Israel's assault on Freedom Flotilla has once again exposed its blatant arrogance and its determination to starve to death the 1.5 million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip as it continues to deny them their universally recognised right to life. The mild reaction of the US has shows that the Obama administration is not ready to deliver on its promises to the Muslim world at the cost of annoying its watchdog in the Middle East. The history of the State of Israel makes it indubitably clear that all the principles and norms of international laws become insignificant in the realm of realpolitik.
The UN Charter quite explicitly points out that use of force is allowed only under two conditions; in the case of individual self-defence when an 'armed attack occurs' or in the case of Security Council's authorisation. Israel could use neither of these justifications.
Apologists for Israeli aggression proffer the argument that the UN Charter cannot be applied to the West Bank and Gaza Strip since they do not formally constitute a state and are not a party to the Charter. Hence, they say, Israel is not bound to respect their sovereignty. There's little reason to take these objections seriously because the PLO is the sole liberation movement that has been granted the status of observer by the United Nations.
Besides, the UN Resolution 242 condemns, in unmistakable terms, Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory occupied after the 1967 war. Moreover, the International Court of Justice in its judgment in 2004 declared the Israeli settlements as illegal under international law. Also, the much-cited San Remo Manual, used by Israel to justify its attacks on the flotilla, is a non-starter as a legal permission certificate.
There is nothing in the San Remo Manual that allows a belligerent state to target and kill civilians who are known to be on a non-violent humanitarian mission in international waters, especially when they are dedicated to opposing an illegal embargo. The Manual allows countries to intercept "merchant vessels" in international waters if the vessels are believed to be carrying contraband, or engaged in belligerent acts or acting as auxiliaries to the enemy's armed forces.
There is no legitimate basis for invoking the San Remo Manual in case of the Freedom Flotilla.
Since the ship was sailing in the high seas, the underlying international law that applies here is the 'exclusive flag jurisdiction', which has been identified as part of the customary international law by the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1927 (The Lotus Case: France v Turkey): "It is certainly true that – apart from certain special cases which are defined by international law – vessels on the high seas are subject to no authority except that of the State whose flag they fly". Since the ship was flying a Turkish flag it was only subject to Turkish jurisdiction.
The 1982 Convention on Law of the Sea provides for the "innocent passage" of ships in international waters if their behaviour is not deemed "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the respective coastal state. The attack on the Freedom Flotilla took place 90 miles offshore, clearly outside of Israel's sovereignty (which extends no further than 12 miles from Israel's coast), and in a zone where international Law of the Sea is clearly applicable. Therefore, the Israeli act of violence against the ships on high seas come within the purview of 'piracy'.
In addition, the 1988 IMO Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (to which Israel is a party) also makes the action of the Israeli navy unlawful. Article 3 of the IMO Convention provides that a person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and intentionally:
a. Seizes or exercises control over a ship by force or threat thereof or any other form of intimidation; or b. Performs an act of violence against a person onboard a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship.
Furthermore, as an occupying power, Israel is obliged by international humanitarian law – specifically the Hague Regulations of 1907, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the First Additional Protocol to the Fourth Geneva Convention – to ensure the protection of civilians and individuals not taking part in hostilities. The vessels were on a philanthropic mission, carrying humanitarian supplies. Even if Israel were in a state of war with any of the countries whose people were aboard the flotilla, it couldn't have captured the vessels according to the terms of the Hague Convention of 1907.
The implications of Israel's aggression are far-reaching and will impact upon the efforts to restore peace in the Middle East. The western powers must realise that they cannot dissuade Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if they fail to rein in Israel's aggression. As a result of this deed, Israel has lost the support of its ally Turkey while the Palestinians have gained worldwide moral support. In fact, Israel's rejection of the UN proposal to hold an international inquiry into this matter has further damaged its position. But, the Israeli prime minister continues to defend the attack by accusing the aid ships of 'provocative actions'. Edward Said remarkably noted, "The struggles for justice and peace may be protracted but they are hardly lost."
