of a warship from the sponsoring country accompanying an aid ship or flotilla to insure security and integrity of the cargo. The sponsor country, prior to departure would verify the cargo to be humanitarian aid. In these examples aid ships, within the guidelines of embargo, could sail directly to the ports of Gaza without additional inspection or impediment. There is an additional possibility that some humanitarian aid ships might offer, although not legally required to do so (and this was the case with the “Freedom Flotilla”), to be voluntarily boarded and inspected by members of the Red Cross or United Nations prior to landing in a port. These are very real alternatives, some of which are put forward in the same text of International Law which Israel has used to “legitimize” its embargo.
As eyewitness reports become public and being aware of the legal options already in place , one has to wonder why non-confrontational, state supported options for the delivery of aid were rejected in favor of a “ marine commando” assault under cover of darkness. It would not have been difficult to predict the possibility of what actually ensued (i.e. the illegal seizure in International waters of several ships, crews, cargoes, passengers and their personal effects, replete with the confusion, confrontation and unwarranted deaths) would, in fact, occur. The greatest threat posed by the non-confrontational options for the delivery of aid would seem to be the extreme limitations these options would place upon Israel’s ability to self-determine, (without respect to international law), what commodities are to be considered contraband and which would be allowed to pass. The obvious disparity between legally defined “free goods” and those commodities previously banned by Israel lead one to question the actual motivations behind the embargo.
Contrary to the claims of Israel, conditions under which the civilian population of Gaza currently reside are deteriorating. These extreme conditions were initially created and influenced by the destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure during Israel’s’ “Operation Cast Lead”. They have been artificially extended and maintained by the severe limitations imposed by the Israeli aid embargo. So abysmal is the situation that it led Navi Pillay, the United Nations’ human rights chief, to determine, in an August 2009 report, that it constituted collective punishment. This determination by the United Nations, not only makes the blockade illegal under the San Remo Manual guidelines, but a crime under guidelines set forth by the Geneva Conventions.
If we presume ourselves civilized and governed by law, then law must be applied equally and equitably. Rogue states cannot be allowed to recognize the legitimacy of the International community only when it is convenient for them to do so. If heads of state cannot be depended upon to enforce these laws, then we, the worlds citizens, through the strength of our unified voices, through boycott, through public protest and resistance must lay claim to the birthright of our collective humanity.