In May, 1948, just after Israel declared itself a state, an American ship, the Marine Carp, steamed into the Mediterranean. Among its passengers were American Jews carrying American passports who were returning to their homes in Israel. The ship docked in Beirut. It’s next stop was Haifa. However, the Lebanese authorities refused to permit the Jewish men from continuing their journey to Palestine (the Jewish women were permitted to leave). The men were shipped to an internment camp in the Balbeck and returned to the U.S. four weeks later.
Eventually, in 1949, Israel came up with an agreement with Lebanon to govern relations between them. Among the protocols which the chief of the Israeli delegation, Shabtai Rosenne, inserted into the document was the agreement that any harm to, or interference with maritime transportation was an act of war.
In the UN ceasefire agreement negotiated with Ralph Bunche, Rosenne ensured there was a provision that prohibited interference with cargo and passenger ships bound for Israel, including Israeli vessels. Any blockage of such commerce would be considered a hostile act.
This is the same Shabtai Rosenne who is now a member of the Tirkel Commission investigating the Gaza flotilla attack.
Now, what was that attack and the entire Gaza blockade but an attempt to interfere with maritime traffic to Gaza? As such it is clearly a hostile act against the Palestinian people and a violation of the very code of international law to which Rosenne devoted his life. I suppose Israel might argue that Rosenne in 1949 was negotiating on behalf of a sovereign country and Gaza is not such an entity. But if it isn’t, this is wholly Israel’s fault. So I still find this a telling contradiction.
By the way, Tom Segev, author of this article, makes no bones about the fact that Rosenne will magically find a way to justify the Mavi Marmara attack. But he will do so against the backdrop of his previous record, which directly contradict the position he will embrace in the commission report.
Alexander Gerschenkon wrote a prologue to his famous essays regarding the relative backwardness of countries that was published in 1962. The essays were political economic in nature and nothing to do with the situation in Israel regarding Gaza with the exception of his poigant observation that, paraphasing, one can only attempt to extract from history those things that are relative to the examination of a current situation; the selection and the application will effect a certain result. I am disappointed in your example…as much as I was disappointed when the comparision was made between the Warsaw ghetto and Gaza in another article. There is no historical or moral equivalency and the intent is to ‘effect’ opinion in the guise of an olive branch. There will be no peace because Islam, not the people, does not want peace. Islam wants the destruction of Israel and the Western democracies. Islam will fail and millions will die before this is over.
Lord save us from the ignoramuses who talk a good game and instead offer us nothing but religious war and unending hatred. You know as much about Islam as my pet dog. She may even know more because she’s always respectful of everyone she meets including Muslims.
If I make an observation that an agrument is intractable due the participants unwillingness to draw on good examples and in response you draw a conclusion and then insult; do you prove my point. I would posit to you that Islam is a political movement veiled in a religion. The most repressive and singular governments on earth identify themselves as ‘Islamic Republics” with a theology that allows for deceit in negotiations with non-believers, singles out Jews and Christians for conquest and extermination, subjugates women, and has its own laws. There is no mainstream Islam, just disparate groups with their own agenda but common tenets a number of which I enumerated above. Islam has found a counterintuitive relationship with communists and share one goal which I stated in my first comment. If you think you can talk with evil, please do so…but hold onto your head.
I would post to you that as far as Islam is concerned you’re an utter ignoramus.
You haven’t read my comment rules as I’ve urged you. YOu’ve continued spouting utterly noxious anti Musim racism. You’ve been banned.
It’s not Islam I’m worried about talking to. Nor do I view it as evil. As far as evil, we have to look no farther than yr own hate-spewing rant.
I thought treating the interception as an act of war was Israel’s line of argument, anyway. They were, at the time of the interception, at war with the people of Gaza and therefore they were allowed to use military force to impose a blockade. I presume that is the argument that the whitewash will accept. The whitewash will presumably ignore the following arguments: 1) That Gaza is not a state and the international laws govern behaviour between states. If any state governs Gaza, it is its current occupier, Israel. 2) That in other situations Israel does not act as if it is at war with Gaza. It does not, I think, accord Palestinian fighters all the rights of prisoners of war. 3) That the blockade is illegal. Blockades are allowed for military purposes, but this blockade is used mainly as collective punishment against the civilian population. In any event, the UN has condemned the blockade and there were clearly no military goods on board the flotilla. Israel is not allowed to carry out acts of war to enforce a blockade for non-military purposes. 4) Even if Israel were allowed to use force to impose a blockade, the force should be proportionate and avoid harm to unarmed civilians. There were many tactical options available to Israel apart from sending in soldiers with guns blazing.
Apart from the issues of international and maritime law, there is also the question of the country under whose flag the Mavi Marmara was sailing. There appears to be some dispute, but if that country is Turkey, then Israel has carried out an act of war against a NATO member.
Relutor Dominatus,
Do you know anything about Islam?