Israel can kill innocent and hapless Palestinians but cannot kill their determination to resist the illegal Israeli occupation.
The UN Charter quite explicitly points out that use of force is allowed only under two conditions; in the case of individual self-defence when an 'armed attack occurs' or in the case of Security Council's authorisation. Israel could use neither of these justifications.
Apologists for Israeli aggression proffer the argument that the UN Charter cannot be applied to the West Bank and Gaza Strip since they do not formally constitute a state and are not a party to the Charter. Hence, they say, Israel is not bound to respect their sovereignty. There's little reason to take these objections seriously because the PLO is the sole liberation movement that has been granted the status of observer by the United Nations.
Besides, the UN Resolution 242 condemns, in unmistakable terms, Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory occupied after the 1967 war. Moreover, the International Court of Justice in its judgment in 2004 declared the Israeli settlements as illegal under international law. Also, the much-cited San Remo Manual, used by Israel to justify its attacks on the flotilla, is a non-starter as a legal permission certificate.
There is nothing in the San Remo Manual that allows a belligerent state to target and kill civilians who are known to be on a non-violent humanitarian mission in international waters, especially when they are dedicated to opposing an illegal embargo. The Manual allows countries to intercept "merchant vessels" in international waters if the vessels are believed to be carrying contraband, or engaged in belligerent acts or acting as auxiliaries to the enemy's armed forces.
There is no legitimate basis for invoking the San Remo Manual in case of the Freedom Flotilla.
Since the ship was sailing in the high seas, the underlying international law that applies here is the 'exclusive flag jurisdiction', which has been identified as part of the customary international law by the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1927 (The Lotus Case: France v Turkey): "It is certainly true that – apart from certain special cases which are defined by international law – vessels on the high seas are subject to no authority except that of the State whose flag they fly". Since the ship was flying a Turkish flag it was only subject to Turkish jurisdiction.
The 1982 Convention on Law of the Sea provides for the "innocent passage" of ships in international waters if their behaviour is not deemed "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the respective coastal state. The attack on the Freedom Flotilla took place 90 miles offshore, clearly outside of Israel's sovereignty (which extends no further than 12 miles from Israel's coast), and in a zone where international Law of the Sea is clearly applicable. Therefore, the Israeli act of violence against the ships on high seas come within the purview of 'piracy'.
In addition, the 1988 IMO Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (to which Israel is a party) also makes the action of the Israeli navy unlawful. Article 3 of the IMO Convention provides that a person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and intentionally:
a. Seizes or exercises control over a ship by force or threat thereof or any other form of intimidation; or b. Performs an act of violence against a person onboard a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship.
Furthermore, as an occupying power, Israel is obliged by international humanitarian law – specifically the Hague Regulations of 1907, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the First Additional Protocol to the Fourth Geneva Convention – to ensure the protection of civilians and individuals not taking part in hostilities. The vessels were on a philanthropic mission, carrying humanitarian supplies. Even if Israel were in a state of war with any of the countries whose people were aboard the flotilla, it couldn't have captured the vessels according to the terms of the Hague Convention of 1907.
The implications of Israel's aggression are far-reaching and will impact upon the efforts to restore peace in the Middle East. The western powers must realise that they cannot dissuade Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if they fail to rein in Israel's aggression. As a result of this deed, Israel has lost the support of its ally Turkey while the Palestinians have gained worldwide moral support. In fact, Israel's rejection of the UN proposal to hold an international inquiry into this matter has further damaged its position. But, the Israeli prime minister continues to defend the attack by accusing the aid ships of 'provocative actions'. Edward Said remarkably noted, "The struggles for justice and peace may be protracted but they are hardly lost."
Israel can kill innocent and hapless Palestinians but cannot kill their determination to resist the illegal Israeli occupation.
Comments
Post a Comment