The spread of flotilla sickness

Superb article! (as always)

A gutsy gal!

Melanie,

Miriam Shaviv has argued on her blog that Israel's military response to the flotilla was "botched". She even went to the trouble of quoting an editorial in the Times.

Do you agree?

Another article from Ms Phillips - wrong again.

Israel was not entitled to act the way it did re the flotilla. The assault was in international waters, the blockade itself is illegal - collective punishment of a population according to the UN. How then can enforcement of the blockade be legal? None of the boats proceeded 'peacefully' to Ashod. They were forced at gunpoint to divert, under apparent threat of death. Video evidence is partial (on both sides), unclear, and far from conclusive either way. Why not establish an international inquiry under the UN to establish the truth of the matter? Would Ms Phillips support that - if Israel's case is so strong, why not?

Hamas, like it or not, is the democratically elected, legitimate Government of Gaza - perhaps it would not be if Fatah had been given something from Israel to show its people that talking to Israel leads to something better than yet more settlements. Israel does not claim Gaza. It may consider itself to be at war with Gaza, and is entitled therefore to act on that assumption, but how then can it deny Gazans the right of self defence it claims for itself? How can it logically deny the right of Gazans to obtain whatever weaponry they can to defend themselves with? Is that not what happens in a war situation? Why is the rest of the world always wrong, and Israel always right? State piracy seems about right in this instance - Israel's right of self defence should not depend on illegality. Ms Phillips confuses cause and effect. The blockade is itself an act of aggression. Hamas is bound to respond - how can they be denied the same right of defence that Israel claims for itself?

Phillips repeats the claim that Gaza is not starving - why then does the UN say that there are severe shortages of foods, and many other materials required for normal civilian life to go on? Following the establishment of the Hamas Goverment in 2006, an Israeli spokesperson, rather charmingly boasted that Gazans will be put on a diet. That rather undermines Phillips claim. We have a choice - believe Israel, or believe the UN.

Yes, obviuosly the flotilla was about breaking the blockade. A perfectly legitimate aim, and one now openly shared it seems by the US and the EU - both have said it should end. Ms Phillips sinks into hysterical and intemperate language, when she talks about 'preparing Israel for the slaughter', and 'tightening the noose of lies'. The noose is around the collective necks of the captive Palestinian population, and it is a real one rather than figurative. Talk of demonisation, and de-legitimisation is moot - Israel demonises itself through its actions, and while the state of Israel is entirely legitimate, its actions again are not.

She goes on to list allegedly fabricated claims against Israel, but I have looked at them, and I dont think it was wise of her to raise the subjects here - they do not help her case. The massacre at Jenin has been well documented. The 2006 lebanon war resulted in 1400 deaths - mostly civilian by some margin/ against some 120 Israeli dead - almost all military. The cast lead massacre resulted in some 1300 palestinian dead - mostly civilian by some margin/against some 12 Israeli dead - almost all military. The term aparthied can be used to describe Israel's occupation of the west bank, and ethnic cleansing undoubtably took place during and immedietly after the 1948 war. Foreign minister Lieberman is on record as having called for more of it - palestinians and incredibly Israeli arab citizens into Jordan. As for Israel being the aggressor in the middle east – what else can one call invading Lebanon twice since 1982, occupying part of it between those invasions, brutally surpressing both intifadas, cast lead, bombing Syria? If that does not qualify as aggression, the word has no meaning.

She asks – why do so many believe these lies about Israel? Well maybe they have credibility because they are truths. ‘We find ourselves in a nightmare situation’ she says. Indeed we do, but it is a nightmare of Israel’s making. Would that she would wake up – settle with the Palestinians in justice and peace, stop invading other countries, and become a more normal state.

I met Melanie Phillips once. Coming down from my scaffold in Flanchford Road (for I am a roofer), we exchanged a few pleasantries – she seemed very nice. I wonder if she remembers me? I used to read her in the Guardian long ago, and liked her writing, especially on social matters. I fear she has lost her edge on this subject – a torturous defense of the indefensible. She would be much better directing her considerable abilities to campaigning for the Government of Israel to act with some purpose, humanity, and sense of strategic insight. Otherwise, what hope is there for the future of Israel and the middle east?

