I think that anybody with any fairness is bound to admit that the statement William Hague came out with is much better than anything on Israel which New Labour ever came out with, especially this bit:
“This news underlines the need to lift the restrictions on access to Gaza, in line with UNSCR 1860. The closure is unacceptable and counter-productive. There can be no better response from the international community to this tragedy than to achieve urgently a durable resolution to the Gaza crisis.
I call on the Government of Israel to open the crossings to allow unfettered access for aid to Gaza, and address the serious concerns about the deterioration in the humanitarian and economic situation and about the effect on a generation of young Palestinians
?.”
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&id=22300485
But as I told this afternoon’s tremendous spontaneous demonstration on Whitehall, fine words are not enough and we must now see the kind of sanctions regime we saw against apartheid South Africa.
A word on the legal position, which is very plain. To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare.
Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean however that international law is the only applicable law. The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place
on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody’s territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory.
There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.
Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.
Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.
In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.
Craig Murray is a former British Ambassador. He is also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He negotiated the UK’s current maritime boundaries with Ireland, Denmark (Faeroes), Belgium and France, and boundaries of the Channel Islands, Turks and Caicos and British Virgin Islands. He was alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the UN Preparatory Commission on the Law of the Sea. He was Head of the FCO Section of the Embargo Surveillance Centre, enforcing sanctions on Iraq, and directly responsible for clearance of Royal Navy boarding operations in the Persian Gulf.
Reviews of Craig Murray’s War on Terror Memoir, “Murder in Samarkand” – published in the US as “Dirty Diplomacy”:
“It really is a magnificent achievement” – Noam Chomsky
“A fearless book by a fearless man. Craig Murray tells the truth whether the “authorities” like it or not. I salute a man of integrity” – Harold Pinter
Like the tragically abused who in adulthood themselves become paedophile abusers, Israel’s blood-spattered goons prove themselves yet again true inheritors of the SS legacy.
Where is Obama in all this? As Nader, an early employer of the future president in the south end of Chicago, put it the morning he was elected: ‘His modus operandi is compliance.’
Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, masquerades for diplomatic purposes as a self-hating Jew. The truth is that during the first Gulf War he volunteered not to assist the US but rushed to assist Israeli forces, losing part of his middle finger in the process. His first name, Rahm, he acquired in honour of a family friend, a Stern Gang martyr. The family changed its surname, Auerbach, to Emanuel in honour of his uncle Manny, who died fighting for the Irgun, labelled by even the World Zionist Congress in the 1940s a terrorist organisation. Emanuel’s middle name (like that of the senior British Foreign Office official, now buried on the Mount of Olives, who secretly furnished the Israeli state with the end-user certificate for the Norwegian heavy water shipment essential for the acquisition of nuclear weapons) is, quite literally, Israel.
Obama’s notorious AIPAC speech was no mere lip-service.
‘Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.’
The new Foreign Minister, Hague, has promised to remove provisions in British law that would allow the arrest and trial of those who commit such crimes.
Israel Prime Minister states that Israel will continue to protect country and its people ANYWHERE, ANYTIME and BY ALL MEANS. So much about international laws…
International facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/GazaFreedomMarch?ref=ts
We shouldn’t forget the reasonable Israeli people caught up in this and as appalled as the rest of us:
“…
There were even demonstrations inside Israel, where hundreds of protestors flooded the streets of the northern Arab city of Nazareth as Israeli police raised the level of alert across the country and deployed reinforcements.
…”
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=39291
I’ve just come from a good demonstration against Israel’s latest appalling atrocity in Birmingham City Centre. Around 300 people were mobilised (in six hours) to hear speeches and to take part in chants for a “Free, Free, Palestine”. A local Coalition MP spoke, as did various trades unions, Palestinian solidarity activists and an eight-year old Palestinian boy.
Can I get a quick show of hands on who is planning to contact their elected representatives? For readers in the UK you can do so through writetothem.com. Please *please* do so now. Express your anger and frustration politely and let us know you have done so in one of Craig’s Gaza threads.
And what if the ships had British or American flags Like the Liberty?
How low will the Con Lib partnership go??
But can you explain to me why this is not applicable? Best…
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea:
“The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea was adopted in June 1994 after a series of round tables of naval and legal experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law. In paragraph 67 it permits belligerents to attack merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States if they “are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture”. Paragraph 146 permits the capture of neutral merchant vessels outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67.”
P.S. I agree with Craig, the response by Hague is good — if it is backed up by British warships.
