What if Hamas Had Attacked Humanitarian Ships in International Waters?

This is a thought experiment. Just imagine that it was Israel in desperate need of humanitarian aid – perhaps in the wake of an earthquake or whatever.  Imagine further that a broad, well publicized effort involving citizens of dozens of countries had assembled a flotilla to carry humanitarian aid to the beleaguered nation.

Now try to imagine that Hamas – the elected government of Gaza – had long been blocking humanitarian aid to Israel and was determined to keep the flotilla from reaching Israel. Suppose that Hamas had the military wherewithal – which of course it doesn’t – to hijack that flotilla miles out to sea in international water.

Suppose that armed Hamas commandos, descending from helicopters in the night, swarmed all over the flotilla. And, that as it did so those commandos repeatedly shot a U.S. citizen in the head and murdered eight others.

The International Maritime Bureau (a division of the International Chamber of Commerce) defines piracy as “the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act.”

The U.S. State Department defines terrorism as the use of violence or the threat of violence on civilians for political purposes.

Our imagined – and very far-fetched scenario – fits both those definitions. Yet many commentators seem to go out of their way to avoid describing the recent attack on the humanitarian aid flotilla in international waters as piracy.

Nor do these commentators use the T-word – so readily invoked at every other opportunity.  Can it be that we only use terrorism or terrorist to refer to actions by people of color or by those who resist U.S. and Israeli invasions and occupations?  

Can it be that this crass double standard makes our minds such mush that we are no longer capable of seeing straight?

Ed served 14 months in federal prisons for his civil resistance against the SOA. More recently he has been one of the “Hancock 2,” the “Hancock 15,” the “Hancock 33,” and the “Hancock 38.” Reach him at: edkinane@verizon.net. Read other articles by Ed.

4 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. lamella said on June 7th, 2010 at 1:04pm #

    “The International Maritime Bureau (a division of the International Chamber of Commerce) defines piracy as “the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act.”

    The IMB’s definition of piracy is not recognized by international law, as it is too broad in making no distinction between “piracy” committed in territorial vs. international waters.

    The definition which is legally binding is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Article 101, which states:

    Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

    (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

    (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

    (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

    (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

    The Israeli boarding of the aid ships was not committed for private ends, nor were the Israelis boarding the aid ships from private crafts. Therefore it is not legally considered piracy.

    There are plenty of other legal issues with the boarding and seizure of the aid ships where Israel was in the wrong. Israel did not use proportionate force when boarding the Mavi Marmara, and their blockade of Gaza is illegal in the first place meaning they had no right to board the ships at all. But it was not by a legal definition piracy.

  2. Don Hawkins said on June 7th, 2010 at 5:23pm #

    Helen Thomas the press secretary for the President called what she said reprehensible. Let’s see 90 years old seen and heard it all watched the illusion bullshit up close from these so called leaders for 50 years and what she said was reprehensible? This is a perfect example of nut’s no not Helen sharp as a tack the press secretary.

  3. hayate said on June 7th, 2010 at 6:53pm #

    lamella said on June 7th, 2010 at 1:04pm

    Lynda Brayer and Andrew Wimmer make those same points about the israeli war crime not being technically an act of piracy here:

    It is Not Piracy! http://www.zcommunications.org/it-is-not-piracy-by-lynda-brayer

    But unlike sayanim/hasbarat lame, here, they do not do this to lessen the perception of the israeli crime from a wanton act of barbarism (piracy) to “oopsies, we just overdid it a little” as lame is trying to do in her defense of the israeli war criminals. IE:

    “There are plenty of other legal issues with the boarding and seizure of the aid ships where Israel was in the wrong. Israel did not use proportionate force when boarding the Mavi Marmara, and their blockade of Gaza is illegal in the first place meaning they had no right to board the ships at all.”

    That was lame. This is what Brayer and Wimmer had to say:

    “Article 88 of the Law of the Sea Treaty affirms that the “high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes,” with Article 89 stating further that “no State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.”

    The crimes that Israel committed during its assault on the vessels and civilian passengers of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla fall firmly within the category of “high crimes.”….The assault, rather than an act of piracy, must be defined as a “crime against the peace” and a “crime against humanity” as Israel subjected “part of the high seas to its sovereignty” in a murderous attack on unarmed civilian vessels. The severity of these crimes is magnified precisely because the criminal actor is not an individual but a highly militarized state, the power of which is exponentially greater than that of any individual or group of individuals.”

    In other words, unlike the spin lame puts on this argument, Brayer and Wimmer show that what the israelis did was much, much worse than piracy.

  4. lamella said on June 7th, 2010 at 7:03pm #

    Just how the hell did I spin my argument? I explicitly said what they did was illegal, in particular that their blockade of Gaza itself is illegal. It wasn’t in the scope of my comment to try and define their actions as a “crime against humanity” or an “act of war”, although I do believe that the assault on the ship and their siege of Gaza meet the standards for both charges. You’re just attacking me for absolutely no reason here.