Charles Krauthammer has published today a fine piece on the Israeli blockade of Gaza. An excerpt:
[A]s Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel ”” a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.
In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded (“quarantined’) Cuba. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.
Oh, but weren’t the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel’s offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiél, and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza ”” as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.
Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel’s inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.
Israel has already twice intercepted weapons-laden ships from Iran destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?
But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because blockade is Israel’s fallback as the world systematically delegitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself ”” forward and active defense.
Read the rest here.
5 Comments
Unusually – considering my past ‘disagreements’ with Mr. K. – I find I agree with his analysis, on the surface. But, I think there’s more afoot here than might have been sought out by Mr. K. And while I also agree with Mr. Gelb that ‘Israel’s actions were “perfectly legal” I’m not so sure I agree with the “perfectly rational” part.
Please excuse the required reading these three links contain – but I know my limits where extended (coherently presented) blog-comments are concerned.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100531_flotillas_and_wars_public_opinion
http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2010/06/interview-turkeys-international-quest.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7140282.ece
Krauthammer ignores two key facts. First, the flotilla was boarded in international waters. Secondly, his examples are inapt: we were in a hot war with Germany and a de facto war with Russia. Israel is not at war with Gaza or Turkey. There is a strong case to be made that under international law, a country is prohibited from blockading or attacking vessels from countries it is not at war with in international waters. (There is also the counter-argument that Hamas is an enemy of Israel, albeit one which is democratically elected and in a territory occupied by Israel. This is where it gets murky.) Krauthammer’s blithe equation of the Turkish activists with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, combined with a tilted view of international law, underscores the weakness of his argument.
I wondered too about the international-waters angle, but as far as I can tell, the conventions regulating such affairs do not specify that the distance from the affected ports is relevant. See here, for example, and the broader discussion here.
Also, I am puzzled that you point out that Israel is not engaged in a conflict with Turkey; Israel is not blockading Turkey, of course. The point of a blockade is to interdict shipping traffic to the blockaded ports, regardless of country of origin. If there is a “strong case to be made that under international law, a country is prohibited from blockading or attacking vessels from countries it is not at war with in international waters”, I’d be curious to see how you’d make it.
I think the comparison with the Cuban blockade is apt. Israel is in a very difficult spot here: they are certainly in a de facto war with Hamas, which is sworn to their destruction. Lifting the blockade would immediately result in massive re-armament. What do you think they should do?
Turkey is exhibiting some unusual behavior for a country which, on the one hand “is outraged” while on the other it would seem, military to military relations don’t seem all that affected. (Of course coups are not unknown in Turkey).
“Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz said his country was examining its energy ties with Israel, but Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul said delivery of Israeli-made Heron military drones would continue.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65046H20100601
Whew Malcolm, reading those links led me to wonder precisely which nation’s flags those ships were flying. (I admit, I hadn’t done my homework). Now I can see why Israel was forced into a helo op rather than what I thought should have been a “prow-to-prow nudge”. I can also see I was in error where sat-recon and ‘intel failure’ were concerned.
http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15985
Damned good thing (if the photo is accurate) it was a helo instead of a torpedo. As I understand it now, even though the “attacked ship” was flying the Turkish flag, the government of Turkey covered itself as much as it possibly could – give an illusory impression to other Muslim states, while not at the same time, risk too much fallout where NATO status is concerned. The ship was chartered by a Turkish NGO.
Damned canny, those Turks. Obviously the government was aware the blockade running could (and would) be dealt with legally.
I won’t simply copy and paste but this link provides further, important context. Scroll down:
http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/NightWatch/NightWatch_10000167.aspx
The ‘Non-Proliferation Treaty’ mentioned in the above’s comments refers to a treaty being discussed at the UN. (Malcolm, you received a link in email, but since Peter might enjoy reading why this ‘peaceful humanitarian effort’ is not quite what it would appear):
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gadis3396.doc.htm
One-Eye? The mission, should you decide to accept it, is to read the above link and then come back and argue why Hamas shouldn’t be blockaded.