Not a Lawyer
That applies to a blockade in time of war only. Again, if Israel fomally wishes to declare war, that alters the game. Short of that, it doesn’t help.
Today’s London demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x272gVis3hI
“Make no mistake. If I knew exactly where Israel was heading and the possible consequences, the Israeli cabinet and military elite were fully aware of it all the way along.”
Gilad Atzmon
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/israeli-butchery-at-sea-by-gilad-atzmon.html#entry7817603
May 27th
“In a news statement issued by Israel’s Foreign Ministry this week, Sarah Weiss Maudi, the ministry’s expert on maritime and humanitarian law, said the maritime blockade was in force “because Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime” in Gaza. Hamas, she continued, “has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel proper with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza by various routes, including the sea.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/world/middleeast/28mideast.html
Jon, written to my MP Richard Bacon this morning, asking him to condemn this outrage and have the Israeli ambassador in for questioning about the incident.
Not a lawyer, the blockade is one sided, not internationally agreed and belligerents cannot claim that cement is a contraband, as paragraph 67 and 146 do not apply.
This was an unprovoked attack on a Turkish vessel in international waters, an attack on people and goods which had been checked off not to contain weapons of any nature, so no threat is constituted to those who were attacking the boats.
Any legalistic argument is merely an excuse and part of the prolonging of the stalling of proximity talks.
Hamas is reputedly speaking to the US and Russia, the Arab league is supporting it as the legitamitely elected Government in Gaza and it is time to talk about retreating from East Jerusalem and the westbank. period
This outrage will only increase the international boycott of this rogue apartheid regime until it relents to internationally agreed resolutions.
Many thanks for that info.
I remember you were 100% correct regarding the capture of British sailors
by the Iranians a couple of years ago. I think that’s when I first came across
your blog.
So considering that:
(1) Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime in Gaza
AND
(2) paragraph 67 it permits belligerents to attack merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States if they “are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture.
According to Mr. Murray’s reasoning, it would seem Israel was acting within its legal rights.
Thanks Ingo 🙂
I have just this minute emailed my Birmingham MP. I will contact Nick Clegg tomorrow to remind him that a sell-out now on traditional Liberal Democrat opposition to Israeli aggression and imperialism will help harden liberal/left support against the coalition. And it would bloody deserve to.
On Irish radio today, the Israeli ambassador to Irelan admitted that the ships were in international waters, but stated that even a suspicion that they might have arms, or materiel, included in their cargo, and that they were heading for Israeli waters, was sufficient justification in international law for interception by Israeli forces.
Just thought I’d put this defence on the record for future analysis.
Israeli ambassador to Ireland
It’s the level of violence used that’s surprising, alright, it’s not surprising if one is a Palestinian who are constantly on the receiving end of Israeli military agression; but to dish it out to foreigners like this seems odd.
When the Israeli army began to assassinate foreign peace activists it had an effect, a deterent effect, people thought twice about entering the occupied territories, because the Israelis showed that they could literally get away with murder and western governments would do nothing to hold them accountable.
But the scale of this massacre is so great and so blatant that one has to question the motives behind it. Attacking a Turkish ship and killing Turks in such large numbers seems unecessarily provocative and has, unsurprisingly caused uproar in Turkey, a country that was once considered an ally of Israel. Turkey isn’t a tiny country like Israel. It’s a large and increasingly powerful state that, after decades in the doldrums is once again asserting itself as a substantial regional power. For Israel to attack Turkey like this seems crazy.
So why do it? The answer seems to be that the ultra-conservative nationalists inside Israel want to provoke a reaction in the Muslim world and thereby ‘justify’, over the medium term, an Israeli ‘counter-reaction’ leading to a new war in the Middle East.
Israel believes that a new war is in its strategic interests. That every decade the Arabs need to be taught a very bloody and costly lesson, that they cannot win against Israel and the consequences of resistance are enormous. The Arabs only have one choice, make ‘peace’ on Israel’s terms, or face destruction over and over again, until they learn their lesson and understand that they have ‘lost.’
So there is no ‘peace’ process, only a de facto surrender process.
And, in the end, if Israel was to miscalculate whilst teaching a new generation of Arabs their ‘lesson’, they always have their nuclear option to fall back on, the ultimate sanction against those who will not learn the lesson of history. The Sampson option, which, by the way, also includes us, as Israel’s rockets are also targetted at all the major European capitals too. And these people are supposed to be our friends?
yes Craig this international law thing is all very well but as you know it’s there to protect, well people like you and me – you know UK, US citizens and possibly at at a stretch some of them Europeans (more so to the west) not …. them! Not foreign types, all flappy and excitable as they are. I mean what would the world come to?