Forgive the spelling - not spell-checked.

Armies around the globe stop suspect ships in international waters. These ships declared their intention to violate a blockade. Israel was perfectly entitled to board it. Attacking the soldiers was thus self-defence. No amount of rhetoric will ever change this.
The only misevaluation of Tsahal was to board the Mavi Marmara with paintball guns instead of real war weapons, forcing a second assault wave to liberate their comrades who were taken hostage. If someone has to be sacked, it is for this mistake and not for the number of attackers who were killed.

A typical lie in Cast Lead is to count the 250 Hamas policeman who were killed in the first days as "civilians". No one in his own mind would count an armed policeman, member of a terrorist organization as a "civilian". But PCHR does and some other NGOs as well as some "useful idiots".
Then minors of 18, armed or not, were counted as "children" by PCHR. Israel counted armed major of 15 as "activists".
Easy to make a majority of "civilians" this way. Only the definition of a "civilian" changes. All it takes is some "useful idiots" to believe in such a biased definition.
Belief in words can be deadly, when it leads to total disregard for facts.

UN investigations are as biased against Israel as the members of UN-HRC, a Council that changed the Human Rights' dream into a nightmare. The UNHRC is an asylum where the inmates are in charge.
And there is a precedent: the Goldstone vs Rights to Defend Its Own Citizens. It should be evident that Israel has no interest whatsoever in cooperating with as a prejudiced committee as was the Goldstone bandwagon (see the statements of some of them previous to the inquiry). The results of such an enquiry could be written in advance and without Israel bothering to present its defence, thus saving a lot of time.

steveabott
"Hamas, like it or not, is the democratically elected, legitimate Government of Gaza"

That is false to facts: Hamas illegally seized government of the Gaza strip. Hamas is only the majority party after 2006 elections but only AP is entitled to name the government and it was NOT a Hamas one.
But even though, NSDAP was the democratically elected government of the Germans in 1932. Should we, as new Chamberlains go to Munich/Gaza and accept the inacceptable for... what exactly? Do you remember what happened after Munich? Did we have "peace in our time"? My memory is failing me? Can you help me, please?

abbott,

1. The partial blockade is not illegal.
2. Israel acted fully within its rights to stop the flotilla from breaking the partial blockade.

Once you understand this, the rest of your post becomes irrelevant.

amber. the UN says the blockade is 'collective punishment of a civilian population'. as such it is illegal. you only ever refer to israel's 'rights'? why is that? your posting is largely racist, often hysterical, and always wrong.

Abbott, back to your idol, the UN again. The UN with 37 block Muslim countries, the UN whose majority constitute despotic dictatorships, the UN which ignores 7 million deaths in DRC, 400,000 deaths in Darfur, the Chinese occupation and brutalization of Tibet, torture chambers in Libya (which is grotesquely head of the human rights council), Zimbabwe in charge of economic development (100,000% inflation), the Un which attacks the US 80% of the time (despite the US paying most of the bills), the UN which hates the Jews?

What a moral bastion.

"Racist"? Give me one example you ignorant moron. What utter crap.

steveabbott, so far as i know, the only un person to refer to "collective punishment" is john holmes, un undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, and even he does not claim that that makes it illegal

indeed he clearly refrains from doing so, see http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN18343083 (my italics) …

"We all understand the security problems and the need to respond to that but collective punishment of the people of Gaza is not, we believe, the appropriate way to do that," said John Holmes

holmes is doubtless aware (and you should be) that "collective punishment" is not prohibited by the fourth geneva convention, only "collective penalties" are …

Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

the difference, in international law, of course is that "penalties" deprive people of something that they have a right to (life, liberty, etc … deprivation of these is covered by the law of reprisal), while "punishment" deprives them of things which they might otherwise enjoy (eg, the opportunity to buy goods from abroad), but which they don't actually have a right to (deprivation of these is covered by the law of retortion … in armed conflict, reprisal is generally illegal, but retortion isn't)

economic sanctions, including blockade (provided, of course, that sufficient food and medical supplies are allowed in) are retortion, not reprisal … punishment, not penalty … and are not illegal

and the un has not said that they are illegal

steveabbott, i challenged you in another blog ("here is the San Remo international law of blockade …") to provide a source or link confirming your statement that the un had described the israeli-egyptian blockade as "illegal", and you replied …

steveabbott: your right goldfish - sources are vital. i will provide them from now on.
i will locate sources this very day for UN statements on the illegality of the blockade …

… but despite three reminders, and regular postings in other blogs, you have not done so

instead, you have now reprised your theme, giving the impression that the un has described the blockade as illegal, but without actually saying so …

steveabbott: the UN says the blockade is 'collective punishment of a civilian population'. as such it is illegal.

if you think that the un has described the israeli-egyptian blockade as illegal, please provide a source (as you promised); if it is merely your opinion that it is illegal, please provide some authority for saying that "collective penalties" in an armed conflict include economic sanctions (or blockade)

jose, steveabbott (three t's) certainly knows what the issue is … he is perfectly correct when he says that the issue is whether the blockade is illegal …

steveabbott: Israel was not entitled to act the way it did re the flotilla. The assault was in international waters, the blockade itself is illegal - collective punishment of a population according to the UN. How then can enforcement of the blockade be legal?

… and that in itself is deserving of attention

just because you're not interested in seeing an analysis of the law doesn't necessarily mean that steveabbott isn't …
and anyway surely the jewish view is that discussion of the law is a good thing for its own sake?

why is there so much personal unpleasantness on these blogs?

and who are "his betters"? and who are you to judge?

and why were you telling me all that?

steveabbott
We are still waiting to read your detailed, well thought out and insiteful analysis, supported by references, quotations, UN pronouncements, edicts and resolutions vis a vis the Naval blockade on Gaza.

"he is perfectly correct when he says that the issue is whether the blockade is illegal …"

Well, I didn't see at all the "whether" part of it, and if you did see that, it does not appear in the quote you made, ie:

steveabbott: Israel was not entitled to act the way it did re the flotilla. The assault was in international waters, the blockade itself is illegal

"just because you're not interested in seeing an analysis of the law"

And how do you know I am not? It is not because I am not interested in steveabbott's inexistant analysis (it is just an uninformed opinion) that I wouldn't be interested in say, yours.

"why is there so much personal unpleasantness on these blogs?"

Probably, because you brought some with you, with some nose in the air contempt.

"and why were you telling me all that?"

That was indeed a mistake that I will not make anymore. :(

The "flotilla sickness" will not, in my opinion, become an epidemic. The next 'volunteers' were Iran and Lebanon, not really countries who pretend to be friends of Israel, unlike Turkey. Egypt will probably block entrance of the Suez canal to the Iranians and let's hope that Lebanon will avoid provocations that could degenerate into a full-scale war.

But even if these cover-up operations fail, the Iranians will develop their atomic bomb. There is no time really left and only a costly war could stop it, something USA won't do and Israel cannot do alone. The only hope would be a limited strike on Iranian atomic installations, to slow down the process. I doubt it will ever happen.
I don't think Israel could ever be the target of an atomic attack, as Saudi Arabia is a much more likely one. But it will take more than one bomb to do it, especially since USA's answer would be automatic.

The "flotilla sickness" will not, in my opinion, become an epidemic. The next 'volunteers' were Iran and Lebanon, not really countries who pretend to be friends of Israel, unlike Turkey. Egypt will probably block entrance of the Suez canal to the Iranians and let's hope that Lebanon will avoid provocations that could degenerate into a full-scale war.

But even if these cover-up operations fail, the Iranians will develop their atomic bomb. There is no time really left and only a costly war could stop it, something USA won't do and Israel cannot do alone. The only hope would be a limited strike on Iranian atomic installations, to slow down the process. I doubt it will ever happen.
I don't think Israel could ever be the target of an atomic attack, as Saudi Arabia is a much more likely one. But it will take more than one bomb to do it, especially since USA's answer would be automatic.