No, no Craig (silly man), don’t get too wound up about law in this insignificant incident. I mean the BBC hasn’t been so foolish to mention international law all day, has it!
Craig, again your naivety is breathtaking.
“I think that anybody with any fairness is bound to admit that the statement William Hague came out with is much better than anything on Israel which New Labour ever came out with, especially this bit:”
“This news underlines the need to lift the restrictions on access to Gaza, in line with UNSCR 1860. The closure is unacceptable and counter-productive. There can be no better response from the international community to this tragedy than to achieve urgently a durable resolution to the Gaza crisis.”
I have been in corespondance with Mr Hague, prior to the election, about the Israel/Palestine issue. The statement he made today is almost verbatim to what he said to me back then. He is a liar and you are a fool.
not a lawyer,
If Israel considers an armed conflict exists, then it has no right to complain about rockets launched from the Gaza strip. Yet when it comes to that issue Israel plainly does not accept an armed conflict exists. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
On top of which, all its prisoners from Gaza would have to be acknowledged as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention.
Besides those obvious proofs that Israel does not accept its relationship with Gaza as armed conflict, the UN Security Council has already pronounced against the blockade in UNSCR 1860.
Sorry, you can’t hide murder in bullshit.
Not A Lawyer…. it’s a good job you are not a lawyer because your reading comprehension is very poor…
“In paragraph 67 it permits belligerents to attack merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States if they “are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture”. Paragraph 146 permits the capture of neutral merchant vessels outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67.”
What part of ‘outside neutral waters’ do you fail to understand… the whole reason this was an illegal and agressive act was that the vessels were in neutral waters and well within their rights to do as they please
Not a Lawyer
“So considering that:
(1) Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime in Gaza …”
If Hamas is “currently in a state of armed conflict” with Israel you wouldn’t object to Hamas gun men murdering a few Zionists in London or New York.
Craig,
You are an upstanding and decent person. Almost quaint concepts, small words, but when one looks at most of the swine who are active in public life today, it’s actually an enormous compliment.
Israel; or rather the gang of corrupt, vicious, bloodthirsty, bastards who are running the country at present, the worst of bad bunch; doesn’t give a fig about international law. They most definitely want to have thir cake and eat it.
Having friends in Israel is weird. Most of the Israelis I know are deeply, deeply, disturbed by the direction the country is going in and have close to given up and are actively considering leaving before it’s too late. Many of them feel that Zionism has simply gone too far and has created a state that’s becoming fascist, totalitarian, racist and undemocratic. All is not lost, though it’s clear which way the wind is blowing, and it’s an ill-wind for those who question the wisdom and morality of Israel turning into an openly agressive imperialist regime where all opposition is regarded as a form of treason or worse still… terrorism.
The BBC’s pro-Israel stance is on show. They’re now running an article entitled “Where next for under-fire Israel?” (or under-pressure, depending on the link). Er, I believe it was the aid flotilla (and indeed the people of Gaza) who have been under fire/pressure.
Just grotesque.
Here’s the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10199476.stm
The BBC reported earlier today that there had been at least 10 people killed.
At 20:06 GMT the BBC were saying it is “at least nine people” killed.
It has been established for some hours that at least 19 people have been killed.
Get it down to single figures seems the order from above. By the morning they should have it down to one cut finger.
Something not quite right here:-
1. 1948 ?” some 700,000 displaced from their homeland.
2. 1967 ?” Israel wins a war against the Arabs. The 1967 boundary is where international law now recognises a Jewish state.
3. 1967 – USS Liberty attacked ?” so what ?” the US is an ally.
4. Post -1967 ?” the “Chosen people” decide that God gave ’em more land, so see no harm in building settlements beyond the 1967 borders.
5. 2007 Hamas is democratically elected to power ?” so ?” Israel decides who ought democratically to be elected and continues blockcade and occupation of Gaza.
6. 2010 ?” Peace flotilla attacked ?” so what ?” the US is still an ally.
Cf. A question: Had Iran attacked a pro-Israeli peace flotilla, in similar fashion ?” what then?
Guess we live in a fair and just world!
Have a look at some of the public’s comments on the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/05/was_israel_right_to_board_the.html